What do you think?
Rate this book
Educating Australia: Government, Economy and Citizen since 1960
This is the first comprehensive history of the Australian education systems, programs and policies in the period since 1960. The book draws on economic and sociological data, key texts and political events, anecdotes and a review of other analyses to build a picture of the role of education programs in the modernization of Australian life. It examines the implications of change for the labor market and the economy, in social policies and in cultural life. An important focus of the book is the discussion of the extension of citizenship through education.
304 pages, Paperback
First published October 28, 1997
15 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 20, 2011
At the start of the year I did a course called, Leading Educational Ideas – a core subject for the Masters of Education. Anyway, one of the books recommended there, and they recommended lots of books, was this one. This one is considered seminal. This is a seriously interesting book, bringing together many threads I find endlessly fascinating: policy, economic theory, equality and equity.
I suspect that there will come a time when people will look back on the 20th and early 21st centuries and think to themselves, ‘gosh, imagine living in a world so obsessed with economics’. The problem is that we don’t live in that future world yet and so finding a book that explains the dominant impact of economic theories on education policy is remarkably useful and illuminating.
The book starts with the final triumph of Keynesian economic theory as exemplified in Australia with the Whitlam Labor Government 1972-75. I was in my last year of primary school when the coup occurred, and can say that even then my outrage was nearly complete. Little did we know that his government would prove to be the last of the governments that would see the redistribution of opportunity and wealth as noble or even worthwhile aims.
The book is divided in four parts: the modern citizen, 1960-75; the Anti-citizen 1975-90; the economic citizen 1985-1995 and the multi-citizen 1990—
I like that these dates overlap and yet that they don’t overlap on 1975. I think it is true to say that 1975 will remain a key turning point in Australian history. I also like that all of the parts of this book are focused on citizens – there is a great divide in education theory: there are those who see education as being about giving students the skills they will need to be able to function in the complex world that is a democratic society, and there are those who consider developing citizens as active participants to be beyond the ken of most people and that education ought to be mostly focused on developing the skills necessary to gain employment. One group want to see students engage with and develop inquiry based skills, directed at solving real problems within their communities to further develop democratic participation. The other group are focused on educational standards and core skills of literacy and numeracy. When the first of these groups talks about giving students the skills they will need to be active citizens they mean, first and foremost, critical skills. When the second of these groups says the same thing they are first and foremost talking about giving students a series of facts about how the current system is structured – such as, what is the role of the High Court, how many members are there in the Senate?
Whitlam said in 1985 that, “the most intense political debate in Australia during the 1960s was not about Viet Nam, it was about education.” His government removed fees from higher education and massively increased funding for education. The point was an attempt at ‘equality of opportunity’ – a very Keynesian notion of Capitalism as essentially a meritocracy. However, in many ways this attempt was undermined by his government also increasing federal funding to private schools. When his government was finally replaced by a conservative one in a coup at the end of 1975 it was all too easy for them to keep funding private schools and to slash funding to State schools.
It is today considered polite to consider the Fraser government that replaced Whitlam as not nearly as bad as it seemed at the time. Fraser today says things about asylum seekers that place him, sadly and shamefully for our political system, on the extreme left of Australian politics. However, it is important to remember that, “within six years, under the Fraser Coalition Government, Commonwealth funding of private schools doubled in real terms while funding of government schools fell by 18.9 per cent, the private school share of funds rose from 25.7 to 46.4 per cent, the private sector was under-going unprecedented expansion, and the government schools were facing crisis.” There was a fundamental disconnect between the Whitlam Government’s attempt to expand education to make it available, if not to all, then to a great many who had never had an opportunity to be educated before, and the Fraser Government’s slamming shut of the door that Whitlam had sought to leave ajar. If the Karmel Report (a seminal report into education that intended vast expansion of funding, particularly to lower SES students) declared that ‘more equal outcomes from school require unequal treatment of children’ this was not only ignored by the Fraser government, but actually inverted so as to ensure the ‘unequal treatment’ went to those already favoured with society’s advantages. It always amuses me that these people can: 1) sleep at night and 2) call themselves Christians. “It was never officially admitted, but it was becoming apparent to all that in schooling some forms of citizenship were more equal than others.”
