Canalblog Tous les blogs Top blogs Emploi, Enseignement & Etudes Tous les blogs Emploi, Enseignement & Etudes
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
MENU
Formation Continue du Supérieur
6 mai 2012

Titularisation dans la fonction publique de l'Etat - recrutements réservés

Logo de l'Agence Régionale de la Formation tout au long de la vie (ARFTLV Poitou-charentes)Suite à la loi du 12 mars 2012, l'accès aux corps de fonctionnaires de l'Etat dont les statuts particuliers prévoient un recrutement par la voie externe, peut être ouvert jusqu'au 13/3/16, par recrutement réservés valorisant les acquis professionnels (examens, concours, recrutements sans concours). Un décret fixe règles générales applicables pour l'organisation de ces recrutements aux agents non titulaires employés au 31 mars 2011.
Il précise quels sont les agents concernés; ceux-ci ne pouvant se présenter qu'à un seul recrutement réservé au titre d'une même année civile d'ouverture du recrutement. Le texte indique l'administration auprès de laquelle chacun de ces agents pourra candidater.
Les agents ainsi recrutés seront placés, au titre de leur contrat, en congé sans rémunération pendant une période de stage préalable à la nomination dans le corps. Fonctionnaires stagiaires, ils bénéficieront des dispositions prévues en matière de stage par le statut particulier du corps d'accueil pour les lauréats des concours internes. Des adaptations pourront cependant être réalisées par décret.
Décret n° 2012-631 du 3 mai 2012.
Logo de l'Agence Régionale de la Formation tout au long de la vie (ARFTLV Poitou-charentes) Efter loven af 12 mar 2012, at ligene af statslige embedsmænd, hvis vedtægter giver for en specifik rekruttering via ekstern adgang, kan være åben indtil 3/13/16, ved at øge rekrutteringen forbeholdes erhvervede fagfolk (test, undersøgelser, aftaler uden konkurrence). Et dekret fastsætter de generelle regler for tilrettelæggelsen af ​​rekrutteringen til ikke-fastansat personale ansat 31. marts 2011. Mere...
6 mai 2012

9 mai 2012 - Journée de l’Europe

logo fafseaDans le cadre de la Journée de l'Europe du 9 mai, le FAFSEA remercie le FSE (Fonds Social Européen) pour les fonds alloués à de nombreuses actions de formation régionales de son réseau.
L’Union européenne est l’association de 27 Etats indépendants ayant décidé de coordonner leur politique.
Instauré par le Traité de Rome, le Fonds social européen (FSE) vise à faciliter la mobilité des travailleurs et l’accès à l’emploi au sein du marché commun grâce à un soutien financier aux programmes de formation professionnelle organisés par les États membres.
Le FSE a globalement 4 champs d’action prioritaires:
- la formation des salariés,
- la sécurisation professionnelle (éviter que les personnes ne perdent leur emploi, et permettre leur retour rapide dans l’emploi si elles sont licenciées),
- l’aide à la création d’entreprises via la formation et le tutorat des chefs d’entreprises et des créateurs ou repreneurs d’entreprises,
- l’accompagnement des travailleurs en difficulté, c’est-à-dire des personnes qui cumulent des difficultés sociales et professionnelles rendant problématique leur accès à l’emploi.
En savoir plus sur le FSE: http://www.fse.gouv.fr/.
Logo FAFSEA V rámci Dňa Európy 9. mája FAFSEA poďakovať ESF (Európsky sociálny fond) o financovaní školenia mnoho z jeho regionálnej siete.
Európska únia je združenie 27 nezávislých štátov, ktoré sa rozhodli koordinovať svoje politiky.

Zriadená Rímskou zmluvou Európskeho sociálneho fondu (ESF) má za cieľ uľahčiť mobilitu pracovných síl a prístup k zamestnaniu v rámci spoločného trhu prostredníctvom finančnej podpory odborného vzdelávania programov organizovaných členskými štátmi
. Viac...
6 mai 2012

University 2.0?

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/174887_161806250531786_2075947517_q.jpgThis entry was written by Shane Colvin, Senior IT Engineer at the Faculty of Education Sciences at the University of Oslo. Shane has been an active member on the Hedda Team since 2001. He will periodically contribute to the blog by writing posts focused on the use of ICT (information and communication technologies) in higher education.
“Why teach 30 students, when you can teach millions?”

That is what Stanford professor and Google innovator Sebastian Thrun asked his audience while speaking at the DLD Conference in Germany. Unexpectedly, he went on to reveal that he will be giving up his prestigious tenured position at Stanford to launch his own platform for online teaching. Thrun has called his virtual university Udacity, whose website proclaims that, “We believe university-level education can be both high quality and low cost. Using the economics of the Internet, we’ve connected some of the greatest teachers to hundreds of thousands of students all over the world.” As a matter of fact Udacity now claims to have over 160,000 students in more than 190 countries, and has an army of volunteers to translate the classes into 44 languages. Impressive numbers for a Silicon Valley start-up company (Thrun refers to Udacity as his “company”) with its headquarters just minutes away from the titans of the global high-tech industry; namely Hewlett-Packard, Google and Facebook.
Take for example iTunes U and MiT’s Open CourseWare, they have been providing free high quality education for many years. Before Thrun had announced the launching of his online learning platform, I could observe nearly all of Stanford’s courses on iTunes U. Not to mention Hedda, who has had lectures, podcasts, seminars, conferences online and freely available since 2005. For me personally, I have been learning online with Lynda.com since 2003 and frankly not sure what I would do without this knowledge resource. Although I must admit, Lynda.com is not entirely free, only 10% of their courses are free. Rather, there is an annual fee of $250 to be granted enrollment, but that gives you access to over 1,300 full courses. More...
6 mai 2012

The shape of higher education to come

http://enews.ksu.edu.sa/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UWN.jpgBy Karen MacGregor. More and more countries are striving to secure a bigger share of the international student market. But while the market is attractive and growing, it is also “very competitive, highly risk-prone and not only the only growth area in higher education – far from it”, said Richard Yelland, head of the policy advice and administrative division of the OECD.
Speaking on Thursday at the second QS-MAPLE conference, held in Durban, South Africa, Yelland warned that while an international student presence “enriches the domestic offering and leads to a better experience for all students”, countries should exercise caution in growing their global share. Higher education is a growth industry in many ways, he said in a presentation titled “Higher Education: Some thoughts on its past, present and future”, and in the immediate future issues around affordability, productivity and relevance would be at the forefront as the sector swung from the supply to the demand side.
General trends
Yelland painted a picture of a rapidly transforming world, and the implications of changes for higher education. While there is population stability in OECD countries, he said, the United Nations predicts that by 2050 the global population will have trebled from three billion in 1950 to nine billion, with the growth concentrated in developing and emerging countries. The world is also moving from a bottom-heavy to a top-heavy age structure, especially developed countries.
“The stability of the population in the developed regions masks other factors. Birth rate is often below replacement rate and the reasons populations have not declined are increased immigration and longer life expectancy,” said Yelland.
“Both these developments have implications for education policy and the latter [longer life expectancy] has a strong impact on higher education, leading on the one hand to a greater emphasis on adult and continuing education, and on the other to a growing willingness – or necessity – to look elsewhere for students.”
Economic shift is another key trend, said Yelland. Goldman Sachs has predicted that China’s gross domestic product will overtake America’s in 2027. Others think this might happen by 2020 and by 2050 it could be double the size and India might have caught up. The proportion of populations that have attained a post-school qualification has been rising, though not evenly. Qualification growth started in OECD countries, which now have an average of around 35% of 25- to 34-year-olds with a tertiary qualification.
“But there has also been spectacular growth in some emerging countries, with South Korea the most outstanding example,” said Yelland. Some 68% of 25- to 34-year-old Koreans have a tertiary qualification.
“Most of the graduates in OECD countries are women,” he added. “What we are now wondering – and this is a big policy concern in many countries – is: Where are the boys?"
In the past three decades, the global talent pool had doubled and there are now some 81 million 25- to 34-year-olds with a tertiary level education. Globally, there are major differences in how higher education is provided and varying levels of investment. In some nations, higher education is paid from the public purse “and is described as free, though of course it is not”. In others, it is largely paid for by students.
“The question of who should invest in higher education and what they should expect for their money, lies at the heart of policy and of ranking and evaluation.”
Of around 32 countries surveyed by the OECD, America has the biggest share of GDP spent on higher education – more than 3% – and the biggest proportion is private spending. It is followed by Canada with more than 2.5% of GDP committed to higher education, most of it public spending, and South Korea with around 2.4%, mostly privately-funded.
“We can look at this information in a different way – the variations in the ways countries assist students to finance their studies.” Countries can be grouped into four categories.
One group is OECD countries, where higher education is almost entirely publicly financed and at quite a high level – mostly in Scandinavia. In a second group there are high student fees but also well developed grant and scholarship systems – the US, Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands. A third group (eg Japan) has extensive cost sharing, with student support somewhat less developed. The fourth group is the most worrying, with relatively low financial barriers to entry but also relatively low state subsidies – for instance, Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Mexico, Spain and Switzerland.

