Technical, engineering and health care expertise are among the few skills in huge demand even in today’s lackluster job market. They are also, unfortunately, some of the most expensive subjects to teach. As a result, state colleges in Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Colorado, Michigan, Florida and Texas have eliminated entire engineering and computer science departments.
At one community college in North Carolina — a state with a severe nursing shortage — nursing program applicants so outnumber available slots that there is a waiting list just to get on the waiting list.
This squeeze is one result of the states’ 25-year withdrawal from higher education. During and immediately after the last few recessions, states slashed financing for colleges. Then when the economy recovered, most states never fully restored the money that had been cut. The recent recession has amplified the problem.
“There has been a shift from the belief that we as a nation benefit from higher education, to a belief that it’s the people receiving the education who primarily benefit and so they should foot the bill,” said Ronald G. Ehrenberg, the director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute and a trustee of the State University of New York system.
Even large tuition increases have not fully offset state cuts, since many state legislatures cap how much colleges can charge for each course. So classes get bigger, tenured faculty members are replaced with adjuncts and technical courses are sacrificed.
State appropriations for colleges fell by 7.6 percent in 2011-12, the largest annual decline in at least five decades, according to a report from the Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University. In one extreme example, Arizona has slashed its college budget by 31 percent since the recession began in 2007.
It is this cumulative public divestment — and not extravagances like climbing walls or recreational centers advertised on a few elite campuses — that is primarily responsible for skyrocketing tuitions at state institutions, which enroll three out of every four college students.
Colleges have found ways to hold costs per student relatively steady. Since 1985, the average amount that public institutions spend on teaching each full-time student over the course of a year has barely budged, hovering around an inflation-adjusted $10,000, according to a State Higher Education Executive Officers report. But in the same period, the share of instruction costs paid for by actual tuition — not the sticker price, but the amount students actually pay after financial aid — has nearly doubled, to 40 percent from 23 percent. More...
Interested in the most up-to-date data on international student enrolment, by university, in France? A new publication from one of ACA’s two French members – CampusFrance – is the resource for you. Thanks to statistics provided by the French Higher Education Ministry (specifically, the Direction de l’évaluation, de la prospective et de la performance du Ministère français de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche), the newest edition of Les Notes de Campus France (n°36 – janvier 2012) is devoted to an overview of where international students go to study in France (i.e. in which French universities), and the evolution of these numbers in the period 2005-2010.
According to UNESCO 2010 data, France is the fourth most popular destination in the world for internationally-mobile students, after the US, the UK and Australia. In all, France hosted 284 600 international students in 2010, with nearly 220 000 enrolled in French universities.
Universities in France are spread throughout the French territory and it is interesting to note which regions and universities are the most popular. Predictably, the Ile-de-France region – including Paris (with 36 406 international students), Créteil (18 360) and Versailles (15 517) – hosted more than 32% of the country’s international students in 2010. Other major cities (such as Aix-Marseille, Lille, Lyon, Montpellier, Strasbourg and Toulouse) each welcomed more than 9 000 international students per year in the five-year period from 2005 to 2010. Absolute numbers tell one side of the story, but proportions are also revealing. For example, nearly 20% of the total university population in the universities in Clermont-Ferrand and Nice was comprised of international students in 2010.
Other figures give insight into the distribution of international students in France in relation to students’ nationalities of origin. The 2010 data show that the most common countries of origin for international students in France are Morocco (21 590 students), China (20 752) and Algeria (20 617) and that these students are mainly hosted by the three major cities of the Ile-de-France region (Paris, Créteil and Versailles). However, they are also well represented in all the other main French universities, such as Lyon, Lille, Amiens, Clermont-Ferrand, Dijon, Grenoble, Nantes and Toulouse for the Chinese students; as well as Aix-Marseille and Rouen for the Algerian students.
Finally, Paris stands out as a special case in the French context given that this city attracts students from all over the world. Notably, 39% of all American students in France chose the French capital for their study experience in 2010. The same goes for 30% of the Italian students in the country, and more than 20% of the Romanians, Russians, Spanish and Lebanese. Chinese students have discovered Paris, as well, increasing their enrolment figures from 1 600 in 2005 to 2 380 in 2010.
