1 Introduction
This chapter addresses quality assurance in tertiary education in Latin America and the Caribbean, and examines its progress, challenges and opportunities for improvement. With a focus on efficiency, relevance and transformative power, it analyses how national bodies, universities and regional networks are implementing strategies to strengthen educational quality.
This study is based on a comprehensive analysis of the regulatory framework governing quality assurance in tertiary education across Latin American countries and Caribbean islands. Its inputs are direct consultations with key stakeholders from external quality assurance bodies and ministries of education. Furthermore, the research methodology includes surveys and focus groups to capture diverse perspectives. The chapter concludes with practical recommendations tailored to the specific needs of the region.
This chapter is structured in three sections. Section 1 Landscape Analysis provides a detailed overview of the current state of tertiary education and the development of quality assurance systems, based on regulatory sources and consultations with key stakeholders. Section 2 Methodology and Findings contains an analysis of the results of surveys and focus groups, highlighting trends and perceptions from external quality assurance bodies and universities. Finally, section 3 Discussion and Conclusions offers a discussion of the findings and recommendations aimed at promoting more inclusive, relevant, and transformative tertiary education in the region.
2.1 Expansion and Diversification of Tertiary Education Systems in Latin America and the Caribbean
The massification of tertiary education in the region was driven by a range of factors, with different intensity across the different countries and islands. These include public policies designed to expand access, the transition to knowledge-based economies, and the multiplication and diversification of tertiary education institutions (TEI s) and academic programmes.
The growth in enrolment in the region had inclusivity implications: for the first time, a segment of the population that had been traditionally excluded –most commonly, the first generation of university students in their families – was able to access tertiary education. However, despite efforts to reduce financial barriers for access, a significant gap persists for students from low-income communities. This challenge, in a region characterised by high rates of poverty and inequality, underscores the need to prioritise policies that promote social mobility.
The evolution of tertiary education in the region shows significant differences between two subregions: the countries of South and Central America (hereinafter referred to as Latin American countries) on the one hand, and the Caribbean islands, on the other. The differences lie in historical development, institutional diversity, and quality assurance frameworks. Latin America’s tertiary education system, shaped by processes of massification and privatisation, includes a mix of public and private universities, along with institutions with a technical, pedagogical, or professional orientation. In contrast, the Caribbean relies on regional institutions, such as the University of the West Indies, and a limited number of national entities. There are also differences in quality assurance: Latin America has a series of structured national accreditation systems, whereas the Caribbean focuses on institutional registration and voluntary accreditation. These distinctions warrant a separate analysis in this chapter.
2.2 Development of Tertiary Education in Latin American Countries
The expansion of enrolment in Latin American countries has significantly diversified the tertiary education landscape, evolving from a system predominantly characterised by large public universities to a complex and heterogeneous network. During the colonial era, at least 33 TEI s were established, although approximately 25% ceased operations around 1825, following independence movements (Brunner, 1990). In the twentieth century, the university reform movement advanced institutional autonomy and co-governance, raising the number of public universities to 75. Between the 1960s and the early
Since 2020, the tertiary education system in Latin America and the Caribbean has been going through a consolidation phase, reaching an enrolment of 29.4 million students and achieving a gross enrolment rate of 51.8% (UNESCO, n.d.). INQAAHE’s first global study (2020) highlighted how increased enrolment coincided with institutional diversification, driven by both massification and privatisation. However, disparities in access and quality have persisted. By 2022, despite further enrolment growth reaching 31.1 million students1 (UNESCO, n.d.) and progress towards universal access, socio-economic inequalities continue to limit opportunities in tertiary education. According to CINDA (2024), students from the highest income quintile constitute 50% of the enrolment in countries such as Brazil, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Panamá, while those from the lowest quintile account for less than 10%. Additionally, the region’s income inequality remains pronounced, with Jamaica (Gini coefficient of 40.2), Brazil (52.0), and Colombia (54.8) ranking among the ten most unequal countries globally (World Bank, 2025).
In response to these disparities, several economic strategies were implemented to facilitate access to tertiary education. Tuition-free education, intrinsic to Argentina’s tertiary education system and adopted in Chile as a public policy since 2016, is one prominent measure. Scholarship initiatives, such as Brazil’s ProUni and Uruguay’s Fondo Solidario, and student loan programmes, including Colombia’s ICETEX, also address financial barriers. Furthermore, establishing specialised universities and enhancing secondary education quality are key strategies for fostering inclusivity and supporting successful transitions to tertiary education (World Bank, 2020).
As of 2024, this research has identified 7,599 TEI s in Latin America. Tertiary institutions with a technical, pedagogical or professional orientation comprise 80% of the total and offer programmes corresponding to level 5 of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED, 2011). Universities, in turn, show considerable diversity in terms of legal status (for-profit and non-profit), mission, institutional objectives, and geographical distribution, including specialised campuses and academic programmes covering ISCED levels 5 through 8.
Another distinctive feature of tertiary education in Latin America is the increasing trend of privatisation, regulated since the 1990s in many countries through public policies on external quality assurance. According to Red ÍndicES (2022), approximately 55% of Latin American students attend private institutions. However, significant variation exists within the region. Such countries
In this context, characterised by the expansion of access and institutional diversification, four waves of massification can be identified in the region:
First wave (1950–1970): Driven by policies of free tuition and the expansion of secondary education, enrolment in tertiary education experienced a significant boost, reaching 1.64 million students in 1970 (Brunner, 1990).
Second wave (1970–1990): Marked by the creation of state and private universities, by 1985, enrolment had grown by 294%, reaching 6.47 million students (Brunner et al., 2000).
Third wave (1990–2010): Characterised by privatisation and institutional diversification, with an increase in the offer of short and graduate programmes, by 2010, enrolment had reached 25 million students (UNESCO-IESALC, 2020).
Fourth wave (2010–2020): Defined by the consolidation of differentiated systems and the impact of technology, the system reached 28.9 million students in 2020 (UNESCO, 2022), despite the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in countries such as Honduras and El Salvador, tertiary education enrolment showed limited growth during the decade, partly due to low public investment and broader structural challenges.