The mid-1970s saw the collapse of Keynesian equality of opportunity and the rise of New Right Neoliberal radicalism. Whilst asserting itself as ‘rational’ and
‘scientific’, it was in fact a normative shift in economics, something often even proclaimed by its proponents, and one that was essentially repulsed by the democratic project – this is something particularly true of Hayek, but no less the case of Friedman and Pareto. The point of the ‘anti-citizen’ is that economic rationalism inverted Keynes so that, “The ‘public’ was imagined as an economic rather than democratic identity, as customer, taxpayer or property holder rather than participant or citizen.” There did not really need to be a reason to cut government participation in the economy – beyond ideological conviction – and any argument that came to hand (whether supported by the facts or not) was used. This meant that between 1975 and 1980, “social spending, aside from welfare programs, fell by 26 per cent while GDP rose by 11.5 per cent.” As is repeatedly made clear, “Hayek rejected the use of equality as a measuring stick for policy. Social programs should treat members of society in the same way (equity), but they should not aim for social equality. The correction of inequalities interfered not only with private property and negative freedom, but with the natural course of evolution. Economic inequality was inevitable and gross inequality was highly desirable. An attack on inequality was an attack on the property of the ‘economically most advanced classes who were the motor of evolutionary progress’.” If you need an explanation for my revulsion at evolutionary psychology, you have it right there.
Policies that increased inequality were praised, “Hayek rejected the notion that every student should succeed. ‘A society that wishes to get a maximum economic return from a limited expenditure on education should concentrate on the higher education of a comparatively small elite’.”
Interestingly enough, in all of this is the notion that money trumps everything – including merit. Since education is a private, rather than public, good, it followed that your own ability was something that you should be able to dispose of in anyway you saw fit. This is the most bizarre notion in the book and symptomatic of the kind of moral inversions economic rationalism presents. There was a report into education in Australia that proposed a market be established in tertiary places whereby those students scoring high marks – and therefore eligible for admission to the best universities – would be able to sell their places to lower scoring (but wealthy) students.
By the time the Labor Party was again elected to govern in 1983 it too had contracted the disease of radical free market ideology and likewise continued similar attacks on education funding begun by the conservative government of Fraser – certainly not reversing the handover of funds from state to private schools. Reports circulating at the time stated, naturally without any real evidence, that there was no connection between class sizes and results (of course, these theories only applied to schools where the authors would never dream of sending their own children – that is, state schools. Private Schools in Australia actually advertise on the basis of their smaller class sizes – but then, what is good for the wealthy bares no relationship with what is good for the poor). There were suggested cuts in teacher numbers of 10 per cent – cuts which at the time seemed excessive and polemical, but which, within the decade, were achieved in Victoria, along with mass school closures.
As in Thatcher’s Britain, education reform was premised on two ‘pillars’ – market principles and central control. Market principles were brought to bare by decentralising administration of those functions that are more or less peripheral to education – such as, giving principals control over their local budgets and the right to hire and fire teachers – but no control over the curriculum to be taught. Further, parents are given ‘choice’ – such as the right to remove their children entirely from the State system (something always available to them, but greatly encouraged with the expansion of the state funded private sector, a sector that was able to pick and choose the students it enrolled) but also by allowing parents who remained in the state system to send their children to a school of their choice. This effectively gutted many ‘poorer’ schools of their best students and thereby increased inequality. OECD reports and any number of surveys have shown that such policies inevitably have a negative effect on all students and drag down he overall performance of the system. However, economic rationalists are not actually interested in improving the education system, they are solely interested in ensuring the education system remains a site for the reproduction of class distinction.
Increasingly, globalisation has been seen as a driver of education policy. The world is flat and for a nation to have any hope of competing requires education that is focused on the vocational needs of students. The struggle for education as a means towards employment and education as a means toward produce citizens was won by those who saw education as mostly an economic necessity. This battle was so comprehensibly won that even the left no longer talks of education outside of the vocational needs of students.
