Policies, practices and the future of technical and vocational education and training for communities in the margins – a special issue commentary and introduction

Introduction

Prior to embarking on this special issue, we had begun working on our own technical and vocational education and training (TVET) research project studying women’s upskilling in India. The Indian government demarcated women’s upskilling as an important initiative in their 12th five-year plan (an economic plan strategizing development and growth), which particularly remarked about the criticality of improving access while also notating the challenges and equity points that need to be worked on including economic empowerment and engagement in governance (Planning Commission, 2013). We then realized there was a need for studies on the ground to gauge whether this endeavor/initiative was desired and to begin working on policy development from the bottom up to connect with the Plan’s overall goals. Hence, through our participatory action research work at an upskilling program, we studied women’s access to and interest in participating in TVET programs because we wanted to know how and if they desired to engage in these programs (Iyengar & Witenstein, 2019; Witenstein & Iyengar, 2021).

As the 12th five-year plan suggested, we took a holistic approach in working together in critiquing societal equity issues and the bridge between life at home with social and economic considerations at the work shed (where the upskilling program took place) to begin devising new conceptions and ideas of how this group of women may actively engaging in Indian society, their communities and families. As we considered policy recommendations (local, regionally and nationally) based upon the women’s interests and experiences, we realized it would be helpful not only to our collective work with women in India but for communities, researchers, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, and governments globally, to know more about current TVET ongoings, tensions, challenges, and directions. That is when we decided a special issue would be helpful to all stakeholders globally, and then the COVID−19 pandemic happened!

Over the course of the pandemic, millions lost their jobs and livelihoods, and it is highly likely that when the world resumes in full capacity (or some adapted variation of that), many jobs may be obsolete, have been reconfigured to some degree, or require upskilling. Hence, this special issue may be even more critical than originally conceived of when taking our broader interests mentioned above together with the challenges and needs that have been unearthed through COVID−19. Therefore, in this era of uncertainty, Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) can and most likely will play a critical role in bringing financial stability to families and communities, and for that matter, nations and its youth among other stakeholders (Ugwoegbulem, 2022).

Defining and contextualizing TVET

To better situate our understanding of the term TVET for this special issue, we first describe and contextualize it. Firstly, Venn (1964) described the meaning of the concept “vocational” as a type of “calling” (in Diwakar & Ahamad, 2015). The author noted that Venn (1964) referred to this term vocational as education that enables an individual to procure a “stable job.” The term came about during the industrial revolution, and Diwakar and Ahamad (2015) further explained that “Technical and Vocational Education” as a field involves the learning about technologies and related sciences which go beyond “general education.” Therefore, it involves acquisition of practical skills, attitudes, understandings, and knowledge relating to occupations in various sectors of economic and social life (Wadia & Dabir, 2020). Vocational Education or Vocational Education and Training (VET), also called Career and Technical Education (CTE), prepares learners for jobs based in manual or practical activities. This is a deviation from the traditional more academic learning, because it prepares workers for a specific occupation or vocation.

Historically, TVET has suffered from a focus on basic and especially primary education, which led to the neglect of post-basic education and training and their non-inclusion in the UN Millennium Development Goals (Hartl, 2009). Bennell, 1999 (in Hartl, 2009) found that vocational education and training (VET) were largely absent in most government and donor poverty reduction strategies in developing countries. This marginalization of VET is due to a lack of donor investment and inaction by many governments. However, TVET policies and approaches underwent a major re-adjustment in the 1970s and 1980s. About 130 million young people in developing countries (15–24 years) are classified as “illiterate,” with women representing 59% (Global, 2008). The high number of illiterate youth and those with low schooling are mostly living in rural areas and tend to be underprepared for productive, skill-intensive work (Atchoarena & Gasperini, 2003 in Hartl, 2009). Consequently, TVET may provide opportunities for upskilling and livelihood capacity-building for the abovementioned groups that are typically living in the margins, among others.

One of the earliest discussions on vocational education was by Phillip Foster (1965). He described the “Vocational School Fallacy” in developing countries and stated that “it might be more fruitful to encourage small-scale vocational training schemes closely associated with the actual ongoing developments and quite divorced from the formal educational system” (Foster 1965, p. 154 cited in Hartl, 2009). Foster also suggested that “the burdens of vocational training should be shifted to those groups who are actually demanding skilled labor of various types” (p. 158) thus advocating a people-centered and needs-driven approach to vocational training (Hartl, 2009). As the debate on situating vocational education has adapted, it includes the critical idea of engaging in learning for not only skill development, yet also for amplifying empowerment and decision-making capabilities (Witenstein & Iyengar, 2021). This final point exemplifies much of our work on TVET in India, yet is critical for taking the skilling forward into society by individuals and organizations that value their communities and broader society.

