SACE Review – IEU Members Repeat 2012 Review Concerns
The IEU was asked to make a submission to the recent review of SACE Stage 2, instigated by the new Liberal government. We had made a submission the a 2012 review of the “new” SACE and sadly those concerns remain 6 years later.
The 2018 Stage 2 Review focussed of three main areas
- The number of Stage 2 subjects
- The Research Project and
- The role of VET and entrepreneurial opportunities
The IEU conducted an online survey over the term 2 break directed at secondary school teaching members with 150 responses coming, predicably, mostly from members with experience of teaching the SACE. Those responses came from a representative sample of at least 47 schools. No questions in our survey were compulsory with 22 of 150 choosing to not identify themselves or their schools. No face to face meeting was held due to timing of this review. The rich data offered via comments reflected a considered and articulate approach by the respondents. We thank members who took the time and effort to contribute. Member verbatim feedback formed the backbone of the union submission.
In brief members said in response to the following questions
Do you believe the current Stage 2 requirement of 60 stage 2 credits plus the research project is appropriate?
75% of responses were a “No”
Do you believe the SATAC and ATAR influence student subject choice?
98% of responses were a “Yes”
Do you believe the Research Project is useful in its present form?
67% of responses were a “No”
Do you believe that VET pathways and entrepreneurial activities are appropriately catered for currently?
69% of responses were a “Yes”
Do you have any other comments to make?
42% chose to offer further comment.
There was a great deal of overlap of responses between the various questions. The issues of Research Project, subject choice, ATAR and inclusivity permeated members’ experience with SACE and their response to it. These issues cropped up repeatedly in response to each separate question as they are all a part of the package called SACE.
It would appear that SACE is serving too many masters and may not be best serving any in the attempt to be all things to all people. University entrance and the ATAR are seen as distorting the breadth and generality of student subject choices. The tail is shaking to dog to a certain extent in the interests of maintaining the SACE’s social monopoly.
Ideally one should look at the general principles of the SACE in terms of a general social education and it may be necessary to differentiate pathways either within or outside of SACE. If university requirements impact negatively on the SACE, then the universities should work on alternative ways of selecting students for particular courses.
The flexibility of the SACE was recognised, but there was a strong call to revert to elements of the previous systems with more emphasis on examinations and an increase in the number and rigour of stage 2 subjects.
The Research Project received much attention with significant support for the value of offering it, but even stronger support was obtained for making it optional in stage 1.
Entrepreneurial scope was addressed but responses concentrated on refining the current general structure. Scope for an entrepreneurial approach was recognised, particularly in VET and the Research Project, but there was little appetite for going down this path whilst more fundamental issues need to be addressed.
Read the full report and members comments here
