Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Internationally, vocational education and training (VET) is intended to fulfil important economic and social objectives. There is, however, a concerning discourse relating to funding, esteem, reputation and quality, and questions have been raised about whether social mobility aspirations of the sector’s students are achieved or achievable. This paper argues that rather than resulting from deficiency or fault of VET, these issues are, instead, manifestations of the sector’s structural oppression. Further, unless this oppression is recognised and addressed as an underlying cause, VET’s troubles will remain. While acknowledging the claim may be contentious, the paper applies Freirean philosophy and contemporary critical social theory to examine the case of Australian VET, identifying the oppressive structures and policies which have progressively rendered the sector powerless and lacking the autonomy needed to enact positive and necessary change. It expounds upon Australian VET’s vulnerability to neoliberal educational reform along with the impact of competency based education and training (CBE/T), its reductionist curriculum, and the de-professionalisation of VET, its teachers and the vocations it serves, before proposing that any further reforms must be led from within the sector itself. While the paper focuses on Australian VET, its examination will likely hold meaning elsewhere.

Keywords

Vocational education and training VET oppression neoliberalism training reform Freire

Introduction

Globally, the vocational education and training (VET) sector is positioned at the transition from childhood education to work as an alternative to university study or sometimes, as a pathway towards it. While acknowledging that vocational education as a field and VET as a sector is internationally broad and diverse, its commonality lies in its primary purpose, which is to prepare individuals for work in a range of disciplines including for example, manual trades, health, community care and business administration. VET is also widely extolled for its potential to improve the social and economic circumstances of individuals, communities and nations (Renold et al., 2018; Wheelahan and Moodie, 2016). Despite this lofty and virtuous remit, in many countries, concerns have been raised relating to the equity of VET funding (Klomp, 2019; Wheelahan and Moodie, 2016; Wolf et al., 2016), perceptions of quality, its reputation and standing in relation to other education sectors (Billett, 2020; Clement, 2014; Wheelahan and Moodie, 2016), and whether it enables or, alternatively, constrains the aspirational achievements of those who access it (Appleby and Bathmaker, 2006; Atkins, 2010; Polesel, 2010; Tuparevska et al., 2020). Investigation undertaken to understand and address these concerns has focused on issues relating to curriculum (Allais, 2012; Hodge, 2016b; Wheelahan, 2007), professionalism (Atkins and Tummons, 2017; Avis, 2010), the quality of teaching practice (Gamble, 2013; Guthrie et al., 2009; Wheelahan and Moodie, 2011) and the impact of economic policy (Allais, 2012; Hodge et al., 2018; Toner, 2018; Wheelahan and Moodie, 2016), however, VET’s problems remain. This paper argues that focusing on these issues independently will not bring about positive, enduring reform, as they are manifestations of a more entrenched problem – the structural oppression of VET. Emerging from working class roots, with the potential to improve the lives and futures of working class people, it has instead become reduced, oppressed and as ill-equipped to deliver on the economic promises of government as it is the social mobility and empowerment ambitions of those who access it. Unless the policies, practices and structures which enable its structural oppression are recognised and addressed, VET’s problems will endure.

While this is an international concern, this paper focuses on the case of Australian VET to develop the argument. It examines the Australian case through a lens of Freirean philosophy and critical social theory to illustrate a sector which, despite political rhetoric which positions it as a means of fulfilling important economic and social justice goals, is instead, reduced and structurally oppressed, a position which serves to reproduce and perpetuate disadvantage for the individuals and professions it serves. Inequality and disadvantage may be experienced on the basis of multiple, often co-existing factors including gender and ethnicity; however, this paper will primarily focus on the broader issue of socioeconomic disadvantage and social class. Finally, the paper contends it is necessary to recognise and understand the factors enabling this oppression in order to address it, and that reform should be guided by the hands of those from within the sector, as emancipated agents of their own professional destiny, with the resources and autonomy needed to design and enact appropriate reform themselves, rather than subjugated by the economic and political reform agendas of others.

Reformed and reduced: The trouble with Australian VET

Australia’s VET sector is troubled. In a recent review of its performance, the Australian Government’s Productivity Commission (2017) reported ‘…rapidly rising student debt, high student non-completion rates, poor labour market outcomes for some students [and] unscrupulous and fraudulent behaviour on the part of some training providers’ (Productivity Commission, 2017: 93). VET qualifications are held in lower esteem than those achieved through university study (Billett et al., 2020), and increasing commercialisation of the sector along with competitive pressures associated with post-1980s neoliberal reforms have resulted in concerns about VET’s reputation and quality (Braithwaite, 2018; Griffin, 2017; Nakar et al., 2018). Alongside these concerns is an ongoing discourse which seeks to improve VET’s efficiency in training provision and its responsiveness and relevance to industry needs (Joyce, 2019; Productivity Commission, 2011, 2019; Skills Senior Officials' Network, 2020).

As the frequent subject of governmental consultation, review and reform, Australia’s VET sector is well accustomed to scrutiny. At the time of writing, several commissioned reviews are in progress (Australian Government, 2019; Department of Education Skills and Employment, 2020; Productivity Commission, 2019; Skills Senior Officials' Network, 2020) and others have recently been completed (Braithwaite, 2018; Joyce, 2019). Australian VET is concerningly familiar with such levels of inquiry and reform agendas due to its historical association with industrial and political economic and productivity agendas. Modelled on Britain’s apprenticeship and adult and technical training systems, VET was first introduced to Australia in the 1820s in the form of ‘Mechanics’ Institutions’ or ‘School of Arts’ in response to industry labour shortages (Goozee, 2001; Whitelock, 1974). Largely controlled and voluntarily administered by industry and the middle class with the primary goal of making working class members technically skilled and efficient, these industrially and benevolently funded institutions also professed a moral and social purpose, based on the premise that education and self-improvement would lead working class participants to ‘respectable paths’ (Whitelock, 1974: 10). Through combined political and industry influences, Australian vocational and technical education was formalised as an education sector by the 1920s, predominantly funded and administered by the states (Goozee, 2001). In Australia and in the United Kingdom, the sector became increasingly important as a political and economic lever, and interest and funding in the sector in each respective country waxed and waned according to the agenda of the time. For example, the United Kingdom’s 1930s economic emergency triggered a renewed interest in vocational education with political focus and campaigning converging on the need to improve its associated infrastructure and the systems governing its provision (Bailey, 1987).

