With respect to program content, there is no recognition in policy of the implications for training of women's distinct preferred learning styles. Clearly there is a need here for pioneering work by CCLOW and other sister organizations. Curriculum which recognizes the 'crossover' potential of skills developed within the informal economic sector has been developed at the local program level by groups such as Women skills in British Columbia and Women's Community Enterprises in Ontario (26). However, we could find no evidence anywhere of policies which attempted to address the training implications of the relationship between women's work in the informal and formal economic sectors.

With respect to the actual learning needs of women, there are some distressing gaps. For example, despite years of clearly articulated and well-researched recommendations coming from the voluntary sector and some pioneering work in the program area by groups in locations across the country, there has still been no clear response to the nation-wide problem of illiteracy. Of all the provinces, only Quebec has taken significant initiatives. At the federal level after years of sustained lobbying by the Movement for Canadian Literacy and its member groups, new national policies and some supportive resources have begun to emerge in 1987. Within the Canadian Jobs Strategy, there is clearly an intent to serve women who are 'employment disadvantaged' because of low education levels or immigrant status. This intent is welcome, and to some extent it has been realized through programs like the Severely Employment Disadvantaged (SED) component of Job Development. However, entrance criteria, and frequently delayed mechanisms for minimal financial support, short program duration, lack of connection to further training on program completion and evaluation measures based on how many people are immediately hired in full-time jobs actually mitigate against serving the educational needs of those most in need of assistance. At the same time, at the provincial and regional level the amount of programming for those in need of basic education and bridging programs is declining as a consequence of shifts in federal funding, changes in priority and cutbacks in provincial support. The recent Canadian Jobs Strategy decision to fund a limited number of bridging programs through Innovations is a welcome, but stop-gap measure.

With respect to appropriate program structure, increasing numbers of programs appear to be making provision for part-time programming. However, funding formulae for most community colleges and school boards are still biased against evening and part-time programming. As their general levels of funding are becoming more restrictive in most regions of the country, this problem is likely to persist. Since locally-based Continuing Education programs have historically been and continue to be a source of education which is close to and responsive to local needs, it is a major concern that these programs are among the most vulnerable to damage caused by friction among the various fragments in the complicated jurisdictional structure of Canadian education.

Apprenticeship programs are another important training mechanism in which access for women appears to be a casualty of jurisdictional problems. Except in hairdressing, cooking, and cosmetology, women are severely under represented in apprenticeship programs all across the country (see Table 5). Their access is curtailed by lack of information, biased selection processes, program structures, gender-based prejudice, and biased employment patterns in apprenticeship occupations. Yet, apprenticeships as a method of training have proven themselves over literally hundreds of years. A federal-provincial study of apprenticeships is currently underway. Hopefully, its recommendations will provide some enlightened guidance regarding how the barriers which so severely limit women's access to apprenticeships can be lowered.

In the area of distance education, as in literacy, the excellent work at the program level of organizations such as Athabasca University has not been recognized or generalized through policy. The idea that people no matter where they live have a right to learn and the knowledge that the tools of distance education provides the tools for exercising that right, although it is well-established among adult educators (27), seems not to have found a secure home in policy.