BACK

WORKING WITH VOLUNTEERS

Reflections on 20 years in Adult Literacy

by JOAN GIUMELLI

In this article I would like to offer some personal thoughts and conclusions on volunteer tutors in adult literacy, based primarily on my long association with volunteer programs in NSW. I know that there are considerable differences in such programs from state to state, but I hope that my recollections will have resonance for others working in this rarely visited field.

The early days

Way back in the 1970ís, specialised adult literacy provision was brand spanking new in Australia, having in 1975 received the seal of government approval. In New South Wales, a few classes already existed in evening colleges using traditional primary-school methods, but new TAFE (Technical and Further Education department) programs were initiated by Kath White in 1977. In line with the political emphasis at the time on access and equity in further education for disadvantaged adult groups (Kangan Report, 1975) they seemed a tremendous advance, being based on the concept of literacy as a human right rather than on the established remediation model. As in Britain, the procedure was to use trained volunteers (ìthe living indication of the caring communityî) to give free 1:1 tuition in a community location, often the home. In such settings, content, method, timing, location and materials for learning could be negotiated with the student and tailored to his/her needs.

Those of us involved in those early days, were mostly brought up on the ideas of the gurus of the 60ís and 70ís like Freire, Illich, Knowles and Carl Rogers. Consequently, we were brimming with fervour and enthusiasm for our new roles in student-led, whole-person education which remained consistent with quality tuition. From the beginning the demand from prospective learners was often more than one coordinator could effectively manage, so 1:1 provision was supplemented by small-group tuition on-campus with professional teachers. Appropriate university level training in adult basic education (or ESOL for that matter) did not exist and most of us who became Adult Literacy Officers (the TAFE designation for coordinators of volunteer programs) had backgrounds in school teaching. Consequently, there was a lot of ëlearning on the jobí and from each other in an atmosphere of great camaraderie.

To me, the concept of a cooperative endeavour between government bureaucracy and the community seemed visionary - and indeed it was! Democratic ëlearning partnershipsí between professional coordinator, resourceful volunteer tutor and committed student broke new ground in respecting each participantís right to share in decision-making about content and style of tuition. But I and my fellow ALOs were certainly naive in believing that such a system would continue to grow and flourish without much alteration, subject as it was to institutional restructuring and changes in government policy. At College level, programs were inevitably small-scale and local in nature (even though in rural areas they often covered thousands of square miles!) and were often met with considerable suspicion from conservative College Principals and trade teachers used to traditional methods.

- 2 -

Growth and tensions

Through the early 80ís, as demand for assistance soared and more and more basic education teachers were employed, questions of professional career paths and industrial relations issues between literacy/numeracy teachers working in college classrooms and ALOs out in the community loomed ever larger. The ëquality of serviceí provided by ëvolunteer amateursí was questioned by those struggling to establish Adult Literacy Teaching as a profession with satisfactory rates of pay and working conditions. They saw such tutors as a threat to their professional status, especially once post-graduate courses were established and qualifications for employment were set by TAFE. In addition, ALOs were barred from promotion unless they became on-campus teachers, so effectively there was no career path for those coordinating volunteer programs. Recently (Sim, 2000), the whole conflict was down-played as ìmore an industrial issue than an educational oneî (p.13), but in reality the opposing educational viewpoints were also poles apart. Both here and overseas journal articles appeared, one side espousing the unique learner as ëknowerí of his own needs and goals (Ilsley, 1985) with the nonprofessional tutor as ëlearning assistantí (Cervero, 1985) and the other promoting the expert teacher as ëenlightened guideí (Bradshaw, 1992).

Debate raged in NSW in the mid 1980ís, with TAFE and the Teachers Federation allies (for their own purposes) to eliminate or at least restrict the role of volunteers. The professionalisation of the field sought by the teachers was gradually achieved through the late 80ís and early 90ís with their status and numbers enhanced; funding by ILY (International Year of Literacy 1990) and ALLP (Australian Language and Literacy Policy 1992) fostered deeper and more sophisticated research and teaching methodology better grounded and richer in resources. Volunteer programs, while still existing, largely disappeared from serious consideration and as Merilyn Childs wrote in 1995, were staffed by ìinvisible womenî.

However, the politically driven move of TAFE away from the community and from further education (the FE) and deeper into work training (T) propelled literacy into the ëmainstreamí of vocational competency-based training. Paradoxically, this actually cut across the teachersí aims and by the late 90ís language/literacy/numeracy teaching seems to have been largely subsumed into delivering ëtraining packagesí. (Kell, 1999). The profession is increasingly casualised, with a consequent decline in numbers and morale.

What about volunteer programs?

