30 octobre 2010

La France est au 46e rang mondial en ce qui concerne l’égalité hommes-femmes, selon The Global Gender Gap Report 2010 (Rapport mondial sur les inégalités entre les genres, en anglais) réalisé par le Forum économique mondial de Davos. Les premières places sont occupées par l’Islande, la Norvège et la Finlande.
Ce classement est le résultat d’une pondération entre quatre facteurs : la participation économique, la participation politique, l’accès à la santé et l’accès à l’éducation. Pour ces deux derniers points, la France se situe au premier rang. Mais la France est très mal placée pour ce qui est des deux premiers: sur 180 pays, elle est positionnée respectivement aux 60e et 47e rangs. Ces classements ne sont pas fortuits: en 2006, les femmes gagnaient en moyenne un salaire inférieur de près de 30% au salaire moyen des hommes (voir notre article), tandis qu’on compte seulement 18,5% de députées à l’Assemblée nationale (voir notre article).
Mais ce type de classement est à utiliser avec précaution. Si l’on ne peut que déplorer ces écarts dans l’univers professionnel ou politique, la situation des femmes en matière de santé et d’éducation y est sans commune mesure avec celle des femmes au Sri Lanka ou de Namibie par exemple, pays pourtant placés devant la France dans ce classement... Dans le domaine de la santé, la Namibie se place 104e mais occupe le 25e rang mondial pour l’égalité hommes-femmes, tandis que le Sri Lanka occupe le 57e rang pour l’accès à l’éducation et le 16e rang mondial dans le classement global. Ce sont les conséquences d’un indicateur synthétique : on met sur le même plan l’espérance de vie et la part des femmes à l’Assemblée nationale. Le premier indicateur concerne l’ensemble de la population, le second une toute petite minorité, à savoir l’élite de chaque pays. Il serait sans doute judicieux de donner plus de poids à l’éducation et la santé dans un tel indicateur.

Laurent Wauquiez  a lancé cet été avec l’Institut de sondage Ipsos une grande enquête auprès des demandeurs d’emploi, afin d’évaluer la perception qu’ont les usagers de Pôle emploi. Les résultats ont été présentés le 25 octobre 2010. Télécharger Les résultats de l'enquête sur Pôle emploi.
"La grande consultation des demandeurs d’emplois" commandée par le secrétariat d’Etat à l’Emploi et réalisée par l’Institut de sondage Ipsos, s’est déroulée sur un mois du 6 septembre au 5 octobre 2010. 500000 questionnaires ont été envoyés par mail. 100000 personnes ont répondu (soit 21%), ce qui représente un très bon résultat pour ce type de consultation. Parallèlement, 300000 entreprises ont été interrogées (taux de retour: 10%).
66%: tel est le taux de satisfaction globale des usagers de Pôle emploi. La fusion ANPE/Assedic semble acquise par ceux qui étaient inscrits auparavant puisque 69% d’entre eux estiment que les démarches sont plus simples. Ainsi 80% des usagers se disent satisfaits de la gestion de leur dossier d’allocation chômage.
Les nouveaux outils mis en place remportent une adhésion certaine : le site internet pôle-emploi.fr est jugé utile à 93%, le numéro de téléphone 3949, à 74%, le rendez-vous unique à 82%. Cependant les demandeurs d’emploi ne sont que 52% à se déclarer satisfaits par les services proposés pour rechercher un emploi.
Parmi les attentes des personnes interrogées: pouvoir contacter son conseiller par mail, et d’une manière générale avoir accès à des services plus personnalisés. Du côté des employeurs, les services en ligne sont encore peu utilisés. Pourtant, ceux qui utilisent le service téléphonique 3995 le jugent efficace à 82%. Par contre, la banque de CV n'a pas encore convaincu plus de la moitié des entreprises qui ont répondu (seuls 28% l’ont déjà consultée). Globalement, plus d’une entreprise sur trois se déclare satisfaite (68%) des services de Pôle emploi.

Par Laure-Elisabeth Bourdaud. Vous êtes demandeurs d’emploi et vous voulez vous former ? Il est désormais tout à fait possible de faire valoir votre droit individuel à la formation (DIF) dans certains cas. Explications de Jean-Pierre Willems, consultant spécialiste en droit de la formation.
