Establishment of Dutch international branch campuses in developing countries as part of TNE frustrates the development of local higher education. It opens the door to false competition between national and international higher education providers. Of course, at the disadvantage of the former. It also adds burdens in terms of governance and supervision. These processes can disturb and sometimes inhibit the build-up of strong local institutions.

What is TNE?

TNE refers to the delivery, by higher education institutions, of all types of study programmes in countries other than their own. Also known as offshore education, TNE does not normally require the student to move to the country of origin of the awarding institution. It is the latter that moves to the students in their home region, country or even at home. 

Appealing findings of a pilot study on TNE

According to a pilot study conducted by the British Council, TNE is found to be beneficial to host nations, institutions and students. In most cases TNE benefits all players by meeting skills gaps, upgrading the labour force, increasing knowledge sharing and having positive socio-cultural impact.

The last decade, the TNE phenomenon is on the increase in the form of international branch campuses, double degree programmes and validated overseas courses. These findings were presented at the Higher Education Summit held this spring in London on the fore of the upcoming G8 summit. 

Limited Dutch engagement

TNE is gaining momentum worldwide. Although sound data on the scale of the global TNE market are lacking, official figures from the United Kingdom and Australia ­­– two of the key players in the field – suggest that the market is significant and growing. In 2010–2011, 503,795 students (of which 390,580 on campus) were enrolled in UK offshore education. With Nigeria (24,000 students) and Ghana (17,230) belonging to the top ten countries of UK’s TNE activity. Australia enrolled 104,678 students (76,446 on campus).

In the Netherlands, involvement of higher education institutions in TNE seems rather limited. No reliable data exist on the number of Dutch institutions involved or their offerings, let alone the number of enrolled students. A study would be required to determine the exact scope of Dutch involvement in TNE and in order to enable sound policy making on the subject.

Calls for more Dutch involvement

Dutch higher education institutions are occasionally challenged to engage more in TNE so as to bridge the existing gap with leading countries in TNE such as the UK and Australia. These calls seem partly to be prompted by the insights gained at the aforementioned summit. However, financial gain is most certainly also a factor involved. Trade is now at the heart of Dutch international engagement. This applies also to development cooperation. As such, TNE fits the new development cooperation policy like a glove. TNE as an international trade commodity.

Caution is required

Should we be overenthusiastic about the findings of the British Council’s pilot study? And should we support calls to intensify Dutch involvement in TNE? Certainly not!

While the first indications of TNE’s impact on host countries are positive, care should nonetheless be taken. The negative interferences of international branch campuses (one of the used forms of TNE) on the strengthening of local higher education should not be disregarded. Viewed from the perspective of development cooperation, this form of TNE merely transplants Western higher education to developing countries, rather than contributing to the development of the higher education institutions of the host countries themselves. The latter is a goal towards which significant funds are being invested by national governments and the donor community in the form of development cooperation.

Recommendations

In the Netherlands care should be taken not to embrace TNE as the new silver bullet. Not all types and forms of TNE suit the key goal of local capacity development pursued by Dutch development cooperation in higher education.

Our reservations do not apply to TNE as a whole. We encourage TNE modalities such as twinning or joint and double degree programmes, and foreign-backed campuses. They are the results of collaborative efforts between two or more higher education institutions from different countries. Our reservations concern the establishment of international branch campuses in developing countries without the involvement of the institutions of the host countries.

Read the report, expert studies and papers

Read more about the Post-2015 process

Goal 3 on education

Education is addressed in Goal 3 with a focus on quality education and lifelong learning. The sub-goals deal with pre-primary education, (quality of) primary education, access to lower secondary education, learning outcomes of adolescents and skills for young and adult women and men.

Higher education does not feature in the agenda. It is only mentioned once in the whole document (in Annex 2). One could argue that higher education has no direct impact on poverty reduction, the improvement of health or food security, productivity and so on. So why include it in the Post-2015 development agenda?

The importance of higher education

On the other hand, at the start of the millennium influential UNESCO and the World Bank reports (Peril and Promise, 2000; Constructing Knowledge Societies, 2002) called the attention for the role of higher education in social and economic development  of developing countries. It is now widely acknowledged that it is important for building a strong human capital base and an important impetus for innovation, research and economic development and that the quality of the whole education system depends on the inputs of the higher echelons (e.g. teacher training, curriculum development, research). In recognising the importance of this interlinkage, the IAU set up a global project called Higher Education for Education for All (HEEFA).

It is evident that the achievement of the twelve development goals requires the contribution of higher education systems to build the necessary human, research and institutional capacities to achieve and sustain the new goals. Funds and facilities are not enough, expertise is needed to plan, implement and monitor programmes to achieve the new goals. And this expertise should be local, familiar with the context and committed to local needs and ambitions.

Donor support programmes

Fortunately there are many donors who sponsor programmes which are aimed at capacity development of individuals and higher education and research organisations in developing countries. They do this because they believe in the importance of good education and research infrastructures for the development of countries. Besides, they see opportunities for capitalising on goodwill of alumni (of scholarship programmes) and partnerships between institutions (joint degree programmes, mobility of staff and students, and collaborative research) for the benefit of developing as well as developed countries.

These scholarship and (university and research) collaboration programmes of donors are valuable instruments in supporting the present MDGs and future Post-2015 development agenda.

The Dutch capacity development programmes NFP and NICHE clearly illustrate this point. The programmes not only focus on building local post-education and training capacity but they also thematically focus on many of the twelve development goals: heath; food security; water; job creation and economic growth; justice and security, gender and good governance. As such they are well aligned with the new development agenda.

Explicit or implicit

The question may be raised whether the importance of higher education and research for achieving the Post-2015 development agenda deserves an acknowledgement, or something more in the final version of the agenda.

