26 novembre 2010

La proposition de loi dite Adnot

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/commun/img2010/fd-header-niveau3.jpgLa commission des Affaires culturelles et de l'Éducation de l'Assemblée nationale a adopté la proposition de loi "relative aux activités immobilières des établissements d'enseignement supérieur, aux structures interuniversitaires de coopération et aux conditions de recrutement et d'emploi du personnel enseignant et universitaire". Elle comporte notamment une disposition visant à permettre aux universités de disposer des droits réels sur les bâtiments que l'État leur affecte, même sans en avoir demandé le transfert. La proposition sera examinée par les députés en séance publique le 30 novembre. Voir le débat de la Commission des affaires culturelles et de l’éducation.
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/commun/img2010/fd-header-niveau3.jpg Het Comite Culturele Zaken en Onderwijs van de Nationale Assemblee aangenomen wetsontwerp "met betrekking tot onroerend goed activiteiten van instellingen voor hoger onderwijs, structuren inter-universitaire samenwerking en de voorwaarden voor werving en aanstelling van leerkrachten en de universiteit". Zie de bespreking van de Commissie voor Culturele Zaken en Onderwijs. Meer...

Posté par pcassuto à 18:21 - - Permalien [#]

Global Higher Education Rankings 2010

http://www.higheredstrategy.com/img/layout/HESA-logo.gifThe Global Higher Education Rankings 2010 is the second iteration of our well-known comparison of affordability and accessibility in higher education. Covering seventeen countries in all, the report presents data on a six different indicators of affordability (taking into account in various combinations of costs and subsidies) and four different indictors of accessibility (looking at participation, attainment and equality of access). The overall winner in both categories was Finland; however, a number of countries saw some substantial differences in their affordability and accessibility rankings, suggesting that the two concepts are not necessarily very tightly linked. To read this report please click here. La France est 7e en terme de coûts et seulement 11e en terme d'accès à l'Enseignement supérieur.
Canada, the Netherlands, the United States and New Zealand each give out aid equal to roughly 40 percent of total costs, followed by England and Wales (36%), Australia (27%), Latvia and France (21% each) and Japan (18 percent). Mexico provides its students with practically no aid at all, with total aid equalling just 1% of total costs.
The most generous system is Germany’s, where students’ families are provided with very generous allowances, to tune of almost $2,500 US per student per year. Canada, (tax credits based in tuition and months of study and France (family allowances) also have reasonably generous tax assistance packages for their students and their families.
Another major tool for improving the affordability of education are student loans, which are used by all fifteen jurisdictions covered by this survey. Two of these countries’ programs (Mexico’s and France’s), however, are little more than nominal, while two others – Germany’s and Latvia’s – are quite restrictive in the amounts they dole out to students. Denmark’s loan system is relatively small due to the generosity of its grant system (see above, table 10). At the other extreme, the United States ($4,677), Finland ($4,281), and Sweden ($4,030) had relatively high amounts of loans, with Japan not far behind.
Costs in New Zealand and Canada also fall substantially towards European levels when using this measure of affordability; both end up being roughly equivalent to France... There are then a group of countries including Denmark, France, Latvia, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, England and Wales with costs ranging from 17% to 40% of median income.
The Netherlands and France form the next group of countries, somewhat more expensive than the first group of five but still noticeably less expensive than the cluster of Latvia, Canada and New Zealand which follows.
Accessibility of higher education Rankings
This section looks at the data on the accessibility of higher education in various countries around the world. Unfortunately, data on accessibility is far less open to comparison than is data on affordability. Simply put, different countries care about different aspects of accessibility to different degrees, and hence collect very different statistics about their own systems. This renders detailed comparisons very difficult and limits our ability to make useful comparisons. As such, the accessibility rankings have used indicators, which are, albeit rough, widely available.
Finland has the highest participation rate among the countries in this study with 41.3 percent of its 22-25 year-olds participating in higher education. Portugal (40.6%), France and England and Wales (34%), Norway (33%) and France (33%) are next, meaning that the top five countries in terms of participation are all European. Despite being in ninth, the United States is however, only marginally behind at 30%.
Next come a group of continental European countries – Sweden, France and Germany. They all have relatively mature systems of higher education, but tend to have very weak performance both in terms of participation and in terms of EEI. In effect, they all have smaller, more elite systems of higher education, and their scores reflect that.
The preceding pages have examined in some detail the issues of accessibility and affordability in comparative perspective. But what, in sum, does all this data and these rankings really tell us?
First of all, it tells us that Norway, the Netherlands and above all Finland are models for the international community when it comes to accessibility and affordability. All have high rates of access, high attainment rates, extensive programs of both loans and grants, and student bodies that are reasonably reflective of broader society. These countries are the undisputed success stories of this survey.
Second, the data and rankings suggest quite strongly that the links between accessibility and affordability are not as straightforward as some policymakers and analysts believe. Sweden and Germany, for instance, both of which do very well on the affordability scores, do not do especially well on any of the key measures of accessibility. On the other hand, the United States, which fare poorly on most affordability measures, does reasonably well in terms of accessibility. Finland, Norway and the Netherlands, have high scores across both the affordability and accessibility rankings.
Third, the data and rankings indicate that while continental European countries are generally more affordable than their North American and Australasian counterparts, the gap is less than is sometimes imagined. New Zealand and Canada, for instance, both of which have substantial tuition fees, are on some measures cheaper than countries like France, which do not have tuition fees at all.
Third, the data and rankings indicate that while continental European countries are generally more affordable than their North American and Australasian counterparts, the gap is less than is sometimes imagined. New Zealand and Canada, for instance, both of which have substantial tuition fees, are on some measures cheaper than countries like France, which do not have tuition fees at all.
Fourth, we have been able to show that in some countries – notably Mexico, Japan and the United States which have substantial private sectors – there are some substantial differences between “average costs” and “minimum available costs” and we have been able to make comparisons on the basis of both.
None of these findings are, of course, conclusive. There is much work still to be done in terms of fine-tuning the measurements and definitions of affordability and accessibility. Our affordability indicators, could, for instance be improved if we could more accurately unpack the total, net-and out-of-pocket costs facing students from different income groups, which would allow us to avoid “average cost” measures and allow us to focus more closely on the plight of the disadvantaged in each country. We are still not able to do this conclusively because very few countries publish sufficiently detailed data about the beneficiaries of their aid programs.
We also face a continuing difficulty in looking at accessibility in a comparative context. Participation, attainment and gender equity data is widely available across countries, but good data on the social origin of students in most countries is extremely limited, even at the level of relatively simple indicators such as the EEI. Even in those countries where EEI data is available, our rankings could be improved if data could be obtained not just for higher education as a whole, but also for specific advanced types of graduate and professional education, so that stratification differences between types of higher education institutions could also be examined.
Still, we believe that even in the absence of improved data, the second iteration of our rankings project can serve a significant purpose in bringing rigour to international comparative discussions on access and affordability, and to begin an international discussion on higher education by posing the questions of what makes higher education truly “affordable” and “accessible.” As public finances are becoming increasingly stretched due to changing demography and the lingering effects of the 2008 financial crisis, the future of millions of young people around the world hinges upon researchers and policy makers getting the answers to these questions right.
Keeping it Interesting
Keeping it Interesting, the first in HESA’s “Intelligence Briefs” series, uses Higher Education Strategy Associates’ student research panel to examine the elements of good and bad classroom experiences. The data point unequivocally to the conclusion that for most students, the key variable in making a great educational experience was the subject matter of the class and quality of the teaching. Though not completely irrelevant, the use of technology, quality of other students, class size, and quality of teaching assistants were considerably less important than the main factors. To read this report please click here.

