Internationalization assessment in schools: Theoretical contributions and practical implications

Abstract

Cosmopolitan, international capital has become an integral ingredient in the set of competencies considered to provide a competitive edge and to be required for affective citizenship in the 21st century. Recently, internationalization of education has become a more common phenomenon in local schools around the world, serving as a tool to provide youth with cosmopolitan capital and relevant capabilities for the future. Although the academic debate on international schools and internationalization is flourishing, few attempts have been made to characterize and measure the intensity of the internationalization process at the school level outside the International Baccalaureate (IB) context. This article focuses on the need for internationalization assessment in schools, and presents a theoretical framework and an initial set of indicators for such assessment. The purpose of this study is to propose a new direction in educational policy research, which reflects the increased political and economic salience of internationalization in schools.

Keywords

educational policy globalization internationalization internationalization assessment schools

Introduction

In school, pupils are expected to develop knowledge, skills and effective capabilities. Although the knowledge that pupils are expected to acquire in various subjects appears to be relatively clear and established, less clarity exists regarding the skills and affective capabilities they should develop, and even less understanding exists about how these abilities might be attained in the dynamic, globalized world of the 21st century. The OECD (2010), for example, argues that this century’s knowledge society is distinct from previous economic orders in which financial capital, or material inputs, were the decisive factors in economic growth and claims that, currently, economic performance can be correlated with levels and quality of education and ownership of unique 21st century skills including the ability to thrive in a global environment. From a sociological point of view, cosmopolitan (international) competencies can be regarded as assets that give those who possess them a competitive edge in the struggle for privileged positions within transnational arenas (Weenink, 2008). In this sense, international capital is a form of social and cultural capital. Economic and political integration beyond the level of nation-states gives rise to such transnational social arenas, thus increasing the demand for internationally oriented education, especially in schools that compete for pupils in a competitive environment (Bunnell, 2010).

In the context of education, internationalization is a term that is increasingly applied to the process of including an ‘international dimension’ in education. Different people associate differing meanings with this amorphic term, using it in a variety of ways to describe varying content and contexts. In primary and secondary education, internationalization traditionally refers to international schooling notions that originated from exclusive schools providing education for the children of diplomats. However, in recent years, this term evolved into the broader context of educating the ‘global citizen’ and has become increasingly common in local schools around the world (MacKenzie, 2010).

Although schools around the world invest increasing resources and attention to encouraging the development of an international mindset in students, almost no specific measures are currently available to assess the outcomes of these efforts. This article proposes an inclusive assessment tool, adapted from internationalization assessment procedures in higher education systems, for assessing schools’ internationalization outcomes.

Theoretical framework

First, I shall briefly describe the debate over the definition of internationalization in the school context and, second, I will depict current research trends in the area of internationalization. Thirdly I will focus on the rationale and motivation for internationalization in schools, and finally I will propose the necessity for assessment to facilitate the process of internationalization at the school level.

Definition of internationalization in schools

The variety of connotations and meanings associated with the word ‘internationalization’ is problematic to the construction of an inclusive definition of internationalization in schools. The term ‘internationalization’ has become popular in higher education systems’ research and practice, while schools often use ‘international education’ to describe various terms and contents (Hayden, 2011). In recent years, international education is often discussed in the context of education for ‘international-mindedness’ in international schools and other institutions (Cambridge and Thompson, 2004). However, no direct correspondence exists between ‘international education’, the curriculum itself and evaluations offered by international schools because, as Hayden and Thompson (1995) note, an international school may offer an education that makes no claims to be international, while students who did not attend a self-designated ‘international’ school may in fact have experienced an international education. In other words, schools with an ‘international mindset’ might serve a local population without any formal ‘international’ definition, offering global or international values and goals rather than a locally oriented curriculum.

