Search results

This paper draws on the archival records of the Victorian Education Department, literature produced by the governing authority of Tally Ho (the Central Mission), and newspaper reports produced in the mid-20th century about school and education at Tally Ho. This paper also draws on material from the Victorian Aborigines Welfare Board and the Northern Territory Department of Welfare, as well as two historical key government inquiries into the institutionalisation of children.

This paper uses Tally Ho Boys’ Training Farm as a case study to examine the intersection of welfare systems, justice systems and schooling and education for Aboriginal children in institutions like Tally Ho in the mid-20th century. Further, it provides perspectives on how institutions such as Tally Ho were utilised by governments in Victoria and the Northern Territory to pursue different agendas – sometimes educational – particular to Aboriginal children. This paper also explores how histories can be reconstructed when archives are missing or silent about histories of Aboriginal childhood.

This paper demonstrates how governments used Tally Ho to control and govern the lives of Aboriginal children. By drawing together archives from a range of bodies and authorities who controlled legislation and policies, this paper contributes new understandings about the role of institutions in Victoria to the assimilation policies of Victoria and the Northern Territory in the mid-20th century.

Scholarship on the institutionalisation of children in the post-war era in Victoria, including the ways that schooling and justice systems were experienced by children living in care, has failed to fully engage with the experiences of Aboriginal children. Historians have given limited attention to the experiences of Aboriginal children living in institutions off Aboriginal reserves in Victoria. There has been limited historical scholarship examining the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children at Tally Ho. This paper broadens our understandings about how Aboriginal children encountered institutionalisation in Victoria.

This article explores the case of the Queensland's reformatory for boys through the years 1871–1919 to analyse how the institution negotiated the complex, and at times competing, goals of reforming, educating and punishing its inmate population.

The article relies on documentary evidence, including archival material produced by the institution and newspaper records published between 1865, when the legislation allowing the institution to be created was passed, to 1919, when the institution ceased to be known as a “reformatory”.

This research demonstrates that, despite considerable changes during the studied period, the overarching goal of reforming criminal and potentially criminal young people continuously relied on achieving a balance between reformative techniques such as religious instruction and work placements, providing a useful education and punishing offenders. It also demonstrates that, despite efforts to achieve this balance, the institution was often described as unsuccessful.

Due to the paucity of available archival evidence, there is still relatively little known about how the reformatories of late-19th- and early-20th-century Australia attempted to carry out programmes of moral reformation. This paper contributes to the field through an analysis of an institution which faced unusual challenges as a result of a complex inmate population.

Looks at group decision making by Boards and impact of diversity on effectiveness.

Extensive research fails to demonstrate the superiority of the separate board leadership structure. Other factors supersede the need for independence where board leadership is concerned. There is no substitute for a single strong leader who is accountable.

Provides executives with information on important factors to consider when determining board structure.

Of particular value to CEOs and other board members

The different types of estimators of rational expectations models are surveyed. A key feature is that the model′s solution has to be taken into account when it is estimated. The two ways of doing this, the substitution and errors‐in‐variables methods, give rise to different estimators. In the former case, a generalised least‐squares or maximum‐likelihood type estimator generally gives consistent and efficient estimates. In the latter case, a generalised instrumental variable (GIV) type estimator is needed. Because the substitution method involves more complicated restrictions and because it resolves the solution indeterminacy in a more arbitary fashion, when there are forward‐looking expectations, the errors‐in‐variables solution with the GIV estimator is the recommended combination.