Vocational education and training in Australia and three-dimensional federalism.

Klatt, Malgorzata ; Polesel, John

Abstract

Education policy-making in Australia remains one of the most complex of government's responsibilities, affecting a broad spectrum of social and political advancements of national and international importance. The advancement of education policy has been accepted as a key factor in achieving the labour productivity and innovation capacity that are needed to compete within the global economy and to build social capital. Yet, the challenge of development and implementation of education policy in Australia has been significantly influenced by its unique federal model, where the state and commonwealth jurisdictions increasingly overlap. This article offers a descriptive account of federal policy involvement in Australian education since federation, with particular attention to vocational education. It demonstrates that national education policy development is characterised by downwards, upwards and horizontal patterns of cooperation between national and state governments, which are in turn influenced by contextual factors such as national economic policy goals, economic and social conditions and political configurations. The article presents an innovative approach to educational research as it brings together two fields of specialisation: vocational education and training research and political science.

Keywords

Vocational education and training, role of education, federal state relationship, federal programs, government role, states powers

Introduction

Maynes (1977) has argued that the general or academic traditions of education have represented a state-sanctioned (and in past times church-sanctioned) means for the enculturation of the ruling classes into elite positions in the church and government. The vocational tradition has never enjoyed the buttressing of national or state approval (much less that of the church) but rather has been linked to local guilds and municipal authorities. These latter organisations have viewed vocational education as concerned with meeting the demand for skills at a local level and with the inculturation of the children of the poor into the habits and behaviours appropriate to the demands of unskilled and skilled work. This historical divide has been cemented over the last century by the role played by national institutions (such as government) in the accreditation and delivery of general education through the mandating of the general or academic curriculum and its links with university entry. Good (1960) and Roach (1986) have argued that only relatively recently have national governments begun to extend their mandate to the delivery of vocational education, in response to a belief that general education has not been able to fully meet the needs and interests of national economies (Jephcoate & Abbott, 2005).

These historical narratives shed light on the increasing role played by national governments in relation to vocational education, at both the school level and post-school. In Australia, however, the structures and processes of federalism have added an important dimension to this debate. In this paper, we provide a new framework for understanding the dynamics of federal interventions. We demonstrate that national education policy development in Australian federation is characterised by downwards, upwards and horizontal patterns of cooperation between national and state governments, which are in turn influenced by contextual factors such as national economic policy goals, economic and social conditions and political configurations. The main aim of this analysis is to explore the growth of federal involvement in Australia's system of education and training, focusing on the particular nature of Australian federalism and its intersection with the structural evolution of Australian education.

Characteristics of Australian federalism

Federalism, and particularly Australian federalism, is not an easily defined entity. The American fathers of federalism drew from Montesquieu's final principle of The Spirit of the Laws (1748) stating that the federal republic would provide two ideal worlds--the smallness of state necessary for democracy to function and the largeness of federation necessary for both internal and external security (Hueglin & Fenna, 2006). As Galligan (1989, p. 53) points out, such a federalist theory of federalism was a 'clever combination of democratic theory and constitutional design'. Additionally, Galligan (2008) emphasises that federalism entails two spheres of government with powers shared between them in such a way that neither is predominant. However, Hueglin and Fenna (2006) argue that the division of powers ensures that they typically overlap, compete and sometimes contradict one another. Therefore, 'permanent deliberation' among multiple participants is a basic federal principle which requires that in practice the division of powers cannot be over-rigid.

The division of powers between the different levels of government remains a very important element of a federal system, but no uniform classification of different forms of federalism exists. Lingard (2000), for example, points out two types of federalism: coordinate and collaborative, where coordinate federalism implies a clear distinction between the policy responsibilities of the commonwealth and those of the state, while under collaborative federalism, state and commonwealth responsibilities are more symbiotic--a shared responsibility. Jones (2008) adds the centralist approach which is defined as dominated by federal arrangements. Offe (1975, cited in Lingard, 2000, p. 26) emphasises that federalism is a target of politics and an outcome of political forces. Therefore, changing political contexts would affect the workings of federalism and the policy competences which are continually intertwined. On the basis of these presumptions, Offe proposed three types of federalism: cooperative, competitive or coercive.

