Resources
Explore a wide range of valuable resources on GCED to deepen your understanding and enhance your research, advocacy, teaching, and learning.
2,668 Results found
Monitoring the implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention - Council of Europe Higher Education Series No. 23 Year of publication: 2019 Corporate author: UNESCO | Council of Europe In accordance with the Lisbon Recognition Convention, the Committee of the Convention shall oversee its implementation and guide the competent authorities in implementing the convention and in their consideration of applications for the recognition of foreign qualifications. The Rules of procedure (adopted by the Committee in Vilnius in 1999) reiterate this role – the function of the Committee is to promote the application of the convention and oversee its implementation. Article II. of the convention states that where the central authorities of a party are competent to make decisions in recognition cases, that party shall be immediately bound by the provisions of the convention and shall take the necessary measures to ensure the implementation of its provisions on its territory. Where the competence to make decisions in recognition matters lies with individual higher education institutions or other entities, each party, according to its constitutional situation or structure, shall transmit the text of this convention to those institutions or entities and shall take all possible steps to encourage the favourable consideration and application of its provisions. The provisions of Article II. are central to determining the obligations of the parties to the convention. This article places upon these parties an obligation to make sure that information on the provisions is disseminated to all competent recognition authorities, and that these institutions are encouraged to abide by the convention (Explanatory report to the convention). The objective of this monitoring exercise has been to oversee the implementation of the main provisions of the convention and to report to parties on the outcome of this monitoring, presenting the main findings and recommendations. This monitoring report is also a contribution to the commitment set out in the Yerevan Communiqué (2015) to review national legislation to ensure full compliance with the convention, and to ask the Convention Committee, in co-operation with the ENIC (Council of Europe and UNESCO European Network of National Information Centres on academic recognition and mobility) and NARIC (EU Network of National Academic Recognition Information Centres) networks, to prepare an analysis of the national legislation reports by the end of 2017, taking due account of this monitoring report. This is the first monitoring of implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) since its signature in 1997. The questionnaire used for the monitoring exercise was drawn up by the Bureau of the Convention Committee, namely Gunnar Vaht, President of the Committee, Gayane Harutyunyan, Vice-President, Allan Bruun Pedersen, Vice-President, and Baiba Ramina, Rapporteur, together with the joint Council of Europe/UNESCO Secretariat. The monitoring covers the 10 main provisions of the convention and comprises 22 questions relating to implementation of the main principles. The questions focus primarily on how the convention requirements are regulated at national level and to what extent the rules are reflected in national legislation. In cases where some or all of the provisions are not regulated at national level and where the higher education institutions have total autonomy in establishing the principles of the convention, the aim has been to discover how national authorities oversee implementation of the principles of the convention at institutional level. As stated above, the objective of this monitoring report is to monitor implementation of the convention by the parties to the convention. The executive summary focuses on the key findings and the conclusions focus on the recommendations made by the Convention Committee Bureau, which will require political decisions from the Convention Committee and from national authorities for follow-up action. The various chapters of the report elaborate further on both the key findings and the recommendations. The questionnaire was sent to 53 states parties to the LRC, and replies were received from 50 countries. The initial deadline given was 15 February 2015, but this was extended to June 2015. The analysis by the members of the Convention Committee Bureau took place from June to November 2015 and was assisted and reviewed by the Council of Europe and UNESCO, the joint Secretariat of the LRCC Bureau.
EDUCATION IN CONFLICT Corporate author: EFA Global Monitoring Report Team | UNESCO PROGRESS IN GETTING ALL CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS INTO SCHOOL IS BEING HELD BACK BY CONFLICT - 34 million out-of-school children and adolescents live in conflict countries. - Children in conflict countries are two times more likely to be out of school than their peers elsewhere.- Adolescents in conflict countries are two thirds more likely to be out of school than their peers elsewhere.- Children in conflict countries are 30% less likely to complete primary school and half as likely to complete lower secondary school.- Girls are almost two and a half times more likely to be out of school if they live in a conflict country than those elsewhere.- Adolescent girls are almost 90% more likely to be out of secondary school than young women elsewhere.- The poorest children in conflict countries are twice as likely to be out of school as the poorest elsewhere.
Measuring Global Citizenship Education: A Collection of Practice and Tools Year of publication: 2017 Corporate author: Center for Universal Education at Brookings | UNESCO | UN Global Education First Initiative - Youth Advocacy Group (YAG) The idea of global citizenship has existed for several millennia. In ancient Greece, Diogenes declared himself a citizen of the world,1 while the Mahaupanishads of ancient India spoke of the world as one family.2 Today, education for global citizenship is recognized in many countries as a strategy for helping children and youth prosper in their personal and professional lives and contribute to building a better world.This toolkit is intended to shed light on one aspect of operationalizing global citizenship education (GCED): how it can be measured. This toolkit is the result of the collective efforts of the Global Citizenship Education Working Group (GCED-WG), a collegium of 90 organizations and experts co-convened by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Center for Universal Education (CUE) at the Brookings Institution, and the United Nations Secretary General’s Global Education First Initiative’s Youth Advocacy Group (GEFI-YAG). To gather the measurement tools in this collection, the working group surveyed GCED programs and initiatives that target youth (ages 15–24).3 For the purposes of this project, GCED was defined as any educational effort that aims to provide the skills, knowledge, and experiences and to encourage the behaviors, attitudes, and values that allow young persons to be agents of long-term, positive changes in their own lives and in the lives of people in their immediate and larger communities (with the community including the environment).This toolkit begins with a brief review of opinions on why GCED is important and the variety of definitions of GCED. We follow the report with a catalog of 50 profiles of assessment efforts, each describing practices and tools to measure GCED at the classroom, local, and national levels. Note that the survey does not represent an exhaustive list but may be regarded as a living document that will grow as the field of GCED itself grows around the world.Broadly speaking, the assessment efforts in this survey may be categorized across achieving three goals: (1) fostering the values/attitudes of being an agent of positive change; (2) building knowledge of where, why, and how to take action toward positive change; and (3) developing self-efficacy for taking effective actions toward positive change.Today, global challenges such as climate change, migration, and conflict will require people to do more than just think about solutions. They will require effective action, by both individuals and communities. Education for global citizenship is one means to help young people develop the knowledge, skills, behaviors, attitudes, and values to engage in effective individual and collective action at their local levels, with an eye toward a long-term, better future at the global level. We offer this toolkit to provide guidance for educators, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, civil society, and researchers, and to inform this conversation.
Holocaust Education in a Global Context: Report Year of publication: 2013 Corporate author: UNESCO Teaching and learning about the Holocaust, which until this point had largely been a matter of regional interest, for Europeans, as well as North Americans and Israelis, became officially an issue of universal concern. Other countries are now invited to teach about the Holocaust even if they do not have a direct link to the event. This raises many issues concerning the pedagogical implications of this global perspective on Holocaust education. Why and how is the Holocaust taught in countries that have no connections with the genocide and the history of the Jewish people? How does this history connect and resonate with the preoccupations of these countries? Generally speaking, what could be the purposes and the benefits of teaching about the Holocaust globally?In order to address these issues, UNESCO organized an experts-meeting on 27 April 2012, in partnership with the Topography of Terror Foundation (Berlin, Germany). The purpose was specifically to clarify the following questions: What are the current trends of Holocaust education worldwide? How can the Holocaust be studied in a comparative fashion in the classroom? In which ways does Holocaust education contribute to the prevention of genocide? Furthermore, how is it taught in a human rights education perspective? Can the Holocaust provide a suitable framework to address other traumatic events of the past? 