Written by: Patrick N. Leahy, Ph.D., Michigan State University, and Henrik Ohlsson, Swedish Council for Higher Education
“Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself” – John Dewey
INTRODUCTION
This essay is the result of months of discussion between the two authors, enriched by input from conference participants at the 2017 TAICEP annual meeting in Rome, Italy. These discussions focused on the relationship between comparative and international education (CIE) as an academic field, on the one hand, and international credential evaluation, on the other. They have hinged on the ways in which the former may inform the future development of the latter as a growing (and increasingly complex) field. As international credential evaluation becomes ever more critical in a globalizing world, new perspectives will be needed to shape policies and practices. As such, the questions we raise include: can academic research shed new light on the work we do as evaluators? Can such research help provide more holistic perspectives of educational systems and credentials – in turn asking us to evaluate more and providing recommendations beyond what is “typical” in our field? In this way, we hope to broaden our field by investigating forums that may provide greater depth and breadth of perspective to our collective work. We invite you to consider these possibilities – and welcome any and all feedback.
ACADEMIC VS. APPLIED COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
Academic
The academic side of CIE stems from research associated with the development of mass schooling systems in the 19th century. These systems developed out of nation-building projects – particularly in Europe and the United States. Research was needed to better cultivate and administer such systems, as well as learn from other systems to improve one’s own. Research allowed for the adoption or development of policies and practices. In the case of the US, Horace Mann (considered the founder of modern American education), spent time in several European countries, notably Prussia and Great Britain, investigating those systems in order to advance US education (Peterson, 2010, p. 27). Such ideas greatly shaped education, centering on the ideals of a “common school” model that would support education for citizenship—a model that became widespread. As such, the basic practice of research became foundational to the field, particularly for purposes of policy development, educational practice, as well as educational reform.
In the European context, such work entailed a focus on “lifelong education” or, more recently, “lifelong learning” – understanding the larger trajectories of learning within educational systems. In the 1960’s and 1970’s “lifelong education” became a key policy concept. This concept emerged in connection to the development of mass education and was accompanied by an ideology of social justice. For the individual, the emphasis was on personal development and ability to adjust to changing circumstances. Practices of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) or Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) were developed in close relation to this policy, in order to create possibilities for non-traditional applicants to higher education.
In the 1980’s, focus shifted somewhat towards economic benefits for society and employability for the individual. RPL and PLA similarly became more about employability and mobility for the sake of economic development. Since then, the two perspectives have more or less merged, as seen in policy documents such as the European Commission’s 2009 Strategic Framework for Education and Training, where personal, social and professional fulfillment are closely intertwined. (Andersson, Fejes, Sandberg, 2013). Since the 1990s, the policy concept has been called “lifelong learning” to encompass informal and non-formal learning as well as formal education.
Much of CIE research is based on comparative perspectives, some of which may be of use in recognition practice. It can be argued, at least in the European context, that recognition of foreign qualifications is carried out within a fairly clear legal framework consisting of national law as well as international agreements such as the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC). In that way, it may seem as though recognition practice would consist solely of legal interpretation. However, the essence of the LRC can be summed up as an obligation for the signing parties to recognize educational qualifications issued by another signing party in the same way as they would an equivalent qualification issued within their own education system, unless substantial differences between said qualifications can be shown. The EAR Manual gives some further clues as to how “substantial differences” should be understood, in its effort to establish a common practice under the LRC. Thus, even in this legal context, comparison is at the heart of recognition practice.
CIE research can be used for any number of purposes. It can be used as social and historical inquiry to gain greater understanding of educational systems and experiences. Yet it can also can be used as a means of governance, to better administer and/or reform education. In any case, such research is central to the policy, practice, reform, and general understanding of education globally. Such research provides insight to the ways in which mass schooling systems are operating, developing, or changing.
Furthermore, within a great deal of CIE research exists a theoretical tension between world culture theory and local variation. World culture theory posits that “not only has the model of modern mass education spread from a common source, but schools around the world are becoming more similar over time” (Anderson-Levitt, 2003, p. 1). In this way, instead of diverging, “schools around the world are converging toward a single global model” (Anderson-Levitt, p. 1). Conversely, proponents of local variation argue that national variation as well as “radiation from district to district and from classroom to classroom” (Anderson-Levitt, 2003, p. 1) is the appropriate framework to understand education globally. “From that point of view, the nearly 200 national school systems in the world today represent some 200 different and diverging cultures of schooling” (Anderson-Levitt, 2003, p. 1). As such, although the orientation of many scholars differ, such perspectives reveal the contradictions inherent in educational systems around the world.
