National Regulatory Frameworks for Transnational Higher Education: Models and Trends, Part 2

Transcription

1 National Regulatory Frameworks for Transnational Higher Education: Models and Trends, Part 2 March 2005 Line Verbik, Research Officer, The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education The Observatory on borderless higher education Woburn House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HF United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Lisa Jokivirta, Research Officer, The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March 2005

2 National Regulatory Frameworks for Transnational Higher Education: Models and Trends, Part 2 Abstract: Transnational higher education has in recent years become an increasingly widespread phenomenon with ever more exporting and importing countries. A significant number of countries see real value-added potential in foreign provision. However, the increase in transnational delivery has raised growing concerns over how to regulate this type of provision, which in many ways falls outside both the exporting and importing countries regulatory frameworks for higher education. Whilst many countries have introduced regulations guiding the operations of foreign providers, a significant number of countries do not presently impose restrictions on imported transnational delivery. The latter position is often a default regulatory model rather than a conscious policy, particularly in countries where transnational activity for various reasons appears on a small scale (e.g. there is no capacity problem, little demand for foreign education, etc). Other countries have imposed strict regulations in the past and are now moving towards more liberal conditions, in many cases following pressure from outside bodies to open up the sector. Yet in other countries there is a shift towards a more restrictive approach, often driven by concerns over the quality of provision or a desire to downgrade the importance of transnational activity. It is suggested that there will be a growing pressure to develop national regulatory frameworks for foreign provision. There are signs that the issue of providing locally sensitive but sustainable transnational education will be of growing importance for exporting and importing institutions and countries. About the Authors: Line Verbik is Research Officer at The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Following an undergraduate degree in History and Russian at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, she completed an MA in History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, Line worked as Information and Recruitment Officer at Imperial College London before taking up her current position Line can be contacted at: l.verbik@obhe.ac.uk Lisa Jokivirta is Research Officer at The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Her interests include education for sustainable development, widening access in developing countries, online learning and open source developments. She can be contacted at L.Jokivirta@obhe.ac.uk Acknowledgements: The Observatory wishes to express its gratitude to Professor Roger King, Professor Fujio Ohmori, and Dr Howard Davies for the generous assistance and inspiration provided throughout the process of writing this paper. The views expressed in this paper and any omissions or errors are the sole responsibility of The Observatory. The Observatory is a joint initiative between the Association of Commonwealth Universities and Universities UK The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

3 National Regulatory Frameworks for Transnational Higher Education: Models and Trends, Part 2 1 Introduction This is the second part of a report on national regulatory models for the import of transnational higher education. Part 1 (published in February 2005) provided an overview of the first three models: no regulations, liberal and moderately liberal. This part will examine a further three models: two best characterised as transitional - one moving from liberal to more restrictive and the other from restrictive to more liberal - and the very restrictive model. Similarly to the first part of this paper, the main characteristics of each regulatory approach will be outlined, followed by one or two case studies. The paper will furthermore provide examples of regional and transnational regulatory frameworks, and conclude with an analysis of all six regulatory models and emerging trends. A chart outlining regulations versus scale of provision is enclosed in Appendix B. Please refer to Part 1 for a full introduction and methodology, as well as an overview of the first three models. An alphabetical list of all countries included in the study is attached at the end of each part as Appendix A (see Part 1 for countries in models 1-3 and Part 2 for countries in models 4-6). The Observatory wishes to express its gratitude to Professor Roger King, Professor Fujio Ohmori, and Dr Howard Davies for the generous assistance and inspiration provided throughout the process of writing this paper. The views expressed in this paper and any omissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the OBHE. 2 Regulatory models for transnational provision 2.1 Model 4: Liberal moving towards more restrictive Examples include: India and Malaysia (although the latter is ambiguous, please see case study below) Countries in this category are gradually moving towards a more restrictive regulatory framework for the import of transnational education. This move is found both in countries where foreign provision is widespread and has been encouraged for a long period (e.g. Malaysia) and in countries where this type of activity is less common and less wellestablished (e.g. India). The change in regulations is often caused by a concern amongst the public, media and policy-makers over the quality of provision. Transnational providers are in many instances perceived and portrayed as fly-by-night operations that are only engaged in this activity for profit-making purposes. It is often hinted that such institutions/providers are admitting students who have not been able to meet the academic requirements to gain entry into domestic institutions. In some cases, new domestic private institutions are depicted in a similar way and changes in regulations apply to all private