Future SACE, New SACE, SACE

Flexibilities of the SACE part 3

The Future SACE, The New SACE, and the SACE

What the Panel (of the Crafter Enquiry) realized was that effective answers to the problems had to emerge from stakeholders (not least, students) in South Australia if they were to work for South Australia.(Figis 2005)

The Ministerial Review into Senior Secondary Education (Crafter 2004) was commissioned to address the widening gap within the students who successfully completed SACE and those who dropped out before completion.  Despite the original intention of a certificate within the reach of all – the perception remained that SACE was for those students going onto university and these perceptions skewed how schools delivered the SACE and how young people regarded it.  One of the clear recommendations of the inquiry was the framing of a “learning space” which would increase the sources from which students could have their achievements recognised within the SACE.  This included more formal recognition of VET as a recognised pathway into achieving SACE as part of the “learning space.” Central to the report was the idea that students would have their learning tested within a framework of “richly described capabilities”. which would make clear the knowledge and skills and dispositions that a SACE graduate possessed and would prepare them for the next steps in negotiating, learning, work and community life.   The SACE remained single certificates for all students regardless of their pathways or post school intentions.  While the first iteration of SACE was to be “within the reach of all” the Publication of the Crafter report proudly claimed, “Success for All”.

After the report came the implementation phase to consider the logistics, what stakeholders could accept and how the recommendations of the Crafter report could be implemented.  A flurry of work went on under the Label, New SACE, changed then to Future SACE and back to the SACE. Underpinning this, so not to scare the critics, was the slogan “This is not revolution.”  The primacy of the subject disciplines., challenged in the review, was reasserted in the implementation.    The idea of time and space to plan and to experiment within “the learning space” which was to open up the learning was prescribed and into two subjects “personal learning plan “and “research project” the value both brought down by declaring that they would only count as semester (10 unit) subjects.

The idea of evolution not revolution meant that the SACE was tinkered with rather than reinvented. On the plus side the concept of a single certificate as an entitlement for all, no matter what their post school pathways was reaffirmed.  The ability for schools and teachers and students to negotiate aspects of their learning remained.  The introduction of the new SACE increased the ability for students to count substantial VET accreditation towards their SACE.   Australian Studies was dropped as a requirement of study and replaced by the Personal Learning Plan (PLP) which allowed some negotiation of individual path through SACE before commencing studies at Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the SACE. The other compulsory subject the “Research Project” allowed students to negotiate an area of interest and “follow a passion”, was severely constrained in that it was only counted as a semester subject, and research was prioritised over action.. Accountability was preserved through the introduction of performance standards and the requirement that all Stage 2 subjects were to have an externally marked component which would count for 30% of the total mark, which gave some idea of parity with subjects that had external exams.

The lost opportunities were that the richly described capabilities were lost in the definition of SACE being a certain number of SACE “points “and “Compulsories”, (completion of at least one semester of Stage 1 English, Maths and 3 full year subjects at Stage 2). The “learning Space “idea disappeared with the exception of VET and learning in the community remained downgraded to a Stage 1 fill in rather than a robust attempt to understand the complexity of learning that could have been recognised and tested against the capabilities. The Capabilities became a cut and paste exercise that were repeated in the text of every subject outline and seldom referred to in the learning outcomes and were not reported on.

From the beginning the new directions, modest as they were, attracted criticism 2012 was the first year that students in year 12 participated  the new design and mounting criticism from different lobby groups, from subject disciplines, school lobbies and those who felt thy had lost out meant that the new design for SACE was reviewed before it had chance to settle. A review of Stage 2 of the SACE followed a few years later with a review of Stage 2 of the SACE that centred mainly of the desirability of the Research Project and the effect of the Research Project and other requirements on student selection.  A little more tinkering around the edge but little practical change to address the inequities of the SACE with many groups just reiterating the criticism they made in 2012.