“Some of them in the global higher education competition are having to think about their higher education investment,” said Yelland.

“There is no obvious correlation between who pays and the quality or fairness of provision. But what is clear is that where there is insufficient investment in higher education, then neither effectiveness nor equity are well-served.”

Yelland said there had been long-term growth in the number of international students, from around 800,000 in 1975 to 3.3 million globally in 2008. “That number will double.”

“With China’s population and economic performance, in five years many more of those students will be Chinese. There are already 200,000 international students in China, and the National Plan wants 500,000 by 2020.” Singapore, Japan and others also have high ambitions for international students.

In terms of proportions of international students in tertiary enrolment, Australia is top of the OECD, with more than 20% of all students being foreign, followed by Austria, the UK, Switzerland and New Zealand.

Technology is another global trend impacting on higher education.

“The potential of technology and the way it is changing the way we think, is something we’re only just beginning to grasp,” said Yellend. “And we’re only starting to get to grips with its potential to change the way higher education is delivered.”
The world for which students are being prepared is also transforming, along with demands for skills. “Research shows that the balance of skills required for the world of work is changing dramatically. It is the non-routine interactive and the non-routine analytic jobs that are growing, particularly in countries like the US, and this trend is accelerating.”
Where are we going?
Yelland said one area in higher education that would change in the coming decades was the evaluation of institutions and programmes “and the worth that is attached to things they do”. One of the effects of massification was a much more heterogeneous experience and more diverse expectations.
“There has been huge progress in quality assurance, but institutional quality remains largely unknown. Proxies for quality exist but none are perfect.”
There would also be demands in future for greater transparency in higher education. Yelland said university rankings met a strong demand for information on what students could expect to get for their investment in higher education.
“We can argue about methodology and complain about the effects of rankings. But the reason why we have to deal with incomplete rankings is because we have failed collectively as a sector to be transparent about what we do and what it is worth.
Clearly, there was bias in rankings towards research excellence and impact. For many universities this was a valid measure of their value to the world. “But for many others, if they are setting out to be in the world’s top 100 they are doomed to failure – there can only be 100 – and this can have a distorting effect on policy.”
Yelland spoke about the OECD’s work in assessing learning outcomes. “There has been a move towards defining the qualities that students can be expected to know and do as a result of higher education. But there is no international assessment of higher education outcomes – what students can actually do.”
The Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) will test what students know and can do on graduation.
“There have been decades of quantitative growth and there is consensus on the need to improve quality,” said Yelland. But there is an information gap and AHELO is intended to provide a a balanced view of quality in terms of learning outcomes.
“We are looking for a genuine test of diversity.” AHELO is in its testing implementation phase, seeing if students in various countries are prepared to answer questions and if this produces meaningful information.
Keywords for the future
A first set of keywords for the future, Yelland said, was accountability and autonomy, with the need to strike a balance in higher education between institutions and society. The tension between accountability and autonomy was nothing new. “But this needs to be a source of creative tension, not a battleground. The key is to have effective and strategic management.”
From the perspective of society, usually represented by government, a second set of keywords was quality, equity and efficiency. “The art of system steering is to achieve all three of them simultaneously. Some systems are good at this, some not.”
Keywords for the immediate future were affordability, productivity and relevance. “This is about higher education swinging from the supply to the demand side. Interest in university rankings is a sign of that.
“Higher education matters. It has become too important to be left to the providers, if you like,” Yelland argued.
Affordability was clearly an issue for governments and students, who pay for higher education. Productivity was important, though “not a word uttered at higher education conferences”. Relevance was important at a time when too many people were unable to obtain or retain work, and when economic growth needed to be relaunched.
“Higher education is a growth industry. There will be more, exciting transformations. The global dimension is important and we are going to see more and more sophisticated use of technology, more private sector, new clients and new products.
“This is a wonderful sector to be in and one on which the future of economies and societies will to a great extent depend.”
6 mai 2012

Open up the higher education governance process

http://enews.ksu.edu.sa/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UWN.jpgBy William Patrick Leonard. There have been recurring comments in America’s higher education press lamenting university governing boards' relative lack of serious institutional engagement. These concerns centre on the perception that boards too often merely rubber-stamp the administration’s recommendations.
Boards’ apparent reliance on prestige and rankings as proxies for underlying institutional quality has also been noted. One could add that many of those filling these positions appear to be more incentivised by perceived prestige and accompanying perks than by a concern for fundamental institutional welfare. In sum, they appear readily to approve proposed tuition and fees increases yet ignore the quality of the teaching and learning process that underlies the value of institutional programming. US tuition and fee increases have consistently outpaced annual increases in the Consumer Price Index for decades. As a result, parents and students have been saddled with increasing debt accompanied by a declining value added return on their investment. Research documents that US graduates’ communication, problem-solving, quantitative and other soft skill proficiencies have steadily waned in recent decades.
Boards appear to have too often approved tuition fee increases in the absence of a serious debate while failing to press institutional executives for evidence of improved learning. Primary institutional stakeholders – parents and students – are paying more, while students and subsequently employers are getting less. Boards appear to be ignoring the fundamental importance of exchanging value added for tuition charged. The growing concern over unchecked tuition charge increases may be reaching a tipping point. Federal and state intervention is on the horizon as public concern rises. Elected officials, who have previously incentivised continuing tuition charge increases with federal and state grants and subsidised loans, have joined the chorus of critics.
If the Iron Law of Social Responsibility applies to higher education, then threats of price controls and other external sanctions are real. If boards do not internally enforce more effective cost containment, while demanding academic quality, who will? External draconian measures are a possibility. Controlling costs is the key to damping tuition charge and fee increases. All institutions bear unavoidable market-driven cost increases in delivering instruction – utilities, insurance, consumables and the like are nearly unavoidable. Aside from research universities, the bulk of institutional expenditure springs from instructional programming. As gatekeepers, boards could be more active in controlling institutions' instructional programming and services, which simultaneously influence the tuition fees they must charge and the cost of delivering quality instruction.
It is far more efficient and humane to reject a proposed programme than to cancel it post-implementation. Approved programmes soon develop many supporters. If nothing changes, draconian external measures await. The prevailing criteria for board membership – political patronage, financial contributions to the institution, or celebrity – is unlikely to change.
I suggest giving the traditionally formed boards a conscience. This could be accomplished by formally reserving and-or adding voting members representing primary stakeholder groups. Many US boards have for decades given a token voice to primary stakeholders through student membership and advisory boards. It is time to take the next step and make a slight augmentation to boards' composition. I suggest giving students, parents and employer representatives a place at the table, with a vote. A voice for graduate and professional schools admitting graduates might also be considered.
Many boards already have student members. They are poster children at best. They tend to be handpicked for their likely sympathies by the administration. Moreover most, if not all, student members are denied the vote on a range of financial matters. Hence, they are hardly more than muted puppets, rather than proactive representatives of a primary stakeholder group. Allowing the student body to elect their voting board representative(s) will help validate that their member speaks for them and not the administration.
Advisory bodies are also said to provide boards with the insights of one or more stakeholder groups. Lacking the weight of a vote their counsel, by definition, is non-binding and may not even be formally memorialised in the record of board deliberations. Employers, as the primary consumers of an institution’s product, its graduates, should have a formal voice and vote on the board. Backed up with a vote, this core group could provide relevant feedback on the proficiencies, hard and soft, exhibited by the institution’s graduates. Academic programming presents an unfamiliar array of problems and opportunities that are far less tangible than building or labour contracts. The accepted dogma presented by the administration, and often supported by the faculty, is that the proposed programme is a necessity and that its productivity and quality are too illusive to be systematically measured.
Too often boards accede to the self-serving interests of institutional leadership, reinforced by faculty governance; after all, they are the experts.
I am not suggesting a major alteration of board membership. Rather, I am saying that representation of a few primary constituencies – students, parents paying the bills and employers hiring the institution’s graduates – could provide a focused conscience to help boards to reconnect tuition charges and value added.
* William Patrick Leonard is vice dean of SolBridge International School of Business in Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
6 mai 2012

