Guest posting to voced-coord email list. Item 5 of 9:

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 14:57:06 +1100
To: voced-coord@owl.qut.edu.au
From: Richard_Laidlaw@astf.com.au
Subject: Response to - What are you going to do....

As identified by Barbara in the following response, the tendering process relying on outcomes for the funds is a bit of a problem for the organisations in the UK. What they end up doing is quickly trying to meet the numbers and quotas so that they can get on with their real work of trying to help the students.

Barbara's message follows:

Richard

I read with interest your email on the above and here are my thoughts.

Pro

• Introducing the school to work transition earlier than the formal Yr 10 level, would give students more time to considered the impact of their subject choice/s on their career planning.
• By introducing a subject like work studies say in Yr8 students could become familiar with work ethics, industrial relations, OH & S, EEO etc. In this day and age if they watch TV they will already be familiar with some of the issues that are coming up in regards to the above.
• Introducing students to a greater variety of work experiences, (possibly by using hours after school, or holiday time) would allow for wiser decison making when it comes to answering - What should I do when I grow up? It would probably also go take the emphasis off working for a TER (and then what?) or going to TAFE.

Con

• Some we would question the students' maturity to grasp school to work concepts earlier than say Yr 9.
• To make this work successfully you would need to initiate a curriculum and support network that could back up a comprehensive career planning service, as you mentioned was being done in Wisconsin.
• Tendering out programs may be working in UK. We already have our doubts here in NSW. If the tendering involves reimbursement per number of outcomes, I fear the business could override the educational experience.
• Career planning can be like looking into a crystal ball. There are factors at play e.g. political policies of the day, that come into play and can upset the applecart.
• If the school extended hours or whatever to incorporate a greater variety of work experience placements for students, the issue of duty of care would be raised. As it is, in the current educational climate, I believe we need to get out of the formalised mindset that school hours are from 9.00 - 3.00pm. This does nothing for training students anyway into a work environment mindset which today can be anything from 9.00 - 5.00 or whatever. It also begs the question (which Wisconsin and the UK seem to have fathomed) whether schools and teachers are there to teach or to educate? In my mind the latter, has broader parameters.

Pro

• Developing a career curriculum which has its roots in primary school would allow for a possibly smoother transition into high school and encourage a consistency and communication between primary and high school education. I know of some schools that allow their Yr 6 students to join in High School classes for a day a week. The same could possibly work successfully in a work environment.

Con

• Apart from the fact that you would have to meddle into a teacher's day and curriculum, employers would also have to be brought onside and judging from Bradfield's Industry training program, we have enough just placing our YR11 and 12 students! Once again, we would need to look more at the "big picture", rather than at the realities of the day. Other needs would also need to be addressed eg insurance liability etc.

  These are some of my suggestions with pro's and con's Richard. Here's hoping they may be of some use.

  Barbara Macreadie
  Bradfield College
  Email barbara.macreadie@tafensw.edu.au

  Richard

  To view all of the interaction with the online guest browse the voced-coord archives
  from March 31 - April 9, 1998.
  [previous guest posting] [index of postings][next guest posting]
  First published May 5, 1998. Last modified June 23, 1999.