Search

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.)

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.)

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)