Youth and Rurality in ACE: Re-packaging,

re-viewing and re-connecting

Louisa Vale BA(Hons)M Ed

“The only defence against the seductions of imagery is a literate education”[1]

“Student’s decisions and aspirations are shaped by their relationship with individual, familial, school, community and governmental social and material networks, their experience of schooling, their access to programs, employment opportunities, support and infrastructure.”[2]

The summer of 2007-2008 will see rural communities in South Eastern Australia face new and profound challenge. Ongoing drought ,global warming issues and the major change to the Murray Darling water system will see many areas undergo a significant shift from traditional farming methods and lifestyles. In many ways, the social wellbeing of rural Australians has never been so closely scrutinised as it is at this moment.

This heightened debate about the future of rural communities has led from everything from cow sponsorship schemes to prominent political discussion and media campaigning.

Ironically, an increase in the past few years of the broader Australian awareness of rural challenges seems also to have masked ongoing and profound issues confronting rural communities.

How does a rural community define itself and it’s population? It is essential to consider the cleaving of a ‘local’ and ‘rural’ context with region, state, nation and global society.

In this paper, I examine a small but significant case study of a rural community : a small town in North Eastern Victoria where the tensions between views of rurality illustrate challenges facing both marginalised youth and their community.

There has been much significant work in rural educational research both in Victoria and in other states. Predominately, these projects have used case study methodology to emphasise diversity amongst rural communities.

These analyses use specific examples of rural communities which have key similarities and yet remain essentially different. They show us as researchers a way in which to begin ‘re-viewing’ both place and people.Each town and area has its’ own characteristics. Any rural community is both ‘dynamic and diverse’, with fluctuations in dominant cultural discourses, leadership and social structures. [3]

Bright is situated in North Eastern Victoria, approximately 4 hours from the state’s capital. The Alpine Shire which incorporates this community has a population of approximately (my italics) 17,581[4], and Bright itself has a fluctuating population of around 2000.[5]

It is useful to discuss this community in terms of physical distance from regional centres- approximately 115 kilometres from Albury/Wodonga, and 75 kilometres from Wangaratta. This physical distance and the issue of access is key to discussion of the context of Bright and its community, particularly youth and other marginalised groups. As Robson states, distance creates “ emotional and psychological impact”[6]

Bright is reliant on a number of industries including agriculture and forestry. Most significantly, however, this is a community with a strong economic base in tourism, with its associated industries. [7] This shift in economy from traditional farming in recent decades has strongly influenced the culture of this community, with seasonal work for many in the Shire associated with the ski industry and accommodation/hospitality . As one interviewee put it in Golding “ Here in winter a lot of the young people work up on the mountains...and in the summer they work in hospitality...there are hundreds who go up and down the mountain every day.”[8]

Bright’s demographic reputation as a ‘retirement village’ also has a profound impact on the interactions and beliefs of its community. As Ling, Keamy,Knipe and Bottrell discuss, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures suggest that the highest growth bracket in this community are the 60+, with a decrease in people under 17 and between 35-49 .[9] An interviewee in Golding puts this another way: “ in the last five years there has been what I call a big injection of change...people having their ‘sea change’ “[10]

Bright is a town focussed and driven by tourism and the needs of incoming retirees; a community where “members of the community find the presence and visibility of unemployed young people difficult to cope with and threatening”[11] (despite whether this perception of ‘unemployed’ is correct or not);where voices of tourism groups and the chamber of commerce dominate discourses about public space and events.

This is a community where the Mountain Cattlemen’s Association is alive and well and where the word “Shagadelic” must be removed from the VCAL float: where Council planning policy documents for tourism are extensive and thorough and where there are still no youth policy documents.

The Alpine Shire is relatively economically sound in comparison to other regions of Victoria, however like any other community, it has a proportion of ‘marginalised’ young people.[12] ‘Marginalised’ as defined by McLelland, McDonald and McDonald is used here to refer to young people from 15-19 who are not in full time employment or in recognised training.

Many of the young people in this community, and most of those participating in our program fit in to one or more of the following cohorts:

  • Socially marginalised within the community
  • Low self esteem
  • Bullying and/or bullied
  • Unstable homes
  • Poverty
  • Poor literacy and other learning skills, and failure to achieve

success in mainstream schooling

  • Substance abuse
  • Cultural and racial intolerance
  • Self harm
  • Involvement with juvenile justice.