In the two centuries since its inception, the Australian sector has evolved to meet the education and training needs of industry and the community, but as Harris (2015) points out, it has also been ‘tossed to and fro by the winds of many changing influences’ (Harris, 2015: 16). This is characteristic of the post-1980s era, in which education globally has been impacted by the interference of neoliberal political ideologies (Ball, 2016; Harvey, 2005). Internationally, few education sectors have emerged unscathed from the three mechanisms of neoliberal reform – market, management and performance (Ball, 2016). Harris’ (2015) portrayal, however, indicates a sector which is particularly vulnerable and seemingly powerless to resist its fate. This depiction seems apt, given Australian VET’s historical alignment to industry and unenviable position as a lever for governmental economic and productivity agendas which has resulted in its commercialisation and positioning as a demand-driven, industry-led tool for the production of human ‘capital’, despite widespread polemic against such an approach (see, for example, Anderson, 1999, 2005; Peoples, 1998; Toner, 2014, 2018).

Despite being subjected to considerable investigation and subsequent reform – sometimes incremental, but at other times dynamic and profound – the Australian VET sector’s problems remain. Further, the aims of the reforms themselves are informed by oppressive ideologies, as rather than aiming to improve the outcomes and social mobility of those who access VET, they instead seek to improve the efficiency by which working class labour – human capital – can be reproduced and therefore, existing disadvantage and socioeconomic circumstances can be perpetuated.

VET, powerlessness and structural oppression

The word ‘oppression’ is often misused (Frye, 1983: 1). To apply it to Australian VET might be contentious, particularly if oppression is understood to be purposeful and violent, or as Freire (1970) described it, a ‘dehumanising’ act which is committed maliciously to one group by another, more dominant group. Contemporary definitions drawn from critical social theory, however, hold that oppression is not always overt, forceful or even ill-intentioned (Mullaly, 2002). Oppression can also be structurally enabled through policies and practices which privilege some people to the detriment of others, and subtly enacted in ‘everyday practices’ which, although well-intentioned, still result in disadvantage and injustice for a particular group (Young, 1990: 41).

In the case of Australian VET, structural forces of oppression and barriers to autonomy and liberation exist within several key tenets of the national training system, particularly those resulting from post-1980s neoliberalist inspired reform. These include the competency based education and training (CBE/T) system and its accompanying modularised curriculum in the form of national training packages, as well as the competitive training market and its contested funding model which forced public training organisations to compete for diminishing training budgets against increasing numbers of for-profit vocational training providers, thereby reducing VET to a ‘form of educational service that can be provided by anyone, but preferably the lowest bidder’ (Billett et al., 2020: 272).

Moulding, pressing and reducing VET through the national training system

CBE/T and national training packages are the key components of Australia’s national vocational training system. They also act as important structural scaffolds of the VET sector’s oppression. CBE/T, the ‘linchpin’ of Australian VET (Harris and Hodge, 2009: 123) was introduced to Australian VET in the late 1980s amidst similar neoliberal reforms which incrementally and deliberately altered vocational education in developed economies of the Western world during that period (Hodge, 2016a). Vocational education, due to its potential for meeting industry’s demands for skilled human capital, was particularly sensitive to neo-liberalisation, a political project which intended, Harvey (2005: 19) argued, to ‘restore the power of the economic elites’.

CBE/T is a ‘distinctive feature of professional, vocational and continuing education’ internationally (Hodge et al., 2020). In Australia, it is characterised by several key features. CBE/T focuses on demonstration of skills rather than on knowledge, and on outcomes rather than educator inputs, assuming a competency-based, ungraded and criterion-referenced approach to training and assessment, rather than the time-based and norm-referenced approach predominately employed in other Australian education sectors (Smith and Keating, 2003: 125–126). CBE/T is also intended to support recognition of prior learning and more flexible, self-paced approaches to learning and demonstration of competence (Smith and Keating, 2003). The CBE/T curriculum is composed of national ‘training packages’ – modularised competency ‘standards’ developed primarily through consultation with industry, rather than educators. This top-down formulaic approach to curriculum development and the underpinning principles of CBE/T have been widely criticised (Billett et al., 1999; Hodge and Harris, 2012; Misko, 1999). Certainly, there is sufficient evidence to identify CBE/T and its enactment as a structural contributor to the Australian VET sector’s oppression. Wheelahan (2016), for example, is particularly concerned that the CBE/T curriculum is characterised by a ‘fragmentation of knowledge and the atomisation of skills’ (Wheelahan, 2016: 180) which denies VET students access to the more powerful abstract and conceptual forms of knowledge afforded to those who access academia, usually with greater socioeconomic means from non-working class backgrounds (Wheelahan, 2007). Similarly, Hyland (1997) criticises CBE/T as a ‘technicist and reductionist’ approach, arguing that it leads to an instrumental view of education, which serves to ‘de-skill and de-professionalise’ teaching (Hyland, 1997: 491).

