Lifelong Learning in the United States and Japan
Lifelong learning is a concept that emerged in the 1960s after intellectual radical student movements demanded new modes of education that encourage pluralism, diversity, and individual freedom (Young & Rosenberg, 2006). According to the Commission of the European Community, the concept embodies formal learning, informal learning, and non-formal learning. Formal learning is carried out in recognized educational and training settings and results in the acquisition of legally recognized academic qualifications. Nonformal learning takes place where one works or within the activities of civil societies or organizations and one does not get legally recognized qualifications. Informal learning occurs as a consequence of daily life, is not always intentional, and is not recognized legally (Principi & Lamura, 2009). This paper will compare lifelong learning in the United States (US) and Japan in terms of policies, programs, purpose, target population, and funding.
On the issue of educational policy, the US does not have a comprehensive, concrete, and nationally recognized policy on lifelong learning (Bosworth, 2007). The first contemporary policy on lifelong learning in the US was passed by the US Congress in 1971 and was called the ‘Lifelong Learning Act’. This act did not, however, appropriate any funding for implementation of the act as it was proposed as a solution to a cohort of “ill-defined” problems (Young & Rosenberg, 2006). Discussion amongst American educational and political leaders on the issue of lifelong learning has also been more pragmatic than visionary. Instead of proposing systems, this discussion has tended to address certain groups of educational needs for instance the 1976 Mondlane Lifelong Learning Act incorporated within its scope a list of almost twenty areas that ranged from basic education for adults to education of elderly persons and the retired. Consequently, this act proved too diffuse to be addressed by public policy (Bosworth, 2007).
Unlike the US, Japan has made concerted efforts to promote lifelong learning and considers adult education to be a part of lifelong learning. The first contemporary policy on adult education in the country, “the Act for Adult Education”, was passed in 1949. The act gave local authorities partial government subsidies for the achievement of its provisions. It also established centers for adult education in various communities throughout the country. The concept of lifelong learning was recognized and embodied into adult education in the country in the 1970s. In 1971, the Japan government published a report that emphasized on the importance of adult education as well as lifelong education in a dynamic society. Lifelong education was later re-conceptualized as lifelong learning. Enactment of the Law on the Development and Promotion of Lifelong Learning in 1990 marked the beginning of formal efforts to implement lifelong learning in the country. The law established a Lifelong Learning Policy Bureau that is tasked with coordinating and promoting lifelong learning policies in the country. Advisory committees on lifelong learning have also been put up in all prefectures (Young & Rosenberg, 2006). More recently in 2008, Japan amended its basic education act to incorporate the concept of lifelong learning and placed emphasis on improvement of lifelong learning capacities in communities (Yang & Yorozu, 2015). The differences in approach to educational policy between Japan and the US can be partially attributed to cultural variations between the two countries. The Japanese society, on one hand, tends to recognize, give importance to, and to respond to concerns related to groups over those related to individuals. The American society, on the other hand, places emphasis on individuality. These variations in cultural values between the two societies are reflected in the nature of approaches to and level of policy formation in both countries. The US has adopted a decentralized approach, allowing every state to come up with its own adult education policies as well as programs. Japan has employed a centralized approach to lifelong learning policy development. In addition, it has enacted more inclusive policies which offer standardized lifelong learning opportunities to its entire population (Young & Rosenberg, 2006).
Regarding the issue of purpose, adult education in America at any time is aimed at meeting the specific needs of the American society at that particular time. The focus of education in America has thus been influenced by cultural preferences and historical events. What is offered, what an individual wants to learn, and learning modalities for adult education in America is largely determined by the nature of the society at the particular time (Young & Rosenberg, 2006). In Japan, the purpose of the Ministry of Education in promoting lifelong learning is to create a society, in which individuals can learn at any life stage, select and take part in learning opportunities freely, and have the outcome of their learning evaluated appropriately. Scholars posit that lifelong learning in Japan will help adjust to community change, enhance community building, and adopt and cope with an aging population. Another purpose for the promotion of lifelong learning in Japan is to reduce the overemphasis previously placed on academic certificates (Principi, & Lamura, 2009).
As previously stated, the US has not put in place a comprehensive national strategy for lifelong learning. Over the preceding several decades, however, a number of programs have been put up meet the needs of a sub-set of adults who need education and training. These programs target adults who have no post-secondary education, unemployed adults with a college education, employees in organizations, ethnic minorities, immigrants, and the elderly. The target population for lifelong learning in Japan similarly includes adults with no post-secondary education, employees of organizations with college or university education, older individuals, and the retired. On the characteristics of the people who engage in lifelong learning in the US, surveys show that younger people are more likely to pursue adult education although the older population is catching up. Participants in Japan are also young or middle-aged but a greater proportion of the elderly participate in lifelong learning. Notably, there is greater participation of women and people residing in rural areas in lifelong learning in Japan than in the US (Okumoto, 2008).
