Fostering social development and economic prosperity through lifelong learning: first steps in one Australian community

Abstract

Two equally important and interrelated perspectives – social development and economic prosperity – drive an almost global endorsement of lifelong learning. However, this topic does not appear to be a focus of serious policy attention in Australia. Despite this lack of attention, some Australian communities have responded to the potential offered through lifelong learning, unilaterally developing their own locally based responses. This article reports on the first steps taken, to build a community culture which values and supports lifelong learning, in one Australian city. Preliminary work, instigated by a multi-sectoral working group, focused on a learning communities literature review, profile and audit. These provided a basis for a lifelong learning gap analysis. The main discussion focuses on results from the gap analysis, including identified key actions, and the need for better understanding and articulation of the contribution of community-based learning to social development and economic prosperity in Ipswich.

Keywords:

• learning community
• lifelong learning
• social development
• economic prosperity
• Ipswich

1. Lifelong learning, social development and economic prosperity

The concept of “education” as an ongoing process throughout life, and not merely confined to formal schooling, can be traced back to England in the 1920s (Faris 2004). A more contemporary interpretation of education focuses on lifelong learning, a term which moved onto international agendas during the last ∼40 years, largely prompted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Faure 1972; Delores 1996; OECD 1996).

Current understanding of lifelong learning appears to revolve around four key ideas. First, it covers a person's lifespan, from the early years through to seniors. Second, it has the aim of improving a person's knowledge or skills. Third, it can take place in both formal and informal settings – at education and training institutions, at work and at leisure. Finally, while the purpose for learning is oftentimes framed as primarily economic and functional (e.g. “learn to earn”), lifelong learning can also serve personal, social and civic purposes (European Commission 2001; Maruatona 2006; Schuller and Watson 2010).

Despite an extensive academic literature around lifelong learning and related topics, Schuller and Watson (2010, p. 9) argue that it still “… generates a surprising amount of confusion and blank looks …” and remains a “slippery term”, “… meaning different things not only in different contexts, but also in the same context to different people” (Aspin 2007, p. 4). Regardless of any such ambiguity, there appears to be broad agreement that lifelong learning contributes significantly to both social development and economic prosperity (Field 2000; OECD 2001, 2010; Watson 2003; Centeno 2011).

With regard to economic prosperity, recent research from the United States shows that, for example, increasing education attainment and learning opportunities in each of its 51 largest metropolitan areas by 1 percentage point generates a $124 billion increase in aggregate annual personal income, as well as contributing to better social and well-being outcomes (Cortright 2011). In particular, consideration of the strong link between lifelong learning and enhanced economic outcomes is essential in terms of a knowledge-based economy reliant on technological advances, a skilled workforce and globalised markets (Watson 2003).

Other authors outline how lifelong learning can contribute to social development in terms of positive health and well-being outcomes, reduced crime, social cohesion and enhanced civic participation. This suggests that in a self-reinforcing process, learning fosters an environment which allows individuals from different backgrounds to integrate and share experiences and skills (Longworth 2006), thereby strengthening social connections and tolerance (Helliwell and Putnam 2004). International studies from Africa (Maruatona 2006) and Canada show similar outcomes. These outcomes suggest a social imperative for lifelong learning that is equally important as generating employment opportunities and increased earning capacity.

Overall, as Schuller and Watson (2010, p. 21) argue in their comprehensive and wide-ranging UK Independent Inquiry into the Future for Lifelong Learning, “… the case is compelling. We have no doubt that lifelong learning already makes a major contribution to sustaining economic and social wellbeing, to enabling people to understand, adapt to and shape change, and to promoting social justice …”. This social and economic promise has gathered widespread attention for lifelong learning across the world (Field 2000; OECD 2010).

However, in Australia there has been a lack of serious attention to broad concepts of lifelong learning at both national and state government policy and operational levels (Kearns 2005). Rather, as might be expected in a developed country with an embedded neo-liberal growth focus, there is a strong attention paid in Australia to formal education and training such as schools, higher education and skills development. In contrast, informal learning settings, such as adult and community education and community-based learning, are characterised by either their absence in policy documents or vague statements which identify aspirational goals (e.g. Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education 2008; Queensland Government 2008; Government of Western Australia 2009).

