There are countless perspectives and factors at play when we look any topic so vast as to need words like "Globalization" and "Internationalization" to describe it. With this little blog post I can't hope to do more than a very general overview of the economic, social, and political aspects of globalization and impact on both the P-12 and higher education levels.
To start, let's look at the words in use: Globalist and Internationalist. Many have pointed out that the two words are often used interchangeably, but they are actually quite different. In reality, the pragmatic "Globalist" and ideological "Internationalist" (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004) are only similar in that they play on the same field, but with different motives. The globalist interest is primarily an economic interest. The internationalist interest is primarily about culture, beliefs, and ideas. Both are seen as driving motives for global and international conquest. They represent different players in this movement working together, sometimes in harmony and sometimes at odds, but both worldviews and motives landed on the formation of international education. "It is evident that the dual aspirations for international understanding and global free trade have formed the ideology of international education since its inception." (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004).
There are different ideas about when the concentrated effort to create International Education began. Some, like Cambridge & Thompson, suggest that it could have been as recent as the formation of the IB program in the late 1960's or perhaps a bit older than that, citing a description by Charles Dickens describing a less formally so but still very much international school formed "of many nationalities was established near Isle-worth, Middlesex in 1866 under the patronage of free trade Radicals". Still others like Huang will go further back in history to look at different historical motivations for internationalization starting in the 12th Century with Christendom bringing both the Gospel message and also western "Christian" culture to foreign lands through education, and eventually devolving into economic and political drivers for international education in the subsequent centuries (Huang 51). Of course, we would also want to consider how Christendom made its way from Asia minor into these western countries before the 12th century if not through international education. It would also be good to see if there are any examples of globalist and/or internationalist motives in education before then - and there certainly were! We can look, as an example, at the Globalist conquest of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, which had primarily economic motives, but also ideological motives (Hail Caesar). We can also look earlier at Babylon in around 600 BC to see an example of a form of International Education, in which Babylonian education was forced upon a select group of Hebrew slaves who being assimilated into Babylonian government (Daniel 1:1-5). In anycase, using very generic definitions of the words, it seems that Globalist ideas and Internationalist ideas in using education to gain influence are nothing new under the sun.
How does it work? Whatever their motives, when different nations cross borders - locals and foreigners have kids and their kids need an education. There are some interesting differences in approaches to how this happens. Sometimes there is simply a transplant of one culture either into the midst of or upon another. Other times there are types of synthesis that can happen (whether intentionally or not). When either of these happen intentionally, there is usually a driving motivation that guides the people administering this education. One schema (Leach, 1969) looks at them like this:
• unilateral internationalism, such as a country concerned chiefly with the education of its own personnel away from home in a different country;
• bilateral internationalism, such as exchange between and among students of two countries, chiefly at university level; and
• multilateral internationalism, requiring investment from at least three national sources, no one of them dominant.
Some schools in my local/ international context (Singapore) call themselves "international" but only achieve this by virtue of Leache's first definition - unilateral. The Singapore American School, Waseda School (Japanese) or the Ecole Francais (French) are some good examples of this. They are primarily concerned with providing the same type of education that their sponsoring nations would provide in country - just in a different country. One could make the argument that they are somehow bilateral or multilateral by virtue of the diverse student body - but this really isn't the definition Leach was using, especially since the vast majority of teachers and students are from the organizing nation.
Other schools on the island are clearly bilateral - such as the Lasalle/Goldsmiths or the Yale/NUS (recently ended), or the USTD/MIT University partnerships. In these one University benefits from the enrollment of the other, while the other benefits from the reputation of its partner.
Whatever the differences in the partner's benefits, there is a unification of the system that results in a standardification of the systems and schools. "The hyperglobalist trend towards the formation of one single world order is represented in international education by the aspiration for a system of education that transcends national frontiers." (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004). Another writer, Futao Huang, describes the schema in a similar way, expounding on the motivations and aims. "globalisation aims principally at establishing a single or universally-acknowledged model, beyond countries and cultures, while internationalisation emphasises an exchange or communication between different countries and cultures." One of the critiques of the many international tests measuring 21st C skills is that, although standards measured are said to be "to be valid cross-culturally and internationally" (Valiente, 2020) - are they representative of what is really best for individual cultures? Do global rubrics measure what is best for individuals or only for global interests? "It it is also very useful in thinking about global education policy to ask: who compares and for what purposes?" (Robertson, 2017).
