32 nd National Conference on Law & Higher Education

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "32 nd National Conference on Law & Higher Education"

Kory Simmons
8 years ago
Views:

1 32 nd National Conference on Law & Higher Education Improving the Quality of Student Learning Improving the quality of student learning and the level of degree attainment through common degree requirements and assessment background, drivers, methodologies and current steps. equi background, drivers, methodologies and Holiday Hart McKiernan Tim Birtwistle

through common degree requirements and assessment background, drivers, methodologies and

2 2 This Session At the end of the session you will have an understanding of: Challenges facing U.S. Higher education Some data indicators of the challenges How change can occur given the legal framework for higher education How similar challenges are being tackled in the European Higher Education Area and how this work is being scrutinised around the globe What Tuning USA is and is doing How issues of quality might be approached Some conclusions reached by the presenters to debate

Higher education Some data indicators of the challenges How change can occur given the legal framework for higher

3 3 Thesis: Think Globally; Act Locally Similar Problems (Around the Globe) US should scrutinize, evaluate and learn from International Developments Students Matter 21 st Century Students Are Different than Their Forebears Learning is Vital US higher education will benefit from change National/Transnational Approach

Matter 21 st Century Students Are Different than Their Forebears Learning is

4 4 US needs to increase degree attainment Labor market will require it The knowledge based economy is the future Global Competitiveness Significant higher education reform

5 By 2018, 63% of all jobs will require some post secondary education and training Bachelor's Degree 9% Some College 12% Graduate Degree 7% High School Dropouts 32% Associate's Degree 8% Bachelor's Degree 19% Graduate Degree 10% High School Dropouts 10% 5 Labor force in 1973: 91 million Some College 19% Labor force in 1992: 129 million High School Graduates 40% Source: March CPS 1973 High School Graduates 34% Source: March CPS 1992 Bachelor's Degree 21% Graduate Degree 11% High School Dropouts 11% Associate's Degree 12% Bachelor's Degree 23% Graduate Degree 10% High School Dropouts 10% Associate's Degree 10% Labor force in 2007: 154 million Labor force in 2018: 166 million Some College 17% High School Graduates 30% Some College 18% High School Graduates 27% Source: March CPS 2007 Source: The Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce Forecasts of Education Demand 2018 Source: Analysis of March CPS data, various years, Center on Education and the Workforce forecasts of education demand to 2018.

School Graduates 34% Source: March CPS 1992 Bachelor's Degree 21% Graduate Degree 11% High School Dropouts 11% Associate's Degree 12% Bachelor's Degree 23% Graduate Degree 10% High School Dropouts

6 Real wages of Americans increase by education level Real Wages of Americans increase by education level (ages 23-64) 6 $200,000 $180,000 $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 professional, $121,698 $95,191 phd, $99,541 $83,085 master's, $71,041 $62,911 bachelor's, $57,942 $50,678 $37,872 associate's, $40,653 $33,643 some college, $36,828 $29,628 high school dip, $32,050 $ Source: March CPS

$99,541 $83,085 master's, $71,041 $62,911 bachelor's, $57,942 $50,678 $37,872 associate's, $40,653 $33,643 some college,

7 Least educated are most vulnerable in economic downturns (employment rates by education) % Nov 73-Mar75 Recession Jul 81-Nov 82 Recession Mar 01-Nov 01 Recession 16.0% Jan 80-Jul 80 Recession Jul 90-Mar91 Recession Dec '07-present Recession Less than 4 years of High School 12.0% 10.1% 8.0% 4 or more years of High School, no College All 5.8% 4.0% 2.9% 4.6% Some college, 1-3 years 4.4% 4.2% 2.9% 2.1% 1.3% BA and above 0.0%

0% Jan 80-Jul 80 Recession Jul 90-Mar91 Recession Dec '07-present Recession Less than 4 years of High School 12.0% 10.1% 8.

8 Iceland Norway Switzerland Sweden Denmark Netherlands Slovenia United Kingdom Portugal Austria Brazil Germany Estonia Finland Slovak Republic Ireland Czech Republic Poland Belgium Luxembourg New Zealand OECD average France Spain Australia United States Mexico Israel Canada Greece Italy Hungary Japan Chile Korea Turkey 8 Tertiary education Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education Below upper secondary education Countries are ranked in descending order of the employment rate of year-olds with tertiary education. Source: OECD. Table A6.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (

Turkey 8 Tertiary education Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education Below upper secondary education 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Countries are

9 9. Chart A4.1. Proportion of students who enter tertiary education without graduating from at least a first degree at this level (2008) 60 % Only tertiary-type A programmes Note: Some of the students who have not graduated may be still enrolled, or may have finished their education at a different institution than the one they started at, like in the United States. 1. Includes students entering single courses who may never intend to study all courses needed for a degree. 2. Tertiary-type A only. Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of students who enter tertiary education without graduating from at least a first degree at this level. Source: OECD. Table A4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (

the students who have not graduated may be still enrolled, or may have finished their education at a different institution than the one they started at, like in the United States. 1.

