Search

This paper explores recent changes in tertiary education policy in New Zealand, which are designed to address legitimation deficits. By offering an analysis of the making, and the subsequent unmaking, of quasi-markets in tertiary education, this paper attempts to describe how the state dealt with legitimation deficits resulting from providers' of tertiary education use of the adult and community education funding category to increase their revenues. In providing this description, the paper helps to provide a way of understanding how the state in New Zealand has responded to legitimation deficits by introducing a new regime of governance. The paper concludes by arguing that, in terms of its treatment of category 5.1 funding, this regime is supportive of neo-conservative goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the relationship between the Conservative 'educational reforms' in the 1980s, which purported to give parents more democratic rights as consumers and participants in education, and changes in family life in Britain. It focuses on those demographic, familial changes, in particular in gender relationships, towards mothers having more public and private responsibilities for children and their education. It looks at whether these changes in family life have, in fact, been taken account of in 'educational reforms'. It asks the question about whether 'education reforms' which give more democratic rights to parents in general allow for more democratic rights for women as mothers, in the contexts of lone motherhood, maternal participation in paid employment and adult/higher education. On the other hand, are the implications of such education changes to increase the private responsibilities, rather than democratic rights, of motherhood? Although family is on the education policy agenda, it is not clear that gender is on the agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Higher education (as learning and teaching) is increasingly regulated by the state yet is simultaneously being opened up to market forces. Is the system being nationalised or 'marketised'? Opinion is divided, but the debate is often confused by a lack of theoretical explicitness so that inconsistencies, contradictions and dubious elisions are allowed to persist unremarked. Through a critical engagement with the literatures on quasi-markets, the free economy and the strong state, neo-liberalism, and 'steering at a distance', this article identifies three models implicit in discussion of the 'modernisation' of higher education. The first treats marketisation and state intervention as incompatible strategies for reform, the second argues that state intervention may contribute to the success of a higher educational market economy (thus subordinating the state to the market), while the third proposes that market relations are mobilised in the cause of centralised policy objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]