Gifts to UK universities and colleges buck the recession drag experienced by other UK charities
Donating to universities and colleges in the UK is more widespread than ever before, according to a report published by HEFCE today.
‘Review of Philanthropy in UK Higher Education’ is a landmark report that sets out the success of universities and colleges over recent years in attracting philanthropic gifts from a more diverse range of donors. The report, produced by specialist fundraising consultants More Partnership, shows how universities and colleges have worked hard, with the support of Government, to deliver these gains.
Professor Shirley Pearce, Chair of the Review Group, said:

‘There has been a step-change in philanthropic giving to higher education over recent years. Successful institutions can be found right across the sector. They have shown strong leadership and have aligned their philanthropic goals to their academic strategy. Increasingly the UK is developing a body of good practice in fundraising and is developing the people it will need for the future. There is a real sense of momentum and this must be maintained. If the current trajectory continues, UK higher education institutions can expect to receive up to £2 billion per annum from some 630,000 donors by 2022'.

HEFCE Chief Executive, Sir Alan Langlands, said:

‘This report highlights the strong and continuing tradition of philanthropic giving to higher education. This is an important source of discretionary income, supporting activities beyond those met from core funding streams. The real beneficiaries here are those students whose lives have been changed and those who gain from the application of the knowledge created through the generosity of donors. We will do all we can to support the implementation of the report’s recommendations’.

Notes

1. The review can be found on the HEFCE web-site. A four-page summary is also available below. 
   
   Summary of key messages and recommendations

   Download the Review of philanthropy summary as PDF (221 KB)

2. The review of philanthropy was set up in January 2012 by HEFCE to address the next decade’s challenges in increasing voluntary giving to higher education. The review was chaired by Professor Shirley Pearce, former Vice‑Chancellor of Loughborough University. The other review members were:
   • Nick Blinco, Director of Development and Alumni Relations, University of Birmingham
   • Rory Brooks, Founder, Rory and Elizabeth Brooks Foundation
   • Professor Sir Richard Trainor, Principal, King’s College London
   • Martin Williams, Director of Higher Education Strategy, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
3. Fundraising consultancy, More Partnership, was commissioned by HEFCE to produce the report following review of data and relevant literature, interviews with institutions and donors, and an open consultation with stakeholders.

EUA published last week a new study entitled ‘Tracking Learners’ and Graduates’ Progression Paths – TRACKIT’. The outcome of a two-year EUA-led project, it maps the state of play in 31 countries, and provides factual information on the uses and methods for ‘tracking’ students’ progress at both the national level and within higher education institutions. It is based on a qualitative survey in 31 countries, a series of focus groups, and site visits to 23 European universities in 11 countries.
The study has found that there is a growing interest in tracking and an increasing number of initiatives both at national and institutional level. National-level initiatives for student tracking are in place in 23 of the higher education systems considered by the project, and in 26 systems for graduate tracking. Some countries have adopted centralised tracking approaches while others have adopted ‘shared approaches’, where universities participate in the design and implementation of centrally-led approaches.
At the institutional level, the study found that in 30 of the higher education systems, at least some higher education institutions (HEIs) track their students. It also highlights a general trend towards ‘tracking the student lifecycle’: this means that some institutions are starting not only to track progress of students and collect data on the careers of graduates, but also to complement tracking with a wide range of measures such as ‘bridging courses’, alumni activities and strategic dialogue meetings of the institutional leadership. Increasingly, they also relate tracking to their outreach activities with prospective students.
Provided that institutions take ownership, and disseminate and present results of tracking to staff and students, it can contribute to raising awareness of teaching results and student needs. Tracking was also found to have an impact in terms of the enhancement of learning provision, the improvement of student services, contribution to overall strategic development and in informing and underpinning quality assurance.
Furthermore, the study demonstrated that tracking can help develop a better institutional understanding of issues such as student dropout and employability. While it does not necessarily provide ready-made answers, it is often the starting point for further research and follow-up. The publication also outlines a number of challenges and risks that were identified, which need to be considered for the improvement and development of tracking. It concludes with a set of guidelines to help higher education institutions develop and implement comprehensive tracking strategies and a section analysing future prospects for tracking in Europe.
The TRACKIT study project, which is co-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union, has been undertaken by a consortium consisting of EUA; the Irish Universities Association/UCD Geary Institute; Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (HIS); Lund University; the University of the Peloponnese/Centre for Social and Educational Policy Studies; and Aarhus University. It was presented last week at a special launch reception at the Irish Universities Association, during the EAIE conference in Dublin, and to an audience of European higher education stakeholders in Brussels this week at a lunchtime event organised with the Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the EU.
A full copy of the report can be downloaded here.

