cross-border higher education: issues and - UPCommons

Internationalization is transforming the world of higher education and globalization is chang-ing the world of internationalization.

The exponential growth in the mobility ofstudents, programmes and providers acrossborders brings us new opportunities to increaseaccess to higher education, yet it also intro-duces new risks. One of the most importantchallenges in cross-border education is how toensure the quality of academics and to achievethe recognition/legitimacy of what qualifica-tions are awarded. This paper focuses on keyissues and implications such as registering andaccrediting the diverse range of new types offoreign providers, whether they are traditionaluniversities, commercial companies or part-nerships of local/foreign, public/private orprofit/non-profit providers of higher education.Examples of recent initiatives undertaken byvarious countries to monitor and ensure a qual-ity provision of education are examined. Theseinclude codes of good practice developed bygovernment bodies and university associa-tions, the UNESCO/OECD Guidelines onQuality Provision in Cross-Border HigherEducation, as well as national regulatoryframeworks developed by countries such asMalaysia, Hong Kong and Australia for recog-nizing and approving incoming and outgoingcross-border programmes.

INTRODUCTION

Internationalization is of one the forces that ishaving a profound effect on higher education atthe beginning of the twenty-first century. Inter-nationalization is a multifaceted process that isintegrating an international dimension into thepurpose, goals, functions and delivery of highereducation. One of the key elements of interna-tionalization is academic mobility/cross-bordereducation. It is true that academic mobilityacross borders has been a central feature ofhigher education for centuries. The fact that thenotion of ‘universality’ is key to the concept ofuniversity demonstrates the existence of aninternational dimension since the very found-ing of universities as institutions of higher edu-

cation and research. While the internationalmobility of students and scholars representlong-standing forms of academic mobility, ithas only been over the past two decades thatgreater emphasis has been placed on the move-ment of educational programmes, higher edu-cation institutions and new commercialproviders across national borders.

The growth and changes in cross-borderprogrammes and provider mobility are remark-able. There are new types of providers, newcollaborative partnerships, new modes of deliv-ery, and new types of awards and qualificationsthat have been granted. This paper aims toexamine the issues and questions concerningquality assurance and the accreditation ofcross-border delivery that takes education tostudents in their own countries. The focus isclearly on academic programmes and institu-tions/providers moving across borders – andnot on student mobility.

The outline of the paper is as follows: Thefirst section provides concrete examples ofrecent developments in a range of modalitiesof cross-border education – franchises, twin-ning, double/joint degrees, articulation agree-ments, branch campuses, virtual universitiesand others. It also points to the need to collectcomparable data in order to inform the devel-opment of new policies and regulations, espe-cially insofar as concerns accreditation. Thesecond section examines the key issues anddilemmas related to the registration of cross-border providers, accreditation and qualityassurance systems, degree and accreditationmills, and the recognition of qualifications. Inthe third section, a number of new qualityassurance and accreditation initiatives areexamined. These include the new UNESCO/OECD Guidelines on Quality Provision inCross-Border Higher Education, a number ofCodes of Good Practice and several examplesof National Regulatory Frameworks for send-ing and receiving countries. The last sectionaddresses what is at stake if the higher educa-tion sector does not adequately address thequality assurance and accreditation challengesposed by cross-border education.

134 HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE WORLD 2007

Jane Knight

AbstractI.8CROSS-BORDERHIGHEREDUCATION: ISSUESAND IMPLICATIONSFOR QUALITYASSURANCE ANDACCREDITATION

0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 134

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CROSS-BORDEREDUCATION

INCREASE IN STUDENT, PROGRAMME AND PROVIDERMOBILITYAfascinating but very complex world of cross-border edu-cation has recently started to emerge. The past five yearshave been a hotbed of innovation and new developments.For instance, the University of Phoenix has become thelargest private university in the USA(owned and operatedby the Apollo Group company) and is now physically pres-ent or delivering courses in Puerto Rico, Netherlands, Mex-ico and Canada. Other Apollo companies are offeringcourses in Brazil, India and China. The Netherlands Busi-ness School (Universiteit Nyenrode) has recently opened abranch campus in Nigeria and Harvard is developing twobranch campus initiatives in Cyprus and the United ArabEmirates. Furthermore, Jinan University will be the firstChinese university to open a branch campus outside Chinaand will do so in Thailand. Laureate Education (formerlySylvan Learning Systems) has purchased whole or partialprivate higher education institutions in Chile, Mexico,Panama and Costa Rica and owns universities in Spain,Switzerland, and France. Dubai has developed a ‘Knowl-edge Village’ in the Dubai Technology and Media FreeZone and to date the London School of Economics, India’sManipal Academy of Higher Education and the Universityof Wollongong from Australia are offering courses throughfranchising agreements and branch campuses. The Univer-sity of Westminster (UK) is the key foreign academic part-ner in the new private Kingdom University of Bahrain andplays a similar advisory/provision role with new institu-tions in Nigeria, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. As of June2003, Hong Kong had 858 degree level programmes from11 different countries operating in SAR and Singapore had522 degree level programmes from 12 foreign countries.In 2002, Australia, as one of the lead exporters of educa-tion, had 97,000 students enrolled in 1569 cross-borderprogrammes. These examples are only a few examples ofthe hundreds of new initiatives that have been undertakenover the past five years (Observatory on Borderless HigherEducation, 2002–2005) (see http://www.obhe.ac.uk/).These involve higher education providers (including insti-tutions and companies) delivering their courses and pro-grammes to students in their home countries. It isconvincing evidence that it is no longer just the studentswho are moving across borders.

AVAILABILITY OF DATA ON CROSS-BORDER EDUCATIONThere is a serious lack of solid data on the volume andtype of cross-border programme and provider mobility.Institutions and national education systems have invested

a lot of effort in gathering reliable data on student mobil-ity, but it is only in the past five years that countries andinternational organizations are starting to track pro-gramme and provider mobility. The paucity of informa-tion on programme mobility creates an undesirableenvironment of speculation, confusion and frequent mis-information. This can have negative consequences interms of people’s confidence in the quality and depend-ability of the delivery of cross-border education andimpedes the analysis needed to underpin solid policy andregulatory frameworks, especially for accreditation.

