A reflection on the strength of each of the five core suggestions

This paper discuses the importance of educators working together in collaborative “team”settings called collective capacity. Further it talks about the nature of collaborative groups and at times suggests cultural diversity as one modality, though dismisses it as well in subsequent core suggestions, stating that an over-reliance on culture might be assumptive while leading to a whole host of other problems. In many ways the paper battles with the classic 1.Agent/Structure debate during discussions of building healthy physical environments (as well as what the physical environment represents to students on tangible levels). Further grappling with agency the “who, whys and hows” the paper suggests structure might be applied to working educational collaboratives. In the end, the paper may ask more questions than providing answers concerning the ways in which cultural diversity supports learning, though closes with the importance of building inclusion in education for all teachers regardless of ethnic/cultural make-up.

Positioning

Positioning refers to the ways in which decision makers position themselves within school cultures. (Allan Walker & Geoff Riordan, 2010). This section suggests decision makers, such as principles, need be vested in a firm understanding of the ethnic, social and cultural dynamics which makeup the school environment. Further, it is suggested that a “collective capacity”, that is, educators, like-minded, and working in congress, is beneficial to student outcomes. Cultural positioning requires an in-depth evaluation of not only self, but also an in-depth examination of the school’s core institutional values, and make-up, culture, and social-class and teaching styles, as well as the degree school personality might be influenced by cultural determinants (or not), and how collectivism is influenced by teacher expectations. (Allan Walker & Geoff Riordan, 2010). Positioning suggests a need to look past one’s own cultural norms in order to embrace the myriad of cultural entanglement in today’s schools. Further, cultural tapestries should be employed in building collaborative education with the enlistment of educators, parents and students in official forums of discussion and collaboration. As international teachers, we need grapple with many cultural norms some of which can be at odds. While I’ve eluded in past blogs about the importance of checking cultural baggage at the door, in reality, I often wonder to what degree one can understand the norms of so many in a multi-cultural international school. I’m lucky in that I’m in a single culture which, makes understanding the culture, while building a bridge of understanding, all the more possible. Though for now I remain skeptical whether it is truly possible to grasp the many cultures in a multi-cultural teaching environment.

Structuring

Schools are cultural constructs!
(Allan Walker & Geoff Riordan, 2010).

Referring back to the Agent-Structure debate, schools are socially constructed entities influenced by the structures of pedagogy, but also the very physical surroundings of the school itself. Schools located in West Oakland California embody a different sub-textual response from participants, both educators and students, than do their counterparts to the west in the more affluent Marin county. Further, the paper discusses the prevalence of individuality in western mindsets and points to the need to be aware of different manifestations of cultural-characteristic structures in order to be able to fully understand the interactions of fellow educators from other cultures. As we have learned from the GLOBE study, the assumptions we make about cultures are often misleading. The (GLOBE) points to, as does this article, the fact that Chinese intellectuals might employ more introspective thinking styles, which has been confused by western decision makers, perhaps in possession of too-much bravado, with ambivalence on the part of the thinker. (Allan Walker & Geoff Riordan, 2010).
It is suggested that leadership and decision makers (I would add staff) need make thorough self-evaluations as well as have an understanding of the differences and similarities of the school’s teachers. Leadership is further discussed as a controlling element, not necessarily embodied in a single person such as a principle, but might encompass a larger collaborative body of decision makers. Western self-expression further manifests in the belief that individualism is a superior form of position to more collective groups. Though from experience, this may be a lack of understanding of other cultural styles, notably Asian, where in general, people revere authority and tend to employ a more collective style of decision making. An understanding of these different styles is imperative when building collaborative educational experiences. According to the paper, environmental structures can be created to influence and encourage greater teamwork. While I’m skeptical if a total egalitarian structure can work, I do find collaboration productive and useful, though at once I feel some structural management is needed for the day in and day out facilitation of education. I am a huge proponent of analysis and deep understanding of agent versus structure. I’ve never developed a clear one-sided opinion of either, as I believe that the two elements, how structural realities influence environment, as well as how agents (and agencies) might lead to policies and management style, coalesce. That said, in my current environs, I’d say whole heartedly, that agency rules the roost. In Saudi Arabia, policy and even educational experiences can change from department to department depending on the personality of the deanship, which clearly exhibits the importance of agent over structure. Importantly, the idea that culture builds construct is hard to argue. Again, I’m wondering how a multi-cultural school might develop a singular, adaptive-culture rather than devolve into a dominant culture and lesser “clicks”within the school?

