 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Find more Kappan articles in the Subscribe today to access complete current issues online!
Conclusion Guest editors Stewart and Kagan reflect on what the articles in this special section have taught us about the impact of globalization on education systems around the world. They conclude with recommendations for steps the U.S. can take to advance its own role in the ongoing development of international education. AFTER THE discovery of atomic fission, Albert Einstein said, "Everything has changed except the way we think." While less cataclysmic, the quickening pace of globalization over the past 20 years -- driven by the profound technological changes described by Thomas Friedman in The World Is Flat; by the economic resurgence of China, Russia, and India; and by the accelerating pace of scientific discovery -- has produced a whole new world. The implications of these changes are not completely clear, but it is clear that the changes will be profound. Information, people, and ideas now traverse the globe with unprecedented speed and frequency. Perhaps even more important, such internationalization affects every field of endeavor. Yet somewhat ironically, our educational discourse is largely stuck in a time warp, framed by issues and standards set decades before the widespread use of the personal computer, the Internet, and free trade agreements. But we can no more afford to isolate ourselves educationally than we can economically or in terms of national security. At the same time, other countries such as China, Russia, India, South Africa, Chile, Jordan, and Brazil, to mention but a few, are reexamining their education systems and making fundamental reforms in response to changed political conditions and demographic shifts and in order to prepare their students to be successful in the knowledge-intensive, high-tech, and globalized economy. They and other nations around the world are eager to share their own experiences and effective practices and to learn from the educational choices made by other countries. Common Challenges Clearly, because of widely differing historical, social, and economic contexts, the nations of the world are at very different stages of progress in education and child development services. But as economies in most of the world become more knowledge-intensive and as populations press for greater opportunities for their children, governments face many similar challenges as they seek to expand access to education and child development services; to increase the quality, effectiveness, and accountability of their investments in these areas; and to wrestle with new issues brought on by globalization itself. 1. Increasing access. Worldwide, access to education has improved greatly over the past 30 years. Enormous expansions of basic education in countries as different as South Africa and Turkey have helped to open up societies in ways unimaginable a generation ago. But much remains to be done -- 110 million children around the world, including over 60 million girls, do not go to school at all. The high returns on investments in basic education in terms of health and economic development suggest the urgency of creating effective national and international responses to the Millennium Development Goal of getting all children into basic education by 2015. Even where children are enrolled in school, the overwhelming challenge remains to narrow the achievement gaps between poor children and their more affluent peers and between children in cities and those in rural areas. The nature of a society's expenditures and policies can have a major impact on the size of these gaps and is an important area for cross-national discussion.1 More recently, some societies have begun to invest in early childhood services on a large scale. These investments have been spurred by research on the early development of the brain; by longitudinal evaluations of early intervention programs that demonstrate the benefits of early childhood education for children's cognitive, social, and emotional development as well as their longer-term success in school and in the labor force; and by the significant cost savings that accrue to those societies that provide the benefit of high-quality early education. This expansion is familiar in industrial societies in which women's participation in the labor force is the norm, but it is also taking place in developing countries and, especially, in the E-9 group of emerging nations, where 50% of the world's children live. Despite these increased investments, early childhood education remains remote from the experience of millions of young children whose families and nations are preoccupied with the exigencies of daily life and survival. In higher education, there have been large increases in enrollments in countries where postsecondary schooling has traditionally been reserved for the elite. Still, the global demand for higher education is projected to grow even further, from 97 million students in 2000 to 263 million students in 2025. At least seven million of these will be students studying outside their home nations, many via distance education. The ways in which universities finance and manage their teaching responsibilities is changing rapidly to accommodate this enormous growth. 2. Increasing quality, effectiveness, and accountability. As countries increase their investments in education and child development services and seek to improve student outcomes, they often adopt similar strategies. Standards are being used to organize and manage early childhood systems in countries as different as Jordan, Ghana, and the Philippines, as well as in American schools. Governance changes to integrate early care and education and to promote the transition to school are being adopted in most member nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Beyond early childhood education, reforms to improve the quality and effectiveness of education are legion. For example, student testing and accountability efforts are major mechanisms of reform in most industrial countries. Experimentation with different degrees of centralization and decentralization in policy making and management are becoming the norm as countries seek greater efficiency and output for their education dollars. And parental choice, charters, vouchers, and the involvement of the private sector are approaches being tried in many countries with differing levels of resources. In many parts of the world, a premium is put on the entrepreneurial skills of institutions and their ability to adapt to rapid change. 