Introduction
Though most of the discussion about the implications of recent globalisation trends has focused on issues relating to trade and other primarily economic issues, the education and culture sectors are by no means outside the globalisation process. Issues relating to the implications of national and indeed international restrictions on trade aimed at protecting the national cultural heritage have recently been discussed by ICOM in a series of feature articles in a themed special issue of ICOM News (2002/1vol. 55 no.1), while the World Trade Organization, established in 1995 to carry forward trade liberalisation into the new millennium, and which is the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), originally launched in 1948, now has more that 140 States around the world in membership. Also, it is important to realise that trade regulation (or deregulation) is now moving beyond the traditional field of trade in goods to cover intellectual property rights and issues (through TRIPS - Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), and both public and private services (through GATS - the General Agreement on Trade in Services) including the provision of education and training.
More immediately, within most of Europe at least there are now very active moves already in progress which seek to establish full mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications, which in turn will require the adoption of common standards and quality assurance systems. State-level accreditation of university qualifications has existed in certain American States and in some individual countries for many years, but the latest stage is taking these systems and measures to the international level. In fact, within the now fifteen countries of the European Union (soon to be expanded by the addition of ten more countries) the principle of the mutual recognition of all national vocational qualifications was established as long ago as 1979, in order to implement the principle under the European Treaties of guaranteeing freedom of movement and employment for all European Union citizens. However, the actual implementation of this principle on the basis of negotiating agreements on qualifications one profession at a time have proved difficult and extraordinarily slow. Reportedly, the EU's negotiations for the recognition of qualifications for hairdressers took more than twenty years, and those over the mutual recognition of architectural qualifications took even longer.
Consequently, radical changes have been in the way that the EU principle of free movement of labour is now being implemented, with a special focus on the planned mutual recognition and acceptance of all university degrees and vocational qualifications. This in turn needs agreement on what constitutes a course of study at a given level and for a particular subject area and qualification, and on the examination and other assessment arrangements. This principle clearly required mutual confidence in the regulatory and quality assurance systems that each country, and each higher education institution within them, are using the ensure that standards of qualifications and student achievement are comparable from country to country.
There are now a number of important moves towards the defining of common standards at the international level. For example, the 1999 Bologna Declaration agreed by nearly forty countries in membership of the Council of Europe is now being implemented across almost the whole of Europe. This seeks to establish comparability and minimum standards between university degree titles, together with the length of periods of study and the levels of attainment in relation to each.
At the global level, the current General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) treaty, which established the World Trade Organisation (WTO), does not compel any of the more than 140 Member States of the WTO to include the provision of university and other higher education within the new General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) regime under the WTO. However, already 44 WTO Member States, including the USA and the European Union (on behalf of the current 15 EU Member States), have announced their commitment to bilateral and multilateral GATS negotiations on the liberalisation of "trade" in the provision of educational services and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, (which would bring such provision within the GATS mandatory dispute resolution system in relation to an such otherwise voluntary international agreements).
This paper will review the current - and rapidly-changing - situation as an increasing number of countries move towards both the opening up of their university and related educational provision and qualifications to global competition, and moved to standardise degree titles, levels and professional qualifications to facilitate this, and will consider both the positive benefits and possible negative implications in relation to museum professional qualifications.
Europe's High Education Qualifications Convention, Lisbon 1997
In fact, even before the EU has completed the mutual recognition of qualifcations process in relation to its member States (and to the applicant countries awaiting formal entry), a series of much wider European initiatives have begun, initially as bilateral or multilateral agreements between European States, but now within the framework of the Council of Europe's Higher Education programme (which now covers more than 40 European countries).
Within Europe the current phase of the process began with the Council of Europe's Lisbon, 1997, Convention of the recognition of qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (ETS 195), now ratified by 30 countries. The key objectives of this are summarised very clearly in several paragraphs of the Preamble to the Convention, e.g.:
"Considering that the recognition of studies, certificates, diplomas and degrees obtained in another country of the European region represents an important measure promoting academic mobility between the Parties; ....
