Chapter 1
Lifelong Learning and Its Implications for Education and Training Policy
Lifelong learning and adult & community education
In the White Paper which marked the beginning of a period of major reform
in Australia's tertiary education sector, the then Minister declared that:
the principle of lifelong education is now accepted as fundamental
to achieving social, cultural, technological and structural change,
and to our future economic development. [1]
The notion of lifelong educationalso known as lifelong learning, or lifetime
learninghas appeared regularly in various official reports and discussion
papers since the 1970s, although it is found in the adult education literature
much earlier. Lifelong learning has been a major theme in education policy
debate stimulated by UNESCO's Institute of Education, and is bound up
with the promotion of the `learning society'. In the Committee's view,
both notions must guide the development of education and training policy
in Australia.
The UNESCO document Learning to Be: The world of education today and
tomorrow [2] sets out the
broad conceptual framework within which lifelong learning should be viewed
for policy purposes. A national education and training system which is
based on lifelong learning principles will provide educational opportunities
which will:
- last the whole life of each individual;
- lead to the systematic acquisition, renewal, upgrading and completion
of knowledge, skills and attitudes made necessary by the constantly
changing conditions in which people now live;
- have as its ultimate goal the self-fulfilment of each individual;
- be dependent for its successful implementation on people's increasing
ability and motivation to engage in self-directed learning activities;
and
- acknowledge the contribution of all available educational influences,
including formal, nonformal and informal. [3]
The Committee's affirmation of lifelong learning as the fundamentally
necessary attribute of Australia's national education and training system
is based on the understandings set out above. These principles must
be placed in the foreground of any policy development process aimed at
the creation of a learning society. In the Committee's view, the ACE
sector has successfully integrated these principles into its structure
and practice. The Committee has formulated its recommendations about policy
and funding arrangements with a view to securing, at government level,
a commitment to lifelong learning principles as an integral part of education
policy.
A more detailed consideration of a revised national education and training
policy built around lifelong learning appears below. However, the Committee
believes that it is important to address a feature of existing policy
and funding which was raised by witnesses in every hearing and in almost
all submissions. Namely the impact on ACE providers of the government's
emphasis on accredited vocational training. The government's notion of
vocational education was couched essentially in terms of industry-oriented
skills training. As a result, the much broader spectrum of adult education
with which ACE is concerned was effectively ignored. Moreover, this exclusive
concern for the development of vocational skills distorted the lifelong
education model. It set in train a pattern of funding mechanisms and advisory
structures which actually militate against the realisation of lifelong
learning. The problem of vocational dogmatism must be addressed before
any coherent rehabilitation of lifelong education can be achieved.
The vocational/non-vocational divide
There is a conceptual inadequacy which haunts present policy and funding
mechanisms in adult education and training. It is the insistence upon
differentiating between educational programs on the grounds of their perceived
or declared vocational orientation. This vocational/non-vocational divide
fails to accommodate the rich harvest of various kinds of educational
experiences that make up a learning society. It also muddies thinking,
distorts values, and perpetuates a whole lot of unhelpful divisionsbetween
private gain and social benefit; between the market and the domestic spheres;
between men's work and women's work; between short term interests and
long term gains.
The Committee received some quite passionately held views about the impact
of the vocational/non-vocational distinction on the range of provision
which has evolved in ACE over the last decade or so. The distinction seems
to have been felt most keenly by women who consider that it has been prejudicial
to their participation in ACE, especially in the community sector.
If there is one major change that we think should be identified since
1991 in Come in Cinderella it is precisely the national priority
on work related and vocational education that we think has unsettled but
shaped the sector quite considerably differently from the manner in which
it was constructed prior to 1991. Not only has it shaped the sector in
significant ways but it has brought into relief the relationship between
gender and issues of the dominant participation of women and their representation
in the ACE sector overall.
In referring to the range of provision that has emerged since 1991, to
some extent we would like to categorise that range of provision by the
use of the terms the `haves' and the `have-nots'. The `haves' refer to
those providers who have the capacity, willingness and need to secure
funding for work related and vocational education, whereas the `have-nots'
are those who do not have the capacity nor the need to offer vocational
programs. Such a deep division has emerged within the ACE sector around
the ability to take up vocational provision. [4]
There are many versions of the vocational/non-vocational argument. In
the Commonwealth government policy context, with its emphasis on employment
and the creation of a globally competitive workforce, `vocational education'
resonates strongly with such priorities. Thus `vocational' becomes privileged
over `non-vocational' because expenditure on the former can allegedly
be justified better than the latter on the grounds of its direct links
with employability and competitive advantage.
