Search Results

In the face of increasing costs and lackluster outcomes, traditional higher education is under increasing pressure to prove its value proposition. Meanwhile, new providers have 'unbundled' the components of a postsecondary degree or certificate, offering stand-alone courses or sequences of courses, targeted job training, and assessments and certifications, often at much lower cost than existing institutions. These models cannot deliver all of what a traditional college or university does, but they can provide affordable, flexible, and customizable opportunities to learn. As unbundling in higher education has accelerated, reformers have asked whether there is a role for federal aid dollars to play in facilitating access to these new opportunities. This, in turn, has raised questions as to whether the traditional approaches to regulating postsecondary education at the state and federal level are well suited to this new ecosystem.

That the existing quality assurance system is ill-designed for this new world is abundantly clear. Less clear, however, is what should replace it. Simply lowering barriers to entry such that federal money can flow to a much wider array of providers would invite waste, fraud, and abuse. Thus, this policy brief outlines potential regulatory approaches and tools - many of which would work well in combination - that policymakers could use to facilitate access to this unbundled market while protecting consumers and taxpayers.

Excerpts from publication. Show less

There has been a speedy increase in the number of higher education providers, including private higher education institutions in the Philippines. This proliferation of providers and institutional types has given rise to a need to address the issues of skills and relevance in the Philippines. The World Bank (2012) has reported on a significant gap between the skills needs of employers and the levels of skills produced by higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines. How does the Philippines manage the increased demand for higher education to provide skills needed to develop the society and the economy? This article analyses the expansion of higher education globally and in the Philippines, in particular, and its impact on skills production. [The authors] argue the case for the proper regulation of the higher education system, in general, and private higher education, in particular, to deliver the relevant skills needed for the economic development and global competitiveness of the Philippines.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

Amid growing concerns about the quality and cost of American higher education, policymakers are searching for reforms that can both increase the supply of affordable and effective postsecondary options and maintain consumer protection. Much of the focus has tended toward the federal student aid programs and policies that govern access to those programs. Though states play an important role in authorizing postsecondary institutions to operate in their state, observers have paid comparatively less attention to how they carry out that responsibility. This paper aims to present lessons for regulatory reform by examining how states organize their authorization process.

The paper concludes by recommending a better way for states to authorize postsecondary institutions: a risk-based approach, in which state authorizers would focus their resources on cases that pose the most risk to consumers. Authorizers could set up oversight boards independent of the political process and the existing higher education system in the state, require new entrants to provide basic documentation to establish a minimum level of seriousness, and have a well-designed set of consumer protections to weed out poorly structured or fraudulent institutions. In particular, states could require organizations to put up private capital as insurance against failure, which would also help to separate serious providers from diploma mills.

Excerpts from publication. Show less

Since the late 1980s student charges have helped finance higher education. While what universities can charge domestic undergraduate students at public universities is capped, one in every three students enrols in courses where fees are uncapped. This report examines the dynamics of deregulated university markets. It focuses on the undergraduate international and the postgraduate student markets. Together they enrolled more than 400,000 students in 2014.

The report is structured as follows. Chapter 2 looks at the undergraduate international student market at universities. It suggests that universities take a commercial view of the international student market, and set fees in-line with their international competitors. Chapter 3 investigates the postgraduate student market. Nearly 60 per cent of domestic students pay fees, while the rest are Commonwealth-supported. For domestic students, universities do not always take a commercial approach. In some fields, such as nursing, it is not unusual for universities to receive less from a fee-paying student than a Commonwealth supported place. When international and domestic fee-paying students are enrolled in the same course, domestic students never pay more than international students. Chapter 4 reports on the revenue that deregulated markets provide Australian universities. In 2013, universities received nearly $6 billion from fee-paying students - triple the revenue in 2000 in real terms. As a share of total university revenue, fee income has also grown. In 2013, one in every five dollars earned by public universities came from fee-paying students.

Excerpts from publication. Show less

This paper explains how (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) TEQSA's risk-based approach to assuring higher education standards is applied in broad terms to a diverse sector. This explanation is consistent with the revised processes developed by TEQSA in close consultation with the sector over 2013-14. The paper has been developed based on a dialogue between TEQSA and registered higher education providers through their peak bodies. It depicts how TEQSA's risk-based approach to assurance of quality standards is applied in practice to the sector and aims to facilitate a shared understanding of how TEQSA takes into account relevant organisational characteristics. This paper is in three parts, together with an appendix. 'Part one: TEQSA'S overall approach' outlines TEQSA's approach to assuring quality standards, by being satisfied that providers meet and are likely to continue to meet the Threshold Standards. In implementing an approach to arrive at this satisfaction about each registered provider, TEQSA considers three principles which the Act requires it to apply (reflecting risk, proportionality, and necessity). Part one explains how these safeguards require TEQSA to differentiate between providers. 'Part two: An overview of registered providers in the sector' provides descriptive observations about the diverse range and types of registered providers in the sector today. As of mid-2013, there were 173 registered higher education providers, including 37 public Australian universities, three Australian private universities, one University of Specialisation, two overseas universities and 130 other higher education providers. Many of these providers, including some universities, are also registered to provide vocational education and training (VET), and are often referred to as dual sector or multi-sector providers. This profile and the business models employed are evolving as providers respond to market dynamics and new entrants emerge. 'Part three: assuring quality standards in practice' provides further detail about TEQSA's risk-based approach to assuring that providers are meeting the national standards. This covers TEQSA's assessment approaches, including its risk assessment framework and consideration of providers' demonstrated capacity to monitor and manage identified risks. This part also describes how TEQSA's level of confidence in a provider translates into graduated interventions where warranted. To aid understanding, the appendix illustrates TEQSA's application of the framework through a series of hypothetical case studies, making reference to different types of providers, risk profiles, regulatory processes and decisions. Show less

