No abstract

The nation state is not helpless if it wishes to respond to the significant increase since the 1980s in the cross-border provision of higher education. In 2003, the General Council of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) nevertheless commissioned the development of practices and principles to further regulate cross-border provision of higher education. These were published in late 2005. UNESCO argues that any risks to students and others of 'poor quality' cross-border provision of higher education must be addressed. Even if itcan be shown, however, that certain risks accompany trade in higher education services, this does not, in and of itself, justify the regulatory response suggested by the Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education, or any other response. This article argues that the guidelines have been defined without any consideration of the potential net benefits, which could be negative, associated with their implementation. Several important implications and limitations of the guidelines are also explored.

This article examines a range of policy issues which concern the quality assurance of higher education by regulatory bodies. There is a widespread consensus that the benefits of at least some forms of external quality assurance of higher education exceed the costs. This is probably a matter of faith more than the outcome of a considered analysis, but public policy in several countries has accepted it nevertheless.There are important questions regarding the manner in which such quality assurance should be conducted. Issues to do with self-regulation, the use of independent ratings agencies, the role of the courts, the establishment of a government agency, and the public funding of private quality assurance bodies all deserve consideration.Process matters become important once structural issues have been decided. These include quality assurance principles, internationalisation and national jurisdiction; the role of a quality assurance system in qualifications' design and development; what precisely is to be 'quality assured' in higher education; the standards to be used in quality assurance; linkages between quality assurance and public funding of higher education; compliance costs; and the utility of a National Qualifications Framework (NQF).This article places considerable emphasis on a discussion of the deficiencies of the NQF approach. It argues that the emphasis placed on the development of an NQF in several systems of educational quality assurance is misplaced: an NQF cannot embrace the complexity of contemporary qualifications systems.Claims to the effect that an NQF is a valuable addition to the sources of information available to national and international labour markets must be treated with scepticism. There are logical and practical issues to be considered in this regard. An NQF is arguably likely to mislead labour markets seriously under existing circumstances.

No abstract

Several countries employ a National Qualifications Framework (NQF) as one means by which information on qualifications is made available to labour markets. Although the term 'National Qualifications Framework' is not used consistently across national borders, a qualifications classification system is an important element in all NQF models. An NQF classification system is a hierarchy. It consists of several levels. The number of levels is determined on a more or less arbitrary basis, although qualifications are supposed to be sorted and assigned to levels in terms of some principle(s) of discrimination. The information provided by an NQF is meant to serve economising and equity purposes. This paper argues that the conceptual and operational dimensions of an NQF classification system are such that it cannot serve the purposes for which it was designed. Far from informing governments and markets efficiently, a structured, levelled NQF distorts information about qualifications to such an extent that serious consideration needs to be given to abandoning the NQF classification system as a viable instrument of public policy. This conclusion is of special relevance to the Bologna process and associated moves towards the development of a European Qualifications Framework. The paper considers briefly if creative alternatives are available. It sketches the outlines of a 'networked' register of qualifications, which may add value to the processes of describing the attributes of qualifications.