I started to respond to Bob's question in the comments section and then realised that it was more like a posting than a comment - so I moved it to here.
Bob asked: what do you see as the drivers of instrumentalism in internationalisation? Kerry Kennedy & John Lee (2008) mention governments' desire to combat terrorism, the failure of international bodies such as the UN to coalesce to handle global issues, the fear of disintegration (e.g. the old USSR), the importance attached to TIMSS, PISA and other international league tables, and the rise of business concepts being applied to education (managerialism). Would these match your experiences?
I must admit both my experience and my focus have been quite narrow. Global political trends, such as neo-liberalism, the reduction of state welfare, and the the resulting need for universities to raise revenue has:
"propelled universities to function less as institutions with social, cultural and intellectual objectives and more as producers of commodities that can be sold in the international marketplace" (Naidoo & Jamieson 2005, p.39).
It is this 'managerialism'- selling education to markets that I was thinking of and I have a (very) little experience of. In my previous in institution I was part of group putting together a programme "for the international market" and am currently involved in a project looking to support the learning of international students who will heading in my direction as the result of their government's contract with the University.
While neither of these universities are examples of the more aggressive commercially orientated organisations that see overseas students as “cash cows” and indulge in “crass marketization” (Singh, 2005), their internationalising practices are indicative of global trends.
Bob's question has provoked me to broaden my perspective on this - his question shows how there is more to instrumentalism than economic goals. Of course governments and international bodies can use education as a vehicle to transmit ideologies - while we might think of the Nazis as a really obvious example of this, there are, albeit more subtle examples much closer to home.
A conversation today with Greg about the impact of globalisation at primary and secondary level also got me thinking. The book that Bob quoted above deals with this (by the looks of the blurb I was able to download). Global flows of ideas are impacting education at all levels. Ideas of 'good practice' seem to be jumping borders at amazing speed - but so do their political and philosophical underpinnings. Are such things built upon universal principles, or are they culturally constructed and only locally applicable? Do some ideas travel well, but others not?
3 comments:
I think it is critical to distinguish between primary/secondary education and higher/tertiary education.
Higher education as a commodity is old hat in the USA. They (we?) have been at it for decades. I believe it is a product of mass access to higher education and is a simple consequence of student numbers being too great for social bodies (government or charities etc) to make any meaningful financial contribution. As academic requirements for entry fall and access increases, so does the number of institutions offering services and consequently, the competition for students.
It makes sense that once economic principles are applied to the delivery of higher education that institutions respond by marketing their "product" in order to compete and survive. In the UK the rapid expansion in student numbers over the past decade (ish) has driven the same response within higher educational institutions.
My feeling is that widening access to higher education is a good thing because I believe in choice and a non-exclusive approach. However, my advice to consumers of tertiary education in the US and UK (my only exposure) is to be highly selective. That is, it is probably not worth pursuing a tertiary education that is non-vocational or does not contain rigorous academic content. If everybody followed this wonderful advice then of course the market would self-regulate such that student numbers would decrease and only the most academic/vocational institutions (and programs) would thrive.
I am not sure about the idea that "governments and international bodies can use education as a vehicle to transmit ideologies". The only examples I can think of in the USA are Christian colleges (many varieties) that maintain a dogmatic approach to the education of young adults. I can't think of any examples in the UK. Furthermore I think western "democracies" struggle to carry out even basic social engineering (along the lines of maintaining law and order and avoiding anarchy). The notion that they are able to implement the ACTIVE transmission of ideologies via instrumentalized higher education seems far fetched. Certainly PASSIVE transmission of the societal "vibe" is likely but this is true of many institutions in any culture.
Yes, you're right to distinguish between higher/tertiary and primary/secondary. The latter offers more scope for state control through national curricula and assessment mechanisms.
In Hong Kong, we have the clash between local and global priorities: the post-colonial rapprochement with mainland China is fuelling the push for (uncritical) patriotism, together with the pedagogy of critical thinking and autonomy for the new economy. Teachers have to unscramble that conundrum.
HK is also importing Outcomes-based Learning, which does not travel well, as experiences in South Africa, Mongolia and elsewhere show. Watch out for a highly hybridised version emerging, as has happened with previous examples of international transfer.
Yes - absolutely, you are both right to state that we need to differentiate between primary/ secondary and tertiary ed’. When I wrote about governments transmitting ideologies, I thought I might get a response!
Neo-conservative inspired government influence over the curriculum is deeply evident in the UK & NZ primary schools. However, there are signs that it is perhaps losing some of its power as schools are being allowed increasing flexibility in their interpretation of the curriculum. University based teacher education in those two countries has become highly technicist (You could argue that the end product isn’t critically thinking teachers, but people who are able to deliver the prescribed curriculum with real skill). In both these countries, teacher education programmes are approved and inspected by government agencies, not solely the university.
I concede that teacher education is different from many other university programmes, and so it is easier for government to control content. Yet since Thatcher and Reagan, neo-liberal ideas about markets self-regulating have impacted all levels of education. The influence of such ideas are clearly evident in universities in the form of ‘performance indicators’ and the pressure to provide evidence of value. The drive for efficiency has also led to larger classes and a less diverse curriculum.
Michael Apple (2001), has argued that the neo-liberals and neo-conservatives have formed a new ‘power bloc’, whose aims include international competiveness and a return to ‘family values’. He also suggests that research from the US & UK show that markets in education reduce real choice and increase inequality.
Dave Peters, I realise that I haven’t come up with much in regards to governments “active transmission of ideology” – I need to give that more thinking time, but...I’ll be back! ;-)
Post a Comment