Search News


Browse Archives

News

Quality Control Across Borders

December 6, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Two international bodies on Monday released proposed guidelines for countries, accreditors and colleges to use to ensure quality in programs that cross national borders.

While the guidelines are not mandatory on anyone and don't go into much detail, they are among the most significant efforts to date to expand quality control in higher education beyond any one single country. With more colleges than ever before offering programs outside their home country -- either through physical campuses or online -- students are "more vulnerable to low-quality provision and disreputable providers of cross-border higher education," says the introduction to the guidelines, which were adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and by Unesco.

Together, the two organizations have 190 member countries.

The introduction also notes that while, for some developed nations, the challenge is extending their accreditation or other quality-assurance mechanisms internationally, many developing countries don't have much of a system to begin with, even for evaluating quality at home. As a result, the organizations called for more "capacity building" in such countries.

In terms of international education, the report offered guidelines for governments, colleges, students, and accreditors.

Governments were urged to:

  • Establish "comprehensive, fair and transparent" systems for foreign colleges to register to offer programs.
  • Recognize that the development of good systems for quality control must involve both "sending and receiving countries."
  • Develop "where appropriate" bilateral or multilateral agreements for mutual recognition of colleges in countries with comparable and sound quality control systems.

Colleges were urged to:

  • Set standards such that programs they offer in other countries are of "comparable quality" to those they offer at home.
  • Consider "cultural and linguistic sensitivities" in countries in which they are offering programs.
  • Recognize the importance of the quality of the faculty and of faculty working conditions in programs at home and abroad and to promote "collegial governance" and academic freedom at home and abroad.

Students were encouraged to:

  • Ask tough questions of programs in which they are considering enrolling -- and specifically to inquire about accreditation standards and faculty quality, and how both compare to the institution's campus in its home country.
  • Spread the word to fellow students about "potential risks such as misleading guidance and information" and "low quality" programs.

Accreditors were urged to:

  • Make sure their standards took into consideration the growing number of colleges that offer programs outside their home country.
  • Establish closer ties to accreditors in other countries.
  • Consider the use of international panels to evaluate colleges or programs, where their educational activities make such a panel appropriate.
  • Make sure that standards are "easily accessible."
See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Quality Control Across Borders

  • What About Journalists?
  • Posted by Steve Foerster , Executive Director at Free Curricula Center on December 6, 2005 at 1:45pm EST
  • The suggestions from the OECD and UNESCO seem harmless, if not particularly earth shattering. However, no matter how much oversight is attempted by governments, international bureaucrats, and watchdog groups, in the end it is the responsibility of students to be informed consumers of educational services. To that end I would like to see advice for journalists, who can potentially play an important role in exposing substandard or outright fraudulent foreign schools that market to students in their area.

  • WHAT ABOUT EMPLOYERS?
  • Posted by George Brown , Director at HigherEd Consulting (Australasia) on December 6, 2005 at 5:19pm EST
  • Whilst a comment has been raised about educating journalists on the perils of degree mills (and I totally agree), it will be interesting to see how, and if, countries will seek to educate the majority of employers. Historically, most government agencies have taken the easy, 'caveat emptor' approach to degree mill activity, especially in the Asia Pacific area. Most proclaim that employers are the ones most qualified to assess qualifications for their particular employment needs and recognition is in the eye of the beholder. Mmmm. Recent research conducted in the USA found that employers actually found degrees from degree mills equally, if not more acceptable than degrees from traditional universities. Why? Because the names of the degree mills sounded far nicer, and much grander than those of the traditional entities. These are disturbing findings, and make a mockery of the work and inputs dedicated to higher education, only to be spoilt by such haphazard and ignorant attempts at background screening.

    Whilst there is still much more work to be done regarding the recognition of qualifications in Australia, I am proud to say that we have one of the most robust and proactive accreditation and quality assurance systems in the world. There is a zero tolerance level for degree mill activity here. And the peddlers of this substandard activity know it.

  • OECD guideliens
  • Posted by Madeleine Green , Vice President for International Initiatives at American Council on Education on December 6, 2005 at 5:19pm EST
  • Four institutional associations from around the world, including two U.S. associations(the American Council on Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation) issued a statement in April 2005 calling attention to the principles that should underlie cross-border higher education and the responsibitilies of different stakeholders. See http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Activities&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=7669