Education and Commerce: are they fundamentally incompatible?

As it is known cross-border higher education (HE), through movement of students across borders, has a long history. Cross-border higher education through mobility of programs and institutions is of recent origin and it has significantly increased during the last two decades. Transnational education (TNE), offshore education or as OECD calls it, program and institutional mobility (PIM) all taken together, present “forms of education in which students are located in a different country from the one in which the provider is based” (Ziguras and McBurnie, 2015, p. 128). This new phenomenon usually involves a smaller numbers of students and education providers. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that regulatory challenges and cross-border educational delivery has become more complex. According to Ziguras and McBurnie (2015), there are regulatory frameworks that support the provision of education through cross border supply. Although the previous experiences were highly criticized and unsuccessful, now programs operating abroad are carefully scrutinized by quality assurance and accreditation processes. They are controlled whether they are offered in 1) conjunction with local partners, 2) through distance education or 3) without a local presence.

There are four modes of delivery of cross border programs as online education program without local partners, international branch campuses of institutions, partner supported programs and validation. It is clear with online programs need no local partners, although they are also subject to similar regulation and quality assurance as on campus programs. Regulators do not worry much about any kinds of online programs, since the quality programs is the same for local and overseas. They are concerned with establishing and operating an international branch campus because as the authors believe “they in practice succeed where they have support of both home and host governments” (p. 132). As for the third type, they are franchising, twinning and joint degrees. Partner - supported programs are less risky in terms of finance and reputation though lays burden on authorities to ensure that recognized national qualifications offered offshore meet the expectation. The fourth mode of delivery is validation recently causing problems for regulatory agencies, as it poses reputational risk, as stated by Healey “in the wake quality assurance agencies and media scrutiny, some institutions are closing programs as university leaders become more aware of the risks involved” (as cited in Ziguras and McBurnie, 2015, p. 135)

The high rise of TNE delivery and poorly assured quality has forced governments to reconsider regulations about accreditation system of sending and receiving countries. Hence, the risks that might be appeared in TNE do not damage the reputation of the university itself as well as the provider country. Until a decade ago, transnational education was not monitored by external quality assurance agencies. The attempts to audit quality of TNE were first taken by UK in 1995. The effects of quality assurance agency on university’s inbound and outbound flow of students endanger transnational education of many universities. Therefore, UNESCO Guidelines give recommendations about strengthening collaboration between hosting and sending countries as well as discussing quality assurance issues, mutual involvement of both sending and receiving countries and universities .Understanding the scale of this form of cross-border education is difficult because there is no intergovernmental agency that collects data on transnational enrolments. Notwithstanding that cross-border, academic cooperation and transnational higher education are characteristics of the 21st century, it is recommended to carefully examine the realities in order to assess quality and effectiveness (Altbach, 2013).  He argues that protecting culture, intellectual independence, and the values of civil society are simply not at the same level as free trade in automobiles or equal access to market for soya beans or even other services that are included in the GATS agenda. I admire the author’s incredible contribution in this highly controversial politico-intellectual space. His arguments are staggering in understanding the potential dilemmas in the globalization and internationalization arena. Moreover, UNESCO, WTO and other individual organizations proclaim that HE exists to serve the public interest, not a commodity.

References

Altbach, P. G. (Ed.). (2013). The international imperative in higher education. Springer

Science & Business Media.

Ziguras, C., & McBurnie, G. (2015). Governing cross-border higher education. New York:     Routledge.