What are the main reasons for educating for global competence

Sahlberg, 2016) [Closed captioned]

The goal of improving education is not a new concept. Today, however, this idea enjoys prodigious importance among policymakers and other stakeholders in education systems worldwide. The great transformation that is taking place around the world, and the need for the United States to become more internationally competitive, has prompted many roundtable conversations. The bottom line—there is not a perfect education system and globalization is a challenge for everyone worldwide. What is being discovered, however, is that some countries are demonstrating large-scale educational advancements resulting in high-performing education systems that are not accidental. This begs the question: What lessons can these successful educational systems hold for the United States?

In 1983, A Nation At Risk (Gardner & NCEE, 1983) was released to the American people, reporting on 18 months’ worth of research on the then current state of the American education system. Over the course of the next three decades, each President and his Secretary of Education have designed, implemented, reviewed, assessed, revamped, dismantled, reconfigured, lambasted, praised, supported, and attacked a myriad of initiatives in their attempt to mitigate the risks facing American students. However, in the 30 plus years since the drafting of this call to reform American education, one could argue that the American student is no better off today than when the ink was still wet on the original document.

During an interview in April 2013, discussing the impact of the A Nation At Risk (Gardner & NCEE, 1983) report, William Bennett, President Reagan’s second-term Secretary of Education, responded to a question comparing the U.S. education system with those of other nations. He stated, “If you look at those numbers, you get the story for 30 years…we’re spending twice as much on education as we did in ’83 and the results haven’t changed that much” (Elliot, 2013, para. 15). If there has been a charge to reform the American education system for over 30 years, with a doubling of monetary resources directed to accomplish this goal, why are American students still at risk?

As educators look for answers beyond the United States within a global marketplace of educational ideas, will we allow our collective egos to blur our vision? What innovative ideas could global competitors offer the American education system? How will the answers discovered through these observations translate into classrooms? Zhao (2013) regrets the strong emphasis on test-driven accountability and standardization as a factor in the reduction of the creative class. Hersh (2009) complements this perspective by insisting that content knowledge, as well as creative and critical problem solving skills should be married to one another rather than taught as perpendicular entities. In order to nurture innovation, Reimers (2009) seeks to move America from the ‘factory’ education model and from linear processes in education by shifting the collective mind-set to a more interactive and collaborative approach.

What do you see in your educational settings that proves or disproves these theories? What does international competitiveness mean to educators?

References

Elliott, P. (2013, April 25). 30 years after report, schools remain at risk. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from 

Gardner, D. P. & National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. An open letter to the American people. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. Retrieved from 

Hersh, R. H. (2009). A well-rounded education for a flat world. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 50-53.

Reimers, F. (2009). Global competency is imperative for global success. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from 

Sahlberg, P. [TVCHOSUN]. (2016, November 16). {Global leaders forum 2016] Session 3 – Pasi Sahlberg [Video file]. Retrieved from

Zhao, Y. (2013, February). U-turn to prosperity. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 57-59.