One of our earlier readings addressed the various policies each nation exhibits as a weakness. It was suggested that there should be a commitment to developing a shared global initiative for internationalization. Instead of competing for international students and research, working on quality, equity and accountability is more important. However, this week’s reading differs on what the shared global goal should entail. According to OECD -Education Policy, due to social, economic, cultural differences globally, establishing system- level effective policies within the home country that deliver on equity and quality will yield better education outcomes. I understand that it would be challenging to require all countries to practice one particular reform because one size does not fit all. Nonetheless, the fact that there have been over 450 education reforms established between 2008 and 2014 is absurd. Especially since they are not adequately funded. There are way too many polices being issued and not enough partnerships are being formed. However, on a positive note, this reading touched on ensuring that the policies created should be is accountable, takes into consideration the differing factors and is aligned to the governance structure.
I respect that the OECD countries are working on preparing the students for the future. Some countries have developed policies that will raise a student’s performance and based on early childhood education. This had me reflect on our current debate in America to institute universal pre-K, which means it would be required and funded within our current education system. By the time a child is 3 years of age, 85% of his/her core structures of the brain has been formed. This means that establishing a curriculum early on that cultivates a child’s ability to learn through assessment tools will be helpful.
The reading also touched on recognizing the need to invest in, foster and nurture faculty within internationalization. Lack of student motivation, teacher collaboration, and professionalism in school leadership can negatively impact an international plan. Some countries have decided to offer professional development for school staff and school leaders through government funding. According to Cintron and Flaniken (2001), leadership and staff development programs are essential tools in keeping employees at various levels competitive and thriving. This would also aid in the current global problem of retaining qualified staff and faculty.
I would like to address one concept from the OECD- the State of Higher Education, Research Excellence Initiatives. Yes, research can lead to broad changes and its flexibility may attract talented researchers and can lead to professorships and tenure track positions. But, research is also encountering a competitive environment within internationalization for ideas, talent and funds. Why is research funded way more than actual international programs for students? Do we care more about research or students being culturally aware? Why not alternate funding to each area every few years to make them more equitable?
Cintron, R. & Flaniken, F. (1997). Performance Appraisal: A supervision or leadership tool? International
Journal of Business and Social Science, (2) No. 17, 31-32
Great post! I was especially intrigued by one of your final questions: “Why is research funded way more than actual international programs for students?” I often wonder the same thing. While I think it is extremely important to conduct research to make sure that programs are maintaining a necessary quality — and also to conduct research for forming new partnerships — I agree with you that perhaps more of these resources should go directly to the students who will be participating in the programs. In general, I am skeptical about how much research can truly “measure” — especially when it comes to study abroad experiences for students, since so much of it is is going to be qualitative, rather than quantitative. Since resources are finite (and are getting even more so every year, it seems, as states continue to slash their budgets to higher education), it seems to me it would be better to put more of the limited funding to the students and faculty directly, rather than spending the majority of it on research.
HI Adia,
I really enjoyed your post, which gives a lot of food for thought. I agree that looking at the number of educational reforms in 2014, we all should wonder if our money are ready being property and wisely used. I am sure that we would all agree that concentrating on fewer reforms but providing more funding toward them would be more efficient than creating ridiculous number of them and not funding them properly and never follow through with any of them.
In addition, your last question about international research being funded more than the actual international student programs is also a very important point. I also was arguing that while reading the report, because it seems like the institutions and countries are still targeting rankings and recognition for their inventions and research more than the actual benefits to students. We talked about it in previous classes, that many schools enter and create efforts for internationalization because they want to be recognized and known around the world and also because it is increasing/improving their global ratings. Unfortunately, in today’s world where many things are measured with ranking and fame, it is common that the institutions’ first priority is its status, rather than students’ success and experience.
Natallia
I think the fact that there are so many reforms tells us that there are many people/groups who want change. You would think with 450 reforms from 2008 – 2014, many of them would have things in common and should be able to work together, even if it is across borders. Perhaps the reason they can’t is because everyone wants there name on it if it succeeds. Just like research, the universities with big research programs have some of the best reputations. The universities with the best internationalization programs, are often unheard of. So to respond to your last remark, why is there not more funding for internationalization, perhaps it is because it will not boost a university’s reputation. At least not yet.
Deb