Search

This HEPI Report includes two contrasting views on recent higher education policies and alternatives to the status quo. In Part One, Roger Brown argues neoliberal policies have damaged English higher education in recent decades -- and continue to do so. He says neoliberalism has many adverse effects, including 'increased stratification, the commodification of learning and (for some groups) reduced participation'. In Part Two, Nick Hillman questions if it actually makes sense to paint recent reforms as neoliberal and suggests a wholly different approach might not bring the benefits that many people expect to see. Furthermore, he argues that supply-side reform has not yet gone far enough. [Foreword by Chris Husbands.]

The aim of this essay is to advance understandings of current efforts to democratize disciplined approaches to educational innovation and improvement in the US and other countries, with a specific focus on the macro-level policy contexts of improvement research in education. In the US, earlier analyses examined these policy contexts from a contemporary perspective, with an emergent improvement movement in tension with an institutionalized evidence movement. By contrast, this essay provides an historical perspective through a "geological analysis" of US education reform. This analysis has the improvement movement atop macro-level policy contexts that are layers-deep, and as potentially integral to a public education enterprise that has been evolving for centuries: at the policy level, from "resource-forward" to "practice-forward" innovation and improvement; at the local level, from "school systems" to "education systems" to "learning systems." This analytic approach and framework suggest the need for a new discourse about efforts to democratize disciplined approaches to educational innovation and improvement in the US, as well as possibilities for comparative and international research examining parallel developments in other countries. This essay was prepared as a contribution to "The Foundational Handbook on Improvement Research in Education."

The past informs the future. It achieves this in two ways: first, by providing the context in which decisions are made, and, second, by delivering the various experiences that enable discovery of what does and does not work. As the Australian vocational education and training (VET) system has evolved, the institutional structures and frameworks that are now in place may determine the direction of its next turn, while the willingness to learn from past experiences will dictate whether it will turn at all. 'The past informing the future' is the theme for the 2021 'No Frills' Conference -- a conference to be held online, because if anything has been learned from 2020, it is that the freedom to travel is no longer guaranteed. This 'No Frills' discussion paper reflects on some key developments in VET's past and how they have shaped the sector's approach to enduring issues such as VET's purpose, national harmonisation, and quality.

University-based scientific research has long been argued to be a central source of commercial innovation and economic growth. Yet at the same time, there have been long-held concerns that many university-based discoveries never realize their potential social benefits. Looking across universities, research and commercialization activities such as start-up formation vary tremendously -- variation that could reflect the composition and orientation of faculty research, university-level factors such as patenting and licensing efforts, or broader place-based factors such as location in a technology cluster. We take a first step towards unpacking this heterogeneity in university commercialization by analyzing how the propensity of academic research to spill over to commercial innovation changes when academics move across universities. Our estimates suggest that at least 15-25% of geographic variation in commercial spillovers from university-based research is attributable to place-specific factors. [Funding for this research was received from Harvard Business School's Division of Research and Doctoral Programs, Harvard Economics' SUPER Program.]

This Policy Paper aims at analysing the most important aspects of Public Responsibility, Financing and Governance of Higher Educations while seeking to formulate a students perspective on the state of play within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). In doing so it touches upon the very foundation of how and in which socio-political environment educational systems and higher education institutions work nowadays. The European Students' Union (ESU) believes that open access to all levels of education is the cornerstone of a socially, culturally and democratically inclusive society, and a prerequisite for individual and societal development and well-being. ESU sees higher education as a human right, which is guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. How education is seen in society, how it is funded and how it is governed are tightly interlinked areas. This policy paper focuses on: (1) Public responsibility of higher education (fundamental values; institutional autonomy and academic freedom; academic integrity; intellectual property; education for sustainable development; human rights and democratic citizenship education; digitalization, artificial intelligence, learning analytics and privacy; commodification; partnerships between higher education institutions and industry; internships; and internationalisation and international trade); (2) Financing of higher education (financing of higher education; the funding gap; optimisation of funding of higher education institutions; performance based funding; and education free of tuition fees); and (3) Governance of higher education (students participation; working conditions of academic staff; committees and ombudsmans and leadership, intersectionality and training). [For the 2016 version, see ED587168.]