3. New challenges. At the same time as efforts to improve access and achievement are being pursued, societies are confronting new educational challenges created by the forces of globalization. All over the world, increased migration is creating more heterogeneous societies and placing new demands on educators to respond to students and families from differing cultural, religious, and linguistic backgrounds. Today, some American universities enroll about 20% of their student bodies from overseas. In addition to challenging schools to adapt to new populations, globalization raises questions of whether the knowledge and skill sets needed by today's graduates will be significantly different from those needed in the past. While the U.S. bemoans its relatively low standing on traditional measures of academic achievement, other countries that score well on such tests are trying to create more flexible learning environments and to produce the less easily measured skills of creativity and problem solving, which are considered important in a knowledge-intensive, high-tech, global environment. Members of the next generation will have to function effectively not only in their own societal contexts but also in international contexts, so that knowledge of languages and other cultures and the ability to function in cross-cultural situations also become critical parts of a 21st-century skill set. Learning from One Another In this new global context, the U.S. cannot afford to be isolated. In the sphere of early childhood education, our country has much to learn from other nations that have taken the idea of early learning standards and are using them to begin to build coherent systems. The experiences of OECD countries in linking care and education provide cogent examples of different forms of governance, professional development, and pedagogy. Unlike eras past, when the transnational transmission of knowledge was primarily related to pedagogy and classroom theory and practice, nations today are learning about governance, policy strategies, and the creation of early childhood systems. One area in which U.S. policy makers have paid serious attention with regard to recent international comparisons is science, where Americans' weaker performance is seen as hurting our global competitiveness. A growing body of research and international discussions on science suggest that the U.S. has a lot to learn from high-performing countries, especially those in East Asia. These countries have a much smaller number of clearly stated curriculum goals and standards; a more effectively organized curriculum that emphasizes mastery rather than a "spiral" approach; a clearer alignment of standards, textbooks, assessments, and teacher preparation; stronger subject-matter preparation of teachers as well as specialized science teachers in elementary schools; and significantly more time devoted to the study of science through longer school days and years and higher levels of homework.2 At the same time, a growing consensus in the U.S. about the centrality of teachers has led to a range of reforms of teacher education, the development of professional teaching standards, and the insistence that, under No Child Left Behind, schools hire only "highly qualified teachers." While there are important domestic initiatives in each of these areas, there is much still to be learned from other nations' more systemic approaches to ensuring that well-trained teachers are more widely available to students. For example, in many OECD countries, preservice education is a feature of graduate-level training so that teachers can focus on stronger subject-matter preparation as undergraduates and more intensive clinical training in graduate school. Coupled with the more serious teacher-induction programs in Japan, China, and New Zealand; widespread collegial professional improvement in Japan and China; and greater financial support for teaching in a number of countries, such ideas have produced both high-quality teaching and fewer teacher shortages in some other countries and clearly warrant analysis by those who would strengthen the profession in the U.S. American educators could also learn from other countries that have more wide-scale experience with choice mechanisms. Finally, other countries have made more serious commitments to the development of language abilities, new kinds of international literacy, and global competence than does the U.S. At the same time that American educators can learn from the policies and practices of other countries, educators from other parts of the world look to the U.S. for lessons. In the field of early childhood education, American-generated research is influencing nations as large as China and as small as Fiji. Not only are policy makers around the world learning about the remarkable capacities of the human brain and the consequences for early development, but they also appreciate U.S. research on early childhood pedagogy, finance, and accountability. Indeed, many nations routinely translate reports from the National Academy of Sciences and from individual scholars. Perhaps with even more gusto than U.S. policy makers, they also take research findings and translate them into practice. China has reformed its approach to early education and now offers some superb examples of inventive, creative early childhood pedagogy. American early childhood education also has lessons to teach the world about the role of technology, about the engagement of families, about inventive approaches to financing, and even about the negative consequences of poor teacher preparation and teacher turnover. With respect to elementary and secondary education, while international comparisons suggest that U.S. achievement in core subjects is not at the level of some other industrialized countries, educational leaders from other nations admire the creativity and problem-solving abilities of U.S. students. Indeed, they perceive these as great strengths of America's culture and education system. Inquiry and discovery methods of instruction, uses of technology in the classroom, student-centered rather than teacher-directed learning -- all are seen as better developed in the U.S. than in many other countries. Moreover, in terms of organizational structures -- e.g., the ability to innovate, the flexibility to involve other community institutions and nongovernmental institutions, the capacity to combine vocational and technical education rather than treat them as completely separate streams, and the ability to involve a broader range of actors in decision making -- other countries have much to learn from U.S. experience. American higher education is also greatly admired around the world, as shown by the numbers of foreign students who come to study in the U.S. The strength of American science at the higher education level is widely acknowledged and stands in contrast to the perceived weakness of science education at the K-12 level. The range of second-chance opportunities for students, the flexibility and adaptability of U.S. community colleges, and the real opportunities for lifelong learning are all seen as areas in which other countries might learn from American mechanisms and experience. These are just some examples of the myriad lessons that researchers and leaders can glean from international comparisons. But it takes time and a serious commitment to learn enough about other systems to understand the interconnectedness of particular structures and practices. Earlier notions of knowledge transfer were too simple; we now understand that no nation can simply adopt a practice from another without taking into account the cultural