There are huge challenges to collecting this sort of datadue to a lack of a common set of terms and to differentsystems of gathering data. Australia, New Zealand andmore recently the UK have gathered statistics from therecognized HEIs on the extent of their cross-border edu-cation provision. Other countries, most notably inEurope, are collecting descriptive data on cross-borderprovision primarily focused on intra-European mobility.These efforts are primarily directed towards collectingdata on traditional university priorities and often do notinclude the new and alternative providers such as compa-nies and international networks or joint ventures.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS CROSS-BORDER PROGRAMMEACTIVITY AT AUSTRALIAN, UK AND NEW ZEALAND HEISAustralia is the leader in terms of having up-to-date andfairly comprehensive data from universities on the volume, types, award level, and disciplines offered incross-border programme delivery. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, as well as the Department ofEducation, Science and Technology (DEST) collect,analyse and publish this data on an annual basis. In 2001,in New Zealand, the International Policy and Develop-ment Unit of the Ministry of Education undertook a majorsurvey of cross-border delivery in all tertiary institutionsbut this is not yet an annual data-gathering exercise. TheUK Higher Education Statistics Agency has collectedinformation for the 2002/03 academic year on UK educa-tion programmes offered abroad. This is the first time ithas gathered this data and published its findings. This isdefinitely a step forward, but what is urgently needed is aset of internationally accepted definitions and indicatorsto assist with the collection of data related to cross-borderprogramme and provider mobility.

An examination of the information from Australia,New Zealand and UK reveals differences in the respec-tive approaches to the collection and interpretation ofdata. Insofar as was possible, a comparative analysis wasundertaken to determine whether there were noteworthysimilarities and differences. In order to attain a degree ofcomparability, some of the raw quantitative data was con-

CROSS-BORDER HIGHER EDUCATION: ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION 135

0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 135

verted into percentages. This required some rounding offof numbers. It is emphasized that the information pre-sented in Table 1 is for illustrative purposes only. It is alsonoted that these three reports provide data on the exportof programmes and do not provide information on anycross-border education coming into their jurisdiction.However, it is probably fair to say that the number ofcross-border programmes and providers being importedinto these three countries is insignificant compared withthe number of outgoing programmes and providers.

It is not surprising that the cross-border activity of thesethree countries is largely concentrated in the Asia-Pacificregion. This is due to geographical proximity, historicaland linguistic ties, and most importantly the fact that manyAsian countries do not have the capacity to meet theincreasing local demand for tertiary level education.

Asia is certainly the region to watch for new develop-ments. As this analysis shows, Malaysia, Singapore,China and (to a lesser extent) Thailand, India and Viet-nam have been the most popular destination countries

during the last five to ten years. During this period, amaelstrom of new types of partnerships have developedthrough franchising, twinning and articulation pro-grammes between foreign HEIs and local HEIs and pri-vate companies. These receiving countries have learneda great deal from their foreign partners and are currentlybeing more proactive and strategic in exporting their ownprogrammes and providers to neighbouring countries inAsia and the Middle East. This includes a substantialnumber of private commercial companies such as Singa-pore’s Raffles LaSalle, Informatics and Hartford, Aptechand NIIT from India and SEG and Stamford College inMalaysia. Given that Asia will represent approximately70 per cent of the global demand in 2025 (Bohm et al.,2002), this part of the world will be the region to watchcarefully for new trends and developments. It is alreadythe leader in terms of establishing new national regula-tory frameworks for registration, quality assurance andaccreditation of cross-border education.


TABLE I.8.1Comparative data on programmes offered across borders

United Kingdom Australia New Zealand

Year data collected 2002/03 1999/2000 2003 2001

Percent of HEIsdelivering cross-borderprogrammes

88% of universities 47% of all (38) public HEIs(88% of universities)

Number of students incross-borderprogrammes

101,645 students 34,905 97,751 students 2200 students (increasefrom 380 in 1997)

Number of cross-borderprogrammes

1569 programmes 63 programmes (increasefrom 6 in 1997)

Primary locations Hong Kong Hong Kong, Malaysia andSingapore

China, Hong Kong,Singapore and Malaysiarepresent 70% of cross-border delivery

Malaysia 23% China 9%Australia 9%Hong Kong 6%Singapore 6%

Level of degrees Undergrad 56% Graduate 44%

Sub-degree 34%Undergrad 39% Postgrad 27%

Primary disciplines Business 44% Joint Degrees 21% Law 13%IT 8.5%

Business Administration Economics

Business/Commerce 15%Special Medicine 15%Computer Science 14%Management 13%

Spread of activityamong HEIs

10 institutions account for8% of cross-borderenrolments

3 institutions account for55% of all cross-borderprogramme delivery

Mode of delivery 42% through campus-based teaching 32% through distance only26% used combination

Source of data HESA 2002/03 London External 2002/03– As reported by OBHEJuly 2004

DEST Overseas StudentStatistics 2000

AVCC OffshoreProgrammes of AustralianUniversities 2003

Ministry of Education2002

Source: Knight, 2005a.

0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 136

DIVERSITY IN TYPES OF PROVIDERSThe increase in worldwide demand for higher educationhas resulted in a diversity of providers delivering educa-tion across borders. The providers are classified into twocategories: (i) the traditional higher education institutions(HEIs) who are normally oriented to teaching, researchand service/commitment to society, and (ii) the ‘new oralternative providers’ who primarily focus on teachingand the delivery of education services, usually on a com-mercial basis.

Traditional higher education institutions include publicnon-profit, private non-profit and private for-profit institu-tions. Many countries have a mixed system of publicly andprivately funded HEIs. There is a definite blurring of theboundary between public and private institutions as manypublic universities now find it necessary to seek privatefinancing and to charge a tuition or service fee. On the otherhand, in many countries private institutions are eligible forpublic funds and engage in social non-profit activities.

Avery important factor to consider is whether the HEIis part of a home national education system and is recog-nised by a national bona fide licensing/accrediting body.In cross-border education, recognition/registration is crit-ical to ensuring the legitimacy of the institution and thequalifications provided. The majority of traditional uni-versities are bona fide institutions that comply withdomestic and foreign regulations (where they exist).However, there is also an increase in rogue or low-qual-ity providers who are not recognised by bona fide accred-itation/licensing bodies in either the sending or thereceiving countries. ‘Rogue providers’ are often accred-ited by self-accrediting groups or by agencies that sellaccreditation (accreditation mills).

In addition, there is a worrisome increase in the num-ber of ‘degree mills’ operating around the world (Garrett,2005). These are often no more than web-based compa-nies that are selling certificates based on ‘life experiences’and are not delivering any education programmes.

New or alternative providers: New providers are diversein nature, but are typically described as companies ororganizations that provide education programmes and/orservices for financial gain. They are more oriented towardsdelivering education and training programmes than under-taking research and scholarly activities. The new providersinclude publicly traded companies such as Apollo (USA),Aptech (India) and Informatics (Singapore), corporateuniversities such as those run by Motorola and Toyota, andnetworks of universities, professional associations andorganizations. These new types of cross-border providerscan be brick-and-mortar institutions or virtual universities

and can complement, compete, collaborate or simplycoexist with domestic higher providers (and other cross-border providers).