providers, domestic as well as foreign. Tighter regulations can, however, also be connected to national ambitions to become less dependent on transnational provision. Some countries express the belief that the domestic sector has matured (in some ways partly through the import of education), and local institutions (mainly colleges) that have not previously been entitled to award their own degrees are being upgraded to degree-granting universities or university colleges. Countries in this category are in a transitional phase where the overall trend points to stricter regulations, but the current situation can sometimes be unclear or developments are ambiguous (e.g. Malaysia, see the case study below). Announcements are often made, but the actual legislation or implementation is delayed. Changes in legislation can include compulsory registration and/or accreditation through the national system, requirements to establish a presence in the country, criteria for collaboration between domestic and foreign institutions, etc. in order for foreign providers to be allowed to operate and/or for their degrees to be recognised. India, for example, has in the past The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

4 imposed very few regulations on foreign providers but over the past couple of years new requirements have been introduced. Since July 2003, institutions wishing to offer programmes must apply to the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC, a statuary body of the University s Grants Commission, or UGC). Once NAAC is satisfied that its requirements have been met (e.g. curriculum, employability potential, research output and the qualifications of academic staff), it is charged with submitting its recommendations to the All India Council for Technology Education and the UGC 2. The extent to which this process has actually been implemented is less clear. Case study: Malaysia Together with Singapore and Hong Kong, Malaysia is one of the major sites for transnational provision. The country pioneered twinning programmes from the late 1980s and the 3+0 model (whereby a student may obtain an entire undergraduate degree from a foreign university in Malaysia also referred to as franchised programmes) was adopted in 1997 to cope with the Asian economic crisis that prevented many Malaysians from studying abroad. The scale of transnational activity accelerated from the mid-1990s following concerted state encouragement of local private higher education in order to expand domestic capacity. The majority of provision is through twinning and franchised programmes and only five institutions have established branch campuses in the country (the latest were opened in ). Like Singapore, Malaysia aims to become a regional education hub, with the view to absorbing the majority of local demand and attracting an increasing number of foreign students from the region (Malaysia has set a target of 50,000 foreign students a year by 2010). For years, all foreign university provision offered in Malaysia (whether by a foreign and/or local institution) has had to secure approval from the Private Education Department of the Ministry of Education. All programmes offered under the model are required to obtain accreditation from the National Accreditation Board (LAN), but for the rest this process is optional 4. Over the last couple of years, however, the country has introduced or announced the introduction of tighter regulations for imported transnational provision. In 2003, local private institutions (often working with foreign universities) recruiting international students were asked to re-register with the Ministry of Education. In order to regain a license, institutions must have an international office to deal with foreign students' welfare, proper accommodation, a clear refund policy and detailed information on recruitment agents. Private providers must also make quarterly reports to the Immigration Department, Home Ministry and police. In April 2004, it was announced that applications to offer franchised programmes from foreign universities in Malaysia will only be approved if the foreign university is sufficiently highly ranked in national league tables. For example, in the case of the UK, the university must be ranked in the top 60 by the Times Good University Guide, Financial Times or Daily Telegraph 5. The country has also started to tighten regulations guiding foreign provision via distance learning. At the end of 2003, it was announced that LAN must approve foreign distance learning programmes offered in Malaysia in order for the qualifications to be recognised by the government. Under previous legislation, such programmes had been exempted from regulations. Foreign distance learning providers now have to comply with the same rules as in-country providers. The Malay government also announced plans to make it illegal to recruit students onto unapproved courses 6. 2 OBHE (2003) India hints at GATS line on education and continues recent policy of regulating foreign activity, Breaking News 31 July. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. URL: Last Accessed 7 February Australia s Swinburne University of Technology established an operation in Malaysia in 2000, which obtained branch campus status in Study Malaysia.com. Government Quality Assurance. International Students. URL: Last Accessed 8 February OBHE (2004) Malaysia to use league tables to regulate transnational activities of foreign universities- does it make sense, Breaking News 27 April. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. URL: Last Accessed 25 January OBHE (2003) Malaysia clamps down on distance learning from foreign universities- all programmes must seek local approval, Breaking News, 9 December. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. URL: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

