4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section analyses the context, content and mechanisms of the implementation of the Code in terms of the theoretical framework outlined in Section Three.
However it does not detail the processes and outcomes of this initiative. They are presented and discussed in the sections which follow.
Given the closely linked nature of the two Evaluations, much of what follows is common to both, especially in the ‘context ‘ section
4.2 CONTENT
The ‘intervention’, i.e. the introduction and implementation of the mandatory Code can be seen to have the following characteristics.
• It went well beyond what had been established several years earlier in the voluntary Code of 1996.
• It was developed over quite a lengthy period of time, with a good deal of industry consultation and input.
• It offered mainly ‘free’ access to regional assistance, in that the PD
seminars and activities offered by Scott Strategic were free of charge, and both travel and teaching relief were provided when requested; while those offered by the TDO had only a small charge which fell short of covering costs.
• It offered further substantial assistance to institutions through the office of the Code Administrator and the Ministry website.
• Becoming a signatory was bounded by the six months time frame set out in the Code and the money to be paid to the Administrator.
• It was compulsory for all institutions who wished to retain and/or offer places to IS (as defined by the pre-December, 2002 legislation);
• This meant that it required all institutions to make a conscious decision to 'participate' or not.
• The application process was backed up by (initially) a sizeable printed guide, and later, by templates and samples of forms, contracts, etc., on the Ministry’s International website.
• The Code itself was not backed up by any general guidelines, with the exception of a set of guidelines relating to accommodation (Ministry of Education, 2002b).
In terms of the realist evaluation approach, the Code can definitely be seen as a form of programmed intervention. It sought to guarantee a minimum level of quality by a check on providers who already had good systems, by requiring those who did not to develop them, and by seeking to ensure that new providers had all necessary systems in place before taking on IS programmes.
4.3 CONTEXT
The context for all of the IS initiatives is extremely complex. While some aspects of the context are ‘universal’ to all participants - such as the political climate and the ‘international scene’ - other aspects are more sector or institution-specific.
This contextual complexity can be seen as affecting at least two key areas of the two linked evaluations: the mechanisms operating (see below), and the outcomes achieved.
The context of both evaluations involves a number of interacting factors. First and foremost, the publication of the government policy statement Export Education (2001a, 2001b), is a major influence on what is currently being evaluated. But, in another sense, the importance of the government policy may have much less
realisation of its economic importance, and attempted to develop, improve and regulate what was already happening.
This was partly also because of the second factor, the recent very rapid and enormous expansion in the numbers of IS coming to study in New Zealand. This increase was the result of a number of reasons, some of which were on-going, such as increasing internationalisation, the growth of the knowledge economy, and the wider effects of globalisation. Others were 'accidental', or derived from these larger developments, notably the changing political situation in the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC) which led to large numbers of PRC students being able to look for education overseas.
A significant internal factor was the previous legislation which allowed both an institution offering courses of less than three months to be free from NZQA requirements for registration and accreditation, and the opportunity for IS on visitors permits to enrol and study at such institutions.
A third factor is the neo-liberal political climate in New Zealand, which has a central tenet that government should minimise its involvement where industry and the market can (and should) be involved and that, while accountability should be a key requirement, responsibility should rest with providers (Olssen, 2000). The situation in the Ministry at the start of the Evaluations is an intriguing example of this approach. In early 2002, after the economic impact of IS in New Zealand in 2001 had been calculated to be in excess of one billion dollars in overseas currency earnings, the International Policy Unit of the Ministry comprised fewer than three permanent staff.
A fourth and linked factor is that the education sector has for some years been claiming that central funding is increasingly inadequate. Particularly in the public tertiary sector, there has been a growing need for institutions to generate funding through external sources, including contract research, bequests and donations, and through the much higher fees paid by international students. Estimates
involving three universities, for example, suggest that at least 10-15% of their total income is generated from IS fees.
In the course of the Evaluations, a fifth set of factors emerged as a major contextual influence. The outbreak of SARS, and subsequent restrictions on travel, particularly from PRC has had an important impact on New Zealand. This country has a much higher dependency on PRC as a source of students than others (Asia 2000, 2002, Education Review Office, 2003), and so a sharp decline from that country potentially affects New Zealand much more than it does others.
Again, while to date nothing as drastic has yet emerged, the very large
dependence on Korea as a source of IS in primary schools (more than 80% of all students), is a very important contextual factor. Along with these considerations, the New Zealand dollar has recently risen quite sharply against key international currencies, making New Zealand fees potentially less attractive than previously.
4.4 MECHANISMS
The contextual factors are of course closely linked to the mechanisms in the various IS initiatives evaluated in 2002-03. These mechanisms may be summed up as follows.
4.4.1 Enabling Mechanisms
Enabling mechanisms are those which support or bring about positive responses and/or actions relating to the interventions/programmes being evaluated. As noted above, these can be either individual or institutional responses, or both. The enabling mechanisms noted in data collection for the Code evaluation were as follows.10
• A genuine desire to learn more about quality provision for IS programmes and care on the part of a number of school personnel.
• A growing realisation that the Code and the process of becoming a
signatory could provide a number of benchmarks for such quality provision.
• An acceptance by many that the responsible individual and/or the institution had insufficient knowledge about IS students and their personal,
accommodation and programme needs.
• A realisation that the financial benefits of IS fees would be at risk unless quality programmes and care were being offered.
• A realisation that the 'industry' can stand or fall to a marked extent on the performance of the least competent providers.
• (In a few cases) a desire to use the Code as a way of persuading the institution as a whole to improve provisions for IS, particularly in terms of improving the skills and abilities of non-specialist staff.
4.4.2 Disabling Mechanisms
Disabling mechanisms are beliefs and/or policies currently held by individuals and/or institutions which support or bring about negative consequences and/or actions relating to the interventions/programmes being evaluated. The disabling mechanisms noted in the Code evaluation initiatives were as follows.
• An occasional belief on the part of an individual being interviewed that they 'knew it all' and that (sometimes), if only sufficient money were provided from the Levy, there would be no Code problems of any kind for 'their' institution.
• The apparent ignorance of a few providers as to the contextual factors which might drastically affect their programme. These providers seemed to assume that more and more IS would continue to come to New Zealand, and that all they needed to do was to expand their current IS capacity.11
• An anti-Ministry/central-control attitude, which was either connected to individual experience, or to a more general belief that the industry could do it, and why were government interfering by imposing a mandatory Code?
• Annoyance at financial factors linked to the Code implementation process, including both the Levy and various compliance costs.
11 This was certainly much less evident as tertiary institutions realised that new student numbers in 2003 were dropping, reportedly due to the SARS virus, the greater strength of the Kiwi dollar and greater competitiveness from other countries.
• An (assumed) attitude on the part of some primary school principals with only one or two IS a year, that giving up a full day or more for PD just to find out about the Code (especially when travel was involved), was not
sufficiently important for them to attend.
4.4 PROCESS AND OUTCOMES
These are detailed and discussed in subsequent sections.