The above review of characteristics of federal systems demonstrates that scholars have developed various approaches to describe and understand intergovernmental relations, which in essence remains a basic survival mechanism of every federal system. The dynamics of state-federal responsibility sharing reinforce the dual nature of federations, which in turn affects the shape of public policies. Drawing from the literature on federalism (de Figueiredo & Weingast, 2005; Productivity Commission, 2005) and Europeanization (Borzel, 2003; Klatt, 2012), we propose to adopt the notion of federalism as a three-way political process with downwards, upwards and horizontal patterns of cooperation. This three-way process is based on the assumption that many policy competences inevitably overlap and intertwine leading to the bulk of responsibilities being shared between the two levels of government rather than divided. This mutual interdependence of federal and state governments includes both vertical and horizontal patterns of cooperation.

The downwards process implies that the commonwealth government assumes a leading role in the area of shared policies. It may use its financial power to require states to implement policies under conditions it determines, for example in relation to the delivery of skills designed to realise the commonwealth government's objectives. The downwards process would include centralist, coercive, opportunistic and obstructive types of federalism. Long-term downwards federalism may lead to an increased control of elected officials over the public service and reverse devolution of institutional capacity from the states to deliver its services.

The upwards process implies federal and state cooperation in deciding policy matters, with a leading role for the states, which represent diverse needs generated by regional differences, for example in relation to local skills needs. It includes shared, symbiotic, cooperative and decentralised types of federalism. The upwards type of federalism would imply a strong leadership role of one or several sub-national governments in designing and negotiating the policies impacting the whole nation.

The horizontal process relates to the cooperation between the states without the involvement of the commonwealth actors. This creates space for an exchange of ideas, power and policies between the state governments and non-governmental actors. It also creates a culture of cooperation, which includes the harmonisation of ideas and policies between the states. Again, to take an example from our vocational education theme, this might include the harmonisation of state-based standards and qualifications relating to training and skills.

Origins of intergovernmental relations and Australian education

Geographically, separate Australian colonies developed independently as separate self-governing bodies, with colonial governments themselves directly responsible for the provision of basic resources, such as roads and education. Under their respective constitutional provisions they had the power to make laws for 'peace, welfare and good government' (Birch, Hind, & Tomlinson, 1979, p. 5). Early educational provision was based largely on the occasional voluntary effort organised by Governors as well as some 'state aid' to denominational schools. Later the efforts of the early European settlers 'led to attempts by churches and voluntary organisations, with government assistance, to establish some sort of schooling' (Anderson, 1993, p. 87). In 1848, Governor Fitzroy established national (public) schools in some country areas not being served by denominational schools, and government funding was used both for these schools and for subsidies to private schools, which operated under separate boards of education (Anderson, 1993). However, public education was still largely controlled by the churches. The Anglican Church occupied a privileged status in the field of education, but the Presbyterian and Catholic Churches were also engaged in schooling (Austin, 1961; O'Donoghue, 2009). All three 'Grand Divisions of Christianity' were receiving aid from public funds (Gregory, 1973, p. 8). Given this, schooling was viewed as inseparable from religious and moral training.

Between 1872 and 1893, because of the realisation that the mixed system was failing the majority of children, the six Australian colonies passed 'free, compulsory and secular' education acts, which abolished 'state aid' and formed centralised education departments. These legislative Acts had significant implications. The Australian colonies assumed direct responsibility for education from the churches, local groups and private providers, introducing the separation of state and church. These acts advanced the idea of free, compulsory and secular education. The secularisation of state education resulted, in the simplest terms, from sectarian conflict. Although, the legislatures made some special provisions for religious education on a voluntary basis and were not aimed at driving religion out of the schools, their primary objective was to abolish state aid to denominational schools, primarily to prevent the Roman Catholic Church from confronting the liberal, secular state using the state's resources (Austin, 1961).

The Australian Constitution that came into force on 9 July 1900 embedded the division of powers in its structure. The doctrine of the 'division of powers' is a very significant part of the Australian Constitution. Section 51 lists the powers given to the commonwealth, while powers not listed in section 51 remain within the power of the states. The cases where the commonwealth and a state can both pass laws are explained in Section 109. The division of powers, as listed in the Constitution, has been contested on many occasions. In 1920, the High Court's interpretation of the Constitution, in regard to the decision in the Engineers case, allowed an expansion of the commonwealth powers emphasising 'supremacy or paramount character of Federal powers'. The High Court decision followed an industrial dispute between the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the Adelaide Steamship Corporation, including the Minister for Trading and the State Sawmills. It was understood that the dispute's area extended beyond the limits of state (High Court of Australia, 1920) as the case related to an award relating to 843 employers across Australia. The case is recognised as a 'revolution in constitutional interpretation' (Galligan, 1989, p. 21). As Fenna (2007) commented, since 1920, little has stood in the way of an expansive interpretation of the Constitution's sections which facilitated centralisation of power in many policy areas, including workplace relations, taxation (Galligan, 1989) and road construction (Grewal & Sheehan, 2003).

