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

Abstract

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.

Educational policy making in a postmodern state on Stephen J. Ball’s education reform: A critical and post-structural approachi

“…At the national level in education, the process of ministerialisation of policy making has seen a considerably augmented policy function for the Australian Education Council (AEC), the inter-governmental council in education consisting of State, Territory and Federal Education Ministers, and subsequently for its replacement, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (Lingard, Porter, Bartlett & Knight 1995). The process of supra-ministerialisation, that is, the strengthened policy hand across government of Premiers and the Prime Minister, has also witnessed the enlarged educational policy interest of Premiers' conferences and in particular, the Council of Australian Government (COAG).…”

Federalism in schooling since the Karmel Report (1973),Schools in Australia: From modernist hope to postmodernist performativity

“…Expenditure on schooling constitutes about one quarter or more of the expenditure of State governments. In research I have done with colleagues on federalism and education, specifically on the intergovernmental council in education---the AEC and subsequently MCEETYAmwe found, and perhaps not surprisingly, that schooling, along with hospitals and police, appeared to be central to the states' self-definitions, and policy domains which they wished to jealously protect (Bartlett, Knight, Lingard & Porter 1994, Lingard, Porter, Bartlett & Knight 1995, Lingard & Porter 1997, Knight & Lingard 1997. However, in the post-Keynesian period of leaner and meaner policy approaches the States also found themselves more dependant upon federal financial support and open to a range of national policy approaches in schooling for cost-efficiency reasons.…”

“…National policies in schooling proliferated during the Dawkins period (1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991) as federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Lingard, Porter, Bartlett & Knight 1995). Such policies were framed by a vastly different political context from that of the 1973 Karmel Report, notably, one of globalisation and related meta-policy status granted to economic restructuring and internationalisation of the Australian economy and labour force, within a post-Keynesian framework and global dominance of market liberal ideology.…”

The ‘performative’ state and the state of educational research

“…Labor pursued a national policy agenda in schooling (Lingard, Porter, Bartlett & Knight 1995, Lingard & Porter 1997. When the States and Territories attempted to take back control of this agenda, Labor continued its pursuit through other means, including a well funded National Professional Development Program (NPDP) which supported teacher professional associations to engage with the national agenda.…”