NEW MODES AND MODELS OF DELIVERYPROGRAMMES MOVING ACROSS BORDERS

Cross-border mobility of programmes can be describedas the movement of individual education/trainingcourses and programmes across national borders throughface-to-face or distance learning models or a combin-ation thereof. Credits towards a qualification can beawarded by the provider in the sending foreign countryor by an affiliated domestic partner or jointly. Franchis-ing, twinning, double/joint degrees and various artic-ulation models are the more popular methods ofcross-border programme mobility. (Knight, 2005b, p. 20)A short description of each follows: � Franchise: An arrangement whereby a provider in

source Country A authorizes a provider in Country Bto deliver its course/programme/service in Country Bor other countries. The qualification is awarded byprovider in Country A. Arrangements for teaching,management, assessment, profit-sharing, awarding ofcredit/qualification and so on are customized for eachfranchise arrangement and must comply with nationalregulations (if they exist) in Country B.

� Twinning: A situation where a provider in sourceCountry A collaborates with a provider located inCountry B to develop an articulation system thatallows students to take course credits in Country Band/or source Country A. Only one qualification isawarded by provider in source Country A. Arrange-ments for twinning programmes and awarding ofdegree usually comply with national regulations ofthe provider the source Country A.

� Double/Joint Degree: An arrangement wherebyproviders in different countries collaborate to offer aprogramme for which students receive qualificationsfrom both providers, or a joint award from the collab-orating partners. Arrangements for programme pro-vision and criteria for awarding the qualifications arecustomized for each collaborative initiative in accor-dance with national regulations in each country.

� Articulation: Various types of articulation arrange-ments between providers situated in different coun-tries permit students to gain credit for courses/programmes offered by all of the collaboratingproviders. This allows students to gain credit for workdone with a provider other than the provider award-ing the qualification.

� Validation: Validation arrangements betweenproviders in different countries allow Provider B in


0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 137

receiving country to award the qualification ofProvider A in source country. In some cases, thesource country provider may not offer these coursesor awards themselves, which may raise questionsabout quality.

� Virtual/Distance: Arrangements where providersdeliver courses/programmes to students in differentcountries through distance and online modes. Thismay include some face-to-face support for studentsthrough domestic study or support centres.

It is clear that a key factor in programme mobility iswho awards the course credits or ultimate credential forthe programme. As programme mobility proliferates,there will undoubtedly be further changes to national,regional and even international regulatory frameworks.The question of ‘who grants the credits/awards’ will beaugmented by ‘who recognizes the provider’and whetheror not the programme has been ‘accredited or qualityassured’ by a bona fide body. Of critical importance iswhether the qualification is recognized for employmentor further study in the receiving country and in othercountries as well. The perceived legitimacy and recogni-tion of the qualification, at home and abroad, are funda-mental issues yet to be resolved.

Given that several modes for programme mobilityinvolve partnerships, there are questions regarding whoowns the intellectual property rights to course design andmaterials. What are the legal roles and responsibilities ofthe participating partners in terms of academic, staffing,recruitment, assessment, financial, and administrativematters? While the movement of programmes across bor-ders has been taking place for many years, it is clear thatthe new types of providers, partnerships, and awardingand delivery of qualifications are challenging national andinternational policies and regulatory frameworks, espe-cially in terms of accreditation.

PROVIDERS (INSTITUTIONS AND COMPANIES) MOVING

ACROSS BORDERS

Cross-border mobility of providers can be described asthe physical or virtual movement of an education provider(institution, organisation, company) across a national bor-der to establish a presence so as to offer education/train-ing programmes and/or services to students and otherclients. The difference between programme and providermobility is one of scope and scale in terms of pro-grammes/services offered and the local presence (andinvestment) by the foreign provider. Adistinguishing fea-ture between programme and provider mobility is thatwith provider mobility the learner is not necessarilylocated in a different country from the awarding institu-tion, which is usually the case in programme mobility.

Credits and qualifications are awarded by the foreignprovider or by an affiliated domestic partner. Differentforms of cross-border provider mobility are as follows(Knight, 2005b, p. 20):� Branch campus: Provider in Country A establishes a

satellite campus in Country B to deliver courses andprogrammes to students in Country B (may alsoinclude Country Astudents taking a semester/coursesabroad). The qualification awarded is from providerin Country A.

� Independent institution: Foreign Provider A (a tradi-tional university, a commercial company or alliance/network) establishes in Country B a standalone HEIto offer courses/programmes and award qualifica-tions. There is usually no ‘home’ institution in Coun-try A and it is therefore independent.

� Acquisition/Merger: Foreign Provider A purchases apart or 100 per cent of a local HEI in Country B.

� Study centre/Teaching site: Foreign Provider Aestab-lishes study centres in Country B to support studentstaking their courses/programmes. Study centres canbe independent or run in collaboration with localproviders in Country B.

� Affiliation/Networks: Different types of ‘public andprivate’, ‘traditional and new’, ‘local and foreign’providers collaborate through innovative types ofpartnerships to establish networks/institutions todeliver courses and programmes in local and foreigncountries through distance or face-to-face mode.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATIONISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

REGISTRATION OF CROSS-BORDER PROVIDERS INRECEIVING COUNTRIES A fundamental question is whether the institutions, com-panies and organizations that are delivering qualification-based programmes are registered, licensed or recognizedby the receiving country. The answer to this questionvaries. There are many countries that do not have the reg-ulatory systems in place to register out-of-countryproviders. Several reasons account for this, including lackof capacity or political will. If foreign providers are notregistered or recognized it is difficult to monitor their per-formance. If an institution/provider is not registered aspart of a national system, the usual practice is that regu-latory frameworks for quality assurance or accreditationdo not apply. This is the situation in many countries in theworld and hence foreign providers (both bona fide androgue) do not have to comply with national regulationsof the receiving countries.


0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 138

The questions and factors at play in the registration orlicensing of foreign providers are many. For instance, arethere different criteria or conditions applicable to thoseproviders who are part of and recognized by a nationaleducation system in their home country than for thoseproviders who are not? Does it make a difference if theprovider is for-profit or non-profit, private or public, aninstitution or a company? What conditions apply if in factthe provider is a company that has no home-based pres-ence and only establishes institutions in foreign coun-tries? How does one monitor partnerships between localdomestic institutions/companies and foreign ones? Is itpossible to register a completely virtual provider? Clearly,there are challenges involved in trying to establish appro-priate and effective national or regional regulatory sys-tems for registering cross-border providers.

