Eidos

Eidos Completed Projects:

Marching to a Different Beat

University, School and Community

Measuring Technology

Preparing Early

Where's the Evidence

Community Renewal Zone Workshops

Beyond Rhetoric

Taking a Break

Mapping and scoping research strengths

Victorian Education Flagship Strategy 1 Evaluation

Effective Models for Employment-based Training (EBT)

Operations of Schooling Review

In Search of Evidence - Measuring Community Engagement

Community Consultation for Strategic Futures

Cost Benefit Analysis of Models of Human Service Delivery

Marching to a Different Beat

Project Summary
The purpose of this literature review was to build on some recent departmental work in this area. Camps for at-risk youth have been variously used throughout Australia and the western world, to address young people's problematic and sometimes offending behaviour. The success of these types of camps in delivering desired outcomes has been variable.

The focus of this literature review was primarily given to those models used in Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand given the similar support by groups within these countries to the premise that strong discipline and training within a wilderness context can bring about lasting changes in problematic young people's (particularly young men's) attitudes and behaviours.

The project:

Summarised the different key models of camps for at-risk youth emphasising similarities and differences between those models and target groups

Identified the strengths and weaknesses of each of those key models of camps

Proposed a best practice model or set of models (if they exist) in this area including a clear statement of target groups, demonstrated sustained outcomes for young people as well as a statement of programs/models that appear to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander qt risk young people's needs, and

Identified other best practice models in addressing at-risk youth's behavioural issues.

Team
Professor Ross Homel, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University; Rebecca Denning, Griffith University; Sarah Neibling, Griffith University.

University, School and Community

Project Summary
The successful bid to bring Professor Ira Harkavy to Australia as a Senior Fulbright Scholar provides an opportunity for Eidos partners to access international expertise on university-community-schools partnerships. Professor Harkavy also contributed to the building of a national network of researchers and the development of research strategies.

In many communities, partnerships between schools and other community organisations and agencies are helping to create supports that enable children and youth to learn and succeed and help strengthen families and communities. These partnerships bring together diverse individuals and groups, including principals, teachers, academics, community agencies, youth development organisations, institutions of higher education, health and human service agencies, parents and other community leaders, to expand opportunities for children, families, and communities.

Creating a successful school-community partnership is a complex, challenging, and time-consuming task. To be effective, partnerships need to engage in a thoughtful democratic process to define a vision and develop and implement clear goals. Partnerships need to create effective governance and management structures to ensure that programs operate efficiently and that the partnership is responsive to community needs. School-community partnerships also need to draw from a broad range of perspectives and expertise from inside the school as well as from other organisations and individuals within the community. Finally, school-community partnerships need to connect, coordinate, and leverage resources from a variety of sources to support and continue their work. The presentation contains a series of ideas/actions/checks to assisted school and community leaders in creating and/or strengthening school/community partnerships. A particular focus will be on the learning community partnership including schools, higher education institutions and communities.

The goals of the lecture were to provide:

research and information about successful school community

policies, programs and practices;

strategies for building broader public understanding and support for
school-community partnerships;

strategies for building public and private-sector policies in order to
strengthen school-community partnerships; and

strategies for establishing sustainable sources of funding for
school-community partnerships.

Themes included:

Expanding community partnerships.

Implementing genuine partnerships.

Improving access to research and services.

Developing schools as a community asset.

Improving community response.

Sharing of power, resources and control

A theoretical and practical framework.

Harkavy outlined the University-Assisted Community School Programs which recently won the United States Inaugural William T. Grant Foundation Youth Development Prize sponsored in collaboration with the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Children, Youth and Families.

Harkavy and colleagues' work has focused on the school as the educational and neighborhood institution that can, if effectively transformed, serve as the concrete vehicle of community change and innovation. Universities might, they suggest, be key partners in this endeavour. The Center has helped to create school-community partnership models that function as centres of education, services, engagement and activity for students, their parents, and other community members. University of Pennsylvania's program was named number one in the country (with Berea College and Stanford University) in U.S. News and World Reports' 2003 edition of America's Best Colleges.

The key goal has been to develop school-community partnership initiatives that serve, educate, and activate all members of the community, revitalizing the curriculum through a community-oriented, real-world problem-solving approach.

More information on 2005 Fulbright Senior Scholar can be found here.

Team
Eidos membership, Southern Cross University, University of Newcastle, University of Western Sydney, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Victoria University, Monash University, Ballarat University, Australian Joint Council of Teachers Association.

Measuring Technology

In Queensland, Education and Training Reforms for the Future (ETRF): ICTs for Learning outlines a significant change in emphasis for Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), moving from a focus on hardware standards, towards a focus on learning.

The ETRF strategy includes a range of reforms for improving the learning and developmental outcomes of students through the application of ICTs across the curriculum. The immediate deliverables included:

Negotiated ICTs for Learning Guarantees for teachers to extend opportunities for professional growth in integrating ICTs into the curriculum

19 400 computers to replace outdated machines

1600 additional classrooms being cabled for Local Area Network (LAN) and Internet access

3000 new computers to assist schools to achieve target computer student ratios.

An important part of this strategy has been the development of a performance measurement instrument to determine the level of ICT integration in the curriculum. An evaluation of the ICT Integration Performance Measurement Instrument (The Instrument) was now required.