Expectations

Expectations refer to the different expectations held by cultures within a school concerning operation and intent.
(Allan Walker & Geoff Riordan, 2010).

Something I’ve taken from, Observations on John U. Ogbu’s “Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education”, [is] how dramatically different perceptions of education can manifest within cultures. These perceptions carry a host of expectations that differ from group to group dependent on a myriad of different experiences and socio-economic conditions. In this section authors reiterate the importance of understanding cultural norms within the school setting. Further a survey of educators and leaders is suggested in order to ascertain what these differences might be. These are realized through a collaboration between parents, teachers, and decision makers, suggesting a large measure of community involvement. Following procedures and policy decision-making reflects the normative values of the school culture. I feel divisions in expectations based on cultural norms dangerous. While we need pay attention to cultural norms, one’s moral core should not be fluid. I’ve never been big on cultural relativism, and as I teach in an environment lacking a strong working (study) ethic. I’d be remiss in my responsibility if I adapted to this sort of teaching. Some do, to the detriment of students.

Expression

Collective capacity can only be built through face to face communication. (Allan Walker & Geoff Riordan, 2010). Therefore “expression” is about communication and building your institutions collective capacity through direct communication. It is stated that different cultures communicate in different ways, this necessitates a further and deeper understanding of the cultural norms manifesting in an educational environment.

“Expressiveness can include the amount of emotion that people communicate in their choice of words, the voice tones, the amount of body movement, the intensity with which they communicate disagreements with others, the amount of boasting or bragging they used when describing themselves to others.” (Brislin 1993, 221)

Here I do find an imperative. If one is to teach effectively on the global stage, it is terribly important to build open channels of communication school wide. This necessitates an in-depth understanding of the culture in which you teach. My experience in Southeast Asia was difficult until I was able to navigate the cultural norm of communication. I believe effective communication can manifest with’, and between teachers and administrations, but again, without attention to school-wide cultural participation, I’m at a loss as to how this might play-out school, given the many different cultures, teachers and students alike. Moreover, administration consisting of a majority from the host country might find adapting to many cultures, both students, and teachers difficult.

While this may hold true in any given social situation, I’m skeptical that teachers would be constantly aware to this degree of minutiae. However, it may be possible over time and with training/professional development, and a more conscious effort. One might further hone their observation skills to the degree they might become second nature. I believe it imperative when teaching globally to make a concerted effort to understand the cultural norms within the institution in the host country, international school or otherwise. Different perceptions in professional interactions, and their contextual applications, can and often do, lead to misunderstandings and work related problems. Here is where an understanding of the paper’s ideational concepts serves the international teacher well. “Self-disclosure” is a much touted necessity for team building in much of the west, essential in building workable collective capacity. However, I know that the degree of openness I would apply at home in the US would not serve me well, and might even be deemed as rude, in many parts of Asia. Professionals all employ vastly different personas in their working and private lives. I feel, so called self-disclosure is somewhat elusive, as most of us show a different side at work as well as develop walls for emotional protection in our working lives, making it somewhat vexing to try and balance the many factors influencing healthy working relationships. Building truly open, close working relationships takes time and trust!

Walker & Riordan suggest four intercultural-interactions leading to positive collective capacity building:

1. People involved feel that they have a successful relationship, one based on respect and cooperative endeavors.
2. People from other culture/s in the relationship believe the relationship is built on respect and that cooperation is meaningful, preferably built around a task or other endeavor.
3. Such endeavors are completed efficiently.
4. People do not feel additional stress because they are interacting and/or working with individuals from different cultures.
   (Allan Walker & Geoff Riordan, 2010).

Profiling

Ethnic profiling is a hot topic in the US today, and highlights the importance of approaching people as individuals rather than employing tendencies to lump people from like cultures into similar or same backgrounds and experiences.

Profiling at face value appears a synonym for stereotyping, though carries a depth absent from it’s counterpart. “Labeling” students makes too many, and dangerous assumption about cultural, ethnicity, or other student traits. Dangerous as these assumptions lead to generalizations which lack the understanding needed to truly educate students while weakening differentiation. Profiling at its most sinister manifestation may lead to unfair judgments about students based on their heritage. “Reliance on culture or any other form of diversity is very risky when explaining or justifying behavior”. (Allan Walker & Geoff Riordan, 2010). The paper suggests looking passed cultural imperatives as a means to better facilitate team-building in multi-ethnic environments. Positioning seems to contradict this, though the imperative appears to suggest a deep understanding of culture without resorting to obvious cultural stereotypes.

