News: Cisco, Intel and Microsoft Lead Collaboration to Improve Global Education Assessments

This is very interesting, the executive director of this new initiative for improving global educational assessments is one of the leading researchers on PISA, Barry McGaw.

Thanks to James Thayer for the link

From Cisco Website:

Three leading technology companies announced today a collaboration aimed at transforming global educational assessment and improving learning outcomes. At the Learning and Technology World Forum in London, Cisco, Intel and Microsoft unveiled plans to underwrite a multi-sector research project to develop new assessment approaches, methods and technologies for measuring the success of 21st-century teaching and learning in classrooms around the world. During the session, the three companies called upon educational leaders, governments and other corporations to join in the effort[...]

[...]The assessment research and development project spearheaded by Cisco, Intel and Microsoft has received the support of major international assessment organizations. Specifically, OECD and the International Association of the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) have expressed interest in using the evidence-based and verifiable output of the 21st-century skills assessment to inform the development of the next versions of PISA and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), their respective international benchmarks.

read full article here

 

Article: Funding Publics

The following article is very illustrative in light of the recent news  of the raises in tuition at California UCLA.   “Funding Public” by Jennifer Epstein presents the arguments discussed at the Association of Public Universities, as well as the proposal introduce in a paper by Mark G. Yudof, president of the University of California System, of creating a national strategy for higher education in the United States. Basically the discussion is on the possibility of a greater role of the federal government on funding public higher education, in light of the unwillingness or inability of states of financing public higher education institutions, and the federal government inaction. As Stanley Ikenberry point out the increasingly reduce state funding for public  higher education in the United States is a consistent trend of  more than three decades.  At a time in which there is an ever present discourse of a competitive and globalize knowledge economy United States is losing is hedge in a strategic sector for the future well being of its population.  All and all, as Ikenberry (2005) point out   “in the end, the issue is not just about the future of public higher education, but about what affordable education can provide.” (p.5)

Reference

Ikenberry, Stanley. “Uncertain and Unplanned: The Future of Public Higher Education”. Policy Forum Vol. 17, No. 3, Institute of Government and Public Affairs,University of Illinois. Champaign: 2005

From Inside of Higher Education:

WASHINGTON — Recalibrating the puzzle pieces of support for public universities to include more financing from the federal government as state contributions wane might offer the best solutions for public universities’ economic woes, a panel of presidents concluded here Sunday.

At “Financing Tomorrow’s Public Research Universities,” the opening session of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities’ (APLU) annual conference, four public university presidents — and one ex-president — came together to consider how to fund their institutions once the federal stimulus money runs out, the recession runs its course and the Obama administration’s efforts to expand access to higher education kick into high gear. (read full)

 

Article: “At Public Universities:Less for More “

An article at the New York Times shows the way in which the economic crisis have exacerbated the trends towards privatization of public universities in the United States.  After reading the article, it is still to me difficult to understand the logic of public federal and state funding policy of financing private institutions in the current environment while public flagships  are receiving state “contributions largely flat or down over the last 15 years” which forces then to become increasingly private to cope.  A trend exacerbate with the current economic crisis.  In other words, the economic environment and public policy financing of higher education is leading to a rise in costs of public affordable options to access the university in a current context presently characterize by high levels of unemployment. In this context, many students of wealthier families increasingly look for public options as affordable alternatives which is use in the article to partially to explain the justifications for the raise of tuition fees while public universities are force to provide less and less  services and academic options for students.

Thanks to Daniel Araya for the link

New York Times By Paul Fain, Published: October 26, 2009:

SUSAN LI’S senior year at the University of California, Los Angeles, was fast approaching, and she was running out of time. She needed at least three classes to qualify for financial aid. But a week before classes began, she had registered for only one course. “They’re not offering the classes I need,” said Ms. Li, a history major. “I don’t know what I’m going to do.”[...]

In this particularly hard year, in which university endowments have been hammered along with state coffers, federal stimulus money has helped most avoid worst-case scenarios. The 10-campus University of California system, for example, has received $716 million in stimulus funds to offset its $1 billion gap. But that money is a temporary fix. A quip circulating among collegepresidents: The stimulus isn’t a bridge; it’s a short pier.

This fall, flagships still had to cut costs and raise tuition, most by 6.5 percent or more. And virtually all of the nation’s top public universities are likely to push through large increases in coming years.