Despite the lack of policy direction from state or national governments, there are still some innovative programmes at the local community level (e.g. Melton Shire Council 2008; Hume City Council 2009). However, these remain isolated examples rather than any indication of an emerging broad-scale phenomenon in Australia. In responding to a gap in describing how a lifelong learning agenda might be progressed at the local community level, this article reports on the “first steps” towards establishing a community culture which values and supports lifelong learning in Ipswich, one Australian city situated in a rapid urban growth region. There is expectation that this work, coordinated by a multi-agency working group and implemented as a formal research process, will help stimulate broader policy discussion at state and national levels around this topic and provide guidance to other communities wishing to invest in more structured responses to lifelong learning.

This article outlines the research setting, provides a description of the project design and presents a summary of key points from a learning profile and audit (for more detailed information on the profile and audit, see Cuthill and Jansen 2011). The main discussion focuses on results from a lifelong learning gap analysis and identified key actions and the potential of lifelong learning to contribute to social development and economic prosperity in Ipswich.

2. Research context: the Ipswich (learning) community

The Ipswich Local Government Area (LGA) has a population of ∼165,000 people and covers 1090 km² (Figure 1). It is situated approximately 40 km west of the Queensland capital, Brisbane, and is the state's oldest provincial city.

Figure 1. Ipswich Local Government Area and the south-east Queensland region.

Settled by Europeans in 1827, and proclaimed a city in 1904, Ipswich's social and economic background centred mainly on coal mining, railway workshops and agricultural industries. By the middle of the twentieth century Ipswich had become Queensland's largest coal producer with 67 mines, representing almost half of the state's output.

During the 1970s, these traditional industries experienced decline, with operations either downsizing or closing. Negative social and economic impacts continued into the 1990s and a general sense of decline permeated the city. However, the twenty-first century quietly heralded a new era of growth for Ipswich with the city population now predicted to double to ∼350,000 residents by 2026 (Buchanan 2004; Ipswich City Council 2005; ABS 2007; Department of Infrastructure and Planning 2008; OESR 2009).

This population growth, along with associated residential development and job creation, has prompted renewed enthusiasm and pride and a rejuvenated image for the city (AEC Group 2008; Matusik 2008; Sharpless 2008; Jansen et al. Forthcoming 2012). Regional planning identifies Ipswich as a key urban development area and as such it will accommodate a significant proportion of population growth in south-east Queensland over the next 20 years (Department of Infrastructure and Planning 2009).

Opportunities to support the transition phase into this “new era” are being explored for Ipswich and the surrounding region (Cuthill et al. 2011). One key focus has been on education and training. This is seen as an area which will stimulate and support positive development outcomes in the city. As a result, targeted education and training programmes (e.g. widening participation in higher education, industry skills development, improved literacy and numeracy for school children and increased year 12 completions) are being implemented.

However, anecdotal information from government, private and community sector service providers suggests that there are still many people who fall through the gaps and are trapped in intergenerational poverty and unemployment. There is a concern that rapid urban growth might further entrench or even exacerbate this situation (Cuthill 2010). While targeted programmes address specific issues and individuals, they do not look more broadly to “… embed a culture of learning …” within the broader community (Hume City Council 2009, p. 9). In order to progress a “whole of city” lifelong learning agenda in Ipswich, a Learning Communities Working Group was formed in mid-2010. The group's shared vision is to

… help build a community culture which values and supports lifelong learning in the Ipswich and West Moreton region.

The group argues that such a culture will support social development and economic prosperity within the region.

This collaboration involves 10 senior managers from six agencies representing local, state and federal governments, a local university, a college and a training services provider. All members are highly knowledgeable and experienced within the broad area of learning and education and see their organisation as having a strong mandate in promoting a learning community which facilitates social development and economic prosperity. This “expert” working group met for six 2-hour sessions over a 12-month period. These sessions have facilitated an iterative process of knowledge creation and analysis relating to lifelong learning in Ipswich.

A learning community is seen as any group of people whether linked by geography or shared interest that addresses the learning needs of its members through proactive partnerships (Kilpatrick et al. 2003). In operational terms, a learning community promotes the concept of lifelong learning, which is defined as … any learning activity undertaken across the lifespan, from the early years through to adult life, and including the third age (65+ years of age). Lifelong learning has the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competencies within a personal, civic, social or employment-related context (European Commission 2001; Maruatona 2006). It includes formal, work-based and community-based learning in a variety of environments – at institutions, at work and at leisure (Ainsworth and Eaton 2010) (Table 1).

