Posted on by s.ahuja1 · 2 Comments

W6-ACE Report (International Partnerships)

The ACE Report this week, International Higher Education Partnerships:  A Global Review of Standards and Practices, focuses again on nuts and bolts of internationalization with a focus on global international partnerships between higher education institutions in different countries.  The report lays out best practices in how to achieve successful global partnerships and also warns against practices that stunt implementation efforts for these partnerships.  The second reading, IIE’s Report entitled A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs, provides a very useful guide on how to vet and implement the growing trend of these two types of programs so that they are effective and not prone to phenomenon such as double counting of credits.

The ACE Report attacks the subject of international partnerships through bifurcation of the types of issues that come up.  First, the report discusses the Program Administration and Management components of international partnerships analyzing them through four themes:  transparency and accountability; faculty and staff engagement; quality assurance; and strategic planning and the role of institutional leadership.  Second, the report discusses Cultural and Contextual Issues in international partnerships analyzing them through four themes as well:  cultural awareness; access and equity; institutional and human capacity building; and ethical dilemmas and “negotiated space.”

For me, theme 1 of the first framework was the most interesting this week, that being the role of legal requirements, documentation and policies and procedures in the transparency and accountability in the successful implementation of international partnerships.  Given my role as General Counsel at a college, I understand the importance of good structure and memorialization of relationships.  Without these fundamental building blocks, there is bound to be inefficiency and a lack of productive paths forward.  It was nice to see the ACE report give such importance to this phase of the process.  For example, in addition to strong mission statements, memorandum’s of understanding (MOUs) are a key component of the “how to” portion of the parameters set forth in the ACE report.  MOUs memorialize the understanding of the parties in terms of the goals of the partnership as well as the operational details necessary to carry out the goals.  A well written MOU can make the difference between a successful relationship that is guided by a strong foundational written agreement between the parties or the breakdown of communications because there is no clear documentation of the parties intent.  Legal input in the drafting of MOUs can also help vet unclear language and help anticipate future liability issues that are bound to arise, particularly in the international context.

The report gives two revealing examples of the role of legal documents and MOUs in partnerships between global higher education institutions.  The first is the Virginia Commonwealth University’s (VCU) review of hundreds of MOU’s it had with institutions abroad that were inactive or outdated (p.20).  A review of the MOUs allowed VCU to vert which partnerships were worth pursuing because they had the parameters documented.  The memorialization of partnerships allowed VCU to target fifteen institutions for strategic collaborations that would yield real results.  This exercise of the review of unusable MOUs is also seen in the example of the relationship between Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and Kenya’s Moi University (p.34).

The second is Wellesley College’s task to create templates for partnership agreements to mitigate against issues of academic freedom controversies it encountered during a partnership with a Chinese institution (p.33).  (see http://www.wellesley.edu/news/2013/01/node/32424).  To protect against the type of controversy it faced with China, Wellesley now has an institutional-level MOU and an “international activity agreement” which is for individual departments or faculty and counterparts abroad.  According to the report, “both include language in the preamble—modeled on a statement used by Cornell University (NY) in its partnership agreements—stating that all parties agree to adhere to commonly observed standards for academic freedom in all educational and research activities entailed in the agreement (p.33).”  Wellesley has been able to implement these agreements through its International Study Committee  (see http://www.wellesley.edu/news/2013/01/node/32424) formed to monitor and facilitate international partnerships.  The committee reviews all of the MOUs or agreements before they are signed and feels that “it is much better to have the conversation about them in advance of the program than after the fact (p.33).  For a lawyer, it is gratifying to see the effective of use of legal structures and documents to pave the way for stronger global international partnerships, both transactional and transformational, to contribute to the growth of internationalization.

Posted on by d.grant1 · 6 Comments

W6- The Customer Service That is Higher Education

This week we read about international partnerships, problems institutions are having on their home-front, and quality assurance, among other things. The readings cover challenges that many higher education institutions face when venturing into new areas. Among these challenges lay: cultural awareness. What’s nice about this week’s report is that the ACE listed programs that were founded by different higher education institutions that can act as a base line for other institutions that want to venture on the same path. This method that is or can be applied to life itself has been used for years. If I am trying to do something, I am going to look for people who have done it before and do what they did improving on their method if need be.