Posté par pcassuto à 17:26 - - Permalien [#]

Le "grand établissement" lorrain inquiète les syndicats

http://www.ecoles-entreprises.com/imgs/logo.gifDans une lettre conjointe adressée le 15 novembre à Valérie Pécresse, l'UNEF et le SNESUP ont fait part de leurs inquiétudes quant à la prochaine fusion des établissement d'enseignement supérieur lorrains. Les deux syndicats sont notamment opposés au statut de "grand établissement" que pourrait prendre cette future Université de Lorraine.
Selon l'UNEF et le SNESUP, ce statut particulier permettrait à l'Université de Lorraine "de déroger au principe de non-sélection des étudiants en première année" et "ouvrirait la porte au développement d’une offre de formation centrée autours de diplômes d’établissements afin de fixer librement le montant des droits d'inscription".
Les deux organisations s'inquiètent également de la future gouvernance, notamment pour les UFR : "les UFR sont remplacées par des UER, pour lesquelles la loi ne garantit rien en matière de composition des conseils et de désignation des élus et des directeurs".
Dans leur lettre à la ministre, les syndicats réclament plus largement une régulation nationale pour les regroupements entre établissements d'enseignement supérieur, ainsi qu'un moratoire sur les fusions d'universités. L'UNEF contre le Grand Etablissement en Lorraine. Jean-Pierre Finance élu président du PRES lorrain.
http://www.ecoles-entreprises.com/imgs/logo.gif In einem gemeinsamen Schreiben am 15. November um Valerie Pécresse, äußerte UNEF und SNESUP ihre Besorgnis über die bevorstehende Fusion der Hochschule Lothringen. Beide Gewerkschaften sind besonders auf den Status des "Big Business", dass die künftige Universität von Lothringen machen könnte dagegen. Nach Angaben der UNEF und SNESUP, diesen besonderen Status würde der University of Lorraine "weichen von den Grundsatz der Nicht-Auswahl der Studienanfänger" ermöglichen und "öffnen die Tür für die Entwicklung der Ausbildung rund um Studium zentriert Institutionen frei gesetzt die Höhe der Gebühren." Mehr...

