Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Transparantie vlor 28 november 2011 b
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Transparantie vlor 28 november 2011 b

  • 376 views
Published

 

Published in Education , Travel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
376
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Transparantie: de schakeltussen institutionele autonomieen publieke verantwoording Dirk Van Damme Hoofd van het Centre for Educational Research and Innovation - OECD
  • 2. 1.EEN HO-KWALIFICATIE HEEFTEEN HOGE WAARDE 2
  • 3. 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 Brazil Hungary United States Czech Republic Portugal Slovak Republic Poland Luxembourg Israel Austria Canada France Italy Germany Finland Korea OECD average Ireland programmes Turkey Belgium United Kingdom Netherlands Tertiary-type B education Switzerland Spain Below upper secondary education Sweden Australia Tertiary-type A and advanced research Japan Higher education qualifications and earnings Denmark New Zealand3 Norway
  • 4. Higher education qualifications and unemployment risk Iceland Spain Ireland Italy Turkey Switzerland Czech Republic New Zealand Hungary Israel United Kingdom France Australia Netherlands OECD average Below upper secondary education Austria Tertiary education Finland Canada Poland Norway Denmark Slovenia Sweden Greece Belgium Estonia Germany Slovak Republic Portugal (10.00) (5.00) - 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 4
  • 5. Higher education qualifications and social outcomes Health Political interest Czech Republic Portugal Denmark Hungary Slovenia Korea Slovak Republic Finland Italy Switzerland Belgium OECD average Turkey Poland Canada From upper secondary United States to tertiary France Netherlands Greece From below upper Israel secondary to upper United Kingdom secondary Spain Norway New Zealand Austria Estonia Ireland Sweden 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 0 0 5
  • 6. 2.EN HO INTERNATIONALISEERTSTEEDS VERDER 6
  • 7. Aantal internationale studenten Number of foreign students 4 000 000 Worldwide OECD G20 countries Europe North America 3 500 000 3 000 000 2 500 000 2 000 000 1 500 000 1 000 000 500 000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 YearsSource: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on non-OECD countries. Table C3.5.See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011). 7
  • 8. Trends in internationale studentenaantallen (2000, 2009) Percentage of all foreign tertiary students enrolled, by destination OECD 2000 Other G20 and non- 2009 countries 2009 OECD countries 2000 Market share 25 (%) 20 15 10 5 0 France Spain Belgium Other G20 and non-OECD China Switzerland Sweden Australia¹ Canada² Italy Germany Korea Netherlands Austria United States¹ Other OECD Russian Federation Japan South Africa United Kingdom¹ New Zealand 1. Data relate to international students defined on the basis of their country of residence. 2. Year of reference 2008. Countries are ranked in descending order of 2009 market shares. Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on non-OECD countries. Table C3.6, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011). 8
  • 9. Internationalisering en innovatie 9
  • 10. Wetenschappelijke publicaties en co-authoring 1998-2008 1998 2008 Sweden Sweden Poland Belgium France Poland Belgium FranceRussian Federation Russian Italy Federation. Italy Netherlands Netherlands Switzerland Switzerland Germany Spain Germany Spain Japan JapanKorea Korea United Kingdom United Kingdom United States United States China Canada Canada China Australia Australia Brazil Brazil India India 10
  • 11. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 % United States 48.8 United Kingdom Germany France Canada China Italy Netherlands Japan Australia Single author Switzerland Spain Sweden Belgium Denmark Korea Austria India Finland International co-authorship Brazil NorwayRussian Federation Poland Turkey Ireland Greece New Zealand Domestic co-authorship Portugal Czech Republic Hungary Mexico Iceland Slovak Republic Highly cited (top 1%) scientific articles by type of collaboration, 2006-08 Luxembourg International onderzoekssamenwerking11
  • 12. 3.“ALLES VAN WAARDE IS WEERLOOS”TRANSPARANTIE EN VERTROUWEN 12
  • 13. De waarde van kwalificaties Inter-quartile range in skill distribution by educational qualificationSkill score350300250200150 Upper secondary Upper secondary Upper secondary University University University Not completed school Not completed school Not completed school Country A Country B Country C 13
  • 14. Reputatie in onderzoek Citations – Research in THEWUR2010605040302010 0-10-20-30 C-R 20 per. Mov. Avg. (C-R) Linear (C-R)-40 14
  • 15. Reputatie in onderzoek Citations – Research in THEWUR2010 North America Europe60 6050 5040 4030 3020 2010 10 0 0-10 -10-20 -20-30 -30-40 -40 15
  • 16. 4.RISICO’S VAN GEBREK AANTRANSPARANTIE 16
  • 17. Risico’s• In een omgeving waar de „primary outputs‟ een hoge waarde hebben maar waar geen of weinig transparantie bestaat over hoe die waarde tot stand komt, ontstaan: – Erg competitieve quasi-markets gebaseerd op reputatie (cf. financiële markten) – Hoge mate van asymmetrische en dus ongelijk verdeelde informatie – Verminderende capaciteit tot innovatie door „risk avoidance‟ – „Mission overload‟ en gebrek aan focus bij instellingen 17
  • 18. Risico’s• Overheidsgestuurde gelijkheid zonder evidence-based transparantie inzake diversiteit – Illusie dat elke instelling „gelijk‟ is – “ongelijkheid is ongelijke dingen gelijk behandelen” – Inherent conservatisme: “resistance to know = resistance to change” – Markt creëert eigen transparantie: rankings 18
  • 19. 5.TRANSPARANTIE EN‘GOVERNANCE’ IN HO 19
  • 20. Governance• Veranderingen in governance – Toenemende autonomie instellingen, gekoppeld aan accreditatie/kwaliteitszorg en outputsturing – In licht van kenniseconomie, belang van onderzoek en innovatie, internationalisering zoeken overheden opnieuw naar sterkere sturing van hoger onderwijs – Consequenties: • Sterkere „accountability‟ • Sterkere klemtoon of „efficiency‟ 20
  • 21. Governance• Instellingen kunnen autonomie in een sterkere governance-omgeving maar veilig stellen door sterker in te zetten op – Diversiteit in doelstellingen – Efficiëntie en effectiviteit in bereiken van doelstellingen – Interne transparantie – Maar ook externe, systemische transparantie 21
  • 22. Dank voor uw aandacht !dirk.vandamme@oecd.org www.oecd.org/edu/ceri 22