The International Baccalaureate (IB) has been central to the development of international education in a practical context. The IB was founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1968 as a non-profit educational foundation. Its original purpose was to facilitate the international mobility of students preparing for university by providing schools with a curriculum and diploma qualification recognized by universities around the world (Bunnell, 2010). Since then its mission has expanded, and it now seeks to make an IB education available to students of all ages. Worldwide, international schools aim to fulfil a range of social and educational expectations, including the provision of internationally recognized university entrance qualifications. Along with the IB Diploma programme (IB DP), the English system’s Advanced Level (A level) and the Advanced Placement (AP) testing for universities in the USA serve as qualifying mechanisms for ‘international’ higher education (Dunne and Edwards, 2010). Each of these testing mechanisms adopts a slightly different set of definitions for international education. For example, one of the broadest definitions can be found at the IB website (www.ibo.org), defining ‘international education’ according to eight criteria: (1) developing citizens of the world in relation to culture, language and the capacity to live among people of other nations; (2) building and reinforcing students’ sense of identity and cultural awareness; (3) fostering students’ recognition and development of universal human values; (4) stimulating curiosity and inquiry in order to foster a spirit of discovery and enjoyment of learning; (5) equipping students with skills to learn and acquire knowledge, individually or collaboratively, and to apply these skills and knowledge accordingly across a broad range of areas; (6) providing international content while responding to local requirements and interests; (7) encouraging diversity and flexibility in teaching methods and (8) providing appropriate forms of assessment and international benchmarking. In contrast to the IB’s international stated aims, the American AP diploma mainly serves as a standardized examinations system that enables access to higher education (www.collegeboard.org).

According to Cambridge and Thompson (2004: 164), international education as currently practised is the reconciliation of a dilemma between ideological and pragmatic interests. They argue that the:

ideological ‘internationalist’ current of international education may be identified with a progressive view of education that is concerned with the moral development of the individual by attempting to influence the formation of positive attitudes towards peace, international understanding and responsible world citizenship. The pragmatic ‘globalist’ current of international education may be identified with the processes of economic and cultural globalization, expressed in terms of satisfying the increasing demands for educational qualifications that are portable between schools and transferable between education systems, as well as the spread of global quality standards through quality assurance processes such as accreditation.

As Cambridge and Thompson note, those two forms of education are usually reconciled together and rarely appear in their pure form.

Interestingly, the debate over the definition of the international dimension in education had evolved separately in research on schools and on higher education systems. While debate over the former still exists (Hayden, 2011), the definition of internationalization in higher education is broadly accepted as formulated by Jane Knight (2004): ‘Internationalization at the national, sector, and institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of education.’ This definition is neutral and objective, describing the phenomenon without judging its meaning. Moreover, it defines internationalization in terms of a ‘process’ – thus ongoing and continuous – and in terms of ‘integration’ (meaning embedding the process into the organization), thus fostering sustainability and implying centrality of this process to the whole institution. I therefore consider this definition to be the most comprehensive and inclusive one, including the ‘global’ and ‘international’ dimensions from Cambridge and Thompson (2004) and thus expanding the classification to allow inclusive debate. For the sake of this work, I will use Knight’s (2004) definition of internationalization, while trying to assess the intensity and prevalence of those processes on the school level.

Current state of research

As the boundaries of the main fields’ trajectories are not clear, several main streams and activities in the research and practice of internationalization can be defined and characterized. According to Dolby and Rahman (2008), research in the field of internationalization falls into one of eight categories:

(1) comparison of international education policies in differing national contexts, research on education in developing countries and methodological research on the meaning of international education;

(2) assessments of internationalization of higher education concerns involving the mobility of students, staff, institutions and programmes in socio-political, economic and academic context and the institutional and national dimensions of internationalization;

(3) research into international schools directly focusing on practical aspects in development and management of such institutions with trajectories in cultural, local and national contexts;

(4) international research on teaching and teacher education, international and national policies on teaching, teachers’ work and lives in the context of global changes, and international perspectives in specific content areas;

(5) internationalization of school (K–12) education (in contrast to the first four approaches discussed earlier, this approach does not represent a unified research field, but rather includes four trajectories practiced in schools: peace education, global multicultural education, human rights education and environmental education);

(6) globalization and education studies, like the previous type also not necessarily included within the bounds of education research per se, but rather integrated into a range of social science and humanities subjects including minorities’ education in global perspective, anthropology and education, world models in education and critical globalization studies;

(7) studies on the influences of technology on education; and

(8) language education research, focusing on approaches to foreign language teaching and related cultural aspects.

Similar to other areas of educational research, these eight trajectories in international education developed within a specific scope and horizon, while distinct convergences of political, economic, social and cultural forces constantly prompt a new research lens in the world of educational practice.

Focusing on schools, a broad corpus of research exists on IB (for example, Bunnell, 2010), while only mild efforts have been devoted to assessing internationalization in public local schools (represented by the fifth research category presented above) (Carber, 2009). Indeed, inadequate attention (in terms both of research and practical focus within schools) has been paid to the topic of this article – evaluating the intensity of internationalization in schools. Before discussing the need for assessment and measurement tools, I shall present the rationale for internationalization in schools.

