2. 2
Introduction
The school-based education system in England has undergone a rapid transformation from a
national system, administered through local authorities, to an increasingly centralised system
with a variety of private education providers (such as faith groups, businesses and individuals)
entering into contractual arrangements with the UK government. One of the consequences of
this is that what is perceived as being worthwhile in education, and what is perceived as quality
education, are being imposed from outside the traditional educational institutions (Lambeir,
2005). The questions this paper seeks to answer is whose interest is this serving, what does it
mean for equitable access to educational opportunities and what may be the future implications
for lifelong learning?
In 1998 Labour first mooted the idea of creating schools in England, to be called academies,
which were out with local authority control, free to choose their own curriculum, and receive
their funding directly from government. The school based education system was to be
transformed with an increased focus on parental choice of school, school autonomy and
competition. The rationale behind this move was, in part, the perceived need for an increase
in the quality of ‘human capital’ for economic competitiveness (Lauder and Brown, 2009) and
that an improvement in pupil attainment through school improvement would meet these future
economic needs. Subsequent governments have backed this idea to the extent that by January
2013, 50% of state secondary schools had become academies (West, 2014) with the present
conservative government calling for all schools to become academies by 2020. This has
subsequently led to the increased blurring of the boundaries between government and business
with their being a direct involvement of future employers in the formation of the future
workplace (Hatcher, 2008). These changes are significant not least because they represent the
influence of a particular set of ideas about the provision of education, essentially a neo-liberal
way of governing, where those institutions were previously supported as essential to the
collective wellbeing, and now being reconstructed as part of the market economy (Davies and
Bansel, 2007). What this means in practice is that it has made the English education system
more complex and divided, with competing institutions heightening the risk that it also
becomes less efficient and less equitable. Lifelong learning is part of a strategy through which
active citizens are mobilised in support of their own destinies, wherein the state acts as a
monitor and regulator rather than a provider of services (Edwards, 2002). However, with the
power of local authorities to oversee, let alone influence or plan, education in their area being
very limited then there is a very real threat of inequitable experiences for learners. Moreover,
3. 3
there are already severe difficulties in actually measuring the ‘capital’ obtained through
education, and the rates of return obtained or obtainable from it. (Allais, 2012).
In this paper I will look at what the policy of academisation might mean with regards to equality
of educational opportunities with the apparent move away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach
and whether or not the academy programmes is being done in the name of lifelong learning.
The analysis presented is based, in the main, on publish research on the academy programme
so far while drawing on the history and theory behind the lifelong learning narrative. Lifelong
learning implies that learning should take place at all stages of life the life cycle (Green,
2002).It is my intention to take one point in that lifecycle, that of secondary school age, say 11-
19 years, and look at how such a far reaching policy of academisation could potentially affect
life chances at a later point.
This paper will be in three parts. First I will outline the government rhetoric of lifelong
learning, its history, and how education policy has evolved in response leading up to the
emergence of academies. The key argument being that the concept of lifelong learning is
ubiquitous in nature and has become fashioned as one with an individual focus on
improvement. Secondly, I will examine the rise of academisation in the secondary school
sector examining the benefits and drawbacks compared to a local authority (maintained)
school. The key argument I will put forward is that of decreased accountability, uniformity in
access and that there is little evidence that the programme has achieved its original aim of
raising standards. Lastly I will look at societal trends and ask whether academisation has really
been able to deliver on its promise of curriculum choice, increasing social mobility and meeting
learning’s needs with my key argument being that it has not done any of those things. I will
then conclude by saying that more research is needed looking at the life chances and career
trajectories and successes of those graduating from academy schools.
Government rhetoric of lifelong learning
For the purposes of this paper lifelong learning is defined as:
4. 4
‘all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills
and competence within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective
(European Commission, 2001).
Traditionally the focus of lifelong learning has been on the individual learner and a concern for
his/her improvement, to improve his/her life chances with the idea that ‘society should become
a learning society where lifelong learning is at the core of education philosophy and practice’.