Dans son rapport sur la jeunesse publié le 10 septembre 2012, l’Union européenne appelle à une orientation prioritaire des politiques en faveur de la jeunesse vers l’emploi, l’intégration sociale, la santé et le bien-être des jeunes.
Ce rapport, produit tous les trois ans par la Commission, met en lumière la nécessité pour l’Union et les États membres d’en faire plus pour soutenir les jeunes, frappés de plein fouet par la crise économique.
Avant la fin de l’année, la Commission présentera une proposition de recommandation du Conseil consacrée aux « garanties pour la jeunesse », qui aura pour but de faire en sorte que, dans les quatre mois suivant sa sortie du système éducatif, tout jeune ait un emploi, suive une formation ou reprenne des études.
Voir le rapport.

By Ard Jongsma. A European University Association review that set out to examine mobility strategies at European universities stumbled across the persistent problem of gathering reliable and comparable data on mobility, designed a set of tools to alleviate it and in the process compiled a most interesting snapshot of the current state of affairs in Europe.
The resulting report, Mobility: Closing the gap between policy and practice, offers both new insights into the motivations of institutions and individuals to engage in mobility, and evidence for policy-making and strategic planning that until now has largely been based on anecdotal assumptions.
Even the European Commission has always found it hard to provide comparable statistics on mobility within its own programmes. A persistent lack of reliable evidence in spite of great demand for it usually indicates that apples and oranges are being compared and this has indeed long been the case with mobility figures.
Depending on who counted, statistics could include refugees, residents on foreign passports, full programme as well as single course students, and even people who entered the country on a student visa but never actually set a foot inside a college. The study is the outcome of a project (MAUNIMO) that explored universities’ perspectives on mobility and attempted to map how institutions are responding to increased pressure from policy initiatives to increase mobility. The core of the project was a web-based mobility self-assessment tool for universities.
A total of 34 universities from 21 countries piloted the use of the tool, formulating how they define and implement strategies for mobility, how they collect different types of data on mobility, how different external stakeholders influence mobility and how perceptions of mobility vary within their institution. The project showed that universities feel they need to take a more strategic cross-institutional approach to mobility. A number explained that approaches to various types of mobility were still fragmented across the institution, making it more difficult to define one single strategic vision and indeed to collect comprehensive data.
The pilot universities also pointed to the key role of university leadership in the development of mobility strategies and their implementation. They outlined a range of other issues that are crucial for the implementation of mobility strategies such as establishing and coordinating dedicated services and better capturing some of the creative practice taking place at faculty level for motivating and evaluating mobility.
All of this has long been known or at least reasonably assumed, but not before committed so lucidly to paper on the basis of solid evidence. The study is a brave attempt at bringing some order to a chaotic field and ends in an even braver call for even more order. If by 2020 the target is to be reached of 20% of students in the European Higher Education Area crossing a border in the framework of their studies, the very first requirement is that they can actually be counted.
The work of the EUA may be an important step in this direction if other universities are willing to follow in the footsteps of the 21 pilot institutions – and if EU institutions, national governments and data collection agencies heed the call to work in close partnership with higher education institutions on identifying and implementing data collection parameters and reporting procedures that can underpin more sensible future strategies for learning mobility.

