22/03/2011 by lizit.

The final section of the green paper addresses the questions of reducing bureaucracy and services working together to support families and children with SEN/disability.

The local authority role will have 3 core features:

• strategic planning
• Securing a range of high quality provision
• Enabling families to make informed choices

The Department of Health is tasked with working with the new Health and Wellbeing Boards to consider how the needs of children and young people with SEN/disability are best addressed and with working with GP consortia pathfinders to explore the best ways of providing support for the commissioning of healthcare services for children and young people with SEN or who are disabled and their families.

Statutory guidance will be simplified and improved for all professionals working with children and young people with SEN/disabilities so that it is clear, accessible and helpful. The SEN Code of Practice will be retained but revised to incorporate other guidance that is considered helpful to professionals. The mention of the CoP, does not acknowledge the use made by parents of this publication in understanding how to obtain their child’s entitlements.

IEPs are retained, but advice on their use is removed and instead schools are encouraged to develop other approaches to enabling children with SEN to develop, progress and fulfil their potential (para 5.23). This seems strange given it is recognised that parents value these documents, but may reflect the fact that so many are poorly written and presented.

Fifteen paragraphs focus on joint working and how this might be best achieved. Interestingly, no mention is made of the CAF and its attempts to foster joint working between professionals.

Further sections focus on speech and language therapy services and educational psychology services.

Encouragement is given to local authorities to work together through joint commissioning and management of services

Attention is paid to the voluntary and  community sector in providing advice and support, services and as a strategic partner to the Department for Education.

Finally, funding is addressed with the proposal for a national banded funding framework for funding high-cost provision. This seems to be a way of evening out provision for children living in different localities. The document concludes with a discussion of alignment of pre-16 and post-16 funding arrangements.

Posted in SEN, Government policy | Print | No Comments »

22/03/2011 by lizit.

This is one of the shortest chapters in the document and concludes by acknowledging :Many of the problems with the system to support young people with SEN or who are disabled are complicated and longstanding” para 4.50.

The proposed Education, Health and Care Plan will extend to age 25, which may ameliorate lack of clarity about post-18 opportunities.

The only mention I can find in the document about high achieving young people with SEN/disability is para 4.22, which recognises some of these young people will go on into HE. For some reason, this is connected to the National Scholarship Programme for supporting disadvantaged young people, but apparently one of the criteria for the progamme will be the support for disabled students.

Informal adult and community learning also gets a mention (para 4.23) and is connected with the Big Society.

Twenty per cent of the chapter focuses on employment including the role of Job Centre Plus and Disability Employment Advisers. Nothing is said about how training will be provided to ensure these personnel are equipped to support the full range of SEN/disability, something I find worrying given some of the accounts I have heard of experiences with employment services of young people on the autism spectrum.

A further area of transition is from child to adult health services and it is recognised that the transition from CAMHS to adult mental health services can be particularly difficult.

The final section of the chapter focuses on independent living and the planned change from DLA to PIP.

Posted in SEN, Government policy | Print | No Comments »

22/03/2011 by lizit.

This chapter is entitled learning and achieving and focuses on the training available for teachers and others employed in school contexts, identification of SEN, achievements, special schools and BESD.

One of the issues addressed is that of over-identification of SEN as highlighted in the Ofsted review published last autumn: “We intend to tackle the practice of over-identification by replacing the current SEN identification levels of School Action and School Action Plus with a new single school-based SEN category for children whose needs exceed what is normally available in schools…” para 3.6

The first issue addressed is improving teaching by placing more emphasis on SEN in initial teacher training courses, offering more placements in special schools and specialist training resources for post-qualification CPLD. “We also propose to fund scholarships for teachers to develop their practice in supporting disabled pupils and pupils with SEN, including in specific impairments” para 3.14. This emphasis on training and skill building should extend to FE sector.

The roles of school leaders, governors and SENCOs are discussed. LSAs are identified as an important part of the support structure, but not as “substitute for teaching from a qualified teacher” 3.26 and “Children with SEN need more, not less, time with the school’s most skilled and qualified teachers.” It is unfortunate that there is no discussion of the distinction in role between support staff and teachers and of the range of activities involved in education that are not about subject learning, but for many children with SEN/disability are about social and communication skills and life skills where an LSA may well be more qualified than a teacher to address the child’s needs.