Consolidation of intertwined commonwealth--state jurisdictions

Until 1885, there was no federal body established for intergovernmental cooperation. The first federal initiative came from Britain with the creation of the Intergovernmental Federal Council, aimed at coordinating security and immigration policies. With regard to education, in 1911, the first federal program for schools the 'Physical Training Scheme' managed by the Department of Defence--was created, focussing on better physical preparation for military service (Watson, 1998). The scheme, characterised by a downwards pattern of federalism, was an attempt at coercive federalism that the states resisted and constrained; nevertheless, once the scheme was established, state governments petitioned to have it extended (Watson, 1998). Clearly, the fiscal strength of the national government provided a space for more cooperative arrangements between the commonwealth and the states. In 1936, the state and territory Ministers for Education formed an intergovernmental council in education known as the Australian Education Council (AEC). Its intention was mainly to make a representation to the commonwealth, in particular in relation to increasing federal funding to state education (Wilkinson, Caldwell, Selleck, Harris, & Dettman, 2007). This was an example of upwards federalism, where state authorities took a leading role in designing and negotiating the policies potentially impacting the whole nation. States continued to put pressure on the federal government to increase its input into state education. For example, a Statement of Some Aspects of Australian Education following from the 1962 and 1963 Premiers' Conferences argued that economic growth could be achieved through increased investment in education (Watson, 1998), suggesting additional federal assistance.

The growing need for education placed extraordinary pressures on state budgets, consequently increasing political pressure for greater commonwealth involvement in education funding. Furthermore, there was growing political pressure from the Catholic community for greater commonwealth funding support. Catholic schools relied primarily on members of religious orders to staff schools until the 1960s, and families that chose Catholic schooling were required to make large financial sacrifices in order for the schools to be viable. In the 1960s, many Catholic communities could no longer fund increasingly costly schooling. The need for 'state aid' to Catholic schools was highlighted by the Goulbourn Catholic school strike of July 1962 in New South Wales. While this started as a 'protest about bureaucratic harassment', the protest became a 'symbol of Catholic frustration over the denial of state aid' (Hogan, 1978). After a series of meetings with the community, Bishop Cullinane decided to close all schools in the district. According to News Weekly (1962), 1350 children enrolled at state schools in one day. That put pressure on the state system to acknowledge that the state 'could not manage to care for all children so it was in its interest to support the Catholic system' (Hogan, 1978). As a consequence, the 1963 federal elections were dominated by the issue of 'state aid' for independent schools with a significant swing away from the Labor Party resulting from the Catholic electorate supporting the Liberal Party's 'state aid' promise. The dominant argument in the scholarly literature is that Prime Minister Menzies' promise of five million pounds in grants for the construction of science blocks for all secondary schools, as well as scholarships without means testing (News Weekly, 1964), resulted from political pressure by the Catholic electorate, although Smart (1978) argued that it was an effect of the growing deficiencies in scientific and technical education. Smart emphasised that there were two factors that ultimately influenced the decision to establish science laboratories; namely, the growing national concern with Australia's inadequate scientific and technological skills and the so-called 'crisis' in the schools. Menzies was also able to justify federal aid for science programs by arguing that it was an area where the commonwealth had a constitutional interest on grounds of defence and national development (Smart, 1978). The introduction of commonwealth funding for science laboratories marked an important turn in Australian education reinventing the commonwealth government's role in relation to schools, and resulting in the further development of specific-purpose federal grants to schools. In this way, the commonwealth, through its fiscal powers, and as a response to political pressures, entered the state jurisdiction in education, initiating a process of growing overlapping relationships in education policymaking, with strong downwards characteristics.