Peut-on bénéficier de ses heures DIF en période de chômage ?
Jean-Pierre Willems : "Lorsque l'on quitte une entreprise, elle remet un certificat de travail qui mentionne les heures de DIF restantes, le budget auquel ces heures donnent droit et le nom de l'OPCA dont dépend l'entreprise. Pour bénéficier de la portabilité du DIF, il est nécessaire que la rupture du contrat de travail ouvre droit à indemnisation du chômage (licenciement, rupture conventionnelle, fin de CDD, démission pour un motif reconnu légitime par l'assurance chômage)."
Qu’entend-t-on par portabilité du DIF ?
J-P W : "La portabilité est la possibilité de bénéficier d'un financement correspondant au droit acquis dans le cadre d'un contrat de travail postérieurement à la rupture de ce contrat."
Et que signifie la transférabilité ?
J-P W : "La transférabilité du DIF n'est pas prévue par la loi mais par certains accords de branche ou de groupe. Il s'agit d'une reprise des heures acquises dans une entreprise par un nouvel employeur. Ainsi, le salarié quittant l'entreprise A et qui dispose de 40 heures de DIF verra son compteur démarrer à 40 heures, et non à 0, chez un nouvel employeur B. Cela existe dans quelques secteurs (agriculture, BTP) ainsi que dans des groupes en cas de mobilité."
À qui doit-on s’adresser pour faire sa demande en période de chômage ?
J-P W :  "Il faut s'adresser à l'Organisme paritaire collecteur agréé (OPCA) de son ancienne entreprise. La demande doit comprendre l'avis du conseiller Pôle Emploi. Le nom de l'OPCA figure sur le certificat de travail remis par l'employeur à la fin du contrat. Attention, l'accès au financement n'est pas automatique et n'est pas un droit. Il faut que l'OPCA donne son accord qui peut dépendre de la formation choisie, de l'objectif poursuivi, etc."
Et en cas de chômage partiel, peut-on bénéficier du cumul de ses heures ?
J-P W : "Oui, et comme tous les cas pour le cas, il faut obtenir l’accord de l'employeur."
A noter : le droit individuel à la formation (DIF) permet à un salarié de se constituer un crédit d’heures de formation de 20 heures par an, cumulable sur six ans dans la limite de 120 heures. Avant l’adoption de la loi du 24 novembre 2009 relative à l'orientation et à la formation professionnelle, un salarié qui quittait son entreprise perdait ses heures de DIF non utilisées.

Higher Education and Research on Multilingualism: Challenge or Opportunity? Date: Thursday 18 and Friday 19 November 2010. Venue: WTC Leeuwarden. Address: Heliconweg 52, Ljouwert/Leeuwarden (Fryslân), the Netherlands.
The regional role of Universities are growing. ‘Learning regions´ models contribute to a region´s economic development, defining and exploring unique selling points, and serving the needs of its labour market, in an increasingly global and macroregional context. Research explores the interaction between the regional and the global level, can promote innovation and development, and needs to enhance linguistic diversity as of great relevance for society.
Globalisation and reflexive modernity give new contexts to language and education in the polity. In a global economy language education needs change. Reflexive modernity gives new bases for identity, and language is important here. So social scientists should look at language issues in analysing the new social and global context.
Universities need to develop comprehensive language policies to meet the needs of (a) their own students and staff and (b) others involved in exchanges.
Focus themes:
    * The multilingual university: language policy at the level of the institute (visibility within the university, relationship with the linguistic environment, internal and external communication, curriculum).
    * The contribution that universities in general and the EUNoM network in particular can make to the development of the Council of Europe´s and the European Commission´s language policies, especially to the EU´s 8th Framework Programme.
    * The relation between the regional and the global level. What impact do higher education establishments have in engaging in research in order to help to change the self-image, and the perspectives of ‘minority´ language communities?

EUCIS-LLL conference on “The social dimension of education and training” gathered more than 90 civil society representatives from around Europe in order to exchange and put forward some recommendations to policy-makers. These actors represent parents, teachers, educators, researchers, from vocational training centres, universities, schools, adult education or local associations as well as representatives of institutions at local, national and European levels. They came together to share their perspectives and ideas on how to improve the social dimension of education and training in the frame of the new “EU2020” Strategy. Download the EUCIS-LLL conference report on the" Social Dimension of Education and Training in Europe".