Convinced that a fair recognition of qualifications is a key element of the right to education and a responsibility of society,..."
Some of the key objectives of the Lisbon Convention relate to the provision and exchange of information on each country's arrangements for the recognition and assessment of higher education institutions and programmes. Where this is within the constitutional and legal powers of government itself the provisions of the Convention are to be applied directly. Where the required legal competence lies with individual higher education institution, such as a legally autonomous university, States that are parties to the Convention undertake to "transmit the text of this convention to these institutions or entities and shall take all possible steps to encourage the favourable consideration and application of its provisions" (Article II.1).
Recent United Kingdom experience suggests that in practice it is not difficult for governments to bring legally autonomous universities and other higher education institutions into line with national and international policies and priorities by applying financial pressure, such as making compliance with such qualification and quality assurance standards a condition of for continuing to receive grants and other public funding.
More specific provisions of the Lisbon Convention relevant to the issue of museum qualifications and globalisation include the following:
"Article VI.1
To the extent that a recognition decision is based on the knowledge and skills certified by the higher education qualification, each Party shall recognize the higher education qualifications conferred in another Party, unless a substantial difference can be shown between the qualification for which recognition is sought and the corresponding qualification in the Party in which recognition is sought....
"Article VIII.1
Each Party shall provide adequate information on any institution belonging to its higher education system, and on any programme operated by these institutions, with a view to enabling the competent authorities of other Parties to ascertain whether the quality of the qualifications issued by these institutions justifies recognition in the Party in which recognition is sought...."
"Article VIII.2
Each Party shall make adequate provisions for the development, maintenance and provision of:
a. an overview of the different types of higher education institutions belonging to its higher education system, with the typical characteristics of each type of institution;
b. a list of recognized institutions (public and private) belonging to its higher education system, indicating their powers to award different types of qualifications and the requirements for gaining access to each type of institution and programme;
c. a description of higher education programmes;
d. a list of educational institutions located outside its territory which the Party considers as belonging to its education system.
"Very significantly, there is much government level interest in the principles of the 1997 Lisbon Convention outside the European region, and the signatory States now include Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United States. None of these has yet completed the formal ratification process, but it is clear that the Lisbon Convention has broad support in countries representing well over one billion of the world's population, (and probably more than half the world's higher education students).
The Bologna Declaration, 1999
Two years on from Lisbon, a further major step forward in the direction of the mutual recognition and standardising of university and related qualifications and standards came on 19th June 1999 with the Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Higher Education on the European Higher Education Area Convened in Bologna, initiating what has become known as the "Bologna Process" , which is now formally supported by 29 European States (and actively supported by some key non-European countries in addition), and which is to be completed by 2010.
In relation to this paper's consideration of the issue of globalisation, it is particularly important to note immediately that a key element of the Bologna Declaration was the explicit aim "to promote the European system of higher education world-wide". The key provisions are:
"Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees, also through the implementation of the Diploma Supplement, in order to promote European citizens employability and the international competitiveness of the European higher education system;
"Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate. Access to the second cycle shall require successful completion of first cycle studies, lasting a minimum of three years. The degree awarded after the first cycle shall also be relevant to the European labour market as an appropriate level of qualification. The second cycle should lead to the master and/or doctorate degree as in many European countries;
"Establishment of a system of credits - such as in the ECTS [European Credit Transfer Scheme] system - as a proper means of promoting the most widespread student mobility. Credits could also be acquired in non-higher education contexts, including lifelong learning, provided they are recognised by the receiving universities concerned;
"Promotion of mobility by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of free movement with particular attention to:
- for students, access to study and training opportunities and to related services;
- for teachers, researchers and administrative staff, recognition and valorisation of periods
spent in a European context researching, teaching and training, without prejudicing their
statutory rights;
"Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies;
"Promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education, particularly with regards to curricular development, inter-institutional co-operation, mobility schemes and integrated programmes of study, training and research.