However, this is a somewhat ideological viewpoint where the ‘learning society’ is a vision of
a society where there are recognised opportunities for learning for every person, wherever they
are and however old they should be (Green, 2002). Over time lifelong learning has come to
mean more about enabling people to actively regulate their own conduct, investing in self to
get a return in the future which aligns closely with Human Capital Theory, emphasising
scientific rationality and work-life learning to the exclusion of both a comprehensive
understanding of lifelong learning. As Edwards (2002) says:
‘Lifelong learning can be argued to play an influential role in catering for active, enterprising
selves and subjecting them to educational and training practices that attempt to instil flexibility
and enterprise as desirable and desired ways of being. In developing lifelong learning, an aim
is to fashion more flexible learners and workers who themselves are more enterprising.
(Edwards, 2002).
Increasingly lifelong learning has become synonymous with issues such as accreditation,
certification, access and progression and this will be returned to later in the paper.
The concept of lifelong learning first appeared in the 1970s and was fashioned as a model by
those working through international governmental bodies, particularly UNESCO, that would
allow people to adapt to as well as control change (Lehgrand, 1972; Dave, 1976). Lifelong
learning could reduce educational gaps in society and serve as vehicle for social mobility,
equality of life chances, social cohesion and active citizenship and for ensuring that all, young
and old, acquire and maintain the skills, know-how and dispositions needed to adapt to
changing jobs and labour markets (OECD, 1996). In the late 1980s, during the time of
economic uncertainty, rising unemployment and public deficits, lifelong learning policies
aimed to respond to these global economic changes by, in the first place, seeking ways to
increase general levels of learning and skills and, while there is an understanding that adult
education in itself does not create jobs, learning can promote competencies to adapt to the
demands of the New Economy and allow full participation in social and economic life.
5. 5
Lifelong Learning became framed ‘within a politico-economic imperative that emphasised the
importance of science and technology, as well as human capital’. (Rubenson, 2006).
‘Driven by a mainly neo-liberal agenda that has promoted economic or corporate globalisation,
adult learning has become a central issue in national policies on education, the economy and
welfare’ (EU 2000, OECD 2005).
Governments became increasingly aware of the need to ‘enable’ individuals to participate in
lifelong learning opportunities and the need to prevent people from being marginalised or from
excluding themselves (Ecclestone, 1999). Increased exclusion or marginalisation of large
segments of the population and exacerbated socio-economic divisions were seen as a threat to
global capitalism (Rubenson, 2006). Additionally, it needed to be accompanied by the direct
and targeted involvement of employers in the formation of the future workforce. (Hatcher,
2008). . There was also the recognition of the public value of lifelong learning – benefits not
just the learners but to wider society. If learning makes individuals healthier, for example, that
is good for them, but also for their family, their community and for the health service and the
taxpayer.
Education policy evolved in response to due, in part, to a debate about the role of national
government in the delivery of education to enable lifelong learning and how to respond to the
pressures of the knowledge economy and globalisation. Additionally, in England employers’
continuing complaints about the skills of new entrants to the workforce were endorsed by the
Leitch report (Leitch, 2006), warning that the UK was ‘on track to achieve undistinguished
mediocrity’ if it fails to upgrade the skills of its workforce by 2020 (Hatcher, 2008). Lifelong
learning in England was to improve the performance of the system in terms of qualifications
outcomes, to increase learner choice and to raise levels of participation in order to build the
skills for economic competitiveness, employability and social inclusion (DfES 2005; Leitch
2006; DfES 2006).
One response by the government was the 14-19Education and Skills White Paper (DfES, 2005)
in support of a high productivity, flexible curriculum (p11) (Hatcher, 2008). This had a due
rationale, where the curriculum met the skills needed by employers and also of motivating
young people to succeed where they had failed in a more traditional academic curriculum
setting.
The second response (strategy) was to enable business interests – individuals and companies –
to run state schools, as sponsors of academies and trusts. (Hatcher, 2008). . This was not a new
6. 6
idea, rather came out of a European Commission white paper in 1995 ‘Teaching and Learning
– Towards the learning society ‘(EC, 1995) that encouraged the acquisition and validation of
knowledge, bringing schools and businesses closer together, treating capital and training
investments on an equal footing (Borg and Mayo, 2004). This then lead to the emergence of
academies. According to research, institutional arrangements have a pivotal effect on the
country-level differences in the efficacy and equality of education (Horn 2009; OECD 2005)
(Rinne et al, 2015). . This was the UK’s response and the purpose of the academies in
enhancing lifelong learning opportunities will be looked at in the next section.