A matter of definition

The (global) reports which are discussed in NN 48 illustrate that the notion of skills still carries many and very differing meanings and this may be the main reason why it has not become a clear development target. The 2012 EFA Global Monitoring Report remains caught between a work-oriented notion of skill and a notion of life skills. The Work Development Report (WDR 2013) of The World Bank emphasises that it is not just an economic investment environment that is vital but also a ‘nurturing environment’ from the womb through the early years, as well as a social, institutional and political environment. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) explains in Good practice in TVET (2009) that skills are a necessary but not sufficient condition for economic growth and greater productivity.

The OECD report (2012) Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Lives (PDF, 6 MB) focuses on adult skills, which include literacy, numeracy, problem-solving in technology-rich environments and skills used in workplaces. While for McKinsey’s (2012) Jobs, Pay and Skills, skills mostly just means education: high-skill refers to workers with a tertiary education or more, medium-skill refers to workers with only a secondary education, and low-skill refers to workers with no more than a primary education.

Despite this variation in definitions it seems evident that a narrow focus on the purpose of skills training leads to development which is unbalanced and not inclusive. A point of view that is also expressed in the Shanghai Consensus (PDF, 128 kB) reached at the Third International Congress on Technical and Vocational Education and Training (May 2012) which emphasises the necessity of rethinking TVET learning for broader human development needs, and not just to respond to the demand for immediate skills.

In pursuit of evidence

The reports reflect the still emerging maturity of TVET research, despite the fact that there are still many gaps in the foundations of good basic research (e.g. lack of theoretical agreement on even core terms, lack of solid base of international data) and large gaps in applied research (e.g. large scale studies to find answers to pressing problems). The GMR has done a good job in finding meaning in existing forms of data, but has not been able to bridge the major gaps that still exist in data collection. This would require building national capacities both to generate and use data.

Learning from experiences

Quite a number of contributions point at good practices that may inspire the future of TVET and skills training. One good practice that stands out is the coupling of skills training with directly relevant market needs and/or commercial opportunities. However, for this to happen, an organised private sector as well as mutual trust between private and public sector actors is required.

Korea’s fast economic development serves as an example, although it may not be replicable to any other country. Korea created an enabling environment for TVET which comprised of strong leadership, good policies, an efficient mobilisation of human resources, and had the fortune of the existence of friendly international markets. The Korean government made a strong effort to improve awareness of TVET among students and parents in 1960s-90s by providing many incentives such as scholarships and high salaries for teachers. It makes clear that development is not just an issue of money, but also of governance. Government commitment and sustainable and inclusive policies are key.

Pending work

Reading through the various articles an agenda transpires for greater effectiveness of TVET and skills training in a global context. There is a clear need for an agreement on concepts and definitions, more and better research to provide a solid base for analysis and policy development, and studies which can inform TVET policy makers and practitioners in developing countries on good practices.

As for the post-2015 agendas, it is sometimes felt to be instrumental when technical and vocational skills are mentioned in the new frameworks and associated goals. However, in this context it is important that international goals for skills development are more precisely defined and that targets and indicators are agreed upon which can be readily monitored.

A slightly longer version of this text has been published on the website of NORRAG News as Policy Brief of NORRAG News (NN) Special Issue Number 48, April 2013.

1. What is benchmarking?
2. Why do you want to benchmark internationalisation?
3. Choosing a fitting instrument.
4. Selecting benchmark partners.
5. Planning a benchmark exercise.
6. Preparing data collection.
7. Developing reporting formats.

What is benchmarking

The first thing that needed to be clarified was the definition of a benchmark. There are several ways in which this term is used. One meaning would be defining an aim for result, which could be either a minimum score or an area between a minimum and a maximum score. Another meaning often used is looking at the differences and similarities between two or more benchmark partners in order to learn from peers. In fact, the second type of benchmarking is also referred to as comparison. Both comparison and benchmarking are usually based on self-evaluation. Which brings in a third term to complicate the discussion.

Why is it important to realise the differences and similarities between these terms? Because this will influence the choice for a particular assessment tool. Depending on why you want to benchmark, a choice should be made between these options.

The Why question

The main question to answer before going through any assessment process is: Why are you doing it? Answers could include:

• to monitor and guide policies and activities;
• to develop an internationalisation policy;
• to classify and profile an institute: Universities ask how can we distinguish ourselves from other universities? It sounds almost like a paradox: comparison used to differentiate;
• to prepare visitations and accreditations.

Choosing a fitting instrument

In the framework of the MINT and IMPI projects, overviews have been produced of assessment tools for internationalisation (see the project websites). They may be a good starting point when looking for an assessment tool.

The range of characteristics to consider when selecting a benchmark, comparison or self-evaluation tool could include:

• Elements of the internationalisation process (inputs, outputs & outcomes and in the future perhaps impact);
• Dimensions of internationalisation (e.g. strategy, curriculum, students, staff or research);
• Purpose of the indicator set (e.g. self evaluation, comparison, benchmarking);
• Level of assessment (e.g. degree programme or institution);
• The type of information necessary to measure indicators (e.g. expert judgements or stakeholder evaluations);
• Methods of data collection and data verification (e.g. surveys, institutional reports, peer reviews or panel visits, or searching external databases like international or national statistical offices.

The workshop aimed to select a benchmark tool as a service to a group of higher education institutions. The participants managed to make a well founded provisional decision on the most suitable tool for their purpose.

Workshop experiences

Workshop participants were pleased to learn so many tools already exist, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel. They were especially relieved about this after they discovered that developing a benchmark tool may take 2.5 years (MINT). Even developing and testing an indicator list without developing any software for a tool may take 3 years (IMPI) including the pilot phase.

