By Fabrice Hénard, Leslie Diamond, Deborah Roseveare. Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice - A Guide for Higher Education Institutions.
Why focus on internationalisation?
Internationalisation of higher education is not new. Many of the earliest scholars travelled widely in Europe, but in the early modern era the focus on national development and internationalisation became marginalised. Nonetheless, initiatives such as the Fulbright Scholars Program in the United States and the Erasmus Mundus Programme in Europe have aimed to promote mutual understanding and encourage collaboration among higher education institutions. Today, however, the accelerating rate of globalisation has focussed attention once again on student mobility, international research collaboration and education as an export industry.
In today’s age of global knowledge and technology, an interconnected network and global awareness are increasingly viewed as major and sought-after assets. With the current labour market requiring graduates to have international, foreign language and intercultural skills to be able to interact in a global setting, institutions are placing more importance on internationalisation. The number of students enrolled in higher education outside their country of citizenship practically doubled from 2000 to 2010 (OECD, 2012a) and this trend is likely to continue.
However, student mobility is simply the most visible part of a greater topic, namely internationalisation, which is more complex and multifaceted. One aspect, sometimes referred to as internationalisation at home, consists of incorporating intercultural and international dimensions into the curriculum, teaching, research and extracurricular activities and hence helps students develop international and intercultural skills without ever leaving their country (OECD, 2004; Wächter, 2003). Other fast-growing forms of internationalisation are emerging (e.g. transnational education sometimes delivered through off-shore campuses, joint programmes, distance learning, etc.) and suggest a more farreaching approach, especially where higher education is now seen as an integral part of the global knowledge economy.
Globalisation has major implications for the higher education sector, notably on the physical and virtual mobility of students and faculty, information and knowledge, virtual access, and sharing of policies and practices. In many OECD countries, the transition from elite to mass participation in higher education is virtually complete. As the size of the 18 to 25 year-old age group declines, some of these countries are facing a decrease in domestic enrolments and attracting foreign students is increasingly seen as a way to compensate. Simultaneously, in emerging economies – especially China, India and in Southeast Asia – there is an ever growing demand for higher education and internationalisation may be regarded as a costeffective alternative to national provision (OECD, 2008).
The landscape of internationalised higher education is rapidly evolving. New countries and institutions are entering the global talent pool and challenging the established position of the traditional champions of international education. The English language is dominating new programmes and campuses are being built to welcome an increasing number of students from emerging economies. New forms of institutions, programmes and teaching methods are being set up. In addition, the effects of the economic and financial crises are far-reaching and long-lasting, changing the flows of students and faculty across continents as well as brain circulation.
Expected benefits of internationalisation
One of the main goals of internationalised higher education is to provide the most relevant education to students, who will be the citizens, entrepreneurs and scientists of tomorrow. Internationalisation is not an end in itself, but a driver for change and improvement – it should help generate the skills required in the 21st century, spur on innovation and create alternatives while, ultimately, fostering job creation. Yet the current economic climate calls for a closer examination of the tangible benefits of internationalisation for the economies and societies of, and beyond, the OECD.
Today, internationalisation functions as a two way street. It can help students achieve their goals to obtain a quality education and pursue research. It gives students an opportunity for “real world, real time” experiential learning in areas that cannot simply be taught. Institutions, on the other hand, may gain a worldwide reputation, as well as a foothold in the international higher education community, and rise to meet the challenges associated with globalisation. The top five reasons for internationalising an institution (Marmolejo, 2012) are, in order of importance, to:
- improve student preparedness
- internationalise the curriculum
- enhance the international profile of the institution
- strengthen research and knowledge production
- diversify its faculty and staff
Despite dramatic variations between countries and institutions, there is a general consensus that internationalisation can – when part of a broader strategy – offer students, faculty and institutions valuable benefits. It can spur on strategic thinking leading to innovation, offer advantages in modernising pedagogy, encourage student and faculty collaboration and stimulate new approaches to learning assessments. With the infusion of internationalisation into the culture of higher education, students and educators can gain a greater awareness of the global issues and how educational systems operate across countries, cultures and languages. Research is inherently internationalised through collaborations and partnerships amongst teams, and most scientific projects can no longer remain nationally-bound.