Agenda 2030: sustainable development

The UN Development Group (UNDG) Millennium Development Goals Task Force called for the post−2015 education agenda to focus on “a lifelong learning approach,” encompassing learning throughout the lifecycle, using both formal and informal delivery mechanisms including access to Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), primary and post-primary education, vocational training, and higher education (UNICEF–UNESCO, 2013). The fourth focus area (SDG) of the current Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) focuses on education, encompassing more than just universal access to primary education (MDG 2). It focuses on lifelong learning, and promoting quality education, two aspects that were not clearly outlined as priorities in MDG 2. Going forward, the aim to “provide quality education and lifelong learning” will include access to early childhood education, quality primary education to provide children with basic competencies, access to lower secondary education, and technical and vocational skill building for youth and adults (United Nations, 2013). Upskilling and green-skilling for future jobs have become the need of the hour (Abdul-Hamid & Ambasz, 2023). The potential of TVET remains underexplored as all ages in many societies largely depend on the gig-economy. TVET has the transformational ability to make the UN’s agenda of life-long learning a possibility. Hence, we bring this special issue together to enhance our collective knowledge regarding the field of TVET through this assemblage of articles from across the globe.

Brief introduction to special issue articles

Our collection of articles includes four single-country focused studies in Israel, South Africa, India, and Brazil and a multi-case study which comprises Canada, Ghana, Taiwan, and the United States. We begin with Esther Gottlieb and colleagues, who take us to Israel through a case study of 16 personal narratives of women, men, and young professionals. In brief, their study helps us to understand people’s perceptions about stereotyping VET and the graduates. Next, Linda Ronnie examines the challenges in accessing the South African TVET pipeline through a Bourdieusian framework. Ronnie encourages stakeholder involvement to develop strategies for TVET as well as the significant role universities and industry can play in developing a robust and inclusive TVET sector. Then, Vaishali and Narender Thakur investigate the status of vocational education training with a lens to improve employability in India. The authors present the challenges to access TVET, particularly ones explained by socioeconomic factors including a declining budget trend and lack of political will for TVET in the country. Rosalind Raby and colleagues then use a multi-case study approach to comparatively study the supporting structures of non-traditional students in community colleges and other TVET institutions. The author collective frames their understandings by combining the lenses of neoliberalism and the capabilities narrative to study the experiences of diverse groups with a social justice focus across four countries and five locations—Ontario and Quebec, Canada, Taiwan, Ghana, and the United States. Finally, Bruna Santos Navarone and colleagues found that living in less advantageous communities impacts the emotions of students, advisors and co-advisors in a qualitative study conducted at a science, vocation-centered program at a high school based in Rio de Janeiro. The study examined how the socio-emotional dimensions of the relationships of the above-mentioned can impact the growth and development around science activities and knowledge production/acquisition.

Noteworthy insights across the special issue

We conclude this introductory article by taking stock across the articles and sharing some noteworthy insights that may help foster meaningful work going forward for communities, TVETs, researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and those in educative roles (whether in formal, informal or non-formal contexts).

A foundational issue to begin with is the lack of awareness about TVET programs in communities. As shared by Vaishali and Thakur, many girls were not aware of the breadth of programs that TVET offered to suit their needs. This dilemma was unearthed in our study as Witenstein and Iyengar (2021) and Iyengar and Witenstein (2019), and highlights the importance of better messaging from government and municipal organizations and the value of engaging in bottom-up dialogs and studies that tap into the needs and desires of potential enrollees (which has the potential for keener policy development). Additionally, access to TVET and why students choose to tap into TVET programs is an equity issue that needs further inquiry. Ronnie honed on this challenge as she analyzed the upward trend in women’s enrollment in concert with common reasoning of having limited finances in accessing further formal education. As seen through Vaishali and Thakur’s work, it is critical to emphasize the dignity of labor and break taboos and gender stereotyping specific jobs. This should help in the case of Ronnie’s work as well in terms of all students gaining the capital they need in concert with their upskilling and vocational interests.

