Thanks, and here's more about what we're doing

I appreciate Friday's link from the Copyfight blog, where Donna Wentworth mentioned that this blog is "exploring the impact that DMCA export could have on education worldwide." From the Copyfight perspective, that is precisely what this blog is about. We are quite concerned with exporting the DMCA, because we feel that it (1) sets the stage for a content-centric style of transnational education, and (2) indicates that the Fair Use concept may not survive the digital age.

But that is not *all* we are doing. In fact, the post which Copyfight refers to focuses on the broader issue of Free Trade Agreements, within which DMCA-style language is one crucial component. We might rephrase Copyfight's characterization as something more like, " exploring the impact which GATS and other trade liberalization initiaitives could have on education worldwide, with restrictive IP as one important aspect of such agreements."

But that is also not *all* we are doing. We are actually operating a Transnational Education program in the Continuing Ed division here at Utah State University. Thus, we are also exploring effective teaching models and business relationships and the impact *they* could have on education worldwide. This blog is only one week old. We wanted to establish a foundation of solid posts on topics many people follow -- like GATS and IP. But we will also be sharing the results of our research on the use of instructional technology in Transnational Ed, and describing the Ups and Downs of our program as a whole. All that is still to come.

Thanks again to the excellent blogs which have linked to us already, which includes not only Copyfight, but Stephen Downes' OLDaily.

Quality as a Barrier to Trade

In the second half of the 20th century, nations became the dominant entities in the governance of higher education. Institutions once thought of as the exclusive domain of elites, were seen as centers of learning for all citizens and treated as vehicles of social policy, social cohesion, and social mobility. In the 1990s, however, transnational bodies such as the WTO and GATS emerged and began to assume roles which may conflict with national regulatory perogatives.

GATS, the arm of the WTO concerned with services, has a business agenda. In the words of the European Commission: "The GATS is not just something that exists between Governments. It is first and foremost an instrument for the benefit of business, and not only for business in general, but for individual services companies wishing to export services or to invest and operate abroad."

Its goal is simple -- to create a stable environment for business and to remove barriers to market entry. And herein lies the conflict, because what may appear to be a barrier from a GATS/business perspective may appear to educational authorities at a national level as legitimate regulations, necessary for furthering national policy objectives, including access, consumer protection and quality assurance.

GATS contains within itself the means for resolving such conflicts, the Disputes Settlement Body (DSB) -- and the means to enforce its decisions through penalties imposed on WTO member nations which break the GATS rules or refuse to comply with DSB decisions. Working parties set up within the GATS framework are charged with evaluating national regulations in order to determine if they are more restrictive or burdensome than necessary to maintain service quality. Thus, accreditation standards, for example, may be judged as more of a barrier to market entry than a protection for prospective students. In fact, any regulatory measure designed to ensure quality in higher education may be nixed by GATS.

This level of prioritization of business interests at the expense of a nation's interpretation of the interests of its citizens is finally creating concern and generating a "Stop-GATS" movement, centered in Europe. Nevertheless, the momentum will be difficult to reverse. Once a country joins the WTO, it is almost impossible to withdraw, and once a country makes a commitment to opening a given service sector even a temporary suspension of that commitment requires an appeal to the WTO for a waiver.

True, education is the least committed of all service sectors. Then why can't WTO members nations retain their authority over domestic education policy simply by staying on the sidelines and not participating? Maybe they can. But the pressure to make concessions will never end. Why? Because the condition of joining the WTO is a promise to "enter into successive rounds of negotiations to achieve a progressively higher level of liberalization," (see "The Agreements" at the WTO website). In other words, hold off on commitments within a service sector now, and they will only have to be faced again in a later round of negotiations.

Is this a "GATS is evil" post? Not necessarily. A return to the closed national economies that WTO and GATS seek to transform is not the path to a better world, nor is exclusive national authority over vital services such as education always in the best interests of all citizens. The problem is the radical transfer of power to business representatives with no mandate to consider the social implications of its actions. The WTO has no expertise in the educational aspects of education -- only the economic aspects. The GATS perspective should be represented in multilateral decisions affecting education, but it should not dominate. UNESCO, with its "Education For All" mandate, is one example of an international organization which at the very least should share the stage with GATS in shaping the future of education for the planet.

Free Trade, Education and Support for US Policy

As we continue to speculate about trade liberalization in Education really amounting to the Americanization of Education, yesterday's U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the first ever between the U.S. and an Asian nation, provides more grist for the mill.