The IMPI indicator list (it is not a tool in the literal sense) is available to foreign institutions free of charge, as it was developed as part of a European Commission-funded project. The MINT tool is available free of charge to Dutch universities and their foreign partner institutions. Nuffic is currently looking at options of opening up the tool to institutions in other countries as well.

After an intensive two days the workshop participants felt they had learned a lot about managing a benchmark process and the steps taken, both in a national and an international setting. An eye opener was the assignment they were given to articulate their needs and wishes for a tool. Participants realised that they first needed to think about the type of results a tool should yield before deciding on what input should be delivered.

This led to conclusions such as: ‘outcomes and impact may be too ambitious’ and ‘developing a tool by ourselves is very time consuming and unnecessary if tools like MINT, which already proved their value, are available’. As is also often mentioned after the Nuffic orientation training, this workshop provided a theoretical framework of internationalisation in higher education which helped participants place their work in an overall (strategic) framework and help them understand the reasons behind individual activities.

More information on benchmarking internationalisation and the MINT and IMPI projects can be found on the Nuffic website. You will also find information on the other themes included in the workshop such as: 

• Selecting benchmark partners
• Planning a benchmark exercise
• Preparing data collection
• Developing reporting formats

Integration

Where the theme is often defined from a language learning and teaching perspective, addressing the issue from a policy, (socio-) linguistic, content, didactic, language and theory perspective in its international context, focuses attention on how integrated these issues are in an internationalised learning environment.

Teaching in a foreign or second language is much more than language proficiency and ‘just’ translating the syllabus into another language. Considering that the audience in the classroom will most often be multicultural, international and/or multilingual, what is at stake is as much an issue of language as of pedagogy, didactics, strategies and communication skills, which, in themselves, require a supporting context. This involves institutional policy, which, again, is hardly viable without a link to international, regional and/or local level policy.

Internationalisation

Embedded in an international context, internationalisation was an unmistakable element in the discussion. Not surprisingly, considering the central role played by language teaching in this environment, ‘internationalisation’ was hardly considered a complicated issue, defined as ‘no more’ than ‘teaching a curriculum in another language’. There was a strong focus on EMI (English Medium Instruction), even though much that was said could apply equally to teaching in any other language.

Looking at internationalisation from this point of view led to challenging statements. One of the key note speakers brought forward that no one really knows what ‘internationalisation’ means exactly and postulated that it is a disnoma. Internationalisation is basically a cover for ‘deliberate linguistic imperialism’, a means to forcibly introduce ‘linguistics conformisation’ by pushing English as a language of instruction in higher education.

This interesting point of view was challenged by an audience more familiar with Jane Knight’s (2008) generally accepted definition: “… the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of higher education at the institutional and national levels.” This definition reflects internationalisation in education as an intricate process involving various levels and different dimensions.

The different points of view however, showed how difficult and complex it is to approach themes of this nature from a comprehensive, i.e. more holistic, point of view. The same seems to apply to the role of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in higher education.

International classroom

A similar issue is at stake when looking at other definitions, for instance, of the ‘international classroom’. Defining the international classroom as ‘a classroom involving various nationalities where the language of instruction is English’ leads to a somewhat narrow definition of this phenomenon when the focus is set so specifically on the language of instruction and, a particular one at that.

Internationalisation is widely spread in higher education and many institutions have established language centres to support language acquisition and proficiency of students and staff. However, resistance is strife and institutions struggle in their policies to make language acquisition and testing compulsory or leave it as a matter of choice.

Yet, instructing in English – or any other (second) language for that matter – is not an issue of language alone.

Communication

Language is a pivot, of course, yet it is interesting to adjust focus and approach it as a vehicle rather than an objective. Looking at language as a medium of instruction and approaching it from the perspective of communication might offer a broader view and create new insights. 

A point made at the meeting was that when instruction in a second or foreign language is primarily geared to bring across content, it is not the level of language proficiency that counts, but the skills to bring across that matter most. This implies that staff training in this context should be geared to training ‘communicative didactic skills’ rather than enhancing language acquisition and proficiency. The competences involved (grammatical, organisational, strategic an socio-linguistic) apply to didactic training in a broad sense.

These objectives can apply to teaching in any language, including teaching the mother tongue. By isolating and categorising key didactic and communication skills teachers may obtain a clearer idea of what is involved and gain a greater awareness in the case of foreign medium teaching.

International learning community

Creating a cohesive international learning community is not restricted to language learning and bringing across content. A lesson learned could be that communication science should be the starting point in didactic and pedagogical training in the development of a curriculum in an internationalised context.

Teachers’ and lecturers’ awareness of the role of communication may also help to bridge the gap between disciplinary specialists in a programme and educational managers and institutional policy makers.

The integration of different fields and perspectives is key in internationalisation of higher education, involving different dimensions and requiring close cooperation through disciplines and organisational levels. Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education addresses a similar need and calls for collaborative delivery and pedagogy. Essential in all these processes is for specialists to move out of their disciplinary deficits and bridge the dichotomies of ‘them’ and ‘us’...

I am sure well all agree... definitely... on paper.

The NFP Tailor-Made Training programme (TMT) and NFP Short Courses (SC) are funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and are two of several capacity building programmes which Nuffic manages on behalf of the ministry, within the context of international development.

Comparisons

The Ministry has a clever mix of capacity building programmes which have varying eligibility rules and policies in order to serve varying training needs and target groups in varying contexts. Of all programmes managed by Nuffic for this ministry, the NFP short course modality has the closest resemblance to the TMT modality. But there are also differences, making the two programmes complementary not competing.

TMT finances the training of a group of employees within an organisation with a shared capacity gap while SC trainees don’t have to originate from the same organisation or country. Both, however, target employed professionals. Analysis of the course themes clearly shows that TMT is geared towards applied knowledge while purely theoretical courses are possible within NFP SC. Perhaps partly for this reason, TMT does not impose minimum academic qualifications for participation while SC does.