There is a strong statement of intent to move away from a culture of low expectations of children with SEN/disability by developing the Achievement for All programme which “has led to schools declassifying children previously classified at School Action, because with a culture of high expectations and provision of personalised school-based support the label itself is not longer necessary” para 3.30. The pupil premium should be used to provide targeted help, including extra one-to-one tuition or catch-up support. Emphasis is also given to literacy and numeracy through the Every Child a Reader and Every Child Counts programmes.

Para 3.38 recognises that for some children and young people, their SEN may emerge once they go to school or when they move from primary to secondary school. Teachers need to be able to differentiate SEN from other barriers to learning which should be addressed in other ways, and their should be a move away from using the term SEN as an excuse for low achievement.

There does seem to be confusion in the way the document is written as to what is SEN and what is low achievement - possibly because some children with SEN are low achievers. But the plan is to develop new measures in performance tables for disadvantaged pupils and the lowest attaining 20% of pupils.

The reclassification of SEN “will mean fewer children are identified as having SEN, while deterring a low expectations culture and allowing teachers and schools to focus on providing the help that every child needs” para 3.44

Four pages of this chapter are devoted to difficult behaviour, behaviour support and BESD.

26% of pupils at School Action Plus and 14% with statements have BESD identified as their primary need.

Attention is drawn to the needs of other pupils with SEN/disability who may be bullied and the greater likelihood of children with SEN/disability being excluded - why these two different aspects are dealt with in a single paragraph is unclear para 3.50.

Para 3.53 recognises that it can be difficult to identify the root causes of behavioural problems and mentions some children may have underlying communication difficulties, but nothing is said about contested diagnoses and the possibility that some of these children may have underlying and undiagnosed SEN/disability such as dyslexia or autism spectrum conditions. It is recognised though that without appropriate support, these children are more likely to be excluded, achieve less well at school and are less likely to proceed to employment or training leading to wider social and financial costs. The emphasis should be on identifying root causes of behaviour difficulties rather than focusing on symptoms.

It is suggested exclusions will be reduced by making the excluding school responsible for the placement and progress of excluded pupils.

A multi-agency assessment is recommended for children that are subject to multiple exclusions without the cause having been ascertained.

At present, 72% of all permanently excluded pupils have an SEN and pupils on SA+ are 20 times more likely to be excluded than pupils with no SEN. Young people with SEN also over-represented in the offender population. Para 3.56.

Over 40% of children with statements (about 1% of school population) attend special schools of one type or another. Document suggests there is scope for increasing the options for special schooling through flexible placements between a mainstream and special school and the development of special free schools.

The final section of the chapter returns to achievement levels.

My concerns

One of the things that worries me most in this chapter is the apparent focus on academic attainment without seeing the child holistically. One would hope that the move to a Health, Education and Care Plan might lead to a more holistic perspective, but there is little sense of the child other than in a school context except where respite care or special resources are needed.

A further concern is the section on BESD, where there is almost a suggestion that the children with BESD are bullying other children with SEN/disability. The strongest part of this section is the acknowledgment of the need to identify the root causes of BESD rather than just responding to the symptoms.

Posted in SEN, Government policy | Print | No Comments »

22/03/2011 by lizit.

The focus of this chapter is on giving parents control. It starts from the premise that parents know their child best (but elsewhere in the document, it is recognised that parents may have a different agenda from their children.)

Para 2.5 “Parents should feel well supported through the system with clear information on how it works and who does what, and what the funding is. Parents know their children best and should receive support that works flexibly with their family circumstances. They should have more influence over support for their child through personalised funding, be able to participate in local decisions, have a clear choice of school and access to short breaks from caring. When parents and professionals disagree on the right approach for a child, they should use mediation to resolve disagreements over their support.”

The idea of key workers introduced again - this was first mooted in Warnock and was present more recently in CAF, but not really implemented effectively yet.

There is some recognition of costs, especially unexpected, and role of Family Fund Trust in making direct grants. There is a lengthy section in this chapter relating to personal budgets.

Information is seen as central - parents “need to be clear about their options and understand how decisions are made that affect their child’s support” para 2.14. The implication is that if parents knew more about what was available, there would be a financial saving to parents and public authorities in avoiding costs of appeals. Not only should local authority provide clearer information, but individual schools should provide information on what additional or different provision they make:

• Curriculum - and how tailored to meet individual children’s needs
• Teaching -  adaptation to meet SEN and access to specialist expertise
• Assessment - teacher assessment and assessment of barriers to learning for children with SEN
• Pastoral support - involvement of parents, how school supports education and well being of children with SEN/disabilities

Identifies problem of low expectations of children with SEN - need to raise expectations/achievements.