5 However, recent changes to regulations guiding branch campus establishment arguably point to fewer restrictions. According to the 1996 Private Higher Education Act, key requirements for branch campuses are majority ownership (at least 70%) by Malaysian interests (with at least 30% owned by bumiputeras 7 ) and the approval of all programmes by the LAN. All private higher education institutions must offer provision in the national language (Bahasa Melayu), but are permitted to conduct most classes in foreign languages (typically English). Private institutions are also required to teach Malaysian studies, as well as Islamic Studies to Muslim students and moral education to non-muslims. Malaysian citizens must pursue studies in the national language, and undertake Malaysian studies and some form of moral studies in order to graduate. Foreign students must simply complete the normal prerequisite courses for their degree programme (see below). In recent years, the government has moved towards relaxing key restrictions in order to encourage more branch campus activity. For example, in 2003 it was proposed that institutions should no longer be required to provide the stipulated programmes to foreign students. In October last year, the Ministry suggested that foreign branch campuses should be permitted to offer programmes without LAN approval. While details of the new incentive package for foreign institutions have yet to be worked out, the Minister has offered some clues as to its possible contents. He was quoted in the Malaysian Star: "The incentives will include tax exemption for equipment, low premium for land required for the foreign university's campus, and electricity and water tariffs". While the stipulations on Malay, Malaysian studies and Islamic/moral studies for Malaysian nationals are unlikely to be abolished, there are precedents in other sectors of the economy for at least temporary relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions 8. In a more recent development, the Ministry of Education announced that local private institutions are now eligible to apply to convert their 2+1 (twinning) courses to 3+0 (franchised) programmes after running them for just three years. The only condition is that the twinning programmes have to be fully accredited by LAN 9. In conclusion, there seems to be a trend towards stricter regulations of transnational education in Malaysia. However, the government is currently considering relaxing the requirements for branch campus operations in order to encourage this type of provision. Through the upgrading of domestic colleges to institutions with degree awarding powers, the domestic sector is to a large extent and increasingly able to meet domestic demand, but branch campus developments are also looked upon favourably. 2.2 Model 5: Restrictive, moving towards more liberal Examples include: Japan and South Korea This category is characterised by new legislation aimed at removing restrictions for foreign institutions wishing to operate in the country. The new guidelines usually follow a period where regulations have practically out-ruled transnational provision. In some cases, restrictions are only lifted in specified areas (e.g. South Korea). In Australia, where individual states still have considerable control over higher education there is an example of a state indicating its plans to introduce special regulations allowing a foreign institution to operate in bin/news/article.pl?id=249&mode=month. Last Accessed 25 January Please note that limited progress has been made as to the actual implementation of this. 7 The term Bumiputera is used in Malaysia for all Malay speakers and other indigenous peoples, who are of the Malay `race' but not necessarily mother-tongue speakers of Malay. 8 OBHE (2004) Malaysia to offer foreign universities greater incentives to open branch campuses- but why has no new branch campus opened since 2000? Breaking News 11 November The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. URL: Last Accessed 25 January The Star (2005) Shorter wait for twinning course conversion, 12 March. URL: Last Accessed 16 March The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

6 the region 10. In other cases, the changes in regulations apply to the entire country (e.g. Japan). The reasons for the changes in regulations are varied. Many countries believe that the internationalisation of higher education (in the broadest sense) is unavoidable and that national systems have to adjust to the new global environment. Some countries are also seeking to encourage foreign investment, offer students an opportunity to obtain a foreign degree in the home country and attempt to curb the number of students studying abroad, or boost capacity and/or innovation in the higher education sector at large. In some cases, changes are also brought about through pressure from trade organisations and/or agreements such as the WTO (e.g. Japan and South Korea). Changes can also be linked to a national ambition to become more active in the export of transnational education. It is arguably difficult for a country to export education on a large scale and at the same time not allow foreign providers to enter its own territory. Some countries have also established guidelines and (in some cases) even quality assurance mechanisms for the export of provision (e.g. Japan, see case study). There are different ways in which changes can be introduced and foreign provision encouraged. Some countries have established special zones, whilst others have merely introduced legislation to allow foreign institutions to operate or to recognise transnational qualifications. In South Korea, for example, regulations stating that only non-profit foreign institutions could operate in the country (and exclusively in non-metropolitan areas) were lifted in specified regions in Special Economic Zones with tax incentives, fast-track permit processing etc. were established to attract foreign investments and companies, and transnational providers have permission to operate within these 11. In 2003, Taiwan announced that the government was looking to change regulations and allow foreign education institutions into the country. Until then, transnational provision had been illegal 12. However, it has not been possible to find any evidence that these changes have been implemented. Less restrictive regulations do not necessarily mean that the importing country will cease to attempt to regulate the provision. Certain criteria, such as registration, non-profit status, joint local-foreign ownership etc, can still be applied. Case study: Japan Japan is currently making significant changes to the way imported and exported transnational higher education is regulated. Foreign providers have been allowed to operate in Japan for years, but qualifications obtained through transnational provision were not recognised. Credit transfer between foreign institutions and recognised domestic institutions was hence ruled out. Foreign providers could operate through two different business models: as a for-profit company or as non-profit entity with the status of 'gakko hojin' (school juridical person). There are examples of foreign providers operating through each of the models. Foreign providers operating on a for-profit basis were liable for taxation (including tax on donations) and in some cases students were not eligible to apply for local government scholarships. Students at institutions registered as for-profit entities were also obliged to contribute to the national pension scheme throughout their studies (unlike other Japanese students who can wait until graduation) and were not eligible for discounted transportation passes. 