2007 research into Disadvantage (by postcode) place these young people in the top 15% most disadvantaged people in Victoria .[13]

There is an undeniable link between “wider social, economic and demographic changes” and growth in unemployment and poverty in rural Australia.[14]These changes sit external to climate change and other predominantly rural issues and reflect more the global change in economies.

Previously secure (or traditional) roles within communities- the “security of locality and identity” have been significantly affected by global economic change.[15]

Luke discusses “rural communities with … students most visibly at risk”, where rural communities have become marginalised in new economic structures.[16] Luke also mentions the shift in the spatialisation of poverty in Australia, particularly in the 1990’s, where rural young people were the fastest growing group in poverty.[17]Rural communities with rapidly aging and childless populations would seem to be some of the most vulnerable in Victoria.

.

The idea of marginalism; and the reasons for ‘disengagement’ in rural communities must also be considered in the context of social capital theory and the capacity for communities to accept and support all members.

Is it the case that “Rural communities may be well placed to maximise the outcomes of school VET programs because of a key attribute- their strong local networks.”[18] ? Or is it that “ change is hard in the country…the oldies run things…young people are not encouraged…”? [19]

Much recent research has focussed on social capital and community capital. In particular, within research regarding community partnerships,[20]social capital,[21] and leadership,[22] Falk and others have consistently examined interactions in rural towns.

Sometimes, this research acknowledges also the underlying issues of viability of the community itself- where social cohesion can support a range of ages and demographics within a community. [23] The capacity of projects such as this community VCAL can not be understated in its’ significance to potentially add to the cohesion and sustainability of a community by allowing young people access to social groups, behaviours and conventions.

The ‘complex web’ mentioned by Waterhouse[24]is the reality of any societal group- whether rural or otherwise. Much of the work informing this paper acknowledges the diversity of impacts on any individual experiencing learning, and particularly acknowledges the difficulty in homogenising groups of learners (or individuals!).

Rural youth live where they are for a range of reasons: not all by choice. They face the context of their environment as their home and also as their place. This importance of place is seen where within the rural- and one’s identity within it- “ the soundness of individual place-identity rests on having a place and on knowing that one’s place is held in esteem by others.”[25]

Many young people in the country are not the youth of McLeod’s Daughters or even of SummerBay.

Many of our students found themselves challenged by hiking and camping without showers and mobile phones; found themselves enchanted with the new Subway franchise in the town and found themselves experimenting with a range of hard drugs.

They did not find themselves working in rural industries, living on a farm or even out of town. They had no ambitions to stay within the community and none of them aspired to work in the rural sector.

The challenge of ‘repackaging’ for our students within their community came from the wider community recognising difference and then moving on to accept it: a significant challenge for any rural town.[26]

Throughout the course of the project, there have been a number of terms applied to the participants by members of their community. From ‘bunch of losers’ or ‘hoodlums’ through to ‘marginalised’ or ‘disenfranchised’ youth, the young people have clear perceptions of their stance within the community. They knew that “If you have a family or relatives who are known for bad things, you are going to be permanently marked.” [27]and felt in some instances that they were ‘marked’ by their own actions and past.

These concepts of social capital and partnerships remain the most problematic in the delivery of our program over the past four years. As I mentioned earlier, this is a community where tourism and the viewof the outsider looking in have remained the dominant discourse. Ironically, at the time of publication, the lack of direction with developing of a local government driven “Youth Policy” has become one of the most vexing issues of community co-operation.Where researchers acknowledge that ‘the awareness and willingness of all parties to recognise, appreciate and make allowances for the processes and cultural differences of other partners was[ is] important.” [28], it seems fundamentally important that communities attempt to do this with their young people as well.

“Re-packaging” the youth of VCAL:

It has been a central aim of our project to increase “accessibility in terms of physical access and just as importantly, emotional and sociological access”.[29]

This has taken place through the participation of young people in an ‘adult learning’ environment- an aspect of the ACE sector which is widely recognised.

Young people have long been a part of the ACE sector, but a number of recent studies have produced a range of evidence which illustrates the capacity for the ACE sector to deliver legitimate and sustainable community based education for them.[30]

Most recently, Walstab, Volkoff and Teese completed a three year longitudinal study which found a number of significant positives for young people in ACE including “[ACE]provides a platform for further study - offering encouragement, laying a foundation and assisting with entry to new and higher level courses, both within and beyond the ACE sector” [31]

In our program, small but significant numbers of our students have either gone on to other accredited training or re-entered into state school education. In some cases, the re-connection with education must be viewed as this re-entry into community: an important and positive outcome, but not the clear ‘learning pathway’ within the language of VET.

