Reasonable adjustment: Is it a way forward to manage diversity and equity issues in vocational education and training?

Abstract

Literature has highlighted the importance of having a reasonable adjustment approach as a measure of social justice to provide inclusive education for all students. However, the growing globalisation and commercialisation of vocational education and training has tended to encourage provider organisations to use more flexible reasonable adjustments to attract and retain more students in this domain. The framework of this new reasonable adjustment approach expands on the previous reasonable management approach provided to facilitate disadvantaged students. By introducing innovative and flexible teaching and assessment, this notion of reasonable adjustment now incorporates market-like efforts to secure more income in the form of fees from students. However, there remains unanswered the question of how flexible the reasonable adjustment should be. This paper questions whether achieving a more diverse student population has delivered anything of value to the students who are making up that greater diversity. Perhaps the notion of reasonableness has been applied with too narrow a focus on a reasonable diversity of student entry characteristics, rather than also embracing their learning attainment and subsequent workplace success. Reasonable adjustment may well be a way forward, but perhaps more attention needs to be paid to the concept of reasonableness before that can happen.

Keywords

Diversity equity vocational education and training reasonable adjustment alternative-flexible assessment inclusion

Introduction

Australian vocational education and training (VET) has made significant progress in responding to and improving access and equity in service delivery by bolting social justice principles on to the core business of training providers (Bean, 2004). The role of reasonable adjustment as an approach to social justice in supporting equal outcomes for disadvantaged students, particularly those with disability, is a longstanding theme. Recent years have also witnessed increasing attention to the approach of ‘reasonable adjustment’ being extended to ‘reasonable accommodation’ or innovative-alternative-flexible-inclusive assessment to accommodate diverse student cohorts, including small businesses and international students, exploring the idea that provision of equal opportunity to students from diverse backgrounds plays a critical role in student well-being and in a consequent increase in economic activity to the VET sector (Bailey et al., 2009; Nakar, 2012; Nakar and Olssen, 2021; Smith, 2011; Tran, 2013a; Tran and Nyland, 2011).

The purpose of this paper is threefold:

1. To outline the conceptual development of reasonable adjustment as a social justice measure of equity and diversity in VET,

2. To identify the role of a reasonable adjustment approach being used for economic imperatives in a globalised and commercial VET market and

3. To identify the tension it thus creates for students, registered training organisations, and VET teachers.

The first part of the paper discusses the emergence of a conceptual framework of a reasonable adjustment approach as an essential strategy in providing social justice for equity and diversity in the delivery of VET. It argues that it is a duty of care for teachers in VET institutes to make reasonable adjustments to their work and teaching practices in order to cater appropriately for disadvantaged students, particularly those with disability. The second part of the paper demonstrates how VET responds to globalisation and marketisation. Such response exerts an increasing force on VET teaching and learning practices to flexibly accommodate students’ needs. As a result, wider, deeper and more frequent reasonable accommodations are adopted in VET teaching and learning practices to advantage providers in competing for diverse student enrolments. The paper thus addresses the move of a reasonable management approach from an essential element of inclusive strategy for a disadvantaged student population to the more novel concept of reasonable adjustment or accommodation as an important aspect of inclusive VET reform for attracting more students. The third and final section of the paper examines the tension thus created for the students, registered training organisations, and VET practitioners and identifies the need for further research on the reasonableness of the approach of reasonable adjustment in Australian VET.

Reasonable adjustment as a social justice measure of equity and diversity in VET

Equity and diversity are central to multicultural and multidimensional Australian society and are significant factors in teaching, learning and education program management (Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, 2002; National VET Equity Advisory Council, 2012). Australian educational policy has been influenced by human rights and social justice theory (Australian Government, Department of Education, 2019; Rae et al., 2002). Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality (Rawls, 1971). Papastephanou et al. (2022) pointed out that the ethics of justice is to be responsive to both justice and injustice that present challenges to the individual. They further pose that injustice is a lived experience rooted in a conception of normality, difference and rationality, claiming that education which treats all students equally in classrooms may be partly just; however, it is not just in the generic sense of justice. They suggest that education should, therefore, be a promise of justice: to foster values and norms for action and dynamic empowerment.

In Australian education, principles of social justice gradually developed from catering to the needs of disabled students to including all disadvantaged students (National People with Disabilities and Carer Council, 2009). Goldfarb and Grinberg (2002: 162) defined social justice as ‘the exercise of altering institutional and organisational arrangements by actively engaging in reclaiming, appropriating, sustaining, and advancing inherent human rights of equity, equality, and fairness in social, economic, educational, and personal dimensions’. Social justice theory firmly advocates the view that students with disability often need additional support to ensure that they have the same educational access and opportunities. Australian legislation, such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 1992 and its associated standards (Disability Standards for Education 2005, 2005), has been designed to protect individuals from negative discrimination based on their disabilities. In addition, Sections 3–8 of the Disabilities Standards for Education (2005) set out the standards that vocational education institutions must follow in reference to ‘reasonable adjustments’.

