This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 11 November 2014, At: 04:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

British Journal of Sociology ofEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbse20

Accountability and Control: asociological account of secondaryschool assessment in QueenslandBob Lingard aa University of QueenslandPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Bob Lingard (1990) Accountability and Control: a sociological account ofsecondary school assessment in Queensland , British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11:2,171-188, DOI: 10.1080/0142569900110204

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142569900110204

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1990 171

Accountability and Control: a sociological account ofsecondary school assessment in Queensland*

BOB LINGARD, University of Queensland

ABSTRACT This paper analyses sociologically the current form of school-based secon-dary assessment in Queensland which is criterion-referenced to Year 10 and a hybridcriterion/norm referenced form at the end of Year 12. Habermas' arguments are used tosuggest that this assessment pattern will give the state potentially greater 'steeringcapacity' over education by 'rationalising' it—the 'scientisation of schooling'. This formof assessment fits within the accountability discourse of the economically parsimonious1980s while meeting selection demands. However, the approach does meet some educa-tional demands. The paper also reflects upon the role of the state and expert knowledge inpolicy formulation.

Introduction

As has been pointed out by a number of sociologists of education (for example,Hextall, 1976; Whitty, 1976; Broadfoot, 1979, 1981, 1984; Apple, 1979; Henry,1988) most academic analyses of assessment have been concerned with technicalmatters to do with reliability, comparability and so on, rather than with moresociological considerations. This relative sociological neglect is very surprisinggiven that one of the most direct links between schooling and society (particularlythe labour market) occurs at the point of assessment [1]. The situation hasimproved somewhat recently, with Broadfoot (1979, 1981, 1984) and Whitty(1985) providing a general framework for a 'sociology of assessment' withinwestern capitalist schooling. In her 1981 paper 'Towards a sociology of assess-ment', Broadfoot argues the need now for the application of the generalframework of a 'sociology of assessment' to specific education systems at a giventime.

*An earlier version of this paper was presented to the International Sociology of EducationConference, Westhill College, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 4th-6th January, 1988.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

172 BobLingard

Following Broadfoot's call then, this paper provides a specific sociological casestudy of secondary school assessment in Queensland. Of necessity, that willrequire, amongst other things, a brief description of Queensland's school-basedassessment and more importantly a brief history and politics of changes in theform of secondary school assessment since public examinations (the Junior andSenior exams) were abolished in the early 1970s following the implementation ofthe 1970 Radford Report. Here the paper considers briefly why school-basedassessment was retained from the late 1970s while simultaneously the far rightQueensland government was seeking tighter control over the content of schoolingthrough the proscription and prescription of certain content areas.

Utilising the work of Habermas, regarding 'scientism' and the negative side ofrationalisation, and the interesting and illuminating application of his work in theAustralian context by Pusey (1980, 1981, 1983), the Year 10 and Year 12assessment approaches are analysed as part of the 'scientisation of schooling'which is part of the broader 'scientisation of polities'. It is argued that theincreasing 'scientisation of schooling' has occurred in response to the Queens-land state government's desire for greater accountability and surer 'steeringcapacity' in a period of economic recession and restructuring. In the process, thecontradictory nature of both the policy and practice is also considered. Teachershave retained some professional autonomy because the current hybrid form ofassessment attempts to meet simultaneously both 'educational' and 'managerial'rationales (Bates, 1984).

In addition, the case study provides some insights into several theoreticalmatters of concern within contemporary sociology and sociology of education,notably the nature of the capitalist state, the role of the state in the formulationof educational policy (for example, Dale, 1982; McNay & Ozga, 1985), the impactof the bureaucratic structure of education systems upon policy formulation (Dale,1982; Clegg et al., 1986) and the role and nature of teacher 'professionalism' and'expert knowledge' in educational policy and practice (Ozga & Lawn, 1981;Beilharz, 1985; Apple, 1986; Henry, 1987).

A brief description is required at this point of the current system of school-based assessment which operates in Queensland. The Board of Secondary SchoolStudies (BOSSS) through its moderation and accreditation procedures 'monitors'assessment and curricula. The Board produces syllabus documents in all subjectsfor Years 8—10 and Years 11-12. Schools write their own programmes within thebroad parameters of the syllabus and have them accredited by the Board. Theseprogrammes also must include assessment programmes and 'test instruments'.Board syllabus documents include global aims and objectives classified in terms ofcontent, process, skill and affective categories. In addition to Board subjects,schools also construct their own non-accredited, non-moderated (non-Board)school subjects which do not contribute to the Tertiary Entrance (TE) score.

The Board also moderates school assessment results and is involved in thecalculation of the Tertiary Entrance score for Year 12 students. Moderation atYear 10 level is to be phased out by 1990 when only accreditation of programmeswill occur. Moderation of assessment occurs at the Year 11 level when schoolshave to submit to the Board student work reflecting the five categories ofperformance, namely, 'Very High Achievement, High Achievement, Sound, Lim-ited, Very Limited'. It is in Year 12 where the tightest moderation occurs. InSeptember, schools submit nine sets of student work (two from each level of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Secondary School Assessment in Queensland 173

achievement, one from 'very limited') in each Board subject covering threesemesters work (two from Year 11 and one from Year 12). Moderation finalisesthese results by October.

The Australian Scholastic Aptitude Test (ASAT) created by the AustralianCouncil of Educational Research (ACER) is used to 'standardise' these moderatedschool results to arrive at a Tertiary Entrance Score (TE Score). Students' schoolresults in each subject are adjusted according to the performance of that subjectgroup within the school on ASAT. Students' adjusted scores on their five bestsubjects are then aggregated. Students' aggregated scores are then rescaled by theBoard according to how well the school performed on ASAT. All students withinthe state are then ranked and TE scores assigned. (For a more detailed account,see Henry, 1988.) The Board calls this form of assessment 'standards-based'(Sadler, 1986, p. 6); clearly it is a hybrid criterion/norm referenced form.

Historical and Political Context of School-based Assessment

The only book-length history of Queensland secondary education has a chapterentitled 'Whoever examines, controls' (Goodman, 1968). This aphorism is borneout if one traces the history of public and school-based examinations in Queens-land. In a sense, this history shows ongoing conflict between competing interestsinternal to the 'state' (government politicians, the Department, Boards and so on)and pressures coming from groups such as the universities, Queensland Teachers'Union, Employer groups, and even from the expanded and changed secondarystudent body in the post-World War II period. The evidence here supports a viewof the state as a site of contestation over policy with the bureaucratic administra-tive procedures framing the way these matters get on to the agenda and areresponded to (Clegg et al., 1986, p. 278); the state of the economy also will be acontingency in this process (ibid; Offe, 1985).

