Indigenous Disadvantage in Employment for Education-MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theIndigenous Disadvantage in Employment for Education. Answer: Introduction Education is considered as a significant factor in the accessibility of resources to individuals. This is because education is quite beneficial to all those that partake in it personally as well as those around them. The human capital model and the signaling model have been useful to understand education choice and their impact on the society at large. This paper shall specifically consider the indigenous groups of Australia since they have been documented to experience high unemployment levels compared to the national average. This state has been attributed to the low educational outcomes experienced by the indigenous groups. The performance and enrollment of the indigenous groups are nearly half as much as that of the non-indigenous groups in Australia. The aim of this paper is to consider both the human capital and signaling models and how they provide insight to indigenous disadvantage in employment. The human capital model argues that individuals view education as an investment and therefore they are willing to pursue it as long as there are foreseeable returns (Biddle and Paradies, 2013). The screening models consider intrinsic demographic structures that reveal that a candidate is best suited for particular jobs. The models will help provide an insight into why the indigenous groups are less inclined to pursue formal education in Australia. First, the paper will consider the main characteristics of the human capital model and the signaling models. Next, it will critically analyze each model with an aim to assess their contribution to the understanding of indigenous advantage. The Human Capital Model According to the human capital model, education is designed to provide individuals with the required skills and information which is necessary and valuable to their future. It is therefore considered as an investment, since the money resources and time used in facilitation of the practice is intended to generate returns (monetary and non-monetary) to the future of the individual and the society as well. The narrow perspective provides that the knowledge and skills gained are meant to increase productivity of the individual which can be positively related to higher earnings levels and higher incomes (Biddle, 2010). In the broader sense, the knowledge and skills are not attributed to high monetary earnings but also non-monetary skills that are imperative to an individuals well-being. For example information on how to avoid preventable diseases and such like information. The model therefore considers the private and social rate of return where the private rate of return is provided by t he cost undertaken by the student in terms of paying for fees and purchasing resources divided by the benefits received which in this case is the after tax income. The social rate of return considers the private and social costs divided by the private and social benefits such as public costs to education and the increase in the tax level from educated working individuals. The Human Capital model therefore suggests that when the costs outweigh the benefits, the individuals are less likely to undertake education while when the opposite is true, most people are bound to consider its alternative. The Signaling Model The signaling or screening model of education considers that education has no inherent social value. It only provides a means by which individuals can be sorted out as most able in the available jobs with a certain level of remuneration. The screening model often provides a means for which individuals can be ranked and is used by employers in the determination of which individuals are best suited to perform high status jobs. The signaling model considers certain determinants such as level of education, past educational performance and IQ aptitude tests to consider the native ability of an individual. Primarily, the screening model assumes that high performance is often an indicator of a high performing individual. This assumption is aimed at reducing the risk of firms in hiring unproductive employees or employees who may cost them more than they become advantageous to the company. The critism of the signaling model is that individuals may seek to cheat the system to come up with good results at the compromise of learning anything. For this reason, individuals may result to cheat and manipulate the results as they please since it may afford them the benefit of being sought out. In addition, the individual may also consider undertaking a certain educational dimension in order to achieve the end of better remuneration without actually deriving value from the process (Biddle, 2010). For the most part, areas with highly educated individuals are bound to be more sorted out by employers compared to areas with low education levels. In addition, the quality of education provided may be a determining factor to the signaling process. Education Models and the Indigenous Disadvantage In order to understand the role of the education models in understanding the indigenous disadvantage, it is important to understand the community dynamics of the indigenous groups and attitudes towards work and community. The indigenous groups mostly associate in large kinship networks compared to the non-indigenous Australian groups. These communities are often demanding which often cause a strain between the requirements of paid work and the social obligation faced by these individuals. For the most part, the indigenous individuals view work as the role of an individual within the social fabric of the community and therefore formal employment is viewed as an impediment to social relatedness. An individual may less likely be inclined to pursue education and formal work as a daily priority since it may interfere with the cultural values and desires. For this reason there is some sense of incompatibility between the cultural natures of the indigenous cultural groups and the institutio ns of school and work (Jordan, 2011). The Human Capital model therefore helps in providing an understanding of the indigenous disadvantage. The model argues that education is pursued in order to provide the individual with social and private wellbeing. According to the Aboriginal attitudes of community and kinship engagement in school and work limits the ability of the individual to engage actively in societal activities. It may therefore be considered as a social cost compared to the social benefit it provides the individual. On the other hand, it may provide a private benefit which is held at a far less regard compared to the associated social cost. For this reason, individuals from the indigenous communities are less inclined to pursue education which leads to their disadvantage in employment. Their resultant low educational outcomes make it less possible for them to have access to better earning means of employment (Biddle, 2010). On the other hand, certain behaviors from the indigenous communities may be perceived as lack of commitment and laziness. For example, the aboriginal individuals may be more inclined to abandon working order to participate in community activities. A rational employer may view this action as a hindrance to employee performance and productivity which makes them less inclined to employ the indigenous people in the work place. To a large extent, the indigenous communities experience a high portion of family interference at work which makes them less inclined to obtain work engagements. In addition, their low education levels also reveals to potential employers that the individuals rank low in terms of ability to work in highly remunerated jobs (Kalb and Leung, 2014). Conclusion It is clear that a great part of the indigenous disadvantage in education can be explained through the use of the human capital and signaling models. The attitudes of the indigenous communities towards kinship are in conflict with the ideals of work and education. This state affects the ability of the indigenous individuals to be employed in formal institutions of work, either due to their low education levels as well as family interference. References Biddle, N., 2010.A human capital approach to the educational marginalisation of Indigenous Australians. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University. Biddle, N., Howlett, M., Hunter, B. and Paradies, Y., 2013. Labour market and other discrimination facing Indigenous Australians.Australian Journal of Labour Economics,16(1), p.91. Jordan, K., 2011. Work and Indigenous wellbeing: Developing a research agenda.Insights,9, pp.31-37. Kalb, G., Le, T., Hunter, B. and Leung, F., 2014. Identifying Important Factors for Closing the Gap in Labour Force Status between Indigenous and Non?Indigenous Australians.Economic Record,90(291), pp.536-550.