New THE ranking to select future Harvards and Cambridges

http://www.universityworldnews.com/By Phil Baty. In a scathing attack on the annual cycle of university rankings Daniel Lincoln, a visiting scholar at the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College in the United States, painted a wonderfully memorable image.
“Picture the year 1640,” he wrote in a blog post for a US higher education website. “You are an educated, upper-class Englishman, having a hearty laugh with your mates in London at the news that those religious fanatics in the colonies have now ‘founded their own university’ in Boston, led by the benefaction of a certain John Harvard – priceless!
“A few generations later, I’m guessing no one was laughing.”
He concluded: “Make no mistake: excellence is a longitudinal affair. By that standard, year-on-year rankings are inconsequential.”
While Lincoln’s point may have been very nicely illustrated, I believe his conclusion was wrong. Of course, barring a managerial catastrophe universities are, as the cliché goes, like oil tankers – it takes a long time to turn them round. But we live in uncertain times, and the established global hierarchies are under constant threat from many angles. Things can change quickly. Take the United Kingdom. Oxford historian Howard Hotson has described the reforms taking place to England’s universities as “the most radical experiment ever conducted on a major university system in the modern world”.
By replacing the vast bulk of public funding for university teaching with tripled student tuition fees and by ushering in market principles in a bid to drive up standards, the government has enacted “the virtual privatisation of...an entire university system at the stroke of a pen”, he said. Provisional funding allocations released in March 2012 revealed that, despite moves by the funding chiefs to smooth the transition, some English institutions will lose up to 46% of their direct grant in a single year. This is in no way “inconsequential” in terms of performance.
Similarly, when a university poaches a big name research superstar, usually with the entire team, in the ever-intensifying global academic transfer market, the effects on current and prospective students, on faculty and on potential investors, are immediate and are in no way “inconsequential”. Moreover, in a highly competitive global market, the less tangible element of a university’s profile – its academic reputation – can be subject to rapid change. A good reputation matters – it has real-world benefits, from helping to attract and retain the best students and faculty to encouraging the most generous benefactors – but it can be vulnerable in a multi-media information age.
So Times Higher Education will continue, as it has done for the past eight years, its annual World University Rankings. THE is clear that rankings have a sound utility: to students, faculty, university leaders, governments and industry. If they did not, we would not publish them – and they would not attract the many millions of internet visits they do. But to ensure we meet our obligations to our diverse global community of readers, THE is also committed to putting more rankings data into the public domain.
That is why as well as the Times World University Rankings, which uses 13 performance indicators across teaching, research, knowledge transfer and internationalisation, we also publish annually each March the World Reputation Rankings, which reveal the results of our Annual Academic Reputation Survey in isolation. And that is why I am delighted to announce this week an innovation in the field of global university rankings – the Times Higher Education 100 Under 50. The THE 100 Under 50 will, as its name suggests, rank the world’s top 100 universities under the age of 50. It will be published on 31 May 2012.
The vast majority of the world’s top research-led universities have at least one thing in common: they are old. Building upon centuries of scholarly tradition, institutions such as Oxford, which can trace its origins back to 1096, can draw on endowment income generated over many years and have been able to cultivate rich networks of loyal and successful alumni (including, in Oxford’s case, a string of British prime ministers) to help build enduring brands. Such advantages are reflected in the overwhelming dominance of older universities in the THE World University Rankings. But the focus of the THE 100 Under 50 is not on the traditional elites.
The analysis is about a new breed of global universities – those that have already managed to join the world’s top table in a matter of years, not centuries, and others that show great promise – institutions that could reach the top, in time. The 2012 THE 100 Under 50 will draw on the same comprehensive range of 13 performance indicators used to compile the THE World University Rankings, but will only rank those founded in 1962 or later. The indicators, all developed and provided by Thomson Reuters, will be carefully recalibrated to reflect the profile of younger institutions.
The report will show us which nations are challenging the US and UK as the next higher education powerhouses. It will give us a unique insight into which institutions may be the future ‘Harvard’ or ‘Cambridge’. Daniel Lincoln’s entertaining picture of the 17th century London establishment, mocking the pretentions of Harvard, demonstrates how established elites can be challenged by those who may at the time be dismissed as mere upstarts. We have seen this time and again, notably with the 1960s ‘plate glass’ universities in the UK which now rub shoulders with (and often surpass) the Victorian civic universities. We are seeing it again with a number of institutions founded in the 1980s and 1990s, notably in Asia, with a focus on science and technology backed by abundant resources and serious political will.
And the pace is stepping up. Even Lincoln, who argued that it takes “a few generations” to build world-class universities, acknowledged that “the processes of growth have accelerated enormously” since the time Harvard challenged the ancients.
Indeed, he noted that the book by Boston College’s Philip Altbach and Jamil Salmi, The Road to Academic Excellence: The making of world-class universities, “features some institutions that have made enormous advances in tiny amounts of time”.
The THE 100 Under 50 showcases such institutions – a new generation of globally competitive universities. It could offer a tantalising glimpse into the future and we look forward to it becoming a helpful addition to the annual round of rankings releases.
* Phil Baty is editor of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.
6 mai 2012

The Money of Study Abroad

http://www.insidehighered.com/sites/all/themes/ihecustom/logo.jpgBy Mitch Smith. WASHINGTON -- The extent to which money does and should dictate the global exchange of college students was a touchy topic at a meeting of 16 nations held in conjunction with the G8 Summit.
Most agree that studying abroad brings qualitative benefits for the students who go, the universities that receive them and the nations on both ends of the exchange. But it’s hard to monetize the value of increased mutual understanding, and considerably easier to calculate tuition and housing expenses. Delegations from 15 nations and the European Union -- which included every G8 country and representatives from every inhabited continent except Africa -- found common ground on the big-picture issues during the two-day conference convened by the Institute of International Education.
Everyone stands to benefit from a multilingual, globally aware, well-educated citizenry, delegates generally agreed. But variations, both ideological and logistical, emerged when discussing each nation’s goals with international education and the ways they finance those goals.
“The issue of mobility is becoming more of a challenge for universities and countries because funds are short and at the same students are becoming more and more demanding,” said Xavier Prats Monné, a delegate from the European Union.
The United States, for example, is a significant sender of students abroad and an even more significant recipient of foreign students. A few Americans who go abroad receive government assistance in the form of Fulbright or Gilman Scholarships, but most do so on their own dime with perhaps some help from a university. And while the U.S. government also gives Fulbrights to exceptional students coming into the country, many colleges count on foreigners to pay full sticker price and reinforce the institutions' coffers. Inside Higher Ed's 2011 survey of admissions officers revealed that international students are increasingly a target for colleges trying to balance their budgets.
Money is widely cited as the biggest barrier to students of all nationalities studying overseas, and also as a reason some countries and universities are eager to expand their international footprint. For a developing nation such as Malaysia, partnering with foreign colleges provides a means to improve the work force and strengthen the economy. Wealthier nations receive some of those same benefits when their students enroll abroad, but are also positioned to profit monetarily.
“Economic impact is different when you come from an emerging economy,” said Malaysia’s Siti Hamisah Tapsir, deputy director general of her nation’s ministry of higher education. Hamisah’s country is home to five branch campuses of universities in Britain and Australia, while some Malaysian universities have set up their own branch campuses in Africa or elsewhere in Asia. “International education helps us improve our education system,” she said.
But some bristle at the notion of international education being a moneymaker, while others just can’t afford a semester in London or Los Angeles. Speaking about both the high cost of college in other countries and the proliferation of English as the primary language of international learning, a member of the French delegation was critical.
“It’s one vision of the world and we are against this vision of the world,” said Béatrice Khaiat, deputy director of CampusFrance, an organization that promotes foreign study in France.
International students studying in France receive government-subsidized tuition along with housing benefits and social security.  Public higher education in Brazil is free for anyone regardless of nationality. Germany doesn’t charge fees to its overseas students.
“The goal we have is to win friends for Germany,” said Sebastian Fohrbeck, director of the New York arm of the German Academic Exchange Service.
All three countries remain committed to attracting international students, saying there’s more to be gained from inviting foreigners than just a tuition check. That’s made those destinations more attractive to foreign students, one member of the Indonesian delegation said.
6 mai 2012

S'inscrire dans l'enseignement supérieur en France - les différentes procédures

http://www.campusfrance.org/sites/default/files/connect.jpgComment rejoindre un établissement français? Cela dépend de votre nationalité, de votre pays de résidence et de la nature des études envisagées.
Table des matières: Les différentes procédures. Pays d'Europe. Pays à procédure CEF: créez votre dossier, consultez votre dossier. Autres pays.

