higher education in asia and the pacific 1998-2003 · (bangkok, thailand, 25-26 february 2003)...

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Meeting of Higher Education Partners

Paris, 23-25 June 2003

Higher education in Asia and the Pacific 1998-2003

Regional report on progress in implementing recommendations of the 1998 World Conference on Higher Education

Adopted at the Second Session of the Regional Follow-up Committee (Bangkok, Thailand, 25-26 February 2003)

Document prepared by

UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education

Paris, 2003

The designations employed and the presentation of the material throughout this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Published in 2003 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP Printed at UNESCO (ED-2003/WS/21) © UNESCO 2003

Note of the Secretariat

Five years after the World Conference on Higher Education (Paris, 1998), UNESCO has once again reunited actors in higher education from across the world, represented by the focal points responsible for the follow-up of the World Conference and certain notable figures, for a meeting of partners in higher education (UNESCO, Paris, 23-25 June 2003).

The goal of the meeting is to evaluate progress in the implementation of the World Declaration over the last five years, to measure the impact that the Conference has had on the development of higher education at the world level, and to define orientations for future action at the level of Member States and institutions to ensure that higher education is able to better respond to rising needs and challenges.

The principal working documents made available to the participants to facilitate their deliberations and to allow them to reach their objectives were prepared on the basis of information collected by Member States and our principal partners in the follow-up of the World Conference, as well as our colleagues responsible for carrying out the higher education programme at the regional level.

The Division of Higher Education would like to express its sincere gratitude to all the actors who contributed to the organisation of the partners’ meeting.

Komlavi Seddoh Director Division of Higher Education

Contents

Executive summary ...................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 3

2. Trends in higher education reform and development since 1998 WCHE ........... 6

2.1. Quantitative expansion and massification .......................................... 6

2.2. Role of private higher education ....................................................... 7

2.3. Quality and quality assurance .......................................................... 9

2.4. Credit transfer and the mutual recognition of qualifications ............... 11

2.5. Resources and further diversification of funding ............................... 14

2.6. Trade in education services and attitudes to foreign provision of higher education and GATS ........................... 16

3. Challenges facing developing countries in higher education reform and development ............................................ 18

3.1. The knowledge economy and funding priorities ................................ 18

3.2. Enrolment expansion, graduate employment and student access ....... 19

3.3. Relevance, innovation and reform for improved linkages with the world of work .................................. 19

3.4. Quality assurance and setting standards ......................................... 20

3.5. Capacity building and globalisation ................................................. 21

4. Role of UNESCO ..................................................................................... 23

4.1. UNESCO and the Asian Pacific Region ............................................. 23

4.2. WCHE Declaration and Framework ................................................. 23

4.3. Massification and Education for All .................................................. 23

4.4. Role of the UNESCO Regional Bureau Bangkok ................................. 24

5. Recommendations ................................................................................. 26

References ................................................................................................. 28

List of abbreviations

AAOU Asian Association of Open Universities

ASAIHL Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher Learning

APQN Asia-Pacific Quality Network

AUAP Association of Universities of Asia and the Pacific

AUN ASEAN University Network

CHEMS Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service

GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services

GMS Greater Mekong Sub-region

GMSVU Greater Mekong Sub-region Virtual University

GUNI-AP Global University Network for Innovation – Asia and the Pacific

HECS Higher Education Contribution Scheme

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IGNOU Indira Gandhi National Open University

IGOs Inter Governmental Organizations

INQAAHE International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAC National Assessment and Accreditation Council

NGOs Non Governmental Organisations

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PROAP Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

RIHED Regional Centre for Higher Education Development

RMIT Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

SEAMEO Southeast Asian Ministers Educational Organisation

UMAP University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific

UCTS UMAP Credit Transfer Scheme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UNITWIN University Twinning and Networking Scheme

WCHE World Conference on Higher Education

WTO World Trade Organisation

Higher education in Asia and the Pacific 1998-2003 1

Executive summary

This regional report outlines progress made in Asia and the Pacific in implementing the recommendations of the 1998 World Conference on Higher Education (WCHE). It also identifies key trends and issues facing higher education in the region and offers recommendations for consideration at the 2003 World Conference on Higher Education + 5 (WCHE+5).

Asia and the Pacific is a vast region of over three billion people, containing almost 60 per cent of the world’s population but only one third of the world's higher education enrolments and only 28 per cent of the world's wealth. It is the largest of the UNESCO regions in terms of both geographic size and population, and includes two countries each with a population in excess of one billion people, as well as many small nation states. It is recognised as the cradle of important civilisations and home to many of the world’s religions and philosophies. The diversity of the region is clearly reflected in its higher education systems.

Currently the Asia-Pacific region is going through a period of rapid and far-reaching economic and social change, driven particularly by the impact of accelerating globalisation, increased international economic competition and the transition from traditional to knowledge-based economies and often market-oriented systems. Impressive developments are taking place particularly in the application of new information and communications technology (ICT), often with strong support from governments; examples are the Malaysian Multimedia Super Corridor, the newly established 15 digital universities in Korea and 67 on-line colleges established by conventional universities in China. Generally service industries are growing at impressive and sometimes unexpected rates, creating demands for new forms of well-educated professionals and support staff.

Current economic and social changes provide higher education with a variety of major challenges. Increasingly it is being recognised that, in the future, higher education must have enhanced but somewhat different roles. Adjustments will need to be made within institutions, especially in access and admissions policies, course delivery, student learning strategies and curriculum content, while in many cases national policy frameworks and overall planning approaches will need redirection. Major challenges include finding sufficient resources to facilitate expansion, the quantity and quality dilemma, increasing pressure for more and better higher education in order to cope with the rapidly developing information and knowledge society, the increasing role of ICT as a driving force and its impact on higher education, increasing trade in higher education services and the pressures for increased mutual recognition in qualifications between Member States.

2 Higher education in Asia and the Pacific 1998-2003

Rapid change and new challenges clearly are putting higher education under considerable strain. In a number of Member countries, student enrolment demands cannot be met, public financial support is not expanding or is in decline, and infrastructure often is inadequate. There are many cases of unfortunate and increasing gaps in provision and quality, especially between developing and developed countries and between cities and rural areas. On the other hand, universities have tremendous capacity to innovate and help determine the future of their societies, as well as their own futures. Examples of recent innovations and experimentation of international significance include major open universities and distance education provision, the extensive use of new technologies, the location of more than half of the world’s mega-universities in Asia and the Pacific and the extensive use of private higher education.

Member countries within the Asia and Pacific region have responded positively to the WCHE declarations and recommendations. They value the role of UNESCO within the region and are supportive of UNESCO’s activities and initiatives, particularly in advocacy of well thought out responses to changes, capacity building, support for research efforts and sharing of information, and facilitation of networking. Member countries recognise that on-going renewal of higher education is essential if societies are to respond to the various challenges of the 21st century.

This report takes a selective approach, concentrating on the following relatively small number of issues and trends that are regarded as being of particular importance to Member Countries:

• quantitative expansion and massification;

• the role of private and distance higher education;

• quality, quality assurance and academic excellence;

• credit transfer and the mutual recognition of qualifications;

• resources and further diversification of funding; and

• trade in education services and attitudes towards foreign providers and GATS.


1. Introduction

This regional report outlines progress made in Asia and the Pacific in implementing the recommendations of the 1998 World Conference on Higher Education (WHCE). It also identifies key trends and issues facing higher education in the region and offers recommendations for consideration at the 2003 World Conference on Higher Education + 5 (WCHE+5).

Asia and the Pacific is a vast region of over three billion people, containing almost 60 per cent of the world’s population but only one third of the world's higher education enrolments and only 28 per cent of the world's wealth. It is the largest of the UNESCO regions in terms of both geographic size and population, and includes two countries each with a population in excess of one billion people, as well as many small nation states. It is recognised as the cradle of important civilisations and home to many of the world’s religions and philosophies. Countries of the region differ greatly in ethnicity, social characteristics and the extent of their recent economic development, with striking differences between rich and poor countries, and between rural and urban areas. Sharp contrasts exist between exceedingly wealthy nations and poor countries, and between nations that have for many years operated market economies and newly independent countries of Central Asia that face considerable challenges in their transition from planned to market economies.