Table 1. Examples of lifelong learning environments

Formal learning	Work-based learning	Community-based learning
Primary schools	Return to work skills training	Art and craft classes
Universities	Professional associations	Libraries, museums and art galleries
Vocational and educational training (VET) providers	Professional development	Children's play groups
High schools	Work experience programmes	Sport and recreation clubs

The need to first develop an evidence base, as a foundation for gaining broader agency and community support for their Learning Communities vision, was identified. A small amount of funding and substantial in-kind support were provided by working group participants to implement this work. As a first step, the group commissioned exploratory research including a preliminary review of what has been done in other learning communities and identification of key factors contributing to a successful learning community.

This initial work identified the need to develop a “learning” profile of the Ipswich community and to conduct an audit of local services and major education and learning infrastructure. Collation of this information was required in order to then conduct a lifelong learning “gap analysis”. The gap analysis directly addressed the key research question as to how the working group can help build a community culture which values and supports lifelong learning in Ipswich. The gap analysis will be used to direct subsequent actions by the working group to where they are most needed, avoiding duplication of any work currently being implemented.

3. Project design

The research reported in this article focused on three tasks. The first task involved development of a learning communities profile drawing on existing government and local agency data. Variables explored included age, gender, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, disability, socio-economic status, education and training levels, refugee and migrant background, employment and population projections. In essence, this component of the project sought out secondary data that reflect broad concepts of learning within the Ipswich community.

Most data for the profile were drawn from the ABS (2007) Census of Population and Housing (the new 2011 census data is due for release around mid-2012). When available, more recent data were accessed from various agency sources. Data presentation focused on the whole of the Ipswich LGA (Figure 1), and as such presents a broad community profile, rather than smaller statistical units such as “collection districts” or “statistical local areas”. Description of these smaller units would be useful to explore micro-level contexts but would require considerable funding support. Some recent events are not reflected in the collated data. For example, at the time of writing, Ipswich was recovering from a major flood event which had quite severe negative social, economic and environmental impacts on the local area (Cuthill et al. 2011).

The second task involved an audit of learning services and major education and learning infrastructure in the Ipswich LGA. This audit was conducted across each of the three learning environments (i.e. formal, work-based and community-based learning). Data were collected and collated for the first two tasks by the authors, with support from seven undergraduate students on a field placement. Students were divided into three research groups with a research supervisor in charge of each group (Davis et al. 2011; Gravenall and McManus 2011). Each group had responsibility for auditing one of the three learning environments (Table 1).

Data collection for the audit focused on publicly available information from sources such as online directories, government sites, other web-based sources and recruitment agency sites. No field-based data collection was undertaken due to time and resource constraints. It is useful to note that learning services and programmes come and go, subject to oftentimes fickle funding sources. However, every effort was made to ensure the database was accurate and comprehensive at the time of compilation.

The third and final task involved a gap analysis. This analysis was undertaken progressively in parallel to and informed by the profile and audit tasks, with working group members contributing their valuable local knowledge and validating emerging research findings against their on-ground experience. Such an approach looks to link scholarship and practice through an iterative process of reflective learning (Habermas 1989). An “action focus” for each identified gap was articulated during the last two workshops. The key focus for this article is presentation of and discussion around the gap analysis. As such, only a summary of key outcomes from the learning community profile and audit is reported in the following section (for more detailed information on these, see Cuthill and Jansen 2011).

A wide-ranging literature review was undertaken including academic papers, reports and policy documents relating to Australian and overseas lifelong learning and learning community contexts.

4. Summary of learning community profile and audit

4.1. Key points from the learning community profile

The Ipswich community profile has historically been characterised by “blue collar” work, relatively high levels of socio-economic disadvantage and lower levels of educational attainment than state and national averages. While Ipswich is seen to be currently undergoing a positive socio-economic transition, data suggest that there are still many pockets of entrenched disadvantage in Ipswich.

For example, the Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) assesses a combination of factors including income, education attainment, employment and car ownership. The index provides a summary measurement that defines the Queensland population as having an average of 20% in each of five quintile divisions (quintile range 1–5, 1 = most disadvantaged group of persons, 5 = least disadvantaged).

As can be seen in Table 2, at the time of the 2006 Australian census, 34.3% of the Ipswich LGA population was identified in the bottom (most socio-economically disadvantaged) quintile, and 55.5% in the bottom two quintiles. At the other end of the index only 7.2% of the population was located in the most advantaged quintile. As such, the Ipswich population rates significantly higher than Queensland figures for socio-economic disadvantage.