The emergence and purpose of academies
As previously stated, academies were introduced by the labour government in 2000 (West &
Bailey, 2013). but, in reality, the move towards greater choice and wider involvement in
schools started in the 1980s. In the White Paper Choice and Diversity (DfE, 1992, pp44-45) it
was noted that: ‘the economic health of the country requires the vigorous promotion of
technology in schools and the active involvement of private sector sponsors in that process’
(West & Bailey, 2013). Academies were a new type of institution, a publically funded
independent school, meant to replace schools in areas of high socio-economic disadvantage,
with falling intakes and poor results, that could draw on the ‘skills of sponsors ‘business faith
or voluntary groups’ in order to ‘challenge the culture of educational under-attainment and to
deliver the real improvements in standards’ (DfES, 2005a). Ultimately they were set up as a
remedy for a particular problem – that of failing schools (West & Bailey, 2013). In 2010 the
Academies Act was passed allowing all schools to convert to academy status and there was a
shift where it is claimed that those who are doing well within local authorities can do even
better outside with the approach being about creating the conditions in which academy status
is an obvious move for a successful school, (Gunter & McGinty, 2014) with all schools
enjoying direct funding and full independence from central and local bureaucracy’ and using
this autonomy to raise standards and narrow the attainment gap. Extending greater autonomy
to all schools was ‘an absolute priority’. (DfE 2010a) and there is continuity across political
parties in the desire to reduce the role of local authorities in delivering education (West &
Bailey, 2013).
The impetus for change was centred around the policy rhetoric for the urgent need to improve
standards in English state schools. The education system was seen as obsolete and unfit for
7. 7
market needs (Centeno, 2011) based partly on moral panic about the perceived place of the UK
in the global education areana. (Francis, 2015). Neo-liberal ideas with regards to education,
privatising education services and introducing competition, which it is argued will lead to
‘better schools, and hence better education for all students, closing the achievement gap’
(Hursh 2007, 498). Political debates, policy manoeuvres and legislative reforms regarding
publicly funded education in England have been about the imaging, promotion and realisation
of the independent school as the preferred model. (Gunter & McGinty, 2014) and so, as West
& Bailey (2013) said, a publicly funded, mainly publicly-delivered school system is now
shifting towards one that is increasingly privately provided and delivered. A system-wide
change has been effected.’
In a practical sense then, the main differences between academies and local authority schools
lie in the fact that academies are independent and owned by not for profit trusts, are responsible
for their own admissions and are not required to adhere to the national curriculum (though it
must be broad and balanced). The notion of independence is based on removing the school
from the local democratic accountability by building on the self- manging school as a business
in a competitive market (Gunter & McGinty, 2014). Academies are free to experiment with
organisational arrangements though in 2007 all newly signed academy funding agreements
required adherence to the national curriculum for the core subjects. (West & Bailey, 2013).
Academies will raise standards by innovative approaches to management, governance,
teaching and the curriculum (DfES, 2004b) was a key message from the Department for
Education. Academies receive an equivalent level of funding per pupils as maintained school
in the same area, but they also receive funding for services previously provided by the local
authority (DfE, 2013). Thus, on conversion, the school’s budget increases (West & Bailey,
2013).
Returning to the point on not for profit trusts; what is the incentive to run an academy? It is
potential for increased business opportunities through outsourcing which are emerging as more
of the business of the education state is divested and ‘privatised” (Ball, 2009), but also provides
the opportunity to directly shape the workforce through the design and development of the
curriculum and pedagogy.
‘By careful links with the local business community, it is anticipated that the specialism of each
Academy can be linked with the local workforce demand and address key skills shortages.
(Hatcher, 2008; p63).