My personal position in all these arguments remained pro-volunteer, because I believed that the two systems (professional - group tuition and volunteer - 1:1 tuition) were not in competition, but complementary. Noone would deny the need for a learning pathway through accredited courses for those who need or want them; on the other hand, there will always be those who are not ready for group tuition, whether emotionally or in skill level, and those for whom informal, private, flexible learning with a nonprofessional helper exactly meets their needs. Consequently, I resigned from TAFE in 1987 and with those tutors and students who walked out with

- 3 -

me, set up Literacy Network as a ëcommunity association for the sharing of literacy skillsí.

The Network is still very much part of our local community in the north of Sydney today, partially funded by BACE (Board of Adult and Community Education) but the rest comes from fee-for-service work and fund-raising. We operate as professionally as possible, insisting on substantial training for tutors (but not competency-based), careful assessment and matching, and close liaison of student/tutor pairs with their coordinator. Indeed, many people who have gone on to careers in Adult Basic Education received their initial training and first supervised teaching experience as volunteer tutors.

Yet lack of interest in our efforts by the ëpowers that beí means we have little sense of belonging in a broader field of endeavour, whether literacy or volunteering. In adult basic education, we are marginalised as volunteers, in adult education we do not count because we are specialised providers and the world of organised volunteering pays little heed to the field of adult education. I am sure those working in 1:1 community programs in other States would also see a crying need for recognition, research and consequent specifically targeted professional development. Some contact between us would certainly help to alleviate the sense of isolation, which must be even more intense for those assisting othersí learning on a purely, informal neighbourly basis with no knowledge of the resources and support available. When we broaden our vision to the community-at-large, the reach of the professional looks very limited indeed.

Meanwhile, Literacy Network continues to operate on what a speech-writer of the Prime Minister recently called ìthose tired old social justice shibbolethsî. Our volunteers tend to be younger that in the past (30ís to 50ís) and are often working women - men tutors are few and far between - though the recently retired form a sizeable minority, bringing a wealth of skills and knowledge from teaching and other relevant careers. They often work with us for years. Students, both ESB and NESB, number about 60 at any one time, with ages ranging from 15-year-olds who could not ëhackí the school system to seniors improving their skills to enhance their lives. (Our oldest student, a Hungarian lady who studied conscientiously and to good effect every week for several years, died recently at the age of 92. Surely she merited help as much as the worker acquiring obligatory competencies.)

Certainly, the conundrum of professionalism versus learner power and community involvement remains as difficult to solve as it ever did, since outcomes-based training and contractual accountability are now central to government policy. To be marginalised is probably the only way to preserve some freedom of choice in both content and methodology, but how long can programs based on personal relationships rather than regulations survive? A glimmer of hope lies in the concept of the community sector as the ëthird wayí between public and private sectors. In the present post-Olympic euphoria, both Federal and State governments trumpet their support for volunteering and for the ëdevelopment of social capitalí (the current buzz phrase). In reality, however, Governments remain quite ambivalent on the questioní

- 4 -

as revealed in an Issues Paper circulated by the Charities Definition Inquiry (2000). The Committee notes ìcommunities being encouraged to take greater responsibility for developing their own solutions to their problems and needsî while at the same time ìgovernment funding for the sector [is] being provided increasingly through outcome based funding agreements for the provision of defined services ...[and] contracts for the delivery of government programs.. [are] being awarded increasingly on the basis of competitive tendering processesî (p.7). The outcome of the vaunted ëgovernment-community partnershipsí looks problematical indeed. The present political climate is far from the favorable one of the 1970ís.

So, as usual, , the future looks anything but clear for community adult literacy in general and out little local enterprise in particular. Perhaps the International Year of the Volunteer will provoke some thought and action on the part of those with the power to do something about the situation. Who knows?

References

Bradshaw, Delia (1992): From fill-ins to foundations - changing views of literacy, in

Writing Our Practice, ACFEB, Vic. pp.204-228

Cervero, Ronald (1985): The predicament of professionalism for adult education, in

Adult Literacy and Basic Education.v.9. no.1. pp11-16.

Charities Definition Inquiry (2000): Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organisations - Issues Paper, 10 November,2000.

Childs, Merilyn (1995): Invisible women - voluntaryism and ALBE provision in

Australia: a call for research, in Literacy and Numeracy

Exchange, September, 1995, pp39-50.

Ilsley, Paul (1985): Including educationally deprived adults in the planning of

literacy programs, in Rosenblum, Sandra ed.:

Involving Adults in the Educational Process, 1985, pp33-41.

Kell, Peter (1999): Open for business: the market, the state and adult literacy in

Australia and beyond 2000, in Australian Council for

Adult Literacy: Conference Papers, November 1999.

Sim, Sue (2000): Reflections on ABE in NSW - a conversation with Rosie Wickert, in Literacy Link, v.20, no.4, August 2000,

pp.10-13.

JOAN GIUMELLI

25 January, 2001