The diversity of the region is clearly reflected in its higher education systems. The region includes some of the largest higher education systems in the world but also micro-systems that cater for only small numbers of students. Some higher education systems are amongst the strongest and best resourced internationally, while others struggle to find sufficient resources even to provide the most basic elements of higher education provision. Systems such as those of the Indian sub-continent are still largely public systems, whereas in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand, a high proportion of students are now enrolled in private higher education. Higher education in the region has been built on different local traditions of scholarship and learning, in some cases going back for centuries (Loc 2001). More recently, different higher education systems have been influenced in different ways by other traditions from outside the region. This pattern of diversity and variety provides rich opportunities for collaboration and mutual sharing of experience. Here UNESCO and other international and regional organisations have particular opportunities to facilitate collaboration and sharing of experience.

Currently the Asia-Pacific region is going through a period of rapid and far-reaching economic and social change, driven particularly by the impact of accelerating globalisation, increased international economic competition and the


transition from traditional to knowledge-based economies and often market-oriented systems. Impressive developments are taking place particularly in the application of new information and communications technology (ICT), often with strong support from governments; examples are the Malaysian Multimedia Super Corridor, the newly established 15 digital universities in Korea and 67 on-line colleges established by conventional universities in China. Generally service industries are growing at impressive and sometimes unexpected rates, creating demands for new forms of well-educated professionals and support staff.

Population issues continue to be of major concern. While the region has some of the world's largest cities, a high proportion of the people still live in rural areas. About 1.5 billion are children and young people under 15 years of age. While population growth rates have declined decidedly in a number of the advanced economies, in many developing countries, despite efforts of governments and NGOs (Non Government Organisations), population growth continues at rates that gives cause for on-going concern. Rapid population growth is associated frequently with increasing inequalities within countries and in relation to nearby countries, while industrialisation continues to produce marked internal migration from rural areas to major cities.

Current economic and social changes provide higher education with a variety of major challenges. Increasingly it is being recognised that, in the future, higher education must have enhanced but somewhat different roles. Adjustments will need to be made within institutions, especially in access and admissions policies, course delivery, student learning strategies and curriculum content, while in many cases national policy frameworks and overall planning approaches will need redirection. Major challenges include finding sufficient resources to facilitate expansion, the quantity and quality dilemma, increasing pressure for more and better higher education in order to cope with the rapidly developing information and knowledge society, the increasing role of ICT as a driving force and its impact on higher education, and the pressures for increased mutual recognition in qualifications between Member States. New challenges spring from increasing trade in education services, the current WTO (World Trade Organisation) discussions on GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) and the entry of corporations to higher education provision. While Member countries recognise the urgent need to position themselves effectively for globalisation and the knowledge economy, at the same time there is a strong resolve to retain key elements of their own cultural traditions and languages.

Rapid change and new challenges clearly are putting higher education under considerable strain. In a number of Member countries, student enrolment demands cannot be met, public financial support is not expanding or is in decline, and infrastructure often is inadequate. There are many cases of unfortunate and increasing gaps in provision and quality, especially between developing and developed countries and between cities and rural areas. On the other hand, universities have tremendous capacity to innovate and help determine the future of their societies, as well as their own futures. Higher education leaders across the region quite rightly argue that higher education can, and should, be proactive rather than being simply reactive. Moreover, within the Asia and Pacific region in


recent decades, higher education has shown an amazing capacity for innovation and experimentation. Examples of recent innovations and experimentation of international significance include major open universities and distance education provision, the extensive use of new technologies, the location of more than half of the world’s mega-universities in Asia and the Pacific and the extensive use of private higher education.

Member countries within the Asia and Pacific region have responded positively to the WCHE declarations and recommendations. They value the role of UNESCO within the region and are supportive of UNESCO’s activities and initiatives, particularly in advocacy of well thought out responses to changes, capacity building, support for research efforts and sharing of information, and facilitation of networking. Member countries recognise that on-going renewal of higher education is essential if societies are to respond to the various challenges of the 21st century.

This report takes a selective approach, concentrating on the following relatively small number of issues and trends that are regarded as being of particular importance to Member Countries:

• quantitative expansion and massification;

• the role of private higher education;

• quality, quality assurance and academic excellence;

• credit transfer and the mutual recognition of qualifications;

• resources and further diversification of funding; and

• trade in education services and attitudes towards foreign providers and GATS.

Particular challenges facing developing countries in higher education reform and development are identified and a summary is provided concerning UNESCO’s important and highly appreciated role within the region. Finally, the report provides recommendations for consideration by the WHCE+5 in order to define orientations for future action for UNESCO as well as for Member States and individual institutions.

A key underlining theme running through the whole report is the importance of ICT for higher education development in the region. ICT is both a driving force for modern economies and an important tool for higher education to enhance teaching, research and administration. While the further application of ICT within higher education has the potential to achieve increased administrative efficiencies and enhance teaching and learning, development of ICT capacity requires substantial ongoing investments in hardware and software. It also requires staff with specialist skills, especially for the development of management information systems and the further application of ICT to distance education and e-learning (Hong 2003).


2. Trends in higher education reform and development since 1998 WCHE

2.1. Quantitative expansion and massification

Since 1998 most Member countries in the region have experienced rapid and impressive growth in student enrolments and expansion in higher education provision. Despite the recent economic turn-down that adversely affected most countries of the region, expansion of higher education continues with an accelerating pace towards massification, placing considerable strain on infrastructure, resourcing and expertise.

Many countries whose higher education systems are at critical development phases have experienced rates of expansion far higher than anticipated. In China, for example, expansion of higher education in the public sector has resulted in total student enrolments more than doubling from 6.4 million to 15.1 million between 1998 and 2002, while in India enrolments increased from 6.2 million in 1992-1993 to 9.3 million in 1999-2000, in Kazakhstan from 272,700 to 442,400 between 1995 and 2001, and in Bangladesh from 801,733 to 962,567 between 1998 and 2001. In China, undergraduate enrolments alone increased by 135.2 per cent between 1998 and 2002 (Daokai 2003). Even in countries with well-developed higher education systems increases in enrolments have been impressive. For example, total students enrolments in the Republic of Korea increased from 2,950,826 to 3,500,560 between 1998 and 2001 while in Australia over the same period total student enrolments increased from 671,253 to 726,418.

Expansion in enrolments has been facilitated in many cases by relaxation of policies with regard to private higher education, allowing private institutions to accommodate growing numbers of students. In the last five years the number of private colleges and universities in Malaysia has increased from around 100 to 690, while in Bangladesh almost 100 new private higher education institutions were established between 1998 and 2001. Over the same period, 46 new private institutions were established in Mongolia and 20 in Nepal. In Kazakhstan, between 1995 and 2001 the number of private higher education institutions increased from 41 to 123. Unfortunately, in some cases recent private higher education provision has been of uneven quality; in Kazakhstan, for example, it has been reported that the huge network of ‘small private higher education institutions … do not always provide education quality’ (Zhakenov 2002, p 10). Distance education and open learning also have contributed as important vehicles for massification and enhancing access; particularly impressive examples are to be found in such countries as China, India, Iran, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan and Malaysia.

Student populations continue to change in influential ways. Of particular importance is the increasing proportion of female and mature-age students, and


increasing recognition of the value of lifelong learning and professional updating. By 2001, female students constituted 55 per cent of total higher education students in Australia and more than 60 per cent in Malaysia. In contrast, the proportion of females is 38.5 per cent in the Republic of Korea, 36.2 per cent in India and 38.0 per cent in Bangladesh. Even within relatively wealthy countries, it is becoming increasingly common for a high proportion of full-time students to undertake some part-time work.

