Paige Porter

Quality policy in Australian higher education of the 1990s: university perspectives

In the last decade ‘quality’ has assumed the status of one of the meta-discourses across many domains of public policy, including education. This paper focuses on the specific example of quality policy in Australian higher education of the 1990s, and in particular, on the micro level of quality policy practice as experienced by academic practitioners in 6 universities. As such, it forms a follow-up to an article published earlier in the Journal of Education Policy (Vidovich and Porter 1997) which examined macro (national) and intermediate (the Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education) levels of a quality policy cycle consisting of contexts of influence, policy text production and practice, as articulated by Ball and colleagues (Bowe, Ball and Gold 1992, Ball 1994). The findings of in-depth interviews with key university personnel provide evidence of the ‘messy’ realities of the policy process and considerable variation in quality policy practices at local sites, particularly in terms of the dif...

Federal/State Mediations in the Australian National Education Agenda: From the AEC to MCEETYA 1987–1993

Drawing on research interviews and relevant document analysis, this paper analyses the changing forms of the national education agenda as it was developed and modifed in the Australian Education Council from 1987 to 1993. Particular attention is given to four significant developments in this period: national curriculum statements and profiles in schooling, and Mayer competencies; the training reform agenda; higher education; and the National Strategy for Equity in Schools. The study is located against general developments in Australian federalism and the changing political complexion of State governments across the period which led to the creation of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.

Models for Fostering Change in Educational Systems: A Comparative Perspective

This paper compares strategies used in the process of planned educational change. Discussion focuses on the post-Sputnik American experience, the approaches used, the failures and the successes. These are related to the Australian experience concentrating on the Schools Commissions Innovations Program, its distinctions, problems and potential. It is argued that for any program in planned educational change to be successful, policy makers must give attention to the reality that both personal needs and organizational requirements equally affect the process and must be catered for. This means that political and structural protection for innovation must be built in advance into any program attempting change in education.