Background to the Study

There is a nexus between rising global inequality and the equity gap in VET (United Nations Development Program, 2015; OECD, 2016). Learners experiencing disadvantage are most likely to approach VET rather than other educational institutions to improve their job and life prospects (Buddelmeyer & Polidano, 2016; Karmel, 2010b; Karmel & Lim, 2013; Lamb, 2011; National VET Equity Advisory Council, 2011). The National VET Equity Advisory Council (NVEAC) (2011) proposed that learners experiencing disadvantage are neglected in research and that new ways had to be found to “embed equity in VET” (p. 2). This study takes up the intellectual puzzle as to how to embed

equity in VET through empirical evidence gathered from: adult learners experiencing disadvantage, teachers and trainers, policy-makers in government and in vocational education and training organisations. The study traverses public, private and community registered training organisations (RTOs) in VET.

The empirical evidence is the heart of this study and the background, or context as the methodology prefers, developed with emerging evidence. In this study, the background to equity in VET coalesced around human rights as evidence was gathered. Two years after the beginning of this research, the Australian Human Rights Commission (2015) made recommendations to the Australian Government to draw attention to Australia’s accountability to protect and promote the human rights of VET learners under the World Program for Human Rights Education (United Nations, 2016).

Consistent with international agreements, the World Program advocates for human rights education in VET as well as in the tertiary education sector generally (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2015a). The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) recommendations (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2015a) are complementary to Australia’s National Disability Strategy (Council of Australian Governments, 2013) which aims for equal opportunity in education and all areas of life for people with disabilities.

I discuss equity from national and international perspectives, and skills policy for VET in the following sections, pointing to the implications for equity in a marketised VET sector.

1.2.1Equity

1.2.1.1National

Australian and Tasmanian skills policy (Council of Australian Governments, 2012b; Skills Tasmania, 2009) is silent on equity as human rights in skills policy although Gonski, Boston, Greiner, Lawrence, Scales and Tannock recognise the “human rights imperative” (Gonski et al., 2011). The Ministerial Council, comprising all relevant ministers of Australian states and territories, signed the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (the Melbourne Declaration) (Ministerial Council on Education, 2008) defining equity as fairness and inclusion, contributing to social cohesion, encouraging high expectations and promoting a culture of excellence. Equity and excellence came together in the Melbourne Declaration such that the goal is equality of opportunity and more equitable outcomes (p. 12) for people experiencing disadvantage. While in the context of young people, the definition is consistent with human rights positions (S. Field, Kuczera, & Pont, 2007a) for all citizens.

Nonetheless, in Australia it is argued that there is an equity gap in skills outcomes (Beddie, 2015; Leung, McVicar, Polidano, & Zhang, 2014; National VET Equity Advisory Council [NVEAC], 2011). In 2016, from the Total VET Activity (National Centre for Vocational Education Research [NCVER], 2016b) there also emerge concerns about lack of data to make a real assessment about equity outcomes as matter of human rights. The equity gap was of concern to the National VET Equity Advisory Council (2011) when it reported that in VET considerable success with pilot programs was not translating into embedded policy change for ongoing improvement in outcomes (Figgis, Butorac, Clayton, Meyers, Dickie, Malley & McDonald, 2007).

1.2.1.2International

Equity in VET is problematic internationally. It was recognised in VET research engaging all OECD member countries that “if much has been achieved, there has also been much disappointment” (S. Field et al., 2007a, p. 3). Nine years on, OECD (2016) research continues to raise concerns about a global broadening inequality gap with the additional exhortation to find ways to measure growth other than through GDP.

International positions inform the definition of equity used in this study. I draw on the previously mentioned Melbourne Declaration (Ministerial Council on Education, 2008) and the United Nations Development Program, European Union (EU), International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). These are compatible with a

“rebirth of VET” (McGrath, 2012, p. 1) concerned with expanding human capabilities in ways where there is emphasis on the promotion of human rights (United Nations Development Program, 2015). I next outline contextual policy positions in Australia and Tasmania.