8. 8
Additionally, in each school it will be a principal’s duty is not only to make sure that school
functioning meets the needs of its customers (i.e., students and their parents) in the best possible
way, but also to ensure that the school has a competitive edge over its competitors in the local
school market, and subsequently for its sponsors to have a competitive edge. (Rinne et al,
2015). . ‘The evidence shows that the vision is set and defined by the sponsor, and then
operationalised by the principal’. (Hatcher, 2008). .
This is the utopian ideal by the government and department for education. There are benefits
to the academisation programme (some of which have been outlined above) but just as many,
if not more, drawbacks and reservations.
Claims and counter claims
Accountability
The process of academisation has been extremely rapid. The wide range of academies and
academy types are hard to categorise or compare like with like. The status now appears
irreversible (Francis, 2015) despite the controversy surrounding their governance. With the
removal of local authority control over the schools the next layer of accountability is the
department for education. However, the previous coalition government has stated that
providers should not be principally accountable to government but to their ‘customers’
(Cameron, 2010) with:
‘the emphasis will be in publishing transparent performance data so that learners, parents and
employers can make more informed judgements about provision. Learners are conceived as
customers and their demand for learning is expected to drive provision at the local level.
‘(Rubenson, 2006).
It also has the advantage that the feasibility of the DfE playing an active role in academy
governance is remote and that by devolving the decision making it also has the distinct
advantage of enabling governments to avoid blame for unpopular decisions and things that go
wrong (Lauglo, 1990). In addition to this arms’ length approach, there is currently a system in
chaos with changing inspection frameworks, new performance measures and structural
changes happening so quickly from so many different organisations and government
departments that it is hard for anyone to know who to appeal to when negative outcomes
happen. (Francis, 2015).
9. 9
Choice
The very basic premise of the move to academisation was that by increasing choice and
competition between schools it would result in higher educational standards as every school
needed to attract students in order to stay open for business. Therein lies a problem. That to
ensure that a full range of qualifications is available in each locality there needs to be
collaboration between institutions. Previously this would be the role of the local authority but
with the introduction of new providers who are not under local authority control, and
accountability measures such as league tables, this encouraged competition as opposed to
collaboration (Pring et al,. 2009). And in terms of qualifications available, to ‘break the cycle
of underachievement’ (Hatcher, 2008) states that these should be close alignment of the
curriculum to future high value added employment needs. The debate of lifelong learning
indeed emphasises the importance to orient the courses on offer toward the particular questions
of the learners/ consumers and the ‘needs felt’ by them (Lambeir, 2005) but are academies
genuinely able to do this? The school would need to be flexible, with the ability to adapt and
change what it is teaching to suit each individual learners needs yet in an evaluation conducted
by Pricewatercoopers on behalf of the department for education (2006, 29-30) it notes: that
some academies were beginning to pull back on some of the more innovative approaches that
had been implemented in the first year. Furthermore, learners on advanced level courses in
schools and sixth form colleges, for example, continued to receive more funding than those on
lower level courses. (Rubenson, 2006). as they are worth more to the economy yet academies
were originally for the disadvantaged but the funding is for the advantaged? Taking forward
the point on accountability measures such as league tables mentioned above, the government
has backtracked somewhat on allowing schools to choose their curriculum with:
‘a need for a ‘return to rigour’ via increased toughness in systems of assessment and school
accountability and a re-insertion of traditional values to the curriculum (see Gove, 2013c).
And all schools being measured on their ‘Progress 8’ based on English, Maths, Science,
Humanities, Foreign language plus 3 others, it doesn’t leave much scope for choice in the
curriculum. Additionally, given the strong links between social background and educational
attainment, schools are likely, given the opportunity, to seek to educate some pupils as opposed
to others. (West, 2014) which point I will come on to next.
10. 10
Achievements
Taken at face value, the government claims that Academies are more effective than normal
schools in raising standards of attainment in socially disadvantaged areas. However, the
evidence from the annual evaluations of Academies which the government commissions from
Pricewatercoopers does not bear this claim out. In finding no convincing evidence that
Academies are any more or less effective than the schools they replaced or are in competition
with, (Hatcher, 2008). . Machin and Vernoit (2011) and Wilson (2011) found that the
attainment of pupils entering academies significantly improved after they became sponsored
academies but the latter also found that schools that became subsequently became academies
enrolled approximately 12.5% fewer pupils eligible for free school meals (West, 2014). i.e.
manipulating the demographics to increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in terms of
results. Also, students in the academies were generally entered for fewer GCSEs than in other
institutions.