“The students are at a point of rebellion, because they’re paying more and getting less,” says Jane V. Wellman, executive director of the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity and Accountability. [ read full here]

 

News_East Asia Summit calls for the revival of Nalanda University: thinking and acting beyond the nation?

A really interesting post by Kris Olds at the Global Higher Education Blog discuss the proposal for the revival of the  Nalanda University  and the implications of  the construction  of transnational spaces of higher education. My impression to this and other process and institutions, such as the Mercosur’s  Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana (UNILA) is that they are not yet really operating outside the framework of nation states. For the moment, the most important players setting the policies of transnational exchange  are nation states with the capacities to impulse knowledge production in specific directions that are deemed favorable to their respective national interests. This seem a fair assessment especially in the case of institutions that are create as part of regional integration initiatives (e.g. UNILA). This does not mean that these configurations cannot become, eventually,   mainly driven by transnational dynamics. It would be interesting to see the eventual ways in which those transnational configurations develop in the coming years.

From Global Higher Education, October, 2009:

The emergence of new supra-national movements with respect to higher education and research continue apace. From the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), through to international consortia of universities, through to bits of universities embedded in others within distant territories (e.g., Georgia Tech’s unit within the National University of Singapore), the higher education landscape is in the process of being reconfigured and globalized. Yet, is it really that novel in an historical sense? Today’s call at the East Asian Summit for the revival of Nalanda University (see below) draws upon development outcomes in higher education that took place well before the establishment of medieval universities like Oxford, Bologna, or Lund. As Sashi Tahroor notes: Founded in 427 A.D. by Buddhist monks at the time of Kumaragupta I (415-455 A.D.), Nalanda was an extraordinary centre of learning for seven centuries. The name probably comes from a combination of nalam (lotus, the symbol of knowledge) and da, meaning “to give”, so Nalanda means “Giver of Knowledge”. And that is exactly what the university did, attracting prize students from all over India, as well as from China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Persia, Sri Lanka, Tibet and Turkey. At its peak, Nalanda played host to more than 10,000 students — not just Buddhists, but of various religious traditions — and its education, provided in its heyday by 2,000 world-renowned professors, was completely free. The establishment of new types of universities in like Nalanda University, Øresund University, or the recently opened Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana (UNILA), remind us that there is an emerging desire for novel spaces of knowledge production that think and act beyond the nation. A related question, then, is how effective will these new configurations be, and can supporting stakeholders (including nation-states) really act beyond the nation? (read here)

 

Article: Speculations on the Stationary State

An additional reading to consider after watching Robinson’s lecture. The article entitled Speculation on the Stationary State was written by   Gopal Balakrishnan and published in the New Left Review this month  [read full here].

Thanks to Daniel Araya for the link

[...]What is the historical significance of the implosion of neo-liberalism, coming less than twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union? A disconcerting thought experiment suggests itself. The ussr, it might be recalled, had reached the summit of its power in the 70s, shortly before stumbling downward into a spiral of retrenchment, drift and collapse. Could a comparable reversal of fortune now be in store for the superpower of the West, one of those old-fashioned ‘ironies of history’? After all, a certain unity of opposites can be traced between an unbridled late capitalism and the centrally planned rust belts of the former Comecon—and precisely in the economic sphere, where they were diametrically counterposed. During the heyday of Reaganism, official Western opinion had rallied to the view that the bureaucratic administration of things was doomed to stagnation and decline because it lacked the ratio of market forces, coordinating transactions through the discipline of competition. Yet it was not too long after the final years of what was once called socialism that an increasingly debt- and speculation-driven capitalism began to go down the path of accounting and allocating wealth in reckless disregard of any notionally objective measure of value. The balance sheets of the world’s greatest banks are an imposing testimony to the breakdown of standards by which the wealth of nations was once judged. [read full here]

I believe that the quote from Fredric Jameson at the end of Gopal’s paper superbly illustrates today’s anxieties.

Confusion about the future of capitalism—compounded by a confidence in technological progress beclouded by intermittent certainties of catastrophe and disaster—is at least as old as the late nineteenth century; but few periods have proved as incapable of framing immediate alternatives for themselves, let alone of imagining those great Utopias that have occasionally broken on the status quo like a sunburst.

 

Article: Herta Mueller_No nostalgia for Communism

Two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall

Thanks to Mousumi Mukherjee

Quite an interesting blog  post to consider after Robinson’s video lecture.

From Christian Science Monitor, by Isabelle de Pommereau, October 10, 2009:

Nobel Literature laureate Herta Mueller counters a current longing for the old days with harsh portrayals of their reality.