The first government high schools in Queensland were established in 1912,long after the private grammar schools had constructed a particular definition ofsecondary education linked to university demands. From 1912 right up to theimplementation of the Radford Report post-1970, which recommended theabolition of public examinations, the University of Queensland 'controlled'secondary curricula in Queensland via their junior and senior public examina-tions. From the 1940s, various weak attempts were made to modify this control.Given the expanding secondary school population in the post-war period theredeveloped a mismatch between the university dominated curricula and thesecondary population. Consequently, control of the junior examination passed tothe Department of Education from 1960; legislation was required to breakuniversity control over the senior public examination. Thus, the abolition ofpublic examinations following the acceptance of the Radford Report in 1970could be seen to be the step by which the Department of Education brokeuniversity control over secondary education.

A whole range of interrelated economic, social, political and educationalfactors came together in the appointment in 1969 of the Radford Committee 'toreview the system of public examinations for Queensland Secondary Schoolstudents and to make recommendations for the assessment of students' achieve-ments'. With the Education Act of 1964 the school leaving age was raised to 15years. That decision, along with the 1962 abolition of the scholarship exam at the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

174 Bob Lingard

end of primary school and a restructured 7/5 rather than 8/4 primary/secondaryarrangement, signalled that some secondary education now was to be undertakenby all. The 1964 Act had established a Board of Junior Secondary School Studiesand a Board of Senior Secondary School Studies to oversee secondary education.

Developments in Queensland education in the 1960s/early 1970s, includingthe implementation of the Radford recommendations to abolish all public exami-nations, must also be seen in the context of broader cultural and political changesoccurring throughout Australia and capped by the election at the federal level bythe Whitlam Labor government committed to liberal-progressive reforms ofeducation. Freeland (1979) has argued that from the mid-60s liberal-progressivepressure from academics, the teacher unions, parent organisations and, interes-tingly, from some senior administrators within the State Department of Educationitself, established a new climate for liberal/progressive reform in Queenslandschooling, but many of these changes were disjunctive with the interests andideologies of Queensland's political and economic elite.

Developing teacher professionalism was also important in this confluence offactors with college-based teacher education extended to three years in 1969 andthe presence of more sixties university graduates in the schools. The QueenslandTeachers' Union, after winning important 'industrial' gains in the sixties, was ableto focus on so-called 'professional questions' (Ozga & Lawn, 1981) for a time;public examinations were a central focus here (see Clarke, 1987). The construc-tion of teacher professionalism was closely aligned with notions of increasedteacher control over curricula and assessment.

The Education Act Amendment Act of 1970 No. 2 put into effect therecommendations of the 1970 Radford Report, thus abolishing public examina-tions (junior, 1970; senior, 1972) which were replaced by school-based moderatedassessment at both Year 10 and Year 12 levels. The Board of Secondary SchoolStudies (BOSSS) with quasi-autonomous status was established to oversee secon-dary curricula and assessment. At the Year 12 level the Australian Council ofEducational Research's 'Australian Scholastic Aptitude Test' (ASAT) was used inconjunction with moderated school-based results to provide Year 12 studentswith a Tertiary Entrance Score. Results at both Year 10 and 12 levels were norm-referenced, tying neatly with the selection and allocation function of education.

There was broad support within the education community for these changes.Interestingly, opposition to the Report was expressed by two of the majoremployer groups in Queensland: the Queensland Employers' Federation and theQueensland Chamber of Manufacturers. It is a clear indication of the comingtogether of favourable economic conditions and ideology that the Employergroups did not win the day.

Freeland (1979, p. 59) has argued that the effect of the abolition of publicexaminations and the establishment of a Board of Secondary School Studies, onwhich were represented all the education interest groups, was to "decentralisecontrol over syllabi and assessment" and to "increase the power and responsi-bility of the individual school and teacher". School-based subjects, those notaccredited by the Board, proliferated in an attempt to meet the needs of allsecondary students, but could not be counted towards the TE score. Whether ornot the new freedom Freeland talks about was actually taken up is perhapsdebatable, given that the material conditions of practice of teachers remainedbasically unchanged (Dale, 1979). Maher (1983) argues that the abolition of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Secondary School Assessment in Queensland 175

public exams was not a "move towards school-based curriculum development ordecision-making". Rather, she argues, the BOSSS controlled syllabus develop-ment through its subject advisory committees and accreditation. Teachers were,however, represented on these committees.

The economic recession from the mid-1970s saw a Fraser-led conservativefederal government reduce expenditure on education generally, while at the sametime attempting to push it in a more directly vocational direction. High andseemingly intransigent levels of youth unemployment brought conservative at-tacks upon the schools which spawned the whole 'back to basics' movement. InQueensland, the conservative backlash against the short-lived progressive periodwas harsher and perhaps more intrusive than elsewhere in the country. Thebannings of SEMP (Social Education Materials Project) and MACOS (Man,A Course of Study) social studies curriculum materials in 1978 provide a clearbenchmark for the (attempted?) reassertion of direct state power over educationin Queensland and the reimposition of the conservative definition of schooling.Since that time the state government has directly intervened in education oninnumerable occasions (see Lingard, Henry & Taylor, 1987, p. 138).

Right across Australia there has been an additional ideological push accom-panying the tight economic circumstances since the mid-70s. This has been thecall for greater efficiency and accountability in educational expenditure andstudent performance (Henry & MacLennan, 1980; Ryan, 1982). It is the accoun-tabilist pressure which is mediated in its implementation through the bureaucraticarrangement of educational provision and the expert/technical knowledge associ-ated with it.In terms of accountability and 'correct' bureaucratic procedures the Board ofSecondary School Studies continued to monitor the operation of Radford school-based assessment. In 1975 two studies of the operation of school-based assess-ment were made available to the Board—Schools Under Radford and the CampbellReport. In early 1976 the Board appointed a special sub-committee to evaluate theimplications of these two studies. The final report produced in 1978—A Review ofSchools-based Assessment in Queensland Secondary Schools (ROSBA)—recommended amove from norm-referenced assessment associated with Radford to a criterion-referenced form, but supported the retention of the school-based approach. Thenew form of assessment, including the hybrid norm-referenced/criterion-refer-enced form at Year 12 where students were still ranked for a TE score, wasimplemented in stages from 1980 and is now fully operational and is usuallyreferred to as ROSBA, the acronym from the Report.