It is not surprising that with a little investigation we can unveil many issues within higher education on American soil, so while the benefits are great; it seems a little odd that we as a country would want to push forward with internationalization. The biggest issue we have in this country in terms of access to higher education is the cost and prestige that is given to colleges and universities. There are hundreds if not thousands of affordable outlets for access to higher education; right here in New York, we have CUNY (College and University of New York) which has over 270,000 students (in 2014) enrolled in its 23 institutions. Coming from an inner-city high school, I for one did not want to attend a CUNY school, but here I am a grad student in Baruch, one of the top schools in the CUNY system. I do regret every now and then not going to CUNY for undergrad because I wouldn’t have the massive loan balance I have now, this is a reality for a number of students all over the country, if we choose to attend a cheaper, more cost effective school, we probably be semi-financially independent without having to worry about much if any loans at all. The same way many colleges entice foreign students in a ploy to attract them to the institution, is the same ploy that is used on students within America just more tailor-made.

This can be seen with the increase of attract to get veteran students. All schools, public, private, for-profit, or not for profit, know that government money is some of the most reliable money, so why shouldn’t they push to have these students be enrolled. Not saying it’s wrong, but it’s not entirely right either. There are a few schools that don’t really care about its students but care more about the money that is generated by a flux of students instead.  If this is the treatment of students who are living in, or of American descent, imagine students with little to know ties of the American educational system. We have students within our borders that know nothing about the system and get hurt by it unfortunately. One thing to be noted however, higher education is a customer service, which many institutions have realized and are working to improve the treatment of its students, whether its American students or international students. This can be viewed as quality assessment along with transparency and accountability, its only right and makes sense that our students, faculty and staff are informed and knowledgeable about the happenings of the school that are need to know.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-cuny-enrollment-hits-all-time-high-fall-article-1.1949121

Posted on by t.bailey · 5 Comments

W6 – Process for Screening -Practice can make perfect, but why reinvent the wheel?

The two readings, ACE, International HigherEd Partnerships and IE, A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint names, where very interesting reads. I was especially drawn to the cultural and contextual issues section (p. 21) that describes the cultural contexts that all parties should consider for successful interactions with multiple cultures. Managing and recognizing cultural differences, and I would argue similarities, are paramount through all phases of program development: initial negotiation, design, implementation, and preservation. In an institution where I have worked, we worked a bit backwards at times. The regressive process was accepted by faculty and staff because it included a mandatory scout trip that did not require those involved to return with affirmative results. For example, a faculty member decided that Martinique, a small French Caribbean island between Barbados and Dominica, would be an ideal place for a study abroad excursion due to its small American tourism focus. Indeed the country is rich in history, as it served as a port and export center during slavery and has an expansive forest terrain. The college began detailed talks about a credit program with a university in Martinique that would blossom to a joint credit bearing exchange program with the students of this university. Faculty wrote a proposal. The college sent three paid representatives to Martinique to scour the area and identify an itinerary – two faculty perspectives were gained and one from a college relations perspective. As stated in the reading, language consideration is very crucial in designing a program. I think that the language of operations in Martinique was somehow overlooked. Two of the three representatives spoke fluent French and the other used their “high school” French and Patois to navigate the city that seemed disinterested in English translation. It was later discovered that language made Martinique a non-contender for our student needs as only a small number of students where proficient in French. The college was not at the point where language immersions classes were an option for our students.
In IE, A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint, I was in awe of the system that Rice University has designed for joint and degree programs. I especially liked the pre-approval assessment in which a program proposal is reviewed by several constituents and voted on. Coming from a new institution where innovative ideas can be run amuck, structure is important. Since the piloting of our international education program, there have been great accomplishments and some hiccups along the way. I will bring this model to my colleague that designs the study abroad program to see if we can incorporate some of Rice’s practices into our strategy. To date, I think that we get stuck in the philosophical realm; too much time is spent in this area by faculty. Also as suggested in the lessons learned section (P. 9), all major stakeholders should be at the table! This will allow for a diverse pool of opinions. Leaders of a project can get so immersed in getting their ideas off the ground they may ignore details and unknowingly sabotage their own project. In my work currently, I am helping a faculty member to create a certificate program with another island. So far, everything is complete on our end, we have even begun the student search process. The only potential problem is… the Provost has not officially approved it. Go figure!

