From today’s Crikey:
There was a forerunner of things to come in the 2004 election campaign when John Howard announced a new quasi-system of “Australian technical colleges”, many of which still aren’t up and running (a major reason why Moreton MP Gary Hardgrave lost his Ministry gig, though his desire to spend more time with his electorate made sense in spades).
In truth, these colleges hardly matter. The symbolism is all. It goes to the same sort of backward looking, implicitly blokey theme that John Howard puzzlingly ended his debate final statement with - trades good, uni bad. 3Rs good, book learnin’ liable to lead to refugee lovin’.
As with another now forgotten election promise ($800 to apprentices for toolkits), it’s the novelty of the announcement and the message it sends that’s the thing, as Peter Martin astutely observes. Labor’s proposed integration of vocational education with senior schooling, pioneered in Queensland (where there’s often also a particular vocational tinge to senior colleges - though you’d wait in vain for Howard to announce funding for a creative arts high school), makes much more sense in terms of skills policy and labor supply.
So now we have a micro-system of two “Australian Defence Technical Colleges”. One’s to be in Ipswich. Why? According to the PM, because it’s a defence hub. Really?
There’s the Amberley air base, but in fact most of the ADF forces in Brisbane (and there are more in North Queensland) are in Enoggera, inconveniently located in the Labor held electorate of frontbencher Arch Bevis. But Ipswich is in Blair, held by a margin of just 5.7%, and as I suggested in Crikey last week, looking very likely to fall to Labor.
What exactly is the Coalition defending?
So Mark, Do you think the idea of technical colleges is a good idea or not?
(Careful, this might be a trick question)
No. Useless duplication of TAFE, and ridiculously narrow in terms of their reach. More confusion and overlapping between federal and state responsibilities. You could make a case for some specialised senior colleges as in Qld, but Labor are much more on the money with a strategy for further integrating tech ed into all high schools. Whether you have access to these facilities should have no relationship with whether you live in a marginal electorate.
Sorry mark ,I must have missed the Labor policy ( it’s sure to be a doozy) and I don’t agree with duplication,But I’m talking about state run technical schools that students can attend as an alternative to secondary schools.Where they can dabble in various trades to get an idea as to whether they would like to take it up as a career.
This is a truly bizarre plan - even from Howards mob. What exactly are “defence related technical skills” anyway? Why would anyone go there rather than a normal TAFE? Especially when, if you want to join the ADF to get a trade you can already do so at 17, and get paid more than other apprentices.
Its total shite.
Just for interstate viewers, QLD does not have a history of “technical high schools” like you see in some other states. There has always been woodwork, metal work and technical drawing available at secondary school level (my father taught this for 25 years), and the technical college system which we now call TAFE, but not the “Tech high school” idea - which might be causing confusion.
Err $800 for Apprentices tool kits IS policy. Heck its more than policy…
http://www.toolsforyourtrade.com.au/Default.asp?page=1
I know because my work provides tools for apprentices all the time via government vouchers.
Yes, I know that, Niz. My point is that it’s not there to materially improve apprentice’s conditions significantly, or to respond to skills crises, but to get a headline during an election campaign, send a particular political message, and then it drops back into oblivion without any assessment of its actual value as a policy.
Ah sorry I re-read it after I commented
I saw “forgotten election promise” and misread the rest. My Bad.
Technical colleges run by states already exist; it’d be like the Federal government opening Canberra-controlled hospitals where there are already private and state owned hospitals.
The “Australia Colleges” are pure farce, designed to look like they’re doing something about the skills shortage when all they’ll achieve is useless duplication before they’re palmed off to the states to run because Canberra can’t manage the system properly. Either that or they’ll be built with public money only to be flogged off to Eddie Groves so he can get his foot in the door with post-secondary education.
Tasmania has been running intergrated technical & academic teaching programmes in their secondary colleges for some time. This covers Years 11 & 12 & allows students to take subjects with workplace based experience as a significant component AND pick up more academic courses if they so desire. Look over there - a working model & it functions!!
And why wont the Feds simply pitch in with desperately needed funds & help revitalise TAFE? Its been starved of funds for years, had its curricula stuffed about by “industry input” with no regard for the pedogogical consequences, and then has the affrontary to charge students fees for a half arsed half baked educational training.
Pre-dawn-leftist, Qld did have some technical high schools, but got rid of them about 50 years ago. Now it has a vocational stream in high schools in Years 11 and 12. So after year 10 you commit yourself to either an academic stream or a vocational stream. There was a big expansion of the vocational stream in the 1980s when the labour market had little use for unskilled 15-year olds.
High schools have two advantages over technical colleges. Their geographic coverage of the state is far greater and they a holistic approach to education. The extra and co-curricular offerings are considered important in schools, whereas these are largely absent in TAFE.
The advantage of TAFE is in the better standards of equipment, which are meant to be of an industry standard.
Entry to TAFE used to be after Year 10 level. Now it appears to be Year 12, at least in Qld, so TAFE and schools are complementary rather than alternatives.