Posté par pcassuto à 16:10 - - Permalien [#]

Tout sur la POE

http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/about_dell/cgpme_300.jpgLa loi de réforme de la formation professionnelle du 24 novembre 2009 a créé, - il s'agit d'une proposition de la CGPME - le dispositif de préparation opérationnelle à l’emploi (POE) à destination des demandeurs d’emploi indemnisés ou non. La préparation opérationnelle à l’emploi permet à un demandeur d’emploi de bénéficier d’une formation nécessaire à l’acquisition des compétences requises pour occuper un emploi correspondant à une offre déposée auprès de Pôle emploi. A l’issue de la formation, qui est dispensée préalablement à l’entrée dans l’entreprise, un contrat de travail en CDI, Contrat de professionnalisation à durée indéterminée, ou CDD d’une durée minimum de douze mois peut être conclu par l’employeur et le demandeur d’emploi. En savoir plus.
Préparation opérationnelle à l’emploi
« Art. L. 6326-1. – La préparation opérationnelle à l’emploi permet à un demandeur d’emploi de bénéficier d’une formation nécessaire à l’acquisition des compétences requises pour occuper un emploi correspondant à une offre déposée par une entreprise auprès de l’institution mentionnée à l’article L. 5312-1(1). L’offre d’emploi est située dans la zone géographique privilégiée définie par le projet personnalisé d’accès à l’emploi du demandeur d’emploi.
A l’issue de la formation, qui est dispensée préalablement à l’entrée dans l’entreprise, le contrat de travail qui peut être conclu par l’employeur et le demandeur d’emploi est un contrat à durée indéterminée, un contrat de professionnalisation à durée indéterminée ou un contrat à durée déterminée d’une durée minimale de douze mois.
Art. L. 6326-2. – Dans le cadre de la préparation opérationnelle à l’emploi, la formation est financée par l’institution mentionnée à l’article L. 5312-1 ( Pôle Emploi) le fonds mentionné à l’article L. 6332-18 ( Fond Paritaire de Sécurisation des Parcours Professionnels) et l’organisme collecteur paritaire agréé dont relève l’entreprise concernée peuvent contribuer au financement du coût pédagogique et des frais annexes de la formation.
L’entreprise, en concertation avec l’institution mentionnée à l’article L. 5312-1 et avec l’organisme collecteur paritaire agréé dont elle relève, définit les compétences que le demandeur d’emploi acquiert au cours de la formation pour occuper l’emploi proposé.
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/about_dell/cgpme_300.jpg Il-riforma tal-liġi ta 'taħriġ vokazzjonali 24 ta' Novembru 2009 ħolqot - hija CGPME proposta - it-tifsira ta 'prontezza operazzjonali għall-impjieg (POE) għal persuni li jfittxu impieg jew mhux ikkumpensat. Prontezza operazzjonali għall-impjieg tippermetti min ikun qed ifittex li jirċievi taħriġ meħtieġ sabiex jiksbu l-ħiliet meħtieġa għall-impjiegi li jaqblu mal-offerta magħmula lill-ċentru tax-xogħol.  Wara t-taħriġ, li huwa mogħti qabel ma jissieħeb fl-kumpanija, kuntratt ta 'CDI kuntratt professjonalizzazzjoni xogħol għal żmien indefinit, jew is-CSD b'terminu minimu ta' tnax-il xahar jista 'jiġi konkluż mill- iħaddem u l-migrant. Tgħallem aktar. More...

Posté par pcassuto à 15:27 - - Permalien [#]
Tags :

Benchmarking Conference

Viena_finalBenchmarking Conference - Facing the rankings: Using benchmarking tools for strategic positioning, Vienna, Austria (20-21 January 2011). A leading conference with practical workshops and plenty of networking opportunities.
With the increasing rise of rankings of all kinds, universities are under serious threat of loosing students, loosing attractiveness for the best researchers and of loosing core and competitive funding. When unprepared to anticipate the possible outcomes and to respond adequately by improving their performance, higher education institutions are running the risk of their reputation being damaged in already difficult situations experienced in the context of the economic crisis.
Benchmarking is a modern management tool which helps to address the challenges of the rankings, through a better understanding of institutional profiles and needs, with a view to set targets for improvement and to improve strategic positioning.
The conference will look at transparency tools such as classifications, rankings and benchmarking exercises in an increasingly diverse higher education context. Drawing on the handbook produced in the framework of the two-year EU-funded EBI-II project Benchmarking in Higher Education, the conference will offer practical peer learning sessions (on benchmarking tools) and specialised workshops (to assist both in the selection of appropriate indicators in the three areas of internationalization, university-enterprise cooperation and regional innovation and in discussing the strength of these indicators). The handbook offers a very detailed methodology on defining and selecting indicators with the use of balance scorecards as well as designing powerful action plans to implement changes as a result of benchmarking exercises. To attend the conference, register here. Download the preliminary programme.

Posté par pcassuto à 01:01 - - Permalien [#]