The European Area of Recognition project (EAR), which has been steered by ACA’s founding member Nuffic, has recently presented one of the key results of its outstanding work supported by the European Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO, namely a practical manual for fair recognition of qualifications. The EAR manual is a new and innovative tool: based on the Lisbon Recognition Convention and its subsidiary texts of qualifications, it incorporates all relevant recommendations, studies and earlier project results on recognition and sets out clear and uniform standards and guidelines on all aspects of the international recognition. Download EAR manual.
The manual consists of sixteen chapters with topics such as substantial differences, qualification frameworks, learning outcomes and accreditation. It includes flow-charts, recommendations, practical examples and useful links. It also contains a schematic outline of the recommended procedure for the assessment of foreign qualifications, a glossary, an overview of relevant publications and sources, and an index. This manual is primarily meant to be a reference tool for recognition offices in Europe. However, it will also have multiple uses beyond that audience, serving as a starting point for policy makers working to review and improve national regulations, as a manual for credential evaluators and as an informative resource for foreign students, higher education institutions and other stakeholders.
As a next step, Nuffic is launching a series of follow-up activities involving the training of networks in using the EAR manual and keeping the manual up to date (EAR2 project). Development and dissemination of a recognition manual for European higher education institutions (the EAR-HEI project) will also take place. Download EAR manual.
Table of Contents
1. Schematic outline of the recommended procedure for the assessment of foreign qualifications
2. Transparency and Information Provision
3. Accreditation and Quality Assurance (status of the institution)
5. Purpose of Recognition
6. Diploma Supplement (and other information tools)
7. Qualifications Frameworks
8. Credits, grades, credit accumulation and credit transfer
9. Learning Outcomes
10. Substantial Differences
11. Alternative recognition and the right to appeal
13. Non-Traditional Learning
Sub Topic – Flexible Learning Paths
Subtopic – Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)
Sub topic - Open/Distance learning
14. Transnational education
15. Qualifications awarded by joint programmes
16. Non-Recognised but Legitimate Institutions
17. Diploma and Accreditation Mills
18. Overview of publications and recommendations used in the manual
8. Credits, grades, credit accumulation and credit transfer
Credits measure workload. They quantitatively describe learning achievements and are awarded to the learner upon successful completion of a given unit of a study programme and/or a complete programme. Credits do not normally take the level of performance into consideration unless otherwise specified. Credits are used to quantify learning in terms of learning outcomes, relating to the workload of learning involved to reach a particular learning outcome.
Different credit systems exists across various sectors and levels of education worldwide. A credit system may be limited to a single institution, to a specific national context or may be applied across different national education systems, such as the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS).
Credit accumulation is the term used to describe the process of collecting credits allocated to the learning achievements of units within a programme. Upon the successful accumulation of a specified amount of credits in required subjects, a learner may be entitled to be awarded the final qualification or to gain access to the final examinations leading to a qualification. The process of credit accumulation is determined by the credit system in which it operates and often allows for a flexible learning path. The process of credit accumulation may differ across different credit systems.
While credit accumulation refers to the collection of credits within one credit system, credit transfer refers to the process of transferring credits gained in one credit system or institution to another credit system or institution with the same goal of achieving a given amount of credits in order to receive a specific qualification. Thus, credit transfer may facilitate the recognition of prior learning and can be a fundamental tool when it comes to lifelong learning and mobility. Successful credit transfer across educational systems can be achieved
through agreements between different awarding bodies and/or education providers. Credit frameworks can help facilitate mutual recognition of measurable learning. This can encourage further learning, allowing students to transfer between or within institutions without interruption of their studies and to maintain a clear record of achievements and credit transcripts.
A number of credit systems are available designed to facilitate and incorporate credit transfer across different education systems, such as ECTS for higher education and the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) for vocational education in Europe. One of the key benefits of using a common or similar credit framework is that they can ease a student’s entry into the international education arena and enhance mobility.
Progressive qualification frameworks focus on credits being assigned to a specific qualification level and allow for flexible learning paths by facilitating both credit accumulation and transfer at a national level.
Grades describe the quality of learning achievements and rate the student’s performance at a particular level. A grading system usually includes a range of numbers, letters or descriptors indicating a level of achievement such as fail, pass or merit. Grading systems and marking criteria vary among different education systems and often between different levels of education. Grades can be awarded based on internal (institutional) assessment or external examination, or both. The very nature of grading systems and grading cultures makes it difficult if not impossible to accurately convert grades from one system to another.