Les différentes procédures
Une procédure d'inscription en ligne obligatoire dans 31 pays
Dans une trentaine de pays, une procédure dématérialisée de candidature en ligne a été mise en place. Elle doit être obligatoirement suivie pour l'obtention du visa "étudiant". Dans les autres pays, vous entrerez directement en contact avec les établissements de votre choix.
Les pays concernés par la procédure CEF sont les suivants: Algérie, Argentine, Bénin, Brésil, Burkina Faso, Cameroun, Chili, Chine, Colombie, Congo Brazzaville, Corée du Sud, Côte d'Ivoire, Etats-Unis, Gabon, Guinée, Inde, Japon, Liban, Madagascar, Mali, Maroc, Maurice, Mexique, Pérou, Sénégal, Russie, Syrie, Taiwan, Tunisie, Turquie, Vietnam.
Rejoindre une université française en première année: la demande d'admission préalable (DAP)

Les étudiants titulaires d’un diplôme étranger de fin d’études secondaires qui souhaitent s’inscrire en première ou en deuxième année à l'université doivent impérativement faire une demande d’admission préalable (DAP) auprès du service culturel de l'Ambassade de France de leur pays de résidence. Dans la trentaine de pays cités ci-dessus, la procédure s'effectue à travers le dispositif obligatoire d'inscription en ligne. Dans tous les cas, cette procédure particulière débute en janvier de chaque année et obéit à un calendrier très strict.
Admission Post-bac
Ce dispositif obligatoire de pré-inscription en première année d’enseignement supérieur en ligne a été mis en place par le Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (MESR) pour simplifier les démarches des étudiants, en regroupant sur un seul site web la quasi-totalité des formations de l'enseignement supérieur (licence, DUT, BTS-BTSA, CPGE, écoles…).
Les étudiants étrangers (y compris les étudiants européens) sont également concernés par ce dispositif (qu'ils soient titulaires du bac français ou non) lorsqu'ils souhaitent rejoindre l'enseignement supérieur français en 1ère année au sein d'établissements non concernés par la DAP (demande d'admission préalable), comme les IUT, les STS, les CPGE, certaines écoles.
A noter:
dans la trentaine de pays à procédure CEF cités ci-dessus, la demande d'admission au sein d'un IUT est effectuée directement via la procédure de candidature dématérialisée.
Le site APB est désormais ouvert aux pré-inscriptions dans les formations en apprentissage à tout élève qui en fait la demande, quelle que soit sa nationalité et son lieu de résidence. Il affiche désormais une information précise sur la liste des titres de séjour permettant aux candidats étrangers de conclure un contrat d'apprentissage afin de transformer cette pré-inscription en inscription définitive. Un guide spécifique pour le candidat étranger est disponible sur le site APB.

Pays à procédure CEF: créez votre dossier, consultez votre dossier.

S'inscrire dans l'enseignement supérieur en France à partir d'un pays à procédure CEF
La procédure CEF débute par la constitution d'un dossier électronique personnel. C'est une opération que vous pourrez mener à votre rythme et pour laquelle une participation financière vous sera demandée.
Le recours à la procédure CEF est obligatoire dans les pays suivants: Algérie, Argentine, Bénin, Brésil, Burkina Faso, Cameroun, Chili, Chine, Colombie, Congo Brazzaville, Corée du Sud, Côte d'Ivoire, Etats-Unis, Gabon, Guinée, Inde, Japon, Liban, Madagascar, Mali, Maroc, Maurice, Mexique, Pérou, Sénégal, Russie, Syrie, Taiwan, Tunisie, Turquie, Vietnam.
Il s’agit d’un dispositif qui permet au candidat à des études en France de bénéficier d’un appui et de conseils pour l’ensemble de ses démarches jusqu’à la demande de visa et de suivre l’évolution de son dossier électronique.
Le candidat ouvre un compte à partir du site internet CampusFrance de son pays de résidence et suit une procédure dématérialisée qui lui permet de formuler des demandes de formation et de dialoguer avec l’Espace CampusFrance de son pays et avec les établissements auprès desquels il sollicite une pré-inscription, dans le cadre d’une Demande d’Admission Préalable (DAP) ou non.
Dans les 31 pays à procédure CEF, l'Espace CampusFrance:

    apporte en ligne au candidat de l’information, de l’aide à l’orientation et un dialogue grâce à une messagerie personnelle
    facilite le passage des tests de langue
    procède à un examen administratif du dossier du candidat et à l’authentification des diplômes
    organise un entretien relatif au projet personnel de l’étudiant.
Le Service de coopération et d’action culturelle de l’Ambassade:

    accède au dossier électronique de l’étudiant et au compte-rendu d’entretien
    donne un avis en ligne sur le projet d’étude.
Les établissements d’enseignement supérieur adhérents à la convention CEF:

    consultent le dossier de l’étudiant en ligne
    accèdent au compte rendu d’entretien
    demandent des informations complémentaires à l’Espace par le biais de la messagerie
    sélectionnent le candidat
    accordent une pré-inscription et communiquent en temps réel et en ligne la décision à l’étudiant et à l’Espace CampusFrance.
Le service consulaire:

    consulte le dossier électronique du candidat
    examine l’ensemble du dossier consulaire déposé par l’étudiant
    décide de l’attribution du visa pour études
    intègre sa décision dans le dossier électronique du candidat.
Le recours au second dispositif d'inscription en ligne, "Admission post bac" est obligatoire pour entrer en première année dans un établissement autre qu'une université ou un IUT, même en cas d'utilisation de la procédure CEF.

Autres pays

Vous résidez dans un pays où la procédure CEF n'a pas été mise en place, voici comment rejoindre l'enseignement supérieur français.
Comment s'inscrire dans un établissement français?

La quasi-totalité des établissements français disposent d'un site web (tous sont mentionnés dans notre catalogue), très utile pour nouer un premier contact.
Si vous souhaitez rejoindre l'enseignement supérieur français en 1ère et 2ème année de licence à l'université, en 1ère année commune aux études de santé (médecine, pharmacie, odontologie et sage-femme) ou en 1ère année dans une école nationale d'architecture, vous devez effectuer une demande d'admission préalable (DAP) auprès du service culturel de votre pays de résidence. Cette procédure particulière débute en janvier de chaque année et obéit à un calendrier très strict.
Le recours au dispositif d'inscription en ligne, "Admission post bac" est obligatoire dans tous les autres cas pour rejoindre l'enseignement supérieur français en 1ère année.
Si vous postulez en 2ème année ou plus, prenez directement contact avec le ou les établissements de votre choix en vue de votre inscription.
Faut-il contacter plusieurs établissements?

Il est conseillé de conduire simultanément au moins 3 demandes d'inscription auprès d'établissements différents quelle que soit la procédure suivie.
Vous devez savoir que certains établissements reçoivent beaucoup plus de demandes d'inscription qu'ils ne peuvent accueillir d'étudiants. Il existe toujours des solutions alternatives pour recevoir un enseignement de même qualité.
Quand répondent les établissements?
Les réponses des établissements peuvent s'étaler du 15 juin au 15 septembre pour un début des cours en octobre.
Il faut en tenir compte, car cela signifie que dans certains cas, vous n'aurez guère plus d'un mois pour préparer concrètement votre départ.
L'inscription définitive

A votre arrivée en France, vous effectuerez , comme tous les autres étudiants, la dernière démarche avant de rejoindre vos cours: l'inscription définitive, qui comporte à l'université un volet administratif et un volet pédagogique.
Votre établissement vous remettra alors un certificat de scolarité et une carte d'étudiant. Ces deux documents confirment votre statut juridique d'étudiant. La délivrance de ces documents se fait en main propre, généralement après paiement complet des droits d'inscription.

Pays d'Europe.

Pour les étudiants européens, pas besoin de visa ni de procédure complexe!
Ressortissants européens

Si vous êtes ressortissant d'un pays de l'Union européenne (UE ou de l'Espace économique européen (EEE), d'Andorre ou de Suisse, prenez directement contact avec le ou les établissements de votre choix en vue de votre inscription. Vous n'êtes soumis à aucune procédure particulière, pas même à l'obtention d'un visa pour rejoindre l'enseignement supérieur français au delà de la première année d'étude.
Si vous souhaitez rejoindre l'enseignement supérieur français en 1ère année, vous devez utiliser le dispositif obligatoire de pré-inscription en ligne "Admission post-bac" (APB), comme l'ensemble des étudiants français.
Autres étudiants résidant en Europe

Si vous résidez dans un pays de l'Union et que vous n'êtes pas ressortissant européen, c'est le consulat de France de votre pays de résidence vous accordera un visa "étudiant". Même si la procédure CEF est en vigueur dans votre pays d'origine, il n'est pas nécessaire d'y retourner pour rejoindre l'enseignement supérieur français.

http://www.campusfrance.org/sites/default/files/connect.jpg How to join a French settlement, depends on your nationality, your country of residence and the nature of the proposed studies.
Contents: The different procedures. European countries. Countries CEF procedure: create your file, see your file. Other countries.

The various procedures

A procedure for mandatory online registration in 31 countries

In thirty countries, an electronic procedure online application was introduced. This procedure must be followed to obtain the "student" visa. In other countries, you will enter directly into contact with the institutions of your choice
. More...

