The “socio (hyphen) cultural accepted norm” for learning was first challenged by Scribner and Cole in 1973 according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-formal_education). They said, “Most things in life are better learnt through informal processes, citing language learning as an example.” They encouraged us to look at what happens in indigenous communities for more proof.
There is no such thing as an exciting term without an agenda. What’s in it for who(m)? For starters, online distance learning programs could issue PhDs in “life learning” for those who like to travel to places like India. There’s got to be a market for that.
If this is the case, the desire for certification takes us back to formal education and the reason most people endure insufferable years in a classroom.
How has the term been mined in development work? There’s not much sense in awarding degrees for rice farming. Instead, organizations can cull money for “non formal education” projects in literacy for adult learners. I’ve heard first hand that this is much harder to accomplish than it sounds, but it looks wonderful on paper.
The convenience of this funding is that it is done outside the formal schools, a place that is wrapped in red tape and almost impossible to change. However, at the end of the day, we need to consider that many adults are illiterate not because they didn’t go to school, but because they went to school.
So it all depends on how you define the term and why you even bother. If for example, we define non formal education as an activity that people do because they want to learn and enjoy doing so, regardless of the degree they get, it means non formal education should be happening in formal education.
If you find this confusing, come to Laos. It’s not difficult to understand.