Certainly, Australia needs a technically skilled workforce, and to possess
industry-accredited skills improves one's employability. But an education
and training system has a broader and deeper function. The vocational/non-vocational
distinction values some types of learning and not others.
It is of concern to the Committee that the Commonwealth government's
justification for policy priorities and funding criteria for the ACE sector
is couched almost exclusively in terms of this distinction. Best practice
in the ACE sector does not distinguish between the vocational and non-vocational
aspects of a person's learning. It is a sector characterised by `a very
strong ... tradition ... of not separating out these things but of integrating
all the needs at once'. [5] For example,
the Committee had its attention drawn to a range of programs largely dedicated
to women's needs which were a far cry from the stereotype of the much
maligned `hobby' courses. Of these programs, none were of the `couple
of hours a week for a few weeks' variety. Some were full time, some part
time, some a year long, some a semester long, some two years long.
It is really important to stress that they are all work related. They
may not fit into the notion of vocational education that is popularly
understood ...
While they are work related, they are also dealing with a range of other
educational needs. That is why the model is so important. It is not exclusively
this or that; it is work related education of the best sort with all the
variety you could possibly wish for, but also accommodating personal needs,
community needs, social needs and civic needs. [6]
As it did in its earlier report Come in Cinderella, the Committee
continues to affirm the value of a concept of education and training
which is inclusive and addresses multiple needs. When people undertake
employment, they tackle their jobs not just as though they are a cluster
of skills. In other words, employees are not just `hands'. Adult educators
have always approached their task holistically, placing learners at the
centre of their attention, with an integrated view of their cognitive,
technical, and personal development. This is the traditional ACE model,
and in the Committee's view, all vocational preparation should embody
these precepts.
The Committee acknowledges that there are two basic orientations towards
education and training. One is based on the need for people to develop
and maintain technical and professional skills to ensure an internationally
competitive workforce. The other is based on broader social, cultural
and personal values concerned with the enrichment of communities and the
fulfilment of human lives. The Committee regards both orientations as
equally legitimate, and appreciates the rationale that supports both the
economic/technical and social/cultural viewpoints. What the Committee
refuses to accept is the privileging of one viewpoint and its rationale
over the other. Yet this is what contemporary Australian education and
training policy has chosen to do.
The submission to the Committee by ANTA sheds some interesting light
on the way the vocational/non-vocational distinction operates at the policy
and funding levels. The appended paper to the ANTA submission, under the
heading General Adult Education, states quite explicitly that
General Adult Education courses ... are, by definition, not accredited
under NFROT arrangements.
While States and Territories are asked to report on the provision
of Stream 1000 courses in the State Training Profile, ANTA specifically
excludes non-accredited general adult education courses from the Activity
Tables within the ... Profiles.
[Such] courses cannot be counted as part of the State or Territory
training effort, and thus cannot attract Commonwealth government growth
funds. [7]
The Committee acknowledges the paper's point that such courses are also
free of the `impact of the formal processes associated with an industry
led national VET system'. [8] Indeed,
such freedom from the constraints of accreditation and approved curricula
is a benefit for many ACE providers. But the direct link between accreditation
and Commonwealth government funding means that there is a price to be
paid for this `freedom'. It becomes the `freedom' to continue living on
the smell of an oily rag, and perhaps wither away altogether.
The Australian Association of Adult and Community Education has declared
its acceptance that:
for practical purposes the meaning of `vocational' in VET has
to be delimited in some administratively feasible way, and that large
areas of work appropriate and important to ACE providers will continue
to fall outside any such definition. [9]
Clearly, governments must place some boundaries around certain activities
for which they can justify funding. But like medieval scholars arguing
about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, so will bureaucrats
and politicians argue about what fits within the boundary called vocational.
In the Committee's view, if the Commonwealth government continues to insist
on policy and funding arrangements being predicated on notions of vocational
utility, then the concept of vocational must be reinvented to serve
the promotion of learning, not to exclude crucial areas of it. This will
be no small task.
