Partnerships Between ACE and VET Providers: How Good Practice in Delivering Collaborative

Partnerships between ACE and VET providers: how good practice in delivering collaborative vocational education programs can benefit local communities

Tom Stehlik & Susan Gelade

University of South Australia, Australia

Introduction

In Australia, as elsewhere, Adult Community Education (ACE) and Vocational Education and Training (VET) organisations and providers operate effectively within their own spheres of influence to deliver vocational learning at various levels to their students and clients. A number of these organisations have also engaged in both formal and informal partnerships as a means of facilitating the provision and range of certain courses to clients across both urban and regional settings.

During 2005, researchers from the University of South Australia undertook a study commissioned by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) that investigated the types of good practices seen by collaborating participants to both support and promote such partnerships. The study also aimed to identify practices that may be counter-productive to the long-term survival of a partnership or collaboration, and to examine the extent to which such collaborations and partnerships benefit the communities in which they are located. The final report of the project includes a definitive ‘Good Practice Guide’ that offers constructive and practical information for organisations and practitioners seeking to repeat such collaborations elsewhere (Gelade, Stehlik & Willis, 2006). These research findings have implications for ACE/VET policy making and practice both in terms of providing clear indications of practices that promote, as well as those that impede, successful partnerships and collaborations. In addition we would argue that partnerships are, conceptually, integral to the formation of communities due to the understandings they can generate through interaction. As a consequence successful partnerships form a basis for ongoing community engagement and contribute to the development of social capital (Allison et al, 2006).

In this paper we outline the context, scope and methodology of the study and summarise the key factors that were identified as common to successful partnerships between the ACE and VET organisations involved in the project. As outlined below, the primary data for our findings arise from interviews collected from participant organisations that were self-selecting. As a consequence, it is acknowledged that this sampling process could be seen as a limitation and the results necessarily not conclusive for all ACE-VET organisations that are involved in partnerships or collaborations.

Context and methodology

Four key questions were addressed in the research:

· Where are examples of successful and unsuccessful ACE-VET partnerships and/or connections in outer urban, regional and rural localities across Australia, and how do they work?

· What outcomes do the respective stakeholders expect from these partnerships and/or connections, and to what degree are these expected outcomes achieved?

· What good practices currently underpin partnerships and/or connections?

· What are the implications of the research findings for policy and practice?

The initial stage of the research engaged participants through purposeful self-selection on the basis of their successes or failures in one or more collaborations or partnerships. This self-selection method of interviewees shaped the way in which examples of ACE-VET partnerships and collaborations were identified and explored. In the knowledge that research requires both commitment and interest from participants, and that consequently there is some reluctance to engage in research, organisations were first sent an email message inviting them to self-nominate as willing participants. The initial organisational contacts were built by utilising and building on a previously consolidated database initially constructed for an earlier ACE research project (Gelade, Harris & Mason, 2001).

While the final number of sites that nominated to participate was small in comparison to the number of initial emails sent, it is important to emphasise this willingness to participate. There is anecdotal evidence that organisations are becoming ‘research weary’ and tend to have negative attitudes towards research studies. The interested and amiable cooperation of these partnered organisations was initially deemed useful to collecting data, but in the final analysis, we would argue that cooperation can prove crucial to the success of any study.

The investigation was conducted through a series of in-depth telephone interviews and then selected follow up site visits. Twenty-six organisations from the ACE and VET sectors involved in 13 partnerships across six Australian states were involved in the telephone interviews. These partnerships covered both urban and regional areas. Further findings came from 12 partner site visits made by researchers. The site visits encompassed urban, rural and regional Community Education Centres partnered with a local VET provider, which in most cases was a TAFE Institute (Technical and Further Education, the main publicly funded training provider in Australia) and in one case a university partnered with an ACE centre. The sites covered four states - New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

Literature review

A review of the relevant literature was undertaken to provide both a contextual background and theoretical basis for the research study, and a summary of this review highlights the links between regional development, community capacity building and social capital in ACE/VET partnerships.

In regional areas, partnerships are seen to be a crucial factor in further developing the type of VET activities that facilitate community learning environments and hence enable a wider share of the community to engage in learning activities (Allison et al, 2006). Regional communities also benefit from partnerships between schools and VET (Stokes et al; (2006). While partnership models differ from school to school and region to region, the authors note a number of shared issues. These issues range across such benefits as; retention of young people in an area, provision of accredited work skills, local industries filling skill shortages, businesses supporting young people while they gain access to networks (Stokes et al;, 2006:10).

As well as school leavers, partnerships also promote inclusion of those on the margins of the mainstream, such as the disadvantaged groups (Kearns, 2004; Daniel et al, 2001; Stehlik 2006) who do not have the same access to learning opportunities as do others. Selby Smith et al (2002) cite the example of a community where lifelong learning was not a priority for the region and the community had difficulty in establishing programs. When national training funding helped them to develop a learning community model, they found that partnerships between TAFE, employers and other organisations improved outcomes specifically for disadvantaged individuals and groups. These authors also cite partnerships between industry and unions that encourage workers to undertake more training and move into better paid positions. Such a partnership has long term benefits for individuals and companies as well as the wider community, by engendering changes in attitudes towards learning (Selby Smith et al, 2002:78).

There is a high level of agreement among authors as to the main characteristics of good practice in partnerships and collaborations across and among various sectors, such as schools, ACE, TAFE, industry, Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and government. As well as the good practice characteristics, in general there is agreement that partnerships work better if placed within the context of local possibilities and constraints (Chappell, 2003; Callan, 2004) and that good practice means finding ‘situated solutions to specific local and regional education and training needs’ (Chappell, 2003:18). Daniel et al propose that collaborative ventures are seen to work best ‘when the partners are able to find ‘common ground’ rather than focussing on differences’ (2001:6) and they focus on their ‘respective strengths and work together to explore a range of opportunities that benefit both’ (2001:4).