2.3 Development of Tertiary Education in the Caribbean
In the Caribbean, the growth of tertiary education has been driven by national and regional demand from knowledge-based economies. Institutions such as the University of the West Indies (UWI) have played a key role in this development. Founded in 1948, UWI has expanded its presence in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados, offering more than 400 programmes in areas such as medicine, science and technology, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, radiology, and medical technology (UWI, 2024).
In addition to UWI, Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda have established institutions such as Dominica State College and Clifton Dupigny Community College, to meet the growing demand for tertiary education (UNESCO-IESALC, 2020). The expansion of private institutions in the Caribbean has also been remarkable, particularly in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados, where private institutions have emerged to complement the public educational offer and respond to growing demand (Brunner et al., 2000).
Government policies have played a key role in the massification of tertiary education. In Trinidad and Tobago and in Barbados, programmes such as Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses (GATE) have subsidised tuition fees for tertiary programmes, increasing the rate of participation in tertiary education from seven percent in 2001 to 63% in 2014 in Trinidad and Tobago (GATE Report, 2014). In Jamaica, collaboration with foreign universities has made it possible to expand educational access by offering online courses (ECLAC, 2024).
However, in the Caribbean, poverty and inequality in access to tertiary education are barriers that pose evident challenges. The poorest 50% of the population represents approximately 25% of tertiary education students, evidencing a considerable disparity (UNESCO-IESALC, 2020). The Gini coefficients reflect the income inequality as follows: Saint Lucia 43.7, Jamaica 40.2, Guyana 45.0, and Trinidad and Tobago 40.2, with such elevated levels of inequality having an impact on access to education. To address such inequalities, student loan and scholarship programmes have been implemented with the aim of facilitating access to tertiary education for low-income students.
2.4 Development of Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education
This study considers 32 countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region.2 The findings are based on 2024 data provided by national organisations responsible for external quality assurance in tertiary education, as well as information from Caribbean Island websites:
- –Eighty-one percent (26 countries) have at least one active national body responsible for managing external quality assurance of tertiary education.
- –Bolivia and Venezuela have a regulatory framework in place providing for the creation of a body for external quality assurance of tertiary education; however, these bodies are not operational.
- –Guatemala, Belize, Suriname and Haiti do not have a legal framework that governs quality assurance of tertiary education.
In the region, the creation of national quality assurance bodies has typically been enabled by specific legal frameworks introduced by the State. The main function of these bodies is to assess the quality of tertiary education in the country through mechanisms such as the granting of licenses, the accreditation of programmes, and accreditation and evaluation of institutions.
2.5 Quality Assurance in Latin American Countries
2.5.1 Countries with National Quality Assurance Bodies
In Latin America, there is a predominance of national quality assurance bodies that were created through specific laws introduced in each country. These regulations set the necessary legal framework for the establishment and operation of said bodies, assigning them competencies in the quality assurance processes in tertiary education institutions.
During the 1990s, the quality of tertiary education emerged as a concern that was added to the region’s public policy agenda. This prompted the establishment of quality assurance systems and of national bodies for managing the evaluation and accreditation of institutions and programmes.
Quality assurance bodies created between 1990 and 2000 in Latin America
| Country | National Quality Assurance Body |
|---|---|
| Colombia | Consejo Nacional de Acreditación (CNA) |
| Argentina | Comisión Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación Universitaria (CONEAU) |
| Chile | Comisión Nacional de Acreditación (CNA)a |
| El Salvador | Comisión de Acreditación de la Calidad de la Educación Superior (CdA) |
| Costa Rica | Sistema Nacional de Acreditación de la Educación Superior (SINAES) |
| Cuba | Junta de Acreditación Nacional (JAN) |
Chile’s CNA, created by Law No. 20,129 of 2006, has as its antecedent the National Commission for Undergraduate Accreditation (CNAP) created by Decree No. 51 of the Ministry of Education in 1999.
Source: II Global Study. INQAAHE, 2024
In Brazil, the Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (INEP) was established in 1937, but it was only in 2004, with the creation of the National System of Evaluation of Higher Education (SINAES), that it assumed responsibility for institutional and programme evaluations, as well as for administering the National Student Performance Exam (ENADE).
Between 2001 and 2018, new national bodies were created to oversee quality assurance of tertiary education in the region.
Quality assurance bodies created between 2001 and 2020 in Latin America
| Country | National Quality Assurance Body |
|---|---|
| Chile | Consejo Nacional de Educación (CNED) |
| Colombia | Comisión Nacional Intersectorial de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Superior (CONACES) |
| Paraguay | Agencia Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación de la Educación Superior (ANEAES) |
| Panama | Consejo Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación Universitaria de Panamá (CONEAUPA) |
| Peru | Sistema Nacional de Evaluación, Acreditación y Certificación de la Calidad Educativa (SINEACE)
Superintendencia Nacional de Educación Superior Universitaria (SUNEDU) |
| Honduras | Sistema Hondureño de Acreditación de la Calidad de la Educación Superior (SHACES) |
| Nicaragua | Consejo Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación (CNEA) |
| Ecuador | Consejo de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Superior (CACES) |
| Uruguay | Instituto Nacional de acreditación y Evaluación de la Educación Terciaria (INAEET)a |
INAEET in Uruguay was created through Law 19.852 of 2020 and started operations with the appointment of authorities in December 2024.
SOURCE: II GLOBAL STUDY. INQAAHE, 2024
The financing of these organisations varies across countries. Some quality assurance bodies charge for evaluation and accreditation services to private institutions, as is the case of ANEAES in Paraguay; processes for public institutions, however, are financed by the State. In other countries such as Honduras and Chile, processes are paid 50% by the State and 50% by TEI s. On the other hand, in Argentina, Colombia and Ecuador, the processes of evaluation and accreditation of institutions and programmes are fully financed by the State.
2.6 Mechanisms of Quality Assurance in Higher Education
In several countries across the region, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru, the licensing process for private universities is a mandatory requirement to ensure compliance with minimum quality standards. Beyond this initial authorisation, institutional accreditation or evaluation, as well as programme accreditation, serve as essential quality assurance mechanisms applicable to universities of all types. These processes play a crucial role in fostering the continuous improvement of institutions and their academic offerings.