1.2.2Skills Policy for VET

1.2.2.1Australia

Australian skills policy is based on intergovernmental relationships between the Australian Government and all states and territories (Council of Australian Governments, 2012b). VET is the largest education sector in Australia (Atkinson & Stanwick, 2016, p. 6). The sector has experienced declining funding since 2012 together with a shift to funding that is proportionately greater from the Australian Government than from states and territories (Atkinson & Stanwick, 2016, p. 9).

Australian skills policy for the VET sector from 1992 has been increasingly market driven (Bowman & McKenna, 2016) and subject to National Competition Policy (Australian Government, 2015). The NPASR (COAG, 2012b) funds Total VET Activity (TVA) (NCVER, 2016b) and VET FEE-HELP. Each of

these indicates some of the challenges facing skills policy in Australia and I next touch on these matters.

Total VET Activity (TVA) (NCVER, 2016b), in reporting data for the first time in 2016 across public and private registered training organisations (RTOs), finds that the marketisation of VET means there is double the learner population compared with previous estimates that were based on public provider, or TAFE, data (p. 5). The corollary is that the TAFE publicly funded sector is not the largest provider (p. 5). This has ramifications for equity policy as the government has more influence over the pubic provider regarding equity outcomes (NCVER, 2016b).

VET FEE-HELP is an Australian Government funded scheme promoted as a “study-now-pay-later”

loan scheme (TAFE NSW, 2016). In 2016, the Australian Government published the discussion paper

“Re-designing VET FEE-HELP” (Department of Education and Training, 2016c) which acknowledges that VET FEE-HELP has led to growing course costs and student debts in a period “… characterised by serious concerns over the quality, probity and conduct of some providers, low completion rates and unethical practices” (p. 5). These matters impinge on skills policy in Tasmania the context of which I next discuss.

1.2.2.2Tasmania

The empirical evidence of this study is drawn from the small island state of Tasmania. NCVER proposes that reasons for considerable variation in participation across Australian states and

territories relate to population demographics, supply and demand factors including competition from universities at higher qualification levels, local labour market conditions, availability of courses and providers. Tasmania has a population of 517,000 as estimated in 2015 (ABS, 2016) and one university (University of Tasmania) geographically located in the state, although other universities’ courses are available by online or distance mode. At 6.6%, the unemployment rate in August 2016 was the highest in Australia compared with the national average of 5.6% (ABS, 2016). In March 2016, there were 13,600 learners in publicly funded VET programs with an estimated 7,000 learners (all ages) in the lowest-level certificates (NCVER, 2016a). The participation rate of Tasmanian learners aged 15 to 64 across public and private providers in 2014 was 23.2% (NCVER, 2016b) compared with a national average of 23.3%. Tasmania has one public provider that is based in the state and approximately 120 (Skills Tasmania, 2016b) state-based private registered training organisations (RTOs). Other

nationally registered providers do deliver into Tasmania.

In Tasmania, in 2015, the administration of skills policy shifted from the Department of Education to the Department for State Growth (DSG). The Tasmanian VET system is the joint responsibility of the

Minister for State Growth and the Minister for Education and Training. Within the terms of the NPASR, the DSG administers skills (including equity) objectives for the public provider of vocational education and training under the Tasmania Training and Workforce Development Act 2013 (Tas) and in VET generally under the Vocational Education and Training Act 1994 (Tas). The Department of State Growth also administers the Equity Policy and Action Plan (Skills Tasmania, 2009) to annually fund contested equity programs delivered by private providers and the public provider. The scope of the Equity Policy and ActionPlan (Skills Tasmania, 2009) empowers the Department of State Growth to purchase programs for skills outcomes for Tasmanians who are socially categorised as

disadvantaged and who require assistance to overcome barriers to participation in training and the workforce.