[Truncated abstract] The aim of this study was to analyse the changing dynamics within and between government and non-government education sectors in relation to the Curriculum Framework (CF) policy in Western Australia (WA) from 1995 to 2004. The Curriculum Council was established by an act of State Parliament in 1997 to oversee the development and enactment of the CF, which was released in 1998. A stated aim of the CF policy was to unify the education sectors through a shared curriculum. The WA State government mandated that all schools, both government and non-government, demonstrate compliance by 2004. This was the first time that curriculum was mandated for non-government schools, therefore the dynamics within and between the education sectors were in an accelerated state of transformation in the period of study. The timeframe for the research represented the period from policy inception (1995) to the deadline for policy enactment for Kindergarten to Year 10 (2004). However, given the continually evolving and increasingly politicised nature of curriculum policy processes in WA, this thesis also provides an extended analysis of policy changes to the time of thesis submission in 2007 when the abolition of the Curriculum Council was formally announced - a decade after it was established. ... The research reported in this thesis draws on both critical theory and post-structuralist approaches to policy analysis within a broader framework of policy network theory. Policy network theory is used to bring the macro focus of critical theory and the micro focus of post-structuralism together in order to highlight power issues at all levels of the policy trajectory. Power dynamics within a policy network are fluid and multidimensional, and power struggles are characteristic at all levels. This study revealed significant power differentials between government and non-government education sectors caused by structural and cultural differences. Differences in autonomy between the education sectors meant that those policy actors within the non-government sector were more empowered to navigate the competing and conflicting forms of accountabilities that emerged from the changes to WA curriculum policy. Despite both generalised discourses of blurring public/private boundaries within the context of neoliberal globalisation and specific CF goals of bringing the sectors together, the boundaries continue to exist. Further, there is much strategising about how to remain distinct within the context of increased market choice. This study makes a unique and significant contribution to the understanding of policy processes surrounding the development and enactment of the CF in WA and the implications for the changing dynamics within and between the education sectors. Emergent themes and findings may potentially be used as a basis for contrast and comparison in other contexts. The research contributes to policy theory by arguing for closer attention to be paid to power dynamics between localised agency in particular policy spaces and the state-imposed constraints.

This study explored how the discursive practices of government education systemic discipline policy shape the behaviour of Aboriginal primary school students in an urban education district in Western Australia. First, this study conducted a Foucauldian genealogical discourse analysis of the historical and contemporary discursive forces that shaped systemic discipline policy in Western Australian government schools between 1983 and 1998 to uncover changing discursive practices within the institution. This period represented a most turbulent era of systemic discipline policy development within the institution. The analysis of the historical and contemporary discursive forces that shaped policy during this period revealed nine major and consistent discursive practices. Secondly, the study conducted a Foucauldian genealogical discourse analysis into the perspectives of key interest groups of students, parents and Education Department employees in an urban Aboriginal community on discipline policy in Education Department primary schools during the period from 2000 to 2001; and the influence of these policies on the behaviour of Aboriginal students in primary schools. The analysis was accomplished using Foucault's method of genealogy through a tactical use of subjugated knowledges. A cross section of the Aboriginal community was interviewed to examine issues of consultation, suspension and exclusion, institutional organisation and discourse. The study revealed that there are minimal consistent conceptual underpinnings to the development of Education Department discipline policy between 1983 and 1998. What is clear through the nine discursive practices that emerged during the first part of the study is a strengthened recentralising pattern of regulation, in response to the influence of a neo-liberal doctrine that commodifies students in a network of accountability mechanisms driven by the market-state economy. Evidence from both genealogical analyses in this study confirms that the increasing psychologisation of the classroom is contributing towards the pathologisation of Aboriginal student behaviour. It is apparent from the findings in this study that Aboriginal students regularly display Aboriginality-as-resistance type behaviours in response to school discipline regimes. The daily tension for these students at school is the maintenance of their Aboriginality in the face of school policy that disregards many of their regular cultural and behavioural practices, or regimes of truth, that are socially acceptable at home and in their community but threaten the 'good order' of the institution when brought to school. This study found that teachers and principals are ensnared in a web of governmentality with their ability to manoeuvre within the constraints of systemic discipline policy extremely limited. The consequence of this web of governmentality is that those doing the governing in the school are simultaneously the prisoner and the gaoler, and in effect the principle of their own subjection. Also revealed were the obscure and dividing discursive practices of discipline regimes that contribute to the epistemic violence enacted upon Noongar students in primary schools through technologies of power.