The economic citizen was born and this witnessed a remarkable growth in educational retention. Apparent retention (that is, students finishing high school) increased from 27.5 per cent in 1969 to 77.1 per cent in 1992. This was in fact due to the utter collapse in youth employment, all government aspirational targets for student retention at this time were exceeded. The collapse of youth employment was a feature across all of the developed world – but clearly education was also seen as a means for young people to climb up the social ladder. That it proved to be anything but was yet another striking feature of modern society. Education has long been seen as a way out of poverty, a way to a better life. However, the fact that retention rates were exploding at much the same time as the new right were coming to the fore ought to have been reason to doubt the real intent of this change. Clearly, these ideological warriors where completely uninterested in broadening access to ‘the elite’ sectors of the economy – school was, in fact, being seen as a way to postpone young people’s entry to the labour market, while also shifting the cost of supporting young people back onto their parents. The result of the change also being a devaluation of educational qualifications. Jobs one might have gotten a decade earlier upon leaving school at 16 now required the completion of high school at 18, if not also some post-secondary qualification as well.
Equality was abandoned as a social objective – other than occasionally in word only in the concluding statements made in the Labor Party election policy speeches - and replaced by equity. This resulted in the Labor minister for education, Susan Ryan, ‘exhorting the universities to create a more representative social mix’ but not in her actually taking any real steps to ‘secure that end with the means at her disposal’.
The joke, of course, was that education was no longer providing a paved road to a better life – even if the myth was a long time in dying. The proportion of 15-17 year olds who intended to enter tertiary education increased from 27 per cent in 1984 to 50 per cent in 1994. Of those that completed high school, 56 per cent declared their intention to gain employment as ‘professionals’. However, they soon ran up against the economic realities of the employment market. In 1994 only 13 per cent of the work force were professionals. “Education was bound to fail in two, familiar respects, and more so than in the earlier period: in itself it was unable to drive the effective utilisation of skilled labour; and as a result to deliver on the heady promises of social equity and collective advance. The 1960s / 70s cycle of expectation of and disillusion with education was bound to be repeated. So it proved: after 1993 retention to year 12 began to fall, and the growth of demand for tertiary education slowed.” To translate that – you can educate everyone to be professionals, but if there are no jobs for them once they graduate as professionals it is not hard to imagine people becoming very disillusioned.
Which all lead to the greatest betrayal of all. Whitlam claimed decades after his removing university fees that he was still receiving letters of gratitude from people who benefited. This was considered one of the great Labor initiatives. Twice the Fraser government tried to reintroduce fees, only to be defeated by action from students. The irony is, of course, that the economic rationalists in the Labor Party were finally able to do what the conservatives were not. They used the language of equality of opportunity to reintroduce fees.
Their argument was that rather than assisting working class kids to go to university, the removal of fees was little more than a tax concession to middle class families. Everyone knew that ‘universal systems are not very good as redistributive instruments’ – however, what they are good at is removing the possibility of providing quality for the rich and crumbs for everyone else. They provide social solidarity. The argument was that there had been no broadening of the socio-economic status of those entering university – however, no data was ever presented to support this piece of received wisdom. What we were told was called for was directed assistance to the socially disadvantaged. The reintroduction of fees by the Labor government was criticised by the Victorian premier, John Cain, in what should have been the most damning terms for a party of the left – “I think it’s very difficult to say we can’t fund those additional places when we’re aiming for a considerable surplus – three to four or five billion dollars – and when we have reduced the company tax rate from 49c to 39c. I believe that if we were to apply some portion of a slightly increased company tax, we could fund all the tertiary education we require.” The new fees were introduced and called HECS – although moderate under Labor, as soon as the Coalition parties were re-elected they found ‘no policy barriers to the introduction of ‘upfront’ fees for a quarter of the domestic undergraduates, and doubling the level of the HECS”.
Australia is – and has long considered itself – to be the world’s most successful multicultural society. This was, as I mentioned before, one of the proudest achievements of the Fraser government. But the conservative side of politics was soon to blot its copybook on this score also. The election of John Howard saw a shift away from bipartisan support for multiculturalism and the sowing of seeds of today’s joint party attacks on asylum seekers. The relationship between globalisation and the swelling of nationalist feeling has been a key feature of Australia in the 1990s and beyond, most clearly seen in the playing of ‘the race card’, which proved so effective in re-electing the Howard government time and again.
The myth of vocational education was fading fast. “Nonetheless, for students who worked hard, passed their courses and graduated into unemployment, economic citizenship was a sham. By tying citizenship to successful participation in the labour markets, throwing the responsibility for self-realisation back to the individual within a market she/he could not control, economic government was excluding many from the benefits of citizenship.”