Culture
Changing the demographics by closing a school and reopening an academy, is about cultural
and professional change and speaks about identity issues that impact on the practice of teaching
and learning. (Gunter & McGinty, 2014). Accademisation is about bringing in outside
expertise to add value and/or a new approach for a more efficient and responsive provision of
education (Wolf 1995; Young 2009) 30. This could be said to imply the idea, as Allais (2012).
puts it, ‘that self-interested lecturers and teachers run education institutions in their own
interests, ignorant of, or ignoring the needs of industry and of individual learners.’
Additionally, those sponsors expertise may not be in the area of education and subsequently,
true educational expertise may be lost in the process (Hatcher & Jones, 2006).
What societal trends are at play?
One of the overarching trends at play is the notion that we are witnessing the end of politics
and entering a post-political society. Governments still have the power to implement their
own national policy on education but it is the pull of market forces and the perceived demands
of the knowledge economy and globalisation that have influenced, and continue to influence
and shape those policies. Institutions such as the OECD believe that human learning has
11. 11
struggled to keep abreast of broader changes in society, and that the current education system
is inadequate in meeting peoples' needs. The UK’s response to this, has been the privatisation
of education, with the aim of increasing social mobility, offering greater quality and flexibility
in what can be studied at school and how will this move away from a ‘one size fits all approach’
be on lifelong learning opportunities?
So is there any evidence to show that academies increase social mobility? In the first instance,
where a school is located is also likely to determine who will apply to attend. Attainment is
strongly related to social background and clustering students with similar backgrounds in
schools tends to strengthen social reproduction over generations (Massey and Fischer 2006).
Secondly, as Gorard (2014) highlights, factors such as residential segregation, travel limitations
and policies such as catchment areas and feeder schools, are all relevant. Due to the initial
policy of low achieving or ‘failing’ schools being automatically converted to academies, areas
of higher social deprivation are more likely to have a high percentage of academies (Gorard,
2014). People growing up in segregated settings may then be less prepared for the academic
challenges of subsequent education (Gorard and Rees 2002). In addition, to individual
characteristics, family background can determine how well students perform in the school
environment and the kind of educational trajectories they will have (Lamb et al, 2011). (Rinne
et al, 2015). . So at the time of writing, there is little evidence to say that by becoming an
academy, social mobility will be increased.
Turning to the suggestion that academies are offering greater quality and flexibility in what can
be studied at school, in order to meet the needs of the market economy; is this the case?
Academies were originally set up being free to choose their own curriculum based upon that a
focus on ‘content’ in education is done at the expenses of ‘learning how to learn’ or ‘skills and
competencies’. Traditional approaches to education are linked to economic backwardness.
(Allais, 2012). But, as highlighted previously in this paper, schools have become increasingly
reticent at being innovative, particularly as a result of the new performance measure in the
Schools white paper (DfE,2010d) which is designed to encourage schools to ensure as many
young people as possible gain a GCSE in English, maths, science, humanities subject and a
language at the age of 16. If schools fail to meet this performance measure then they will be
taken over by another academy. It is not forcing schools to alter their provision, but make it
very difficult for a school to refuse and ‘appears to fly in the face of the ‘greater freedom’
12. 12
promised to schools.’ (Rubenson, 2006). And has its limitations because the emphasis on
specifications encouraged both learners and their teachers to focus on accreditation and
improving grades, rather than deepening and broadening their knowledge and skills for
effective progression (Pring et al, 2009).
There has been a shift in the educational value systems and is it is significant that in UK policy
the emphasis is very much on promoting a ‘culture’ of lifelong learning (Edwards, 2002). In
England, the restructuring, re-culturing and recalibrating of families as consumers of education
are integral to the reformation of the school as ‘independent’ (Gunter, 2015). Lifelong learning
is not just a policy for education but a policy for the construction of an individual’s own identity
and for that individual to be mobilised towards a more active engagement with their life courses
and life chances. This fashioning of people’s values and norms therefore becomes a key
dimension of organisational change. (Edwards, 2002).
