Equity in the learning society: Rethinking equity strategies for post-compulsory education and training

This report was prepared under the auspices of the Lifelong Learning Network and was intended to contribute to the discussion of cross-sectoral policy issues in post-compulsory education and training. In Australian education and training, traditional divisions are breaking down as students increasingly move between the sectors in the pursuit of lifelong learning. A cross-sectoral perspective is needed if governments are to respond effectively to these changing patterns of demand.

The researchers' first task was to review the equity and access policies in schools, vocational education and training, higher education and adult community education to determine the similarities and differences between the sectors (research question two). In the second chapter of this report the authors describe each sector's equity and access policies based on published policy statements by education and training authorities in each sector, usually at the ministerial level. The project found more similarities than differences in the equity policies for each sector. The authors conclude that government equity strategies could be improved by:

• targetting low socio-economic status (SES) students within all equity groups
• identifying two new target groups: those with low skills and the long-term unemployed
• reporting performance in a way that focusses on the outcomes (in addition to the outputs) of education and training
• strengthening pathways to employment from education and training

The second stage of the project compared the educational outcomes of target groups in each sector to see what the data told us about patterns of participation for disadvantaged groups (research question three) and the extent to which structural factors impact on patterns of participation in each sector (research question four). The comparative analysis in the third chapter suggests that participation by disadvantaged groups is higher in sectors where education and training provision is more decentralised (such as vocational education and training [VET] or regional universities) but concludes that this issue requires further research. The task of comparing data on equity outcomes was hampered by a lack of comparability between data in each sector and the limitations of the data collections in some sectors. The report suggests that performance reporting could be improved by collecting and publishing data in all sectors to the standard set by the vocational education and training sector. It would be easier to make cross-sectoral comparisons of educational outcomes if the following changes were made to each sector's data collection:

• adoption of the same sets of criteria for identifying equity target groups
• reporting outcomes for two additional sub-groups: people with low skills and people who are long-term unemployed
• capturing the socio-economic status of students by identifying at point of enrolment the highest educational level and occupation of the student's parents
• publishing data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) labour force region

The research team were also asked if there were any new social and economic barriers to participation and the likely impact of such developments on achieving equality of educational outcomes (research question one). The fourth chapter of the report describes the shifting context for access and equity policies associated with economic globalisation and rising income inequality. The growth of the knowledge economy has deepened the polarisation between people who are 'learning rich' and able to profit from new employment opportunities and the low-skilled who are increasingly marginal to the labour market and mainstream society. The rising level of overall participation in education and training has ensured that outcomes for disadvantaged groups - although improving on many indicators - remain behind those of the total population. Without a continuing commitment to equity in education and training policy, these new social and economic conditions could erode any improvements in educational outcomes for disadvantaged social groups. The importance of lifelong learning in a global labour market therefore strengthens the imperative for improving equity outcomes in all sectors of education and training.

A further objective of this project was to examine the feasibility of developing access and equity policies that would transcend the sectoral boundaries of schools, vocational education and training, higher education and adult community education (research question five). As Australia's education and training sectors are managed through different agencies under various levels of government, there are significant barriers to developing cross-sectoral policies in education and training. In spite of the similarities between the equity policies of each sector, it is not feasible for equity initiatives to be developed across the sectors within the current management frameworks. However in the fourth chapter the researchers suggest that local partnerships based on models such as 'Learning Cities' could provide a new framework for building cross-sectoral equity initiatives in education and training.

Finally, the researchers were asked whether a new definition of equity was necessary in the context of lifelong learning (research question six). As discussed in the opening chapter, equity is a difficult concept to define except in terms of a general notion of fairness within a policy framework that sees the distribution of education and training opportunities as a public good. If governments want to increase participation in lifelong learning (for example, to promote Australia's international competitiveness in the global economy) equity considerations will be increasingly important to policy development. The recent survey commissioned by the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) under its marketing strategy for skills and lifelong learning project (ANTA 2000) found 49 per cent of Australians are unwilling to participate in further education or training. For a significant proportion of this group, traditional equity considerations such as lack of access or low income are the main reasons they do not participate in lifelong learning. While it is not necessary to redefine equity in the context of lifelong learning, governments may need to develop new approaches to equity policies and programs to ensure that workers are able to participate effectively in the knowledge economy.