Von Dirk Reinhardt. Studieren im Osten – geht das? “Grundsätzlich ja, aber …” lautet die aktuelle Antwort von Jugendlichen aus den zehn alten Bundesländern in einer aktuellen Umfrage der Hochschulinitiative Neue Bundesländer (Berlin kann nicht mehr so richtig getrennt erhoben werden, deswegen lassen wir das mal außen vor). Warum entscheiden sich Schulabgänger für welche Uni? Die Argumente sind vielfältig: “Endlich weg von zu Hause!”, “Bloß nicht so weit weg von zu Hause!”, “Mal was Neues kennenlernen”, “Die stärksten Professoren, fachlich meine ich, sind da und da …”.
Alle Faktoren zusammengezählt, extrapoliert, Ausreißer rausgerechnet sowie Pillenknick und Kondomkrise bedacht, kommt heraus: Der Osten fetzt nicht. Der Studie zufolge wollen nur 13 Prozent der 16- bis 24-Jährigen in Westdeutschland an eine ostdeutsche Hochschule gehen. Noch genauer ist die Aussage des folgenden ermittelten Wertes: Ein gutes Viertel der Befragten kann sich den Osten als Studienort überhaupt nicht vorstellen. Die anderen sagen: “Weiß nicht.”
Die “Bloß-nicht-in-den-Osten-Sager” hegen nach dieser Studie Zweifel an einer guten Ausbildung oder haben Angst vor verschlechterten Karrierechancen mit diesem Ost-Ausrutscher in ihrer Biografie. Das Gute an dieser Befragung: 2009 gab es schon einmal so eine Studie, und da wollten nur fünf Prozent in den Osten. Der Osten holt langsam auf, könnte man also angesichts der etwas größeren Zahl der Aufgeschlossenen sagen.
Was kann man tun, damit der Osten als Studienort attraktiver wird? Natürlich argumentieren! Hier ein Versuch: Das Bier ist billiger. Das WG-Zimmer auch (außer in Jena), und das bekommt man sogar relativ schnell (außer in Jena) und ohne Auswahlgesprächsrunde, in der man einen Bankauszug des elterlichen Kontos mitbringen muss. Die meisten Professoren sind jünger als 62. Man findet immer einen freien Stuhl im Seminar. Keine Studiengebühren. Und kein Stau auf den ersten 100 Kilometern Autobahn bei der Heimfahrt in Richtung Westen.

In light of the increasing number of higher education providers that claim to be recognized by the Council of Europe or other international organizations, we wish to make it clear that the Council of Europe does not recognize or in any other way bestow legitimacy on any higher education institution, programme or provision. Institutional recognition is normally within the competence of national authorities and is normally conditional on the institution or programme undergoing quality assessment.
There seems to be an increasing number of higher education providers that claim to be recognized by the Council of Europe, alone or in cooperation with other international organizations, such as UNESCO, or by individuals acting on behalf of an international organization. Sometimes providers also claim that the Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention for the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region confers recognition on their education provision. In some cases, providers claim to have been recognized by the Council of Europe, whereas in other cases their text is phrased in such a way as to give the impression that they have been recognized, even if technically they do not say so.
In light of the increasing number of such claims, we wish to make it clear that the Council of Europe does not recognize or in any other way bestow legitimacy on any higher education institution, programme or provision.
Attention is also drawn to the alert published on the UNESCO web site on this topic.
The different categories of unsubstantiated claims of recognition features on this site in large part also apply to claims of recognition by the Council of Europe.
Education provided within national systems
It should be recalled that most education provision belong to a national education system, and that the competence to determine what institution, programmes or other provision is recognized belongs to the public authority responsible for the education system in question. Increasingly, recognition or acceptance of higher education institutions by national authorities is made conditional on the institution or programme undergoing a quality assessment. In Europe, this is the policy adopted by the Ministers responsible for higher education in the framework of the Bologna Process aiming to establish a European Higher Education Area by 2010. In 2005, the Ministers adopted a set of European Quality Assurance Standards, which are based on a background report elaborated by ENQA – the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education and partners.
International, transnational or cross-border education
Some of the providers claiming to be recognized also claim to provide “international” or “European” education, in other words they do not claim to belong to a higher education system. There is no competent international body, independent of national education systems, with a mandate to recognize or assess such provision. However, UNESCO and the OECD have elaborated Guidelines on Quality provision in Cross-border Higher Education that “aim to support and encourage international cooperation and enhance the understanding of the importance of quality provision in cross-border higher education” as well as to “protect students and other stakeholders from low-quality provision and disreputable providers as well as to encourage the development of quality cross-border higher education that meets human, social, economic and cultural needs”. In 2001, the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee adopted a Code of Good practice in the Provision of Trans-national Education, which also provides useful indications of what students should look for in a provider claiming to offer international education.
Precautions students should take
Students should carefully verify the status of an institution, programme or provider before they decide to enrol in a higher education programme. They should ask the institution whether it has undergone a quality assurance exercise, and if so, by what body it has been assessed. While some higher education providers that do not belong to national education systems are of good standing, it may be wise to pay particular attention to the status of institutions claiming to be international or European. Providers claiming to be recognized or supported by international organizations such as the Council of Europe should be regarded with scepticism.

