Higher Education in Review

The Politics of State Higher Education Funding David A. Tandberg

The Invisible Immigrants: Revealing 1.5 Generation Latino Immigrants and Their Bicultural Identities Holly Holloway-Friesen

The Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Global Competitiveness as a Motivation for Postsecondary Reform Casey E. George-Jackson

A Phenomenological Study of How Selected College Men Construct and Define Masculinity Jerry L. Tatum & Ralph Charlton

Getting It Almost, Approximately, Just About Right

Patrick T. Terenzini & Ernest T. Pascarella

Volume 5 2008

Volume 5 2008

Higher Education in Review

The Politics of State Higher Education Funding David A. Tandberg

The Invisible Immigrants: Revealing 1.5 Generation Latino Immigrants and Their Bicultural Identities Holly Holloway-Friesen

The Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Global Competitiveness as a Motivation for Postsecondary Reform Casey E. George-Jackson

A Phenomenological Study of How Selected College Men Construct and Define Masculinity Jerry L. Tatum & Ralph Charlton

Getting It Almost, Approximately, Just About Right

Patrick T. Terenzini & Ernest T. Pascarella

Volume 5 2008

Volume 5 2008

The Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Global Competitiveness as a Motivation for Postsecondary Reform Casey E. George-Jackson University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign In this article, the author examines the U.S. Department of Education’s “A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education.” Discourse and political economy analyses of the Commission’s meeting transcripts, issue papers, final report, and the Congressional Committee hearings related to higher education reform reveal an orientation toward the utilization of postsecondary education to strengthen the nation’s workforce, economy, and global competitiveness. Borderless education, a phenomenon common in other countries, is explored as an alternative strategy. Finally, the author offers recommendations for future research and implications for practice in higher education.

George-Jackson, C. E. (2008). The Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Global competitiveness as a motivation for postsecondary reform. Higher Education in Review, 5, 67-97.

68

Higher Education in Review The Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Global Competitiveness as a Motivation for Postsecondary Reform

It is time to examine how we can get the most out of our national investment in higher education. We have a responsibility to make sure our higher education system continues to meet our nation’s needs for an educated and competitive workforce in the 21st century. – U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings1 In September 2005, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced the formation of the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, which was charged with examining higher education’s ability to fulfill the nation’s workforce needs and to compete in the global economy (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b). The Spellings Commission is the latest occurrence of national, presidential commissions established throughout the nation’s modern history to address various concerns in education, and is focused on issues pertaining to the nation’s postsecondary education, workforce preparedness, and global competitiveness. One year after its creation, the Spellings Commission’s final report, A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, was issued, presenting the Commission’s findings and recommendations to the higher education community and to the public (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b). Applying the discipline of political economy, this article makes use of document analysis, rhetorical analysis, and ideological criticism to interpret the global competitive orientation of the Spellings Commission and the resulting recommendations as evidenced in the Commission’s proceedings and documents. The discipline of political economy has a long history of addressing the role of the state, its forms of government, and its relation to individuals. It allows for the effects of government to be closely examined through the lens of other disciplines such as law, history, sociology, and anthropology. Political economy addresses the question of legitimate government in relation to the balance between public (state) and private (family), as well as the production and consumption of services such as education.

1

U.S. Department of Education, 2005a, ¶ 2

George-Jackson

69

The analysis of education through the perspective of the political economy considers the policies, delivery, funding, production, and consumption of education. The political economy of education also relates to legal issues: who in society has the right to education – as either an individual right or universal human right – and how laws shape the education system as well as its delivery to the population. Emphasis is placed on how institutions of higher education are utilized in relation to preparing a nation’s workforce and to their collective contribution toward a state’s prosperity. Political economy can assist in determining whether or not the education of the future workforce and its entry into the labor market is conducted in an equitable and efficient manner and, if not, how this can be improved. This theoretical framework also functions as a tool to examine the positive externalities of promoting higher education as it affects the nation-state and the global community. Such externalities include increased community engagement, voter participation, improved health, extended life expectancy, and the establishment of a global citizenry. To gain a better understanding of problems found in education policy, the study of political economy offers a multi-disciplinary approach, examining a specific problem or series of problems from various and interdependent perspectives. While many disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, law, political science, and economics have individually attempted to address societal problems, including those related to education, they are self-limiting in their analysis insofar as the effects of policies reach into multiple arenas of society. Solutions to problems created through the implementation of education policies typically do not have a single best approach but rather call for interdisciplinary answers. By utilizing the interdisciplinary approach of political economy, we can gain a more thorough comprehension of educational policies and recommendations, particularly as “education policy both reflects and reinforces national views, beliefs, and purposes” (Taylor, 2003, p. 12). In addition, the political economy approach is aligned with interpretive analytical procedures, whereby documents and other artifacts can be analyzed to gain insight into how a nation shapes, influences, and regulates institutions to achieve specific outcomes. The theoretical framework of political economy utilizes multiple analytical methods to critique, interpret, and understand perspectives, ideologies, and policy proposals such as those related to education. This article is organized into five main sections. The first section familiarizes the reader with the Spellings Commission and provides an

70

Higher Education in Review

overview of the current landscape and recent trends in higher education. The second section identifies the Spellings Commission’s perspective as global competition and corporatization of domestic higher education, and discusses the implications of such a perspective. The third section critiques and discusses the limitations of the Spellings Commission’s perspective, with specific attention to the causes and potential outcomes of such a perspective. Borderless education is suggested as an alternative approach in the fourth section, which includes a description of the concept, its ability to address many of the limitations of the Commission’s perspective, and the implications of implementing borderless education. The article concludes with a discussion of the Commission’s future impact and suggestions for future research. The Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education At the point of formation in the fall of 2005, the Commission was chartered to begin a national dialogue aimed at addressing a number of issues facing U.S. higher education. These included, but were not limited to, quality, innovation, accessibility, affordability, work force development, and accountability. Over the course of one year, the Commission held a series of meetings and public hearings on higher education, in which its members sought to address concerns about the nation’s higher education system and to offer recommendations for improvement. The final report was submitted to Secretary Spellings in the fall of 2006. The Commission was comprised of 19 members who represented a variety of sectors and interests, including institutions of higher education, non-profit organizations, for-profit organizations, and multi-national corporations. Included in the mix were individuals who had current or former involvement with institutions of higher education.2 For-profit entities represented included IBM, Microsoft, Kaplan, and Boeing. Non-profit organizations included The Education Trust and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund. The composition of the Commission caused some concern in the higher education community given the representation of large global corporations (American Federation of Teachers, 2005; Field, 2005). 2



Schools represented included the University of Texas system, University of Michigan, Trinity University, Western Governors University, Montgomery College, Lafayette College, Morehouse School of Medicine, Ohio University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and University of Pennsylvania.