Reasonable adjustment is a legislative term that, for VET, refers to a measure or action taken by an education provider to enable learners with disability to participate in education and training on the same basis as learners without disability (Queensland VET Development Centre, Department of Education and Training, 2018). There are two guiding principles underlying the context for reasonable adjustment in VET – inclusive practice and universal design – which mean designing courses, instructional materials and instruction to be accessible and useable by learners with widely different backgrounds and abilities (Department of Training and Workforce Development, 2013a; Queensland Government, Department of Employment, Small Business and Training, 2018). These principles are inherent in a learner-centred approach in VET and focus on individual learners and their needs; therefore, any decisions about reasonable adjustment also should focus on the individual learner and their ability to participate and achieve outcomes.

Reasonable adjustment applied to participation in teaching, learning and assessment activities in VET could include the following: customisation within the training package or accredited course; modification to teaching tools, tasks, methodologies and the learning and assessment environment, for example, alternative tasks, different presentation medium, learner support, use of assistive technologies; and provision of accessible information prior to enrolment plus accessible learning materials, monitoring the adjustments to ensure learner needs continue to be met (Queensland Government, Department of Employment, Small Business and Training, 2018: 6–7).

Registered training organisations are required to comply with the Standards for RTOs (registered training organisations) 2015 (Australian Quality Training Framework, 2015), the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 when providing services for students who may have a disability. This includes physical and learning disabilities, chronic medical conditions or mental illness. VET providers – public and private registered training organisations alike – are required to provide services that facilitate reasonable adjustment to all students who require such adjustments in teaching, learning and assessment activities, except where this would cause the provider unjustifiable hardship (Australian Quality Training Framework, 2007). Hence, registered training organisations are required to make a judgement about what is reasonable adjustment without compromising the integrity of the learning outcome, and VET practitioners must also refer to policies of the relevant registered training organisation to determine what adjustments they may be able to offer and what processes are to be followed (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2007; Department of Training and Workforce Development, 2013b). To comply with this policy, TAFE institutes in NSW have specialist disability teachers qualified to service six specific disability groups (physical, hearing, vision, intellectual, neurological and psychiatric). In a report titled ‘Improving quality outcomes’, Kelly and Blecich (2011) explained that providing differentiated teaching strategies as well as an enabling environment for students with disabilities leads to improved outcomes in VET.

Education and training facilitate greater levels of social inclusion, and VET plays a significant contributing role as it is ‘highly accessible and adaptable’ (Buddelmeyer and Polidano, 2016: 2). VET teachers are expected and encouraged to make reasonable adjustments to provide equity to the traditional equity groups: employment equity occupational groups, women, Indigenous Australians, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, mature age persons, people from remote/very remote regions, people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and people with disabilities (Bowman, 2004; Lamb et al., 2018; McIntyre et al., 2004; National VET Equity Advisory Council, 2011; 2012); the ‘new’ equity groups in Australia involving students with less than a Year 12 qualification or its equivalent of prior educational attainment; and those variously returning to learning after a long period of absence from study and/or work, re-skilling following redundancy, involved in the criminal justice system, and of working age who are neither working nor studying (Rothman et al., 2013). In times where increasing numbers of students are seeking education and training opportunities outside their hometown in order to gain internationally recognised qualifications, Bowman (2004) has emphasised the particular importance of providing equity for international students who might experience disadvantage and the role that VET could play to improve their opportunities. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that more than 3 million tertiary students were educated outside their home country in 2008 (OECD, 2010), with possible future projections of global demand for international education rising to almost 8 million by 2025 (Australian Council for Private Education and Training 2015a; 2015b).

TAE40116 – Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, TAE50116 – Diploma of Vocational Education and Training, and TAE50216 – Diploma of Training Design and Development are the curriculums and frameworks that guide the preparation of teachers in the VET sector. In relation to reasonable adjustment and inclusive practice in VET, the TAE40122 Training and Education Package states that providing reasonable adjustment for learners is based on legislative and regulatory requirements, as well as on the purpose of the VET organisation providing it (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2015). It further states that, although the term ‘reasonable adjustment’ in legislation relates mainly to people with a disability, all learners can benefit from inclusive practice that tailors practice to individual learner requirements. It is argued that, by embracing inclusion as a model of social justice, marginalisation can be eliminated for all (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority 2013; Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008; Forlin and Nguyet, 2010; Innovation and Business Skills Australia, 2011; Sapon-Shevin, 2003).

