Chapter 3 continued
The great under-represented
One attribute of participation in ACE that appears not to have
changed since 1991 is the socio-economic profile of the participants.
While the sector has succeeded in attracting greater numbers of participants,
this has not translated into ACE drawing a significantly greater range
of people from disadvantaged backgrounds to its programs. The sector's
peak body, AAACE, summed up the situation in the following terms:
The basic conclusion is that participation continues to increase,
which is good news, but that it is in general more participants of the
same sort. In other words we are not yet succeeding in widening
participation to under-represented groups. Research shows that around
2 per cent of Australian adults have not participated in any
formal structured learning since leaving full time education. Those
with least initial education, older people, people with learning difficulties
or disabilities, those unemployed or in low status occupations, are
most likely to be in this group. [1]
Research stemming from the ABS Population Survey Monitor revealed that,
for those surveyed, the two prime reasons for not participating in ACE
programs were `not interested' (35 per cent) and `too busy'
(29 per cent). [2] Each reason
came from a distinctive group: those who registered `not interested' were
more likely to be unemployed, whereas those claiming to be `too busy'
to participate in adult learning programs were more likely to be full
or part time employees. Whether `not interested' should be deciphered
as apathy, low self-confidence or disillusionment with the educational
sector at large is unclear. This is one issue which should be a key avenue
for future research given the strong correlation between unemployment
and this particular reason for non-participation.
The ABS survey also revealed that frequently cited barriers to participation,
such as disability or illness, transport difficulties and costs, accounted
for well under 10 per cent of those recorded as non-participants.
The significance of financial and transport difficulties as barriers
should not, however, be discounted too quickly. What is not shown is
the socio-economic status, ethnicity or educational level of those citing
these factors as reasons for not participating. In other words, these
factors may be insignificant for those who are employed and too busy
to participate in adult learning but may loom large for less advantaged
people.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People
In its 1991 report the Committee predicted: `Clearly the potential demand
for Aboriginal adult and community education is enormous. ... it is likely
that the demand for basic adult education programs will intensify as Aboriginal
communities seek to become increasingly self-reliant'. [3]
The Committee also noted, however, that amongst established non-government
adult education providers and community based agencies participation by
Aboriginal people was `rare'. [4]
Developments since 1991 indicate that these two points remain largely
valid. Demand from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults for education
and training has grown exponentially. The growth in demand has been such
that it outstrips supply. According to the Federation of Independent Aboriginal
Education Providers, one of its member bodies estimates that it would
need to increase student contact hours by over 45 per cent if
it were to keep up with demand for Aboriginal adult education and vocational
training. [5]
The growth in demand is the product of several forces, including the
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy, the
need for more skilled Aboriginal people in the health and education
areas and the chronic need for return or `bridging' education among
young Aboriginal people with low levels of schooling and literacy.
The latter need is not new. In 1991 the Committee observed that in terms
of participation rates in education generally Aboriginal people remain
the most severely disadvantaged group in Australia. [6]
This point was reiterated in evidence to this inquiry. One submission
talked of the `historic failure of `mainstream' schooling to provide even
basic education for the majority of our people', the consequences of which
will be felt for the foreseeable future. [7]
The extreme situation confronting Aboriginal people seeking adult education
was placed in sharp focus by the Institute for Aboriginal Development:
...adult education for Aboriginal people, unlike 'mainstream'
education in Australia, cannot base itself on assumptions about previous
schooling. The overwhelming majority of Aboriginal adults have not had
European style schooling beyond the first six or seven grades, and a
significant minority, perhaps as many as 30 per cent, have
had no schooling whatsoever. [8]
The different basis of the learning needs of many Aboriginal adults compared
to the profile of the main ACE participant extends to the goals that Aboriginal
adults attach to education. In addition to vocational aspirations, Aboriginal
adults may wish to participate in education and training so as to be involved
with their peers or to be seen as role models for the next generation
or to help their children and grandchildren with homeworkreasons which
do not equate with the conventional `outcomes' ascribed to vocational
training. [9] For others facing severe
problems such as alcoholism, drug addiction and domestic violence, adult
education can virtually be a life-support system. In the eyes of one experienced
Aboriginal adult educator, helping students with these difficulties to
simply stay alive is as meaningful an outcome as a formal academic one.
