Promoting partnerships in quality assurance: the cross-border challenge

World Bank Learning SeminarQuality Assurance in Tertiary Education

(Sevres. 18-20 June 2006)

Stamenka Uvalic-Trumbic (UNESCO)Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin (OECD)

2

Key message

Stronger partnerships in quality assurance are necessary because of:

– Growing mobility of students, professional and people

– Growing mobility of educational programmes and institutions

– Diversification of provision in higher education

– Need for developing countries to develop their capacity in higher education

3

Outline

Capacity building through cross-border higher education and its challenges

Implications for quality assurance of the (UNESCO/OECD) Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education

Other UNESCO capacity building instruments

Appendix: Latest data on cross-border student mobility

4

Capacity building requires tertiary education

Human capital leads to growth

– Productivity– Innovation– Health

It takes human capital to train human capital

– Tertiary education is important for primary and secondary education

Monitoring and evaluation are essential to capacity building and require highly trained people

The rapid expansion of higher education poses quality issues

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Lowerincome

Lower-Middleincome

Upper-Middleincome

High income

Gross Participation Rates in tertiary education (2001)

Source: Unesco Institute for Statistics

5

Building capacity (in tertiary education) through cross-border education

Expand access to tertiary education rapidly by supplementing domestic provision

Increase the variety and relevance of tertiary education

Improve the quality of tertiary education through spillovers and participation in international networks of knowledge

6

Capacity building

Knowledge sharing

Imported capacity

Existing capacities

Needed capacities

7

Challenges of cross-border higher education

Student mobility

Cost of studying abroad

Recognition of degrees and qualification

Brain drain

Inequity

Programme & Institution mobility

Low quality provision

No quality impact on local system

Cultural relevance

Stability of the system

8

Cross-border higher education presents new challenges for quality assurance

Higher education systems are often opaque viewed from abroad, which leaves room for disreputable providers

Student, academic and professional mobility induces a strong demand for recognition of foreign degrees and qualifications

Quality of cross-border education is a major concern for:– Importers of higher education (student protection)– Exporters of higher education (reputation)

Unaccredited and rogue providers are a real problem

10

(UNESCO/OECD) Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education

They are an EDUCATIONAL response to maximise the opportunities and minimise the risks of cross-border higher education

11

Principles of the Guidelines respect capacity building principles

Voluntary and non-binding

Mutual trust and respect among countries

Recognition of importance of international collaboration

Recognition of national authority and of the diversity of systems

Not a standard-setting instrument

12

Main (underlying) message

The quality of cross-border higher education is a shared responsibility between importing and exporting countries

– Quality assurance should cover cross-border education in all its forms (student, academic, programme and institution mobility)

– Stakeholders should collaborate internationally to enhance the transparency about the quality of HE and about HE systems

– Cross-border delivery should have the same quality as home delivery

13

Main implications for quality assurance

Quality assurance and Recognition– have a comprehensive quality assurance system, internal or

external– have fair mechanisms for recognition of qualifications

Transparency and accessibility of information– be transparent about what you do and make the relevant

information accessible internationally

Collaboration– Strengthen your collaboration with other stakeholders nationally,

regionally and internationally

14

Guidelines and capacity building

The guidelines are independent on the arrangements of cross-border higher education (commercial, aid, partnerships)

They leave freedom to countries to scan locally and globally, and then reinvent locally

They take into account human, social and cultural needs (and not only economic ones)

15

Other UNESCO capacity building tools in this area

Regional conventions

International Information Tool on Recognised Higher Education Institutions

Distance education course: Methodological and organisational options in external QA systems (UNESCO-IIEP) (Anglophone Africa 2006)

UNESCO Tool-kit on the setting up of regulatory frameworks for Cross Border Education in cooperation with the APQNet (Asia and the Pacific Convention)

On-Line Course for Credential Evaluation – (Mediterranean Convention)

16

Region Secretariat Adopted Number of parties

Last ratification

Last meeting Planned meeting

Africa UNESCO Dakar

Arusha 1981

21 1998 Dakar, 2003 Dakar, July 2006

Arab UNESCO Beirut

Paris 1978 14 1991 Beirut, March 2006 2007

Asia & Pacific

UNESCO Bangkok

Bangkok 1983

20 2003 Kunming, May 2005

Seoul, 2007

LAC IESALC Caracas

Mexico City 1974

18 2005 San Salvador April 2006

Caracas, October 2006

MED UNESCO Paris

Nice 1976 11 2001 Split, June 2005

Egypt, 2007

Europe CEPES Bucharest & Council of Europe

Lisbon 1997

49 2005 Strasbourg June 2005

2007

UNESCO Regional conventions on the recognition of qualifications

17

International Information Tool on Recognised Higher Education Institutions

Aim: Increase transparency & facilitate students’ informed decision-making

The information tool would: – be hosted by UNESCO – include a comprehensive list of all higher education

institutions recognized by a competent national authority– be free of charge, easy to access, simple, user friendly,

provided online and searchable

Pilot: 8-12 countries from different regions and economic development (Dec. 2005 – July 2007)