Indeed, the Conference took place in a very particular political moment. The European Union was about to adopt its new strategy for 2010-2020 replacing the Lisbon strategy. On 3 February 2010, the Commission adopted its Communication "Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" (EU2020) which sets a vision of Europe's social market economy for the 21st century. More than ever, Education and Training is at the heart of the EU strategy. Following this communication and the discussions held in the Council on the 25-26 March, the European Council reached an agreement on the new strategy (to be formally adopted in June 2010). Yet the Council had still to adopt headline targets in the fields of education and social inclusion/poverty reduction.
Although education and training remain the competence of member states, we can see a growing influence of the EU. With the new strategy its impact will certainly be even stronger, as it contains for the first time two specific targets on education. EUCIS-LLL members support a stronger cooperation in education and training; they are nevertheless worried that EU policies are mainly focused on a market approach. Lifelong learning is too often seen as a tool to serve economic goals i.e. to reach the Lisbon objective to make the EU “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”. For EUCIS-LLL, Lifelong learning represents a goal in itself and serves various ambitions such as employment but also social cohesion, active citizenship or personnel development and wellbeing.
Some positive signals for more balanced EU policies exist. Under the Spanish Presidency of the European Council, Ministers of Education were about to adopt conclusions on the social dimension of education and training. This followed closely a conference organized on “Inclusive education: a way to promote social cohesion” held in Madrid on 11-12 March 2010. EUCIS-LLL appreciated such emphasize that comes in a particular moment of economic and social crisis and growing poverty in Europe. 2010 is also the European Year 2010 on fighting poverty and social exclusion. EUCIS-LLL hopes these reflections will have a lasting impact!
EUCIS-LLL conference took place in this particular context because we did wish to take part in the debates. We also wanted to stress the importance of involving stakeholders at all levels, local, national, European, International whether they are civil society organizations, social partners, public authorities or citizens.
During the conference, participants worked more specifically on four topics: active ageing and intergenerational solidarity, social innovation in lifelong learning, fighting social exclusion and poverty and mobility for all. Key speakers such as Ramón Flecha, Sociology Professor at the University of Barcelona, or Adam Pokorny, Head of the School Education Unit at DG EAC, shared some ideas with the participants during the plenary sessions. In this report, you will find a synthesis of the discussions that took place.
Michel Feutrie, EUCIS-LLL General Secretary and President of EUCEN, outlined that the workshops’ results as presented by the rapporteurs, show how important it is to work together. It contributes to establishing a stronger basis to progress in a more concerted way.
Lifelong learning is a reality but also a challenge. We all learn throughout our lives - even those who are considered as less qualified. But it remains a challenge because an important part of learning takes place in informal and non-formal settings. It is important to ensure that the individual is able to acknowledge the competences he/she has acquired outside the formal system. Their validation in the formal system represents another step; it contributes to measuring individual’s progress by giving a certificate or diploma. Validation systems vary from one country to another.
In order to make lifelong learning a reality it is important to develop a new paradigm. We need a decompartmentalized system that takes into account the various fields/forms of learning at all ages of life: a lifelong learning system. Today, there is no basis to organise such a system. And yet, only with a proper system can we offer multiple learning opportunities that are not limited to a specific area such as adult education, higher education or vocational training. This system is even more necessary that there is an increasing demand for knowledge notably in the labour market.
Furthermore individual personal and professional lives are more and more fragmented. Hence the crucial issue of managing transition points (from employment to unemployment to study to employment…). Learning opportunities need to be more flexible and accessible to all. The goal is to avoid dead-ends and to ensure the continuity and progression of individual paths. The validation of prior learning is a good example of flexible services offered to individuals regardless to their academic career.
Individual paths are more and more fragmented. This means that we need to provide stronger guidance and counselling to help individuals to build their own path. We also need to give them the capacities of managing their own paths and to be able to recognise the competences they have acquired in various settings, formal and non-formal. This has to take place as earlier as possible, starting in early childhood education. Students should learn how to make the best of what they have learned and to be able to manage their paths in a positive way. This notably means being able to make academic choices to prepare a professional career. Of course, this is a high challenge. It requires to find a good institutional equilibrium and to reinvest in the individual.