[10]
As the Committee noted in 1991, the ACE sector should be well placed
to address many of the learning needs and aspirations of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people. The user-friendly character of ACE,
with its emphasis on flexibility and adapting to fit client and community
needs, is highly compatible with the goal of Aboriginal people to take
control of their own communities, both nationally and locally, using
education and training as a means towards this end.
Given this high degree of compatibility between ACE and the learning
aspirations of Aboriginal people, and given the escalating demand amongst
Aboriginal people for adult education, the question arises as to why
Aboriginal participation in ACE nationally is low in proportion to their
presence in the general population.
This is a subject on which there appears to be little substantive research,
despite the existence of this problem before 1991. Data on participation
levels of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is limited and
mixed. Despite the widespread perception that this group is under-represented
in ACE nationally, regional variations appear to exist. In the Northern
Territory, for instance, increased participation by Aboriginal people,
especially in remote communities, is seen as the most significant change
in participation since 1991. This has been an outcome of not only increased
Commonwealth and Territory funding but also the growth in diversity of
providers, programs and targeting of Aboriginal learning needs. [11]
These developments are consistent with trends identified in special targeted
funding generally, discussed below.
In view of the particular educational needs of this learning group
and the suitability of the ACE sector to meet those needs, it is an
area crying out for deeper investigation. In the meantime a number of
factors are suggestive of some possible reasons for low levels of Aboriginal
participation in ACE.
- As observed by the Committee in 1991, [12]
inadequate funding remains an obstacle to participation. For instance,
the Alice Springs-based Institute for Aboriginal Development contends
that despite providing at least 3.4 per cent of the Northern
Territory's student contact hours for VET, it receives only 0.71 per cent
of recurrent funds for VET from the NT Employment and Training Authority.
[13] The targeting of Commonwealth
funds towards formal accredited vocational courses since 1991 may have
even compounded the funding problem. The reorientation towards vocational
programs has not only been at the expense of non-vocational courses
but may indeed, it is claimed, be missing the mark so far as Aboriginal
learning needs are concerned. The priority attached to formal accredited
vocational training is criticised on the grounds that it is at odds
with the priority attached to community development by Aboriginal people.
[14] It is also contrary to the direction
of self-determination and the wish to empower and increase the local
control of Aboriginal communities that a major policy initiative such
as the National Training Reform Agenda could proceed with little if
any consultation with Aboriginal communities and bodies.
- Linked to the funding shortfall is the user-pays system in the ACE
sector. The mismatch between this system and the economic conditions
of many Aboriginal people was highlighted in submissions to the inquiry:
`In indigenous communities, where two thirds of the adult population
have incomes below $12000 (ABS Census 1991), this is not an option'.
[15] The user-pays system is likely
to be an insurmountable barrier for a large number of Aboriginal adults.
- The ACE sector is also overshadowed by TAFE, which enrols more Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people than any other post compulsory education
provider. [16] The majority of these
people are enrolled in courses providing introductory educationin other
words, courses that are not strictly vocational and that the ACE sector
might also offer. [17] In addition
to the TAFE Colleges, Aboriginal education centres and institutes and
State and Territory governments also deliver Aboriginal adult education.
- A more fundamental reason for the low representation of Aboriginal
people in ACE may relate to the self-determination agenda itself and
the wish of Aboriginal people to control their own education. The wish
for Aboriginal control of adult education and training programs is a
refrain that spans the Committee's 1991 inquiry and this current one.
[18] Where there is funding specially
earmarked for Aboriginal adult education programs, some degree of hostility
exists towards non-Aboriginal providers who are seen to offer such programs
only if dedicated `Aboriginal education dollars' can be applied. The
perception among some Aboriginal people is that non-Aboriginal providers
should be doing more to assist Aboriginal adults irrespective of whether
special funding is available or not. [19]
It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent to which
this is true. There are cases of community-based adult education centres
providing for Aboriginal participants without special funding. [20]
It makes sense that in the quest for self-determination, and in particular
the push for increased local control of Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal
people are more interested in their own people providing adult education
than participating in courses controlled by non-Aboriginal ACE providers.
This matter of asserting control concerns the appropriateness of both
the content of the curriculum and its delivery to Aboriginal communities.
The spectrum of educational needs of Aboriginal people requires highly
trained adult educators with a particular knowledge of Aboriginal history
and culture, community development and local issues. The extent to which
non-Aboriginal providers or institutions can meet these criteria is problematic,
not least because mainstream education is seen to have failed Aboriginal
people in two respects: directly in terms of their own low levels of educational
attainment, and indirectly in the sense of failing to teach non-Aboriginal
Australians about the Aboriginal people's story in Australian history.