George-Jackson

71

The Spellings Commission is certainly not the first of its kind in the United States. In response to the increasing challenges faced by colleges and universities following World War II and the creation of the G.I. Bill, President Harry S. Truman chartered a commission in 1946 to examine the relationship between tertiary education and democracy. The results of the Commission’s work, released in a six-volume report in 1947, addressed concerns such as expanding student access, the financing of higher education, and its role in relation to world issues and events. Nearly six decades and several federal education commissions later, the Commission on the Future of Higher Education was formed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to address a similar set of issues, underscored by an emphasis on reforming higher education as a way to maintain and strengthen global competitiveness. Similar to President Truman’s Commission which was formed in response to a crisis in higher education as a result of the increased demands due to the G.I. Bill of 1944, the current Commission was formed to respond to a series of problems confronting higher education. The Commission’s first issue paper, written by Charles Miller (Chair) and Cheryl Oldham (member), outlined the major challenges facing higher education: increased demands for access, diminished capacity, economic and financial stress, demands for accountability, and international competition (Miller & Oldham, 2006). An additional challenge is the demand for American higher education to attract and serve a broad audience, including a population of international students, while other nations are concurrently improving upon their own colleges and universities and increasing their capacity to deliver higher education to their own citizens (Council of Graduate Schools, 2006). Recent developments in higher education systems around the world have contributed to increased economic, political, and social stability in specific nations and regions (The World Bank, 2000), yet the Commission’s discussions and final report view these as negative developments which threaten the competitiveness of the United States in higher education, the workforce, and the economy. Specifically, the Commission’s final report notes that American higher education is “threatened by global competitive pressures” (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b, p. 27), emphasizing a self-positioning of the nation against the international arena rather than seeing these changes as ways in which higher education can be strengthened by the opportunities that exist globally.

72

Higher Education in Review Current Landscape and Recent Trends in Higher Education

The nation’s higher education system is continuously influenced by a number of factors, including recent trends of globalization, internationalization, and commodification. Globalization has had a profound effect on most sectors of the world, including higher education, which Bassett (2006) claims is, by its very nature, incapable of ignoring the influences of globalization. Colleges and universities worldwide serve an increasingly diverse population of students – in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, culture, religion, economic means, languages, and political loyalties – which requires institutions to adapt and evolve according to the changing clientele and context (Morey, 2003). While institutions of higher education react to globalization by changing their missions, teaching and research methods, and human resources, nation-states respond by placing pressures on higher education to improve economic capacity and workforce preparedness (Bassett, 2006). Simultaneously, other nations have significantly improved upon their own higher education systems (Council of Graduate Schools, 2006; Douglass, 2006), while the United States has experienced a decline in the number of international students because of post-September 11th visa policies and the start of the War on Terror – a concern in both the higher education and the international communities (Sidhu, 2006). In more recent years, the number of international students has increased slightly, but has not yet returned to its pre-September 11th numbers (Council of Graduate Schools, 2006). On a more positive note, the founding of new universities and the expansion of existing systems will result in “a more rich global market for scientific and technological expertise,” as well as advancements in other disciplines (Douglass, 2006, p. 7). The currently unbalanced flows of human, social, cultural, and financial capital associated with the movement of college students may no longer favor developed Western countries (Marginson, 2004). Nussbaum (2002) advises that universities must work toward establishing comprehensive networks or “our dealings with one another will be mediated by the defective norms of market exchange” (p. 291). Concurrently, universities can expand domestic and international audiences who receive and benefit from their services by establishing mediums of exchange and participation through technology platforms and partnerships (Altbach & Knight, 2006). Such efforts might help counteract problems related to the unequal developments in knowledge production between hemispheres, worldwide limitations in

George-Jackson

73

access to higher education, and issues of brain-drain (Adepoju, 2004; Altbach & Knight, 2006; Hugo, 2004; Keane, 2003; Marginson, 2004; Sidhu, 2006). In the United States, governmental policy-makers are increasingly inserting themselves into the realm of higher education to protect a series of economic interests (Bassett, 2006). The main economic interest of nation-states in response to the globalization and internationalization of higher education is that of building and maintaining a globally competitive workforce (Bassett, 2006). Even the World Trade Organization (WTO) has taken an interest in regulating higher education as a tradable commodity. Bassett’s (2006) analysis of the U.S. higher education community’s response to the education trade regulations formed by the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) found that, on the whole, organizations and associations of higher education in the United States are largely uninformed about international developments regarding industry, product, and delivery regulations. As governmental and thirdparty organizations increasingly influence the higher education sector, Sidhu (2006) encourages individuals to question the relationship between government and higher education, including “our perceptions of the normative roles of universities in our societies, the ‘right’ balance in statemarket relations, and ultimately, what it means to be an educated subject in the 21st century” (Sidhu, 2006, p. vii). Each of these considerations is applicable to the Spellings Commission and worthy of close inquiry. I now examine how the Spellings Commission provides evidence of its orientation toward global competition and how higher education is viewed as a means to maintaining and strengthening America’s economic competitiveness. An analysis of selected quotes from the Commission’s meetings, issue papers, final report, and related Congressional hearings demonstrates this motivation and orientation. Spellings Commission Perspective The Spellings Commission’s meetings and related reports are worthy of close examination and critique as the language found in the Commission’s transcripts, issue papers, final report, and related Congressional hearings provides insight into how national education commissions serve as an extension of government and are shaped by a nation’s interest. In the case of the Spellings Commission, these documents reveal an argument in support of reforming higher education to preserve and improve the nation’s global competitiveness. The transcripts of each Commission meeting and public

74

Higher Education in Review

hearing are available through the Department of Education’s website.3 These transcripts were examined for references to and discussions of global competition and competitiveness. Identification of the Commission’s Perspective An analysis of the language found in the Commission’s meeting transcripts, issue papers, final report, and related Congressional hearings reveals an underlying theme of utilizing higher education as a way to maintain and strengthen the United States’ global competitiveness. Hutcheson (2007) observes a shift in focus of national commissions on higher education, beginning with President Truman’s Commission on Higher Education in 1947. The Truman Commission and other previous national commissions focused on democratic ideals and equality, while “today’s expectations are focused on individual returns from higher education as a means to drive the economy,” and a view of higher education reform as a means by which to strengthen international competitiveness (Hutcheson, 2007, p. 367). The Spellings Commission’s focus on improving higher education was largely oriented toward problems related to the nation’s workforce and economic development, with a clear emphasis on strengthening higher education, the workforce, and the economy for the purpose of sustaining global competitiveness in comparison with other nations. While the Commission recommended solutions to current problems found in higher education, the artifacts of the Commission also reflect the confluence of globalization, the role of the nation-state, and higher education. In essence, the Commission’s discussions and final report effectively demonstrate an increasingly accepted view of higher education serving national needs related to global competitiveness. Global competition. From the onset of the Commission’s discussions, the orientation toward global competition was clear, as demonstrated by the following quotations from its very first meeting4: While I come here from a Boeing perspective, I also come here as a citizen of this nation because this is critical to our long-term national defense and national economic survival. – Richard Stephens, Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Administration, The Boeing Company (U.S. Department of Education, 2005c, p. 37) 3

See http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html

4

The first Commission meeting was held on October 17, 2005.