Quality assurance mechanisms in higher education under national quality assurance frameworks in latam
| Country | Institutional accreditation | Institutional evaluation | Accreditation ISCED level 6 programmes | Accreditation ISCED level 7 & 8 programmes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia | Voluntary | N/A | Voluntary | Voluntary |
| Argentina | N/A | Compulsory | Compulsory
Programmes of public interest defined by the Ministry of Education |
Compulsory for Specializations, Master and PhD degrees |
| El Salvador | Voluntary | N/A | Voluntary | |
| Costa Rica | N/A | Voluntary | Voluntary | |
| Cuba | N/A | Voluntary | Voluntary | Voluntary |
| Paraguay | Voluntary | Compulsory for 44 bachelor’s degrees | Compulsory for medical specialties and voluntary for Master and PhD | |
| Brazil | Compulsory | Compulsory according to programmes defined by the Ministry of Education | Compulsory for master’s and doctoral degrees | |
| Panama | Compulsory | Compulsory for at least two programmes per university and voluntary for the rest | Compulsory | |
| Chile | Compulsory | N/A | Compulsory for medicine, dentistry and pedagogy | Compulsory for PhD programmes |
| Peru | Voluntary | N/A | Voluntary | Voluntary |
| Ecuador | Compulsory | N/A | Compulsory accreditation of degree courses and programmes as per the law and the calls made
Examination for professional practice qualification: medical, dentistry, nursing and education programmes |
Compulsory |
| Honduras | Compulsory | N/A | Compulsory | N/A |
| Nicaragua | N/A | Compulsory | Compulsory for health, education, food safety, engineering and environmental programmes | Compulsory (same disciplinary areas as in undergraduate and graduate studies) |
| Dom. Rep. | N/A | Compulsory | Voluntary | N/A |
SOURCE: II GLOBAL STUDY. INQAAHE, 2024
- –Venezuela: In 2008, Venezuela created its National Committee for the Evaluation and Accreditation of Education Programmes and Institutions (Comité Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación de Programas e Instituciones de Educación Superior, CEAPIES), which participated until 2013 in the C system. After that year there is no record of activity.
- –Bolivia: The Plurinational Agency for the Evaluation and Accreditation of University Higher Education (Agencia Plurinacional de Evaluación y Acreditación de la Educación Superior Universitaria, APEAESU) provided for in Education Law No. 070/2010, has not yet been put into operation. The National Commission for the Accreditation of University Programmes (Comisión Nacional de Acreditación de Carreras Universitarias-CNACU) was created in 2010 to support universities in submitting their programmes for accreditation to the ARCU-SUR system.
- –Guatemala, Suriname and Belize: There are no regulatory frameworks governing quality assurance in tertiary education.
2.8 Regional Quality Assurance Networks
In Latin America and the Caribbean, there are networks gathering national organisations and private providers of quality assurance in tertiary education.
- –Ibero-American Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (Red Iberoamericana de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Superior, RIACES)4: Established in 2003 with the support of INQAAHE, RIACES aims to deepen mutual knowledge of university systems; enable identifying common and unique problems in evaluation and accreditation systems; promote cooperation projects designed to streamline transfer activities between countries and facilitate the articulated development of evaluation and accreditation processes in the region. Among its activities, RIACES offers its members the possibility of benchmarking against its framework of “Guidelines of Good Practice” (Orientaciones de Buenas Prácticas, OBP) through a process of self-assessment and external evaluation. The recognition is valid for five years. Within the region, Panama’s CONEAUPA, Colombia’s CNA and Paraguay’s ANEAES have obtained the OBP seal. In 2023, RIACES signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with INQAAHE designed to promote the development of joint evaluations of external quality assurance bodies, as well as the recognition by INQAAHE of the evaluations conducted by RIACES.
- –Ibero-American System for Quality in Higher Education (Sistema Iberoamericano de la Calidad de la Educación Superior, SIACES)5: Established in 2019, this initiative emerged from the political commitment expressed by the Heads of State and Government of Ibero-America through the 2018 Guatemala Declaration, aiming to prioritise the quality of tertiary education in the region. Its objectives include fostering quality assurance in tertiary education and strengthening cooperation among the respective national systems. SIACES comprises official quality assurance agencies from the Ibero-American region, i.e., Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the Iberian Peninsula countries of Spain, Andorra, and Portugal. Additionally, the system incorporates the Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB), a regional support body that organises and implements mandates arising from the Ibero-American Summits of Heads of State and Government. Consequently, SIACES functions as an official forum for convergence and consensus on quality assurance matters within the region. The primary action
undertaken by SIACES since its inception has been the periodic validation of quality assurance agencies according to the Principles of Good Practice. This tool establishes a shared regional framework for quality assurance, strengthens quality systems, and fosters a space of trust at the regional level. This approach represents a significant advancement compared to the challenges identified in INQAAHE’s 1st Global Study of 2020, when integration initiatives were still at an initial stage of development. - –Network of National Accreditation Quality assurance bodies (Red de Agencias Nacionales de Acreditación, RANA): Created in 2008, RANA is the executive body of the Regional Accreditation System for University Programmes (Sistema de Acreditación Regional de Carreras Universitarias ARCU-SUR) within the scope of MERCOSUR Education. ARCU-SUR participating countries are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. Each is represented by their respective national quality assurance body, collaborating in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the system. The ARCU-SUR system establishes shared criteria and standards for the evaluation of undergraduate academic programmes in areas such as Agronomy, Medicine, Engineering, Veterinary, Architecture, Nursing, Dentistry, Geology, Pharmacy and Economics. These criteria are defined by advisory commissions made up of academic representatives from the member countries and approved by RANA. The accreditation process within the framework of ARCU-SUR is voluntary and includes a self-assessment by the educational institution, followed by an external evaluation conducted by international academic peers. The process is designed to provide assurance for the academic and scientific quality of accredited programmes, facilitating mutual recognition and academic mobility among participating countries. In 2024, this process demonstrated significant progress in mutual recognition of degrees and academic mobility, addressing the challenges of fragmentation and the lack of harmonisation identified in INQAAHE’s I Global Study (2020).
