1 / 10

BRONWYN HINZ University of Melbourne & Columbia University Teachers College (Visiting Fellow)

Converging paths? A comparative examination of American, Canadian and Australian school funding and policymaking arrangements. BRONWYN HINZ University of Melbourne & Columbia University Teachers College (Visiting Fellow) www.bronwynhinz.com

ikia
Télécharger la présentation

BRONWYN HINZ University of Melbourne & Columbia University Teachers College (Visiting Fellow)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Converging paths? A comparative examination of American, Canadian and Australian school funding and policymaking arrangements. BRONWYN HINZ University of Melbourne & Columbia University Teachers College (Visiting Fellow) www.bronwynhinz.com Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 28 November – 2 December, 2010.

  2. Has federalism shaped school funding settlements?… If so, how? Findings and preliminary analysis of comparative research

  3. In the beginning(before large, systematic federal involvement in school funding and policy-making) • Constitutionally a state responsibility, but.. • Australia: schools run and funded by state governments. Relatively equitable. • US: a local affair, minimal state government involvement. Relatively inequitable.

  4. Federal government entry

  5. Evolution: convergence and complexity • More complex tied grants to pursue broader (federal government) policies • Accountability measures • Competition to drive innovation and improvement • Limited and mixed effectiveness • Australia: shift in power downwards • United States: shift in power upwards

  6. Making sense of dynamic intergovernmental settlements In both Australia and the US, school funding settlements are a product of their broader political context, and the constellation of actors, ideas and opportunities. Federalism was the framework in which these actors operated and pursued their agendas. Its structures and instruments channelled and shaped political behaviour, but did not trigger or determine policy shifts.

  7. Federalism = dynamic institutions, processes and intergovernmental relations. These are embedded in society, and interact with society. Operation changes over time and under different constellations of political power, ideas and opportunities.

  8. Canada: Similar constitution, different story.(No federal government involvement in schooling.)

  9. School funding comparisons • Australian and US data is from 2006-07 and in Australian dollars. • Canadian expenditure is in 2005-06 and in Canadian dollars. • Data comes from national (independent) statistics bureaus in each country. • These years were chosen because they were most comparable in their compilation and statistical processing.

  10. Converging paths? A comparative examination of American, Canadian and Australian school funding and policymaking arrangements. BRONWYN HINZ University of Melbourne & Columbia University Teachers College (Visiting Fellow) www.bronwynhinz.com Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 28 November – 2 December, 2010.

More Related