Of particular note is in relation to Bologna is the resolution of the century-long difference between what might be termed "Continental" and "Anglo-Saxon" (British, American and Commonwealth) university practice in terms of the structure, terminology and - not least - duration of university degrees and qualifications. On this point, the Bologna Declaration in effect adopted the compromise agreed in the bilateral discussions between the United Kingdom and France and several other countries at the Sorbonne, Paris, in 1998, and all "Bologna States" are now pledged to adopt no later than the end of 2009 a two "cycle" system, with a First Cycle (i.e. Undergraduate) degree structure based on a minimum of three years' full-time study or its equivalent) and a Second Cycle (i.e. Postgraduate) degree or diploma course structure open to those with a First Cycle qualification (e.g. Bachelor's degree or Licence).
Two other major areas within which there is now a clear commitment to standardisation between countries (and indeed from university or other institution to university within each country where this does not yet exist) are quality assurance criteria and methodologies and Credit Transfer and Accumulation Schemes (CATS) (including provisions for the recognition of of life-long learning and credits for non-higher education experience). Finally, but by no means least, of special relevance to the question of globalisation trends and international standardisation are the commitments international and inter-institutional cooperation in curricular development, mobility schemes and integrated programmes of study, training and research.
Implementing Bologna
The June 1999 decisions at Bologna set in progress a wide range of discussions, meetings and implementation measures at international, national and institutional levels. For example, the March 2001 Salamanca, Spain, conference of over 300 higher education institutions on "Shaping the European Higher Education Area" proposed a system of first degrees based on between 180 and 240 ECTS "first cycle" level academic credit points (each point being equivalent to about 10 learning hours per year).
Salamanca also recognised that degree programmes need to address the needs of students in relation to requirements of the labour market, and "...the development of transversal skills and competencies such as communication and languages, ability to mobilise knowledge, problem solving, team work and social processes". It is pleasing to see that such a large and distinguished gathering has identified precisely those "transferable" skills and competences that ICTOP had already recognised and incorporated in the latest ICOM-ICTOP Curricula Guidelines for Museum Professional Development.
The same month (March 2001) the Goteborg, Sweden, conference of European students' unions supported Bologna, and amongst other things argued that:
"A common European framework of criteria for accreditation and a compatible system of degrees is needed, in order to make sure that credits accumulated in different countries or at different institutions are transferable and lead to a recognisable degree.... To guarantee and improve the quality of higher education, a strong European cooperation of the national quality assurance systems is needed. Accreditation, being a certification of a programme, takes into account, among other criteria, the quality assurance process and should be used as a tool to promote quality."
Salamanca and Goteborg meetings of institutions and student organisations respectively each served in part as specialist preparatory meetings for the Meeting of European Higher Education Ministers held in Prague in May 2001. Among other things this stressed the importance of involving students as "competent, active and constructive partners" in higher education, on lifelong learning as an essential element of the European Higher Education Area, and on the role of higher education in building up "a knowledge-based society and economy". The Ministerial Meeting also addressed the need for closer cooperation in higher education quality assurance procedures and systems, stating:
"Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance
Ministers recognised the vital role that quality assurance systems play in ensuring high quality standards and in facilitating the comparability of qualifications throughout Europe. They also encouraged closer cooperation between recognition and quality assurance networks.... Further they encouraged universities and other higher education institutions to disseminate examples of best practice and to design scenarios for the mutual acceptance of evaluation and accreditation/certification mechanisms. Ministers called upon the universities and other higher education institutions, national agencies and the European Network of Quality assurance in Higher Education (ENQA).... and to collaborate in establishing a common framework of reference and to disseminate best practice."