There are other schools in Singapore that are designed to be Internationalist in ideals - such as the United World College (and many others that I have seen pop up in the past couple of decades) which was formed to promote the idea of Global Citizenship and International standardization (Cambridge & Thompson 2004).
It seems contradictory that an effort to create an international culture would instead result in breaking several cultures down to a lowest common denominator - but that is often the case. "Internationalisation occurs with the precondition that different countries and cultures exist, whereas globalisation proceeds on the assumption that countries and cultures are of decreasing significance." (Huang) The first aims seem to honor diversity, while the second seems to diminish it. I had a student recently transfer from UWC to my school. His critique of the worldview was telling of the success of this worldview in this student's life: "they try so hard to recognize everyone and celebrate everything that they effectively recognize noone and celebrate nothing." He also complained that their process of assessment of a set of standards and skills completely overlooked the special needs of individuals like him. It seems a harsh critique for a school that has made an effort to present an International/Global culture from its inception. While the intentions may start well, it seems that it is as Maringe described: This type of "International education is ambiguous and contradictory. Forms of international education offer ways of having more intimate contact with the world whilst insulating oneself from it. It celebrates cultural diversity whilst tending towards the development of monoculture." (Maringe, 2013).
I wonder about where my school fits into this schema. About the International Community School (Singapore) it has been said that it "is not an American school, but an International School with an American curriculum" (personal communication, Dr. JP Rader April 2020). It is a School that uses an American system of curriculum with teachers and staff from many different nations. There is no majority group in the diverse student body, and a Biblical worldview as the primary ideology - though students of all faiths and backgrounds are welcomed, honored and enrolled. The same student mentioned above compared the two schools and, though he did not call himself a Christian, he said that he was glad to be in a school with a fixed point in it's worldview to learn and compare with as he developed his own. At UWC he felt as though he was "floating" in relativity with no definitive statements to agree with, resist or play off of. The school is in the unique position of being multilateral in the sense that there are several stakeholders from different nations, cultures and religions. There are clearly areas that we can grow, such as reaching a broader socio-economic demographic (though the school does use adjustments in fees and other arrangements to help accommodate those who can not afford the full fees). With a clear and unambiguous emphasis on a Biblical worldview, one can ask "An ‘international’ school may serve a clientele from a variety of countries, but to what extent does it encourage education for international understanding?" (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004). This is a very good question! My school seeks to answer this question in allowing students the liberty to come to an understanding of a Biblical worldview, and to consider their own experiences, cultures, and perhaps religions in comparison with that - while honoring and seeking to recognize the ideas shared between students and their cultures and a Biblical worldview. It is an interesting unique view of International relations that is at least two millennia old (Revelation 7:9) which describes a "great multitude from every tribe, tongue and nation" in Heaven celebrating in diversity together.
There are going to be critiques of the above as a motivation for International Education (there have been for centuries) that include the idea of dismantling cultures or dominating others. There have been examples throughout history where what seemed to be a good start had turned into abuse. This is a problem that must not be put aside, but should be brought up constantly addressed as needed in every context. The same critique can be, and is, applied to the aims and outcomes of sharing the Internationalist ideals. "The cultural influence aspect is more aligned with the notion of cultural dominance that seems to be an important aspect in the power game between nations on a global scale." (Maringe Et al, 15) There are concerns for a globalized education system… especially the obvious primary concern that cultures will be lost to a blobby monoculture. "In their conclusion, Rizvi and Lingard reiterate their contention that neoliberalism has become the dominant social imaginary of globalization resulting in narrow conceptions of education that emphasize values of market efficiency, individual self-interest, and liberty." (Nagahara, 2011) Are we really just training our students to occupy either side of the Starbucks or McD counters celebrating regional burgers and international fair trade brews on every street corner of every city, town and village of the one world? I really hope not!
Sources
To start, let's look at the words in use: Globalist and Internationalist. Many have pointed out that the two words are often used interchangeably, but they are actually quite different. In reality, the pragmatic "Globalist" and ideological "Internationalist" (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004) are only similar in that they play on the same field, but with different motives. The globalist interest is primarily an economic interest. The internationalist interest is primarily about culture, beliefs, and ideas. Both are seen as driving motives for global and international conquest. They represent different players in this movement working together, sometimes in harmony and sometimes at odds, but both worldviews and motives landed on the formation of international education. "It is evident that the dual aspirations for international understanding and global free trade have formed the ideology of international education since its inception." (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004).