TMT is fully demand-driven and does not impose restrictions on the sector or theme of the training. SC trainees on the other hand, can only select courses from a prescribed menu that currently has a relevance for development cooperation and in the near future  to the priority themes of the Dutch development cooperation policy. These are: food security, safety and rule of law, water and sanitation, and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). Furthermore, the TMT training can be somewhat longer than the SC (maximum 2 years versus 1 year, respectively) and is almost always primarily carried out in situ.

The supply-drivenness of SC’s and the future focus on selected themes allows the Netherlands to share its expertise internationally, in areas in which the country has proven expertise. On the other hand, the demand-drivenness of the TMT programme allows us to also cater to the pressing capacity needs of our partner countries which do not fall within the priority sectors, but for which training experts can be found in the country.

Popular training themes

So, what does an analysis of TMT programme themes, in relation to NFP short course themes, tell us about the actual training needs in partner countries in the South?

Figure 1 shows a ranking of training themes within NFP short courses between 2003 and 2012. These reflect the coverage of the Dutch development cooperation priority themes in this 10-year period. Figure 2 shows a ranking of training themes within TMT in 2012.

We see that when the courses are supply-driven (Figure 1), preference goes to ICT-enabled environmental studies (excluding water sciences), water and sanitation, good governance (i.e. good professional practices rather than ‘safety and rule of law’) and food security, in that order. This covers only two of the current priority themes (water and food security).

On the other hand, when courses are not prescribed, the preferences have a different ranking. Education, private sector development, rural development, safety and rule of law, environment (excluding water), good governance and food security are most important, in that order. Again, this covers only two of the current priority themes (safety and rule of law and food security).

Courses in the water sciences do not seem to be in demand within TMT. This could perhaps be due to the sufficiency of the supply of NFP short courses in water. Furthermore, the priority theme SRHR does not seem to be in huge demand in either the supply-driven or demand driven courses.

Figure 1: A ranking of training themes within the NFP SC between 2003 and 2012.
NB - In this diagram, all applications are considered and not only the accepted applications since we want to reflect the actual demand.

Figure 2: A ranking of training themes within the NFP TMT programme in 2012.
NB - In this diagram, all applications are considered and not only the accepted applications since we want to reflect the actual demand.

Read our previous blogs on the TMT programme:

• Tailor-Made Training: A very effective capacity building instrument
• Tailor-Made Training: Huge returns on investment

Many northern governments fund similar programmes and they have been doing so for decades. They were initiated when many former colonies gained independence shortly after the Second World War. The aim of the programmes was to build the necessary high-level cadre of trained professionals for the new countries, either by providing individuals scholarships for studies in northern countries or by building up institutions for higher education and research in the developing countries through collaborative projects with institutions in donor countries.

Aid effectiveness

The main question the book addresses is to what extent it is possible to use these various capacity building programmes in a complementary way. At least one would hope that the programmes do not compete with one another or duplicate efforts. At best, that the opportunities which the individual programmes offer may lead to synergetic effects. This would be in line with the agreement which donors and developing countries reached in 2005 when they signed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. The declaration stipulates, among other things, that national governments in developing countries clearly define their demands and coordinate donor support, that donor countries align behind these objectives and use local systems, that they coordinate efforts, simplify procedures and share information to avoid duplication.

The contributions in the book look at the possibilities for coordination of the programmes from three perspectives: a) the policy frameworks that underlie the capacity building programmes, b) the target population of these programmes (i.e. the organisations and institutions in developing countries), and c) institutions in the North that (want to) collaborate with partner organisations in developing countries.

The articles in the book include an analysis of policy frameworks of donor programmes (a general overview and the situation in Germany), practical experiences in coordination of donor programmes at two universities in developing countries (Makerere University in Uganda and Can Tho University in Vietnam), coordination at country level (by a team of the Free University Amsterdam), the Northern academic perspective (Maastricht University) and the potential to develop long term partnerships (Ghent University).

Two types of coordination

The articles discuss two types of coordination: top-down and bottom-up. In top-down coordination policies and structures are set up that are designed to promote the coordination of programmes and activities. Bottom-up coordination, on the other hand, is about creating synergy and about the ‘bricolage’ of opportunities. Effects grow either organically as opportunities arise, or on the basis of clear ambitions or ‘dreams’.

The  authors make clear that a good balance must be found between top-down and bottom-up coordination. Top-down coordination is required to guarantee macro-level synergy, and bottom-up coordination is required to promote innovation and sustainability.

Distinct responsibilities

They also illustrate that effective coordination requires concerted efforts at various levels of responsibility, those of donors, local authorities and implementing organisations. Donor agencies should strive for policy coherence and create opportunities, while the implementers should seize the available opportunities.

The authorities and implementing partners in developing countries should take the initiative to coordinate and harmonise the support modalities that are offered or accessible to them to avoid duplicating interventions and competition between donors, and to align support with the organisation’s strategic objectives. This can be organised in different ways: some organisations integrate it as a component of a strategic development plan while others adopt it as a management principle.

The institutes in the North collaborating with partners in the South can play a role in promoting this process by endeavouring to seek matching opportunities among the various support programmes that are on offer. The realisation that synergy and the coordination of funds will be the key to successful partnerships with institutes in the South deserves full attention, not only with the funding agencies, but also within the universities in the North.

Obtain a copy

The full title of the book is:

Ad Boeren (ed.). (2013). Synergy in action. Coordination of cooperation programmes in higher education and research. The Hague: Nuffic.

A free hard copy can be ordered by using this order form.

A digital version can be downloaded from Nuffic’s publication page.

