OBJETIVOS DE LOS ALUMNOS/INTERNOS

This section describes the contemporary policy landscape that LLN teachers worked in during the period 2010 to 2016. Characterised by the emergence of the words ‘foundation’ and ‘skills’ in the language about literacy, this period has resulted in significant LLN policy reform by federal and Victorian state governments. Foundation skills are described by both levels of government as ‘the generic skills, including language, literacy, numeracy and employability skills that underpin the acquisition of more technical or vocational skills’ (Wignall, 2015, p. 7). Although this reform period can be characterised by the re- intensification of the government voice, industry has also emerged as an influential stakeholder informing policy. The same cannot be said for the ACE sector, which has had limited involvement in the policy development (Yasukawa & Black, 2016).

Although the link between LLN and the workplace as a context for multiliteracies had been acknowledged by both ACE and government for some time, it was not until 2010 that industry became active in LLN policy debates. Industry activity included the release of a series of national reports calling on the federal government to act on survey findings that showed declining literacy and numeracy standards among Australian adults, as these were seen to be adversely affecting economic productivity within workplaces. Compared to other stakeholder groups, industry was less concerned about whether policy contained a shared definition of literacy; its focus was on actions (not words) to raise LLN standards among adult Australians (Perkins, 2009; Industry Skills Council ISC, 2011; Australian Industry Group, 2012; Australian Industry Group, 2010).

Alongside calls from industry, other stakeholders continued to express frustration regarding the lack of national LLN policy. From an academic perspective, Mendelovits (2012) described the federal government’s level of activity as ‘intermittent at best’ (p. 1), observing that, although there had been a surge in the late 1980s and early 1990s, what followed was a ‘hiatus until about 2010’ (p. 1). Representing the concerns of ACE, Adult Learning Australia (2012) released a report claiming that Australia’s lack of policy response to LLN reflected a twentieth-century approach to a twenty-first century problem.

As part of overall VET reform, Victoria led the way in terms of government activity related to renewed policy. Prior to the federal government’s adoption of the foundation skills discourse as a way to locate LLN within contemporary policy, the Victorian Government coined the phrase ‘foundation programs’ to describe a cluster of LLN, English language, disability and Indigenous courses linked by specific funding specifications (Victorian Skills Commission, 2009). Although the term ‘foundation’ was used by both levels of government, there were some distinct variations between the two interpretations. For example, the federal government disseminated the foundation discourse in relatively linear terms, using explicit language that linked LLN skill development to employability (SCOTESE, 2012), whereas the government in Victoria displayed a broader understanding of foundation, incorporating LLN for employment but also recognising other types of foundational needs of adults. This was most evident in the inclusion of Indigenous and disability programs into the foundation programs cluster, as these emphasised community inclusion and cultural heritages (SCOTESE, 2012).

The Federal Government’s linear interpretation of the foundation language, combined with industry’s increased influence on government policy, ignited a range of academic commentary. Black and Yasukawa (2010) expressed concern that the explicit use of the foundation discourse within an employment context was a way of simplifying discussion about adult LLN. In later research, they added that, although it had not always been the case, current adult LLN education programs had become positioned by policy that privileged a dominant foundation discourse of literacy/numeracy into acting in a service role for industry (Black & Yasukawa, 2014) rather than as a standalone set of skills and attributes. Whereas, during the previous era, LLN was promoted as a fundamental element of social capital (Balatti, Black & Falk, 2006), the rise of a foundation discourse linked to industry saw LLN become associated with human capital needs. The National Strategy’s explicit economistic and neoliberal focus further reinforced the importance of human capital; the language of foundation promoted the development of technical LLN skills among adults to increase their value within the marketplace (Millman, 2016; Connell, 2013; Balatti, Black & Falk, 2009; Shore & Searle, 2010).

Describing LLN in terms of foundation skills also raised concerns among academics. Wignall and Roberts (2010) claimed that a louder and more influential industry voice had re-established the deficit discourse that the ACE sector had fought to dispel in the previous era. Prior to the release of the National Strategy, Perkins (2009) foreshadowed this with her claim that the use of the term ‘foundation skills’ could have negative

connotations by associating literacy with a deficit discourse. Perkin’s concern was realised in a range of industry-based statements that explicitly promoted international survey data as evidence of a deficit in LLN skills (Industry Skills Council ISC, 2011; Australian Industry Group, 2012; Australian Industry Group, 2010). Later, the National Strategy used a similar strategy (SCOTESE, 2012) effectively promoting the discourse of foundation as deficit. Echoing Perkins’ concern, Wignall and Roberts (2010) cautioned that the new foundation skills discourse should not be interpreted by industry as only comprising low-level or single skills, as it also comprised high-level, critical skills that underpinned all other vocational learning.

As has been established, there was considerable debate in Australia regarding LLN from the late 1980s onwards. These debates resulted in LLN being conceived in a range of different ways, including literacy, deficit, multiliteracies and foundation. Moreover, although the three main stakeholders—government, industry and ACE—each contributed to these debates, the intensity of their voices waxed and waned during this time.