George-Jackson

75

[G]lobal competition is going to require what we need to do in higher education and what we need to do for the good of the country. – Commission Chairman Charles Miller, Private Investor and Former Chairman of the Board of Regents, University of Texas System (U.S. Department of Education, 2005c, p. 115) Here, global competitiveness is portrayed as a powerful justification to reform higher education as it corresponds with national security and survival. Richard Stephens’ participation as a member of the Commission provided him an opportunity to shape the higher education entities that will produce Boeing’s (and other businesses’) future employees. Competitiveness reappears as a theme in subsequent meetings, not only for the economy, but also for institutions of higher education from different nations, as expressed during the second meeting held on December 8, 2005: [I]t’s [sic] international counterparts who may not be bringing that mastery of sciences to the U.S., not only because of visa limitations but because these growing countries believe they can’t train people fast enough to fill their own needs. China recently said that they feel they are going to have two million jobs that they literally can’t fill and they’re going to be training their workforce as fast as they can because of those growing needs. – Gerri Elliot, Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Corporation (U.S. Department of Education, 2005d, p. 181) From this statement, the decline in the number of international students attending U.S. colleges and universities in the science and technology fields is apparent, as is the increasing inability of other nations to provide the postsecondary education necessary for their own citizens to fulfill workforce demands. As previously discussed, the declining international student population in the United States presents a unique challenge to American colleges and universities given the current tensions in international relations, and post-September 11th restrictions on student visas. The Commission’s discussion of international students views them not only as students of American postsecondary education institutions, but also as potential members of the American workforce. Therefore, the declining number of international students is not framed by arguments of access but rather as a piece of the puzzle toward strengthening America’s global competitiveness. A guest speaker at the third Commission meeting perhaps best expressed the influence of competitiveness on reforming higher education for the

76

Higher Education in Review

purpose of the national economy in comparison to other nations. Wayne Clough, President of Georgia Tech, gave lengthy testimony on February 2, 2006 regarding the status of higher education and innovation, one of the Commission’s areas of interest. His testimony was centered around “four themes—trends in higher education, the changing global environment— and those two pieces just to provide briefly a little context—then the role of the university in the innovation economy, and the changing shape of the university” (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a, p. 64). His statement reflects a country declining in its level of competitiveness – including measures of higher education productivity – compared to other nations: If we look again at our competition—measures of our competition with other nations, we see very clearly as an example of that that the numbers of scientific papers and engineering papers that are being published in prestigious journals by other nations today are exceeding those from the United States. Again, a dramatic change. Because as late as the 1990s, the United States led in numbers of publications. Today, other nations clearly are in the lead in those publications. So it simply says to us that the context that we are competing—and we are competing. This is a competitive world in higher education as well as obviously in the economy— those—the parameters surrounding the competition are changing, something we need to be very cautious about. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a, p. 68) Clough continues this train of thought, but with an increasing negative view of these developments, expressing that “the scientific and building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding ... at a time when other nations are gathering strength” (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a, p. 73). Colleges and universities are seen as a mechanism by which securing and increasing global competitiveness can be achieved. At the same time, Clough cautions the Commission by advising the need for a “balance between competition and collaboration, between security and openness, between nationalism and globality” (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a, p. 74). This cautionary expression is one of few that appear in the transcripts of the Commission’s proceedings. However, he continues: What are we supposed to be doing for this nation? Educating the workforce of the future, and that’s a shared responsibility between industry and the universities to make sure in fact we’re producing the kind of young people who can be successful in this

George-Jackson

77

economy and for the institutions that hire them. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a, pp. 74-75) Despite the previous expressions of maintaining a balance, the motivation to make improvements to higher education consistently returns to improving the workforce pool. Documents related to the Commission’s discussions, such as issues papers and reports, provide further evidence of the Commission’s orientation toward global competition. A number of these were written by Committee members and pertained to specific topics of discussion. Commission Chairman Charles Miller and Executive Director Cheryl Oldham (2006) co-authored one of the first issue papers, Setting the Context. The brief paper notes the change in competitiveness of the United States over the last two decades: Twenty years ago, the United States led the world in the share of its adult population that earned a high school diploma and a college degree. Today, the U.S. has slipped to ninth place in the share of its people, ages 25 to 34, that complete high school and to seventh place in the share that hold a college degree. In sheer numbers, our nation produces increasing numbers of college graduates, but our foreign competitors are leap-frogging us in producing more college graduates relative to the size of their adult populations. Other warning signs are ominous: due to technological advances and national investment strategies, other countries outpace America’s production of graduates in strategic fields of mathematics, science, engineering and technology. America’s signature resource— innovative ideas—may be in jeopardy. (Miller & Oldham, 2006, p. 2) The advancements other nations have made in their postsecondary education offerings and ability to educate their citizens in high-demand fields such as science and technology are viewed as negative, if not threatening, developments in the eyes of the Commission. This first issue paper set the context of the Commission’s discussions, whereby reform of colleges and universities is driven by a pursuit of global competitiveness. Corporatization of higher education. While global competition is a dominant perspective of the Spellings Commission, the corporatization of higher education is also evident. A report written by Geri Elliot, Commission member and Corporate Vice President of Microsoft, demonstrates the close

78

Higher Education in Review

ties between corporations and higher education reform by acknowledging corporations’ ability to influence postsecondary policy: Through our work with industry partners in the reauthorization of both the Workforce Investment Act and the Higher Education Act, Microsoft is committed to supporting the central role life-long learning plays in enhancing American competitiveness. (Elliot, 2005, p. 1) Elliot continues: “We view more federal spending for basic research as a means to grow the labor pool and to maintain U.S. competitiveness” (p. 1). Microsoft’s interest in federal higher education policies can be viewed as self-promoting, as the push for lifelong learning and research may be motivated by its own workforce needs. The macro-orientation of these quotations reflects corporations’ concerns of losing America’s global competitiveness in the absence of reform. Causes of the Commission’s Perspective In its charter, Secretary Spellings charged the Commission “to consider how best to improve our system of higher education to ensure that our graduates are well prepared to meet our [the nation’s] future workforce needs and are able to participate fully in the changing economy” (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, p. 1). The charter also stated that “institutions of higher education must assess whether they are providing the necessary coursework and incentives that will enable American students to compete in the new global economy” (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b, p. 1), providing evidence of how the Commission’s perspective may have been shaped. The Commission’s dominant perspective of global competitiveness was also shaped, in part, by the composition of its members, particularly global corporations’ interests in workforce preparedness and sustaining the nation’s ability to compete internationally. Secretary Spelling’s opening remarks at the first Commission meeting, which was peppered with comparisons of America’s performance in contrast to that of other nations, also reflects a dominant theme of global competitiveness: “I’ve convened this group to ensure that American remains the world’s leader in higher education and innovation” (U.S. Department of Education, 2005c, p. 7), and “[o]ur students need better critical thinking skills and better training to compete in a world where what you know means much more than where you live” (U.S. Department of Education, 2005c, p. 8). Additional evidence of the emphasis on global competition can be found in Congressional hearings related to the Commission. For instance,