Para 2.43 Funding for parent forums and involvement of parents in planning and developing local services.

Section on school choice expresses a commitment to removing any bias to inclusion and offering a real choice to parents - basically local authority has to agree to placement in any state-funded school as long as this does not compromise education of other children. “A local authority must consider the parent’s preference and cannot simply place the child in a school irrespective of the parents’ wishes” para 2.52.

Specialist expertise should be provided in local schools - suggestion that this is more cost-effective than independent school placements.

Short breaks mentioned again, but doesn’t really add anything significant to chapter 1.

Mediation to precede appeal to First-tier Tribunal (SEN and Disability) - “It can be better for parents and a better use of public funds if disputes about assessments and statements are resolved earlier and through non-judicial means” para 2.60. Does not take away right of appeal, or right to use NHS or local authority complaints processes. However there are changes to legal aid - no legal help or advice preparing appeals in SEN cases (I thought that had already gone) but legal aid available for disability discrimination cases. A right for secondary school-aged children to appeal to Tribunal on both SEN and disability grounds is introduced.

Para 2.64 is one of the very few references to independent schools in the whole document: “Although the Tribunal must take into account the efficient use of resources when consideration decisions on school placements, some decisions by the Tribunal can have significant financial implications for the local authority. For example, when the Tribunal rules that a child needs an expensive school place, this can represent a new large share of the local authority budget. Given the potential impact on the local authority budget, we would like to ensure that the Tribunal continues to give both priority to ensuring that children’s SEN are met and full weight to the efficient use of resources when considering the best way to meet their needs.”

My concerns

This section covers a lot of different areas.

The provision of better quality information is to be welcomed, but experience has shown that sometimes schools will claim what they cannot deliver, or what they can deliver may be appropriate to some children but not to others with apparently similar SEN.

Appeal to Tribunal could become more daunting if it can only follow failed mediation - this is potentially more of a battle-zone.

It’s probably inevitable, but the emphasis on cost is worrying. There is no doubt that some redistribution of resources could be potentially cost-saving, but again there is a need to recognise that meeting needs of children with SEN/disability can be very expensive sometimes.

There is no mention of the needs of some children for a 24 hour curriculum. The implicit assumptions seems to be that a mix of choice of school and short break will do the job, when this is not always the case.

Posted in SEN, Government policy | Print | No Comments »

22/03/2011 by lizit.

This chapter focuses on early identification and assessment.

Para 1.2 “Too often, the particular support that children and their families require is put in place needlessly late. Although some impairments are normally identified at birth or soon after, other types of need emerge as children grow up. Not knowing why children are developing differently can be tremendously stressful for the child and for their parents. And even when needs have been identified, parents tell us that it can feel like a struggle to get the right support for their family from education, health and social care services. It can be slow and complicated, with different services working in isolation and each having its own approach.”

Features of new system:

• assessment of development by health professionals (HVs) and early years professionals - identify where additional support is needed
• Early years education and child care available and accessible to all
• Replace Statement of SEN with Education, Health and Care Plan - single assessment process - same statutory protection as statement

Plan is to reduce over-assessment, but unclear exactly how this will be achieved. Presumably some assessments that effectively duplicate each other can be removed. A common Plan that can be used as basis for the different types of input would be useful, but difficult to envisage various agencies accepting each others conclusions, especially if costs involved. Currently with more complex situations, health, education and social care have to plan together - and can take months to come to a conclusion - how will this be improved in practice?

Note mention of efficient use of public funds in para 1.48 - how much of the think is about saving money and how much about providing a quality service to needy children and their families?

Voluntary and community sector role placed in context of finances - I find that worrying as perpetuates myth that voluntary sector is cheap or free. Specific roles identified for voluntary and community sector:

• providing information on assessment process - preparing parents on what to expect
• Advocacy for families
• Supporting families through the assessment process
• Putting support package together that reflects family needs, circumstances and ambitions

So a mixture of support, advocacy and direct services, but no indication of who is paying.