10 Further information is available in: OBHE (2004) Prestigious US University considers plans for an operation in Adelaide - is the first foreign university about to enter Australia?, Breaking News, 17 November. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. URL: Last Accessed 7 February OBHE (2004), American university to open branch in one of South Korea's 'Special Economic Zones', Breaking News 27 August, Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, URL: Last Accessed 2 February OBHE (2003), Taiwan opens to foreign universities but authorities predict little interest, Breaking News 20 June, Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, URL: Last Accessed 2 February The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

7 Since the 1990s when approximately 40 foreign (mainly American) institutions were operating in Japan, the number has decreased and there is currently only half a dozen left. The US-based Temple University has operated a branch campus in Tokyo since This operation presently has the status of a limited private company classified by the education ministry as a kakusyu gakko (miscellaneous school), a category in the lower iter of technical and other schools under the School Education Law. Interestingly, qualifications obtained through studies at Temple University s home campus in the US are recognised by the Japanese government. A study group formed by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) last year recommended that the Ministry introduce changes to recognise transnational education (imported as well as exported) and establish a quality assurance system for this type of provision 13. The first new framework, concerning imported transnational provision and its recognition, was introduced in December From this point onwards, degree programmes from foreign institutions (that have satisfied certain criteria) will be recognised in the same way as those offered at their home campus. The criteria are that foreign providers must be bona fide higher education institutions established in the country of origin, and the programmes offered in Japan must be recognised by the institution as being equivalent to those offered at the home campus. MEXT checks with foreign embassies in Tokyo that the above conditions are met. Once the institution has satisfied the criteria, provision either through a branch campus or through collaborative provision (e.g. franchising) is recognised by the Japanese government. The question of credit transfer between transnational and domestic providers has also been addressed through new regulations for recognition of the former. The new regulatory framework for recognition of offshore programmes by Japanese institutions is scheduled to be introduced in April Other issues related to imported transnational education are still under negotiation. Railway companies and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport are currently discussing the possibility of offering discounted transportation for students on foreign programmes. 2.3 Model 6: Very restrictive This category is divided into two sub-categories: one concerning permission to operate (referred to as legislation) and one concerning recognition of degrees obtained through transnational provision. Although this report mainly focuses on transnational providers permission to operate, it seems reasonable to include the question of recognition in the very restrictive model. There are countries where no legal barriers for transnational provision exist but where it is virtually or completely impossible for graduates of such institutions to obtain recognition for their qualifications (and access to further studies and/or public employment is therefore severely affected). The reasons behind the strict regulations vary from country to country. In some cases, the main factor is negative experiences or perceptions of transnational education and foreign providers (e.g. South Africa). In others, the concept of transnational or even privately provided education is perceived to be fundamentally in opposition to the ethos of the country s educational system (e.g. Greece and Francophone Belgium). It is important to note that this model does not necessarily prevent foreign providers from operating in the country. Restrictive legislation might lead foreign providers to operate illegally in the country, thus giving way to a grey area in the higher education sector. In countries such as Cyprus, Bulgaria and even South Africa, an overview of transnational activity shows that there are many more institutions operating than the legal framework allows. In countries where 13 Ohmori,F (2004) Japan s Policy Changes to Recognise Transnational Higher Education: Adaptation of the national system to globalisation. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. September. URL: Last Accessed 25 January correspondence with Professor Fujio Ohmori, the Research Center for Higher Education, Kumamoto University, January and March The Observatory is grateful for the substantial assistance provided by Professor Ohmori with this case study. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