6 mai 2012

Promoting ethics in universities

http://www.iiep.unesco.org/typo3temp/pics/69b85e6274.jpgMorocco initiates the design of an ethics charter
Within a context of profound political and social transformations in the Arab region, the University Mohammed V - Souissi in Rabat (Morocco) recently initiated the design of a charter on ethics, “the most important values of which should permeate all university actors”. In support of this initiative, the Faculty of Educational Sciences decided to devote its Second Forum on Active Citizenship to "Ethics in Universities of Morocco", on 28–29 March 2012.
The event was inaugurated by Mr Radouane Mrabet, President of the University and Mr Abdesselam El Ouazzani, Dean of the Faculty of Educational Sciences. The debates focused mainly on the importance of ethical values in a context of political, social, and cultural change; on the position of the Moroccan university community concerning the issue; and on the role of universities in strengthening an ethical culture.
The President stressed the need to promote the role of Universities as "a place of consolidation and defence of values" in a context of economic, political, and social crisis. He described the early stages of development of an ethical charter, with the establishment of an ad-hoc committee on which key University stakeholders are represented.
Invited by the University, IIEP staff explained in detail the prerequisites for an effective application of ethical charts, founded on the key findings of its research on teacher codes of conduct. The Institute advocated for the involvement of both faculty and students at each stage of the charter’s development, and for the implementation of indispensable mechanisms to ensure its enforcement, such as creating an "ethical watch", dealing with complaints, training the actors, etc. Reference was made to ongoing initiatives in various universities, notably in Europe (Geneva) and North America (Ontario).
The discussions that followed the presentations were very lively, especially concerning the distinction between ethics and morals; the determination of the values with which the Moroccan academic community currently identifies; the definition of the legal status of ethical charters in light of existing regulations; the integration of ethical issues into certain university programmes; and the setting up of joint consultative mechanisms on these themes.
In conclusion, the Dean of the Faculty indicated his willingness to hold another Forum next year, in order to make a first assessment of the experience of the University in its elaboration of an ethical charter.
Contact:For more information, please contact Muriel Poisson. Links: See the Forum flyer (In French); IIEP website on Teacher codes of conduct.
5 mai 2012

Conceptual evolution and policy developments in lifelong learning - Updating the Delors Report

Edited by Jin Yang and Raúl Valdés-Cotera. Download Conceptual Evolution and Policy Developments in Lifelong Learning.
Introduction - Background
Since its formation UNESCO has focused on the right to education. It has always believed that education is a fundamental right and that in fact it is the means for upholding and fulfilling all other rights. From its inception, the Organization has recognised that education should be neither the privilege of an elite nor a matter for one age group only. Rather, it should be both universal and lifelong.
Furthermore, UNESCO has emphasised that recognising the right to education means little unless it is accompanied by measures creating the conditions needed to exercise this right. UNESCO’s commitment at the World Education Forum at Dakar in 2000 to reach the six Education for All (EFA) goals by 2015 embodies a strategic approach in creating learning opportunities for all. The Dakar Framework for Action explicitly recognises that education – from the care and education of young children and continuing through lifelong learning – is central to individual empowerment, to eliminating poverty at household and community level, and to broader social and economic development. EFA indeed is an absolute minimum for any country, the foundation for building more inclusive, more just societies.
In the knowledge-based global economy of the 21st Century, future prosperity and security as well as peace, social harmony and nurturing the environment will depend on people’s access and capacity to make choices, to adapt to rapid change and to find sustainable solutions to pressing challenges. Indeed, education and lifelong learning are key. UNESCO’s Medium-Term Strategy for 2008–2013 contends that development and economic prosperity depend on countries’ ability to educate all their citizens. Quality education for all is thus an overarching UNESCO objective. Lifelong learning is the essential organising principle for reaching this goal and for contributing to the advancement of formal, non-formal and informal learning.
In recent years, some UNESCO Member States have made substantial progress towards establishing lifelong learning systems. However, the discourse of lifelong learning is only partially and inconsistently evident in policy and practice. Faced with 21st Century global challenges, it is more imperative still for each and every country to make lifelong learning for all a reality. The need for sustainable socio-economic development in the context of the current global financial crisis and the threat of climate change has created a renewed urgency for quality learning opportunities for all, especially for marginalised groups who have least access.
Lifelong learning covers the full range of provision of learning opportunities, from early childhood through school to further and higher education. However, it extends beyond formal education to non-formal and informal learning for out-of-school youth and adults. The Sixth International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA VI), which was held in Belém do Pará in Brazil in December 2009, reaffirmed the role of lifelong learning in addressing development issues globally. The Belém Framework for Action is critical in guiding UNESCO Member States to harness adult learning and education for a viable future for all.
The mandate of UNESCO’s Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) is to support and link research, policy and practice. It facilitates advocacy, research and capacity-building and fosters partnership. With a wealth of expertise and a huge knowledge base, its extensive networks of policy-makers, researchers and civil society are active in lifelong learning. In the last 10 years, UIL, in collaboration with UNESCO Member States, has organised a series of policy dialogues on lifelong learning, including the International Conference on Lifelong Learning (Beijing, China, 2001), International and Regional Perspectives and Practices in Lifelong Learning (a series of regional conferences in Asia, Europe and Latin America, 2001–2002), and policy dialogues “Lifelong Learning” (Busan, Republic of Korea, 2006) and “Building Effective Partnerships for Lifelong Learning” (Changwon, Republic of Korea, 2007). The World Expo 2010 centred on the theme “Better City, Better Life” and took place from 1 May to 31 October 2010 in Shanghai, China, a city that registered tremendous progress in promoting lifelong learning in recent years. As an important member of the United Nations family, UNESCO was present and active throughout the six-month period of the Expo. In particular, the week of 17–23 May 2010 was UNESCO Week at the United Nations Pavilion. The contribution of UNESCO Education Sector was organised around the theme of learning to live together sustainably in cities. Against this backdrop, the Shanghai International Forum on Lifelong Learning took place from 19 to 21 May during the World Expo.
As continuation of the policy dialogue for lifelong learning and capacity development in UNESCO Member States, the Forum focused on translating the discourse of lifelong learning into practical guidelines to build lifelong learning systems, including:
• reviewing progress and challenges in developing national strategies to promote lifelong learning;
• sharing experience and best practice in establishing lifelong learning systems; and
• developing capacity for policy-making and research in lifelong learning in UNESCO Member States.
To attain these objectives, the Forum was organised into
• plenary sessions on the evolution of and perspectives in lifelong learning; policy frameworks designed to build learning societies; transforming teaching and learning through lifelong learning; and major strategies for promoting lifelong learning;
• thematic debates carried out by parallel groups, each focusing on one of the six sub-themes of the Forum, i.e. the responsibilities and roles of governments, civil society and individual learners in building learning societies; reforming formal education in a lifelong learning system; promoting non-formal and informal learning for youth and adults; building a learning city (community); mechanisms for and innovations in financing lifelong learning; and creating a holistic lifelong learning system by fusing formal, non-formal and informal learning; and
• visits to the UN pavilion and other exhibitions at the World Expo Park, as well as lifelong learning institutions in Shanghai.
The Forum was a unique opportunity for practitioners, policy-makers, advocates and academics alike to share experience and achievements, and to debate the crucial issues facing education today.
2 Evolution of and perspectives on lifelong learning - Adama Ouane
Introduction

At a time when the world’s citizens are increasingly in need of lifelong learning opportunities, it is imperative that we reassert the inalienable right to education. Lifelong learning is the only way to survive and cope with the challenges associated with sustainable development and personal fulfilment. Although more governments have acknowledged the crucial role that lifelong learning plays in building a sustainable and socially cohesive future – and in equipping individuals to learn how to know, to do, to be and to live together – the root causes of marginalisation in education have yet to be addressed in a comprehensive way and for all citizens, particularly those who are economically and socially deprived.
There are still 759 million adults who have had no schooling or other opportunities to become literate. This represents about 16% of the total world population aged 15 and over – of whom nearly two thirds are women. Furthermore, the 2010 EFA Global Monitoring Report underlines the fact that, while the number of children not attending school continues to fall, there are still 72 million children out of school. The most recent school enrolment data suggest that the goal of Universal Primary Education by 2015 will be missed. Moreover, household survey evidence suggests that more children may be out of school than the official data indicate.
All this points to an increasing need for educational change and shows that, in addition to being a right, education is a means to fulfil other rights. It gives learners the tools to push the boundaries of what is known, to invent new realities or to seek new understanding from existing realities. It is a balancing act between freedom and constraint.
As Amartya Sen affirms, the stock of human capital is the sum totals of doings and beings, these abilities determine a person’s ability to be both functionally employed and happy. Since education affects the “capability” of what a person can “be” or “do”, it also deeply affects the amount of positive freedom available to him or her: freedom to shape his/her own life in terms of type of work, profession or entrepreneurship. In addition, as Jacques Delors indicated in the report of the Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, that he chaired and entitled Learning: The Treasure Within education is about transmitting and anticipating what humanity has learned about itself. Delors’ famous four pillars of learning, highlighted the fact that education must be a process of learning about preparing for and participating in democratic life.
This paper will trace the evolution of lifelong learning. It is an attempt to expand the concept and mobilise political support for a new course of action embedded in the UNESCO Director General’s call for a “New Humanism”.
Lifelong learning: Still a vision? A brief historical overview