” Teachers here think I know everything about Black children, but I never grew up in the city and never experienced the difficulties these students have had… Yet, the teachers expect me to have access to every Black student, and I find that really troubling. “ Mabokela and Madsen (2003, 104)

This great quote illustrates the dangers of assumptions about race and culture. Further suggesting the dangers of assuming that an educators from a given cultural background will automatically share like experiences with the corresponding student population. This in turn warns leaders in education to further resist temptations to simply match teachers to the student population. In summation, the paper appears to suggest that a deep understanding of culture trumps the assumption that cultural diversity will automatically build a collective capacity within the institution. Importantly, educators need be valued for the many skills they bring with them to the educational culture. In closing, I find this area distressing. Making assumptions about individuals from a general cultural-framework allows for a host of problems. Assumptions made about individual learners from an overarching cultural perspective seems downright unfair. My philosophy in life as well as education, is, to the best of my ability, approach the student/person on a personal level. I try to get to know the learner/person and their individual needs.

Conclusion

1. Understand their own and the school community’s cultures.
2. Leaders design, articulate and nurture formal structures that aim to promote inter-cultural relationship building in order to ultimately benefit and improve student learning and lives.
3. When designing these structures leaders are aware of and take practical account of how cultural values can influence expectations of and communication within professional relationships and what happens in the school.
4. Leaders who nurture collective capacity across cultural staff groups know that it is a mistake only to take account of culture as people and relationships are complex and there are many factors that influence how teachers work together with colleagues and in classrooms.
   (Allan Walker & Geoff Riordan, 2010).

To better combat the proclivity towards making cultural assumptions, the paper recommends “global intelligence” as a means of understanding cultural norms more deeply while avoiding the obvious platitudes made by profiling.

The paper suggests a deep and meaningful understanding of one’s culture while not depending on culture alone as a panacea for building collective capacity. Further, school leaders, teachers, and families become integral pieces when building community and need be involved in its construction in real and meaningful ways through forums of communication at the community/school level. Again a list of prescribed steps is given for successful collective capacity building. While I remain skeptical if any one educator or administrator has the capacity to fulfill the obligations of these many and all encompassing techniques for building school harmony, I do believe building collective capacity possible. Schools looking to build real and effective collective capacity, might form collaborative groups of administrators, teachers, and students representing the wide swatch of cultures within a community or international school. These groups in turn, could meet and discuss ways in which to build school-wide collective capacity based on the needs of each culture as represented by student, teacher and administrator.

1.In the social sciences there is a long-standing debate over the primacy of structure or agency in shaping human behavior. Structure is the recurrent patterned arrangements which influence or limit the choices and opportunities available. Agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. The structure versus agency debate may be understood as an issue of socialization against autonomy in determining whether an individual acts as a free agent or in a manner dictated by social structure.

References

Ogbu, John U., and Herbert D. Simons. “Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education.” AnthropologyEducation Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, 1998, pp. 155–188., doi:10.1525/aeq.1998.29.2.155

Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of Educational Administration,49(6), 624-636. doi:10.1108/09578231111174785

Understanding High-Stakes High-Performers. (2013). doi:10.13007/033

Towards Building Classroom Norms, Inclusion and Acceptance:

The key to teaching a diverse population is inclusion. Creating an environment where students feel they are welcomed, safe, and belong! Imagine being immersed in a world where you are a perennial outsider. Surrounded by images of role models, none of which represent you in any way. Imagine that being the whole of your educational experience throughout the public-school system. All great men, a few women, cut from the same fabric, a fabric from which you do not come. How would those messages, implicit though they may be, influence sense of self? Self-confidence? One’s perception of self? Their identity? How would these underlying prejudices shape and form the person you become?

For most of the history of public education, this was the reality for anyone finding themselves outside the American meta-narrative. A fabrication of identity constructed by a majority in control. Writers of these scripts developed narratives to establish the ways in which we see the self, in short, written to establish a social hierarchy. These relationships furthered a cultural divide still in existence today. A divide where sections of society still struggle with identity and worth. I contend that the environs we create throughout the educational experience set the stage for later cultural perceptions and interactions. Historically, public education has set the stage for social, cultural and racial divides. These tools of repression, deliberate as they were, have no place in modern education.

