Equity in Australian education and training: an examination of access and outcomes data across the sectors. Authors

This paper reviews the available data on education and training outputs and outcomes across the sectors for six major equity groups. The review indicates that: • cross sectoral analyses of equity outcomes are hampered by the lack of uniformity of data • while education and training outputs and outcomes for most targeted sub-groups have improved in absolute terms over the past decade, members of these social groups remain disadvantaged in relation to the rest of the population • not all members of a particular target group are equally disadvantaged and membership of more than one equity target group has been shown to compound the educational disadvantages faced by individuals • low socio-economic status is a significant sub-category associated with poor educational outcomes within all target groups. • a low level of educational attainment is a predictor of poor participation and achievement in post-school education and training, including participation in adult community education • a low level of educational attainment is also associated with low-socio economic status. • Year 12 retention is an inadequate indicator of educational outcomes from schooling. As school subject knowledge remains highly structured and hierarchical, the subject participation and achievement (outcomes) for specific social groups need to be monitored along with retention rates (outputs). From this review, the authors conclude that government equity strategies could be improved by: • targeting low-SES students within all equity groups • identifying two new target groups – those with low skills and the unemployed • focusing on the outcomes (and not just the outputs) of education and training and strengthening genuine pathways into employment • improving data collections across the sectors in ways that enable a better analysis of the effectiveness of equity initiatives. 1 This paper draws on research undertaken by Dr Louise Watson, LifeLong Learning Network, University of Canberra, during 1999. The larger project, of which this work was a part, was funded by NCVER. AVETRA Conference Paper: Canberra, 23-24 March 2000 LifeLong Learning Network, University of Canberra 2 Equity target groups in each sector For over twenty-five years Australian federal and State governments have implemented equity programs in education and training targeted at specific social groups. Equity programs are sector-specific and implemented separately in each of the four sectors of schools, VET, higher education and adult community education The six population sub-groups that are the target of equity policies in most sectors of education and training are: • Indigenous Australians • people with a disability • people from low socio-economic (SES) backgrounds • women and girls • people from rural and isolated backgrounds • people from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB). The main difference in the definition of equity groups across the education and training sectors is that low-socio-economic status students are not identified as a target group in the vocational education and training sector. This is probably because this sector has traditionally catered to a higher proportion of students from low socio-economic backgrounds than from high socio-economic backgrounds. Since the 1980s Commonwealth labour market programs have directed education and training assistance to the long-term unemployed, although unemployed people are not generally identified as an equity group in sector-based policies. The impact of education and training on specific groups The impact of education and training on specific equity groups is usually examined by comparing their outputs and outcomes in relation to the rest of the population. Although the scope of the sector-specific data collections are limited and there are variations in the years for which data are reported there is sufficient similarity in reporting of outputs and outcomes to make observations about the condition of equity groups in more than one sector. The most fundamental observation is that the distribution of education and training outcomes still reflects the distribution of family background characteristics such as wealth and parents’ educational attainment. For all equity groups this pattern is common across the sectors and for all social groups. More specific observations on each social group are summarised below. Indigenous Australians Of all the identified equity groups the most comprehensive data on educational outcomes across the sectors relate to Indigenous Australians (see, for example, Robinson and Bamblett, 1998) Participation patterns for Indigenous students reflect the hierarchy of the education and training system, with the highest rate of Indigenous participation in the vocational education and training sector and the lowest in higher education. The relationship between access, retention and completion rates for Indigenous students differs in the vocational education and training and higher education sectors. In the vocational education and training sector Indigenous students have high rates of access relative to their share of the 15-64 year-old population and a high retention rate relative to other students (0.94 against a reference value of 1). While retention rates are high the pass rate of Indigenous students is three-quarters the rate for non-Indigenous students (0.73 against a reference value of 1). AVETRA Conference Paper: Canberra, 23-24 March 2000 LifeLong Learning Network, University of Canberra 3 In higher education, Indigenous students have a reasonable rate of access (the same as their share of the adult population) but a lower retention rate than in vocational education and training (0.78 against a reference value of 1). The pass rate of Indigenous students in higher education is slightly higher than Indigenous students in vocational education and training but still much lower than the non-Indigenous university student population (0.78 against a reference value of 1). The Year 12 retention rate for Indigenous students in secondary school is only 31 per cent (0.43 against a reference value of 1) so the Indigenous students who are successful in gaining access to university courses are more highly selected from their own population than non-Indigenous students. Nevertheless the attrition rate for Indigenous students remains higher than for the rest of the university population implying the existence of institutional barriers to participation and completion. Course type: given the low rate of Year 12 completion among Indigenous students, it is not surprising that high proportions of Indigenous students in vocational education and training and higher education are in preparatory courses. In vocational education and training, 47 per cent of Indigenous students are in the preparatory stream, compared to 25 per cent of nonIndigenous students. In higher education, 30 per cent of Indigenous students are in enabling courses, compared to 1 per cent of non-Indigenous students. A higher proportion of Indigenous students in vocational education and training transferred to further education and training (45% compared to 39% of non-Indigenous students). However transferring Indigenous students were more likely to remain in the vocational education and training sector (74% compared to 68% of non-Indigenous transfers) than to proceed to a higher education course (16% compared to 23% of non-Indigenous transfers). Employment pathways: the labour market outcomes for Indigenous students who complete vocational and training courses are less favourable than for non-Indigenous students. In 1998, 49 per cent of Indigenous graduates were employed compared to 73 per cent of nonIndigenous graduates. Twenty-two per cent of Indigenous graduates were unemployed, compared to 14 per cent of non-Indigenous graduates. An economic study of the private returns to education for Indigenous Australians found that Indigenous male and female graduates who completed post-secondary qualifications obtained a relatively high financial return on their participation in education (Daly and Lin 1997). However, Daly and Lin also found that Indigenous students who completed Year 12 had a lower than average return on their additional years of schooling.. In summary, the data suggest that there has been substantial improvement in the outcomes of Indigenous students in the education and training system over the past two decades. From a very low base in the 1970s, the participation rates of Indigenous students has improved in all sectors of education and training (Robinson and Bamblett 1998). However, as the number of higher education students doubled between 1988 and 1998 (DETYA 1998), the participation and success rates of non-Indigenous people have also increased. Relative to other students, the educational outcomes of Indigenous students remain significantly poorer than the rest of the population. Students with a disability A key problem in comparing educational outcomes for students with a disability is the range of disabilities within the population sub-group and the impact of those disabilities on educational attainment. For example, the data collections do not differentiate between students with a physical and intellectual disability. There are also ethical issues involved in asking students to self-identify as having a disability and it is likely that the category is under-reported (ANTA 1998b:13). There are insufficient published data available on students with a disability in schooling or adult community education to make observations about these sectors. AVETRA Conference Paper: Canberra, 23-24 March 2000 LifeLong Learning Network, University of Canberra 4 Students with a disability are more likely to be engaged in lower level courses, have higher withdrawal rates and lower rates of completion in vocational education and training (NCVER 1996). Although students with a disability are under-represented in higher education, their retention rates and completion rates are comparable with the rest of the student population (DETYA 1999A). Students from low socio-economic backgrounds Socio-economic status (SES) appears to have a significant effect on participation and achievement in senior secondary schooling, higher education and adult community education (NBEET 1996 DETYA 1999A). The educational participation rate of low-SES students deteriorates between schools and higher education. The Year 12 completion rate for low-SES students is 0.75 the rate of high-SES students, whereas in higher education, the participation of low-SES students in 0.42 of high-SES students. Although 57 per cent of low-SES students are retained to Year 12, they appear to lack either the motivation or the marks to gain admission to university. This illustrates the inadequacy of Year 12 retention as an indicator of educational outcomes. Year 12 retention is an indicator of participation (output) rather than educational outcomes because it does not reflect subject participation or student achievement − both of which influence post-school education and employment (Ball and Lamb 1999, Teese et al 1995). Once admitted to university, the retention rate of the low-SES students is barely different to the student population as a whole. In vocational education and training low-SES students are more likely to have higher levels of participation in TAFE than high-SES students (Ainley and Long 1998: 390). As ANTA does not recognise low-SES as an equity group, no national institutional data collection is available for the VET sector. In adult community education, participation increases with socio-economic decile. In 1995, people in the second highest SES decile participated in adult community education at more than twice the rate of people in the second lowest decile. Participation also increases with level of formal education (AAACE 1995). In all sectors low socio-economic status appears to cut across each equity category, particularly Indigenous Australians and rural and isolated students.