CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES

As Figure 1.4 illustrates that the expansion of QA has become a global

phenomenon spread across at least 48 countries, it is questionable whether the models and meanings of QA have resulted in the global convergence of the policy. Similar to the globalization debate in comparative education, this question has received divided

responses by authors researching QA issues across the globe. Van Vught and

Westerheijden (1994) argued that there is a general model of QA, which is comprised of five main features: meta-level organization, self-assessment, external peer review, published reports, and no link with public funding. In contrast, empirical evidence in various countries argues against the existence of one general model of QA. It is argued that the re-contextualization and implementation of QA differ substantively depending on the political context and historical structure of higher education in each country (Brenen & Shah, 2002; Harman, 1998). This section aims to highlight how the implementation of QA differs substantively in the context of selected Asian countries.

Due to international, regional, and national pressures, the institutionalization of QA and other quality-related policies has become the reality in the Asian region. On the global scale, Asian countries are considered late adopters of QA policy. Most Asian countries began to formalize QA agencies in the late 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, while most Western European countries began to introduce QA in the 1980s and early 1990s. Despite being latecomers, the Asian quest for quality has been a dominant phenomenon. According to Bigalke and Neubauer (2009), “throughout the region

questions of quality and the search for methods of quality assurance are gaining a central place in higher education policy discussions” (p. 2). Education consultants at UNESCO Asia-Pacific supported this observation. It is argued that countries in the region have been excited about implementing QA: “For the past ten to fifteen years, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and all other Asian countries are trying hard to set up QA” (Interview, 27 August, 2010). Despite the regional effort to institutionalize QA, it is argued that the diversity of each country continues to influence how QA is structured. While a detailed discussion of the region is beyond the space of this research, it is important to flesh out the main character of quality policy in selected countries of Asia- Pacific. The purpose of the review aims to address whether a general model of QA exists. A regional specific seems to offer a probable solution to validate this claim. To review, I relied on van Vught and Westerheijden’s (1994) claim of a general model of quality assessment. The table below summarizes the QA characters in selected East and Southeast Asian countries based on the van Vught and Westerheijden's five criteria.

Table 2.1. An Overview of Quality Assessment Regimes in Selected Countries in East and Southeast Asia A meta-level agency Self- assessment External peer review Published reports No link with public funding

Hong Kong Yes Yes Yes Yes -

Indonesia Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A

Malaysia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Philippines - Yes Yes N/A Yes

South Korea Yes Yes Yes - Yes

Singapore - Yes Yes N/A Yes

Thailand Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vietnam Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes

The table is illustrative for several reasons. Firstly, it summarizes the character of QA in the selected countries in comparison to other countries. Secondly, the table

supports van Vught and Westerheijden’s (1994) argument that most of the countries share common features regarding their QA policy. Although the table suggests that the general thesis of QA applies in Asia-Pacific, the table only presents a checklist and captures an overview of the policy feature. Most importantly, significant variation in terms of responsibility, function, and ownership of QA policy continues to persist in various countries (Harman, 1998). The discussion below attempts to encapsulate the main features of QA in the selected countries.

Hong Kong: Hong Kong was the first country in East Asia to institutionalize an external quality assessment policy (Mok, 2000). Influenced by the British Council for National Academic Awards, the government established the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation in 1990. This panel is relatively autonomous from government direct control, and it is comprised of local and foreign experts to evaluate and accredit higher education institutions (Harman, 1996). In recent years, the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong (UGC) has become the responsible organization for providing standards and criteria for external and internal quality assessment (Mok, 2000). The UCG has introduced differing assessment measures, such as the Research Assessment Exercise, Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review, Management Review, and University Governance Review (Mok, 2006).

Indonesia: In 1994, the government established the National Accreditation Board for Higher Education in order to assess and accredit academic departments. In the

beginning, only private universities were subject to quality assessment and accreditation. There was a general assumption that public universities outperformed private institutions in quality (Buchori & Malik, 2004). The trend started to change in 1998 when quality assessment became compulsory for all academic departments in public and private universities. By 2002, the agency had assessed and accredited more than 60% of

academic programs in Indonesia. While the government attempts to extend the process to include institutional assessment, many established universities have begun to

institutionalize their own internal quality assessment policy (Nizam, 2006).