[21]
This is not meant to deny a role for non-Aboriginal ACE providers
in Aboriginal adult education, but a change in perspective is required.
Instead of the mainstream ACE sector seeing itself primarily as providing
adult education for Aboriginal people, and seeing Aboriginal participation
as an `equity and access' issue, it needs to recast itself in a supporting
role working with Aboriginal organisations and communities as they assume
control of the development, delivery and management of suitable programs.
[22] This is a challenge facing other
educational providers, such as TAFE and those within the VET sector. But
the ACE sector's flexibility and responsiveness to community needs means
it has the ability, in theory at least, to play a valuable role in Aboriginal
adult education.
Research into cases where ACE providers have succeeded in attracting
Aboriginal participants and in delivering outcomes is of equal importance
to research needed to identify the causes of low participation by Aboriginal
people in the ACE sector. Studies of community-based ACE providers in
NSW, where Aboriginal participation in ACE is close to the proportion
of Aboriginal people in the State's population, have identified some of
the ingredients of this success (for instance, employing a mentor or traditional
person in the local community to help recruit Aboriginal adults to programs).
[23] Further case study work of this
nature would be a valuable tool for ACE providers hoping to increase participation
by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. For this work to be fully
effective it is also important that attention be given to disseminating
it amongst both providers and researchers in the sector.
| The Committee RECOMMENDS that the new NACVET Authority
commission a study of best practice in relation to the delivery
of adult education and training to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders by community-based ACE providers. |
People whose first language is other than English
The Committee's 1991 findings in Cinderella concerning the plight
of people of non-English speaking background remain equally true in 1997.
Broadly speaking, migrants continue to face multiple barriers to accessing
education and training. ACE providers have the potential to make a significant
contribution to improving NESB participation rates, but there remain severe
constraints on their capacity to provide the level of service needed.
Those providers that manage to struggle on do so with `a potpourri of
irregular grants from various government bodies'. [24]
In 1996, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia
(FECCA) produced a comprehensive report for the AAACE entitled Adult
and Community Education and People of Non-English Speaking Backgrounds.
The report summarised the multilingual and multicultural nature of contemporary
Australia, with four out of ten Australians being immigrants, or the
children of immigrants, half of them from non-English speaking backgrounds.
There are certain features of this group of Australians which are of
particular relevance to the present discussion of adult education and
training, including the following:
- The overall age profile of those born overseas is older than that
of Australian born, and the aged population from non-English speaking
countries is growing more rapidly than the Australian born. However,
some newer migrant groups tend to have a younger age profile than
the general population.
- Migrants tend to be concentrated at the `lower' skill levels of
the labour force, with unemployment or underemployment being a common
experience even for those with professional qualifications. Migrant
women are overwhelmingly concentrated in textile industries and the
casual labour market.
- Levels of English proficiency vary considerably between migrant
groups. The proportion of those reporting difficulties speaking English
range from 3 per cent amongst immigrants from India, the
Philippines and Singapore to up to 50 per cent for migrants
from China or El Salvador.
While there is considerable diversity of socio-economic class and cultural
background across the various migrant groups, poor English proficiency
acts as a great leveller. [25] The AMEP
entitles newly-arrived migrants to 510 hours of English tuition, but this
must be taken up within three years of arrival. This often places women
at a particular disadvantage because within the first few years of arrival
it is often the women who are responsible for settling the children into
school and managing the new domestic situation. This means that women
will only begin to attend classes once that initial settling period is
over.
In any event, many people leave these courses with an English proficiency
below the declared functional level. This means that not only are people
inadequately prepared to tackle vocational training, but their English
is often too poor for them to be able to express their needs, and to
draw attention to their situation.
A study across three States in 1992 indicated that:
the proportion of non-English speaking background participants
in ACE ... reflected their representation in the general community;
that they are primarily participating in programs to acquire English
language skills and improve their literacy and numeracy skills. The
report also noted comparatively low participation rates... for Vocational
Education and General Adult Education. [26]
There appears to be significant variation around Australia in the provision
of accredited vocational programs delivered by ACE providers to NESB
people. This seems to be linked with the particular State or Territory
arrangements for the Adult Migrant Education Program, and the extent
to which the providers can access State recurrent funds or ANTA growth
funds.