Table 2. SEIFA profile for Ipswich LGA

	Most disadvantaged				Least disadvantaged
	Quintile 1 (%)	Quintile 2 (%)	Quintile 3 (%)	Quintile 4 (%)	Quintile 5 (%)
Ipswich	34.3	21.2	21.6	15.8	7.2
Queensland	20	20	20	20	20
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia – data only, 2006, cat. no. 2033.0.55.001, Office of Economic and Statistical Research derived.

Ipswich also records lower rates of attainment for year 12 completions (35.2%) than Queensland (41.3%). In 2009, Ipswich's public high schools fared poorly compared to the Australian average in national exams which test year 9 students in reading, writing, spelling, punctuation and grammar and numeracy. None of the government secondary schools performed above the national average in any category (ABS 2007; The Ipswich Advertiser 2010). Based on percentage-of-population comparisons between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations in Ipswich, lower proportions of the Indigenous population have completed schooling or non-school qualifications (OESR 2008). Indigenous groups and migrant and refugee populations require special consideration in supporting their specific needs (ABS 2011a).

Some broader post-school contexts are also of concern in Ipswich including that aspiration for higher education or training is proportionally lower among disadvantaged groups, and people with a severe or profound disability are less likely to achieve after-school qualifications (ABS 2011b). Only 17.1% of all Ipswich residents have a bachelor degree or higher compared to Queensland with 26% (ABS 2007).

An ageing Ipswich population reflects the general trends of population ageing elsewhere in Australia and internationally (OESR 2011). Between the 1996 and 2006 ABS Censuses, Ipswich's median age increased from 30 to 33 years, and by 2031 it is predicted to reach 35 years. Little attention currently appears to be directed towards this trend in Ipswich, particularly in regard to learning needs and opportunities.

4.2. Key points from the learning community audit

The audit focused on learning services and major education and learning infrastructure in the Ipswich LGA. The next level of detail would involve an inventory of all community facilities and information on current use and the condition of this infrastructure. Such information would complement the current broad-scale audit focus.

The audit task was conducted across each of the three learning environments (i.e. formal, work-based and community-based learning). A draft definition for each learning environment was developed to guide the audit process (Table 3).

Table 3. Draft definitions for the three learning environments

Formal learning	Formal learning is intentional, organised and structured. It is generally based on learning objectives guided by a curriculum. Formal learning usually provides acknowledgement of completion (Ainsworth and Eaton 2010).
Work-based learning	Learning that is situated in the workplace or arises directly out of workplace concerns or need, as well as programmes that provide opportunities to achieve employment-related competencies in the workplace (Lester and Costley 2010; Gravenall and McManus 2011). Key areas of focus for work-based learning included “learning for work” which includes general VET courses, “learning at work” which includes in-house training, work experience and continuing professional development and “learning through work” which involves the application of job-related knowledge and skills to work tasks (Hyland 2007).
Community-based learning	Learning that takes place external to a structured learning context. It can occur at an individual level or within a group of people, who share a concern or passion for something they do, and learn how to do it better and gain mutual benefits through their interaction (Field 2005; Davis et al. 2011).

The separation into three learning environments facilitated identification of a manageable and defined task for each of the three research groups undertaking the audit. However, it was also acknowledged that this framing created some potential for overlap in data collection across the learning environments (Jubas and Butterwick 2008). It was determined that overlaps within the audit would be addressed when consolidating data from the three learning environments.

In total, 425 learning services and major education and learning infrastructure were identified within the Ipswich LGA. Information describing the 123 formal learning environments was quite readily available and a breakdown of categories is listed in Table 4. However, it was also noted that this information is situated in rather disparate locations with no consolidated “learning” directory for the city.

Table 4. Formal learning environments

Learning environment	Total
Early childhood, kindergartens and after school	54
Primary schools	39
Secondary schools	21
Colleges and technical and further education	2
Universities	2
Other	5
Total	123

The audit identified 39 work-based learning environments in Ipswich. These were not categorised into sub-themes. Implementation of work-based learning programmes was found to be planned and organised by the individual learner, the employer, or a third party such as an educational institution, professional or trade body or trade union.

Highly visible programmes include apprenticeships and traineeships delivered by government or private sector agencies, as well as programmes offered by non-government organisations. Induction and professional development are largely of interest to individual employers, and services and programmes are generally operated “in house”. Therefore, there is limited publicly available information.

Skills development or retraining for unemployed persons is increasingly an area of focus both in Ipswich and across Australia. For example, Skills Australia was developed in 2008 to address the skills shortage in workers and the unemployment rates throughout Australia (Australian Labour Party 2007). Skills development programmes appear to target young middle-aged population groups with little attention being directed to older persons.

