Melbourne Graduate School of Education - Theses

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Australian Education Council deliberations on education and technology
    Redman, Keith ( 1989)
    In November 1983 the Australian Education Council (AEC) established the Task Force on Education and Technology to develop options for a strategy of related policy and program initiatives. The study covered AEC interest in the relationship between technology and education, the establishment and operations of the Task Force, the preparation and presentation of its final report, and the AEC's replacement of the Task Force in June 1986 with an Executive Working Group. Research centred on the process followed by the Task Force, and the extent to which the Task Force report could be considered a 'good' policy document. Consideration was also given to the importance of the chairmanship of the Task Force, and the adequacy of resources to fulfil the terms of reference set by the AEC. The policy development process was traced through AEC documentation which included minutes of meetings, correspondence, reports, and discussion papers. For analysis, a conceptual framework was provided by Caldwell and Spinks' models for the policy making process and for policy statements. Corroborative material was drawn from comments by the Chairman of the Task Force, the Hon L M F Arnold. Findings included a failure by the Task Force adequately to specify its definition of 'technology' or to limit to a manageable scale the scope of its deliberations. The chairmanship of the Task Force by Mr Arnold was seen to be significant in terms of the importance of having a Minister chairing a working group, with the potential for leverage to take place, but questions regarding the quality of the chairmanship were raised in light of the problems experienced by the Task Force in defining terms and parameters, and in producing an appropriate policy statement which would take due account of AEC attitudes to projects requiring funding. While the process followed by the Task Force could be matched to Caldwell's model for policy development, and the Task Force was well aware of 'the need for a structured approach, meetings were dominated by discussion of procedural matters rather than content, leading to frustration on . the part of some members and resulting in a relative lack of direction in the development of report content. Geographical remoteness of members, and, the, need to balance Task Force demands against continuing normal workloads, were seen as factors impeding high levels of involvement and participation in the preparation of the policy statement. It was suggested that unrealistically broad terms of reference had been set, without the AEC being,either willing or able to provide the resources necessary to fulfil them, and that Task Force members' perceptions of being inadequately resourced affected the performance of their duties. The final report to the AEC was criticised by educators and educational adminstrators particularly on grounds of excessive generality in its recommendations, and of having taken inadequate note of activity already occurring around Australia. In all categories offered by Caldwell as criteria for a good policy statement, the. report received adverse criticism. It was suggested that the Task Force failed to fulfil its terms of reference, both by offering a series of discrete recommendations in specific areas, rather than a range of options, and by failing to supply details of anticipated cost. The report's major practical recommendations were not implemented.