The project evaluated The Instrument across the curriculum in a variety of Education Queensland sites.

Project Background
Education Queensland was undertaking a number of systemic projects that support the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) For School and Work initiative:

School ICT Profile Project

Performance Measures Project

Systemic ICT Procurement and Service Delivery Project

CT Support Project

Online Examples of ICT Curriculum Integration

Community Access to ICTs in Schools

Learning and Development Centres (Learning Technology)

The Learning Place

Central to the reform strategy was benchmarking. A set of foundation benchmarks and preferred futures benchmarks have been developed. Each set was created around six key ICT drivers. The six key ICT drivers reflected the necessary conditions for successful learning with ICTs. These drivers were the critical and interdependent components of an integrated approach:

Learning, teaching and the curriculum integrating ICTs into subject and curriculum areas.

Learning and development ensuring teachers have the necessary capabilities to effectively engage with and use ICTs as a tool for learning.

ICT infrastructure ensuring teachers and students have access to modern ICTs.

Connectivity making connections with the people, data and information required to learn. Connecting to each other and to the Internet.

ICT support initiating innovative support measures to remove some of the burden from teachers so that they can concentrate on the core business of teaching and learning.

Innovation encouraging every school to develop innovative ICT practices.

Historically, Education Queensland has collected data on the effectiveness of ICT curriculum integration through:

Student, teacher and parent satisfaction with ICT access;

The percentage of teachers accredited with Minimum Standards, Learning Technology; and

A school's student:computer ratio.

Further to these data, a preliminary performance measurement instrument for ICT integration in the curriculum was established through the 2002 School ICT Census. In addition to the existing and ongoing questions relating to ICT infrastructure, new questions were asked to determine the:

percentage of school curriculum planning reflecting ICT use;

use of ICTs across grade levels and curriculum areas; and

frequency of ICT use in general work processes.

This was the first time that learning had been the focus of a systemic ICT survey. There was a recognised need to further develop this performance measurement instrument, in order to report on the extent, depth and quality of ICT integration in the curriculum in schools.

In 2002 the ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument was developed. This Instrument was designed to gather information relating to the quantity and quality of ICT use and to contribute to the data collection processes established through the annual Schools ICT Census. The Instrument included:

a questionnaire for teachers to self-report on ICT curriculum integration in their classroom; and

a tool for individual teacher results to be collated to generate an average school level of ICT curriculum integration.

In 2003, the Instrument was used to survey teachers in about 300 Education Queensland schools. These census data will form the basis of the evaluation of the Instrument.

In 2004 the Instrument was used in conjunction with other research strategies to study the level and quality of ICT curriculum integration in a representative sample of Education Queensland schools.

The Project was an evaluation of the ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument. Tasks included:

Presenting the Instrument to a range of research peers for expert feedback

Analysing existing data collected in the 2003 Schools ICT Census

Conducting limited trials of The Instrument through online delivery

Identifying and recommending to Education Queensland suggested changes to the Instrument

Implementing changes to the Instrument, as approved by Education Queensland, including rebuilding the tool as required.

Team
Dr Romina Jamieson-Proctor, Lecturer, ICT's and Learning, School of Education & Professional Studies, Griffith University; Dr Glenice Watson, Head of School, Curriculum Teaching and Learning, Griffith University; Dr Glenn Finger, Senior Lecturer, ICT's and Learning, School of Education & Professional Studies, Griffith University; Dr Peter Grimbeek, Statistical Advisor, Faculty of Education, Griffith University; Dr Paul Burnett, Pro-Vice Chancellor Research and Graduate Training, Charles Sturt University; Michelle Williams, Former QUT Lecturer in ICT's for Education.

Preparing Early

Project Summary
This project evaluated the impact of a full-time preparatory year of schooling on school management and school communities, curriculum and pedagogy, resourcing, children's learning outcomes and development, and children's preparedness for compulsory schooling. It also identified the key components that impact on the effectiveness of a preparatory program in relation to policy decisions at a systemic level and school management decisions at a local level, and highlighted key considerations should the Queensland Government move to implement a full-time preparatory year across all sectors. It also commenced a longitudinal monitoring of the impact of these initiatives on children's learning and development using a range of measures, and provided schools participating in the Preparing for School trials with feedback throughout the trials.

The external evaluation of the Preparing for School trials:

evaluated the impact of a full-time preparatory year of schooling on school management and school communities;

evaluated the impact of a full-time preparatory year on curriculum and pedagogy, resourcing, children's learning outcomes and development, and children's preparedness for compulsory schooling;

identified the key components that impact on the effectiveness of a preparatory program in relation to policy decisions at a systemic level and school management decisions at a local level;

highlighted key considerations should the Queensland Government move to implementation of a full-time preparatory year across all sectors;

commenced longitudinal monitoring of the impact of these initiatives on children's learning and development using a range of measures; and

provided schools participating in the Preparing for School trials with feedback throughout the trials.

Key Tasks
The external evaluation collected detailed data and provided sound analysis related to the following focus areas.