The roots of the lifelong learning concept can be traced back to ancient times. The term itself, however, first gained currency following educational expansion in the wake of World War II. It grew from notions such as “fundamental education”, “continuing education”, “basic education”, “permanent education” and “recurrent education”.
More than three decades ago, the Faure report Learning to Be (1972) advocated lifelong education as the master concept for educational policies in both developed and developing countries. This report was commissioned by UNESCO following demonstrations by students and young people all over the world in 1967 and 1968. It was seen as a turning point and the start of a period of optimism in international education policy, as it recognised that education was no longer the privilege of an elite, or a matter for one age group only. Instead, it concluded that education should be both universal and lifelong. Essentially, this meant moving to a humanistic, rights-based and holistic view of education.
By the mid-1990s, a clear preference emerged for the term “lifelong learning” rather than “lifelong education”. There were differing views on the major distinction between these two concepts, but it was generally felt that “lifelong education” reflected a view of education as a prescriptive and normative process, while “lifelong learning” put the emphasis on learner demand and individual choice. The European Union Year of Learning (1996) consolidated these trends. Some critics, however, have suggested that this change pushes for an individualisation of learning, prompted by economic policies aimed at disengaging governments and shifting costs and responsibility to individual learners.
Furthermore, the Report Learning: The Treasure Within (1996) reiterated the essential role that learning throughout life plays for both society and individuals, equipping them to cope with the evolving requirements of the labour market and the changing timeframes and rhythms of individual existence. Together with the Faure Report, the Delors Report acknowledged lifelong learning as one of the guiding and organising principles of educational action and reform, as well as a notion that fosters meaningful human life by enabling people to anticipate and tackle whatever challenges they may face in the course of their lives. As Colin Power said, however, the Delors Report is not a blueprint for educational reform; it is a framework for reflection and debate about the choices which must be made in formulating policies.
Following the Delors Report, lifelong learning has become a focal point for discussions in the international arena.
Initiatives such as the Hamburg Declaration in 1997 (CONFINTEA V), the Dakar Framework for Action in 2000, the United Nations Literacy Decade and the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development have all indicated the importance and relevance of lifelong learning and its humanistic approach in the 21st Century – even though lifelong learning is not clearly addressed within these initiatives. In particular, there is no mention of lifelong learning in the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG) despite its links to the EFA initiative.
In 2008 and 2009, lifelong learning was an anchor for UNESCO’s four major international conferences – the 48th International Conference on Education (ICE, November 2008), the International Conference on Education for Sustainable Development (March 2009), the International Conference on Higher Education (July 2009) and the Sixth International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA VI, December 2009). All of these events underlined its critical role in addressing global educational issues and challenges. In addition, it will feature prominently in the first major global conference dedicated to Early Childhood Care and Education (WCECCE), which is scheduled for September 2010.
Moreover, during the 35th General Conference of UNESCO in October 2009, many delegations underlined that Education for All should become Education for All at All Levels throughout Life, implying universal lifelong learning. It would seem, therefore, that there has been a move towards the recognition and acceptance of lifelong learning. Our task now is to see that vision become reality.
Lifelong learning as a facilitator
For social inclusion

One of the greatest problems faced by the world today is the growing number of people being excluded from participating in the economy, society and life in general. Unjust and inequitable societies are neither efficient nor secure – they are unacceptable. More far-reaching policy measures and broader socio-economic and cultural investments are urgently called for, and education is one means of addressing such issues. Overcoming injustice should be at the heart of all national and international Education for All agendas.
Essentially, inclusion entails ensuring that every individual receives appropriate, good-quality education within and beyond the school system. It is the full and effective exercise of the right to education, i.e. access to learning opportunities, that discriminates or excludes no individual or group within or outside the school system. It offers learners self-expression and the fulfilment that success and educational achievement bring. It covers issues of gender, ethnicity, class, social conditions, health and human rights. Inclusive education is about learning to live with diversity and learning to learn from difference, not only in a certain period but throughout the entire lifecycle and in a variety of contexts.
Lifelong learning has increasingly been acknowledged as an important element in the response to social exclusion, as it has a range of benefits to offer to both individuals and society.
For sustainable development

Lifelong learning contributes to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as it is a continuing process that promotes well-being on all three levels of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. The values and principles underpinning sustainable development should enable learners to identify problems and reflect on them critically and analytically as a means of addressing local and global challenges and of shaping a sustainable future.
The outcome document of the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development – the Bonn Declaration – called for action to “support the incorporation of sustainable development issues using an integrated and systemic approach in formal education as well as in nonformal and informal education at all levels… also by recognizing the significant contribution of non-formal education and informal learning as well as vocational and work-place learning”. By harnessing education to promote values such as respect, justice and equity, we can build sustainable financial and economic systems that respond to the crisis that our world is currently undergoing.
Lifelong learning as a comprehensive, integrated and holistic system (formal, non-formal and informal)
The need for a new curriculum

Our ability continuously to acquire new competences, knowledge, skills, wisdom and behaviour is probably our most distinctive feature, and plays an important role in our fast-changing world.
The holistic and humanistic nature of lifelong learning allows people to develop competences that enable them to perform confidently and with ease the roles required in different settings, as family members, friends, workers, employees and entrepreneurs, members of society, and as national and – ideally – world citizens. It enables them to take responsibility for themselves and others, to organise their lives not only from the standpoint of economic and material wealth, but also in pursuit of happiness and well-being. In addition, current social and economic realities in both developed and developing countries, including the rise of ICTs, demand new, wider and more complex competences, such as the ability to think critically, be creative, cope with rapid change, nurture the environment, solve problems and act responsibly and ethically. It is only when equipped with these capacities that individuals will be able to grasp and deal with both the enormous potential available, and the rapid transformations which are currently taking place.
As these capacities affect the whole dimension of the individual and the spectrum of society, educational provision enabling their acquisition must be available through all channels: formal, non-formal and informal. Today’s individuals and citizens need access to multiple modes of education, diverse learning situations (home, community, workplace, school, leisure, and so on) and a variety of media (books, computers, games, traditional media, and so on). Formal learning is like riding a bus. The driver decides where the bus is going; the passengers are along for the ride. Meanwhile, non-formal learning is like riding a bike. Here, it is the rider who chooses the destination, the speed and the route.
The crucial question with which we are faced is: given that the capacities that people need to succeed in today’s world cannot be provided by one form of education alone, how can a curriculum respond to demand, anticipate necessary changes and cater for both formal and non-formal learning? What is needed is an approach to education that accepts that learning is a continuum that ranges from formal to non-formal and informal learning and encompasses all people at all stages of life. Lifelong learning must therefore be seen as the overarching guiding and organising principle for educational reform and action for all countries. It is a critical means of addressing global educational issues and challenges. As a result, curricula based on a vision of learning as a lifelong endeavour are holistic, humanistic and inclusive. They provide diversified contents, based on inclusive, emancipatory, humanistic and democratic values. They are all-encompassing and integral to the vision of a knowledge-based society. Lifelong learning curricula cater for the needs and demands of different groups, address the individual’s cognitive, emotional and creative development and cover general, technical and vocational education and training. Culture is the motor and the individual’s well-being is the aim. Such curricula should be supported by the strong pillars of learning: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, learning to be and learning to learn. They should be tailored to reflect changing needs and demands, and geared towards a range of target groups.
Furthermore, lifelong learning, education for sustainable development and inclusive education all focus on challenging the very culture and notions of conventional teaching and learning. Hence, there is a need to craft appropriately diverse and flexible forms of provision. New modes of learning are emerging, including community learning, social learning, adult learning, intercultural exchange, active learning, intergenerational learning and self-directed learning. A sector-wide approach enables us to look at learning in new ways and take account of lifelong learning, including informal and non-formal learning, as well as mechanisms for the recognition of prior and experiential learning.
All of this points to a further crucial need: a new and comprehensive training-of-trainers system that caters for the combination of formal, nonformal and informal learning that an all-encompassing vision of lifelong learning entails.
Recognising and validating lifelong learning