Reasonable adjustment as an economic strategy for responding to globalisation in VET

Australia gains significant benefits from its export of education and training services. The social and economic benefits are seen as flowing to individuals, institutions and the wider community, both in Australia and in other countries (Nakar, 2012; 2017; Nakar and Olssen, 2021; Productivity Commission, 2011). International engagement in education and training can transform individuals, widening their intellectual horizons, opening them to new ideas and experiences, and extending their friendships (Minister for Education and Training, 2017). VET can contribute to the development of socio-emotional skills, learner confidence and an overall improvement in social cohesion and positive communities. For instance, an improvement to learner well-being and outlook through VET qualifications is found across all levels of training (Griffin, 2016). Overseas students also contribute intellectually to Australian education and society and provide diverse social and cultural perspectives that enrich the educational experience for many Australian students (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2007). The Australian National Training Authority (2002, 2003) has strongly reiterated the importance of the role of VET in assisting the integration of people from all backgrounds, as the success of the VET sector depends heavily on the rapidly growing enrolments of international students (35.6% growth annually as compared to 12.4% in higher education; Minister for Education and Training, 2017).

International VET has been much debated at the nexus of the commercialisation of education and justice for international students (Bagnall, 2003; Cully, 2006; Hobart, 1999; Moran and Ryan, 2004; Smith and Smith, 1999; Tran, 2013a; 2013b). Client-centred tertiary policies are an aspect of the market revolution that has taken place in the last two decades, with Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States and Canada seeking to improve their competitive position in regional and world markets (Nakar, 2012; Ryan, 2002).

However, in recent years, Australia’s competitive advantage in packaged VET programs has been compromised by student visa changes, a perception that Australia changes its rules arbitrarily, a failure of natural justice towards international students in the event of policy changes, the Australian monetary exchange rate, a perception that Australian authorities and media have concerns for student safety, and a mismatch between the rules governing training and immigration rules, raising concerns that some providers and agents have put migration outcomes before a quality education for students (Australian Council for Private Education and Training, 2010b; Birrell and Edwards, 2009; Nakar, 2017). The Australian Council for Private Education and Training is deeply concerned about the supplying of inaccurate or misleading information by education agents to prospective students, creating unrealistic expectations (Australian Council for Private Education and Training 2015a; 2015b; Nakar et al., 2018).

Moreover, there have been constant changes to Australia’s General Skilled Migration program to meet the demand-driven skills needed for Australian industry, which could mean that a VET course which was in the Migration Occupations in Demand list when the student enrolled, might not be in demand by the time the student graduates (Australian Skill Quality Authority, 2013a; 2013b). Such underlying shifts in government policies and practices around this list and concerning student visas may be seen as having effectively handed the Australian market to competitive countries like New Zealand, USA and Canada (Vivekanandan, 2010). Countries like these welcome such students, having recognised that Australia has generated economic benefits of over $17 billion annually from its international education exports (Australian Council for Private Education and Training, 2015a). It is argued that students, recognising that their training college provider cannot provide them with a course (and its desired outcomes) undertaken on the basis of previous policy settings, have switched courses and colleges to those in more accommodating countries (Australian Council for Private Education and Training, 2010a; 2010b; Nakar, 2012).

The strict control of political influence and the complicated related economic changes in the last decade, mentioned above, have accounted for unsteady progress in VET, which has called for educational reform. In 2012, all Australian governments (federal, state and territory) opened their training market investment to both public and private registered training organisations on a competitive basis, through the introduction of a national training entitlement to a government-subsidised training place (Australian Council for Private Education and Training, 2015b). This meant that registered training organisations would no longer have to limit themselves to a fixed, known market, leaving them free to hunt for much broader market opportunities in terms of students’ background. Porter and Kramer (2002) and Zadek (2005, 2006) asserted that, in the globalised economic environment where the social as well as economic consequences of the strategic decisions of organisations are intimately interconnected, companies use social initiatives to improve their competitive business advantage in the places where they operate. Such initiatives, though true for any industry, are argued to be related here to the rapidly changing nature of vocational work, commonly characterised as the new vocationalism, which inexorably demands enhanced flexibility to meet the emerging needs of the economy to enhance Australia’s capacity to compete in the global market (Figgis et al., 2007; Guthrie et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2005). The move from a supply driven culture to a demand-driven one has thus encouraged VET in Australia to be dominated by economic discourses and to contribute to economic development (Billett et al., 2012; Nakar, 2012).

In this context, reasonable adjustment may be seen as being used as an economic strategy, and the VET sector has now organised its social initiatives of catering flexibly to the needs of diverse clients to maximise the flow of students, which has had a big impact on what vocational institutions do. In addition to the regular reasonable accommodations – planning for instruction, making teaching resources and methods accessible, adapting curriculum, and modifying physical facilities, environment, or equipment – VET trainers are expected to assist students by providing inclusive opportunities such as creating flexible assessments, changing the way evidence for assessment is gathered, providing extra time to complete assessments, assessing learning on the basis of course progression, and providing flexible learning opportunities through a range of delivery modes including e-learning, distance education, mixed-mode, online learning, self-paced learning and self-directed learning (Ball, 2009; Department of Training and Workforce Development, 2013a; 2013b; Queensland VET Development Centre, 2010; 2011).