1. The critical factors in the delivery of a preparatory year of schooling through:

identifying key critical factors and their impact on the delivery of a full-time preparatory year for the age cohort (according to each trial model) to determine the most effective and appropriate model of preparatory provision for Queensland schools. These critical factors will include:
- age cohort (starting age for school);
exploring the relationship between the Queensland Early Years Curriculum with the pedagogy and the resources (e.g., the amount and quality of the teacher aide time, the equipment and facilities, both indoors and outdoors) required to enact the program to ensure quality learning outcomes for children in preparing for school; and

evaluating the effectiveness of the Early Learning and Development Framework in determining children's learning and development and preparedness for compulsory schooling in Year 1 and in assisting teachers' reporting to parents.

2. The impact of critical factors (listed above) that influence the success or otherwise of providing the preparatory year trials as well as:

levels of support and involvement of the school community;

relationships with and effects on community and local early childhood education and care providers, including community kindergartens, child care centres and family day care;

support provided through identified professional development;

support and professional dialogue between teachers, teacher aides and administrators; and

involvement of critical friends, Education Officers (Special Duties) and officers from the Early Childhood Education Unit (ECEU) to assist and engage providers in emergent issues throughout the trials.

3. Providing the basis for comparisons of learning outcomes between trial and non-trial school sites and for documenting longitudinal outcomes by:

collecting and analysing baseline data using a range of measures to determine the degree to which children in the preparatory year are better placed to achieve educational outcomes and to be prepared for formal schooling;

providing a comparative analysis of differences between trial sites and other groups; and

collecting longitudinal data on a range of measures of readiness for formal schooling, including measures of social, emotional, physical and intellectual development.

4. Critical success factors in the management and delivery of full-time prior to Year 1 programs currently operating in non-state schools, in particular:

program development;

resource support and implications;

characteristics, qualifications and experience of teachers involved;

communication with parents and community;

age cohort of students;

involvement of other providers; and

school management issues.

Team
Professor Collette Taylor, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology; Associate Professor Karen Thorpe, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology; Professor Gillian Boulton-Lewis, School of Learning & Professional Studies, Queensland University of Technology; Associate Professor Nola Alloway, School of Education, James Cook University; Associate Professor Sue Grieshaber, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology; Associate Professor Helen MacGillivray, School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology; Associate Professor Susan Wright, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Donna Berthelsen, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Susan Danby, Senior Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Carmel Diezmann, Senior Lecturer, School of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Ann Farrell, Senior Lecturer, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology; Ann Petriwskyj, University of Southern Queensland; Dr Chris Woodrow, Senior Lecturer, Education and Creative Arts, Central Queensland University; Dr Jo Brownlee, Lecturer, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Ruther Fielding-Barnsley, School of Learning and Professional Studies, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Elizabeth Warren, Head of School Education and Senior Lecturer, Mathematics Education, McAuley Campus, Australian Catholic University; Jo Lampert, Lecturer, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Felicity McArdle, Lecturer, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Kerryann Walsh, Lecturer, School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology.

Where's the Evidence?

Project Summary
This project summarised and reviewed selected research papers that have been appraised to ensure that they provide strong evidence directly relevant to practice in schools. The articles were reviewed in the following terms:

What did the research aim to do?; How was the study designed?; What were the findings and conclusions drawn from the research; What are the practical implications of the study? (for students, teachers, parents and policy makers); and Where can I find out more?

Team
Professor Colin Lankshear, James Cook University; Lim Poh Gek, University of Southern Queensland; Dr Romina Jamieson-Proctor, Griffith University; Dr Julie Davis, Queensland University of Technology; Dr Glenn Finger, Griffith University, Lee Tennent, Queensland University of Technology; Professor Peter Freebody, University of Queensland; Dr Cushla Kapitzke, The University of Queensland; Associate Professor Christa van Kraayenoord, University of Queensland; Dr. Andrew Brader, University of Queensland & James Cook University; Georgina Barton, Griffith University; Lisa C. Ehrich, Queensland University of Technology; Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, New Jersey (USA)

Community Renewal Zone Workshops

Project Summary
This project undertook facilitation of community renewal zone community meetings including schools and community agencies. Community Renewal is a Queensland Government initiative coordinated by the Department of Housing in conjunction with local residents, government, business and community groups to develop communities where people feel valued, safe and proud. The Community Renewal program had commenced planning for the next five years of the program which runs from 2004 to 2009. During this phase of the program the scale of renewal operations has been broadened to a zone' rather than small-area neighbourhood level. Households living in areas adjacent to the targeted renewal neighbourhoods shared the benefits of the processes and funding delivered through the Community Renewal program for the planning and delivery of renewal infrastructure and services.

The ten zones across the state that are a part of this planning phase include:

West Cairns, incorporating the renewal neighbourhoods of Mooroobool and Manoora;

Palm Island;

West Townsville, incorporating Vincent;

Upper Ross, incorporating Rasmussen, Condon and Kelso;

Logan, incorporating Logan South, Logan East and Deception Bay;

Brisbane South, incorporating Acacia Ridge;

South West Brisbane, incorporating Inala and Carole Park;

Logan, incorporating Woodridge, Kingston, Loganlea and Marsden;

Gold Coast North, incorporating Beenleigh and Eagleby; and

Gold Coast South, incorporating Varsity Lakes and Labrador.

