Chapter Eleven

Adult and Continuing Education and Social Policy

One of the features of any sociological analysis of a phenomenon is that it locates it within its wider social context and the social implications of its existence are analysed. Yet it is relatively rare in sociological studies of initial education to find social policy analysis. Indeed, it is often maintained by sociologists (Meighan 1981:370) that issues in social policy are not really their concern since they regard it as a matter of prescription but marxist sociologists do assume that sociological analysis is related to policy formation. However, policy is also a social phenomenon and as such it is open to the same type of analysis as is any other social phenomenon. But it is extremely rare to see social policy in education treated this way, the studies by Silver (1980) and Finch (1984) being exceptions. As Silver (1980:19) actually notes, it is usually left to historians to evaluate the motives of the policy makers, although there is no legitimate reason why sociologists should not also be involved in this enterprise. since initial education has not been subjected to a great deal of analysis of policy theorists, it is hardly surprising that adult and continuing education has received even less, although Griffin (1983a: 217-244; 1983b:92-117) in the United Kingdom and Wharples and Rivera (1982) in the United States have begun the process.

The intention of this chapter is to continue this process, using some of the theoretical models that Finch employs in initial education and applying them to adult and continuing education. At the same time it will become apparent that the theoretical perspectives already adopted in this book do relate closely to the models used. The chapter commences with a discussion of the concept of social policy, it then utilises three basic theoretical perspectives employed by Finch and applies them to adult and continuing education and the chapter concludes with a brief discussion in which some of the implications of the aforegoing are examined.

Social Policy and Legislation

There is a distinct difference between legislation and social policy that should be recognised from the outset. Nevertheless, the fact that there has been an increasing amount of legislation about adult and continuing education in recent years indicates that it has become a more significant object of social policy (Titmus and Pardoen 1981: 129-161). Indeed, they make the point that legislation only becomes necessary when the state acts as a provider or a facilitator of adult and continuing education but in Britain there were mechanics institutes and Sunday Schools long before the state formulated any regulations for adult education and it was only when the state wished to control the direction that the movement took that it offered financial assistance to science courses ‘because it was believed necessary to encourage the training of more highly skilled craftsmen in order to meet foreign industrial competition’ (Titmus and Pardoen 1981: 135). Herein lies one of the elements about how social policy uses education for a social end, but it must be recognised that in some instances education may be an end in itself for social policy. It is perhaps significant to note how Silver (1980:19) perceives the relationship between education and social policy:

Perhaps this list appears as familiar to adult educators as it does to those who are involved in initial education, since adult and continuing education has clearly been an instrument of social policy in the same way as has been initial education. silver’s list also reflects some of the functions of adult and continuing education that have already been discussed in this part of the book. Even so, this list suggests that Townsend’s (1967:2) definition of social policy as ‘policy concerned with the public administration of welfare’ is a little restrictive, which he himself recognises, although this is not to deny that education may be analysed from a welfare policy perspective. Hence, it is necessary to broaden this approach. Indeed, Finch (1984:4) maintains that there are a variety of approaches to social policy, and while the following is not a conceptual definition, it is illumunative. Social policy, she suggests, may be seen as:

This approach is akin to Silver’s (1980:17) recognition of how education has been used throughout its history:

Hence, social policy about the educational system, irrespective of the educational aims and objectives of the educators, is about how government, both national and local, can use education within the wider social system. Social policy is, therefore, both ideological and normative. Hence, it is a far broader concept than legislation, although the latter forms one element within it. Clearly then, the history of adult education could be written from a social policy perspective, illustrating: how government has directed the choice of its subjects; used it to promote hopes of a new society in a period of social reconstruction after the 1914-18 War and how government inactivity thereafter was also a manifestation of social policy; used it as an instrument of social welfare e.g. the Russell Report (1973); used it fend off crisis in unemployment etc.

Hence, social policy may be seen in terms of the social aims of government which respect of education, so that in order to analyse adult and continuing education from this perspective it is now necessary to examine some of the theoretical models of social policy.

