Adult Community Education
AUTHOR: Peter Dunne
The issue of the future of Adult Community Education (ACE) has been in the news recently, following the government’s Budget decision to substantially reduce funding for school based programmes (evening classes) in particular from the start of next year.
Already, this is having an effect with current programmes (including in my own electorate) announcing they are closing down form the start of next year. With over 200,000 New Zealanders currently involved in ACE to some extent or other, it could be argued that this is a heaven sent opportunity for Opposition parties, which, true to form, are running round organising community meetings and petitions, with all of the “Stop the Cuts” fervour of the early 1990s. And they are likely to be just as unsuccessful this time round as they were then.
The reason for this is simple – it is one thing to oppose what is being done, but quite something else to promote a viable alternative. In this instance, I do not like for one moment what is happening, but, equally, I do not believe the impact is, or should be universal.
ACE has a long and proud tradition in New Zealand. It has gone by many names: from adult education to extension services, through to the work of the WEA. Today, it is maintained at a variety of levels, from the community education centres I have referred to through to groups like the University of the Third Age. The issue is here is less about the future of ACE, than it is who pays for it.
I think there is a distinction to be drawn between a number of what I would regard as essential ACE services (ESOL, migrant resettlement, budget advice, parenting skills etc) typically provided through local community centres and specialist agencies, which arguably have a strong community benefit, and those courses which are more individually focused, and have an essentially private good focus, be it vocational or recreational. To me, it is not unreasonable in those instances for the course participant to pay a realistic fee for the course provided. That is where the debate should be focusing.
Sadly, however, by taking the broad brush approach and treating all community education programmes as the same, both the providers and the Opposition are ensuring that the outcome will be equally unsatisfactory across the board. All they are doing is ensuring that all programmes are equally at risk, which is extraordinarily shortsighted.
A more sensible and constructive approach would be to follow the course I have suggested above, of making a distinction between the public and private components. That will at least ensure the continuation of what I regard as essential community programmes, while providing a basis for more individualistic course to be continued on a user-pays basis.
The test of the critics’ integrity will be the extent to which they are prepared to be pragmatic, rather than dogmatic.