All Stakeholders Workshops
During October and November 2004 workshops were held in each zone. The All Stakeholders Workshops were an important first opportunity for representatives from the community, from government and non-government agencies across the entire zone the come together to consider the issues and the aspirations that have been identified. The framework that emerged from workshop activities provided a framework for information for ongoing consultation and for the development of strategies to address issues within the zone.

The workshops:

identified issues for the zone as a whole,

agreed on priority issues for the zone that particularly need addressing,

developed a zone-wide action plan that Community Renewal could facilitate action on.

The workshops involved extensive discussion between community members, representatives of community organisations, private enterprise and government. They achieved the above aims through the following steps:

Issues from previous consultation were reviewed and participants were able to add additional issues or repeat issues under more than one heading. Issues were grouped under several headings such as community cervices, housing, environment etc.,
Within each heading, small groups clustered the issues into logical clusters, such as training provision to improve employment opportunities,

For each cluster of issues, a statement was developed that illustrated the underlying causes and effects involved in each cluster of issues,

All statements across all headings were prioritised by people assigning five votes,

Small groups developed achievable action plans for the highest priority issues.

Team
Associate Professor Jim Cavaye, University of Central Queensland and The University of Queensland; Ms Jan Archer, Executive Director, Office of Public Prosecutions.

Beyond Rhetoric: University-Community Engagement in Victoria

Project Summary
This project entailed a mapping of community engagement policy and strategy in all Victorian universities. The objectives included a desktop audit of teaching, research and partnership activities, an overview of community expectations and a discussion of some broader lessons from partnership and engagement activities. The final report discussed community engagement as in the context of broader policy debates around the role and purpose of Australian universities.

In joining The Australian Higher Education, Community Engagement, and Social Responsibility Research Project, Collaborating Researchers undertook the following tasks:

Requested official policy statement from University leadership (Vice
Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor, or Chancellor);

Gathered and transmited research documents, official publications, and other written records and transcripts from your university that are relevant to the research topics;

Administered student, faculty, and community interviews (approximately 8-12
in number);

Provided written and oral feedback to the Australian Research Group (through the Australian and International Project Centre) on the substantive issues regarding concepts and definitions and the execution of interviews.

Conducted a desktop audit and analysis of current Victoria university teaching, research and related partnership initiatives working with communities and industries - and with public, private and community sector organisations - in the local community & region.

Provided an initial overview of key community and industry expectations of
the University's engagement with the region, informed by evidence from the desktop audit and individual interviews with key stakeholders.

Provided a preliminary outline of a framework and integrated strategies
which could assist the University to meet the regional community engagement
expectations and challenges identified.

Provided a discussion of some of the broader lessons from the University
community and regional engagement experience including implications for future research and policy development.

As point 4 above indicates, each researcher was invited to write a report of approximately 10-15 pages that should highlight the main features of community engagement at the university and its locality. Every report clearly indicated: (a) What was present in the institution in terms of community engagement and social/civic responsibility activities, practices, and policies as reflected by the research undertaken; and (b) What was not present in the institution, such as the absence of community engagement initiatives and the possible reasons for such absence.

There were some programs that were especially successful and firmly embedded in the operations of the University, such as community shopfronts or regular campus forums that allow community members, students and faculty members to meet and discuss issues of importance.

Team
Professor Brian Galligan, Head of Department, Department of Political Science, The University of Melbourne; Professor Bruce Muirhead, Director, Eidos; Professor Chris Duke, Director & Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Organisational Capability Development; Professor Mike Berry, Director, Australian Housing & Urban Research Institute; John Martin, Director, Centre for Regional Rural Development; Dr Anne Badenhorst, Associate Director, Community & Regional Partnerships; Dr Robyn Dale, URCOT; Professor Bruce Wilson, Head of Department, School of Social Science Planning, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; Professor David Birch, Associate Dean (International & Partnerships), School of Communication & Creative Arts, Deakin University; Professor David Ensor, Deputy Director, Centre for Sustainable Regional Communities; Dr Maureen Rogers, Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainable Regional Communities CSRC, La Trobe University; Professor David Hayward, Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology; Professor John Wiseman, Acting Director, Institute of Community and International Engagement, Victoria University; Professor Keith Boast, Head, Planning; Associate Professor John McDonald, Director, Institute for Regional and Rural Research, University of Ballarat; Professor Simon Marginson, Director, Centre for Research in International Education, Monash University.

Taking a Break

Project Summary
This research study is identifying and assessing the key factors and barriers underlying the apparent decline in university participation among Queensland school-leavers

The research project and resultant written reports addresses the following terms of reference:

describe the numbers and proportions of young people who have enrolled in Queensland universities immediately upon exiting school and in subsequent years (up to three years on leaving school) over the past decade;

provide inter-State comparisons on this same data, where such comparisons are appropriate;

provide an assessment and analysis of the impact other pathway options are having on the reported transfer rate, such as:

rates of youth employment;

attractiveness of other educational choices (particularly VET);

financial pressures and/or affordability of higher education;

school-leaver fatigue;

impact of high cut-offs in high demand courses; and,

regional pressures.

identify the benefits and drawbacks of the transfer rate measure as currently defined and used in Queensland;

identify any other potentially more useful measures or monitoring tools than the transfer rate which are currently used in other Australian jurisdictions or overseas; and,

identify alternative and innovative potential policy responses to the direct school to university entry pathway and the major issues, benefits and drawbacks associated with such responses, including some analysis of the likely implications for young people, other applicants and universities.