On the face of it, the FTA has little to do with education, focusing instead on financial services, pharmaceuticals and textiles. However, beyond the specific service sectors the agreement contains a strong emphasis on anti-circumvention provisions, which read like the DMCA. One complete chapter in the agreement itself is devoted entirely to Intellectual Property (IP) and states the unequivocal commitment of both nations to halt the use of anti-copy protection technologies through legal measures.

This joint stand obviously has tremendous implications for the use of digital resources in education. In particular, digital rights management schemes and the associated anti-circumvention laws threaten the principle of Fair Use, as well as the mere ability to make back-up copies of legally purchased digital material.

Asia has a well-earned reputation as the digital piracy continent, but the total lack of concern for education's special status with regard to the use of copyrighted material is ominous. Individuals who sell illegal copies of Hollywood movies should be thought of differently than educators attempting to support student learning on a non-existent budget. In the recent U.S.-Singapore FTA, there is no indication that they will be.

While I was writing this post, I came across another perspective on the FTA from Lawrence Lessig, although I found it at Copyfight, not at Lessig's own blog. He points out the DCMA dimension in the agreement and sees it as a means of defending the DCMA from attack at home, since retreating from its tough provisions would now violate international agreements.

Furthermore, the timing of the agreement has caused some observers to claim that trade liberalization with the U.S. may be a function of support for its policies. As several sources, including The Washington Post, have pointed out -- Singapore supported the Bush administration on Iraq. Chile, which began FTA negotiations at the same time as Singapore and completed theirs sooner, did not. Singapore's FTA is now signed and whisked on to Congress. Chile's is not.

Will this be the pattern when countries make agreements under GATS about access to national "education markets?" Will developing nations find that loyalty is their best negotiating tool?

Free Trade, Education, and the American Way

"We don't hear a lot about world free trade and education," Stephen Downes noted earlier today in OLDaily.

We should. I promise you that GATS negotiators somewhere in Switzerland are talking about their version of free trade and education every day.

Stephen then linked to our brand-new Transnational Ed Blog and picked up our "colonialist" characterization of free trade in the Ed Biz, which he used in contrast to the picture painted by Philippe Legrain's piece in the May 9th Chronicle of Higher Education. Well, first of all, thanks for noticing, Stephen. I'm not being ironic or sarcastic, this was definitely a red letter day for Transnational Ed Blog. Second, I stand by it; the quote was not taken out of context. I got no beef. But third, I don't necessarily agree with Stephen's main point, or disagree with Legrain's -- even though I'm supposedly on the other side.

The OLDaily blurb takes issue with Legrain's belief that: "It is a myth that globalization involves the imposition of Americanized uniformity, rather than an explosion of cultural exchange"

There are a few brief concerns stated in the blurb about the dominance of American, or Western, values, and it concludes with its own rhetorial flair: "A culture survives through its education, and when its education is imported, something dies"

Yeah, but ...

The rest of my post, after the quote which made the OLDaily, described the basic reason why some nations will absolutely have to import education -- their domestic demand is way too far ahead of the supply.

Am I thinking too much in traditional terms? Will learning object repositories and Open Courseware initiatives change the whole equation? Maybe, but I find it difficult to ignore the squadzillions of people all over the world who are paying good money right now for the privilege of earning credits toward an accredited degree. With the linkage between "real degrees" and career earnings firmly established, I don't see the situation changing any time real soon. I'm not sure it should.

If the growth of Transnational Ed is being driven by market forces, it seems to me we should be considering ways to shape the export/import process so that something doesn't have to die. It is the inevitability of cultural demolition that I disagree with, not the possibility of it occurring.

What died when the NBA was exported/imported worldwide? Nothing but the myth of American hoops exceptionalism.

The World According to GATS

GATS is not just concerned with education -- it applies to ALL service sectors (OK, all except air traffic controlling) -- from banking and telecommunications to health and recreation. For all of these disparate areas, four methods of service delivery are defined. In GATS-speak, these are known as the Modes of Supply. It is actually quite an accomplishment when you think about it, determining four common denominators that transcend and fully describe the ways all commercial services are delivered.

Mode 1 Cross Border Supply In this mode, the service crosses national borders, not the service provider. In the context of Higher Education, this refers to traditional "distance ed" of the independent study variety, such as correspondence-based or television and radio-based study. It also refers to most forms of e-learning employed by virtual universities. Thus, by definition, Mode 1 in the Higher Education sector is an example of Transnational Ed.

Mode 2 Consumption Abroad This mode is by far the largest category of trade in Higher Education services, consisting primarily of students from one country who travel to study in another. NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, claims that over 500,000 foreign students in the U.S. during academic year 2001-2002 were worth at least $11.9 billion to the economy. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conservatively estimates the worldwide Mode 2 market at over $30 billion. That is a significant amount of money, and Mode 2 is by far the most heavily utilized and best researched form of Higher Education service delivery today. Nevertheless, Mode 2 is not a Transnational Ed mode. It is a form of trade of Higher Education services, but it is an export delivered locally.

