The problem, as he sees it, is that the data we are collecting is not good enough. It needs to be \u2018comprehensive and coherent\u2019, he suggests.<\/p>\n

He thinks:<\/p>\n

\u201cwe need to (1) append a flag to the relevant courses and (2) identify an apprenticeship or traineeship as a possible outcome in the annual student destination survey. In the absence of the data it is not possible to evaluate its effectiveness and there is every chance that governments are not getting value for money from these programs. Just because the idea of a pre-apprenticeship or pre-traineeship sounds good does not mean that it is good.\u201d<\/p>\n

We also need to be clearer about the purposes of such programs. And here, I think, he has hit the nail on the head. One of the issues is, however, that we are trying to be very clear about outcomes of programs when these are often not that clear. Nor are we necessarily gathering all the information we need. This means we can be undeservedly \u2018dudding\u2019 these lower level programs because we are not clear on their purposes and not measuring their outcomes fairly. Rather than being truly pre-vocational as Tom is describing them they are actually \u2018pre\u2019 pre-vocational or enabling programs which are giving students in them, hopefully, the tools they need to succeed down the track. It gets back to quality of the programs, and the immediacy of their relevance to a vocation.<\/p>\n

His conclusion is a fair one I think. Tom argues that:<\/p>\n

\u201cwe have a choice. On one hand we could get serious about training designed to get people apprenticeships or traineeship, put a proper effort into designing its structure and content, and ensure that it is properly included in the national VET statistical systems. On the other hand, we could forget about pre-apprenticeships and pre-traineeships, despite their political attraction, and worry about the role and design of lower level vocational training as a whole.\u201d<\/p>\n