Just as Hyland (1997) warned, CBE/T significantly changed the nature of VET teachers’ work, and even their standing as teachers. In Australia, a new role was carved out for VET teachers as they were repurposed, firstly as ‘facilitators’ of learning (Smith and Keating, 2003: 231), and later, as ‘VET Practitioners’ (Harris et al., 2005). New skills and competencies were thought to be required by VET teachers as they traversed the evolving CBE/T training environment. This period was accompanied by discourse on the de-professionalisation of VET teachers and analysis of the new capabilities required (Chappell and Johnston, 2003; Mitchell, 2008; Mitchell et al., 2006). It also precipitated a ‘reductionist turn’ in Australian VET, a movement characterised by multiple attempts to atomise VET teachers’ work into comprehensive lists and frameworks of reproducible capabilities and skills (Schmidt, 2019b) which has persisted to the present time.

Similar impacts have been reported in the United Kingdom’s Further Education (FE) sector. Simmons (2010), for example, declared that the curriculum has been ‘driven downwards’, becoming increasingly centrally controlled due to the cumulative effects of globalisation and neo-liberalism (Simmons, 2010: 372). This has been accompanied by a corresponding discourse on the changing nature, esteem and professional identity associated with the FE teaching workforce (for example, Atkins and Tummons, 2017; Gleeson et al., 2005; Randle and Brady, 1997; Robson, 1998).

In addition to CBE/T, neo-liberalism ideologies influenced other global and local changes which have had an enduring impact on Australian VET. Internationally, there has been a turn towards ‘new vocationalism’, with an increased emphasis on the instrumental and economic purpose of education (i.e. education for work) (Ball, 1994; Chappell and Johnston, 2003; Skilbeck et al., 1994). During this period, the Australian Government opened the VET training market to allow private, for-profit training providers to compete for funding against public providers. Within this newly competitive market the ‘businessing’ of VET began (Chappell and Johnston, 2003: 10), requiring VET providers to become more commercially responsive, to reduce costs and to increase efficiency. This resulted in further changes to the VET teacher’s role, requiring them to become ‘training entrepreneurs’ instead of educators, and to view students as ‘customers’ (Anderson et al., 2004: 238). Consequently, the VET teachers’ role was diminished and further devalued as increasing market competition created additional productivity pressures and the need to manage labour costs by reducing VET teaching to that of a technicist, administrative task. The commercialisation of VET and its accompanying demand-driven, competitive market has continued unabated, despite widespread criticism and the emergence of numerous issues relating to quality, reputation and unscrupulous practices (Anderson, 1999; Guthrie et al., 2014; Robinson, 1998) which should not be unexpected when educational provision prioritises profit over quality (Hetherington and Rust, 2014; Toner, 2014, 2018). Rather than addressing the funding and market issues, the Australian government responded by increasing the regulation of the sector and commissioning reviews the associated legislation and activities of its regulator (Braithwaite, 2018; Department of Education Skills and Employment, 2020). These actions have further technicised the act of VET provision and increased the administrative workload of VET teachers.

The period of CBE/T reform represented a critical period for Australian VET, its teachers and its learners as it marked the development of arguably, the most persistent structural enablers of the sector’s oppression. Frye (1983) reminds us that to understand oppression, we must look towards the word’s root, which is ‘press’ (Frye, 1983: 2). The act of pressing something is to ‘mould, immobilise or reduce’ it, through the actions of inter-related forces and barriers (Frye, 1983: 2), just as the ideology and principles of CBE/T have reduced, immobilised and moulded the practices of VET and the work of its teachers to meet the prescriptive requirements of industrial instruments developed under the guise of curriculum. While these structures facilitate the oppression, the evidence that this has occurred can be observed by examining the sector’s powerlessness, one of the five ‘faces’ or types of oppression described by Young (1990) which also include exploitation, marginalisation, cultural imperialism and violence.

The face of powerlessness and the plight of the non-professional

According to Young (1990: 57), the concept of powerlessness is related to a social group’s ‘authority, status and sense of self’. Somewhat similarly to the power relationship asserted by Marx to exist between the privileged bourgeoisie and the working-class proletariat (Marx et al., 1960), Young (1990) positions power and powerlessness as a tension between professionals and non-professionals, identifying three delineating characteristics. The powerless, Young (1990: 57) claims, lack the privilege which professionals gain through the ‘expansive and progressive’ education and ongoing professional development afforded to them. They also lack autonomy in their working lives and are usually positioned under the authority of professionals. Further, the powerless lack the privilege of respect afforded to professionals (Young, 1990). In the case of VET, the issue of professionalism is relevant not only to VET teachers, but also to their students and the vocations they are prepared for.

Despite discourse criticising the de-professionalisation of VET teaching (e.g. Hyland, 1998; Smith, 2019), in practice and in the literature, VET teachers are often referred to and assumed to be ‘professionals’ (Atkins and Tummons, 2017; Dickie et al., 2004; Dymock and Tyler, 2018; Productivity Commission, 2011) or even ‘dual professionals’ due to the legislative requirement that they maintain qualifications and current skills and knowledge in their industry vocation as well as those required for VET teaching (Smith, 2019; Tyler and Dymock, 2019). Reference is also frequently made to their professional development, the need for a professional association (Guthrie and Clayton, 2012) or to the development of professional standards (Mulcahy, 2003; Rasmussen, 2016), inferring a connection between the work of VET teachers and the activities normally associated with a professional role. Whether VET teachers are afforded the respect, position and privilege usually ascribed to professionals, however, is contested (Atkins and Tummons, 2017). Also frequently contested, is the sufficiency of the mandatory educational qualification required by Australian VET teachers, the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (Hodge, 2014; Robertson, 2008; Smith and Grace, 2011; Smith and Yasukawa, 2017) and the quality and sufficiency of ongoing professional development afforded to them (Dymock and Tyler, 2018; Rasmussen, 2016; Schmidt, 2019a; Smith, 2019).

