Chapter 2
STRUCTURAL AND POLICY CHANGES AT COMMONWEALTH LEVEL SINCE 1991 AND THE
IMPACT THESE HAVE HAD ON THE DELIVERY OF ADULT EDUCATION IN THE COMMUNITY
The Policy and Structural Framework
An excellent account of the structural and policy changes affecting ACE
is provided in the report Think local and compete, commissioned
by the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) and prepared by Kaye
Schofield & Associates. It deals with ACE's role in the implementation
of the national VET system. [1] The three
major structural changes which have directly affected ACE since Come
in Cinderella are:
- the establishment in 1992 of ANTA and the ANTA Agreement between the
Commonwealth and the States/Territories
- Endorsement in 1993 of a National Policy on ACE by the Ministerial
Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA)
- the establishment in 1994 of the MCEETYA Task Force on ACE
Another important Commonwealth action connected with the above was the
identification of, and provision of a grant-in-aid to, the Australian
Association of Adult and Community Education to assist that organisation
in providing a service as the national representative of the sector. In
May 1995, that grant-in-aid contract was renewed for three years (to 30
June 1998). Under the terms of the contract, AAACE is to operate a national
headquarters and serve as a focus for the ACE sector. The Association
is required to carry out the following tasks:
- provide information and advice to Parliament, Ministers and government
agencies, and contribute to the implementation of the National ACE Policy;
- carry out research and advisory functions for ACE providers, with
a particular focus on enhancing the quality and range of ACE provision;
- represent the ACE sector at national and international levels.
The following summary of national policy and structural changes draws
on the Schofield account, and is illustrated further by additional material
from the submissions and evidence received by the Committee in commenting
on the impact of those policy changes. Further assessments of these impacts
appear in various sections of this report which deal with specific matters.
The current situation pertaining to the States and Territories arising
from the revised national policies and structures is dealt with in Chapter
4.
ANTA - its relationship to, and impact on, ACE
ANTA and its associated Commonwealth-States Agreements signified a major
shift to a more national focus for vocational education and training.
ANTA was seen as the mechanism through which funds would be disbursed
to the States under a set of agreed objectives and priorities for a national
VET system delivering nationally accredited courses. There was to be close
involvement with industry, to the extent that the system was specifically
declared, by government, to be `industry driven'. ANTA sought to establish
a so-called `open training market' involving private sector as well as
public training providers. It was also committed to improving cross-sectoral
links between schools, universities and TAFE, and to enhanced opportunities
and outcomes for target groups under-represented in education and training.
There remains some dispute over the degree to which Adult and Community
Education is included within the scope of the ANTA agreement. [2]
ACE provision is included in the ANTA agreement only to the extent that
it delivers vocational education and training programs. This has caused
some ACE providers a degree of angst, especially where access to resources
is tied to such inclusion. ANTA's General Manager, Mr Noonan, described
the situation as follows:
ANTA ... does not have primary responsibility for Adult and Community
Education. However, it does have some significant responsibilities in
the area and since 1992 it is fair to say that there has been quite
a lot of debate about the extent to which ACE falls within what is called
the scope and boundary of the ANTA agreement.
We also acknowledge the contribution of ACE to general adult
education. However, it is included within the scope and boundary of
ANTA mainly to the extent that it delivers courses which can lead to
nationally recognised outcomes, particularly where these are publicly
funded. I think this could be seen ... as mainly relating to job, occupational
and career related education and training, together with parts of adult
basic education... Therefore, it is important to distinguish between
the issue of the role that ACE may play generally for adults and its
broader role in the community and the important issue of the extent
to which ACE can and might play a major role in the national VET system...
ANTA has a number of important mechanisms to support ACE, in
particular the funding for the Adult and Community Education support
program which was established following the Senate inquiry in 1991 and
was transferred to ANTA in 1994, currently totalling $685,000 a year.
