Standardised assessment for VET

What are the benefits of VET students sitting for the same national test, asks John Mitchell. In recent years, some in the VET sector have watched with interest the highly publicised push by the government for national testing in schools. Those same people might have thought that a similar national approach to assessment would never come to VET, given the sector’s use of competency-based training and assessment, ideally provided on the job and customised for each individual learner or employee. Such notions will be challenged by a keynote speaker for the forthcoming Big Skills conference to be conducted in early March in Sydney. The speaker is Kathrin Hoeckel, the lead author of the recent OECD review of VET, Learning for Jobs. Some of Hoeckel’s suggestions about radical reform to training packages were discussed in this column recently (CR, 03.02.08). In the review she and her colleagues noted that assessment guidelines are included in training packages, and competence is assessed by individual teachers “but this is not truly objective”. The report added that a standardised assessment “ensures consistency in the mix of competencies acquired across Australia, and consistency in the level of competencies necessary to pass the test”. Standardised assessment also “provides a clear basis for recognition of prior learning, allows competencies to be acquired in diverse ways, encourages innovation and efficiency in the acquisition process, and guarantees common standards for the type and level of competencies acquired”. When I contacted her in Paris recently, I invited her to elaborate on the points she made about national assessment in the OECD review. She responded that one reason training packages need to be overhauled is the lack of any way of assessing standards nationally. “The purpose of a standardised national assessment is to provide a consistent method to assess the learning outcomes for VET students and ensure that the same mix of competencies has been acquired at the same level in different learning contexts.” She is flexible about how the national assessment is conducted and describes how OECD countries adopt various approaches to achieve consistent national standards. “In order to ensure that the same standards are used everywhere, other countries employ various methods including periodic inspections of VET institutions, inspection of examination bodies, random evaluation of student performance, self-evaluation of providers and peer reviews.” Hoeckel says an extreme possibility for Australia “would be a centrally established test taken by all students on the same day in similar conditions”. “More plausibly, there might be examinations developed locally but subject to clear national guidelines,” she says. National assessment provides a range of advantages. “It improves student performance and the signalling value of the qualification to employers; it is more cost-effective than local examinations; and it can facilitate recognition of informal and non-formal learning.” In the Australian case, Hoeckel says national assessment would allow for greater flexibility, say, in the length of apprenticeships “since the duration of the apprenticeship would depend on achieving the required level of competence as defined in the assessment procedure, as opposed to serving time – another recommendation we made in Australia”. Overseas exemplars Hoeckel points out that many other countries use national assessment that are linked to simpler standards for their VET programs than Australia’s “cumbersome” training packages. “Both the US and the UK use much simpler skills standards for their VET programs. The UK has developed national vocational qualifications based on national standards. They are not only more accessible than the Australian training packages but are also linked to a system of assessment. “In Switzerland education plans are used to structure vocational education and training courses and guide VET teachers and trainers in their work. They define the technical and also social and personal competencies a student must acquire, and the content of education.” Importantly, says Hoeckel, the plans “also specify the respective roles of school, workplace and industry courses in providing these competencies, and define the process of how qualifications have to be assessed”. “In Switzerland, VET students, teachers in VET schools and trainers in firms are all well aware of and actually use these ordinances and education plans. These documents have the essential function of ensuring that what students learn in schools and at the workplace is coordinated, and they provide guidelines to teaching personnel and students about key competencies that must be acquired during a certain training period.” Overall, Hoeckel recommends that “drastically simplified” training packages be combined with a national assessment procedure “to ensure maximum quality in the Australian VET system”. Perhaps national testing is coming to VET. See www.deewr.gov.au/skillsconference2009 andwww.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/11/41631383.pdf Dr John Mitchell is a VET strategist. Contact johnm@jma.com.au and seewww.jma.com.au