The many aspects and complexity of internationalisation raise various challenges for policy makers (e.g. on optimising mobility flows, equal access to international education, protecting students and quality assurance [OECD, 2008]). Likewise, institutions must be responsive and orchestrate all of these various aspects consistently in order to reap the benefits of internationalisation as well as manage the risks. For example, internationalisation of programmes entails refining support for students and paying closer attention to students with ever more demanding expectations in terms of quality of pedagogy, student assessments and the learning environment.
Internationalisation brings with it many challenges to the status quo. It introduces alternative ways of thinking, it questions the education model, and it impacts on governance and management. It will raise unexpected issues and likely benefits. All of these have a different impact, meaning and import for institutions in countries of varying degrees of social or political development. Key concerns of internationalisation include ways to sustain and enhance the quality of learning and ensure the credibility of credentials in a global world.
The key role of governments in internationalisation
Government policy might be motivated by the desire to attract skilled workers, to export education services, to promote development or to exercise “soft-power”. Governments also know that the nation’s credibility will be affected if its higher education institutions are abusing their international trust. The involvement of governments in internationalisation is therefore twofold: supporting the expansion of internationalisation and safeguarding its quality.
At the same time, whilst institutions are gaining more autonomy, their expansion beyond national borders can be fostered or hampered by government policy. Thus, the synergies and inconsistencies of institutional strategies and national policies on internationalisation should be better understood. Investigating the interconnecting relationships between the various actors, first between institutions and their governments, is of utmost importance to grasp the complexity of internationalised higher education.
Why internationalisation matters for higher education institutions Internationalisation enables higher education institutions to:
- increase national and international visibility;
- leverage institutional strengths through strategic partnerships;
- enlarge the academic community within which to benchmark their activities;
- mobilise internal intellectual resources;
- add important, contemporary learning outcomes to student experience;
- develop stronger research groups.
Why internationalisation matters for governments Internationalisation enables governments to:
- develop national university systems within a broader, global framework;
- produce a skilled workforce with global awareness and multi-cultural competencies;
- use public higher education funds to promote national participation in the global knowledge economy;
- benefit from trade in education services.

By Frédéric Turlan, IR Share. A new initiative to tackle the steadily increasing numbers of young people out of work was unveiled by the European Commission on 5 December 2012. The youth employment package contains measures to help Member States address what it describes as ‘unacceptable levels of youth unemployment and social exclusion’. The initiative focuses on a Youth Guarantee agreement and a Quality Framework for Traineeships, and aims to ensure all young people are offered a job and training.
Commission’s package includes Youth Guarantee
The European Commission is calling on all Member States to address the problem of youth unemployment, which it says is costing the region billions of euros. On 5 December 2012, the Commission presented a package of measures in its initiative on a Youth Guarantee and a Quality Framework for Traineeships. It wants Member States to ensure all young people are offered work and training. In its Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Establishing a Youth Guarantee, the Commission sets out its aims. The guarantee is designed to ensure that all young people up to the age of 25 receive a good quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. The recommendation calls on Member States to establish partnerships with all stakeholders to implement this guarantee, including the provision of intervention services at an early stage. The Commission has promised support through the European Structural Funds. In a communication on 5 December 2012, Moving Youth into Employment, the Commission said that the costs of implementing the guarantee would be outweighed by the long-term savings made through reducing unemployment, economic inactivity and lost productivity. It believes there will be positive returns on investing in a Youth Guarantee. The Commission bases its findings on a major Eurofound study on young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) in Europe which estimates that the annual cost of disengagement of young people from the labour market is currently around 1.2% of gross domestic product (GDP), or €153 billion.
 The Commission’s recommendation also proposes that Member States can boost recruitment prospects among young people by reducing non-wage labour costs. It also calls for enhanced mechanisms for supporting young people who have dropped out of activation schemes and no longer access benefits.
