A Vision for ‘International Education’

A Vision for ‘International Education’
By Dr. Peter Zsebik

As an educator, it has been my privilege to teach and study in different institutions all over the world. At the beginning of my teaching career, I believed that the real challenge for me as a teacher would be to teach an ‘international curriculum’ at an ‘international school’. After a period of working in this environment, however, I found that this was really not the case, and this dichotomy was a nagging concern that continued to grow as I gained more experiences in different educational contexts. Eventually, my ideas congealed into a cohesive thought - I was a teacher from one country and cultural milieu being hired to teach my own cultural norms and expectations to students who more often than not had a completely different set of norms and expectations set by their own cultural background (Fennes and Hapgood, 1997).

I soon realised my initial impression of ‘international education’ was incorrect, and that in many a case it would be more appropriate to call the process ‘education in an international context.’ It seemed that the current institutional imperatives found in international education appeared to be focusing on a ‘national’ rather than an ‘international’ perspective in their educational environment. This was occurring despite the fact that in the majority of cases the term ‘international’ was a part of the school name, and perhaps more importantly, that the origins of the majority of academic environments in place paid no more than passing reference to the very concept of ‘international education’.

Why would this be the case? It was possible that the placement of the word ‘international’ in the name of a school was a misguided attempt to identify the nature of the school, or from a perhaps more cynical perspective, it was outright false advertising. Eventually, after discussion with others, I was reasonably sure that in the majority of cases the concept of an ‘international education’ was not fully understood. I further realized that there appeared to be a number of basic socio-political predicaments present due primarily to the evolving nature of our world society, and mass education’s resultant sliding inability to maintain its own relevancy. This may sound like a sweeping statement, but I have found that most educators share this sense of irrelevancy bearing down on them.

We all know the concept of mass education started in an earlier age (Beare and Slaughter, 1993), with the prime motive focusing on the socialisation of the child for the society in which he/she were to live (Lawton, 1975). From all appearances, however, this model of education and socialisation was effective for the time in which it was created, but perhaps it is time to question whether a continuation of the same curricular and structural approach is still appropriate for the world of today given the speed of social change and the evolution of its accompanying complexity.

Evidence of the need for refinement is apparently more sensed than understood; one can walk into many a school around the world and have a conversation that will focus on the academic environment, and these conversations could be summarized thus - that many current systems of education are finding it difficult to synchronise their efforts with the surrounding fast-paced societal change simply because the educational imperatives driving western educational dogma from that earlier age are thoroughly entrenched, and that therefore any viable alternatives become burdened by historic expectations. Interestingly, however, when the conversation turns to the foci of the academic curriculum, there appears to be strong general agreement that change should indeed occur (Zsebik, 2003), and it should come sooner rather than later.

This is not to state that the concept of mass education is obsolete. I believe the standard business models for academic institutions are still serviceable (see below), and that the current social structure of our civilization requires the actual physical institution and all of its built- in imperatives (ibid., 2003). To maintain our relevancy in the marketplace, however, it is important that we determine if the academic product of these institutions are in need of some refinement. The very notion of survival may in the end prove the impetus for academic change should other alternatives (e.g. home schooling via the internet) become more of a distinct possibility. There is a continuing prospect that the school as an institution will come under a great deal of pressure to justify its existence, and the only way we can do that is to refine the academic output to synchronise with the needs of the society the institution is meant to serve.

This then provided the impetus for my research, through which I attempted a deconstruction of the academic environment to better determine the socio-political influences at work. Further, it was necessary to determine how these influences shape the educational outcomes of the student and whether these outcomes help, or hinder, the goals of an ‘international education’.

Background to the Vision

As we all know, education will always need a goal or mission to direct the outcome of the learner. What can be at issue, however, is the (un)intentional recycling of goals that were perhaps more pertinent in the past, with the addition of some cosmetic changes to personify the notion of progress. This may have happened for a number of reasons, all of them relating to the forces at work within the specified community. To reiterate, these reasons could include ignorance, ossification, or even deliberate maintenance of a hegemonic focus for political ends. There is, however, no convincing reason to perpetuate these approaches when they no longer serve the needs of that society. But then the question remains – how does one break a cycle of this nature?

In my thesis I began by attempting to identify and galvanise particular concepts central to the understanding of education generally, and then to follow with a determination of what constitutes an ‘international education’ and what made it different from ‘education in an international context’ This may sound like the splitting of hairs, but the difference between these two ideas is pivotal to achieving a more informed analysis.

