Research

Summary page

Research

Schools, vocational education and training, and partnerships: Capacity-building in rural and regional communities

Purpose of the project

Rural and regional schools are becoming increasingly involved in vocational education and training (VET). This often occurs as a result of schools developing partnerships with registered VET providers, industry groups and/or local employers; these partnerships present both opportunities and challenges for everyone involved. Recent National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) research suggests that partnership success and sustainability may rely on the ability of communities to build and strengthen their social and economic capital. How do communities do this? In the context of this research project, how do school-VET partnership members:

analyse local issues and harness the unique features of their communities?

develop models and processes that work for all partnership members?

utilise the partnership to make a real difference to young people's educational and work opportunities and thus contribute to community viability?

This project focused on successful examples of school-VET partnerships in rural and regional communities. It responded to these questions and explored how communities demonstrated the building or strengthening of social and economic capital, as reported by school-VET partnership members, and how different stakeholders experienced the partnership. It was designed to provide a practical guide to other rural and regional communities who wish to create and/or review and strengthen their school-VET partnership.

Background and context

Social capital is concerned with networks, relationships, and levels of trust and reciprocity among community members who, in supporting them, demonstrate their personal capabilities. Valued and mutually beneficial partnerships are fundamental to the notion of social capital. Because education can play an active role in contributing positively to the quality of life of community members, school-VET partnerships provide opportunities to both draw upon and contribute to social capital within a community. A number of researchers argue that successful VET outcomes in rural and regional Australia are based on the cohesion, trust and social capital that partnership members develop through active and committed involvement in achieving a shared goal (Falk 2000; Kilpatrick 2003). They also require an enabling leadership approach (Johns 2003; Johns et al. 2001); this supports a wider group of community or partnership members to take up leadership roles throughout the process, which can reduce the likelihood of project breakdown if a key person leaves.

The state and national policy context for VET has shifted to include social capital concepts. Recent policy documents include terms such as partnerships, along with networks, skills and knowledge or how to access them, community relationships, trust and support. These are reflected in state policies to varying extents. The embedded assumption within policy documents is that social capital is the glue that bonds people and holds such partnerships together (Kearns 2004).

Research process

Three rural and four regional schools, perceived as operating successful school-VET partnerships, were selected as case studies from three states. During the first visit to each case study site the research design was discussed. At a second longer visit, more detailed information from a broad range of partnership members was gathered. In analysing the information collected, each case study was considered separately, and outcomes were linked to the relevant literature. The resulting outcomes from each of the case studies were then compared to develop an overall picture of both the similarities and diversities of rural and regional school-VET partnerships, and the implications for policy and practice.

Findings

Three different models were used to organise school-VET partnerships in the rural and regional communities included in the research. A regional cluster or specialised program model was found in regional communities, while a whole-of-community model was characteristic of rural communities. Regardless of model adopted, both rural and regional communities needed to respond to common community issues, such as retaining young people in the school and in the local area, responding to local skills shortages, encouraging local businesses to support young people, improving young people's work networks, and creating opportunities for young people to contribute positively to the community.

Addressing distinct community issues through different models

In a regional cluster model, schools within the region establish a formal agreement and are serviced by a central VET coordinating body. That body, through the diversity of its industry and school representation and the comprehensiveness of its networks, is well placed to identify and coordinate the needs of local industry and student interest and capabilities. It is able to draw on and strengthen the social capital residing within the various local communities and across the wider region to make a variety of VET options available to all participating students. The regional cluster model is dependent on a shared valuing of and commitment to VET and, as a result, a willingness to pool resources to achieve mutual goals. Creating a solid structure, engaging business and industry across the region, and embedding VET within a system of interrelationships helps to sustain the partnership through transition periods when people may leave or do not perform according to expectations. The pooling of resources and student numbers through a central organisational base helps to maintain a wide variety of VET programs for students across the region.

A specialised program model has a targeted population and/or industry focus within a local area. Obviously, the specific focus may vary from region to region. It makes a dedicated effort to address the needs of young people for whom existing educational options do not work-whether they are regular schooling or VET options-and who are excluded from a community's existing social systems (and, therefore, capital). The initiative may be led by a school or another community entity, with the school as an active and main partner, but usually involves a core group of community, VET and industry personnel who meet regularly to guide and monitor the program.

In a whole-of-community model there is an active and persistent effort to engage, as far as possible, a broad spectrum of community members in a joint approach to respond to the broad range of young people's needs. The model seeks to include everyone by considering options for young people who are alienated from or have left from school, those who might leave, and those who will remain at school but for whom access to alternative experiences will be beneficial for their future education and/or employment. This model is usually driven from a school base, with active community engagement and support. It needs to draw on both internal and external resources to create program options for young people, and to embrace flexible delivery of training, with strong business support for individuals or small groups of young people.

