Indigenous Australians often say that their traditional forms of education involved 'learning by doing'—a hands-on and practical approach that fitted with the immediate needs and interests of individuals and communities. This particular approach is certainly not unique to Indigenous education and is a strategy deployed at every level of education today, from preschools to postgraduate studies. At the vocational level 'training by doing' is the heart of effective skill and knowledge acquisition, making this level of education particularly amenable to Indigenous students (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Training Advisory Council (ATSIPTAC) 1997, 1998, 1999b, n.d.; Australian National Training Authority Research Advisory Council (ANTARAC) 1998; Schwab 1997; Teasdale & Teasdale 1996). Many who have lived or worked in and with Indigenous communities will be familiar with stories of failed training programs based on decontextualised classroom lectures and abstract book-work. On the other hand, stories of practical success abound, telling of Indigenous students who have gained and refined their understanding of a new skill or process 'in the field' with their hands on tools. Clearly, a desirable means of providing education and training opportunities looks to the practical acquisition and application of skills with an immediate use value. If ever there was an avenue leading to the development of new skills and knowledge for Indigenous Australians, it is CDEP-a program that allows Indigenous people to work in and for their own communities. Yet training, as part of the CDEP scheme, is problematic.

It has been said on many occasions at the national level (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 1993; Spicer 1997), that CDEP is the single biggest employer of Indigenous people in the country. This is particularly pronounced for young Indigenous people, with CDEP employment accounting for around 40 per cent of employment among 15-19 year-olds. Given its prominence in so many Indigenous Australians' lives, one might expect that CDEP would be a significant pathway to other forms of employment, yet, as so much research has shown, that is not the case (Altman & Gray 2000; Saunders 1993; Spicer 1997). Few CDEP workers go on to take up jobs in any other sector, despite government initiatives to facilitate this process.

Of equal concern is the fact that too few CDEP workers accumulate skills or knowledge that is transferable to other community contexts, let alone to outside employment opportunities (ATSIC 1999; ATSIPTAC 1999b; ANTARAC 1998; Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) 2000). While there are countless reasons for this, the poor articulation between CDEP and training is one of the most significant. For those intimately engaged with issues concerning CDEP training and employment readiness, this is not news. Both policy makers and communities have wanted for a long time to find ways to underpin CDEP more effectively through the provision of appropriate education and training. This was noted most prominently in the Spicer Review (1997) and more recently by ATSIPTAC. Drawing out the key issues from Spicer, ATSIPTAC has recommended a 'three-pronged approach' to increase the articulation between CDEP and vocational education and training. ATSIPTAC recommends a nationally consistent approach involving coordination at the national, State and Territory, and regional and local levels, nationally consistent accredited vocational education and training (based on the Australian Qualifications Framework), and flexible delivery options (ATSIPTAC 1999b). This is in accordance with the national strategy set out by the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) for vocational education and training in Australia (ANTA 1998).

While reviews are conducted and a plethora of position papers are drafted and discussed, CDEP goes on in nearly every corner of this country with CDEP managers, boards and workers having to contend, as best they can, with a system which too often fails to meet their training needs. This paper arose out of a desire to contribute to discussions on the future shape of CDEP by drawing out relevant vocational education and training issues 'on the ground', which are experienced today within CDEP programs across the country. The goal has been to better understand how training is being managed within the current constraints affecting CDEP, at a time when vocational education and training is undergoing considerable re-shaping at the national level. This paper focuses both on the obstacles and opportunities that CDEP programs encounter, and on the strategies some employ to work through (and sometimes around) the obstacles as they struggle to find pathways to improve the training content of CDEP programs and to meet the needs of the workers who seek employment and training experience through them.