Working from a framework developed by Field (2005), the 263 community-based learning environments were sorted into five major categories (Table 5).

Table 5. Community-based learning environments

Community-based learning subcategory	Total
Churches and other faith-based organisations	34
Cultural activities	60
Services and programmes	66
Community- or neighbourhood-based groups	42
Sport/physical education and exercise	61
Total	263

Unlike either formal or work-based learning environments, community-based learning is not usually undertaken within an organised setting. Rather, it is learning which takes place within everyday activity at home, at leisure or within a social context where people have a common interest such as neighbourhood, cultural or faith-based activities. Again, information about community-based learning opportunities is available but scattered across a diverse range of sources.

5. Learning communities gap analysis for Ipswich

The gap analysis draws from review of Australian and overseas literature and data collected during the audit and profile projects. This information provided a basis for discussion and analysis by the “expert” working group during their six workshops.

This lifelong learning research focused on the Ipswich LGA which provides a useful broad-brush description. However, as noted, detailed information at a statistical local area would identify more specific local socio-economic, cultural, infrastructure and demographic needs and opportunities. Working from the LGA-level inquiry, the key historical factor which underpins the Ipswich learning environment is the blue collar community with both low socio-economic status and low education levels.

This situation is currently considered to be in a positive transition phase. However, this transition, in common with the concept of building a community culture which values and supports lifelong learning, should be seen as a long-term process. In order to support this process this research looks to build an evidence base to direct ongoing actions that will help build such a culture in Ipswich.

Ipswich has a broad range of infrastructure that supports the concept of lifelong learning. However, with particular regards to a rapid growth region, there may be potential to make better use of existing institutional and community facilities, in support of neighbouring regional communities who do not have the same level of infrastructure as Ipswich. Better understanding of current use and capacity of existing infrastructure and its physical condition would be useful.

Another aspect of infrastructure relates to the rapidly emerging information and communications technology (ICT). This opportunity needs to be explored in terms of how ICT might support lifelong learning opportunities through avenues such as social networking, Gov-2 and e-learning. This is particularly relevant for rural and regional communities. Goodna and Springfield, two suburbs within the Ipswich LGA, are among the first areas included in the national broadband roll-out and they present an exciting opportunity to begin work in this area.

An age focus also emerged from the Ipswich audit. For example, formal learning plays a major role in the early years of life (0–25 years) with compulsory schooling, often followed by higher education or training. Perhaps as a logical follow-on from formal learning, work-based learning initiatives appear to broadly target the 25- to 50-year age group. However, there is some uncertainty with regard to a target age for community-based learning. Reviewed literature suggests such learning occurs across the lifespan.

This learning communities audit project identifies a general lack of policy and direction for lifelong learning in Ipswich, a situation also more broadly apparent in Queensland and Australia. As Kearns (2005:viii) argues,

While many examples of creative initiatives exist across Australia these need to be supported by more comprehensive and coherent policies to support learning throughout life in many contexts … [this] should be seen as a necessary strategic investment in Australia's future …

More specifically in Ipswich, this research suggests a general lack of understanding regarding community-based learning and its potential to support social development and economic prosperity as a major gap. Further research is required to explore local contexts for community-based learning. This would include a focus on developing better understanding of the needs and perspectives of community-based learning groups.

The audit indicates that traditional “formal” approaches to education and training are becoming more flexible in Ipswich. For example, many education providers are exploring alternate “pathways” such as blended formal and work-based learning opportunities, greater recognition of prior learning, appropriate responses to cultural requirements and “bridging” courses. Breaking down the traditional barriers and silos, which have oftentimes characterised formal learning, opens new opportunities for lifelong learning in the region (Cuthill 2012). Moving to a sectoral focus, two key areas of concern have been identified.

First, lifelong learning and the ageing population is an area which presents both opportunities and challenges (Schuller and Watson 2010). The number of “seniors” in Ipswich is predicted to steadily increase over the next 20 years with the baby boomer population moving towards retirement. Currently, there are very few learning services or programmes available to or appropriate for older people in Ipswich.

Although none of the programmes audited deny access to older people, programmes such as, for example, apprenticeships and work-based learning are implicitly directed towards younger people, with the exception of professional development as noted previously. The potential to harness the human capital offered through older people to support social development in the community, along with the positive health outcomes from an active mind and body, suggests that lifelong learning and the ageing population will soon become an area of interest for governments.