Mode 3 Commercial Presence This is my personal favorite, an emerging giant which I predict will overtake Mode 2 within 5-10 years. An actual facility for delivering services is established in a country other than the main campus location, and the degree granting institution either owns the facility or has some form of partnership regarding its use. Although stated in business terms, the need or desire to offer a more robust pedagogy than is possible under Mode 2 is what leads to Mode 3. Without a commercial presence, the teaching model could not realistically include non-mediated interaction with instructors or fellow students.

Mode 3 is Transnational Ed, and can also incorporate Mode 2. That is, a Mode 3 provider based in the U.S. could have a branch campus in China, and deliver real-time video lectures originating from the main campus (Mode 2) to students at the branch campus. Not surprisingly, a categorization based on commerce fails to capture more complex and blended teaching methods.

Mode 4 Presence of Natural Persons This is not a Transnational Ed category, as it refers to individuals travelling to another country to provide services. It is, however, an extremely important category in the Education sector, as projected national teacher shortages will have to lead to some amount of professional migration in the coming years. According to World Education News and Reviews, the Chinese Ministry of Education claims China will have to recruit approximately 110,000 university professors by 2005. That's a lot of credentialed natural persons.

And that is that -- the four ways in which services can be delivered. WTO member nations are being asked to make commitments which will open the different education markets (Primary, Secondary, Higher, Adult, Other) within their borders in precisely these terms.

Transnational Ed: Welcome to Singapore

The whole idea of Transnational Ed has a not-so-vaguely colonialist dimension to it. In the context of the WTO and GATS, there will be net exporters and net importers of Higher
Education services. It is not difficult to guess which nations will line up on which side of that divide.

Philip G. Altbach, director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, is unequivocal:

It is worth looking realistically at the prospects for educational "free trade." The fact is that the United States will remain a major beneficiary, and that, even with completely open markets, providers in other countries would have little scope to make major inroads into the huge U.S. postsecondary education market. (from International Higher Education, Number 31, Spring 2003)

But wait – there’s still the supply-side problem. Most countries of the world cannot meet their own citizens’ demand for tertiary education. Surely that justifies trade liberalization in Higher Ed services, the GATS proponents would claim. And maybe it does. Moreover, Transnational Ed relies increasingly on a range of different instructional technologies. Many believe such technologies, properly employed, can lead to a higher degree self-directed learning – which coincides with the stated goals of some developing nations.

Ziguras (2001) suggests that encouraging Transnational Ed providers could be seen as an instrument of national policy. Through Transnational Ed, additional tertiary slots are created locally at no expense. Through Transnational Ed, more students can stay home, rather than being forced to study abroad and perhaps not returning, (see “brain drain”). And through Transnational Ed, instructional technologies are employed to facilitate self-directed learning.

However, it is a good bet that none of the expected benefits will materialize without careful planning and management. Which is where Singapore comes in.

In 1998, Singapore’s Economic Development Board (EDB) launched the World Class University program, aimed at attracting ten upper echelon institutions to establish a local commercial presence. The goal has been achieved; the ten current universities are:



Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Georgia Institute of Technology
Johns Hopkins University
INSEAD
Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania)
University of Chicago School of Business
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
Technische Universität München
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Stanford University



From the EDB website: These institutions conduct post-graduate education programmes, undertake both academic and applied research, and build strong linkages with industry.

With this foundation in place, the selective involvement of Transnational Ed providers has now entered a second round, focusing on specialized graduate schools in arts, design and tourism. The most recently imported partner is Cornell University’s world famous graduate School of Hotel Administration.

Clearly, the Government and the Ministry of Education of Singapore decided that non-Singaporean institutions were needed. So they went after the best.

Why has no authority paid similar attention to Transnational Ed at the undergraduate level? That might not be the prime path to prestige – but’s it’s the area of greatest need.

First Post on GATS and Transnational Ed

Keeping up on Transnational Ed necessarily means keeping up on the WTO and GATS.

Individuals, organizations, and national/regional commissions have already written volumes on the implications of GATS for Higher Education -- and the process is just getting warmed up. It is a controversial and polarizing topic. Most of the published work was produced by strong advocates either for or against the expansion of GATS into Higher Education. This blog will approach the topic differently. First, our format is brief but substantive posts, not lengthy articles. Second, it is not an advocacy blog. We will take positions and make our fundamental beliefs and principles clear, but we will not be one-sided. We belief that there are potentially positive aspects of "trade liberalization," (which is the overriding purpose of the WTO). There are also potentially destructive aspects. Rather than positioning ourselves as For or Against such a fundamental global dynamic, we would rather try to help steer the process in directions which accentuate the positive and limit the negative effects.