The balance of enrolments varies significantly between disciplines, both within and between countries. For example, 35 per cent of students graduating with bachelors degrees in the Republic of Korea and more than 50 percent in both China and Viet Nam in 2001 were in the Natural Sciences, Engineering and Agriculture, while the proportions in Australia were 21 per cent, in Bangladesh 12 per cent, in Mongolia 24 per cent, in Nepal 11 per cent, and in the Philippines 18 per cent. In order to address the needs of industry and new technologies many Member countries plan to increase further the proportion of enrolments in science and technology courses; Malaysia, for example, has a target of 60 per cent.

Despite the strains resulting from recent rapid expansion, significant progress has been made in strengthening higher education within many countries, particularly leading to improved student access, strengthened research and postgraduate programmes, more equitable representation of different social groups among graduates, renewal of curricula and adoption of new teaching and delivery methods, and enhanced institutional management and strategic planning capacity. At the same time, many nations are still far from achieving the number and quality of graduates required by the new competitive economic situation while the strains on public funding continue to be a reason for serious concern. Unemployment of graduates in some fields, especially in countries undergoing rapid transition and enrolment expansion, and lack of highly qualified professionals generally in less developed nations, may have some long-term consequences. There is increasing concern in many countries with regard to the quality of courses, facilities, staff and graduates and the deterioration of infrastructure (laboratories, buildings and libraries) and a lack of scientific equipment.

2.2. Role of private higher education

Private higher education has assumed an increasingly important role in many countries in meeting the growing demand for student access and specialised courses in particular fields such as ICT, management and business. For many years private higher education has played an important role in such countries as the Philippines, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Thailand, all of which have strong private sectors. In the Philippines, private higher education goes back to the Spanish era, with the founding of the University of Santo Tomas in 1611, while in Japan and Indonesia private universities were established immediately after the Second World War. Since the early 1980s, the private sector has continued to develop in these countries. But in addition, many other countries of the region, including a number of countries in transition from central planning to market economies, have taken important initiatives to create private sectors as means of


easing growing pressures for student access and the inability of governments to meet funding demands of public higher education. As a result of these initiatives, today there are new and rapidly growing private sectors in a surprising number of countries of the region (Regional Workshop on Private Higher Education 1995 and 2000).

Private higher education takes different forms amongst Member countries. In some cases private institutions have been established by churches or philanthropic foundations while in other cases they are run by professional associations or by profit making companies. Some are major comprehensive institutions, such as private universities in Japan, Korea and Thailand, while others operate in highly specialised fields with a limited range of course offerings. Some are universities offering doctoral degrees, while others are junior colleges. In Malaysia, private higher education enrolments exceed 250,000 students, with 11 universities and 1 university college, 4 foreign university campuses, numerous twinning arrangements with overseas institutions and almost 700 private colleges. In addition, public sector corporations in electricity, petroleum and telecommunications have established their own specialised universities (Anuwar 2003).

In many countries, such as China, India, Malaysia and Viet Nam, private higher education is a very recent development. In Viet Nam, private higher education has been recently established following adoption of detailed regulations for people-founded higher education in July 2000. People-founded higher education refers to institutions founded by social, professional or economic organisations rather than founded by individuals, companies or foreign universities. In 2001, Vietnam had 17 people-founded universities and 5 people-founded colleges, most of which are located in the two largest cities, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (Loc 2001, p 3). Many are still relatively small and concentrate mainly in fields of study, such as business, management, computer science and technology. However, the Government of Viet Nam has recently approved establishment of the first private university, which will be founded by an Australian public university, RMIT University. This ambitious project is being developed in Ho Chi Minh City with major loans from the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (Ketchell 2002; and International Finance Corporation 2002). In China, following recent approval for establishment of private institutions there has been rapid expansion and by 1999 there were 43 private degree granting universities and colleges and 1282 institutions qualified to offer non-degree studies. The first law aiming at encouraging the private sector in higher education in China was adopted recently by the People’s Congress. In India, private higher education institutions now outnumber government institutions in a number of states.

The development of private higher education sectors has raised important policy issues for governments. Of these the most important are about the role of the state in the provision of higher education, the relationship between private higher education institutions and government, and the quality of provision. Generally expansion of private education has required increased government responsibility, especially in providing legislative and policy frameworks for the establishment and operation of private higher education institutions, and in


effective quality assurance, monitoring and accreditation arrangements. A number of governments have recognised the need to assist in attracting private investment into higher education and in recognising the need for private sectors to generate financial returns on investments. In some cases, governments have provided incentives, subsidies and tax benefits as inducements to private investment. The Second UNESCO Regional Workshop on Private Higher Education of 2001 urged governments of the region to assist the private sector in various ways including ‘access to concessional ODA loans for capital expenditures as well as student and faculty development loans, … or use of government lands and other assets for educational purposes’ (Second Regional Workshop on Private Higher Education 2001, p 3). At the same time, it warned that private investment in education will not materialise in the scale and duration required without some guarantee of operational autonomy to respond to market demands and a fair return to compensate for opportunity costs and market risks.

The issue of quality provision in private higher education has concerned many Member countries. In some cases, this has been an important factor in establishment of new quality assurance mechanisms across both private and public sectors, such as in Korea, Thailand and Australia, while in Malaysia special quality monitoring mechanisms have been established especially for the private higher education sector (Yahya Nordin 2001).

2.3. Quality, quality assurance and academic excellence

Quality and quality assurance have become major concerns within the countries of the region as governments work to ensure that students receive high quality and relevant education, and that degrees and diplomas are widely recognised not only by national governments and employers but also by foreign universities and employers. Many Member States have recently established or strengthened their national mechanisms for quality assurance in higher education, while efforts have been made to develop new quality indicators. In addition, there is increased recognition of the importance of strengthening academic programs through quality assurance and continually striving towards academic excellence.

Quality assurance in higher education can be defined as systematic management and assessment procedures to monitor performance of higher education institutions, and to ensure achievement of quality outputs and quality improvements. Quality assurance seeks to provide evidence to substantiate claims made about quality and so to enable key stakeholders to have confidence about the level of outcomes achieved. Quality assurance serves a number of purposes, particularly protection of student and employer interests, international recognition of the standards of awards and public accountability. In addition, effective quality assurance can help inform student choice of courses, enhance teaching practice and student outcomes, and disseminate good practice.

The new quality assurance agenda in the various countries of the region is being driven by a range of pressures. Particularly important are the need to safeguard academic standards in rapidly expanding and more diverse higher


education systems, growing demands from employers and the professions for improved quality of graduates, and pressures from governments for improved national competitiveness. Quality assurance pressures produce various conflicts and paradoxes, such as between the explosion and fragmentation of demand for student places, and unemployment of graduates in particular countries; between the provision of equal access and opportunity, and the financial constraints upon the mass extension of higher education; and between the pressures for increased institutional autonomy versus those for growing public accountability.

The extent of innovation in quality assurance systems across the region is impressive. Even countries with well developed systems – Australia, Korea, India, New Zealand, and Malaysia with regard to private higher education, to name a few – have continued to make changes, while in other cases countries have experimented with pilot projects, or are embarking on major new initiatives. In Australia, the Australian Universities Quality Agency has been established as a joint federal-state government initiative, with responsibility for academic audits of both universities and those state agencies responsible for the accreditation of private providers. Thailand has embarked on a particularly ambitious initiative, following passage of the National Education Act of 1999. New arrangements cover both public and private higher education sectors. All higher education institutions must be evaluated externally every five years, with responsibility for audits being with the newly established Office of Education Standards and Evaluation. Use also is being made of performance indicators and benchmarking (Capacity Building of Thai Educational Reform 2002).

The value of collaboration in quality assurance at sub-regional and regional levels is being increasingly recognised. In 2002, a regional workshop organised by UNESCO Bangkok in collaboration with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) of India aimed to develop institutional quality indicators, and promote networking of quality assurance agencies in the region (UNESCO 2002a). This workshop recommended that papers from the conference, together with supplementary material, should form the basis of a Handbook of Indicators of Quality, and that UNESCO should facilitate cooperation between the Regional Committee and the Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN). The discussions pointed to a strong commitment from a number of countries to work to strengthen national statistics collections, achieve a higher degree of compatibility between collections, and link this to new forms of quality indicators. Efforts also have been made by the ASEAN University Network (AUN) in developing common quality criteria and appointing chief quality officers in member institutions.