Posted on by m.fernandez · 1 Comment

W-6 Melissa Fernandez

This weeks ACE reading touches on partnerships. One of the common themes is transparency and quality assurance. When establishing an off shore partnership, the host campus, faculty and students must have transparency of what is expected of them. There also needs to be clarification on how similarly the partnership will run compared to the host campus. To ensure they are equivalent the faculty hired should be of the same caliber as one that would be hired in the home country. They also mention ways on making the faculty feel important such as helping them start new programs at a successful off shore campus. They also mention allowing faculty to engage in study abroad without having to commit to being at the off shore campus for long term. Though these ideas may attract faculty, from a students perspective this may be negative because I would want the interaction with a professor teaching the course for more than the first 3 weeks. The idea is similar to an online class but not every student learns in this manner and students could be inclined to look at other institutions that have the faculty there for a longer portion of the semester. Along with transparency, language is an important factor as making sure all partners understand what is expected of them and the mission and goals that are in place. Informing students of what language courses will be taught in and what requirements they will need to enter the program are crucial when high enrollment is the goal.

Institutional strategy plays a large role in deciding weather a partnership is of value. When deciding on expanding the campus, financial factors come in to play. There has to be a plan of action to create revenue from the partnership or supporting the partnership will be costly for the home campus. Not just financially, the partnership must also be in line with the mission and goals of the home institution. When starting partnerships the establishing of programs could be difficult and institutional leaders are key roles in the process. A successful establishment of a partnership will set precedent for more to come which is why institutional leaders are needed to ensure the process is smooth and successful. Institutional leaders should be aware of the cultural context that the partnership will be entering and the faculty and home institution should be supportive of this. Accepting the cultural differences will have an effect on weather the partnership is successful.

 

Posted on by c.graziano · 5 Comments

W6 – International Partnerships

The ACE article International Higher Education Partnerships: A Global Review of Standards and Practices brings to our attention common themes and key concepts which are required in order to have successful international programs and partnerships. The article points out how active engagement with the world has become an essential part of a students higher education in order to prepare students to live and work in this interconnected global world. Now that this concept of international education is widely accepted, the issues that we struggle with is HOW do provide this type of education. Based off various survey results, half of Unite States institutions have at least one partnership with institutions abroad and even higher percentages have joint degree programs or dual degree programs with partners abroad. However, with these partnerships, comes an array of challenges.  The article examines the themes the Blue Ribbon Panel identified which fall under two categories: Administration and Management and Cultural and Contextual issues.  The themes include Transparency and Accountability, Faculty and Staff Engagement, Quality Assurance, Strategic Planning and the Role of Institutional Leadership, Cultural Awareness, Access and Equity, Institutional and Human Capacity building, and Ethical Dilemmas and “Negotiated Space”.  I chose to focus my post on the Cultural and Contextual issues these partnerships face.

With any type of international program, whether domestic or abroad, awareness and sensitivity to cultural differences is essential to success. ACE identifies how communication between stakeholders on both ends of the partnership is essential to identifying the possible cultural differences that may cause problems or tensions and explore possible solutions before the start of the partnership.  I had never really thought of this before reading this section of the article and while it makes perfect sense, I had never thought about the important role that stakeholders can play in exploring cultural differences and establishing best practices for cultural acceptance in their program.  I always looked as stakeholders on each end as more of a business transaction, where each explores what this partnership can do for them and working out the logistics of how to make it happen.  It seems that the training of faculty and staff on cultural sensitivity varies greatly from campus to campus and while I know we have discussed that there is no “one size fits all” model for internationalization, I am curious if there could be an educational training model that all schools who wish to internationalize require for faculty and staff.  We have programs like Safe Zone for faculty and staff to become more aware of the issues that face LGBTQ students and how they can better serve this population – lets develop a standardized program that addresses cultural awareness.  I did some research and it seems like there are many resources available for teachers to tap into in order to become a culturally sensitive educator; however, I did not come across one standard or specific program for higher education faculty and staff.  One article from the National Education Association puts it perfectly: “Understanding our culture is important so that we understand how we interact with individuals from cultures that are different from ours.  This understanding helps us see our students and their families more clearly, and shape policies and practice in ways that will help our students to succeed.”  Not only does understanding our own culture help us relate to people from different cultures, it is also important to understand different educational practices in different areas of the world. Teaching style, grading techniques, and evaluation processes are all very different depending on the countries the partnerships are between.  Faculty play an essential role in this process and the ACE article points out an example from a dual degree partnership between Appalachian State University and Universi-dad de las Americas in Mexico.  The two schools sent faculty back and forth to discuss course content, curriculum and what the program would actually look like at each campus.  The faculty were able to collaborate to develop “cultural norms” for the program, which took into account their cultural differences, creating a program that would be accessible for all students involved.  These interactions created a solid foundation for their program and opened the lines of communication for any problems or issues that may arise.