8 qualifications obtained through transnational provision are not readily recognised, foreign providers are in many cases still able to attract students (e.g. Greece where there is a significant gap between supply and demand for higher education see case study for further details). An overview of different regulatory models versus the scale of transnational provision is provided in Appendix B Model 6(a): Restrictive regulations, legal barriers: Examples include: Bulgaria, Cyprus, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates In this category, the government or another body with authority over higher education imposes strict requirements on foreign providers wishing to enter the country. Foreign institutions may be required to establish a physical presence in the country (i.e. franchised provision is not allowed), only institutions/programmes accredited by the host country s agency can be offered, certain types of providers are not authorised to operate (e.g. for-profit or religious institutions), foreign institutions cannot gain access to university title even if they hold this title in their home country etc. In Bulgaria, programmes offered by a foreign institution on its own (i.e. not in collaboration with a domestic institution) are considered to be illegal educational provision. Collaborative provision and joint degrees are allowed 15. In Cyprus, foreign institutions are in principle not allowed to award degrees. A law from 1997 states that no private institution may itself award degrees of foreign educational institutions or give, by any means, to foreign education institutions the possibility to award their own degrees in the Republic 16. The United Arab Emirates requires all foreign institutions (with the exception of those operating in Dubai s Knowledge Village 17 ) to be licensed by the national Ministry of Higher Education, and all programmes are subject to accreditation by the Commission for Academic Accreditation. According to a 2004 US government trade report and the experience of an Australian university operating in Dubai, the three-step accreditation process is rigorous, in some cases taking up to three years to complete and often necessitating substantial financial resources to produce the necessary documentation and policies for approval 18. In countries where accreditation is mandatory (e.g. South Africa and the UAE), the government has generally expanded the role of the national quality assurance system to deal with foreign provision rather than created a new body to specifically address this type of activity. Case study: South Africa Following a period of relatively unrestrained private sector activity in South Africa (including by foreign universities), the Higher Education Act 1997 set out registration and quality assurance procedures. The Department of Education required all private higher education institutions (including foreign) to be registered by 1 January Franchising was effectively outlawed, and all foreign institutions wanting to offer programmes in South Africa had to establish a direct presence ('branch campus') in the country. 15 Adam, S (2003) The Recognition, Treatment, Experience and Implications of Transnational Education in Central and Eastern Europe , page 14. Hogskoleverket. URL: Last Accessed 2 February Ibid. Page Knowledge Village was established in 2002 as a 100 per cent foreign-owned and tax-free zone to attract foreign companies and institutions into the country. A total of 11 institutions have so far established a presence in the zone. 18 For further information about regulations in the UAE, including Dubai s Knowledge Village, please see recent Observatory coverage: OBHE (2005) One country, two systems: why is an Australian university's second campus in Dubai subject to much lighter regulation than the first?, Breaking News, 26 January. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. URL: Last Accessed 2 February The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

9 Following the implementation of new regulations, the number of known foreign providers dropped from thirty-eight to four. In 2004, there was a further reduction in the number of foreign institutions active in South Africa when three foreign institutions MBA programmes were de-accredited. Only UK s Henley Management College (it is not clear whether Henley, which delivers its MBA mainly though distance learning, has been required to seek registration and/or accreditation) obtained conditional accreditation. New regulations prevent institutions without accreditation from the Council on Higher Education (CHE) from offering these degree programmes in South Africa. Following the outcome of the accreditation process, at least two institutions decided to wind down and ultimately close their operations in South Africa. After the MBA accreditation process, the CHE has started to accredit all teacher-training programmes, although it is unclear whether accreditation will gradually be extended to all courses. The South African government does not provide any funding for private institutions, and students are not eligible for grants or loans. Private institutions are not allowed to call themselves universities (even if they are a branch campus of a foreign institution with university title) unless they meet certain requirements (such as a minimum of 4,000 students enrolled, at least 20 per cent of staff with a doctoral degree and postdoctoral experience, and provision in a wide range of subjects). Private institutions not fulfilling those requirements are called colleges and such institutions have restrictions on how many students they can enrol (e.g. for Australia s Bond University s operation in South Africa, the maximum number was 800). There are currently no foreign providers able to use university title in South Africa. The decision to implement a strict regulatory framework is linked to other changes in the higher education sector as a whole, including the substantial process of merging many of the public institutions. The Ministry has expressed the belief that foreign institutions in general are offering a narrow range of courses in the most lucrative areas. The same body is concerned that the rapid expansion of foreign institutions, especially in fields of study that are already provided for by public and local private institutions, may adversely impact on the public higher education system at a time when the latter is undergoing fundamental restructuring 19. The South African regulations appear to stem from a range of negative experiences with imported transnational provision. By enforcing strict regulations, the country has attempted