Search

The "Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education" were developed and adopted to support and encourage international cooperation and enhance the understanding of the importance of quality provision in cross-border higher education. The purposes of the "Guidelines" are to protect students and other stakeholders from low-quality provision and disreputable providers (that is, degree and accreditation mills) as well as to encourage the development of quality cross-border higher education that meets human, social, economic and cultural needs. The "Guidelines" are not legally binding and member countries are expected to implement them as appropriate in their national context. Based on a survey about the main recommendations of the "Guidelines", this report monitors the extent to which Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and a few non-member countries comply with its recommendations. The Survey was sent out in June 2010 to all OECD countries. The main conclusion of the survey is that (responding) countries report a high level of compliance with the Guidelines recommendations. On average, responding OECD countries conform to 72% of the main recommendations made to governments, tertiary education institutions, and quality assurance and accreditation agencies. The level of compliance decreases to 67% when recommendations to student bodies are included, but the level of missing information, and thus uncertainty about actual compliance, increases significantly. Appended are: (1) Country Overview of Compliance Levels with the Guidelines for Different Stakeholders; (2) Country Overview of Compliance Levels with Six Key Objectives of the Guidelines; (3) Methodology; (4) Country Answers to the Survey; (5) Overview of National Contact Points; and (6) Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education. (Contains 2 tables, 12 figures and 1 footnote.)

The challenge of funding a high quality higher education system, ensuring it has the capacity to help meet the increasing demand for high level skills in our economy and the aspirations of our students, has been an ongoing concern for successive Australian governments over many years. This paper reviews the findings and recommendations of significant reviews of Australia's higher education funding system from the 1988 Dawkins white paper through to the 2014 "Review of the Demand Driven Funding System." It summarises the challenges identified and responses proposed across that period as well as some recent international literature about higher education reform. What is clear from the survey of major reviews from 1988 to the present is the similarity of issues that were of concern to governments of the day. Successive governments have sought to build and fund a higher education system to meet the need for high level skills and innovative research for the Australian economy. The challenge for all governments has been how to enable greater numbers of students to access the benefits higher education offers--in terms of employment, earnings, social and cultural opportunities--while ensuring the system remains fair, high quality and affordable for both individuals and taxpayers. The number of domestic higher education students has more than doubled since 1989, reaching just over a million in 2014. International students comprised another 350,000 students in 2014. As student numbers have grown, they have come from more diverse social, economic and academic backgrounds. The number of providers and their diversity has also grown, with around 20 new public universities since the late 1980s and the emergence of significant numbers of non-university providers. The proportion of the Australian working age population with a bachelor degree or higher qualification has tripled since 1989 to just over 25 per cent. Direct Australian Government funding for teaching, learning and research has grown both in absolute and real terms, rising from $3.2 billion in 1989 to $15.4 billion in 2014, more than doubling when adjusted for inflation. Australia is not unique in facing this growth and higher education systems around the world are increasingly moving from elite to mass systems, and beyond to universal systems.

Is the United States getting it wrong when it comes to educating tomorrow's innovators in critical fields? It has been known for years that the only way to compete globally in information technology, engineering, nanotechnology, robotics and other fields is to give students the best educational opportunities possible. But do individuals have a successful formula when it comes to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education? In this report, the authors challenge the nation's approach to STEM education and argue that reforms are urgently needed to better match the talents of students, the needs of employers, and its goals. (Contains 19 tables, 42 figures, and 623 endnotes.) [Funding for this paper was provided by the Intel Corporation. For "Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Executive Summary," see ED521736.]