A European quality framework on traineeships
To ease the transition from education to work, on 5 December the Commission also launched the second-stage consultation among cross-sectoral social partners at European level on an initiative intended to help young people gain work experience under safe conditions, Towards a Quality Framework on Traineeships. The Commission said the first stage of consultations had revealed a consensus on the useful role of traineeships. But it also pointed to a lack of quality and widespread misuse of such schemes across Europe, and action needed to be taken on these issues. However, social partner views differed on whether an initiative at European level in this field needed to be taken. In its consultation document, the Commission set out the issues that should be addressed by a European framework. It stated that each traineeship should lead to a written agreement between the trainee and the employer (or the training organisation) covering such aspects as:
    professional and learning objectives;
    duration;
    daily and weekly working time;
    payment of social security, where applicable, and remuneration or compensation.
The agreement should also set well-defined objectives and offer high-quality learning content to increase the employability of the trainee. A personal supervisor or mentor should be appointed to guide the trainee. Finally, at the end of a course, the trainee should receive a final evaluation that ensures proper recognition of the traineeship. This document would contain information on matters such as the duration of the course, the educational content, the tasks performed, the knowledge, skills and competences acquired and a performance assessment. Traineeships should last for a specified period, for example six months, to ensure that they are not being used to replace regular jobs. The Commission also says that the issue of limiting successive traineeships with the same employer should be addressed. Trainees should be covered by social protection, including health insurance and insurance against accidents at the workplace. The Commission said it was willing to recognise unpaid traineeships. However, if the employer provided compensation or a wage, the amount must be clearly specified in the traineeship agreement. The cross-sectoral European social partners have already begun negotiations on a framework to address youth employment and talks have been going on since the end of 2012. However, these negotiations were not intended to include the issue of traineeships. If the social partners decide not to negotiate on traineeships, the Commission will put forward its own recommendation on this issue in 2013.
European alliance for apprenticeships
Inspired by Germany and Austria, which have the lowest youth unemployment rates in Europe, the Commission also intends to build a European alliance for apprenticeships. This would group the various European initiatives under a common umbrella. The alliance would promote the benefits and elements of successful apprenticeship schemes and recommend ways in which these could be improved. It would also help develop common dual training curricula for various professions, facilitate recognition of apprenticeships undertaken abroad, and promote an appropriate framework. The Commission also plans to promote national partnerships for developing dual learning.
Commentary
The Commission’s initiatives on the Youth Guarantee can only be welcomed, given the serious situation of youth employment. However, it will be some time before it is implemented. Concrete action is not expected before 2014 in the context of the new financial programme of the European Union. This also applies to the European framework for traineeships. If the social partners decide to negotiate on the Youth Guarantee and traineeships by the end of January 2013, they will have nine months to reach an agreement. There would probably then be a period of implementation, meaning it will be some time before Europe sees any real results from the initiative.

By Aumayr-Pintar, Christine; Cabrita, Jorge; Foden, David. This paper looks at wages from two different angles: from the perspective of individual employees, discussed in conjunction with their working conditions, and from the perspective of the industrial relations system. After a brief overview of EU-level policy developments with a potential impact on national level pay determination, this report gives a comparative overview of the levels of collective wage setting and how they are set throughout Europe and goes on to report on reforms, changes or debates linked to these processes between the different actors at both the Member State and the European level in 2011 and 2012. See related publications on wages.

The UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL), on behalf of the UNESCO Education Sector, has taken the initiative in working with Member States to develop the UNESCO Guidelines for the Recognition, Validation and Accreditation (RVA) of the Outcomes of Non-formal and Informal Learning. In June 2012, Mr Qian Tang, the Assistant Director-General for Education of UNESCO, officially approved the Guidelines and invited authorities in Member States to make efforts to implement the Guidelines in line with their specific national context.
