Overview
The Senate Committee's 1991 report Come in Cinderella has been
recognised generally as a watershed in the development of Adult and Community
Education (ACE) in Australia. In that report, the Committee identified
ACE as a 'fourth sector' of education and training, structurally and operationally
distinct from the schools, universities and VET sectors, yet linked with
them via learning pathways. Following Come in Cinderella, ACE received
much greater attention from policy makers, researchers and education and
training bureaucracies. But while the report placed ACE firmly on the
political agenda, Commonwealth funding support - which was linked predominantly
to the delivery of accredited training - reached only a limited number
of ACE providers and users.
The official recognition by the Commonwealth of the ACE sector as distinctive
and valuable was an important beginning, and the financial and other benefits
which have flowed to some ACE providers as a result cannot be denied.
However, these benefits have brought with them more formal reporting and
accountability requirements, greater demands for quality assurance, and
often more direction concerning curriculum. The operation of the open
training market, and the emphasis on competitive tendering for government
funds has significantly affected the ways in which ACE providers do business.
The ACE sector is much more than the delivery of accredited training.
It pursues a commitment to lifelong learning and the creation of a learning
society through a range of educational programs. Six years on from Cinderella,
there is still much to be done to ensure that notions of lifelong learning
are thoroughly integrated into all aspects of education and training policy,
and to secure adequate recognition and funding for the full range
of education and training provided through ACE.
Of the many policy and structural changes which have impacted upon the
ACE sector, the establishment of the National Vocational Education and
Training (VET) System, funded by ANTA, has clearly had the most direct
effect. The emphasis upon skills development within a national framework
of standards and accreditation, accompanied by significant increases in
VET funding, has placed more dollars in the hands of ACE providers, and
has drawn them into areas of activity beyond the traditional ACE realm.
The ACE client group, while retaining much of its traditional profile,
has been modified by a more diverse group of people being introduced to
post-school education and training through the ACE sector. Labour market
and literacy programs have been significant in this regard.
On the other hand, it is also clear that governments' encouragement of
ACE to participate in national VET initiatives has affected the way in
which ACE providers have been able to deliver the general adult education
programs which still constitute the bulk of the sector's activity. General
adult education has been excluded from - and indeed deliberately defined
out of - the funding arrangements which underpin the national VET system,
with the result that many ACE providers see a withering of their general
educational role.
Adult and community education continues to be a vital part of the learning
occurring throughout Australia. It remains as difficult as it ever has
been to capture the meaning of ACE within a simple, or even moderately
complex, definition. In one important but unfortunate respect, much of
what ACE does (i.e. general adult education) has been defined negatively
as the education and training which falls outside the ANTA funding guidelines
- and hence outside the State Training Profiles and the formal statistical
measures of activity. This is despite the rhetoric of the National VET
Strategy, which affirms 'lifelong learning' and acknowledges the contribution
of general adult education and the ACE sector in providing pathways of
access to the VET system by disadvantaged groups. All of this is bound
up with the debate concerning the vocational / non-vocational divide,
and the difficulties associated with creating a mechanism for applying
government funds equitably and efficiently in a way which promotes the
achievement of national education and training outcomes. Indeed, the Committee
believes that a better specification of such outcomes would assist ACE
providers in proving their capacity to deliver against those outcomes.
The arguments surrounding the distinction between vocational and non-vocational
programs continue to dog the ACE policy discussion. There are basically
two reasons for this. Firstly, the vocational / non-vocational distinction
determines which way the public money falls, with the result that there
are clearly discernible 'haves' and 'have nots' among groups of providers
who are all making valuable contributions to the education and training
needs of Australians. Secondly, there are genuine educational, philosophical
and policy disagreements about the ways in which learning of all types
contributes to skill formation and vocational readiness. It is important
that policy and funding distinctions pay due regard to these important
considerations.
The patterns and level of participation in ACE since 1991 have changed
somewhat, but it still remains difficult to get a clear picture of these
changes. Improvements in data collection arising from the national AVETMISS
initiative have been helpful, but the focus of that initiative on participation
in vocational training continues to exclude much of the ACE activity.
Fortunately, some excellent work has been done in some States on assessing
people's participation in ACE. On a fair reading of the evidence available,
the Committee is of the view that participation in ACE has risen since
1991, from around 800,000 participants to around one million.
The range of provision of Adult and Community Education continues to
broaden as community and public providers, private training companies,
employer and employee associations, libraries, galleries and museums all
seek to improve the skills, knowledge and understanding of their clients.
The increasing focus on local needs and responsiveness to those needs
by local providers should ensure that the qualities which characterise
ACE are valued and supported. But ACE is not only about responding to
community needs, it is also about creating community, providing leadership,
strengthening networks, and keeping policymakers informed about changing
dynamics within society.
