El docente en la Evaluación Formativa

There is significant research detailing the shift in the Australian international higher education positioning from aid to education as trade (Smart & Ang, 1996; Cuthbert et al. 2008). Both sets of researchers point to two policy initiatives, which began this process. The first was the abolition of university tuition fees during the Labour Government of Gough Whitlam (1975), which resulted in an increased number of foreign fee-paying students starting to arrive in Australia.

The second policy shift saw the introduction of an Overseas Student Charge (OSC) in 1986 following the findings of two reports: The Jackson report on Australia's overseas aid program (Jackson, 1984) and the Goldring Committee report (Goldring, 1984), which ultimately imposed full-cost fee recovery on overseas students. Initially, the impost of full fee recovery was ameliorated by the Goldring report, in which the chair stated:

“Education should be regarded as an export industry in which institutions are encouraged to compete for students and funds. This would require a more positive attitude towards acceptance of foreign students in Australia. Improvements in the Australian graduate training system are urgently needed to enable Australia to compete with countries such as the United States for students of high calibre. This would provide education that is more relevant to developmental needs, benefit Australian students, and assist the Australian economy” (Goldring, as cited in Fraser, 1984, p15).

Through the implementation of this initiative, universities were encouraged to open their doors to international students who would pay the costs of their education. As a result, foreign student aid costs were now partially recouped through some form of cost recovery of student fees whereby private, non- government sponsored overseas students were required to pay one third of the actual cost of their tuition (Cuthbert et al. 2008).

From 1990, intakes of subsidised students ceased and from then on, all new overseas students were required to pay the full cost of their education except in certain circumstances, for example, where fees are covered by a government or university scholarship. Institutions could now only admit overseas students if they were full fee-paying enrolments. The number of foreign aid students subsidised by the Commonwealth fell from 20,000 in 1986 to 6,000 in 1991 while the number of full-fee students rose from 2,000 to 48,000 over the same period (Smart & Ang, 1996; Smart, Volet & Ang, 2000; Cuthbert et al. 2008).

After the advent of a substantial full-fee paying international cohort a migration points system was introduced by the Department of Immigration (Jupp, 2002). This policy initiative, Jupp (2002) argued, shadowed the release of the FitzGerald report on Immigration in 1988, which introduced a rule-based system whereby “the focus on intake policy should be on skills rather than on humanitarian or family categories” (p48). This intended restructuring of decision-making procedures was a deliberate attempt by the then Immigration Department Minister, Robert Ray, to limit ministerial and departmental discretion of migration selection. Since then there has been a proliferation of visa classes and entry permits. Jupp declared, “The FitzGerald report was the most important influence on the Immigration Department for the next decade” as many migrant intakes were now reliant on a “points test”. Indeed, Freeman (1995) argued that the introduction of a points system should be viewed as Australia’s linkage of labour force needs with immigrant skills by building a system of migrant selection based on human capital capabilities.

These significant changes in foci influenced the development in 1991 of an export-oriented education industry when new arrangements for student entry were brought into effect (DIMA, 2001).

A 1992 statement issued by the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, suggested it was “timely to consider Australia’s developing role in international education and training and to chart a course for the 1990s” (Beazley, 1992, Pii). The Commonwealth Government’s new policy on international education, Beazley argued involved a shift away from commercialism towards a “new professionalism” (1992, p4). As a result of this policy shift, international students in Australia increased from around 22,000 (2,000 fee paying) in 1986 to about 54,000 (48,000 fee paying) in 1991 (Beazley, 1992, p4). The professionalism to which Beazley referred also highlighted the seminal role that a partnership between the Commonwealth Government and education providers played in the promotion of Australia’s place within the provision of international education. Ensuring “a predictable, streamlined and flexible regulatory environment in which to operate and invest” (p8). The resultant codification included the adoption of the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act (1991), as well as codes of practice for English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS) (2017); the inception of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) in 1992, along with a revision of the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) system.

A further policy initiative leading to the development of education as trade is explained in an article written for the Oxford Review of Economic Policy (Quiggin, 1998). Quiggin argued one major policy shift that ineluctably influenced the direction of Australian economic policy was the implementation of the 1993 National Competition Policy (Independent Committee of Inquiry into Competition Policy in Australia & Hilmer, 1993). The implementation of this microeconomic policy reform led to the corporatisation of government business enterprises and a comprehensive program of competitive tendering and contracting for publicly provided services such as health and education. Australia was moving from the 1951 Colombo Plan of education as aid to education provided on a commercial

basis through to the current full fee-paying student fee model for international students as outlined below.

2.2.3 Education as Internationalisation