- –Central American Accreditation Council (Consejo Centroamericano de Acreditación, CCA): Created in 2003 at the initiative of the States of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and Belize, CCA is currently based at the University of Panama. It is a second-level quality assurance agency that provides international validity to the accreditation of the quality of tertiary education conducted in the different countries of Central America. It has promoted the creation of specialised private quality assurance bodies, including the Central American Agency for Accreditation of Architecture and Engineering (Agencia Centroamericana de Acreditación
de Arquitectura y de Ingeniería, ACAAI), the Central American Accreditation Agency for Higher Education in the Agri-Food and Natural Resources Sector (Agencia de Acreditación Centroamericana de Educación Superior en el Sector Agroalimentario y de Recursos Naturales, ACESAR), and the Central American Agency for Postgraduate Accreditation (Agencia Centroamericana de Acreditación de Postgrado, ACAPCA). CCA offers universities support in international accreditation processes, collaborating with the Haut Conseil de l’Évaluation de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur (HCéRES-France) and the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación, ANECA-Spain) in the III AUDIT Central America International Programme. It advises Central American universities in the design and implementation of Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) systems and promotes research and dissemination of good practices to improve educational quality in the region.
Finally, a new trend of evaluating the evaluators merits being noted as several national quality assurance bodies in the region undergo a recognition procedure by the International Network of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (INQAAHE), including CONEAU of Argentina; CNA and CNED of Chile; CNA of Colombia; SINAES of Costa Rica, and ANEAES of Paraguay. The evaluation of these quality assurance bodies in recent years reinforces the achievements reached since challenges were identified in the I Global Study by INQAAHE in 2020, evidencing a transition towards greater international recognition.
3 Quality Assurance in the Caribbean Islands
3.1 Quality Assurance Bodies at the National Level
In the Caribbean islands, as in Latin America, there is a centralised model of quality. These entities were established by laws passed between 2000 and 2013, except for Jamaica, where the University Council of Jamaica (UCJ) was created in 1987. In all cases, the national quality assurance bodies have the function of registering tertiary education institutions, as well as accrediting institutions and programmes. Accreditation processes are voluntary, and institutional and programme accreditations granted by international quality assurance organisations are recognised on several islands, if they are recognised and registered in their countries of origin.
The following are the national quality assurance bodies identified in the Caribbean Islands.
Caribbean national quality assurance bodies
| Caribbean Islands | National Quality Assurance Agency |
|---|---|
| Jamaica | University Council of Jamaica (UCJ) |
| Trinidad and Tobago | Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago (ACTT) |
| Guyana | National Accreditation Council (NAC) |
| Barbados | Barbados Accreditation Council (BAC) |
| Grenada | Grenada National Accreditation Board (GNAB) |
| St Kitts and Nevis | Accreditation Board of St. Kitts and Nevis (SKNAB) |
| Dominica | National Accreditation Board (NAB) |
| St Vincent & Grenadines | National Accreditation Board (NAB) |
| Bahamas | The National Accreditation and Equivalency Council of the Bahamas (NAECOB) |
| Antigua and Barbuda | Antigua and Barbuda National Accreditation Board (ABNAB) |
| St. Lucia | National Accreditation Council (NAC) |
SOURCE: II GLOBAL STUDY. INQAAHE, 2024
3.2 Quality Assurance Bodies at the Regional Level
The Caribbean Area Network for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education (CANQATE) was established in 2004 to promote quality in tertiary education in the Caribbean. CANQATE brings together quality assurance bodies, educational institutions, ministries, and professionals across the CARICOM region. Its main activities include organising annual conferences and professional
Finally, it should be noted that several national quality assurance bodies in the region are members of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), namely UCJ (Jamaica), NAC-G (Guyana), GNAB (Grenada), BAC (Barbados), NAECOB (The Bahamas), and ACTT (Trinidad and Tobago). Of these agencies, ACTT is the only one that has signalled its intent to pursue an external evaluation against INQAAHE’s International Standards and Guidelines (ISG) and is actively preparing for the process, prompted by legislation stipulating that a review must be undertaken every three years.
3.3 National and Regional Qualifications Frameworks: Levels and Achievement Criteria
UNESCO (2023) defines National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF s) as tools that describe the qualifications of an education or training system, classifying them into levels. Each level provides a clear description of what the holder of a qualification knows, understands and is capable of. They are important tools for making grades clear and understandable, both within and across borders, as well as for promoting lifelong learning.
In Latin America, the implementation of NQF s is still incipient, and it faces certain challenges, including integration with quality assurance processes, the recognition of previous learning, and the promotion of their applicability. In this context, initiatives such as the Qualifications Framework for Central American Higher Education (Marco de Cualificaciones para la Educación Superior Centroamericana, MCESCA) and the Regional Qualifications Framework of the Caribbean Community (Marco Regional de Cualificaciones de la Comunidad del Caribe, CARICOM) promote the harmonisation of skills and certifications, facilitating employment and educational mobility among member countries.
The status in the development and implementation of National Qualifications Frameworks in some countries of the region is presented in Table 12.5.
Status of development and implementation of national and regional qualifications frameworks in Latin American and Caribbean countries6
| Country/Framework | Framework typea | Framework levels | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chile | National | 1 to 6 | Ongoing implementation |
| Colombia | National | 1 to 8 | Ongoing implementation |
| Ecuadorb | National | 1 to 5 | Ongoing implementationc |
| Peru | National | 1 to 8 | Initial operation |
| Panama | National | 1 to 8 | Initial operation |
| Dominican Republic | National | 1 to 8 | Ongoing implementation |
| Brazil | National | 1 to 8 | Ongoing implementation |
| Honduras | National | 1 to 5 | Designed but not started |
| Trinidad and Tobago | National | 1 to 8 | Ongoing implementation |
| Costa Rica: NQF for Technical-Professional Education (MNC-EFTP-CR) | National Sector | 1 to 5 | Ongoing implementation |
| Costa Rica: NQF for Education Degrees (MNC-CE-CR) | National Sector | 6 and 7 | Ongoing implementation |
| Qualifications Framework for Central American Higher Education (MCESCA)d | Regional Sector | 6, 7 and 8e | Ongoing implementation |
| Sugar Industry Qualifications Framework (MCAA)f | Regional Sector | 5g | Ongoing implementation |
| Regional QF for the Pacific Allianceh | Regional | 1 to 8 | Designed but not started |
Types: National (for the whole country); sectoral (for an economic sector); regional (for a group of countries).
