Australian Perspective

The Productivity Commission (2012) and Karmel (2010b) contend that governance is defined by how governments address supply and demand in skills policy. Supply-driven policy and funding for course provision are determined by government targets (Council of Australian Governments, 2012b;

Hoeckel & et al). Demand-driven policy and funding are usually based on combinations of industry/provider/consumer demand (Karmel, 2010b). In Australia, the Productivity Commission (2012) review of COAG reforms anticipated gains for Australia in moving away from the

contemporary regulated and supply-driven system to a demand-driven contestable market. The demand-driven contestable market, the commission argued, would be of advantage to prospective

students and to employers so long as quality was maintained. However, the reform agenda for VET (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2014) does not yet suggest change to existing arrangements where skills policy is driven by demand that is dominated by industry interests. In Australia, skills governance is delivering a persistent equity gap (NCVER, 2014). A key question is what is measured (Griffin, 2016). In 2011 in Australia, the National VET Equity Advisory Council (NVEAC), as co-author with Deloitte (2011b), reported on community and individual disadvantage that arises when people are not skilled for work and for social interaction and advocated for measurement of inclusion of learners. Later, Buddelmeyer and Polidano (2016), commissioned by NCVER, argue that economic and social benefits deliver fairness and inclusion and that people experiencing disadvantage are at higher risk of not receiving benefits in this period when skills are increasingly important. Griffin (2016) reports similarly that any lower-level qualifications (Certificates I and II) bring social and personal benefits but measurement needs to be undertaken of consistently low financial returns. Griffin argues it is not possible to measure return on investment in VET until there is understanding between market and non-market benefits (2016). “The challenge will continue to be finding appropriate ways to measure and compare these elements” (Griffin, 2016, p. 29) of market and non-market, Griffin writes, and in this study of equity this is the nub of the issue. Equity cannot be a meaningful governance objective while there is no method for measuring from the perspective of both the market as well as from fairness and inclusion.

The role of VET in Australian research is often seen as one that is, or ought to be, engaging with two cultures ( Angus et al., 2013; Ryan, 2011; Wheelahan, 2015). Researchers (L. Angus et al., 2013; Ryan, 2011) propose that, historically, the Kangan report (1974) in Australia represented a culture of skilling as well as broader educational and social ideals; this is discussion of VET’s two cultures as agent for social inclusion as well as provider of skills to industry. The Australia National Training Agreement (ANTA) from 1992 presided over the next significant policy position after Kangan, and excluded the social role for VET. The ANTA era, Ryan (2011) writes, represented an expanded training market with user choice, competency-based standards and a training board and advisory bodies comprised of industry representatives (although, Ryan notes, in the final stages there was representation of providers). Angus et al. (2013) suggest the present evolved governance is as Kangan had cautioned against, and is VET as predominantly a neo-liberal economic tool with instrumentalist priorities that are directed from the top down.

Karmel (2010b) argues that governance is complicated because VET has a “much more complex relationship with society than other educational sectors” (p. 234). He suggests: “… on occasions it seems that VET is being asked to solve all the problems of the world” (p. 234). Researchers (e.g.

Beddie, 2015; Karmel, 2010b; Ryan, 2011) argue for clearer governance and policy positions with regard to a reasonable (Beddie, 2015, p. 27) role of VET to draw out the, at least potential, conflict of the two cultures. Karmel (2010b) proposes that the working definition of VET is that its “core is subprofessional vocational education” (p. 229). In addition, VET is ascribed a role in social inclusion theory as an agent of change for people experiencing disadvantage. Lamb (2011) argues similarly to Karmel that VET has a broad “democratisingrole” (p. 60).

Ryan (2011) reflects on the complexity of aligning with public administration and policy analysis: of connecting providers and learners in a top-down federal system such as in Australia. He refers to the

“loosecoupling” (p. 27) of key actors, administrators and specialised professionals, “each with different value systems and agenda” (p. 28) in a system of diverse agencies with differing structures and degrees of autonomy. Ryan (2011) argues that such governance and policy arrangements are very unlikely to filter intended outcomes into classrooms, workplaces and other learning

environments without considerable alteration to their integrity. Within these discussions involving the role to socially include learners, Figgis et al. (2007) summed up in 2007, in comprehensive

national research that was preoccupied with persistent inequity, in ways that appear to be consistent with contemporary research: “Our reading of the research literature and VET policy, and the input from our informants all suggest that a clear actionable vision is needed to shift the inequities that continue to burden the disadvantaged” (p. 14).