Breaking the mold. So then, how do we set about undoing the ugly underpinnings of an unjust educational system?

Start by building a collaborative environment. Inclusion is a powerful way to show your class that all are valued as individual thinkers. Encourage those who are reluctant to participate, to do so in ways comfortable to their feelings. There is no good reason why modern teachers need be shackled to outmoded styles of teaching including assessments. Interaction might involve speaking but could as easily manifest in design, artistic work, or one of many other forms of expression.

Start by making an analysis of your classroom.  Motivated teachers will start the process by making a long and serious self-evaluation. What sorts of biases and prejudice do you bring to the table? A thorough understanding of one’s limitations will go a long way in developing an equitable environment. Studies also show traditional models of teacher-student interaction might alienate students from minority groups, where asking questions and soliciting students for answers represents a competitive model as one is given the right to speak based on fast reaction times (I.E., the first person to have the confidence to raise their hand). A more inclusive means might be a randomized system where students may choose to speak (or not) at a prearranged time or order, after a period in which students are allowed to ponder and discuss the topic or issue. Further, an inclusive process allows students active participation, discussion, peer interaction, and builds self confidence.

Importantly, there is no one  universal template for all classroom environments. Truly competent teachers will build a classroom environment based on classroom demographics, and should also include learner personalities.

Teachers:

• Are the classroom norms clearly stated, so that students accustomed to different norms in their homes or communities are able to understand and negotiate them? Have students develop and agree on a set of classroom norms.
• What implicit values of your discipline might disturb or bewilder some students? (You can encourage students to present alternative perspectives, to debate ideas, or to create panels representing different viewpoints.)
• Do your examples or illustrations acknowledge the experiences of people from different backgrounds in non-stereotypical ways?
• Are the students welcome to share from their own lives and interests? Are they treated as individuals?
• Have you examined your own conscious or unconscious biases about people of other cultures? That is, how would you answer the following questions: Am I comfortable around students from a culture or background different than my own? Do I have different expectations of students of color than I do of white students? Of male or female students? (adapted from Wladkowski & Ginsberg 16-17)

Brass tacks. Implementation of inclusion necessitates a re-evaluation of classroom norms. Classroom norms should be a contract agreed upon by teacher and students alike. Stakeholder involvement is paramount in creating a truly inclusive class.  Classroom norms becomes an agreement of acceptable school interaction. Have students brainstorm to make a list of classroom best practices addressing common core values, both abstract, and specific, such as, respect for others, self-respect, tolerance, being polite (and what it entails), value other opinions, and cultures. Address the specific with personal and possessive pronouns. We have fun, we make peace, and happiness, we make mistakes, we work together, we respect the opinions of others, it is our education, it is our educational environment, it is our classroom, it is our responsibility to care for this environment, and its people, and so on. Display classroom norms in an obvious high-traffic area. Have students build the classroom norms together by making an infographic.

https://www.canva.com/design/DACz8_R2vNo/fmPxLrGOPT9hxhXoqBt2SA/view?utm_content=DACz8_R2vNo&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=sharebutton

From the case studies read this week pertaining both to inclusion, my overarching conclusion is teachers are ill equipped to deal with diversity. Therefore a systematic professional development program must be implemented to facilitate the skills needed to deal with 21st century challenges. It is not enough to imagine that administrators as lone disciplinarians, will succeed in reducing violence or creating inclusion.

Social Justice. Social Justice strives to realize the inherent equality between all members of society. This philosophy permeates modern education and in doing so develops the direction of modern pedagogy. Taking that as a jumping off point, social justice in suggests that a failure to supply students with a quality education, not giving students tools for a productive happy life, is tantamount to social injustice. Moreover, social justice must be taught at all levels of the education system in order to build inclusion, address bullying, and build a more just and inclusive future.

Building awareness. The “Be an Ally program, an entire month devoted to anti-bullying workshops, becomes a strong student-led, anti-bullying campaign. Diverse groups of students delivering anti-bullying messages, which in itself is a form of inclusion. I believe the most productive programs are students lead cooperative programs where students teach peers.

Evidence shows an inclusive group of stakeholders including students, educators, families, administrators, works best to confront bullying. Importantly an all inclusive environment where bullying is unwelcome and socially unacceptable will build unity and make bullying unacceptable. This demands a  anti-bullying culture within the school starting in the classroom. Students must learn acceptable social interaction but must also lead in its implementers.

