Impact of TAFE inclusiveness strategies

Given current patterns of employment and demographic projections, the aggregate labour force participation rate is set to decline in coming years. A priority for research in the area of vocational education and training (VET), therefore, is to examine how VET can support greater participation in the workforce, especially for groups whose participation is relatively low, for example, Indigenous Australians, people with a disability, refugees, young people ‘at risk’ and prime-age and older men and women with low educational attainment and literacy levels.

This report examines the nature and impact of the inclusiveness strategies implemented by technical and further (TAFE) institutes in Australia. It is part of a larger suite of research undertaken by the National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University, and the Centre for Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Melbourne.

Key messages

• Adopting effective inclusiveness practices can occur within both strongly market-driven and community-based models. These do, however, call for collaboration and expanding relationships with community stakeholders to meet the increasing and more complex needs of disadvantaged groups.

• Poor literacy and numeracy remain a significant barrier to accessing and completing training.

• It is important that TAFE institutes with high proportions of disadvantaged learners engage these groups in training that provides skills required by industry at sufficiently high levels to lead to sustainable employment.

• These learners also need a range of support mechanisms beyond the classroom to ensure successful study and employment outcomes. Over a third of TAFE institutes are yet to focus on ways to help their disadvantaged groups get a job.

• Strong institute leadership and enthusiasm for the inclusiveness agenda are crucial. If not embraced by mainstream staff, this agenda is at risk of being marginalised.

For a synthesis of the consortium’s entire program of work, see A well-skilled future by Sue Richardson and Richard Teese.

Tom Karmel
Managing Director, NCVER

By understanding and effectively responding to industry skill needs and shortages, demographic shifts and pressures, VET and, in particular, technical and further education (TAFE) institutes, can play a key role in maximising labour supply. TAFE institutes are also in a unique position to address the impediments to VET access, participation and successful outcomes faced by disadvantaged groups. Strategies for dealing with these issues—inclusiveness strategies—are vital to equitable building of individual human capital outcomes, for community strengthening, and for ensuring that those who are disadvantaged are able to access opportunities to develop initial knowledge and skills, become lifelong learners and maintain up-to-date skills, guaranteeing that they too can contribute to maximising the stock of available industry skills.

This research forms part of a larger study, A well-skilled future: Tailoring VET to the emerging training market, which aims to investigate the responsiveness of the VET sector to the twin imperatives of changing industry and individual needs, including the ways in which these are experienced in different community settings. In particular, this study aimed to explore the nature and impact of the inclusiveness strategies that have been implemented by TAFE institutes in Australia.

The methodology for this study involved a national survey of 58 TAFE institutes and an analysis of 2004 VET student participation data and regional demographic data. These provided an illustration of the diverse range of state/territory and regional community contexts in which the TAFE institutes operated. The student data were analysed to examine the variations between TAFE cohorts, particularly variations in the densities of disadvantaged students and the complexities of disadvantage arising from high proportions of differently disadvantaged students. To facilitate analysis of the different levels of disadvantage of students within each TAFE institute, all were ranked according to their relative numbers of students across a set of key disadvantaged and/or targeted groups. A mean rank across the defined groups was then calculated to indicate each TAFE student population’s relative complexity of disadvantage. Thus the level of complexity of disadvantage of a TAFE institute reflects the proportions of differently disadvantaged students within its cohort and the intricacy of the demands for inclusiveness from that cohort.

The national survey of TAFE institutes and all state/territory training authorities involved telephone and face-to-face interviews. Seven broad themes were explored in these consultations: the demographic and industry/economic context; governance; strategic planning; targets and accountability; barriers; post-completion outcomes; and the role of the central authority.

To facilitate analysis of the impact of inclusiveness strategies a score representing the level of development of inclusiveness strategies was determined for each TAFE institute on the basis of self-reported data provided through the survey. TAFE institutes were rated against seven dimensions:

• approach to inclusiveness

• TAFE management of inclusiveness

• community engagement

• strategies for identifying disadvantage

• facilitation of access and supporting progression and completion

• provision of literacy and numeracy support

• promotion of post-completion outcomes.

All TAFE institutes were allocated a value of 1 to 3, with the higher values indicating more highly developed strategies, across the seven dimensions named above, leading to a total score. Institutes were then ranked according to the overall level of development and sophistication of their self-reported inclusiveness approaches and strategies.

During the last decade, VET providers, in particular TAFE institutes, have been required to respond to both federal and state/territory policy shifts and a diversity of drivers for inclusiveness, including the equitable building of individual human capital outcomes, the need for community strengthening and the demand for industry skills. Increasing participation of diverse learner groups has prompted VET providers to develop practices to promote inclusiveness and mechanisms for delivering a broader range of training outcomes.

Analysis of the student participation data revealed that TAFE institutes deliver to widely differing cohorts of students across and within states and regions. In three states/territories, TAFE institutes delivered to higher than expected proportions of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged people in that jurisdiction, while in the remaining five states/territories there were much lower TAFE participation rates (range of 0.4%–8.7%) by similar groups. Capital city institutes tended to have higher proportions of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged students than major city or their regional counterparts. There was also a strong relationship between socioeconomic disadvantage and the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level of study. Those with the most disadvantaged cohorts had the highest enrolment levels in basic (certificates I and II) courses and the lowest levels of enrolment in advanced (diploma and above) courses. Similarly, those with the highest levels of complexity of disadvantage among their cohorts had relatively low rates of participation in advanced courses.