Criticisms of the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment should not be limited to its insufficiency as a preparatory qualification for VET teaching. Its comparatively low level has also likely impacted upon the professional standing afforded to VET teachers and the aspirational merit of VET teaching. According to Young (1990: 57), professionals require a ‘college education’ and the knowledge that enables them to work with symbols and concepts, such as the ‘esoteric’ knowledge described by Bernstein (1996) or ‘powerful’ knowledge described by Wheelahan (2007). In Australia, educational qualifications are hierarchically and taxonomically classified according to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013). Qualifications are organised into 10 levels according to their complexity. Complexity refers to the depth and breadth of knowledge and skills (and the application of knowledge and skills) required to achieve the qualification. Qualifications at level 10 of the framework have the highest complexity, while those at level 1 have the lowest complexity (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013). The college level educational attainment described by Young (1990) would be fulfilled by a level 7 educational attainment, or a Bachelor degree, according to the AQF. This is a significantly higher level (and therefore, more complex) qualification than the level 4 (Certificate IV in Training and Assessment) required for Australian VET teaching.

While important, the initial educational preparation for a profession merely marks the beginning of the progression towards professional recognition. Young (1990: 57) describes a profession as ‘expansive and progressive’, with ongoing opportunities for continuing education, development and advancement in status. For Australian VET teachers, however, access to sufficient and appropriate continuing professional development has been problematic. Without the oversight and coordination of a professional registering body or relevant association, approaches to professional development for VET teachers have been reported as: ad hoc, variable and inconsistent (Tyler and Dymock, 2019); spasmodic, underdeveloped and unsupported (Dymock and Tyler, 2018); and unbalanced, with a narrow, restrictive emphasis on compliance and the development of vocational industry skills rather than pedagogical knowledge required for VET teaching (Schmidt, 2019a). In combination with the low-level entry qualification for VET teachers, their restrictive, narrow and limited developmental affordances reduce their status to that of Young’s (1990) powerless nonprofessional.

The issues relating to qualification levels, professional recognition and status of VET teachers extend also to VET students and graduates, compounding the sector’s vulnerability to oppression and powerlessness. In Australia, VET’s primary remit is for educational attainment at AQF levels 1–6. Appropriate preparation for professional work, however, begins at AQF Level 7 (Bachelor qualifications) and above, according to the Australian Qualifications Framework Council (2013) and Young (1990). Even graduates of Level 6 Advanced Diplomas, the highest qualification level usually delivered by the VET sector, are considered to hold the knowledge and skills required only for paraprofessional work (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013: 13), ascribing to them the role of assistant or delegate to a professional, not sufficiently qualified to work as a professional in their own right.

The hierarchical structuring of knowledge and skill denies VET graduates entry to the status of professional and compounds the issue of professional recognition for VET teachers. Eraut (1994) subscribes to a correlation between the status of the professional (in this case, the VET teacher) and the status of his/her clients (VET students). Like similar sectors in other countries, Australian VET cohorts comprise a higher proportion of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and other equity groups than Higher Education (Beckley et al., 2018: 155). The consequences of VET’s close association with marginalised, disadvantaged and already oppressed groups have been noted in the literature. Thomas (2003), for example, highlighted the prejudices suffered by VET teachers due to their much needed association with disadvantaged groups, while others described VET’s potential to perpetuate the socioeconomic circumstances of the already disadvantaged by recreating ‘pathways for the poor’ (Polesel, 2010) and for delivering a curriculum which denies learners trajectories outside of their existing social class (Wheelahan, 2007). Further, by maintaining the status of VET teachers, VET learners and the occupations they serve as non-professional, the sector is also denied autonomy and a ‘voice’.

Autonomy, independence and the culture of silence

Autonomy is an important characteristic of the Young’s (1990) professional, and of Eraut’s (1994) ideology of professionalism. Autonomy in a person’s working life is linked to respect and evidenced by the level of independence they are afforded and the authority they have for decision-making (Eraut, 1994; Young, 1990). The powerless, non-professionals lack autonomy and are often under the authority of professionals, both in their working and non-working lives (Young, 1990: 57). With its association with predominantly non-professional vocations, a narrow and prescriptive curriculum, and what has been described as a technocratic rather than consultative culture of regulation (Braithwaite, 2018: 50), the Australian VET sector is afforded very little autonomy and authority for decision making. Without autonomy, the sector also lacks a voice, existing in what Freire (1985: 72) might describe as a ‘culture of silence’, the result of structural conditioning which prohibits sector insiders from influencing change.

Just as Freire’s illiterate and poorly educated were denied the opportunity to take part in the transformation of their society, so too has the VET sector been rendered powerless and denied influence over the many reforms which have iteratively transformed it. The research and consultation undertaken to inform changes to Australian VET, both historically and recently, has predominantly been conducted by those external to the sector, often with little prior understanding or insight into its peculiarities, its complexity or its history. Further, Billett (2014) expounded the historical influence that more powerful and privileged others exerted on the standing of vocations and by association, vocational education, and this pattern of (often deliberate) structural moulding of occupational and educational status is yet to be disrupted.

Compounding the problems of VET and its learners is the belief in a meritocratic social system which seamlessly accompanies capitalist economic ideals. The underpinning principle of meritocracy is that one’s social mobility and success is related to capability, merit and personal effort, rather than the influences of socioeconomic background (Kim and Choi, 2017), a belief which overlooks the powerful levers of intergenerational inequality and the link between educational systems and social class reproduction described by Ainley (2013), Bowles and Gintis (2002) and Western (2000). Further, it places the responsibility for achievement, or conversely, for personal failure, solely in the hands of the learner (Ainley and Bailey, 1997). While the influence of individual agency on aspiration and achievement must be recognised – Willis’ (1977) classic sociological study of working class boys highlighted this – the complex relationship between education, cultural and economic reproduction and learner agency, is also salient.