It is recommended that credits be taken into consideration in the process of credential evaluation. Credits provide an indication of the amount of study already completed, often reflect a learning path and are thus a useful tool to provide recognition of prior learning. They are also fundamental to the recognition of periods of study which, like completed qualifications, should be given fair consideration. It is important to assess the same qualification at the same level each time notwithstanding a difference in grades or a difference (lower number) in credits which could be due to recognition of Prior Learning by the awarding institution.
Credential evaluators should take into account:
• The credit system presented; what does it reflect?
o learning outcomes,
o workload or
o both learning outcomes and workload?
• Who is responsible for the assigning of credits and what quality control measures are in place to ensure consistency? For instance, are the credit-allocation procedures validated and reviewed by an external body?
• Do the credits form part of a larger credit transfer system? If so, what are the processes of credit transfer within that system?
• At what level have the credits been achieved?
o Is there a difference between credits at one level (Bachelor’s) and another level (Master’s)?
o What influence should this have on assessing the final level of learning outcome?
Based on the information gained from the considerations above, it should be possible to form a decision on the recognition of prior learning depending on how the credits link into the system to which access is being sought.
Depending on the specific educational system in question, grades may or may not have a direct impact on the assessment of a given qualification. When considering grades obtained in a foreign system, it is recommended to:
• consider grades in the context of the education system in which a qualification or learning has been achieved;
• keep in mind that both grading criteria and distribution can vary to a great extent and that the comparison of grades from different grading systems can be problematic.
It may, therefore, be wise to use grades merely as an indicator of a student’s academic performance in general and not as a numerical tool that is easily translatable into one’s own grading system.
Download EAR manual.
In the European context, international (and especially intra-European) student mobility has been promoted in recent years as an uncontested positive and has received a level of policy attention unprecedented anywhere else in the world. Grand mottos like “mobility for all” have become a common feature of EU policy discourse and have been promoted lately as nothing less than EU-wide objectives, in an effort to make mobility “the rule rather than the exception”.
But do the 27 EU member states and other European countries taking part in EU education programmes—confronted with strikingly different mobility realities—share this rosy view of mobility? New research from ACA shows they do so only to a certain extent. While maintaining a very positive view about “mobility” in general, countries have proven significantly more cautious when it comes to adopting extremely ambitious mobility goals at the national level. In general, they are simply less euphoric in this regard, although much seems to depend on the context in which such goals are elaborated. Specifically, national officials are much more “generous” and “enthusiastic” about mobility in the Bologna context (that has many “carrots” and close to no “sticks”), but they become increasingly modest in target-setting at the EU and at the national level, where they can ultimately be held accountable.
Also, very importantly, while student mobility seems to be—in one form or another—a national policy objective across Europe, very few European countries actually have a fully-fledged national policy for mobility in place, i.e. one that clearly articulates specific policy elements, such as differentiated:
modes of mobility (incoming credit/degree mobility, outgoing credit/degree mobility, of various mobile groups - student/researchers/faculty/ staff);
rationales behind the promotion of different modes of mobility;
purposes of mobility (e.g. for study, internship, study-related activities, others);
target levels and fields of study at which students should be mobile;
target geographical regions and/or countries for different modes of mobility;
quantitative targets; and
These are just some of the main findings of the study European and national policies for academic mobility. Linking rhetoric, practice and mobility trends, just published in the monograph series ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education. This publication was written by ACA, in collaboration with Nuffic and DAAD, and is the end result of the ENPMOB project, carried out between November 2010 and January 2012 with the financial support of the European Commission (see ACA Newsletter – Education Europe, January 2012).