Eurofound publishes its Annual Update on working time developments in the European Union 2011: Gap between agreed and actual working time across the EU remains wide.
(DUBLIN, IRELAND) The actual working week for full time workers stood at 39.7 hours across the 27 EU Member States in 2011, according to Eurofound's latest annual update of working time developments, an average of 1.6 hours more than the agreed working hours. This comprises, nevertheless, a widening of the gap between agreed and actual working hours in the EU15, but a narrowing in the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. Men continue to work longer hours than women on paid work - on average 2.1 hours more per week. The difference between countries at either end of the spectrum of leave entitlements in the EU remains huge at almost two and a half working weeks.
Eurofound's annual update on working time developments looks at a number of issues related to the time spent at work across all Member States of the European Union and Norway. The report provides a comparative overview of the present state of play and recent developments. Collective bargaining continues to play an important role in determining the duration of working time in most of the EU27 countries, though to a lesser or sometimes negligible extent in some of the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 (NMS). Collective agreements set the working time conditions for an average of three quarters of all workers across the European Union, with large differences between countries. The relationship between bargaining and legislative provisions on working time continues to vary between countries.
In 2011, average collective agreed weekly working time in the European Union stood at 38.1 hours. The only reported changes in comparison to 2010 took place in Slovakia and Spain. France remains the country with the shortest average collectively agreed working week at 35.6 hours. The Nordic countries, together with the UK and the Netherlands, continued to register an average agreed normal working week below the EU15 average of 37.6 hours in 2011. In most of the NMS there is a uniform 40-hour working week, which corresponds in general to the statutory normal week in those countries. This is the case in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovenia.
The report also examines working time developments in detail in three sectors – chemicals, retail and civil service. The retail sector recorded the longest average agreed normal working week with 38.3 hours, followed by the chemicals sector with 37.9 hours and the civil service with 37.6 hours. The largest difference between the NMS and the EU15 countries can be found in the civil service sector, in which the normal agreed working week in the former group of countries is three hours longer than in the older Member States. The gap is 2.1 hours in the chemical and retail sectors.
In the EU27, the actual working week was 39.7 hours in 2011, 1.6 hours more than the agreed working hours. Across the 27 EU Member States, full-time employees in Romania worked the longest actual weekly hours in their main jobs in 2011 – 41.3 hours, the same as in 2010. They were followed by employees in Luxembourg (40.7), Germany (40.6), Estonia and the UK (both 40.5), Austria and Bulgaria (both 40.3), and the Czech Republic and Poland (both 40.2). Employees in Finland worked the shortest hours (37.8). This was 3.5 hours less than their counterparts in Romania or 4.5 weeks of work in Romania in a full year.
Actual weekly hours worked by full-time employees were longer than the average normal collectively agreed working week in 21 of the 28 countries covered in the report. The 2011 data shows a widening of the gap between agreed and actual hours in the EU15 countries, while it narrowed in the NMS.
Ten of the 12 NMS had actual weekly working hours at or above the EU27 average of 39.7 hours, compared with only seven of the EU15 countries. Only Slovakia and Malta had an actual working week that was slightly shorter than the EU27 average (39.6 hours). In the EU15, the longest actual full-time hours were worked in Luxembourg (40.7), Germany (40.6) and the UK (40.5), and the shortest in Finland (37.8), France (38.1) and Ireland (38.2).
In 2011, actual weekly hours worked by male full-time employees in their main jobs continued to exceed those of their female counterparts in all Member States. Across the EU27, men worked on average 2.1 hours more per week than women. The gap is wider in the EU15 than in the NMS. In the EU15, men work 2.3 hours more per week than women do; whereas, in the NMS, men work around 1.6 hours more.
The combined total of agreed annual leave and public holidays varied in the EU from 40 days in Germany to 27 days in Hungary and Romania – a difference of around 48% or 2.5 working weeks in a year. Other notably high-leave countries in 2011 included Italy and Denmark (with 39 leave days in total), while other notably low-leave countries included Estonia with 28 days, Poland with 29 days, and Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia with 30 days. The average figure for the EU27 was 34.2 days – 35.9 days in the EU15 and 29.4 days in the NMS.
The report is available at http://bit.ly/WTupd12.
For further information, contact Måns Mårtensson, media manager, on email: mma@eurofound.europa.eu, telephone: +353-1-2043124, or mobile: +353-876-593 507.
Notes to the editor Eurofound provides social partners, governments and EU decision makers with relevant, timely and unbiased research results so that the lives of European citizens can be improved.
The Annual Update on working time developments in the European Union 2011 report follows the previous edition in the method it uses for calculating averages for the groups of EU Member States (EU27, EU15 and NMS12). The average figures provided for these country groupings are weighted in order to reflect the relative country sizes in terms of persons aged 15 to 64 who are employed full time, according to the Eurostat’s Labour Force Survey (LFS).

