Lifelong learning in China: The urgent need to discuss
lifelong learning
Vice Minister Zhang Xinsheng
Based on a speech prepared for the 4th ASEM Conference on Lifelong Learning –
Frameworks for Supporting Lifelong Learning – held in Beijing, China, on 28
November 2008, the following was modified from the recorded version.
1 Why is it urgent to discuss lifelong learning?
I will start with a brief analysis of the need to address lifelong learning issues. My
discussion begins with three observations.
First of all, globalisation has taken place in most developing and developed
countries. It makes the knowledge supply cross country boundaries and the
production of skilled labour a shared responsibility of all nations. Global
competitiveness replaces basic literacy as the foundation of individual development
and economic growth. However, globalisation must have a 'humane face', a
consideration for the standard of living of the general public. Attention to social
welfare and global competitiveness sets the stage for the development of a
harmonious world where people learn throughout their lives.
Secondly, the knowledge-based economy is growing at an unprecedented pace. This
fundamental change in economic structure creates a huge demand for highly skilled
workers. The defining character of this knowledge-based society is its demand for
people at various skill levels. In other words, all citizens must participate in lifelong
learning activities, both skilled and unskilled labour. This is largely due to the fact that
knowledge depreciates over time. Even academic degrees may have an 'expiration
date' because of knowledge depreciation and technological innovation. These factors
make continuous learning a new social norm in a knowledge-based society.
Thirdly, the introduction of a lifelong learning programme comes with the initiation of
inclusive education in many countries. Lifelong learning and inclusive education act
as two legs of a human being. The former pushes individuals to take part in extended
education programmes, while the latter pulls disadvantaged groups into these
learning activities. This push-and-pull mechanism drives us into a learning society.
In essence, today's society has changed from 'lifelong education' which is a supply-
driven approach, to 'lifelong learning' which is mainly a demand-driven approach.
During this process, an ample public supply of lifelong learning opportunities
guarantees equity and social cohesion in education. In the meantime, the inclusive
education strategy ensures efficient offerings of lifelong learning choices for those
who are excluded from the formal education system, such as immigrant workers,
displaced workers, and disadvantaged groups with training needs.
Nevertheless, integrating lifelong learning and inclusive education is not a unique
phenomenon in China. Many European countries also face severe challenges
caused by the new waves of immigration. Adding inclusive education to lifelong
learning policy frameworks in these countries means that public authorities should
open their educational opportunities to new immigrants and their families.
Because of the emergence of globalisation, the knowledge economy and the
integration of lifelong learning and inclusive education, we are moving into a new era:
that of the learning society. However, these conditions are not sufficient for the
realisation of lifelong learning, which is fundamentally driven by job needs and a
desire for a better life now.
In past decades, technological changes have brought about globalisation, while
globalisation accelerates technical innovation. As a result, the cycle of technology
upgrades becomes shorter and shorter. The life expectancy for enterprises and
industries is also shortened. Therefore, for the first time in history, people now enter
an age of much uncertainty. This uncertainty forces professionals and unskilled
labourers to deal with a continuous need for training and retraining. In other words,
the 'once-for-a-lifetime' learning model has become obsolete, and is being replaced
by a 'learning-throughout-the-lifetime' model. To keep a job, one has to participate in
formal and informal training from time to time. A degree or diploma is no longer a
guarantee for lifelong employment and a stable income.
Hence, our society has gradually moved from a system of national citizen education
where learning is largely constrained to formal education in school settings, to a new
system of lifelong learning where learning is open to all and can appear in any
settings in terms of formal or informal schooling. When a lifelong learning approach
replaces the so called 'national citizen education' strategy, it is natural to extend the
coverage of learning opportunity to the formerly excluded communities. This practice
will bring equity, social cohesion and freedom of choice back to our education
system.
2 Chinese practice and issues
Although our country has made significant achievements over time, I would like to
share with you some dilemmas facing Chinese education. China is a developing
country in the process of industrialisation and post-industrialisation, a nation with a
relatively fast economic growth and a limited government budget for education.
After 30 years of effort, China has reached universal compulsory education. The
challenge now is to consolidate this ’education for all’ achievement, and to promote
educational attainment for minorities and other disadvantaged groups.
At the tertiary level, the college gross enrolment rate indicates that China has
reached the mass education stage. The core issues for higher education are to
maintain and improve educational quality and encourage innovation.
The 17th Party Congress in 2007 identified vocational education and training as a
priority for its national development. Since then, the Chinese government has issued
many policies to build the capacity of vocational education institutions, and to provide
financial support for students enrolled in these institutions.
Given the fact that China has only recently achieved its universal basic education
and mass education stage at the tertiary level, some have suggested that the top
priority for the Chinese government in the near future should be to strengthen its
compulsory and post-secondary education sectors, instead of identifying a new focus
on lifelong learning. In other words, China is still anticipating a Lifelong Learning Act,
to guide the development of a national lifelong learning strategy as well as to solve
specific problems in the implementation and evaluation of such a strategy. In this
respect, Chinese scholars and policy-makers are particularly interested in learning
from their Asian and European counterparts.