What is pertinent is that this early intervention focussed on the scientific and technical literacies which were becoming increasingly important to the commonwealth government. One year later, in 1964, the same objectives led to further federal intervention. The report of the committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (the Martin report) sought to address the lack of technical speciality colleges and proposed that higher education should be available to all citizens according to their needs and capacities. The report drew from the idea that education was an investment yielding economic benefits through increasing the skill of the population. As a result, a new system of colleges of advanced education (CAEs) was established by the commonwealth government, although the state systems were responsible for their management. The Martin Committee, and later the commonwealth, distinguished between 'advanced' technical education, which was often provided by technical institutes (considered part of higher education and receiving commonwealth subsidies), and other 'technical education', provided often by technical schools under the jurisdiction of states. Polesel and Teese (1998) argue that this reflected both a need to increase the prestige of 'advanced' technical education and a need to broaden the base of public revenue for industry training. The 'technical education' part remained the full funding responsibility of the states, at least until 1975.

During the 1960s and the early 1970s, huge growth in educational participation occurred. Political and economic reality--liberalism and Keynesian ideas--were driving governments to invest in modern systems of education and human capital. By 1973, there were 17 universities and 77 advanced education institutions compared with 7 higher education institutions (all universities) in 1963 (Marginson, 1997).

The 'state aid' debate eventually resulted in both major parties adopting national government support for independent schools as part of their party program. It might be said that, following these initial interventions, federal involvement in education and training had become systematised and accepted. The support for 'state aid' to Catholic schools played a role in the Labor victory in the 1972 elections, after Gough Whitlam promised an increase in federal education expenditure for all schools. In 1973, Whitlam appointed the Interim Committee for the Schools Commission headed by Professor Peter Karmel, which prepared the report establishing and transforming the commonwealth government position on all schools. As Marginson (1997) points out, the Whitlam government 'fully systematised' the commonwealth's role in schooling introducing a portfolio of seven programs, including recurrent grants for both government and non-government schools. Furthermore, it transformed the state-commonwealth relationship.

Vocational education and training--downwards federalism

Federal interventions also affected technical education which, in fact, increased both in frequency and in the breadth of its aims. The establishment of the Kangan Committee and the Commonwealth Technical and Further Education Committee (CTEC) defined a major federal downwards tendency. The Kangan Report (1975) set up the basis for commonwealth funding of technical and further education (TAFE), at the same time establishing a recognised system of post-school vocational education. The TAFE system was recognised and singled out by the governments (Dawkins & Holding, 1987) as a key element of Australia's vocational education and training system, central to the development of the national labour market. Although the development of the TAFE system was arguably due to the 'combined efforts' of commonwealth and state governments, the commonwealth played a significant role not only by providing the new funding but also by developing 'a national identity for TAFE' (Skills for Australia, 1987, p. 32).

Building on these developments, the Hawke government, elected in the early 1980s, closely associated federal intervention in education with microeconomic reform. First, it focused on the effectiveness and efficiency of schooling on the basis of schooling output. Second, school started being regarded as a means of producing people with work skills, prepared for the modern workforce (Lingard, Knight, & Porter, 1993). The changes introduced under the Hawke government had further implications for Australian federalism, as they necessitated so-called 'corporate federalism', advancing and expanding federal powers in schooling for the sake of more efficient and effective use of resources (Lingard, 1993). Prime Minister Hawke's "new federalism' in the 1990s focused on creating an efficient national economic infrastructure. The Schools Commission, set up by the Whitlam government, was abolished and the Department of Employment, Education and Training was restructured to oversee the alignment of the education system with the government's economic and social goals (Henry & Taylor, 1993). In Skills for Australia (1987)--a document released by the commonwealth ministers for education and employment--it was emphasised that the education and training systems were to be tuned to new requirements for skills and would need employers, unions and state governments to work cooperatively, with the commonwealth playing a fostering role.

Despite the growing national 'push', the 1990s decade is recognised as an era of 'new collaborative federalism' driven by reforms focusing on improving consultation between the commonwealth and the states (Jones, 2008). The reforms advanced the development of a number of intergovernmental cooperative councils. As pointed out by Lingard (1993), there was a strong move towards national policies agreed by all the relevant intergovernmental committees, which also took on greater policy significance. National policies were achieved through consensus and collaborative work at the intergovernmental Australian Education Council (AEC) until 1993 and the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) from 1993 (Lingard, 2000). The AEC comprised state, territory and federal ministers for education. The addition of the role of the federal minister in 1972 increased the influence of the commonwealth in the AEC forum. The AEC evolved from a body of state education officials and Ministers to one where the commonwealth gained a stronger presence. Its subsequent transformation into MCEETYA has seen a stronger role played by the commonwealth, with most agenda items now submitted by the Commonwealth Minister (Jones, 2008).

