Search

Byline: David T. Gamage (1), Elliot Mininberg (2) Abstract: Higher education is critical to the social andeconomic futures of all nations and it is moreso in the case of developed nations. TheAmerican and Australian systems of highereducation originated on the basis of the17th and 19th Century British models,respectively. Later, the Americans developedtheir own unique system, with the introductionof several innovative features, becoming themost diverse, dynamic and dominant system ofthe modern world. The Australian system, whichdeveloped itself maintaining a closerelationship with the British system until the1980s, has now transformed into a unifiednational system, consisting of multi-campus,larger universities with a big push for theexpansion of the private sector, moving towardsthe American model. However, it is observedthat there are more similarities thandifferences in the problems and issuesconfronted by the two systems. Both nationshave made higher education a means of nationaldevelopment and minimisation of socialinequality. This paper addresses some of thekey issues, such as, higher education costs tostudents, technology and instructionaldelivery, faculty roles and rewards and currenttrends that are likely to dominate thesesystems during the first decade of the21st Century. Author Affiliation: (1) School of Education, University of Newcastle, Australia (2) College of Education, California State University Northridge, USA Article History: Registration Date: 11/10/2004

School-based management (SBM) in Thailand began in 1997 in the course of a reform aimed at overcoming a profound crisis in the education system. The present contribution reports on the introduction and institutionalisation of decentralisation and SBM with community participation in Thailand. The data reported here are based on an empirical survey of 1,000 school-board members from Bangkok as well as provincial and rural areas which was followed by 45 interviews with all relevant stakeholders. The results of the study are promising, as they show broad support for the reform among school principals as well as board members. However, they also reveal a continuing need to train principals and board members in educational leadership and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]