Counting on an end to the sectoral divide

Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 45-49

  Moodie, Gavin ^a  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920728703     PISSN: 13603108     EISSN: 14607018     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13603100120125960     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. California Legislative Counsel (2001) California education code, title 3 post secondary education division, chapter 9.2 student transfer, http://www.le-ginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=66001-67000&file=66730-66743 (downloaded 7.10.01).
2. California Postsecondary Education Commission (1998) Factsheet 98—1, composition of higher education in California, http://www.cpec.ca.gov/FactSheets/FactSheet1998/fs98—1.asp (downloaded 22.2.02).
3. California Postsecondary Education Commission (2000) Student transfers, http://www.cpec.ca.gov/secondpages/ccctransfers.asp (downloaded 22.2.02).
4. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) (1986) Review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education: report of the committee of inquiry (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service).
5. Crosland, A. (1965) Speech at Woolwich Polytechnic, 27 April, in J. Pratt and T Burgess (1974) Polytechnics: a report (London, Pitman).
6. Dawkins, The Hon J.S. (1988) Higher education: a policy statement (‘the White Paper’) (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service).
7. Department of Education, Training andYouth Affairs (DETYA) (2001) Students 2000: Selected Higher Education Statistics http://www.detya.gov.au/highered/statistics/tables/students2000.htm (downloaded 22.2.02).
8. Douglass, J.A. (2000) Institutional differentiation and coordination: a case study of California, p. 4, mimeo (Berkeley, Centre for Studies in Higher Education, University of California).
9. Higher Education Council (1989) Course length and nomenclature: a national framework (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service).
10. Jakupec, Vi and Roantree, B. (1993) Impact of the Martin report on technical and further education, in L.V Meek and G. Harman (eds) The binary experiment for higher education: an Australian perspective, pp 151-165 (Armidale, Department of Administrative, Higher and Adult Education Studies, University of New England).
11. Meek, L.V. (2000) Uses of higher education policy research. An inaugural public lecture, UNE: NSW. http://fehps.une.edu.au/FZr/higher/UNE_sur-veys/Lynn_inaugural/Meek.pdf (downloaded 22.2.02).
12. Moses, I. (1993) The binary experience — success or wasted effort? In L.V Meek and G. Harman (eds) The binary experiment for higher education: an Australian perspective (Armidale, University of New England).
13. Temple, P. (2001) The HE/FE divide: is the end in sight?, Perspectives, 5(3), pp. 78-82.
14. Wheelahan, L. (2000) Bridging the divide: developing the institutional structures that most effectively deliver cross-sectoral education and training (NCVER, Leabrook). Web page: http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/proj/nr8029.pdf (downloaded 22.2.02).