A major concern of the Committee is the extent of non-participation in
education and training by significant groups of adults, namely those who
constitute the target equity groups - those with low socio-economic status
and poor educational backgrounds, people whose first language is other
than English, people with disabilities, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders. It is crucial that a major research effort be applied to develop
an understanding of why our education and training systems continue to
fail to meet the needs of these groups. This effort should follow action
research principles. It must seek to engage non-participating groups in
adult education activities in order both to facilitate their participation,
and to identify the range of barriers and resistances which hinder their
participation. In the Committee's view, ACE providers are ideally placed
to serve the education and training needs of those who are most disadvantaged
in our community.
Another research issue which the Committee regards as vital to the creation
of a learning society lies with the development of a body of adult education
theory firmly rooted in local practice. Such research would inform the
professional development of adult educators, the design of curriculum
and the future development and structuring of ACE provision.
The most significant demographic factor bearing upon ACE's role in the
community is the ageing of our population. By 2010 the proportion of people
over the age of 65 years will have changed dramatically. Increased longevity
means that many retired people can expect to enjoy, on average, about
twenty more years of life. But their wellbeing during those years, and
in particular the extent to which they will avoid dependency, will be
determined by a few key factors. Not least among these are the opportunities
and encouragement for older people to remain mentally alert and socially
engaged. It is clear that retired people wish to - and in increasingly
will be required to - manage their health, their finances and their lifestyle
on their own account. Older people want to control their own lives, preferably
in their own homes or in a community setting of their choice, and they
want services which will support them in maintaining a vigorous, independent
and stimulating old age.
Thus far, government has devoted minimal expenditure to older people
outside the traditional services of health and welfare. This will have
to change dramatically over the next decade in response to the need and
demand for other sorts of services - in particular education. The Committee
has noted an extraordinary increase in the demand from older people to
pursue an active retirement, to optimise their quality of life, to avoid
dependency on others and to continue to contribute to the community as
active senior citizens. For many senior citizens, Adult and Community
Education is proving an ideal environment in which these aspirations can
be realised.
Apart from the nation's obligations to respond to the legitimate needs
of its citizens, financial considerations also require that governments
look closely at how they allocate funds across the range of services required.
The cost to the public purse of older people's dependency, whether in
aged care facilities, hospitals or services delivered to the home, will
continue to escalate. Every effort should be made by governments to invest
in strategies which will alleviate dependency and postpone the need for
entry to nursing homes. Research is demonstrating the considerable savings
which are available through encouraging older people's participation in
Adult and Community Education. Direct health benefits are apparent - it
appears, for example, that sustained mental stimulation delays the onset
of dementia and similar conditions - and the personal and social benefits
of old people retaining active connections with the community are almost
incalculable.
The major technological changes impacting on education and training since
Come in Cinderella are:
- the development of broadband communication services (usually delivered
by high capacity optical fibres) with associated advances in interactive
multi-media;
- significant improvements in the processing power of personal computers;
and perhaps most significant of all
- the enormous expansion of the Internet.
As with all the other developments, ACE providers have experienced both
the benefits and the down sides of advances in technology. While some
providers have been able to exploit the Internet to improve the access
of both local and remote communities to education resources, many providers
are simply unable to afford the necessary hardware and software, and the
ongoing connectivity charges. As well, many of the people whom ACE serves
do not possess their own computers, and often lack the skills to utilise
the on-line services which may be available in libraries, information
kiosks and telecentres. Some remote areas still lack adequate telephone
services.
Computers for administrative functions are virtually an absolute requirement
in the present climate, especially as governments become more involved
in ACE through competitive tendering mechanisms and the collection of
statistics. Many community-based ACE providers, lacking such infrastructure,
find it difficult to compete in the open training market. Those who give
priority to computer purchases in order to participate are often compelled
to draw funds away from service delivery, risking a diminution in the
quality and range of programs offered and frustration from clients who
find that programs are curtailed. Government support for infrastructure
is vital if community-based ACE provision is to flourish.
Local ACE providers are an important part of a system of community development
and support whose role simply cannot be undertaken by larger, institutionalised
service providers. The Committee sees enormous potential for ACE providers,
who are spread throughout the urban, regional and remote parts of Australia,
to be the conduit to the public of all manner of information and public
education emanating from government agencies and departments. The larger
education and training institutions can also sub-contract their programs
to ACE providers for delivery to those groups who are not accessing the
formal system.
To this extent, ACE should remain an educational chameleon, modifying
the nature of its presence according to the environment in which it finds
itself. The subtlety and responsiveness which this implies cannot be achieved
through the relatively blunt instruments of competitive tendering, nor
through conformity to preordained notions of what kinds of learning are
appropriate for participation in a high skill, high technology workforce,
operating in a deregulated labour market serving a global economy. ACE's
commitment to a holistic view of learners and of learning must become
the hallmark of our national education and training system. Anything less
will fall short of the mark.