Clearly, the development of criterion-referenced assessment in Queenslandunder ROSBA fits with the broader push for accountability of education in theeconomically tight times since the mid-70s. Indeed, the preface to the finalROSBA Report states that the recommendations contained therein were made inthe light of the so-called 'Standards Debate' and the 'public demand for perform-ance accountability'. One goal of both criterion-referenced assessment and com-petency-based assessment is to placate those who are concerned about allegedfalling standards and who are demanding greater 'product accountability' ofeducational institutions (Broadfoot, 1979, p. 73). Such assessment approaches tellwhat a student does or does not know. By contrast, norm-referenced assessment,while most effective for selection purposes, providing a comparative statement ofstudent performance, does not allay product or performance accountability

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

176 Bob Lingard

demands and indeed cannot meet them (Bates, 1984) [2]. The ROSBA Report wasquite sensitive to these issues.

At one level then the new form of secondary assessment can be seen as aresponse to product accountability demands. At another level, the new form ofsecondary assessment can be understood as an expedient self-defence mechanismfor educationalists and teachers. The political strength of criterion-referencedassessment lies in the fact that control here is hidden behind arcane and'technical' language. However, it is much more than this; there are progressiveaspects, particularly its potentially non-competitive nature and it does, in anaccountable way, potentially at least, provide parents and students with pro-gramme aims, etc. prior to the undertaking of a programme. Teachers are able toconstruct relevant programmes of work. As would be expected, the ROSBAReport also justifies its recommendations on more overtly educational grounds,arguing, for example, that a criterion-based assessment allows for effectiveremediation of student problems which is not possible under norm-referencedassessment.

Thus, despite the many wert instances of government intervention in schoolcurricula since 1978, school-based assessment has been retained, albeit in ahybrid criterion-referenced form. The next section of the paper will attempt toshow sociologically why public examinations have not been reintroduced. Thesection following that will attempt to show that more sophisticated and subtleforms of control exist through the 'scientisation' of schooling implicit in theassessment procedures outlined here.

The Defence of School-based Assessment: the state, education policy,policy-makers and teachers

From the mid to late 1970s attacks on the earlier liberal-progressive reformsgained apace. Criticism of school-based assessment at times formed part of thisbroader critique. As outlined earlier, the implementation of the Radford recom-mendations had broken university control over secondary schooling and shiftedthis control indirectly to the Department of Education via the quasi-autonomousBoard of Secondary School Studies; subsequently, teachers and schools poten-tially had some autonomy concerning curricula, pedagogy and assessment. Itseemed evident that at the time when the state was attempting to institute tightercontrols over schooling, including curricula, that school-based assessment wouldcome under close government scrutiny and indeed it did. In his campaign speechfor the 1977 state election the Premier, Bjelke-Petersen, promised a full review ofschool-based assessment. In his words (quoted in Cribb & Boyce, 1980, p. 29):"Queensland led the way in introducing the Radford scheme of school assess-ment. Experience has shown weaknesses in that scheme. We will reviewit . . ." . The Board of Secondary School Studies had virtually preempted thiselection promise by appointing Professor Scott in February 1976 to reviewschool-based assessment. In April 1978 the Review of School-based Assessment(ROSBA) was published recommending the retention of school-based assessment,but in a criterion-referenced mode. In April 1978, following the public furoreover the banning of MACOS and SEMP and Bjelke-Petersen's 1977 electionpromise, a Parliamentary Select Committee on Education in Queensland (AhemCommittee) was established. One of the areas of inquiry was to be the 'efficiency

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Secondary School Assessment in Queensland 177

and adequacy of the present system of secondary education'; secondary schoolassessment came under this heading.

On 5 December, 1978 the Parliamentary Select Committee tabled its FirstInterim Report which was entitled 'Composition and Functions of the Board ofSecondary School Studies and Secondary School Assessment'. This Interim Reportbasically endorsed the recommendations of the ROSBA Report with minoramendments. It is interesting to speculate as to why this was the first issue dealtwith by the Parliamentary Select Committee, given the turmoil over the MACOSand SEMP bannings. The fact that Scott had completed his review at about thetime of the appointment of the Parliamentary Inquiry is one possible explanation.As well, the 'technical' nature of school assessment and debates surrounding itmay have helped to defuse and deflect public concern over other issues. School-based assessment remained in place. A consideration of why this is the case helpsshed some light on the nature of the state, the formation of education policy intimes of economic stringency and the role played by the bureaucrats and teachersin these processes.

All critical sociological theories reject the view that the state is simply a'benignly neutral instrument' of government policy (Clegg et al., 1986, p. 275).However, within neo-Marxist and Weberian influenced theories of the state thereis considerable debate, which attempts to retain, on the one hand, the view thatthe state ultimately has to protect capital accumulation, but on the other,attempts to grant some autonomy (administrative and otherwise) to the state andto politics. Thus for instance, Clegg et al. (1986, p. 285) state:

the relative autonomy of the state is recognised, as well as the limitsplaced on this by its operating environment, and its form as a complexorganisation; indeed, it is precisely the latter that ensures that the statecan never enact in any unmediated way any interest representation madeto it.

During times of economic difficulty, conflict within the state is increased becauseless funds are available (Apple, 1982, p. 2; Dale, 1982, p. 137); capital seekstighter sway while others defend their interests and gains made in more favour-able times. According to Apple (1982, p. 2) in such a contest over state educationpolicy:

Industry will want its needs to take priority. The professional middleclass, state bureaucrats, and other allied groups will attempt to maintaintheir own ideological sway.

Changed policies will reflect this contestation, as often will the new discourse(Apple, 1982, p. 5; Bernstein, 1986). Thus and to reiterate, in straitenedeconomic times economic pressures will affect state education policy but not in anunmediated fashion.

Tightening economic circumstances are 'translated' into state policies andsomething is lost in the translation. According to Apple (1982, p. 4):

In order to cope with the problems of falling monetary support and thequestioning of its operations, the state bureaucracy (stimulated by eco-nomic pressures and by higher authorities within the state itself) willintroduce centralised accountability mechanisms, 'tighten up standards',

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

178 Bob Lingard

be more 'selective', reduce funding for higher education, reintroducebasics, etc.

At the same time, educational provision has to retain its legitimacy in the eyes of thepublic; also the state operates on a different set of principles from the private sector(Offe, 1975). Education policy in the economic situation of the present, according toApple (1982, p. 4) must attempt to achieve simultaneously contradictory demands,that is: "It must assist in helping to recreate a tighter economic and ideological shipwhile keeping its legitimacy in the eyes of others". The interests and expertise ofteachers and state bureaucrats are a component in this policy situation.