It is now 15 years since this book was published and much has changed in that time. It would be good to see this updated to include the subsequent policies that have moved Australia toward a national curriculum and further standardisation of assessment. In some ways that book is Australia's Curriculum Dilemmas: State Cultures and the Big Issues or Undemocratic Schooling: Equity and Quality in Mass Secondary Education in Australia – although, what makes this book so interesting is its unequivocal linking of government policy and economic policy to government education policy. An utterly fascinating read.
I suspect that there will come a time when people will look back on the 20th and early 21st centuries and think to themselves, ‘gosh, imagine living in a world so obsessed with economics’. The problem is that we don’t live in that future world yet and so finding a book that explains the dominant impact of economic theories on education policy is remarkably useful and illuminating.
The book starts with the final triumph of Keynesian economic theory as exemplified in Australia with the Whitlam Labor Government 1972-75. I was in my last year of primary school when the coup occurred, and can say that even then my outrage was nearly complete. Little did we know that his government would prove to be the last of the governments that would see the redistribution of opportunity and wealth as noble or even worthwhile aims.
The book is divided in four parts: the modern citizen, 1960-75; the Anti-citizen 1975-90; the economic citizen 1985-1995 and the multi-citizen 1990—
I like that these dates overlap and yet that they don’t overlap on 1975. I think it is true to say that 1975 will remain a key turning point in Australian history. I also like that all of the parts of this book are focused on citizens – there is a great divide in education theory: there are those who see education as being about giving students the skills they will need to be able to function in the complex world that is a democratic society, and there are those who consider developing citizens as active participants to be beyond the ken of most people and that education ought to be mostly focused on developing the skills necessary to gain employment. One group want to see students engage with and develop inquiry based skills, directed at solving real problems within their communities to further develop democratic participation. The other group are focused on educational standards and core skills of literacy and numeracy. When the first of these groups talks about giving students the skills they will need to be active citizens they mean, first and foremost, critical skills. When the second of these groups says the same thing they are first and foremost talking about giving students a series of facts about how the current system is structured – such as, what is the role of the High Court, how many members are there in the Senate?
Whitlam said in 1985 that, “the most intense political debate in Australia during the 1960s was not about Viet Nam, it was about education.” His government removed fees from higher education and massively increased funding for education. The point was an attempt at ‘equality of opportunity’ – a very Keynesian notion of Capitalism as essentially a meritocracy. However, in many ways this attempt was undermined by his government also increasing federal funding to private schools. When his government was finally replaced by a conservative one in a coup at the end of 1975 it was all too easy for them to keep funding private schools and to slash funding to State schools.
It is today considered polite to consider the Fraser government that replaced Whitlam as not nearly as bad as it seemed at the time. Fraser today says things about asylum seekers that place him, sadly and shamefully for our political system, on the extreme left of Australian politics. However, it is important to remember that, “within six years, under the Fraser Coalition Government, Commonwealth funding of private schools doubled in real terms while funding of government schools fell by 18.9 per cent, the private school share of funds rose from 25.7 to 46.4 per cent, the private sector was under-going unprecedented expansion, and the government schools were facing crisis.” There was a fundamental disconnect between the Whitlam Government’s attempt to expand education to make it available, if not to all, then to a great many who had never had an opportunity to be educated before, and the Fraser Government’s slamming shut of the door that Whitlam had sought to leave ajar. If the Karmel Report (a seminal report into education that intended vast expansion of funding, particularly to lower SES students) declared that ‘more equal outcomes from school require unequal treatment of children’ this was not only ignored by the Fraser government, but actually inverted so as to ensure the ‘unequal treatment’ went to those already favoured with society’s advantages. It always amuses me that these people can: 1) sleep at night and 2) call themselves Christians. “It was never officially admitted, but it was becoming apparent to all that in schooling some forms of citizenship were more equal than others.”