George-Jackson

79

Secretary Spellings participated in a hearing entitled Building America’s Competitiveness: Examining What is Needed to Compete in a Global Economy, held by the Committee on Education and the Workforce in April 2006, prior to the release of the Commission’s report. Secretary Spellings indicated that expanding access and affordability of higher education to domestic students was important “in today’s highly competitive economy” (Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2006, p. 83). In the same hearing, she describes a new initiative, the Academic Competitiveness Grants, which “will award annual grants of up to $1,300 to high-achieving first- and second-year students who have completed a rigorous high school curriculum” (Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2006, p. 83). Implications of the Commission’s Competitive Perspective The notion of national higher education commissions calling for reform for the purposes of global competition is certainly not new. In fact, the United States seems to be entering these discussions very “late in the game” when compared to other nations’ undertakings over the last ten years. For instance, South Korea’s national higher education reform policy, BrainKorea21 (BK21), addressed similar issues of concern regarding international competitiveness in its first cycle (1999-2006)5 (Kim & Kim, 2006). In a comparison of national higher education commissions from select countries, Parry (2007) found that international competitiveness was a driving force in other nations’ higher education commissions, including the United Kingdom’s 1997 Dearing Report. Within the United States, the case can certainly be made that federal initiatives and policies related to higher education have a long history of utilizing colleges and universities for practical, vocational, workforce, and economic purposes, beginning with the Morrill Act of 1862. While workforce and economic development have been a motivation to reform higher education for some time, the Spellings Commission – influenced by increasing globalization and internationalization – represents a culmination of higher education’s role in these development areas, resulting in an emphasis on global competitiveness. The main focus of the Commission’s charter from Secretary Spellings was “to consider how best to improve our system of higher education to ensure that our graduates are well prepared to meet our future workforce needs and are able to participate fully in the changing economy” (U.S. 5

BK21’s second cycle of higher education reform began in 2007.

80

Higher Education in Review

Department of Education, 2005b, p. 1). Unquestionably, problems exist in the U.S. higher education system, yet the Commission’s motivations for improving the existing flaws were primarily motivated by the need for workforce development and to sustain global competitiveness. As a result, not only would higher education serve to protect the collective economic interests of the nation, it would serve the interests of U.S.-based global corporations like those represented in the Commission (e.g., Microsoft, IBM, Boeing). Throughout the Commission’s proceedings and report, the goal of maintaining a high level of global competitiveness through the utilization of higher education is ever present, setting the course for future discussion, rhetoric, and policy. Sidhu (2006) notes that an emphasis on competition affects higher education programming and policy making, as “political rationalities, now couched in the language of competitive advantages in the global economy, are used to legitimate new forms of governance in universities” (pp. 311-312). Tangible results of the Commission’s recommendations have already been witnessed, particularly efforts to revamp the financial aid system and offerings to students. These efforts have arguably expanded accessibility and affordability for thousands of college students; however, the purpose of doing so has been framed by global competitiveness. Given how recently the Commission’s report was released, it is premature to determine what lasting impact the Commission will have on higher education policies. However, by analyzing the language of the Commission’s proceedings and final report, we can better understand the direction that these policies may take, demonstrate how they reflect the emphasis on global competition, and discuss the implications for higher education. Critique of the Spellings Commission’s Perspective The Commission released its final report in September 2006, with the approval of 18 of its 19 members, following approximately one year of meetings, public hearings, and several revised draft reports. David Ward, President of the American Council on Education did not approve the final report for a number of reasons, stating that “many of the problems cited in the report are a result of multiple factors but they are sometimes attributed entirely to the limitations of higher education” (Ward, 2006, ¶ 3) and that the report’s “recommendations as a whole also fail to recognize the diversity of missions within higher education and the need to be cautious about policies and standards based on a one-size-fits-all approach” (Ward, 2006, ¶ 3). Previous national commissions, such as the Truman Commission (President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1948)

George-Jackson

81

also discussed educating individuals to be productive workers and the relationship between education and vocation, although the main emphasis was on democracy, equity, and improving overall society (Hutcheson, 2007). Alternatively, the U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) formally sought to address concerns of the quality of education in the United States. However, as evidenced in the subsequent report, A Nation at Risk, the Commission on Excellence in Education was apprehensive about international competition, yet acknowledged that “[o]ur concern, however, goes well beyond matters such as industry and commerce” (p. 7), stressing the importance of sustaining “[a] high level of shared education [which] is essential to a free, democratic society and to the fostering of a common culture, especially in a country that prides itself on pluralism and individual freedom” (p. 7). While the Spellings Commission may not be the first national education commission to address issues related to international competition, it presents a shift in the main motivation of reforming education, whereby democratic, citizenship, and equity-driven motivations are secondary to the main emphasis of global competitiveness. Potential Outcomes of the Spellings Commission The recommendations outlined by the Commission, if pursued, will allow corporations, such as those represented on the Commission, to maintain a globally competitive economic advantage through the support of the federal government and the utilization of higher education. While the argument can be made that supplying these corporations with a high-skilled labor force trained via higher education will ultimately benefit society, a counter-argument can also be made that priority should be given to creating an equitable global society that offers private and public benefits, while economic interests, although still important, be given secondary focus (Douglass, 2006). In fact, the benefits of a college education can operate through individuals to improve society as a whole (e.g., improved health, reduction in crime, increased civic participation) while concurrently improving the nation’s workforce and economy. In addition, increasing access to higher education would simultaneously increase the nation’s collective human capital by providing previously underrepresented individuals with educational routes to social mobility (Douglass, 2006). Evident in the charter, transcripts of the meetings, and in the final report, was the Commission’s introspection on the nation’s capacity to compete globally, namely in terms of higher education, the workforce, and the economy. Perhaps the most descriptive quote