Achieving success and commitment in rural and regional areas

The school-VET partnerships in this research often operated with uncertain funding and inconsistent approaches to formal planning. They depended on four other factors to achieve success and commitment. First, they identified their community's specific issues and designed programs that directly responded to them-a community-first rather than program-first approach. Second, they harnessed community resilience; that is, the creativity, adaptability, driving values and survival strategies of the community. This occurred by connecting to the existing community values or beliefs underpinning the partnership and creating a 'can do' attitude to shared issues, rather than feeling overwhelmed and powerless. These included values such as pride in self-sufficiency, being committed to contributing positively to the community, a shared sense of 'responsibility for looking after our young people', a spirit of generosity, a willingness to 'do the right thing' and 'give the kids a go'. This involved seeing young people as resources, because 'what is good for young people is good for the community'.

Third, they worked hard to maintain a shared purpose for the partnership, despite different needs and desired benefits. On the whole, this was providing real experiences for young people in real workplace situations, resulting in real outcomes such as jobs, or in some situations, clear educational and vocational pathways. Fourth, they implemented a model of distributed or enabling leadership: rather than investing all leadership roles in one person, they encouraged and supported a range of partnership members to take on different leadership roles, so that leadership could be systemically embedded in the community.

Barrier to success in rural and regional areas

In managing school-VET partnerships, rural and regional communities face many barriers similar to those of their urban counterparts. However, several issues are more prominent for rural and regional communities. The economies of scale work against them, as they still need to cover the full range of leadership and specialist tasks but with a smaller staff size. This means that communities need to draw on goodwill and personal commitment to participate in school-VET partnerships. Transport time and costs can be significant to students accessing VET courses, training blocks or structured work placements not based in the local community. Local employment options may also be limited in small towns, or when regional towns are dominated by a single industry. While this situation also applies in urban areas, problems with organisational cross-sectoral differences between rural and regional schools and VET providers can have a greater negative effect, as they may be limited in VET provider options.

Evidence of benefits

Given these barriers, school-VET partnerships need to bring significant social and economic benefits to rural and regional communities for partner members to remain committed to them. The benefits reported were numerous and included developing collective ownership of the program and young people in it. The regular interaction, shared values and vision, and trust that were required to achieve collective ownership immediately contributed to social capital. The partnership itself became a strong lobby group in its capacity of leveraging funds and support to maintain its work, thus contributing to economic capital.

Schools retained more young people in education and supported them more effectively into career pathways. Students had positive experiences in workplaces and those who were socially and economically disadvantaged were exposed to networks previously unavailable to them. Furthermore, they became part of the community's social capital, access to which they had previously been denied. Industry and business gained employees who arrived with skills, experience and an appreciation of the work attitudes that employers valued. This increased the chances of young people keeping their jobs and enabled employers and industry to plan more effectively for the future. Young people stayed in communities and therefore invested in the local economy by buying houses and cars, and choosing to raise their families there.

Student experiences

Overall, students had positive experiences in the programs offered through their school-VET partnerships. Young people gained access to educational options that were more attractive, relevant and took them somewhere; for some, it minimised or ended their experiences of unemployment and reduced their marginalisation in the community. They gained skills, networks and confidence and believed that the program helped them to feel a stronger and more respected member of the community. Many students reported that the program, through better work opportunities, helped them to stay in their communities, close to family and friend networks. For some, it helped build some confidence in their town.

There were limited opportunities for young people to participate in the design and monitoring of programs run by the school-VET partnership, or be seen as full members of that partnership. Although young people appreciated what the partnership had done for them, there were certainly some who were keen to see stronger youth participation.

What does this mean for rural and regional communities?

Adopting a model for a community's school-VET partnership is a strategic process. The partnership members need to customise the model so that it responds directly to the distinct issues that a community faces-it must achieve community 'fit'. It needs to be a process that is driven by the community rather than by a VET program.

School-VET partnerships have stronger outcomes and make smoother progress when the specific expertise that different partnership members bring to it is respected and viewed as an opportunity for sharing and learning. This requires effective cross-sectoral work at the organisational level, particularly between schools and VET providers, such as technical and further education (TAFE) institutes. For rural and regional communities, there needs to be a strong focus on flexibility in the delivery of VET options, an appreciation of the challenges that young people face if returning to education (there may be no other local options if this does not work), and accountability for reporting back on progress for students undertaking school-based new apprenticeships.

Small rural and remote communities have special needs in running VET programs. They may have limited access to VET providers and courses, and providers may have a poor understanding of the complexity and uniqueness of the community environment and that this requires adaptation of curriculum. They can experience a high level of staff turnover, so sustainability of programs is a major issue. An effective school-community management structure is required to address negative impacts arising from the movement of staff (for example, loss of expertise, history and relationships) and to develop high levels of community participation and a strong sense of local ownership.