This week’s readings took a look at higher education reform and the state of higher education through two OECD reports: (i) OECD Education Policy Outlook 2015 Making Reforms Happens; and (ii) The State of Higher Education 2014. Both reports challenged us to not only view higher education through an internationalization lens as we have been doing so far, but also to look at educational systems in general in terms of where they are and where they need to go. I thought this was a useful exercise because without a strong foundation of internal higher education systems and reform, cross-border partners and relationships cannot be developed and sustained in a productive manner. Sound internal policy in home countries can then lead to sound policies as they relate to internationalization and global higher education policies.
The OECD 2015 report set forth trends in education policies through which effective ways to improve education systems can be achieved. According to the OECD 2015 Report, education policy trends fall into the following categories: (i) quality and equity; (ii) preparing students for the future; (iii) school improvement; governance; and funding. Of interest to me were the second and third categories. First, it is worth noting that policy reform in the area of tertiary education involved internationalization directly and policies in Australia, Finland and Japan were noted in the OECD 2015 Report (p.11). For Japan, the way to improve tertiary education seems to largely rest on internationalization efforts as noted in the Report (see also http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20141120233337379).
I also found that in the school improvement category, there is robust policy reform activity around improving the quality of teachers and learning (see pp. 13-15). As we have seen in earlier readings, quality of teaching is also an important facet to the forward movement of internationalization. Without quality teachers who are the key to effective learning, the quality and credibility of programs rooted in internationalization cannot thrive. Indeed, while the scholar mobility component of international higher education programs is important, strong and well trained teachers in home countries will make access and funding easier for international programs that can rely on internal teaching talent to promote cross-border and internationalization efforts. In addition, professional development efforts and focus on teaching goals for the global context can assure that faculty who are at the core of the delivery of educational services are equipped to deal with the challenges that internalization efforts face in terms of quality and credibility.
I agree, I think this week’s readings also challenged us to look to secondary education, vocational education and there implementations on higher education and the workforce. I think that the reform around teacher quality is imperative to successful outcomes for international students and students in general. I feel that scholar mobility is secondary to ensuring that quality educators are present to run efficient international programs. The mobility piece should be built into the program by the Provost/Leader so that faculty spend more time on curriculum quality rather than writing grants to mobilize elsewhere.
I also found it interesting that the readings this week focused on education policy in general and not specifically on internationalization, but they still touched upon the subjects as you mentioned. And like Tiffany mentioned above, I think having a focus on teacher quality is definitely important, and as I mentioned in my own post, I found it interesting that some countries put a lot of focus and funding into developing and training teachers, especially those that need to teach students who are behind academically from the rest of the students. It’s also interesting to note that while teacher quality has been a topic of reform in the U.S., there still remains a lack of evaluation and attempts to improve the policies in place and not just scrapping the policy when things are not going as plan.
I agree with your point about how higher education needs to fix what is within itself before venturing outward onto the international stage. This weeks articles really does delve deeper into the internal functions of higher education institutions in the US and how it should be improved. As others have mentioned above, improving teacher’s quality is something that can be considered as an internal reform that can have external implications on scholar mobility. Without a solid and strong foundation at home, any progress made towards internationalization would be counterproductive.