Student participation (particularly in 2007) in a range of highly visible community activities has led to a subtle shift in community perception and tolerance. The building of a local mural, planning and carrying out “Clean Up Australia Day” and assisting with older local residents have all enabled the young people to be seen as active (and trustworthy) citizens.

Most significantly in 2007 has been the actions of the VCAL group in building a “WaterwiseGarden” project- both positive volunteer work and an unique expression of concern by young people for the global change they too are aware of.

By brokering participation in these projects, our curriculum needs have been met. More significantly, however, these experiences have given many of the young people help with the skills needed for ‘re-packaging’ themselves: an opportunity which as people disengaged (and usually fighting with) the school and wider community they were unable to tap into. Although difficult to quantify, evidence would suggest that the ‘self confidence’ mentioned by other researchers has been given to these young people to interact in the broader community.

“Re-viewing”: the process of looking at the world

It has been central to this study to explore the culture of individuals within an unique rural community: the “living experiences of rural people rather than representations of them”[32]

The core of our curriculum has been firmly based in the theories of critical literacy.

Critical theory in it’s broadest definition is a “systematic process of review and analysis”, where “every human act of inscribing experience into discourse is fluid... affected by culturally determined conceptions”.[33]

Street argues that literacy as the ‘built in not bolted on’ catchcry of the VET sector was “not simply a technical competence to be added on to people as though they were machines to be upgraded” [34] . Lukes’ dialogue surrounding critical literacy reinforces the need for “…reworking a critical literacy for ‘reading’ and engaging with the ebbs and flows of knowledge in globalising economies and cultures…”[35]

Many authors who explore multiliteracies embrace the significance of information technology. An increasing number of jobs require a level of ‘basic’ computer literacy and an increasing amount of knowledge and information is accessible only (or primarily) through internet or IT based sources. With the tyranny of distance faced by rural communities, these multiliteracies have even more significance.

Lemke makes the point that multimedia ‘authoring skills’ are increasingly important in terms of literacy, and, like more traditional mediums in language, should be approached in terms of critical analysis.[36] This approach opens up the multiliteracy field where “… learners potentially can utilise more than ‘abstract and static’ print only media”.[37]

The practices of this VCAL project attempt to enhance the value of critical literacy to individuals who are already marginalised through past educational experiences and by a range of other factors. Luke, who, in exploring ‘democratic rights’ to critical literacy suggests that ‘commodification’ of literacy skills fails to address more significant issues of giving people the tools they need to face the worlds’ complexities.[38]

These ‘tools’ are best demonstrated in the works of the young people themselves: in the visualisation of the world around them through the images they select and present. A consistent use of digital technology- not only to produce stories, but also to viewhas become to most powerful element of our project.

As researcher, I am conscious of using and choosing visual images-both in terms of my own study and in my working communications where I utilise my own multiliteracies to learn and to teach. Within this paper, use of the term multiliteracies recognises and makes explicit the use of the visual both a learnt social/cultural practice and as “personal, subjective and moral narrative” [39]

Our project uses the visual documents as “visual data products”[40] which were created by the students themselves as opposed to “visual research methods” where the researcher/teacher collects material as a way of documenting research or competency. [41]These documents are presented as ‘biographical objects’ which I acknowledge are both constructed views of reality by the young people and “quite profound responses and reactions”.[42]

As mentor and as teacher, I have explored “the nature and sources of the ‘frame of explanation’ used by the interviewee”- the language by which participants describe and construct their world.[43] In other words, to “(look) for common threads and for points of departure” and to “allow an assessment of the effectiveness of ... objectives” [44](in my case, teacher’s objectives).

I include here some still images taken by the students- each one is part of the construction of place experienced by those who view it. (see appendix)

Over the past four years, the students have produced a range of digital films and manipulated images, sourced logos, icons and images from the internet, and expressed their ‘viewing’ of the world around them. Coupled with the language and experience of critical literacy, this process has been one of great empowerment.

The capacity of this approach has been explored within our project in a number of ways.

Several sessions used volunteer local film makers working with students on technical skills. The students were loaned digital cameras and digital movie cameras to record the world around them. Students were then left to explore the town and record what interested them. The resulting raw footage was intriguing to me- reinforcing my belief that the young people saw their town in a way unique to themselves- and not necessarily in the same way as older members of the community.[LU1]