2. At the beginning of this project, CCLOW did not. or could not. provide a set of specific policies or priorities which would guide and limit the investigation. Placing limits on the activities was the hardest part and each unit had a tendency to grow ever larger as it was assembled. Without limits we found it hard to reach closure on the topics suitable for discussion. This was especially true of Unit III on the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.

The lack of priorities and the existence of only general policy statements, led to a number of concerns, which were simply avoided in the writing of this report, but which cannot be avoided in developing specific policies in the future. The five major concerns were:

i. The differences between policies and practices related to the personal and professional development of individual CCLOW members on the one hand and the issue of advocating change in public and private educational agencies on behalf of women learners on the other. For example, we were never clear whether this report was to be an example of the professional learning done by one or two people, or if it was to be used as a basis for future advocacy. This is not an either/or conflict, but a question of variation in emphasis, direction and process, each leading to slightly different products. We chose to focus on advocacy rather than individual development.

ii. Within the issue of professional and personal development for individual CCLOW members lies another concern and difference in emphasis. Do we provide support through networks and through information dissemination; or do we develop and implement learning activities on behalf of members? This report does not focus on either side of this issue, although it represents information dissemination in one form.

iii. Within the issue of advocating change, is yet another concern. Is CCLOW to be a passive change agent by providing information and suggestions which other groups can actively use in their own areas; or do we act as an active agent on behalf of both members and women learners? It was not clear how this report was to be used. It was written as an internal source of information (passive) to be used as background material only, and not as the basis of an active advocacy document.

iv. The fourth concern occurred because policy can focus on any or all of:

• the processes to be used in CCLOW activities

• the major focus of these activities. ego schooling, training or individual activities; learning for basic literacy, for functional employment; for personal growth; for family maintenance; for the benefit of society or the benefit of the individual; etc

• priorities based on need

• priorities based on values, beliefs and attitudes

• the outcomes, products or changes sought

The decisions involved in this concern were clearly beyond the scope of this report and the entire problem was reduced to a series of alternative courses of action which might be considered for future policy development.

v. The fifth concern was the result of our values, attitudes, beliefs, needs and priorities imposing restrictions and direction on the material being assembled. In general, we tended to move in the direction of favouring the disadvantaged in the educational system, the "have-not's", who tend to have less and less as the system grows larger and provides greater access and flexibility. The educational system tends to operate on an illusion, referred to in various OECD documents as the "teaching illusion". This illusion expresses the hope that educational activities will be sufficient to change the social structures which cause disadvantages and to make the educational system, and hence the economic/employment system, universally accessible. Since the educational system is designed to support the social structures and to facilitate the economic/employment systems, it can do nothing of the sort. But we keep hoping.