Often there are bilateral cultural/academic agreementsin place to facilitate and monitor the foreign presence ofeducation providers. However, the fact that educationservices are now part of bilateral and multilateral tradeagreements introduces new regulations and questions. Akey question facing national governments, as well asinternational organizations, is to what extent the introduc-tion of new national regulations to license, recognize oraccredit cross-border providers will be interpreted as araising of barriers to trade and therefore require modifica-tion to comply with new trade policies. All in all, the issueof regulating and licensing providers that deliver educa-tion across borders needs further attention from nationaleducation policy-makers.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION OF CROSS-BORDER EDUCATIONFirst of all, it is important to acknowledge that the termsaccreditation and quality assurance have different mean-ings and significance depending on the country, actor orstakeholder using the term. In this paper, quality recogni-tion and assurance are used in a general sense and includequality auditing, assessment, accreditation and otherprocesses and elements used for review.

It must be noted that in the last decade, increasedimportance has certainly been given to quality assuranceand accreditation at the institutional and national levels.In the past ten years, new quality assurance mechanismsand national organizations have been developed in over70 countries. New regional quality networks have alsobeen established. The primary task of these groups hasbeen quality assurance and accreditation of the domestichigher education programmes offered primarily by pub-lic and private higher education institutions. However, theincrease in cross-border education offered by traditionalinstitutions and new private commercial providers has

introduced a new challenge (and gap) in the field ofaccreditation. Historically, national quality assuranceagencies have generally not focused their efforts onassessing the quality of imported and exported pro-grammes, with some notable exceptions described in thethird section of this paper. The key question now facingthe sector is how to deal with the increase in cross-bor-der education by traditional HEIs and more importantly,the new private commercial providers who are not nor-mally part of nationally based accreditation and qualityassurance schemes.

As the discussion moves forward it will be of strategicand substantive importance to recognize the roles andresponsibilities of all the players involved in accredita-tion and quality assurance. These include individual insti-tutions/providers; national quality assurance systems;non-governmental and independent accreditation bodies;professional bodies; and regional/international organiza-tions – all of whom contribute to ensuring the quality ofcross-border education. Much is at risk if rogue providersor fraudulent qualifications become closely linked tocross-border education. It will be important to work in acollaborative and complementary fashion to build a sys-tem that ensures the quality and integrity of cross-bordereducation and maintains the confidence of society inhigher education.

DIVERSITY AND COMMERCIALIZATION OF ACCREDITING BODIESThe increased awareness of the need for quality assuranceand/or accreditation has led to several new developmentsin accreditation, some of which are helping the task ofdomestic and international recognition of qualifications,some of which are only serving to hinder and complicatematters. First, it is important to acknowledge the effortsof many countries to establish criteria and procedures forrecognition, quality assurance and accreditation systemsand the approval of bona fide accrediting bodies. At thesame time, it is necessary to recognize the increase in self-appointed and rather self-serving accrediting bodies, aswell as accreditation mills that simply sell ‘bogus’accred-itation labels.

Market forces are making the profile and reputation ofan institution/provider and its courses more and moreimportant. Major investments are being made in market-ing and branding campaigns in order to get name recog-nition and to increase enrolments. The possession of somenature of accreditation is part of the campaign and assuresprospective students that the programmes/awards are ofhigh standing. The desire for accreditation status is lead-ing to a commercialization of the field of quality assur-ance/accreditation as programmes and providers strive to


0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 139

gain as many ‘accreditation’ accolades as possible inorder to increase competitiveness and perceived inter-national legitimacy. The challenge is how to distinguishbetween bona fide and rogue accrediting bodies, espe-cially when neither the cross-border provider nor theaccrediting body are nationally based or recognized aspart of a national higher education system.

At the same time, there are networks of institutions andnew organizations that are self-appointed and engage inaccreditation of their members. These are positive devel-opments when seen through the lens of trying to improvethe quality of the academic offer. However, there is someconcern that they are not totally objective in their assess-ments and may be more interested in generating incomethan improving quality. While this can apply to both cross-border and domestic provision, it is particularly worrisomefor cross-border provision as attention to national policyobjectives and cultural orientation is often neglected.

Another development that is worrisome is the growthin accreditation mills. These organizations are neither rec-ognized nor legitimate and they more or less ‘sell’accred-itation status without any independent assessment. Theyare similar to degree mills that sell certificates and degreeswith little or no course work. Different education stake-holders, especially the students, employers and the pub-lic, need to be aware of these accreditation (and degree)mills which are often no more than a web address and aretherefore usually outside the jurisdiction of national reg-ulatory systems (CHEA, 2003).

Due to the increase in self-appointed accrediting bod-ies and accreditation mills, the establishment of a reg-istry of bona fide accrediting bodies may be thenecessary next step. It is no longer enough to have rec-ognized higher education providers listed in a nationaldata base; it is now important that there should be a reg-istry of approved accrediting bodies. This is now beingundertaken at the regional level by the European highereducation community.

It is likely that other sectors besides the education sec-tor will be interested in developing international qualitystandards and accreditation procedures for education. ISOstandards or other industry-based mechanisms such as theBaldridge Awards are examples of systems that might beapplied or remodelled for cross-border education. Theeducation sector has mixed views on the appropriatenessof the establishment of quality standards for education bythose working outside the sector; some see merit to thisidea and others see problems. At the same time, there aredivergent opinions on the desirability and value of anyinternational standards or criteria for accreditation as thismight jeopardize the sovereignty of systems at thenational level or contribute to standardization without

necessarily improving quality standards. This issue iscomplex and there are many different actors and stake-holders involved. However, given the realities of today’sgrowth in the number and types of cross-border educa-tion providers and the prospect of increased trade and newtrade rules, there is a sense of urgency to the question ofhow to ensure the quality of imported and exported edu-cation providers and programmes through accreditationprocesses and criteria or through national regulation.

It is also important to acknowledge that there is a greatdeal of cross-border mobility of students, teachers and pro-grammes through non-commercial initiatives. Educationactivities that are part of development aid projects andinternational academic linkages and networks are goodexamples. Therefore, international trade of education serv-ices is not the only factor driving the urgency of the needto address international quality recognition and accredita-tion. At this point, it must be clarified that the GATS orother bilateral trade agreements do not claim to be estab-lishing rules for quality assurance and recognition of edu-cation but are rather important catalysts for a greaterdegree of attention being given to the issues at hand.

RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS The credibility of higher education programmes and qual-ifications is extremely important for students, theiremployers, the public at large and of course for the aca-demic community itself. It is critical that the qualifica-tions awarded by cross-border providers are legitimateand will be recognized for employment or further studiesboth at home and abroad. This is a major challenge fac-ing the national and international higher education sectorin light of new cross-border providers and programmes.

