A generation ago, educators worried about a looming “digital divide”: that students with access to computers and online education would be primed for success in the digital world, while those lacking such access would be left out. This gave rise to the effort to make computers available in every classroom, and to make Internet access widely available across the United States.
Today we face what might be called a “global divide”: the divide between those who will have access to a global education and will be primed for success in the “flat” world, and those who will continue to be educated under the last century’s models. The Department of Education has an essential role in ensuring that this divide is breached—that we will educate all of our students for the global age.
Secretary Duncan’s 2010 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations demonstrated that he understands this quite clearly. He wove together three insights that are essential to the international education agenda: first, that the global context is characterized by the twin trends of “increased international competition” and “increased international cooperation”; second, that these trends help inform the administration’s drive to transform education in America (which he referred to as “our generation’s ‘moonshot’”); and third, that “our ability to compete and collaborate on the world stage” requires that, as part of education reform, we “increase the foreign language fluency and cultural awareness of all our students” (emphasis added).
Unfortunately, one looks in vain in the Education Department’s 2013 budget for any hint that making American college education truly global is part of its agenda – this despite the very welcome development, reflected in the budget, that the department has recognized its responsibility for higher education and has jumped into the ring with plans to institute a form of “Race to the Top” for higher education. The disconnect here is that it is simply impossible to achieve Secretary Duncan’s vision, or President Obama’s stated objective in his “Blueprint for Keeping College Affordable and Within Reach for All Americans” that college will produce “a workforce prepared for the jobs of the 21st century,” without embedding international education in the strategy.
That vision is transformational. To achieve it will require breaking free of traditional programmatic thinking, because it cannot be accomplished under current programs. It will require the mainstreaming of global and cross-cultural learning on all campuses across the higher education spectrum; making study abroad the norm, rather than the exception; and ensuring that foreign language instruction actually produces graduates who can effectively communicate in a foreign language.
The good news is that there is a model for advancing that vision, and it is ready for the administration to take off the shelf and plug into its higher education agenda and policies. Even better, the model is grounded in the goals the administration articulates in its proposed $55-million “First in the World” competition, which focuses on college completion rates, learning outcomes, and education productivity, with a particular emphasis on minority and low-income students.
The international-education corollary of that agenda is the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Act, which would establish a modest program of challenge grants to incentivize colleges and universities to make study abroad an integral part of higher education. The Simon Act creates a model for promoting educational innovation and reform leading toward the internationalization of higher education—a model which predates, but looks a lot like, the “Race to the Top” model that Secretary Duncan created. Data increasingly suggest that study abroad improves college completion rates, learning outcomes, and education productivity. The Simon model, as articulated in legislation previously introduced by Senator Dick Durbin, would require innovation and cost control, and would by definition make study abroad available to minority-serving institutions and low-income students. The Simon model was developed to accomplish virtually all of the buzz words in the “First in the World” description.
The reality is that American higher education cannot be first in the world and prepare students for the 21st century unless the education it provides is international education. In today’s world, a country cannot succeed in global competitiveness in the absence of a citizenry equipped with global skills and knowledge. The administration understands this. Addressing this need would not be difficult to do, and the Simon model would get us a long way toward doing it. The money is in the president’s budget. If this administration doesn’t do it, who will?
Victor,
What a great and timely post. I agree that without placing international education as a priority, it will not happen. I also appreciated your emphasis that students who take foreign languages in school should actually be able to speak it. Three years ago when I traveled to Europe for the first time and stayed a couple days in a small town in the north I noticed that most of the older people in that town did not speak English, but the young people under 16 were speaking English quite well. They were not learning it at home but they were learning it in school. As a contrast, my adult children took a foreign language in high school but not only did they not learn to speak it. Today, several years later, they do not remember what they learned. I believe that the US still has a long way to go to prepare its young people for a global economy in the 21rst century.
Hello Fellow Bloggers,
I am a doctoral student at Walden University. My specialization of study is Higher Education and Adult Learning. My particular interest is online learning. How is online learning for your across the globe? What teaching methods are used in your country online?
I attended a university that offered many study abroad programs. I just assumed that most schools of higher education understood the quality of education provided in global education. I agree this is something that has to be promoted consistently. Quality of education is definitely equally important.
I agree that US education has to be internationalized in order to be competitive. Geography permits European students to become truly fluent in more than one language as well to truly take in the professional and academic, and social cultures of various countries. In the United States we are a bit further from the rest of the world.