The challenge of liberation: What is to be done?

Giroux (1988)and Freire (1970) hold that to enable liberation from oppression, one must first understand the nature, form and context of the domination that exists, as well as the problems it creates for those who experience it. The structures that bind Australian VET to its oppression are those that perpetuate its powerlessness: CBE/T and its narrow, modularised and fragmented curriculum which limits the education and thereby the prospects of VET teachers and VET students to that of the non-professional; the vulnerability associated with its reputation as an economic and political lever for the production of human capital; its diminished status and reputation suffered as a result of numerous neo-liberal administrations and the associated financial, ethical and educational consequences; and the frequent reviews and investigations undertaken of the sector by those outside of it, rather than by it, thus denying VET a voice to explicate and resolve issues itself. Even with a thorough understanding of the oppression experienced by Australian VET, however, the sector’s liberation from this condition is likely to prove as complex as the societal structures which enable it.

It might seem logical to approach the Australian VET sector’s problems by changing the impacting legislation, policies and practices and the people associated with implementing them. Structural oppression, however, is ‘institutionalised’ and therefore unlikely to be resolved by simply changing these enduring and complex economic and societal structures (Mullaly, 2002: 49). Further, those who design the structures which enable the oppression, such as the policy makers and the curriculum developers and those who implement them by regulating the sector’s activities and apportioning its funding, are not likely to see themselves as ‘agents of oppression’ but rather, as persons ‘simply doing their jobs’ (Young, 1990: 42). Even those who inhabit the sector and who are themselves, oppressed, may fear and resist freedom. Any call to freedom may in fact, cause them to more firmly entrench themselves among the familiar and to take comfort from the simplicity of following the rules prescribed by the oppressor, thus eliminating the need to develop their own. By internalising and embedding their role as the oppressed, they are likely to reject emancipatory knowledge and alternative worldviews that produce discomfort or disquiet (Giroux, 1988) and even actively participate in their own or others’ oppression (Freire, 1970). VET teachers, for example, in seeking a path to freedom, may see that this lies within the realm of their oppressor, making their way towards roles that enable greater self-autonomy and control over the activities of others, such as positions associated with performative management or regulatory compliance. Others may attempt to model themselves on those they perceive to be free from oppression, seeking a position which they associate with freedom and autonomy, either outside of VET, in other education sectors or in VET leadership roles where policy is developed, enacted and enforced, rather than received and complied with. According to Freire (1970), however, such duality will not lead to autonomy for the oppressed, and freedom from oppression should not be viewed as an individual activity, but as a collective one.

Despite the arguments presented so far, it would seem overly simplistic to cast VET teachers into a role of complete submission and compliance with oppressive structures. There is evidence that resistance is enacted by VET teachers in the safe place that exists behind the classroom door (Schmidt, 2017) and through the purposeful renewal of FE teachers’ professional identities in response to policy and structural reform (Gleeson et al., 2005). Further, Seddon (2014) ascribes to teachers the autonomy and power to be ‘active makers of education and educational effects’ (Seddon, 2014: 340). Whether vocational teachers should be regarded to hold the same level of autonomy and power as teachers in other education sectors, however, given the differences in educational preparation and professional autonomy already described, is contestable. Connell (1993) for example, recognises that teachers’ capacity to enact change is somewhat constrained by governmental and school policy as well as community expectations, and in the highly regulated and controlled VET environment, opportunities for resistance could be even more limited.

According to Freire (1970, 1973, 1985), liberation can only be achieved through critical conscientisation, the process through which the oppressed become ‘knowing subjects’ with a deeper awareness of the nature of their oppressed reality and develop the self-efficacy to transform it. This process is achieved through education as a practice of freedom – pedagogical practice that is dialogic, co-constructed and liberating, rather than anti-dialogic and domesticating (Freire 1970, 1973, 1985). Freire’s philosophy of education for critical conscientisation and liberation has been progressed by proponents of critical pedagogy such as Giroux (1988, 2011), Shor (1992) and hooks¹ (1994). Application of Freirean philosophy and the principles of critical pedagogy to the liberation of Australia’s VET sector would require a redesigned, expanded, dialogical curriculum – a transformation of both the intended curriculum (i.e. CBE/T and its accompanying training packages which prescribe the skills and knowledge required by VET students and their teachers) and the enacted curriculum (the pedagogical practice which takes place within the VET classroom). Some, such as Clemitshaw (2013), might regard critical pedagogical approaches impossible in the highly regulated, governmental structure of Australian VET, however, such an approach would likely support the position of others such as Wheelahan (2016) and Hodge (2016a) who have each called for a critical reconsideration of CBE/T and associated curriculum reform. Australian VET teachers, who are themselves oppressed and yet forced to be complicit accomplices by implementing the existing competency based, restrictive and narrow curriculum, would also require a new curriculum to ensure they are not only liberated, but equipped with the capabilities to liberate others. Alongside a redesigned curriculum, there is also a need to re-imagine the goals and purpose of Australian VET, to re-position it to improve its status and esteem within the community, and correspondingly, to elevate the status and esteem of those who work and learn in the sector, and in the vocations it serves.

Regardless of what is done or what is to be done, reform must be led and designed by Australian VET itself; it cannot be created and surrendered to the sector by others, for as Freire (1970: 32) reminds us, ‘freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift’. The ‘re-imagining’ of Australian VET is likely to be the most difficult, yet critical task, and the sector will need to remain vigilant against instrumental re-purposing or re-branding of existing structures, or iterative ‘tinkering around the edges’ when instead, profound transformational change is required. Without a blueprint to describe the future Australian VET chooses for itself, any step towards liberation or autonomy is only an illusion:

When people cannot name alternatives, imagine a better state of things, share with others a project of change, they are likely to remain anchored or submerged, even as they proudly assert their autonomy. (Greene, 1988: 9)

Finally, for Australian VET to be freed, there is a need for its teachers to reclaim their professional discipline, and with it, their professional autonomy and respect as educators. The case for this is already supported with recommendations made for higher level qualifications (Robertson, 2008; Smith, 2019; Smith and Grace, 2011; Smith et al., 2015), a specialised curriculum and a more expansive model of professional development (Dymock and Tyler, 2018; Schmidt, 2019a, 2019b).