Acting upon this initiative, the DVV International Regional Office in Southeast Asia organised a workshop on 7 and 8 January 2013, in Vientiane (Lao PDR) to facilitate the implementation of the UNESCO Guidelines for RVA in the sub-region. Eighteen policymakers and experts from Cambodia, Laos, the Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education and the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Centre for Lifelong Learning participated in the workshop. With the help of DVV International and the UNESCO Office in Ha Noi, the Guidelines were translated into the national languages of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam and disseminated to national stakeholders in the three countries. Mr Jin Yang, Senior Programme Specialist of UIL, served as a resource person and made four presentations at the workshop on the following topics:

• Conceptual evolution and policy developments in lifelong learning – A UNESCO perspective;
• The nature of learning and the importance of non-formal and informal learning;
• Synthesis report on RVA in UNESCO Member States, and
• The key messages of the UNESCO Guidelines for RVA

During group work, the country teams elaborated on opportunities/strengths, threats/weaknesses and developed some concrete key action points for implementing the Guidelines in their countries in the next two years. Additionally, the participants also requested UIL and DVV International to continuously support the implementation of the Guidelines through provision of technical expertise and capacity building in developing skill assessment tools and qualification criteria. In all, the two-day Workshop successfully mobilised several key change agents in the three countries for implementing the UNESCO Guidelines, deepened participants’ understanding of key concepts of lifelong learning and RVA, and strengthened their capacity for implementing the UNESCO Guidelines for RVA. These outputs will result in concrete steps for Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam in constructing a national RVA system.

By Judith S. Eaton. The most recent conversation about “credit hour,” a description of time on task required of students in their courses, programs and degrees, is about how this concept might be tied to student learning outcomes. It is also about the federal financing of higher education and sustaining the role that the credit hour has played in this funding. Discussion of student learning outcomes – setting expectations of student learning and judging whether expectations are achieved – has, to date, been led by the academy. Discussion of federal funding and the credit hour has been led by government officials and focuses on what will be financed and how.
Care and caution are essential as we proceed with both the student learning discussion and the federal financing discussion. Why? While the academy is not trying to do the government’s work of figuring out federal financing of the credit hour, the government has displayed considerable interest in doing the academy’s work – determining and judging student learning. This emerging development is undesirable, not only for the academy and government, but also for students and the public.
The Student Learning Outcomes Discussion
The discussion about appropriate outcomes of learning, how to achieve them and how to provide evidence for them, has been underway in the academy for years and is well advanced. It includes credit hour considerations, but is much broader. Lately, the discussion has been driven by the emphasis on accountability and public demands for evidence of student achievement from colleges and universities. It is also related to the impact that online learning, competency-based learning and assessment of prior learning have had on the traditional collegiate classroom-based experience which, for most of its history, has defined higher education and thus defined the credit hour.
An outcomes-based approach to the credit hour can be flexible. It can be implemented within traditional time parameters leading to a degree, such as semesters or quarters. Or, it can be done independently of time: Once a student has provided evidence of learning, progress or completion can be formally noted through a credential of some sort. This last helps to explain not only the recent renewed emphasis on competency-based education and assessment of prior learning, but also the emerging interest in educational practices such as private companies offering online coursework at very low prices (StraighterLine) and massive open online courses (Coursera, Udacity).
The Federal Funding Discussion
The time-based credit hour has been used by the federal government to determine how much and for what period of time federal aid such as the Pell Grant, the largest aid program, is available to students. The federal government is spending historically large sums of money on Pell and other programs, some $175 billion each year. The assumption has been that financing adequate time expended to earn credits is a good use of federal funds and financing too little time expended is a misuse of federal dollars.
While the credit hour concept is well embedded in federal law and regulation, government officials are now persuaded that there is insufficient return on investment using the time-based credit hour. The value proposition put forward is that learning outcomes may be a more effective indicator of whether federal money is spent appropriately.
Care and Caution
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education issued a regulation that provided a federal definition of “credit hour,” accompanied by requiring nongovernmental accrediting organizations to enforce and monitor its use. The federal definition is complex and a work in progress, but allows for either a time-based or outcomes-based approach to the credit hour. Given that definition of credit hour has been the province of the academy for more than 100 years, why, for the first time, is the government defining this concept, superseding the work of the academy?
In 2012, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, advising the Secretary of Education on the recognition of accrediting organizations, released a report examining the effectiveness of accreditation. The report does not focus on the credit hour, but does address student learning outcomes. While not going so far as calling for common outcome measures, the main report does recommend establishing common definitions of outcomes across institutions. The alternative report accompanying the main document calls for institutions to provide common information on some student outcomes. Although both recommendations do not establish and standardize student outcomes, it is a short step from common definitions and common information to national standardization.