I agree with the article in that in order to facilitate this it has to be cost effective. Might I suggest that we provide international exchanges within sister institutions at the same fee of study we would pay at home. that would mean that US universities would also have to accept the local fee for semester exchanges from students enrolled at sister or partner institutions. Please check out this article and i would love to discuss further. Does anyone see a reason why this can’t happen?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/education/edlife/studyabroad-1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
This is a great, lofty and abstract article. Yes, it makes good points, but I think that it is so tied into the aspirations of the field of international education that it forgets about the people who make it work and who ultimately will make the effort to convert this dream into a reality: international educators. Mr. Johnson and NAFSA have yet to make any statement concerning the brain drain that the field is experiencing due to the recession (is NAFSA even tracking this?). Many international educators who have lost their jobs struggle to remain connected to the field and eventually are forced into other careers. Why is NAFSA not addressing this? NAFSA has done nothing to help or to ease the situation, insisting on charging everyone exorbitant prices to attend its annual trade show/conference. NAFSA could step in and assume the role of advocating for displaced international educators like the AAUP and AAUA do for their respective constituents. That is truly a goal worth working towards. NAFSA cannot succeed in fostering/developing global competitiveness in students without fully supporting its membership who directly influence/inspire these students. I truly believe NAFSA can do this. The question, is does it want to?
Thanks, Tom, for raising this important issue – it reminds us that we need to continue to communicate all the things we are doing in these critical areas, and to always strive to do more. NAFSA at its core is about supporting the professionals who make international education possible. Through our advocacy, reflected in pieces like the one here from Vic Johnson, we make the case daily that international education deserves to be – indeed must be – a top priority, both on campus and for the country. This means it must be properly resourced and supported. Our internationalization initiatives emphasize the critical role international educators play in driving that important trend. And we offer many resources directly to individual members to support their career and professional development, and to help members engage directly in making the case for the value and importance of what they do on campus. I hope you’ll continue to share your thoughts here and in other forums, and that we can work together to advance and support the field.
Susan Thompson
Vice President for Member Relations, NAFSA
I also wanted to share NAFSA’s “Budget-friendly Conference Tips” page, which includes cost-saving steps attendees can take, as well as information about volunteer opportunities. You can find it here: http://www.nafsa.org/annualconference/default.aspx?id=16885
“[M]ainstreaming of global and cross-cultural learning on all campuses across the higher education spectrum; making study abroad the norm, rather than the exception; and ensuring that foreign language instruction actually produces graduates who can effectively communicate in a foreign language” and communicate across cultures. Yes. Absolutely. You are so “spot on” that I don’t have anything to add. Wow, me?
My concern is that the current and ongoing partisan divide in the US shifts the focus of high-level discussions from global to local politics and matters. There is a great deal of talk about “US competitiveness, the global economy, training scientists and engineers, testing, assessment” and the like but these ideas are not connected to global education in any meaningful way. Universities are establishing a multinational presence, there is no discussion (save proper educational circles and publications) about what that means for the US or for the US in the context of increased global presence.
There seems to be a disconnect between k-12 education and higher ed. Instead, these should be seen as part of a continuum; we prepare college students to have meaningful global experiences (exchange programs, internships, regular employment) by training them culturally in the k-12 realm. Foreign language development, cultural competence in a variety of areas (food, customs, manners, etc), and exchange opportunities (domestically and abroad) should start early so that behaviors of engagement are “reflexive” once college students or workers venture abroad.
Really love your posts.
[...] when our needs change and then replacing them with new ones.”[3] International Education advocate Vincent C. Jonson recommends, “mainstreaming global and cross-cultural learning on all campuses across the higher [...]
I think that we all need to start thinking about what it will take to compete effectively in a global world. Just as they have these programs in place for students, all college and adults programs need to have the same. We have a generation of adults that are returning back to school and do not have adequate access to computers, or know how to effecttively operate them. There is also a group of people, immigrants, in which must be educated and taught how to compete globally.
Yokira,
You are absolutely correct in saying that we have populations here who are not part of the mainstream of traditional learners and who are returning back to school lacking the resources required to compete globally. We definitely need to concentrate on that population, as well.
Victor: I agree that preparing our college graduates with a global education is critical. Without diverse skills and knowledge, today’s graduates may be ill prepared to engage with other cultures on a global level. Outside of teaching language fluency, how might educators prevent global divide at the classroom level?
FG