Reflecting back on this week’s reading material, it was quite insightful and refreshing. The first two semesters of this program I took public and Non-profit management and Leadership in Higher Education. Both of these courses touched on the practice of developing S. M. A. R. T. goals. Which means goals should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. As a class, we had to set our own individualized goals and illustrate similar goals for a particular business for one of our exams. I thought it was reinforcing to see that S. M. A. R. T. goals was mentioned in the reading pertaining to internationalization strategic planning at institutions. It was quite informative to learn that strategic plans were created in the military, but not necessarily surprising. After reviewing the strategic plan for Baruch College, Rutgers University, The University of Kentucky, and Beloit College, I realize they are not successfully following the action plan of S. M. A. R. T. Although they have a 5 year time frame in which to complete their goals, I feel as though the details are broad and not specific enough. The Strategic Planning for Internationalization in Higher Education article noted the importance of establishing a tight deadline. For example, one of the priorities in Baruch’s global strategic plan is to increase study abroad. Yet, there isn’t a detailed outline explaining how the college anticipates achieving this goal. Although there are bullet points addressing the areas of focus, the plan doesn’t delve into the logistics of the action plan.
In one of the articles, it was stated that higher education institutions typically develop a strategic planning over a 5-7 year span but businesses tend to create new strategic plans either every year or every two years to stay competitive and adaptable to changes in society. I understand that higher education tends to refrain from taking on a business model in certain aspects, but I think this is the major reason why post-secondary education as a whole is not as current as other organizations. Internationalization strategic plans should be updated or re-structured every year or two. I respect Rutgers University for making an effort to revisit their model on a yearly basis to make sure it’s still relevant to their mission and is adapting to outside sources. Maybe all institutions should incorporate that into their strategic planning as well.
Assuming that the principles are listed in order of importance in the Strategic Planning for Internationalization in Higher Education article, principle 6: Focus on the curriculum and student learning should be the first principle. The reading by Jiang and Carpenter explained internationalization has to be integrated into faculty workloads. Before implementing new programs and curriculums that may affect a faculty members personal and holiday days, including them in the beginning stages of the process is essential. I understand faculty may be reluctant to change, but if they were treated as an asset instead of a tool in planning, they would greatly improve international applications and increase students applying to international programs.

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

The readings for this week addressed key concerns higher education institutions are currently facing without the addition of internationalization. It was mentioned that transparency would be beneficial, especially in regards to providing information on tuition, fees, and other expenses for foreign students. However, current citizens already struggle with lack of transparency in higher education. Although institutions place the cost of tuition and fees on their admissions page each year, it doesn’t allow the student to determine how much out of pocket expenses they will actually have to pay. For example, I have a veteran acquaintance that was accepted to Columbia University for a Bachelor’s program. He didn’t have orientation until the week before classes started. It was then he was able to register for courses (many of the required courses were already taken for his major) and determine how much how much student loan he would need to borrow, after the deduction from the military supplement. If our own home students are left in the dark, how can we expect to offer transparency for international students? I think it would be really neat if we had a FAFSA mechanism established earlier. A student should have an ongoing FAFSA application as a freshman in high school and be able to change information as necessary. When applying to schools, each institution should have a tuition indicator page that will allow a student to plug in their ongoing FAFSA info and the system will generate the cost of tuition for that individual student, without scholarships of course, similar to how HR Block does tax refunds online. I think this would be more transparent and international students would be able to utilize this tool as well within their home country.
The reading also touched on dual degree programs. I understand that there needs to have solid structure in place to prevent overlapping competencies, but I am concerned about the lengthy process it takes to implement a dual degree program. There is a pre-proposal, pre-proposal assessment, and then a full proposal assessment. Wouldn’t it be easier to require a full proposal with an abstract page? More time and energy should be spent on fleshing out the proposal and strengthening its positive attributes for the institution. Or running a pilot program. I remember a Floridian high school student earned her high school and college diploma within the same week. I am sure the schools that collaborated spent less time on proposals, but more time on developing a structured curriculum and offering necessary resources. I believe this is one of the major issues with internationalization. I have mentioned this in previous blogs, but the readings expounded on this concept further. Faculty and staff have to be more culturally and linguistically diverse in order to provide assistance to foreign students and the schools need to offer more student services. It will be difficult for commuter institutions to help a student acclimate on campus due to the lack of student housing, co-curricular activities (although events are offered, commuter students tend not to attend), and providing flexible student services. However, if top administrators fully support and exhibit the overall plan, it will trickle down to faculty and staff.

