Scope of ACE in Australia: Implications for improved data collection and reporting - Volume 1

Adult and community education (ACE) plays an important role in educating and training Australia's people to become a society of lifelong learners. It contributes significantly to the overall education of Australia's population through a network of numerous ACE organisations and providers and the offer and provision of education and training courses in a wide range of fields. In doing this, Australia's ACE sector is a major player in setting up and emphasising the importance of a cultural background that fosters the open attitude towards flexible and lifelong learning.

The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), endorsed by the MCEETYA ACE Taskforce commissioned the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) to undertake the project on Scope of Adult and Community Education in Australia and Implications for Improved Data Collection and Reporting. The NCVER consulted widely with key stakeholders in all States and Territories as part of this project during May 2000.

NCVER found that Australia's ACE sector shows great diversity and versatility with training organisations and providers delivering both vocational as well as nonvocational programs. While some ACE providers receive government funding from State/Territory or Commonwealth recurrent or specific-purpose allocations for VET, other ACE activity is funded on a fee-for-service basis, and volunteers or unpaid workers deliver some programs.

Partly because of this diversity the reporting on the training activity within Australia's ACE sector is a difficult task. Currently there is no national data standard for ACE and no obligation for providers to pass on data on ACE activity to a national ACE data collection except for that part which is funded from State/Territory or Commonwealth recurrent or specific purpose allocations for VET.

Reporting on ACE also varies quite considerably among the States and Territories. Some States/Territories, like Western Australia or the Northern Territory, have hardly any reporting mechanisms for ACE in place. The national VET data collection therefore only contains a small amount of information on ACE activity in those States/Territories. Other States/Territories, like Victoria and New South Wales, have established, and regularly update, State/Territory ACE data collections that capture activity of about 70% to 80% of ACE participants. As a result, in NSW and Victoria, and to a lesser extent in South Australia and Tasmania, the majority of the State/Territory ACE activity is reported to the national VET data collection.

Taking a broad view of adult and community education, NCVER estimates, very approximately, that in 1998 1.2 million to 1.4 million people, or 8.0% to 9.5% of Australia's adult population, were enrolled in some form of ACE. This ACE activity amounted to an estimated 25 million to 30 million hours of training.

The age and sex profile of these ACE students is remarkably consistent across the States and Territories.

• About three-quarters of ACE students are female.
• The median age of the ACE student population is approximately 40 years, about five years above the median age of Australia's population (35 years).

The information outlined below comprises all activity, including VET, delivered by adult and community education providers in receipt of State/Territory or Commonwealth recurrent or specific purpose allocations for VET, and some that is voluntarily reported to a State or Territory training authority.

In 1998, the national VET data collection contained data on ACE activity undertaken by 582 000 students. These students were enrolled either with community providers or in personal enrichment programs or both. ACE students aged 15 years or more (99% of the nationally reported ACE students) represented 3.9% of Australia's 1998 population of age 15 years or more.

In total, ACE activity nationally reported to the NCVER in 1998 accounted for more than 21.2 million training hours. Training associated with Australia's ACE sector and reported to the collection has been delivered at almost 940 different training locations.

Of the 582 000 ACE students (or about half the NCVER's total estimate) reported nationally in 1998:

• 71% were female and 29% male
• 50% were older than 38.5 years indicating that ACE students, on average, are significantly older than students participating in other post-compulsory education
• 22% undertook formal VET and 21% informal VET
• 62% were enrolled in personal enrichment programs ¹
• 82% were enrolled with community providers and 18% with other providers (TAFE institutes, universities etc.).

The distinction between 'vocational' and 'non-vocational' programs is based on the curricular intent (or expected vocational outcome) of the program. Under the old VET statistical Standard (AVETMISS 2.0) every training organisation that supplied information on courses was required to classify each course by stream of study ² . Vocational streams were streams 2100 to 4500 while stream 1000 classified nonvocational, recreation, leisure and personal enrichment programs. This is the classification used here to distinguish between 'vocational' and 'non-vocational' ACE programs.

Vocational programs can be accredited and lead to a recognised qualification. If a student was enrolled in a program that could result in a qualification classified under the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) or the old Register of Awards in Tertiary Education (RATE), or in other certificates (including statements of attainment and endorsements to certificates), the vocational program is considered formal. Informal VET comprises all non-award vocational programs as well as module enrolment only activity. The table below illustrates this mix of programs.

During consultations, NCVER found that reporting to the AVETMIS Standard still presents difficulties to some providers, particularly small providers. This varies between States/Territories depending on how long reporting arrangements have been in place and what arrangements exist at the state government level.

Further, where providers are reporting to State Training Authorities (or other government agencies requiring such information), it appears that this information is seldom fed back to them for their own use. The information is therefore perceived largely as an imposition to ensure funding rather than a tool in management or planning. There was difference in opinion on this issue depending on whether providers had a commercial or advocacy role and what their core business was. That is, where a provider was part of a formally funded system, such as the public VET system or public funding from other sources, they were more likely to be sympathetic to the need for data collection.

