A report released last week by Nafsa: Association of International Educators offers up a set of principles for managing study abroad but steers clear of prescribing specific changes in campus policies on overseas study.
It comes five months after an investigation by the New York State attorney general raised questions about some of the business practices that have sprung up as the industry has expanded.
The report, “Strengthening Study Abroad: Recommendations for Effective Institutional Management for Presidents, Senior Administrators, and Study Abroad Professionals,” makes clear that those programs can no longer afford to be seen as add-ons to campus life and the concern of just a few staff members.
“Study abroad must not be an island on campus,” it notes. “Leadership at top levels on campus is essential to cultivating support for study abroad.”
To that end, the committee that prepared the report lays out core standards to guide college officials in areas like institutional planning, financial resources, and accountability. The panel calls on college leaders to make study abroad an “integral element” in their institutions’ academic missions, to set clear procedures for approval of overseas programs and courses, and to put in place financial-aid policies that encourage greater student participation.
“We wanted to give senior leadership an overarching framework,” said John K. Hudzik, the panel’s chairman, “not a list of ‘thou shalts, thou shalt nots.’”
The panel, composed of college presidents and high-ranking administrators, was convened last August just days before New York’s attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, announced an investigation into the financial relationships between colleges and overseas-program providers.
The report, however, makes only cursory acknowledgment of the allegations of conflict of interest, saying the committee’s members expect such behavior to be “limited in scope,” and it stops short of recommending that colleges cease some of the practices apparently being scrutinized by Mr. Cuomo, such as free trips to study-abroad locations for university officials and discounted rates in return for exclusive access to students.
Rather, the committee calls on study-abroad offices to be more open in their decision making and to demonstrate that their policies directly benefit students.
Panel members say their charge was never to answer Mr. Cuomo’s move to subpoena nearly a dozen overseas providers about their financial dealings with colleges.
“Yes, it was a catalyst,” Mr. Hudzik, vice president for global engagement and strategic projects at Michigan State University, said of the investigation. “But the report was not meant to be a direct response.”
Given the rapid growth of study abroad over the last decade — and increased interest in the field by students, administrators, and policy makers — Mr. Hudzik and others said it was time to take a “systematic” look at how colleges manage it.
Marlene M. Johnson, Nafsa’s executive director, said the report was purposefully set at a “macropolicy level” to avoid getting bogged down in specific policy prescriptions that might not apply to all types of institutions. Colleges have different cultures, missions, and even methods of financing study abroad, she noted. Practices appropriate to a land-grant university, for example, might not work at a small liberal-arts college.
“I believe in issuing reports that will be read,” said Ms. Johnson, who was one of a dozen panel members. “And I believe that if we got into the weeds, this report would not be read.”
Likewise, the international-education group made the deliberate choice to direct the committee’s recommendations toward chancellors, presidents, and provosts, not just to study-abroad directors. As the field has expanded, it has grown in complexity to involve many different campus players, including academic departments, university lawyers, and financial-aid offices, Ms. Johnson said.
She argued that it took top leadership to bring those stakeholders together and to establish a common vision for study abroad.
The panel also says that institutions must develop a sustainable and stable financial plan to support study abroad. Sources of funds, the group notes, could include tuition, special fees, donations, and incentives negotiated with partners.
In addition, the panel recommends that:
-
Faculty members play a key role in planning and approving overseas programs and courses. Doing so can help foster a sense of ownership of study abroad among faculty members, the panel says.
-
Study-abroad options be regularly updated and evaluated to respond to academic opportunities and to student need.
-
Special attention be paid to health and safety concerns, and to managing institutional risk.
-
Financial-aid strategies encourage student participation in study abroad and that efforts be made to control costs. Colleges should seek to improve the portability of institutional financial aid and consider new sources of support for study abroad, including endowments for overseas study.
-
Clear policies governing issues such as conflict of interest, contracting, and transfer of credit be put in place and openly disclosed. Institutions should be able to explain their practices and demonstrate how they benefit students, the report says.
Copies of the report are available on the association’s Web site (http://www.nafsa.org).
http://chronicle.com Section: International Volume 54, Issue 20, Page A24
