This Friday I should be presenting at the EAIE Conference in Istanbul. The title of the presentation is “The intersection of internationalisation and national interest”, chaired by Francisco Marmolejo from The World Bank, and co-presented by John Hudzik of Michigan State University and Joanna Newman of the UK Higher Education International and Europe Unit. Unfortunately, work commitments have meant I can’t make the trip so my colleague, Helen Zimmerman, current President of IEAA, will be filling in for me. Helen and I have developed a presentation that probably deviates somewhat from the session description in the program guide, examining from an Australian perspective the impact of federal or national government actions on the internationalisation activities of higher education institutions. Those of you in Istanbul can get along to the session yourselves to see what Helen, John Joanna and Francisco have to say.
What has been interesting though for me in finalising the presentation with Helen this week is the context of the changed federal government in Australia. Does it really make any difference to international education what kind of government we have?
Australian governments have had a tendency to oscillate between indifference to international education on the one hand, and intense panic-stricken scrutiny on the other, with occasional bursts of more level-headed engagement. The last few years have been particularly fun. Since 2009 we have had a Senate enquiry into the welfare of international students, a review of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act, a Strategic Review of the Student Visa Program, the development of a White Paper entitled “Australia in the Asian Century” which emphasised the importance of education links, an International Education Advisory Council (IEAC) which produced the paper Australia – Educating Globally, establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) with oversight of quality and compliance in the higher education sector, including matters related to onshore and offshore internationalisation activity, and the introduction of Gold Class mobility programs by both sides of politics, Asia Bound and New Colombo. Outcomes have included the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) International Student Strategy of Australia (ISSA), a Tuition Protection Scheme (TPS), Streamlined Visa Processing (SVP) for universities and Post Study Work Rights (PSWR).
Anyone planning to attend the Australian International Education Conference (AIEC) in Canberra (ACT) in October would do well to start learning those acronyms and initialisms. There will be a test at the start of the conference, and remedial classes for those who fail.
Will the new government undo recent initiatives of its predecessor and put us through another five years of reviews? Hopefully they have too many other things on their mind, like a Senate full of car enthusiasts and sport nuts.
What is interesting though is that Australia – Educating Globally and New Colombo are still very much on the table as live issues. The IEAC was “asked to contribute to the Government’s development of a five-year national strategy to support the sustainability and quality of international education…” In effect it sets out a plan to develop a plan:
"A national strategy for international education will position Australia to respond in a coordinated manner to the unique education and research opportunities arising through the internationalisation of education. A national strategy would be a significant contributor for shaping future generations of highly skilled and educated global leaders."
I’m tempted here to point out that I called for a national strategy for international education at the AIEC in Hobart in 2002. Oh well.
Of the seven key issues identified by the IEAC as vital for the future success of Australia’s international education enterprise, Coordination is the first and in my view the most important. The call for a “joined up” approach by government and industry stakeholders is not new, but with the force of some eminent Australians now also making the point let’s hope the new government is listening.
New Colombo is an interesting one. The objectives of the initiative are appropriate and laudable. No-one would argue with the idea that more exposure to and engagement with Asia by numbers of bright young Australians on exchange and internship programs for one or two semesters should produce benefits – it is exactly the type of soft diplomacy advantage, leading to real trade and other benefits down the track, that industry representatives have been banging on about for years. The challenge is that overwhelmingly longer term mobility activity is focussed firmly on Europe and North America. Asia is the number two regional destination for the 12.3% of Australian undergraduates who participate in outbound mobility during their degree programs, but this is heavily weighted towards short-term mobility, primarily study tours. 85% of outbound mobility to China is short-term, and there are some very real structural barriers to reversing that trend. If New Colombo is able to recognise and support all forms of mobility, the impact will be more widely felt.
Friday’s presentation will, among other things, compare what institutions and governments are interested in, and how those interests intersect with regard to internationalisation. I’m interested in what Australia’s new government will prioritise when it turns its attention to Australia’s largest services export and greatest opportunity for engagement globally, especially in our region. And how it organises itself to support the significant efforts and achievements by education providers at all levels across the country.
In the meantime, send me your acronyms and initialisms. I’m compiling a list FFR (for future reference).
What has been interesting though for me in finalising the presentation with Helen this week is the context of the changed federal government in Australia. Does it really make any difference to international education what kind of government we have?
Australian governments have had a tendency to oscillate between indifference to international education on the one hand, and intense panic-stricken scrutiny on the other, with occasional bursts of more level-headed engagement. The last few years have been particularly fun. Since 2009 we have had a Senate enquiry into the welfare of international students, a review of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act, a Strategic Review of the Student Visa Program, the development of a White Paper entitled “Australia in the Asian Century” which emphasised the importance of education links, an International Education Advisory Council (IEAC) which produced the paper Australia – Educating Globally, establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) with oversight of quality and compliance in the higher education sector, including matters related to onshore and offshore internationalisation activity, and the introduction of Gold Class mobility programs by both sides of politics, Asia Bound and New Colombo. Outcomes have included the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) International Student Strategy of Australia (ISSA), a Tuition Protection Scheme (TPS), Streamlined Visa Processing (SVP) for universities and Post Study Work Rights (PSWR).
Anyone planning to attend the Australian International Education Conference (AIEC) in Canberra (ACT) in October would do well to start learning those acronyms and initialisms. There will be a test at the start of the conference, and remedial classes for those who fail.
Will the new government undo recent initiatives of its predecessor and put us through another five years of reviews? Hopefully they have too many other things on their mind, like a Senate full of car enthusiasts and sport nuts.
What is interesting though is that Australia – Educating Globally and New Colombo are still very much on the table as live issues. The IEAC was “asked to contribute to the Government’s development of a five-year national strategy to support the sustainability and quality of international education…” In effect it sets out a plan to develop a plan:
"A national strategy for international education will position Australia to respond in a coordinated manner to the unique education and research opportunities arising through the internationalisation of education. A national strategy would be a significant contributor for shaping future generations of highly skilled and educated global leaders."
I’m tempted here to point out that I called for a national strategy for international education at the AIEC in Hobart in 2002. Oh well.
Of the seven key issues identified by the IEAC as vital for the future success of Australia’s international education enterprise, Coordination is the first and in my view the most important. The call for a “joined up” approach by government and industry stakeholders is not new, but with the force of some eminent Australians now also making the point let’s hope the new government is listening.
New Colombo is an interesting one. The objectives of the initiative are appropriate and laudable. No-one would argue with the idea that more exposure to and engagement with Asia by numbers of bright young Australians on exchange and internship programs for one or two semesters should produce benefits – it is exactly the type of soft diplomacy advantage, leading to real trade and other benefits down the track, that industry representatives have been banging on about for years. The challenge is that overwhelmingly longer term mobility activity is focussed firmly on Europe and North America. Asia is the number two regional destination for the 12.3% of Australian undergraduates who participate in outbound mobility during their degree programs, but this is heavily weighted towards short-term mobility, primarily study tours. 85% of outbound mobility to China is short-term, and there are some very real structural barriers to reversing that trend. If New Colombo is able to recognise and support all forms of mobility, the impact will be more widely felt.
Friday’s presentation will, among other things, compare what institutions and governments are interested in, and how those interests intersect with regard to internationalisation. I’m interested in what Australia’s new government will prioritise when it turns its attention to Australia’s largest services export and greatest opportunity for engagement globally, especially in our region. And how it organises itself to support the significant efforts and achievements by education providers at all levels across the country.
In the meantime, send me your acronyms and initialisms. I’m compiling a list FFR (for future reference).
RSS Feed