There are hints of “Ost-algia” in the air these days in Germany. One in seven German wants the Wall back, according to a recent poll published in Stern magazine. Many feel they were better off when the country was divided. They are bitter about high taxes and millions of dollars of their money poured into rebuilding the formerly communist east over the past two decades. And all that for what? For an eastern region that’s depleting itself demographically, and where unemployment is twice as high as in western Germany.

But lost in those statistics is the reality of oppression. [ read full here]

 

News: UN_ Record 1 billion go hungry

This is a fundamental issue for education. It is very difficult to consider the possibility to achieving any global education goal or agenda without attending this issue as a priority. The article comments in the result of the State of Food Insecurity report for 2009.

Thanks to Gabriela Walker for the link

From AP, by Tom Maliti, October 14, 2009:

NAIROBI, Kenya – Parents in some of Africa’s poorest countries are cutting back on school, clothes and basic medical care just to give their children a meal once a day, experts say. Still, it is not enough.

A record 1 billion people worldwide are hungry and a new report says the number will increase if governments do not spend more on agriculture. According to the U.N. food agency, which issued the report, 30 countries now require emergency aid, including 20 in Africa [read full here]

 

Article: Review backs later formal lessons (BBC)

Thanks to James Thayer for the link

From BBC, Friday October 16, 2009:

Children should not start formal learning until they are six, a review of primary education in England says.

Instead the kind of play-based learning featured in nurseries and reception classes should go on for another year, the Cambridge Primary Review says.

There is no evidence that an early introduction to formal learning has any benefit, the review says, but there are suggestions it can do some harm.

Ministers say a starting age of six would be completely counter-productive.

Most children start primary school in England aged four, and a large proportion are taking advantage of free, part-time pre-school places in local schools and privately-run nurseries from the age of three.

Too much too young?

The kind of learning that goes on there follows the government’s “Early Years Foundation Stage”, which currently runs to the age of five and is a play-based curriculum which includes some early literacy and numeracy goals.

COMPULSORY SCHOOL AGE Five years old: England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands Six years old: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark (6-7), France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Irish Republic, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden (6-7) Seven years old: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania Source: Eurydice

Continuing this informal but structured learning for a year or so would bring children in England in line with many European countries, where school starts at six or even seven, and standards are often higher.

A similar step has already been taken in Wales and Northern Ireland where a play-focussed curriculum has been extended to the end of Key Stage 1, when children are aged seven. But Scotland follows the English model. “This would give sufficient time for children to establish positive attitudes to learning and begin to develop the language and study skills which are essential to their later progress,” says the review, which is based on six years of academic work.

It stops short of calling for the age of compulsory schooling to be put back to age six, but does call for an open debate on the subject. (read full here)

 

EDUCATION-ZIMBABWE: Students Quit Classes – and Country – As Crisis Deepens

From IPS By Ignatius Banda, October, 2009:

BULAWAYO, Oct 8 (IPS) – Schooling is increasingly becoming a privilege of the rich, , Zimbabwean parents and teachers’ unions complain.

The country’s cash-strapped education ministry is charging a fee of 20 U.S. dollars per ‘A-level’ subject to cover costs – but a majority of students have failed to register at all as they can’t afford it.

Secondary school students hoping to on to higher studies, secure an apprenticeship or a place in a technical college must register for either five Ordinary Level subjects at U.S. $10 each, or three Advanced Level subjects at $20 each.

But many families are unable to find the 50 or 60 U.S. dollars needed to register.

“Where are we supposed to get that kind money?” complains Zanele Dube, herself a teacher who says she failed to raise examination fees for her two children.

“This is the reason why we are always demanding salary increments. Imagine a teacher failing to send her own kids to school,” Dube said. Zimbabwean teachers earn about U.S. $170 per month, but labour unions have pegged the minimum wage at 430 dollars.

The Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ) says that 75 percent of the 300,000 students who had been expected to sit for their “O” and A” level examinations in November had failed to register before the September deadline.

Last month, one prospective public exams candidate took the Minister of Education to court in a bid to force him to extend the examination fee payment deadline, a further sign of the desperation of many students whose parents’ monthly incomes are frequently as little as $20, to raise the money needed to write their finals.

Last week, a government official from Matebeleland announced that one rural school in the district had failed to register even one student for public examinations after parents failed to raise exam fees.

While the ministry extended the deadline to December before the court ruled on the application by the prospective examination candidate, as part of efforts to allow parents time to raise the money, this will not help, says PTUZ.