A final call to action

VET, in Australia and internationally, serves many important purposes. It provides necessary education and training for industrial and economic success and is increasingly called upon to provide options and hope to society’s marginalised and most vulnerable. This paper has positioned the Australian VET sector as structurally oppressed largely powerless to resist the cumulative effects of conflicting and constraining policies and reform that serve to maintain its oppression and prevent its liberation and freedom. While it has focused specifically on the case in the Australian VET sector, similar experiences of disadvantage, esteem and negative impacts of neoliberal economic policy are being experienced in technical and vocational education and training globally, and explication of the Australian case is likely to have meaning elsewhere.

While acknowledging the paper’s argument is likely contentious, that it was able to relate many different, already existing and supporting perspectives relating to vocational education, the negative outcomes of neo-liberal influences and systemic issues of social justice, social reproduction and disadvantage highlight the importance of the topic. Further, the fact that the discourse has extended over many decades indicates that the problems, while identified and explored, have not yet been solved. Merely exposing the sector’s oppression though, will not be sufficient to liberate it, and to prescribe a model for its liberation is outside of the scope of this paper. Understanding the nature of the oppression, its causes and the history of its development, however, may help to ensure that future sectoral reforms emancipate rather than further reduce it. In contemporary discourse on Australian VET, there is considerable agitation for change. Current critical debates relating to CBE/T, the VET curriculum, the initial education and ongoing development of VET teachers and the perils of the free market support the need for change, although it seems unlikely that this will occur in the immediate future, given current governmental discourse which seeks to extend rather than contract the reach and impact of offending policies and market conditions in the pursuit of greater efficiency (see for example, Productivity Commission, 2020). There is potential for change to begin at a more grass-roots level, however, to be led by those inside VET, and scaled through the support of national and global voices agitating for reform. To some extent, this is as it should be, as any reform, no matter how well intentioned, should be approached in a way which legitimises and prioritises the experiences and views of the oppressed. It is likely that reform must be designed from within the sector to succeed; however, any reform activities will require support from those with the power to alter the bureaucratic structures that would otherwise constrain such change. Admittedly, it would be naïve to regard education as the sole solution for the amelioration of all societal disadvantages. It is reasonable, however, to expect that any reform which disables the structures of VET’s oppression will make some progress towards improving social outcomes for its workforce, its students and by association, their related vocations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Teressa Schmidt

Note

References

Ainley

(2013) Education and the reconstitution of social class in England. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 18(1–2): 46–60.

Ainley

Bailey

(1997) The Business of Learning. Staff and Student Experiences of Further Education in the 1990s. London: Cassell.

Allais

(2012) Will skills save us? Rethinking the relationships between vocational education, skills development policies, and social policy in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development 32(5): 632–642.

Anderson

(1999) Vocational education reform and students: Redressing silences and omissions. The Australian Educational Researcher 26(2): 99–125.

Anderson

(2005) Trading Places: The Impact and Outcomes of Market Reform in Vocational Education and Training. Adelaide: NCVER.

Anderson

Brown

Rushbrook

(2004) Vocational education and training. In: Foley

(ed.) Dimensions of Adult Learning: Adult Education and Training in a Global Era. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp.234–250.

Appleby

Bathmaker

(2006) The new skills agenda: Increased lifelong learning or new sites of inequality? British Educational Research Journal 32(5): 703–717.

Atkins

(2010) Opportunity and aspiration, or the great deception? The case of 14–19 vocational education. Power and Education 2(3): 253–265.

Atkins

Tummons

(2017) Professionalism in vocational education: International perspectives. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 22(3): 355–369.

10.

Australian Government (2019) Co-designing the national skills commission: Discussion paper, September. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

11.

Australian Qualifications Framework Council (2013) Australian Qualifications Framework. South Australia: Australian Qualifications Framework Council.

12.

Avis

(2010) Education, governance and the ‘new’ professionalism: Radical possibilities? Power and Education 2(2): 197–208.

13.

Bailey

(1987) The development of technical education: 1934–1939. History of Education 16(1): 49–65.

14.

Ball

(1994) Education Reform: A Critical and Post-structural Approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

15.

Ball

(2016) Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education 14(8): 1046–1059.

16.

Beckley

Netherton

Barber

(2018) Filling the skills gap in Australia-VET pathways. In: Agosti

Bernat

(eds) University Pathway Programs: Local Responses within a Growing Global Trend. Cham: Springer, pp.151–165.

17.

Bernstein

(1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. London: Taylor & Francis.

18.

Billett S (2014) The standing of vocational education: sources of its societal esteem and implications for its enactment. Journal of Vocational Education & Training 66(1): 1–21.

19.

Billett

(2020) Perspectives on enhancing the standing of vocational education and the occupations it serves. Journal of Vocational Education & Training 72(2): 161–169.

20.

Billett

Choy

Hodge

(2020) Enhancing the standing of vocational education and the occupations it serves: Australia. Journal of Vocational Education & Training 72(2): 270–296.

21.

Billett

McKavanagh

Beven

, et al. (1999) The CBT Decade: Teaching for Flexibility and Adaptability. Adelaide: NCVER.

22.

Bowles

Gintis

(2002) Schooling in capitalist America revisited. Sociology of Education 75(1): 1–18.

23.

Braithwaite

(2018) All eyes on quality: Review of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 201. Report, Australian Government, Canberra.

