Research

Summary page

Research

Who's missing out? Access and equity in vocational education and training

Introduction

This report explores some key issues in relation to access and equity in vocational education and training (VET) in Australia. The first issue concerns the two major philosophical positions (the structural barriers and individual characteristics viewpoints) adopted by the federal government and state governments in developing policies and programs designed to improve access and equity in VET.

The structural barriers notion is concerned with the way in which systemic and structural barriers within VET create an educational system which fails to meet or adapt to diversity within the Australian population (that is, why individuals miss out on VET). The individual characteristics notion focuses on individuals who fail to fit within the broader systems and structures that are meeting the VET needs of the majority of the population (that is, who is missing out). In the latter, however, the 'individual' is considered as part of a client group identified using broad sociodemographic characteristics. In the 1990s, five of these such groups were identified as being consistently under-represented in the VET system. These include: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; women; people from non-English speaking backgrounds; people with disabilities; and people in rural and remote communities. However, the report argues that this client group focus approach has met with only limited success, as it can address only general aspects of group disadvantage and does not allow for specific individual needs. The case studies conducted as part of this research show how a philosophy based solely on abstract client group categories makes little sense in real-world settings.

The second issue concerns the two broad positions which have been advanced in the context of the longer-term purposes of VET. The economics outcome agenda expects to see VET meet industryís requirements for skilled labour, and measures the success of VET courses by their labour market outcomes. The social outcomes agenda, however, places more value on the outcomes of community development, social inclusion and social justice, and sees greater community involvement and a sense of social connectedness as critical first steps in achieving the longer-term goals of successful labour market outcomes.

Methodology and findings

The research strategy for this project used both quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The former is ideally suited to exploring who misses out on VET, while the latter is well placed to answering why they miss out. This report looks at both young people and adult workers; a range of specific disadvantages are examined, as are VET initiatives, in which both economic and social outcomes are relevant.

The quantitative research uses statistical modelling techniques to look at the pattern of disadvantage for a sub-group of younger people aged under 25—the 'youth model'. A sub-group of older people aged between 35 and 40 is used to provide insights into how educational disadvantage operated 20 years ago. Both sub-groups form our second, or 'historical', comparative model. In broad terms, young people face three 'educational' options once they leave school: university, VET or no further education. The report explores these three options for two groups of young people: those who left school in the late 1990s, and those who left in the early 1980s.

The findings indicate that those young people most likely to miss out on VET in the late 1990s are those with disabilities, those still living at home, those from single-parent families, and those from families with a history of parental unemployment. While these are disturbing findings, there are some grounds for optimism. Vocational education and training fares much better in terms of access and equity than does the university sector, where additional categories of disadvantage are evident. These relate to parents' occupation, the secondary school sector attended, and having come from an Indigenous Australian background. Moreover, the situation for VET has improved over the last two decades. In particular, male dominance over entry to VET has largely disappeared, and the occupational legacy of a young person's parents counts for far less today than it did 20 years ago. By way of contrast, the situation for universities has not improved, and, in some respects, it has deteriorated. In other words, the optimism is based on comparisons: doing better on access and equity outcomes than universities and improving over time.

It is important to recognise that this optimism cannot be grounds for complacency. These statistical findings are not definitive, and the quantitative analysis is concluded by highlighting some of the shortcomings of statistical modelling. Of particular concern was the inadequacy of the three-outcome dependent variables for identifying important differences in course enrolments within VET. We are also concerned about the way such modelling imposes the need for aggregate categories among the independent variables (such as gender and non-English speaking migrants). These shortcomings are accommodated through two strategies. Firstly, some additional descriptive statistics are presented, which show, among other things, that issues of gender equity within VET remain problematic. Secondly, the qualitative material is used to examine these rather abstract, aggregate categories. This allows us to present a more complex and detailed account of how specific groups of individuals have fared within VET. In this respect, the qualitative research deepens and extends the quantitative research. In addition, the qualitative material provides insights into issues of process, illuminating the tricky question of why certain outcomes emerge in the way they do.

The qualitative research conducted for this study looked at a specific group of young people and VET, at training for adult workers and at issues of community development. One case study explored how young people alienated from education were being re-introduced to educational activities through some of the flexible learning initiatives which community-based practitioners have developed in conjunction with technical and further education (TAFE) institutes. Another case study looked at a group of adult workers—in this case, Vietnamese outworkers—for whom a TAFE-based course conducted off campus provided the opportunity to gain skills recognition and increase future options in the labour market. The third case study examined an innovative community development initiative, which aimed to break down the social isolation faced by a group of women living in a public housing estate in an outlying metropolitan area—a group who faced a formidable set of barriers in participating in VET. These detailed case studies are presented as supporting material in appendices 1, 2 and 3 and can be accessed from NCVER's website at < http://www.ncver.edu.au>.

The decision to focus on community initiatives within VET was prompted by some important case studies reported in the literature. These case studies—discussed in the literature review—described how VET access and equity issues were being dealt with in a number of different settings. Our own case studies sought to bring more analytical depth to this theme by exploring several key issues:

Which specific groups were being targeted by these community initiatives?
How was the issue of multiple disadvantage being addressed?
How did different levels of funding affect the ability of community-based initiatives to address both structural and individual barriers to VET?

The key qualitative finding was that the notion of disadvantage which has informed VET policy-making needs to be reconceptualised. As the review of the literature demonstrates, there are major shortcomings in viewing disadvantage in terms of abstract 'client groups'. The qualitative findings reinforce this view, and emphasise that the target groups for VET equity initiatives need to be specific groups of individuals who face multiple disadvantages. This report argues for a notion of 'cumulative disadvantage', the idea that the multiple disadvantages faced by specific groups interact in such a way that the difficulties they face are compounded. For example, when it comes to extending VET programs to homeless young people, these patterns of cumulative disadvantage may include histories of family breakdown, low levels of literacy and numeracy, behavioural, health and legal problems, and chequered histories of engaging with educational institutions.

The qualitative findings also demonstrated the importance of balancing social and economic goals. This does not mean that we simply want to replace the current emphasis on economic goals with a social agenda. Rather, it means that the relevance and value of social goals should be acknowledged, and the decision about how much to realign priorities should be made according to the specific situation, rather than by a prescriptive or abstract policy. With this in mind, our own conclusions for VET policy are not prescriptive. Instead we outline the kind of checklist which should guide policy formulation when it comes to access and equity within VET.