In May, 2004 the State Higher Education Forum, comprising the State Minister for Education and the Vice-Chancellors of all Queensland universities, approved a research study into school-to-higher education transitions in Queensland . Essentially, Forum members expressed concerns about the relative decline over recent years in higher education participation among school-leavers within the context of State Government reforms designed to boost education and training opportunities for young people from preschool to Year 12.

During preliminary discussions between the Queensland Office of Higher Education and representatives of the Institute for Educational Research, Policy and Evaluation, it was agreed that a scoping paper for the research study would be prepared to assist the Institute in preparing a design brief for this work.

This scoping paper outlines the following:

the policy context for this study;

the underpinning policy problem;

approved terms of reference;

budget; and,

timeframes and reporting requirements.

The Policy Context
The overarching policy objective of the State Government White Paper, Education and Training Reforms for the Future (2002) is to boost education and training participation for young people in Queensland . Through a series of significant structural reforms, the White Paper seeks to increase the proportions of young people continuing to Year 12 (currently around 73%) or, in effect, the equivalent of Year 12 through participation in recognised vocational education and training programs. These reforms at the top end are being complemented by the progressive introduction a full-time preparatory year of schooling prior to Year 1. Collectively, over time these reforms will raise the educational attainments and aspirations of successive generations of Queenslanders up to the end of Year 12 and beyond.

Not surprisingly, the White Paper has tended to focus educational debate in Queensland on the early and middle years of schooling, and the desirable nature of senior schooling. However, relatively little attention appears to have been given by policy-makers to the likely flow-on or downstream' effects on educational demand and participation beyond Year 12 in Queensland stemming from the White Paper, particularly in terms of higher education. It would seem axiomatic that even in the absence of other well-recognised demographic and other influences facing the State (such as the largest predicted growth nationally in the youth cohort over the next decade), the White Paper initiatives, in and of themselves, will lead to increased demand for university places in Queensland as school-leavers and their families aspire to the greater life opportunities and personal development that stem from higher education.

The Policy Problem
Within this context, it would appear useful to re-examine issues relating to the school to higher education transition in Queensland . Historically, the transfer rate, which describes the proportion of Year 12 school-leavers who take up a university place in the year immediately after leaving school or secure a place for the following year, has been used as one measure of this transition. This rate peaked at about 41% in 1996 and has been declining steadily since then to about 33% currently. Currently, less than 50% of entrants to higher education in Queensland each year are students directly from school and evidence is emerging that higher education participation among school-leavers is continuing to slide.

There are several factors which suggest that a rethink of the desirable policy goals for the school-to-higher education transition in Queensland are necessary.

These factors include the following:
Firstly, the fundamental purposes and desirable nature of this transition or pathway are unclear from a policy perspective. For instance, should the State Government continue to encourage increased university entry direct from school or have policy objectives that encourage young people to pursue other options and experiences in the years immediately upon leaving school (eg. gap years, travel, work experiences)? Should the system examine other models of tertiary education provision as an alternative to the direct transition to university? Should we be adopting a longer term view in developing youth policy (such as viewing the youth cohort from 15-24 years of age like many OECD countries) and viewing higher education participation for young people in this context? To what extent are the wider educational and workplace choices available through programs such as Education and Training Reforms for the Future proving more attractive, transforming educational aspirations and potentially diverting more young away from higher education?

Secondly, as educational attainments and aspirations rise as a result of White Paper initiatives, should we be working towards settling on an agreed proportion of places that should be quarantined for immediate school leavers as opposed to other mature-age applicants and, if so, what should this quantum be? Should this be in the form of a youth commitment' to guarantee a fixed proportion of university places for our young people? Should we be identifying other potential policy responses to the traditional school to university direct entry pathway? Are their other barriers to university entry that are impacting particularly on school-leavers or on certain elements of the cohort (eg. boys)?
At present, the success of a particular cohort of school-leavers in securing university entry can be influenced by factors unrelated to their achievement levels including:

the overall availability of places (which is itself dependent on a whole range of factors including the state of the labour market);

the supply and demand for particular university courses from year to year;

planning and resource allocation decisions of universities; and,

increasingly, the capacity of young people and their families to pay for higher education as reflected in the introduction of more full fee-paying places.

For instance, for the 2003 entry, some universities in Queensland cut back on their over-enrolment levels (the amount of student load above fully Commonwealth funded targets) thereby reducing the number of places available overall. Such developments can impact significantly on public accountability with respect to the OP system with considerable variation annually in OP cut-off scores for particular courses shaking public confidence in university entry arrangements. Rather than continuing to leave the success of university entry for school-leavers to the vagaries of university decision-making and other external variables, there may be merit in working towards an agreed proportion or quantum of places that are quarantined each year for this group or identifying other alternative and innovative policy responses.