Models of Social Policy

Finch (1984) suggests three approaches to examining social policy in education: welfare, beneficiary and social engineering. Each of these three are now examined briefly and then applied to adult and continuing education in the next section.

The Welfare Model: It is perhaps significant that the 1944 Education Act, which placed a duty upon Local Education Authorities to ‘secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education’ (cited from Stock 1982:12), was a precursor to the establishment of the Welfare State. Indeed, in that Act the welfare of children is considered from a perspective far wider than just their education, so that it not surprising that social policy models of welfare are applicable to adult and continuing education. Welfare analysis have contributed a great deal to social policy analysis and Griffin (1983a; 1983b) records two theoretical models, one by Titmuss (1974) and the other by Pinker (1971). Titmuss (1974:30-32) produces a model in which he suggests there are three normative approaches to social policy:

In many ways, Pinker’s (1971:97-104) model is similar to Titmuss’ although it has only two facets:

Naturally, Titmuss’ model is later than Pinker’s and to some extent it is an elaboration of it but both sets of models reflect some of the same ideological perspectives that have been discussed earlier in this book. The first two models of Titmuss and Pinker’s residual model both have liberal conservative implications in which the individual is treated as free, rational and able to act independently and the state is neutral, passive and its interventions are much more limited and usually to balance the demands of pressure groups etc. It will be borne in mind, however, that this is a philosophy of ‘the survival of the fittest’ when not all start equal, so that effectively it gives free rein to the interests of the powerful. By contrast, Titmuss’ institutional redistribution model and the latter of Pinker’s models contain a reformist ideology, which recognises that the real needs of individuals may be hidden from them or that they may not be free to pursue them, so that the state should intervene and support those who are less able to support themselves. Since this two-way division fits into the previous analysis it will be used in the next section in order to illustrate how it may be utilised in the analysis of adult and continuing education.

The Beneficiary Model: Underlying this approach is the idea that education is a valuable commodity, too valuable to be offered on the market (Jarvis 1982), so that it should be offered to all for their benefit. Finch (1984:85) suggests that ‘some examples can be found of educational policy presented primarily in these terms and where there does seem a prima facie case for evaluating the provision of the action of a benevolent state, mindful of the “good ” of its citizens’. She notes that the provision may be analysed in terms of education as a right and as a response to individual need and social problems. However, is the state actually that benevolent? Policy is frequently introduced in ‘the national interest’, so that the needs of the nation have to be met and may even be assumed to be paramount even though a policy is introduced as a response to the needs of the people. National interest is itself a problematic concept since there is an unequal distribution of rewards in society and frequently the main beneficiaries of national interest policies are the more powerful and wealthy members of society. If education, for instance, is to be in the national interest it would necessarily have to be in a controlled form and, therefore, ‘education from above’, whereas if it were to be for individual benefit it might assume an ‘education of equals’ perspective. Hence, it will be seen that while this approach is self-evident it may raise significant issues when applied to adult and continuing education.

Social Engineering: By and large the beneficiary approach is individualistic, whereas the social engineering perspective is more concerned with the social institutions and social structures. Finch (1984:114-115) suggests that it has three conceptually different strands to it:

Each of the above approaches are applicable to adult and continuing education, although it will be recognised that the use of adult education in social engineering is contrary to the philosophy of some writers on the subject.

Having thus outlined a number of perspectives in social policy it is now necessary to use them as a basis of discussion about adult and continuing education, so that the next section of this chapter will apply them. However, it must be recognised that the application will be brief and illustrative, since a book could be written on adult and continuing education and social policy.

Application of Social Policy Models to Adult and Continuing Education

A variety of approaches to social policy analysis were examined above and they constitute the basis for the discussion in this section. Clearly none of them are discrete entities in themselves nor does one alone provide an absolute and complete explanation of any policy statement about adult and continuing education, so that the division here is drawn only in order to facilitate discussion and to illustrate the approach.

