Suchergebnisse

The main objective of this study is establishing patterns of higher education funding policy change in Western Europe in the period from 1980s to 2000. Patterns of change are traced using the typology of welfare state regimes developed by Esping-Andersen (1990). The main assumption is that key institutional features of a welfare regime govern reform trajectories in higher education funding policies. The study shows that regularities within regimes do exist, and they broadly conform to the welfare regime typology. However, countries do not completely conform to the types. This is partly due to the deficiency of an ideal-type classification, but more importantly it seems due to the fact that higher education funding policy cannot be fully explained by using the social policy lens. (IN CROATIAN: Uspostavljanje obrazaca promjene politike financiranja visokog obrazovanja u Zapadnoj Europi u razdoblju od 1980. do 2000. godine glavni je cilj ove studije. Obrasci promjene prate se rabeći tipologiju režima socijalne države koju je uspostavio Esping-Andersen (1990.). Osnovna je pretpostavka da glavna institucionalna obilježja režima socijalne države upravljaju razvojem reforme u politici financiranja visokog obrazovanja. Studija pokazuje da zakonitosti unutar režima postoje, te se uvelike podudaraju s tipologijom režima socijalne države. Ipak, države se ne priklanjaju tipovima u potpunosti. To je djelomično uvjetovano nedostatkom klasifikacije idealnih tipova, no još je važnije to što se čini da je to uzrokovano činjenicom da se politika financiranja visokog obrazovanja ne može u potpunosti objasniti kroz prizmu socijalne politike.)

In 1999, the nordic council adopted a recommendation on prison education in a Nordic perspective. In September 2001, a Nordic project group was appointed to carry out a study, with representatives from the Prison and Probation Service and the educational authorities. The project was directed by the County Governor of Hordaland, Norway. The purpose of the project Education, Training and Prison and Probation Service in a Lifelong Learning Perspective ­ a Nordic Study of Structures and Models, was to provide a concise, overall and updated comparative view of education and training in prisons in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, as well as a brief description of the situation in Iceland, Greenland, the Faeroe islands and the Åland islands. The study describes the typical "Nordic prisoner" as: a man over the age of 30, having left school quite early, with very little experience of the labour market and, in many cases, a substance abuse problem. If convicted prisoners are to be offered education on equal terms with others in society, the right to education must be clearly stipulated in the legislation. Present and future prison education must always be considered in the light both of the educational system applying society as a whole and relevant international recommendations and conventions. According to this report, good cooperation between the Prison and Probation Services and other authorities is one of the key starting points for satisfying prisoners' educational needs. The prison education offered today does not satisfactorily correspond to prisoners' educational needs. It also only accounts for a small fraction of the cost of a place in prison. Increased investments in prison education would probably be of added value for society as a whole. The study also points out the importance of crime prevention both to prisons and to society in general. This report provides useful documentation for individuals working with any aspect of the wider problem complex relating to prison and probation services.

These guidelines aim to support institutions and governments in the development of open education policies promoting the adoption of open educational practices and resources, and the fostering of collaborations amongst social-educational actors which favour the democratisation of knowledge access and production. The purpose of this guide is to support policymakers, understood in a broad sense here to include a range of stakeholders, to design appropriate policies for their contexts and communities. Rather than the detail of policy, the focus of this guide is on the process of policymaking, through which the detail should emerge. Although policy might be often thought of as the work of managers, governments or experts that is then adopted, disseminated to the masses and implemented, we consider that, as 'openness policies' need to create public value, a transversal and democratic approach to policymaking is necessary. Furthermore, co-creation can be a factor in policy effectiveness, as the sense of co-ownership in a community can enhance the shared responsibility to achieve policy goals (Voorberg, Bekkers & Tummers, 2015; Bryson, Sancino, Benington & Sørensen, 2017). Therefore, we aim with these guidelines to support policymakers and advocates from governments and academia at the national, regional and institutional levels, in adopting a co-creation approach across the policy cycle, toward development of OE policies, strategies, action plans and roadmaps. We also consider these guidelines should be relevant for other institutions or organisations seeking to foster OE, such as civil society, GLAM sector and non-profit organisations, and as well for the Open Science sector, as UNESCO (2020b) recommends promoting the use of Open Educational Resources to increase access to Open Science educational and research resources. This guide has been co-created in collaboration with the Mediterranean Universities Union (UNIMED) and is, in part, based on the Recommendations from OpenMed to University leaders and policy ...

These guidelines aim to support institutions and governments in the development of open education policies promoting the adoption of open educational practices and resources, and the fostering of collaborations amongst social-educational actors which favour the democratisation of knowledge access and production. The purpose of this guide is to support policymakers, understood in a broad sense here to include a range of stakeholders, to design appropriate policies for their contexts and communities. Rather than the detail of policy, the focus of this guide is on the process of policymaking, through which the detail should emerge. Although policy might be often thought of as the work of managers, governments or experts that is then adopted, disseminated to the masses and implemented, we consider that, as 'openness policies' need to create public value, a transversal and democratic approach to policymaking is necessary. Furthermore, co-creation can be a factor in policy effectiveness, as the sense of co-ownership in a community can enhance the shared responsibility to achieve policy goals (Voorberg, Bekkers & Tummers, 2015; Bryson, Sancino, Benington & Sørensen, 2017). Therefore, we aim with these guidelines to support policymakers and advocates from governments and academia at the national, regional and institutional levels, in adopting a co-creation approach across the policy cycle, toward development of OE policies, strategies, action plans and roadmaps. We also consider these guidelines should be relevant for other institutions or organisations seeking to foster OE, such as civil society, GLAM sector and non-profit organisations, and as well for the Open Science sector, as UNESCO (2020b) recommends promoting the use of Open Educational Resources to increase access to Open Science educational and research resources. This guide has been co-created in collaboration with the Mediterranean Universities Union (UNIMED) and is, in part, based on the Recommendations from OpenMed to University leaders and policy ...