Consideration of the equity gap is affected by implications for 2016 policy of matters concerning VET FEE-HELP and TVA (NCVER, 2015a). First, VET FEE-HELP has attracted learners experiencing
disadvantage to private providers with high-cost, sometimes fraudulent, courses. The learners most likely to access VET FEE-HELP include many considered to be experiencing disadvantage, namely:
females; those under 25; those with a disability; those not employed; and external students (NCVER, 2016a, p. 20). NCVER (2015a) draws attention to the fact that while VET FEE-HELP has an equity objective, addressing the scheme to higher-level qualifications has been a “bridge too far” (p. 40) for marginalised students. Learners experiencing disadvantage are over-represented in the data of lowest VET FEE-HELP completions (NCVER, 2015a). Atkinson and Stanwick (2016), in their research of VET FEE-HELP, bear out that the exploitation of learners experiencing disadvantage is largely by unscrupulous private providers in relation to vulnerable learners. NCVER (2015a) reports: “Between
2012 and 2014, the number of providers approved to offer VET FEE-Help doubled, with the number of VET FEE-Help assisted students more than tripling over the same period. Most of this growth has come from the private provider, full-fee-paying market” (p. 14). NCVER (2015a) reports that systems for collection of data are not sufficient to capture a comprehensive picture of the consequences of VET FEE-HELP. Nonetheless, the data that have been captured suggest that the scheme “… may not bode well for future course completions of VET FEE-HELP assisted students” (p. 10).
Second, an overriding matter is that for the first time there are twice as many VET learners than were calculated under all previous analyses based only on public provision. Total VET Activity (TVA)
(NCVER, 2016b) makes it clear that the proportion of VET data that is missing is higher than the total reported activity in VET. NCVER (2016b) reports: “As a result, it is difficult to be conclusive about where students live and their disability or indigenous status because of the high proportion of missing data in the total VET data” (p. 21). The TVA data collection has found that “… any
comparisons on Indigeneity, disability status or location are inconclusive, despite the provision of VET being widespread across Australia” (p. 6). The question arises with regard to many things and to equity in particular: without information about a skills sector that is now more private than public, how can we know the nature and extent of the equity gap? Within this 2016 context, I advance the NVEAC (2011) position that the framework for closing the equity gap should include embedding equity in VET, and VET FEE-HELP outcomes and TVA gaps in data imply that this has not been done.
2.6.1.3Perspectives of the Equity Gap
Various researchers use qualifying words to describe equity in tertiary education generally. In higher education, Abbott-Chapman (2011) emphasised that worldwide and national participation has grown but she qualified equity as “contingent”. Abbott-Chapman (2011) wrote that “contingentequity”
resulted “… from overall increases in higher education participation rather than a genuine redistribution of educational opportunity” (p. 1). Pitman (2015) argued for genuine fairness and inclusion in higher education and that equity outcomes are “proportional”. Bradley et al. (2008) refer to “differential” participation and “lagging” equity (p. 27) in higher education and to lack of parity
with enrolments of learners experiencing disadvantage compared with their population numbers in broader society.
There are many ways of looking at what constitutes the equity gap. There are researchers who write that the VET equity gap generally remains (Deloitte Access Economics & NVEAC, 2011b; McVicar & Tabasso, 2016; National VET Equity Advisory Council, 2011; Ryan, 2011; Wheelahan, 2009) despite constant resources poured into policy formulation and into equity programs in education (Beddie, 2015; NCVER, 2014b; NVEAC, 2011). With regard to “second-chance” learners, Lamb, Jackson, Wallstab and Huo (2015) recently found that while some second-chance learners are accessing VET education opportunities, “… data indicates that these are not accessed by some of the groups most in need … reducing equity, productivity and social cohesion in Australian society” (p. 92). It is argued that the equity aims are not being met with regard to progress from VET to higher education (Griffin, 2014); VET does better than universities at attracting learners experiencing disadvantage but
learners are concentrated in Certificates I and II (Productivity Commission, 2011); VET is not adding to social inclusion (Buddelmeyer & Polidano, 2016); VET may have improved participation but it has not improved opportunities for work for learners experiencing disadvantage (McVicar & Tabasso, 2016); numbers of learners with a disability are increasing but new providers do not have the capacity to cater for them (Beddie, 2015); intergenerational mobility for people experiencing disadvantage is not increasing relative to the general community (Redmond, Wong, Brabury, & Ilan, 2014).
Evidence of an equity gap was also within the review by ACIL Consulting (2015) commissioned by COAG with regard to accessibility and choice. ACIL Consulting (2015) reported early growth with regard to access and choice for learners but later negative results. For the purposes of this study, it has been shown that the equity gap exists from numerous perspectives and that commentators describe its nature in different ways.