and national values and structures in which it is embedded. International exchanges -- of information and people -- can serve to broaden our understanding and help nations adapt what they learn from the experience of others. Moreover, such cultural interaction helps educational leaders understand the competition that our students will be facing in future years. The question at hand, however, is how to strengthen our ability to learn from the experiences of other countries and how to make those lessons more effective in our own contexts. New Commitments and New Approaches to Comparative Education Across the globe, efforts are under way to foster greater international exchange at substantive levels that transcend the "food, fashion, and festival" approach to cultural understanding. While the articles in this special section have demonstrated that progress is being made, it must be more systematic and better supported if it is to be sustainable. History has shown us that episodic interventions remain just that -- episodic -- and do not become widespread. Given the state of international relations and the technologies available, we have both the rationale and the means to redress these problems. But where and how do we begin? While other nations can certainly improve their own efforts, because we are Americans passionately committed to advancing the U.S. role in and commitment to international education, we focus our recommendations here on what the U.S. can do. We are not the first to note that U.S. education has not been systematically informed by experiences with education in other countries. This is all the more surprising given that other sectors of American society (e.g., business, science, health, popular culture) have actively reached out to become more knowledgeable about practices in other countries. Currently, most educators and parents know little more about education in other countries than "we are not number one in mathematics and science." If the U.S. is to adapt and thrive in this Global Age, if we are to learn from and share our knowledge with others, we must make systematic and serious commitments to establishing mechanisms to promote international interchange. America is in a position to take leadership, and to that end, we offer the following suggestions: 1. Broaden the range and locus of research. Large-scale international surveys of student achievement have been the most visible aspect of comparative research. While these data are important in providing us some common indicators for discussion, we need to embrace a broader range of methodologies and examine a broader range of outcomes.3 We must also extend our view of the world beyond our traditional focus on Western Europe to include other countries whose economies are becoming critical to the U.S. and whose education systems are improving rapidly. 2. Increase the value of research for policy. Many comparative education studies are very small-scale analyses of a single issue in one or two places. Typically, the conclusions cannot be generalized to other places or populations. Of greater value to policy are larger studies or syntheses of studies that examine a high-priority issue across a range of different countries, as do a number of articles in this special section. Broader and more transferable, they provide policy makers with a wider set of options and some sense of the tradeoffs to consider. 3. Involve practitioners in international dialogue. Comparative education needs to move beyond the world of academic researchers and international organizations to involve practitioners. This can be done by engaging teachers in the formulation and conduct of studies and in all sorts of exchanges. These processes have a stronger tradition in other countries. Given the centrality of teacher quality, there is no reason why outstanding American teachers could not be engaged in classroom observations in other countries. Outstanding principals should be able to do short-term shadowing of their counterparts in countries where particular aspects of practice are deemed of interest to U.S. educators. New technologies enable any interested teacher or principal to communicate regularly with a counterpart in another country, sharing teaching units and student work. 4. Create joint research and development projects. International research teams are becoming more and more common in science, health, and industry, but they remain rare in education and child development. Joint research projects on high-priority topics of mutual interest would be valuable. Joint teams could develop technology-based approaches to such key subject areas as science, where teacher shortages limit many students' access to crucial learning. Such projects could reach millions of children in the U.S. and in other parts of the world. 5. Create institutional partnerships to integrate international content into teacher preparation and leadership development. Just as no business can rise to the top today without significant exposure to business practices around the world, so our teachers and educational leaders need to understand how to incorporate an international dimension into teaching and be able to compare our education systems against international benchmarks. Institutional partnerships between schools, universities, schools of education, or early childhood professional associations in different countries would encourage prospective teachers to understand the international dimensions of their subject so that they could incorporate international content into their teaching. Such partnerships would enable aspiring principals to examine different ideas about effective school practice. Moreover, international partnerships would build capacity on both sides. While limited in number, these recommendations are doable. They would significantly advance international education in the U.S. and at the same time foster a healthy international climate for exchange. In the field of education, from early childhood through higher education, no nation has a patent on excellence. Like the children we serve, we are all learners. The immediate challenge, therefore, is to create learning environments wherein educators worldwide can meaningfully pursue global learning as a means to global understanding. 1. Iris C. Rotberg, ed., Balancing Change and Tradition in Global Education Reform (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Education, 2004). 2. U.S.-China Education Leaders Forum on Math and Science Education, Asia Society, New York, 2005. 3. Emerson Elliott, Understanding Others, Educating Ourselves: Getting More from International Comparative Studies in Education (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 2003). VIVIEN STEWART is vice president for education, Asia Society, New York, N.Y. SHARON LYNN KAGAN is Virginia & Leonard Marx Professor of Early Childhood and Family Policy, co-director of the National Center for Children and Families, and associate dean for policy, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, N.Y., as well as professor adjunct at the Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. |
|
|
