1. Introduction Part I. The Modern Citizen 1960-1975: 2. The expansion of education to 1975 3. The Karmel report and education equality Part II. The Anti-Citizen 1975-1990: 4. The New Right and public policy 5. Individual and government 6. The New Right and education Part III. The Economic Citizen 1985-: 7. Education and national economic reconstruction 8. Participation and equity 9. Economic government in education Part IV. The Multi-Citizen 1990-: 10. Civics, citizenship and difference.
Between 1990 and 2007 Australia Australia ’s share of the global market in cross-border degrees grew from 1 to 7% (OECD 2009). Full fee-paying foreign students constitute one-fifth of on-shore enrolments and education has...
<JATS1:p>In this open access book, leading scholar Simon Marginson discusses the major trends, events, issues and dilemmas that have shaped and are still shaping global higher education.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>Higher education and research have grown rapidly, becoming more international and embroiled in the politics and economics of an increasingly conflicted world. The global research university has spread from the Euro-American West to the global East and South, becoming key to emerging multipolar and decolonial power. In the Anglosphere, however, the market model is failing. In highly unequal societies, education cannot universalise opportunity and employability. Neoliberal governments have defunded and emptied out the work of universities for the common good – and populist-conservatism is filling the vacuum with a backlash against cross-border students, against crucial East-West collaboration in research, and in the United States, where global research universities began, against university autonomy, climate science and academic freedom.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>In a tumultuous and unstable time in which old certainties are crumbling, Marginson makes an original and probing argument, supported by data-based review, theorising, and critical analysis, that pushes in a radically different direction to both neoliberalism and Trumpism. It is an ambitious call to sweep away the accumulative-competitive model of society and education, which positions us as sovereign individuals without collective responsibility, in nations likewise driven solely by self-interest (sovereign nationalism) in a war of all against all. The book pulls apart policies on student fees, human capital and employability, calling for negotiated education-work partnerships. It unpicks the neocolonial mindset in Western science and international education, suggesting that no single culture has all the answers; that respect for diversity and cooperation on shared problems are integral to the global common good.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>The ebook editions of this book are available open access under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence on bloomsburycollections.com. Open access was funded by UKRI.</JATS1:p>
This collection of essays is about the struggle between the evils of neoliberalism and the unquestioned goodness of Freirean theory. The essays ‘of opposition’ were written and delivered by Carlos Alberto Torres to diverse audiences and in different locations and languages. Yet they contain one overarching message suggesting that neoliberal globalization can be contested, challenged, and undermined by illuminating the moral weakness upon which it has been constructed. The central argument is that neoliberal globalization is leading education away from the state and towards the commodification of a market-led provision. As such, the potential for exploitation, social exclusion and inequalities is increasing.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Here are two very different books about schooling. Bob Connell, in messianic mode, targets ruling-class hegemony and its expression in education. His politics is radical, his intellectual project conservative. In the second Institute for Cultural Policy Studies collection on education this radical/conservative axis is reversed. The eleven ICPS authors break new historical ground, but are almost at peace with government; one of the main targets of their cautious and calculating analysis is left-wing politics in education. These two books cover much of schooling between them, but, in a sign of the times, each excludes the concerns of the other. Review(s) of: Schools and Social Justice, by R.W. Connell, (Pluto, Sydney, 1993), $16.95 pb, Review(s) of: Child and Citizen: Genealogies of Schooling and Subjectivity, Denise Meredyth and Deborah Tyler (eds), (Institute for Cultural Policy Studies, Griffith University, 1993), $25.00 pb. Includes footnotes.
International Higher Education (IHE) publishes insightful, informed, and high-quality commentary and analysis on trends and issues of importance to higher education systems, institutions, and stakeholders around the world.
A scholarly article by author Simon Marginson published in The Journal of the World Universities Forum
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
This chapter discusses the various instruments of formal regulation of, and relating to, international education and student welfare in New Zealand. It covers the higher education law context, and the Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students. The chapter also discusses the international education policy debate in New Zealand, including the student grievance handling regime embodied in the International Education Appeal Authority, which constitutes an international student ombudsman. Most importantly the key empirical findings in relation to the student welfare impact of formal and informal regulation are discussed and analysed.
In a global environment in which global, national and local nodes relate freely within common networks, all research universities must pursue strategies for building global capacity and facilitating cross-border staff and student movement and research collaboration. The study compares readings of the global environment, global and international activities and relationships, and global capacity and strategy, in two leading national universities, one in a middle level developing country (Indonesia) and the other in a middle level developed country (Australia). The main tool of investigation was interviews with parallel groups of institutional leaders and leaders of academic units and research centres, in conjunction with study of the national and local contexts. It was apparent that in both cases, while global elements are increasingly important in uni- versity strategy, mission and identity, resource capacity remains highly dependant on national government and students. This belies the romantic myth of the 'stand-alone' corporate university in the global marketplace. The two cases also differ in some re- spects. While both universities are peak national institutions, and each respects the other, the Australian university is more strongly placed in the global environment and practical dealings between them are asymmetrical. The study helps to illuminate the dynamics of global stratification and hierarchy between developed and developing na- tions and institutions in higher education.
For most international students, the academic program is the heart of the university experience. It is why they (or most of them) are in the foreign country, and it is often crucial in the evolution of their communications and vocational skills and their...
If global rankings have a material grounding it is in research and science. The chapter discusses five empirical characteristics of the global science system, which is defined by the two principal bibliometric collections, Scopus and Web of Science. First, growth of almost 5 per cent a year in papers. Second, the spread of national science systems to middle-income countries, and some low-income countries, so that capacity is more broadly dispersed on the global scale. Third, the growth of networked collaboration at both global and national levels. Fourth, some diversification of leading research countries, so that global science power is increasingly multi-polar. The United States (US) is still the leading country in research and higher education, but US and Europe are not as dominant as they were. China now surpasses Europe in weight, and a group of middle countries (e.g. South Korea, India, Iran, Brazil) are building independent national capacity. However, while nations may see themselves as comparing and competing in science, global relations between scientists appear to be primarily disciplinary and collaborative. Fifth, many papers fall outside Scopus and Web of Science, including nearly all published in languages other than English, many from emerging countries, most of the social sciences and almost all of the humanities. This imparts to globally recognised knowledge - and hence to the university rankings that rest on global science bibliometrics - a very pronounced bias in favour of the Anglophone (especially) and Western European academic worlds.
Ce chapitre analyse trois exemples particulierement interessants pour reflechir a l’avenir de la mondialisation dans l’enseignement superieur. Il etudie tout d’abord le potentiel des initiatives politiques europeennes, puis porte un regard critique sur les classements internationaux des etablissements d’enseignement superieur et la mobilite transfrontaliere des universitaires.
"Global university rankings" published on 01 Jan 2007 by Brill.
The trend towards market forms and behaviours in education (‘marketisation’), associated also with the growing role of corporate forms of organisation, is transforming the state-built mass education systems characteristic of the period since World War II. Although this transformation foregrounds the role of consumer choice and is linked to a measure of deregulation and commercial involvement in education, it has above all been orchestrated by neo-liberal government. So far the great change in education has been undertheorised and under-investigated. Governments have been reluctant to place their own policy experiment under scrutiny. Yet the evidence of a recent UNESCO study of student achievement suggests that marketisation may not be the optimum path to school improvement, and the potential for negative effects on education's role in ‘liberal’ personal formation is of concern.