Has equity\u27s time come for VET? Observations and principles for equity policy and practice in Australian education

Equity has a long history in education. When compulsory schooling was first introduced in industrialising nations in the mid 1800s, many advocates saw it as a way of improving the circumstances of the poorest and most disadvantaged in their communities. But access to schooling did not prove to be the great equaliser that some had hoped. Instead, it became central in the reproduction of social and economic inequalities (Bourdieu & Passeron 1977). High academic achievement became highly correlated with high socioeconomic status, and vice versa (Teese & Polesel 2003). In Australia, the Karmel Report (1973) proved to be a watershed moment in naming the equity problem in schooling and, among other things, gave rise to the Disadvantaged Schools Program (DSP): an attempt to level the playing field albeit by ‘running twice as hard’ (Connell at al. 1991). Almost two decades later, A Fair Chance for All (1990) signalled official concern for equity in Australian higher education. While access to university was not to be universal, it was to be equitable; all social groups in the Australian population were to be proportionally represented among its university students. Today, Australia is still grappling with the inequities in its schooling and higher education systems, highlighted by renewed interest by governments to address the issues. Although not of the same order of magnitude, there now appears to be an emerging policy agenda around equity in VET. Has equity’s time come for VET? This paper canvasses the history of equity in Australian schooling and higher education, with a view to drawing out principles to inform a rejuvenated equity agenda in vocational education and training

Social justice in Australian education : rethinking what we know for contemporary times

In this paper I attempt two things. First I canvass the history of social justice policy in schooling and higher education in Australia, with a view to drawing out ten principles to inform a rejuvenated social justice agenda in education, facilitated at this political moment by the current Australian Government’s financial and education commitments to/for people in low socioeconomic status communities, schools and higher education. I draw primarily on what we have learned from the 1973 Karmel Report and the Disadvantaged Schools Program to which it gave rise, and on the 1990 higher education policy statement, A Fair Chance for All. I then propose three new concepts for rethinking social justice in education, which reflect a new ‘structure of feeling’ (Williams 1961) and new social capacities in contemporary times

I'm your new teacher: the impact of teacher mobility on educational opportunities for marginalised students

This article provides an alternative perspective on what it means to 'do school' in a disadvantaged community, particularly in the way that disadvantage is reproduced for marginalised students. It explores the mobility of teachers (temporarily) working in a small secondary school located in an economically depressed regional community in Australia, characterised by high levels of unemployment, high welfare dependency and a significant indigenous population. Like many disadvantaged schools, the school has difficulty attracting and retaining high ability teachers, instead relying on a high turnover of often-reluctant staff who are sent to (or feel compelled to) fill positions unable to be resourced through teacher choice procedures. Drawing on parent, student, and teacher interviews, we ask: how does teacher mobility in this context influence the educational opportunities of students who are 'on the margins' of school success and of the socio-economic structure? Specifically, we explore the ways that teacher mobility can reproduce disadvantage by limiting students’ access to the dominant cultural capital. We argue that educational policies and politics that reward teacher mobility for moving out of these communities, work to disadvantage students. What is needed is a transformation in policies governing staff placements to establish alternatives that redefine the reward system for teachers in ways that permit these students to succeed

Productive pedagogies : is it an intelligible language for preservice teachers?

Australian teacher educators and teachers have become increasingly familiar with the notion of ‘Productive Pedagogies’, itself the product of longitudinal research on school reform recently undertaken in Queensland, Australia (Lingard et al., 2001a, , 2001b) . One of its strengths has been its efficacy for in-service teachers to use as a language to talk about their pedagogical work and hence a way of reclaiming some of the ground on what constitutes good teaching. In part, this can be attributed to the numerous observations of teachers’ classroom practice that informed the construction of Productive Pedagogies (PPs). That is, many teachers understand these as naming what ‘good’ teachers have always done. In this paper the value of PPs as a metalanguage for developing pre-service teachers’ knowledge and understanding of teaching is examined; whether PPs is a language that is intelligible for pre-service teachers without access to this prior teacher knowledge or whether its elements and dimensions merely constitute an isolated vocabulary. A case study of four pre-service teachers provides the context for this exploration and its empirical data. Drawing on their fieldwork observations of teaching practice, voiced in the language of PPs, the paper argues that PPs language is indeed useful in the development of pre-service teachers’ understanding of teaching, particularly in assisting them to name evidence of teachers’ recognition of and engagement with difference

Difficult times, difficult students? Teaching students with learning difficulties to be teachers