Market information or market intelligence was seen by all (regardless of their funding status) as more valuable than enrolment, provider and organisational data. The majority if not all providers undertook customer satisfaction/ course evaluation feedback. This kind of information, including what students gained from their course, where they went on completion, what they thought of the course and where they found out about the course were seen as critical to the viability of the organisation. There was also interest in assessing and evaluating the learner's experience of the course. Instruments for collecting this information vary where they exist and are largely self-administered in class or face-to-face.

Providers consulted felt that any information collection arrangement should attempt to capture the outcomes in terms of the social and personal impact of adult and community education as well as vocational and employment related outcomes. Many felt that their own evaluation processes captured this information already, albeit the information was more likely to be qualitative than quantitative.

It is clear that gaps in the information currently collected preclude the development of national KPIs for ACE. On the other hand, the amount of detail which is collected is already seen by many in the ACE sector as adequate if not onerous.

The exception to this as noted above is 'market intelligence'. Gaps in information identified here included:

• socio-economic information relating to clients
• whether clients were returning or repeat custom
• mode of transport to and from course
• what goals and outcomes had been achieved through training
• pathways before and after experience in adult and community education
• retention information
• sources of information about adult and community education
• local and regional level information, both about existing clients and potential clients.

Because of the current uneven development of information arrangements for adult and community education, NCVER considers there is a need for some additional information about adult and community education nationally. In order to meet the needs of users and allow for the possibility of a limited set of KPIs, this information needs to be broader in scope than is collected at present, but limited in depth in comparison with what is collected for the public VET system. This is underlined by the current review of the national strategy underway under the auspice of MCEETYA Adult and Community Education Taskforce and indeed, the variable depth and scope of quantitative information revealed through this project.

However, in looking at whether or not to extend the current scope of the collection it is important to consider both the need for and likely reception to, extending the scope to adult and community providers not in receipt of State/Territory or Commonwealth recurrent or specific purpose allocations for VET or other public funds. The level of detail currently collected for the public VET system (see glossary definition) is clearly the outer limit for ACE-sector activity. In fact, the NCVER suggests that the requirements for a limited set of national KPIs could be met by collecting information in considerably less detail than applies to VET.

Recommendations

We recommend that:

1. The current arrangements be retained for all providers in the public VET system in Australia including full compliance with the AVETMIS Standard.
   This is cost neutral.
2. The issue of reporting and/or collecting a reduced amount of information in relation to personal and recreational programs be considered by the National Training Statistics Committee.
   This is cost neutral.
3. ANTA and the National Training Statistics Committee pursue with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) the feasibility of collecting more information about participation in ACE through the ABS education and training survey or other relevant instruments.
   Costs: The cost of this could be expected to be in the range of $50 000 - $100 000.
4. Information on and by ACE providers be collected as a scoping exercise similar to this project every three to five years. Such a process would be greatly assisted if adult and community education advisory bodies in States and Territories held registers of adult and community providers in their states and updated these on a regular basis.
   Cost: $100 000 every three to five years in additional funding.
5. In order to assess the feasibility of a collection of summary statistical information from ACE providers, we recommend conducting a pilot project on establishing an aggregated, provider-level ACE data collection with a diverse cross-section of ACE providers, to test the efficacy and restrictions of such an approach. The pilot project would not need to cover providers already included in existing data collection arrangements, such as Board of Adult and Community Education (BACE) providers in NSW and Adult, Community and Further Education Board (ACFEB) providers in Victoria.
   Cost: approximately $50 000 for designing data collection and data validation process, conducting pilot project, evaluating feasibility and estimating costs for national aggregate data collection. Costs highly depend on the extent of pilot project.
6. Common, do-it-yourself survey tools be developed for use by adult and community education providers in line with current development of a standard national do-it-yourself survey with a capacity for local customisation, for use within VET, including the use of electronic tools for data analysis.
   Cost: this would be at marginal cost or cost neutral, as there is an existing developmental project within the survey program for vocational education.
   As an extension to provide a national perspective for KPI purposes, the feasibility of extending the survey to a sample of ACE providers to provide reliable information on outcomes should be explored with peak ACE organisations.
   Extension cost: The final cost will depend on sample size and logistics, but could be expected to be approximately $50 000.
7. NCVER investigate the possibility of developing an ACE - specific publication in the future, on an annual basis.

¹Students can be enrolled in both VET as well as personal enrichment programs. Therefore the percentages shown in the table above add to more than 100.

²Even though under the new AVETMIS Standard 3.0 the stream of study classification has become obsolete, the vocational outcome is still reported as being either 'vocational' or 'non-vocational'.