Subsecretaría de Planificación y Política Sectorial e Intersectorial. (2015, agosto). Propuesta de niveles de competencia para el Catálogo Nacional de Cualificaciones. Ministerio de Coordinación de Conocimiento y Talento Humano. UIS Data Browser. Retrieved on 23 January 2025 https://www.oitcinterfor.org/sites/default/files/file_publicacion/Niveles-de-Competencia-para-Examinados.pdf
Ministerio del Trabajo del Ecuador. (s.f.). Emisión de perfiles de cualificación profesional. Gobierno del Ecuador. UIS Data Browser. Retrieved on 6 February 2025, from https://www.gob.ec/mt/tramites/emision-perfiles-cualificacion-profesional
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama are part of this Framework.
Broken down into five levels.
Implemented in Mexico and Cuba.
It covers four technical levels.
Designed by the Network of Qualifications Frameworks of the Pacific Alliance (Red de Marcos de Cualificaciones de la Alianza del Pacífico, REMCAP), including Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru.
SOURCE: II GLOBAL STUDY. INQAAHE, 2024
4.1 Methodological Framework for Analysis of Survey Results and Focus Groups with National Quality Assurance Bodies and Universities in Latin America and the Caribbean
A mixed- method approach of a descriptive-evaluative nature was adopted, integrating empirical methods with primary and secondary data sources. The data gathering process was based on surveys and focus groups.
The study’s universe includes external quality assurance bodies and TEI s in 32 Latin American countries that are UNESCO members. It does not cover islands that are dependencies of the Netherlands or the United Kingdom, nor does it include Mexico, as this country is analysed in the chapter corresponding to the North American region.
The study primarily examines universities and does not include institutions of a technical, pedagogical or professional nature. These institutions typically operate within distinct tertiary education subsystems that, in some countries, fall under the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies different from those overseeing universities. As a result, challenges in accessing data from these institutions made their inclusion unfeasible within the scope of this research.
The inclusion criteria for building the sample were defined considering participation in the surveys. Of the 43 external quality assurance bodies identified in the region, 60% (26) responded to the survey, and of the 1615 universities identified in the region, 8% (126), responded to the survey. Though the number of quality assurance bodies is relevant for analysis, in the case of universities it is necessary to clarify that the study focused only on survey respondents. Therefore, findings are not intended as generalisations regarding the universe of universities.
Based on an analysis of survey findings, four focus groups were formed for quality assurance bodies: three from Latin America and one from the Caribbean. In assembling the focus groups of the Latin American quality assurance bodies, three levels of development were considered.
The following dimensions were considered in analysing the efficiency, relevance and transformative power of quality assurance systems at the regional level:
- –Legitimacy of the external quality assurance bodies: Resistance vs. adaptation; purpose and scope of activities; relationship with other governing bodies; changes in regulatory frameworks and their justification; internal quality system and its impact on the improvement of EQAA; and participation in national qualification frameworks.
- –Quality assurance bodies framework for external evaluation of higher education quality: Evolution of mechanisms coordinated by the agency;
streamlining and combination of mechanisms; mechanisms for stakeholder engagement and mechanisms for training experts and performance improvement monitoring. - –Evaluation of HEI s by the quality assurance body: Decision-making process for accreditations and external evaluations and appeals process.
- –Internationalisation: Internationalisation strategy; participation in networks; impact of exchange activities on the improvement of the quality assurance body, and participation in regional qualification frameworks.
Development levels to form focus groups with quality assurance bodies
| Group 1 –
High level of development |
– Quality assurance bodies with at least three or more completed assessment/accreditation cycles.
– Quality assurance bodies with at least two international accreditations. |
| Group 2 – Intermediate level of development | – Quality assurance bodies with at least two completed assessment/accreditation cycles.
– Quality assurance bodies with at least one international accreditation in process or completed. |
| Group 3 –
Low level of development |
– Quality assurance bodies with one evaluation/accreditation cycle completed according to their regulatory framework.
– Quality assurance bodies that have not yet developed an institutional accreditation process. |
A total of 15 representatives of national higher education quality assurance bodies participated in the study.7
The criteria for forming the four focus groups with universities followed the same combination of countries considered for the sample of quality assurance bodies and the number of years of operation, in three ranges: up to six years; between seven and twenty years, and more than twenty years of operation.
The following dimensions of analysis were considered:
- –Implementation of an internal quality management system: State of development; management model and functions; procedures and impact of results on institutional planning.
- –Contribution of external evaluation processes: Changes introduced because of external evaluation and challenges for future development; objectivity of the evaluators’ judgment; impact of recommendations on institutional planning; engagement of internal and external stakeholders, and impact of
external political, social, economic, technological, environmental, health and safety factors. - –Communication and transfer: Dissemination of procedures, guidelines and outcomes of evaluation processes on the HEI website and digital information system.
A total of 18 representatives of universities participated in the study.8
The information gathered from quality assurance bodies and universities was analysed based on three main dimensions: efficiency, relevance and transformative power, using specific categories for each one.
- –Efficiency: Harvey (2004) defines efficiency as the extent to which an activity achieves its goal whilst minimising resource usage. In this regard, the accessibility of evaluation frameworks, their updating, the autonomy of quality assurance bodies to manage evaluation processes, the level of support provided to HEI s, and the availability of adequate human and financial resources were analysed.
- –Relevance: The OECD (2008) defines relevance as the extent to which the intervention’s objectives and design respond to the needs, policies and priorities of beneficiaries, the needs of the country, the global priorities, and the policies of the institution. Stakeholder engagement in quality assurance policymaking, the alignment of policies with social needs, the coherence of policies at the regional and international levels, and their integration into international networks were assessed.