UNESCO has long acknowledged the need for aninternational system to facilitate and ensure recognition ofacademic and professional qualifications. RegionalUNESCO conventions on the recognition of qualifica-tions were established more than 25 years ago and havebeen ratified by over 100 member states in Africa, Asiaand the Pacific, the Arab States, Europe and Latin Amer-ica. They are uniquely legally binding instruments thatdeal with cross-border mutual recognition of qualifica-tions. There is a limited general awareness of these instru-ments except for in the case of the European regionalconvention, which was jointly updated in 1997 byUNESCO and the European Council at the Lisbon Con-vention. In 2001, the same two organizations establisheda Code of Good Practice for Transnational Education thatis now a recognized part of the Lisbon Convention. At thepresent time, there is discussion on how these UNESCOconventions could be used as instruments to complementtrade agreements and assure students, employers and the


0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 140

public that there are systems in place to recognize aca-demic and professional qualifications. Given the growthin academic mobility, the increased mobility of the labourforce and the fact that the GATS is encouraging greaterprofessional mobility, there is a clear and urgent need fornational education policy-makers to address the issue ofrecognizing qualifications.

NEW NATIONAL, REGIONAL ANDINTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES FORACCREDITATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE OFCROSS-BORDER EDUCATION

CODES OF CONDUCT IN PRACTICE Codes of conduct for cross-border/transnational educa-tion have been developed by several national universityassociations, quality agencies and government depart-ments. They are usually a set of principles to guide thepractice of delivering programmes across borders and forestablishing partnerships with foreign providers. They areintended for public and private higher education institu-tions but have relevance for other non-traditionalproviders as well. The codes differ in substance and per-spective. However, they are similar in spirit and purpose,which is to ensure quality in cross-border academic pro-vision regardless of mode of delivery and partnershipmodel, and to maintain the integrity of the academic qual-ification. Examples of these codes include:� Quality Assurance Code of Practice: Collaborative

Provisions – UK Quality Assurance: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section2/default.asp

� Code of Ethical Practice in the Offshore Provision ofEducation and the Educational Services by AustralianHigher Education Institutions – Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee http://www.avcc.edu.au/documents/publications/Principles_final_Dec02.pdf

� Principles of Good Practice for the Educational Pro-grammes for Non-US Nationals http://www.neasc.org/cihe/overseas_programmes.PDF

� Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Trans-national Education – UNESCO/CEPES and the Euro-pean Council http://www.cepes.ro/hed/recogn/groups/transnat/code.htm

� Code of Practice for Overseas Education InstitutionsOperating in Mauritius – Tertiary Education Commis-sion http://tec.intnet.mu

These codes are not enforceable; they strictly serve asguidelines. However, in a similar way to the recentlydeveloped UNESCO/OECD Guidelines on Quality Pro-vision in Cross-Border Higher Education, they are impor-

tant awareness-building tools for the different actors incross-border education and as such are very useful to edu-cation policy-makers.

UNESCO/OECD GUIDELINES ON QUALITY PROVISION INCROSS-BORDER HIGHER EDUCATION It is timely that UNESCO and OECD have jointly devel-oped a set of Guidelines on Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education. These Guidelines address sixstakeholder groups in higher education – governments,higher education institutions/providers, student bodies,quality assurance and accreditation entities, academicrecognition bodies, and professional associations. Thepurpose of the Guidelines is to encourage internationalcooperation and to enhance the understanding of theimportance of quality provision in cross-border highereducation The Guidelines aim to protect students andother stakeholders from low-quality higher educationprogrammes, accreditation and degree mills, and otherdisreputable providers. The Guidelines are not legallybinding but countries are encouraged to use them in themanner that is most appropriate for their national context(see http://www.unesco.org/education/hed/guidelines).

One of the steps towards assuring the quality andaccreditation of cross-border education is the develop-ment of national regulatory frameworks. To complementthese Guidelines, UNESCO and the Asia-Pacific QualityNetwork have prepared a ‘Toolkit on Regulating QualityAssurance in Cross-Border Education’. The Toolkit isdesigned to help receiving and sending countries with theissues, models, benefits and practical steps in establish-ing a regulatory framework for cross-border education(UNESCO/APQN, 2006). The following two sectionsbriefly describe several existing national regulatoryframeworks for outgoing and incoming cross-borderproviders. These examples have been taken from theToolkit, in which one can find more detailed information.

EXAMPLES OF NATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR ‘SENDING’COUNTRIES The responsibility for the quality assurance and/or accred-itation process is the responsibility of different actors. Thefirst line of responsibility falls on the providers them-selves, the second corresponds to the sending country, andultimately of course, the receiving (importer) country aswell. This section looks at examples of several countriesthat have established procedures for assessing domesticinstitutions that are active in cross-border education ini-tiatives such as twinning, franchising, articulation, dou-ble/joint degrees, branch campuses and others. It isinteresting to note that these procedures and regulation areusually part of the national accreditation/quality assurance


0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 141

process for registered higher education institutions. Thismeans that many of the non-traditional and private, for-profit cross-border providers would not be covered by thisregulation as they often fall outside a national higher edu-cation system of accreditation.

AUSTRALIA

The situation in Australia is very interesting as Australianuniversities have the authority to accredit their own pro-grammes. National protocols/regulations exist and set outa broad set of criteria and procedures for higher educationapproval processes across the whole sector. However,cross-border education is not part of these national proto-cols and as a result some states have established their ownaccreditation boards. The entity which has overall respon-sibility for quality assurance at universities is the Australian Universities Quality Agency. It is a non-gov-ernmental body that includes as part of its mandate a reg-ular cycle of quality audits of universities. These auditsinclude a review of cross-border operations and overseassite visits as is necessary (see www.auqa.edu.au). To date,there is a policy to determine whether an overseas visit isrequired but there are no specific criteria or guidelinesspecifically designed for the assessment of different formsof cross-border provision.

Australia is well known for the exponential growth ithas experienced in international education in the lastdecade, including the recruitment of students to domestic-based institutions and also offshore programmes andcampuses. In 2005, the government developed a‘Transnational Education Quality Framework’. The fourkey elements are as follows: (i) better communication andpromotion of Australia’s quality assurance arrangementsfor trans-national education and training; (ii) increasedaccess and transparency to data and information regard-ing transnational activities; (iii) efficient and effectivequality assurance functions; and (iv) that domestic andtransnational education programmes must be equivalentin terms of the standard of delivery and programme out-come. In essence, although it does serve as an importantcommunication and promotion programme, it is not a reg-ulatory framework (see http://aei.dest.gov.au).