In these new market arrangements shaping VET, registered training organisations have developed and are delivering training programs and are competing for students on the basis of quality, accessibility, innovation and price (value for money; Australian Skill Quality Authority, 2013a). A study by Mitchell et al. (2003) found that innovation in VET teaching was often about turning an ‘invention’, such as an idea, technology or technique, into a product, process or service that was successful because it met the needs of learners. In their effort to provide flexible and tailored training facilities and delivery, registered training organisations thus set innovative courses and prices that reflected their position in the marketplace by providing intensive training and assessment through a mixture of face-to-face and online training sessions (Australian Quality Training Framework, 2015; Nakar and Olssen, 2021). Such flexible and tailored training programs are aimed at targeting students (domestic and international) wanting to achieve qualifications in a short duration, seeking to upskill them when they already hold a qualification or have extensive experience, or training them for employability skills needed for particular industries. Students have been thus provided with purchasing power and choices about providers and courses (Australian Council for Private Education and Training, 2011; Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2012).

Tensions created by reasonable adjustment

From the foregoing analysis of the literature, it is clear that the extension of reasonable adjustment approaches to accommodate more flexible, alternative learning and assessment according to social justice principles has increasingly been used to pursue the economic goal of gaining more student enrolments. However, this extension has created tensions for students, registered training organisations, and VET teachers alike. Biesta et al. (2022) pointed out that neoliberal modes of governance have, over the past decades, put the important dimension of education as a common good under pressure and have, according to some, eroded the very idea of the common good. Within the ethically complex profession of teaching, teachers are continuously expected to make just and ethical decisions regarding reasonable adjustments, while at the same time developing the knowledge, capability, commitment and confidence to work as situated moral agents (Buchanan et al., 2022).

VET training has become synonymous with training for employability. However, the question this paper raises is the extent to which the flexible provision of reasonable adjustments serves the purpose of preparing students to be job ready with graduate attributes and employability skills. As a protocol, a teacher may have indicated completing all requirements for accommodating students’ needs, but the challenge that this might present is whether the attributes and skills that VET teachers are trying to deliver flexibly to their students are sufficient to prepare them for job demands. VET teachers may thus find themselves in a dilemmatic space within a complex web of ethical obligations: to prepare our students for their future work and to be ethical as educators in our conduct and teaching. In an audit report, the Australian Skill Quality Authority (2013a) highlighted the concern that fast-tracked minimalist courses, which were by then being used even in cases where participants had no previous work experience, might not provide the requisite employability skills. By way of example, the Australian Skill Quality Authority (2013b) pointed out that up to 70% of registered training organisations offered the Certificate III in Aged Care in fewer than 1,200 h, even though the Australian Qualification Framework guidelines suggested a benchmark of 1,200 h or more. Remarkably, a number of registered training organisations were found to offer this qualification in fewer than 200 h. Further, 70% of registered training organisations were found to offer the Certificate III in Aged Care over a period of less than 1 year, even though the Australian Qualification Framework guidelines’ benchmark was 1–2 years; over one-third of registered training organisations were offering the qualification in fewer than 15 weeks.

Although competency-based training in the Australian VET system has supposedly been about the gaining of skills and competencies (Hodge, 2011) and not just the serving of time in a training program, the fact that so many registered training organisations have been offering programs of such a short duration, while also struggling with assessment, means that, in many cases, students would not have gained all of the required skills and competencies. The Australian Skill Quality Authority (2013b) suggested that employers and students had been short-changed, furthermore claiming that the problem was not constrained to training in the aged and community care sector. Instead, it had much wider application across the whole VET sector as increasing numbers of VET registered training organisations became a terrain for marketisation agendas in order to protect themselves from competitive threats.

Such marketisation has counter-implications for those registered training organisations trying to provide high-quality programs capable of delivering the skills and competencies required in a meaningful way, since they are faced with unfair competition (in terms of costs and prices) from other organisations providing ‘cheap’ and unrealistically short training programs. The Australian Skill Quality Authority (2013a) described this situation as creating an environment in the competitive training market where there was a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of continually reducing course fees and course duration to attract students and reducing training and delivery in an effort to cut costs.

In that context, pressure for change has been exerted with increasing force into teaching and learning practice within VET. Bagnall (2004), Kemp and Norton (2014), Marginson (2000), Robinson (2000) and Waterhouse et al. (1999) have all argued that the changes to the world of work and the need for VET practitioners to develop customised training for industry and individual learners are shifting VET from a supply driven to a demand-driven approach, with continued faith that ‘success will breed success’. VET staff in the broader ‘open market’ context are expected both to be entrepreneurial and to limit their use of resources, while at the same time offering high-quality and innovative learning opportunities for students (Harris et al., 2005).