Useful collaboration is being achieved between quality assurance agencies within their region and between governments. Senior staff from agencies now meet on a regular basis and a number of governments have signed bilateral agreements with regard to quality assurance. For example, Malaysia has bilateral agreements with Australia and New Zealand and has signed an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the British Quality Assurance Agency (Suleiman 2002).

Increased interest is being shown in use of performance indicators and benchmarking. In essence, performance indicators are quantitative measures that


attempt to assess the achievements of higher education institutions and systems, and their constituent parts. While they have considerable utility as management tools, it is important to recognise their limitations, particularly that they provide no more than simply perspectives on aspects of performance, and should be used with other information to make judgements about overall levels of achievement.

Particular interest has been shown in performance indicators used by particular countries, such as Australia, India and Indonesia. The Australian indicators now consist of some 360 indicators covering students, staff, finances and outcomes (Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs 2001) as well as national data from student course experience and graduate destinations surveys (Aungles & Karmel 2001). In India, recent work has focused particularly on mission oriented indicators related to teaching-learning, teaching performance, research performance and financial performance, while the University Grants Commission has developed indicators for the purpose of funding covering academic areas, examinations and finance (Gnanam 2002b). In Indonesia, the National Accreditation Board for Higher Education and the Directorate General of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education have been ‘developing performance indicators as measures of effectiveness, efficiency, inputs, process, excellence and accountability, rather than as simply as quality indicators’ (Tadjudin 2002).

A number of Member countries also have experimented with benchmarking as a tool for self-evaluation and self-improvement, enabling institutions and systems to monitor performance on a range of dimensions, and to compare performance either with their past performance or with the performance of other institutions with similar characteristics. In this way, they can identify relative strengths and weaknesses, and develop strategies of improvement. In India, for example, a system of benchmarking was developed by in-house experts in the NAAC, with some help from consultants. It consists of a five-stage process consisting of: setting the platform; choosing the appropriate benchmarking activity; identifying the aspects to be benchmarked; fixing the norms and indicators; and applying the benchmarks. In the early stages, the emphasis was on measurement per se and on relatively straightforward comparisons. This was followed by a gradual shift in attention towards processes, with the main emphasis today being on best practice (Stella 2001).

2.4. Credit transfer and the mutual recognition of qualifications

Recognition of qualifications gained in one country by other countries is fundamental for increased credit transfer and mutual recognition, while in turn facilitating increased mobility of students, academics and professional labour depends on enhanced credit transfer and mutual recognition. There is an urgent need, therefore, for concerted efforts not only to foster quality assurance but also to promote its successful outcomes. Credit transfer and mutual recognition of qualifications are both essential for increased trade between nations in educational services.


Credit transfer and the mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications are being driven in Asia and the Pacific region by the economic globalisation process and by rapid progress in ICT. To meet the needs of an increasingly globalised workforce, professionals need qualifications that are portable as well as possessing relevant cultural and linguistics skills. While developments in this region have been more modest than those in Europe, at the same time important progress has been made. However, unlike the European Union where the main leadership has come from national governments and ministers, in Asia and the Pacific the main leadership has come mainly from IGOs and NGOs, including UNESCO, AUN and UMAP. UNESCO’s role has been particularly important, with its implementation of the regional convention for recognition of studies, diplomas and degrees in higher education in Asia and the Pacific, which was adopted in December 1983 and ratified by 19 Member States as of the end of 2002 (Mutual Recognition of Qualifications 2001, p 1). More recently, Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic ratified and the Government of the Philippines has expressed interest in taking steps to ratify the convention. Under this convention, Member states are required to take all reasonable steps within the framework of their national systems and in conformity with their constitutional, legal and regulatory provisions to encourage competent authorities to recognise certificates of higher education awards of other Member States. While no legal instruments prevail, recognition is a matter of mutual information on qualifications.

Partnership between UNESCO, AUN, SEAMEO-RIHED and UMAP and their active Member countries or institutions has been strengthened in recent years. A number of important activities and projects have been organised. For example, in the mid-1990s, UNESCO PROAP and SEAMEO-RIHED joined together to undertake a comparative study of qualifications awarded by higher education institutions in the region. This effort was inspired by the 1992 Handbook of Higher Education Diplomas published by the UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education. The Asia and Pacific study which involved 20 researchers covering 24 countries from the region plus USA, the UK, France and Germany, culminated in the publication in 1998 of the Handbook of Certificates, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific. At a seminar held at the National Institute of Education Research of Japan in June 1998 and following sessions of the regional committee for the regional convention, it was agreed that the Handbook should be updated on a regular basis (Handbook of Certificates 1998, p 13).

Other UNESCO activities have included seminars, such as that held in early 2001 (Mutual Recognition of Qualifications 2001), and regular meetings of the Regional Committee for the Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific. The last meeting of this Committee in November 2000 in Bangkok reviewed progress with the ratification and implementation of the convention, considered country reports, and planned new strategies, particularly related to information exchange and updating of the 1998 Handbook. Decisions were taken to make further efforts to attract the support of non-signatory states, plan for a further meeting in 2003, urge UNESCO to establish an electronic network of information centres, and request UNESCO Bangkok and SEAMEO RIHED to make arrangements for regular revision of the Handbook (UNESCO 2000).


The University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) scheme was founded in 1991 with the objectives of achieving increased mobility of students and staff within the region and also to improve the quality of higher education in the region. Based on the European experience, the UMAP countries agreed in 1998 to introduce a similar credit transfer scheme, now known as the UCTS (UMAP Credit Transfer Scheme).

This was an important initiative, providing universities in Asia Pacific with a mechanism by which they could translate the value and grades of courses that their students had undertaken when studying on exchange at foreign universities into those that would eventually be awarded by their home university.

While regional conventions are important serving as a legal instrument, on their own they cannot achieve mutual recognition of qualifications in countries where recognition of academic qualification is part of university autonomy. They are the result of multilateral negotiations with the inevitable, and necessary, political and practical compromises. For instance, they cannot bind individual universities to accept qualifications awarded by universities in other countries. That task must be done on a bilateral basis by individual universities or national organisations of universities. However, interest in signing and ratifying regional conventions is growing, while there is renewed interest in strengthening regional partnerships. Further, recent progress with new quality assurance systems and qualifications frameworks has provided an important base for further progress, facilitating comparisons of qualifications between universities and between countries.

Government can play an important role in terms of removing procedural bottlenecks and providing a favourable climate and funding support for exchange of scholars and professionals. Governments, for example, may encourage integrating international experiences as a part of the regular local program, while government policies can provide a favourable environment for entering into bilateral and multilateral agreements and regional conventions (Mutual Recognition of Qualifications 2001, p 10).

A number of individual countries in the region have made impressive recent progress in the recognition of foreign qualifications. Deserving of special mention are the efforts that have been made by particular Central Asian states. For example, Kazakhstan now has bilateral agreements with thirteen different countries as well as agreements for cooperation with organisations including the British Council, the German Service for Academic Exchange and the American Council for Cooperation in the Education Sector. The Government of Kazakhstan signed the Lisbon Convention in 1997 and currently is working to sign bilateral agreements with countries that did not join the Lisbon Convention (Zhakenov 2002, p 4).

Higher education institutions themselves can play important roles in promoting mobility and mutual recognition of qualifications. For example, they can establish websites providing information on qualifications in order to facilitate student exchange, develop international programs to attract foreign students, give a high priority to quality assurance, and mobilise government and private support


to fund academic mobility. Further, adoption of a common credit currency, similar assessment criteria and setting equivalent achievement standards across universities within countries can make an important contribution to student mobility and enhanced mutual recognition of qualifications.

2.5. Resources and further diversification of funding

Higher education institutions and systems within the region have made substantial reforms aiming at diversifying funding sources through a range of means, including the policy of corporatisation and making universities fully autonomous as in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. As already noted, in Malaysia corporate-style universities are now operated by major state-owned companies in the areas of telecommunications, petrochemicals and electricity. Other means of generating revenue is through university owned corporations as in China, charging substantial tuition fees and income generation through sale of services and use of university facilities.