By Hans de Wit. A recent phenomenon in the debate on the future of the internationalisation of higher education is the inclination to put new broad-based labels on it: mainstreaming, comprehensive, holistic, integrated and deep internationalisation are some of the ones we see used in recent writings and presentations. The most common current label appears to be 'comprehensive internationalisation', thanks mainly to the paper with that title which past president of the Association of International Educators (NAFSA), John Hudzik, wrote this year with the subtitle 'From concept to action'.
In Europe the term 'mainstream(ing) internationalisation' is becoming more common, although this is perceived less as a concept than 'comprehensive internationalisation'. It is used to describe a process emphasising the need to position internationalisation within the core of higher education instead of keeping it as a marginal issue.
Why do we see this emergence of new labels? What do they mean and how are they used? And will they advance the debate on the future of internationalisation started by Uwe Brandenburg and me in our recent International Higher Education essay with the provocative title "The End of Internationalisation"?
These questions occurred to me after chairing a debate on "What do we mean by 'deep internationalisation'?" at the Australia International Education Conference in Adelaide on 13 October 2011.
Even after the session I was not clear what our Australian colleagues meant by the term 'deep internationalisation' and it also seemed to me that they themselves were not very clear or convinced about it. From what I can ascertain, 'deep' internationalisation seems to lie somewhere between 'comprehensive' and 'mainstream'.
It is a bit clearer what John Hudzik means by 'comprehensive internationalisation'. His definition - although I read it more as a statement and action plan - reads as follows: "A commitment through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research and service mission of higher education". He continues, adding values, ethos and internal and external stakeholders.
I have little against this statement or the term itself, but still I wonder why there is a need for this new label.
If one compares Hudzik's definition of 'comprehensive internationalisation' with the generally accepted definition by Jane Knight on internationalisation - "the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education", which dates back to the early 1990s - one cannot see much difference. And that applies to all the other labels too. There is no other conclusion but that these labels are tautologies, using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not actually make the meaning any clearer.
Why then does there appear to be a need for new labels?
As Uwe Brandenburg and I pointed out in our essay about the end of internationalisation, there appears to be a trend to move from substance to form and to devalue the notion of internationalisation. If one looks at recently published articles and themes at international education conferences, one gets the impression that internationalisation is suffering from an identity or mid-life crisis, as Jane Knight wonders in the August edition of the OECD's IMHE Info.
The International Association of Universities has even established an ad hoc international expert group to rethink internationalisation. The group will address three questions: Is the concept and the definition of internationalisation keeping up with developments in higher education? Is there a shared understanding of the concept? Has internationalisation lost sight of its central purposes?
I participate in this group, as it is my strong conviction that we must constantly update and, if necessary, refresh our concepts and ideas. Uwe Brandenburg and I have already initiated a debate on the third of these questions in our essay. Jane Knight in her identity crisis article makes a statement about the first question that I sympathise with. She asks: "Can we focus on values and not only on definitions?"
Although I understand the motivations behind the inclination to develop new definitions and labels, and although I sympathise with the underlying urge to broaden and deepen the notion of internationalisation, I do not think they are much of a help. And I fear they might have the opposite effect. In the discussions I have taken part in recently, I observe the inclination to embrace these new labels, but continue with business as usual.
If we want to bring internationalisation a step closer we have to look at its achievements; its misconceptions; the changing global landscape and the related debate about internationalisation as a 'Western concept' or as a repetition of the old system by new players; internationalisation for a small elite or for all; the similarities and differences between intercultural and international and global cooperation, and other fundamental developments and values. If internationalisation is to be revived it will not be the result of new labels, but of a debate and action around these key questions.
In that respect I have been inspired by the critical remarks on ethos and values by Simon Marginson and Fazal Rizvi of Melbourne University, by increased attention to the theme of 'internationalisation of the curriculum', by the establishment of an International Education Researchers Network, and by the increased participation from Asia at the AIEC Conference in Adelaide. Awang Bulgiba Awang Mahmud, director of global planning and strategy at the University of Malaysia, in explaining the Malaysian internationalisation strategy - international research, international students and international branding and reputation - said with conviction: "The end of internationalisation? We are just at the beginning!"
* Hans de Wit is professor of internationalisation of higher education at the Centre for Applied Research in Economics and Management (CAREM) in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Email: j.w.m.de.wit@hva.nl.