Articulation Impediments - Steering Committee Briefing Garry Emanuel & Henry Louey May/June 2005

2 Phase 2 Endorsement Phase approach Research findings Interview findings Consolidated results Our actions Next steps

3 The Keys to Model Design Clearly defined and known outcomes Consistent application – core OR electives Cost of establishment and maintenance Different funding model – Federal and State Graded assessment from VET that will equate to the K12 exit marks for HE entry (UAI/TER etc.) Guaranteed entry Lack of clear ICT career pathway built on education – K12 through VET and/or HE Lack of communication – HE to VET to HE

4 The Keys to Model Design (cont.) Lack of single HE curriculum in ICT - content, delivery and assessment tools (with a moderation component included) Management of the HE Institution “cultural difference” Mapping of competencies to content RPL and RCC too expensive and/or too time consuming Support for the student through a “Transition Program” Tendency for VET/HE providers to align themselves with geographically convenient partners Transfer between HE providers

5 Draft Model 1 Mapping - VET Course to HE Subject Enables HE to maintain differentiation delivery in Year 1 Aligns VET course to Degree Electives Premised on guaranteed entry Improves alignment of VET and HE offerings at the elective level Does not take account of students who complete VET Units but not the full course VET Yr 1VET Yr 2 HE Yr 1HE Yr 2HE Yr 3 1 Year of Exemption granted ( Exemptions not specifically applied to a year - electives spread across all 3 years)

6 Draft Model 2 Mapping - VET Course to HE subject Secondary entry path to HE Aligns VET course to HE Course core units Premised on guaranteed entry Improves alignment of VET and HE offerings at core level Requires HE to provide differentiation in Year 2 “Tops Up” HE student numbers in Yr 2 Does not take account of students who complete VET Units but not the full course VET Yr 1VET Yr 2 HE Yr 1HE Yr 2HE Yr 3 Exemption granted against Core Units (likely extending across 2 years)

7 Draft Model 3 VET delivering common Yr 1 Requires HE to provide differentiation in Year 2 Aligns VET and HE through collaborative development of Yr 1 content and assessment Premised on guaranteed entry Improves alignment of VET and HE offerings Provides for student choice of qualification stream during study as opposed to before study Changes balance of students in VET and HE in Yr 1 VET Yr 1VET Yr 2 HE Yr 2HE Yr 3 HE Yr 1 No longer required

8 Draft Model 4 VET and HE delivering a common Yr 1 Requires HE to provide differentiation in Year 2 Aligns VET and HE through collaborative development of Yr 1 content and assessment tools Premised on guaranteed entry in either direction Improves alignment of VET and HE offerings Provides for student choice of qualification stream during study as opposed to before study with choice open for dual qualification (strongly recommended) VET Yr 1VET Yr 2 HE Yr 2HE Yr 3 HE Yr 1

9 Draft Model 5 VET or HE delivering common Yr 1 Requires HE to provide differentiation in Year 2 Aligns VET and HE through collaborative development of Yr 1 Premised on guaranteed entry Improves alignment of VET and HE offerings Can (Should) be structured to provide dual qualification over 2 years - in line with Industry expectation that graduates will be practically skilled VET or HE Yr 1 VET Yr 2 HE Yr 2HE Yr 3

10 Draft Model 6 Mapping - VET Unit of Competence to HE Subject Enables HE to maintain differentiation in Year 1 Aligns VET units to HE Subjects Addresses cases where full VET qualification is not achieved Improves alignment of VET and HE offerings Provides for very specific and accurate mapping of units to subjects - at a cost High level of support required to establish and maintain mapping in light of changes in both VET and HE Unit Subject Elective Subject Elective Unit Collectively, the subjects equate to a HE Qualification Collectively, the units equate to a VET Qualification

11 Draft Model 7 Is there another ?

12 Which is Number 1 ? Consider most workable Disregard the possible restrictions Presume no “history”

13 How to Improve ! What additions will make the preferred model better ?

14 What to Remove ! What is in the model that needs to be excluded ?