ACE providers are proud of their independence and the fact that they
are extremely efficient in their use of meagre public funds. The vast
majority of their students pay their own way. Such qualities must be acknowledged
by governments, and governments should ensure that ACE providers are supported
by way of policy, funding and technical infrastructure which will enable
them to keep on delivering their efficient, locally responsive programs
to Australia's learners. In particular, there is also a strong case for
governments to subsidise, in a targeted way, ACE activity which gives
disadvantaged groups the skills and confidence to enter into the national
education and training system. ACE 'works', and because it works so well
for so many people, and especially those for whom other sectors of education
have not worked so well, we must not only support and nurture ACE, we
must treasure it.
The policy and funding climate which emerged during the early 1990's
has favoured the development of vocational education and training, but
may have threatened the viability of ACE as a broadly-based, accessible
learning domain. The Committee believes fervently that the ACE sector
should retain its distinctive and valuable role. The Committee considers
that the time is ripe to rethink the national policy framework under which
the ACE and VET sectors operate, and to orient that policy clearly towards
the development of what has been called a 'learning society'. This is
also important in order to overcome some of the glaring inconsistencies
which emerge when existing policies are translated into funding mechanisms.
The Committee has made the following proposals:
- Develop a National Adult Community and Vocational Education and
Training (NACVET) Policy based on a thorough-going commitment to
the provision of lifelong learning opportunities for all Australians.
It will integrate the essential features of the existing National ACE
Policy and National VET Policy. This will guide all of Australia's education
and training effort that falls outside schools and universities, the
two other major public sectors which contribute to that national effort.
- Establish a National Adult Community and Vocational Education and
Training Authority (NACVETA) to coordinate and monitor the implementation
of the National Adult Community and Vocational Education and Training
Policy. The new Authority will distribute Commonwealth funds in
ways which reflect its revised charter, and allocate these funds on
the basis of agreements negotiated with the States and Territories.
NACVETA's organisational culture should be informed by the principles
and values of lifelong learning. It should operate under a Board of
Directors drawn from a range of private sector, public and community
backgrounds .
- The Committee considers that any funding mechanism seeking to realise
a thorough-going commitment to lifelong learning must legitimise and
support not just one realm of adult education and training. The funds
allocated to the States and Territories will be disbursed to education
and training providers, whose eligibility for the receipt of Commonwealth
funds will be on the basis of their being registered with the State
or Territory. (States will be expected to observe 'maintenance of effort'
requirements.) It is suggested that registration be granted under three
categories:
Category A. Specific Industry Education and Training
Category B. Non-specific Industry Education and Training
Category C. General Education and Training
The proposed registration scheme is intended to facilitate access to
Commonwealth funds by providers across the spectrum of education and training
provision. Registration criteria will be centred around the quality of
the provider as assessed by the relevant professional, educational or
industry body. (For example, community based education providers seeking
Category C registration from a State Training Authority would have to
meet the relevant competency-based standards set for providers by the
AAACE as the national body.)
The proposed three Categories are not too far from those currently used
in the State Training Profile process. Each of the Categories shall be
funded at different levels, primarily according to capital and infrastructure
requirements, but also according to the recurrent costs of the programs
delivered, taking into account the obligations of providers to meet industry
standards where relevant. The proposed scheme will allow for a grading
of public funds across the range of adult education and training programs.
Providers may register under one or more Categories.
- To help deal with the problem of non-participation in adult education
and training, the new NACVET Authority will identify special targeted
funds in order to provide services to disenfranchised groups.
- The Commonwealth Agreements with the States and Territories will take
the form of Adult Community and Vocational Education and Training
Profiles (ACVET Profiles) which will commit States and Territories
to provision across all three Categories of provision. The provision
will be in accordance with the revised national policy, while being
appropriate to the needs and conditions prevailing in the State or Territory
concerned.
The Committee acknowledges that the details of these kinds of proposals
will require careful working through. However, there are already changes
in the operation of the Australian Recognition Framework which will shift
the focus towards registration of providers and away from the accreditation
of courses. The Committee's suggestions are consistent with this development.
The fundamental issue remains that of establishing an unequivocal
commitment from governments to the creation of a learning society through
the promotion of lifelong learning. Once such a commitment has been
secured, national education and training policy can be adapted accordingly.
Principles can be enunciated, agreements between the various levels of
government can be negotiated, funding mechanisms can be established and
criteria developed which will optimise the effectiveness of all Australia's
education and training providers.
A learning society cannot be achieved by government action alone. Industry,
education groups, the professions and their related peak bodies must understand
and support the concept, and work towards its realisation in their sphere
of activity. The task of creating a learning society is probably one of
Australia's most important challenges. It is a quest, of sorts. As it
is in the nature of a quest never to be quite concluded, so will a learning
society continually evolve. The Committee sets this challenge before government,
and before Australia's education and training system.