The last twenty years have seen a series of further federal initiatives and policy statements concerned with vocational education and training. In the early 1990s, vocational courses were introduced into the final two or three years of the secondary school framework--the VET in Schools (VETiS) initiative. The introduction of this policy resulted primarily from the calls for schools to provide more relevant curriculum for youth staying at school beyond the post-compulsory years. But the integration of vocational streams in secondary schooling was also recommended by the Finn Report (1991) which saw the role of VETiS in delivering employment-related competences. It also called for a stronger level of vocational specialisation in schools. Since the 1990s, schools have played an increasingly important role in the delivery of vocational programs, with up to fifty percent of upper secondary students now experiencing vocational subjects at some point of their final years (ACARA, 2011).

In 1991 and 1992, two significant national reports were released recommending essential aspects of vocational education and training (VET) that would prepare young people for a rapidly changing economic reality. The Finn Report (1991) and the Mayer Report (1992) both recognised the need for education to address the changing workplace environment and economic principles such as approaches to productivity, trade and flexibility. The Finn Report (1991) emphasised a growing convergence of education and work and proposed new national targets for post-compulsory education as well as advocating for a consistent set of national competency frameworks. The Key Competences listed in the Mayer Report responded to fundamental issues of Australian economic competitiveness and were to be a common reference point for curriculum and teaching in Australia. The underlying theme of both reports was the development of a national approach to young peoples' vocational training and transitions to work, as it was regarded as the most appropriate response to the national economic interest.

1992 marked a significant shift in vocational education as well as in intergovernmental relations through the establishment of the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) and the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The aim behind the establishment of ANTA was to build a unified, national system of vocational education. ANTA was a national advisory body to the commonwealth and state ministers on policies and mechanisms relating to the various components of vocational education and training across the nation. As Dumbrell (2004) argues, the state and territory governments entered an ANTA agreement in exchange for substantial increases in funding. The establishment of ANTA (1992) resulted from a growing conviction by the government that the skills of the Australian labour force needed to answer the needs of an internationally competitive commerce and industry market. Therefore, ANTA would define national priorities and outcomes to guide state and territory directions in the delivery of VET, ensuring improving efficiency of the provision of VET nationally. Through the creation of ANTA, states were effectively coerced to realise commonwealth objectives (Painter, 1995). These developments facilitated the commonwealth government to achieve significant progress in bringing VET under the national jurisdiction (Smith, 2005). Nevertheless, the federal share of training funding and regulation declined (Marginson, 2007). ANTA was abolished by Prime Minister Howard in October 2004 and its responsibilities were transferred to the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST).

COAG, too, which formally institutionalised an ad hoc Special Premiers' Conference, was seen as an effective means of reworking federalism and improving coordination and cooperation in policy-making across interrelated portfolios in the national context. Despite these arrangements, sub-national leaders have felt disadvantaged by commonwealth dominancy in setting the agenda (Tiernan, 2008). COAG's policy negotiations created a space for a stronger collaborative, upwards federalism, where the states have a significant input into policy-making. Nevertheless, COAG's governance arrangements, including basic structure and processes, have been undefined (Williams, Kildea, & Lynch, 2010) and hence depend on Prime Ministerial discretion. In practice, it has become another forum for pursuing the interests of the commonwealth. As Tiernan (2008) explains, for example, during the years of the Howard government, state leaders were consistently 'outgunned' by the commonwealth, which set the meeting agenda and proposed new policy in such a way that interstate consultation was limited or impossible. An analysis of the COAG Communiques (2008-2010) on education reveals that the commonwealth's national 'push' has continued. The major issues included in the COAG Communiques concerned youth unemployment and effective vocational education that was responsive to market demands and to the international student industry. Schooling policy has been strongly linked to economic productivity, with COAG playing a central role in linking education and the issue of human capital.

