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.)

This 22-country survey was conducted between 1994 and 1998. Representative samples of adults aged 16-65 were interviewed and tested at home using the same literacy tests. The main purpose of the survey was to find out how well adults use information to function in society. Another aim was to investigate the factors that influence literacy proficiency and to compare these between countries. Ten international indicators are presented that allow readers to compare the literary proficiency of Americans with that of other populations as measured on the prose literary scale; similar results are provided in quantitative scales. The findings confirm how low literacy is an important issue in all regions in all countries surveyed. On the whole, the findings show that Americans are at an average level of prose literacy performance, behind the Nordic countries and the Netherlands but on a par with adults in Australia, Canada, and Germany. Literacy proficiency is more unequally distributed in the United States and Canada than in Europe, with the most literate 25% of North Americans scoring far higher than average. "Life-long" learning programs, as well as early childhood education, more access to adult education and to information and communication technologies, and the promotion of literacy-rich environments at work, home, and in the community are proposed as solutions to improve adult literacy. The paper is divided into 3 chapters, 4 annexes, and 10 data-rich figures. (Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education) (KFT)

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.