Over the past two decades, public higher education has become widely recognized for its contribution to socio-economic adjustment. This paper probes its evolution in two large and affluent democracies, the United States and Germany, whose higher education systems represent distinct ideal types. The analysis argues that public authorities in both countries have liberalized their systems to spur innovation in the provision of higher education. Yet a broad convergence in associated market expansion has coincided with divergence in its modes and consequences. Tracing how the two countries' policy regimes have created path-dependent trajectories of reform, the paper contends that the institutions associated with each state's inherited role in higher education--"enabling" in the US and "constitutive" in Germany--have empowered different social groups to shape state action. Under the influence of investors and managers, institutional drift and conversion have pushed public higher education toward corporatization in the United States. In contrast, interventions by faculty and students have moderated the effects of institutional displacement and layering on the German system's stratification. Given the sector's growing importance, this analysis carries important implications for the comparative study of capitalist evolution. [A bibliography is included.]

A defining characteristic of charter schools is that they introduce a strong market element into public education. In this paper, we examine the evolution of the charter school sector in North Carolina between 1999 and 2012 through the lens of a market model. We examine trends in the mix of students enrolled in charter schools, the racial imbalance of charter schools, the quality of the match between parental preferences in charter schools relative to the quality of match in traditional public schools, and the distribution of test score performance across charter schools relative those in traditional public schools serving similar students over time. Taken together, our findings imply that the charter schools in North Carolina are increasingly serving the interests of relatively able white students in racially imbalanced schools.

Mobile learning is often described as ubiquitous, pervasive, accessible, and transparent. It has been seen as providing opportunities for those who could not previously cross existing digital divides-though it of course may create new ones. Yet, some work in the field lacks sufficient and appropriate grounding in theory to effectively address such needs. Theory determines what we observe, how we observe it, and what we deem valuable. Theory has power; it can affect how people live and how they view the world. In the case of mobile learning, it can affect how people access and interact with the world. In order to ensure adequate access to knowledge and resources, we must fight against uncritical, clichéd theory and against naïve or tacit theory, and consider the exploration of theoretical perspectives outside the dominant modernist Western-European perspectives and perhaps outside those of late-global capitalism. Research and practice needs to be grounded in well considered theoretical perspectives that take into account the local and the global; the overly represented and the excluded; the global South and the global North. In this paper, we argue for an ongoing and increasingly sensitive role for researchers and theoreticians as well as a reexamination of extant theories in mobile learning. [For the full proceedings, see ED557171.]

The University of California at Berkeley now delivers more to the public of California than it ever has, and it does this on the basis of proportionally less funding by the State government than it has ever received. This claim may come as a surprise, since it is often said that Berkeley is in the process of privatizing, becoming less of a public university and more in the service of private interests. To the contrary, as the State's commitment to higher education and social-welfare programs has declined, UC Berkeley has struggled to preserve and even expand its public role, while struggling simultaneously to retain its competitive excellence as a research university. This paper delineates how UC Berkeley has striven to retain its public character in the face of severe financial pressures. A summary of the indicators invoked can be found in the chart at the end of the text.

Online learning and our current system of local education governance are at odds with one another, to say the least. In this paper, John Chubb examines how local school district control retards the widespread use of instructional technologies. He argues that the surest way to break down the system's inherent resistance to technology is to shift control from the local district--and thus the school board--and put it in the hands of states. He then outlines ten steps to get us to this brave new governance system: (1) Set K-12 Online-Learning Policy at the State Level; (2) Create a Public Market for K-12 Online Learning; (3) Provide Students the Right to Choose Online Learning Full Time; (4) Provide Students the Right to Choose Online Learning Part Time; (5) Authorize Statewide Online Charter Schools, Overseen by Statewide Charter Authorizers; (6) License Supplementary Online Providers; (7) Fund All Learning Opportunities Equally Per Pupil; (8) Exempt Online and Blended Teaching from Traditional Teacher Requirements Including Certification and Class Size; (9) Establish Student Learning as the Foundation of Accountability for Online Schools and Providers; and (10) Address Market Imperfections by Providing Abundant Information to Students, Families, Schools, and Districts. (Contains 42 endnotes.) [For a review of this paper, "Review of 'Overcoming the Governance Challenge in K-12 Online Learning'", see ED530436.]