Rationale for internationalization in schools

Clearly, school-level education is becoming steadily internationalized in a number of ways (Bunnell, 2010; Hayden, 2011). National education systems increasingly promote an internationalization agenda, sometimes with locally prescribed limitations. At the same time, the growing cadre of concepts such as global citizenship education, support for teachers through globally oriented initiatives and other internationally oriented activities in local schools have led to national education systems becoming more obviously internationalized, while simultaneously raising many dilemmas regarding what exactly is meant by international education and other related terms (Hayden, 2011; Marshall, 2007). Hence, while schools are moving towards greater internationalization, the rationale for this trend is not clear enough, as compared to higher education institutions.

The importance of internationalizing the college and university environment is widely accepted (Kuwamura, 2009; Lawrence, 2004; Lopez et al., 2011; Murphy, 2007; Ninomiya et al., 2009; Trilokekar, 2010). According to Green and Schoenberg (2006), ‘Internationalizing is the most important strategy institutions can use to ensure that all their students acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they will need as citizens and workers in a rapidly changing and globalized world.’ Institutions of higher education have tried to respond to this call, and it would seem difficult to find a college or university today that is not making some effort to internationalize. The compelling pressure to internationalize, owing to instantaneous international communication and rapid advances in transportation, which result in an increased need for intercultural and international understanding and knowledge, has become an urgent priority. International literacy has become critical to cultural, technological, economic and political health. Indeed, several scholars (Altbach and Knight, 2007; Dolby and Rahman, 2008; Uys and Middleton, 2011) maintain that internationalization has been mainstreamed, embedded in institutional strategic plans, no longer a luxury but rather an essential part of all reforms in colleges and universities. Hence, determining the definition, existence and roots of internationalization in the education system as a whole necessitates investigation of this phenomenon within schools – mainly secondary schools, which serve as a main influx into higher education and an entrance stage into the globalized workplace for those who terminate their studies after secondary level education.

The main parameters of internationalization in the higher education environment, such as student and staff mobility, do not seem applicable to most local schools (Carber, 2009). Apart from in international schools, serving mostly expatriates and diplomatic staff, mobility is not a widespread phenomenon within schools. Schools are also more naturally internally oriented than higher education institutions, due to their tight local and governmental regulation and resource dependence on formal funding sources (Weenink, 2009). Governmental regulation also inhibits local initiatives and entrepreneurial activities that otherwise could contribute to the school’s international atmosphere. However, along with recent decentralization trends, deregulation policies that favour more autonomy for schools have been introduced in many countries (Goldring and Schuermann, 2009). These regulatory changes have provided schools with increasing opportunities to establish their own policies, especially in regards to administration, finance, staff and school promotion. Moreover, the growing impact of globalization and demands on universities and colleges to internationalize in every sphere of life suggest that internationalization cannot suddenly occur in tertiary education without direct continuation from the earlier stages of high school and even before. I suggest that internationalization trickles to schools from two opposite directions, involving both external forces and the pupils themselves. First, higher education institutions compete globally and seek out students with wide global knowledge, thus forcing schools to prepare internationalized graduates, meaning internationalized pupils. In fact, international (cosmopolitan) capital in Bourdieu’s (1986) terms has become a desirable asset for middle-income families in developed as well as developing countries (Hayden, 2011). Moreover, school leaderships are forced to interact with various external stakeholders (such as parents and business sector representatives) to gain additional resources and support. These stakeholders might possess a degree of ‘international literacy’, thus creating pressure on the school to internationalize. Second, the 21st^-century’s technological and dynamic environment results in children living and studying in a global environment using – of their own initiative – novel tools, devices and skills, forcing schools to adapt to the new way of teaching and learning, including internationalization.

Nonetheless, in contrast to the historical, economical and political international orientations of higher education institutions, trends to internationalize are in some sense contradictory to the very basic rationale of children’s educational systems in terms of nation-state building and socialization (Coulby, 2005). Historically, mass schooling emerged to transmit a dominant social, cultural and political system to young people, with the goal of creating a cohesive nation-state (Bromley, 2011). Thus, schooling was exploited for the construction of closed national communities where citizens in the same geographic territory were conceptualized as a homogenous group, with an ethnoculturally distinct polity. Indeed, national and local values are perceived as key factors in nation-building and socialization of young people. Schooling, and curricular development in particular, was originally targeted to promote patriotic feelings of the individual for his or her homeland. These models still exist and push mass schooling in the local and national direction (Apple, 1993), in contrast to the global trends depicted above. Hence, while national pressures are quite weak in international schools that serve mobile heterogeneous groups, they remain extremely strong in local schools worldwide, especially in countries with national conflicts and large minority populations, where the struggle over the national ethos is part of the political and social reality (Al-Haj, 2002). Thus, schools are located at a junction of contradicting pressures: on one hand, the state prioritizes the ‘nation’ over other categories and legitimates education policies, curricula and reforms that are consistent with this logic. On the other hand, competing internal and external forces push schools towards greater cosmopolitanism that prioritizes the ‘world’ and legitimates discourses and practices that transcend the nation.