To begin, it was necessary to recognise that an academic environment is created from many different elements, and these elements in turn will have a direct influence on the socio-political outcome of a student. These outcomes can be described as follows:
· The transformative intellectual is one who has been given the opportunity to utilise his/her intellectual powers to solve problems and deal with specific issues that bear relevance to the situation in which he/she finds him/herself.
· The critical intellectual may be defined as one who has been given the necessary information and possibly skills to see the problems and opportunities in his/her environment but lacks the impetus or intellectual scope to affect serious change.
· The accommodating intellectual can be likened to an individual who is aware of the needs, problems and opportunities of his environment, but attempts very little to affect change due to his/her belief that nothing will change
· The hegemonic intellectual is an individual who has been given only the ‘necessary’ information such that the status quo will be maintained within society.
(Zsebik, 2000)

Secondly, what will be included in this academic environment can be evaluated through an analysis of the socio-political constructs of the academic setting. To further develop a more cohesive picture of this ‘transformative’ academic environment, we must also focus on the different influences affecting an educational institution. To put it briefly, I identified these influences with an acronym that brings a smile to Star Trek fans everywhere. It is S.P.A.C.E and stands for the following:

S = Student
P = Parent
A = Administration
C = Curricula
E = Educator

“This mnemonic that was chosen to summarise the elements found within a school is not without reason. Firstly, the physical ‘S.P.A.C.E’ a school utilizes would have little relevant meaning if these elements were not to interact to form a community, but at the same time this ‘community’ could not be created without the ‘S.P.A.C.E’ that the school provides. It is within this ‘S.P.A.C.E that the community and therefore the school and its educational agendas are defined. It is in effect an ideal representation of the interactive framework found within a specified educational setting.” (Zsebik, 2003)

Two other aspects concerning the use of ‘S.P.A.C.E’ as a defining element include the necessity of each of these elements to be available within the academic setting of a school, and finally that if one of the letter representations were to be replaced or removed, then the concept school would be lost. In effect, there is an inseparable link between these five entities that cannot be altered without serious consequence to the concept. (ibid., 2003)

It is important to note right from the outset that the inclusion of the curriculum as an influential force is imperative. It is, after all, the adopted curriculum that organises the various information deigned to be representative of the wishes and/or values that particular academic community holds. From this perspective, one can surmise the import for educators to become aware, initially, of the socio-political environment in which they are working so that they are better able to understand those influences at work in the relative academic environment. To proceed, however, they must then deduce how these influences shape the educational outcomes of the student and whether these outcomes are positive or negative to the ultimate objective of an ‘international education’.

To develop a comprehensive understanding of those influences and related academic outcomes, educators must be aware of three different curricula that run correspondingly within any academic institution. The academic curriculum is the one that we are all familiar with as it dictates our teaching direction for each class. But then there is the hidden curriculum and the pastoral curriculum. The hidden curriculum is that which one doesn’t see but inherently senses. An example of this is that the teacher is the authority figure who tells the student not to chew gum in class. An example of the pastoral curriculum concerns itself with certain aspects found within the academic environment that are in place perhaps to ensure the safety and security of the student. The question then remains as to how these three curricula contribute to the outcome of the educational environment?

One way to determine this outcome would be to focus on what I have termed the Paradigmatic curriculum of an institution (ibid., 2003). This Paradigmatic curriculum signifies all three of the curricula and their contributions within one institution. When given collective coherence, they create the paradigm (hence the Paradigmatic Curriculum) under which that institution is operating, and this paradigm can be measured on a socio-political spectrum indicating the educational outcome that ranges from the hegemonic to the more appropriate transformative international-mindedness as outlined above. As part of this deconstruction, we must also include those levels of society affecting a student’s educational needs, ranging from the local to the international, to determine the issues and problems the student must be prepared to face in the future.

There will be guesswork in this process, but if there is a core of educational foresight, then we will be able to predict with some confidence the skills and knowledge bases a student will need when combined with the teaching of a critical-thinking and problem-solving process. Secondly, the importance of various curricular foci for the student would be determined through an evaluation of the socio-political constructs of the educational setting, in this case an ‘international’ setting. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the process of implementation. With this step, the educator would develop a thorough understanding of how to create an educational outcome that is both transformative and international (ibid., 2003). This last feature however is perhaps the most dangerous to the progressive educational mindset. Why? The following quote may help to illustrate my personal sense:

‘The voyage from first identification of student needs to eventual learner achievement is often stormy, but more good curricula sink without a trace on the shoals of implementation then at any other point.’ (Pratt, 1980)

In other words, the implementation of a curriculum is based on how effectively you can convince those involved that it is the right thing to do.