The horizontal federalism as a response to growing downwards pressures

Although the 1996 change in government instigated a change from Labour's economic rationalism and new managerialism to the Liberals' agenda of efficiency and budgetary balance, there was continuity in the recognition that education was a central element in the response to globalisation (Lingard, 2000). The 'outcomes approach' provided the grounds for the introduction of national literacy testing and benchmarking. Keddie and Smith (2009) argue that the Howard government assumed a highly interventionist role in education that was coercive in the use of policy tools and opportunistic in its choice of targets. The Commonwealth government used its financial power to require states to implement policies on conditions it determined. For example, in 2004, during the election campaign, Prime Minister Howard announced the establishment of 24 Australian Technical Colleges (ATCs) that would provide a range of training and skills for students in Year 11 and Year 12. The main rationale behind the decision was addressing skill needs in regional and metropolitan areas. The implementation of the Colleges throughout Australia was grounded in a new funding approach to education and training, whereby the commonwealth government would directly fund new schools for skills training, in partnership with industry, training and community organisations (Australian National Audit Office, 2007 2008). This represented a very different kind of intervention, with the federal government actually establishing and funding schools. By doing this, the commonwealth entered a jurisdiction which had always been the domain of the states. Having said this, the intervention was an expensive one, despite the fact that so few schools were involved. Moreover, it was predicated on strong industry support and eventual self-sufficiency, which the schools largely failed to achieve. In Victoria, the Minister for Skills and Workforce Participation, Allan (2007), argued that it would have been more profitable to use Victoria's established vocational education and training system rather than to create a new framework from the ground up.

The ideological differences and growing frustration with the Howard government provided an impulse for states and territories to engage in stronger horizontal collaboration. The Victorian Premier, in particular, advocated closer state collaboration, through a National Reform Agenda, arguing that downwards federalism was not adequate to address the challenges facing Australia, including addressing inevitable reforms relating to economy, infrastructure and human capital (ABC Radio, 2005). Furthermore, Bracks (personal interview, 13 December 2011) argues that there was an absence of a strong and robust policy from the commonwealth on intergovernmental relations, and no real agenda for reform or change. Hence, for the states, the only realistic option to counteract the Howard policies was to present a unified front (Bracks, 2011). As a result, the Council for the Australian Federation (CAF) was established in 2006--the only formal structure with no commonwealth representative, where state leaders could be the sole agenda-setters.

Although the significant leadership shown by the states and territories may have lessened downward federalism, it did not stop a wave of downwards pressures. In 2006, the Commonwealth's High Court decision to uphold the amendments to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 further strengthened the federal government's legal position providing the potential for its intervention into the sphere traditionally belonging to the states. With regard to vocational education, Moodie (2007) has argued that until 2006 the commonwealth's influence was mostly based on its financial power. However, since the High Court decision, the commonwealth can exercise control over almost all aspects of vocational education without changing the levels of funding. This, in Moodie's opinion, could lead to a complete commonwealth takeover of vocational education, although the operation of VET in the schools sector is likely to remain a contested one.

A change in the federal model was promised by the Rudd government elected in 2007. Although Rudd advocated harmonious cooperation and ending the 'blame game', in practice his government introduced a 'revolution' in education that strengthened the national presence in schooling. The growing national 'push' included a new range of accountabilities and testing, the development of the National Assessment Program, a national curriculum and the My School website. In regard to vocational education and training, the Rudd government scrapped Howard's Australian Training Colleges and introduced instead Trade Training Centres (TTCs) with an investment of $2.5 billion for 10 years. The TTCs were introduced to the secondary schools with the aim of increasing Year 12 retention rates as well as investing in Australian competitiveness in a global market (Hay, 2009). It is important to highlight here that the formulation of the federal idea for TTCs was based on programs already implemented in Queensland and Victoria, focusing on community-based schooling and school-industry partnerships (Hay, 2009).

A final aspect of this narrative relates to the establishment of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) in 1995. The AQF was introduced to establish a national system of qualifications in Australia encompassing higher education, vocational education and training and schools. Again, this federal initiative was designed to harmonise the array of local and state-based qualifications into a framework that established national consistency, national mobility and nation recognition. Foremost amongst its stated aims is the benefits expected to accrue to the national economy.

Conclusion

Since Federation there has been a growing policy-making shift from states to the commonwealth. This shift has been particularly related to the growing national interest in investing in human capital, skills and schooling retention. Federalism has created a complex web of vocational education responsibilities and roles shared between the secondary/tertiary and public/private spheres.