References

“Inclusive Teaching Strategies.” CTI – Inclusive Teaching Strategies, www.cte.cornell.edu/teaching-ideas/building-inclusive-classrooms/inclusive-teaching-strategies.html.

“School of EducationTraining & Technical Assistance Center.” William and Mary School of Education, education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/articles/inclusion/effectiveteach/. Accessed, 4/4/2018

Armstrong, M. Small World: Crafting an Inclusive Classroom (No Matter What You Teach) “Http://Ljournal.ru/Wp-Content/Uploads/2017/03/a-2017-023.Pdf.” 2017, doi:10.18411/a-2017-023. Accessed 4/4/2018

Bredekamp, S. (2014). Effective practices in early childhood education: Building a foundation. Boston: Pearson.

George, L. M., & Strom, B. I. (2017). Bullying and Victimisation Dynamics in High School: An Exploratory Case Study. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,19(1). doi:10.1515/jtes-2017-0010

Lenz, B. K., Deshler, D. D., & Kissam, B. R. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Pg.

Marzano, R. J. (2010). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Websites

file:///C:/Users/pauli/Downloads/663-1-432-1-10-20170227.pdf

https://www.edutopia.org/social-emotional-learning

https://www.tolerance.org/professional-development/bullying-basics

https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/aba-our-work/our-programmes

https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/teacher-student-relationship?fd=1

Media

https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/be-an-ally

https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/cyberbullying-or-teasing

Defining International mindedness (IM), Intercultural literacy (IL), and Global competence

International Mindedness (IM), Intercultural Literacy (IL) and Global Competence (GC) are seen as important skills for preparing educators and students for a life of ever increasing global interactions. Many careers of the 21st century will require a degree of cultural interaction which in turn expects a measure of cultural competence. In this era students and educators alike will need to be aware of, and possess an understanding of, globally significant events. (Mansilla & Jackson, 2011).

It seems international schools are in a unique position to influence the development of Intercultural literacy, International Mindfulness, and Global Competence. The shear increase of expatriates  working and living abroad demanded an increase in international educations, beginning around the 1950s, leading in turn to a dramatic increase in inter-cultural interaction.

Therefore, international schools are also in a unique position to develop practices leading to educational pedagogy fostering  understanding between cultures formerly impossible living solely in a host country.

Today’s international schools encompass a much wider swatch of participants than in the past. No longer are international  schools solely the domain of “embassy brats”and the children of global business people, but more and more becoming available to host country students looking for an education global in outlook, and possibly superior to what is available within the host country. Moreover, students wanting an education for preparation in a globalized world need to learn in cross cultural settings available to international school students. Globalized educations help future 21st century learners to avoid the pitfalls common in traditional learning while avoiding problems associated with transitions between societies.

Transitional challenges:

1. Period of Enthusiasm:  The student is excited and takes in all the new cultural offerings without much interaction with host nationals.
2. Period of Disenchantment:  The student has now gained enough knowledge about the country, but progress is blocked by the inability to communicate or understand the cultural norms.
3. Period of Recovery:  The students now becomes aware of subtle cues and begins to develop fluency in the language.( Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963, 1966)

Global Competence

Global Competence (GC) appears to be gaining nearly universal acceptance as something that is an important skill for students to master. GB refers to the understanding of international issues in an in depth manner as well as the ability to work with people from a diverse pool with cultural and linguistic differences, including a proficiency in a foreign language and the skills necessary to function within the culture. (Mansilla & Jackson, 2011). Further, young learners should be able to realize their own ideas and world perspectives while being able to communicate those with others, “inter-culturally”, making language a key component of the competency.  Another important aspect of GC is the ability to use creative thinking to, reflect, identify and solve problems ethically and with global consciousness.

Intercultural Literacy

Intercultural Literacy (IL) is concerned with the burgeoning connectivity of the globalized world and the opportunities to engage globally. To these ends, successful global engagement requires a set of linguistic and intercultural skills by it’s participants. IL states that culture and language are intertwined in a myriad of dynamic and important ways. Intercultural literacy is defined as the “understandings, attitudes, competencies and identities which enable effective participation in a cross-cultural setting” (OECD, 2013). Therefore it necessitates an understanding of attitudes, language proficiency, participation in, and the cultural identities necessary for living and working in a multicultural environment.  (Heyward, 2002).