The Ministerial Meeting was in turn soon followed by the 2nd meeting of the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee, held in Riga, Latvia, in July 2001. This concentrated mainly on the issue of the principles and methods of assessment of foreign qualifications. However, some of the conclusions and recommendations are of more general application in relation to recognition and validation, for example the in relation to course objectives in Paragraph 37 of the Riga Recommendations:
"Examples of learning outcomes may be one or more of the following:
(a) broad knowledge of a specific subject;
(b) understanding of research results in a specific
subject;
(c) ability to analyse and solve problems;
(d) ability to communicate effectively - orally and in
writing - with diverse groups on complex issues;
(e) ability to apply research results with routine skills
and in a fixed domain;
(f) ability to apply research results and to adapt routine
skills to new domains;
(g) ability to conduct research;
(h) ability to discern conflicting theories or paradigms;
(i) ability to pursue a specific occupation or profession at operational, management or
technology development level
."Most recently, there was a further Lisbon meeting: a Seminar on Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process, April 2002, which offered further recommendations of relevance to all European (and wider) higher education programmes, including those in the museum and heritage field. Points of special significance included:
"To the higher education institutions
" Develop discussion on learning outcomes and competences, in order to help move recognition procedures away from formal issues such as length of study and names of courses, and towards procedures based on the results of student learning.....
Develop appropriate human resources and staff policies to meet the challenges, especially to ensure that all staff (academic and administrative) are fully aware of European best practice in the field
Include recognition issues and procedures in your internal quality assurance procedures, to continue to develop these fields for the benefit of the institution, its staff and students.
"To Ministers responsible for Higher Education
· In response to concerns expressed by a part of the higher education community, including some students, make clear that new degree structures should continue to ensure that higher education promotes three main qualities in its graduates:
- Preparation for the labour market
- Preparation for active citizenship
- Preparation for continued personal development
· Encourage further work at national and European levels on the issue of learning outcomes"
National implementation measures: the case of the England, Wales and Northern Ireland
For more than a decade successive United Kingdom governments have been seeking far-reaching reforms in higher education. As part of this process the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) was established in 1997. Its mission is defined as "to promote public confidence that quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced", and the QAA is required to provide an integrated quality assurance service for UK higher education. It also has a key role in advising the Government on applications for degree awarding powers and the granting of the title of "university" or "university college", and it also licenses the agencies that validate Access to Higher Education courses.
Though created as a result of a Government initiative and requirement for the independent assessment of the quality of higher education institutions and their qualifications, the QAA is legally an independent body funded by subscriptions from universities and colleges of higher education, and through contracts with the main higher education funding bodies. Its main activity is the review the quality and standards of UK higher education, through systems of auditing the way in which each university and college manages the overall quality and standards of its provision; and by reviewing academic standards and the quality of teaching and learning in each subject area.
In its early years QAA was focused mainly on systematic detailed quality audits of the quality assurance systems and arrangements of every UK university and other higher education institution, and on every teaching unit or course within each institution - grouped within one or other of nearly one hundred academic and professional degree and diploma subject areas. Increasingly, however, the QAA is moving towards a more strategy and standards-setting role, and has recently been issuing national standards, guidelines and information on best practice for the continued recognition of university qualifications and the establishment of new courses at all levels, from sub-degree to doctoral levels.
Every institution and every school, faculty or department within them, are now reviewing all their courses from the point of view of conformity with the new QAA principles and guidelines, and particularly in relation to qualification level, course curricula and content, and learning objectives and outcomes, very much along the along the lines of the Bologna Process, and many institutions are aiming to have these reviews completed by 2004-5, rather than the "Bologna" deadline of the end of 2009.
Since most UK museum, heritage, cultural management and related degrees and diplomas are at the postgraduate level, the QAA's criteria and requirements for the award of Master's degrees (in Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2001. The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Gloucester, England: QAA), are particularly relevant, so these are reproduced below, both for information in relation to the UK's implementation procedures and standards, and also as a possible model for other countries and institutions:
"Masters degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated:
i. a systematic understanding of knowledge
, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study, or area of professional practice;ii. a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship;
iii. originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and inquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline;
iv. conceptua
l understanding that enables the student:• to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline; and
• to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses.
"Typically, holders of the qualification wi
ll be able to:a. deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively
, make sound judgments in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences;b. demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level;
c. continue to advance their knowledge and understanding, and to develop new skills to a high level;
"and will have:
d. the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring:
• the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility;
• decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations; and
• the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development."
