Search

Debate on teacher quality and quality in teaching and teacher education has been as vigorous in Australia as it has been in the UK and the USA In Australia, however, reform in teacher education has been subsumed within a national metapolicy of corporate federalism which is an amalgam of beliefs or discourses including neo-corporatism, economic rationalism, corporate managerialism and human capital The paper analyses the most recent document on reform of teacher education in Australia (the Ebbeck Report) and shows how its policy formulation is influenced by the discourse of corporate federalism It also shows how micro-economic reform in this sector is related to reforms in other sectors of education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National curriculum development in Australia has been characterised in a number of ways. In the 1970s words such as 'core', 'common' and 'progressive' were used to describe curriculum and these terms undoubtedly reflected the social idealism and cultural emphasis in curriculum at that time. In recent times a whole new state of descriptors has emerged. These include: 'common,' 'essential', 'assured,' 'guaranteed,' 'entitlement,' 'agreed,' 'compatible,' 'promulgated,' 'streamlined,' 'corporate' and 'instrumental'. All these words reflect the layered warnings and patterns of beliefs broadly defined as ideology within which the idea of curriculum development has been defined currently.

The article discusses a broad examination of developments in Australia's teacher education policies in the postwar period and the political economy in which they were situated, with particular attention to the last decade when Labor governments have been in power. Shift from a policy conception in teacher preparations from professional education to competent practice has taken place. The past decade has seen very significant policy changes in teacher education in first world countries as diverse as Britain, the U.S. Underlying this shift has been an instrumental approach to education and teacher education in which they are seen by the state, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and business interests as key elements of a broader program for microeconomic reform, human capital, and the economic restructuring of the nation. A number of features contributed to a shift towards a more professional preparation of teachers during the 1960s and 1970s. They included continuing public and political pressure from teacher unions to raise teaching to a more professional status and a growing social and political acceptance of the necessity of an adequate process of teacher education. The increasing involving of Federal governments in educational issues, including higher education, during this period, was also very important.