International Mindedness

Today, in the midst of cultural misunderstanding, educators are tasked with promoting education which encompasses the message of peace and understanding on a global scale. Students the world over need be taught the issues of social justice, Global competence and cultural awareness. Like Hahn before us, these methods, when used by educators, can in turn help to foster and safer global future. Educators thus recognize the importance of and role played by International Mindedness (IM) in teaching students to be to be a culturally competent, culturally knowledgeable communicators who, above all, possesses an open, reflective, and creative mind. (Sriprakash, Singh & Ling, 2014). Like Hahn’s teachings, service and service learning is a strong component of IM, teaching a local-global outlook while using an international curriculum through local-global inter-connectivity.

While overlap certainly occurs between models, the overarching philosophical underpinnings remain the need to equip today’s learners with the tools necessary for deep and meaningful global engagement.

Arguments against and Benefits of International Education

An obvious benefit of an international education is preparation for working in a more globalized world. Some educators believe the international education to be highly slanted towards the west, so therefore lacking in true global identity. However, one can see devotion to 21st century skills in international schools that would surely benefit future international interactions. My experience with ISB, International School Bangkok, is one of a mono-cultural curriculum coming from the west, with little difference from good schools in the USA. Begging the question, is this an international education? Does lumping students from different nations make it so? Is this enough to generate the global minded students of the future? Moreover, schools with a single curriculum seem to lack understanding of different learning styles as students are expected to adhere to an American style of education, leading students from other styles (of learning) disconnected and disenfranchised if not lost.

What I have against international-mindedness, intercultural literacy, and/or global competence!

Referring back to different learning styles, it is very easy to bring one’s cultural baggage into the classroom. As new teachers, I think we’ve all had the experience of culturally inappropriate teaching methods blow-up in our faces. For example, and from personal experience, one sees a more teacher-centered theory-based approach throughout Asia. Stepping off a plane and expecting students to interact in a student centered style is naive and potentially damaging. While current western models are built around participation and performance, an understanding of the culture you teach in is imperative. Another giant problem for me is the astronomical cost of an international education in many areas. My experience in Thailand was international schools allowed a decent education to a class of privileged students, keeping the poverty cycle well intact, save for a few token scholarships. This obviously impedes upward mobility, reinforces an elite class and class system, while not building the social capital a nation needs to interact globally in the 21st century.

What I like about and why I would try to inject international mindedness, intercultural literacy, and global competence into curricula?

While there are problems within all the aforementioned strategies, I feel there are benefits to an international education and have ”subjected” my own children to these beliefs. In the end I believe them to be more open-minded and culturally sensitive then they might have otherwise been. However, after nearly two decades as an international educator, I can clearly see outcomes, both positive and negative of international educations. Students, like my son, who attend international schools with a large and diverse expat populations appear to do well in the aforementioned areas. While I remain skeptical of schools such as ISB, with its cap of 20% locals. The fact that students like my son, have had multi-cultural experience, some good, some bad, better equip him to handle future cultural differences. While currently international schools appear exclusive, I believe if a more universal and level playing field be made possible that international schools will continue to grow and become a positive educational experience. The end goal being an educated population that interacts globally, communicates across cultures, and solves problems internationally. Therefore the mandate of a truly international education should be to develop these skills in the hopes of producing internationally minded, inter-culturally literate and globally competent people.

Strategies to incorporate International mindedness (IM), Intercultural literacy (IL), and Global competence into the classroom.

Supporting International mindedness (IM), Intercultural literacy (IL), and Global competence starts with inclusion.

Example Lesson plan for inclusion with common core standards

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YdloqtJpHUkPQsPoW4_qZkp1hUMYLBtH7lkZ-b3yY_w/edit?usp=sharing

Web References

http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/107003/chapters/Diverse-Teaching-Strategies-for-Diverse-Learners.aspx

http://www.globalcompetencecertificate.org/global-competence/why

https://www.theedadvocate.org/6-ways-to-implement-a-real-multicultural-education-in-the-classroom/

https://www.accreditedschoolsonline.org/education-teaching-degree/multicultural-students/

Philosophy of International Schools

During my first tenure in Southeast Asia, international schools were on the rise. They seemed to pop-up on every corner, just about weekly. Even former public schools were getting into the game. This naturally prompted one to ask…What makes an international school, and how could so many be becoming so in such a short amount of time? It was dubious at best, odd to say the least, and as a teacher, downright suspicious. So, what makes an international school an international school?