There are different ideas about when the concentrated effort to create International Education began. Some, like Cambridge & Thompson, suggest that it could have been as recent as the formation of the IB program in the late 1960's or perhaps a bit older than that, citing a description by Charles Dickens describing a less formally so but still very much international school formed "of many nationalities was established near Isle-worth, Middlesex in 1866 under the patronage of free trade Radicals". Still others like Huang will go further back in history to look at different historical motivations for internationalization starting in the 12th Century with Christendom bringing both the Gospel message and also western "Christian" culture to foreign lands through education, and eventually devolving into economic and political drivers for international education in the subsequent centuries (Huang 51). Of course, we would also want to consider how Christendom made its way from Asia minor into these western countries before the 12th century if not through international education. It would also be good to see if there are any examples of globalist and/or internationalist motives in education before then - and there certainly were! We can look, as an example, at the Globalist conquest of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, which had primarily economic motives, but also ideological motives (Hail Caesar). We can also look earlier at Babylon in around 600 BC to see an example of a form of International Education, in which Babylonian education was forced upon a select group of Hebrew slaves who being assimilated into Babylonian government (Daniel 1:1-5). In anycase, using very generic definitions of the words, it seems that Globalist ideas and Internationalist ideas in using education to gain influence are nothing new under the sun.
How does it work? Whatever their motives, when different nations cross borders - locals and foreigners have kids and their kids need an education. There are some interesting differences in approaches to how this happens. Sometimes there is simply a transplant of one culture either into the midst of or upon another. Other times there are types of synthesis that can happen (whether intentionally or not). When either of these happen intentionally, there is usually a driving motivation that guides the people administering this education. One schema (Leach, 1969) looks at them like this:
• unilateral internationalism, such as a country concerned chiefly with the education of its own personnel away from home in a different country;
• bilateral internationalism, such as exchange between and among students of two countries, chiefly at university level; and
• multilateral internationalism, requiring investment from at least three national sources, no one of them dominant.
Some schools in my local/ international context (Singapore) call themselves "international" but only achieve this by virtue of Leache's first definition - unilateral. The Singapore American School, Waseda School (Japanese) or the Ecole Francais (French) are some good examples of this. They are primarily concerned with providing the same type of education that their sponsoring nations would provide in country - just in a different country. One could make the argument that they are somehow bilateral or multilateral by virtue of the diverse student body - but this really isn't the definition Leach was using, especially since the vast majority of teachers and students are from the organizing nation.
Other schools on the island are clearly bilateral - such as the Lasalle/Goldsmiths or the Yale/NUS (recently ended), or the USTD/MIT University partnerships. In these one University benefits from the enrollment of the other, while the other benefits from the reputation of its partner.
Whatever the differences in the partner's benefits, there is a unification of the system that results in a standardification of the systems and schools. "The hyperglobalist trend towards the formation of one single world order is represented in international education by the aspiration for a system of education that transcends national frontiers." (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004). Another writer, Futao Huang, describes the schema in a similar way, expounding on the motivations and aims. "globalisation aims principally at establishing a single or universally-acknowledged model, beyond countries and cultures, while internationalisation emphasises an exchange or communication between different countries and cultures." One of the critiques of the many international tests measuring 21st C skills is that, although standards measured are said to be "to be valid cross-culturally and internationally" (Valiente, 2020) - are they representative of what is really best for individual cultures? Do global rubrics measure what is best for individuals or only for global interests? "It it is also very useful in thinking about global education policy to ask: who compares and for what purposes?" (Robertson, 2017).
There are other schools in Singapore that are designed to be Internationalist in ideals - such as the United World College (and many others that I have seen pop up in the past couple of decades) which was formed to promote the idea of Global Citizenship and International standardization (Cambridge & Thompson 2004).