Thirdly, the continued utility of measures such as the transfer rate is open to question. Historically, governments have used the transfer rate as a rather passive measure to monitor the uptake of higher education among school-leavers. In and of itself, it does not guarantee or protect access to higher education for young people. The measure does not produce nationally (and internationally) comparable information due to differences in definition and scope across States and Territories. Moreover, the Queensland measure excludes higher education participation among young people more than one year out of school and other groups which might usefully be included such as young people attending interstate and private universities, non-university higher education providers, and perhaps increasingly, those taking up full fee-paying places directly with universities. Thus the fundamental nature, scope and definition of the transfer rate should be re-examined in an effort to develop a more purposeful and informative policy tool for government, and one which more accurately reflects and serves the educational environment in Queensland .

Team
Professor Joy Cumming, Director, Centre for Learning Research, Griffith University; Dr Craig Zimitat, A/Deputy Director, Griffith Institute for Higher Education & CLR, Griffith University; Dr Sharon Broughton, Centre for Learning Research, Griffith University; Margaret Buckridge, Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University; Dr Sheryl Ramsay, School of Management, Griffith University; Dr Jillian Brannock, Queensland University of Technology.

Mapping and scoping research strengths in the education and social research community in Queensland, Australia

Currently, education and social research in Queensland and Australia is not well-integrated, and there is no mechanism for positioning the State's various centres of expertise to address and take advantage of the current and future developments and challenges facing us in research, policy and teaching. This situation is not unique to Queensland, nor is it confined to education and social research. Rather, the task of better organising knowledge expertise is one being faced by governments and universities in other parts of the world (Felt et al., 2004; Savan, 2004; Auriat,1998).

Ways forward are being sought through the implementation of strategies aimed at developing research capacities across the higher education, government, industry and community sectors, and between disciplines. For example, a significant problem facing the higher education sector is one of linking university students and faculty to the community and policy sectors through applied, policy-relevant research (Wenger, 1998). Traditional science models and higher education structures are ill-equipped to enable the type of cross-sector, interdisciplinary collaboration necessary for community-based research and knowledge application. Therefore, new partnerships between research, community, and policy are required to achieve community-directed research and development. These partnerships can achieve a range of research, policy, education and action outcomes arising from quality engagements developed over time.

In order to develop these strategies necessary for building research capacity and promote their implementation it is necessary to take stock of the research skills, projects, and partnerships that currently characterise the landscape in Queensland. This knowledge will provide a strong basis for the development of realistic strategies for integrating and positioning education and social research so that it can deliver better teaching, learning, research and policy outcomes for universities, schools, communities and government and non-government stakeholders.

Australia provides a dynamic environment for education and social professionals. Rapid population growth, cultural diversity and an entrepreneurial public and private sector increasingly demand innovative approaches to education.

Eidos is further establishing education and social research collaboration amongst partners in the following areas of The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), The National Centre for Vocational Education Research ( NCVER), The United Nations (UN), The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), The Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) priority for collaborative work in the next three years including:

Indigenous Education

Career Development & Employment

Early Years

Improving Leadership Capacity

Information & Communication Technologies

Nationally consistent education and social outcomes

Pathways for Post-Compulsory Youth

Performance & Reporting

Resourcing

Aims
This proposal is concerned with a number of aims. These are, to map the following areas of education and social research strengths in Queensland universities and research centres.

To map the existing education and social research outputs and activities for Queensland universities and research centres (with an emphasis on outputs from Faculties/Schools of Education)

To align current research strengths to the priorities and activities of the education and social research policy sector

To identify opportunities for collaboration and synergy in education and social research

To identify preferred mechanisms for building education and social research capacity.

Research Questions
The following questions are relevant to the proposed research project:

What are the existing levels, quality and impact of education and social research publications?

What are the existing education and social research collaborations and their significant outcomes?

What education and social research grants, contracts and projects are being undertaken or have been either submitted or completed?

How many full-time senior level and early career staff, postdoctoral fellows, postgraduate students, and visiting researchers in the areas of education and social science?

How many and what types of education and social research methods courses are currently offered in undergraduate and postgraduate programs?

What common interests exist and what synergies are possible across education and social research areas in Queensland universities and research centres?

What types of mechanisms for building education and social research capacity are preferred by Queensland universities and research centres?

Background:

Stage One: A background research paper on examining the complex relationships that exist between education and social change.

Stage Two: A research planning meeting, Research Congress (17 May 2005), where groups of key researchers and policy makers grouped within the themes of (1) Community and Sustainability, (2) Creative Media and Communication, and (3) Transitions and Lifecourse discussed the following questions:

What are the important research and policy issues currently in your areas of education and /or social science?

Where in Queensland is research being done that addresses these issues, and what does this research tell us?

What areas of education and social research do we need to more of?

What type of evidence/knowledge do you believe is likely to be of most value in the policy sector?

What are some strategies for supporting this research? (e.g. what infrastructure would help to build capacity?)

Stage Three: Survey of Education and Social Research Institutions and Key Researchers (Current Stage)
This stage will be an Eidos/James Cook University partnership and this project stage will provide the following outputs:

A report of the current education and social research capacity in Queensland

Contacts database of cooperative leaders and members with justification around expertise and output

Recommendations for developing strategies for collaboration and synergies in education and social research in Queensland

Stage Four: Research Congress 2006 and Eidos Cooperatives Launch

Strategies for Stage Three
No single strategy will provide the necessary data to construct a reliable and accurate database of research activity across education and social science faculties in Queensland. Attempts to quantify research output in various Queensland universities have resulted in incomplete data. What counts as research is open to debate. The accuracy of bibliographical data depends on the availability of current information from individual academics. Higher degree research supervision databases are often incomplete or inaccurate. Agreed strategies for this study begin with the broader databases and work down to personal contact with individuals:

Gathering the most up to date information from publicly available databases associated with successful Australian Research Council Grants, DEST grants and other large sources of funds for educational research such as DOTAS.

