ABSTRACT
Lifelong learning is a contested concept and, in practice, a range of models have emerged in Europe and beyond over the last few decades. Yet, although the ageing of the world’s population and the implications of demographic trends have been well documented, it is only comparatively recently that older people have come to merit some consideration when lifelong learning policies are being developed and to feature in educational policy documents at supra-national level and within individual countries. Indeed, it is now noticeable that, in many countries across the world, the United Nations Principles for Older People (1991) and the World Health Organization’s espousal of the concept of active ageing (2002) have been particularly influential in encouraging policy makers to accept that the provision of learning opportunities for older people is a vital ingredient in any recipe for healthy and productive ageing and for maintaining independence. A further example can be seen in the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme 200713, designed to provide practical support for the implementation of adult learning policies across the member states of the European Union. It incorporated all kinds of adult learning within its Grundtvig strand and, for the first time, stated its intention to fund activities designed to address the challenges posed by ageing populations across Europe (EC 2007). This move is timely, as governments in many countries seek to deal with economic crisis, skills
shortages, escalating state benefit costs and an increasing number of pensioners in poverty by extending working life (Smeaton et al. 2009). There has also been a growing interest in changing concepts of retirement and in exploring what role learning can play in the lives of those no longer active in the labour market not just in respect of maintaining health, well-being and independence, but also in order to maintain and develop skills and competencies and as a dimension of social inclusion and participation in civic life. More controversially, it has often been claimed that participation in learning can promote empowerment, choice and personal development, although these terms are seldom well defined (Withnall 2010). In spite of increasing recognition of the sheer diversity and potential of later life, what still seems to be
missing from the debate is any real acknowledgement of what lifelong learning might mean in the lives of those older people who have some degree of physical disability or cognitive impairment, or both, and who are accordingly living in long-term residential care. Following Laslett (1989): this period is often gloomily designated the Fourth Age of descent into dependence, senility and death, in contrast to the Third Age of active leisure, although Laslett himself acknowledged that some Third Age activities can be maintained in the face of physical decline. More recently, Schuller and Watson (2009) have argued for a four-stage model
of the educational life course in which the age of 75+ marks the fourth stage. Acknowledging that this stage implies some degree of dependency, they rightly point out that the growing size of this age group poses particular challenges to the meaning and aims of lifelong learning. In particular, the prominence of older women also implies a gender dimension, although improvements in male life expectancy suggest that this aspect will become less prominent in future. It should also be pointed out, however, that many people over 75 years of age continue to lead healthy and busy lives and do not need assistance until much later in their lives, if at all. As with any other age group, there is considerable diversity in the processes of ageing and in how individuals respond. What is of concern here is those older people who, for various reasons, have already entered long-term
residential care. Institutional arrangements and titles tend to vary in different countries, but, in many places, what is often called ‘aged care’ has developed into big business. In the United Kingdom a care home is any home that is registered under the Care Standards Act 2000, including homes run by a local authority, voluntary organisation or those that are privately owned, and which offer personal care to those unable to cope at home, with some also providing full-time nursing care. A minority of homes provide specifically for those designated elderly mentally infirm (EMI). Currently, only 3 per cent of people over 65, 18 per cent of people over 80 and 28 per cent of people over 90 live in residential care (Audit Commission, 2008). However, just over half of residents in care homes aged over 65 are estimated to have some level of dementia, rising to 66.9 per cent of people in nursing homes and 79.9 per cent in EMI homes (PSSRU 2007). Depressive symptoms are also common. As life expectancy increases and the numbers of very old people grow, the need for some form of care is also forecast to increase. Indeed, within the UK, it is expected that over 1.7 million more adults will require some form of care or support in 20 years’ time (HM Government, 2009). Other countries are facing similar issues, although different solutions are being explored in Europe and beyond. Frequently, however, the emphasis is on how care should be funded, rather than on residents’ quality of life In respect of lifelong learning, Withnall (2010) has suggested that we adopt the term ‘longlife learning’
as a way of acknowledging the longevity of the population, the need to value individuality and diversity at any age and as a basis for exploring how learning activities could be understood and developed in respect of physically and mentally frail older people who require varying degrees of care and support in daily living. The notion of longlife learning will therefore underpin the ensuing debate; but a further consideration is how individual needs might be met in an institutional setting, where considerations of cost-effectiveness usually dictate the use of both time and available resources, including staff.
