设想澳大利亚联邦的“国家”资助:《冈斯基评论》和《学校资源标准》

IF 0.6 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Elisa Di Gregorio
{"title":"设想澳大利亚联邦的“国家”资助:《冈斯基评论》和《学校资源标准》","authors":"Elisa Di Gregorio","doi":"10.14507/epaa.31.6896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper takes the landmark review into the federal funding of schools in Australia, known as the Gonski Review (2011), as an illustrative case to demonstrate the scalar practices involved in policy production and enactment. Its primary argument is that, while its core recommendation was a needs-based funding model for the federal government funding of schools, the Gonski Review also articulates an aspiration for the translation of this funding model into a comprehensively national approach. This is done, I argue, through important practices of scalar imagining and reasoning (Papanastasiou, 2017b). However, these national aspirations sit uneasily with the realities of schooling and school funding in the Australian federation, which includes constitutional arrangements, legislation, and policy principles that distribute responsibility for funding across multiple spaces of governance. Drawing on documentary evidence, I argue that scalar tensions are produced between these national aspirations and the realpolitik of Australian federalism. By challenging “the national” as a coherent and predetermined “scale,” these findings reinforce the importance of attending to the mediating forces of subnational governments, as well as global policy influences, when thinking about policy mobilities in federations.","PeriodicalId":11429,"journal":{"name":"Education Policy Analysis Archives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imagining “national” funding in the Australian federation: The Gonski Review and the Schooling Resource Standard\",\"authors\":\"Elisa Di Gregorio\",\"doi\":\"10.14507/epaa.31.6896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper takes the landmark review into the federal funding of schools in Australia, known as the Gonski Review (2011), as an illustrative case to demonstrate the scalar practices involved in policy production and enactment. Its primary argument is that, while its core recommendation was a needs-based funding model for the federal government funding of schools, the Gonski Review also articulates an aspiration for the translation of this funding model into a comprehensively national approach. This is done, I argue, through important practices of scalar imagining and reasoning (Papanastasiou, 2017b). However, these national aspirations sit uneasily with the realities of schooling and school funding in the Australian federation, which includes constitutional arrangements, legislation, and policy principles that distribute responsibility for funding across multiple spaces of governance. Drawing on documentary evidence, I argue that scalar tensions are produced between these national aspirations and the realpolitik of Australian federalism. By challenging “the national” as a coherent and predetermined “scale,” these findings reinforce the importance of attending to the mediating forces of subnational governments, as well as global policy influences, when thinking about policy mobilities in federations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education Policy Analysis Archives\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education Policy Analysis Archives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.6896\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Policy Analysis Archives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.6896","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以澳大利亚联邦学校资助的里程碑式审查,即Gonski审查(2011)为例,展示了政策制定和制定中涉及的标量实践。其主要论点是,虽然其核心建议是联邦政府为学校提供基于需求的资助模式,但《冈斯基评论》也表达了将这种资助模式转化为全面的国家方法的愿望。我认为,这是通过标量想象和推理的重要实践来实现的(Papanastasiou,2017b)。然而,这些国家愿望与澳大利亚联邦的学校教育和学校资助现实不符,澳大利亚联邦包括宪法安排、立法和政策原则,在多个治理空间分配资助责任。根据文献证据,我认为这些国家愿望和澳大利亚联邦制的现实政治之间产生了标量紧张关系。通过挑战“国家”作为一个连贯和预先确定的“尺度”,这些发现强化了在考虑联合会中的政策调动时,关注国家以下各级政府的调解力量以及全球政策影响的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Imagining “national” funding in the Australian federation: The Gonski Review and the Schooling Resource Standard
This paper takes the landmark review into the federal funding of schools in Australia, known as the Gonski Review (2011), as an illustrative case to demonstrate the scalar practices involved in policy production and enactment. Its primary argument is that, while its core recommendation was a needs-based funding model for the federal government funding of schools, the Gonski Review also articulates an aspiration for the translation of this funding model into a comprehensively national approach. This is done, I argue, through important practices of scalar imagining and reasoning (Papanastasiou, 2017b). However, these national aspirations sit uneasily with the realities of schooling and school funding in the Australian federation, which includes constitutional arrangements, legislation, and policy principles that distribute responsibility for funding across multiple spaces of governance. Drawing on documentary evidence, I argue that scalar tensions are produced between these national aspirations and the realpolitik of Australian federalism. By challenging “the national” as a coherent and predetermined “scale,” these findings reinforce the importance of attending to the mediating forces of subnational governments, as well as global policy influences, when thinking about policy mobilities in federations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Education Policy Analysis Archives
Education Policy Analysis Archives Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
164
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas/Arquivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas (EPAA/AAPE) is a peer-reviewed, open-access, international, multilingual, and multidisciplinary journal designed for researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and development analysts concerned with education policies. EPAA/AAPE accepts unpublished original manuscripts in English, Spanish and Portuguese without restriction as to conceptual and methodological perspectives, time or place. Accordingly, EPAA/AAPE does not have a pre-determined number of articles to be rejected and/or published. Rather, the editorial team believes that the quality of the journal should be assessed based on the articles that we publish and not the percentage of articles that we reject. For EPAA “inclusiveness” is a key criteria of manuscript quality. EPAA/AAPE publishes articles and special issues at roughly weekly intervals, all of which pertain to educational policy, with direct implications for educational policy. Priority is given to empirical articles. The Editorial Board may also consider other forms of educational policy-relevant articles such as: -methodological or theoretical articles -commentaries -systematic literature reviews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信