Les inspecteurs généraux sont créés en 1802, sous le nom d'inspecteurs généraux des études, au moment où Napoléon Bonaparte réorganise le système éducatif. Au nombre de trois, assistés de trois commissaires, les inspecteurs généraux sont chargés de l'établissement des lycées tout juste créés. Ils constituent, d'après le décret qui les institue, "la clef de voûte" du nouveau système scolaire. Six ans plus tard, leurs missions sont élargies et précisées par le décret du 17 mars 1808 qui organise l'Université impériale. Ils prennent alors le nom d'inspecteurs de l'Université, qu'ils garderont jusqu'au milieu du siècle, et leur nombre passe à 18. Ils ont, dès lors, vocation à inspecter tous les établissements scolaires qui dépendent de l'Université et leurs personnels, y compris ceux de l'enseignement supérieur jusqu'en 1888. Ce sera là leur mission essentielle jusque dans les années 60 du XXe siècle.
L'inspection générale évolue et se diversifie au gré des modifications du système éducatif. En 1882, est créé un corps d'inspectrices générales de l'enseignement maternel qui est une véritable reconnaissance de l'école maternelle et, en même temps, le premier pas vers une féminisation de la fonction. Ces inspectrices sont intégrées à l'inspection générale de l'enseignement primaire en 1955. En 1885, on instaure un inspecteur général de l'économat en réponse à une polyvalence des missions des inspecteurs généraux devenue écrasante. Cette création amorce une spécialisation d'une partie des inspecteurs dans le domaine administratif. En 1920 est fondée l'inspection générale des services administratifs, qui deviendra, en 1965, l'inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et, en 1999, l'inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche (IGAENR). Enfin, en 1920, des inspecteurs généraux de l'enseignement techniques sont établis et forment un corps à part entière jusqu'en 1960.
Missions de l'inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche
L'IGAENR assure une mission permanente de contrôle, d'étude, d'information, de conseil et d'évaluation.
Elle a pour vocation d'observer et d'apprécier l'organisation et le fonctionnement du système éducatif à tous les niveaux d'enseignement, pour l'enseignement primaire, secondaire et supérieur. Elle en évalue l'efficacité et les performances, propose des mesures d'amélioration et assure le suivi de ses propositions. Elle fait connaître les innovations aux résultats positifs et signale les dysfonctionnements.
Elle intervient dans l'organisation et le fonctionnement des structures qui contribuent à la mise en place du service public de l'éducation et de la recherche. Elle est chargée du contrôle et de l'inspection de leurs personnels, en particulier dans les domaines administratif, financier, comptable et économique. Elle participe également au recrutement, à la formation et à l'évaluation des personnels.
Elle peut intervenir à la demande d'autres ministres, de collectivités territoriales, de gouvernements étrangers ou d'organisations internationales, si les ministres l'y autorisent, pour toutes missions entrant dans sa compétence.
Recrutement des inspecteurs généraux de l'administration et de la recherche. Organisation en groupes territoriaux de l'inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche. Groupes transversaux.
La formation professionnelle continue, une catégorie de la négociation interprofessionnelle encore pertinente?
Dans la Revue de l'IRES n°69 - 2011/2: La formation professionnelle continue, une catégorie de la négociation interprofessionnelle encore pertinente? Michèle TALLARD.
Constatant que la vision de la formation professionnelle continue s’est profondément transformée depuis la Libération, plusieurs questions traversent cet article: quels sont les facteurs structurants de ces transformations? Comment la négociation collective interprofessionnelle dans ce domaine les a-t-elle prises en compte? Dans quelle mesure l’accord de janvier 2009 vient-elle les parachever? Cet accord est-il porteur de nouvelles dynamiques? Après avoir retracé à grands traits les principales caractéristiques du système de négociation collective de la formation professionnelle continue, jusqu’au milieu des années 2000, tant du point de vue des enjeux qui l’ont traversé que du système d’acteurs, l’auteure s’interroge, à la lumière des caractéristiques ainsi dégagées, sur les dynamiques de négociation de l’accord de 2009 et son contenu.
Ainsi, au regard des négociations menées depuis 1990, le dispositif de 2009 présente des caractéristiques contrastées. Il se place dans la continuité des premières par les enjeux d’individualisation qui y sont toujours dominants et dans le système d’acteurs marqué par l’hégémonie patronale et le poids de l’Etat. Mais les dispositions adoptées pourraient ouvrir de nouvelles voies au fonctionnement du système, en ce qui concerne tant la plus grande perméabilité entre les circuits de fi nancements de la formation des demandeurs d’emploi et des salariés exposés aux risques du chômage que l’association de fait des régions et des acteurs qui s’y déploient, au travers des nombreux mécanismes de partenariat.