Quite a lot about short breaks which seems to be a variation on respite care. Given this was one of our initial requests that was never fulfilled, I do wonder how likely this is to happen, especially if aim continues to be to provide this through a pseudo-fostering arrangement rather than in specialist facilities.

The emphasis in this section is really on those children with most complex needs, effectively the 2% who currently are statemented. It is unclear whether this helps in any way those children who are currently on school action or school action plus and who would be subject to a single level of school SEN assessment.

My concerns

• Position of those children whose needs are not complex enough to be dealt with under new assessment arrangements, but at the same time are not trivial.
• The practicality of  an assessment by Health, Education and Social Care - and getting all to agree - but good if can be made to work and can include DLA/PIP
• The implicit and explicit expectation that this will reduce duplication and therefore save money
• Lack of realism about true costs of voluntary and community sector involvement
• The practicality of short breaks - desirable but how achievable?

Posted in SEN, Government policy | Print | No Comments »

15/03/2011 by lizit.

The long-awaited government consultation document “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability” was published last Tuesday. I have now had time to read it and and some of the early responses to it. My initial response last week was to question whether my research is still of any relevance given that the green paper addresses many of the areas I am interested in and that some of the discussion is underpinned by government commissioned research. I also had a sense that what I am doing might be anachronistic, even before it sees the light of day.

During the past few days, I have been able to reflect on the document and to begin to look at it more objectively. The fact that the green paper acknowledges problems in the existing system and suggests ways of addressing these does not mean that my work is irrelevant. In fact, in some ways it may be that some of the areas I am exploring are of even greater relevance as they are areas which receive scanty attention in the green paper.

The potential strength of the  recommendations is a move to a single assessment of SEN and disability culminating in an ‘Education, Health and Care Plan’ which will replace the Statement of SEN. The advantage of this is the potential reduction in the number of separate assessments a child or young person with complex SEN/disability might have to face and the shared responsibility and accountability of Health, Education and Social Care. However, it is unclear from the green paper which children and young people will have the opportunity of this single assessment and at what stage in their development. Clearly, it is applicable to those children with complex needs recognised very early in their life - and the green paper does lay emphasis on early identification of needs - but what of those children and young people who are apparently developing normally, but are a bit quirky and whose differences become evident at a later developmental stage. In particular, at present it is known that many children with Aspergers or HFA do not receive a diagnosis until they are into their primary education years - and some later still.

This leads to a further question. Many of these children with Aspergers or HFA (and others with neurological differences) have a record of behaviour difficulties and possibly exclusions prior to diagnosis. The green paper draws attention to the much higher risk of children and young people with SEN of both fixed term and permanent exclusion from school, but says nothing about the contested diagnoses which lead to some of these young people receiving a diagnosis of an autistic spectrum disorder and others being labelled as BESD. The section of the document discussing BESD is in my opinion the weakest in the whole document.

Although the green paper does focus on raising expectations of the potential achievement level of children and young people with SEN/disability, it is unclear to me how realistic some of the implicit, if not explicit, assumptions are. Yes, children with SEN/disability frequently leave school with lower qualifications than other young people and no doubt some could achieve more given the right support structure, but it is unlikely, I would have thought, that the achievement curve for school leavers with SEN/disability would ever mirror completely that for those with no SEN/disability. However, for high functioning young people, it is crucial that they are enabled to reach their potential rather than under-achieving as a result of missed education through exclusion or inappropriate or insufficient learning support.

Another area addressed in the green paper is that of the role of parents. It is acknowledged that parents frequently have insufficient information in the current system and recommendations are made to remedy this. It is also suggested parental choice will be increased, especially in relation to choice of school. Although there is no doubt parents have strong views about what is best for their children, it is disappointing that the voice of the child and their own aspirations has not been similarly strengthened, except when it comes to appeals where children will be able to enter their own appeals to the First Tier Tribunal. Parents are not necessarily always the best advocates for their children, though this is an area fraught with difficulty. Returning to choice of school, little is said about the continuing role of independent and non-maintained special schools…

There are very clear political themes underlying the green paper. Reducing expenditure is clear through reductions in bureaucracy and in multiple assessments. It is also there, so not so evident in other financial arrangements - who will be eligible for the new personal budgets and what restrictions will there be on their use. Free schools receive a mention - it is suggested that part of the increased school choice will include the establishment of new free schools and academies. The Big society is writ large with suggestions that the local community and voluntary sector might facilitate the new assessment system.