Politics, economics, and technology have conspired to make this an exceptionally challenging time for American higher education. Some critics claim that costs are out of control in traditional public and private nonprofit higher education. They believe these institutions will soon go the way of the railroads as for-profit institutions displace them and the Internet replaces college campuses and classrooms. Other critics bemoan the privatization of higher education and the increasing role of market forces. Still others think higher education has lost its way and fails to focus on educating undergraduates. With their cries of alarm and simple nostrums for change, these critics often miss the mark because they do not recognize the strengths of the current system and the complexity of the problems it faces. Yet defenders of American higher education who paint a rosy picture are held too much in thrall by its venerable traditions, manifest accomplishments, and worldwide reputation for excellence. The modern university is worth protecting but it must also change in substantial ways.

Digital learning makes possible the "unbundling" of school provisions--that is, it allows children to be served by providers from almost anywhere, in new and more customized ways. At the same time, because it destandardizes and decentralizes educational delivery, digital education is far harder to bring under the yoke of the quality-control systems and metrics that have been devised for traditional school structures. In this paper, Hess explores the pros and cons of input regulation, outcome-based accountability, and market signals as solutions to the quality challenge. In the end, he recommends using all three approaches in careful combination so as to leverage their strengths and offset their weaknesses. In practice, that means demanding transparent financial information from providers, holding them to account for student achievement gains whenever possible, and developing "crowd-sourcing" reporting systems to help educators, parents, and students identify the most effective purveyors of online learning. (Contains 14 footnotes.)

American children deserve the one ingredient we know creates stellar learning results: excellent teachers. These teachers produce "well over" today's typical year of learning growth. Without them, even with solid teachers who produce a full year of progress, children who start behind stay behind, and few students get ahead of their beginnings--the antithesis of the American Dream. In contrast, if our nation consistently provides students with excellent teachers, we could close most of our stubborn achievement gaps in just five years, and help many children leap ahead of today's standards. This report explains why every child needs excellent teachers year after year, how the nation can now meet that need at unprecedented scale by reaching more children with excellent teachers, and what changes policymakers must support to make this possible. First, policymakers can speedily "improve the identification" of excellent teachers; the authors explain how. Second, policymakers can "clear the policy barriers" that keep excellent teachers from reaching more students for more pay. The authors outline new policies that would clear these barriers. Third, and of paramount importance, policymakers can "catalyze the will" for schools and districts to put excellent teachers in charge of every student's learning. The authors propose bold solutions to create this will, and they invite others to add to these ideas. Without will-enhancing actions, other policies and education changes will continue to fall short of their potential effects. Excellence for all students must become the new goal, and it is entirely within reach if our nation's schools offer new opportunities for excellent teachers to lead the way. (Contains 7 figures and 38 endnotes.) [Contributions by Sharon Kebschull Barrett. For related reports, see "Seizing Opportunity at the Top: How the U.S. Can Reach Every Student with an Excellent Teacher. Building an Opportunity Culture for America's Teachers. Policy Brief" (ED540000) and "Seizing Opportunity at the Top: Reaching Every Student with Excellent Teachers--Policymakers' Checklist" (ED539996).]