82

Higher Education in Review

from the final report that reflects this sentiment is: “We recommend the development of a national strategy for lifelong learning designed to keep our citizens and our nation at the forefront of the knowledge revolution” (emphasis added; U.S. Department of Education, 2006b, p. 5). Rather than orienting the discussion “towards the international or borderless nature of knowledge generation and dissemination” (Bassett, 2006, p. 26), the Commission chose to focus on the ability of the United States to compete internationally through the utilization of higher education. The formation of the 110th Congress’ House Committee on Education and Labor: Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness serves as an example of potential outcomes of the Spellings Commission. The committee is chaired by Congressman Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX) and has 24 members. In the first hearing of the Committee, Hinojosa (2007) commented on the need to reauthorize the Higher Education Act due to the “growing concern, that as a nation, we are losing our competitive edge” (¶ 1). Hinojosa’s call to expand access to higher education is framed within a now familiar motivation, stating “by the year 2025, just to keep pace with our international competitors, the United States would need to produce an additional 15.6 million college graduates. That translates to another 781,000 degrees per year or a 37 percent increase over current production” (¶ 2). These sources reflect a larger acceptance of the motivations behind higher education reform in the name of improving global competitiveness. Critique of Potential Spellings Commission Outcomes In the Commission’s final report, the rising competition from other nations’ higher education systems results in the observation that: “they are now educating more of their citizens to more advanced levels than we are. Worse, they are passing us by at a time when education is more important to our collective prosperity than ever” (emphasis added; U.S. Department of Education, 2006b, p. vii). This argument signifies the Commission’s negative reaction to the improved development of other nations’ postsecondary education systems rather than recognizing the benefits of improved higher education systems worldwide as a way to further knowledge creation, dissemination, or reduce the brain-drain phenomena. The report warns that remaining unresponsive to change proves detrimental and that “troubling signs are abundant” for U.S. higher education unless the system adjusts and responds to these external stimuli (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b, p. ix). It is ironic that the Commission offers this warning because it interprets these external changes as international threats and global pressures, while existing opportunities

George-Jackson

83

due to these same developments are largely ignored. Intellectual capital and international students. The emphasis on workforce development reflects concern for the nation’s economic stability and the intrusion of the nation-state on higher education to achieve a selffulfilling goal: “the economic imperative continues to drive governments to believe that more graduates with more knowledge and skills will make for more wealth creation in the country” (Eggins, 2003, p. 4). Sidhu (2006), however, cautions that “internationalization of the university cannot progress on the basis of economic or national security rationales” (p. 79). The Commission cites the need to increase the number of American students pursuing degrees in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) as “critical to global competitiveness, national security, and economic prosperity” (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b, p. 15). The statement is couched in the language of competition in order to improve national security and economic stability rather than the language of collaboration with other nations’ higher education institutions in order to advance scientific knowledge by increasing the overall number of STEM degrees awarded globally. However, in light of the debates regarding increased border, customs, port, and transportation security, as well as current federal policies that are unwelcoming and often hostile to international individuals, it is not surprising that educating U.S. students in the STEM fields would be tied to national security. The Commission’s discussion of international students continues by stating “it is fundamental to U.S. economic interests to provide world-class education while simultaneously providing an efficient immigration system that welcomes highly educated individuals to our nation” (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b, p. 15). The report also recommends that the immigration and visa policies for international students be revised, a recommendation that, on the surface, appears to be positive, [I]nternational students who graduate with an advanced STEM degree from a U.S. college or university should have an expedited path to an employer-sponsored green card and also be exempted from the numerical cap for green cards. The commission also recommends eliminating the requirement that in order to receive a student visa, all students must prove that they have no intent to remain in the United States after graduating. After all, talented graduates with sought-after advanced training represent precisely the kind of intellectual capital our nation needs. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b, p. 26)

84

Higher Education in Review

This recommendation reflects a desire to capture the “intellectual capital” (i.e., high-skilled labor) from a population, perpetuating the problem of brain drain that plagues many developing countries. While the Commission recommends protecting against certain international threats, it also selectively encourages international students, specifically those from preferred countries and in the STEM fields, to enter into the U.S. economy following graduation for the sole purpose of national economic

Figure 1. The Spellings Commission’s approach to higher education reform. In this figure, the proposed higher education reforms are oriented towards serving the U.S. workforce, as shaped by the U.S. political economy. The United States is protecting its workforce and economy against international competition, as symbolized by the thick black line in Figure 1, save for the entrance of select international students who will have access to U.S. colleges and universities so that they may be educated and later enter the U.S. workforce. By hiring recently graduated international students into the U.S. workforce, the United States protects

George-Jackson

85

against the possibility of other nations utilizing these students’ human and intellectual capital, which might harm the U.S. economy via global competition. This action is representative of the convergence of federal policies, national workforce development, globalization, and the Spellings Commission’s competitive perspective. By creating explicit programs and policies designed to recruit and retain international students to U.S. higher education institutions, and to retain them for utilization in the workforce, highly educated (international) employees become key inputs to producing and sustaining a globally competitive economy. Of course, the approaches suggested by the Commission in regards to international students can expand overall access to higher education, yet this is a secondary goal of the Commission. Such a mindset ignores the detrimental effects of brain drain on other nations for the sake of building the United States’ corporate and global economic competitive advantage. Information technology and institutional collaboration. The report also promotes the expansion of distance education and e-learning in order to further prepare the domestic workforce and improve global competitiveness. The sharing of technologies, approaches to distance education, and e-learning are encouraged through the suggestion of offering “incentives to promote the development of information technology-based collaborative tools and capabilities at universities and colleges across the United States, enabling access, interaction, and sharing of educational materials from a variety of institutions, disciplines, and educational perspectives” (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b, p. 25). The explicit encouragement of collaboration between U.S. institutions ignores the opportunities for similar types of collaboration that exist outside U.S. borders. If the Commission’s recommendations are implemented via financial incentives, policy provisions may include grants to institutions that seek to establish domestic partnerships and consortiums for the purpose of expanding workforce-oriented education via the use of technology that directly benefits the U.S. economy. Programs that are domestically oriented may be favored over those with a global emphasis. This policy implication, as well as the previously discussed push to attract and retain the intellectual capital of international students, is supported by the following excerpt from the Commission’s final report: The United States must ensure the capacity of its universities to achieve global leadership in key strategic areas such as science, engineering, medicine, and other knowledge-intensive professions. We recommend increasing federal investment in areas critical to

86

Higher Education in Review our nation’s global competitiveness and a renewed commitment to attract the best and brightest minds from across the nation and around the world to lead the next wave of American innovation. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b, p. 26)