A mass of academic knowledge exists in the field of internationalization in higher education, including attempts to assess and measure the level of institutional internationalization (Horn et al., 2007; Mok, 2007; Siaya and Hayward, 2003). However, almost no comprehensive studies in this regard exist in the context of schools. Acknowledging the knowledge gap in internationalization assessment in the school context, in the following sections I seek to define operative parameters and indicators for internationalization within the school environment. I propose a comprehensive assessment tool for evaluating internationalization in schools. I posit that internationalization in schools (as elsewhere) may be viewed as occurring along a continuum. At one end, internationalization is limited and essentially symbolic; for example, internationalization may be reflected only through an insignificant number of pupils participating occasionally in international programmes such as international physics olympiads or young entrepreneurs projects. At the other end of the continuum, internationalization is conceptualized as a synergistic, transformative process involving both the curriculum and teachers’ education programmes, which influences the role and activities of all stakeholders including teachers, headteachers, pupils, parents, administrators and the community at large.

Proposed internationalization assessment tool

In the first part of this section I discuss the need for a valid and reliable internationalization assessment tool to measure internationalization intensity on the organizational (school) level. I then proceed to present the current assessment approaches and indicators that are used for assessment in the context of higher education institutions. I end with discussing the adaptation that existing assessment mechanisms must undergo in order better to suit schools’ needs.

The need for internationalization measurement

A lively debate over the need to measure internationalization intensity in higher education systems has existed over the last two decades. Several organizations and researchers developed and monitored the level of internationalization in universities and colleges worldwide. These studies include, among others, Knight (2005) for the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); Hayward (2000); Green and Olson (2003); Siaya and Hayward (2003); Green et al. (2008) for the American Council on Education (ACE); Altbach and Knight (2007) studying the USA; Ayoubi and Massoud (2007) focusing on the UK; Mok (2007) regarding Taiwan and many others. In 2010, the European Commission published a comparative report on the main assessment tools (Beerkens et al., 2010) with a comparison of the purposes and indicators used in each of the assessments. The report’s main conclusion is that although no universal standards exist yet, most of the tools developed have many common parameters and rationales. Thus, several classifications are universally relevant:

(1) the purpose of the assessment (self-evaluation, classification or rating);

(2) the type of indicators to be measured (qualitative or quantitative);

(3) the dimensions to be measured (including institutional commitment and curriculum, among others);

(4) the structure to be used (survey, independent expert observations or internal data collection); and

(5) the method of indicator validation (comparisons over time or of different institutions). The assessment can be initiated by applying general assessment tool and later adapted to the specific means of each school.

The need for internationalization assessment in schools necessarily involves a rather descriptive account of schools’ international dimension, and has several important implications for the educational research and schooling outcomes. First, the intensity of school internationalization is important as a parameter assumed to influence schools’ outcomes in terms of scholastic achievements, preparation of future global students and workers, and the chances for social mobility stemming from access to cosmopolitan and international capital that has become more valuable in the 21st century (Hayden, 2011). Understanding the level of internationalization in schools will also assist the understanding of contextual factors that influence internationalization in a given school.

Second, given increasing school choice and competition between schools, a high internationalization level serves as a guarantee of quality and assurance for parents regarding a high-quality education. In an increasingly global world, internationalization seems to be as intrinsic a quality indicator for schools as it is for universities. In times of increased competition, schools can exploit international capital as an additional competitive advantage for pupils – especially in disadvantaged areas where other forms of capital are scarce (Weenink, 2008).

Third, the need for assessment can be seen as part of the broader accountability culture that has dominated schools in recent decades. International testing and ranking in the Program for International Student Assessment [PISA], Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMMS] and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study [PIERLS] have become part of policy and practice in many countries. Moreover, under decentralization policies, school management and regulative authorities are looking for more factors to assure quality and to enable effective monitoring of schools’ performance, while levels of internationalization can provide an additional measurable factor.

