Suchergebnisse

This article examines a range of policy issues which concern the quality assurance of higher education by regulatory bodies. There is a widespread consensus that the benefits of at least some forms of external quality assurance of higher education exceed the costs. This is probably a matter of faith more than the outcome of a considered analysis, but public policy in several countries has accepted it nevertheless.There are important questions regarding the manner in which such quality assurance should be conducted. Issues to do with self‐regulation, the use of independent ratings agencies, the role of the courts, the establishment of a government agency, and the public funding of private quality assurance bodies all deserve consideration.Process matters become important once structural issues have been decided. These include quality assurance principles, internationalisation and national jurisdiction; the role of a quality assurance system in qualifications' design and development; what precisely is to be 'quality assured' in higher education; the standards to be used in quality assurance; linkages between quality assurance and public funding of higher education; compliance costs; and the utility of a National Qualifications Framework (NQF).This article places considerable emphasis on a discussion of the deficiencies of the NQF approach. It argues that the emphasis placed on the development of an NQF in several systems of educational quality assurance is misplaced: an NQF cannot embrace the complexity of contemporary qualifications systems.Claims to the effect that an NQF is a valuable addition to the sources of information available to national and international labour markets must be treated with scepticism. There are logical and practical issues to be considered in this regard. An NQF is arguably likely to mislead labour markets seriously under existing circumstances.

Abstract: An examination of the origins and nature of the 1985 Electricity Dispute in Queensland is the principal concern of this paper. The evidence suggests that the outbreak of the dispute can only be fully understood if due weight is given to certain important international, national and local changes in the political, economic and industrial relations spheres which took place in the 1970s and 1980s. The response of the Queensland government to the dispute, while in part explicable in terms of these changes, must be comprehended within a wider framework which also recognises the governing National Party's traditional ideological rejection of the principles of organised labour. The paper concludes that the nature and circumstances of the dispute pose a continuing, and a significant, challenge to "consensus and stability" interpretations of Australian history.