• 

Definitions of what makes a school international are all over the map! Fundamentally, an international school is one which operates outside of the state school system offering an international curriculum such as the International Baccalaureate. In general these schools are populated by a diverse group of ex-patriot students who may come and go as the expats life demands. 

In the beginning…

The International School Association was codified under Swiss law in 1951. (http://www.isaschools.org). The International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IBDP) we know today, a globally recognized education, began with the small 10-member International School Association of 1963. It was constructed as a means of injecting rigor and challenge into high school curriculum. From 1963 through 1969, working parties, made up of both university and secondary educators, developed curriculum and a set of exams; first given on a trial basis in 1969. The IBDP as we now know it took shape in 1968 in Geneva, Switzerland. This was the only program in existence until the middle years program began in 1994. Primary year Programs soon followed in 1996. It was in 2001 that the Career Related Program, or CP was introduced to focus on project-based-learning, collaboration, world languages and other 21st century skills.

The roots of international education probably started as a confluence of educators and intellectuals critiquing education globally. Though not together geographically there seemed-at the time-an almost universal dissatisfaction with education, especially among intellectuals, as far back as the 1930s. Aided by world events, such as the rise of fascism in Europe and the Frankfurt school, a collection of philosophers and scholars, disseminated a desire among intellectuals, and thinkers, to better understand, and by extension develop, critical thinking. Clearly Kurt Hahn was in agreement and one of many like-minded individuals to take great influence from disasters unfolding around him. He, as the others used his dissatisfaction with world events to spearhead changes in education in order to address the maleficence rampant in the world. 

As early as the 1950s, the Geneva International school set forth to establish an educational protocol that would allow students to: “gain an understanding of his past as a common heritage to which all men irrespective of nation, race, or creed have contributed and which all men should share” (International School of Geneva” [ISG], 1950).

Further the original mission statement included giving students: “an understanding of [his] present world as a world in which peoples are interdependent and in which cooperation is a necessity. In such an education emphasis should be laid in a basic attitude of respect for all human beings as persons, understanding of those things which unite us and an appreciation of the positive values of those things which may seem to divide us, with the objective of thinking free from fear or prejudice.” (ISG, 1950) 

In the beginning with Kurt Hahn

In the area of international education, Kurt Hahn was at least a very forward-thinking individual. Realizing- influenced by World War-a different kind of education was needed inclusive of the kinds of citizenship tasks which could help foster world peace and healthy relationships between nation states. The plan was rather simple albeit ingenious, gather together a collection of” foreign” students in an educational environment. “The boy growing up in a brotherhood of foreigners, cannot help but learn to care about the rights and happiness of at least one other nation”. This has certainly been my experience and something I have preached during my time as an ex-patriot. Hahn also talked about an elevated form of patriotism, a strengthened pride in one’s state. This I am not sold on, but he was speaking to a 1930s audience and his point of pride in nation reflected through educational pursuits is clear and maybe valid for his time. Strikingly, Hahn’s lectures on social justice, something probably more prevalent at the time, carry his desire to shape the world around ideas of social justice and respect for labor (as exampled by internships at the school). Stepping away from rote memorization of the time Hahn taught students to be analytical and ask questions, fostering much needed critical thinkers. In the realm of international school, it can certainly be argued that Kurt Hahn was at the forefront, a pioneer in modern international education.

Interestingly Mr. Hahn’s discussion of tribalism could be revitalized as a pro-education discourse today. More and more lines are being drawn in the sand and as predicted by Sam Huntington in his seminal work, Clash of Civilizations, relationships are constructed on tribal-ethnic bounds. Certainly Kurt Hahn’s philosophy of education could be used to address this.

International Baccalaureate Program  versus other International educations

The International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (DP) was introduced as a means by which internationally mobile families in need of quality university preparation courses-not, necessarily available in their host countries, could find adequate educational opportunities to ready their children for university.

The IB program is based on constructivist theory, an epistemology of learning or meaning-making theory that offers an explanation of the nature of knowledge and how we learn. Holding that people create or construct their own new understandings, and knowledge through the interaction of what they already know and believe, and the ideas and activities with which they come into contact. Knowledge is acquired through involvement rather than imitation or repetition.