Over recent years governments have been placing more emphasis on innovation as a source of national competitiveness. Governments now assess their investments across many areas in terms of the contribution that such investments make to increasing innovation. This has been especially significant for education and in particular for the development of policies for universities because universities perform research as well as provide learning. The measures governments use to assess the performance of universities frequently include indicators of research-related engagement with business, or of the level of patenting, licensing and start ups. Assessing university performance by focusing on just some of the direct services or outputs that universities provide, or on narrow aspects of their individual services, seriously underestimates the contributions that universities make. Appended are: (1) The health innovation system; (2) Sources of ideas or information for business innovation; (3) Innovation-Active Businesses; and (4) Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education in the USA. (Contains 33 footnotes.)

Analyses of private higher education should consider the increasingly important for-profit sector in many countries. Yet information on the for-profit sector has been quite limited. Even in the United States, where for-profit higher education is well-established, only recently have researchers turned their attention to studying its scope and impacts. While the growth of the for-profit sector is influenced by many of the same forces that have encouraged the global expansion of private higher education, including commercialization and privatization beyond higher education, the focus here is on identifying the international dimensions of for-profit higher education and defining its main types. We feature U.S. data and patterns as starting points for an international portrait. We outline the legal and regulatory aspects for-profit institutions, and note their often ambiguous status in many countries. And we propose a tentative classification of the for-profit sector based on the U.S. experience, beginning to apply it to the international context. Generally, while emphasizing the diversity of the sector, we highlight several tendencies of for-profit institutions of higher education that seem to hold in international analyses. (Contains 1 table and 18 notes.)

In the last three decennia, many governments have introduced market mechanisms in education. They have done so by enhancing parental choice and encouraging school competition, through policies like abolishing catchment areas, creating voucher programmes and setting up charter schools. These market mechanisms have given rise to fierce debates in both political and scientific circles. However, most prior reviews of research literature in this area have concluded that the effects of market mechanisms in education are small, if they are found at all. This review tries to answer the question why that is the case, by analysing the causal pathways that link market mechanisms to educational outcomes and by reviewing the empirical evidence for each step along those causal pathways. The findings of this review point to the need for a nuanced and qualified discussion about market mechanisms in education. What market mechanisms mean in actual practice strongly depends on (local) contexts, while the impact of market mechanisms is related to other policies impacting on parental choice behaviour as well as actions taken by schools. Appended are: (1) Country Case Studies; and (2) Terminology. Notes are also included. (Contains 1 table.)

This report seeks to address critical issues such as these by synthesising the evidence on innovations in more market-driven education systems. The analysis draws on data from over 20 OECD and non-OECD countries, including both developed nations that seek to move beyond established systems of state-run schools, and developing nations where formal and de facto policies promote more free-market approaches to educational expansion. In doing this, the report focuses on the primary and secondary levels, where education is usually compulsory. The more universal nature of educational access at those levels provides a different set of conditions and incentives compared to the post-compulsory tertiary level. And the report pays special attention to the charter school experiment in North America, where reformers explicitly tried to create more competitive conditions in order to encourage the development of innovations in the education sector. Policy approaches such as this that use decentralisation, deregulation, greater levels of autonomy, competition and choice may have singular potential to induce innovations in the education sector, both in how education is organised and the school content that is delivered--critical concerns if the education sector is to be more effective and reach under-served populations. (Contains 2 tables, 2 figures and 32 endnotes.) [This report was prepared in collaboration with the OECD Secretariat for the project "Innovation Strategy for Education and Training" undertaken by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI).]

The European Students' Union (ESU) feels the need to face the current crisis and to foster the student voice of all students across Europe. In this context its main priorities for 2012 will be: (1) Education as a public good; (2) Internal development; (3) Social dimension; and (4) Bologna and European cooperation. It is of great importance for ESU to work based on a strategic plan that spans several generations of elected representatives and establishes a medium-long term base for development. Looking beyond the immediate and the obvious should be a standard for a professional organisation that works for the benefit of its membership and that sees its own responsibility towards its constituencies and the society at the core of its actions. Focus of ESU should be in building a strong dedication to societal advancement by further developing the views and capacity of its membership and by promoting European integration in higher education through building a more professionally oriented and strategically minded union. [For 2011 report, see ED539162.]