The mid-1970s saw the collapse of Keynesian equality of opportunity and the rise of New Right Neoliberal radicalism. Whilst asserting itself as ‘rational’ and
‘scientific’, it was in fact a normative shift in economics, something often even proclaimed by its proponents, and one that was essentially repulsed by the democratic project – this is something particularly true of Hayek, but no less the case of Friedman and Pareto. The point of the ‘anti-citizen’ is that economic rationalism inverted Keynes so that, “The ‘public’ was imagined as an economic rather than democratic identity, as customer, taxpayer or property holder rather than participant or citizen.” There did not really need to be a reason to cut government participation in the economy – beyond ideological conviction – and any argument that came to hand (whether supported by the facts or not) was used. This meant that between 1975 and 1980, “social spending, aside from welfare programs, fell by 26 per cent while GDP rose by 11.5 per cent.” As is repeatedly made clear, “Hayek rejected the use of equality as a measuring stick for policy. Social programs should treat members of society in the same way (equity), but they should not aim for social equality. The correction of inequalities interfered not only with private property and negative freedom, but with the natural course of evolution. Economic inequality was inevitable and gross inequality was highly desirable. An attack on inequality was an attack on the property of the ‘economically most advanced classes who were the motor of evolutionary progress’.” If you need an explanation for my revulsion at evolutionary psychology, you have it right there.
Policies that increased inequality were praised, “Hayek rejected the notion that every student should succeed. ‘A society that wishes to get a maximum economic return from a limited expenditure on education should concentrate on the higher education of a comparatively small elite’.”
Interestingly enough, in all of this is the notion that money trumps everything – including merit. Since education is a private, rather than public, good, it followed that your own ability was something that you should be able to dispose of in anyway you saw fit. This is the most bizarre notion in the book and symptomatic of the kind of moral inversions economic rationalism presents. There was a report into education in Australia that proposed a market be established in tertiary places whereby those students scoring high marks – and therefore eligible for admission to the best universities – would be able to sell their places to lower scoring (but wealthy) students.
By the time the Labor Party was again elected to govern in 1983 it too had contracted the disease of radical free market ideology and likewise continued similar attacks on education funding begun by the conservative government of Fraser – certainly not reversing the handover of funds from state to private schools. Reports circulating at the time stated, naturally without any real evidence, that there was no connection between class sizes and results (of course, these theories only applied to schools where the authors would never dream of sending their own children – that is, state schools. Private Schools in Australia actually advertise on the basis of their smaller class sizes – but then, what is good for the wealthy bares no relationship with what is good for the poor). There were suggested cuts in teacher numbers of 10 per cent – cuts which at the time seemed excessive and polemical, but which, within the decade, were achieved in Victoria, along with mass school closures.
As in Thatcher’s Britain, education reform was premised on two ‘pillars’ – market principles and central control. Market principles were brought to bare by decentralising administration of those functions that are more or less peripheral to education – such as, giving principals control over their local budgets and the right to hire and fire teachers – but no control over the curriculum to be taught. Further, parents are given ‘choice’ – such as the right to remove their children entirely from the State system (something always available to them, but greatly encouraged with the expansion of the state funded private sector, a sector that was able to pick and choose the students it enrolled) but also by allowing parents who remained in the state system to send their children to a school of their choice. This effectively gutted many ‘poorer’ schools of their best students and thereby increased inequality. OECD reports and any number of surveys have shown that such policies inevitably have a negative effect on all students and drag down he overall performance of the system. However, economic rationalists are not actually interested in improving the education system, they are solely interested in ensuring the education system remains a site for the reproduction of class distinction.
Increasingly, globalisation has been seen as a driver of education policy. The world is flat and for a nation to have any hope of competing requires education that is focused on the vocational needs of students. The struggle for education as a means towards employment and education as a means toward produce citizens was won by those who saw education as mostly an economic necessity. This battle was so comprehensibly won that even the left no longer talks of education outside of the vocational needs of students.
The economic citizen was born and this witnessed a remarkable growth in educational retention. Apparent retention (that is, students finishing high school) increased from 27.5 per cent in 1969 to 77.1 per cent in 1992. This was in fact due to the utter collapse in youth employment, all government aspirational targets for student retention at this time were exceeded. The collapse of youth employment was a feature across all of the developed world – but clearly education was also seen as a means for young people to climb up the social ladder. That it proved to be anything but was yet another striking feature of modern society. Education has long been seen as a way out of poverty, a way to a better life. However, the fact that retention rates were exploding at much the same time as the new right were coming to the fore ought to have been reason to doubt the real intent of this change. Clearly, these ideological warriors where completely uninterested in broadening access to ‘the elite’ sectors of the economy – school was, in fact, being seen as a way to postpone young people’s entry to the labour market, while also shifting the cost of supporting young people back onto their parents. The result of the change also being a devaluation of educational qualifications. Jobs one might have gotten a decade earlier upon leaving school at 16 now required the completion of high school at 18, if not also some post-secondary qualification as well.
