This paper provides a critical analysis of the EU's Memorandum on lifelong learning in light of the evolution of the concepts of lifelong education and lifelong learning from the late sixties onward. It also analyses this document in light of the forces of globalisation that impinge on educational policymaking in Europe as well as the all-pervasive neo-liberal ideology. The paper moves from theory to practice to provide critical considerations concerning certain 'on the ground' projects being presented as 'best practice' in EU documents. It brings out the neo-liberal tenets that underlie much of the thinking and rationale for these projects, and indicates, in the process, how much of the old UNESCO discourse of lifelong education has been distorted to accommodate capitalism's contemporary needs. An alternative conception of lifelong learning is called for.

This chapter explores the potential of museums as sites for critical “public pedagogy.” It foregrounds the role of adult educators as co‐interrogators with adult learners of what is generally perceived as politically innocent and neutral knowledge.

No abstract

We feel that these questions are central to any critique that is inspired by a commitment to school knowledges which build upon the "cultural resources" that schooling communities already possess. This entails "conversations between cultures" through which different cultural voices are engaged with critically (Quicke, 1999, p. 91). It also entails reaching out for knowledges from traditionally subordinated groups and therefore giving " voice to unrealized possibilities" (Giroux and Simon, 1989, p. 25). Slattery (1995) considers this urgent:If the curriculum ignores sedimented preceptors, identity formation, and social construction and suppresses individual visions and dreams in the content and context of education, and if individuals are constantly required to conform to someone else"s worldview, then either dreams will be repressed, hope will be suppressed, people will incorporate the other"s visions of themselves into their own self-understanding, and/or they will lash out in anger against those systems that exclude their voice (p. 135) A National curriculum in MaltaThe questions we posed, regarding the cultural arbitrary reflected in curricula, feature prominently in our evaluation of the National Curriculum document introduced in December 1999 and which replaced the old curriculum document brought into being as a result of the Education Act of 1988. The above concerns were at the heart of our critique of the old curriculum document (Borg et al., 1995).Our blend of social analyses focused, for the most part, on issues concerning difference and identity. It also focused on the process of development of the old curriculum document itself, examining the extent to which it was democratic. Our scathing criticism of this document was made on the grounds that the process was not participatory and entailed a top-to-bottom approach, which reflected the system of centralization that has, for years, been a characteristic of the Maltese educational system. These criticisms echoed other reactions to the 1989 NMC document (see Borg, 1991; Wain, 1991).

In this article, the authors define some of the most evident features of globalisation from below, which they distinguish from hegemonic globalisation, and draw out its implications for adult education. They draw out the implications for European adult education that emerge from the different features of these two types of globalisations. They then refer to the history of and contemporary provision in adult education in southern Europe and argue that there are elements there that can serve the purpose of a revitalised counter-hegemonic adult education approach. They then explore whether this thinking makes its presence felt in two major European documents, the EU Memorandum on Lifelong Learning and a recent report on adult education,