Some community-based providers have developed innovative ways of drawing
migrants into general personal and social development programs. These
programswhich range from household budgeting to crafts to bilingual
writing workshopsplay a vital role in reducing isolation, introducing
migrants to a new culture, and providing opportunities for English conversation.
According to the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia
(FECCA), a recent review of research and development in the ACE sector
concludes that:
because [migrants] tend to have high learning needs associated
with adaptation to their new social and cultural surrounds, there is
a case for focussing more attention here, with the aim of finding ways
in which ACE can become more useful to members of this group. Ideally
this would be action research in which ACE providers are provided with
resources in order to reflect on how accessible their programs are or
how to appropriately meet the needs of learners of different cultural
or ethnic backgrounds. [27]
For many NESB students, English language courses are a first foray into
education after a long break from schooling. This can bring with it substantial
anxiety, particularly if memories of education in another country are
not positive. Moreover, a significant number of NESB migrants are illiterate
in their own language which makes it particularly difficult for them to
deal with literacy and other classes in English. [28]
On the other hand, there are NESB people who are highly educated in
their own language. This can bring its own pressures and frustrations
as they try and learn English, where achieving a functional level of
fluency is insufficient to meet their intellectual and professional
needs.
The Committee concurs with the conclusion drawn by FECCA in its recent
report to AAACE:
What comes through very clearly is the ACE sector's potential to
meet [migrants'] diverse needs. These include the provision of a range
of English and other courses at the community level to cater to differential
age, gender, economic, personal, social, familial and vocational requirements.
There is also the desirability of providing courses in languages other
than English and culturally appropriate leisure courses to widen the
opportunities for people of NESB to participate in the range of ACE
courses provided. [29]
People with disabilities
It is estimated by the Commonwealth Office of Disability that people
with a disability make up 18 per cent of the Australian population.
This proportion is likely to be greater amongst adult Australians. The
Committee remarked in 1991 that it was unable to ascertain the number
of people with disabilities who participate in ACE activities, although
it suspected that, at that time, their participation fell well below their
level of representation in the community. [30]
It is disappointing to note six years on that the situation seems not
to have improved. Participation by this group in ACE received scant
attention in the evidence to the inquiry, and the little that was said
indicates that people with disabilities are virtually `invisible' amidst
the data on ACE participation. According to a report submitted by ANTA:
Little is known about the patterns of participation by people with
disabilities in ACE courses generally and even less about their participation
in specifically VET courses. Consequently, we are unable to comment
with any authority of the extent to which ACE is delivering to diverse
groupings of individuals with disabilities in ways consistent with the
goals of the national VET system. [31]
This report concluded that not only is there minimal provision for
people with disabilities in the ACE sector but, because specialised
facilities and intensive teaching are often needed to meet their needs,
provision through the TAFE system, with its much better financial base
and infrastructure, may be better equipped to assist this group of learners.
A submission to the inquiry by a community-based body assisting people
with a disability argued that, despite efforts by the ACE sector to identify
and address the poor state of provision for people with disabilities,
little change had occurred and that the sector offered virtually nothing
in the way of educational provision for these people. [32]
In addition to sponsoring a major study of ACE and people with disabilities
in 1994, [33] AAACE also produced a
resource kit, Accent on Ability, to assist providers to integrate
disabled people into programs and training. These initiatives do not,
however, seem to have been matched by any follow-up exercise to assess
whether Accent on Ability had any effect on either provision for,
or participation by, people with disabilities. If this is true, then more
needs to be done by the sector and its peak body, AAACE, to both disseminate
tool kits like Accent on Ability and Access for all in ACE [34]
and to monitor the extent to which providers employ these resources to
assist this learning group.
Establishing a register of provision would be a useful step in assessing
the real extent of this problem. Identifying the level of participation
and non-participation by people with disabilities would, likewise, shed
more light on the demand, or more precisely, unmet demand side
of the equation. Rather than leave it to individual providers to address
this question alone, AAACE itself may need to take a more active and
interventionist role to promote the ACE sector's efforts to assist people
with disabilities. If the sector is intent on translating good intentions
into concrete measures, then a better coordinated and more informed
approach is necessary.
Given the close links between access to education and the employment
prospects of people with a disability, sponsorship of further initiatives
to ensure better service to this group should come from the national
level, with serious input from the Commonwealth. AAACE, or a special
taskforce representing it, should continue to liaise with ACROD and
other bodies associated directly with people with disabilities to consolidate
networks between the two sectors and ensure an optimal degree of engagement
between them on this issue.
