Quality, Profit, and the Public Good Tensions in Cross-Border Delivery of Higher Education

1. Quality, Profit, and the Public GoodTensions in Cross-Border Delivery of Higher Education Kevin Kinser Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies University at Albany State University of New York

2. Quality • Standard • Pre-defined criteria: Implicit or explicit • Measurement • Data collection and reporting • Assessment • Judgment: what is good

3. External evaluation Community norms Public confidence Who is evaluating? Whose norms? Which public? Quality Assurance Quality Insurance?

4. Profit • Revenue – Expenses = Surplus • Fee-based, unsubsidized = Private • Shareholder/owner compensation = Profit Distinction: Home or Cross-Border location?

5. Public Good • Higher education should contribute to the realization of significant public ends (Kezar, et al, 2005) • Benefits accrue to society as a whole • Contemporary Challenges • expanding private sector, privatization • economic, competitiveness rationale Public benefits in a global market?

6. Endemism • Natural to or characteristic of a specific place • Belonging to a particular people or country • Restricted or peculiar to a locality or region • Prevalent in a specific field, area, or environment

7. Organizational Endemism • Organizations are embedded in a physical location and uniquely situated to thrive within its context • Relationship between the geopolitical environment and the organization • structures, associations, and economic conditions connected with a particular region Adapted from Lane & Kinser, 2008

8. Endemic Higher Education • Higher education has traditionally been geographically focused and state supported • Borders are important • define the boundaries of institutional service • define the scope of political sponsorship • Legally, economically, and culturally linked to their native geopolitical environment.

9. Non-Endemic Academics Cross-border activity • Higher education operating outside of its geopolitical home base • Requires adaptation to the new environment • Tests resiliency of existing systems and procedures (e.g., quality assurance) Invasive or Cultivar?

10. Endemic Quality Assurance • Place of origin matters • Establish trust in the source • Regulate the delivery • Importing higher education • Acceptable, creditable, valuable • Exporting higher education • Protection of the national “brand”

11. Branch campus Foreign ownership Curriculum supply Joint venture Distance education Partnerships Cross-Border Models Ubiquitously private, increasingly for-profit

12. U.S. Case: Regulatory Triad • Federal oversight: Accountability • State registration: Approval • Accreditation review: Quality Assurance • voluntary • non-governmental • multiple agencies

13. U.S. “Domestic” Cross-Border • Each state represents a distinctive regulatory environment • Endemic higher education the norm • Public, private, for-profit institutions typically operate in a single state • Relatively permeable borders • U.S. Constitution Commerce clause • Non-endemic is a private activity

14. U.S. Non-endemic examples • Public • Troy University: 8 fed, 15 states; SACS • University of Toledo: 1 fed, 1 state; HLC • Private • Webster University: 1 fed, 20 states; HLC • Western Governors Univ: 1 fed, 48 states; NW, DETC • For-profit • Strayer University: 60 fed, 15 states; MSA • Kaplan College/Univ: 33 fed, 20 states; HLC, ACICS, ACCSCT, DETC

15. Quality Confusion • Triad pressured by non-endemic higher education • States serve as inconsistent regulators • limited control of exporting • variable oversight of importing • Multiple accreditation options provide conflicting standards; compliance concerns • Feds unconcerned with locations

16. Why Private Matters • Control separated from geography • Financial incentives and market pressures encourage expansion • Public good competes with private benefit • Quality assurance as operating expense • Argument for legitimacy

17. Quality and Legitimacy “A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.” (Suchman, 1995)

18. Quality and Legitimacy “A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.” (Suchman, 1995)

19. Quality and Legitimacy “A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.” (Suchman, 1995)

20. Quality and Legitimacy “A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed systemof norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.” (Suchman, 1995)

21. International Implications • Permeable borders encourage non-endemic activity • Public institutions not distinctive from private, for-profit • Borders remain barriers to state oversight • Endemic quality assurance may not adequately address non-endemic functions • Even in a robust regulatory environment, non-endemic institutions can control the process

22. Conclusion