These ideas were developed in two influential books which, although they concentrated on poor countries, came to be seen as having world wide relevance. It was from this point of departure that planners and economists in the World Bank began to make a distinction between informal, non-formal and formal education. If we also accept that educational policy making tends to follow rather than lead other social trends, then it followed that change would have to come not merely from within formal schooling, but from the wider society and from other sectors within it. The conclusion was that formal educational systems had adapted too slowly to the socio-economic changes around them and that they were held back not only by their own conservatism, but also by the inertia of societies themselves. Above all, many countries found they were quite unable, or at least unwilling, to pay the ever rising costs of unlimited linear expansion. There was growing concern about: unsuitable curricula a realization that educational growth and economic growth were not necessarily in step, and that jobs did not emerge directly as a result of educational inputs. At a 1967 international conference in Williamsburg USA, ideas were set out for what was to become a widely read analysis of the growing ‘world educational crisis’ (Coombs 1968). The main challenge to conventional wisdom came from educational planners. This belief seems naive today, but it was the accepted wisdom of the time. It was also assumed that there was a direct relationship between educational and economic expansion: between the growth in numbers of educated people and the number of jobs likely to become available. In the 1950s and early 1960s, it was assumed by many commentators, not least by educators themselves, that linear expansion of formal schooling was both desirable and inevitable. The political and social upheavals during and following the end of the second world war, were accompanied by the belief that the rapid expansion of education was a necessary catalyst for social reconstruction and development, both in industrialized countries, and in the growing number of newly independent states. For twenty years after 1945, almost all educational systems had grown at a faster rate than ever before, with a doubling of school enrolments in many countries (Coombs 1985: 3). This typology of educational programmes became current in the early 1970s. unemployed, working class, women seeking employment). Although the terminology was popularized in relation to poor countries, it has also been applied to industrialized countries, particularly in the context of community education and work with groups under represented in mainstream adult education provision (e.g. Here we will examine the use of the terms informal, non-formal and formal education as this has developed since the late 1960s. basic education and the Jomtien Conference.the characteristics of non-formal education.formal education, non-formal education and development.lifelong learning and the Coombs definitions.Debates around ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches are also explored. Particular attention is paid to the characteristics of non-formal education in relation to participation, purposes and methods. The notions are considered in relation to the concern to foster economic development. However, the characteristics of school education for the identification of more absolute than the characteristics of education outside of school.In this piece Paul Fordham explores the emergence of the influential typology of education programmes as informal, non-formal and formal. School education programs have strict uniformity level, while education programs outside of school more berfariasi and spacious. On the other hand, special education schools have programs that are not always fixed and can not always tiered although sequentially, and in penyelengaran program then needs to learn and more attention to local conditions. The most common way is by comparing the characteristic details of the characteristics of school education outside of school education Sudjana (2001).Īs an illustration, on one hand, education schools have programs that sequentially for each type and level of education and can be applied uniformly in all places that have the same condition. After discussing some sense of education on the question that arises then what is the difference between the school and the education of educators outside the school. Based on the description above, it is clear that education outside the school and school education have the same general characteristics, namely the deliberate, organized, systemic, and both are sub-systems of the nation's education system.