It seems contradictory that an effort to create an international culture would instead result in breaking several cultures down to a lowest common denominator - but that is often the case. "Internationalisation occurs with the precondition that different countries and cultures exist, whereas globalisation proceeds on the assumption that countries and cultures are of decreasing significance." (Huang) The first aims seem to honor diversity, while the second seems to diminish it. I had a student recently transfer from UWC to my school. His critique of the worldview was telling of the success of this worldview in this student's life: "they try so hard to recognize everyone and celebrate everything that they effectively recognize noone and celebrate nothing." He also complained that their process of assessment of a set of standards and skills completely overlooked the special needs of individuals like him. It seems a harsh critique for a school that has made an effort to present an International/Global culture from its inception. While the intentions may start well, it seems that it is as Maringe described: This type of "International education is ambiguous and contradictory. Forms of international education offer ways of having more intimate contact with the world whilst insulating oneself from it. It celebrates cultural diversity whilst tending towards the development of monoculture." (Maringe, 2013).
I wonder about where my school fits into this schema. About the International Community School (Singapore) it has been said that it "is not an American school, but an International School with an American curriculum" (personal communication, Dr. JP Rader April 2020). It is a School that uses an American system of curriculum with teachers and staff from many different nations. There is no majority group in the diverse student body, and a Biblical worldview as the primary ideology - though students of all faiths and backgrounds are welcomed, honored and enrolled. The same student mentioned above compared the two schools and, though he did not call himself a Christian, he said that he was glad to be in a school with a fixed point in it's worldview to learn and compare with as he developed his own. At UWC he felt as though he was "floating" in relativity with no definitive statements to agree with, resist or play off of. The school is in the unique position of being multilateral in the sense that there are several stakeholders from different nations, cultures and religions. There are clearly areas that we can grow, such as reaching a broader socio-economic demographic (though the school does use adjustments in fees and other arrangements to help accommodate those who can not afford the full fees). With a clear and unambiguous emphasis on a Biblical worldview, one can ask "An ‘international’ school may serve a clientele from a variety of countries, but to what extent does it encourage education for international understanding?" (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004). This is a very good question! My school seeks to answer this question in allowing students the liberty to come to an understanding of a Biblical worldview, and to consider their own experiences, cultures, and perhaps religions in comparison with that - while honoring and seeking to recognize the ideas shared between students and their cultures and a Biblical worldview. It is an interesting unique view of International relations that is at least two millennia old (Revelation 7:9) which describes a "great multitude from every tribe, tongue and nation" in Heaven celebrating in diversity together.
There are going to be critiques of the above as a motivation for International Education (there have been for centuries) that include the idea of dismantling cultures or dominating others. There have been examples throughout history where what seemed to be a good start had turned into abuse. This is a problem that must not be put aside, but should be brought up constantly addressed as needed in every context. The same critique can be, and is, applied to the aims and outcomes of sharing the Internationalist ideals. "The cultural influence aspect is more aligned with the notion of cultural dominance that seems to be an important aspect in the power game between nations on a global scale." (Maringe Et al, 15) There are concerns for a globalized education system… especially the obvious primary concern that cultures will be lost to a blobby monoculture. "In their conclusion, Rizvi and Lingard reiterate their contention that neoliberalism has become the dominant social imaginary of globalization resulting in narrow conceptions of education that emphasize values of market efficiency, individual self-interest, and liberty." (Nagahara, 2011) Are we really just training our students to occupy either side of the Starbucks or McD counters celebrating regional burgers and international fair trade brews on every street corner of every city, town and village of the one world? I really hope not!
Sources
- Valiente, O. & Lee, M. (2020) Exploring the OECD survey of adult skills (PIAAC): implications for comparative education research and policy, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50:2, 155-164, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2020.1703846 viewed at https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/about/#d.en.481111
- Leach, R. (1969) International schools and their role in the field of international education (Oxford, Pergamon Press).
- Nagahara,Minori, Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard: Globalizing education Policy Routledge, London, UK, 2010, 240 pp, ISBN: 978-0-415-41627-6 Published online: 21 May 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
- Maringe , N. Foskett & S. Woodfield (2013) Emerging internationalisation models in an uneven global terrain: findings from a global survey, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43:1, 9-36, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2013.746548
- Cambridge, J. & Thompson, J. Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education, in Compare, Vol. 34, No. 2, June 2004, Carfax Publishing
- English Standard Version Bible. (2001) Daniel 1:1-5, Revelation 7:9
- Robertson, S., & Dale, R. (2017, September). Comparing Policies in a Globalizing world: Methodological Reflections.