Although global competitiveness is the driving force behind this statement, the recommendation to increase federal investment in the STEM fields will be welcomed by many universities. Political history and the educational mission. While programs such as the Academic Competitiveness Grants and others that are being developed by the Department of Education will benefit students, expand access, and make college more affordable, the motivation remains to secure the nation’s economic competitive advantage. As indicated previously, this represents a substantial shift from the historical precedent of expanding access and affordability for reasons of democracy, equity, and citizenship that guided previous calls for higher education reform. These underlying competitive motivations cause concern for mission creep, as universities may be pressured to adopt practices that move away from purposes related to democracy or citizenry in favor of strengthening the nation’s global competitiveness. Furthermore, a “focus on the bottom line requirements of the corporation (which the university is now to serve), rather than the personal expectations of the students in a broad educational experience, creates discomfort” within higher education (Wood, Tapsall, & Soutar, 2005, p. 434). An Alternative Approach: Borderless Education As an alternative to the Commission’s competitive perspective, the notion of borderless education is offered as a strategy by which colleges and universities can take advantage of the opportunities created by global developments in higher education, rather than allow the argument for global competitiveness to single-handedly guide the future direction of higher education in the United States. Description of Borderless Education Borderless education represents a strategy that encourages institutions of higher education to take advantage of the multiple opportunities that exist globally, including cross-national teaching and research opportunities, made available in part by improved technology and communications. While this concept may be criticized as being too idealistic for the needs of the nation and impractical to implement across U.S. higher education

George-Jackson

87

institutions, its purpose here is to offer an approach that institutions can utilize and implement in the coming decades that allow them to take advantage of global opportunities. While schools in the United Kingdom, continental Europe, and Australia have adopted this strategy more than U.S. institutions, a movement toward borderless education is also beginning to take shape in Latin America and Asia as these systems of higher education increasingly recognize the need for transnational and virtual education. Borderless Education is characterized by “developments which cross (or have the potential to cross) the traditional borders of higher education, be they geographical, sectoral or conceptual” (Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, 2000, p. 7). Middlehurst (2001) defines traditional borders to “include national, organizational, and sector boundaries, borders of time and space and public/private boundaries” (p. 4). Figure 2, representing a system that is aligned with borderless education, provides an alternative view of the future of the U.S. higher education system, with reforms oriented towards serving the U.S. society, as well as serving and interacting with a global context. One form of borderless education occurs through distance

Figure 2. An alternative approach to higher education reforms.

88

Higher Education in Review

education, which allows for knowledge, teaching, and learning to be transmitted across spatial boundaries. In this sense, borderless education is seen as a way to expand access to a population of students who may have otherwise received a postsecondary education. Taking advantage of recent technological advancements, distance education and open universities have evolved into institutions that use multiple methods of program delivery to serve millions of students worldwide. Universities pursue borderless education methods such as distance education to overcome limitations of the traditional bricks-and-mortar model of higher education, as well as to make their services more accessible to a wider audience (Kaye & Rumble, 1996; Morey, 2003). Critics of borderless education efforts may argue that domestic students should receive priority from the higher education community over international students and that globally-oriented efforts may divert scarce resources away from domestic efforts; however, a strategy involving borderless education can allow for both domestic and international audiences to receive the benefits of higher education. An example of delivering higher education through borderless means is offering online courses and programs, which have the potential to expand access to those (worldwide) who may not be able to attend a specific university’s campus. Implementation would most likely require additional funding, changes in a university’s technological infrastructure, retraining of faculty to translate traditional material to a compatible online format, and a change in institutional culture for borderless education efforts, such as this, to be successful (Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, 2000). Despite these tradeoffs, technological developments have created opportunities to conceptualize access to higher education differently- namely through virtual means- while still achieving the goal of delivering postsecondary education to a wider audience. While other countries are recognizing and acting upon the potential value of borderless higher education systems, the Spellings Commission’s global emphasis is that of preparing a competitive (domestic) workforce to serve corporate (domestic) interests. Application of a Borderless Education Perspective to the Spellings Commission Several authors argue that universities must change in light of increasing demands for higher education throughout the world and that a borderless system may serve as a possible solution (MacLeod & Ford, 2006; Middlehurst, 2001; Wende, 2002). Verbik & Jokivitra (2005) suggest borderless education can offer multiple benefits, including “domestic

George-Jackson

89

capacity building, broader student choice in education systems facing resource constraints, minimizing the resources flowing out of the country, reducing brain drain, and enhancing innovation and competitiveness in the sector” (¶ 2). For instance, the African Virtual University now delivers higher education services in 18 countries, and “more than 24,000 students have completed courses in technology, engineering, business, and sciences” since its formation in 1997 (Williams, 2003, ¶ 4). However, caution must be used in interpreting claims of improvement in these areas, as empirical evidence of the impact of borderless education is currently lacking (Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, 2000). Knight (2005) points to the need for reliable data stating that “[t]here is a serious lack of solid data on the volume and type of cross-border programs and provider mobility” (p. 2) and a “lack of common terms and systems of gathering data creates a huge challenge in trying to compare” (p. 2) the little data that has been collected. Although a borderless system offers a potential solution to meet the international demand for higher education, improve issues of access, and provide students and faculty with a global perspective, it also presents a number of challenges. Bollag (2006) and Fielden (2001) cite the high costs associated with establishing a virtual system as well as resistance to changes in organizational and management structures. Institutional partnerships, consortiums, and other forms of collaboration can assist in overcoming these challenges (Fielden, 2001; MacLeod & Ford, 2006). Varying degrees of regulation employed by foreign countries, which control access to international students, present an additional challenge (Verbik & Jokivirta, 2005). Finally, Middlehurst (2001) cautions Western universities against creating an “imperialist” system of higher education while MacLeod & Ford (2006) similarly note that universities should not pursue a “neocolonial” agenda in offering borderless education. Given the amount of business-oriented language found in the Commission’s final report, such as “consumers,” “production,” “marketshare,” and “cost-managers,” a business concept that surprisingly does not surface is that of risk-reward. Nonetheless, the choice to apply any particular reform relies on an implicit cost-benefit, risk-reward analysis. Instead of legitimizing the Spellings Commission’s choice to view international developments as threats to the U.S. economy, postsecondary education, and global competitiveness, the higher education community can, both individually and collectively, recognize and pursue the international opportunities at hand. Some risk will undoubtedly be