Some countries have moved considerably down the path towards decreased government support as a proportion of total revenue for public higher education. One particularly interesting example is Australia, where universities now generate almost 50 per cent of their total operating revenue through tuition fees charged to domestic and international students; external research grants; student contributions through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS); commercial activities; revenue from investments; and endowments and donations (Nelson 2002, pp 52-53). As a result, the Australian higher education system is now described officially by the Commonwealth Government as a ‘publicly subsidised’ rather than a ‘publicly supported’ system. However, these trends in Australia do not find universal support and especially student groups argue that the state has a responsibility to provide either free higher education, or higher education in which tuition fees do not inhibit participation by groups from the lowest income strata in particular. This raises fundamental issues about equity, the social and private benefits of higher education and the extent to which the state as opposed to the beneficiaries (i.e. the student, the student's family and possibly employers) should contribute to costs and in what proportions.

In recent years, both Australia and New Zealand have become major suppliers of educational services internationally while other nations such as Malaysia, Singapore and India already have moved to become providers of educational services in other countries. Since its entry to recruitment of international students on a ‘full-fee’ basis in the mid-1980s, Australia’s overseas enrolments have increased dramatically and now Australia is the third largest exporter of higher education internationally, coming in rank order after the United States and the United Kingdom. In semester 1 2002, Australian public and private higher education institutions enrolled a total 150,523 international students, representing an increase of 18.7 per cent from Semester 1, 2001 (IDP Education International 2002). Of these students, about two thirds attend campuses in Australia while the remainder study ‘off-shore’ in overseas campuses operated by Australian universities, in joint programs with overseas partner institutions, in


institutions who offer Australian courses on a franchised basis and as independent distance education students. International higher education enrolments now generate well over $1.5 billion p.a. for Australian universities and colleges and constitute approximately 18 per cent of total student enrolments in Australian higher education institutions. This compares with about 3 per cent in the United States, 4 per cent in Canada and 11 per cent in the United Kingdom (OECD 2000).

The rapid expansion in the number of international students in Australian higher education has been facilitated by a number of factors, including the role played by the national government in providing a suitable policy and legislative framework and in marketing support services; the impressive entrepreneurial activities of individual universities; high rates of course satisfaction among overseas students; relatively high graduation rates in Australian universities (OECD 2001 Table C42); Australia’s diverse multi-cultural population; and various external factors, including the dominance of the English language as the main language of trade, Australia's relative proximity to Asian student markets and relative price advantages as a result of recent changes in currency exchange rates. This rapid expansion in providing higher education services internationally has brought a number of benefits to Australian universities apart from increased income. Particularly important has been a strong impetus to internationalisation of curriculum and increased sensitivity of academic staff to labour market needs and professional registration requirements in different Asian and Pacific countries. However, financial and other benefits derived from international students are not shared equally across the Australian higher education sector and, even within universities, disciplinary areas such as business, management, computer science and engineering do much better than other fields.

An important source of funding for particular developing countries are loan funds from agencies such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, and aid programs from a variety of donor nations. Loan funds from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have been particularly important for China, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam. Sometimes particular banks and donor countries have been criticised on the grounds that their efforts constitute new forms of colonialism and because of external requirements placed on the use of funds and the policy directions to be followed. More recently, following major reviews the World Bank has adopted a new approach giving a much higher priority to social and public interest priorities (World Bank 2002; Munday 2002). In a number of the countries within the region, officials in Ministries often point to the positive aspects of the work of the World Bank and donors, such as attracting overseas expertise and providing networking opportunities.

Ensuring adequate financial support for higher education institutions clearly is an ongoing public responsibility of governments, although it is increasingly recognised that the source of support and mix of funding provision may vary from country to country, and that the main responsibility of governments is to ensure support at a reasonable level without necessarily providing all such support from public sources. In many Member countries, financial responsibility is now shared to a greater extent amongst a larger group of different stakeholders than in the past, with increased contributions coming from students and families, and from industry


and business. In many cases, an enhanced role has been given deliberately to private higher education in order to attract additional resources for higher education activities. The ongoing rapid expansion in student enrolments provides a particular challenge for governments, requiring major efforts and creative solutions.

2.6. Trade in education services and attitudes to foreign provision of higher education and GATS

GATS is the first legal trade agreement which focuses exclusively on trade in services, as opposed to products. It is administered by the WTO, a powerful international body with some 144 member countries. The purpose of GATS is to promote freer trade in services by removing many of the existing barriers. The current debate with regard to higher education is divided, if not polarised. Critics focus on the threat to the role and responsibilities of government in higher education provision, the 'public good' aspect of higher education, and the need to safeguard high quality education. It is also argued that there are considerable dangers in education policy issues being increasingly framed in terms of trade and economic benefits. Supporters of freer trade in education service, on the other hand, highlight the potential benefits that more trade might bring in terms of innovations through new providers and delivery modes, greater student access, and increased economic gain for providers and their countries.

GATS is already producing different responses within the region and is likely to have different impacts. Already a number of countries in the region, including Australia and New Zealand, have made commitments in relation to education. Australia's commitments cover the provision of distance education, the provision of education to overseas students and the presence of foreign providers in Australia (Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2002).

China's recent entry to the WTO will have important implications for GATS and the future development of higher education in the Asia and Pacific region. On entry to the WTO, China made partial commitments in education services trade in the sub sectors of technical and vocational education, higher education, adult education and other education services. However, it excluded compulsory education, education for the military, police, as well as political and party education (UNESCO 2002b). As Rui (2001) notes, overall Chinese higher education experts appear to be highly optimistic about the possible impact of GATS on higher education in China.

Other member countries within the region have different views, influenced by such factors as their traditions about the role of public and private sectors in higher education, the extent to which they are already involved in export education and their future ambitions, their past experience with foreign education providers, and the extent to which students already study abroad and foreign students enter their own local universities.

Already countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and India have become exporters of education services within the region and no doubt this will influence


any decisions they make on GATS. Both Malaysia and Singapore have ambitions to become major education exporters in the region and currently are actively marketing in a number of countries including China, Viet Nam, Cambodia and Indonesia, while India is developing particular regional markets for itself in Arab countries and in the Indian Ocean region.

India appears likely to take a more open stance on GATS that might have been expected in view of its strong tradition of public higher education. However, since the 1980s there has been a rapid growth in India in self-financing colleges while foreign universities have been allowed to recruit students. It is estimated that some 24,000 Indian students go abroad each year to pursue studies in foreign universities. While overseas providers may not establish universities or colleges in India, there is no bar to partnerships with Indian institutions. Already 27 different providers from a number of countries including the United Kingdom and the United States offer programs, mainly at the masters level, in partnership with Indian institutions (Gnanam 2002a). While inter-agency discussions in India involving both government departments and associations have been generally positive towards liberalising trade in education and related services, India has yet to make any formal commitment to GATS. However, according to one well-placed observer, ‘there is a growing awareness about the inevitability of committing to the progressive liberalisation’ (Gnanam 2002a, p 12) while a senior official has drawn attention to the need for government rules and regulations to change in order to facilitate the expansion in the export of education services (Nigavekar 2003, p 25).

Information is difficult to access with regard to current foreign student flows within the region, particularly the number of students from each country who go overseas to study and the number of foreign students studying in local institutions. However, some useful information is available from country returns to a recent UNESCO questionnaire to Member States. The Republic of Korea reports that its total number of foreign students increased from 5,326 in 1998 to 11, 646 in 2001, while over the same period the total number of nationals pursuing studies abroad increased from 120,170 to 149,933. Korea also reports that it has signed multilateral or bilateral agreements for the recognition of studies, diplomas and degrees but that no higher education programs are conducted by or under the responsibility of foreign institutions. In Mongolia, the total number of foreign students decreased from 292 in 1998 to 240 in 2001 while over the same period the number of nationals pursuing study abroad increased from 220 to 300.