TAFE institute responses to their community demand for inclusiveness were diverse. They reported different impulses and drivers for inclusive practice. Three types of approaches to inclusiveness were identified: a ‘compliance’ approach (reported by eight), driven by incentives and typified by the comment, ‘whatever they measure, that’s where our effort goes’; an ‘existing cohort’ approach (32): ‘we need to respond to the needs of everyone who walks through our door’; and a ‘community obligation’ approach (18). The latter group commonly referred to ‘capacity building’, a ‘learner-centred approach’, the importance of holistic community engagement and support to make sure that ‘training is not in isolation’. They also reported their understanding of training as ‘the vehicle that provides them [students] with opportunity … [and] a concept of self’.

While a majority of TAFE institutes (91%) were concerned that student self-identification of disadvantage through the enrolment process was weak as a data collection instrument and not an effective method of identifying the disadvantage, only 19% reported using dedicated data-gathering and formalised knowledge-sharing with external stakeholders. The importance of understanding disadvantage and educational barriers beyond the TAFE institute was acknowledged, but there was a great diversity in the extent to which each actively sought data to inform their planning processes. TAFE institutes nominated more than 15 groups who faced barriers to accessing and completing VET training, most commonly nominating the group of people with low literacy and numeracy skills as facing barriers to accessing (64%) and completing training (72%).

The ways in which institutes distributed their student support staff and resources and managed their internal infrastructure to address disadvantage varied considerably. The importance of strong institute leadership and enthusiasm for the inclusiveness agenda being embraced by mainstream staff were emphasised. Dedicated delivery units for access, general education programs, specific positions for community engagement and institute-wide support units were also seen to be important.

A majority of TAFE institutes stressed the important role of the broader community in: providing support mechanisms for students; advising and informing inclusive provision; and facilitating pathways to VET through partnered delivery for people facing severe disadvantage and barriers to accessing training. Fewer than 20% of TAFE institutes reported that they had no identified community engagement strategies; more than 40% reported informal community engagement and another 40% reported formalised two-way community engagement.

Promotion of post-completion outcomes and pathways is an area of inclusiveness practice still being developed, and more than a third reported that facilitating employment outcomes for disadvantaged groups was not a focus of their inclusiveness agenda. Five metropolitan institutes reported that strong historical ties to industry impeded progress towards greater community inclusion as each attempted to balance their economic/industry obligations with their social and community responsibilities.

Increasing the participation of disadvantaged people in vocational education is of key importance if TAFE institutes are to effectively fulfill their multiple roles of responding to industry skill needs, address individual skill needs and promote community strengthening. However, TAFE institutes vary in their capacity to engage learners from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is essential that those institutes attracting high proportions of this group engage disadvantaged people in training that provides skills in demand by industry at sufficiently high enough AQF levels to lead to sustainable employment. TAFE institutes must also provide an effective array of support mechanisms to ensure successful study outcomes, including higher-level study and employment.

There are observable and fundamental differences in the approaches that TAFE institutes take to inclusiveness. The culture of an institute is influenced by its historical role and its perceived place in the community and this was reported to impact on its approach. The bottom line for those institutes not driven by any internal inclusiveness agenda was compliance with externally set targets and requirements, but these targets were not sufficient to promote broader engagement with the inclusiveness agenda. For some, there remain tensions in striving to achieve a balance between meeting economic/industry obligations and their social/community responsibilities. Yet, those with the most highly developed inclusiveness strategies based these on a ‘community obligation’ approach and implemented cohesive, community-oriented strategies that connected individual capacity-building with industry needs and experiences, and learner support needs with community resources.

Overall, the TAFE institutes that reported the most highly developed inclusiveness strategies were more likely to be larger than average; be located in capital city, major city or inner-regional locations; have cohorts with higher-than-median levels of complexity of disadvantage; have the most socioeconomically disadvantaged cohorts and have higher proportions of unemployed and lower proportions of full-time employed students. They were also more likely to have higher proportions of students who: had a disability; were Indigenous; were from a language background other than English; and were early school leavers who had not completed Year 10 study.

As respondents to this study acknowledged, TAFE institutes do not provide successful training experiences in isolation, particularly for people from disadvantaged groups. This study highlights the importance of TAFE institutes engaging in strong and broadly based community partnerships with the capacity to: provide reliable data about industry demand for skills and changing community demographics, support networks and partnership arrangements for training delivery; promote education pathways from schools and other VET providers into TAFE; and foster employment outcomes.

Effective inclusiveness practice can occur within strongly market-driven and community-based models. However, as TAFE institutes increasingly face the demand for non-educational responses to the barriers facing their cohorts and broader catchments, the imperative to expand relationships becomes more urgent. The support document contains three case studies which explore in more detail the conditions for and impact of market and community-based models of TAFE inclusiveness practice.