18

Thank you!

s.uvalic-trumbic@unesco.org

Stephan.Vincent-Lancrin@oecd.org

19

International mobility of students

About 2.5 million foreign students in the world in 2004, 85% of whom in the OECD area

The majority (61%) of foreign students within the OECD area come from non-OECD countries

Student mobility has nearly tripled since 1980 and has increased by 50% since 1998

20

25 top destination countries for foreign students in absolute terms (2004)

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

700 000

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Ger

man

yFr

ance

Aus

tral

iaJa

pan

Rus

sian

Fede

ratio

nSo

uth

Afr

ica

Ital

yC

anad

aB

elgi

umSw

itzer

land

Swed

enA

ustr

iaM

alay

siaN

ew Z

eala

ndN

ethe

rlan

dsD

enm

ark

Kyr

gyzs

tan

Jord

anU

krai

nePo

rtug

alSp

ain

Mac

ao, C

hina

Leb

anon

Source: UIS

70%

21

25 top receiving countries in relative terms (2004)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mac

ao, C

hina Fiji

Cyp

rus

Qat

arSw

itzer

land

Aus

tral

iaA

ustr

iaN

ew Z

eala

ndU

nite

d K

ingd

omFr

ance

Bel

gium

Leb

anon

Den

mar

kN

amib

iaT

ogo

Jord

anK

yrgy

zsta

nSw

eden

Bah

rain

Sout

h A

fric

aM

ali

Irel

and

Nor

way

Sene

gal

Mal

aysia

Source: UIS

22

25 top countries of origin of foreign students (2004)

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

Chi

naIn

dia

Rep

ublic

of K

orea

Japa

nG

erm

any

Fran

ceT

urke

yM

oroc

coG

reec

eU

nite

d St

ates

Mal

aysia

Can

ada

Ital

y

Rus

sian

Fede

ratio

n

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na),

SAR

Indo

nesi

aPo

land

Kaz

akhs

tan

Spai

nU

krai

neB

ulga

ria

Alg

eria

Tha

iland

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Mex

ico

Source: UIS

23

Outbound mobility (%) (2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

And

orra

Lux

embo

urg

Djib

outi

Com

oros

Gui

nea-

Biss

auC

ape

Ver

deB

eliz

eT

onga

Cyp

rus

Gam

bia

Cay

man

Isla

nds

Les

otho

Equ

ator

ial G

uine

aB

otsw

ana

Nam

ibia

Ber

mud

aG

abon

Ang

ola

Sain

t Luc

iaM

auri

tius

Bru

nei D

arus

sala

mC

ongo

Cha

dSw

azila

ndA

lban

iaSa

moa

Zim

babw

e

Tri

nida

d an

d T

obag

oM

alaw

iSu

rina

me

Icel

and

(p)

Mau

rita

nia

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na),

SAR

Sene

gal

Pala

uB

arba

dos

Eri

trea

Cam

eroo

nG

uine

aB

enin

Tog

oV

anua

tuM

oroc

coJa

mai

ca

Source: UIS

Domestic students abroad expressed as a percentage of the country’s tertiary enrolments

24

Internal regional mobility (2004)

19%

12%

3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0%0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

N. A

mer

ica

& W

. Eur

ope

Eas

t Asi

a an

d th

e Pa

cific

Cen

tral

and

Eas

tern

Eur

ope

Sub-

Saha

ran

Afr

ica

Lat

in A

mer

ica

and

the

Car

i...

Ara

b St

ates

Cen

tral

Asi

a

Sout

h an

d W

est A

sia

Source: UIS

Share of international students studying abroad in their region of origin

25

Distribution of all foreign students across regions (2004)

72%

16%5% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0%

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

N. A

mer

ica

& W

. Eur

ope

Eas

t Asi

a an

d th

e Pa

cific

Cen

tral

and

Eas

tern

Eur

ope

Sub-

Saha

ran

Afr

ica

Ara

b St

ates

Cen

tral

Asi

aL

atin

Am

eric

a an

d th

e C

ari..

.

Sout

h an

d W

est A

sia

Source: UIS

26

45%

54%

26%

82%

30%

48%

40%

79%

Europe

13%

46%

5%

29%

4%

10%

4%

Asia-Pacific

100%33%From WORLD

1%28%From Oceania

30%13%From Europe

41%From Asia

4%48%From S. America

6%50%From N. America

12%17%From Africa

OECDNorth

AmericaOECD receiving countries in

Origin of foreign students in the OECD area (2003)

Source: OECD

27

International mobility of programmes and institutions

Educational programme and institution mobility is still limited in scale but grows rapidly, especially in the Asia-Pacific region

– 33% of all international students enrolled in Australian institutions studied from their country in 2004 (against 24% in 1996 and 37% in 2001)

– Singapore: more undergraduate students accessed a foreign programme from Singapore than studied abroad in 2000

– China: 9-fold increase in foreign programmes between 1995 and 2003