In this way, the ROSBA Report was not "merely the result of an imposition ofstrategies from outside the educational system" (Apple, 1982, p. 2). Rather, theROSBA document can be seen at one level as a 'protective and defensive' one, whichsought to defend the earlier gains of professional autonomy for teachers within thenew economic, political and cultural context. As Beilharz (1985) has astutely argued,those professionals employed by the state have interests of their own and thoseinterests (often unacknowledged) are a component in the formation of state policies.They are most certainly a component in their implementation. And clearly thecriterion-referenced form of school-based assessment, implemented followingROSBA, appears to meet teachers' professional interests in that it allows for someteacher autonomy (construction of work programmes, for example) and at the sametime allows teachers to resolve conflicts in their role in a defensible and apparentlyobjective way (see Young, 1980); thus bringing together the professional and techni-cal conditions of teacher labour, which Bates (1984) suggests exist in a symbioticrelationship.

In a sense, the Board of Secondary School Studies' own 'rational' bureaucraticand accountability procedures in establishing the Review of School-based Assess-ment served to protect its own existence and to defend school-based assessment[3]. Accountability pressures have been 'recontextualised' (Bernstein, 1986)within the existing framework of school-based assessment via the criterion-referenced approach, while at present the TE score serves the selection andallocation function at the Year 12 level.

Bates (1984) has written about the 'educational' and 'managerial' aspects ofschool assessment and their accompanying forms of accountability. Within thatframework, he argues that criterion-referenced assessement is more geared tomeeting educational needs such as providing useful feedback to parents, studentsand teachers. On the other hand, norm-referenced assessment is linked tocentralised 'managerial accountability' and the wider social purposes of 'alloca-tion, stratification and exclusion'. There is also the additional point which hasbeen made here that the criterion-referenced approach on the surface meetsproduct accountability demands. Thus the current hybrid norm/criterion-refer-enced school-based assessment operating in Queensland meets some educationalpurposes important to teachers while still meeting more macro selection andaccountability purposes, thus suturing together in an interesting way Bates''educational' and 'managerial' aspects of assessment.

The Scientisation of Schooling: control and accountability

The Board of Secondary School Studies which oversees both assessment andcurricula has some 'structural' autonomy from both the Department of Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Secondary School Assessment in Queensland 179

and from the government. All of the education interest groups (including theunions), for example, have ex officio representation upon the Board. How doesthis relate to the seeming desire by the government for greater control overeducation? It will be argued here that control exists but more subtly via bothbureaucratic and 'technological' means (Dale, 1982, p. 141), or in Pusey's wordsvia the 'scientisation of schooling'.

Berger et al. (1973) in The Homeless Mind have written creatively andinstructively of 'bureaucratic consciousness' which Weber saw as endemic toindustrialisation. Berger et al.'s (1973, pp. 50ff.) account of the cognitive style ofbureaucratic consciousness emphasising 'orderliness', a 'taxonomic propensity','organisability', 'predictability', the 'non-separability of means and ends' and soon seems most applicable to both the nature and administration of school-basedassessment in Queensland. For example, the categorisation of objectives as'content', 'process', 'skill' and 'affective' seems to be an example of the'taxonomic propensity' par excellence. Moreover, given the nature of teachingwhich in reality seems to be resistant to such forms of bureaucratic control(Pusey, 1983, p. 402), this definition of objectives does seem to be an exampleof Berger et al.'s (1973, p. 50) "bureaucratic demiurge who views the universeas a dumb chaos waiting to be brought into the redeeming order ofbureaucratic administration". Within this scheme of things, 'process objectives'are associated with Bloom's taxonomy of intellectual processes, which Symes(1984) has appositely referred to as a 'Dewey decimal system of the mind'; thepoint here is that such a 'taxonomic propensity' is 'custom-made' forbureaucratic administration (see also Wake, 1979). Furthermore, this categorisa-tion of objectives seems to be part of the process of 'self-anonymisation' (ibid.,p. 37) and the construction of the 'componential self (ibid., p. 37) which Bergeret al. (1973) see as central aspects of technological consciousness. The'componential self dovetails nicely with the imperialism of the 'measurability'urge associated with such consciousness (ibid., p. 31). Further, perhaps theswitch from Radford to ROSBA can be seen as an example of the 'tinkeringattitude' (ibid., p. 34) associated with the 'problem-solving inventiveness' (ibid.,p. 34) intrinsic to technological consciousness. Radford needed 'expert fine-tuning', as it were, to iron out 'teething problems' particularly in a new socio-economic climate. This account would suggest Offe (1975) is surely correct toemphasise that the bureaucratic structure of state institutions 'determines' tosome extent not only the nature of the problems to be considered, but also howthey are defined and potential solutions.

Habermas has defined and analysed 'scientism' and the 'scientisation ofpolitics' in a wide range of his writing. (See Pusey, 1987.) In Knowledge andHuman Interests, at one level a sociological critique of positivism, Habermasargues that the 'knowledge constitutive' interest of positivistic science (includingsocial science) is control. Further, he defines 'scientism' as the imperialisticconviction that such science is the only valid form of knowledge. Thescientisation of politics is part of the negative side of rationalisation (the loss ofmeaning) whereby 'problems' for democratic governments and the state aredefined narrowly as 'technical' problems to be solved by experts utilisingpositivistic approaches. In the process (and in an undemocratic way) citizensbecome the objects rather than the subjects of politics in an administeredsociety. Positivistic social science plays an important role in these trends.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

180 BobLingard

Utilising Pusey's (1980, 1981, 1982, 1983) adaptation of Habermas' thesis, itwill be argued here that the current form of secondary school assessment inQueensland (ROSBA) (including the Tertiary Entrance score) is an example ofthe 'scientisation of schooling'.

Pusey (1980, 1981, 1982, 1983) has argued that during the 1980s control andrationalisation of schooling will be central to the education debate. He arguesthat control will be the central question because of three factors: the centrality ofthe functions of education to social, political and economic life (the allocationand legitimation functions), the difficulties of actually controlling educationsystems and because there will be more demands upon schools and simultaneouslypressures for more control (Pusey, 1983). The latter factor obviously relates tothe changed economic context of schooling since the mid-1970s.

According to Pusey (1983, p. 402) there is "a permanent tension betweenteaching and administration" or elsewhere "the real point is that educationalpractice only admits of a low level of rationalisation" (1981, p. 11). As the goalsof education have multiplied, amounting to almost "total personality develop-ment" (Pusey, 1983, p. 492), they have become more indeterminate and thus lesscommensurate with traditional bureaucratic procedures (and even less open torationalisation).

