Accreditation of Australian urban planners: building knowledge and competence

Abstract

There is an ongoing need to assess the relevance of current models of planning education. In light of changes to the accreditation of planners in Australia made in 2010, this paper critically examines whether the modifications are more suited to developing professional competence in graduates. We present a framework for critical appraisal of accredited professional degrees. This framework is based on theory that asserts the need for professionals to have both declarative (knowledge) and functional (competency) skills. Planning education accreditation standards for Australia, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom are analysed and compared against this framework. Our findings indicate significant differences between the accreditation documents in the three countries. Additionally, our results indicate that the changes made to the Australian accreditation standards in 2010 have significantly improved its ability to guide the professional education of planners. We identify that further research is needed to measure the actual competence of graduates to determine appropriate standards and to verify existing competence.

Is climate change in the curriculum? An analysis of Australian urban planning degrees

“…In Australia, the setting for this study, a longstanding assumption of urban planning is that ongoing facilitation of development and change is a driver of economic prosperity (March 2015). This in turn is generally understood to be a process by which other social, environmental and cultural goals can be achieved via regulation of change, even while the failings of this form of neoliberalism for sustainability are clear (Buxton, Goodman, Moloney, 2016).…”

De-Colonising Planning Education? Exploring the Geographies of Urban Planning Education Networks

“…The implications for equality are ambiguous: On the one hand, international accreditation systems have been critiqued for operating as gate keepers that are not sufficiently contextualised and tend to replicate Western ideas of planning, which, moreover, risk duplicating or side-lining existing national accreditation processes. On the other hand, contextualised accreditation has been lauded for providing quality assurance and accountability, for facilitating access to government funding and resources and for enabling knowledge exchange and collaborations within networks of professional planners and schools (March, Hurlimann, & Robins, 2013;UN-Habitat, 2009). However, there is a delicate balance to achieve, as national accreditation bodies are also feared to control and limit explorations and creativity in planning education, while lack of international accreditation might leave schools unable to demonstrate their quality and transferability of degrees (Levy et al, 2011).…”