A second population that requires ongoing support are those people living in pockets of “entrenched disadvantage” in the Ipswich LGA. Approaches that provide a “hand up” rather than a “hand out” (Cape York Institute 2007), such as engaged outreach (Scull and Cuthill 2010), capacity building (Eade 1997) and strengths-based approaches (Kretzmann and McKnight 1993), are increasingly common and recommended. These groups require appropriate and ongoing opportunities and support to achieve appropriate learning outcomes (Jackson 2011).

This social equity perspective fits hand in glove with an economic prosperity rationale, and providing appropriate learning opportunities to people in this situation should be seen as a good investment (Access Economics 2005), resulting in increased job opportunities and mid-longer term public savings in health costs, lower levels of crime and reductions in substance abuse (Australasian Faculty of Occupational & Environmental Medicine & The Royal Australasian College of Physicians 2011). Governments have invested considerable resources in supporting education and training opportunities for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds in Ipswich over recent years and this effort must be maintained.

One constant constraint identified through this research is access to information. There is ample information available describing formal learning and a reasonable amount of information regarding work-based learning. The generally small scale and relatively informal nature of community-based learning means it can be difficult to locate public information on this sector unless you are already part of a particular information network. Overall, learning initiatives, programmes, groups and facilities are “marketed” through diverse and at times difficult to find sites (e.g. websites, notice boards, newsletters, various advertising media, industry open days, letter box drops and email networks).

As a result, the potential learner, at the very first stage of information sourcing, is oftentimes presented with a difficult challenge to even get started. Information across all three learning environments needs to be better managed and made easier to find and access. This might involve responses such as a centralised online “learning” directory or database; an education, training and learning website; or a one-stop information shop.

6. Moving towards an Ipswich learning community

This audit provides directions for actions in the Ipswich LGA, as well as a framework on which other LGAs within the broader region might base their lifelong learning responses. At this stage in Ipswich, some individual agencies are developing immediate responses appropriate to their operational mandates. For example, the local government is developing a learning community action plan, and a federal agency is planning a regional “learning communities” conference involving four local government authorities in early 2012. The working group will continue meeting to explore ongoing opportunities for collaboration. Some clear “gaps” have already promoted local responses.

For example, broad concepts of learning are not generally acknowledged within the Ipswich context with a key focus on education and training directed towards specific age groups. Duke (2011, p. 2) describes a similar focus with UNESCO efforts over the past 30 years:

While UNESCO has certainly championed lifelong learning … given [their] de facto primacy of concern with poor so-called developing countries, its historic focus has been on primary education, literacy and basic education, with much attention given also to functionality and to technical skills training, marginalising the adult education to which lifelong learning often narrowly and too closely attaches.

This focus in Ipswich broadly reflects state and national policy agendas in Australia.

In response to this gap, this research suggests there is potential for community-based learning to play a greater role in social development and economic prosperity in Ipswich. However, a better understanding of this topic is required before responses can be instigated. As Fryer (2010, p. 211) describes, the challenge relating to the community-based learning environment “… is to recognise this range of learning's manifestations and possibilities and also to ask what sorts of educational interventions and initiatives – not only from public authorities but also from educational bodies, community groups, trade unions, employers and voluntary organisations …” might support this type of learning.

There is a need for further research to provide a clearer picture of community-based learning in Ipswich and their contribution to social development and economic prosperity in Ipswich. Some areas to be explored include

•	a more detailed exploration of what is currently taking place;
•	the current resource investment;
•	benefits (individual, community, economic, etc.);
•	support required to enhance community-based learning; and
•	appropriate “engagement strategies” to address barriers to community-based learning.

Cultural change does not happen in a moment. The vision of the working group calls for a subtle long-term approach that will help build a community culture which values and supports lifelong learning in Ipswich. This journey will need to raise the aspirations of individuals and families to access learning opportunities in order to enhance their life outcomes. Learning will also need to be promoted as a “normal” part of life which directly relates to an individual's needs and interests. Development of this community culture will be expedited if there is better understanding and articulation of the contribution of lifelong learning broadly, and more specifically of community-based learning, to social development and economic prosperity in Ipswich.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael Cuthill

Michael Cuthill: UQ Boilerhouse Community Engagement Centre, University of Queensland, Ipswich Campus, 11 Salisbury Road, Ipswich, Queensland 4305, Australia.

Danni Jansen

Danni Jansen: UQ Boilerhouse Community Engagement Centre, University of Queensland, Ipswich Campus, 11 Salisbury Road, Ipswich, Queensland 4305, Australia.