Both of these efforts are indications that the government discussion of financing the credit hour is expanding to become a discussion of determining and judging student learning outcomes as well. In some instances, the government taking on this role is assumed. Amy Laitinen’s September 2012 report, Cracking the Credit Hour, offers valuable suggestions about further experimentation with outcomes-based approaches to the credit hour. However, although the report does not directly address financing of the credit hour (the province of government), it does recommend that the federal government provide the leadership for this experimentation (the province of the academy).
We need government officials who understand the importance of turning to the academy for guidance about any transition of the credit hour from time-based to outcomes-based, whether whole or partial. Only after these learning outcome determinations have been made by the academic community is government in a position to decide whether and how funds will be provided. Federal regulations that place authority for student learning outcomes in the hands of government officials and not academics are undesirable and, frankly, likely to be less than effective.
If the government now defines the credit hour, decides the data that are to be used for student learning outcomes and leads experiments in alternative approaches for using an outcomes-based approach to the credit hour, what is left for the academy to do?

2011-2012 Annual Report of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
2011-2012: Addressing the Challenges, Preparing for the Future
In 2011-2012, CHEA activities ranged from the work accomplished during the final year of the CHEA Initiative, government affairs work with Congress and the Administration to recognition of accrediting organizations. CHEA also continued to serve as “Accreditation Central,” an outstanding source of national-level information on accreditation, as well as expanded the organization’s international engagement. The result was a year of significant accomplishment for CHEA on behalf of its 3,000 member colleges and universities.
The CHEA Initiative
2011-2012 was the final year of the CHEA Initiative, an unprecedented national conversation engaging 2,500 colleagues around the country on the future of accreditation. The Initiative was launched by CHEA in 2008 to build consensus for action on the issues of greatest importance to the accreditation and higher education communities in advance of the anticipated reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) in 2013 or thereafter.
Deliberation by the CHEA Initiative’s participants resulted in near unanimity about the two goals of the Initiative: the need to further enhance accountability within accreditation and to work to sustain an appropriate balance in the accreditation-federal government relationship.
Based on the results of the CHEA Initiative, the CHEA Board of Directors approved actions addressing the major issues that emerged in the discussions as most important to participants. These included restating and reframing the division of responsibilities between government and accreditation, initiating an accreditation advocacy campaign and developing a CHEA International Quality Group (see below).
During this period, the CHEA Initiative hosted five CEO/CAO Roundtables with member institutions, met with 22 accrediting commissions, held eight National Accreditation Fora and conducted a student focus group for a total of 36 meetings.
Government Affairs
Through its government affairs activities at the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and the U.S. Congress, as well as with state legislatures, CHEA works to address legislative and regulatory issues of key importance to higher education accreditation.
A major focus in 2011-2012 was the review and report outlining accreditation policy recommendations carried out by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), USDE’s advisory body on recognition of accrediting organizations. This report was requested by USDE Secretary Arne Duncan to examine “what is working and not working” in the current system of recognition and accreditation. CHEA President Judith Eaton testified at the committee’s December 15, 2011 meeting to discuss the draft policy report. CHEA also provided comments to NACIQI and coordinated two letters from the accreditation community, submitted on November 23, 2011 and on March 16, 2012.
CHEA played a role in developing H.R. 2117, a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on February 28, 2012 to repeal USDE’s regulations that establish a federal definition of credit hour. CHEA made the case that defining the credit hour is the primary responsibility of the academy, not government. The bill also repealed new requirements for state authorization, which CHEA opposed as burdensome and unworkable. Additionally, CHEA supported a companion bill in the U.S. Senate, S. 1297. The House bill was passed and the Senate bill remained in committee as of June 30, 2012.
CHEA also continued to support legislation to combat degree mills and accreditation mills and to reduce and prevent the sale and use of fraudulent degrees in order to protect the integrity of valid higher education degrees. While H.R. 1758, (the “Diploma and Accreditation Integrity Act”) was not passed in 2011-2012, CHEA shared the bill with governors and attorneys general in various states as an example of effective legislation addressing degree mills and making their operation more difficult.
