Search

Module A of the OECD Higher Education Policy Survey (HEPS) 2022 elicited information on policies to promote digitalisation of higher education in OECD member and accession countries. In total, 30 jurisdictions responded, providing comparative information on various areas of digitalisation policy, from regulation and governance to financial and human resources. The survey results provide insight into the role of public authorities in guiding, coordinating and resourcing the digital transformation of higher education institutions. The analysis and comparative tables in this working paper provide insights that can support the development of strategic digitalisation policies.

This report reviews the use of loans for learning in 33 European countries and analyses the schemes in eight selected Member States: France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Finland, Sweden and the UK. The analysis shows that loan schemes vary considerably across Europe in terms of types and levels of learning covered, conditions of access, repayment and governance. Some loans aim to increase participation in learning in general, while others are designed to promote equity. The report attempts to assess the selected loans and discusses their strengths and weaknesses and determinants of performance, while considering if a given scheme operates on a large scale or targets niche groups. The evaluation results provide a basis for identifying good practice principles for designing and implementing loans. Policy recommendations are formulated based on these findings. Annexed are: (1) Methodology; (2) Key terms and definitions; (3) Information on countries/schemes selected for in-depth analysis; (4) Proposed typologies of VET loan schemes; (5) Tables and figures; (6) Tosmana truth tables; (7) Questionnaires; (8) Basic characteristics of non-European loan schemes. (Contains 37 tables, 5 figures, 20 boxes and 33 footnotes.)

This literature review on school choice analyses the impact of choice schemes on students and on school systems focusing on equity. Reviewing the evidence can be difficult, as the literature is often fragmented and inconclusive, and the political importance of this research often results in high-profile attention given to individual studies rather than systemically understanding collected from a larger empirical base (Berends, Cannata and Goldring, 2011). Different political groups use evidence that supports their positions in favour or against school choice, and their positions relative to school choice are largely based on their ideologies, rather than on empirical work and evidence of effectiveness (Levin and Belfield, 2004). This report steps away from the ideological debate and provides research-based evidence on the impact of choice on disadvantaged students and schools. As "only with data on the consequences of different plans for school choice will we be able to reach sensible judgements rooted in experience (Fuller and Elmore, 1996, p. 8)". It uses analysis and statements that are supported empirically and attempts to cover the widest possible scope of research, and provide responses to the key question of how to balance choice with equity considerations. (Contains 7 tables, 4 figures, 5 boxes and 13 footnotes.)

Countless policy makers and researchers have flocked to observe the education systems of Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore, which are among the top five performers in the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) 2009 reading assessment. Many visitors have been particularly impressed by the fact that these education systems succeed in embracing the social heterogeneity in their student populations that is intrinsic to large urban environments--something that many other education systems struggle to achieve. But large cities do not just pose social challenges to educators; they also offer important advantages for schools, such as a richer cultural environment, a more attractive workplace for teachers, more school choice, and better job prospects that can help to motivate students. New analyses from PISA highlight these advantages, showing that, in several countries, students from urban areas (defined here as cities with over a million inhabitants) do as well as students in PISA's top performing city-states, even if the different push and pull factors of urban environments play out very differently across countries. This paper reports that: (1) Large cities are generally educational assets: in most countries, performance improves dramatically when only the scores of students in urban areas are considered, although this is not the case in some countries, such as Belgium, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and the United States; and (2) When comparing the performance of students in large cities, students in Portugal and Israel perform as well as those in Singapore, and students in Poland perform as well as those in Hong Kong.

This paper reports that between 2008 and 2009, unemployment rates across OECD countries increased among people at all educational levels, but rose to especially troubling heights among people without an upper secondary education. In 2009, the average employment rate across OECD countries was much higher for individuals with a tertiary (i.e. higher) education--indicating a better match between the skills these people have and the skills the labour market required. Between 2008 and 2009, the earnings advantage for people with a tertiary education remained strong in OECD countries. In some countries, earnings inequality between people with a tertiary education and those without an upper secondary education widened even further.

Youth unemployment is hardly new, but in the 1980s it poses unprecedented problems because economic growth no longer seems to provide the necessary jobs. Youth labor markets are being stripped of entry-level jobs by new technologies, changes in the global division of labor, and the upgrading of occupational structures. This paper describes government policies and practices on youth in selected countries that have a bearing on the transition from youth to adulthood. Data were gathered in extensive interviews with embassy officials and through analysis of documents provided by them, national education authorities, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The countries surveyed were: Australia; Britain; Canada; Finland; France; Federal Republic of Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Japan; Norway; and Sweden. Findings are presented in the following areas: (1) Demography of Youth; (2) National Policies; (3) Administrative Structures; (4) Education and Training; (5) Socioeconomic and Gender Inequalities; (6) Guidance, Counseling, and Placement; (7) Financial Support; (8) National Service; and (9) Youth Organizations. Data are presented on five tables and three appendices. (BJV)