Superficially Labor’s $2.5 Billion Trades Training Centres In Schools Plan might seem to confuse the issue again, but I see no objection in principle to schools getting into VET in a serious way as part of a holistic free education during the teenage years. It has much to commend it and can be justified on both educational and economic grounds. The inclusion of Years 9 and 10 is noteworthy.
By contrast the need for Australian Technical Colleges, as for this new stunt, seems to be political.
Sam, the current mob would go for Eddie Groves rather than the states.
chrisl Labor’s policies on education and training are readily available.
Bernice, Tasmania seems to be similar to Qld. I’ve lost contact with TAFE but I’d agree with the revitalisation of TAFE. I can’t see an initiative from Labor in this regard, which is a pity.
Exactly, Bernice. I remember being at a conference in 1998 where someone gave a paper pointing to the total abandonment of sensible VET policy and predicted a massive skills shortage in the near future. Hmmm.
Crossed with Brian but I was also going to suggest that the model of integrating tech and academic education in senior school is a desirable one, and in fact there’s research going back to the 70s to suggest that it works best. I’m not sure that the nostalgia for “standalone technical education” has any real basis in good outcomes educationally or vocationally.
“I’m not sure that the nostalgia for “standalone technical educationâ€? has any real basis in good outcomes educationally or vocationally.”
Dunno Mark, some kids are more suited to hands on stuff than a high school can offer, I was one of them in the 70s.
The tech’ school had well equipped woodwork, sheet metal and engineering shops and I learned many skills that still stand me in good stead today.
Learning this stuff through my early teens, rather than later in a fee for service TAFE, allowed me to find my feet and direction without undue pressure.
My prestigious inner-city private boys’ school had vocational education units in hospitality and tourism, technical skills and even some stuff about small business. I think giving high school kids the option to do vocational rather than academic study is a fantastic idea and the kids I went to school with loved having that choice. What I worry about, though, is that we would be driven to an education system where the focus is on marketable skills and “real world” knowledge rather than providing critical thinking skills, fostering an understanding of the world and giving students the tools they need to continue learning (as opposed to being educated institutionally) throughout their lives.
Perhaps a set of technical colleges for school students to attend for an hour or two each day would be in order so as to not put pressure on every school to diversify its offerings when it can’t really afford to do so. Outlay on woodwork and metalwork workshops and gear may not be recouped if the enrolments are lower than expected. Given that the workshop may not be in use during the entire school day, rotating neighbouring schools through, say, a state-owned workshop can help reduce pressure on schools, both financially and in terms of subjects offered. Schools could then opt in and out of the subjects without having to build on site and the gear would be used more efficiently. There may be a problem, though, in working on a project outside of class hours. Perhaps if they’re run by government they could be kept open in the afternoon and on weekends as libraries are.
Bayoneting?
Mark:
As a former soldier, the alarm bells went off as soon as the scheme was announced. My first thought was of the Suvorov Schools in the old Soviet Union [they are still going] where the Soviet equivalent of Legacy kids were trained to become soldiers, airmen, railway workers, intelligence operators, missile technicians, etc., “just like your father who died fighting for the Socialist Motherland”.
On further thought, this scheme looks like something far worse …. but entirely expected in Howard’s Soviet Australia. Only the most stupid and gullible would imagine that entry to, or employment at, these so-called “Australian Defence Technical Colleges” will be open to all comers, regardless of their political affiliation. Selection will be very strict so as to maintain the highest standards …. not of academic excellence but of political reliability!
What is being proposed is NOT a much needed. updated version of the old Army Apprentice School or HMAS Leeuwin but a system of Communist-style Cadre Schools or, if you like, the national political academies of the Nazi regime. It’s an idea that appeals to some rather nasty ex-servicemen whose loyalty is to a political faction and against Australia as a democracy.
It would seem that Mark intended this thread to be less about the relative merits of academic versus technical education and more about further evidence (as if after 11 fascinating years further evidence were needed) of Howard’s cynical, manipulative methods of electioneering.
I suspect that dog-whistlers and wedgers of Howard’s ilk view as embarrassing and inconvenient the ability of citizens to examine the reality behind their abstract tokens of cultural warfare.
Which brings me to a modest and specific question:
Where in the public accounts would one find itemised the sum of money spent since 2005 on provision of Howard’s tradies’ toolkits?
My local member was quoted as saying ” Technical schools produce ghettoes” I suppose if he means McMansions with wanker utes parked outside, then he has a point.
With the demise of the technical schools, kids these days are encouraged to stay at secondary college to do their VCE.
Clearly a lot of them are not up to it,and there are not enough tertiary places for them any way.
They leave aged 18 or 19 with no VCE and no vocational training.How would they know what kind of trade they would like if they have never picked up a tool in anger.
So we have a skills shortage AND unskilled labour!
chrisl, I think Labor’s policy is to enable kids to pick up a tool in anger from Year 9 when they can still have the flexibility of changing direction or emphasis. I think the ideal is as Bernice said already applies in Tasmania - to be able to select from a mix of practical and academic subjects. Schools should prepare for life, not be distorted towards the needs of tertiary education.