Continuing with the topic of access, it is critical to examine who has access to the TVET system and why, and who gets left out. These examinations can help fill the gaps and develop more equitable policies. Noticing these patterns have the potential for making TVET programs more targeted toward the vulnerable population, like in Vaishali and Thakur’s study, which highlighted the deep lack of Muslim boys’ engagement due to financial reasons. At the same time, Gottlieb and colleagues reminded potential and vested stakeholders that minorities are not helpless victims. They actively interpret and respond to their situation and thus need to be a key stakeholder in all discussions related to the TVET structure, policies, and curriculums.

Leaning once again into socially just and human-centered approaches, Raby and colleagues remind us that educational experiences at TVET and community colleges programs need to be nurturing and inclusive. Like Raby’s research team, Ronnie emphasized prioritizing student experiences in the TVET program and providing the needed support, while Gottlieb et al. revealed that language of instruction was key in student acclimation and success in the TVET program. Gottlieb et al. also holds the meaningful point of acknowledging and studying individual student experiences to make meaning of the in-between spaces that students who are often in the margins may face. As we illustrated in Iyengar and Witenstein (2019), recognizing the liminal, third spaces that many current or potential TVET students “live” in, offer opportunities for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers to facilitate conversations about leveraging their new skills in concert with the decision-making that permeates the social, cultural, and economic dimensions of their lives. Furthermore, Navarone Santos and her research team also reflected on these narrative experiences in better understanding the psycho-sociocultural dimensions of the educational experience, which hold much promise for developing meaningful programming and curricula to support diverse students.

The UN SDGs were an important component regarding TVET in several of the articles. For example, TVET is looked at with the sustainable development goal lens by Vaishali and Thakur and Raby et al., which is exciting because TVET is considered as a key strategy to meet SDG goals linked with gender and education. While skilling and upskilling for jobs is clearly a priority function of TVETs, Ronnie also mentioned the Ubuntu philosophy, which is the shared resources and values that promote the welfare for all. This ideology could also be linked to TVET financing, making it a priority for communities and nations. Furthermore, Ronnie recommended using TVET as an opportunity to develop global citizenship skills as a lifelong learner in their chosen occupations. This connects intimately with SDG 4 and particularly with the social domains of the goal’s Target 4.7 (including global citizenship, gender equality, and human rights) which should lead to sustainable development (Mission 4.7, N.D.)

The theme of addressing inequality through TVET is evident throughout the papers. Our advice for readers and policymakers is to ensure that all TVET planning and program designs are geared toward equity and social justice. TVET has the potential of becoming a great equalizer if its current practices are geared toward a larger societal cause. By utilizing human-centered approaches, practices and frameworks that acknowledge, dignify and tap into the lived experiences and livelihoods of current and potential students holds great promise for uplifting societies. Finally, leaning into local and (inter)national ways of knowing and frameworks (like the SDGs) can offer productive starting points and critical examinations of current practices that craft successful TVET programs for our societies.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Matthew A Witenstein

Matthew A. Witenstein is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Administration at the University of Dayton. His US work focuses on immigrants in higher education and international educational experiences while his international/comparative education research focuses on higher education quality, organization and governance issues. He is co-editor of the Palgrave Macmillan book series “South Asian Education Policy, Research and Practice”, Associate Editor of the journal Diaspora, Indigenous and Minority Education, Editorial Board member of Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice and of Perspectives in Education. Witenstein is the author of numerous peer reviewed articles (including in Teachers College Record, International Review of Education, Journal of Career Development and Ethnic and Racial Studies) and book chapters. Matthew is past Secretary and Executive Board Member of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) while having served CIES in various leadership roles for more than a decade. He has been an invited speaker at higher education institutions, ministry and government agencies throughout the US and South Asia.

Radhika Iyengar

Radhika Iyengar is Research Scholar and Director of Education at the Center for Sustainable Development, Earth Institute, Columbia University. She leads the Education for Sustainable Development initiatives and international education development as a practitioner, researcher, teacher, and manager. Her current research includes testing for high fluoride in water sources in Central India. She recently won the prestigious Earth Frontiers grant at the Earth Institute, Columbia University. Her recent publication investigates community-based environmental factors that foster environmental education. Dr Iyengar received the prestigious Early Career Award from Teachers College, Columbia University in 2020. She was the Chair of the Environmental and Sustainability Education Special Interest Group (2020-22) and is a current Board Member for CIES.