International Activities
CHEA President Judith Eaton participated in a number of international meetings and conferences throughout 2011-2012, including addressing a conference in Erbil, Iraq, hosted by the International Institute of Education, in conjunction with the Iraqi Scholar Rescue Fund and the Center for International Partnerships in Higher Education, on standards in quality assurance and accreditation and served as keynote speaker at the annual conference of the Alliance of Universities for Democracy held in Dubrovnik, Croatia. Eaton also served as a member of the Quality Assurance Council of the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong.
As part of its ongoing international activity, CHEA also provided information on U.S. accreditation to delegations from nations around the world. In 2011-2012, CHEA staff made presentations on U.S. accreditation and recognition to international visitors from countries including Afghanistan, China, Finland, Iraq, Japan, Kenya, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and Trinidad and Tobago.
The CHEA 2012 International Seminar, held January 26-27, in conjunction with the CHEA 2012 Annual Conference, drew participants from 28 countries and addressed issues related to international quality assurance and the role of accreditation.
During 2011-2012, the CHEA Board of Directors approved the establishment of a CHEA International Quality Group (CIQG) to bring together people, ideas and resources from around the world to support institutions and accrediting or quality assurance organizations in tackling tough issues such as defining quality, addressing rankings and combating degree mills and accreditation mills. The CIQG will be launched in 2012-2013.
CHEA Recognition of Accrediting Organizations
CHEA has been engaged in recognition of accrediting organizations since 1999. This review involves scrutiny of their activities to determine whether accreditors meet standards in CHEA’s recognition policy. CHEA-recognized accrediting organizations undergo a review every ten years, at a minimum.
During 2011-2012, the CHEA Committee on Recognition conducted 11 reviews of accrediting organizations seeking eligibility for CHEA recognition and 16 reviews of organizations seeking recognition. The committee also acted to defer recognition of five accrediting organizations and received seven special reports. In all, 31 accrediting organizations came before the committee during the year, some of these on more than one occasion. Some of these accrediting organizations were seeking CHEA recognition for the first time; others previously have been recognized by CHEA.
CHEA continued to expand information on accreditation that is readily available and accessible to the public, placing summaries of recognition decisions and the reasons for those decisions on the CHEA Website and distributing this information by email.
CHEA Conferences and Meetings
Each year, CHEA conferences and meetings bring together hundreds of participants from across the United States and around the world to hear speakers, discuss ideas and exchange information on vital issues for higher education accreditation and international quality assurance.
The CHEA 2012 Annual Conference, held January 23-26 in Washington, DC, featured speakers from government, higher education institutions and accrediting organizations, including Under Secretary of Education Martha Kanter and a panel composed of NACIQI  Chair Jamienne Studley and NACIQI members Susan Phillips and Cameron Staples. The annual conference also included the eighth and final National Accreditation Forum that has been part of the work of the CHEA Initiative.
The CHEA 2012 Summer Workshop was held June 21-22 in Washington, DC. Participants heard remarks from speakers representing colleges, universities, accrediting organizations and government, including Assistant Secretary of Education Eduardo Ochoa and Joshua Kim, Director of Learning and Technology at Dartmouth College’s Master of Health Care Delivery Science Programs addressing the emerging issue of Massive Open Online Courses.
The CHEA Award
The CHEA Award for Outstanding Institutional Practice in Student Learning Outcomes annually recognizes institutions and programs for their outstanding practice in gathering information on student learning outcomes and using this information for institutional improvement. This information is then provided to the public to help other institutions and programs seeking to make gains in this important area.
This year, the 2012 CHEA Award was presented to the Georgia Institute of Technology (GA), Rio Salado College (AZ) and the University of California, Merced (CA).
CHEA also launched Effective Institutional Practice in Student Learning Outcomes: CHEA Award Recipients, an online publication with information on each of the 25 institutions and programs that have received the CHEA Award since it was established in 2005.
Keeping Members and the Public Informed
As “Accreditation Central” – a repository of national-level information about accreditation practice, policy and politics – CHEA serves as an unsurpassed resource of information on accreditation for member institutions, accrediting organizations, higher education associations and the public.
