If the program was failing, if it was indeed a waste of money, then the decision would have settled in the budgetary dust.

Instead, principals and their teachers, students and their parents, past students, industry stakeholders, unions and the pathway planners are booing in a collective outcry.

Quite apart from these retention statistics, the protest Facebook page Keep Pathway Planning reveals the anguish that the very people impacted by this decision are feeling.

I quote:

"They do more than give career advice . . . they are like a friend that students can relate to and feel comfortable with," wrote one student.

"They help us see a brighter future and help us avoid the stress and anxiety that students feel when making big changes," wrote another.

And, "Teachers try their best to give advice and suggestions too but the one-on-one talk with (our Pathway Planner) helped me immensely. Transition to college can be a daunting experience and without a PP many students would not start college confidently."

This is not the first time someone within the education department has tried to scrap the program.

It happened under a previous government, where David Bartlett said that career planning worked best when it was integrated into the curriculum (sound familiar?)

Now under this new government, the program is being scrapped again, under the direction of the same personnel within the education department who perhaps wanted it gone last time.

At Budget Estimates last week Education Minister Jeremy Rockliff could not provide satisfactory answers to questions about what next year's grade 10 leavers will do without Pathway Planners.

In fact it was not entirely clear whether he knew how its replacement My Education, to be rolled out completely by 2017, would work.

"My Education will be embedded into the curriculum, from kindergarten to year 12," Mr Rockliff said

Yes, Mr Rockliff, but how will this particular grade 10 group benefit from the ambiguous My Education model, that no one seems to understand, which is to be hastily rolled out by teachers next year?

I wondered if Mr Rockliff was listening to the public outcry, or if it was sinking in.

But I doubted it.

The Hodgman government's plan for education was obviously made some time ago.

Although it hasn't said directly that the privately-run Beacon Foundation programs will replace Guaranteeing Futures, nor that My Education is linked to Beacon, the two seem to have quite similar aims.

Beacon will receive $665,000 from the government over the next four years - which will be matched by Beacon - to extend its operation to an additional 12 schools on top of its current existence in 15.

Beacon will thus be in 27 out of Tasmania's 28 Tasmanian secondary schools.

It seeks to promote relationships between schools, businesses and the local community, and make networks with industry.

Some of its initiatives include: future pledges, mock interviews, grade 9 try-a-trades, pathway planning one-to-one support, college orientation, work placements, and work inspirations projects that see students visit hospitals or councils to learn about institutional roles and procedures.

But neither the Beacon model, nor My Education, offers a dedicated person providing career support and guidance to students in grade 10.

No doubt current Beacon schools will also be lamenting the Pathway Planner loss.