{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015231788079470199, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026490066225165563, 'mean_word_length': 5.457264957264957, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lifelong learning strategies and practice in Latvia and Thailand

The importance of lifelong learning has been recognized for many years and consequently many countries, disregarding their geographical location, differences in education systems and traditions, have adopted their lifelong learning policies to develop the lifelong learning system. The goal of the present comparative research is to study the comprehension of the term lifelong learning in one European country (Latvia) and one Asian country (Thailand), analyse the policies introduced, and single out priorities and the main challenges in the implementation of lifelong learning policies in each country. The paper proposes some examples of best practice in implementation of lifelong learning in Thailand and Latvia. The best practices of implementation of lifelong learning policies and strategies in each local area of the country, particularly in rural areas, are provided as a best practice of Thailand. One of the challenges that Latvia is facing at the moment in lifelong learning is how to decrease the level of early school leavers (aged 18–24). The best practice of Latvia provides an example of a possible solution for this challenge. The comparative research discovers that although the two countries have different history, traditions and they are located in geographically different areas, there are similarities in their lifelong learning policy and they can learn from each other how to best implement lifelong learning policy.