Gathering the available information from university research offices concerning officially recognized research grants, publication and higher degree supervision

Contacting and/or visiting key researchers identified by the first two scans to identify other successful researchers in their field and to identify key early career researchers

Contacting and/or visiting Heads of School and/or Deans or Associate Deans (research) to review and add/delete from the list

Contacting and/or visiting individuals to provide a two page document that includes: areas of research strength, details of grants/consultancies over the last 5 years, details of publications over the last five years, details of higher degree research supervision, details of research that has had an impact on policy

Constructing a hyperlinked document that would show a brief one paragraph summary of the academics areas of research strength and outputs. Hyperlinks would enable the viewing of the more detailed two page document about the particular academic. The list would be extensive for education researchers. The list of researchers in areas outside of education would be chosen according to capacity to add value to teams undertaking educational research.

Recommendations would be made for grouping academics according to targeted priorities in education or social science research

A strategy will be developed for the maintenance of the database, so that it can be efficiently updated. This might be in the form of a database driven website that can be updated by a key person (associated with EIDOS) in each university

The information from the literature review, the contacts database and evidence of total research outputs will be used to develop recommendations for developing strategies for collaboration and synergies in education and social science research

Identification of emerging national and international research and policy areas with potential lead researchers including:

Science of learning

Water

Inclusive education

Health

Research Cooperatives to be representative of Eidos membership, cross-disciplinary education research and policy led, representative of national and international researchers currently collaborating with existing Eidos member Cooperative researchers.

Timeframe: To be finished during first week in February 2006

Project deliverables:
The project will provide the following outputs:

A report of the current education and social research capacity in Queensland, including recommendations for developing strategies for collaboration and synergies in education and social research communities.

Content for a database driven website on Eidos partner research leaders and members and their areas of expertise and outputs.

Joint authorship of Stage Three:

Associate Professor Neil Anderson, James Cook University

Professor Bruce Muirhead, Director, Eidos

Ms Ros Capeness, Research Manager, Eidos

Ms Lyn Courtney, James Cook University

Advisory Group: Eidos Research Committee

Professor Erica McWilliam, Chair (QUT)

Professor Bruce Muirhead (EIDOS)

Associate Professor Neil Anderson (JCU)

Associate Professor Bruce Knight (CQU)

Associate Professor Claire Wyatt-Smith (GU)

Associate Professor Shirley ONeill (USQ)

Ms Carol Markie-Dadds (DEA)

Ms Sue Fergusson/Mr Peter Hagan (DET)

Dr Pradeep Philip (DPC)

Ms Ros Capeness (EIDOS)

Victorian Education Flagship Strategy 1 Evaluation

The Blueprint for Government Schools , released in 2003 by Lynne Kosky, MP, and Minister for Education and Training, outlined the Government's reform agenda for the government school system. This research identified key areas that needed to be addressed: the concentration of poor outcomes in some schools and some regions; high variations of outcomes between classes within schools; and variations in outcomes between schools with similar student population. In response to these, three key areas of reform were identified as: Recognising and Responding to Diverse Student needs; Building the Skills of the Education Workforce to Enhance the Teaching-Learning Relationships; and Continuously Improving Schools. Seven Flagship strategies and initiatives specifically addressing each of these areas are currently being implemented.

Flagship Strategy 1:
Student Learning (FS1) is the first phase of pedagogical changes being made to the learning agenda in Victorian schools, and addresses the key area of Recognising and Responding to Diverse Student needs. The aim is to develop a new approach to curriculum, standards and assessment that builds on the current Curriculum Standards Framework and prepares students for life in the real world.

The key assumption is that standards achieved are also learning outcomes that may be achieved through diverse pathways. In this way the local conditions in which schools function can be taken into account, instead of using a one-size fits-all model.

This evaluation will examine Flagship Strategy 1 which comprises: Curriculum Planning Guidelines (CPG), Victorian Essential Learning Standards, Principles of Learning and Teaching P-12 (PoLT), Assessment and Reporting, and Knowledge Bank.

In particular, the evaluation will use a holistic approach to examine the impact and implementation of FS1 in relation to:

Teaching & Learning of all Students

Schools, Learning Communities & Community Engagement

System Central and Regional Approaches, Processes and Responses.

This evaluation will be a longitudinal study staged over four years. In broad terms, this evaluation will gather data and canvas opinion on the impact of FS1, and evaluate the extent to which the program is achieving its objectives. It will gather a range of qualitative and quantitative data to identify structures, strategies, policies and practices involved in and affecting the implementation of FS1. The team has developed a unique methodology that focuses of a learning model of organisational change rather than a production model.

The team is Professor Erica McWilliam (QUT), Professor Peter Taylor (QUT), Professor Gabrielle Matters (Australian Council for Educational Research) and Professor Val Klenowski (James Cook University ).

