Examining barriers to internationalisation created by diverse systems and structures in vocational education and training

In a global society, all educational sectors need to recognise internationalism as a core, foundational principle. Whilst most educational sectors are taking up that challenge, vocational education and training (VET) is still being pulled towards the national agenda in terms of its structures and systems, and the policies driving it, disadvantaging those who graduate from VET, those who teach in it, and the businesses and countries that connect with it. This paper poses questions about the future of internationalisation in the sector. It examines whether there is a way to create a VET system that meets its primary point of value, to produce skilled workers for the local labour market, while still benefitting those graduates by providing international skills and knowledge, gained from VET institutions that are international in their outlook. The paper examines some of the key barriers created by systems and structures in VET to internationalisation and suggests that the efforts which have been made to address the problem have had limited success. It suggests that only a model which gives freedom to those with a direct vested interest, students, teachers, trainers and employers, to pursue international co-operation and liaison will have the opportunity to succeed. (DIPF/Orig.)

David R. Cole (Hrsg.): Surviving Economic Crises through Education. Global Studies in Education, Vol. 11. New York u.a.: Peter Lang 2011 (267 S.) [Rezension]

Rezension von: David R. Cole (Hrsg.): Surviving Economic Crises through Education. Global Studies in Education, Vol. 11. New York u.a.: Peter Lang 2011 (267 S.; ISBN 978-1433114786)

The sources of inequity in the education system of Serbia and how to combat them

The concept of equal opportunity for all students is deeply embedded in the Serbian constitution and in education laws. On that level, there is no doubt that everyone is ensured an opportunity to receive quality education. Many measures in education policy have been created specifically to achieve this objective and make the system fair and inclusive. The Coleman Report was linked to a wave of optimism that certain educational measures would help in achieving these noble goals. This aim is a high priority in education in a democratic country, and due to its importance needs to be re-examined. Thus, the present research examines the equity of students in the Serbian education system, detecting areas on all educational levels that could be (or already are) systemic sources of inequity (e.g., criteria for preschool institution enrolment, the system of student awards, rationalisation of the school network, the concept of entrance exams to secondary school or university, etc.). A number of measures have already been taken in the system specifically to deal with inequity (e.g., the Preschool Preparatory Programme, dropout measures, inclusion, scholarships, etc.). The effects of these measures in particular are analysed in the present work. In addition to an analysis of the systemic sources of inequity in the Serbian education system, the article also makes recommendations for their overcoming. (DIPF/Orig.)

Partnerships in teacher education - going beyond the rhetoric, with reference to the Norwegian context

Teacher education plays a central role in education and relates to various stakeholders of education. Currently, teacher education is not perceived as the sole responsibility of higher education institutions, and they are expected to work closely together with other partners. In this paper, the concept of ‘partnership’ is defined and mutual benefits and challenges in partnerships with disciplines and institutions beyond teacher education programs are briefly discussed. Issues related to partnerships with students are addressed, and the last part of the paper discusses the partnership between teacher education and the practice field with examples from Norway. Three models illustrating such partnerships are described. The central argument of the paper is that partnerships in teacher education need to go beyond rhetoric. (DIPF/Orig.)