Strengthening Australia's Schools through Corporate Federalism?

Lingard, Bob; O’Brien, Peter C.; Knight, John R.

doi:10.1177/000494419303700302

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different federalisms will continue to operate in each of the sectors of education. As noted earlier, Smart (1991) has spoken of coercive federalism operating in the higher education sector; Lingard (1991) has spoken of corporate federalism operating in the school sector during the period of Labor dominance in the AEC; while Lingard, O'Brien, and Knight (1993) have spoken of a more co-operative federalism operating in the TAFE sector through the workings of ANT A. Across the time focus of this paper, first the AEC and then AEC/MOVEET were important sites at which the different federalisms in each of these sectors were both contested and constituted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This allows the Commonwealth to focus on policy formation, while the States actually have to run the schools. The different federalisms operating in each of the schooling, technical and further education (TAFE) and university sectors, and the related and different Federal-State funding arrangements in each of these sectors (Lingard, O'Brien, & Knight, 1993) should also be noted. Thus, for example, from the Whitlam era the Commonwealth provided almost all of the public funds for universities, but it still only provides about 11% of the funds for public schools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Lingard

Porter

Bartlett

et al. 1995

Australian Journal of Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lingard

Porter

Bartlett

et al. 1995

Australian Journal of Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as was discovered, this push ultimately came from the Australian federal government, which was demanding compliance with new directions in Australian higher education, based on a discourse of free market competition and graduate outcomes directed to economic rather than social goals (Angus, 1984;Corbitt, 1995;Lingard, 1991Lingard, , 1993Lingard, O'Brien, & Knight, 1993).…”

Section: The Selection and Implementation Of An Enterprise-wide Lmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politics, Complexity, and Systems Implementation

Peszynski

Corbitt

2006

Social Science Computer Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article identifies the role of power and politics in systems implementation under a critical epistemology. Research in information systems has typically adopted a positivist or interpretive approach. This article highlights the use of the critical epistemology, providing a case study exploring the power and politics in the systems implementation process. Previous implementation studies that have investigated human and political factors involved in systems implementation have taken a simplistic view of power and politics. A critical, poststructuralist view of power provides a lens for observing the selection and implementation of an enterprise-wide learning management system. Such an approach has important implications for research methods as the critical epistemology needed is challenged by acceptance of bias and the need to expose it as an important factor in explaining success and/or failure in systems implementation. This article illustrates how useful a critical approach is in seeking out the real impact of power and politics in systems implementation and offers an alternative perspective that provides more insight into the observed process.T his article addresses the impact of power, coalitions, conflict, and political ramifications of diverse, interest-driven groups in an organization on the implementation of a complex organization-wide system. The nature of the problem partially determines why a researcher should select a particular methodology and epistemology (Creswell, 1994). There has been a tradition in the information systems discipline that if one selects a quantitative approach for one's research, then one is automatically adopting a positivist approach. Similarly, if one adopts a qualitative approach, then one is adopting an interpretive approach (Chua, 1986). This approach, arguably, is simplistic in nature, and often there are more factors that affect the epistemology the researcher adopts (Klein & Myers, 1999;Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). This article aims to illustrate the usefulness of a critical approach in the information systems discipline and provide a case supporting the use of the critical epistemology in the implementation of a learning management system (LMS) in Newlands University.According to Kincheloe and McLaren (2000), critical researchers are concerned with "issues of power and justice and the ways that the economy, matters of race, class and gender, ideologies, discourses, education and other social institutions, and cultural dynamics interact to construct a social system" (p.

show abstract

“…The Industry Commission's brief differs greatly from previous co-operative activites initiated in the name of accountability by education ministers, such as the national curriculum frameworks (see Lingard, O'Brien, & Knight, 1993), because it aims to produce benchmarks for schools expenditure. Benchmarking is a practice borrowed from the private sector where it refers to a company's examination of the costs, productivity and organisational features of more successful rival companies in order to define principles of best practice which can be used to improve its own performance (Winston, 1994).…”

Section: The Purpose Of Benchmarkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Accountability or Fiscal Control? Benchmarks of Performance in Australian Schooling

Watson

1996

Australian Journal of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he Industry Commission review of service provision in school education aims to define performance benchmarks for Australia's eight government education systems, by providing comparative measures of efficiency in education provision. Such benchmarks are likely to lead to a reduction in the level of public resources for government schools unless it is possible to demonstrate the link between expenditure on schooling and school effectiveness. If efficiency audits like the Industry Commission review are to deal with issues of school effectiveness adequately, they should avoid the tendency of previous public sector audits to focus on financial data on schools expenditure to the exclusion of data on student achievement. This paper suggests an approach to measuring system performance which would establish benchmarks that reflected both the efficiency and effectiveness of Australian school systems, and warns against the misuse of performance indicators as an instrument in the determination of funding levels for schools.

show abstract

Strengthening Australia's Schools through Corporate Federalism?

Cited by 16 publications

References 13 publications

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

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

Politics, Complexity, and Systems Implementation

Public Accountability or Fiscal Control? Benchmarks of Performance in Australian Schooling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About