The above analysis also indicates that the meaning of Australian federalism as used by scholars to date has been changing. The notion of federalism as a three-way political process with downwards, upwards and horizontal patterns of cooperation adopted here clearly illustrates the complex nature of the federal processes, with states rarely exchanging their policies on the horizontal level. Nevertheless, the states have played a leadership role on several occasions by advancing new policy strategies (National Reform Agenda in Victoria; school-industry partnerships in Queensland), which inspired the development of national frameworks. Investment in human capital through skills has been one of the main drivers of increasing federal intervention in education policy-making in Australia. States have accepted the national influence in order to benefit from its on-going funding role. However, it must be emphasised that states and territories still have a significant role in education policy-making in Australia, especially in government schools and TAFE. Recent debate on the Gonski Review (2011) suggests that its proposed changes will be determined by state governments' willingness to cooperate.

Nevertheless, it seems that a global trend has emerged where central governments, or supranational institutions, are playing an increasingly crucial role in addressing the economic interests of the nation through their exertion of control over vocational education and training. This has led to a fundamental transformation of the way that VET is viewed. Just as labour markets have become national and now global, so have systems of vocational education and training. Structures of delivery and qualifications frameworks have taken their place on a national stage. While there is little evidence to suggest that the status of VET now matches that of general education, it can certainly be argued that federal interventions in this sphere have resulted in major improvements in the funding and delivery of VET in Australia, at last setting the scene for its acceptance as a major player in the delivery of goals related to the economic and social development of the country.

Funding

This research was supported under Australian Research Council's Linkage Projects funding scheme (LP100100503).

Declaration of conflicting interests

None Declared.

DOI: 10.1177/0004944112468702

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Special mention is also necessary to acknowledge the enormous influence on this project of the late Professor Jack Keating.

References

ABC Radio (2005, May 30). Alison Caldwell 'Bracks appeals to PM for national reform agenda'. Melbourne. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/ sl379919.htm

ACARA (2011) National report on schooling in Australia 2009. Part 9. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.

Allan, J. (2007, November 21). Australian technical colleges - A waste of taxpayers' money. The Premier of Victoria Archives. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://archive.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/ 3732.html

Anderson, D. (1993). Public schools in decline: Implications of the privatization of schools in Australia. In H. Beare, & W. Lowe Boy (Eds.), Restructuring schools (pp. 184-199). London: Falme.

ANTA (1992). Australian National Training Authority Act. 203. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Austin, A. G. (1961). Australian education 1788-1900. Melbourne: Pitman.

Australian National Audit Office (2007-2008). Australian technical colleges programme. Audit Report, 3. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved March 23, 2012, from www.anao.gov.au/ uploads/documents/2007-08_Audit_Report_03.pdf

Birch, I., Hind, I., & Tomlinson, D. (1979). Intergovernmental relations and Australian education. Canberra: Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations ANU.

Borzel, T. (2003). Shaping and taking EU policies: Member States' responses to Europeanisation. Queen's Papers on Europeanisation, 2, 1-15. Belfast, UK: Queen's University of Belfast.

COAG Communiques (2008-2010). Education agenda - 2008-2010. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved January 5, 2012, from www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/ issues_by_subject.cfm

Dawkins, J. S., & Holding, A. C. (1987). Skills for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. De Figueiredo, R. R., & Weingast, B. R. (2005). Self-enforcing federalism. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2/(1), 103-135.

Dumbrell, T. (2004). Resourcing vocational education and training in Australia. Adelaide: NCVER.

Fenna, A. (2007). The malaise of federalism: Comparative reflections on Commonwealth-State relations. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 6(5(3), 298-306.

Finn Report (1991). Young people's participation in post-compulsory education and training. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Galligan, B. (Ed.). (1989). Australian federalism. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Galligan, B. (2008). Processes for reforming Australian federalism. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 31, 617-642.

Gonski, D. (2011). The review of funding for schooling final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Good, H. G. (1960). A history of Western education. New York, NY: MacMillan.

Gregory, J. S. (1973). Church and state. Melbourne: Cassell Australia.

Grewal, B., & Sheehan, P. (2003). The evolution of constitutional federalism in Australia: An incomplete contracts approach. The Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Working Paper, 22. Melbourne: CSES.

Hay, S. (2009). Transforming social and educational governance: Trade training centres and the transition to social investment politics in Australia. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(3), 285-304.