The ability of the VET workforce to meet its objectives in developing the skills of learners is measured through feedback from individuals, industry and business (Productivity Commission, 2011). Such feedback measures a range of factors, but specifically seeks to determine whether learners have developed skills in line with the qualifications obtained. Hence, the value of reputation and recognition from this feedback can be an important deciding factor for VET teachers’ jobs. An Australian productivity discussion paper (Productivity Commission, 2011) has identified the diversity of the VET sector, noting that what appears as appropriate adjustment for one element of the VET workforce may not be appropriate for another. Diverse students may require different adjustments according to their individual learning needs, interests, strengths and goals (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2012). Hence, not all learners will have the capability to become autonomous learners or ‘to connect’ in the same way or at the same pace. Learners from disadvantaged backgrounds typically have low levels of prior education and training and often require significant support services in addition to just training and assessment. A curriculum adjustment in such instances may create a burden on teachers to teach language and literacy to a student in addition to the requirements of the core competencies. Such reasonable adjustments are likely to have additional demands on staff time and budgets.

Such ‘bolted-on’ arrangements might work less well, because they do not fit in with existing procedures and tend to be reliant on individual staff knowledge or expertise. The establishment of a reasonable adjustment program may not in itself fulfil its expectations. Determining ‘reasonableness’ requires judgement that must take into account the impact on the organisation and the need to maintain the integrity of the unit of competency (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2015). While VET teachers learn about inclusive education and reasonable adjustment during their training and education, it is often provided as a standalone topic that may refer more to ‘special needs education’ or ‘education for children with disabilities’.

Moving On, the final report of the high-level review of training packages (Australian National Training Authority, 2004; Schofield and MacDonald, 2004), considered that TAE4116 – Training and Education Training Package implementation – enabled trainers and assessors a level of innovation and flexibility in designing training and assessment, but did not specify how teachers/trainers should design the learning program and resources, nor did it provide information pertaining to assessment. This course is proposed to be superseded by TAE40122 – Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. This change was suggested to simply indicate that the new standards for registered training organisations required VET teachers to know the reasonable adjustments for enhancing fairness, encouraging them to be flexible and innovative. The level of flexibility in reasonable adjustment allowed was thus left for consideration on a case-by-case basis, without actually specifying what level of flexibility should be considered reasonable.

Registered training organisations may or may not have developed guidelines to help VET teachers determine the types of adjustment to learning and assessment strategies that may be appropriate to suit a particular client. This could mean that, ultimately, pressure may fall on teachers to make changes to adjust to a more varied and flexible teaching role according to their best judgement, as a necessary condition to save their job (Nakar, 2019). Bourke (2010: 185) argued that enthusiasm for ‘inclusive education’ in Queensland seems to be waning amongst practitioners, and that the ‘confusion, frustration, guilt and exhaustion’ that has emerged with teachers and support practitioners in the United Kingdom is also emerging amongst support practitioners in Queensland. New policies and structures are being introduced without practitioners having the time and support to examine critically the underlying assumptions about disability, difference, and inclusion that underpin their practices.

Conclusion

The above analysis identifies a problematic shift in the way that reasonable adjustment is understood in VET and the pressure thus created for registered training organisations and teachers. However, any failure by VET teachers to make reasonable adjustments may mean that clients from diverse cohorts and differing needs will continue to seek their VET qualification from alternative registered training organisations. This paper raises the concern that under such pressure, registered training organisations and VET teachers might develop a tendency towards finding quick and easy solutions in the adoption of a particular innovative strategy aligned with teaching and assessment styles, but which do not necessarily satisfy any of the questions about catering for diversity and the social justice approach of reasonable adjustment. While reasonable adjustment in teaching, learning and assessment is intended to lessen the impact of an individual’s disability on their capacity to learn, the learner still needs to meet the course standards and to demonstrate the competence needed for the industry. Essentially, reasonable adjustment does not give any learner an advantage over others; every reasonable adjustment needs to be justifiable and must uphold the integrity of the qualification.