UNITED KINGDOM

The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (www.qaa.ac.uk)for higher education is responsible for quality assuranceof cross-border initiatives undertaken by UK colleges anduniversities. It is interesting to note that QAA does notregister, approve or accredit overseas programmes.Instead, it publishes a code of practice on foreign ‘collab-orative provision and flexible and distributed learning’and provides information on benchmark standards. It

undertakes institutional audits on a regular basis andaddresses cross-border education when foreign collabo-rative provision is an important part of the institutionbeing reviewed. Thus, for the most part assessment ofcross-border education is integrated into regular instit-utional audit programmes, although a separate code ofpractice exists that provides important reference pointsfor the assessment.

The code of practice for collaborative provisionsaddresses a number of key elements including: (i) respon-sibility for, and equivalence of, academic standards; (ii)choosing a partner organization or agent; (iii) assuringacademic standards and the quality of programmes andawards; (iv) assessment requirements; and (v) externalexamination.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The American model of quality assurance and accredita-tion differs from those of other countries. Instead of hav-ing one major national body responsible for accreditationactivities, it has a large number of national, regional andprofessional accrediting bodies that are private, non-profitentities. These accrediting bodies must be recognizedeither by the Council for Higher Education Accreditationand/or the United States Department of Education.

Many of these accrediting organizations develop theirown policies and procedures for accrediting the cross-border education programmes that are part of US highereducation institutions. Some of them are also involved inaccrediting new commercial providers that set up inde-pendent institutions overseas. There is no centrally deter-mined policy for regulating the accreditation or qualityassurance of US-based higher education institutions andUS commercial companies, such as those listed in theGlobal Education Index (Garrett, 2004), who are deliv-ering higher education programmes abroad. The Councilfor Higher Education Accreditation serves as an impor-tant advocate and source of information on internationalaccreditation issues and practices, and houses a databaseof recognized accrediting bodies and information ondegree mills (see www.chea.org).

It is also interesting to note that many of the regionalaccrediting bodies in the USA are hired by traditional oralternative providers in other countries to conduct anaccreditation process on their institutions. These foreigninstitutions benefit from the rigorous accreditationprocess and use the American status of accreditation asan important element in the promotion campaigns toattract students, professors, and research funds. CHEAhas developed a set of guiding principles for these US-based accrediting bodies who are working on an inter-national basis. This type of accreditation is different from


0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 142

the assessment process undertaken for US-based institu-tions that have overseas operations.

EXAMPLES OF NATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR RECEIVINGCOUNTRIES As previously mentioned, the Asia-Pacific region is hometo the greatest volume, scope and variety in cross-borderhigher education provision. Thus, it is not a surprise thatthere have been a number of major advances towards thedevelopment of national regulations to monitor andassure the quality of cross-border education whether it bein the form of joint initiatives (such as twinning, fran-chises, articulation and double/joint degrees), or inde-pendent projects (such as branch campuses, virtualuniversities and standalone institutions).

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

China is a hotbed of activity in terms of foreign entitiesestablishing joint education ventures with Chinese part-ners. The demand for post-secondary education in Chinais enormous given the population demographics and thedesire of China to be a serious player in the internationaleconomic and political arena. China is one of the mostinteresting and desirable countries for commercial aca-demic enterprises and while China has opened its doors tothese activities it has done so with a national regulatoryframework in place. In 2003 China established the ‘Reg-ulations on Chinese and Foreign Cooperation in RunningSchools’. This law was supplemented the following yearwith additional regulations on implementation methods.(see http://www.moe.edu.cn/english/laws_r.htm). The lawrequires that all foreign institutions or companies collab-orate with a local provider. Therefore, only joint venturesare permitted and these partnerships must be given per-mission and accredited by the Chinese authorities.

If a foreign qualification is awarded it must be recog-nized in the home country of the awarding institution.(This raises the question about the recognition andaccreditation challenges of international providers that donot have a home-based awarding institution.) If a Chinesequalification is awarded, then the Chinese institution/part-ner is responsible for assessing the standards of the for-eign institution. In spite of the fact that the necessaryaccreditation procedures are in place, it is important tounderstand that foreign qualifications are not automati-cally recognized. A further step is also required: foreignqualifications must be recognized by a national authoritycalled the Chinese Service Centre for Scholarly Exchange(see http://www.cscse.edu.cn/matterpages/cscse/index_all_en.jsp).

The Chinese regulations are an interesting model tostudy with regards to the accreditation of foreign

providers given that joint ventures are mandatory. How-ever, the experiences of foreign providers reveal thatwhile the regulations are clear on paper, the implementa-tion is still a challenge given the size and complexity ofthe higher education system in China and the diversity oflocal/foreign, public/private, for-profit and non-profitpartnerships that are being developed.

MALAYSIA

The Malaysian regulations for cross-border educationprovision are especially interesting as they address qual-ity, cultural and economic requirements. All foreignproviders are subject to Malaysia’s national quality assur-ance framework but unlike China, foreign providers arenot required to cooperate with a local institution or entity.

There are three levels of assessment in the Malaysiansystem. The first level is compulsory and providesapproval to conduct programmes of study. The secondlevel sets a minimum standard which providers mustmeet if a qualification is to be offered. The third levelinvolves an accreditation process, which is mandatory ifthe qualification is to be recognized for employment pur-poses with the Malaysian public sector. These rules applyto both domestic and foreign providers. The MalaysianQualifications Authority (a new entity recently formed bythe merger of the National Accreditation Board and theQuality Assurance Division of the Ministry of HigherEducation) is now responsible for quality assurance andaccreditation work at the public and private, and domes-tic and foreign levels (see http://apps.emoe.gov.my/qad/main.html). Malaysia has a long history of welcomingforeign institutions and companies to offer tertiary educa-tion programmes, and serves as a good example of acountry that has developed the necessary public policyand regulations to do so, as it has even developed anaccreditation process to ensure that cross-border educa-tion (i) helps to meet national policy objectives, (ii) is ofa high quality, and (iii) is economically sustainable.

HONG KONG

Hong Kong was early to establish legislation for the reg-ulation of higher and professional cross-border education.In 1997, it introduced a law in order to increase access tohigher education for its population by allowing morecross-border programmes, while at the same time ensur-ing consumer protection (see http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/laws). Foreign providers are free to establish an edu-cation programme in their own name or to collaboratewith a local institution.

According to the law, registration is mandatory for allcross-border education providers delivering face-to-faceor mixed-mode programmes. Although each and every


0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 143

programme must be formally registered, interestingly, dis-tance education accreditation is done on a voluntary basis.However, it should be noted that foreign providers whocooperate with a self-accrediting Hong Kong institutionare exempted from this mandatory registration. In addi-tion to registration, cross-border education programmesand providers may choose to apply for local accreditationby the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation,although to date this has not been obligatory.