This week’s reading by Henard, Diamond, and Roseveare reinforced key concepts that have been addressed in previous weeks. It explained the significance of the government developing a comprehensive policy framework with other countries to enhance the system of internationalization within higher education institutions. In order to achieve a globally shared program, creating a best practices approach, model for ethics and values, and effective assessment tools would be required. Also, individualized institutions would need to link up their mission and goals with national policies and strategic plans. Since funding is crucial, collaboration, especially with research would allow fewer resources to be used. I appreciate the reading for stating the importance of a business plan. Although I mentioned in one of my other blogs that higher education should really focus on student learning, when making costly new programs, such as internationalization, as aspect of business has to be incorporated into the framework.
It is interesting that corporations were suggested to be included in the strategic thinking and implementation phase of internationalization within higher education. As we know, states are decreasing their funding towards higher education institutions, therefore a heavily reliance on fundraising has allowed the survival of many colleges and universities. A multi- national corporation is unique because once an institution builds a strong partnership with one, there can be beneficial incentives. For one, they would allocate large monetary gifts to a particular program and that could be directed towards an international office (for helping foreign students acclimate to the new campus culture), or to an international program. Corporations are motivated to giving because it provides an easy way to obtain the most skilled workers upon graduation, which is also a win-win for the institution as well. Other constituents that give to institutions, such as alumni, philanthropists, international students employed in their host or home country, regional authorities, and local communities and businesses that will benefit from internationalization should have input on strategic plans. Major gifts and annual fund giving are important for carrying out the daily operating costs of an institution. I do think these parties should have a say in the planning phase, but I fear it would become a numbers game. For example, whomever gave the most contributions would have the most influence. Large donations cannot signify access to more power. And it shouldn’t be at the institution level. Panels with random constituents can be arranged at the national level.
The reading brought up dual and joint programs and off-shore campuses, which is a foreign concept for me. I understand that there seems to be issues creating and supporting quality curriculums in these areas that do not overlap in competencies and cause tensions amongst the host and home countries. Cultural and environmental adaption is significant and faculty have to be flexible. By flexible, I am not just referencing utilizing ICT systems such blended/hybrid courses, which are effective tools for learning. Flexibility would entail being able to effectively teach a diverse set of students. Similar to professional development programs that encourage faculty and staff to partake in conferences, maybe there should be a grant funded program that ensures faculty teaching abroad or within their home campus are constantly in-tune with the needs of all of their students.

Adia Johnson

The past three readings have mainly addressed the importance of moving towards internationalization policies and programs that replicate a global equity, quality, and accountability. However, this week’s reading focused on the United States of America developing a comprehensive internationalization policy that entails the interconnectedness of faculty development, mobility, research collaborations, internationalization at home, institutional partnerships, and other aspects. Currently, the state government, federal government, non-governmental agencies, accrediting agencies, and institutions have various programs in force to attain cultural understanding and awareness. However, there are a lot of overlapping ideals, approaches, and funding amongst them. According to the reading, there have be decreases in financing in all areas and this should encourage more interagency coordination and pooling their resources together. I respect the reading stating internationalization within in Higher Education should consider a holistic approach. In the Student Services course, we also discussed a need for higher education institutions following a holistic approach and develop interdepartmental relationships to make the experience more valuable for students, faculty, and staff.
During the reading I was a bit confused about one particular situation. There is a ‘global’ program inforce that only considers foreign students in Asian countries. When I think about the word global, it means encompassing everyone. However, this program is limited in its outreach. Supposedly, there is low mobility in American students partaking in study abroad adventure, and to remedy the problem, the USA brings in more foreign students from Asian countries. However, we don’t have the resources to provide a stable support system for the increase of these Asian students. Our internationalization at home programs mainly consists of teaching students Spanish and French as a foreign language. If most of the students are learning either Spanish or French, how will they be able to communicate with international students from Asian countries? Are the faculty and staff able to effectively communicate with these students as well? If we are spending more resources on educating students on proficiently speaking Spanish and/or French, wouldn’t it be a better idea to recruit international students from Latin American or certain European countries? I understand that the Obama Administration have been developing a policy that will increase study abroad amongst European and Latin American countries, but honestly, that should be a priority. Last week I read an article about Germany offering a free education to its citizens, as well as foreign students from America, China, and Britain. Courses that are offered in English allow Germans to communicate with native speakers and the foreign students are able to learn a new language as well. Germany is also one of the countries re-working its visa to make it easier for foreign students to go to school and work. America really needs to decide if the goal is to keep international students short term or long term.
Another issue that stood out to me had to deal with academic freedom. America wants scholars to have complete academic freedom when studying abroad. I understand that our institutions take pride in faculty having academic freedom, but isn’t the reason behind internationalization is to understand cultural differences? How can we demand American values to be upheld in other country that operates differently than our own? That’s insensitive.

Adia