The changing balances of equity, control and market choice in the Indigenous vocational education and training sector

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
A. Stephens, Don Zoellner
{"title":"The changing balances of equity, control and market choice in the Indigenous vocational education and training sector","authors":"A. Stephens, Don Zoellner","doi":"10.18793/LCJ2019.24.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rationales and related programs for delivering vocational education and training to Indigenous Australians have seen significant change over the past 40 years, with several influential reviews marking policy pivot points along the way. Commencing with the 1960s Martin Review, the implementation by governments of selected recommendations have led to structural reforms and the creation of public policy instruments to monitor, regulate and control access to vocational training. These activities have heavily impacted Australian First Nations people for whom certificate level qualifications are disproportionally the highest level of post-school education held. In the ‘thin’ markets of regional Australia, in particular, the authors of this paper argue that the changing priorities in training policy have systematically perpetuated inequity of access to, and benefit from vocational education and training, contrary to the original conception of a national post-secondary technical and further education system for Australia. Marketisation of the training sector and the transfer of funding responsibility from the public purse to the individual student/worker have produced low rates of employment and high training attrition rates for First Nations people. We argue that this arises from a fundamental shift in the meaning of equity itself. Culminating in today’s implementation of training under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy explores how the refusal of self-determination, unscrupulous practices, limited choice and culturally inappropriate training continues to reinforce the nation’s persistent failure to close the gap in Indigenous wellbeing.","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2019.24.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rationales and related programs for delivering vocational education and training to Indigenous Australians have seen significant change over the past 40 years, with several influential reviews marking policy pivot points along the way. Commencing with the 1960s Martin Review, the implementation by governments of selected recommendations have led to structural reforms and the creation of public policy instruments to monitor, regulate and control access to vocational training. These activities have heavily impacted Australian First Nations people for whom certificate level qualifications are disproportionally the highest level of post-school education held. In the ‘thin’ markets of regional Australia, in particular, the authors of this paper argue that the changing priorities in training policy have systematically perpetuated inequity of access to, and benefit from vocational education and training, contrary to the original conception of a national post-secondary technical and further education system for Australia. Marketisation of the training sector and the transfer of funding responsibility from the public purse to the individual student/worker have produced low rates of employment and high training attrition rates for First Nations people. We argue that this arises from a fundamental shift in the meaning of equity itself. Culminating in today’s implementation of training under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy explores how the refusal of self-determination, unscrupulous practices, limited choice and culturally inappropriate training continues to reinforce the nation’s persistent failure to close the gap in Indigenous wellbeing.
土著职业教育和培训部门中不断变化的公平、控制和市场选择平衡
在过去的40年里,向澳大利亚土著居民提供职业教育和培训的基本原理和相关方案发生了重大变化,其间有几次有影响力的审查表明了政策的支点。从1960年代的《马丁评论》开始,各国政府对选定建议的实施导致了结构性改革,并制定了公共政策工具,以监测、规范和控制获得职业培训的机会。这些活动严重影响了澳大利亚第一民族的人民,对他们来说,证书水平的资格不成比例地是学校后教育的最高水平。特别是在澳大利亚地区的“薄”市场中,本文的作者认为,培训政策中不断变化的优先事项已经系统地延续了获得职业教育和培训的不平等,并从职业教育和培训中受益,这与澳大利亚国家中学后技术和继续教育系统的最初概念相反。培训部门的市场化和资金责任从公共钱包转移到学生/工人个人身上,导致了土著人民的低就业率和高培训损耗率。我们认为,这源于衡平法本身意义的根本转变。今天在土著进步战略下实施的培训最终探讨了拒绝自决、肆无忌惮的做法、有限的选择和文化上不适当的培训如何继续加强国家在缩小土著福利差距方面的持续失败。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
9.10%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信