The Hong Kong regulations use comparability with thestandards of home programmes as the benchmark forquality for foreign institutions, companies or networks. Ifforeign providers choose to adapt the content of their pro-grammes to be more relevant to local Hong Kong needsand norms, they are free to do so as long as comparabilitywith home standards is maintained. A key assumption ofthis benchmark is that the provider has a home institutionfor comparability purposes. As pointed out in the typol-ogy of cross-border providers, not all of them have a homebase that sets standards of quality nor are they necessarilyaccredited by a national quality assurance system.

NEW ZEALAND

While New Zealand has predominantly been consideredan active exporter of education programmes, morerecently it has become a major importer of higher educa-tion as well. There is a growing interest as cross-borderproviders see possibilities for establishing joint ventures orstandalone initiatives in New Zealand for both domesticand foreign students. It is an intriguing scenario to see for-eign providers establish a base in New Zealand to attractforeign students there. Hence, the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee, which oversees quality assurancefor universities, and the New Zealand QualificationsAuthority (NZQA), which has responsibility for the qual-ity assurance of other tertiary level institutions, are bothfacing new challenges in terms of quality assurance andaccreditation of foreign providers in their jurisdiction.

Foreign providers coming to New Zealand can choosewhether to establish a joint venture with a local institu-tions or to establish a new entity. The latter option is avail-able primarily for executive/professional training.Otherwise, all cross-border providers that will be deliver-ing degree-level programmes, or are registering domesticstudents who are eligible for tuition subsidies, or areenrolling international students must be registered withthe New Zealand Qualifications Authority and go throughthe same quality assurance procedures as domestic highereducation institutions (see http://www.nzqa.govt.nz).

These are four different approaches to developing reg-ulations to ensure that cross-border education providersare registered and in most cases undergo the same

processes as domestic institutions in terms of qualityassurance and accreditation. It is interesting to note whatprocesses are mandatory and which are voluntary. In theseexamples, registration is obligatory as is some type ofquality assurance but accreditation is optional dependingon the level, mode of programme delivery and the type oflocal/foreign partnership that was been established.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATIONREGULATORY FRAMEWORKS CAN HELP TOMINIMIZE RISKS AND MAXIMIZE BENEFITS

� For sending countriesIt is important to emphasize that sending countries havea direct responsibility and vested interest in ensuring thequality of the academic offer. The primary reasons are toensure that students and foreign partner institutions areprotected from low-quality and rogue providers, that theyhave a relevant and high-quality education experience,and that the qualifications are recognized for further studyand employment purposes.

However, there are other reasons that sending countriesneed to have quality assurance or accreditation systems inplace for cross-border education. Sending countries cannot afford to put their domestic and international reputa-tion at risk by delivering low-quality academic pro-grammes in another country or having academicprogrammes close down before all students have com-pleted their studies. A tarnished international profile in anincreasingly competitive environment could have nega-tive effects on an institution’s ability to attract students,researchers, teaching staff and research projects. Anothermore macroeconomic rationale that drives a country’sinvestment and interest in cross-border education is theopportunity it brings with it for strategic political, eco-nomic and technological alliances. This has increasingimportance in the knowledge economy. Therefore, if acountry’s reputation is put in jeopardy due to low-qualityeducation provision overseas it could have far-reachingimplications both domestically and internationally.

� For receiving countriesThe prospect of having foreign education providersdeliver academic programmes, establish new institutionsand collaborate with local institutions in joint venturescan bring many advantages to receiving countries. Poten-tial benefits include increased access to higher and con-tinuing education, a greater diversity in programme offer,less brain drain of bright students to foreign institutionsand exposure to foreign teaching and education manage-ment systems. The list of potential benefits is long and


0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 144

varied. So too, however, is the list of potential risks.Risks can include an increase in low-quality or rogueproviders, unsustainable foreign provision of higher edu-cation if profit margins are low, foreign qualificationsthat are not recognized either by domestic employers orfor further study, elitism in terms of those who can affordcross-border education or the overuse of English as thelanguage of instruction. Thus, it is critical that receivingcountries are clear about the objectives and expectedbenefits of cross-border provision and that registration,quality assurance and accreditation processes are in placeto ensure high-quality provision that will contribute tonational policy objectives.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the issues relatedto quality assurance and accreditation and the practicesin delivering education across national borders. There isample evidence that demand for higher education in thenext twenty years will outstrip the capacity of some coun-tries to meet the domestic need. Students moving to othercountries to pursue their studies will continue and remainan important part of the international dimension of thehigher education landscape. However, student mobilitywill not be able to satisfy the enormous appetite for highereducation coming from densely populated countrieswanting to build their human capacity so as to becomefull participants in the knowledge society. Hence we seethe emergence and growing importance of cross-bordereducation programmes and providers.

A review of the new developments in programme andprovider mobility shows a diversity of new types of edu-cation providers, new delivery modes and innovativeforms of public/private and local/foreign partnerships.New courses and programmes are being designed anddelivered in response to local conditions and global chal-lenges, and new qualifications/awards are being conferred.The growth in the volume, scope and dimensions of cross-border education has the potential to provide increasedaccess, and to promote innovation and responsiveness ofhigher education, but it also brings new challenges andunexpected consequences. There are the realities thatunrecognized and rogue cross-border providers are active;that much of the latest cross-border education provision isbeing driven by commercial interests and gain; and thatmechanisms to recognize qualifications and ensure qual-ity of the academic course/programme are still not in placein many countries. These present major challenges to theeducation sector. It is important to acknowledge the hugepotential of cross-border education but not at the expenseof academic quality and integrity.

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

AVCC (2003) Offshore Programs of Australian Universities.Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Canberra.

Bhushan, S. (2006) Foreign Education Providers in India: Map-ping the Extent and Regulation. Observatory on BorderlessHigher Education, London, UK.

Bohm, A., D. Davis, D. Meares and D. Pearce (2002) TheGlobal Student Mobility 2025 Report: Forecasts of theGlobal Demand for International Education. IDP Canberra,Australia.

Coleman, D. (2003) Quality Assurance in Transnational Educa-tion, Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4),pp. 354–78.

CHEA (2003) Important Questions about Diploma Mills andAccreditation Mills. Fact Sheet 6. Council for Higher Edu-cation Accreditation, Washington, DC.

CVCP (2000) The Business of Borderless Education: UK Per-spectives. Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.London, UK.

DEST (2003) Higher Education Statistics Collection. Depart-ment of Education, Science and Training of the Common-wealth Government of Australia. Canberra, Australia.

Garrett, R. (2005) Fraudulent, Sub-standard, Ambiguous – TheAlternative Borderless Higher Education. Briefing Note.Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. London, UK.