In relation to Bachelor (1st Cycle) level qualifications, the QAA is now in an advanced stage of consultation on Subject Benchmarks for Honours degree courses, which are defined by QAA as follows:
"Subject benchmark statements are used for a variety of purposes. Primarily, they are an important external source of reference for higher education institutions when new programmes are being designed and developed in a subject area. They provide general guidance for articulating the learning outcomes associated with the programme but are not a specification of a detailed curriculum in the subject. Benchmark statements provide for variety and flexibility in the design of programmes and encourage innovation within an agreed overall framework
Subject benchmark statements also provide support to institutions in pursuit of internal quality assurance. They enable the learning outcomes specified for a particular programme to be reviewed and evaluated against agreed general expectations about standards."
Already Benchmarks have been proposed for Honours Degree courses and awards across 47 broad subject areas, and it is expected that these will be formally adopted in the near future. Museum and heritage studies degrees are not covered at the moment, (probably because the UK has very few undergraduate degrees in this field), but the QAA has already proposed Benchmarks for Hospitality, Leisure, Sport or Tourism degrees, some of which may include museums, arts or heritage options. Key provisions of the proposed Benchmarks include:
"Knowledge and skills
"... graduates of all programmes in Hospitality, Leisure, Sport or Tourism will be able to demonstrate:
a critical understanding of the development of knowledge in their particular subject domain
an understanding of the need for both a multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach to study, drawing, as appropriate, from service, research and professional contexts
their understanding of the subject through both academic and professional reflective practice
their research and problem-solving abilities by critically understanding methods of acquiring,
interpreting and analysing information appropriate to their context of study
an understanding and critical awareness of, the moral, ethical, environmental and legal issues which underpin best practice.
"Intellectual skills
"The typical graduates of programmes in Hospitality, Leisure, Sport or Tourism will have developed a range of intellectual skills including being able to:
research and assess subject specific facts, theories, paradigms, principles and concepts
critically assess and evaluate evidence
critically interpret data and text
describe and analyse information
apply knowledge to the solution of familiar and unfamiliar problems
develop a reasoned argument and challenge assumptions
take responsibility for their own learning and continuing professional development.
"So far the QAA's main benchmarking efforts have been focused on first degree level qualifications, but some work on Master's level courses and qualifications are under way, including a Benchmarking Study of Academic Standards for Master's Awards in Business and Management. Apart from the fact that when adopted these will have an effect on advanced museum, heritage and cultural management programmes in the UK in relation to the globalisation debate, it is very significant indeed that international criteria, such as the standards of the International Association of MBAs and the Association of Business Schools and EQUAL European MBA guidelines, have been closely followed. For example, while more than half of the UK universities offering an MBA (Masters in Business Administration) will accept newly qualified graduates without working experience, this is contrary to these international guidelines, which recommend that all prospective students should have at least two years' management or professional level working experience before admission to and MBA course. The QAA Benchmark accepts this, and it seems that if this is adopted perhaps 60 to 80 UK Business Schools or Departments will have to either change their entry requirements, or - more likely - change the name of their programmes to something other than MBA (e.g. MA or MSc in Management).
GATS: liberalising the international higher education market
As already noted in the introduction to this paper, the World Trade liberalisation process includes a number of subsidiary or related agreements alongside the long-standing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the 1995 Statutes and Procedures of the World Trade Organisation, including the General Agreement on Trade in Service (GATS). which among many other sectors includes International Trade in the provision of Educational Services. This is being viewed with much alarm in higher education circles in some countries, while in others (and indeed sometimes in other institutions within the same country) as an opportunity to greatly expand income generation and student recruitment to the financial benefit of those universities (particularly in the "developed" world) that would be permitted to set up courses and subsidiary centres in other countries on a revenue-producing basis.