Conclusion
Returning to the central issue of increasing the ability of students to engage successfully in
lifelong learning opportunities, what might the freedoms, challenges and pitfalls be? There is
freedom for new providers to emerge without the state having to play a central role in delivering
education, and academisation has resulted in increased levels of attainment and participation
in upper secondary education. (Pring et al. 2009). but one of the major pitfalls was highlighted,
compellingly, by Lauder and Brown (2009) who demonstrate how, despite these increased
levels of attainment, the promise of the knowledge economy has benefited only a few, while
the majority has been forced into a global labour market for high-skilled low waged work
(Allais, 2012).
In this paper I have looked at what the policy of academisation might mean with regards to
equality of educational opportunities with the apparent move away from a ‘one size fits all’
approach and whether or not the academy programmes is being done in the name of lifelong
learning. I have put forward the argument that the academy programme is in direct response
to the perceived challenges of the knowledge economy and the desire for education to be ‘fit
for purpose’ to create the workers of tomorrow who are flexible and able to adapt to the rapidly
changing work arena. With regards to equitable access I have said there is no real evidence to
suggest that academies provide any greater or lesser quality of education than maintained
schools, nor any more or less opportunities. There is some evidence, that academies have
changed their admission criteria to restrict access to those students who may do less well, and
13. 13
affect their results, and subsequently this will have an implication in their future access to
lifelong learning opportunities. I have stated that the academisation programme is benefiting
the government by enabling it to take an arms-length approach, while also benefiting some
businesses by enabling them to have direct access to consumers and the workers of tomorrow.
More research is needed to looking at the life chances and career trajectories and successes of
those graduating from academy schools.
14. 14
References
Allais, S (2012) ‘Economics imperialism’, education policy and educational theory, Journal of
Education Policy, 27:2, 253-274
Ball, S (2009) Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational
research: network governance and the ‘competition state’, Journal of Education Policy, 24:1,
83-99
Ball, S; Junemann, C. (2011) Education Policy and Philanthropy—The Changing Landscape
of English Educational Governance, International Journal of Public Administration, 34:10,
646-661
Billett, S (2010) Lifelong learning and self: work, subjectivity and learning, Studies in
Continuing Education, 32:1, 1-16.
Burton, L. (Ed.), (1992) Developing resourceful humans: Adult education within the economic
context. London: Routledge.
Centeno, V. (2011) Lifelong learning: A policy concept with a long past but a short
history. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30:133-150.
Davies, B and Bansel, P (2007). ‘ Neoliberalism and Education’. International Jounral of
Qualitative Studies in Education 20 (3): 247-259.
DfES (2005) 14-19 education and skills. London DfES
DfES (2006). Further education: Raising Skills, Improving life chances, Cm 6768. London:
The stationary Office.
Ecclestone, K (1999). Care or Control?: Defining Learners' Needs for Lifelong Learning,
British Journal of Educational Studies, 47:4, 332-347.
Edwards, R (2002) Mobilizing lifelong learning: governmentality in educational practices,
Journal of Education Policy, 17:3, 353-365.
European Union. (2000) A memorandum on lifelong learning Brussels, EU.
Faure, E. (1972). Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow. UNESCO.
Field, J (2001) Lifelong Education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20, 1-2, 3-15.
15. 15
Francis, B (2015) Impacting policy discourse? An analysis of discourses and rhetorical devices
deployed in the case of the Academies Commission, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics
of Education, 36:3, 437-451
Gorard, S. (2005) Academies as the ‘future of schooling’: is this an evidence‐based policy?,
Journal of Education Policy, 20:3, 369-377,
Gorard, S (2009) What are Academies the answer to?, Journal of Education Policy, 24:1, 101-
113
Gorard, S(2014) The link between Academies in England, pupil outcomes and local patterns
of socio-economic segregation between schools, Research Papers in Education, 29:3, 268-284.