Equality was abandoned as a social objective – other than occasionally in word only in the concluding statements made in the Labor Party election policy speeches - and replaced by equity. This resulted in the Labor minister for education, Susan Ryan, ‘exhorting the universities to create a more representative social mix’ but not in her actually taking any real steps to ‘secure that end with the means at her disposal’.
The joke, of course, was that education was no longer providing a paved road to a better life – even if the myth was a long time in dying. The proportion of 15-17 year olds who intended to enter tertiary education increased from 27 per cent in 1984 to 50 per cent in 1994. Of those that completed high school, 56 per cent declared their intention to gain employment as ‘professionals’. However, they soon ran up against the economic realities of the employment market. In 1994 only 13 per cent of the work force were professionals. “Education was bound to fail in two, familiar respects, and more so than in the earlier period: in itself it was unable to drive the effective utilisation of skilled labour; and as a result to deliver on the heady promises of social equity and collective advance. The 1960s / 70s cycle of expectation of and disillusion with education was bound to be repeated. So it proved: after 1993 retention to year 12 began to fall, and the growth of demand for tertiary education slowed.” To translate that – you can educate everyone to be professionals, but if there are no jobs for them once they graduate as professionals it is not hard to imagine people becoming very disillusioned.
Which all lead to the greatest betrayal of all. Whitlam claimed decades after his removing university fees that he was still receiving letters of gratitude from people who benefited. This was considered one of the great Labor initiatives. Twice the Fraser government tried to reintroduce fees, only to be defeated by action from students. The irony is, of course, that the economic rationalists in the Labor Party were finally able to do what the conservatives were not. They used the language of equality of opportunity to reintroduce fees.
Their argument was that rather than assisting working class kids to go to university, the removal of fees was little more than a tax concession to middle class families. Everyone knew that ‘universal systems are not very good as redistributive instruments’ – however, what they are good at is removing the possibility of providing quality for the rich and crumbs for everyone else. They provide social solidarity. The argument was that there had been no broadening of the socio-economic status of those entering university – however, no data was ever presented to support this piece of received wisdom. What we were told was called for was directed assistance to the socially disadvantaged. The reintroduction of fees by the Labor government was criticised by the Victorian premier, John Cain, in what should have been the most damning terms for a party of the left – “I think it’s very difficult to say we can’t fund those additional places when we’re aiming for a considerable surplus – three to four or five billion dollars – and when we have reduced the company tax rate from 49c to 39c. I believe that if we were to apply some portion of a slightly increased company tax, we could fund all the tertiary education we require.” The new fees were introduced and called HECS – although moderate under Labor, as soon as the Coalition parties were re-elected they found ‘no policy barriers to the introduction of ‘upfront’ fees for a quarter of the domestic undergraduates, and doubling the level of the HECS”.
Australia is – and has long considered itself – to be the world’s most successful multicultural society. This was, as I mentioned before, one of the proudest achievements of the Fraser government. But the conservative side of politics was soon to blot its copybook on this score also. The election of John Howard saw a shift away from bipartisan support for multiculturalism and the sowing of seeds of today’s joint party attacks on asylum seekers. The relationship between globalisation and the swelling of nationalist feeling has been a key feature of Australia in the 1990s and beyond, most clearly seen in the playing of ‘the race card’, which proved so effective in re-electing the Howard government time and again.
The myth of vocational education was fading fast. “Nonetheless, for students who worked hard, passed their courses and graduated into unemployment, economic citizenship was a sham. By tying citizenship to successful participation in the labour markets, throwing the responsibility for self-realisation back to the individual within a market she/he could not control, economic government was excluding many from the benefits of citizenship.”
It is now 15 years since this book was published and much has changed in that time. It would be good to see this updated to include the subsequent policies that have moved Australia toward a national curriculum and further standardisation of assessment. In some ways that book is Australia's Curriculum Dilemmas: State Cultures and the Big Issues or Undemocratic Schooling: Equity and Quality in Mass Secondary Education in Australia – although, what makes this book so interesting is its unequivocal linking of government policy and economic policy to government education policy. An utterly fascinating read.
Displaying 1 of 1 review