If we can be sure of one thing, it is this: without recognition and validation of non-formal and informal modes of learning there will be no lifelong learning.
As lifelong learning values all kinds of learning experiences, learning outcomes should be recognised and validated independently of how, where and by whom they are acquired. Yet, despite the fact that it is undoubtedly a useful and forward-looking concept, current educational policies and practices have so far tended to overlook or avoid it.
An in-built mechanism of recognition, validation and accreditation for all kinds of formal, non-formal and informal education must be part and parcel of lifelong learning. A system of this kind would both eliminate “dead ends” along the road to education, training and learning, and ease the transition between different modes and levels of education and training, by making learning more flexible and facilitating the inclusion of disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, the recognition and validation of non-formal and informal learning could succeed in ensuring that all education policy documents make reference to lifelong learning, thereby laying the foundation for educational provision and participation across the full continuum of learning contexts, building a sector-wide approach to lifelong learning into the system from the top down.
In collaboration with different regions and specialist organisations, the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) and the French National Commission for UNESCO carried out a large international survey covering on country policies, approaches and assessment tools pertaining to the recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal, informal and experiential learning experiences. UIL expects to publish guidelines for RVA by the end of 2010.
Meanwhile, the OECD has launched the “Recognition of Non-Formal and Informal Learning” (RNFIL) programme, and the European Union has developed a comprehensive recognition and validation system as part of its Lifelong Learning Programme (2007–2013). Although much remains to be done, real and measurable progress is being made towards cementing the crucial link between RVA and lifelong learning.
Translating the vision of lifelong learning into reality: An overview of policies worldwide

As indicated above, lifelong learning is not a new concept. However, it has gained a new and expanded significance in recent years as a means of systematising and organising learning in a more comprehensive and equitable way.
From a historical point of view, the evolution and implementation of lifelong learning can be divided into the following broad categories.
First, there are national approaches to lifelong learning, which comprise:
• countries with a long-established tradition of lifelong learning like Japan, Korea and the Scandinavian countries;
• recent national policy drives in developed countries; and
• recent policies in developing countries.
Second, there is the international approach which can be summarised in terms of:
• the recent role played by international and supranational bodies in the development of lifelong learning, i.e. the pioneering role played by UNESCO, the Council of Europe, OECD, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the ASEM Education and Research Hub for Lifelong Learning.
Countries with established traditions of lifelong learning policies
Japan

Japan has strong laws and policies supporting the promotion of a lifelong learning society and the provision of a wide variety of adult educational activities.
The Japanese lifelong learning system has several notable strengths, such as Kôminkan institutes, whose purpose is to provide the people living in the municipal area with education, learning and cultural opportunities, a wide variety of certification programmes and on-the-job training with local businesses.
In 1990, the Japanese Diet enacted the Law for the Promotion of Lifelong Learning. In 2001, the Lifelong Learning Promotion Bureau was set up by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), aiming to shift the focus of educational policy as a whole to a lifelong learning system. This Bureau coordinates lifelong learning policy and practice at all levels and collaborates with local governments.
In 2006, the term “lifelong learning” was added to Japan’s educational charter, the Fundamental Law of Education. Following this amendment, discussions are now centred on defining the kind of lifelong learning policy that Japan should construct.
Republic of Korea

Korea was officially exposed to “lifelong education” when article 31 of the Constitution was amended in 1980: “The State is responsible for promoting lifelong education”. In 1982, the Social Education Act was adopted as the legal and policy framework for non-formal and adult education.
In May 1995, the presidential commission put forward Proposals of Educational Reform for the Establishment of the New Educational System, which have since been enacted by the national government. The commission’s aim was to develop an infrastructure for an open and lifelong learning society by introducing a credit bank system, which recognises various learning experiences as credits, and awards academic degrees and qualifications accordingly. Its objective is to provide citizens with greater access to different learning systems as well as to recognise different learning activities.
The Lifelong Education Act of 2007 clarified the scope and field of lifelong education at the regional level. At the national level, meanwhile, the centralised National Institute for Lifelong Education was launched under the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology in February 2008. The Act makes it compulsory for local governments to establish their own lifelong education promotion plans, and to form regional committees for the implementation of such plans.
Recent national policies in developed countries
UK

The 1998 Green Paper entitled The Learning Age looked at how learning throughout life can build human capital by encouraging creativity, skill and imagination. It argued that enquiring minds and a love of learning must be fostered in order to guarantee future success.
Other government papers followed: Learning for the 21st Century in 1998; Learning to Succeed in 1999; 21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential in 2003; and Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances in 2006. All of these documents have focused on strengthening the UK’s economic position through vocational training, further education and improved employability.
Australia

Lifelong learning as a term started to be used with increasing frequency in Australia from 1995 onwards. Since then, lifelong learning has been placed firmly on the schools agenda through the Adelaide Declaration on the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century. This key document was endorsed in 1999 by Education Ministers committed to working together in order to ensure high-quality schooling for all young Australians.
Norway

In pursuing its vision of lifelong learning and seeking to keep pace with rapid social change, Norway has been reforming its education system since the 1990s. As well as a reform of adult and continuing education and training, it implemented its so-called Competence Reform. The general objectives of these reforms are to increase the population’s skill-base, ensure quality and create a better-integrated and more coherent educational system and educational policy.
In addition, the reforms aimed to: encourage people to accept that further learning serves individual development; guarantee a right to primary, lower and upper secondary education; document and recognise non-formal learning by adults; give employees the right to receive learning leave; remove tax disincentives to learning; and restructure public education to meet workplace learning needs. The Competence Reform also commits labour market authorities such as the Aetat to keeping individuals better informed of occupational and learning opportunities.
Estonia

The Law on Education of the Estonian Republic was adopted in 1992, setting forth the general principles of the Estonian system. The subsequent Law on Adult Education (November 1993) laid down the legal conditions for training adults, along with legal guarantees for lifelong learning. In 2004, the Estonian National Plan for Social Inclusion was adopted.
According to Statistics Estonia, the general participation rate in lifelong learning was 6.5% in 2006, which is a long way off the EU’s 2010 goal of 12.5%. In 2006, in an effort to improve participation in lifelong learning, the Government adopted a lifelong learning strategy designed to develop financing schemes, improve access for disabled and ethnic minorities, extend the vocational qualification system and ensure that adult education programmes are in line with EU standards.
Recent national policies in developing countries
China

The Chinese government has issued a series of laws, regulations and policies on lifelong learning in recent years. The 1995 National Education Law stipulated that the State operate a lifelong education system and create conditions enabling its citizens to learn throughout life. Three years later, the Education Invigoration Action Plan for the 21st Century noted that a lifelong learning system would be established throughout the country by 2010.
Other initiatives have been adopted over the years, such as Distance Education 1999, carried out in collaboration with the Central Broadcast and Television University. In 2004, the Ministry of Education published Guidelines for the Further Promotion of Community Education. Wide-ranging activities have been carried out in many provinces to establish learning associations, cities, enterprises, communities and families.
Thailand
Thailand introduced the National Education Act in 1999 to respond to an urgent need to reform the curriculum and improve educational management in the face of its economic, social and educational crisis.
Namibia
Namibia’s foundational document on education, Towards Education for All, includes a commitment to lifelong learning. To date, there have been three national development plans (NDP) presenting the country’s roadmap for social and economical development culminating with the Namibian Vision 2030.
To that end the education and training sector has adopted the Education and Training Sector Improvement Programme (ETSIP), whose key purpose is to substantially enhance the sector’s contribution to the attainment of strategic national development goals and to facilitate the transition to a knowledge-based economy. The ETSIP document stipulates the need for a broad learning programme that supports disadvantaged people in their efforts to break out of the cycle of poverty by improving equity and access to high-quality lifelong learning opportunities.
Latin America and Caribbean

As far as the Latin American and Caribbean countries are concerned, the CONFINTEA VI preparatory conference in Mexico in 2008 showed that the lifelong learning paradigm has yet to permeate educational debate in the region and in some cases is even perceived as an “endogenous implant”. The Regional Synthesis Report for CONFINTEA VI indicated that most national and regional education initiatives and plans refer to lifelong education in relation to the adult population; however, lifelong learning is often cited as a separate line of action or goal rather than as an overarching category.
Despite the general lack of specific legislation on lifelong learning as such, national reports prepared for CONFINTEA VI do indicate that advances have been made in terms of legislation and policy in the majority of the Latin American and Caribbean countries. There is increased recognition of the right to education as well as of linguistic and cultural diversity. Youth and adult education has been included in recent national education reforms and plans, along with specific lines of action and goals.
International approaches

The EU, the OECD, the World Bank, UNESCO and SADC all have different view of what the aims of lifelong learning should be. Whereas the World Bank and the OECD focus primarily on the economic rationale of lifelong learning, UNESCO and SADC have a more visionary and inclusive understanding of the term.
After the 2000 Lisbon Strategy and the Memorandum of Lifelong Learning, the European Union launched a project entitled “Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality” in 2001 and expanded its definition of the term to include “personal fulfillment, active citizenship, social inclusion and employability and adaptability”. UNESCO, meanwhile, was the first international organisation to develop the concept’s holistic dimension. Lifelong learning is an area that chimes with the organisation’s call for a New Humanism, and has the potential to provide an incisive and long-term response to globalisation and the current economic crisis.
However, all of the organisations mentioned above share the view that learning is meant to be for all, that it should continue throughout life and that there is a need for strong co-operation between the formal, non-formal and informal education sectors. It is clear, therefore, that synergies should be established between these organisations that would allow them to combine their respective strengths and pool their considerable competencies. Together, they have the potential to harness the power of lifelong learning to make a genuine difference worldwide.
What next?
Correcting misunderstandings

