This theoretical paper seeks to problematise conceptualisations of VET and its relationship to social justice.

Four key issues are addressed:

1. The secular and ongoing reproduction of inequalities amongst disadvantaged groups in VET.

2. The limits and possibilities of conceptualisations of VET

3. Patterns of inequality surrounding VET

4. Conceptualisations of equity, equality and meritocracy

VET occupies a liminal space lying between post-secondary and higher education (Moodie, 2002). The paper explores debates that engage with understandings of equity, social justice, VET as well as the constituencies VET addresses. There is a current in discussions of work based learning that associate it with equal opportunity and access to VET credentials, aiming to dignify such labour. This applies particularly to occupational practices that are frequently low paid and filled by disadvantaged groups (Billett, 2005). How far can such a strategy take us? Is it compromised by VET’s construction? How does it sit with the social relations in which VET is placed and to what extent does it go beyond these? The paper explores the suggestions that despite a secular interest in VET and disadvantage those groups designated as such have remained largely the same over time (see ONS 2021; SMC 2020; 2022; 2023; Zoellner 2022).  The paper seeks to identify some of the issues behind this status quo. This leads to an analysis of the manner in which VET is constructed and its relationship to waged labour. How broadly or expansively can we conceive VET? Wolf (2022) points to a paradox, arguing that in the university sector vocationalism has become increasingly important but that in the liminal space of VET it has become marginalised, engaged in by disadvantaged groups having little occupational purchase. VET incorporates what Esmond and Atkins (2022) refer to as courses orientated towards ‘welfare vocationalism’ and a ‘technical elite’, but also those qualification lying between these polarities. In the case of the technical elite following T-levels and apprenticeships this is very much a minority route.  However, the paradox Wolf raises is well made. How within such a context can VET contribute to social justice? Rhetorically, ideologically and hegemonically VET can be conceptualised in a manner that emphasises its closeness to the needs of employers. If that association is undermined can we conceive of a reconceptualised VET that could make a contribution to societal, community and individual well-being, and thus social justice? Is such a conceptualisation feasible and yet remain VET?  It is important to avoid reifying VET by failing to acknowledge it as a site of contestation that is nevertheless framed by employer interests. Can it be otherwise? It is also necessary to consider the contours of inequality within which VET is located, which place a limit on its radical potential and contribution to social justice? The objective here is to locate VET within a contextualisation that touches on the patterns of inequality present within the English social formation. The aim is to provide, a glimpse of patterns of inequality as applicable to VET. This discussion raises questions about the on-going re-composition of class relations and in particular the manner in which we conceive the insecure working/middle class. In addition, it talks back to the introduction of the paper which refers to iterative processes that define and re-define the disadvantaged groups that VET allegedly serves. This leads into an examination of conceptualisations of equity, equality and meritocracy.

The paper is set within an Anglophone context, implicitly considering the applicability of the paper’s argument to other social formations.

The paper is rooted in policy scholarship with its methodology set in a critical engagement with the relevant literature, adopting an approach derived from critical theory. The paper examines the available national statistics and policy documents, as well as the discourses used in current research in the field. The paper is rooted in an Anglophone context and poses the question as to how far its analysis can be applied to VET in the Nordic countries and DACH. Wolf’s argument about the decline of VET in post-secondary education is applicable but as to how far the remaining debate in the paper is pertinent is a matter for discussion. The paper addresses, compares and contrasts an equity model of social justice with a social democratic notion of equality arguing that both align with employer interests.

The conclusion brings together the divergent strands of the argument and consider the four key issues examined by the paper. 1. The secular and ongoing reproduction of inequalities amongst disadvantaged groups in VET. 2. The limits and possibilities of conceptualisations of VET. 3. Patterns of inequality surrounding VET. 4. Conceptualisations of equity, equality and meritocracy. Whilst discussing conceptualisations of equity, equality and meritocracy the paper considers the relationship between equity and equality models of social justice. Whilst these models are rooted in the case of the former with neo-liberalism, and the latter social democracy, they are both constrained by their association with capitalism and employer interest. Though in the case of social democracy it is more amenable to contestation and struggle, having more scope to win concessions. The paper seeks to problematize VET and in some respects this is foolhardy given the broad range of occupational groups that it addresses. However, the question remains as to how far VET can be shifted from its occupational moorings to contribute towards a socially just society. Or is it inevitably compromised by its close association with the needs of capital and employers? This is not merely an empirical but also a political question that hinges on conceptualisations of social justice and power as well as the manner in which these are addressed in the struggle for a fairer more just society. It is here that the significance of the paper for educational practice, policy and theory lies. Finally, the paper is implicitly concerned with the wider applicability of the analysis to other social formations, for example such those found in the DACH and Nordic societies.

Augar Review (2019) Independent panel report to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education by Command of Her Majesty, Crown Avis, J. 2004. Work-based Learning and Social Justice: Learning to Labour? Journal of Education and Work, 17(2) 197-217 Avis, J. 2022a Work-Based Learning: Expansive Learning and Social Justice Draft Working Paper, presented at Researching Work & Learning, Online Conference University of Toronto, RWL 12 Collection of papers Vol 1, 208-218 Avis, J. 2022b. Anti-work, TVET and employer engagement, Journal of Education and Work, 35(5), 585-598. DOI: 10.1080/13639080.2022.2092606 Billett, S. (2005) Recognition of learning through work, in Bascia, N., Cumming, A., Datnow, A., Leithwood, K., Livingstone, D. (eds) International Handbook of Educational Policy, Dordrecht, the Netherlands Springer, p943-962 Esmond, B. Atkins, L. 2022. Education, skills and social justice in a polarising world. London, Routledge Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. 2003. ‘Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation’, Journal of Education and Work, 16(4), 407–26 Lingard, B., Sellar, S. & Savage, G. 2015. Re-articulating social justice as equity in schooling policy: The effects of testing and data infrastructures. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(5), 710–30 Moodie, G. 2002. Identifying vocational education and training, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54(2) 249-266, DOI: 10.1080/13636820200200197 ONS 2021. Employment https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/employment/employment/latest#title The Social Mobility Commission 2020. Monitoring social mobility 2013-2020 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/monitoring-social-mobility-2013-to-2020 The Social Mobility Commission 2022. State of the Nation 2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-nation-2022-a-fresh-approach-to-social-mobility The Social Mobility Commission. 2022. Business Plan 2022-2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-commission-business-plan-2022-to-2023-a-fresh-approach-to-social-mobility/social-mobility-commission-business-plan-2022-to-2023-a-fresh-approach-to-social-mobility Zoellner, D. 2022 Fashioning groups that inhabit society’s fringes: the work of Australian VET research into disadvantage, Journal of Education policy, online, 1-19 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2022.2156621 Wolf, A. 2022. The paradox of vocational education, why is academic education triumphant in a skills hungry labour market. 7 December https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbMnn0fWVBc&ab_channel=LSE