10 Expenditure Rates on Students OECD Countries ,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 United States Switzerland Sweden Denmark Norway Australia Austria Netherlands Finland Germany Japan Belgium United Kingdom France Ireland Spain Iceland New Zealand Portugal Italy Hungary Korea Czech Republic Slovak Republic Mexico Greece Poland Turkey

Netherlands Finland Germany Japan Belgium United Kingdom France Ireland Spain

11 11 What Europe Faced Started 1999 as Bologna or the European Higher Education Area (March 2010) Various action lines, including: 3 cycles (BA/MA/PhD) Credits (ECTS output/learning outcomes driven + workload) Mobility (trans-national and vertical as well as horizontal, linked to the Lisbon Agenda) Quality assurance (ENQA) Lifelong Learning (LLL + RPL) Students at the centre (all types) QFs (Degree Profile)

workload) Mobility (trans-national and vertical as well as horizontal, linked to the Lisbon Agenda)

12 12 Parallels: US & Bologna Why the comparison? Bologna 47 states/usa 50 states Bologna no legal competence for higher education/usa little federal legal competence Bologna states saw the need for change/usa has a growing groundswell of a view that there is a need for change: Transparency (quality, accreditation, learning, reference points, costs, benefits) Students (21 st Century cognitive skills mode of study aims profile skills [not jobs ] mobility [credits] - RPL) Effect of recognizing a changed paradigm Can soft law achieve large scale change?

the need for change/usa has a growing groundswell of a view that there is a need for change: Transparency (quality, accreditation,

13 13 Diverse and Complex Landscape of US higher ed. Federal/National/Regional/State Categories of university - public (2 year, 4 year, doctoral), private (for profit, not for profit), religious affiliation, ODL, etc. Traditions:- tenure track, academic freedom, fee structures, sport, research, role of the law, etc.

year, doctoral), private (for profit, not for profit), religious affiliation,

14 14 Changing the Landscape #1 U.S. Law: Constitutional law Department of Education (.supplement and complement state and local government ) Federal scene changers, for example: GI Bill 1944 Higher Education Act 1965 (.restrictions on the use of federal funds.): What is an institute of higher education? What is the role of educational accrediting agencies? What authority does the federal government have over the accrediting agencies? The power of funding.

Education Act 1965 (.restrictions on the use of federal funds.): What is an institute of higher education?

15 Changing the Landscape #2 15 U.S. Law continued: What are the criteria for accrediting agency recognition? Voluntary membership of HEIs apply and enforce standards that respect the stated mission of the HEI Assess whether the courses offered are of sufficient quality to achieve the mission Institutional factors to be considered Periodic review of what?

Voluntary membership of HEIs apply and enforce standards that respect the stated mission

16 Why.?

17 17 Tuning USA What is Tuning and where did it come from: It is and always has been a faculty led project across many disciplines that turned into a process It is not universally used or accepted in Europe, but It is now adopted as a key part of Bologna (learning outcomes, workload, assessment, learning, students etc), active learning outcomes, and It is now used or in pilot process in Latin America, Mexico, Australia, parts of the USA It is different from other learning outcome projects It is a living process and so changes, adapts, melds ~~~ know, understand and be able to do ~~~

assessment, learning, students etc), active learning outcomes, and It is now used or in pilot process in Latin America, Mexico, Australia, parts

18 18 Tuning USA Pilot & beyond The Pilot Project (March August 2010): 3 States Utah, Minnesota, Indiana 6 disciplines & 20+ institutions across the whole sector (2 Year, 4 Year, Flagship) Tuning methodology in use 4 way survey general competencies & subject competencies Tuning 2 (November 2010 November 2011): Original states + some contiguous states e.g. Kentucky History wider and deeper

Flagship) Tuning methodology in use 4 way survey general competencies & subject competencies

19 19 Qualifications Framework What is a Qualification Framework? Value Accountability Transparency Student Outcomes Multiple pathway Globalization Quality

20 20 Degree Profile to be piloted in the U.S. What is the DP? How was it developed? What stage is it now at? [see: also copies available today] What has the reaction been to date? What happens next? What happens after that

21 21 Conclusions (1) Change is inevitable (2) Faculty can lead change through Tuning (3) Global influences cannot be ignored (4) US higher education still leads the world in some aspects e.g. research but also lags in others e.g. making the implicit, explicit (5) The US is not alone in any of these matters

On What Resources and Services Is Education Funding Spent?

Indicator On What Resources and Services Is Education Funding Spent? In primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education combined, current accounts for an average of 92% of total spending in