Garrett, R. (2004) Global Education Index 2004. Report: Obser-vatory on Borderless Higher Education. London, UK.

Garrett, R. and L. Verbik (2004) Transnational Delivery by UKHigher Education, Part 1: Data and Missing Data. Obser-vatory on Borderless Higher Education. London, UK.

Knight, J. (2005a) Cross-border Education: An AnalyticalFramework for Program and Provider Mobility, in JohnSmart and William Tierney (eds.) Higher Education: Hand-book of Theory and Practice. Springer: Dordrecht, theNetherlands.

Knight, J. (2005b) Cross-border Education: Programs andProviders on the Move. CBIE Millennium Research Mono-graph No. 10. Canadian Bureau for International Education.Ottawa, Canada.

Knight, J. (2005c) Borderless, Offshore, Transnational andCross-Border Education – Definition and Data Dilemmas.Report of the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.London, UK.

Larsen, K., K. Momii and S. Vincent-Lancrin. (2004) Cross-Border Higher Education: An Analysis of Current Trends,Policy Strategies and Future Scenarios. Observatory onBorderless Higher Education. London, UK.

Middlehurst, R. (2002) The Developing World of BorderlessHigher Education: Markets, Providers, Quality Assuranceand Qualification. Working Paper for UNESCO First GlobalForum on International Quality Assurance, Accreditationand the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education.UNESCO. Paris, France.

Middlehurst, R. and S. Woodfield (2003) The Role of Transna-tional, Private and For-Profit Provision in Meeting GlobalDemand for Tertiary Education: Mapping, Regulation andImpact. Report for the Commonwealth of Learning andUNESCO.

New Zealand Ministry of Education (2002) New Zealand’s Off-shore Public Tertiary Education Progammes: Initial Stock-ade. Prepared by the International Policy and DevelopmentDepartment. Auckland, New Zealand.

OBHE (2002–2004) Breaking News Stories from 2002–2004.Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. London, UK.


0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 145

OECD (2004a) Quality and Recognition in Higher Education:The Cross-Border Challenge. Organization for Economicand Community Development. Paris, France.

OECD (2004b) Internationalization and Trade of Higher Edu-cation – Challenges and Opportunities. Organization forEconomic and Community Development, Paris.

Uvalic-Trumbic S. (2002) Globalization and the Market inHigher Education: Quality, Accreditation and Qualifica-tions. UNESCO/Economica. Paris, France.

UNESCO/APQN (2006) Toolkit: Regulating the Quality ofCross-Border Education. UNESCO, Bangkok.

UNESCO and Council of Europe (2001) The UNESCO-

CEPES/Council of Europe Code of Good Practice for theProvision of Transnational Education. UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO/OECD (2005a) Guidelines on Quality Provision inCross-border Higher Education. UNESCO and OECD, Paris.

UNESCO/OECD (2005b) Draft Proposal for Proposed NextSteps for an International Information Tool on RecognizedHigher Education Institutions. UNESCO and OECD. Paris,France.

Verbik, L. and L. Jokivirta (2005) National Regulatory Frame-works for Transnational Higher Education: Models andTrends. Part 1 and Part 2. Briefing Notes. Observatory onBorderless Higher Education. London, UK.


INTRODUCTIONCross-border education is a significantdevelopment in this era of globalization.This is particularly so in the case of highereducation where many new forms ofpost-secondary education have emergedover the past two decades, ranging fromface-to-face through to distance educa-tion programmes. Cross-border highereducation refers not only to the mobilityof students but also the mobility of aca-demic staff, educational programmesand institutions across national borders.

Students go abroad to study becauseof the market value of foreign degrees,job opportunities in the global labourmarket and the potential for migration tothe host countries. On the other hand,programme and institutional mobilityprovides opportunities for students toearn a foreign degree while remaining athome. Broadly speaking, cross-bordermobility of education programmesinvolves the delivery of education servicesfrom one country to another, throughfranchising, twinning, double/jointdegrees and other forms of articulationlinkages. All these different modes ofdelivery can be through face-to-face, dis-tance and online or blended learningmodes. Likewise, institutions, organiza-tions and companies can also moveacross national borders to establish apresence in another country through theestablishment of a branch campus, studycentre or a virtual university. Cross-borderproviders can be traditional universities ornew providers, including publicly traded

companies such as Informatics in Singa-pore and Aptech in India, corporate uni-versities such as those run by Motorolaand Intel and university consortia such asUniversitas 21. Clearly, the phenomenonof cross-border higher education hasmade major inroads in the provision ofhigher education services globally andwithin the Asia-Pacific region.

CROSS-BORDER HIGHER EDUCATIONIN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONThe driving forces that are shaping thedevelopment of cross-border higher edu-cation in the Asia-Pacific region includethe increasing demand by students andparents for foreign education, the poli-cies and priorities of national govern-ments and the commercial interests offoreign and local institutions. By andlarge, student mobility in the region hasbeen demand-driven. Statistics show thatthe flow of international students out ofthe Asia-Pacific region is not matched bythe flow into the region. Asia heads thelist of regions sending tertiary-level stu-dents abroad, followed by Europe, Africa,North America and South America.About 70 per cent of all Asian studentsabroad study in three leading English-speaking destinations, namely the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom and Australia(OECD, 2004). Within the Asia-Pacificregion, Australia and Japan are the mainregional providers. Australia’s mainsources of international students are Sin-gapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, China andIndonesia. In the case of Japan, most

international students come from Chinaand South Korea.

In relation to cross-border highereducation, Asia-Pacific countries can beclassified into five broad categories(OECD, 2004):

1. Developed exporter nations that havestrong domestic capacity and a minorrole as importers of education, such asAustralia and New Zealand.

2. Developed nations that have strongdomestic capacity but are active asimporters, particularly of English-lan-guage education, such as Japan andSouth Korea.

3. Developed or intermediate nationswith inadequate domestic capacitythat are active as both importers andexporters, such as Singapore, HongKong and Malaysia.

4. Intermediate nations with inadequatedomestic capacity that are active asimporters and relatively undevelopedas exporters, such as China, Vietnam,the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia,Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

5. Relatively undeveloped nations thatare characterized by both low domes-tic participation and weak demand forcross-border higher education, such asCambodia, Laos, Myanmar, PapuaNew Guinea and small island nationsin the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Cross-border higher education is notalways commercial in nature. Very often,national governments design measures

SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION I.6Cross-border higher education and quality assurance in Asia-Pacific

Molly N.N. Lee

0230000479_10_cha08 11/10/06 13:59 Page 146

carlos gonzalez cald

Cuadro de texto

Documents

cross-border higher education: issues and - UPCommons