Board pilots VET for years 9 and 10

By Wendy Currie

The Board of Studies is conducting a pilot of vocational education and training (VET) in Stage 5.

We all know that the term vocational learning covers much more in schools than the industry specific, competency based, industry curriculum frameworks and other VET HSC courses. It encompasses work related skills and knowledge embedded in all syllabuses, career education, the Stage 5 Work Education syllabus and more.

While the pilot includes some of the other aspects of vocational learning, it is mainly piloting the extension of industry specific VET, with assessment of specific competencies, to years 9 and 10. Currently, Board of Studies policy allows some students, under strict guidelines, to complete such VET courses as part of the School Certificate, and only a very small number of students are involved.

It is far from an established fact that this move to broaden VET is educationally sound. The impetus comes from an October 2005 report to Education and Training Minister Carmel Tebbutt, Strategic Evaluation of Vocational Education and Training in Schools in NSW, conducted by the chair of NSW Board of Vocational Education and Training and NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board, Bert Evans.

The report revealed that a survey of students showed that their enthusiasm for VET in schools was unequivocal, and the evaluation itself reached the same conclusion. Indeed, the report is a celebration of VET in schools and the work of VET teachers, as it should be.

From the survey and consultation with VET teachers, the report suggested that "it follows that as there is significant value for students and employers, there is also great value for the community".

It also reported that "schools and students consulted suggested VET in schools has had a major impact on retention from year 10 through years 11 and 12". You'll notice that this conclusion was drawn only from anecdotal evidence of some students and some schools, and, notwithstanding the fact that anecdotal evidence is valuable, no other evidence was cited.

So what then led to the report recommending that the Minister "consider options for inclusion of recognised VET courses before years 11 and 12" is unclear. Is it that the report, having rightly found that the findings of the survey and consultation "are highly significant", has, without strong foundations, determined if VET is good for students in years 11 and 12 it will be good for younger students?

Is it a retention strategy? If so, the debate about whether VET is a valid retention strategy is in its infancy. A project conducted for the National Centre for Vocational Education Research Centre (NCVER) by Anlezark, Karmel and Ong published this year, Have school vocational education and training programs been successful? defined success as "retention to year 12, and outside school in terms of full-time engagement with employment or learning, or part-time employment combined with part-time study". Its findings are highly significant in this debate. Contrary to the anecdotal evidence to date, it found in part that:

• "Participation in school VET programs was found to have a positive impact on year 10 to year 11 retention but a negative impact on retention from year 11 to year 12. Overall, these programs had a small negative impact on retention from year 10 to year 12."
• "There is a clear positive impact on post-school outcomes for students who participate in school VET programs in year 11 but do not go on to complete year 12. These gains are more sizeable for girls than boys. Over time, however, the positive effect is diluted. These gains are not seen for those who complete year 12."

It is true that it's a national study and that VET in schools differs from state to state. It may or may not be applicable specifically to NSW. It's worth a read and can be found on the NCVER website at www.ncver.edu.au/.

At a recent Department of Education and Training conference, 15-19 Year Olds: Engage, Connect, Create, Melbourne researcher John Polesel spoke about curriculum breadth and provision. He presented research findings that show that students who did VET in schools were more likely to go on to TAFE. He interpreted this to mean that it was the doing of VET that led to this. He did not explore other possible analyses, such as that the same interests and skills that result in a student doing VET in schools might lead them to TAFE, whether or not they did a VET in schools course.

No-one would suggest for a moment that VET in schools is not valuable, but what the studies show is that the jury is still out on whether it is a valid retention strategy and indeed is still out on whether it influences post-school pathways.

This is not an easy debate. In the past when there have been major changes to the nature of the curriculum, particularly in the compulsory years, there has been broad and lengthy debate. That has not happened on this occasion. The Board of Studies pilot appears to be a pilot that will be evaluated, not on the intrinsic value of VET in the compulsory years, but on how best to implement it.

The debate must be had and it must include all with an interest in the nature of schooling.

Wendy Currie is a Research Officer.

For further information

May 2006 contents