- –Transformative power: Transformation involves a “qualitative change” from one state to another (Harvey & Green, Defining Quality, 1993). The scope of the Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) system was examined, and the impact of external evaluations on institutional transformations and on the improvement of quality standards was considered.
5 Analysis of the Results of Surveys and Focus Groups – Quality Assurance Bodies
5.1 Efficiency
Analysis of surveys and focus groups on quality assurance bodies reveals that external evaluation policies, procedures, standards, and criteria are primarily based on national strategies, socio-economic needs, and existing legislation. Although international guidelines, including networks such as INQAAHE, have a moderate influence, global and regional conventions on the recognition of qualifications have a limited impact on the definition of assessment frameworks in the region.
However, 58% of quality assurance bodies do not regularly update their standards for tertiary education, opting instead to adjust only “when necessary.” The remaining quality assurance bodies typically update their standards within cycles ranging from three to seven years. More experienced quality assurance bodies, such as CNA in Chile, CONEAU in Argentina, SINAES in Costa Rica, and CNA in Colombia, have integrated specific criteria designed to support HEI s in developing and implementing their internal quality assurance systems. These criteria aim to foster formative evaluation practices through constructive alignment between state-regulated external quality assurance systems and the internal quality assurance systems developed by HEI s. Such strategic alignment is essential for fostering an institutional culture committed to ongoing evaluation and continuous improvement of educational quality.
As for the external evaluation procedures, there is a general convergence in a sequence that includes institutional self-assessment, technical reviews, on-site visits, issuance of evaluation reports, and follow-up through improvement plans. However, the focus groups highlighted an overload of processes faced by HEI s. To mitigate this, some countries including Chile and Argentina have adopted different strategies. In Chile, for instance, a sample of programmes is evaluated during institutional accreditation, while CONEAU in Argentina has introduced “focused evaluation” for postgraduate programmes that have previously demonstrated alignment with established standards during prior accreditation processes.
The management of conflicts of interest is addressed through codes of ethics, recusal mechanisms, and the implementation of accountability systems, including the disclosure of information and the basis for decisions. Furthermore, all quality assurance bodies have internal or external review and appeal mechanisms.
Although 73% of quality assurance bodies have designed internal quality assurance (IQA) policies, only 58% have implemented them. Similarly, while 53% have IQA systems, only 44% have implemented them, reflecting an incipient level of development that poses a key challenge, according to focus groups.
Finally, financing is a critical factor. On average, 86% of the resources come from government funds. A lack of additional sources of funding limits professional
5.2 Relevance
The study shows significant involvement of representatives from the government and the employer and industry segments in the definition of quality and educational policies, covering 92% of the cases. HEI s are also involved, with an engagement level of 61.5% from public institutions and 54% from private institutions. However, a lower representation of students and professional associations is observed, suggesting an underrepresentation of key voices in professional practice and student bodies.
In the development of standards, the participation of educational institutions is high (73%), while that of students and graduates remains low. The quality assurance bodies, however, consult key actors through specific spaces that include representatives of national organisations, educational institutions and the professional sector. Dialogue with employers is particularly valued, as it allows the demands of the labour market to be considered in evaluation processes.
The composition of evaluation panels shows a predominance of experts (38.5%) and industry representatives (23%), but low representation of unions and graduates. In the Caribbean, the CARICOM treaty has fostered a closer articulation between higher education and the productive sector, promoting economic integration and regional development.
Quality assurance bodies with a regulatory function prioritise quality control and improvement (85%), strengthening the culture of quality in university systems. On the other hand, those without a regulatory function adopt collaborative approaches, highlighting fundamental educational values (40%) and needs for professional associations (45.5%).
In South America, several quality assurance bodies undergo international evaluations through RIACES and SIACES, and some have obtained certifications aligned with INQAAHE ISGs. However, only 26% of quality assurance bodies have completed international assessment processes, representing an area for significant improvement.
5.3 Transformative Power
The analysis highlights the predominance of accreditation of institutions (81%) and of programmes (88.5%) as the primary areas of focus in external evaluations. However, short programmes and risk-based assessments are less included in evaluation frameworks. Although these procedures are usually voluntary and subject to fees, which triggers heterogeneous responses depending on the national context, the quality assurance bodies with the longest history have reported that the implementation of cyclical processes has fostered a culture of evaluation in HEI s.
Key challenges identified include:
- –Adequacy of standards: Promoting a more generic model, adaptable to diverse institutional contexts.
- –Increase in accreditations: Encouraging accreditation in countries where it is voluntary.
- –Design of national qualifications frameworks: Moving towards comprehensive implementation in the region.
- –Strengthening internationalisation: Generating synergies based on international best practices.
- –Student participation: Increasing student involvement in quality assurance processes.
Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic was a key factor according to 70% of quality assurance bodies, requiring immediate adaptations such as digitisation of processes and transition to virtual modalities. Economic factors, indicated by 52%, also limited operability at certain times, while geopolitical and environmental factors had a smaller impact.
The analysis underscores the need for innovation, sustainability and international collaboration to address emerging challenges in quality assurance.
6 Analysis of the Results of Surveys and Focus Groups – Universities
This analysis collects the results of a series of surveys and focus groups conducted with 126 universities, exploring the actions implemented with regards to internal quality assurance. The findings are structured in the three categories proposed in this research: efficiency, relevance and transformative power, highlighting key aspects that reflect the progress made and the challenges faced in this area.
6.1 Efficiency
Efficiency in internal quality assurance lies in the ability of universities to develop effective, integrated and sustainable policies and procedures. Fifty-four
In terms of implementation, 62% of institutions developed quality assurance policies in the last decade, progressively consolidating their internal systems. Of note is the creation of Internal Quality Assurance units, present in 40% of universities. These units operate mostly as centralised structures (82%), reporting directly to elevated levels of governance such as the Rector (56%) or the Board of Directors (27%), which guarantees a hierarchical and strategic approach to quality management. However, the members of the focus groups mentioned that this model poses major challenges, including resistance to organisational change, budgetary limitations and work overload for the administrative staff involved. In this regard, quality assurance policies tend to focus on the institution as a whole (78%) and on undergraduate or bachelor’s degree programmes (72%), while postgraduate levels such as master’s degrees (58%) and doctorates (35%) receive less attention. Limited coverage is also observed in distance education (51%) and e-learning (50%) modes of delivery.
