THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION IN NEW ZEALAND AND THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: A COMPARISON
| Date | 01 January 1976 |
| Pages | 31-42 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009741 |
| Published date | 01 January 1976 |
| Author | PETER DOSSOR |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XIV, No. 1 May, 1976
THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRIMARY AND SECON-
DARY EDUCATION IN NEW ZEALAND AND THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: A COMPARISON
PETER DOSSOR
The Australian Capital Territory has shaken off the bonds of the New South Wales
Department of Education and instituted an Authority responsible directly to the Federal
Government. The new system includes in its design for "a working partnership for local-
central control" school boards. This paper attempts a comparison of that partnership with
that evolved within the New Zealand experience. The A.C.T. Authority as it is presently
constituted exercises control only over government primary and secondary schools. The dis-
cussion is therefore restricted to these fields and ignores preschool and technical education
and independent schools, all of which are expected eventually to be brought within the scope
of the Authority. Six issues are discussed in detail: (I) the general question of centralisa-
tion,
(2) the role of a centralised agency, (3) the role of the community in an education
system, (4) life-long education, (5) the appointment of
staff,
and (6) the control of finance.
INTRODUCTION: THE TWO SOCIETIES
The A.C.T. is an enclave of 910 square miles directly administered by
the Australian Government. Its 120,000 odd electors (of a population of
about 180,000) have been for many years represented by a sole member of
the House of Representatives (though it was divided into two electorates
for the last federal election). The Minister for the Capital Territory is ad-
vised by an elected Legislative Assembly, which has limited powers,
though the minister frequently accepts its recommendations. Canberra's
rapidly growing population is different in composition and structure from
other Australian cities: it is a city of newcomers (more than 75 per cent of
its annual increase from net immigration); it has a higher than usual
proportion of youth (and a lower one of the aged); it is more educationally
conscious; home establishment is a major pre-occupation of its citizens; it
is a white collar city (most of its inhabitants are employed by the Public
Service or in service industries—there is no heavy manufacturing—
building and construction workers are a much higher than usual propor-
tion of the workforce); it is a middle class city (many of its manual
workers prefer to live in the nearby N.S.W. town of Queanbeyan) and has
a higher average family income; the population is unusually mobile and
spends unusually high average amounts.1 Because of the short chain of
command from Parliament to the policy implementing bodies in the
A.C.T. (see Figure 1), new policies are easier to put through than in the
PETER DOSSOR is a New Zealander and a postgraduate student in Education of the
University of New England. He is a teacher with the Commonwealth Teaching Service in
Canberra.
To continue reading
Request your trial