This paper compares strategies used in the process of planned educational change. Discussion focuses on the post-Sputnik American experience, the approaches used, the failures and the successes. These are related to the Australian experience concentrating on the Schools Commission's Innovations Program, its distinctions, problems and potential. It is argued that for any program in planned educational change to be successful, policy makers must give attention to the reality that both personal needs and organizational requirements equally affect the process and must be catered for. This means that political and structural protection for innovation must be built in advance into any program attempting change in education.
References
1.
AllenD. W.Planning and Development of the Education Profession. A Report to the U.S. Commissioner of Education by the Planning Co-ordination Committee, D. W. Allen (Ch.). Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 1967.
2.
American Institute for Research. Project Impact: A Pilot Study Evaluating the N.D.E.A. Summer Institute Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S.O.E., Oct., 1970.
3.
BessantB.SpaullA. D.Politics of Schooling. Carlton: Pitman Pub. Pty. Ltd., 1976.
4.
CooleyW. W.Project Talent implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1965, 3, pp. 211–215.
5.
EastonD.A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965.
6.
GamsonW. A.Power and Discontent. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1968.
7.
GetzelsJ. W.GubaE. G.Social behaviour and the administrative process. School Review, 1957, 65, 423–441.
8.
GruberH. W.Science as Thought: A Study of Nine Academic Year Institutes for the Training of Science Teachers. University of Colorado Behavioral Research Laboratory Report, No. 16, 1961.
9.
HarmanG. S.The politics of education. In BrowneR. K.SimpkinsW. S.Social Science Perspectives on Australian Education. South Melbourne: Macmillan Co. of Aust., 1972, 121–173.
10.
HusénT.Strategies of educational innovation. Australian Journal of Education. 1972, 16, 125–135.
11.
[Karmel Report.] Report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission. Schools in Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra: May 1973.
12.
KatzR.KahnD.The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966.
13.
KirstM.WalkerD.An Analysis of Curriculum Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University, 1970.
14.
MilesM. B.The Development of Innovative Climates in Educational Organizations. Menlo Park: Stanford Research Institute, April1969.
15.
MusgraveP. W.Teachers, the public and educational change. In D'CruzJ. V.SheehanP. J. (Eds.) The Renewal of Australian Schools. Richmond, Victoria: Primary Education Pty. Ltd., 1975, 23–37.
16.
PorterP. H.Evaluating a resource personnel workshop: a team leadership approach to educational change. Stanford University, December, 1973. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.
17.
RobinsonM.Bureau of Education Personnel Development: A History. U.S.O.E., Memorandum, July 16, 1968.
18.
SadlerP. M.Teacher personality characteristics and attitudes concerning PSSC physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1967, 5, 28–29.
19.
SandersN. M.TanckM. L.The new social studies: A critical appraisal of twenty-six national studies projects. Social Education, April 1970, 34, 439–441.
20.
Schools Commission. Report: Rolling Triennium 1977–79. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra: July 1976.
21.
StainesJ. W.Resistance to change in Australian education. In Counterpoints: Critical Writings on Australian Education. D'UrsoS. (Ed.) Sydney: John Wiley and Sons Australasia Pty. Ltd., 1971, 154–164.
22.
StufflebeamD. L.FoleyW. J.GephartW. J.GubaE. G.HammondR. L.MerrimanH. O.ProvusM. M.Educational Evaluation and Decision Making. Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation, Stufflebeam, D. L. (Ch.). Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1971.