Now, given the economically-inspired demands upon schooling to producemore for less and the simultaneous demand for tighter control, there are veryreal contradictory pressures operating because governments in such times alsotend to 'dump' more and more problems onto the schooling system for solution.This means the goals become increasingly indeterminate, thus further impedingand indeed militating against the possibility for more traditional bureaucraticforms of control. Hence there is an unresolvable tension between the desire fortighter control and the expansion of educational goals into an ever moreindeterminate direction. Thus:

Although much of the legendary ritual has gone, the inherent logic ofthe bureaucratic system inexorably depends on the very thing which ithas now lost: clear goals and objectives that can give stability of refer-ence to the direction and operation of the system. (Pusey, 1980, p. 48)

In this context, Pusey (1983) argues that a changed form of control is nowoperating: "higher administrative control is more ideological than hierarchical inthe old fashioned bureaucratic sense" (Pusey, 1983, p. 405). He (1980) arguesthat a pending legitimation crisis (Habermas, 1975) (or at least potential crises ofrationality and motivation) within the broader culture means that the aims ofeducation are no longer self-legitimating (see also Habermas, 1975, p. 71). Thescientisation of the aims of education, utilising the expertise of social scientists, isone response here. Given these complexities, Pusey (1980, 1981, 1982, 1983)maintains that what governments now want is not so much direct control, but'control of a more generalised kind' (1981, p. 9) or 'steering capacity'. Ineducation, governments want the 'administrative management of education sim-plified, extended and tightened' (1981, p. 10). Pusey, drawing on Habermasagain, asserts that the required ' steering capacity' over education will be achievedby the 'scientisation of schooling' utilising the positivistic social sciences whoseconstitutive interest is control. Such scientistic research:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Secondary School Assessment in Queensland 181

creates the unwarranted expectation that even the fine grain of educa-tional practice can and should be more closely structured, and inprinciple, made more programmable. (Pusey, 1983, p. 405)

Pusey (1983, p. 406) also adds that such rationalising science destroys practiceby threatening 'natural language' and 'experience', its two essential ingredients.Thus:

As soon as the constructed and technical languages are institutionalisedand achieve formal legitimacy in the administrative structure, they beginto displace practice by blocking off the very thing which gives it breath,substance and stability, namely unconstrained reference in ordinaryspeech to lived experience. (Pusey, 1981, p. 99)

This control via the 'scientisation of schooling', according to Pusey (1983, p.405), is reaffirmed by agencies outside of schooling. In this respect he liststeacher-education institutions, research organisations (ACER for example),specialists in the fields of curriculum development, education administration andevaluation. Elsewhere, Pusey (1982, p. 10) lists some practices which are part ofthe process, such as 'programmed modular curriculum packages', 'standardisednormative testing instruments', 'criterion-referenced educational evaluation' andso on. This form of control is ideological, rather than hierarchical andbureaucratic; even though such control fits neatly with a bureacratic framework.The criterion-referenced assessment central to ROSBA is an example of thescientisation of schooling. Certainly it constructs its own technical languagewhich seems to deny recourse to experience and natural language. Further, itdraws upon psychometric assumptions to classify objectives while in a sensedenying questions of culture and human values in the process. It seems evidentthat ROSBA, in a classically scientistic way, attempts to make education "moreprogrammable, more 'structurable', more 'measurable', more predictable andhence more controllable" (Pusey, 1981, p. 11). What we have is a technicalconstruction of education which seeks to make manageable the ever expandingand contradictory functions of schooling, thus achieving for the government'steering capacity'.

The Australian Scholastic Aptitude Test (ASAT), which is central to convertingcriterion-referenced school-based assessment into the ordinal ranking of a Ter-tiary Entrance Score via a very complicated set of statistical procedures, is notonly scientistic but also fraught with all of the problems associated with psycho-metric testing 'instruments'. As Henry (1988, p. 5) puts it:

they allegedly 'test' qualities or 'essences' (intelligence, scholastic apti-tude or whichever) which in theory are independent of specific subjectmatter or family background.

ASAT makes the claim for itself that it is 'content free'; clearly this is an absurdsuggestion. It makes the further claim that it is ascertaining aptitudes such ascomprehension, logical reasoning, etc., which are said to be good predictors offuture success at tertiary education and that such aptitudes can be measuredindependently of content. As Henry (1988, p. 6) suggests, to argue that thescience questions on ASAT are content free, and equally accessible to those whodo and those who do not study science, is absurd. ASAT is used to compare the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

182 Bob Lingard

incomparable, for example French results in School A with physics results inSchool B. In the words of the test jargon, scaling procedures utilising ASATresults remove 'arbitrary inter-subject and inter-school differences'. One could goon, but the scientistic characteristics of the ASAT test and the statistical proce-dures used to arrive at a TE score have been fully outlined and analysed by Henry(1988). She (1988, p. 12) has suggested regarding the processes involved in theconstruction of a TE score that:

The point about assessment, and particularly the highly technical kind, isthat the political and social elements which underlie its construction arebleached out of public consciousness and replaced instead with a notionof 'scientific objectivity' in which all are judged equally.

The calculation of the tertiary entrance score is an example of the scientisationof schooling par excellence. This form of control via scientisation is derived andlegitimated from within the universe of discourse of the experts; it exercisescontrol nonetheless and provides governments with 'steering capacity'. Thepolitical efficacy of such control lies not only in the technical language in which itis couched but also in the fact that it appears to protect some autonomy forteachers.

The scientisation of schooling gathers apace in the accountability climate of thepresent. Callahan (1962) has pointed out how in the first couple of decades ofthis century in the United States there were calls for efficiency within educationwhich were at that time met by the attempted application of scientistic, 'Taylorist'management approaches to educational administration. At the present, criterion-referenced (and competency-based) assessment is one comparable scientisticresponse. Ryan (1982, p. 21) argues that those educators who at present speakthe language of 'accountability', 'improved instructional efficiency', 'curricularrationalisations' and so on provide legitimation for reduced educational expendi-ture and tighter control over schooling. In this 'accountabilist' climate Ryan(1982, p. 29) perceives two inter-related trends within education, namely: 'thedowngrading of teaching to a technical activity, and the equation of learning withthe production of strictly-measurable performance objectives'. The language ofROSBA in Queensland is a clear indication of these two processes at work.