90

Higher Education in Review

involved in establishing alternative borderless education initiatives and working collaboratively in a global arena. Rather than attempting to close our borders and universities to international threats or maintaining a singleminded orientation toward gaining a competitive edge, these borderless opportunities can be successfully managed, even with their risks. The balance of risk and reward is key to corporate management strategies and can be adopted here to encourage universities to recognize and pursue the opportunities presented by the current global context. Implications of the Borderless Education Approach Borderless higher education offers a potential solution and strategy to overcoming many of the challenges and concerns that currently face U.S. higher education. Borderless education will allow U.S. higher education to maintain a comparative rather than a competitive advantage over other nations’ higher education systems, thus satisfying the needs of the Commission and the nation, while also allowing for strategic partnerships and activities to be carried out that serve a global audience and expand higher education accessibility. Borrowing from the field of economics, the theory of comparative advantage is commonly attributed to David Ricardo’s 1817 work entitled Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Ricardo described a macro-level scenario by which trade between two countries did not require a competitive or absolute advantage, but rather a scenario by which “specialization and free trade will benefit all trading partners” (Case & Fair, 2004, p. 667). Comparative advantage occurs when the opportunity costs of producing the good or service is lower, compared to another entity producing the same good or service (Case & Fair, 2004). In contrast, a competitive advantage “is the degree to which an item has a sustainable competitive advantage over other product classes, product forms, or brands,” or in this case, over other universities and nations (Peter & Olson, 2005, p. 415; original emphasis). Applying these concepts to higher education suggests that rather than viewing other nations and their higher education institutions as competitors over which the United States must sustain an absolute advantage, the alternative strategy would be for nations to specialize in various higher education niches, based on each nation’s (and institution’s) strengths. Wood, Tapsall, and Soutar (2005) indicate that although higher education currently faces a number of challenges, “there are clear opportunities for educational institutions that understand their own strengths and the markets within which they operate” (p. 435). For instance, specific institutions may capitalize on a particular niche within higher education and the workforce by offering

George-Jackson

91

a highly specialized program. Additionally, a university may become a content-provider to other institutions that would, in turn, deliver the content to students via borderless methods (Fielden, 2001). In this way, as Eggins (2003) suggests, “many beneficiaries of higher education can bring their optimal contribution to the development of the sector at the time of global change” (p. xvi). However, if a competitive advantage is pursued, domination by a particular institution or nation may ensue, limiting the entrance of other providers to the higher education market. Pursuit of a comparative advantage, rather than a competitive advantage, would allow all nations and their higher education systems to collectively improve the global economy. The Commission’s desire to maintain a competitive advantage for the interests of corporations and the economy, as opposed to a comparative advantage for the U.S. higher education system, may prove to be a key distinction as policies continue to emerge as a result of the Commission’s report. Conclusion In this article, I offer a critique of the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education along a singular dimension. The Spellings Commission has already been successful in its mission to create dialogue and debate regarding current problems in higher education, to jumpstart discussion on potential solutions, and to stimulate reformation of financial aid policies. While it is too soon to determine if the Commission will have a lasting impact on the national rhetoric of higher education, subsequent policies, or legislative action, analyzing the Commission gives insight into the arguments that will likely shape the future of federal higher education policy. Future Research Based on Each Approach This article is intended to serve as a catalyst for generating additional discussion and research regarding the implications of framing the argument for reforming higher education as a means to strengthen global competitiveness. Areas of future research focusing on the Spellings Commission and its competitive perspective may include interpretation and analysis of resulting federal legislation proposals, as well as critiques of higher education lobbying efforts by corporations and special interest groups that focus on policies and programs related to workforce development in relation to global competition. Inquiries to college and university administrators, professors, researchers, and students regarding

92

Higher Education in Review

their perceptions and knowledge of the Spellings Commission may also provide additional insight into understanding the Commission’s views and implications as it pertains to those on the “front line” of higher education. Future research focusing on borderless education, could include investigations of how institutions can translate an emphasis on global competitiveness into real opportunities to expand access for untapped pools of students, such as students from inner cities or rural areas such as Appalachia. As scholarly research in the area of borderless higher education is lacking in the United States, additional research should be conducted to assess the feasibility for U.S. borderless activities, including unique opportunities and challenges faced by U.S. institutions and the implications for the global knowledge economy. More specifically, in which types of borderless education are U.S. institutions currently engaging? Of these, what lessons learned can be adopted by other institutions, particularly those that may be late adopters of borderless education? What are the challenges associated with adopting borderless education strategies (e.g., administrative, curricular, technological, and legislative)? What are the impacts of “alternative” models such as MIT’s OpenCourseWare and iTunesU6 in terms of delivering free educational material to various audiences (e.g., high school students, college students, employees, and individual without a college education)? Opportunities for future research in the area of borderless education are abundant and represent a body of work that should be given careful attention in the coming decades. Suggestions for Higher Education Revisiting the Commission’s recommendations by applying a borderless education perspective leads to a number of specific suggestions for federal policy and institutional practice. In regard to the Commission’s perspective on the use of international students to strengthen our workforce, the United States should seek to establish visa and immigration policies that are welcoming to international students but also provide them the opportunity to enter the U.S. workforce (at their choosing) without being exploited for the benefit of the U.S. economy. In regard to strengthening ties to other institutions and educating more scientists, colleges and universities may wish to establish or expand partnerships with other nations’ higher education systems to increase the total number of degrees obtained in the STEM fields, identify successful policies and programs, and integrate these “best practices” into their own institutions. Doing so could also allow individual institutions, and entire nations, to obtain comparative advantages within specific fields or research areas. In reflecting upon the

George-Jackson

93

borderless education activities in the United Kingdom, Fielden (2001) emphasizes the importance of partnerships, collaborations, alliances, and research consortiums, both domestic and international, when offering borderless opportunities. Morey (2003) advises that institutions remain flexible and adaptive in response to such changes by “develop[ing] new organizational arrangements that can move individuals and institutions in desired directions” (p. 84). To overcome the challenges currently facing U.S. higher education, institutions should adopt a global orientation by advocating for and entering into global strategies, partnerships, and alliances “so that many beneficiaries of higher education can bring their optimal contribution to the development of the sector at the time of global change” (Eggins, 2003, p. xvi). The direction toward which U.S. institutions of higher education ultimately move ought be one that is globally oriented, which can assist in developing a stronger workforce and economy, but more importantly, consciously work toward increasing global responsibility, educating global citizens, and bettering the global society. References Adepoju, A. (2004). Trends in international migration in and from Africa. In D. S. Massey & J. E. Taylor (Eds.), International migration: Prospects and policies in a global market (pp. 59-76). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Apple (n.d.). iTunesU and Mobile Learning: Overview. Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://www.apple.com/education/itunesu_mobilelearning/itunesu.html Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2006). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. In The NEA 2006 Almanac of Higher Education (pp. 27-36). Washington, DC: National Education Association. American Federation of Teachers (2005). New Bush administration initiative on higher education raises concerns. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/news/2005/new_bush_admin2.htm Bassett, R. M. (2006). The WTO and the university: Globalization, GATS, and American higher education. Studies in Higher Education Series. New York: Routledge. Bollag, B. (2006). America’s hot new export: Higher education: Colleges rush to open degree programs overseas, for both academic and business reasons. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(24), A44. Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i24/24a04401.htm Case, K. E., & Fair, R. C. (2004). Principles of economics (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