This paper advocates that, in the face of such competitive tendencies, it is morally imperative for teachers to identify what good reasonable adjustment ‘looks like’ and for every student to know what reasonable adjustments they can expect. It also acknowledges that failure to make reasonable adjustments may mean that clients from diverse cohorts and differing needs will continue to be vulnerable to a range of risks. Reasonable adjustment for social justice reasons has potentially benefited enormously from the globalisation and economisation of VET; nevertheless, providers and regulators need to be cautious that reasonable adjustments for social justice reasons has indeed been happening and that the social justice agenda hasn’t been lost sight of and that there are indeed social justice benefits flowing from this econometric focus. Equity initiatives like reasonable adjustment should thus not be driven solely by the desire to increase revenue, but by a moral commitment to tackling the social exclusion and disadvantage faced by particular groups. There is a need to recognise that the reasonableness of a reasonable adjustment should be considered holistically, not only from an economic perspective, if it is to support a move towards more inclusive practice in diverse VET.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my very great appreciation to Professor Richard Bagnall for his valuable and constructive suggestions during the planning and development of this research work. His willingness to give his time so generously has been greatly appreciated.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sonal Nakar

Dr Sonal Nakar is Lecturer and GTPA Institutional Lead in the school of Education and Professional studies, Griffith University. She is experienced practitioner with research expertise in the teaching of ethics, ethical reasoning, teacher education, the beginning teacher workforce, and work-integrated learning in education. Her current and published research is in vocational education and training, with a particular emphasis on understanding the ethical dilemmas faced by vocational trainers in times of rapid change. Her wide research interests revolve around teacher training and development, the impact of neoliberal reforms on VET and VET teachers, and the role of codes of conduct in decision-making, ethical reasoning of teachers, inclusive education, online teaching, student engagement, and work-integrated learning.

References

Australian Council for Private Education and Training (2010a) Education Industry Survey. Melbourne, VIC: ACPET.

Australian Council for Private Education and Training (2010b) New data challenges common myths about private international education. www.acpet.edu.au/node/5491

Australian Council for Private Education and Training (2011) Productivity challenges and skills development: a case for VET reform. http://www.acpet.edu.au/uploads/files/Reports_Submissions/2011/ACPET_NSW_VET_Reform_Document_14_April_2011_(Final).pdf

Australian Council for Private Education and Training (2015a) ACPET code of practice for the engagement of education agents. https://ministers.dese.gov.au/birmingham/acpet-codes-practice-and-ethics-launched

Australian Council for Private Education and Training (2015b) Senate inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia. Senate inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia (1library.net).

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2012) The Shape Of the Australian Curriculum (3). Sydney, NSW: ACARA. www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/The_Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum_V3.pdf

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2013) Student Diversity and the Australian Curriculum: Advice for Principals, Schools and Teachers. Sydney, NSW: ACARA.

Australian Government, Department of Education (2019) The Alice springs (mparntwe) education declaration. https://www.education.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration

Australian National Training Authority (2002) Fresh Thinking about Learners and Learning: A Blue Sky Project. Melbourne, VIC: ANTA.

10.

Australian National Training Authority (2003) High-Level Review of Training Packages (Phase 1 Report): An Analysis of the Current and Future Context in Which Training Packages Need to Operate. Melbourne, VIC: ANTA.

11.

Australian National Training Authority (2004) Moving On... Report of the High Level Review of Training Packages. Melbourne, VIC: ANTA.

12.

Australian Quality Training Framework (2007) Users’ guide to the essential conditions and standards for registration. http://www.nssc.natese.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/69353/AQTF_Users_Guide_to_the_Essential_Condition_and_Standards_for_Registration.pdf

13.

Australian Quality Training Framework (2015) Users’ guide to the standards for RTOs 2015. https://www.asqa.gov.au/rtos/users-guide-standards-rtos-2015

14.

Australian Skill Quality Authority (2013a) Marketing and Advertising Practices of Australia’s Registered Training Organizations. Melbourne, VIC: ASQA.

15.

Australian Skill Quality Authority (2013b) Training for aged and community care: a national strategic review of registered training organizations offering aged and community care sector training. http://www.asqa.gov.au/verve/_resources/Strategic_Reviews_2013_Aged_Care_Report.pdf#search=rto.audit.report

16.

Bagnall

(2003) Enhancing Income Generation through Adult Education: A Comparative Study. Brisbane, QLD: Australian Academic Press.

17.

Bagnall

(2004) Cautionary Tales in the Ethics of Lifelong Learning Policy and Management: A Book of Fables. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

18.

Bailey

Townsend

Luck

(2009) WorkChoices, imageChoices and the marketing of new industrial relations legislation. Work, Employment and Society 23: 285–304.

19.

Ball

(2009) Accessibility in e-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 34(3): 293–303.

20.

Bean

(2004) Built in or bolted on? Managing Equity and Diversity in VET. Adelaide, SA: NCVER.

21.

Biesta

Heugh

Cervinkova

, et al. (2022) Philosophy of education in a new key: publicness, social justice, and education; a South-North conversation. Educational Philosophy and Theory 54(8): 1216–1233. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2021.1929172.

22.

Billett

Henderson

Choy

, et al. (2012) Change, Work and Learning: Aligning Continuing Education and Training. Adelaide, SA: NCVER.

23.