In terms of the recommendations in the green paper being enacted, some things are already being trialled such as short breaks; some things will begin to be trialled later this year, such as single assessments; but implementation of the whole will be over the next few years. Inevitably there will be considerable interest in the SEN community in both the discussion of the green paper, its implications and implementation and the effects of that implementation on the life chances of children and young people. My task is two-fold - to ensure that I complete my research and write a thesis which meets the academic criteria and to find ways of contributing to the debate and analysis of the change over the coming years.

Posted in SEN, Aspergers/HFA, Government policy, education | Print | No Comments »

04/01/2010 by lizit.

Finding lots of interesting ideas in papers written some years back. Getting the background seems to involve a constant moving backwards. I can’t possibly read everything ever written, but I can read a lot of stuff and get a sense of big picture.

Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) present some useful contrasts between different types and contexts of learning in developing their ideas about situated cognition.I find their description of the learning of ‘just plain folk’ (JPF) relates to the questions I am asking about the learning of parents of children and young people with ASDs and how they learn to provide appropriate support and care for their children.

Brown, et al, start from the “distinction between mere acquisition of inert concepts and the development of useful, robust knowledge” citing Whitehead’s 1929 treatise on the aims of education. The implication is that it is possible to possess a tool, or knowledge, and not have a clue how to use it. Similarly it is possible to have good working knowledge of the use of a tool without knowing why it works as it does. In the real world, we learn how to use tools from others and through practice. The same tool may be used differently by different communities of users - example is given of chisel which is used differently by carpenters and cabinet makers, Just as we need to learn how to use physical tools, the same is necessary with conceptual tools. As with physical tools, the conceptual tools only really make sense in the context of practice. It is suggested that learners learn through enculturation or socialisation into a community of practice.

As tools are used in authentic context they gain meaning & relevance. Brown, et al, comment that “the process may appear informal, but it is nonetheless full-blooded, authentic activity that can be deeply informative - in a way that textbook examples and declarative examples are not.” This is illustrated using Lave’s example of the apprenticeship of tailors.

Brown, et al, then consider the learning of JPFs, students and practitioners. When a JPF wants to learn something they can become an apprentice or a student. As the former, they enculturate into the community of practice. As the latter they go to school where “the general strategies for intuitive reasoning, resolving issues, and negotiating meaning (…) are superseded by the precise, well-defined problems, formal definitions, and symbol manipulation of much school activity.” Brown, et al, suggest the JPF is closer to the practitioner in learning & practice than students whose learning & practice is abstracted from real life, implying that contextualisation is vital for learning to be meaningful.

The discussion can be related to the current educational policy debates where politicians are demanding more focus on vocational education in higher education. Brown, et al, suggest that it is only in post graduate study that students begin to become practitioners through an apprenticeship process embedded in the supervisory relationship with an experienced researcher. However, there is no discussion of the thinking and analytical skills developed through the education system.

They suggest more work is needed on understanding the “relationship between explicit knowledge and implicit understanding”.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.

Posted in Government policy, education, concepts, community, learning | Print | 1 Comment »

03/11/2009 by lizit.

There is an interesting article in the Guardian on ELQ and the costs to students http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/03/second-degrees-higher-education-funding. Although my focus is more on incidental and serendipitous learning, it strikes me that the kind of sums of money involved in taking an additional qualification deemed to be at the same level as one already held is likely to result in a number - potentially large number - of people seeking to gain skills, training, expertise other than through formal education. It also makes me realise how fortunate I have been in the funding of my own education. Even if I have groused from time to time about having to pay my own postgraduate fees, at least they have been heavily subsidised. Whatever the government might be saying about wanting to increase the proportion of the population with degree level education, the possibility of increasing undergraduate fees and the excessive cost of retraining might well prove to have unintended consequences, especially for those who will not be entering the most highly paid of jobs.

Posted in informal learning, Government policy, funding, education | Print | No Comments »

15/10/2009 by lizit.

This feels like a good time to do a bit of taking stock and forward planning.

I’ve been looking at some of the DR2 modules and what comes through most clearly is the need for focus. This  came across particularly clearly in the lit review module which emphasised not getting sidetracked by interesting ideas, but was also very clear in the research methods module. This made sense to me as one of my main concerns is scoping my work so that it is actually both meaningful and doable in the allotted time.

