ANALISIS DE RESULTADOS PRUEBA PARA LA MEDICION DE DAÑO

expansion o

programs means that these issues have serious workload and cost implications. It was

one of the most widely and passionately criticised elements of VETiS, and its inefficiencies greatly compounded the workload issues of school-based VET coordinators and staff in TAFEWA colleges and private RTOs that were extensively involved with VETiS.

Table 65 – Percentage of valid and invalid VETiS unit of competency records in the Curriculum Council’s raw (uncleaned) data between 2004 and 2008.

2004 2005 2006 2007

Valid UoC records 87.1% 81.6% 93.0% 95.2% 98.0%

Invalid outcomes:

Missing or invalid codes 10.5% 15.9% 3.6% 1.6% 0.2%

Exact duplicates (ie. same student, UoC,

RTO and outcome) 2.3% 2.9% 3.3% 3.0% 1.2%

Different RTO duplicates (ie. same UoC,

student and outcome, but different RTO) 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6%

second data-related issue identified by many respondents was the inability of the school and

ors. A

VET data management systems to provide data that enabled them to monitor and assess the effectiveness and efficiency of their education and VETiS programs in a timely, reliable and ongoing basis. At the heart of this criticism were perceptions that:

• the data systems are primarily geared towards measuring student participation

rather than tracking students’ longitudinal (particularly post-school) outcomes; and

• some of the measures implicitly or explicitly used as key performance indicators of VETiS’s effectiveness (eg. school retention rates or the percentage of students who completed VET qualifications at school) reflect narrow and often out-dated conceptualizations of the purposes of VETiS and the interfaces between the school education, training and employment sect

A large proportion of interviewees expressed a desire for data systems and processes that enabled stakeholders to longitudinally track and analyse students’ outcomes, both during and after the programs, and across a range of different sectors (eg. VET, schools, universities and employment). Currently, there is no system-wide mechanism for collating and tracking students’ outcomes in the VET sector, and Curriculum Council numbers alone are currently too unreliable to be used for these purposes in the education sector. Further, the instruments and processes used to collect and analyse data as part of the School Leaver Program were not intended or designed to provide the sort of post-school tracking and longitudinal accountability information that stakeholders were seeking, and would therefore require a substantial overhaul to be used as such.

8.2.7 Planning, coordination, governance and accountability

8.2.7.1 Local-level coordination, communication and accountability

The quality of local-area coordination of VETiS was clearly very good in many aspects, often facilitated through district or sub-district VETiS coordination meetings organised by enterprise and vocational education (EVE) coordinators. As a result, there was often evidence of considerable district or sub-district agreement and coordination of:

• the types of VETiS programs and qualifications TAFEWA colleges would run using profile funding (and sometimes for other RTOs’ programs too), and the specific days they would be offered; and

• schools’ timetables to enable students to access the programs offered by TAFEWA colleges or other RTOs, and ensure students from neighbouring schools undertake work- based learning programs on different days; and less occasionally

• student selection processes, particularly for specific, over-subscribed VETiS programs; and

• schools’ other resources, enabling coordinated transport and supervision arrangements

onetheless, tension cal area. These

ere usually due to: misunderstandings caused by inaccurate knowledge, interpretations and/or

ent communication amongst stakehol ndividual differe n ex stan of

profe sionalism and customer service; and keho urs heir lf t ,

sometimes exacerbated by competition between org s (eg. group training or anisations).

The istribution of procedu elin . th ess ove e

use of p very for VETiS) have reportedly alleviated some of the disputes by

reduc or disagreements to occur. Furth ement and clarification of the

strategi d purposes of VETiS may do so ev her.

Ther n in s wh e local TAFE lleg a

desig ff m who h appropriate F

whos role a us in olleg led r to ce

ey decisions about the colleges’ VETiS programs (eg. the types of programs to be offered, the istribution of VETiS-designated profile funding, and even the staff members involved in teaching e programs). School-based staff in regions where such a position existed were far more ositive about the relationship and level of professionalism and customer service displayed by

n

e skills and level of experience of the individuals performing the role lative to those of the other stakeholders in the district or local area.

work-based learning programs to private organisations or collaboratives. With a few notable exceptions, outsourcing of work-based learning program coordination was rare in the government school sector.

to be put in place.

s did sometimes arise between stakeholders in a given lo N w insuffici ders; i /or sta nces i uing t pected own s dards interes s lders p e g s anisation

development and d ral guid es (eg e busin rules g rning th

rofile-funded deli ng the scope f

i er refin

c direction, objectives an en furt

e was also noticeably less tensio area ere th WA co e had

nated VETiS position, held by a sta e personal and position-assigned

ember nd stat ad an the c TE allocatio him/he n and influen e enab k d th p

their local TAFEWA college than school-based staff in regions where the local college did not have such a position. This trend appeared to be not only attributable to the position itself, but also reflected the value the college placed on its VETiS programs relative to its other programs and priorities.

The role and importance of Local Community Partnerships (LCP) varied markedly betwee different regions. They played a prominent, highly valued and often ‘hands-on’ operational role in some areas (eg. organising careers-related activities and/or creating work-based learning resources and materials), but had minimal involvement in others. Their effectiveness seemed to be greatly affected by their regional boundaries, with some spanning multiple districts or sub- district clusters, as well as th

re

Two key areas that were often identified as potential opportunities for improvement were:

• the level of coordination across schools in terms of the types of senior secondary programs they offered (including but not exclusively VETiS programs), and how they provided them (eg. shared use of resources); and

• the level of cooperation and coordination of schools’ resources and processes for establishing, supporting and monitoring work-based learning opportunities and programs. Many non government schools involved in the evaluation were already out-sourcing key elements of their

The key to the success of local-level VETiS program coordination was illingness of the involved parties to cooperate and perform their agreed

undeniably the responsibilities

se overall, it was cted concerns or

inently in the School Accountability Framework.

in the context of