At the present time GATS remains completely outside the main provisions of the GATT/WTO trade liberalisation process (and which are in effect compulsory for all 140 States in membership of the WTO). Instead, any action under GATS will be based - in effect - on bilateral or multilateral agreements that may be reached between those countries which register a willingness to consider trade liberalisation in relation to the provision and regulation of educational services and related areas, e.g. the official recognition of qualifications. By the 1 April 2002 deadline fixed for starting the initial round of GATS negotiations (2002 - 2005) only 36 out of the 144 WTO member States had registered a willingness to at least consider negotiations on the liberalisation of higher education provision: Australia, Congo Republic, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Hungary, Jamaica, Japan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Sierra Leone, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland, Trinidad & Tobago, United States of America, together with the European Union - acting in the name of all its 15 members: i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
It is probably very significant that the majority of the countries so far committed are those in the "developed" world which already "liberalised" in terms of having a competitive market internally, and which are also very active in the international "trade" in higher education - through the recruitment of foreign students and in many cases through the provision of branch institutions and "franchised" courses in foreign countries. However, there are exceptions even within the "developed" world, such as Greece, which has been under fire for some years over its refusal to recognise the degrees of local private universities and e.g. those of colleges and branches of even the most reputable American or other foreign universities, while Spain, France and Italy, among others, still retain some overt or indirect national restrictions over e.g. entries to public sector employment.
Four of the States seeking early action on higher education liberalisation have now registered formal "communications" on their objectives with the WTO's Council for Trade in Services, which has been established to facilitate and promote GATS negotiations. These are the USA (Higher Education, Adult Education and Training - 18/12/2000), New Zealand (Negotiating Proposal for Education Services - 26/06/2001), Australia (Negotiating Proposal for Education Services - 01/10/2001) and Japan (Negotiating Proposal for Education Services - 15/03/2002).
Japan's submission is a very cautious one, referring among other things to the marked differences in standards between the university degrees of different countries and to the activities of disreputable and exploitative "foreign e-Learning degree mills", and calls for the protection of the learner to be the overriding priority. However, the Australian, New Zealand and American submissions are basically all strongly pro-liberalisation, though those of Australia and New Zealand are rather more cautious than those of the United States, whose agenda is very clearly stated in the 18th December 2000 Higher Education, Adult Education and Training submission already referred to.
Among other things this stresses the potential role it sees for the commercial sector in the provision of higher education and training, and also seeks to protect the USA's already very substantial international market in the field of educational testing, particularly for university and business school admissions (e.g. the TOEFL English language competence testing scheme and the GMAT test for Business School admissions, both of which are copyright proprietary products, and apparently highly profitable).
Key elements of the USA's declared negotiating position already referred to include:
" 3. The purpose of this proposal is to help create conditions favorable to suppliers of higher education, adult education, and training services by removing and reducing obstacles to the transmission of such services across national borders through electronic or physical means, or to the establishment and operation of facilities (schools, classrooms or offices) to provide services to students in their home country or abroad. This would apply to countries that permit private education, not to countries that maintain exclusively public systems....
5. In terms of this proposal, "higher education" includes all tertiary education (i.e., education beyond secondary education), adult education, and training services. Such education and training encompass degree courses taken for college or university credits or non-degree courses taken for personal edification or pleasure or to upgrade work-related skills. Such education and training services can be provided in traditional institutional settings, such as universities or schools, or outside of traditional settings, including at workplaces, in the home, or elsewhere....
7. This paper proposes discussion of various aspects of an open regime in the education and training sector. This would entail countries considering to apply existing GATS market access and national treatment disciplines, as well as additional GATS disciplines addressing sector-specific regulatory issues, including transparency and fairness of administration. Consistent with these disciplines, governments would retain the right to regulate to meet domestic policy objectives. Moreover, this proposal recognizes that in this sector governments will continue to play important roles as suppliers of services.
8. ...this proposal for higher education, adult education, and training services.... does not seek to displace public education systems. It seeks to supplement public education systems, affording opportunities for suppliers to make their services available to students in other countries. The intent is to help upgrade knowledge and skills through these educational and training programs, while respecting each country's role of prescribing and administering appropriate public education for its citizens....