to ensure that institutions make a long-term investment in the country and offer provision in line with national standards (through local accreditation). However, it has been argued that even institutions such as Bond University, which seem to have invested significant resources in their South African operations, have not been able to establish a viable operation in the country. If current policies and practices are continued, there is little doubt that very few foreign providers will remain or enter the country. There are indications, however, that more foreign institutions enrol in-country South African students on their programmes than those registered with the SAQA. Data from the UK's Higher Education Statistics Agency from the academic year illustrates this point: as many as 29 UK institutions had students in South Africa enrolled on programmes provided wholly outside the UK. A total number of 861 (excluding students at De Montfort University- the only UK institution officially registered in South Africa) were reported to be studying on such programmes Model 6(b): Non-recognition of imported transnational provision Examples include: Belgium (Francophone) and Greece In this sub-category the government does not recognise foreign qualifications obtained through imported transnational provision. Whereas students with foreign qualifications obtained through studying abroad can apply for recognition in their home country, students 19 Naidoo, P and Singh, M (2004) National Regulation of Transnational Higher Education: A South African Case Study, Council on Higher Education Higher Education Quality Committee. 20 Higher Education Statistics Agency. HESA student record overseas students studying wholly outside the UK. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

10 with degrees from incoming transnational providers generally do not have this option. In some cases, private (domestic and foreign) provision is not recognised altogether. In Francophone Belgium, for example, only institutions run by the state or funded and recognised by the state can award recognised degrees. All the higher education institutions with that status are listed in the law and receive official permission to deliver specific qualifications 21. Foreign institutions wishing to grant recognised degrees may have the option of becoming a part of the national system. This approach is rarely deemed feasible or appropriate (there may be significant costs implications, ties to the home country s educational structure and culture may have to be severed, the management structure changed etc). It should be emphasised that the issue of recognition does not necessarily mean that foreign institutions are deterred from operating in the country or that there is no up-take of their provision. On the contrary, in countries such as Greece, there appears to be thousands of students enrolled on such programmes and a range of institutions operating through different models. However, these institutions often operate outside any established quality assurance system and the lack of recognition of their degrees affects graduates wishing to obtain public employment or pursue further studies. Case study: Greece According to the Greek constitution, higher education is offered exclusively by the state. Private and foreign provision (which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Commerce rather than of Education) is not prohibited and a range of foreign institutions offer degrees in Greece in co-operation with local private colleges. These qualifications are not, however, recognised by the Greek government and students who have obtained a foreign degree through studies in Greece (usually through franchised provision) are not able to gain recognition. Students who have obtained their qualification abroad can apply for recognition from the Greek Inter-University Centre for the Recognition of Foreign Degrees (DIKATSA). This route is not an option for students with degrees obtained through local colleges. Lack of government recognition affects graduates opportunities to gain state sector employment (and/or promotion within this) and entrance to further studies in Greece. It is estimated that more than 4,000 students were enrolled on courses offered by UK institutions alone in Although the number of students in the Greek higher education system almost doubled between 1996 and 2003, the number of Greek students enrolled in institutions abroad and in local private institutions point to a substantial capacity problem in the country. With more than 26 % of students enrolled in tertiary education abroad, Greece is one of the European countries with the highest proportion of students obtaining their higher education outside the country 23. As mentioned above, a substantial number of students enrol each year in private local colleges despite their qualifications not being recognised by the government. The large number of applications received each year by the Hellenic Open University for much fewer places (in , the University received more than 52,000 applications for approximately 5,200 places) is also an indication of unmet demand. 21 Kaufmann, C (2001).The recognition of Transnational Education qualifications. Seminar on Transnational Education. Malmö, March URL: Last Accessed 19 January Higher Education Statistics Agency. HESA student record overseas students studying wholly outside the UK. Given the basis on which the data is collected (institutions are asked for the information on a voluntary basis) it is likely that the real number of students on such programmes is higher. 23 Davis, T (2003) Atlas of Student Mobility, New York, Institute of International Education, p.59. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