Plus généralement, l’examen sur longue période de la négociation collective en matière de formation professionnelle continue conduit à s’interroger sur la pérennité du système de négociation collective et de gestion paritaire institué en 1970-1971 et qui s’est développé au fil des décennies suivantes. Le passage à la formation professionnelle tout au long de la vie et la logique de construction des parcours professionnels qu’il sous-tend remettent en question la logique statutaire sur laquelle s’était construite le système de FPC, ainsi que la distinction traditionnelle entre le CIF relevant du projet du salarié et les dispositifs relevant de l’initiative de l’entreprise. Or cette coupure était à la base du système fondé en 1970-1971, lequel se trouve ainsi fragilisé (Join-Lambert, 2010). De plus, nous avons montré que les dispositions de l’accord de janvier 2009 viennent s’encastrer dans celles de l’accord de janvier 2008 sur la modernisation du marché du travail. Enfin, à des niveaux de branche ou d’entreprise, lors des négociations de GPEC, la formation professionnelle et ses dispositifs tendent à apparaître comme de simples chapitres d’une vaste négociation sur l’emploi qui devient dominante dans la plupart des espaces de régulation (Didry, Jobert, 2010): c’est donc bien la spécifi cité de cette négociation qui est désormais en cause, même si le système paritaire a pu s’assurer une certaine pérennité en acceptant de s’ouvrir à de nouveaux publics.
Télécharger dans la Revue de l'IRES n°69 - 2011/2: La formation professionnelle continue, une catégorie de la négociation interprofessionnelle encore pertinente? Michèle TALLARD.
Abstract: The search for the Holy Grail to measure learning gains started in the US, but the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) wants to take it global. Here we tell a bit of this story and raise serious questions regarding the validity of the Collegiate Learning Assessment test and suggest there are alternatives. The merit of the CLA as a true assessment of learning outcomes is, we dare say, debatable. In part, the arrival and success of the CLA is a story of markets. In essence, it is a successfully marketed product that is fulfilling a growing demand with few recognized competitors. As a result, the CLA is winning the “learning outcomes race,” essentially becoming the “gold standard” in the US. We worry that the CLA’s early market success is potentially thwarting the development of other valuable and more nuanced alternatives – whether it be other types of standardized tests that attest to measuring the learning curve of students, or other approaches such as student portfolios, contextually designed surveys on the student experience, and alumni feedback. In a new study published in the journal Higher Education, we examine the relative merits of student experience surveys in gauging learning outcomes by analyzing results from the data from the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Survey. This essay discusses some of the main points from that article. There are real problems with student self-assessments. But as we argue here, universities can probably learn more about learning outcomes in a wide range of disciplines via properly designed census surveys than by standardized tests like the CLA. At present, we suggest there is tension between the accountability desires of governments and the needs of individual universities who must focus on institutional self-improvement. One might hope that they would be synonymous. But how to make ministries and other policymakers more fully understand the perils of a silver bullet test tool?
Download SEARCHING FOR THE HOLY GRAIL OF LEARNING OUTCOMES.
4ème anniversaire du blog /La Formation Continue dans les Modalités d’évaluation de la vague D - Campagne d'évaluation 2012-2013
Retrouvez dans cet espace dédié, le document de référence global de la campagne et les modalités spécifiques à l’évaluation des établissements, des unités de recherche/structures fédératives, des licences, des licences professionnelles, des masters et des écoles doctorales. VAGUE D: Campagne d'évaluation 2012-2013 des établissements. Documents de référence: Guide de l’évaluation vague D. Le dépôt des dossiers d'évaluation doit s'effectuer avant le 15 octobre 2012 sur la plateforme "PELICAN" commune AERES/MESR : https://www.collecte.evaluation-contractualisation.fr/. Étapes clés des évaluations des établissements: Télécharger le schéma des étapes clés de l'évaluation. En savoir plus sur les principes et processus de l'évaluation des établissements.
Extraits concernant la formation continue dans leGuide de l’évaluation - vague D.
