What future for program and
institutional mobility?
Grant McBurnie, Australia
MOBILE PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS IN
AN IDEAL WORLD (I)
1.
Range of provision, providers and purposes
2.
Good Quality (and a way of knowing)
3.
Solid financial foundations
4.
Well-governed and well-regulated
5.
Teaching, research, community engagement
6.
Part of mainstream international education
TYPES AND SCALE OF PROVISION
Program and Institution Mobility (PIM)
• Distance/ODL
• Partner-supported delivery
• Branch Campus
No consolidated global data but …
• More than 500,000 PIM students worldwide
• In some places PIM accounts for 25% or more of
enrolments
• OBHE lists 82 full branch campuses
• Several countries declare intent to become regional
hubs, through PIM.
Foreign students enrolled in selected countries’
transnational degree programs, most recent year available
Offshore Higher Education
Students
Year
UK
220,000
2004
Australia
94,321
2006/08
Canada
36,000
1999
Exporting Country
Note: The UK and Canadian figures are estimates based on surveys of most but not all providers,
Australian data includes students enrolled in universities and public vocational education and training
institutions
Sources: (British Council 2004, OECD 2004, IDP Education Australia 2007, National Centre for
Vocational Education Research 2008)
Singapore Higher Education Students by Type of Provider, 2005
Students
Percentage
Transnational (foreign) programs
80,200
36
Polytechnics
56,048
25
Local universities (NUS, NTU, SIM)
41,628
18
Private institutions’ programs
26,500
12
Institute of Technical Education
19,207
9
National Institute of Education
2,282
1
225,865
100
Total
Sources: (Lee 2005: 15, MoE 2006: Table 15)
Transnational enrolments in Australian universities
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Semester, Year
Source: IDP Education Australia (2008)
1,08
2,07
1,07
2,06
1,06
2,05
1,05
2,04
1,04
2,03
1,03
2,02
1,02
2,01
1,01
2,00
1,00
2,99
1,99
2,98
1,98
2,97
1,97
0
2,96
Equivalent Full-Time Students
70,000
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
Sending
• Income
• Prestige
• Additional employment
• Additional academic opportunities (curriculum, research, mobility)
• Attract students to home base
Receiving
• Absorb unmet demand & expand choices
• Reduce student outflow & money outflow
• Lowers cost of education for government (user pays)
• Additional employment opportunities
• Partnering opportunities for local private providers
• Part of larger services cluster
• Prestigious foreign providers attract international students
POTENTIAL DANGERS
Sending
• Financial loss
• Risk: legal, sovereign, physical
• Regulatory burden
• Damage to reputation
• Problems with partners
• Undermine domestic mission
Receiving
• Reduce government control of system
• Undermine capacity of public system (poach teachers etc)
• Burden of carrying out regulation
• Exacerbate social inequality (user must be able to pay)
• Cultural imperialism
• Academic de-skilling (pre-packaged curriculum, no research)
• Bad quality education
QUALITY sometimes versus QUANTITY
Four Phase Trajectory of PIM development
1. Rapid growth in outbound student mobility
•
Demand outpaces supply: growth in number of students studying abroad.
2. Capacity Building and Import-Replacement Strategies
•
Importing government encourages PIM to help meet demand and reduce student
outflow. Relatively light-touch regulation.
3. Enrichment
•
Domestic supply grows; governments squeeze out low-end PIM providers; quality
foreign providers enhance choice for students. Regulation more stringent.
4. Growing Education Exports
•
Domestic capacity and quality is sufficiently established; governments are able to
encourage the export of education; prestigious PIM providers are encouraged, as
a drawcard for attracting foreign students. Heavy regulation.
FOUR SCENARIOS for the future
A. The world becomes more foreign
• Continued rapid expansion; patterns of delivery pioneered in South East Asia are
rolled out across the globe; new exporters emerge from many countries.
B. As the world churns
• Growth slows; domestic supply expands in traditional importer countries; exporters
seek opportunities in other countries that still have high demand.
C. Campus clusters
• Development of clusters of branch campuses of prestigious universities, located in
cities that act as regional hubs for international business services, education and
research
D. Shrinkage in the cold
• PIM declines due to backlash; governments raise QA requirements and demand
greater financial commitment; well-publicised failures; students regard PIM as low
status; exporting institutions focus on other activities.
MOBILE PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS IN AN
IDEAL WORLD (II)
1. Range of provision, providers and purposes
•
Consortia – based on: language; ethnicity/diaspora; professional
specialisation; religious faith; international and regional organisations –
offer a variety of programs. Aid, trade, for-profit, not-for-profit and hybrid.
2. Good Quality (and a way of knowing)
•
Quality principles implemented; findings publicised; possible ‘consumer
guides’ addressing PIM; PIM rated according to international criteria?
3. Solid financial foundations
•
Multiple funding sources (university, government, business, philanthropy,
professional bodies etc); insurance schemes to protect students; wind-out
conditions
MOBILE PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS IN AN
IDEAL WORLD (II)
4. Well-governed and well-regulated
•
National policy on importing PIM; national policy on exporting PIM
(rationales; effect on domestic public; QA); institutional policy on exporting
PIM (rationales; effects on core mission of university; lines of responsibility)
5. Teaching, research, community engagement
•
Governments encourage PIM providers to engage in local research and
community engagement as well as teaching; this is considered to contribute
to quality and status
6. Part of mainstream international education
•
IGOs ask governments to gather information to be collated and analysed by
UNESCO, OECD, regional organisations etc.
Thank You