UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Reassessing international benchmarks for tertiary education systems Albert Motivans UNESCO Institute for Statistics Benchmarking Education Systems for Results June 2010, Singapore

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS l International benchmarking and comparisons across countries are now the lingua franca in education policy and public debates l Greater attention has also led to higher stakes and more attention to the quality of indicators, for example in the case of tertiary education The growing importance of benchmarks

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Expanding tertiary systems Tertiary enrolment grew by more than four-fold between 1975 and M M M M Mobile tertiary students – those who study abroad, more than tripled Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Who produces the most tertiary graduates? Gross graduation ratio of first-time qualifications of ISCED 5A and 5B programmes Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics

How mobile are tertiary students? Mobile students as a percentage of tertiary enrolment, 1999 and 2008 Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Recent critiques of international benchmarks for tertiary systems l Interpretation/use of indicators Analysis of indicators is not contextualised Focus on relative measures hides absolute figures Problems with rankings l Indicator methodology ISCED classifications of tertiary education programmes are too heterogenous Limitations of population-based graduation rates Coverage of part-time students, foreign students is unclear Clifford Adelman (2009), The spaces between numbers Hauptman and Fritschler (2009) The use and misuse of international data in higher education

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Where do international indicators come from? International framework for education statistics l National programmes are mapped according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED97) l Data are provided to UNESCO, OECD and Eurostat via three instruments and a common indicator methodology l WEI is a special programme which bridges UIS and OECD methodologies. SurveyScopeContent UNESCO Institute for Statistics +/- 150 countries Basic data: pupils, teachers, finances World Education Indicators (WEI) 16 countries China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka,Thailand More policy variables – can compare to OECD countries, but also to decide on own indicators UNESCO- OECD- EUROSTAT 42 countries Japan, Rep. of Korea System-level data and policy design

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Challenges of ensuring comparability across diverse tertiary systems

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Revising the international standard (ISCED97) l Global consultation on ISCED2011 now underway ( l Changing contexts Strong expansion and differentiation in education Convergence in approaches to organise tertiary education provision (e.g., Bologna process in Europe) l Shortcomings in the existing ISCED97 classification Completion and attainment not defined Difficult to apply standard to calculate graduation rates Unclear instructions for special cases (e.g., o-levels, bridging programmes, adult education)

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Improved classification of tertiary programmes l Five post-secondary levels, Four tertiary levels l Distinguishes BA and MA and equivalent programmes Reflects European Bologna process l Simplifies dimensions within levels l Improves hierarchy in tertiary levels No implicit hierarchy of vocational/academic l Qualifications added as a criterion for completion and attainment

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Addressing the critics l Promote interpretation and use of data Recognise contextual factors Use both relative/absolute perspectives Use wide range of indicators l Improve tools Refine ISCED classification categories (ISCED2011) Stronger compliance to reporting standards (e.g., peer reviews) Seek alternative indicators l Transparency is essential

UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Agenda for international benchmarking l More focus on regional priorities and working directly with countries (WEI approach) l More flexible platforms for regional data collection l More focus on gaps in data and indicators needed to inform key policy issues, including: Education quality Financing education Human resource development l Data use and analysis – regional reporting