To date, 59 training courses have been accepted for implementation and have either already been completed or are ongoing. The majority of these trainings (66%) cost less than € 50,000. The average number of trainees per training is 20 and the average investment per trainee doesn’t exceed € 2,000, making the training courses value for money. We find that for a reasonable budget, important and significant investment in human capital and organisational strengthening is being achieved, and in a way that is targeted and relevant for the requesting organisations in the labour market.

While the TMT programme is a lean and mean programme - which for the most part also allows for lean and mean administration - the assessment of proposals is a time consuming activity. This is due to the technical nature of the proposals, their number and diversity. Even so, the programme costs for this activity are compensated by the quality of proposals that are selected, which ensures that the programme is truly developing relevant capacities, where the need for training and link to national development is clear.

Enthusiasm

Apparently, TMT has also been well-received in the partner countries. As knowledge of the existence of the programme has grown, interest in the programme has also grown and is evidenced by the growth in the number of applications for training (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The TMT programme has been well received. The number of applications and granted applications is growing.

Organisations that have to date already completed their training highly commend TMT. The director of the electricity company discussed earlier says:

“TMT is useful and effective. The training was very very very useful for [the organisation]. What we’ve learnt in the training is now being put into implementation. Some of our operations in specific areas have already improved and others are improving.”

The Dutch experts who provided the training are also positive. A senior manager at Saxion University of Applied Sciences says:

“TMT is the icing on the cake. It is an interesting endeavour to involve [our] staff in. The target group - professionals in a work setting - is quite unusual for an education institution [like ours]. But it is rewarding to get involved in such training in terms of fulfilling Saxion’s corporate responsibility and the noticed enthusiasm and motivation of the involved staff members. Unpredictability of TMT is however less valued.”

However, the planned reduction of the number of Dutch diplomatic duty stations worldwide could have an impact on the participation in TMT in countries with no diplomatic posts. Embassies are key players in the implementation of TMT, in that they publicise the programme and are a convenient contact point for (potential) applicants when they require information and advice.

The sky is not the limit

While this modality of building capacity has undeniable strengths, Nuffic still remains very careful and critical when assessing the proposals. The sky is not the limit and not all applications received are accepted (Figure 2).

The reasons for this are that some organisations send in applications which do not indicate insight into the capacity constraints faced by the organisation and in which the need for training and/or external intervention is questionable. Some proposals lack follow-up measures that would allow sustainable implementation of the lessons learned within the organisation. Yet other proposals admit that the training is being used as a “sweet” measure to appease and retain staff where the organisation is facing a high staff turnover.

In other proposals, the training simply does not fit within the nature of work of the organisation, track record or the basic capabilities of the staff to be trained are not sufficient. An example of such a proposal is that made by a small church-based  NGO which requested 24-week training in agro-meteorological forecasting so that forecasts could be made at the village level to warn farmers of upcoming droughts (food security context). This training lacked credibility in that the organisation lacked suitably qualified staff who could grasp such material within such a short period and who did not have the computing experience or infrastructure. Basically, the organisation did not have a relevant foundation upon which the TMT could build.

Although the TMT programme does not impose minimum academic qualifications of trainees, it is important that the trainees have some experience or background in the proposed topic of training or discipline for the training to be feasible.

Figure 2: Although the number of applications is growing, not all proposals for training meet the requirements for the TMT programme. Nuffic will look into how to increase the chance of receiving quality applications so that the effort put into developing and assessing each proposal is worthwhile.

The Tailor-made Training programme is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is one of several capacity building programmes which Nuffic is managing on behalf of the ministry. We have closely been involved in the programme since its inception in January 2012 and are enthusiastic about this manner of supporting organisational capacity building. The programme finances the training of a group of employees within an organisation having a shared capacity gap.

Demand-driven

TMT is really tailored to existing capacity needs of the requesting organisations. The training is meant to build or strengthen the capacity of the employees in their functioning to achieve the organisation’s goals. The specific capacity gaps are and have to be fully identified by the organisations requesting the training, making TMT fully demand-driven. The courses offered do not come from a prescribed menu and the learning is truly rooted in the needs and context of the learners. Of course when assessing proposals, Nuffic checks the training requests against eligibility conditions set out for the programme.

Flexibility in coverage

The TMT programme does not impose restrictions on the topics of the training. And so proposals are accepted from a wide range of disciplines covering a wide variety of training needs. Such flexibility in the eligibility of topics reduces skewness in the areas of the labour market that are strengthened.

The geographical coverage of the TMT programme is also liberal. Training is offered to organisations in as many as 62 bilateral partner countries in four continents.

Access to TMT is also open to individuals with a wide range of academic backgrounds. The programme does not impose conditions on the minimum academic qualifications of trainees, as do degree-based scholarships programmes. However, it is imperative that the trainees have a functional relationship with the requesting organisation. As such, the programme is cognisant of the wide range of academic levels of personnel that an organisation may need for proper operation.

Fast, relevant and target-oriented

The TMT that was awarded to a national electricity authority in 2012 is a perfect example of the responsiveness, relevance and target-orientation of the TMT programme. This organisation requested a training on load management through increased operational efficiency. At the time of the application, the country had been facing a power crisis for more than a decade. The problem was getting worse with time to the extent that the nation was surviving with power cuts of 16­–18 hours per day by December 2011. Through the training, the organisation has been able to manage precise distribution of power, improve in managing operation systems, identify leakages, save energy and sustain power provision in effective ways.

Not only did this training build human resources and organisational capacity, but it also directly and almost immediately contributed to national development and the proper functioning of all (economic) sectors and individuals who rely on electricity in that country.

Furthermore, considering that 2 weeks, 20 trainees and less than € 50,000 was all that was needed to correct such a major and debilitating problem to the functioning of a whole nation, the awarded TMT can be said to have been value for money and fast in achieving tangible results.