This comprises a grant in aid to AAACE and about 32 Commonwealth funded
research and development projects since 1992. Probably most importantly,
we funded a major consultancy undertaken to look at the initial role
of the analysis of ACE in vocational education and training. [3]
The establishment of ANTA and the acknowledgment by the Commonwealth
of ACE's contribution to national education and training goals have had
a significant impact on the development of ACE, both at national and state
level. There seemed to be a reasonable consensus in the evidence presented
to the Committee that the broad structural and policy shifts, which include
the ANTA agreement and the funding and organisation of labour market training
under Working Nation, have been `a positive impact on the delivery
of adult education in the community'. [4]
However, many ACE providers see a significant downside to these developments,
largely due to the focus on accredited vocational training, and the operation
of competitive tendering in the training market.
[U]nfortunately, the criteria for the allocation of the grant
monies meant effectively that only the vocational education field was
eligible. In fact, funding was only available for management training,
networking, market campaigns, and seed funding for curriculum material
incorporating the training approach.
From any reading of the 1991 Report [Cinderella], it is clear
that the Senate Committee's intention was far wider than this. [5]
Under these circumstances it is hardly surprising that ACE providers
in most States and Territories have been active in establishing themselves
as contributors to the State Training Profile for the purpose of gaining
access to Commonwealth growth funds available under the ANTA agreement.
[6]
ANTA and the `vocationalising' of ACE
The debate surrounding the vocational/non-vocational divide in policy
and funding matters has been explored in detail earlier in this report.
In brief, it is clear that there has been a notable increase in the accredited,
ANTA-funded programs offered by ACE providers. The extent to which this
has skewed ACE provision away from its traditional function in general
adult education is a moot point. Many providers regard the shift as a
dramatic and disappointing turn of events:
ACE providers have been able to deliver nationally recognised
courses within industry and small business, especially in rural and
remote areas where it is ideally situated to meet needs locally. However,
this has, in many cases, diverted resources from non-accredited courses
which may have addressed access and equity issues within communities.
[7]
[T]here is a push from the formal ... systems to encourage ACE
into the vocational training fold. This is detrimental to ACE as it
makes it more difficult to run a wide range of courses, including those
not specifically vocational in nature. [8]
Notwithstanding these protests, ACE provision still remains largely in
the area of non-accredited general adult education. For example, in NSW
where there has been considerable support for ACE to develop its capacity
to deliver accredited programs, it is still the case that only 8 per cent
of the provision is devoted to accredited training. Nationally, it is
estimated that VET course activity by ACE providers is between 1.5 per cent
and 2 per cent, although not all of this is accredited, and
the proportions vary significantly around the country. [9]
The comments from ACE providers were not all hostile to the increased
provision of accredited programs, and many saw it as a legitimate response
to demands from their local communities.
ACE providers ... decided to move into a more formalised accredited
and regulated provision [as] ... their clients wanted it and ... they
saw it as an opportunity to gain some formal recognition, acknowledgment
and status for what they had been doing anyway. They saw it as an opportunity
to improve the systems, the quality and the management within ACE. [10]
[There] are some cynics who would say that ACE has been drawn
into the delivery of accredited VET programs on ... ambulance chasing
grounds. I think it is overly cynical. I think that the nature of the
demand for Adult and Community Education has been changing and that
a number of factor have driven ACE providers to seek to deliver more
accredited vocational education and training programs an in somebut
not in all-cases to consequentially attract Commonwealth funds for that
activity. [11]
The Committee acknowledges the validity of both points of view. However,
it is a fact that those who advocate ACE involvement in accredited training
have on their side the full weight of VET policy and the dollars that
go with it, while the dissenters plead that they already have nothing
and stand to lose still more. The conundrum was spelled out by Kaye Schofield
in the following terms:
[T]heoretically there is a choice. Actually, it is less of a
choice. When you are starving elsewhere and here is a pot of gold, then
you are obviously drawn to that pot of gold. In terms of structure and
policy shifts, the management and organisation of labour market training
and the ANTA agreement have, on balance been positive. I would add the
caveat that they are positive if the other activities of ACE, general
adult education, which is the heartland of ACEare coordinated, supported,
facilitated and not funded in the sense of traditional funding but provided
with financial support. The distortions arise when the money is available
only for labour market training and for accredited vocational training,
and there is little support for the other fundamental role of ACE: general
adult education. [12]
What is doubly frustrating for the ACE sector is that, on the one hand,
its vitally important business of general, non-accredited adult education
remains undervalued and unfunded by the Commonwealth, while on the other
hand, a small portion of its programs not only receive Commonwealth dollars
but gobble up a disproportionate amount of administrative resources and
ACE workers' timethrough the need to tender for funds, track students,
report on outcomes and maintain statistics.
