This recently released NCVER Infographic “presents information on how different equity groups fare in their VET journey.” The data compares members of the various groups with those who are not in them.
It looks at a range of equity groups, including those with a disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI), those with a non-English speaking background (NESB), as well as those who are not employed, are of low socio-economic status (SES) or are living in remote areas. The interesting phenomenon is the number who probably belong to multiple equity groups.
Those with a disability
There are over 180,000 VET students in this category and many of them are in other disadvantaged groups too – most notably not being employed or with low SES. If anything, they tend to be less likely to enrol in a private provider and more likely to be a TAFE student. They tend to be enrolled in a qualification, but with lower completion and subject pass rates than those without a disability. While their employment outcomes were not as good as those without a disability, they were slightly more likely to be enrolled in further studies.
Those who are ATSI
There are just over 155,000 students in this category. More are younger than the non-ATSI group and more are in Government funded training. Again, they are more likely to be of low SES and not employed. They are less likely to use private providers and more likely to use TAFE and be enrolled in a qualification. Rates for both qualification completions and subject load pass rates were not as high as their non ATSI counterparts.
Those who are NESB
There are nearly 600,000 in this category. They are most likely to be of low SES or not employed. They are more likely to be enrolled in a qualification and less likely to be enrolled in subject bundles. When compared with those who are not NESB, their completion and subject load pass rates are similar.
Those with low SES
There are about 723,000 in this group. They are similar in broad age profile to those who are not low SES. More tend to be in Government funded training and they also tend to be from an NESB background and/or not employed. Broadly, their provider preference is not that much different to those who do not have low SES nor is there that greater difference in the type of training undertaken (qualifications and skills bundles). Qualification completion rates are lower (41% vs 47%) but subject load pass rates are similar.
Those who are from remote areas
This is a relatively small group, around 99,000 students. There are also relatively high proportions of low SES and ATSI students in this group as might be expected. There is not much difference between them and others in the types of providers they access. Interestingly, though, they tend to be less likely to be enrolled in qualifications and are ‘more into’ subject bundles. Their qualification completion rates tend to be poorer, but their subject load pass rates are slightly higher than their non-remote counterparts (84 vs 81%).
The ‘not employed’
There are about 727,500 in this group. They tend to be younger (under 40) than those who are employed. They are also most likely to be of low SES (23%) and/or NESB (24%), although around 11% have a disability. They are most likely to be enrolled in a qualification rather than a subject bundle. Their qualification completion rates are comparable to their employed counterparts.
Some thoughts
First, satisfaction levels with their training tend to be similar both between the various equity groups and between those who are members of those groups or are not. In other words, satisfaction is pretty uniform and generally high.
Second, in terms of provider choice and when compared to those not belonging to that equity group, those with a disability, or who are ATSI or not employed appear to use private providers less. On the other hand, they are more likely than those not belonging to that group to use TAFE. In terms of those with an NESB or low SES or remote the use of providers (private or TAFE) is more similar to those not belonging to that group.
Finally, on the same note, a book of readings that Kaye Bowman edited some time ago (2004 in fact) pointed out that membership of multiple equity groups (and she included more equity groups than are considered in this present Infographic) gave rise to the potential for even greater disadvantage. Further, she concluded that “one of the most important points to emerge from the research is that ‘whole group’ targeting strategies often fail to recognise diversity within groups.” Maybe these are things NCVER could explore in their next version of this Infographic?