This Report by Dr. Jane Knight of the University of Toronto is one of the more balanced introductions focusing specifically on trade in Higher Education services. It was published in March, 2002, but its perspectives are still completely up-to-date. All the report misses is the opposition which has emerged, primarily in Europe, over the past year. In order to clarify the meaning and timing of this movement, a quick orientation on the GATS timetable is needed.

1995 GATS was born in the "Uruguay Round" of WTO negotiations as the world's first multilateral agreement on liberalization of trade in services. GATS stands for General Agreement on Trade in Services.

1997 Many WTO member nations negotiated specific commitments toward trade liberalization in basic telecommunications and financial services sectors.

2000 A new round of services negotiations began, with the goal of more negotiated commitments in more service sectors by more WTO member nations.

March, 2003 This was the recent deadline for member nations to respond to requests with offers to open specific service sectors.

January, 2005 The current round of GATS negotiations will end.

The surprising development which occurred in February, 2003, prior to the March deadline, was the European Commission's refusal to include Higher Education in its immediate commitments. This position was seen in some circles as a major victory for GATS opponents. Apparently, the European Commission became convinced that the imposition of free market rules on Higher Education could lead to the end of public funding and an overall reduction in quality and access.

However, like everything else about GATS, the effect of this European stance remains to be seen. One grey area is the precise definition of "privately funded universities," which are covered under GATS. Could public institutions which receive private funding of various sorts (including research support) be considered "private," at some point, and thus, covered by GATS? Whatever the outcome of that thread, the basic fact is that there will be more rounds and more commitments in more service sectors because GATS itself represents an explicit agenda. It is dedicated to the principle of "Progressive Liberalization." Markets should be open to competition and barriers to competition should be removed -- joining the WTO (about 140 nations have done so) means agreeing with these statements.

If you haven't been keeping up on the WTO and GATS and what they might mean for Higher Education, consider this your first dose. There will be more. We will help interpret current events in this area by providing background and context.

Next post: Where does Transnational Education fit in the broader field of trade in Higher Education services?

Transnational Ed Blog: Start-Up Post

You could say it is as simple as supply and demand. There is a rapidly increasing worldwide demand for post-secondary education. Authorized national institutions cannot keep up in most countries, so outside service providers emerge in various forms to fill the gap.

But of course it is not really that simple at all. The delivery of educational services across national borders raises issues of accreditation and quality assurance, access and admission standards, educational imperialism, and the appropriate use of technology. And more.

Transnational Education is not new. What is new is the growing scale of the activity and the change in its very nature due to the proliferation of the Internet. According to an Australian study (IDP Education Australia, 2002), the demand is projected to increase four-fold over the next two decades, with 70% of the total students coming from Asia. Higher Education is already a significant service export in the U.S., U.K., and Australian economies and has the potential to become a major arena for international trade and cooperation.

Transnational Education (TNE) has received the most attention in Australia, New Zealand, and the European Community, where the Eastern European focused UNESCO-CEPES organization gave TNE its widely accepted definition:

"All types of higher education study programmes, or sets of courses of study, or educational services (including those of distance education) in which the learners are located in a country different from the one where the awarding institution is based. Such programmes may belong to the education system of a State different from the State in which it operates, or may operate independently of any national education system."

. . . . . . . .

Despite its growing importance, it is not well understood, well researched, or even well-regarded in the U.S. Higher Education community. It is, however, my job. I am the Director of International Distance Education for Utah State University, which is actively engaged in the delivery of credit-bearing courses to students in several parts of Asia. Our program is growing, like the field of Transnational Education as a whole. Our teaching model is in transition as we begin to implement new methods. Instructional technology is the enabler, allowing us to leverage faculty more effectively and create more opportunities for interaction.

So I am a representative of a transnational provider, and a publicly funded one at that. One function of this blog will be to write about what we’re learning, from the technology of Web-based videoconferencing to the administration of course articulation agreements – including our emerging research agenda.

The other function will be to look beyond our own experience and bring in news and perspectives from around the world. We subscribe to every journal, newsletter, list or discussion board we can find and afford that is somehow related to international higher education – the blog gives us a reason to capture the best of it and set the pieces in place with permalinks. We will know Transnational Ed Blog is part of a larger conversation about globalization and educating the planet when these posts begin to receive replies, and when we are no longer the only ones providing material for the posts themselves.