Although I haven’t got a neat and tidy lit review, I do feel I have a good understanding of the informal learning area and some of the problematics of working in that area. I am also clear about the problems of language, especially the use of ‘informal learning’ in corporate training contexts and the changing use of ’social learning’. Looking at the informal learning literature has clarified the connections with adult education, lifelong learning, etc, and has also shown the paucity of material on children and informal learning - just one futurelab report as far as I can see. I am keeping up-to-date with Second Life and virtual worlds more generally through both literature and involvement in a number of mailing lists and attendance at various workshops and conferences. I have also explored the literature around virtual communities, including that focusing on 2D communities. Although I have revisited community development material, I have not done so as thoroughly as I originally intended to and there may be a need to look at more of this.

Other blogs and entries in my wiki focus on the reading I have been doing on motivation - Csikszentmihalyi and Deci and Ryan - and on social learning theory as propounded by Bandura. These are potentially useful theories for analysing data in the studies I am proposing.

So what am I actually proposing to do and why? I am increasingly coming to the view that my work needs to be located in relation to the recent government white paper on informal learning. The white paper makes a number of assumptions about informal learning, including about its potential role in adult education and about the need for it to be recognised in some way or other. Apart from the potential elements of cost-cutting or of formalising the informal, I feel the white paper raises a number of issues which are not properly addressed.

So where do I go from here?

Firstly, I think I need to re-read the white paper and the earlier consultative document and responses. I will be looking particularly at how informal learning is understood in those documents and how it is seen to relate to the lifelong learning and widening participation agendas.

Secondly, I need to frame my research question(s) in the context of the white paper. (Given the forthcoming general election, it would be useful to check what the position of other major political parties is on informal learning, but given there is also an EU dimension, I suspect the changes are more likely to be in relation to priorities rather than direction.)

Thirdly, I need to revisit the work I have been doing in outlining potential studies and ensuring these actually address my research question.

That sounds like enough for the moment.

Posted in methodology, informal learning, Government policy, research ideas, planning | Print | No Comments »

15/06/2009 by lizit.

Was chatting about the White Paper on informal learning (DIUS. (2009). The Learning Revolution. Cm7555) over supper and mentioned how easy it is to be suspicious if not even cynical about the government’s motivation in suddenly deciding to support informal education after years of decreasing the funding given to adult education, except for those classes which led to formally recognised qualifications. The white paper itself recognises this: “The Government has taken the decision to re-prioritise LSC funding on longer, more valuable accredited courses that provide real help for people to get on in work” (para 24, p. 9) and goes on to acknowledge this has led to to an ‘expected reduction in shorter courses: “Many were in areas like health and safety at work or food hygiene which are properly the responsibility of employers. Some have been in areas which, while popular, would not attract the highest priority, or where learners are willing to pay full fees. Recreational language classes used to be one of the short courses most heavily-subsidised by the LSC and many still take place, but in a different form” (para 25, p.9). So thriving adult education classes have been closed or passed to other providers and people have found other learning opportunities which are not funded by Government leading to a flourishing informal learning sector which often goes unnoticed and unrecognised.

Now if we turn the clock back 25 years or so, we find huge changes in social care provision under the Conservative government of the day. Promises of support for the voluntary sector turned to support for volunteers (when it was realised how much voluntary organisations cost) and then to informal and family carers (when it was realised volunteers do not come completely free of overheads). During those years we saw the beginning of the contracting out of social care to voluntary and private organisations,  the closure of the large mental hospitals in favour of care in the community, and the move from public sector funding of care to the lottery. OK, not all that has happened in the social care field is bad, and some people may have slightly more say in the care they receive now, but there are also many casusalties of the caring revolution.

So where will the learning revolution lead.  It is driven by economic and demographic factors - the credit crunch and the increasing number of older, economically inactive people and younger people with few employment prospects. One can almost hear the thinking, now if we can formally recognise all the work these non-funded bodies and informal groups are doing and label it learning and perhaps even accredit some of it, we can reduce the amount we spend on formal education while claiming to increase the total amount of learning happening within the UK.  We can even disguise what we are doing with our digital agenda pointing to the need to ensure everybody is upskilled for the digital age.

Call me an old cynic, but these are worrying times we live in.

Posted in informal learning, Government policy, funding, education, learning | Print | 1 Comment »