94

Higher Education in Review

Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (2000). The business of borderless education: UK perspectives [summary report]. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/ BorderlessSummary. pdf Committee on Education and the Workforce. (2006, April 6). Building America’s competitiveness: Examining what is needed to compete in a global economy. Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives, 109th Congress. Serial No. 109-34. Retrieved November 3, 2007, from http://frwebgate.access. gpo.gov/cgibin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.181&filename=27978. pdf&directory=/diska/wais/data/109_house_hearings Council of Graduate Schools. (2006). Graduate applications from international students increase significantly but numbers remain below 2003 levels. CSG Press Release. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from http://www.cgsnet.org/ portals/0/pdf/N_pr_intlapps06_1.pdf Douglass, J. A. (2006). The waning of America’s higher education advantage: International competitors are no longer number two and have big plans in the global economy. Center for Studies in Higher Education: Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.9.06. Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROP.Douglass.Advantage.9.06. pdf Eggins, H. (Ed.). (2003). Globalization and reform in higher education. Berkshire, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Field, K. (2005). Educators cast a wary eye at U.S. panel: Some fear federal intrusion into academe; others are pleased by the attention. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(8), pp. A1-A24. Retrieved February 3, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/ v52/i08/08a00101.htm Fielden, J. (2001). Markets for ‘borderless education.’ Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy, 39(1), 49-62. Hinjosa, R. (2007). Opening statement at the higher educations subcommittee hearing on the Higher Education Act. March 8, 2007. Washington, DC. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from http://hinojosa.house.gov/apps/list/press/ tx15_hinojosa/pr030807highered.shtml Hugo, G. (2004). International migration in the Asia-Pacific region: Emerging trends and issues. In D. S. Massey, & J. E. Taylor (Eds.), International migration: Prospects and policies in a global market (pp. 77-103). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hutcheson, P. (2007). Setting the nation’s agenda for higher education: A review of selected national commission reports, 1947-2006. History of Education Quarterly, 47(3), 359-367. Kaye, T., & Rumble, G. (1996). Open universities: A comparative approach. In Z. Morsy & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Higher education in an international perspective: Critical issues. UNESCO International Bureau of Education. New York: Garland.

George-Jackson

95

Keane, J. (2003). Global civil society? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, E., & Kim, E. Y. (November, 2006). The converging force of performancebased funding: The case of South Korean higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Anaheim, CA. Knight, J. (2005). Cross-border education: Not just students on the move. International Higher Education, 41, 2-3. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/ avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe41.pdf MacLeod, D., & Ford, L. (2006). On the brink of a revolution: Manchester and the Open University want to snap up the foreign learners of the future. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/ overseasstudents/story/0,,1719178,00.html Massachusetts Institute of Technology (n.d.). MITOpenCourseWare. Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index. htm Marginson, S. (2004). National and global competition in higher education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 31(2), 1-28. Middlehurst, R. (2001). University challenges: Borderless higher education, today and tomorrow. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy, 39(1), 3-26. Miller, C., & Oldham, C. (2006). Issue paper: Setting the context. A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/ bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/miller-oldham.pdf Morey, A. I. (2003). Major trends impacting faculty roles and rewards: An international perspective. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Globalization and reform in higher education (pp. 68-84). Berkshire, England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2002). Education for citizenship in an era of global connection. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 21(4/5), 289-303. Parry, G. (2007). Examining higher education: A comparative view of national inquiries. In D. Watson and M. Amoah (Eds.), The Dearing Report: Ten years on (pp. 51-80). London: Institute of Education, University of London. Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (2005). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy (7th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. President’s Commission on Higher Education. (1948). Higher education for American democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers. Ricardo, D. (1817). On the principles of political economy, and taxation (1st ed.). London: J. Murray. Sidhu, R. K. (2006). Universities and globalization: Market to market. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

96

Higher Education in Review

Taylor, W. (2003). Steering change in tertiary education. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Globalization and reform in higher education (pp. 11-31). Berkshire, England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. The World Bank (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise. The Task Force on Higher Education and Society. Washington, DC: The World Bank. U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Press release: Secretary Spellings announces new commission on the future of higher education. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/09/09192005.html U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). Charter: A national dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/ hiedfuture/charter.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2005c). A national dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education [First Meeting Transcript, October 17, 2005]. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http:// www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/ hiedfuture/trans-10172005.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2005d). A national dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education [Second Meeting Transcript, Day 1, December 8, 2005]. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/about/ bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/2nd-meeting/ transcripts-1.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2006a). A national dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education [Third Meeting Transcript, Day 1, February 2, 2006]. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http:// www.ed.gov/about/ bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/3rd-meeting/transcripts-1.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2006b). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 28, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/prepub-report.pdf U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform: A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author. Verbik, L., & Jokivirta, L. (2005). National regulatory approaches to transnational higher education. International Higher Education, 41, 6-8. Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ ihe41.pdf Ward, D. (2006). Statement by American Council on Education President David Ward on the final meeting of the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.acenet.edu/ AM/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Releases2&CONTENTID=17767&TEM PLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

George-Jackson

97

Wende, M. (2002). The role of U.S. higher education in the global e-learning market. Center for Studies in Higher Education: Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.1.02. Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http://cshe. berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROP.WendePaper1.02.pdf Williams, S. (2003). UNESCO in action education: Borderless education. The New Courier No. 2. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ ev.php-URL_ID=10402&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201. html Wood, B. J. G., Tapsall, S. M., & Soutar, G. N. (2005). Borderless education: Some implications for management. The International Journal of Educational Management, 19(5), 428-436.

Casey E. George-Jackson is a doctoral student in Educational Policy Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She can be reached at [email protected]. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the Association of the Study of Higher Education in Anaheim, CA. The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and comments.

Information for Contributors Higher Education in Review is an independent, refereed journal published by graduate students of the Higher Education Program at the Pennsylvania State University. Our mission is to make a substantive contribution to the higher education literature through the publication of high-quality research studies, scholarly papers, and literature reviews in areas related to the university, the four-year college, and the community college. In so doing, we provide graduate students first-hand experience with the publishing process. Higher Education in Review welcomes manuscripts that employ qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods; literature reviews that disclose relevant gaps in existing research on a relevant topic; theoretical analyses of important issues in higher education; policy analysis papers; reports of preliminary findings from a larger project (e.g., a dissertation); and historical papers. Submitted papers should have a clearly specified research question, a theoretical or conceptual framework, employ appropriate methods, and contribute new knowledge to the body of the higher education literature. Submissions are accepted year-round, with annual publication in April. Please visit the Higher Education in Review web site, http://www. clubs.psu.edu/up/hesa/HER/, for complete submission guidelines. Manuscripts should be submitted as Microsoft Word documents to [email protected].