The Welfare Approach: It is perhaps significant that the concept of need appears as frequently in the social work literature as it does in that of adult education, so that the welfare approach may be seen immediately to have significance for analysis in this field.

The institutional model suggests that there will always be a need for the social services and as Russell (1973 para 58) states: ‘needs change as circumstances change and the satisfaction of one need may lay the way open for others to appear’. In other words, there are always needs and they are relative to the situation. The Report goes on to specify a variety of needs that exist which can only be met by permanent education. Hence, Russell advocated a state funded educational service for adults:

The Russell Report also advocated the establishment of a development body for adult education (para 160.4) but that would have removed some of the control from central government, so that what ultimately transpired was the formation of the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education which was funded for three years only in the first instance, which left all control with central government. However, during its lifetime there was a change of government and the new government to which it made its reports did not subscribe to an institutional welfare policy model but a residual one. Hence, fewer of its recommendations probably found favour with the Conservative government than they might have done with the Labour one and as a consequence only minority groups having special needs, e.g. the unemployed, have been recipients for funded projects in adult education. A few other areas that might alleviate the need for provision have also been funded but, to a considerable extent, adult and continuing education has not been viewed as falling within a needs meeting policy.

The Beneficiary Approach: Liberal adult education has traditionally been orientated to the individual and to the enrichment of the individual’s life. This has clearly been specified in a number of places in the earlier discussion, e.g. Paterson (1979:17) writes that ‘education is the development of persons as independent centres of value whose value is seen to be an intrinsically worthwhile undertaking’. Few people would actually deny the overall tenor of this, but it does not mean that the state should intervene and provide the service. This is contrary to the political ideology of liberalism, in which the state should remain neutral and passive. Paterson (1979:18) goes on to argue that by ‘forming educated individuals, we are forming an educated society’ which, by inference, must be beneficial to society as a whole. However, such an argument is far from convincing in terms of making available financial provision. Finch (1984:93:94) cites the case of the formation of the Open University, which clearly has a liberal adult education basis and which was promoted by the then prime minister, Harold Wilson, on the following four grounds:

Of these, only the egalitarian one is individualistic and to the benefit of individual learners, while the other three reasons are all directed to the benefit of the State. Finch (1984:94) draws the telling conclusions:

Perhaps even more significantly, however, even the Open University’s funding is being curtailed as it has been seen to produce a great deal of individual benefit that may be adjudged to outweigh any gain to society.

More recently, the State has placed considerable funding with the Manpower Services Commission, which has itself promoted various educational schemes with the unemployed, the young adult and which has been concerned with adult training. Its discussion paper specifies a number of reasons why a new approach is needed urgently:

• to raise productivity and improve the flexibility and motivation of the labour force
• to enable management and other employees to adjust quickly and effectively to new methods, processes, products, services and technologies
• to help those starting up new firms to establish business successfully
• to enable individuals to update and extend their skills, often on a quite radical basis, and to develop throughout their working lives.
  (M.S.C. 1983 para 11)

None of the above are about individual benefit and the only time that individual benefit is mentioned is within the context of the individual’s working life. Hence, it may be seen that governmental funding is much more likely when educational projects are clearly designed to ensure that the state is the main beneficiary in the process.

The Social Engineering Approach: It will be recalled that Finch (1984:114-115) suggested three aspects to this: change in education; change in other areas of social policy; educational change designed to produce social change. Each of these is now discussed separately here.

Change in education designed to change educational outcomes: Finch suggested that the abolition of the ‘eleven plus’ selection examination in order to allow a greater opportunity to late developers would be an example of this approach. Clearly adult and continuing education has been subjected to a number of similar policy decisions: it might be argued that the establishment of the Open University and Open Tech Programme fall into this category; certainly the open college consortium enabling adults to gain access to higher education could be regarded as social engineering. Clearly, since the establishment of the Welfare State, changes in education have usually been regarded as state intervention to the benefit of those whose previous educational opportunity has been limited but recent governmental policy in reducing the number of places in higher education may be regarded as social engineering designed to change educational outcomes by reducing the opportunity for individuals to acquire higher education and in this sense it produces a broader social effect of reducing opportunity for social mobility (Halsey et al 1980:218).