Birrell

Edwards

(2009) The bradley review and access to higher education in Australia. Australian Universities’ Review 51(1): 4–13.

24.

Bourke

(2010) Inclusive education reform in Queensland: implications for policy and practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education 14(2): 183–193.

25.

Bowman

(2004) Equity in Vocational Education and Training: Research Readings. Adelaide, SA: National Centre for Vocational Education Research, pp. 281–305.

26.

Buchanan

Forster

Douglas

, et al. (2022) Philosophy of education in a new key: exploring new ways of teaching and doing ethics in education in the 21st century. Educational Philosophy and Theory 54(8): 1178–1197. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2021.1880387.

27.

Buddelmeyer

Polidano

(2016) Can VET Help Create a More Inclusive Society? Adelaide, SA: NCVER.

28.

Cully

(2006) Globalization and Technical and Vocational Education and Training in Australia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Asian Development Bank Institute Workshop on Workforce Development.

29.

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2012) Next Steps for Refocusing Vocational Training in Victoria – Supporting a Modern Workforce. Melbourne, VIC: Communications Division for Higher Education and Skills Group Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

30.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) National code of practice for registration authorities and providers of education and training to overseas students. www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/.../df34a32d-7679-45cf-81d0-822036c728

31.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2008) Training essential to meet resource sector demand. http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/OConnor/Media/Releases/Pages/Article_081027_101236.aspx

32.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2015) TAE10 Training and Education. East Melbourne, VIC: Innovation and Business Industry Skills Council.

33.

Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) Access and Equity Annual Report 2001, Progress in Implementing the Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society. Canberra, SA: AGPS.

34.

Department of Training and Workforce Development (2013a) Reasonable Adjustment: A Guide to Working with Students with Disability. 2nd edition. WA: Department of Training and Workforce Development.

35.

Department of Training and Workforce Development (2013b) Troubleshooting Guide: Assessment in VET. 5th edition. WA: Department of Training and Workforce Development.

36.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (1992) Act no. 135 of 1992 as amended. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/

37.

Disability Standards for Education 2005 (2005). http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/all/search/4B28EE956766891FCA256FCC0004EF81

38.

Figgis

Butorac

Clayton

, et al. (2007) Advancing Equity: Merging 'Bottom up' Initiatives with 'Top Down' Strategies. Adelaide, SA: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

39.

Forlin

Nguyet

(2010) A National Strategy for Supporting Teacher Educators to Prepare Teachers for Inclusion. London, UK: Routledge.

40.

Goldfarb

Grinberg

(2002) Leadership for social justice: authentic participation in the case of a community center in Caracas, Venezuela. Journal of School Leadership 12: 157–173.

41.

Griffin

(2016) Costs and Benefits of Education and Training for the Economy, Business and Individuals. Adelaide, SA: NCVER.

42.

Guthrie

Perkins

Mitchell

(2005) A Workforce Development Framework for VET Practitioners 2008-2013. Perth, WA: Western Australian Department of Education and Training.

43.

Harris

Simons

Clayton

(2005) Shifting Mindsets: The Changing Work Roles of Vocational Education and Training Providers. Adelaide, SA: NCVER.

44.

Hobart

(1999) Globalisation and its Impact on VET: Review of Research. Adelaide, SA: NCVER.

45.

Hodge

(2011) Learning to manage: transformative outcomes of competency based training. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 51(3): 498–517.

46.

Innovation and Business Skills Australia (2011) TAE40110 transition guide. http://www.ibsa.org.au/Portals/ibsa.org.au/docs/Training_Packages/Mapping_Documentation/Transition_Guide_TAE40110_FINAL_061210.pdf

47.

Kelly

Blecich

(2011) Improving Qualification Outcomes – Successful Socially Inclusive Teaching and Learning Strategies. TAFE NSW – South Western Sydney Institute.

48.

Kemp

Norton

(2014) Review of the demand driven funding system report. https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review_of_the_demand_driven_funding_system_report_for_the_website.pdf

49.

Lamb

Maire

Walstab

, et al. (2018) Improving Participation and Success in VET for Disadvantaged Learners Adelaide. Adelaide, SA: NCVER.

50.

Marginson

(2000) The Changing Nature and Organization of Work, and the Implications for Vocational Education and Training in Australia. Adelaide, SA: NCVER.

51.

McIntyre

Volkoff

Egg

, et al. (2004) Understanding Equity Strategies of Training Providers. Adelaide, SA: NCVER, pp. 61–68.

52.

Minister for Education and Training (2017) National code of practice for providers of education and training to overseas students 2017. https://www.navitasenglish.edu.au/assets/National-Code-of-Practice-for-Providers-of-Education-and-Training-to-Overseas-Students-2018.pdf (accessed 19 November 2022).

53.

Mitchell

Clayton

Hedberg

, et al. (2003) Emerging Futures: Innovation in Teaching and Learning in VET. Melbourne, VIC: ANTA.

