Our research provides a cross-country overview of policies and actions in support of lifelong learning (LLL) in the partner countries of the European Training Foundation (ETF) in South-East Europe, Central Asia, the Eastern Partnership region, South and East Mediterranean and Turkey.

The analysis explores the extent to which the creation of opportunities for LLL is a priority in the reform agenda of the partner countries in the field of education and training (VET in particular), and the ways in which LLL is influencing the formation of that agenda. We also document and reflect on the efforts of authorities and stakeholders in implementing their reform plans in the wake of changing circumstances before and during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Where possible and appropriate, we identify policy gaps and lessons to be learned.

Our findings show that at present, the creation and promotion of opportunities for LLL is  gaining in importance, but it is still an underdeveloped policy area: the narratives of countries are often dominated by referrals to decades-old legacy systems of adult education, and to preservation instead of change. Where they refer to LLL in a more forward-looking manner, they do so by declaring LLL as the broader goal of policy reforms, mostly without a clear association with policy implementation actions.

Although ETF partner countries do not yet operationalise lifelong learning as a stand-alone area of planning and action, they do devote time and resources to other areas which are essential as the elements of building blocks of a lifelong learning system, such as recognition of prior learning or  individualised support for learners.

The selection of these elements is still quite limited, and they are not necessarily well-connected and coordinated yet - part of a broader pattern of fragmentation of lifelong learning as a policy domain, which may prevent the planning and coordination of actions and the viable division of responsibilities. Addressing this fragmentation could be an important step towards acknowledging lifelong learning as a strategic yet practical policy solution, and not only as one aspirational goal among many others.

The “building blocks” approach to LLL which transpired in the course of the analysis, has some merits. For those who wish to promote and support lifelong learning as a policy priority, each of these elements of lifelong learning opens a possibility for engagement and action. Seeing lifelong learning as a selection of meaningful, interconnected policy areas can facilitate a well-informed, step-by-step approach to designing and supporting reforms in this domain (“one building block at a time”). The selection could connect to areas in which countries are already working and/or engaging in system change instead of “importing” or imposing lifelong learning as one more policy commitment.

This last point is noteworthy as it can help address some of the gaps (i.e. disconnect between national and international priorities in this respect) in the cooperation of countries with international partners, which our analysis identified as well. The building blocks approach could also inform partner countries how and what to focus on in the current situation of economic uncertainty and (post)-pandemic efforts, in which most national governments are forced to prioritise and agree to trade-offs.

Our research is based on an inductive thematic analysis of a total of 26 national Torino Process reports (a biannual, cross-country review of VET policies), 22 bilateral interviews with partner country representatives (national authorities and civil society representatives), and a focus group with international partners. These three sources were compiled into a repository covering the immediate pre-pandemic period (2018-2020), the phase of initial lockdown and provider closures in 2020, and the time of emerging reopening and post-pandemic debate in 2020-2021. The units of analysis were segments deemed to be of relevance because they referred – directly or indirectly – to system change in the area of VET which was a) intentional (purposeful) and b) ‘live’ at the moment of reporting, that is under implementation or planned for implementation. The coding system developed on that basis returned 5 000 segments of relevant evidence across 25 countries, which allowed for a reconstruction of the broad context of commitments to system change across countries, and for a discussion of the state of affairs and progress with LLL against the backdrop of three broader questions: 1) What are the system change priorities of countries participating in the Torino Process? 2) Why are countries engaging in system change along the lines of these priorities? 3) How are they implementing these reform priorities and what progress are they making? At the next state we disaggregated these broad questions into more specific inquires which covered the relationship between reform priorities, including lifelong learning, e.g. whether some reforms tend to be conceived and implemented together with others; which of them lead to challenges and which to success; whether there is an association between reform targets and the likelihood of system-wide implementation; and also what role the international partners play in promoting system change. We corroborated the initial round of findings and update them in the light of more recent developments, as captured in the verbatim transcripts from the interviews and the focus group discussion. These two sources contained much fuller, richer descriptions of the issues we had identified, and how they may have evolved since the completion of the Torino Process reporting, which for most countries covered the period 2018-2019. The interviews provided crucial updates about the influence of the COVID 19 pandemic, while the focus groups’ discussion supplied an additional layer of insight into the priorities of the donor and international expert community.

Our findings show that at present, the creation and promotion of opportunities for LLL is gaining in importance, but also that it is still an underdeveloped policy area: the narratives of countries are often dominated by referrals to decades-old legacy systems of adult education and to preservation instead of change. Where they refer to LLL in a more forward-looking manner, they do so by declaring LLL as the broader goal of policy reforms, without a clear association with policy implementation actions. Although the countries in our sample do not yet operationalize LLL as a stand-alone area of planning and action, they do devote time and resources to other areas which are essential as the elements of building blocks of a lifelong learning system, such as recognition of prior learning or individualised support for learners. The “building blocks” approach to LLL has merits. Each of these blocks opens a possibility for engagement and action between partners and stakeholders. Seeing LLL as a selection of meaningful, interconnected policy areas can facilitate an informed, step-by-step approach to LLL reforms (“a block at a time”). The selection could connect to areas in which countries are already working on instead of “importing” or imposing LLL as one more policy commitment. There are challenges with this approach as well. The selection of elements in focus of reform is still quite limited and they are not necessarily well-connected and coordinated yet. Also, the interpretations of what these elements are tend to differ between countries and the donor community. This fist into a broader pattern of fragmentation of LLL as a policy domain, which may prevent the planning and coordination of actions and the division of responsibilities. Addressing this fragmentation could be an important step towards promoting LLL as a practical and not only strategic policy solution.

ETF, 2018a. Guide to policy analysis, Turin: European Training Foundation. ETF, 2018b. Reforms in vocational education and training in ETF partner countries: A cross-country digest of reform implementation and risks, Turin: European Training Foundation. ETF, 2019. Policies for human capital development: South Eastern Europe and Turkey, Turin: European Training Foundation. ETF, 2020. Key indicators on education, skills and employment, Turin: European Training Foundation. ETF, 2021a. Mapping COVID19, Turin: European Training Foundation. ETF, 2021a. Policies for human capital development: Eastern Partnership, Turin: European Training Foundation . ETF, 2021b. Human capital development in SEMED: an imperative for vocational education and training, Turin: European Training Foundation. ETF, 2021b. Skills for green and inclusive societies. [Online] Available at: https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-11/skills_for_green_and_inclusive_societies_conference_conclusions.pdf ETF, 2021. Key indicators on education, skills and employment, Turin: European Training Foundation. ILO, 2021. World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2021, Geneva: International Labour Organisation. London, M., 2011. Lifelong learning: Introduction. In: The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-16. OECD, 2021. Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Vocational Education and Training, Paris: OECD Publishing . UNESCO, 2020. Embracing a culture of lifelong learning, Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. UNICEF, 2020. Averting a lost COVID generation, New York: UNICEF. Wilson, S. B. & Dobson, M. S., 2008. Goal Setting: How to Create an Action Plan and Achieve Your Goals. New York: AMACOM American Management Association. World Bank, 2020. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Education Financing. [Online] Available at: https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/734541589314089887/Covid-and-Ed-Finance-final.pdf World Bank, 2021. World Development Indicators. Washington DC: The World Bank.