The GATS negotiations have the potential to significantly impact on smaller developing countries. While freer trade in educational services could mean enhanced access to educational services, smaller nations are often less well placed to regulate trade in order to safeguard quality and protect consumers, although many of them have long traditions of sending students abroad for study especially in fields of study where they lack expertise and capacity. The majority of developing countries appear to lack clear strategies or policies with regard to GATS, and tend to be adopting a wait-and-see attitude. Some fear that opening borders to foreign workers could mean increased job competition from better qualified foreign workers.


3. Challenges facing developing countries in higher education reform and development

3.1. The knowledge economy and funding priorities

Increasing pressures are being placed on developing countries in response to the rapidly developing information society and knowledge-based economies, requiring a highly educated workforce and appropriate technology infrastructure. Resources to support higher education are often grossly inadequate, and difficult policy choices have to be made on priorities between funding significant higher education expansion in response to student demand and continuing to give basic education a top priority.

Challenges are particularly difficult for smaller developing nations whose higher education systems are still in an early stage of development. Countries such as Papua New Guinea have experienced major budgetary problems, resulting in substantial reductions in public support for higher education while political instability in Fiji has had a major impact on higher education provision. The Central Asian Republics have faced special challenges following their independence and move from command to market economies. These countries, with the support of UNESCO and other IGOs (Inter-governmental Organisations), are striving to develop effective means for sharing information, enhancing mutual cooperation and building more effective links with the major neighbouring countries of China and Russia (UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education 2002). Their special problems relate mainly to educational innovation and reform processes including legislation, quantitative expansion, mechanisms and standards for accreditation, quality assurance and graduate unemployment. In Kazakhstan, ‘enhancement of training quality, development of scientific research and technologies, and formulation of additional higher professional training are considered top priorities’ (Zhakenov 2002, p 10).

Accelerating changes in ICT are having major impacts in developing countries on course delivery, learning and teaching, and management within higher education institutions. Examples include increasing number of universities taking ‘dual mode’ course delivery as a strategy, competition for students between open universities and dual mode institutions, increased use of ICT for curricular innovation, teaching and learning and lack of training to master necessary skills among teachers. There is an increasing and serious gap between rich and poor countries in terms of access to these new technologies. At the same time, the potential for ICT to play a crucial role in the renewal of higher education needs greater recognition. In particular, these technologies can be influential in extending and diversifying delivery and making knowledge and information available to a wider public. Further, they need to become essential parts of the curriculum in all disciplines.


Particular attention needs to be given to overcoming current shortages of specialists for the knowledge and information industries and ensuring that all graduates have at least basic competencies in the use of ICT. Universities need to increase their research capacity especially in relation to computer hardware and software and to the application of new technology to a wide range of industrial, business and professional fields.

More equitable access to new information and communications technologies could be facilitated through enhanced international cooperation and support to those countries that lack capacity to acquire such tools. At the same time, new technologies must be introduced and developed in such as way that is compatible with national and local needs and contexts.

3.2. Enrolment expansion, graduate unemployment and student access

The rapid expansion of higher education enrolments in some societies has the unfortunate effect of increasing graduate unemployment. Graduate unemployment is not only a serious waste of human resource potential but it can cause social unrest in some countries in the region. In many cases, graduate unemployment stems not only from rapid expansion in enrolments but from other factors as labour market problems and particular disciplinary mixes of graduates.

Despite the major overall expansion in student enrolments in recent years, access and participation, especially for women, non-urban populations and members of minority groups, remain a problem in the region. Major differences in participation rates are clearly evident between different countries and between different geographic areas within countries. Participation rates in terms of the number of students in higher education per 100,000 inhabitants vary from over 4,000 in Korea and New Zealand and over 2000 in other developed countries to only a few hundred in a number of developing countries. While the number of higher education student places has rapidly increased, in many cases competition for those places has become more intense. For instance, in Indonesia only a small proportion of applicants to public universities are successful.

3.3. Relevance, innovation and reform for improved linkage with the world of work

Enrolment expansion is often driven primarily by the aspirations of students and their families. The relevance of higher education to the needs and aspirations of society understandably remains a matter of great importance. Courses and the attributes of graduates need to be closely compatible with labour market current and emerging needs. In the end, the relevance of higher education needs to be assessed in terms of the degree of fit between what society expects and what institutions do. Institutions need improved mechanisms to monitor societal needs and values, and to assess employer satisfaction with the performance of graduates.


Development of entrepreneurial skills and initiatives should become a major goal within curricula.

The relevance of higher education to the needs and aspirations of society requires more active pursuit by universities in innovative courses and educational programmes, and reform of the structure, management and linkages with the world of work. Progress in this regard has been made in increasing number of Member countries with regard to innovation in curricula, increasing numbers of co-operative programmes with business, involvement of universities in collaboration with industry and commerce in research, and entrepreneurial activities involved in running science parks and development zones.

A major cause of graduate unemployment is lack of adequate employment opportunities provided by the economic sector. However, lack of relevance of higher education in general and of necessary competencies and skills required by graduates also have to be recognised also as critical factors. Innovation and reform of higher education still have a long way to go, including overcoming the ‘ivory-tower’ tradition of universities in some continents and countries, which soon developed when higher education was first established in the colonial era or immediately after independence.

3.4. Quality assurance and setting standards

As already noted, increased pressures for quality assurance have provided major challenges for many developing countries. While member states in the region are well aware of recent international progress in the establishment of new quality assurance mechanisms and development of qualifications frameworks, many countries are still in the process of planning and implementing reforms. In some cases, quality assurance mechanisms have been developed as part of World Bank or Asian Development Bank projects, or as integral components of aid projects from donor countries. In other cases, countries with limited resources and expertise are finding it difficult to establish new mechanisms with appropriate rigour and develop a strong culture of evaluation across the higher education sector.

With a variety of different approaches in place in OECD countries, there is the question of choice of appropriate mechanisms in the light of particular in-country traditions of student assessment and methods of evaluation. There also are difficult issues about who should set standards for awards and how this should be done. In cases where academic standards may lack international rigour, there are complex strategic issues about moving towards what might be regarded as an international currency in academic awards, and how quickly and realistically this can be done.

New quality assurance mechanisms require investment of additional resources, both at system and institutional levels. At the national level, in most cases creation of a new specialist agency is essential, staffed by experts with appropriate expertise and backgrounds in evaluation and academic audit. Operating costs of central agencies are often borne by governments while in other


cases institutions are expected to contribute, such as when they are subject to external reviews. Additional investment is necessary in developing appropriate qualifications frameworks and collecting data to serve as the basis for performance indicators and benchmarking. Further additional investment also is required to establish regular external surveys of student satisfaction and the destination of graduates. At institutional level, additional investment is required to overhaul regulations and procedures relating to the admission and progression of students, the award of degrees and diplomas, and procedures for regular reviews of departments and courses.

Possibly considerably more could be done collectively amongst Member states to assist smaller developing countries, especially with technical support and financial help. Another possibility is for UNESCO in combination with other IGOs and NGOs to develop procedural manuals to assist developing countries in choosing appropriate models and in developing rigorous mechanisms of quality assurance.

3.5. Capacity building and globalisation

Capacity building needs to continue to have a high priority for developing countries in the region, many of which are finding it difficult to modernise their higher education systems, and to cope with rising student demands and efforts to keep pace with the rapid changes in ICT. As already noted, in many cases there is a growing gap between rich and poor countries in access to and use of new technologies.

A particular need for many smaller developing countries is to develop appropriate strategies and policies to face the challenge of the globalisation of economies, and the impact of foreign provision of educational services and GATS negotiations. While many developing countries have a long tradition of sending or allowing a proportion of their students to study abroad, especially in specialist areas of particular need, what is new is the entry of foreign providers either by establishing separate campuses or working with local organisations which sometimes are local universities and colleges.