Clearly funding, both in terms of `enabling technologies' and specialised
training for staff, is critical in this area. It is expecting a lot
of the most underfunded sector (namely ACE) to achieve high levels of
outcomes for people with disabilities from its own limited resources.
ACE providers, and their peak group AAACE, are to be commended for their
genuine desire and specific actions to meet the needs of this group
of learners. Such work deserves government support.
People with disabilities are demanding that their general rights to
ongoing educational opportunities, and their explicit rights under the
Commonwealth's Disability Discrimination Act, be adequately addressed.
The Commonwealth Disability Strategy was developed to ensure that the
needs of people with a disability are included in the planning and policy
development stages. The MCEETYA ACE Taskforce should ensure that the
principles underlying that Strategy are taken into account in the revision
of the National ACE Policy. The new NACVET Policy being proposed by
the Senate Committee must address adequately the needs of target equity
groups, and in particular people with disabilities and people whose
first language is other than English.
The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth seek
a formal input into the proposed new NACVET Policy from
- the Commonwealth Office of Disability, from the peak body
National Industry Association for Disability Services [formerly
ACROD], and from an independent assessor with expertise in disability
issues; and
- the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia,
and other relevant organisations concerned with educational
opportunities for Australians with a first language other than
English.
|
Targeted programs and widening participation
One of the changes experienced by the ACE sector since 1991 is the
diversification in the range of programs run by providers. This diversification
has tended to occur at the margins where some providers have branched
out from general education courses to offer special programs aimed at
target groups (eg, unemployed people, people with disabilities, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people). Such programs are often based on
funding or subsidies from government. The issue of ensuring access by
these groups to what might be called mainstream ACE programs is still
problematic.
Recognising the segmented nature of the ACE market, some community-based
providers have adopted a program-driven approach to reaching different
segments of the community, particularly those with low-level participation.
[35] ACE providers have achieved some
success in reaching those on the socio-economic margins via two routes.
First, elements of the ACE sector have become increasingly competitive
at winning government contracts for programs targeted at special groups:
for example, labour market programs aimed at the unemployed.
Some providers have also gone a step further, drawing on revenues from
full-fee paying participants to subsidise less advantaged participants.
According to one witness:
In a market driven user-pays systemwhich ACE isyou have to have
money to enrol. Many ACE providers have tried to do a good deal of cross-subsidisation,
in my view so that they could make money in some activities which they
could then use to provide concessions to draw in lower paid people or
people with a less strong financial base. [36]
There is some evidence that the extent to which cross-subsidisation of
ACE students occurs has increased. According to the Institute of Adult
Education in Tasmania, concessionary enrolments have increased from 20
to 25 per cent of total enrolments ten years ago to an estimated
40 per cent now, a shift that is thought to reflect local economic
conditions. [37]
Despite the success of these methods in broadening the representative
profile of ACE participants, there are concerns about the long-term viability
of approaches which depend on government funding or cross-subsidisation.
Providers that use government funded programs such as those in the labour
market training sphere are vulnerable to shifts in government policies
and priorities, not least budget rEducations. [38]
For example, funding from the Commonwealth was seen as a key ingredient
in the recent success of the Workplace Language and Literacy (WELL) program,
but some concern was noted regarding the five percent cut in this funding
in 1996. [39] Several witnesses to the
inquiry warned that changing government priorities mean it is imperative
for ACE providers to devise new ways of expanding participation while
also preserving the financial viability of the providers themselves. [40]
Furthermore, not every community-based provider possesses the infrastructure,
resources or personnel needed to compete for contract programs that attract
government funding. Many rely on part-time staff, who may have neither
the time nor the skills to operate in an increasingly competitive market.
Few would also be willing to devote time and resources to chasing contracts
if it meant compromising the integrity of their programs or teaching assistance
to participants. [41]
Since many smaller community-based providers survive on shoestring budgets,
there is also a limit to the extent to which they can cross-subsidise
participants without compromising the quality of the programs they offer.
Capital investment in equipment and facilities is essential to provide
high-quality courses, no matter how good teachers and staff may be. Siphoning
revenues from one program in order to subsidise concessionary enrolments
may be at the expense of such critical investment, particularly for smaller
community centres. Funding is seen as the answer to both these infrastructure
and equity issues, but as noted above this is not something the sector
can take for granted. [42]
Future research
The state of research on participation in ACE has improved markedly since
the Committee called in 1991 for a more concerted effort in this field.