Under the Labor vision kids could leave at 18 or 19 with very definite industry skills. This is in fact the case now in Queensland schools.
Sam, attending technical college for an hour or two each day is OK if it can be managed, but would present timetabling problems if applied more than at the margin.
We also need to be mindful that not all high schools will have a technical college anywhere near. There is a Labor policy on encouraging schools to share facilities, which in truth I haven’t had a closer look at yet. This would help smaller schools to provide a decent offering.
On the issue of the dichotomy between marketable skills, real world skills and critical thinking, providing VET education within a school context allows all three to be addressed. Privileging academic or abstract knowledge is very alienating for many. An emphasis on the practical for those so inclined is a better grounding for thinking more generally than forcing them to enter such domains from the abstract end of the spectrum.
Brian, Labor is in CONTROL of education systems in all states. They are idealogically opposed to technical schools, otherwise we would have them now. Any “policy” that federal labour presents,is filtered through the states, the various education departments, teacher unions and other interest groups. Federal governments are just bystanders in education.
Any talk of an education revolution pretty soon gets stifled by bureaucracy and interest groups including teacher unions.
Labor in control in this State is introducing not only VET subjects in high school but also high schools dedicated to different industries, eg aviation, creative, etc. I think the argument made earlier is valid, ie it’s better to do this in hgih school in the context of a broader education (eg maths, science and so on) than a college dedicated cto runing out particular trades. Also gives the kids some flexibility about what they do subsequently, I would imagine.
Schools can only pretend when it comes to technical training, without even considering funding difficulties. First TAFE does not have duty of care and so can offer a different envronment to school. Secondly, TAFE teachers have the advantage of having worked in the fields they have taught, and have some ability to return to the ‘tools’. I doubt a significant number of teachers with in-demand technical skills could be retained in the average school environment.
Chrisl:
Its not just that but the far more serious issue of stifling real talent by forcing outstanding potential tradesmen [and yes, the suffix “-men” DOES include females] to become failed academic students. One size does not fit all.
Mark:
Another problem is the difference between American and Australian military personnel.
America has had long had a tradition of military high school; this should have given them a clear advantage over Australians who, at best, back in the old days had only a couple of hours a week in a not overly serious School Cadets.
Surprisingly, this meant that although the Americans did have a lot of pre-trained soldiers among their recruits, they were trained for previous wars and by the time they were enlisted into the armed services, their minds were already set in concrete and in some ways, they were both unteachable and incapable of adapting to novel situations {Iraq, anyone?]. Australian recruits, despite their multitude of faults and short-comings, may have enlisted with some useful knowledge of military [and naval and air] matters bi\uttheir heads were generally not full bullshit from a bygone era and they were usually [but not always!!!] teachable and they could adapt better to changing situations. I am not disparaging the courage and skill of American service personnel but my lack of enthusiasm these
Political Cadre SchoolsAustralian Defence Political Colleges is not out of peevishness.Mark it’s difficult to know where to begin; ‘once upon a time when ANTA was Santa’; Nelson’s last joke, the ATC; the peak or is that pique body capture of the skills shortage buckets of money etc; the 60 40 completion rule; group tng; educamation policy; DMO Disaters Inc oh and subsidising US mfg dressed up as da fence policy…too much for one post?
Btw 4 corners should get the former air brass out of the cave…fairfax has had some ‘interesting’ articles by them over the last year or so.
As noted above pork spin and …
Finally some conversation on education, at the high school and tafe level. I put a question to the Govt on Technical Colleges at least two QCPCA conferences, conferences which ACSSO* also attends. I have had grave concerns on the funding of public education since the introduction of school based mangement in the early Ninties, the drain of public funds going to private schools, the multi level schooling in the public sector with ‘Schools of Excelence’, ‘ Smart Schools’, ‘Tafes’ and Technical colleges.
Is this a good use of resources for education? Lets make it so the dollar can be pulled in so many different directions there really is nothing left to use for educating the students, employing and retaining teachers. The introduction of Technical Colleges by the Federal Govt. over the state based Tafe system, has to be questioned. I am tired of the repeated comment: ‘It is a state problem’, when the federal govt is willing to continuely over-ride the states on these issues. This shouldn’t be a battle to see who can score Political points, it should be about securing the best education for all Australian Children.
*QCPCA is the Qld Council for Parents and Citizens,
ACSSO is the Australian Council for State Schools Organisation.
I could also make comments on the VET System. I have two boys one currently in University the other at High School wishing to secure an apprenticeship. An important consideration to remember is this new system includes all Qld Schools those in country and remote areas, it is such a hugh debate and one I would like to see discussed more often. There are issues in regards to administration, workloads onto already overstretched teachers and a lack of VET experienced teachers within the school system.
Well Mark, 4C just screened here; where to now? Fitzgibbon or Rudd…hahaha…the allience eh?
In da election campaign…’who do you trust’…
Mark:
This topic will be archived under
Can it be archived under “asshatery” as well?