Griffin, C (2006) Research and policy in lifelong learning, International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 25:6, 561-574.
Green, A. (2002) The many faces of lifelong learning: recent education policy trends in Europe,
Journal of Education Policy, 17:6, 611-626.
Gunter, H (2015) The politics of education policy in England, International Journal of Inclus ive
Education, 19:11, 1206-1212.
Gunter, H; McGinity, R (2014) The politics of the Academies Programme: natality and
pluralism in education policy-making, Research Papers in Education, 29:3, 300-314
Hake, B. (1999a) Lifelong Learning Policies in the European Union: developments and issues,
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 29:1, 53-69.
Hake, B. (1999b) Lifelong learning in late modernity: The challenges to society, organisations
and individuals. Adult Education Quarterly, 49, 2, 79-90.
Hatcher, R. (2008) Academies and diplomas: two strategies for shaping the future workforce,
Oxford Review of Education, 34:6, 665-676
Hatcher, R; Jones, K (2006) Researching resistence: campaigns against academies in England,
British Journal of Educational Studies, 54:3, 329-351.
Hodgson, A; Spours, K (2012) Three versions of ‘localism’: implications for upper secondary
education and lifelong learning in the UK, Journal of Education Policy, 27:2, 193-210
Hursh, D (2007) Assessing No Child Left Behind and the Rise of Neo Liberal Education
Policies. American Educational Research Journal 44(3): 493-518.
16. 16
Jakobi, A. (2009) Global education policy in the making: international organisations and
lifelong learning, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7:4, 473-487,
Jakobi, A; Rusconi, A. (2009) Lifelong learning in the Bologna process: European
developments in higher education, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education, 39:1, 51-65,
Jarvis, P. (2006) Beyond the learning society: Globalisation and the moral imperative for
reflective social change. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25:201-211.
Lambeir, B (2005) Education as Liberation: The politics and techniques of lifelong learning,
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37:3, 349-355.
Lauder, H and Brown, P (2009). Economic globalization, skill formation and the consequences
for higher education. In The routledge international handbook for the sociology of education.
London: Routledge.
Lauglo, J. (1995) Forms of decentralisation and the implications for education, Comparative
Education, 31 (1).
Leitch, S (2006) Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills, Final Report.
London: Stationary Office.
OECD (1996) Lifelong learning for all. Paris, OECD.
OECD (2005) Promoting adult learning. Paris, OECD.
Race, R (2012) The state and education policy. The Academies programme, British
Educational Research Journal, 38:3, 533-535,
Ranson, S (2012) The state and education policy: the academies programme, Journal of
Education Policy, 27:5, 694-696.
Rinne, R; Järvinen, T; Tikkanen, J; Aro, M. (2015): Changes in education policies and the
status of schools in Europe: the views of school principals from eight European countries,
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education.
Rubenson, K (2006) The Nordic model of Lifelong Learning, Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education, 36:3, 327-341.
17. 17
Schuetze, H (2006) International concepts and agendas of Lifelong Learning, Compare: A
Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36:3, 289-306.
Strain, M (1998) Towards an Economy of Lifelong Learning: Reconceptualising Relations
Between Learning and Life, British Journal of Educational Studies, 46:3, 264-277.
Tight, M. (1999) Lifelong Learning: Opportunity or Compulsion? British Journal of
Educational Studies. Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 251-263.
Tuschling, A; Engemann, C.(2006) From Education to Lifelong Learning: The emerging
regime of learning in the European Union, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38:4, 451-469,
West, A. (2014) Academies in England and independent schools (fristående skolor) in Sweden:
policy, privatisation, access and segregation, Research Papers in Education, 29:3, 330-350,
West, A; Bailey, E (2013) The Development of the Academies Programme: ‘Privatising’
School-Based Education in England 1986–2013, British Journal of Educational Studies, 61:2,
137-159
Wolf, A (1995). Competence based assessment, ed. Harry Torrance. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Young, M. 2009. NVQs in the UK: Their origins and legacy. In Learning from the early
starters. Employment sector working paper no.45: 5-29. Ed. Stephanie Allais. Geneva: ILO.
