Who participates in vocational education and training in India? An analysis of socio-economic determinants

ABSTRACT

India’s expectation of a demographic dividend owing to an increase in the working age population necessitated government measures aimed at skilling youth. Considerable emphasis was therefore placed on skill development policies and programmes, including revamping formal vocational education and training (VET) institutions that provide skills to students completing secondary schooling and opting vocational training. Although the number of VET institutions in India more than doubled in the last decade, their underutilisation calls for an analysis of underlying reasons. This paper analyses socio-economic factors influencing participation in VET using data from nationally representative survey on education. Findings of a multinomial logit analysis in the paper suggest that students in upper secondary VET institutions tend to belong to socially disadvantaged households, and that students in vocational courses are more likely to be male, urban, and from households whose principal occupation is blue-collar. Children from households belonging to higher socio-economic status and pursuing white-collar jobs are more likely to participate in general and professional education as compared to VET because of higher status assigned to the former in the society. These findings call for fine-tuning of current polices of promotion of VET in India.

KEYWORDS:

• Vocational education and training
• participation
• general education
• socio-economic factors
• India

Acknowledgments

This article is based on an ongoing doctoral study of the first author at the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru. The authors would like to thank K.S. James, M. Devendra Babu, N. Sivanna, Indrajit Bairagya, B.P.Vani and Anand Inbanathan, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The usual disclaimers apply.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1. Consisting of five members each from industry and government, this has authority to generate and utilise funds, introduce new trad

es, revise or modify curricula, select staff and train them, select students, monitor student progress, organise academic events and industrial visits.

2. This is consistent with findings of studies from developed and other developing countries (Wang and Guo 2018; Altinok 2012).