A statement on higher education policy in Australia

The Australian Universities' review, 2007

The Commonwealth Government's Learning and Teaching Performance Fund (LTPF) is not about improving the quality of teaching and learning in Australian universities, it is about creating winners and losers in the higher education market. This article critiques the LTPF on two levels. First, it argues that it is conceptually and methodologically flawed and cannot succeed in its own terms. The measures used are not valid or reliable. Second, the paper argues that the primary purpose of the LTPF is to further differentiate the higher education market through the creation of winners and losers, generate market information for consumers, contribute to the culture of audit and accountability within universities, and foster market subjectivities in which academics feel the need to 'add value' to themselves (Ball 2003: 217). The measures used by the LTPF and the processes used to implement them are suited for these purposes. The first section of the paper outlines the aims of the LTPF, and the way in which it is implemented. The next section explains why it is conceptually and methodologically flawed in its own terms. The third section situates the LTPF as part of broader processes of neo-liberal reform. The putative aims of the LTPF The Learning and Teaching Performance Fund was announced in 2003 as part of then Commonwealth Education Minister Brendan Nelson's suite of 'Backing Australia's Future' reforms. The putative purpose of the Fund was 'to reward those institutions that best demonstrate excellence in learning and teaching' (Nelson 2003: 29

In recent years, private tuition has emerged as a major force as results of both demand and market mechanisms. In terms of its nature, extent, and importance, it is in fact, comparable to the formal system. It is like a shadow of the formal system (Bray, 1999). I believe private tuition, which is running parallel to the main education system undoubtedly is playing an important yet unnoticed role, thus impacting the education market immensely. The essence of private tuition(PT) lies in helping a child who is lagging behind in the class by providing support in terms of more attention and additional hours. However, teachers are using it as an additional source of income even if it violates the rule of RTE. Drawing from a nationally representative data of ASER 2007 in addition to a qualitative field-based study in Bangalore, I have attempted to document the possible effects of private tuitions in High literacy and Low literacy states. Private tuitions in Low literacy states have a greater significant positive impact on learning outcomes of a child than in High literacy states. This study aims to propose a policy framework which will enable all the students who are lagging behind irrespective of their socio- economic status to access additional quality support. The paper also suggests a way to recruit more trained teachers in the education system in order to enhance students’ learning outcomes.

American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 2013

The Private and the Public in Education Can we address the changing roles of our educational systems in society? By Joseph Galasso Once, when the sun was unassuming, the sky was silent, and only birds flew high, the air was of a slightly different shade of blue. Down on earth was found a breed of men who openly spoke about being their brothers' keepers. Such are the thoughts that come to us as we wander around our current political landscape: "There once was a time when long-term 'public' investment was held in high esteem as a means of maintaining the future of 'private' democratic values." This is the kind of language used today by writers like Louis Menand. For Menand, the landscape was populated by righteous men, private-sector types who answered a call to public service-for instance, liberal-minded Republican men of the Nelson Rockefeller type. Then a catastrophic event took place. Ronald Reagan's presidency was a meteorite that wiped out an entire breed. For Reagan, public denoted government, and government was to be dismantled at all costs. Before Reagan, an even leveling of economic growth secured the middle-class family for generations. The final demise of this prosperity is the legacy of George W. Bush.

1993

The issue concerning who should pay the costs for Higher Education (HE) is a continuing global debate. Unsurprisingly, the increasing demand for HE has also raised its costs; this raises questions of efficiency and equity, in particular addressing credit market failures and debt aversion (Lockheed & Hanushek, 1990). In fact, a large factor influencing this concerns the returns to education and who benefits from it. For example, consumers who are unsatisfied by the private market benefits of education, will be less likely to uptake the cost of it (McMahon, 2004). However, problems such as risk and uncertainty associated with borrowing money for HE will increase if the government does not intervene (McMahon, 2004). Therefore, there is no simple and straightforward answer to the question of who should pay for HE; it can either be entirely the state, the consumer or a combination of both which is known as cost-share (Biffl & Isaac, 2002; Johnstone, 2003; Goodman & Kaplan, 2003). Hence, the aim of this paper is to provide an insight to the much-debated issue at hand, by justifying the arguments presented using a case study.