Pathways, productivity and equity: Insights from OECD work Richard Sweet AVETRA October 20, 2006

Upper secondary pathways

Upper secondary students by pathway type, mid 1990s

Tertiary pathways

The size and shape of national tertiary systems, 2001

Per cent of tertiary enrolments in universities, 2001

Enrolments by ISCED level, selected non-university institutions, 2001

Does size matter?

Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R (2001)

Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001)

How about the economic demand argument? R 2 = CHE DEU GRC ESP AUS

Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001) r Economic demand? l Share of value added represented by technology- and knowledge-intensive industries R 2 =.0004 (2000)

Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001) r Economic demand? l Share of value added represented by technology- and knowledge-intensive industries R 2 =.0029 (2000) r Social demand?

Per cent of 15 year-olds expecting to achieve tertiary education, 2003 R 2 =.2476

Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001) r Economic demand? l Share of value added represented by technology- and knowledge-intensive industries R 2 =.0004 (2000) r Social demand? l Per cent of 15 year-olds expecting to achieve tertiary education R 2 =.2476 (2003)

Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001) r Economic demand? l Share of value added represented by technology- and knowledge-intensive industries R 2 =.0029 (2000) r Social demand? l Per cent of 15 year-olds expecting to achieve tertiary education R 2 =.2476 (2003) r Inequality?

Inequality, literacy and tertiary size

Conclusions r Countries don’t have the size of tertiary system that they can afford or that they need, but the size that they want r Unfair societies that stream early and by social class have small tertiary systems l But can still deliver high quality skills through their VET systems r Large, high quality apprenticeship systems come at a cost

An observation rather than a conclusion r Australia might be fortunate in having a small and low quality apprenticeship system r But that is a story for another day

Thank you