Changes in other areas of social policy, designed to change educational outcomes: This is less likely to occur with adults but it would be possible for national or local government to provide more funding for day nurseries so that women may have greater opportunity to return to study; it would be possible for government to encourage industry to allow paid, or assisted, educational leave so that employees may follow non-vocational education.

Changes in education designed to produce social change outside of the educational system: It has already been pointed out above that by reducing the number of places in higher education the conservative government in the early 1980s has effectively used education to prevent social mobility, so that education may be seen to have some wider social effect. However, as an institution in the superstructure of society it might be argued that education is more likely to be the recipient of the forces of change rather than a change agent. While this is true to some extent, it is possible to see how communities have been developed by the rise of education, especially in the Third World. Hence, such schemes as those reported by Stone (1983:297-304) in which a non-formal community education is funded to help develop local communities does indicate that the educational institution can actually have an effect on the social structures of local communities.

Social engineering does occur in all elements of the implementation of social policy and, as noted above, education can be used by a state intent on offering opportunities for depressed groups to have additional opportunities but it may also be used to ensure that those who have social privileges retain them. It should not be assumed that because education is ‘good’ that its use in social policy terms is always or necessarily beneficial to all people in a society.

Concluding Discussion

The above discussion has not been an exhaustive attempt to analyse adult and continuing education in social policy terms. Nevertheless, it has endeavoured to demonstrate the efficacy of such an approach. It has been suggested that education may be regarded as an instrument of a benign state or as Griffin (1983a) argues as an instrument of social control. Hence, it is important for educators of adults to recognise that not only may adult and continuing education be analysed from this perspective, it is in any case being used as an instrument in government policy. Hence, this is an important perspective and from the above discussions a number of conclusions may be drawn in respect to the purpose, funding and control of adult and continuing education.

The purpose of adult education has been discussed by philosophers of adult education, such as Paterson (1979), but it is clear that their deliberations may be removed from those of the policy makers. Hence, it is important to understand the process as they understand it. Rivera (1982:11-12) sums this up neatly:

Rivera goes on to argue that in America the government’s role has gone almost unquestioned by adult educators; indeed, it has become regarded as quite essential since support for the education of the disadvantaged could only come from federal funding. However, for any professional group to allow itself to become the handmaiden of government, if its social policy is not benign, is dangerous and, if Rivera is correct, his strictures should act as an indication that both the philosophers of the profession and the ideologies of the policy makers have to be examined and analysed with great care.

However, the reason why government is considered so important is that it controls by the distribution of funds. It may be recalled that the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education was initially funded for three years only and was then funded for another three years only before its activities were terminated. Funding does not only control activities, it also controls the direction of research and, therefore, the development of the knowledge of the discipline. Hence, the Department of Education and Science (1984) announced that it had set aside a sum of money to promote research and development for the adult unemployed. Thus, new knowledge in adult education terms will arise from these research projects. In this way, the development of new knowledge in the discipline is itself subject to the control and direction of those who control the funds.

Since central government is involved in adult and continuing education both through the implementation of social policy and legislation, then it is open to the pressures of interests groups. Perhaps this is an element of the education of adults in the United States that has developed to a greater degree than it has in the United Kingdom. Kazanjian (1982:38) argues that Federal involvement in the education of adults demands constant questioning and she suggests that consequently every educational interest is represented in Washington. She (1982:39) claims that the lobbying process can itself be educational in helping ‘Members in sorting out the complexity of it all’. She (1982:41-42) goes on to note that lobbyists must understand the complexity of the whole process,/but that:

Since adult and continuing education is an object of social policy, it is, therefore, one about which there should be considerable public debate and one in which all interested parties should be involved in the interests of democracy.