briefing papers for policy makers

Recommendations

Info

Briefing Paper 63 Research Institutions: Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, Paris, France Lille I, Université des sciences et technologies de Lille, France Centre national de la recherche scientifique, (IFRESI), Lille, France Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hongary Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de psicologia e de Ciencias de Educacao, Lisboa, Portugal King’s College University of London, United Kingdom Institute of Education University of London, United Kingdom Contact Person Prof. Christian Maroy Univers. Catholique de Louvain GIRSEF Place Montesquieu, 1/bte 14 bureau a273, bâtiment Leclercq, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium Tel: +32-10-473.924 (dir. line) or +32-10-472.066 (secr.) Fax: +32-10-472.400 Email: maroy@anso.ucl.ac.be This project has been funded by DG- Research under the Key Action “Improving the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base” of FP5 Regulation and Inequalities in European Education Systems Context of the Research Education systems across Europe are changing in the way they are being regulated and how and who takes responsibility for their management. Equality of opportunity has continued to remain an important aspect of educational policy, however, changes in the way education systems operate could have an impact on inequality issues. This research compares the development of public regulation of secondary education systems in five European countries and analyses how these developments affect local processes such as the creation of hierarchies, inequality and school segregation. It identifies regulatory modes for the variable and complex means by which public authorities orientate and coordinate action in a sector of society like state regulation, market mechanisms, communities, organisational hierarchy and networks. The countries analysed are the UK (England), Belgium (French-speaking Community), France, Hungary and Portugal. Initial Conclusions These initial conclusions are mainly based on the comparison of five national education systems. 1. From the political perspective: • A crisis of some sort tends to push a State to reduce financial resources and to implement changes that adapt schools more to the requirements of the economy. Yet, at the same time there is an increased emphasis on reducing social exclusion. • There is also a tendency towards decentralisation of school management as well as more of a focus towards Europe. 2. Concerning regulation modes, it has been observed in most countries analysed that there is: • A reduction of the role of the central State in the direct provision of educational services. • An increasing trend for schools having to become more accountable in terms of results. • A weakening of the use of regulation strategies based on procedures that control the means of carrying out an activity. But, there is an increased use of regulation strategies based on achievement of results through assessment. • A reinforcement of new modes of control through the emergence of the State taking on an evaluation role. 180
3. Concerning inequalities it has been observed: • A convergence of thinking on education systems and policies aiming to reduce inequalities. This has resulted in a greater focus on targeted measures aimed at creating more equality. • There has been an evolution in education policies from a prevalence of political measures aiming for “equality of opportunities” using measures aiming for equal treatment through to a prevalence of political measures aiming at “equality of assets” that are achieved by differentiation of treatment. • In several countries autonomy of the schools is favoured. This is resulting in a differentiation of the teaching practices as well as institution’s having greater freedom to choose diverse methodology to address the individual needs of students. • Institutional solutions to combat inequalities or the phenomena of exclusion are numerous and diversified from one country to another. • Institutional solutions or models adopted by one country tend to diffuse into other countries. Currently a “mosaic” of the different policy measures exists across Europe. • However, different public authorities have shown an ability to answer in a differentiated and even in an opposite way to similar situation according to the local characteristics of the situation. • This is also resulting in “hybridisation phenomenon” with the coexistence of diverse, but sometimes contradictory institutional solutions. For example, the coexistence of a priority zone of education, but consisting of very selective courses, implying an underlying elitist logic. 