Interestingly, there seems to have been one significant arenathat of
adult literacy and ESL programsin which the Commonwealth government has
seen fit to extend its notion of vocational utility. Developing language
and literacy skills would normally be considered part of general learning,
but conceived within a training framework, the vocational attributes of
such skills become formally recognised, and therefore eligible for Commonwealth
funds. The Committee applauds the funding of programs such as the Recurrent
Literacy Program, and the Workplace English Language and Literacy (WELL)
Program. The Commonwealth government's involvement in these programs reveals
that, under certain conditions and with the appropriate motivation, the
Commonwealth government has the capacity to reconceptualise `vocational'
in order to admit aspects of general education.
The AAACE has argued that instead of debating the semantics of the word
`vocational', it is preferable that the ACE sector `participate forcefully
in the on-going efforts to specify clearer and agreed outcomes for the
VET system'. The Committee is entirely in favour of such improved specification
of outcomes. It will no doubt assist ACE providers in proving their capacity,
in a competitive tendering environment, to deliver those specified outcomes.
However, the specification of such outcomes, on present indications, will
be a long time coming. Moreover, it may still leave unspecified
(and therefore under-valued or ignored) a host of valid and highly desirable
outcomes within the general adult education domain.
In the Committee's view, choosing to play the national VET system gameand
to play it wellis a perfectly legitimate aspiration for ACE providers,
and their involvement is obviously in the interests of many of their present
and potential students. But this still leaves unresolved the question
of the appropriate level of government support for the other non-accredited
kinds of activity and additional outcomes which are abundant in the ACE
sector, and which make a vitally important contribution to the wellbeing,
effectiveness and economic productivity of hundreds of thousands of Australians
of all ages both in and out of the workforce. The question is an extremely
difficult one; but it must be worked at assiduously in order to ensure
that as a nation we are making the right kinds of investment in the development
of competent, cooperative and creative individuals and their social and
economic capacities as citizens.
What is frustrating for the Committee is the fact that concepts of lifelong
learning of all types, and the acknowledgement of its obvious benefits,
abound in the official documentation describing and explaining Australia's
national education and training system. (For example, the National VET
Strategy entitled Towards a Skilled Australia declares, as one
of ANTA's four Priorities, `to create and promote opportunities
for lifelong learning' [10]). But when
it comes to addressing the logical imperatives which arise from these
declarations, there is invariably some rhetorical sleight of hand which
has the effect of sorting the (vocational) sheep from the (non-vocational)
goats, with Commonwealth dollars tagged to the ears of the sheep.
Under scrutiny, education and training policy starts to look a little
incoherent. For example, the ANTA submission to the Committee, quotes
the National ACE Policy stating that general adult education
makes a significant contribution to the development of work skills.
Many participants cite vocational purposes as their reason for enrolling...
Many more gain skills, confidence, knowledge and understanding from
participating, which they then apply in their workplace or in seeking
work or in further education or training. [11]
Shortly thereafter ANTA's submission claims that most stakeholders consider
that general adult education `may or may not contribute [emphasis
added] to the national skills pool'. There is something very disquieting
about a national policy discourse that can accommodate such contradictory
assessments, and which fails to challenge such demonstrably ill-considered
opinions. It also flies in the face of the evidence from a range of careful
analyses of ACE's contribution to vocational success. Consider, for example,
the following extract from the ANTA-funded NSW report ACE-VET: Is it
delivering?
There is now enough research evidence to demonstrate beyond question
that both non-accredited vocational courses and general adult education
courses have significant vocational outcomes. [12]
DEETYA itself notes in its submission to the Committee that `survey data
indicate that about 70 per cent of people undertaking ACE courses expect
them to assist with employment'. [13]
It is clear that the arguments which are used to deny ACE access to Commonwealth
funds are far from robust.
The eternal debate about what counts as vocational programs will continue
to smoulder because it lies at the heart of the way governments conceptualise
this thing called `education and training', for which they have significant
funding responsibility. Policymakers continue to pursue a limited utilitarian
concept of education and training viewed as the means to some relatively
narrow economic end.
Broadly speaking, the role of education and training is to enable us
to participate effectively in the various spheres of activity which together
constitute our culture and our economy. Such effective participation is
not solely determined by the possession of specialised skills. It also
requires a combination of formal and informal knowledge about effective
citizenship, teamwork, and personal goals, as well as about the technical
and social organisation of production.
Individuals wish to build creative, productive, socially satisfying lives.