Some Other Discussion Points

The case study outlined in this paper, while indicating the impact of economicdownturn upon educational policy making, also clearly shows the bureaucratic-administrative mediation of this impact (Clegg et at, 1986, p. 276). Further, Dale(1982, p. 139) has argued that there are 'practical' and 'organic' limits to theextent of government control over the state apparatus. According to Dale,'practical limits' refer to the fact that not all activities administered by the statecan always be regarded as politically problematic. The complexity and size of thestate ensures this. 'Organic limits' refer to the impact of the history and structureof the bureaucratic arrangement itself. With respect to practical limits, oftensimplistic political solutions end up becoming complex administrative practices.The Queensland case study seems to show these 'practical' and 'organic' limits inoperation. For example, the reviews of school-based assessment established by theBoard of Secondary School Studies were important factors in the 'defence' of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Secondary School Assessment in Queensland 183

school-based assessment in the Queensland context. Economic and politicalpressures were 'recontextualised' (Bernstein, 1986) within a bureaucratic andtechnical framework. The quasi-autonomy of the Board of Secondary SchoolStudies was clear when in the (now shelved) 1987 Education Act Amendment billthe government sought to abolish the Board. In an attempt to give the govern-ment (and the Department of Education) tighter and more direct control overschooling the Board, which has ex-officio representatives from all the educationinterest groups, was to be replaced by a small advisory group of ministerialappointees. Vociferous and vehement opposition by the interest groups, butparticularly that voiced by the private school lobby, was one factor in the shelvingof the legislation (as was the political demise of Bjelke-Petersen). One privateschool argument was that tighter government control was inimical to the pro-vision of a liberal, humanist education (compare with Whitty, 1985). Clearly, thissituation indicates the mediated complexities of state education policy formula-tion.

Ozga & Lawn (1981) have rejected the common distinction in analyses ofteachers between union/industrial and professional matters. Rather, they argue(1981, p. vii) that so-called professional behaviour may be an orientation of unionactivity. The brief account provided here of the role of the Queensland TeachersUnion in relation to changes in secondary school assessment certainly affirmstheir point. Further, they suggest, while the ideology of professionalism can beused by the state as a strategy to control teachers, it can also be used by teachersto protect themselves against an intrusive state. 'Expert knowledge' is a factor insuch protection, which seems to have been the case in the 'scientistic' develop-ments in Queensland secondary school assessment. Drawing on Terry Johnson'swork on professionalism, Ozga & Lawn (1981) suggest that state mediatedprofessionalism, such as exists with teaching, has the effect of 'encouragingdivergent interests within the occupation' while the 'experts' tend to be non-practitioners who are 'incorporated' 'as advisers and experts within the context ofstate/government decision-making'. Thus, in the Queensland case study the'expert knowledge' of academics and BOSSS technocrats protected teachers tosome extent in the face of government desire to circumscribe the 'licensedautonomy' of teachers in the direction of 'regulated autonomy' (Dale, 1982, p.146). There are, however, uncomfortable questions to be asked about whobenefits from the reliance upon 'the experts': the experts, teachers, students orother interests? Certainly, during periods of economic cutback and calls forgreater efficiency and effectiveness, some educational professionals (the efficiencyexperts, for example) will benefit more than others, say teachers, who most likelywill be faced with increased workloads. And, of course, some 'expert knowledge'will be taken up, while other will be rejected, because of political and bureaucra-tic compatibility or incompatibility (see Henry, 1987; Apple, 1986, p. 142).

Conclusion

As stated in the introduction, Broadfoot (1981) has argued that assessment hasbeen central to the construction of education systems in industrial societies.Further, she maintains that four themes intimately associated with assessment,namely 'competence', 'content', 'competition' and 'control' (p. 198) have beensignificant in this institutionalisation. The account of secondary school assessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

184 BobLingard

in Queensland provided here confirms Broadfoot's thesis. This confirmation flowsfrom the fact that the importance of assessment to schooling reflects culturaldevelopments contingent upon industrial capitalism such as 'rationality', 'indivi-duality', 'meritocracy' and so on. However, there are idiosyncracies of theQueensland system which reflect the specific historical manifestation of theseprocesses which have been touched on earlier. It is interesting, at a more generallevel though, that Queensland with a highly centralised education system hasdevolved some curricula and assessment functions to the school level in a waywhich parallels to some extent developments in the highly centralised Frenchsystem. This situation can be contrasted with the decentralised provision ofeducation in England which has been (informally) structured by the publicexamination system (Broadfoot, 1981, p. 209), at least until the impact of Baker'sEducation Reform Bill (Simon, 1988).

It seems that public examinations were abolished in Queensland as a way ofbreaking university control over secondary education in the face of expandedsecondary numbers in the context of an emerging liberal/progressive conceptionof schooling. The subsequent move to ROSBA reflected a confluence of factors,including a professional defence of school-based assessment, but the move wascertainly a response to product accountability demands. Control now operatesthrough 'the scientisation of schooling' as witnessed in the criterion-referencedform of assessment, and in the centrality of an aptitude test in the construction ofa tertiary entrance score. This scientisation complements the technical aspect ofteacher professionalism and as such ensures considerable teacher support. Thecriterion-referenced form (seemingly) meets accountability demands while the TEscore operates the selection and allocation function. The scientisation involvedhere ensures that the modus operandi of assessment does not get onto the agendafor discussion in any major way. The pressures from increased student numbersto Year 12 on tertiary places, however, has seen some debate which is reflected inthe late 1987 report Tertiary Entrance in Queensland: a review by the Board ofSecondary School Studies.

Some positive things have come from these developments, basically because thereforms have sought to meet 'educational' as well as 'managerial' rationales(Bates, 1984). The introduction of both Radford and ROSBA has meant thatteachers and schools have had to rethink their aims, curricula, assessmentprocedures and teaching strategies; some good things have come from thisrenovation while increasing teacher workloads, particularly at the head of depart-ment level. There certainly has been a hugely expanded subject provision.Further, while the breakdown of objectives into 'content', 'process', 'skill' and'affective' ones can be seen as part of the process of scientisation, some teachershave taken up this awareness to push their teaching well beyond the didactic andan emphasis on content. These teachers would assert that they now attempt to getstudents to think critically, to analyse and so on and this is probably more possiblegiven the absence of pressures from a public examination. This can only be agood thing, but at another level the content/process distinction seems false (andthis distinction is central to such aptitude tests as ASAT). While the emphasis onsubject content which accompanied public examinations is not desirable, nor isthe antithetical development of an emphasis on process and the denial of theimportance of content. Likewise the concern for affective and attitudinal criteriain assessment is a double-edged sword, potentially opening up the teacher/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Secondary School Assessment in Queensland 185

student relationship, but also potentially operating as a more pervasive form ofcontrol (see Broadfoot, 1984; Ranson, 1984).