The last decade of Australian higher education has witnessed significant expansion in the provision of student places, relative to the Australian population, with student enrolment figures for undergraduate award courses in 1993 totalling 453,926, compared with 287,713 in 1983. Such expansion has raised considerable speculation amongst academics about the quality of students now entering university and their ability to successfully negotiate academic learning environments, particularly since the mid 1990s when unmet demand for higher education began to diminish; the assumption often being that lower entry scores are indicative of future academic problems. This is a significant issue for Australian regional universities, which historically have struggled to attract students with high entry scores and which are likely to experience even greater competition from metropolitan universities given the prospect of \u27vouchers\u27, a possibility (re)floated by the West Review, which will enable students to be more selective in their university of choice. Moreover, these \u27problems\u27 seem compounded for teacher educators who are required to deliver greater numbers of graduates to satisfy a current shortage of teachers in many Australian States and also to \u27soak up\u27 government funded places within their institutions that other faculties have been unable to fill, while drawing from a diminishing pool of high entry-scoring applicants. Within this context, this paper addresses the possibility for teacher educators of facing classes with increasing numbers of students with learning difficulties and learning disabilities, estimated in the early 1980s by Sykes (1982) to be about 5% of university students. In raising these issues, the paper makes two broad contributions. First, it engages with the discussion within the literature concerning competing definitions of university students\u27 learning difficulties and learning disabilities, suggesting that the debate is unhelpful and that the differences are not that important when consideration is given to how they are experienced by students. Secondly, and flowing logically from this, the paper argues that rather than simply defining learning difficulty as intrinsic to students, academic learning environments, and those who construct them, are also implicated in the determination of how difficult (or otherwise) they are for students to access

Parent participation in disadvantaged schools: moving beyond attributions of blame

While facilitating community participation in disadvantaged schools can be difficult, this article argues that given the structuring of schooling in contemporary western democracies, it is even more difficult than we might imagine. Drawing on Bourdieu, we attempt to elucidate the complex relations between schooling and socio-cultural contexts which can lead to inequalities of opportunity for parent participation in schooling and work to maintain disadvantage for marginalised students. Recognitive justice, with its positive regard for social difference and centrality of social democratic processes, offers us another way of advancing this discussion beyond simplistic attributions of blame. In particular, a politics of recognition is concerned with opening up the processes of schooling to groups who often have been excluded and for their views to be seriously engaged within decision-making processes. This article gives voice to such views, utilising interview data from a small Australian secondary school located in a regional community with high welfare dependency and a large indigenous population. We conclude that to increase parent participation in disadvantaged schools, what is needed is a transformation of the field ‘to establish alternative goals and … completely … redefine the game and the moves which permit one to win it’ (Bourdieu, 1988, p. 172)

Towards a new settlement in Australian teacher education : a review of shifting sensibilities

This essay reviews and provides a critical introduction to the papers found within these Refereed Proceedings of the Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA) Conference held in Yeppoon, Queensland, 5-8 July, 1997. It argues that within Australia, and to a lesser extent the Asia Pacific region, there is evidence of a new settlement in teacher education, the parameters and particulars of which are characterised by significant changes in its political economy, social and knowledge bases. While it is evident that particular features of previous settlements in Australian teacher education remain, in recent times many of these features have acquired different emphases and meanings; in part due to their conjoining with and (re)positioning amongst other elements previously illegitimated or `held at bay\u27. Each of the themes of change is examined in turn and, at relevant junctures, references are made to papers within the volume that provide further illustration and explanation

Massaging desire : disadvantaged students\u27 aspirations for higher education.

Australia is in a challenging position. Having ridden the resources boom up and down, it now finds it has fallen back from the OECD pack in terms of the number of young adults (25 to 34 year olds) with higher education qualifications. This, coupled with a change of government, has prompted transformation in the Australian higher education system that will increasingly require research and policy to address students’ aspirations for university. Aspiration has long been considered an important condition for entry to higher education (Anderson, Boven, Fensham & Powell, 1980). However, recent policy reforms, specifically the setting of targets for significant increases in participation, now demand a rethinking of the concept. Across Australian universities, the current attainment rate for bachelor degrees among 25 to 34 year olds is around 32 per cent, while over the past twenty years the enrolment rate of students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds has stagnated at around 15 per cent (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). In response to the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education in 2008, the Australian Government has set ‘20/40 targets’ in a bid to increase low SES enrolment to 20 per cent by 2020, and to increase to 40 per cent by 2025 the number of 25 to 34 year olds holding bachelor degrees. This will require that around 220,000 additional students attain bachelor degrees by 2025. Given current levels of unmet demand for university entry, this overall increase in participation, and the proportional increase of low SES students in particular, will only be achievable by engaging with populations of potential students who do not currently seek university places

To speak of academic achievement and justice : a dialogue of time and place for students and their schooling

No abstract available