In ACE’s International Higher Education Partnerships, I gleaned one major theme: for a program to survive, there must be transparency. The piece delves into many other topics, but that is the one that, to me, is at the base of them all. There are so many steps to ensuring a successful program, from the inception to implementation to assessment, that nothing can be forgotten or overlooked.

When it comes to running an international education program, involved parties cannot take anything for granted. Whether it is creating appropriate curricula, hiring suitable faculty, or obtaining funding, every detail affects quality. Something as fundamental as language could derail an entire program due to misinterpretation. I say this because when you associate with people from other countries, you never know how others will understand your policies. At my college of employment, where many of our students are from other countries, miscommunications occur frequently. This is what is called a ‘pattern sheet,’ or a list of all the classes a student needs to take in order to graduate. In the bottom left corner, there is a paragraph explaining that certain courses are recommended, but not required. This creates a lot of confusion amongst students because some believe that they should be taking those courses no matter what, while others are more lax about their interpretation and will take other classes. What they choose may end up impacting what they need to take when they get to a senior college. This example demonstrates that semantics can effect the decisions made by students, which signifies that any and all international programs must be very careful with their wording.

Transparency is a concept that all areas of education should follow. An international education program must get funded, so it is absolutely necessary for the finance team to look over everything and make sure that all their dealings are kosher. Gross indicates that it is one of the most important roles of the finance director to keep clear records that everyone can comprehend. I bring this up simply to reiterate that from top to bottom, all aspects of a program must be air-tight.

This applies to the staff and faculty that is hired. As the readings suggest, they must be skilled in intercultural communication. They must be patient and articulate so students can understand things clearly. Additionally, faculty needs to be a good match for the program. There is a problem across the board of professors being hired at institutions that do not fit their pedagogical philosophies, or professors teaching subjects they shouldn’t be teaching. Since quality assurance is such a key factor in international education, the above-mentioned occurrences are big no-nos.

All of this reminds me of one of the most memorable things I have learned in graduate school- the four frames by Bolman and Deal. Probably everyone has taken the organizational management class in this program, so I won’t go into detail, but as a refresher, the four frames are strategic, human resources, political, and symbolic. As I was reading the documents for this week, my mind kept on wandering back to the four frames. Which one would best fit an international education program? I almost immediately nixed human resources, despite heavily leaning towards that frame myself. By process of elimination, I would then take away symbolic, simply because oftentimes the objectives of the program don’t directly relate to the mission of the institution. Still, the SIO can instill in his/her staff the notion that what they are doing is important. That leaves us with strategic and political. At this point, I realized that I couldn’t assume that just one frame would be the best fit- that would contradict the very concept of reframing. So, I decided that all frames could be used, but perhaps with a slight bias towards strategic. In the readings, especially the one about joint/dual degree programs, it is obvious how detail-oriented things must be. Using the degree programs as an example, the countries, institutions, programs, and students all must understand the difference between joint and dual before anything else! That being said, whoever ends up becoming the SIO must have a strong background in analysis and a history of paying close attention to detail. Who here thinks that they are, or will be one day, cut out for that role?