The more detailed objectives include the removal of direct and indirect "obstacles in this sector" arising from current regulatory or other national measures, and which the USA seeks to have removed, are then listed in some detail. Examples that they give include:
Conclusions
The 32 years since the creation of the ICOM International Committee for the Training of Personnel - ICTOP - in 1968, have undoubtedly seen enormous advances in professional education and specialised training for museum and related work. For example, the first published ICTOP directory of museum training courses and programmes, which appeared in 1970, detailed less than 30 around the world, and most of these had been quite recently established at that time. (Probably no more than a dozen dated back to the 1950s or earlier.) This can be compared with the many hundreds of such vocational courses and programmes today, reflecting the past half-century's explosive growth not just in museum training but in world-wide museum and heritage provision requiring trained professional staff.
ICTOP's work in helping to both promote the concept of, and the need for, professional training has undoubtedly been very important in this, with the work on curriculum development as a particular highlight - from the original 1971 UNESCO-ICOM Basic Syllabus for Museum Professional Training through the 1978 and 1987 revisions, and which has now been completely rewritten as the 2000 ICOM-ICTOP Curricula Guidelines for Museum Professional Development.
However, with the various complex globalisation and international standards measures already in progress, (and this paper has only been able to highlight a few key aspects of these) it seems very likely that the next four or five years will see even greater changes across ICTOP's field of operation and responsibility than those seen over ICTOP's previous 30+ year history. We are already many years ahead of most related areas of professional or technical employment in having the old Basic Syllabus and now the current Curricula Guidelines as international guidance on the structure and content of museology, heritage and museum management courses and programmes, and we need to be actively promoting these as work proceeds on the development of course and qualification benchmarks and other standards at both the national level (for example the current Quality Assurance Agency - QAA programme in the United Kingdom), and at the international level, (such as possible initiatives as part of the "Bologna Process" through most if not all of Europe, and in any non-European countries that decided to accept the 1997 Lisbon Convention and its supplementary measures). In fact, the ICTOP Curricula Guidelines have already anticipated the Lisbon/Bologna moves towards competence-based teaching, leaning and qualifications, and the new emphasis on the need for every student to develop a wide range of transferable skills, not just knowledge of traditional academic course content.
Less than a year ago there was a widespread fear, and not just among anti-globalisation campaigners, that the coming into effect of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) would lead to an almost immediate "cultural colonisation" of higher education and qualifications by the educational institutions of a few very powerful countries and by Western (particularly American) commercial (for-profit) educational corporations. However, the initial registrations of willingness to entrer into bilateral or multilateral discussions on the possible liberalisation of trade in higher education and vocational training over the initial period of GATS negotiations (2002 - 2005) suggest that the majority of the initial discussions will be over relatively marginal issues in relation to the operation of foreign and private educational service bodies within the "developed" countries themselves.
This probably reflects the reality of market forces in this sector at the present time: there are clearly much bigger and potentially more profitable areas of service provision in which trade liberalisation is being actively sought, such as banking, insurance and health service provision. However, there is little doubt that both commercial interests and the more entrepreneurial public universities and other higher education establishments will be very active in seeking new markets and trading opportunities within the fields of higher and vocational education and qualifications within the almost forty countries that have expressed a willingness to open such negotiations.
Looking slightly further ahead, it is to be expected that the major international economic powers, such as those which have already "signed up" to negotiating on higher education liberalisation within GATS, will be pressing many other countries to join the higher education GATS as quickly as possible. Indeed, this is quite explicit in the initial negotiating memoranda of Australia, New Zealand and the USA already referred to above, and that before the end of the decade a substantial majority of WTO member states will be within the higher education liberalisation system.
Page maintained by: Patrick Boylan, Department of Arts Policy and Management, City University, Frobisher Crescent, Barbican, London EC2Y 8HB, United Kingdom, e-mail: P.Boylan@city.ac.uk
(Patrick J. Boylan, revised 27 December 2002)