25-29 September 2012, Hasselt, Belgium
The third international conference organized by the GINCO consortium will focus on the quality and variety of the Grundtvig course offer.
The conference targets actual Grundtvig in-service training course organisers, all adult education organizations willing/planning to organise such courses and all stakeholders in the field: LLP National Agencies, adult education policy makers, programme developers etc.
All themes will be explored in keynotes and workshops, relevant material will be presented, expertise will be exchanged, good practice will be highlighted. The conference also is the ideal place for networking, learning, creating useful contacts and giving weight to your voice in the debate on the Grundtvig IST action.
The GINCO network has carried out a statistical analysis of the Training Database. Also the West Of Scotland Colleges' Partnership' has carried out a study on offer and impact of the Grundtvig IST action. These analyses will be the basis for discussion and further development of tools and policy recommendations. The main objective of the conference is to improve this course offer in terms of quality and relevance.
The GINCO AWARD selection - a quality label for Grundtvig courses - has been carried out by the GINCO network in 2012 in cooperation with the National Agencies. The award winners in the 3 categories: ICT use, quality care and validation of learning outcomes will receive their award. These courses will be presented as examples of good practice in the workshop sessions.
All relevant material, developed in the 3 year life span of the network will be presented.
More information on the programme of the conference in the GINCO website.
GINCO: Grundtvig International Network of Course Organisers is a consortium of 21 partners funded under the Grundtvig networks action. Learn more in the dedicated section of the EAEA website.

Colloque européen de l'AEDE-France, 3 octobre 2012, à l'IUFM de Bretagne, 153 rue Saint Malo, RENNES.
Au moment où le monde et l'Europe subissent de multiples secousses et connaissent des mutations socio-économiques et technologiques sans précédent, au moment où la tentation du repli sur soi gagne du terrain, au moment où l'avenir professionnel des jeunes est trop souvent incertain, il convient de redéfinir les finalités et les modalités de notre projet éducatif. Les mêmes questions se posent dans chaque Etat Membre de l'Union et nous ne pouvons qu'enrichir notre réflexion en les étudiant ensemble.
Dans cette perspective, le colloque européen de l'AEDE-France se propose de travailler autour de trois mots-clés: coopération, inclusion, réussite.
- Présentation de la stratégie «Europe 2020»; cette stratégie permet-elle d'harmoniser les projets éducatifs des Etats membres et de les orienter vers des objectifs communs de réussite?
- Quels sont les différents acteurs qui peuvent contribuer à une éducation porteuse d'espoir pour tous?
- Qu'entend-on par «éducation inclusive»? Cette notion peut-elle apporter des éléments de réponse aux défis posés par les évolutions du monde actuel et les besoins de formations diversifiées?
Téléchargez ici le programme en français ou in English et accédez au formulaire d'inscription.