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 selfselection 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 selfnominate 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 cooperations 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

Being adaptable, flexible and innovative

Providing clarity about the project from the beginning – both its aims and
expectations

Targeting specific personnel and liaising with these people to effect
coherence and continuity

Ensuring frequent and meaningful contact

Starting with good planning and documenting everything

Appointing the ‘right’ person

Showing enthusiasm in being responsive to community needs

Maintaining goodwill and being mutually supportive

Being equitable with finances

Learning each others’ methods and ideologies

Promoting give and take on both sides and ignoring the egos

Minimising misunderstandings and simplifying everything so that
everyone understands
 Providing training in a friendly atmosphere
Conclusion
The research identified a number of key good practices that underpin successful
partnerships, as well a number of practices that may negatively affect such a
partnership. Good communication, shared understanding of goals and the ability
to be flexible in relation to both teaching and administrative aspects, are among
the most crucial factors of good practice in successful partnerships or
collaborations between ACE and VET. For a partnership to succeed, committed
lead personnel within the partnered organisations who could take the ideas
forward beyond the initial stages are crucial. Continuing partnerships identified in
this research appear to be highly dependent upon lead personnel being those
who either instigate the original idea or are involved in the early discussions and
preparations for the partnership. In this context, partnerships and collaborations
would benefit in the long term from some form of clearly enunciated, written model of
action and requirements at the outset. Such a model should also include a succession
plan for when lead personnel move on.
The research also noted that respect for each other and varied stakeholders in
each organisation of a partnership plays a key role in continuing positive
relationships between organisational personnel - whether administration or
teaching staff - and that time played a part in building this respect. At the same
time, the research found that partnerships and collaborations where
organisations had previously been unaware of the values each could offer are
often the means by which respect and acknowledgement of capabilities and skills
could be engendered.
This research further identified a number of factors that are seen by partnership
personnel to work against a sound partnership. A lack of knowledge about each
other’s operations such as organisational abilities, teaching styles, skill levels and
student cohort, are factors that initially concern both sides of a partnership during
the development stages. Although the successful partnerships are able to work
through their differences in outlook, in some cases interviewees found that these
concerns were not addressed well enough to ensure the continuity of a
partnership.
Contrasting administrative requirements of each organisation also impacted
negatively on stakeholder attitudes and, in turn, on partnership operations. As
with Saunders (2001) we found that the difficulty of working within the constraints
of differing bureaucratic procedures is noted across the two types of teaching
organisations, and although successful partnerships have managed to overcome
these differences they remain problematic for all practitioners and administrators.
Overall, the research found evidence to support the proposition that partnerships
between ACE and VET are vehicles that can further promote vocational learning,
broaden community capacity and increase lifelong learning skills within a
community. The findings confirm the notion that communities benefit from
partnerships and collaborations between ACE and VET through the impetus they
gain from the inclusive teaching and learning environment that arises within their
locality. This strengthened community environment results from the sharing of
knowledge, skills and interests across the range of stakeholders who come
together within the collaborative effort of the partnership.
References
Allison J Gorringe S and Lacey J (2006) Building learning communities:
Partnerships, social capital and VET performance, Adelaide, NCVER.
Bateman A and Clayton B (2002) Partnerships in assessment: auspicing in
action, Adelaide, NCVER.
Callan V (2004) Building innovative vocational education and training
organisations, Adelaide, NCVER.
Chappell C (2003) An industry-led VET system: issues for policy, practice and
practitioners. Report 3 – A world of difference, OVAL Research working paper
03-03, OVAL Research, UTS, Sydney
Daniel D Mitchell G and Shearwood W (2001) Partnerships ... the way to go,
Perth, WA Department of Training.
Elmuti D Abebe M and Nicolosi M (2005) ‘An overview of strategic alliances
between universities and corporations’, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol 17
No 1-2, pp. 115-129.
Gelade S Harris R Mason D (2001) Accounting for Change: Adult and community
education organisations and the GST, Canberra, Adult Learning Australia.
Gelade S Stehlik T and Willis P (2006) Learning collaborations between ACE and
vocational education and training providers: Good practice partnerships,
Adelaide, NCVER.
Kearns P (2004) VET and social capital: a paper on the contribution of the VET
sector to social capital in communities, Adelaide, NCVER.
Kilpatrick S (2003) The role of VET in building social capital for rural community
development in Australia, CRLRA Discussion Paper D4/2004, CRLRA, University
of Tasmania.
Marsh E and MacDonald H (2002) Roads less travelled: New pathways for ‘at
risk’ young people in rural and regional TAFEs, Collingwood, Access Training
and Employment Centre.
Plane K (2005) Becoming more responsive to VET or becoming over vetted?
Tensions for VET and capacity building with small business/ community
partnerships in the Adelaide Hills region, AVETRA, 2005 Conference
Proceedings.
Saunders J (2001) Linkages between ACE vocational provision and mainstream
VET, Adelaide, NCVER.
Selby Smith C Ferrier F Burke G Scholfield K Long M, and Shah C (2002)
Lifelong learning and the world of work: CEET’s surveys for the ACCI, ACTU &
ANTA, Monash University-ACER.
Stehlik T (2006) ‘Schooling vs education: (Re)engaging early school leavers in
meaningful learning through whole-of-community approaches to learning as part of
social inclusion initiatives in South Australia’, proceedings of New Zealand Association
for Research in Education National Conference, Rotorua, December
.
Stokes H Stacey K and Lake M (2006) Schools, VET and partnerships: Capacity
building in rural and regional communities, Adelaide, NCVER.
This paper has been approved for inclusion in the proceedings through an
anonymous peer refereeing process.