This chapter considers the contemporary outcomes-related curriculum model utilised in vocational education internationally, in terms of current understanding and research (e.g. Wheelahan, International Journal of Training Research, 14(3), 180–196, 2016; Bathmaker, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 65(1), 87–107, 2013, Ecclestone, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(2), 91–113, 2011), but also draws on seminal works such as, for example, those by Dewey (Democracy and education. Free Press, 1916) and Stenhouse (An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann, 1975). In doing so, it addresses arguments about valuable knowledge, as well as critiques around ‘busy work’ in relation to the level 1 curriculum.
The new curriculum model responds to Bloomer’s (Education for studentship. In J. Avis et al. (Eds.), Knowledge and nationhood education, politics and work. Cassell, 1996; Curriculum making in post-16 education the social conditions of studentship. Routledge, 1997) critiques of the broader post-16 curriculum. Whilst made a generation ago, they remain relevant to the largely unchanged curriculum model used in the UK and Guernsey post-16, and indeed, to more global concerns about provision for low-attaining youth. Further, the extensive study which provided the empirical basis for these critiques remains the only work to have explored such issues in significant depth. We consider his critiques of a dependency culture in the light of more recent work on the therapisation of education (e.g. Ecclestone and Hayes, The dangerous rise of therapeutic education (2nd ed.). Routledge, 2019) and argue that whilst the traditional curriculum engenders dependency in ways which are contrary to social justice (Ecclestone, British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(2), 112–137, 2004, Atkins, Invisible students, impossible dreams: Experiencing vocational education 14-19. Trentham Books, 2009), the model developed in Guernsey goes some way to addressing these concerns.