Implementation of new curriculum arrangements for 14-19 year olds

International comparisons

Cathleen Stasz, Jack Clift, Jennifer Rubin

ResearchPublished May 1, 2008

This report, which was commissioned by the National Audit Office (NAO) in the United Kingdom, presents results of a comparative study investigating the implementation of education programmes for 14-19 year olds in three countries: The Netherlands, Sweden, and Australia. The main purpose of the study is to identify lessons that could lead to improvements in implementation and delivery of the new 14-19 Diplomas programme. In particular, the study focuses on two aspects of Diploma implementation: local delivery partnerships and employer involvement. The case study reports provide a general overview of each country's secondary education system; processes for implementation and delivery of qualifications; the nature and level of employer involvement; and comparative lessons. In addition, an overarching analysis, which is presented in the final chapter, draws out the principal themes of the comparison between the case studies and aims to identify lessons for 14-19 Diplomas.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Stasz, Cathleen, Jack Clift, and Jennifer Rubin, Implementation of new curriculum arrangements for 14-19 year olds: International comparisons. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR529.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was prepared for the National Audit Office and conducted by RAND Europe.

This publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.