While competition is an issue in sparsely populated regions, Saunders (2001) suggested that informal connections often lead to better understanding and collaborations between the participants. Such connections include TAFE seeking ACE brochures to distribute to students, a cross-organisational use of college library facilities, and ACE staff acting on interview panels for TAFE. Also cited is a TAFE lecturer visiting ACE centres to offer introductory talks to students and ACE volunteers about TAFE courses (Saunders, 2001:74). There are also co-operations in language and literacy services, with referrals across sectors seen as a form of positive collaboration. In addition, Saunders proposes that regular dialogue between organisations regarding each other’s directions and ideas is particularly helpful to participants.

The aspect of ‘regular dialogue’, or what others term ‘effective communication’ (Elmuti et al, 2005; Bateman & Clayton, 2002) as a good practice characteristic, flows strongly within all the literature. It is however, often described in differing ways, such as ‘mutual understanding’ (Bateman & Clayton, 2002), ‘information exchange, or sharing of information’ (Saunders, 2001; Callan, 2004) and ‘regular interaction’ (Marsh & MacDonald, 2002). Plane (2005) notes that a ‘willingness to listen’ is one of the basic aspects of the collaborations seen to engender capacity building in regional localities. Partnership therefore is seen as a concept that acknowledges communication processes and relationships which can be informal and continually negotiated; not necessarily a fixed arrangement enshrined in written contracts or memoranda of understanding.

There is however a cautionary note provided about the dialogue that occurs within partnerships and collaborations, with some authors suggesting there are negatives that can work against partnerships. Several examples are: a lack of awareness about the other sector’s programs; a lack of consistency in credit decisions; differences in awarding RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning) and lack of understanding about available pathways; all of which have been identified as inhibiting the success of partnerships (Saunders, 2001:67). Kilpatrick (2003) also notes some negatives that can work against partnerships, such as small size communities that do not have enough groups or individuals with experience in ‘thin markets’ and have insufficient continuity of programs.

Findings from the data

In addressing the key research questions of the study, some interesting variations are recorded as to the ways in which successful ACE-VET partnerships actually work. For example, roles and responsibilities of personnel vary across the interview sites, with participants suggesting that they undertake to do ‘whatever is needed’ to keep their parts of the organisational requirements running, through to what they term a ‘hands off’ role where only funding or a venue is supplied. These differing roles and responsibilities between the organisations and across the spectrum of interviews can be summarised as follows:

·  ACE organisation provides the learners, venues and resources; VET organisation funds places

·  ACE provides teaching staff, VET partner provides funding to pay them

·  VET partner promotes the course, community centre takes all other responsibilities

·  Roles and responsibilities shared equally between partners, both providing facilities and teaching staff and pooling resources

·  ACE provides promotion, facilities and courses, VET partner does the accredited assessment

·  ACE does everything except providing the paperwork related to the VET partner’s requirements

·  VET partner provides resources, funding and assessment tools; ACE provides the facilities, tuition and learners.

Interestingly, while participants were able to identify a number of intrinsic and positive achievements from their partnerships, eg ‘we are developing an increased skill level among clients undertaking ACE courses’, few were able to provide ‘hard’ evidence that substantiated their claims. Substantiations related mainly to the numbers of participants, eg ‘there is an increase in accredited courses (Certificate IV) to the local community who would not have otherwise accessed such a course and more trainers and volunteers are gaining new skills’. Similarly, some respondents reported a steady increase in numbers of clients taking on courses, or the fact that some classes now had waiting lists. Others noted increased numbers of students articulating from ACE into accredited VET courses.

Beyond these numbers - what one interviewee called counting the ‘bums on seats’ - the evidence of success must instead be seen in terms of what the interviewees themselves describe as being successful and actual outcomes, such as acknowledgement that ‘we have strengthened relationships between organisations’ and that ‘our older learners, who are actively engaged in learning are healthier and not a drain on the community’.

Much of the participant commentary concurs with the literature we outlined above, and as can be seen from the comments below, relates to strengthened organisational relationships, community capacity building and enhanced communication between groups:

·  We are able to offer free computing courses to disadvantaged clients, so we can promote our area as a ‘learning community’

·  More courses are available in an isolated community that could not be serviced previously by the VET provider

·  The partnership raised the profile of our organisations and there are increases in socialisation among older learner participants in courses held at the school locality

·  We are filling a gap for a particular age group – school leavers – that provides activity options and new skills

·  The partnership provides a stepping-stone from ACE to VET, some articulation has taken place

·  The whole of our community benefits through better qualifications and greater employability

·  We are developing a cohort of new learners unused to further education

·  We are strengthening the regional ethos

·  Our partnership is putting ACE into the ‘big picture’ of VET

It is worthwhile noting that when we compared the data between partners, ACE personnel are seen to place more importance on intrinsic community benefits and their ability to help disadvantaged learners, while VET personnel talk about the raising of their profile and place greater emphasis on numbers and learners articulating into their courses. We might suggest that these alternate views stem from differing ideological outlooks towards learning, delivery and its outcomes across the two types of providers. However other, perhaps more pragmatic issues, such as staffing, the way in which funding can be accessed and administrative requirements of each organisation can also impact on attitudes. We argue therefore, that partnership operations could be altered by external forces, and these are often beyond the control of participants.

Respondents were asked to identify which practices in their experience they saw as adding to the success of a partnership or collaboration. It is noteworthy again, that the practices identified reflect very closely those identified throughout the literature. They include:

·  Finding informal arrangements that can work around red tape