In some States, notably NSW and Victoria, ACE providers have been financially
assisted to varying degrees to establish the infrastructure, registration,
curriculum and tutor support necessary to offer accredited programs. This
has spin-offs into other areas of a provider's activity, and assists in
the construction of learning pathways between non-accredited and accredited
programs. The Committee has made a recommendation elsewhere in this report
to encourage infrastructure support from governments to ACE providers.
ANTA and data collection
Another very significant event for the ACE sector arising from ANTA activity
was the introduction of the national data collection standard (AVETMISS)
which is used across vocational and educational training in conjunction
with the State Training Profiles. The AVETMISS process, however, captures
statistics on participation in ACE programs only to the extent that the
ACE provider is delivering accredited training. While the collection of
data can pose difficulties, especially for smaller ACE providers with
fewer resources, such as computers, there was a general recognition that
the collection of statistics was overall a worthwhile activity, and would
become less time-consuming in future once providers had established their
collection systems, and become familiar with the database software.
In 1995, the Australian Committee on Vocational Education and Training
Statistics published data giving an overview of ACE providers in 1994
and 1995. For interest, the table is reproduced below, but it needs to
be interpreted in the light of the explanatory notes which accompany it.
| 1994 |
Clients |
Course Enrolments |
Module Enrolments |
Annual Hours |
| Vocational programs |
88,451 |
123,330 |
126,131 |
5,061,813 |
| Recreation, Leisure and Personal Enrichment |
325,814 |
465,006 |
465,006 |
7,697,553 |
| Program Type Unknown |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Total 1994 |
414,265 |
588,336 |
591,137 |
12,759,366 |
| 1995 |
Clients |
Course Enrolments |
Module Enrolments |
Annual Hours |
| Vocational programs |
173,882 |
238,453 |
243,773 |
8,734,298 |
| Recreation, Leisure and Personal Enrichment |
266,405 |
406,717 |
406,719 |
6,666,209 |
| Program Type Unknown |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Total 1995 |
440,287 |
645,170 |
650,492 |
15,400,507 |
Source: Selected Vocational Education and Training Statistics 1995
Note: This needs to be read in conjunction with the explanatory notes
in the original document. It should be noted that only those whose primary
role is ACE provision, are included.
There remains considerable variation between States in the way that they
report ACE activity within their State Training Profile. Some States report
only accredited training activity. Others provide the statistics on accredited
training, but complement it with an account of other ACE provision, even
though this is not `counted' as training activity for the purpose of the
Profiles nor for attracting ANTA funding.
| The Committee RECOMMENDS that, where they have not yet
done so, States and Territories report on the delivery by ACE providers
of both accredited and non-accredited programs as part of State and
Territory ACVET Profile processes. |
Footnotes
[1] The report followed a MCEETYA decision in
May 1995 to consider the intended role of ACE in the implementation of
a national VET system.
[2] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 7 (Dr Schofield)
[3] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
24 February 1997, pp 616, 617 (Mr Noonan)
[4] Submission no 34, vol 3, p 95 (AAACE) Also
Transcript of evidence, Canberra, 1 August 1996, p 7 (Dr Schofield)
[5] Submission no 58, vol 4, pp 142, 143 (Australian
Council of U3As Inc, Victoria)
[6] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 7 (Dr Schofield)
[7] Submission no 14, vol 1, p 108 (AEUTAFE
Division)
[8] Submission no 15, vol 1, p 115 (Learning
Centre Link)
[9] Kaye Schofield and Robyn Dryen. Think
local and compete, an analysis of the role of adult and community education
in the implementation of a national system of vocational education and
training, ANTA, August 1996, p 19
[10] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 7 (Dr Schofield)
[11] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 7 (Dr Schofield)
[12] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 7 (Dr Schofield)