The Learning Outcomes revolution has swept the globe. Heralded as the means to raise vocational education and training standards, and establish equivalence with academic qualifications, the outcomes assessment model has been at the vanguard of VET reform. These bold claims derive from the particular characteristics of outcomes design: atomised performance statements, the aggregate credit system, and exhaustive sampling. The architects of the Outcomes movement claim that these characteristics provide the transparency, flexibility and learner motivation that classical assessment design apparently lacks. Yet the Outcomes template has attracted a great deal of criticism, particularly from academic quarters. Critics find that outcome-based assessment fails to account for holistic curricular knowledge, and is therefore not fit for purpose. This article provides evidence that supports these findings. Investigating how outcomes qualifications operate in their environment, this study finds that the outcomes model interacts with accountability pressures to produce deleterious effects. Drawn from data derived from a literacy embedding study, the paper uses the concept of subject procedural knowledge to explore how teachers of outcome-based qualifications interpret their subject knowledge. It is argued that the model produces a compositional fallacy, and a tail-wags-dog culture whereby assessment consumes curricula and pedagogy, thus undermining educational quality. © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Author Keywords
Index Keywords