It has been argued here that control over Queensland schooling in the recentpast has operated through two universes of discourse, one associated withtechnical-rationality and the culture of expertise manifested in the assessmentprocedures, the other with a right wing world view which seeks to control thecontent of schooling. It seems that the proscription of curriculum materials plusthe centralised selection mechanism of the TE score provides the required levelof control. This more subtle form of control via scientisation will continueunabated if the scientistic language of the recent Queensland governmentblueprint for future education, Education 2000, is any indication (see Lingard,1984).

In policy terms, the case study above clearly indicates the mediation ofeconomic interests in the construction of education policy in the area ofassessment, even at a time of economic downturn (compare with Nowell-Smith,1979; Whitty, 1983, 1985). Additionally, it has shown something of the quasi-independent effect of the bureaucratic structure of educational provision.

McNay & Ozga (1985) have argued that the analysis of policy-making ineducation has, until fairly recently, been dominated by pluralism in theoreticalterms and by the case study in methodological terms. They argue the need forsuch analysis to take account of the insights provided by Marxist-influencedsociology of education. Recently Marxist-influenced sociology and sociology ofeducation have been concerned with developing an adequate theory of the state(for example, Clegg et al., 1986 and Dale, 1982), which is clearly very relevantto the study of eduation policy-making (Dale, 1982; Offe, 1985). Some Marxist-influenced theories of the state have played down any autonomy of politics andgiven little attention to the 'politics of administration' (Clegg et al., 1986, p.274). This has not been the case in the writings of Habermas and Offe, amongstothers. However, in drawing upon such sophisticated accounts of the role of thestate in policy formulation (and perhaps some of the insights drawn frompluralist research) care must be taken not to neglect the impact of the economy(Offe, 1985). It is hoped that the case study analysis provided here, whilepointing out the various mediations in the formulation of assessment policy,nevertheless indicates the economic 'connections' (Offe, 1985) of such policy aswell. For there does seem to be something of a paradox in recent Marxist-influenced sociological analyses of state policy formulation in that such accountsseem to be at pains to elucidate the various determinations involved in suchpolicy at the same time as the impact of the economic seems greater than ever.We have to be careful that such 'agnostic pluralism' does not neglect the impactof the economic, when the economy is impacting negatively in an unmediatedway on the lives of many people, including teachers, through savage expenditurecuts.

Teachers, it seems, will have to gather strength once again to fend off the newpush from the 'economic rationalists' if they are to ensure that the economicimpact is mediated in state education policy formation. Such defence will benecessary if teachers are to utilise the possibilities of school-based approaches tocreate a more progressive practice in the face of an expanded upper secondaryschool population and the consequent weakening of selection pressures at thelower secondary level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

186 Bob Lingard

Acknowledgements

Miriam Henry, Sandra Taylor and Peter Meadmore provided critical commentson an earlier draft of this paper. Carolynn Lingard ensured the description of thecurrent system of school-based secondary school assessment was not inaccurate.Some of the ideas utilised in this paper were first considered in Lingard & Aby(1981).

The paper was completed while I was visiting Fellow in the Sociology ofEducation Department, Institute of Education, University of London, 1988.

Correspondence: Bob Lingard, Department of Education, University of Queens-land, St Lucia 4067, Queensland, Australia.

NOTES

[1] This is, of course, not to accept the 'technical functional theory' regarding the nexus betweenschool credentials and the job market. (See here Dale & Pives, 1984.)

[2] Criterion-referenced assessment better meets product-accountability and educational demandsthan does norm-referenced which better meets selection and managerial demands (Bates, 1984).The Baker reform proposals in England and Wales seek to use both 'attainment targets' andnorm-referenced testing at 7, 11, 14 and 16 years of age for both accountability and controlpurposes. Accountability in the Baker scenario would operate via the establishment of leaguetables of schools and local education authorities and invidious comparisons between them. (SeeSimon, 1988, especially chapter 4.) Thus in the Baker proposals both norm and criterionreferenced approaches are to be used for accountability purposes, the emphasis being, however,much more on 'managerial' than 'educational' accountability (Bates, 1984). (See also Hextall,1984.)

[3] The Board of Secondary School Studies (BOSSS) has continued to operate in an efficient,'professional' and accountable way within its largely 'technicist' framework. Thus the ASAT testwas modified (in a non-publicised action) to take account of gender-bias in its results (see Henry,1988). In late 1987 the Board was involved, at the request of the Minister of Education, inproducing Tertiary Entrance in Queensland: a review which recommends that the current TertiaryEntrance score be replaced by an Achievement Position Profile which, in the Board's words, "willcontain more and better information".

REFERENCES

AHERN, M. (1986) Parliamentary Select Committee on Education in Queensland. Interim Reports 1-6 andFinal Report (Brisbane, Queensland Government Printer).

APPLE, M.W. (1979) Ideology and Curriculum (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).APPLE, M.W. (1982) Common curriculum and state control, Discourse, 2 (2), pp. 1-10.APPLE, M.W. (1986) Teachers and Text: a political economy of class and gender relations in education

(London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).BATES, R. (1983) Structure of authority and control in education, in: R. K. BROWNE & L. E. FOSTER

(Eds) Sociology of Education (Melbourne, Macmillan).BATES, R. (1984) Educational versus managerial evaluation in schools, in: P. BROADFOOT (Ed.) Selection,

Certification and Control (Lewes, Falmer Press).BEILHARZ, P. (1985) Theorising the middle class, Arena, 72, pp. 92-105.BERGER, P.L., BERGER, B. & KELLNER, H. (1973) The Homeless Mind: Modernisation and Consciousness

(Ringwood, Penguin).BERNSTEIN, B. (1986) On pedagogic discourse, in: J. G. RICHARDSON (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and

Research for the Sociology of Education (London, Greenland Press).BOARD OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDIES (1978) A Review of School-Based Assessment in Queensland

Secondary Schools (Queensland, Board of Secondary School Studies).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Secondary School Assessment in Queensland 187

BOWE, R. & WHITTY, G. (1984) Teachers, boards and standards: the attack on school-based assessmentin English public examinations, in: BROADFOOT (Ed.), op. cit.