Responsive

The TMT programme is also very responsive and allows for lean and mean administration. The absence of long bureaucratic, multi-stakeholder and multi-sector consultation processes and sector reviews to identify capacity needs, means that interventions can be implemented quickly.

Furthermore, TMT trainees are often not away from home for very long, as is the case with degree-based scholarship programmes. Remaining within the work environment has the advantage that the training can be linked to the actual implementation context and the lessons can be implemented in a timely manner. 

Read more in our next blog coming this Friday, the 15^th of February 2013.

Stanford computer science professors who developed the technology to host the online classes, started the recent trend in January 2012, with the launch of Udacity. The platform currently offers 14 courses, reaching 80,000 learners. Stanford University soon followed its staff initiative with the founding of Coursera in April 2012. Since its launch, major and distinguished (US and non-US) institutions joined, bringing the total of Coursera partner institutions at 33.

In May 2012, the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT) and Harvard University followed by jointly launching edX. After 7 months, edX includes 6 (US) institutions.

And now, it is reported that in early 2013 UK based institutions will launch free online courses, through a new initiative called Futurelearn, led by the Open University UK.

A new phenomenon, or not?

The phenomenon of open online courses is not new, however. Eleven years ago, MIT already started to offer OpenCourseWare. And in the 1990s, some high-profile universities set up online learning ventures (such as AllLearn, a joint venture of Yale, Stanford and Oxford Universities) offering non-credit bearing courses online – even though several of these ventures proved to be unsustainable by the mid-2000s.

An interesting massive initiative that did survive, but is not offered by a higher education institution, is the Khan Academy, once started because Salman Khan – who studied both at MIT and Harvard - had to explain math to his niece. The difference is that Khan is a democratic initiative, not stemming from already established universities.

What is new about the recent MOOCs development is the large size of the students taking these courses, with an individual course reaching 40,000 or even 160,000 students in some cases. Also new is that MOOCs are courses running over specific periods with cohorts of students who are taught by instructors and who receive feedback (see a recent THE article for more information).

The pro’s and con’s of MOOCs

The pro’s and con’s of free education offered by institutions were discussed elaborately over the last year. The advantages are plenty. With MOOCs, institutions can share their courses on a much wider scale, thereby expanding access to good quality higher education courses to all areas of the globe, opening up access to education for all interested. They can help institutions market their brand name more widely and attract students from other countries. They can also help institutions to improve their online teaching technology.

Disadvantages exist, too. Students receive a free education, for which they often do not receive credits. On completion of their course, students may receive a certificate, for which they may be charged. So can a MOOC degree be worth the same as a degree from Princeton, Brown or John Hopkins University? Can credits gained for a completed MOOC be counted towards a traditional degree in the same field? No.

Commenting on 80,000 students’ feedback in discussion fora also takes a huge amount of time for lecturers, even when students comment on each other’s suggestions. Without dedicated teaching staff, this may be difficult to realise. How are institutions going to guarantee a good-quality course?

Dutch institutions

Dutch institutions – while not involved in MOOCs – have experience with OpenCourseWare (OCW). Delft University of Technology in particular, has invested in the development of TU Delft OpenCourseWare. A recent article in Dutch magazine the Europa Expresse set out the university’s reasons for developing OCW, with the main reasons being:

1. the university’s high quality open courses have a good international marketing value,
2. within the university, OCW provides incentives to improve the quality of the traditional, class-based courses,
3. as a semi-publicly-funded organisation, the university considers it its task to make educational material freely available – based on the idea that what is funded by public sources must be publicly available.

What’s next?

Will the MOOCs really be the revolution in education in the years to come, as is being claimed by the press and the institutions too? Will every university eventually be part of an online learning community? Do the abovementioned benefits apply to all institutions, or will some benefit more than others?

And who will benefit most, the students or institutions? For students, it seems important that they are able to gain academic credits for the courses, while institutions have other interests. Are these interests equally balanced and compatible, or is compatibility of interests a non-issue?

Secondly, MOOCs offer online, good quality courses for free. How can the free MOOCs be financially self-sustainable, especially for non-profit institutions (such as edX)? And for the for-profit providers (such as Coursera), MOOCs may make it difficult to charge high tuition fees for their online courses. Will only the well-known, established for-profits survive?

And there are other questions. Will hereto many more online consortia be founded, or will other (likely high-profile) universities connect, since not all institutions will have capacity to offer MOOCs on their own? Who will be the leaders? Will MOOC consortia be mainly cross-borders or more national, or remain mixed? We are now seeing the co-existence of some national and some transnational MOOC consortia – and national presented answers (the new UK initiative) to international consortia. It seems likely that transnational consortia will be dominating in the future.

Perhaps 2013 will shed some light on this. The year of the MOOC is yet to come.

Shortly after the news came out, there were concerns that the ongoing Erasmus exchanges could not be funded. Different media reported that students had to return before finishing their exchange. The European Commission responded with a no panic message (the ‘yet’ from the initial message was removed shortly after its release) and a FAQ press release, which were not entirely comforting.

Student organisations and members of European Parliament expressed their concern, and stressed the importance of the Erasmus programme for young people all over Europe.  But how will both the EC and national governments – the 2 parties financing Erasmus – deal with the shortage?

Where will the money come from?

On December 13th, the European Parliament approved an extra € 6 billion for 2012 to bridge the spending gap in research, education and employment programmes, covering the € 90 million for Erasmus. Since this is funded from the 2013 budget, it means shifting the problem to the budget of next year, which is set at € 132.84 billion for the EU. Although this offers opportunities to shift posts – 90 million is ‘only’ 0.068% of the total budget – the 2013 budget is under pressure as it is estimated to be € 5 billion short of what is needed.

This ongoing funding shortage might eventually affect the new EC proposed programme Erasmus for All currently under review at the European Parliament (EP) CULT committee (where it was recently renamed YES Europe). The estimated budget for Erasmus for All/YES Europe for the timeframe 2014–2018 is € 19 billion, meaning that the € 90 million would be an estimated 0.5% of the proposed budget.