Developments in the past five years have been rapid, raising important questions about the strength of local accreditation processes for overseas providers and the courses they offer. Already in China there are almost 700 joint programs with overseas institutes at certificate level and 191 at college level. Also major American IT companies, including IBM, Microsoft and Sisco, have established certificate programs. In Kazakhstan, partnerships have been established with Russian, Turkish and British institutions. In Malaysia, as already noted, there are four branch campuses of foreign universities while many of the 690 private colleges have established overseas partnerships. Foreign as well as regional virtual and distance education institutions also are increasingly offering courses in the region. These include the Asian-based institution, IGNOU (Indira Gandhi National Open University), that offers programs in United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, the Sultanate of Oman, Doha, Mauritius, the Republic of the Seychelles, the Maldives, Ethiopia, Liberia, Singapore, Viet Nam and Myanmar.


The international trade in educational services, which is estimated to be already worth over $US30 billion per year, raises important questions about the nature of higher education services, particularly the extent to which they are regarded as public goods as opposed to commercial commodities. Perhaps even more important are issues about who controls the entrance of outside providers to any one country, on what conditions this is done, what quality and quality assurance issues arise, and how consumers might be effectively protected. The trade promotion nations point to the benefits of competition and networking, and access to international expertise, while the critics are concerned about threats to local culture, traditions, and identity, the problems for consumers to choose between courses with limited information, and the possibility that some courses may be of low and unsatisfactory quality. These issues are important ones internationally for discussion, but they are particularly important for smaller developing countries, often with little capacity to establish modern accreditation systems and to choose between different foreign providers.

Other priority areas in capacity building relate to strengthening teacher education, providing specialised training for university managers and planners, and assisting academic staff to enhance their capacity for undertaking sophisticated research activities and involvement in training of postgraduate research students. In many countries of the region, research and postgraduate training is still at an early stage of development, yet countries see the urgent need to develop in these areas in order to assist further economic and social development.

UNESCO has a particularly important opportunity to contribute to the international debate on globalisation and trade in educational services, and provide direct assistance to smaller developing nations. Assistance is particularly needed in capacity building among policy-makers, university leaders and groups of scholars, development of policy guidelines and an international framework for quality assurance, empowerment of individual learners, promotion of a global forum of policy debate, and establishment of pilot projects and new networks. Moreover, it is important for organisations such as UNESCO and OECD to work cooperatively with Member States, national quality assurance agencies and voluntary organisations such as the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) in developing an effective international approach to quality assurance for the international trade in educational services. Clearly the rapidly expanding trade in educational services raises new quality assurance issues beyond the capacity of individual Member countries alone to address.


4. Role of UNESCO

4.1. UNESCO and the Asia and Pacific Region

UNESCO has played a special role over many years within the region in supporting efforts of Member countries and in facilitating increased collaboration and networking. Its Bangkok Regional Bureau is particularly well placed to continue this role and facilitate collaboration involving key IGOs, NGOs and various regional higher education associations and centres. Such collaboration has the potential to produce even more effective networking and sharing of experience and documentation.

4.2. WCHE Declaration and Framework

The declaration and framework for action adopted at the WCHE 1998 included the following key elements that are particularly relevant to the Asia and Pacific Region:

• Higher education for all based on merit;

• Sustaining the policy debate on higher education reform;

• Promoting access, mobility and quality assurance;

• Life-long learning through distance education and e-Learning; and

• Promoting research on higher education.

These key elements need further discussion and on-going attention in future UNESCO activities.

4.3. Massification and Education for All

A major dilemma and challenge facing developing countries in higher education is the need to give an absolute top priority to basic education, while facing increasing pressure to massify higher education. Issues needing special consideration include:

• Framing strategies and policies relating to both massification of higher education and education for all, with particular attention to be given to the expansion of distance education and open learning, private higher education, diversification of funding, and the balance in emphasis between efficiency and equity;


• Establishing and enhancing quality assurance mechanisms and means for the mutual recognition of awards in a new national, regional and global context; and

• Enhancing increased networking and collaboration in the context of increased globalization and internationalisation.

4.4. Role of the UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, Bangkok

A wide range of networking and capacity building activities have been organised since 1998 by the UNESCO Regional Bureau in Bangkok. In some cases, these have been directed particularly at the needs of developing countries, while in other cases activities have been planned to have wide appeal across the board amongst Member States. Of particular importance have been, or will be, initiatives in the following areas:

(1) Sustaining the debate on WCHE policies and strategies

The UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education has made deliberate efforts to sustain and extend the debate on WCHE declarations, recommendations and suggestions. These efforts have included, or will include, the following activities:

• The 2nd session of the Regional WCHE Follow-up Committee was held in late February 2003 for review of progress made in implementation of the declaration of 1998 WCHE and preparation for the 2003 WCHE+5; and

• Promotion of policy dialogue between Central Asia Republics in transition plus Russia and China. The first workshop was held in 2002 and second will be held in the middle of 2003.

(2) Assisting to add two wings for higher education in developing countries to take off: DOL/PHE

Activities have included the following:

• Diffusion and sharing of experiences and good practices in expansion and control of the private higher education through the second regional workshop on private higher education with ten national case studies, 2000;

• The ongoing project, Building DOL Knowledge Base and Use for Training of Policymakers, 2002-2003;

• Greater Mekong Sub-region Virtual University (GMSVU) pilot project in Greater Mekong Sub-region Tourism (GMS Tourism), ICT and Mekong


Studies at a distance and on-line, with three expert workshops organised for GMS Tourism, two workshops co-organized with CI on ICT;

• Shanghai Summit of Mega-universities, a global activity, 6-8 November 2003, approved by the UNESCO Assistant Director General Education and the Director General.

• Collaboration with Asian Association of Open Universities (AAOU).

(3) Quality, quality assurance and mutual recognition of qualifications

Particularly important have been, or will be, the following activities:

• The expert workshop for developing quality indicators, Bangalore, India, August 2002;

• The 7th session of the regional committee for the regional convention on mutual recognition of qualifications was organized, 18-19 March 2003, Perth, Australia;

• Updating the handbook on higher education degree systems and development of UNESCO Bangkok website to facilitate exchange of information among Member States and their higher education institutions.

(4) Promotion of Networking of Higher Education Institutions

The UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education has put special effort into the promotion of networking of higher education institutions within the regional across the board. This has included:

• Promotion of the quality and sustainability of UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN (University Twinning and Networking Scheme) Networks (which now number 40).

UNITWIN Awards received have been as follows: UNESCO Chair on Regional Use of Drugs, Public Health College, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; UNESCO Chair in Metallurgical Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; and UNESCO Chair in Comparative Rural Sociology, Chubu University, Japan.

• Global University Network for Innovation – Asia and the Pacific (GUNI-AP). This network was established with the support of the Chinese Government by the following member universities: La Trobe University, Australia; Zhejiang University, China; Devi Ahilya University, India; University of Indonesia, Indonesia; Osaka University, Japan; Seoul National University, Korea; Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia;


Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; Mahidol University, Thailand; ASAIHL, and the United Nations University, Japan

• Linkage with IGOs and NGOs.

Particularly important have been the links with SEAMEO RIHED, AAOU, ASAIHL, AUF, AUN, UMAP and AUAP.

5. Recommendations

5.1. UNESCO is urged to continue to monitor progress, both internationally and within regions, of the implementation of the Framework for Priority Action for Change and Development in Higher Education from the 1998 WCHE.

5.2. UNESCO is requested to increase efforts in making documentation relating to WCHE and its follow-up activities more widely available to all higher education personnel. In some cases, this will require translation of documentation into local languages and production of special publications.

5.3. In the context of future budget discussions, UNESCO is urged to give a high priority to increasing the higher education capacity of its Bangkok Bureau for Education. Member States are highly appreciative of UNESCO’s regional role in higher education and seek consolidation and extension of this work.

5.4. It is recommended that UNESCO give a high priority to assistance in capacity building among policy-makers and university leaders from Member states in formulating strategies and policies in response to increasing pressure for expansion of higher education while ensuring top priority to continue to be given to education for all.

5.5. UNESCO is requested to continue its effort in enhancing the regional knowledge-base in distance education, open learning and e-courses for training of policy makers in order to tap the full potential of these means of course delivery in order to address increasing pressures on enrolments and need for upgrading of skills.