Applied
Applied comparative and international education focuses on the work (as opposed to the research) of the field. This work entails the policies and practices that students, administrators, employers, and employees have done in relationship to student and workforce mobility across international borders. The development of such efforts, particularly in the US and Europe (as elsewhere), demonstrate the shifts in population in relationship to the demands for education and employment globally.
In the US, these efforts began mainly after World War II with the development of foreign aid to study overseas (e.g., Fulbright Program), the emergence of newly independent formerly colonized nation-states, and the sending of students to the US – leading to the rise of international enrollments. Furthermore, the rise of area studies centers at colleges and universities, as well as government and non-governmental institutions assisting students and workers for study, including involvement in credential evaluation, advising, etc., shaped a new educational landscape. Since the 1980s, the rise of globalization has witnessed increased international student and worker mobility to the US, increased study abroad programs, increased partnerships among institutions and companies globally, and the internationalization of higher education curricula (Merkx, 2003). These developments point to the ways in which the role of applied comparative/international education has become a major force in US culture and globally, supporting the global economy in the areas of education and business. With new technologies and the rise of developing countries in Asia and elsewhere, one can expect the applied field of international education to continue its growth.
In Europe, the emergence of mass education, from the 1960’s onwards, prompted the development of stronger formal structures for evaluation of credentials and access to further education within the national systems. In the same period, the European Union developed closer cooperation between European countries in many different areas, including education. In order to facilitate student and workforce mobility, the EU has of course contributed to the development of mechanisms for credential recognition, and to supporting CIE research. However, the arguably most important contribution to recognition practice in Europe and beyond, the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) was actually elaborated by the Council of Europe (not an EU body) together with UNESCO. UNESCO has been – and continues to be – a major driving force globally for the development of recognition practices as well as CIE research.
Today, the work of international education involves advising students on colleges, admissions policies and procedures, credential evaluation, funding, and language testing, among other things. This work is an outcome of the development of the field, in ways to support institutional integrity yet also student and worker success.
GOVERNANCE AND CURRICULUM/INSTRUCTION
Educational systems are subject to laws and policies that govern their functioning. Governance, as a concept, can be defined in multiple ways. In the context of this article, we view governance as, “the institutional capacity of public organizations to provide the public and other good demanded by a country’s citizens or their representatives in an effective, transparent, impartial, and accountable manner, subject to resource constraints” (Quoted in Kjaer, 2004, p. 11). Moreover, “…governance is about managing rules of the game in order to enhance the legitimacy of the public realm. Legitimacy may be derived from democracy as well as from efficiency (Kjaer, 2004, p. 15).
As such, governance of educational institutions (by a national government through its ministry of education and/or by a transnational governing body, as example) encompasses the work we do as evaluators, particularly our research into institutional recognition and quality assurance among institutions. Accountability is a key component here. Accountability of educational institutions and systems to key stakeholders – government, citizens, etc. – is a major component of governance and should help us consider the ways in which institutional recognition actually functions in the contexts of nation-states. Globalization is a challenge to institutional governance and clearly a challenge in our work to determine what is recognized, official, and legitimate.
Curriculum and instruction, including assessments, are central features of educational systems and subject to governance structures within institutional, national, and/or transnational contexts. Conversely, curriculum and instruction also shapes the governance structures as work (e.g., policies, acceptable teaching practices, etc.). In this way, educational systems, comprising governance, curriculum, and instruction, constitute cultural systems that may vary from institution to institution or country to country.
As the chart below (Fig. 1) indicates, the features of global educational systems, specifically teaching and curriculum, may range from decentralized to standardized (or centralized), two ends of a spectrum. This captures the contradictions central to educational systems globally, and that are reflected in debates surrounding world culture theory and local variation, as previously mentioned. For the purposes of this essay, we refer to two national education systems that are distinct and represent two differing educational models. While certainly one can find similarities between the two, here we wish to point out the distinct cultural differences.
Germany has a decentralized, state-based system that entails a great deal of teacher autonomy and creativity in the classroom. This stands in juxtaposition to China, which has a centralized, national education system that entails a great deal of teacher control and less creativity in the classroom. These are two perhaps extreme examples, but other systems may lie somewhere on the spectrum, including ones that mix elements that are both centralized and decentralized (e.g., arguably, France).