Minister David Coltart says his ministry does not have the money to undo years of damage. While the ministry has sought assistance from the European Union and various agencies, nothing has come through yet.

This has meant there is no money to subsidise the costs of administering the examinations. Coltart says his ministry needs an immediate injection of at least USD100 million for the exams to held and their subsequent marking. (read full)

 

Are we witnessing a key moment in the reworking of the global higher education & research landscape?

A fascinating article presented by the Global Higher Education Blog. It is very interesting to point that the framing of the object of debate is formulated under the assumption of one national higher education system. I don’t believe that this assumptions is adequate in the case of the US. The debate on the global north on the relative decline of their system, also needs to consider the fact that many prominent universities that composed their national systems are also global institutions .  The  relative decline of public research  investment towards universities in national systems in the global north in relation to universities institutions in  the global south seems connected to the fact that nation states are pushing forward national and international agendas of innovation. Agendas that require increasing  investments to create or expand their own national capacities of research.

From Global Higher Education by Kris Olds:

Over the last several weeks more questions about the changing nature of the relative position of national higher education and research systems have emerged.  These questions have often been framed around the notion that the US higher education system (assuming there is one system) might be in relative decline, that flagship UK universities (national champions?) like Oxford are unable to face challenges given the constraints facing them, and that universities from ‘emerging’ regions (East and South Asia, in particular) are ‘rising’ due to the impact of continual or increasing investment in higher education and research.

Select examples of such contributions include this series in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

• ‘America Falling: Longtime Dominance in Education Erodes‘ (Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 October 2009)
• ‘Asia Rising: Countries Funnel Billions Into Universities‘ (Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 October 2009)
• ‘Asian Universities on the Rise: a Comparison With U.S. Institutions‘ (Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 October 2009)
• ‘Scientific Research: Asian Countries Expand, U.S. Holds Steady‘ (Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 October 2009)
• ‘Singapore: Teaming Up With Foreign Universities for Innovative Research‘ (Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 October 2009)
• ‘China: Attract Talent First, and Outstanding Universities Will Follow‘, (Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 October 2009)
• ‘South Korea: Government Support for Research Builds Industries‘, (Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 October 2009)

and these articles associated with the much debated THE-QS World University Rankings 2009:

• ‘Rankings 09: Asia advances‘ (Times Higher Education, 8 October 2009)
• ‘UK boosts standing but Asian countries ’snap at our heels”, (Times Higher Education, 8 October 2009)
• ‘Rankings 09: Beacons of excellence‘, (Times Higher Education, 8 October 2009)

The above articles and graphics in US and UK higher education media outlets were preceded by this working paper:

• ‘The Global Competition For Talent: The Rapidly Changing Market for International Students and the Need for a Strategic Approach in the US‘ (by John Aubrey Douglass and Richard Edelstein, Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California – Berkeley, October 2009)

a US report titled:

• Sizing Up the Competition: The Future of International Postsecondary Student Enrollment in the United States (by the American Council on Education, September 2009)

and one UK report titled:

• International Benchmarking Study of UK Research Performance 2009 (by Evidence Ltd., a Thomson Reuters business, for the UK Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, September 2009)

There are, of course, many other calls for increased awareness, or deep and critical reflection.  For example, back in June 2009, four congressional leaders in the USA:

asked the National Academies to form a distinguished panel to assess the competitive position of the nation’s research universities. “America’s research universities are admired throughout the world, and they have contributed immeasurably to our social and economic well-being,” the Members of Congress said in a letter delivered today. “We are concerned that they are at risk.”….

The bipartisan congressional group asked that the Academies’ panel answer the following question: “What are the top ten actions that Congress, state governments, research universities, and others could take to assure the ability of the American research university to maintain the excellence in research and doctoral education needed to help the United States compete, prosper, and achieve national goals for health, energy, the environment, and security in the global community of the 21st century?”

Recall that the US National Academies produced a key 2005 report (Rising Above the Gathering Storm) “which in turn was the basis for the “America COMPETES Act.” This Act created a blueprint for doubling funding for basic research, improving the teaching of math and science, and taking other steps to make the U.S. more competitive.” On this note see our 16 June 2008 entry titled ‘Surveying US dominance in science and technology for the Secretary of Defense‘.

Taken together, these contributions are but a sample of the many expressions of concern being expressed in 2009 in the Global North (especially the US & UK) about the changing geography of the global higher education and research landscape.

(read full here)