Chapter 2 continued
ANTA and the rise of competitive tendering
The establishment of ANTA and the push for an open training market
has seen the application of competitive tendering processes for Commonwealth
funds. The highly competitive environment of labour market training
programs has also had a number of impacts on the ACE sector. It has
drawn into the VET environment ACE providers who have learnt how to
tender and have proven highly successful in winning contracts in the
competitive training market.
This involvement of community providers in labour market programs has
drawn into the ACE sector a range of students unlikely to have participated
in post-school education and training, notably unemployed people and people
with disabilities. [1] Not only are ACE
providers setting disenfranchised learners on the pathways to the formal
vocational training system, but they are able to introduce this cohort
of the population to notions of self-directed lifelong learning.
Despite the demands imposed on those ACE providers who choose to engage
in delivering accredited programs, competitive tendering nevertheless
opens the door for ACE to attract some ANTA dollars. ANTA itself clearly
expects ACE to profit from such opportunities.
There have certainly been some benefits to ACE through the competitive
tendering of public funding, which has basically meant that providers
other than TAFE colleges have been able to get funding. That competitive
tendering has increased significantly, particularly last year, and is
projected to increase further in the next few years. The possibility
of user choice for apprenticeships and traineeships where public funding
will follow the choice of provider may also provide some opportunities
for ACE providers, particularly in the traineeship area. We also believe
that the concept of training programs based on the national packages
meeting the required standards will enable ACE providers with significant
experience in recognition of prior learning to undertake that role rather
again than having to be part of a more formal course process.
[2]
Not surprisingly, perhaps, several witnesses before the Committee did
not see competitive tendering as quite the unfettered good implied above.
Most of the criticism rested on the incapacity of many providers even
to get a ticket into the tendering game because they lacked the human
and technical resources necessary to develop bids which were likely
to attract support. There was also the perennial problem that the tendering
was only open to those capable of delivering accredited training, and
for many ACE providers there was neither the infrastructure, the curriculum
nor the desire to tackle such programs.
One thing which was abundantly clear to the Committee was that in states
such as NSW where ACE providers have been assisted with technological
and professional infrastructure to position themselves properly in a
competitive tendering process, then those providers have a significant
advantage over their ACE colleagues elsewhere.
Particularly with smaller Adult and Community Education providers,
their core business is funded by the New South Wales government and
that tends to be in non-accredited courses, but every successful Commonwealth
tender you get,whether it be for a labour market program or for adult
literacy,actually helps the respective Adult and Community Education
centres develop and grow. I see it as a fairly positive thing.
[3]
One of the hallmarks of the ACE sector has been the spirit of generosity
between providers. Resources and curricula have been willingly shared.
There has been a sense of `all-in-together', and an ethos of helping
less materially endowed colleagues. This is put at risk in a competitive
tendering environment.
Increased competition (eg with TAFE, universities) means that
such organisations have lost their commitment to adult learning in its
broader sense which involved fostering and supporting other organisations.
As a result, they are less likely to share resources (curricula, facilities).
As a result much of this in-kind support for the community sector has
diminished over the past 5 years. [4]
But such an environment, it seems, is here to stay for the foreseeable
future.
There is a clear intention by the Council of Australian Governments
(COAG) to implement competition reforms in the public sector and to
apply competition principles to the supply side of the VET sector. This
has clear implication for the public VET provider and for other competitive
suppliers such as ACE. [5]
Competitive tendering by its very nature, tends to favour those organisations
which have the resources and business acumen to enable them to develop
a successful tender. Larger ACE providers are more likely to have access
to people with the necessary knowledge and experience at assembling
bids and preparing tender documentation. The issue of competitive tendering
seems particularly problematic for ACE providers operating in regional
or rural settings, and the following comments bear repeating in some
detail for the light they shed on the matter:
There is little doubt that the tender based process has had
some very positive effects for the ACE sector and has opened up opportunities
which were denied to us before. ...However, I believe that there are
negative effects, particularly in rural areas ... [It] is desirable
that regional Australia should try to provide the optimum ... continuum
of opportunities ... and that a coordinated approach, where each provider
has a role to play, is a better way to go about that rather than a
competitive process.
The tender process promotes competition at the expense of a
collaborative approach. ... [and]... promotes cost as the most likely
determinant, irrespective of where other public expenditures are.
... So you may have a [private, ANTA-funded] hospitality course being
provided in motel facilities, yet down the road you will have a TAFE
hospitality unit ... perhaps not being used. That ... is not taken
into account in a single DEETYA contract...It promotes short-term
hesitant planning, rather than long-term planning...
[L]arger enterprises which have resources to compete for the
tenders ... can sustain the losses against unsuccessful bids,because
that is often the process. In rural areas, where populations are smaller,
community based providers are correspondingly small-scale in most
cases and therefore have difficulty in participating in that process.
I believe it militates against ... continuous improvement. Often,
quality improvement requires investments in training and resources,you
just do not have improvement and that is it,and this is a difficulty
due to the uncertainties created by the process: you may not win the
tender next year and therefore any investment may go out the door or
you do not invest in that way; you just try and win it. But improvement,
I believe, requires that continual investment in training and in resources.
[6]
It was pointed out to the Committee that it is in the nature of smaller,
particularly rural, communities to encourage collaboration and the shared
use of resources and facilities. This is enhanced by the fact that people
working in different organisations in regional towns are in regular
contact at the social level, making the sharing of experiences, ideas
and aspirations more commonplace than might be found in an urban setting.