Malaysia: The government has introduced two separate agencies to assess the quality of its private and public higher education institutions. In 1996, the government established the National Accreditation Board to monitor private institutions (Lee, 2004). In 2001, the Quality Assurance Division was established under the auspices of the Ministry of Education in order to conduct external quality assessment in public universities every five years (Middlehurst & Woodfield, 2006). These two external quality assessment mechanisms are carried out parallel to internal assessment policy at the institutional level. In recent years, the government introduced the Malaysia

Qualification Framework (MQF), which aims to be a comprehensive set of standards to evaluate both private and public institutions for internal and external quality assessment (Sirat, 2006).

The Philippines: There are two quality assessment mechanisms in the Philippines. On the one hand, there are specialist broad examinations administered by the associations of different disciplines, such as medicine, nursing, law, and engineering (Gonzalez, 2004). On the other hand, there is a volunteer accrediting organization to manage the quality of private universities. The Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities was established in 1957 (Gonzalez, 2006). In the beginning, the Association only accredited members who were mostly private universities. In recent years, the system has expanded to include public universities and colleges (Harman, 1998). The accreditation system includes four main levels, and the government grants more institutional autonomy to the accredited institution as an incentive to encourage both public and private universities to participate in this process (Gonzalez, 2006).

South Korea: The South Korea government initiated internal quality assessment policy for the first time in 1982 (Young, 2002). The concern for quality assessment was a

shared responsibility between the Ministry of Education and the Korea Council for University Education (KCUE). The 1984 KCUE Act empowered the KCUE to evaluate its institutional members every five years cycle. Subsequently, external quality

assessment became more institutionalized in 1993 with establishment of the Council for University Accreditation. Recently, government has attempted to elevate the quality assessment system to become a national-wide approach committed to allocate KRW 100 annually to establish the “Higher Education Assessment Institute.” This is a national attempt to institutionalize the quality assessment of higher education institutions,

determine financial supports for reforms, and publish necessary information to the public (KEDI, 2007).

Singapore: Unlike other countries in the region, Singapore does not have a meta- agency to conduct external quality assessment in higher education institutions. Instead, there are two mechanisms that the government uses as a proxy for quality assessment policy. On the one hand, the government established the International Academic Advisory Panel (IAAP), an ad hoc senior advisory panel comprised of leading academics and eminent leaders from prestigious universities in Japan, United States, and Europe who visit Singapore and provide recommendations to reform higher education institutions (Mok & Lee, 2003; Tan 2006). On the other hand, the government urges institutions to establish rigorous internal quality assessment policies to evaluate and assess their performance (Lee & Healy 2006; Mok, 2000).

Thailand: Internal quality assessment has been discussed in Thailand since 1996. Then the Ministry of University Affairs (MUA) established guidelines for all universities to begin internal assessment. After the enactment of the National Education Act of 1999, the Office of National Educational Quality and Assessment Agency was established in 2000 to conduct external quality assessment for public and private universities every five years. The Thai quality assessment policy is driven by the “amicable assessment”

(Bovornsiri, 2006). While an overview report is published and available upon public request, a more detailed analysis of the assessment is sent directly to the university council. The assessment does not attempt to accredit or rank the universities.

Vietnam: Quality assessment policy is a recent development in Vietnam. It takes the form of institutional accreditation. Beginning in 1999, the Centre for Education Quality Assurance and Research Development of Vietnam National University in Hanoi (VNU-H) was responsible for state-level accreditation of higher education. After several consultations and piecemeal changes, the government established the General

Department of Assessment and Accreditation (GDAA) in 2003. The Provisional

Regulations on Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions were promulgated in 2004 to guide institutional self-evaluation and external evaluation (Dai, 2006).

From the experiences of these eight countries, it is evident that QA has been institutionalized in East and Southeast Asia. Although many European countries began to introduce some form of QA in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was only in the mid- 1990s to 2000s that Asian governments began to formally institutionalize QA policy and establish new institutions mandated to be responsible for QA. The review of the literature supports the argument that QA has become a global education policy and common

features of QA exist amongst many Asian countries, such as establishment of a new organization. However, two points deserve further discussion. Firstly, Thune (2002) argues that it is important to differentiate between procedural aspects of QA and the political discourse of QA. The table above only illustrates that the selected countries discussed here share the procedural aspects. Secondly, the data in Table 2.1 and the Figure 1.4 S-Shape curve are only useful to capture the longitudinal perspective or summarize the macro trend. They are limited in terms of explaining many important questions, such as the origins of the policy and the rationale. A careful scrutiny of case studies in a few countries has demonstrated the diversity of national purpose, political agenda, and organizational functions of quality assessment policy in the region (Bigalke

& Neubauer, 2009; Mok, 2000, 2003, 2006). The review of the literature in the next section attempts to address the remaining question: Why does the global education policy resonate in so many countries?