24.

Chappell

Johnston

(2003) Changing Work: Changing Roles For Vocational Education and Training Teachers and Trainers. Adelaide: NCVER.

25.

Clement

(2014) Improving the Image of Technical and Vocational Education and Training. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).

26.

Clemitshaw

(2013) Critical pedagogy as educational resistance: A post-structuralist reflection. Power and Education 5(3): 268–279.

27.

Connell

(1993) Schools and Social Justice. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company.

28.

Department of Education Skills and Employment (2020) Delivering skills for today and tomorrow: ASQA reform. Report. Available at: https://www.employment.gov.au/asqareform (accessed 12 April).

29.

Dickie

Eccles

Fitzgerald

, et al. (2004) Enhancing the capability of VET professionals project: Final report (incorporating data analysis and literature review), ANTA, Brisbane.

30.

Dymock

Tyler

(2018) Towards a more systematic approach to continuing professional development in vocational education and training. Studies in Continuing Education 40(2): 198–211.

31.

Eraut

(1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: Falmer Press.

32.

Freire

(1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

33.

Freire

(1973) Education for Critical Consciousness. Bloomsbury Publishing.

34.

Freire

(1985) The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

35.

Frye

(1983) The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory. Berkeley: Crossing Press.

36.

Gamble

(2013) Why improved formal teaching and learning are important in technical and vocational education and training (TVET). In: Revisiting Global Trends in TVET: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Bonn: UNESCO-UNEVOC, pp.204–238.

37.

Giroux

(2011) On Critical Pedagogy. New York: Bloomsbury.

38.

Giroux

(1988) Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

39.

Gleeson

Davies

Wheeler

(2005) On the making and taking of professionalism in the further education workplace. British Journal of Sociology of Education 26(4): 445–460.

40.

Goozee

(2001) The Development of TAFE in Australia. Adelaide: NCVER.

41.

Greene

(1988) The Dialectic of Freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.

42.

Griffin

(2017) Are We All Speaking the Same Language? Understanding ‘Quality' in the VET Sector. Adelaide: NCVER.

43.

Guthrie

Clayton

(2012) An association for VET's professionals: What's the story? In: 15^th Annual Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association Conference, Capital Hill, Australia, 12–13 April 2012. Melbourne: AVETRA.

44.

Guthrie

Harris

Simons

, et al. (2009) Teaching for technical and vocational education and training (TVET). In: Saha

Dworkin

(eds) International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching. New York: Springer, pp.851–863.

45.

Guthrie

Smith

Burt

, et al. (2014) Review of the effects of funding approaches on Service Skills qualifications and delivery in Victoria. Report, Victoria University, Melbourne.

46.

Harris

(2015) Quality in the Australian VET sector: What has been happening? International Journal of Training Research 13(1): 16–34.

47.

Harris

Hodge

(2009) A quarter of a century of CBT: The vicissitudes of an idea. International Journal of Training Research 7(2): 122–133.

48.

Harris

Simons

Clayton

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

49.

Harvey

(2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

50.

Hetherington

Rust

(2014) Training days: Models of vocational training provision – Lessons from the Victorian experience. Fine Print 37(1): 8–20.

51.

Hodge

(2014) Interpreting Competencies in Australian Vocational Education and Training: Practices and Issues. Adelaide: NCVER.

52.

Hodge

(2016a) After competency-based training: Deepening critique, imagining alternatives. International Journal of Training Research 14(3): 171–179.

53.

Hodge

(2016b) Alienating curriculum work in Australian vocational education and training. Critical Studies in Education 57(2): 143–159.

54.

Hodge

Harris

(2012) Discipline, governmentality and 25 years of competency-based training. Studies in the Education of Adults 44(2): 155–170.

55.

Hodge

Holford

Milana

, et al. (2018) Economic theory, neoliberalism and the interests of educators. International Journal of Lifelong Education 37(3): 279–282.

56.

Hodge

Mavin

Kearns

(2020) Hermeneutic dimensions of competency-based education and training. Vocations and Learning 13(1): 27–46.

57.

hooks

(1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

58.

Hyland

(1997) Reconsidering competence. Journal of Philosophy of Education 31(3): 491–503.

59.

Hyland

(1998) Re-professionalising teaching. Adults Learning 9(5): 9.

60.

Joyce

(2019) Strengthening skills: Expert review of Australia's vocational education and training system. Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

61.

Kim

C-H

Choi

Y-B

(2017) How meritocracy is defined today? Contemporary aspects of meritocracy. Economics & Sociology 10(1): 112.

62.

Klomp

(2019) It's time to end the hunger games. The Australian, 10 July 2019.

63.

Marx

Engels

Lenin

(1960) The Essential Left: Four Classic Texts on the Principles of Socialism. London: Unwin Books.

64.

Misko

(1999) Competency-Based Training. Adelaide: NCVER.

65.

Mitchell

(2008) Capabilities of the emerging ‘advanced VET practitioner’. In: 11th Conference of the Australian VET Research Association, Adelaide, Australia, 3–4 April 2008. Melbourne: AVETRA.

66.

Mitchell

Chappell

Bateman

, et al. (2006) Quality is the Key: Critical Issues in Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Vocational Education and Training. Adelaide: NCVER.

67.

Mulcahy

(2003) Teaching standards and professionalism in TAFE: Prospects, possibilities and pitfalls. In: The sixth Australian VET Research Association conference: The changing face of VET [refereed papers], Nowra, Australia, 9–11 April 2003. Melbourne: AVETRA.

68.

Mullaly

(2002) Challenging Oppression: A Critical Social Work Approach. Ontario: Oxford University Press.

69.

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(3): 383–400.

70.

Peoples

(1998) A market for all. In: Robinson

Kenyon

(eds) The Market For Vocational Education and Training. Adelaide: NCVER, pp.200–207.