The 'Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG)' were adopted by the Ministers responsible for higher education in 2005 following a proposal prepared by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) in co-operation with the European Students' Union (ESU), the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) and the European University Association (EUA). Since 2005, considerable progress has been made in quality assurance as well as in other Bologna action lines such as qualification frameworks, recognition and the promotion of the use of learning outcomes, all these contributing to a paradigm shift towards student-centred learning and teaching. Given this changing context, in 2012 the Ministerial Communique invited the E4 Group (ENQA, ESU, EUA, EURASHE) in cooperation with Education International (EI), BUSINESSEUROPE and the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) to prepare an initial proposal for a revised ESG 'to improve their clarity, applicability and usefulness, including their scope'.

The revision included several consultation rounds involving both the key stakeholder organisations and ministries. The many comments, proposals and recommendations received have been carefully analysed and taken very seriously by the Steering Group (SG). They are reflected in the resulting version of the ESG. Moreover this version also reflects a consensus among all the organisations involved on how to take forward quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area and, as such, provides a firm basis for successful implementation. The ESG are used by institutions and quality assurance agencies as a reference document for internal and external quality assurance systems in higher education. Moreover, they are used by the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR), which is responsible for the register of quality assurance agencies that comply with the ESG.

Excerpts from publication. Show less

In 2010, the Australian Federal Government announced their intention to establish the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Authority (TEQSA) to audit tertiary education institutions against new standards, including standards for graduate learning outcomes. This induced significant sectoral concern about potential 'perverse consequences' such as standardisation of curricula. In response, the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) funded the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards (LTAS) project to support discipline communities to develop graduate learning outcomes for nominated degrees. This paper provides a sociological analysis of the LTAS project for science. [The authors] reflect upon the process of attaining national endorsement of science threshold learning outcomes (TLOs) through a fundamentally collegial project design: consulting academics, students, employers and graduates in science professions. Project data were analysed by varying the unit of analysis, and using different theoretical frameworks from Science Technology and Society (STS) literature to elicit insights about the process and outcomes of the project. Activity Theory allowed us to interpret the project as initiating a cycle of expansive learning; Communities of Practice theory provided insights into the catalytic role of the Discipline Scholars. In leading a discipline-community response to quality assurance requirements of higher education awards, the LTAS project provided a social framework for defining and evidencing graduate capabilities, including ongoing engagement.

Published abstract. Show less

In recent years, competency-based education (CBE) has made considerable inroads in higher education. Various institutions have developed or begun developing a range of programs modeled on competency-based principles. CBE is viewed by many, and with good reason, as a potential means to deliver a more effective educational experience at a lower cost. Yet despite increased interest from postsecondary institutions and strong support from policymakers, examples abound of regulatory barriers that not only fail to encourage competency-based learning but in fact impede its progress. In this paper, the current or proposed regulatory frameworks for the management of competency-based programming at the state, accreditor, and federal levels are examined. The authors highlight key concerns with and among these systems and note where efforts are being made to resolve barriers.

Edited excerpts from publication. Show less

Despite the widespread adoption of accreditation processes and the belief in their effectiveness for improving educational quality, the search for good accreditation practices remains a critical issue. This article recounts one university's experiences when simultaneously undergoing the accreditation processes of both the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) and the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT); the former is a regional accreditor in the USA, while the latter is a national accreditor in Taiwan. Based on in-depth interviews and document reviews, a comparison of the two accreditations was undertaken in terms of both their processes and their impacts on the university. The HEEACT accreditation process tended more toward requiring compliance, while the MSCHE process was more aspirational in nature, with the former body emphasizing control and external regulation and the latter emphasizing collaboration and improvement. One feature that was revealed to distinguish these two approaches is the degree of institutional centeredness, i.e. the emphasis on the university's uniqueness and specific stage of development, as well as the culture of engagement during the process of change. The pros and cons of both approaches and the government's role in the context of higher education are likewise discussed.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

As the number of secondary school graduates rises, many developing countries expand the supply of public and private universities or face pressure to do so. However, several factors point to the need for caution, including weak job markets, low-quality university programs, and job-education mismatches. More university graduates in this context could exacerbate unemployment, underemployment, and overeducation of professionals. Whether governments should regulate the quantity or quality of university programs, however, depends on the specific combination of factors in each country.

Excerpt from publication. Show less