54.

Moran

Ryan

(2004) Facilitating Access to International Markets for VET. Brisbane, QLD: Australian National Training Authority.

55.

Nakar

(2012) The voice of VET teachers: teacher dilemmas and their implications for international students, teachers and VET institutions. Paper presented at the 15th AVETRA conference, Gold Coast.

56.

Nakar

(2017) Ethical dilemmas faced by VET teachers in times of rapid change. PhD Thesis. Nathan, QLD: Griffith University.

57.

Nakar

Bagnall

Hodge

(2018) A reflective account of the VET FEE-HELP initiative as a driver of ethical dilemmas for vocational education teachers in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher 45: 383–400.

58.

Nakar

(2019) Impact of ethical dilemmas on well-being of teachers in vocational education and training in Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Training Research 17(1): 35–49. DOI: 10.1080/14480220.2019.1602122.

59.

Nakar

Olssen

(2021) The effects of neoliberalism: teachers’ experiences and ethical dilemmas to policy initiatives within vocational education and training in Australia. Policy Futures in Education 20(8): 986–1003. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211040350

60.

National People with Disabilities and Carer Council (2009) SHUT OUT: The Experience of People with Disabilities and Their Families in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

61.

National VET Equity Advisory Council (2011) NVEAC equity blueprint. www.nveac.natese.gov.au/home/equity_blueprint

62.

National VET Equity Advisory Council (2012) Equity in VET - good practice case studies. www.nveac.natese.gov.au/good_practice_equity_in_vet

63.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010) Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2010-en.45926093.pdf(oecd.org)

64.

Papastephanou

Zembylas

Bostad

, et al. (2022) Philosophy of education in a new key: education for justice now. Educational Philosophy and Theory 54(8): 1083–1098. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1793539.

65.

Porter

Kramer

(2002) The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review 80: 56–68.

66.

Productivity Commission (2011) Vocational Education and Training Workforce, Research Report. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

67.

Queensland Government, Department of Employment, Small Business and Training (2018) Reasonable adjustment in teaching, learning and assessment for learners with disability: a guide for vet practitioners. https://desbt.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/8299/reasonable-adjustment-for-web.pdf

68.

Queensland VET Development Centre (2010) Reasonable Adjustment in Teaching, Learning and Assessment for Learners with a Disability: A Guide for VET Practitioners. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland VET Development Centre Strategy and Research (Equity).

69.

Queensland VET Development Centre (2011) The Crux of the Matter: Language, Literacy and Numeracy and Vocational Education and Training. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland VET Development Centre Strategy and Research (Equity).

70.

Rae

Baker

McNicol

(2002) Global Perspectives: A Statement on Global Education for Australian Schools. Melbourne, VIC: Education Services Australia.

71.

Rawls

(1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

72.

Robinson

(2000) New directions in Australia’s skill formation. Lifelong Learning Is the Key. Adelaide, VIC: NCVER.

73.

Rothman

Shah

Underwood

, et al. (2013) National review of social equity in VET 2013, pp. xii–xv. http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=transitions_misc

74.

Ryan

(2002) Building a National Vocational Education and Training System. Melbourne, VIC: Flinders University Institute of International Education. Research Collection Number 1.

75.

Sapon-Shevin

(2003) Inclusion: a matter of social justice. Educational Leadership 61: 25–28.

76.

Schofield

MacDonald

(2004) High Level Review of Training Packages: Supporting Quality Teaching, Learning and Assessment, Working Paper 7. Brisbane, QLD: ANTA.

77.

Smith

(2011) Examinations and the ESL student: more evidence of particular disadvantages. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 36(1): 13–25.

78.

Smith

(1999) The Internationalization of VET. Adelaide, SA: NCVER.

79.

Tran

(2013a) Internationalisation of vocational education and training: a learning curve for teachers and learners. Journal of Studies in International Education 17(4): 492–507.

80.

Tran

(2013b) Teaching International Students in Vocational Education and Training: New Pedagogical Approaches. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council of Educational Research Press.

81.

Tran

Nyland

(2011) International vocational education and training - the migration and learning mix. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 51(1): 8–31.

82.

Vivekanandan

(2010) ACPET submission to productivity commission study into VET workforce development. submission 50 - Australian council for private education and training - education and training workforce - commissioned study (pc.gov.au).

83.

Waterhouse

Wilson

Ewer

(1999) The Changing Nature and Patterns of Work and Implications for VET. Leabrook, SA: NCVER.

84.

Zadek

(2005) Going to scale: aligning corporate responsibility to strategies for business and national competitiveness. Instituto Ethos Reflexões 6(14): 1–28.

85.

Zadek

(2006) Responsible competitiveness: reshaping global markets through responsible business practices. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 6(4): 334–348.