71.

Polesel

(2010) Vocational education and training (VET) and young people: The pathway of the poor? Education and Training 52(5): 415–426.

72.

Productivity Commission (2011) Vocational education and training workforce. Report for Australian Government Treasury, April. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

73.

Productivity Commission (2017) Shifting the dial: 5 year productivity review. Report for Australian Government Treasury. Report No. 84, 3 August. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

74.

Productivity Commission (2019) Skills and workforce development agreement: Issues paper. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

75.

Productivity Commission (2020) Skills and workforce development agreement review: Interim report. Canberra: Australian Government.

76.

Randle

Brady

(1997) Managerialism and professionalism in the ‘Cinderella service’. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 49(1): 121–139.

77.

Rasmussen

(2016) Improving the Quality, Capability and Status of the VET Teacher Workforce. Victoria: Department of Education and Training Victoria.

78.

Renold

Bolli

Caves

, et al. (2018) Comparing International Vocational Education and Training Programs: The KOF Education-Employment Linkage Index. Washington: The National Centre on Education and the Economy.

79.

Robertson

(2008) VET teachers’ knowledge and expertise. International Journal of Training Research 6(1): 1–22.

80.

Robinson

(1998) The VET product and the development of the training market. In: Robinson

Kenyon

(eds) The Market for Vocational Education and Training. Adelaide: NCVER, pp.102–124.

81.

Robson

(1998) A profession in crisis: Status, culture and identity in the further education college. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 50(4): 585–607.

82.

Schmidt

(2017) Context and capabilities: Tensions between managers’ and teachers’ views of advanced skills in VET. International Journal of Training Research 15(1): 41–54.

83.

Schmidt

(2019a) Industry currency and vocational teachers in Australia: What is the impact of contemporary policy and practice on their professional development? Research in Post-Compulsory Education 24(1): 1–19.

84.

Schmidt

(2019b) Teacher as person: The need for an alternative conceptualisation of the ‘good’ teacher in Australia’s vocational education and training sector. Journal of Vocational Education & Training. Epub ahead of print 28 November 2019. DOI: 10.1080/13636820.2019.1698646. 1–18.

85.

Seddon

(2014) Educational work: The educational boundary politics of making ‘citizens’. Globalisation, Societies and Education 12(3): 336–357.

86.

Shor

(1992) Empowering Education: Critical Teaching For Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

87.

Simmons

(2010) Globalisation, neo-liberalism and vocational learning: The case of English further education colleges. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 15(4): 363–376.

88.

Skilbeck

Connell

Lowe

, et al. (1994) The Vocational Quest: New Directions in Education and Training. New York: Routledge.

89.

Skills Senior Officials' Network (2020) Vocational education and training reform roadmap consultation draft. Report, Department of Education, Skills and Employment, Canberra.

90.

Smith

(2019) The importance of VET teacher professionalism: An Australian case study. In: Stuart

McGrath

Mulder

, et al. (eds) Handbook of Vocational Education and Training. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp.1627–1648.

91.

Smith

Grace

(2011) Vocational educators’ qualifications: A pedagogical poor relation? International Journal of Training Research 9(3): 204–217.

92.

Smith

Hodge

Yasukawa

(2015) VET teacher education in Australian universities: Who are the students and what are their views about their courses? Research in Post-Compulsory Education 20(4): 419–433.

93.

Smith

Keating

(2003) From Training Reform to Training Packages. Tuggerah: Social Science Press.

94.

Smith

Yasukawa

(2017) What makes a good VET teacher? Views of Australian VET teachers and students. International Journal of Training Research 15(1): 23–40.

95.

Thomas

(2003) The VET professional and TAFE teacher qualifications. Discussion Paper. East Melbourne: Victorian TAFE Association.

96.

Toner

(2014) Contracting out publicly funded vocational education: A transaction cost critique. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 25(2): 222–239.

97.

Toner

(2018) How Economics Explains Failure of the Publicly Funded Privately Delivered Training Market. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

98.

Tuparevska

Santibáñez

Solabarrieta

(2020) Equity and social exclusion measures in EU lifelong learning policies. International Journal of Lifelong Education 39(1): 5–17.

99.

Tyler

Dymock

(2019) Maintaining industry and pedagogical currency in VET: Practitioners’ voices. International Journal of Training Research 17(1): 4–20.

100.

Western

(2000) Competition, education and class formation. In: Seddon

Angus

(eds) Beyond Nostalgia: Reshaping Australian Education. Camberwell: ACER Press, pp.91–104.

101.

Wheelahan

(2007) How competency-based training locks the working class out of powerful knowledge: A modified Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education 28(5): 637–651.

102.

Wheelahan

(2016) Patching bits won’t fix vocational education in Australia–A new model is needed. International Journal of Training Research 14(3): 180–196.

103.

Wheelahan

Moodie

(2011) The quality of teaching in VET: Final report and recommendations. Report for Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Canberra: Australian Government.

104.

Wheelahan

Moodie

(2016) Global Trends in TVET: A Framework For Social Justice. Brussels: Education International.

105.

Whitelock

(1974) The Great Tradition: A History of Adult Education in Australia. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.

106.

Willis

(1977) Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class. Farnborough: Saxon House.

107.

Wolf

Dominguez-Reig

Sellen

(2016) Remaking Tertiary Education: Can We Create a System That is Fair and Fit For Purpose? London: Education Policy Institute.

108.

Young

(1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Reformed and reduced: Vocational education and structural oppression

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Reformed and reduced: The trouble with Australian VET

VET, powerlessness and structural oppression

Moulding, pressing and reducing VET through the national training system

The face of powerlessness and the plight of the non-professional

Autonomy, independence and the culture of silence

The challenge of liberation: What is to be done?

A final call to action

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Note

References