OUTCOMES: BETWEEN FORMAL RECOGNITION AND ASSESSMENT OF REAL COMPETENCE
A question that emerges from this discussion: what are the outcomes associated with differing educational systems, including programs, curricula, and instruction? According to the European Qualifications Framework, outcomes are defined as 1) knowledge, 2) skills, and 3) competence (2017). Thus applicants should possess the appropriate content knowledge needed in the field they are applying to, as well as the “soft skills” (e.g., critical thinking, ability to collaborate effectively with peers, etc.), and competences (e.g., professional knowledge of an industry), in order to be given full consideration for degree programs or employment. These are factors evaluators, admissions staff and hiring officers are sensitive to likely in most international contexts. They shape the policies, processes, recommendations and decisions made that impact the educational and employment trajectories of applicants.
While these form the basis of credential recognition for admission to higher education institutions as well as access to the job market, there remains a gap between formal recognition, on the one hand, and the assessment of applicants’ real competence, on the other. Admissions officers and hiring committees often consider credentials along with other criteria in forming their decisions, yet there always exists additional information not outlined in recommendation letters, resumes, etc.
If credentials represent a material manifestation of an individual’s learning experiences, what is not readily captured is precisely what is needed to holistically assess an individual’s competencies – and translate those into our own educational and employment environments.
Fig. 1: Features of Centralized and Decentralized Education Systems
| Decentralization | But Also | Standardization |
| Decentralization of services, site-based management, school choice, market, or “liberal” reforms | Educational standards, standardized testing, quality assurance, performance-based management, local accountability | |
| Teacher Autonomy | But Also | Control of Teachers |
| Teacher professionalism and autonomy | Deprofessionalization, detailed national curricula, mandated textbooks, scripted lessons | |
| Student-centered instruction | But Also | Content-centered instruction |
| Learner-centered pedgagoy, “participation,” democracy in the classroom, “active learning,” “hands-on” learning, projects, small cooperative learning groups, relevance of content to child’s experience, emphasis on child’s interests, increased use of local languages, reading for meaning | Content-based reforms, e.g., Core Knowledge, standards movement, increased teaching in world languages, especially English, focus on skills in reading instruction |
Source: Anderson-Levitt, 2003, p. 9
DISCUSSION
Given these dynamics, several questions emerge. How can we, as international credential evaluators, use theoretical, methodological, and contextual insights from CIE research to achieve greater breadth and depth of perspective to our applied comparative education work? How might this work potentially shape admissions and hiring policies and practices for institutions? How might this also expand the limits of what is deemed comparable and what is evaluated? Lastly, might a closer familiarity with academic research contribute to the development of policies that are more sensitive to the cultural contexts of educational systems?
Using a holistic approach, perhaps with greater amounts of data (e.g., syllabi, applicant interviews, CIE research, etc.), may help connect the philosophical and social dimensions of education to the technical aspects (e.g., content, skills, competencies, etc.). Such connections may help shape what we evaluate, how we evaluate, and what recommendations we make. In Ireland, a system of credential evaluation is being developed to include different types of evaluations, based upon applicant or employer/university need, which may look at different aspects of an individual’s educational history. This may prove a helpful starting point in considering the potential for broadening the foundations of our collective work.
During the Rome conference, these ideas were discussed and debated. Here we list some of the questions and comments that emerged and, if applicable, our responses.
Will we consider how the background of the evaluator may influence or color how a foreign education system is perceived?
We argue that we are constantly making judgments of educational systems and credentials as we “translate” these into our own systems. These judgments, in many ways, are enshrined in policies and practices. Individual judgments are helpful insofar as they may help adjust or change guiding policy frameworks.
Funding is a factor to consider in making these sorts of evaluations. Who is paying and why? How does this shape policies, processes, and recommendations made?
We agree this is a concern. Does this put standards of evaluation at risk? Should those standards, across contexts, be negotiable or adapted to context? Arguably, funding should not put our standards at risk, no matter if the standards are broad or context specific. Of course there is always this danger, we believe.
Access to educational records, from syllabi and course description to actual transcripts, can be a problem for many applicants.
For the authors this is an important limitation to keep in mind; one that has the potential to shape the type of evaluation that can be conducted. Other sources of information may need to be considered, such as academic essays, news articles, website information, applicant interviews, or administrator or teacher interviews, to help create a more robust picture of the applicant’s background.
Here are further questions for exploration:
Perhaps offer value judgments/perspectives on the positives or negatives of each education system or degree programs (e.g., instruction as rote vs. constructivist) in relationship to our own education systems or workplace environments?
Should we make differing recommendations about placement of applicants into jobs and/or degree programs, based upon the educational system they participated in?
Would we require applicants to submit syllabi and/or course descriptions to better make judgments? ENIC/NARIC (based on Irish model) considering different levels of detailed assessments based on applicants’ interests.
Should we evaluate the means of instruction (e.g., content-centered)?
