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.]

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.