The Committee has considerable sympathy with such a perspective, but
the commitment of governments to competitive tendering processes seems
unlikely to diminish. What is perhaps required is the establishment
of criteria in the competitive tendering process which give preference
to applications demonstrating a collaborative approach. Some consideration
might also be given to taking regional factors into account when weighing
up the merits of applications from a group of local providers on the
one hand and a large external agency on the other.
The Committee notes that there may be risks of `feather bedding' or
similar conspiracies attached to collaboration, but it should be possible
to build into competitive tenders sufficiently rigorous performance
criteria against which to test the efficiency and effectiveness of a
collaboratively developed proposal.
The Committee RECOMMENDS that the new NACVET Authority
review its guidelines for competitive tendering in order
(a) to incorporate selection criteria which encourage collaborative
tenders, and
(b) to require the specification of clear performance indicators
in tender documentation.
|
The National ACE Policy and ACE Taskforce
The development of a National ACE Policy was a key recommendation of
Come in Cinderella. A draft policy was prepared by senior State
government officers and representatives of AAACE, and in December 1993
the policy was adopted by the AEC/MOVEET Council of Ministers (later
MCEETYA). The national policy was based on the following principles:
- adults have diverse and changing learning needs throughout their
lives and require a correspondingly diverse range of responses with
a variety of provision and plurality of choice and educational pathways;
- adults learn effectively when they are actively involved in decisions
about the management, content, style and delivery of their learning;
- adult learning is fostered through a curriculum and methodology
which involves collaboration between teacher and learner;
- adult learning should be accessible, appropriate, stimulating and
affordable in recognition of differing circumstances and constraints;
- local community organisations can readily identify and respond to
the needs of their local community;
- services should support and strengthen existing community networks
and help create new ones;
- community provision is more responsive and comprehensive when collaboration
occurs between the sectors of education and training. [7]
In November 1994 MCEETYA established the ACE Task Force in its own
right to promote and monitor the implementation of the policy. It was
also to have a major role in advising ANTA concerning its ACE responsibilities,
and to bring an ACE perspective to bear on the work of other MCEETYA
taskforces. In 1996 the ACE Taskforce was asked to review the Policy
to take into account changes in the education and training environment
since 1993. Its report will go to MCEETYA in mid-1997.
The ACE Taskforce also oversees the implementation of the annual Adult
Learners Week, and acts as a steering group for ANTA-funded ACE research.
The Commonwealth established an annual ACE Grants program of $450,000
per annum, part of which funds the AAACE to serve as the national representative
for the ACE sector, with the bulk of funds supporting a range of `extraordinarily
valuable and effective' [8] projects
to assist the sector's development and consolidation.
The Committee explores elsewhere in this report the improvements in
research which have been vital to the sector. Taking into account the
significant increases in the contribution of ACE to the national education
and training system, this research and development work warrants additional
support.
| The Committee RECOMMENDS that the level of the Commonwealth's
ACE Grants Program be significantly increased and managed by the
new NACVET Authority. |
The impact of the National ACE policy has been significant on a number
of counts. These are set out in the Taskforce Report to the Ministerial
Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth AffairsNovember
1994 to June 1996. An overview presented to the Committee by the
Chair of the Taskforce (Ms Sam Thomas) included the following highlights:
In summary, the task force has actually been both an impetus
and a catalyst for states to actually really get moving on the implementation
of the national policy. Some of the significant achievements have
been in the establishment of structures in those states where, when
the initial review was undertaken, there was no mapping or any structure
to support Adult and Community Education. You will see from the report
that there has been significant progress. The report also highlights
progress against each goal of the national strategy. Whilst there
is great disparity in the progress, there is discernible progress
in all states...
The report also outlines the significant number of research
and development projects that have taken place since the last review.
It also highlights the work in progress ... I believe the last report
highlighted the lack of research in Adult and Community Education.
There is now a commitment in many states to research and development
and we have, I believe, a very impressive range of research reports
here...
There has been considerable support for resources and projects
which support the management and delivery of quality ACE. These frameworks
include accredited tutor training, an accredited management certificate
in ACE, an ACE specific quality strategy, and evidence of partnerships
with TAFE in the form of strategic plans at state level resulting in
formal credit transfer arrangements between ACE and TAFE. [9]
The response from witnesses about the establishment of the National
ACE Policy was universally favourable. There was a strong consensus
that it was a crucial factor in achieving recognition for the sector
by governments at all levels. It also provided a platform in which to
ground a range of initiatives which simply would not have occurred in
its absence. The Committee looks forward to the revised policy currently
being developed by the MCEETYA ACE Taskforce. The Committee is of the
view that the revised policy should assert forcefully the contribution
of ACE providers not only to the national VET system, but to the general
education and skills levels of Australians. The Committee also expects
that this present Senate review of developments in ACE since Come
in Cinderella will be taken fully into account by MCEETYA in its
consideration of the revised policy.
Footnotes
[1] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, p 5 (Dr Schofield)
[2] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
24 February 1997, p 618 (Mr Noonan)
[3] Transcript of evidence, Albury,
p 254 (Mr Jones)
[4] Submission no 51, vol 4, p 47, (Evening
& Community Colleges Association of NSW)
[5] MCEETYA. Towards A Learning Society,
Revised National PolicyAdult and Community Education, Consultation Draft,
January 1997, Kelly and Associates Strategic Solutions, Melbourne
[6] Transcript of evidence, Albury,
pp 248, 249 (Mr Saleeba)
[7] Submission no 56, vol 4, p 124 (DEETYA)
[8] Submission no 34, vol 3, p 94 (AAACE)
[9] Transcript of evidence, Canberra,
1 August 1996, pp 3, 4, 5 (Ms Thomas, MCEETYA)