Henry, M., & Taylor, S. (1993). Gender equity and economic rationalism: An uneasy alliance. In B. Lingard, J. Knight, & P. Porter (Eds.), Schooling reform in hard times (pp. 153-175). London: The Falmer Press.

High Court of Australia (1920, August 31). Amalgamated Society of Engineers Claimant; and Adelaide Steamship Company Limited. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/28clrl29.html

Hogan, M. (1978). The Catholic campaign for state aid. Sydney: Catholic Theological Faculty.

Hueglin, T. O., & Fenna, A. (2006). Comparative federalism. Toronto: Broadview Press.

Jephcoate, M., & Abbott, I. (2005). Tinkering and tailoring: The reform of 14-19 education in England. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 57(2), 181-202.

Jones, S. (2008). Cooperative federalism? The case of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 161-172.

Kangan Report (1975). TAFE in Australia: Report on needs in technical and further education. Canberra: Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education.

Keddie, J. N., & Smith, R. F. I. (2009). Leading from below: How sub-national governments influence policy agendas. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 67-82.

Klatt, M. (2012). Poland and Europeanization 2004-2010. Warsaw: Scholar Publishing.

Lingard, B. (1993). Corporate federalism: The emerging approach to policy-making for Australian schools. In B. Lingard, J. Knight, & P. Porter (Eds.), Schooling reform in hard times (pp. 24-35). London: The Falmer Press.

Lingard, B. (2000). Federalism in schooling since the Karmel Report (1973), schools in Australia: From modernist hope to postmodernist performativity. Australian Educational Researcher, 27(2), 25-61.

Lingard, B., Knight, J., & Porter, P. (Eds.). (1993). Schooling reform in hard times. London: The Falmer Press.

Marginson, S. (1997). Educating Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S. (2007, May). Federal/state relations in education and the 2006 Work Relations case. Paper presented at ASSA Policy Roundtable on Federalism, University of Canberra, Australia.

Mayer Report (1992). Report of the committee to advise the Australian Education Council and Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training on employment related key competences for postcompulsory education and training. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Maynes, M. J. (1977). Schooling the masses: A comparative social history of education in France and Germany (PhD dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Montesquieu, C. (1748). The spirit of laws. London, UK: G. Bell & Sons.

Moodie, G. (2007). Increased Commonwealth control over Australian vocational education: implications of the High Court's work choices decision. New South Wales: Avetra.

News Weekly (1962, July 18). Goulburn crisis highlights claim for equality, p. 3.

News Weekly (1964, January 9). The big breakthrough in education, pp. 3-1.

O'Donoghue, T. (2009). Colonialism, education and social change in the British Empire: The cases of Australia, Papau New Guinea and Ireland. Paedagogica Historica, 45(6), 787-800.

Painter, M. (1995). The Council of Australian Governments and Intergovernmental Cooperation Competition or collaborative federalism? Federalism Research Centre Discussion Paper, 28. Canberra: ANU.

Polesel, J., & Teese, R. (1998). The colleges: Growth and diversity in the non-university tertiary studies sector (1965-1974). Evaluations and Investigations Program, Higher Education Division. Canberra: Deetya.

Productivity Commission. (2005). Annual Report 2004-05. Annual Report Series. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Roach, J. (1986). A history of secondary education in England, 1800-1870. London: Longman.

Smart, D. (1978). Federal aid to Australian schools. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Smith, C. S. (2005). Recent changes in VET: ANT A 's abolition: proposed new arrangements: continuing puzzles. Centre for the Economics of Education & Training (CEET) Working Paper, 62. Victoria: Monash University.

Tiernan, A. (2008). The Council of the Australian Federation: A new structure of Australian federalism. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 122-134.

Watson, L. (1998). Intentions, opportunities and outcomes--The impact of Commonwealth involvement in Australian schooling (PhD thesis). Canberra: Australian National University.

Wilkinson, I. R., Caldwell, B. J., Selleck, R. J. W., Harris, J., & Dettman, P. (2007). A history of state aid to non-government schools in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Williams, G., Kildea, P., & Lynch, A. (2010). Select Committee on the reform of the Australian Federation submission. Sydney: University of New South Wales. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/mdocs/Federalism_Project_Submission.pdf

Malgorzata Klatt

Research Fellow, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Australia

John Polesel

Professor and Coordinator, Graduate Coursework Programs, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Australia

Corresponding author:

Malgorzata Klatt, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Email: klattm@unimelb.edu.au