The design and review of academic programmes are priority areas of focus, and 54% of universities have fully implemented them. However, other components, such as interaction with the community (41%) or the provision of public information (42%), are less developed, which creates an opportunity to expand the social impact of quality systems. Furthermore, focus groups have highlighted that advances in process digitisation and the addition of technology tools have proven to be essential to reduce the bureaucratic burden and improve quality assurance management. However, it was also noted that digital information systems are still under development, and that lack of systematic evidence and inadequate coordination between academic units hinder the consistent implementation of quality assurance systems.
A central aspect in terms of efficiency is the incorporation of recommendations derived from external quality assurance processes into institutional planning. Although 56% of universities fully follow up on these recommendations, 18% prioritise only some, and 10% do so on a case-by-case basis, which calls for greater systematicity in this practice. In the focus groups, the overload of indicators and the lack of formalised institutional policies were identified as obstacles, affecting process harmonisation and simplification.
6.2 Relevance
Relevance in internal quality assurance refers to the extent to which policies and strategies respond to institutional, academic and social needs. Currently, 66% of institutions and 60% of educational programmes are evaluated by national regulators, while 41% of institutions and 45% of programmes use national quality assurance bodies. In contrast, international bodies have limited participation, evaluating only 17% of institutions and 13% of programmes. This trend reflects a strong reliance on local mechanisms and the need to expand international presence.
Forty-nine percent of universities identify the lack of understanding of their specific institutional or regional contexts as a primary challenge in external reviews. This includes mismatched evaluation criteria, disregard for local socio-economic factors, and insufficient recognition of institutional diversity. This problem is identified in 28%-37% of institutions that point to high time consumption and low cost-benefit ratio, while 50% mention the elevated cost as a critical barrier in programme evaluations. In addition, the focus groups have expressed problems such as the subjectivity of the evaluators and the lack of clear standards, which represent major gaps in the evaluation processes. Accreditation fatigue, stemming from lengthy processes, affects 49% of institutions, reflecting a significant cumulative challenge. Although 19% believe that the standards do not fit the institutional profile, they are less problematic in the face of operational and cumulative challenges.
In terms of transparency, 66% of institutions publish their quality policies, while only a moderate proportion share key results or full reports. This suggests a need to strengthen institutional accountability and communication to maximise trust from internal and external actors.
6.3 Transformative Power
The transformative power of internal quality assurance systems lies in their ability to promote innovations and consolidate an institutional culture of continuous improvement. In this regard, universities have made noteworthy progress in modernising their academic offerings, incorporating digital technologies and hybrid methodologies, and encouraging the engagement of students and graduates in programme design. These actions have allowed a more
To maximise the transformative impact of these systems, focus groups have proposed various strategies. Among them, the creation of specific units to coordinate evaluation and accreditation activities, the simplification of administrative processes, and the implementation of automated data management systems. It is also considered crucial to consolidate an institutional culture of quality, strengthen dissemination channels and increase training in educational management.
Universities have demonstrated a key role facing external factors such as the pandemic, adopting strategies based on quality assurance to guarantee continuity and operational excellence. This context has strengthened the culture of quality through self-assessment and continuous improvement, encouraging the participation of students, teachers and administrative staff in the academic field. Furthermore, methodologies have been modernised through the transition to virtual and hybrid modalities, complemented by training in emerging technologies, the rollout of tools such as artificial intelligence and cloud platforms, and the implementation of clear protocols to ensure quality in new educational environments.
Finally, lessons learned show that the success of quality assurance systems lies in their flexibility and ability to adapt to changing contexts. In a dynamic global environment, it is essential to digitise procedures, simplify processes and encourage the inclusive participation of all actors involved, to pursue long-term sustainability and relevance.
7 Discussion and Conclusions
The analysis of quality assurance in Latin America and the Caribbean identified significant progress with respect to INQAAHE’s first global study, as well as persisting challenges. This analysis was organised around the three key principles stated in the methodological framework: efficiency, relevance and transformative power.
From the perspective of relevance, the study shows that both external quality assurance bodies and universities have worked to respond to the social, economic and academic demands of their immediate environment. There is significant participation of the government and industry representatives in the definition of educational policies and quality standards. However, there is a need to increase the involvement of the currently underrepresented sectors of students and professional associations to expand the diversity of perspectives. Likewise, challenges remain in terms of adapting external evaluation frameworks to specific institutional contexts and local socio-economic realities – a crucial aspect mentioned by both universities and quality assurance bodies.
In terms of transformative power, universities have made significant progress in modernising their academic offerings, with the incorporation of digital technologies, hybrid modalities, and strategies for the active participation of students and graduates in curricular design. These transformations have facilitated better alignment with global and technological demands, contributing to more relevant and adaptive higher education. External quality assurance bodies have been essential to promote continuous improvement and make assessment criteria more flexible, in line with the level of maturity achieved by the institution.
The study also underscores the growing importance of regional networks such as RIACES, SIACES, ARCU-SUR and CANQATE which have contributed to strengthening regional harmonisation through the implementation of shared standards and the promotion of good practices in quality assurance. Although these initiatives have made progress compared to the data of 2020 study, there are still significant limitations in the effective implementation of national and regional qualifications frameworks. The complete consolidation of these frameworks is crucial to advance the international recognition of credentials and promote academic mobility.
Notes
UNESCO. (n.d.). Enrolment in tertiary education, all programmes, both sexes (number) [Data set]. UIS Data Browser. Retrieved on 18 March 2025, from https://databrowser.uis.unesco.org/view#indicatorPaths=UIS-EducationOPRI%3A0%3A25053&geoMode=regions&geoUnits=&browsePath=EDUCATION%2FUIS-EducationOPRI%2Fenrol
It should be noted that, for the purposes of this study, Mexico was considered part of the North American region.
International ZETA (IZC); SGS Education Certifier (SGS); Quality Certificate Organisation (QCO) and Evaluation Company for Accreditation Purposes (EEFIA).
The Ibero-American Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education gathers 37 quality assurance bodies and eight entities in 18 countries of Latin America and Spain, promoting quality in higher education.