Effect European budget cuts?

Lastly there were conceptions that flagship programs such as Erasmus are facing important challenges due to the bank crisis and budget cuts for the European Commission.

From the European Union side this all depends on the negotiations of the EU multi-annual financial framework 2014–2020. The European Commission proposed a budget increase of 68% for education purposes, and an estimated increase of 90% of the budget for higher education activities within the successor of the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP). The EP CULT committee already declared that a budget increase is necessary. Therefore it is too premature to draw the conclusion that flag ship programmes are threatened by the bank crisis.

At least, from the European financing side. Besides the EU, national governments are also financing part of Erasmus scholarships. Due to budget cuts, national contribution to scholarships is being cut, such as by the Spanish government.

What would Erasmus do?

On 15 April 1500 Erasmus is said to have written in a letter, "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes". Lets hope for the students this “any money” will be left.

Nuffic’s Holland Alumni Network database includes information on international students who have studied in the Netherlands (both self-financed students and those who had a scholarship). Nuffic research funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science resulted in a report about the needs and wishes of Holland Alumni and another on their career paths. In the first study, focus was on Neso countries and 11 other countries while the second study focused only on Neso countries. The current blog is based on the second study, which had 1539 respondents.

Living and studying in the Netherlands

The majority of respondents (94%) are satisfied with their living and studying experience in the Netherlands and felt welcome. The four most valued aspects of the Dutch higher education system were the usage of English, teacher-student relations, competence based learning and an international classroom.

For most international students, the application for a study visa is the first contact that they have with a Dutch public institution, other than the university they have applied to. This contact contributes to their first impression of the Netherlands and is important. The majority of the respondents (89%) were satisfied with their visa application experience.

Staying in the Netherlands after graduation

Four out of five alumni did not work during their studies in the Netherlands. Those who did, whether or not in a job relevant to their future career plans, were more likely to remain in the Netherlands after graduation or to return at a later stage in order to work. This suggests that a good time to attract alumni as potential future employees is during their studies. This can be achieved by increasing internship possibilities for international students.

Eleven percent (11%) of the respondents stayed on in the Netherlands or returned at a later stage to work. Some of these alumni were studying for a PhD while others were working in private knowledge-intensive companies (R&D).

The percentage of alumni who stayed on or returned to the Netherlands at a later stage could have been higher if the Dutch highly skilled migrant visa scheme had been better and more widely advertised than has been the case so far. After all, the decision to leave the Netherlands after graduation was primarily influenced by the expiry of the visa (39% of the respondents). An additional 22% of the respondents left the Netherlands for personal reasons while 11% left for better job opportunities elsewhere.

Binding alumni to the Netherlands

The most important reasons for wanting to return to the Netherlands at a later stage, in order of importance, were the quality of life in the Netherlands, attractiveness of the living and social environment and the reputation of the universities.

On the other hand, employment opportunities, the Dutch culture and way of life, the quality of work, connectedness to the Netherlands, financial reasons (e.g. higher salaries, tax benefits), and ease of obtaining a visa were less important.

These preferences reflect where emphasis should be laid when aiming to improve conditions that can attract Holland alumni from Neso countries back to the Netherlands.

Permanence of binding to the Netherlands

The study showed that Neso alumni who remained in the Netherlands primarily did so because of good employment opportunities and the quality of life and work in the Netherlands. However, this group was highly mobile and could not say how much longer they would stay in the Netherlands.

This, together with the preferred reasons for staying presented earlier, seems to indicate that efforts by employers to bind Holland alumni from Neso countries (e.g. quality of work, high salaries, tax benefits) may only have a temporary effect. Apparently there are other pull factors that make such offers not play an important role in permanently binding Neso alumni to the Netherlands.

In fact, of the 69% of the respondents who knew about the highly skilled migrant visa scheme only 3 individuals made use of it to look for work in the Netherlands. This indicates the limited attractiveness of the highly skilled migrant visa scheme, in its current configuration, for this population group (i.e. from emerging economies). It is possible that more incentives need to be included in the scheme, particularly reducing the cost and effort on the side of the applicants.

Further reading

• Download factsheet on the Dutch highly skilled migrant visa scheme
• Download report on effectiveness of this visa scheme (in Dutch)

Nuffic’s Holland Alumni Network database includes information on international students who have studied in the Netherlands (both self-financed students and those who had a scholarship). Nuffic research funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science resulted in a report about the needs and wishes of Holland Alumni and another on their career paths. In the first study, focus was on Neso countries and 11 other countries (Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, the Philippines, Peru, Germany, Romania, Turkey, Greece and the US) while the second study focused only on Neso countries. The current blog is based on the second study, which had 1539 respondents.

Why study abroad?

The study confirmed that when students choose for study abroad, they often have the expectation that an international degree will give them an advantage on the labour market. More than half of the respondents (56%) said that they had studied in the Netherlands because they thought it would help them progress in their careers. A further 35% of the respondents said they chose to study in the Netherlands mainly due to their interest in the subject matter of their study programme. The level of satisfaction by these alumni for having studied in the Netherlands is also high. As many as 94% of them are highly satisfied with their living and study experience in the Netherlands. Many of them have full time employment (76%), a permanent contract (63%) and earn a salary which is above average in the country where they work (49%). However, is this success in the labour market due to the fact that they hold a Dutch qualification or is it due to other reasons?  