Should teaching recommendations be made if clear applicant participated in an educational system that is “rote” based and they are moving into one that is “creativity” based? For the purposes of political correctness and cultural sensitivity, it may be worth using a different terminology – perhaps “content-based” education versus “student-centric” education? Or something along those lines?
Would this kind of work shift what are considered the “basic essentials” of international credential evaluation?
CONCLUSION
This essay serves as a starting point for further discussion on ways to broaden our field, without losing sight of the important standards and shared values that are essential to the work we do. It is our belief academic research holds the potential for crafting a broader, more holistic perspective on international credential evaluation, coupled with additional resources (e.g., syllabi, course descriptions, interviews, etc.). But more than this, we believe that keeping up with theory development in the academic disciplines concerned with CIE can provide valuable insight in keeping recognition practice vital. In the future, closer ties between networks for recognition professionals, such as TAICEP, and academic research networks could prove mutually beneficial.
In short, these particulars provide a way to move our field forward, creating more dynamic evaluations that cater to differing needs. We invite you to continue this discussion. Such efforts will assist us in thinking through these issues carefully from multiple perspectives, including from the vantage point of credential evaluation companies, education institutions, and businesses, among others. Such conversations, we believe, may help provide a more equitable way forward, supporting the mobility of students and workers, in our increasingly globalized world.
REFERENCES
Anderson-Levitt, K.M. (Ed.). (2003). Local meanings, global schooling: Anthropology and world culture theory. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Andersson, P., Fejes, A., & Sandberg, F. (2013). Introducing research on recognition of prior learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(4), 405-411.
European Qualifications Framework (2017). Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/content/descriptors-page
Kjaer, A.M. (2004). Governance. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Merkx, G.W. (Winter 2003). The two waves of internationalization in U.S. higher education. International Educator, 6-12.
Peterson, P. E. (2010). Saving schools: From Horace Mann to virtual learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
SUGGESTED SOURCES
BOOKS:
Archer, M.S. (1979). The social origins of education systems. London, UK and Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Arnove, R.F., Torres, C.A., & Franz, S. (Eds.). (2013). Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Zhao, Y. (2014). Who’s afraid of the big bad dragon?: Why China has the best (and worst) education system in the world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Streitwieser, B. (Ed.). (2014). Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (Eds.). (2016). International schools: Current issues and future prospects. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Forsey, M., Davies, S., & Walford, G. (Eds.). (2008). The globalisation of school choice? Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Trahar, S. (Ed.). (2006). Narrative research on learning: Comparative and international perspectives. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Srivastava, P., & Walford, G. (Eds.). (2007). Private schooling in less economically developed countries: Asian and African perspectives. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Johnson, D. (Ed.). (2008). The changing landscape of education in Africa: Quality, equality and democracy. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Amaral, M.P.D., Dale, R., & Loncle, P. (Eds.). (2015). Shaping the futures of young Europeans: Education governance in eight European countries. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Donn, G., & Al-Manthri, Y. (Eds.). (2013). Education in the broader Middle East: Borrowing a baroque arsenal. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Cummings, W.K. (2003). The institutions of Education: A comparative study of educational development in the six core nations. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Anderson-Levitt, K.M. (Ed.). (2003). Local meanings, global schooling: Anthropology and world culture theory. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
JOURNALS
Comparative Education Review (CIES)
Journal of Studies in International Education (NAFSA)
Journal for Studies in International Education
Journal of Research in International Education
Compare
International Review of Education
Journal of Lifelong Learning
International Journal of Lifelong Education
ARTICLES
Andersson,P., Fejes, A., & Sandberg, F. (2013). Introducing research on recognition of prior learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(4), 405-411.
Cambridge, J., & Thompson, J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education. Compare, 34(2), 161-175.
Cummings, W.K. (1999). The institutions of education: compare, compare, compare! Comparative Education Review, 43(4), 413-437.
Inside this edition:
President’s Welcome: November 2017 Newsletter
Committee Updates: November 2017 Newsletter
Education and Licensure of Health Care Professionals in the USA: November 2017 Newsletter
International Secondary Schools: Whose Education System Is it, Anyway? November 2017 Newsletter
Memoriam to Sandy Gault: November 2017 Newsletter
TAICEP Elections: November 2017 Newsletter
TAICEP Strategic Plan: November 2017 Newsletter
TAICEP News: November 2017 Newsletter
Add to Your Library: November 2017 Newsletter
Recent TAICEP Events: November 2017 Newsletter
Upcoming TAICEP Events: November 2017 Newsletter
From the TAICEP Website: November 2017 Newsletter
Notes from the Field: November 2017 Newsletter