The Ibero-American System for Quality in Higher Education gathers quality assurance bodies in Latin America and Spain with an interest in quality assurance and in strengthening cooperation across evaluation and accreditation systems.
Organización Internacional del Trabajo y Centro Interamericano para el Desarrollo del Conocimiento en la Formación Profesional [OIT-CINTERFOR]. (2020). Inventario analítico de experiencias de construcción e implementación de marcos de cualificaciones en América Latina. UIS Data Browser. Retrieved on 20 August 2024, from: https://www.oitcinterfor.org/sites/default/files/file_publicacion/Inventario_actualizacion2022.pdf
The participating quality assurance bodies were: CONEAU (Argentina), CNA (Colombia), CNA (Chile), SINAES (Costa Rica), SINEACE (Peru), ANEAES (Paraguay), INEP (Brazil), CdA (El Salvador), CACES (Ecuador), Vice Ministry of Monitoring and Government Coordination (Dominican Republic) and CNEA (Nicaragua). For the Caribbean, the participants were: Barbados Accreditation Council, the University Council of Jamaica, the Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago, and the National Accreditation Council of Guyana.
Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Universidad de las Américas, Universidad Tecnológica Intercontinental, Universidad Nacional del Este, Universidad do Oeste Paulista, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Universidad del Este, Universidad Nacional Pedro Henríquez Ureña, Universidad Interamericana de Panamá, Universidad de Panamá, Universidad del Istmo, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Universidad Abierta Interamericana, Universidad Blas Pascal, Universidad Central, Universidad de Manizales, Universidad Bernardo O’ Higgins, Universidad Andrés Bello, Universidad Arturo Prat, Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica y Universidad Latinoamericana de Ciencia y Tecnología.
Brunner, J. (1990). Educación Superior en América Latina. Cambios y desafíos. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Brunner, J. (1994). Educación superior en América Latina: una agenda de problemas, políticas y debates en el umbral del año 2000. Documentos CEDES. Serie Educación Superior (108). https://repositorio.cedes.org/handle/123456789/3411
Brunner, J., Alarcón, M., & Adasme, B. (2024). Educación Superior en Iberoamérica. Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo. https://cinda.cl/publicacion/educacion-superior-en-iberoamerica-informe-2024/
Caribbean Area Network for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education. (2014). Report on the scoping study of quality assurance in tertiary education in the Caribbean. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230150
CEPAL/ECLAC. (2024). CEPALSTAT. Portal de desigualdades en América Latina. https://statistics.cepal.org/portal/inequalities/incomes.html?lang=es&indicator=3289#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.cepal.org%2Fportal%2Finequalities%2Fincomes.html%3Flang%3Des%26indicator%3D3289%0AVisible%3A%200%25%20
Haddad, C. N., Mahler, D. G., Diaz-Bonilla, C., Hill, R., Lakner, C., & Lara Ibarra, G. (2024). The World Bank’s new inequality indicator: The number of countries with high inequality. Policy research. Working Paper; 10796. World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/41687
Lemaitre, M. J. (2016). Aseguramiento de la calidad en América Latina: estado actual y desafíos para el futuro. Unpublished manuscript. https://www.papse2.edu.do/images/pdf/InformesProyectos/Acredtacion/2-LemaitreAmericaLatina.pdf
Lemaitre, M. J. (2018). La educación superior como parte del sistema educativo de América Latina y el Caribe. Calidad y aseguramiento de la calidad. UNESCO – IESALC and Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372632
Red Iberoamericana de Indicadores de Educación Superior [Red IndicES]. (2021). Database. http://www.redindices.org/indicadores
Organización Internacional del Trabajo y Centro Interamericano para el Desarrollo del Conocimiento en la Formación Profesional [OIT-CINTERFOR]. (2020). Inventario analítico de experiencias de construcción e implementación de marcos de cualificaciones en América Latina. https://www.oitcinterfor.org/inventario-anal%C3%ADtico-experiencias-construcci%C3%B3n-e-implementaci%C3%B3n-marcos-cualificaciones-am%C3%A9rica-0
Strah, M. (2020). Los sistemas nacionales de aseguramiento de la calidad de la Educación Superior en Iberoamérica (1st ed.). Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: CONEAU-Comisión Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación Universitaria, OEI- Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos. https://www.coneau.gob.ar/archivos/publicaciones/documentos/OEISistemasNacionalesAseguramientoIberoamerica.pdf
Subsecretaría de Planificación y Política Sectorial e Intersectorial. (2015, agosto). Propuesta de niveles de competencia para el Catálogo Nacional de Cualificaciones. Ministerio de Coordinación de Conocimiento y Talento Humano. https://www.oitcinterfor.org/sites/default/files/file_publicacion/Niveles-de-Competencia-para-Examinados.pdf
UNESCO. (2019). Convención Mundial sobre el Reconocimiento de las Cualificaciones relativas a la Educación Superior. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372970_spa
UNESCO. (2022). La encrucijada de la educación en América Latina y el Caribe. Informe regional de monitoreo. ODS4-Educación 2030. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000382919_spa
UNESCO. (n.d.). Enrolment in tertiary education, all programmes, both sexes (number) [Data set]. UIS Data Browser. Retrieved March 18, 2025, from https://databrowser.uis.unesco.org/view#indicatorPaths=UIS-EducationOPRI%3A0%3A25053&geoMode=regions&geoUnits=&browsePath=EDUCATION%2FUIS-EducationOPRI%2Fenrol
UNESCO, ETF and CEDEFOP. (2023). Global Inventory of national and regional qualifications frameworks 2022, volume II: National and regional case studies. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386929.locale=es
UNESCO – IESLAC. (2020). Covid-19 y Educación Superior: De los efectos inmediatos al día después https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/COVID-19-ES-130520.pdf
UNESCO – IESLAC. (2020). Towards universal access to higher education: international trends. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375686
World Bank. (2020). Latin America and the Caribbean: Tertiary education. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/720271590700883381/COVID-19-Impact-on-Tertiary-Education-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean.pdf
World Bank. (2025). Gini index – Latin America and the Caribbean. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=ZJ