With researchers, practitioners in VET policy argue that more needs to be done to reflect the definition of VET in terms of its role as trainer as well as educator and social inclusion agent for learners experiencing disadvantage (e.g. Angus, Golding, Foley, & Lavender, 2013; Beddie, 2015; Karmel, 2010b). The Productivity Commission (2011) emphasises the diversity of the public skills sector which includes “… schools, polytechnics, universities, community organisations and some government agencies such as the Australian Defence Force” (p. xxx). In the private sector, the Productivity Commission points out that “… small, specialised providers coexist with large, multi- disciplinary colleges and Enterprise Registered Training Organisations (ERTOs)”. RTOs may be funded from a range of sources. The state governments fund technical and further education (TAFE). RTOs may receive or supplement funding from learners, industry or, as in the case of Australian

Community Education (ACE), through nominal fees for learners (Productivity Commission, 2011). Goozee (2001) draws attention to the fact that TAFE has become just one part of a very diversified VET system. Definitions can refer to what providers do (i.e. deliver workplace-based, accredited training), or what qualifications are delivered (Productivity Commission, 2011). “VET” encompasses

the flexibility as well as the complexity of the public, private and community enterprise components of the skills sector.

There is more than one possible interpretation of VET. The interpretation remains a matter for governance, policy and legislative definition and clarification (e.g. Angus et al., 2013; Beddie, 2015; Karmel, 2010b).What comprises VET and what its role is, and should be, is contested in Australia where policy focuses on government responsibility to provide technical skills to meet industry demand (Council of Australian Governments, 2012b). Moodie and Wheelahan (2012) draw attention to the fact that Australia is different from European countries in that government takes responsibility for both initial and continuing vocational education. European governments address initial training but continued training is the responsibility of employers (Wheelahan, 2007). Consultant researchers for NCVER (e.g. Beddie, 2015; Karmel, 2010b; Ryan, 2011) argue for an enhanced VET role which would take learners experiencing disadvantage into consideration and include principles of equity such as social inclusion and democratisation (Lamb, Jackson, & Walstab, 2015).

A discussion of governance of skills policy calls for focus on productivity. Productivity is the objective which determines what people learn in VET and how they learn it (Council of Australian

Governments, 2012b). The productivity objective potentially judges whether people are contributing citizens or not (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Barton, 2016; Miller, 2010; O’Shea, Lysaght, Roberts, & Harwood, 2015; Patrick, 2013; Valencia, 1997). Klugman (1994) points out that measures of productivity vary and what the measures include or exclude will depend on the purpose of the measure and/or data availability. In Australian policy, what is measured is data that focus on productivity for economic growth and improved standards of living through efficiency and

effectiveness (McLachlan et al., 2013) [my emphasis]. Green, Toner and Agarwal (2012) write that Australia has relied on the most common productivity measure of labour productivity which is a measure of output per unit of labour input. Green et al. (2012) propose that neoclassical economic doctrine may need to give way to approaches to and definitions of productivity that will include considerations of, for example, business and government leadership and culture.

Governance, public administration and policy analysis for improving equity is revealed to be problematic for several reasons. First, the governance and public administration structures of VET are weighted in favour of industry demand for skills (Deparment of Education and Training,2016; Australian Skills Quality Authority, n.d.; Council of Australian Governments, 2012b; Department of Education and Training, 2016a). Learners and providers are excluded and this situation feeds into an equity gap. Second, there is no consistent statement of objectives for equity. Equity often referred to, or implied, in policy in a limited way as access or participation (Council of Australian

Governments, 2012a ). In addition, the population at whom equity may be targeted is not

consistently described. For example, the target group can be either people who are disadvantaged (and there is an absence of a definition of disadvantage), or people with a disability (Council of Australian Governments, 2012b). Finally, practitioners and academic commentators seek a reasonable (Beddie, 2015) role for VET to balance the technical and the academic (Moodie & Wheelahan, 2012), the vocational and the socially inclusive (Angus et al., 2013) and lament the absence of objectives for equity.

Drawing on academic research (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Barton, 2016; O’Shea, Lysaght, Roberts, & Harwood, 2015), it is difficult to ascribe coherent equity objectives in a VET governance structure where productivity, economic growth and industry demand dominate. I next consider learning and teaching with reference to the equity gap in VET in Australia.