Fundamentally, the International Baccalaureate Program is a series of exams meant to qualify students for a university education in any of a number of participating countries. The IB education is made available to students age 3 to 19 and is tasked with developing critical thinkers, independent and inquisitive learners, as well as global citizens. Students pass through a series of programs beginning with primary and middle years, passing into the Diploma Program (DP), with an option to segue into the Career Related Program, or CP. International Baccalaureate Programs must pass a stringent certification process for each level which includes professional development for teachers and headmasters/principles alike, as well as using IB curricula, testing protocols, and qualifying tests. Moreover, schools applying for IB status must submit to inspection and verification.

British, American and Canadian schools…

These schools, thus named as the majority, though not all, of the student population hail from these areas. These choices are seen as best for “short timers” as the education received might more easily transfer back into the student’s country of origin. 

International Group Schools are also popular, as the name suggests, these schools have an internationally static management and curriculum, so that globetrotting students are able to move about, plugging into affiliated schools globally. GEMS, for example offers like educations throughout the Gulf region and are largely interchangeable in terms of teaching method and curriculum between, KSA, Dubai, the U.A.E, Bahrain, and Cairo Egypt. Nord Anglia schools offer consistent educations globally in such distant locals as Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas. Another small but up and coming International Group School is the Cognita Group. Though an up-start, Cognita is by far one of my personal favorites for their attention to global citizenry, and 21st century skills. (https://vimeo.com/300948494) 

“For the purposes of market intelligence, analysis and data collection, ISC Research includes an international school if the school delivers a curriculum to any combination of pre-school, primary or secondary students, wholly or partly in English outside an English-speaking country.”

My experience in Southeast Asia speaks to the contrary. Any school with the right amount of influence, a native speaker or two would change their signage and instantly became an international school. The criteria, using English as the only benchmark to qualify as an international school, is weak and opens the door to maleficence. Any number of schools can and do advertise international educations while offering none of what should constitute a modern 21st century education.  (as is described by IB Programs, international school groups and select American, British and Canadian schools (as well as, schools from India, Singapore, and no doubt others not yet known to the author).

There are about 9600 international schools world-wide, with an annual growth rate of about 6 percent, and showing no signs of slowing. These schools offer a curriculum other than the national education, often in English or bi-lingual. As stated, schools offer education to students 3-18 years of age. The most extreme growth can be seen in China, the Gulf states, and to a lesser degree, Southeast Asia. Not only are international schools on the rise, but also enrollment within existing institutions. This may be in part due to dissatisfaction with national school systems, but also increased affluence, as well as global mobility for employment and future university studies. (ISC). ISC global report predicts international schools to exceed 1600 by 2028 as international schools are increasingly being seen as the best path for a global education, university admission abroad, and overall future prospects/opportunities. (https://www.iscresearch.com/services/global-report)

The future of International schools 

I’m prepared to go out on a limb here and become part researcher, part futurist. Though standards will no doubt remain somewhat constant in programs such as the International Baccalaureate Program, as well as other international school programs, they will, (and already do) offer virtual international educations. However, the use of technology most assuredly will increase exponentially. Self-directed education will become the norm for students as teachers become guides, coaches, facilitators? What’s less clear is the question of proximity, in a world managed by technology, what will the need be for brick and mortar institutions? World-wide education is already available, and as one who has done a brick and mortar masters, and now a virtual, I see little difference in quality, vigor and even class interaction. The question then becomes (and looks back to Hahn’s thesis). What is the power of personal connection- human interaction and face to face discourse? If we are to continue and develop the kinds of human bonds leading to peaceful interactions between nations, and in order to foster understanding of different cultural/religious/social norms, will we still need to interact above and beyond technology? Certainly, athleticism necessitates physical contact. Team building, collaboration, and other 21st century skills will continue to benefit from face to face interactions. Therefore, it is no great leap of faith to imagine some form of physical contact or another will remain in education. Perhaps a reduced schedule where the arts, like music, film-making, and other collaborative endeavors, are allotted the time they deserve in a physical environment, as some of the more bookish subject become relegated to cyberspace.

Inclusive, technology driven classrooms are the domain of bright, modern, tech-savvy teachers. These virtual classrooms break down the barriers that once existed for many outside the so called global north, and will offer quality educations to anyone with connectivity. Former barriers of time, income, and even disabilities will be adapted to allow people formerly at the margins, to develop themselves and the social capital needed to compete in a global economy, while laying a foundation of understanding of other cultures. Students within this Brave New World will no doubt be working well outside their comfort zones, thinking comparatively, problem solving, collaborating with others using multiple perspectives, all while responding to change, ambiguity and different global perspectives.