Yet more work remains to be done if we are to understand better several
critical areas of participation in the sector, especially those people
participating on the fringe. Research and analysis has also not yet caught
up with and capitalised on the boom in raw data on participation in recent
years. In the words of one witness, referring to the mismatch between
data and analysis on participation, `[o]ur present knowledge ... is formal,
not rich'. [43] Thus there is need for
a more thorough and refined analysis of patterns and levels of participation.
There is a clear consensus that the issue of non-participation by certain
groups should be a primary site for further investigation. These groups
face barriers to access in many spheres of life, but in terms of their
education and training needs, the ACE sector should be a relatively easy
point of entry into return-learning. [44]
However, despite ACE's inherent flexibility, informal learning environment
and responsiveness to individual needs, ACE providers have had only limited
success in serving target equity groups.
The ACE research community recognises that there is no room for complacency,
and accordingly has set itself an agenda for future research. The Committee
commends this initiative. At an ACE participation research workshop
in mid-1996, agreement was struck on the centrality of research into
non-participation for those working in this field:
It was agreed that the fundamental rationale for research into
who does and who does not participate in adult education and training
was to encourage and facilitate the extension of learning opportunity
to those presently not participating... [45]
The Committee understands that studies along these lines are being
developed by BACE in NSW and ACFEB in Victoria.
An important consideration for this research agenda is that it avoids
treating non-participants as simply subjects of investigation, lest it
alienate these groups further from the ACE sector. Strategies which enable
non-participants to participate in the research program itself will not
only enhance the sector's understanding of non-participation but may also
allow people, hitherto outside the sector, to get a foot in ACE's door.
Instead of being treated as part of the problem, people and groups seen
traditionally as non-participants should be allowed to play a role in
research which empowers them to become part of the solution. [46]
Research on non-participation also needs to incorporate existing data
and research on barriers to access in the ACE sector, such as the recent
studies of this problem conducted by the State Government in South Australia.
[47] For such research to be meaningful,
it is crucial that it is based on high quality data. Revision of the classifications
used in data collection is required. A revised version of the ABS Population
Survey Monitor is currently being piloted. [48]
It is essential that this instrument and other models, such as those used
in the ACVETS and AVETMISS programs, have the ability to detect accurately
participation in all the subsectors of ACE for the sector to understand
who is and who is not participating.
While research on non-participation should be accorded priority, further
work is also required on aspects of those who do participate. One area
requiring more exploration, noted above, concerns participation by women,
the type and levels of courses in which they enrol and, more importantly,
the path they follow in both the ACE and other educational sectors.
These questions have been identified by AAACE's Research Network as
a priority:
The numerical importance of women in adult and community education
has been amply demonstrated in research to date. The reasons for that
importance and its impact on both the lives of women and their opportunities,
welfare and vocational trajectories, remain as matters requiring urgent
attention. [49]
That more needs to be known about the outcomes of this numerically dominant
group of learners in the sector illustrates the general point that research
on ACE is in need of enrichment at the level of analysis. The issue of
women participating (or not participating) in accredited vocational courses
leads to the other research priority identified by the ACE research communitythe
effectiveness of ACE's interface with other educational providers, both
public (eg. TAFE) and private. [50]
Valuable work on the ACE-VET interface has already been undertaken. [51]
Further research on this front is both important and timely, because it
relates to major funding and policy issues concerning the ACE-VET interface
and the wider debate on the vocational/non-vocational divide in adult
education and training. The Committee has recommended elsewhere a significant
increase in the Commonwealth funds provided through ANTA's ACE Grants
Program.
Footnotes
[1] Submission no 34, vol 3, p 96 (AAACE)
[2] AAACE. Who are Australia's adult learners?
p 5
[3] SCEET. Come in Cinderella, p 106
[4] SCEET. Come in Cenderella, p 105
[5] Submission no 47, vol 4, p 9 (FIAEP Ltd)
[6] SCEET. Come in Cinderella, p 106
[7] Submission no 47, vol 4, p 10 (Federation
of Independent Aboriginal Education Providers Ltd)
[8] Submission no 9, vol 1, p 77 (Institute
of Aboriginal Development )
[9] J and R Teasdale. Pathways to where?