As well, Australia's workforce requires people with the personal and intellectual
skills which will enable them to work with a team, to adapt quickly to
the technical and operational requirements of a totally integrated service
or manufacturing process, and to be able to readily diversify when the
market shifts. The development of cultural understandings, and a broad
range of personal, vocational and social skills should be the core purpose
of any modern education and training system. It will also have a fundamentally
important role in evolving a context of values and attitudes for living
and working.
The utilitarian (sometimes called `instrumental') approach to education
and training, and the vocational/non-vocational divide which springs from
it, is wholly inappropriate, despite its apparent attractions in the short
term. It is interesting that the ANTA submission to the Committee includes
the observation that pathways between ACE and VET are `essential ... to
allow the innovation, creativity and learner-centred education which is
the focus of General Adult Education to flow through and enrich what can
be, at times, excessive instrumentalism in VET'. [14]
We return, then, to our original dilemma. All kinds of learning contribute
to the `national skills pool', and to the population's capacity to respond
to the social and economic imperatives of the twenty first century. All
Australians have the right to participate in that learning, and there
is a particular obligation upon governments to ensure that those who are
disadvantaged are able to participate.
Governments should not underestimate the handicap imposed on disadvantaged
learners by poor schooling, low socio-economic status, lack of self-esteem,
and a range of cultural and attitudinal barriers. Even entry level requirements
for formal training within the National Skills Framework are often well
beyond the capacity of many prospective adult applicants.
Governments must ensure that such adults have the opportunities to have
access to learning from their particular situation, and to set foot on
the pathways which will lead them into the national education and training
system. The ACE sector contributes significantly in both these ways, and
yet the bulk of that contribution is simply defined out of consideration
when the Commonwealth government determines the mechanisms through which
it will facilitate and fund participation in education and training. The
Committee regards this as a major shortcoming in the structure and operation
of our national training system, and will continue to press for a more
enlightened and effective expenditure of public dollars.
One of the features of the ACE sector is that it is predominantly a self-help,
financially and administratively lean operation. While the Committee acknowledges
that most participants pay for courses out of their own pockets, there
is no doubt that the user pays aspect of ACE militates strongly against
the sector being able to serve the needs of the poorer sections of the
community. These are invariably people who have benefited least from schools
and TAFE, and are most in need of pathways into education and training.
In the Committee's view, the public funding of adults' participation
in education and training should not be purely on the grounds that
their participation shall be in officially-designated and accredited vocational
programs. Rather, the Commonwealth government should determine carefully
where the investment of finite education and training dollars will assist
those who need it most, not just those who have already benefited.
For example, the Committee notes elsewhere in this report the enormous
potential benefit, in both economic and social terms, of investing in
`third age' education for older people.
There is emerging evidence of a positive correlation between older people
engaging in intellectually stimulating pursuits and their physical and
psychological wellbeing. Such stimulation appears to delay the onset of
symptoms of dementia and similar degenerative diseases. There are enormous
savings to be made in health care and welfare expenditure if support for
older people to engage in adult education reduces their need to enter
a nursing home, for example.
The Committee believes that equivalent personal and community benefits
would flow from investment in adult and community education more generally,
especially for disadvantaged equity groups who, by and large, have not
been well served by the schools, vocational education or university sectors.
The Commonwealth government should adjust its arrangements for supporting
education and training with a view to optimising the returns both to the
students and to the taxpayer. The proven efficiencies of ACE providers,
their effectiveness in producing outcomes and their accessibility to people
often excluded from the other post schooling sectors, justify ACE's inclusion
in the Commonwealth government's education arrangements. This means including
ACE in all its aspects, not only that fraction of it which delivers accredited
vocational programs.
The comments directed at the Commonwealth government have equal merit
in their application to the States and Territories. Indeed, given the
responsibility of the States and Territories for the assembling of their
Training Profiles, and given their influence on ACE activity within their
jurisdiction, it is particularly important that the full range of ACE
activities are recognised and supported by the States and Territories.
In the Committee's view, the provision of adequate infrastructure to enable
ACE providers to administer their programs efficiently is a high priority.
The less affluent ACE organisations who seek to become accredited providers
have a special claim here, especially where they are serving disadvantaged
client groups. Some States have already embarked on support initiatives
of this kind.