3 Framework for supporting lifelong learning? Five policy
options
So what should China do in order to provide a framework to support lifelong
learning? I would like to share my personal perspective on this issue. I believe future
policy making should consider the following options.
First, it is important to increase the general public’s awareness of lifelong learning. It
is essential to mobilise all members of society to engage in efforts related to lifelong
learning. As mentioned earlier, governments at various levels should play a major
role in this mobilisation process. To lead social reform, a government should have a
vision for lifelong learning: by making education a priority on its agenda; by treating
human capital as its key resource in the 21st century; and by understanding the
general development in society. In addition, a government should have the political
will to take initiatives in the field of lifelong learning. Finally, a government should
ensure consensus among all stakeholders, in support of the construction of a
learning society in which everyone has access to educational opportunities.
The second direction is to make a comprehensive master plan for education. The
master plan should integrate all levels of education into a unity and infuse the
concept of lifelong learning into every segment of the existing school system. The
integration should proceed in a seamless manner, rather than as a parallel-system
approach where lifelong learning becomes a stand-alone rival to the formal school
system. This is exactly what I meant by merging lifelong learning with inclusive
education, that is to have a master plan which uses lifelong learning to reshuffle
existing educational resources in order to reach every corner of our educational
system.
Thirdly, the future policy should also address legal support for lifelong learning. The
focus should include not only the legislation for lifelong learning, but also the
implementation and the enforcement of laws for lifelong learning. A harmonious
society pays attention to education equity and access. Its foundation is a learning
society. In essence, lifelong learning and inclusive education are two pillars for the
construction of a learning society. In this sense, lifelong learning in conjunction with
inclusive education are the building blocks of a harmonious society. The successful
introduction of such policies relies heavily on the underlying legal support.
Specifically, legislation can create the push-and-pull mechanism for the adoption of
lifelong learning initiatives and policies. It may include standards for formal and
informal education, accreditation criteria for certification, and evaluation standards for
learning outcomes. Most importantly, legislation must be very specific about financial
support for lifelong learning, including source of funding, responsibility of various
stakeholders, and mechanisms for distribution and resource allocation. Finally, no
law can be successful without powerful enforcement. To guarantee lifelong learning
opportunities for all, more favourable law enforcement mechanisms have to be
developed accordingly.
Fourthly, another important area in support of lifelong learning is finance. Although it
is desirable to mobilise all social resources, currently government should act as the
major provider of learning opportunity. Other stakeholders in society should share the
government’s burden in various ways, including tax, educational levy and donation.
Specifically, fiscal and tax policies should be put in place to create incentives for
social investment in lifelong learning. For instance, educational income tax deduction
or exemption in the USA is a good case in point. By allowing tax deduction or
exemption for individual educational investment and corporate educational donation,
the government encourages civic participation in sharing the costs for lifelong
learning. The cost-sharing can be justified by its positive externalities, such as human
capital accumulation, increased productivity and employability, and enhanced health
and standards of living. But does society have enough resources for lifelong
learning? From my observation, tax policies can direct social consumption in more
productive directions and thereby increase the resources available for lifelong
learning. For instance, there is a lot of inappropriate consumption in our society, such
as corporates' expenditure on luxury goods or individual overconsumption of status
symbols. These are a total waste of social resources and these resources should be
transferred to the educational sector.
Fifthly, another possibility is to mobilise idle social resources. For instance, Confucius
temples around the country could be used as centres for lifelong learning or
community activities. Many marginalised groups could communicate with each other
and participate in literacy programmes or vocational trainings on these sites.
4 Incentives, motivations and social recognition
Last but not least, I would like to address the importance of bringing incentives,
motivations and social recognition to lifelong learning activities.
Lifelong learning initiatives can bridge the degree and certificate programme as well
as formal and informal trainings. It can serve as a 'highway intersection' in a society.
One the one hand, by encouraging 'transfers' between formal and informal
educational institutions with portable credits, lifelong learning programmes can
provide access to different learning systems. For instance, graduates from vocational
high schools should have access to four-year institutions while college graduates
should be able to enrol in community colleges for vocational training.
On the other hand, in a more open and flexible learning society, we could expect to
see lifelong learning activities transform the rigid occupational status to a more
flexible one, by bringing social recognition to jobs with low status but a great potential
for continuous training or mobility. In other words, in the future, one’s socioeconomic
status should not be determined by people's degrees or the academic pedigree of the
educational institutions they have attended. Rather it should, to a large extent, be
related to one's lifelong learning activity. By bringing incentives, motivations and
social recognition to lifelong learning programmes, we can embrace the idea of
'lifelong learning for all and all for lifelong learning'.