Objectif 2. Le pilotage de l’offre de formation
Système d’interprétation et critères d’évaluation
L’établissement se donne les moyens de piloter son offre de formation en fonction d’axes stratégiques clairement définis et réellement partagés par l’ensemble de la communauté universitaire. Il prend en compte le contexte régional. Il a identifié les moyens humains et matériels nécessaires à son projet pédagogique et il élabore une stratégie pour les acquérir.
2-4 Politique de formation tout au long de la vie
- intégration de la formation tout au long de la vie à la stratégie pédagogique de l’établissement
- volume d’activité et organisation du service de formation continue
- partage des responsabilités entre le service de formation continue et les composantes
- part de la formation continue diplômante, certifiante dans l’offre de formation continue
- politique de validation des acquis de l’expérience
Objectif 4. La visibilité de l’offre de formation
4-2 Communication adaptée aux étudiants
- information adaptée aux étudiants en reprise d’études ou en formation continue
La stratégie en matière de partenariats
Objectif 1. Le développement des relations inter-établissements d’enseignement supérieur
1-3 Mutualisation de l’offre de formation
- L’existence d’une stratégie en matière de formation continue et de VAE dans le cadre d’approche inter-établissements
Voir aussi: La Formation Continue dans les Modalités d’évaluation de la vague C (2013-2017) de l'AERES, La Formation Continue dans les Modalités d’évaluation de la vague B (2012-2015) de l'AERES, Evolution de l'évaluation de la Formation Continue par l'AERES, La formation continue dans le Rapport de synthèse de l'AERES, La Formation Continue dans les Modalités d’évaluation de la vague A (2011-2014) de l'AERES.
Nájsť v tejto vyhradenej oblasti, referenčného dokumentu celkovej kampane a konkrétny postup pre hodnotenie inštitúcií, výskumných jednotiek / federálnych štruktúr, licencie, profesionálne licencie, magisterské a doktorandské programy WAVE D: 2012-2013 inštitúcie kampane hodnotenie. Referenčné dokumenty: Príručka pre hodnotenie vývoja vlny týždeň Podanie žiadosti o posúdenie musí byť vykonané do 15. októbra roku 2012 na platforme "PELICAN" spoločné AERES/MESR: https://www.collecte.evaluation-contractualisation.fr/.Míľniky školského hodnotenie: Stiahnuť schéma z kľúčových krokov hodnotenia. Ďalšie informácie o princípoch a procesov inštitucionálneho hodnotenia.
Extrakty z tréningu v Zhodnotenie Sprievodca - D vlna. Viac...
UNESCO has played an important role in developing a vision of education that embraces formal, non-formal and informal learning throughout life. A number of UNESCO Member States have already made substantial progress towards establishing a national system of lifelong learning. Today’s learning societies require individuals to upgrade their skills continuously in order to participate fully in society. This translates to a need for renewed efforts by governments, educational institutions and civil society organisations to ensure the provision of learning opportunities.
UIL has created The International Directory of Lifelong Learning: Policy and Research as a tool to promote lifelong learning policy, research and practice. The overall aim of this Directory is to build networks and facilitate policy development, research and capacity-building and to provide an opportunity for policy-makers and experts to collaborate in lifelong learning.
More specifically, the Directory has the following objectives:
- To serve as a database of governmental departments, institutions and organisations involved in lifelong learning
- To provide a platform for policy-makers and researchers worldwide to exchange practice, ideas and research outcomes in lifelong learning
- To galvanise international and regional collaboration in policy development and research in establishing lifelong learning systems. Start search.
Overview of the core mandates of the listed organisations
This section outlines the various roles and core mandates of the governmental departments, institutions and organisations listed in this Directory. The entries have been classified into five world regions, namely: Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, and Latin America and the Caribbean.
In Africa, 27 countries are represented by 52 governmental departments, institutions and organisations leading lifelong learning. The general issues addressed are the promotion of adult education, the establishment of links between government and industry, the promotion of mother-tongue education and collaboration between experts in the field, worldwide. These thematic areas remain top priority in facilitating lifelong learning.
Latin America and the Caribbean
The Latin American and the Caribbean region is represented by 28 governmental departments, institutions and organisations from 15 countries. The lifelong learning agenda here is geared towards research and development, especially in providing youth training opportunities. There is energetic effort to enhance the quality of teaching. Furthermore, understanding the ties between the economy and education has led to the establishment of vocational schools and platforms to reinforce youth empowerment.