The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth government
- give priority to the infrastructure and capital requirements
of community-based providers of ACE:
- require that State and Territory governments assist community-based
ACE providers to meet the costs of becoming registered providers;
and
- require that ACE providers have formal representation within
the State and Territory ACVET Profile processes.
|
The Committee reiterates its acknowledgement of the need for the Commonwealth
government to be clear about the nature and extent of education and training
activity that it is prepared to fund. But if the Commonwealth government
continues to express its funding responsibilities exclusively in the language
of skills, and through the mechanisms of essentially industrydriven national
VET structures, it will achieve only partially its goals of national productivity
and equity, and will fail to meet the genuine needs of many individual
Australians.
The ACE sector, at minimal cost to the Commonwealth government, produces
education and training outcomes for hundreds of thousands of Australians
each year. These are outcomes which research has repeatedly shown to have
considerable vocational significance. Thus there is a strong case, even
in the narrowly-prescribed terms of vocational criteria, to invest public
funds in ACE provision. This investment will complement investment in
the other sectors, notably the VET sector, even though the level of investment
in the latter will be proportionately much greater.
In 1991 the Committee expressed to governments the view that the time
had come to back a winner. Since Come in Cinderella, important
but still somewhat marginal improvements have been made to government
investment in ACE. The time has now come to invest more intensively in
this proven stayer. The ACE sector is delivering personal, community and
vocational outcomes efficiently, to a broad range of Australians including
those who are markedly disenfranchised within the national education and
training system. It has established pathways into VET and higher education,
and has proved itself to be eminently capable of meeting the requirements
of labour market training initiatives.
The many ways in which ACE adds value to the education and training system
have been spelled out in detail throughout this report. We know, for example,
that ACE delivers a valuable service in adult literacy and language training
and contributes significantly to community development. It continues to
be a major source of learning opportunities for women across the full
spectrum of Australian society, and responds better than other sectors
to the special needs of mature age unemployed men. Of particular significance
is ACE's involvement with older people, where the stimulus of learning
sustains mental and social activity and helps to stave off dependency,
hospitalisation and alienation. (ACE, of course, does not stop at the
nursing home door.) The savings to the public purse which could flow from
adequate investment in this area of ACE activity are incalculable.
All of this casts considerable doubt on the value of using solely vocational
criteria in determining how the investment of public education and training
dollars should be made. Such criteria are becoming an increasingly blunt
instrument with which to achieve the desired national outcomes for productivity,
creativity and efficiency, and the desired levels of wellbeing for individuals,
their local communities, and the nation as a whole.
The Committee urges the Commonwealth government, State and Territory
governments to adopt the principles of prudential, long term investment
in the way that they plan and implement policy for post-school education
and training. Together they must develop a national policy and funding
model which values and promotes integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes
and not just the acquisition of sets of narrowly defined competencies.
Such an integrated approach has always characterised the ACE sector.
The challenge for governments is to replicate those understandings in
the criteria which guide the allocation of public funds within Australia's
education and training system. It is vital that the Commonwealth government
modify its current policy perspective and associated funding guidelines
so that the criteria used reflect and encourage an integrated approach
to education and training. Such criteria must go beyond whether or not
a program has accredited vocational status.
Footnotes
[1] J S Dawkins. Higher Education: A policy
statement, AGPS, 1988, p 68
[2] E Faure. Learning to Be: The world of
education today and tomorrow. Report of the International Commission
on the Development of Education, UNESCO, Paris 1972
[3] A J Cropley (ed). Lifelong Education:
A stocktaking. Pergamon, Oxford & Unesco Institute for Education,
Hamburg, 1979
[4] Transcript of evidence, Melbourne,
pp 195-196 (Ms Clemans)
[5] Transcript of evidence, Melbourne,
pp 198-199 (Ms Bradshaw)
[6] Transcript of evidence, Melbourne,
p 198 (Ms Bradshaw)
[7] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 50 (ANTA)
[8] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 51 (ANTA)
[9] AAACE response to ANTA quoted in submission
no 67, vol 5, p 52 (ANTA)
[10] Australian National Training Authority.
Towards a Skilled Australia, 1994, p 1
[11] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 50 (ANTA)
[12] NSW Board of Adult and Community Education.
ACE-VET: Is it delivering? An evaluation of vocational education and training
in NSW adult and community education, 1992-1995,p 20
[13] Submission no 56, vol 4, p 127 (DEETYA)
[14] Submission no 67, Vol 5, p 53 (ANTA)