The Japan Ministry of Education has expanded the diversity of available opportunities for lifelong learning by promoting participation in formal education, non-formal education, social education, cultural education as well as sporting activities. To enhance access of adult learners to formal higher education, the Japan government has developed a system for special selection of adult applicants, increased offerings of evening courses, and special registration. The Japanese government has also established adult education centers in all regions of the country in line with its community building agenda (Young & Rosenberg, 2006). The US has established a number of programs that focus on specific subsets of adults requiring education and training. These programs are modest in scope and scale, fragmented in design, and have had limited impact. Programs for formal adult education offer courses such as English as a second language, apprenticeship programs, post-secondary credential programs, adult basic education completion courses, high school completion courses, and work-related programs. English as a second language courses, high school completion, and basic education completion courses are offered by public school, community colleges, and community/volunteer organizations. Programs connected to employment are offered as apprenticeship programs, credential programs, and work-related courses. Corporations and community colleges have also partnered to offer work-related courses. Public colleges and universities have in addition created programs to cater for needs of adult learners such as part-time and distance learning programs (Bosworth, 2007).
On funding, government funding for lifelong learning in the US has been limited and remained stagnant for many years. Adult learners are largely expected to meet the costs for furthering their formal education in educational settings. Governmental sources of funding for adult learners have included federal student loans and grants, tax credits, and federal allocations for adult literacy programs mandated by the Federal and Family Literacy Act (Bossworth, 2007). The healthcare sector will, however, enjoy increased funding for lifelong learning following enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The act allocates money for scholarships and funding for higher education for health professionals with the aim of promoting seamless continuous learning for this group. Unlike the US government, the government of Japan provides considerable funding for lifelong learning 26 Billion yen. This funding comes from the national government (3%), prefectural governments (17%), and municipalities (80%). This funding is for formal adult education, social education, and sports related activities. Governmental ministries that provide funding for adult education include the Ministry of Labor for Workers, Corporate Projects for Workers, and Health and Welfare for the elderly (Shiraishi, 1998).
Japan’s educational policies on lifelong learning are more comprehensive and embody aspects such as social and cultural education. The US needs to develop a comprehensive national policy on lifelong learning and to allocate more funding for lifelong learning. Japan has also placed special emphasis on lifelong learning for the elderly. These efforts have helped to maintain the status of elderly adults by giving them opportunities to develop new salient skills, roles, and resources. Older adults are, consequently, able to expand their resource base and play more active roles in social exchange situations. The population of the elderly in the US is expected to increase as majority of members of the Baby Boomer generation go into retirement (Young & Rosenberg, 2006). Consequently, the policymakers in the US should endeavor to enact policies that create learning opportunities for this population group. Such policies will raise awareness on the need to promote further educational development amongst the elderly and offer older adults more opportunities for accessing education that can help them develop new skills and resources (Young & Rosenberg, 2006). Other recommendations for more effective policy making on adult learning applicable to both countries include establishment of stronger incentives such as tax reliefs for employers and working adults to invest in lifelong learning. National efforts for educating working adults and employers about the importance of lifelong learning should also be stepped up (Bosworth, 2007).
In summary, this paper has compared and contrasted lifelong learning in the US and Japan in terms of policy, purpose, programs, target participants, and funding. It has found that Japan has more comprehensive policies on adult learning. The purpose of lifelong learning is also better defined in the country as compared to the US. Programs for adult learning in both countries are mostly similar and incorporate both formal and informal courses. Japan has, however, more programs in rural areas than the US. Target participants for adult learning are similar in both countries and include adults who did not complete their compulsory education, those who want to further their education, and the elderly. The government of Japan provides more funding for lifelong learning than the US government. Therefore, Japan’s lifelong learning programs and policies are better than those of the US. The US should develop a more concrete national policy and strategy for lifelong learning. Both countries can additionally provide stronger incentives for both working adults and employers to invest in lifelong learning.
References
Bosworth, B. (2007). Lifelong learning: New Strategies for the education of working adults. Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2007/12/pdf/nes_lifelong_lear ning.pdf
Okumoto, K. (2008). Lifelong learning in England and Japan: Three translations. Compare, 38(2), 173-188.
Principi, A. & Lamura, G. (2009). Education for older people in Italy. Educational Gerontology, 35, 246-259.
Shiraishi, Y. (1998). Alternative approaches to financing lifelong learning: Country Report. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/japan/1916997.pdf.
Yang, J. & Yorozu, R. (2015). Building a learning society in Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.
Young, K. & Rosenberg, E. (2006). Lifelong learning in the United States and Japan. The Lifelong Learning Institute Review, 1(1), 69-85.