Asia and the Pacific
The Asia and the Pacific region registered 44 governmental departments, institutions and organisations from 20 countries. Policy development and research are the main foci in this region. There is a strong push for collaboration among research institutes and universities. In addition, raising literacy and numeracy levels among adults has become a priority in the region. There is a strong commitment to the involvement of women leaders and organisations that focus on women’s development and the promotion of gender equality.
In the Arab region, 14 countries are represented. There are 23 governmental departments, institutions and organisations nominated by these countries that promote policy and research in adult learning, vocational training and teacher training. Lifelong learning is promoted by national organisations through linkages between education and vocational training organisations and businesses. There is a determined focus on vocational education and ICT programmes to facilitate the skills development of vulnerable youth. There is a move towards the development of pedagogical technique as well as the evaluation and monitoring of teaching and training programmes. The training of teachers and supervisors is also an important component of the Arab educational community.
Europe and North America
The Europe and North American region lists 69 governmental departments, institutions and organisations from 28 countries. The lifelong learning institutions and organisations in these regions are keen to provide a robust platform that provides adequate training for adults with the goal of providing opportunities for integration and re-integration into the labour market. There is also a push to promote research and practice to inform a sound educational and political agenda. The professional development of teachers is also to the fore with respect to improving teaching quality.
Key policy issues and research outcomes
In general, policy outcomes have been expressed primarily by the establishment of training programmes, seminars and conferences, and by the publication of literature on lifelong learning practices, as well as by the development of nationwide surveys and progress reports. Some organisations have developed lifelong learning, adult education and adult literacy policies, and have worked with international agencies to facilitate the implementation of non-formal adult education policies in-country. Other institutions and organisations have put in place the coordination and monitoring of on-going adult education policies, including the implementation of literacy centres for adults as well as for young women. There are programmes which are currently being set up by institutions to empower local communities by introducing sustainable income-generating activities. In addition, there has been the implementation of ICT training and the use of media to promote lifelong learning policies. It is anticipated that this directory will facilitate research studies in adult education and collaboration among institutes. Increased research and collaboration promotes discourse and creates an opportunity for shared knowledge in the spread of the vision of lifelong learning.
How to join
Entry into the UNESCO International Directory of Lifelong Learning: Policy and Research is gained through nomination by the National Commission for UNESCO in each Member State. Interested governmental departments (institutions, agencies) that have a mandate to formulate lifelong learning policy at national level or engage substantially in the study of lifelong learning can contact their National Commission for UNESCO. After receiving the nomination forms from the National Commissions, a UIL task force will evaluate the eligibility of nominated organisations and add qualifying entries to the Directory. Download the Nomination Form.
For the past two years EUA has conducted a major project (entitled EUIMA “European Universities Implementing their Modernisation Agenda”), a coordination action funded under the 7th Research Framework Programme of the European Commission.
The project addresses two key elements of the modernisation agenda for European universities: the sustainability of university funding, financial management and development of full costing (EUIMA-Full Costing) and the development of appropriate measurement tools and indicators for the assessment of university-based fundamental research and collaborative research with external partners reflecting the diversity of university missions (EUIMA-Collaborative Research).
A transversal focus running through the project has aimed at identifying future human resource and management development requirements. EUA has undertaken extensive research on these key elements through many workshops, study visits, case studies and consultations that bring a substantial volume of empirical evidence to underpin its findings and recommendations.
This final event of the project presents these main findings and recommendations and connects them in a timely manner to the current European policy process on the development of Horizon 2020 and its Rules of Participation and the European Research Area (ERA) policy framework. EUA has been strongly involved as a European stakeholder in the consultations on the development of Horizon 2020 as well as in the “simplification” debate, submitting several position papers on behalf of its membership.
Presentations will be made by key contributors to the EUIMA project (both from universities and external partners/agencies). Invited participants will be those who have contributed to the project’s main activities, European policy makers from the relevant European Commission Directorates General, European Parliament (ITRE and CULT Committees) and the European Council (Member State Permanent Representations in Brussels), and other major European stakeholder organisations including science/research policy journalists.
If you would like to participate in the event and receive an invitation, please send an email to email@example.com. For more information about the event, click here.