The CHEA Website provides a wealth of descriptive and analytic information on higher education accreditation and quality assurance worldwide. CHEA’s Federal Update provides in-depth material on activities by the U.S. Congress and USDE, while Inside Accreditation offers thoughtful analysis by CHEA President Judith Eaton on issues related to accreditation. In 2011-2012, CHEA issued publications including Accreditation and Accountability: Looking Back and Looking Ahead and Quality Assurance in the Twenty-First Century and the Role of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, designed to examine higher education accreditation and the challenges and opportunities ahead.
Since its launch in 2003, the CHEA Database of Institutions and Programs Accredited by Recognized United States Accrediting Organizations has served as an indispensable information resource, listing more than 8,200 degree-granting and non-degree-granting institutions and more than 20,400 programs (as of June 30,2012). The Database is visited nearly a million times each year by students, parents, employers and others seeking information on the accredited status of institutions and programs throughout the country.
Looking Ahead
In the year ahead, CHEA will continue its leadership and advocacy for accreditation. CHEA will work to provide information and assistance to Congress, USDE and the states on accreditation related issues. A particular focus for CHEA will be preparing for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, expected to begin in 2013 or thereafter.
With the conclusion of the CHEA Initiative, CHEA will focus on the implementation of an action plan to address key issues and provide progress on the two major goals of the Initiative: to enhance accountability in accreditation and to sustain a balance and distinction between accountability to the federal government and the academic work of accreditation.
The Committee on Recognition will continue its work as approximately 30 additional accrediting organizations seek initial CHEA recognition.
CHEA’s focus on quality assurance internationally is expanding with the launch of the CIQG in 2012-2013. The year’s activities will include the first CIQG Annual Meeting and members-only publications including the newsletter Quality International.
CHEA will continue to provide leadership and advocacy on the issues, challenges and opportunities facing higher education accreditation and quality assurance, in the United States and around the world.
Download the Annual Report of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

MCGILL PETERSON, Patti (ed.). Confronting Challenges to the Liberal Arts Curriculum: Perspectives of Developing and Transitional Countries. 2012. New York: Routledge.
This publication contributes in the field of comparative research on higher education in developing and transitional countries by filling in a specific gap in curricular content, which is implementing liberal arts coursework in undergraduate studies. The book analyzes the context, content, challenges and successes of such implementation, and further explores how curricular content is decided and how educational programs are structured.
Several authors bring in their knowledge to provide a wide scope to the discussion, thus bringing in case studies from China, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, South Africa and Turkey.
This book is recommended to scholars and researchers in Higher Education as well as practitioners working to implement student and faculty exchange and raise awareness of curricular issues.
For more information, follow this link.

MOLESWORTH, Mike; SCULLION, Richard; and NIXON, Elizabeth (eds.) 2012. The Marketization of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. New York: Routledge, 2012. 245 p. ISBN 978-0-415-58447-0.
This publication explains how market forces emerged in British higher education shaping postsecondary education.
The book presents a controversial topic considering the roles of students as “consumers”. The expansion of Higher Education
led to competition between Higher Education institutions, with students increasingly positioned as consumers and institutions working to improve the extent to which they meet ‘consumer demands’.
Given the latest government funding cuts, the most prevalent outlook in Higher Education today is one of business, and this book treats this new trend with contributions from many of the leading names involved in Higher Education including Ron Barnett, Frank Furedi, Lewis Elton, Roger Brown and also Laurie Taylor.
For more information follow this link.

EAEA has released a statement on European Commission's communication on Rethinking Education, presented last November. The EAEA welcomes the Communication by the European Commission and agrees that Education and Training, and especially investment in Lifelong Learning, play a vital role in boosting growth and jobs. EAEA also agrees that basic skills are crucial for European economies and for people´s participation in society. We would like to raise three main points, which we believe the Communication neglects to underline:
First, the potential of non-formal adult learning:
The Communication touches on the issue of low-skilled adults and mainly concentrates on workplace learning and open learning sources. We believe that non-formal adult learning (1) provides an enormous potential to reach out to different groups of adults, to draw them into learning pathways and to upskill them in non-formal settings, whether in or outside the work place. Non-formal adult learning can reach out to young adults (e.g. school drop-outs) and to migrants, to name just two groups. Non-formal adult learning can boost resilience and self-confidence of individuals in times of crisis, which will enable them to deal with the challenges of the economic crisis. (2)
We therefore propose a recommendation that foresees continued investment in non-formal adult education, thereby using its potential to support adult learners inside and outside the workplace.