11 The EU has on several occasions addressed the issue of recognition but there is currently little sign that the Greek government will change its position. Despite certain party members previous indications to the contrary, the Greek government in June 2004 ruled out any drastic changes to current regulations, including widespread recognition of degrees. Changes to the way that the DIKATSA operates and the issue of quality assuring domestic provision have been signalled to be high on the government s agenda, however, at this stage this will not affect imported transnational provision offered nor the recognition of foreign qualifications obtained in Greece. 3 Regional initiatives As shown above, many countries are attempting to regulate transnational provision at the national level. Recent developments suggest that there may be a growing trend towards developing regulatory frameworks at the regional and international levels, mainly in the area of quality assurance. Examples include the Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education, which was established in 2001 by the Council of Europe in cooperation with UNESCO and adopted by the Parties to the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (the Lisbon Recognition Convention). The code proposes guidelines to protect students from fraudulent degrees and qualifications, and to assist national governments, recognition bodies and the academic community in devising regulations for transnational education 24. The Global Alliance for Transnational Education (GATE) is another example of an attempt to quality assure transnational education at the international level. The US based organisation was established by the software and education company Jones International in 1995, but was transferred to the United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA) in August At the time of the transfer, there was no official information on the number of institutions accredited by GATE, but it was thought to be only a handful. Activities since the hand-over appear to be limited. The GATE web site does not appear to have been updated since 2003 and the USDLA home page contains no obvious mention of the organisation or its activities 25. The International Council for Distance Education (ICDE), approved by the United Nations as the Global Institutional Membership Organisation in Online, Flexible and Blended Learning, launched a quality assurance scheme in While the scheme is still in operation, there is no indication as to how many institutions have conformed to the guidelines 26. In June 2004, the International Association of Universities (IAU), Association of Universities and Colleges Canada (AUCC), American Council on Education (ACE) and the US Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) released a draft document entitled Sharing Quality Higher Education Across Borders. The document "aims to create a focused dialogue among... stakeholders worldwide which will result in an international consensus on a fair and transparent framework for managing higher education across borders". According to the ten general guidelines set out in the document, the national government in the host country should hold ultimate authority over transnational provision, international agreements (including GATS and other trade agreements) should respect this authority, and foreign institutions should "meet high standards of academic and organisational quality," but as determined" by the competent authorities in both the source and host countries. It is 24 Council of Europe, Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education - Rīga, 6 June 2001, Education. URL: 25 Global Alliance for Transnational Education. URL: Last Accessed 14 February International Council for Open and Distance Learning. URL: Last Accessed 14 February The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

12 unclear as to how many countries or institutions have applied these guidelines to their regulatory approach to transnational activity. 27 UNESCO and the OECD are currently in the process of collaborating to develop a set of guidelines for 'quality provision in cross-border higher education'. The initiative is designed to 'support and encourage international co-operation and understanding for quality provision in cross-border higher education'. Once ratified by both bodies, the guidelines will not be legally binding and will be implemented as appropriate in the conceding countries. The guidelines have been developed through a series of international 'drafting meetings' starting in April 2004, and are expected to be ratified by the end of A new directive for trade in services within the EU is currently being developed which may affect transnational delivery within the area. The process leading to the draft directive on Services in the Internal Market (published by the Commission in January 2004) started in 2000 and is aimed at minimising legal barriers for cross-border provision within the Union. The directive has a range of elements, including the Country of origin principle', which has proved controversial. The Directive proposes a distinction between two types of service provision: through establishment (of an organisation/institution) or through temporary service provision, stating that the former is subject to the laws of the host country and the latter is subject to the laws of the country of origin 28. How the two models of operation are going to be defined is currently unclear. It has also yet to be clarified whether the Directive will include higher education services, however, if this is the case, countries may find it increasingly difficult to impose restrictions on foreign institutions from other member states wishing to operate on their soil 29. These initiatives point to a potential trend towards developing regulatory frameworks for transnational provision at the regional and international levels. Considering the borderless nature of transnational education, supranational agreements and regulatory bodies are arguably an appropriate response to developments in this area. The actual impact of the aforementioned guidelines remains less clear. Evidence suggests that the conceding countries have not implemented the universal principles for transnational education as set out in the UNESCO Code of Good Practice. According to the reports on transnational provision in Western Europe (2001) and Central and Eastern Europe (2003), the UNESCO initiative has not gained practical value in the vast majority of European countries. 30 It is unclear as to how many institutions have conformed to the GATE and ICDE quality assurance schemes. Diverse existing regulatory frameworks (e.g. legal restrictions on transnational provision), ambiguous guidelines and definitions, conflicting government priorities and the lack of a central co-ordinating body might be possible explanations behind the disparity between regional guidelines and integration into national regulatory frameworks. 