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in vocational education
and training. NCVER, Adelaide, 1996, p vi
[10] Transcript of evidence, Sydney,
p 549 (Mr Beetson)
[11] Submission no 70, vol 5, p 87 (NT Employment
and Training Authority)
[12] SCEET. Come in Cinderella, p
105
[13] Submission no 9, vol 1, p 61 (Institute
of Aboriginal Development)
[14] Submission no 47, vol 4, p 10 (Federation
of Independent Aboriginal Education Providers Ltd)
[15] Submission no 47, vol 4, p 10 (FIAEP
Ltd)
[16] J & R Teasdale. Pathways to where?
pp 23-24
[17] See J & R Teasdale. Pathways
to where? pp 25-31, for a breakdown by state and territory
[18] Compare SCEET. Come in Cinderella,
pp 102-103 with Submission no 9, vol 1, pp 62-64 (Institute of
Aboriginal Development Ltd) and Submission no 47, vol 4, pp 5-8,
14 (Federation of Independent Aboriginal Education Providers Ltd)
[19] Transcript of evidence, Sydney,
pp 558-560 (Mr Beetson)
[20] McIntyre et al. Ace Works, p
146
[21] Submission no 47, vol 4, pp 5-8, 14
(FIAEP Ltd)
[22] This proposal is derived from J &
R Teasdale. Pathways to where? p 25
[23] See McIntyre et al. ACE Works,
chapter 5
[24] Submission no 77, vol 5, p 189 (FECCA)
[25] Submission no 77, vol 5, p 162 (FECCA)
[26] Report Outcomes and Pathways
quoted in Submission no 67, vol 5, p 45 (ANTA)
[27] Submission no 77, vol 5, p 154 (FECCA)
[28] Submission no 77, vol 5, p 163 (FECCA)
[29] Submission no 77, vol 5, p 203 (FECCA)
[30] SCEET. Come in Cinderella, p
109
[31] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 44 (ANTA)
[32] Submission no 72, vol 5, pp 105-106
(Foundation for Independence, Recreation and Social Training)
[33] Mike Quaass and Ken Fraser. Beyond
the Ramp: People with Disabilities Accessing ACE Services, A national
approach to education and training in the Adult and Community Education
sector for adults with disabilities. AAACE/CSOAE Disability Project,
January 1994, p vii
[34] Report and Provider Handbook on Access
for all in ACE: Overcoming barriers to participation. Adult Community
Education Unit, Department of Employment, Training and Further Education,
Adelaide, 1995
[35] See Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 10 (Ms Thomas) and, Transcript of evidence,
Canberra, 1 August 1996, p 60 (Mr McIntyre). For examples, see also
McIntyre et al. ACE Works, chapter 5
[36] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 6 (Ms Schofield)
[37] Submisson no 65, vol 5, p i (Institute
of Adult Education, Tas)
[38] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 6 (Ms Schofield)
[39] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
30 January 1997, p 372 (Ms Angela Bueti)
[40] Submission no 51, vol 4, p 47 (Evening
and Community Colleges Association of NSW)
[41] McIntyre et al. ACE Works, p
147
[42] Submission no 51, vol 4, p 46 (Evening
and Community Colleges of Association of NSW). See also McIntyre et
al. ACE Works, p 147
[43] Professor Bagnall. Supplementary submission
no 91, vol 7, p 34, regarding research priorities identified by
the AAACE Research Network, 4 March 1997
[44] See especially Transcript of evidence,
Canberra, 1 August 1996, p 67 (Mr McIntyre) and Transcript
of evidence,Brisbane, 30 January 1997, pp 356, 361 (Professor Bagnall).
See also Crombie. "Participation: who does? who doesn't? why not?"
Adult Learing Australia, July 1996, pp 30-31
[45] Crombie. "Participation: who does?
who doesn't? why not?" p 30
[46] See Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
30 January 1997, p 361 (Professor Bagnall)
[47] See both the Report and Provider Handbook
on Access for all in ACE: Overcoming barriers to participation.
Adult Community Education Unit, Department of Employment, Training and
Further Education, Adelaide, 1995
[48] Crombie. "Participation: who does?
who doesn't? why not?" p 31
[49] Professor Bagnall. Supplementary submission
no 91, vol 7, p 34, regarding research priorities identified
by the AAACE Research Network, 4 March 1997
[50] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 67 (Mr McIntyre)
[51] For example, McIntyre et al, ACE
Works; Schofield and Dryen. Think local and compete; Kaye
Schofield & Associates. ACE-VET: is it delivering?