4. Although still a very tentative conclusion, initial analysis seems to suggest that there isn’t any direct link between the level inequality in the different countries and the degree of centralisation of education systems. Further analysis is still being conducted. Initial Recommendations The local context needs to be carefully considered before a specific solution is adopted, as it has been observed that adopted solutions from other countries, do not necessarily have the same effect. Further Information The full title of the project is: Changes in regulation modes and social production of inequalities in education systems: a European comparison. The final report is due in September 2004. The project web site at http://www.girsef.ucl.ac.be/europeanproject.htm Accessible from the web-site: Analyse des cadres institutionnels et autonomie des acteurs locaux : évolution des modes de régulation institutionnalisée dans les systèmes éducatifs étudiés. Rapports nationaux, Mars 2002. Système éducatifs, mode de régulation et d’évaluation scolaire et politiques de lutte contre les inégalités en Angleterre, Belgique, France, Hongrie et au Portugal, synthèses des études de cas nationals, Septembre 2002. Iniquité scolaire: du/(des) concept(s) aux mesures. Premier essai à partir de PISA. Et examen des corrélations de ces indicateurs avec les mesures de ségrégation de publics et les indices d'autonomie des établissements, Mai 2003. 181
Page 1 and 2:
REPORT EUR 20791 European Union-sup
Page 3 and 4:
2003 EUROPEAN COMMISSION European U
Page 7 and 8:
Table of Contents Foreword ……
Page 9:
Notes from the editor This report i
Page 13 and 14:
Briefing Paper 1 Research Instituti
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
4. Other incentives to improve mobi
Page 19 and 20:
4. However, the push to make work e
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Key Publications Gornitzka, “Gove
Page 29 and 30:
7. Despite strong resistance from e
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
10. There needs to be encouragement
Page 35 and 36:
The full title of the project is: E
Page 37 and 38:
2. Some employers and politicians a
Page 39 and 40:
Briefing Paper 11 Research Institut
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
• A greater understanding of the
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
The Final Report and results of thi
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
9. Policy needs to provide opportun
Page 53 and 54:
• The levels of teachers’ inter
Page 55 and 56:
4. Strengthening the educational re
Page 57 and 58:
Key Recommendations The project mad
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
National Policy Recommendations 1.
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Key Recommendations The following r
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
8. Lifelong Learning is still seen
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Key Recommendations Specific recomm
Page 77 and 78:
Tikkanen, T., Teknologian muutos ty
Page 79 and 80:
• Moving from training-based deve
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
This project is now being taken for
Page 89 and 90:
13. Some of the enterprises have ha
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Key Recommendations 1. Efforts shou
Page 95 and 96:
10. Although, it has been found tha
Page 97 and 98:
4. Separate analysis of the wage di
Page 99 and 100:
Denny & Harmon, The impact of educa
Page 101 and 102:
10. In addition, important learning
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
8. Opening schools to activities be
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
establishing links between the scie
Page 115 and 116:
Sassi, Ogborn, Pintó, Quale, Vienn
Page 117 and 118:
7. Virtual learning environments ma
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
The Final Report and results of thi
Page 123 and 124:
8. Apprenticeships also have invest
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
• The import behaviour (nature an
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134: University of Barcelona 3. Further
Page 135 and 136: Educational research supported by D
Page 137 and 138: Briefing Paper 44 Research Institut
Page 139 and 140: mentoring to help the less confiden
Page 141 and 142: 5. It appears to be advisable to fu
Page 145 and 146: Key Recommendations Political and l
Page 147 and 148: Further information The final repor
Page 149 and 150: 8. Learning in a “learning compan
Page 159 and 160: Further Information The full title
Page 161 and 162: Adaptability and Entrepreneurship 6
Page 163 and 164: 18. Gender audits and relevant acti
Page 165 and 166: 4. As some legislation describes at
Page 169 and 170: 2. There is a need to encourage fle
Page 171 and 172: Key Recommendations 1. The focus of
Page 173 and 174: • Shaping European learning relat
Page 177 and 178: Forthcoming Publications: Arriaga,
Page 183: Further Information The project sta
Page 187 and 188: Summaries of research project clust
Page 189 and 190: Briefing Paper 36 Contact address:
Page 191 and 192: 7. Policy should encourage long-ter
Page 193 and 194: • Development of a culture of col
Page 197 and 198: 8. Compensation programmes/schemes
Page 199 and 200: 5. Combating segregation at school
Page 203 and 204: questionnaire approaches to increas
Page 205 and 206: learning partnerships, 178 learning
Page 208 and 209: Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg
show all

briefing papers for policy makers

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?