BROADFOOT, P. (1979) Assessment, Schools and Society (London, Methuen).BROADFOOT, P. (1981) Towards a sociology of assessment, in: L. BARTON & S. WALKER (Eds) Schools,

Teachers and Teaching (Lewes, Palmer Press).BROADFOOT, P. (Ed.) (1984) Selection, Certification and Control: social issues in educational assessment

(Lewes, Falmer Press).BROADFOOT, P. (1986) Assessment policy and inequality: the United Kingdom experience, British

Journal of Sociology of Education, 7, pp. 205-224.CALLAHAN, R. (1962) Education and the Cult of Efficiency (Chicago, Chicago University Press).CAMPBELL, W.J. et al. (1976) Some Consequences of the Radford Scheme for Schools, Teachers and Students in

Queensland, ACER Report No. 7 (Canberra, AGPS).CLARKE, E. (1987) Assessment in Queensland Secondary Schools: two decades of change 1964-1983

(Queensland, Department of Education).CLEGG, S., BOREHAM, P. & Dow, G. (1986) Class, Politics and the Economy (London, Routledge & Kegan

Paul).CRIBB, M. & BOYCE P. (Eds) (1980) Politics in Queensland: 1977 and beyond (St Lucia, University of

Queensland Press).DALE, R. (1977) Implications of the rediscovery of the hidden curriculum for the sociology of

teaching, in: D. GLEESON (Ed.) Identity and Structure (Driffield, Nafferton Books).DALE, R. (1982) Education and the capitalist state: contributions and contradictions, in: M. W. APPLE

(Ed.) Cultural and Economic Reproduction in Education (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).DALE, R. & PIRES, E. (1984) Linking people and jobs: the indeterminate place of educational

credentials, in: BROADFOOT (Ed.), op. cit.FAIRBAIRN, K., MCBRYDE, B. & RIGBY, R. (1976) Schools Under Radford (Brisbane, Department of

Education and the Board of Secondary School Studies).FREELAND, J. (1979) Class struggle in schooling: MACOS and SEMP in Queensland, Intervention, 12,

pp. 29-62.GOODMAN, R. (1968) Secondary Education in Queensland, 1860-1960 (Canberra, Australian National

University Press).HABERMAS, J. (1971) Towards a Rational Society (London, Heinemann).HABERMAS, J. (1972) Knowledge and Human Interests (London, Heinemann).HABERMAS, J. (1975) Legitimation Crisis (Boston, Beacon Press).HANNAN, B. (1985) Democratic Curriculum (Sydney, Allen & Unwin).HENRY, M. (1987) Life on the coalface: the aftermath of amalgamation, British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 8, pp. 357-377.HENRY, M. (1988) ASAT and the TE score: a critique of 'objective' testing, The Australian and New

Zealand Journal of Sociology, 24, pp. 289-311.HENRY, M. & MACLENNAN, G. (1980) From equlity to quality in teacher education: shifts in ideology,

South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 8 (3, 4), pp. 91-99.HEXTALL, I. (1976) Marking work, in: G. WHITTY & M. YOUNG (Eds) Explorations in the Politics of School

Knowledge (Driffield, Nafferton).HEXTALL, I. (1984) Rendering accounts: a critical analysis of the APU, in: BROADFOOT (Ed.), op. cit.LINGARD, R. (1985) Education 2000: retention without equality, Ideas in Education, 4 (4), pp. 13-17.LINGARD, R. & ABY, S. (1981) The ideology of competency-based assessment: a sociological analysis of

developments in assessment in Queensland secondary schools. Paper presented to ANZAASconference, University of Queensland.

LINGARD, R., HENRY, M. & TAYLOR, S. (1987) 'A girl in a militant pose': a chronology of struggle ingirls' education in Queensland, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 8, pp. 135-152.

MAHER, M. (1983) Reproduction theory and the syllabus mechanism in schooling: a case of biologicalscience syllabuses in Queensland 1968-1981, Discourse, 3 (2), pp. 58-76.

McNAY, I. & OZGA, J. (Eds) (1985) Policy-making in Education: The Breakdown of Consensus (Oxford,Pergamon Press).

NEAVE, G. (1979) Statements at 16: a European perspective, in: E. ADAMS & T. BURGESS (Eds) Outcomesof Education (London, Macmillan).

NOWELL-SMITH, G. (1979) In a state, Screen Education, 30.OFFE, C. (1985) Social policy and the theory of the state, in: MCNAY & OZGA, op. cit.OFFE, C. (1975) The theory of the capitalist state and the problem of policy formation, in: L. N.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

188 Bob Lingard

LINDBERG, R. ALFORD, C. CROUCH & C. OFFE (Eds) Stress and Contradiction in Modem Capitalism:public policy and the theory of the state (New York, R. C. Heath).

OZGA, J. & LAWN, M. (1981) Teachers, Professionalism and Class: a study of organised teachers (London,Falmer Press).

PUSEY, M. (1980) The legitimation of state education systems, Australian and New Zealand Journal ofSociology, 16 (2), pp. 45-52

PUSEY, M. (1981) The control of education in the 1980s, Politics, 16, pp. 223-224.PUSEY, M. (1981) How will governments strive to control education in the 1980s? Discourse, 1 (2), pp.

1-8.PUSEY, M. (1982) Assessment education policy, in: R. YOUNG, M. PUSEY & R. BATES (Eds) Australian

Educational Policy Issues and Critique (Geelong, Deakin University Press).PUSEY, M. (1983) The control and rationalisation of schooling, in: R. K. BROWNE & L. E. FOSTER (Eds)

Sociology of Education (Melbourne, Macmillan).PUSEY, M. (1987) Jurgen Habermas (London, Tavistock).RADFORD, W. (1970) Radford Report (Brisbane, Government Printer).RANSON, S. (1984) Towards a tertiary tripartism: new modes of social control and the 17+, in:

BROADFOOT (Ed.), op. cit.

RYAN, B. (1982) Accountability in Australian education, Discourse, 2 (2), pp. 21-40.SADLER, R. (1986) ROSBA's Family Connections (Queensland, Board of Secondary School Studies).SIMON, B. (1988) Bending the Rules: the Baker 'reform' of education (London, Lawrence & Wishart).SYMES, C. (1984) The fault-finders guide to schooling or prospecting for pernicion in pedagogue-land,

Social Alternatives, 4 (2), pp. 48-51.WAKE, A. (1979) School knowledge and the structure of bureaucracy. Paper presented to SAANZ

conference, Canberra CAE.WHITTY, G. (1976) Teachers and examiners, in: G. WHITTY & M. YOUNG (Eds) Explorations in the

Politics of School Knowledge (Driffield, Nafferton).WHITTY, G. (1983) State policy and school examinations 1976-1983: an exploration of some

implications of the sixteen-plus controversy, in: J. AHIER & M. FLUDE (Eds) Contemporary EducationPolicy (London, Croom Helm).

WHITTY, G. (1985) Sociology and School Knowledge (London, Methuen).YOUNG, R. (1980) The controlling curriculum and the practical ideology of teachers, Australian and

New Zealand fournal of Sociology, 16 (2), pp. 62-70.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:38

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14