Motivation of Holland Alumni to study in the Netherlands
(click on the image to see the pdf version of this diagram)

(86.5 KB) 

The value of a Dutch Degree

Although the majority alumni are satisfied with a Dutch qualification, the fact that the qualification was obtained in the Netherlands was, according to the alumni, not a priority for the majority of employers when making the decision to employ them. Respondents (70%) indicate that although a Dutch qualification was an advantage in finding a job, employers placed more priority on the actual subjects studied (i.e. the knowledge level and knowledge type). The benefits enjoyed within these respondent’s careers (i.e. full time employment, permanent contract, above average salaries) were, therefore, primarily due to their knowledge level, knowledge type and competences rather than the fact that they held a Dutch (international) qualification. 

Having said this, it is important to note that 14% of the respondents said that a Dutch qualification was in fact the most important aspect for their employer when making a decision to employ them. A further 7% said that holding a Dutch qualification from a specific Dutch higher education institution was the most important aspect for the employer when making a decision to employ them.

Apparently, the brand value of a Dutch qualification needs increasing. Nuffic will be launching the Career and Business Web Portal in February 2013, which will show international students and Holland alumni how a Dutch qualification can contribute to their career in the international labour market and in the Dutch labour market in particular.

What employers valued most when deciding to employ Holland Alumni
(click on the image to see the pdf version of this diagram)

(88.4 KB)

Are these results conclusive for the rest of the world?

The results presented in this blog are true for countries where a Neso office is located and show the extent to which a Dutch qualification is currently valued by employers in these countries.

The situation may be different in other parts of the world. In this globalised world there are many organisations with a global orientation, and which therefore value employees with international experience. Such employees bring insights into cultural, social, economic, technological and knowledge dimensions of regions of interest and help their organisations attain and maintain global competitiveness.

It would be interesting to identify and map specific organisations, countries, regions or other cases where holding an international degree receives more priority than the actual knowledge acquired by the graduate and why! This would be useful information with regard to study abroad promotional activities.

For example, many national governments focus on the BRIC countries and other growth markets such as Mexico and Thailand, while these do not always score high on education benchmarks. Also, the Brazilian government, for instance, offers huge sums of scholarship funding to enable Brazilians to study abroad, an initiative many countries capitalise on. But how can receiving countries and institutions guarantee that foreign students have sufficient knowledge to start their overseas studies?

Perhaps, countries keen to attract well-qualified students may be able to do so by focusing on countries with high benchmark scores. And, taking this further, national strategies for international co-operation could focus on co-operation with – and recruitment from – those countries that score high in the PISA, TIMMS and PIRLS.

Or not?

There are several counterarguments, of course. For example, co-operation and recruitment on growth markets may be beneficial in the long term; educational co-operation now may lay the basis for further educational and social-economic collaboration in the future.

Also, we need to offer more equal opportunities for students from all countries, including those whose national benchmark scores may not be high. And shouldn’t admission of an individual foreign student into a higher education programme be based on an evaluation of the student’s individual credentials, not on whether his or her home country scores well on education benchmarks? A national benchmark outcome doesn’t say anything about individual achievements. And if the quality of incoming students is insufficient, institutions can offer relevant programmes to bring student knowledge up to starting level.

More importantly, it is good to realise that benchmark outputs – like institutional rankings – are strongly dependent on the benchmark methodology that has been selected. A small change in methodology or benchmark definition may result in very different education ‘outputs’ and ranks.

Of benchmarks, rankings, cooperation and limits

Both benchmarks and rankings are limited in what they measure (see this EUA report) and these limits are not always well-understood. National education outcomes are very broad, and ‘good educational outcomes’ resulting from benchmarks might not fit strategies at an institutional level. This may be for different reasons, such as specialisation of the institution, cultural or language issues. Even within countries, educational results may differ greatly between institutions.

So, although national benchmarks may be helpful in a national context, and could give guidance on the strengths of a country, they do not provide a sufficient basis for strategic policy-making on which regions to co-operate with. We also need to be aware of an important pitfall of education benchmark results: namely, the fact that often, a contextual analysis – that gives meaning to the results – is missing. We always need to bear in mind what is actually being measured, and what not. And in whose interest it is that exactly these benchmarks were selected, and not others.

The report mentions five lessons in the executive summary and provides general tips throughout the document on which inputs lead to higher outputs. It also provides an index, scoring the output of 40 countries (the top five being Finland, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore, and the last five being Colombia, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil and Indonesia). The report ends with recommendations on how to pursue the research on education outputs further. Other features of the project launched before the report are a data bank, including a visualisation tool, and country profiles that might be handy for some working in the field.

The report has received quite some press and critique as well, including on the data used. In a Times Higher Education article, Denis McCauley, the EIU's executive editor for business research, voiced - in response to the critique - the hope that the report will serve as "a catalyst for further collaborative efforts by academics, practitioners and policymakers".

To contribute, two suggestions below can be given to the project itself, both relating to its scope.

What about tertiary education?

The report talks about education, suggesting that the results refer to the whole education system. However, the primary focus is on primary education (reference sources are PISA, PIRLS, and TIMSS). It would be interesting for policy makers in higher education if the project would also look at tertiary education.

In this respect, when references are made, it could build on work that is currently undertaken, including major initiatives as SABER (Systems Approach for Better Education Results - World Bank, also a source for primary education) and AHELO (Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes - OECD). The first offers a benchmarking of the system, while the latter aims to measure learning outcomes in tertiary (higher) education. Outputs on tertiary level require a different approach than primary education, but are very interesting since tertiary education is so crucial to a country’s welfare in many aspects.

What about internationalisation?

When exploring performance of tertiary education, what about including internationalisation or international cooperation as a factor? This contributes to the quality of an education system. Internationalisation efforts are often not taken into account in these kind of exercises on national level, whilst especially in tertiary higher education it is perceived as a possibility to improve education outputs. Furthermore, it can help to reach achievements that could not have been reached by institutions on their own. Of course the remaining key question will be how to measure and collect data for this. And also, what makes a good education outcome and how to define this?