4 Conclusion Despite the growing scale and importance of transnational education, information and data on this type of provision remain minimal. Aside from a few significant studies examining regulatory frameworks in particular regions, only a small number of countries systematically collect information regarding the import and export of transnational activity. This report has attempted to provide an overview of regulatory models for imported foreign provision, and is intended as a starting point for further analysis on this rapidly expanding type of provision. The Observatory is committed to expanding its knowledge of the different regulatory models 27 OBHE (2004) Sharing Quality Higher Education Across Borders- a statement on behalf of higher education institutions worldwide, Breaking News, 28 June. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. URL: Last Accessed 2 February EurActiv, Services in the Internal Market, Innovation and Jobs, URL: Last Accessed 16 March We are grateful to Dr Howard Davies, London Metropolitan University for alerting us to this development. 30 Adam, S (2001) Transnational Education Project Report and Recommendations. Confederation of European Union Rector s Conference. URL: Last Accessed 25 January 2005 and Adam, S (2003) The Recognition, Treatment, Experience and Implications of Transnational Education in Central and Eastern Europe The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March

13 (including new legislation and regulatory changes), and would be grateful for information on countries not listed in this report as well as any feedback on the examples provided. Regulations guiding the import of transnational higher education cover a wide spectrum, from no requirements imposed on foreign providers to frameworks that require them to adjust their curricula and management to local standards, establish a physical presence in the country and seek accreditation for all course offerings. This report suggests that whilst there is a significant number of countries with no regulatory framework for transnational delivery, the trend is towards greater control over this type of activity. The growth in the scale of activity and in the number of providers suggests that countries might increasingly seek to regulate imported transnational education, mainly in order to maintain domestic standards and protect students from fraudulent or sub-standard provision. It is suggested that countries, which have introduced mandatory accreditation for foreign providers, have in general expanded the role of the national quality assurance system to deal with such provision rather than created a new body specifically to address the non-domestic sector. There is little to suggest that countries are able to prevent institutions from operating on their territory regardless of regulations and recognition issues. Research undertaken by the Observatory and others suggests that transnational activity can be found in countries regardless of any strict regulations or official non-recognition of transnational qualifications (refer to Appendix B for further details). Regulation is therefore only one of the factors determining whether a country might become an active site for imported transnational education. A well-developed and flexible domestic education sector, lack of tuition fees, etc. might imply very limited market demand for foreign provision. It is also suggested that countries belonging to international organisations such as the WTO or EU will find it increasingly difficult to prevent foreign operations from entering their higher education sector. Pressure from such organisations appears to have already led countries such as Japan and South Korea to change their policies. For the above reasons, countries might move towards adopting an active national approach to regulating imported transnational provision rather than attempting to prevent foreign institutions from commencing operations. The general trend appears to be towards allowing the import of transnational provision but increasingly attempting to regulate this type of activity. It is instructive to note that increased regulation does not necessarily imply a more restrictive operating environment for foreign providers. Instead, new regulations could raise the legitimacy and market safeguards against competitors for the more established private organisations. In this respect, increased regulations could in fact be regarded as liberalising if they raise the overall recognition and legitimacy of incoming foreign providers. A trend towards adopting any one particular model, however, has not been detected. Quality assurance mechanisms, even when these are in place, do not necessarily address the wider developmental impact of transnational provision and few governments have explicated development-based criteria for foreign providers seeking to operate in the country. Transnational provision has the potential to boost domestic capacity, reduce brain drain and enhance innovation and competitiveness in the sector. However, provision has a tendency to be concentrated in certain subject areas. While such provision undoubtedly meets a need, it is unclear as to what extent it seriously addresses the development agenda of the host country and thereby contributes to real capacity building. There is arguably a tension between the financial viability of private/ foreign higher education, and substantive developmental impact. In order to recoup on investment, particularly where no government funding is forthcoming, private/ foreign institutions tend to focus (at least initially) on what are perceived to be the most lucrative programmes (typically business and IT) and charge high fees compared to local domestic institutions. However, one could envisage models that encourage a more diverse provision with a particular view to capacity building in needed areas, long-term investments (e.g. through facilities) and even development-based community involvement. If not legally mandated by the importing country, it is suggested that foreign institutions could be increasingly expected to adopt a development-based rhetoric in order to secure external support and funding from both the importing and exporting countries. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, March