Second, a comprehensive understanding of lifelong learning:
EAEA understands that the current situation in Europe necessitates a strong focus on jobs and growth. Nevertheless, we would like to underline that lifelong learning needs to understood from a more comprehensive perspective: formal, non-formal and informal learning (3) are equally important, and a too narrow focus on purely economic results of learning could actually have a detrimental effect on European societies, e.g. by privileging those who are already in the learning process and better qualified, thereby increasing educational inequalities across Europe. Additionally, the current crisis overshadows other developments that need attention, and ignoring them can lead to crises in the mid- and long-term future. We know that demographic change has already started to have impacts on European societies, and will only increase in severity. Furthermore European societies see growing number of persons with low literacy skill as well as increasing numbers of school drop outs, who need support and adult (basic) education services. The communication does refer to low-skilled adults, but mainly in the context of workplace learning. While this is an important aspect, it is necessary to promote outreach and basic skills strategies by adult education institutions. Another key issue is the growing loss of trust in European institutions and an increasing loss of European cohesion. All these issues need to be tackled in order to prevent future challenges, and lifelong learning, especially non-formal adult learning, are excellent tools to help deal with them. We therefore propose to add three recommendations: to invest in older learners and intergenerational learning, to invest in basic skills and to launch a trans-European discussion of European values and cohesion with the help of non-formal adult education.
Third, the recognition on civil society as a main partner:
EAEA especially welcomes the annex on 'Partnerships and flexible pathways for life long skills development', which clearly states the importance of non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations. Nevertheless, we would like to underline that civil society, and especially European associations and national umbrella organisations, have a very specific role that needs to be recognized and supported. They serve as links between the European and national levels of policy making on the one hand and the grass-roots level of lifelong learning on the other. We believe that both sides need these links: the grass-roots level needs the information and the possibility to give feedback to policy developments, and the European and national policy levels need this feedback in order to develop policies that actually work and can improve systems. We therefore recommend continued support for European and national associations.
(1) Non-formal learning is any organised, structured educational activity, carried out outside the framework of the formal system and in some ways connected with providers (institutions, organisations and teachers).
(2) As opposed to: Formal learning can be understood in the context of traditional educational institutions, which occurs in a defined, organized and structured environment in terms of space, time and material. The transmission of knowledge, skills and attitudes (with the stress on knowledge) is done deliberate and systematic. Formal learning is intentional from the learner´s point of view and typically leads to validation and certification.
(3) Informal learning applies to self-directed or self organised learning, in flexible, open forms and ways, outside the traditional education institutions or organisations, sometimes even without any clear idea that the process is about learning.
More information: European Commission's Rethinking Education strategy.
Related files: EAEA_statement_rethinking education.

European high-level meeting on skills anticipation in adult learning (EMSAAL) final report focuses on how skills needs can be translated into adult learning in practice.
Finding appropriate measures for the identification of current and the anticipation of future skills needs is a major challenge for every country in Europe. Different methodologies and set-ups are being applied across the European Union.
A question is, how these findings can be effectively and promptly translated into pertinent adult learning programmes and curricula? How to make adult learning as responsive as possible to labour market needs?
The EMSAAL-initiative concentrates on the challenge of reshaping the provisions for Continuous TVET and Lifelong Learning. The project came to an end in December 2012. It consisted of an information and knowledge sharing platform (only accessible for the participants of EMSAAL) and European high-level meeting on skills anticipation in adult learning taking place in Turin, Italy in September 2012.
On the basis of the high-level meeting, the summary report has been published and it is now available online. It systematises the information presented, captures the major discussion lines and lays out the approaches and findings identified by the participants during the meeting.