Effective Models for Employment-based Training (EBT)

Objectives
The project involved three components:
Examining and critically analysing existing and emerging EBT models.
Appraising emerging models and validating them with key stakeholder representatives and apprentices from selected occupations in two industries (case studies) where demand is high for new EBT models.
Assessing the utility of the best-fit new EBT model(s) for the case study occupations and industries and proposing recommendations for other occupations and industries.

Five research questions were explored when determining effective models of employment based training:
In what ways are current features of EBT models considered effective or ineffective, and by whom and for what reasons?
What are the features of alternative EBT models being considered or trialled at present to secure greater effectiveness for learners and employers?
Which emerging EBT models best fit the needs of selected occupations in two industries and what (if any) modifications are required?
What issues need to be addressed to implement the identified best-fit new EBT models in the selected case study occupations and industries?
What is the utility of the proposed new EBT model(s) in the case studies for other occupations/industries?

Approach
This project explored a variety of EBT models that can respond to current issues and concerns, and minimise the limitations of existing EBT models, at the same time reasonably withstand potential issues that may arise in the future. It focused on two industry areas as case examples for exploring effective EBT models. In choosing the industries and occupations, consideration was given to those which:
showed activities in alternative EBT models;
were keen on EBT models at all VET qualification levels, and higher levels in particular; and
have future employment growth and good job prospects.

Following consultations stakeholders in industry and the VET sector, occupations in the process manufacturing industry and child care occupations in the community services and health industry were selected for this study. They both represented quite different industry types. Data was collected through face to face and telephone interviews, and via emails from seventeen participants representing the process manufacturing industry and sixteen from the child care industry.

A set of five best-fit models to suit the two industries were explored. The potential for customisation and implementation of these models for other occupations and industries was then considered.

Eidos Research Team: Dr Sarojni Choy, Dr Kaye Bowman, Assoc. Prof. Stephen Billett, Dr Sandra Haukka, Ms Louise Wignall.

Project impacts

- The research highlights a number of issues around improving the effectiveness of EBT models. It focuses on higher level VET qualifications (Certificate III and above) that has not received much attention to date.
- Specifically, policies and legislations that are currently managed by different departments/authorities need to be synchronised to achieve effectiveness. Only through a holistic response will all parties (employees, employers, RTOs, industries and governments) see true benefits of EBT at higher levels (above Cert. III).
- The proposed models could be varied/customized to suit the different contexts of the employers/workplaces/industries.
- The project reports a basis for further debates, discussions and negotiations for the implementation of effective EBT models.
- The proposed models inform the basis for more research to shape policies around EBT at higher levels (above Cert. III).

The sharing of findings from the case studies has informed the different employers (who participated) and employees of various options and VET providers about what these two groups want from higher level VET. The research team was invited to present the findings at a national conference. There have been several requests for the findings.

The research was presented at the ICVET conference in NSW in August by team member Kaye Bowman. The written feedback from, NCVER indicated teh research was interesting, useful, timely, thought provoking, challenging informative and gave new insights and new ideas. NSW TAFE RTOs are more informed as to what employers/employees want in higher level VET.

The literature review consolidates a number of reviews, reports and commentaries and presents a historical development of EBT in Australia. It also summarizes the key issues that have recurred since the introduction of EBT. The literature review in particular reminds us of the higher level VET imperative that has still not been sufficiently acted on, despite a call for this to occur over ten years ago.

The findings of the research suggest the push for contracts of training at higher VET levels may not be the preferred option for industry. Improved course based options with added work experience components might be the better way to proceed or at least offer viable options for RTOs to pursue.

Improving training is always on the agenda locally and internationally, hence there is interest in EBT models. Furthermore, there is increasing demand for more work related and work integrated learning from learners and employers. All sectors of education are striving to provide relevant skilling for a competitive market.

Papers/articles
- A paper was presented at the 2007 AVETRA conference, as a work in progress, on the literature review. A copy was sent to NCVER.
- A power point presentation including of findings was developed for the ICVET conference, with a NSW orientation.
- More papers are expected to be published.

Operations of Schooling Review

Operations of schooling can impact significantly in ensuring the advantaged continue to display the best outcomes while also ensuring that the less well off become even more disadvantaged. The review examined literature to deliver a comprehensive theoretical model that mapped the patterns of relationships amongst operational aspects of schooling and identified moderating and mediating relationships known to be of relevance when predicting student outcomes; these outcomes included social, behavioural and academic indicators of success. The research of this study endorses the centrality of teachers and their pedagogies in the successful implementation of recommended reforms of schooling.

In Search of Evidence - Measuring Community Engagement

Investigation of the practicality of using currently collected and published information to report against a set of indicators to determine the type and extent of community engagement activity in and between Victorian universities.
1. Universities goals and objectives with regard to community
engagement are not well supported by formal reporting and
existing reporting protocols are under utilized.
2. Many university managers are not aware of the breadth of
community engagement that currently occurs in their institutions.
Community engagement reporting is inconsistent occurring in an
ad-hoc way and is usually qualitative.

Community Consultation for Strategic Futures

This project facilitated eight community consultation and engagement forums on South East Queensland with Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders to identify barriers and opportunities for improving vocational outcomes in remote areas.

Cost Benefit Analysis of Models of Human Service Delivery

Analysis of the literature on the costs and benefits of various models of government investment in human service delivery based on national and international evidence.