There is resistance to lifelong learning, as many view it as “Western” education that is linked purely to the economy, skills and employability. But this is wrong. Lifelong learning is neither a new concept, nor a system for rich and developed countries only. It is not related exclusively to the economy and market demands; it caters also for inclusion, citizenship, leisure and joy. More must be done to foster general acceptance of the holistic and humanistic nature of lifelong learning. Confusions and fears surrounding the term must be pushed away. Yet how do we achieve this?
• First, the concept of lifelong learning should be clarified, underlining the fact that it is not limited to adult learning alone. It concerns children, youth and adults. It covers formal, informal and non-formal learning across the entire education continuum. It should be acknowledged that a “common definition” of the term cannot exist for the simple fact that systems vary not only over time but also between regions, countries and different fields of study.
• Second, it should be emphasised that lifelong learning is key to Education for All. The world has been mobilised to strive for EFA, yet five years before the initiative is scheduled to end, the figures are far from encouraging. It has become clear that EFA has proven limited – and limiting. It is time, therefore, to expand the focus of the EFA initiative to incorporate lifelong learning, and to accept that if we are to guarantee the universal right to education, the initiative needs to address citizens’ learning needs in the broadest sense and not just their most basic needs.
• Third, it is imperative that policy-makers be encouraged to take lifelong learning on board, and that they envision education and learning as a unified system made up of integrated and interlinked components that span an individual’s lifetime.
Towards a new development in lifelong learning: Updating the Delors Report

The Delors Report, Learning: The Treasure Within, recognised that lifelong learning is an essential means of equipping human beings to live meaningful lives and meet whatever challenges they may face along the way. Taking into account the decisive influence of the world markets and the ways in which the world of work had changed, the report reflected a rights-based, humanistic, transformative approach to learning. It underlined the need to foster skills and attitudes that would enable people to overcome their religious and cultural differences and coexist peacefully, while at the same time linking learning to shared human, moral and ethical values.
In our fast-changing world, even a key document with the relevance and prescience of the Report of the Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, chaired by Jacques Delors, must be updated to capture recent changes and meet new demands. There have been calls from many scholars and in several meetings, like the Conference on Lifelong Learning and Sustainable Development (Leiden, the Netherlands, April 2008); the First Global Forum on Lifelong Learning (October 2008); and the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development, (March 2009) to revisit the Delors Report in order to respond to new demands for lifelong learning.
In addition to the four pillars of learning laid down by Delors, we should consider adding three new pillars that capture and reflect the constant flux
and forward momentum of the modern world:
• First, “learning to learn”, which is both the foundation of lifelong learning and the means to achieve it. It is a “transferable” skill that supports the remaining pillars and encourages learners to shoulder the responsibility for their further learning. Nurturing it is both an individual and a collective duty.
• Second, “learning to transform”, which enables the learner to cast a critical eye on the status quo, with the aim of changing the current situation to ensure a better life.
• Third, “learning to become”, which encompasses all learning outcomes, thus enabling learners to develop both as individuals and as members of a wider and more inclusive society.
There is one further reason for reviewing the Delors Report: while it centres on why lifelong learning is important, it fails to ask what it is important for. Nor does it examine the universal relevance of lifelong learning to the societies and individual citizens of the world, irrespective of their status and differences. There is a clear need to delve deeper into the truly foundational nature of lifelong learning, in terms of both its outcomes and its potential as a transformative process.
Learning to learn: Unearthing new pillars of learning
One of the four pillars of the Delors Report is “learning to know”,
which it defines as a type of learning that “is concerned less with the acquisition of structured knowledge than with the mastery of learning tools. It may be regarded both as a means and as an end of human existence. Looking at it as a means, people have to learn to understand the world around them, at least as much as it necessary for them to lead their lives with some dignity, develop their occupational skills and communicate with other people. Regarded as an end it is underpinned by the pleasure that can be derived from understanding, knowledge and discovery Learning to know implies learning how to learn by developing one’s concentration, memory skills and ability to think.
It is tempting to broaden the pillar “learning to know” by renaming it as “learning to learn”. On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that we are dealing with two separate, if closely interlinked, pillars. Knowledge today is seen as a product of and a process within the current knowledge economy and underlying learning societies. It is created in various settings and institutions and is simultaneously an integral part of and an outcome of learning. Hence, learning to know must remain a foundational pillar. Meanwhile, the fast-paced nature of the modern world has created an evermore pressing need to adopt and adapt skills that enable both survival and success: hence, in order to learn to know, we must now also learn how to learn.
Learning to learn also completes other pillars, such as learning to live together, learning to be and learning to do. It can thus be viewed both as a transversal pillar and as a stand-alone pillar of the learning edifice. Learning to learn is the ability to pursue and persist in learning, to organise one’s own learning, managing time and information effectively, both individually and in groups. It encompasses all forms of learning – including learning unlearning and re-learning – and aims to shape the future rather than merely adapt to it.
Learning to learn is not only foundational and transversal; it is motivational. To learn, we need to interact with others, and by interacting with others, we are galvanised to pursue further learning. It fosters reflection, autonomy and responsibility, and nurtures individual learning styles while planting the seeds of curiosity and creativity in learners’ minds. As a competence, it is the “master key” that unlocks all other crucial competences.
Learning to learn is included in the European Framework of Key Competences (European Parliament and Council 2006) and was chosen by the Education Council in 2007 as one of the indicators required to measure progress towards achieving the Lisbon objectives in education and training. It is a prerequisite for lifelong learning; thus, it is vital that an accessible, conducive and differentiated (i.e. formal, non-formal or informal) learning environment be provided to citizens – particularly those on the margins (special needs, school drop-outs, adult learners).
In brief, “learning to learn” makes individuals aware of their learning preferences and strengths, and of the ways in which they can motivate and equip themselves to succeed in all walks of life. In view of this, and in addition to the four defined pillars of learning, the meta-pillar “learning to learn” should be viewed a stand-alone pillar.
As outlined above, there is a strong case also for adopting additional pillars that adequately reflect the constant flux and forward momentum of the changing world, namely: “learning to transform” and “learning to become”.
These pillars entail the development of a range of competences:
• the ability to work out how to tackle new tasks;
• the ability to apply competences to new situations;
• the ability to analyse and organise the knowledge acquired;
• the ability to handle, with skill, the relationship between the general and the particular;
• the ability to relate knowledge to action;
• the ability to take risks;
• the ability to direct and re-direct change;
• the ability to adapt rapidly to change; and
• the ability to deal with societal transformations in order to face the challenges ahead.
It is evident that these pillars must be authentic, i.e. they must continue to reflect and support the very foundations of the learning edifice and not be distracted or diluted by elements which, though relevant, are not truly foundational. It is perhaps this concern that led the Delors Commission to exclude the meta-pillar of “learning to learn” from the list of foundational pillars in 1996. Hence, although the rapid change that has characterised our world in the intervening years seem to point clearly to a need for new pillars, we must seek a very broad consensus before adding these to the list; failing to do so might see these pillars swiftly transformed into pillories.
Conclusion

Lifelong learning is the only comprehensive system in existence that has the breadth of vision needed to respond to the needs of all learners, and which addresses all modes and contexts of learning. It is unique in being both people-centred and human rights-based. It focuses on equipping individuals with the competencies they need to face everyday tasks and challenges, and to be not only good and productive workers and employees, but above all critical, creative and responsible citizens – or simply caring and committed individuals who respect their fellow humans and the environment.
The potential of lifelong learning to transform lives is thus immense and far-reaching. It can help alleviate poverty, combat inequality and extremism, foster inclusion and promote world peace. Crucially, in these globalised and often seemingly fragmented times, it encourages people to live together as social beings who understand and respect themselves and others, tolerate diversity and are always open to dialogue and new perspectives.
In view of all this, it is now crucial that lifelong learning be considered the moral duty of every world citizen. It is high time for lifelong learning to be accorded the full recognition that it deserves and made an integral part of all educational policies.
In a world that is becoming increasingly individualist, we must push away our fears and misunderstandings and turn the page to usher in a new era of humanism and lifelong learning. Indeed, as the key to unearthing, strengthening and promoting cross-cultural values and understanding, lifelong learning is the New Humanism.
To invest in education is to invest in humanity, and lifelong learning is the guiding light, the tool box and the life blood of human development and empowerment. So let us work to banish our fears and misconceptions, and move forward together to take action. Download Conceptual Evolution and Policy Developments in Lifelong Learning.
<< < 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 > >>
Newsletter
53 abonnés
Visiteurs
Depuis la création 2 803 155
Formation Continue du Supérieur
Archives