5.6. Member States urge that a high priority be given to further study and sharing of experience with regard to various forms of private higher education, including private for profit colleges, consortia of public universities offering new services through company structures, twinning programs, and international branch campuses.

5.7. UNESCO is urged to take further steps in developing quality indicators in higher education as major reference tools for policy makers in Member


States. A number of Member States have suggested formation of study groups to examine and report on the current systems of quality ratings of institutions within the region, looking especially at the methodologies used, their rigour and appropriateness, and the effects of the use of such ratings.

5.8. With the assistance of UNESCO, Member States are urged to make new efforts to share experience in the utilisation of ICT within universities for course delivery, e-courses and administrative processes. Smaller countries particularly need help in planning for effective development and utilisation of ICT to fit local needs in establishing suitable infrastructure support and embarking on the effective introduction of interactive e-learning.

5.9. UNESCO is urged to continue to give a high priority to efforts to broaden access to higher education, taking into account the particular needs of disadvantaged groups including women, ethnic minorities and populations located in remote and isolated areas. Major efforts are needed to achieve more effective participation of women in higher education teaching and management. Further efforts are required to eliminate gender stereotyping and to develop strategies to overcome obstacles to attract women to particular disciplinary areas and facilitate the progress of women to senior management positions.

5.10. UNESCO is requested to give a high priority to further study of the current discussions within GATS and the possible implications for Member States, particularly smaller developing countries. Major issues needing to be addressed include mechanisms to protect and enhance quality of provision by foreign providers, more effective protection of local consumers, and provision of guidelines of good practice for foreign providers.

5.11. Attention needs to be given to enhancing academic and institutional autonomy and freedom, achieving a more effective fit between higher education and the world of work, and strengthening quality assurance and evaluation mechanisms.

5.12. UNESCO is urged to support further activities in quality assurance and efforts within Member countries to enhance institutional autonomy, including addressing problems of legislative and administrative bases for new relations between the state and higher education, staff resistance to change, and particular problems relating to control of academic activities, financial management and personnel.

5.13. As a matter of priority, UNESCO is encouraged to continue its effort for partnership building with bodies interested in and concerned with the regional convention on mutual recognition of academic qualifications. Such mechanisms should operate to achieve more orderly qualifications frameworks across regions as well as internationally, develop detailed and agreed specifications for awards at different levels, help safeguard academic standards, and help protect consumers. Special help needs to be provided to smaller developing countries.


5.14. UNESCO is urged to support enhanced evaluative and policy studies of higher education institutions and processes, and efforts to facilitate bringing together scholars and sharing more widely the results of research studies.

References

Anuwar bin Ali (2003) Presentation to Second Session of the Regional WCHE Follow-up Committee, 25-26 February, UNESCO, Bangkok.

Aungles, Phil & Karmel, Tom (2001) Measuring Outcomes in Australia’s Higher Education Sector in Grant Harman (Ed) International Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Standards, Mechanisms and Mutual Recognition, Ministry of University Affairs of Thailand and UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2002) International Trade Services: Communication from Australia: Negotiating Proposal for Education Services, Canberra.

Birdsall, N (1996) Public Spending on Higher Education in Developing Countries: Too much or too little, Economics of Education Review, Vol 15, pp. 407-419.

Capacity Building of Thai Educational Reform: Quality Assurance and Program Evaluation in Higher Education (2002) Sagric International and Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Adelaide.

Daokai, G. (2003) Presentation on China’s Higher Education: 1998-2002, Second Session of the Regional WCHE Follow-up Committee, 25-26 February, UNESCO, Bangkok.

Department of Education, Science and Training (2001) Characteristics and Performance Indicators of Australian Higher Education Institutions, Higher Education Division, Canberra.

Gnanam, A. (2002a) Case Study on new Providers of Higher Education: International Accreditation, Quality Assurance and the Recognition of Qualifications: Indian Experience, Bangalore.

Gnanam, A. (2002b) Indicators of Quality and Taking it Forward for Regional Cooperation: Developments in India, paper presented at Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Quality and Facilitating Academic Mobility through Quality Assurance Agencies, Bangalore, 21-23 August.


Handbook on Certificates, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific (1998) UNESCO PROAP and SEAMEO RIHED, Bangkok.

Hong, Soon Jeong (2003) Presentation on Recent Developments in Distance Education in Higher Education in Korea and AAOU, Second Session of the Regional WCHE Follow-up Committee, 25-26 February, UNESCO, Bangkok.

IDP Education Australia (2002) International Students in Australian Universities Semester 1, 2002, IDP Education Australia, Canberra.

International Finance Corporation (2002) Summary of Project Information: 10286 RMIT International University. (http:www.worldbank.org/IFCExt/spiwebsite1.nsf/).

Ketchell, M. (2002) Unit to move graves to make way for future Vietnam Venture, The Age, 24 May.

Loc, Nguyen (2001) Non-Public or People-Founded Higher Education in Vietnam, paper prepared for Second Regional Seminar on Private Higher Education, Bangkok, July.

Munday, K. E. (2002) Retrospect and Prospect: Education in a Reforming World Bank, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 22, pp 483-508.

Mutual Recognition of Qualifications: Practices, Challenges and Prospects in University Mobility: Report of an International Seminar, 28 January-8 February 2001 (2001) NIER/UNESCO-APIED, Tokyo.

Nelson, B. (2002) Higher Education at the Crossroads: Ministerial Discussion Paper, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.

Nigavekar, Arun (2003) Presentation on Progress in Implementation of Recommendations, Second Session of the Regional WCHE Follow-up Committee, UNESCO, Bangkok.

Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (2000) Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris.

Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (2001) Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris.

Regional Seminar on Private Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific organised by UNESCO PROAP and SEAMEO RIHED at Xiamen University China 31 October 1995 (1996) UNESCO, Bangkok.

Report of the Regional Workshop on Higher Education in Central Asia in Transition 10 Years After: Experiences, Lessons and Future Strategies, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 13-15 April 2002 (2002), UNESCO, Bangkok.

Rui, Y. (2001) China's Entry to the WTO and Higher Education, International Higher Education, 24 Summer, 9-10.


Second Regional Seminar on Private Higher Education: Its Role in Human Resource Development in a Global Knowledge Society, 10-12 July 2001, Bangkok (2001) UNESCO, Bangkok.

Stella, A. (2001) Quality Assurance in Indian Higher Education: Lessons Learnt on Benchmarking in Grant Harman (Ed) International Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Standards, Mechanisms and Mutual Recognition, Ministry of University Affairs of Thailand and UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Suleiman, M. (2002) Country Report on Malaysia’s Indicators of Quality and Facilitating of Academic Mobility through the National Accreditation Board (LAN), paper presented at Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Quality and Facilitating Academic Mobility through Quality Assurance Agencies, Bangalore, 21-23 August.

Tadjudin, M. K. (2002) The Indonesian Accreditation System for Higher Education: A Country Report, paper presented at Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Quality and Facilitating Academic Mobility through Quality Assurance Agencies, Bangalore, 21-23 August.

UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (2000) The Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific: Sixth Session of the Regional Committee Bangkok, Thailand, 10 November 2000: Final Report, Bangkok.

UNESCO (2002a) Brief Report on the Outcomes of the Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Quality and Facilitating Academic Mobility Through Quality Assurance Agencies, Bangalore.

UNESCO (2002b) Questionnaire on New Providers of Higher Education: China, Paris.

UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education (1992) Handbook of Higher Education Diplomas, Bucharest.

UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education (2002) Report of the Regional Workshop on Higher Education in Central Asia, Bangkok.

World Bank (2002) Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education, Washington.

Yahya Nordin, M. (2001) Quality Assurance in Higher Education Benchmarking – The Malaysian Case in Grant Harman (Ed) International Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Standards, Mechanisms and Mutual Recognition, Ministry of University Affairs of Thailand and UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Zhakenov, G. (2002) Kazakhstan National Report on Higher Education Development, Almaty.

higher education in asia and the pacific 1998-2003 · (bangkok, thailand, 25-26 february 2003)...

Documents