To summarize, when following an approach focusing on creating the appropriate intellectual mindset in the student, we may be able to achieve some headway. In some ways, there is nothing new to the process; the only difference is to place one’s parameters on a scale large enough to encompass a truly ‘international’ perspective, and this can only be accomplished through an ‘international’ educational concept that is shared by the community.

Envisioning the Future of International Education

‘International education’ as found in international schools and perhaps elsewhere can provide an educational community with a potential direction for education. Their growing appearance of these ‘international’ schools beside other world systems of education may indicate a strong desire for participation in this brand (at least as advertised) of education, and this desire is driven by a client base who may believe it could lead to a more fitting academic outcome for their child. In my experience the international schools in this system are well versed in working within a multicultural environment at a local through to an international level. Many of these international schools have also adopted curricular programmes such as the International Baccalaureate whose aim, as Roger Peel pointed out, has shifted its curricular emphases from ‘a curriculum for international schools’ to developing ‘an international curriculum for schools’ (Wallace, 1997). This shift in emphasis is important as it indicates a thoughtfulness to changes occurring within the educational landscape – one that is focused on developing an international-mindedness in the student.

What is of danger to this process, however, is the watering down and perhaps blatant disregard to the notion of an ‘international education’ for the purpose of catering to national/ imperialistic political agendas. To do something of this nature is contraindicative to the overall aims of an ‘international education’ paradigm and any policy adoption other than an international education paradigm serves few people’s best interest, particularly the students’, who will come away with nothing more than a confused concept of what it means to be part of an international society.

To this end, it is my belief that an educational environment servicing an international community must necessarily strive to create an international perspective addressing the needs and concerns of that socio-political setting. The seeds of this type of educational landscape can be found scattered throughout the international school community, and it is there we can perhaps find the solutions mass education may be looking for to become once more a directional rather historical force for our society. To all appearances, therefore, it appears the time is right to take seriously the notion of attempting to create an ‘international education’ whose focus is on the development of transformative international-mindedness in the student.

What this means is that we must now have a starting point from which we can better postulate potential directions that will allow education to remain effective and relevant for today’s society. We must focus our vision for education on developing an all-inclusive environment that allows for an ‘international education’; that is, one that allows the multitudinous groups interested in pursuing a mandate of knowledge, peace and lifelong learning a chance to achieve their full potential as part of the ‘international society.’

As a beginning to determining the different perspectives necessary to creating the appropriate transformative international intellect, I have identified 12 common characteristics that are applicable for an ‘international education’ (Zsebik, 2003). In every case, these characteristics are what I have also determined as of great import by those affected individuals participating in the ‘international education’ environment (see SPACE). These characteristics are as follows:

1. Balanced curriculum
2. Academically rigorous
3. Relate experience of classroom to outside world
4. High academic standards
5. Promoting ideals for international understanding
6. Responsible citizenship
7. Critical thinking skills
8. Lifelong learners
9. Participation in local and world affairs
10. Conscious of shared humanity that serves as universal bond
11. Respecting a variety of cultures and attitudes
12. Ability to communicate, implying bilingualism

All of the above are not new to the academic environment. Indeed, they are all from different existing sources that interestingly enough happen to agree independently on these characteristics (see Zsebik, 2003). These sources include not only academics approaching the issue from different perspectives, but they also include aspects derived from the major curricular programmes found currently in ‘education in an international context’. These common characteristics could provide a framework for a complete curricular programme that is able to address the issues and problems facing children as they prepare for tomorrow’s world. When paired with a more complete understanding of the inner workings of an academic institution as briefly outlined above, and a desire to create a transformative intellectual outcome in the student, there is a good chance that we as educators will have found a more appropriate educational vision for our students who are learning within an international educational environment.



References

Beare H & Slaughter R (1993), Education for the Twenty-First Century Routledge, London

Fennes H & Hapgood K (1997) Intercultural Learning in the Classroom, Cassell, London

Lawton D (1975) Class, Culture, and the Curriculum, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London

Pratt (1980)

Wallace E (ed) (April 1997) The IB Hexagon: Straitjacket or Flexible Model for the Future? IB World, Cardiff

Zsebik P in Hayden M & Thompson J eds. (2000b) International Schools and International Education Kogan Page, London

Zsebik P (2003) A Comparative Analysis of Four Approaches to Curriculum Offered in International Education (University of Bath, Ph.D Thesis)