CHEA and ACE Letter—Comments About Inclusion of Higher Education Service in Pending World Trade Organization Negotiations
June 20, 2001
Mr. Joseph Papovich
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
Services, Investment and Intellectual Property
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
600 17th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20508
Dear Mr. Papovich:
Thank you very much for taking time to meet with representatives of
the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA) to discuss the U.S. position regarding inclusion
of higher education service in pending World Trade Organization (WTO)
negotiations. The meeting was very useful, and we hope it gave you an
appreciation of the three unique features characterizing the higher
education sector in the United States: (1) a large mix of public and
private institutions, including a large non-profit sector; (2) institutional
autonomy; and (3) decentralized governance.
At this juncture, we want to reiterate our serious
reservations about the possible inclusion of higher education under
the higher (tertiary) education services sector of the GATS. We do not
believe the proposal reflects what would be in the best interests of
U.S. colleges and universities or of the country as a whole. In addition,
given the fundamental differences between the higher education sector
in the United States and the rest of the world, ACE and CHEA doubt the
ability of WTO members to fashion a common set of rules governing trade
in higher education services that avoids undermining those features
of the U.S. system that have contributed to its great strength and international
appeal.
Is GATS an appropriate mechanism to foster international
trade in education services? The question of whether and to what extent
such services should be covered in GATS is a complicated one that implicates
a host of sensitive issues for higher education. These include a number
of areas we touched on when we met with you:
- Any effort to distinguish
between public and private education is unworkable in view of the
diversity among U.S. higher education institutions. While we were
encouraged by your comment that USTR does not intend to discriminate
between education institutions on this basis, we are skeptical that
language can be drafted that assures such a result. To illustrate
the problem, we note that for covered sectors, the GATS rules apply
to measures taken by governments and by non-governmental bodies
in the exercise of powers delegated by governments. Arguably, actions
taken by public institutions of higher education would be considered
"measures" under the GATS rules, while similar actions taken by
private institutions would not be so treated. As a result, U.S.
public higher education institutions would lose the autonomy that
is the hallmark of the quality of our system.
- U.S higher education
is highly decentralized, with most of the authority for public institutions
residing with the states and non-governmental accreditation bodies.
Private education, though nominally under the authority of the state,
is governed by private boards or councils, with similar mechanisms
of quality assurance. Thus, most of the governance and regulation
of private education is not a "government function"—whether
of state governments or the federal government. We believe it would
be very difficult for the U.S. government to make promises about
these individual institutions and systems, whether public or private,
that could be sustained in practice.
- Quality assurance with
respect to the import and export of education services must be a
key consideration in drafting any trade rules for this sector. At
the same time, such rules must take account of the fact that quality
assurance is not a governmental function in the United States, but
is accomplished through industry self-regulation. Introduction of
government regulations in this arena would be detrimental to U.S.
interests.
- Any effort to deal with
higher education services in the context of a trade agreement must
address the concerns of developing countries to ensure that it does
not undermine their own efforts to develop and enhance their domestic
higher education systems. The U.S. proposals should explicitly recognize
the special needs of developing countries, as has been done in agriculture.
- Attention needs to be
paid to the service-to-the-public-interest role that U.S. higher
education institutions play to assure that any regulation does not
impede this valuable capacity, either in the United States or abroad.
- We are also concerned
about the heavy focus of U.S. government attention on private, for-profit
institutions. As a result, in some quarters the United States is
perceived as seeking to "Americanize" and "privatize" higher education
throughout the world. This perception could, in turn, impede the
productive partnerships that higher education institutions have
developed with institutions in other countries. Indeed, the success
our members have had in developing such relationships suggests the
availability of other means to enhance export opportunities for
U.S. educational services without the potential adverse impacts
on the current U.S. system that could result from U.S. proposals.
Again,
thank you for taking the time to discuss a subject that is so important
to our members. We wish to work closely with USTR as you continue
to formulate the government's policy concerning this aspect of the
service negotiations. We would also like to include you in several
upcoming ACE and CHEA events and will be contacting your office shortly
with details. We look forward to continuing to work with you on these
issues.
Sincerely,
|