In regard to schools, I argue that measurement of internationalization should be divided into three basic elements: (1) mapping internationalization within the institution; (2) examining the value yielded by internationalization to the institution’s outcomes; and (3) understanding the variables that affect the level of internationalization at the institution.

Knight and de Wit (1995) identified four categories (research, academic, technical development, and extra-curricular activities) as key internationalization dimensions that can be measured and benchmarked with an emphasis on post-secondary institutions. Knight and de Wit (1999) later revised these into academic programmes; research and scholarly collaboration; external relations and services; and extra-curricular activities. These dimensions were later expanded and used as standards in the Internationalization Quality Review Process’s (IQRP) report on OECD countries’ higher education institutions internationalization status (Knight and de Wit, 1999). ACE used the IQPR framework to develop and implement an internationalization assessment procedure focused on the US higher education system. Large-scale surveys were conducted by ACE in 2001, 2003 and 2006 and included assessment of different types of higher education institutions: research universities, liberal arts colleges and community colleges in the USA (Beerkens et al., 2010).

I chose to focus on the ACE internationalization assessment tool to measure internationalization intensity in schools for two main reasons. First, this is one of the most widely referenced and large-scale tools (Beerkens et al., 2010). Second, this tool underwent rigorous and repeatable testing and evaluation and was found to be scalable for a wide range of institutions. Its suitability, with only mild modifications, for assessing internationalization at both research universities and community colleges – institutions that diverge significantly in their scope, purpose and nature – makes its adaptation to schools seem more feasible then other available indices. That said, I note that the use of any assessment tool oriented towards higher education must take into account the two main differences between schools and higher education institutions. First, schooling is compulsory in most countries, at least to a certain extent, while higher education is optional, with only around 35 per cent of the population in developed countries enrolling in post-secondary education (OECD, 2010). Second, schools have much less autonomy in governance than do higher education institutions. Thus, evaluating the intensity of internationalization at the school level might result in only minor diversity between schools in the same country, arising from the degree of decentralization and school autonomy. This factor should be taken into account when using the adapted tool, and system-wide autonomy level might be one of the important contextual variables that affect the schools’ internationalization intensity.

ACE’s initial internationalization indicator set included six categories: (1) articulated commitment; (2) academic offerings; (3) organizational infrastructure; (4) external funding; (5) institutional investment in faculty; and (6) international students and student programmes. In the latest (2008) survey, slight changes were introduced, leading to four main categories: (1) institutional support; (2) academic requirements, programmes and extracurricular activities; (3) faculty policies and opportunities; and (4) international students. This model must be further modified to assess internationalization intensity in schools as, by default, actual mobility of students and staff in local schools is generally fairly limited, and international activities can be expected to centre around the curriculum and school atmosphere (Dolby and Rahman, 2008). Thus, in the next paragraphs I will present some of the potential internationalization categories that might be expressed and measured in schools.

Institutional support

Institutional support relates to the school’s internal governance. This category is composed of variables that assess the intensity of a school’s management support and commitment to internationalization. These factors include stated institutional commitment to internationalization in the school’s mission and vision statements, international diversity policies related to school staff, and commitment to funding internationally oriented initiatives. The governance-related variables can be accessed through analysis of schools’ websites and other official documents or by interviewing school principals and teachers regarding their schools’ formal commitment to internationalization. In this category, almost no conceptual differences exist in implementation of internationalization between schools and higher education institutions.

Academic requirements, programmes and extracurricular activities

This category is probably the most important in the school context, as it includes schools’ internal activities that can express an international dimension. This grouping includes requirements and offerings of foreign languages and international and global courses, use of technology for international purposes, international partnerships and exchanges, and internationally-minded delegations, competitions, projects and extracurricular activities.

This category is also very similar to its counterpart in the higher education system, although here offerings and requirements of foreign languages and study programmes might be regulated at regional or national level and not subject to schools’ autonomous decisions. Thus, the internationalization intensity here must be evaluated with respect to the level of autonomy granted to local schools in these subjects.

Faculty policies and opportunities

This section discusses the criterion of internationalism among school staff. The category includes, among others, hiring and promotion guidelines regarding teachers’ international experience, as well as policies and initiatives geared towards school staff that might support or facilitate internationalization: workshops on international issues, encouraging use of global teaching resources, opportunities to increase foreign-language skills and recognition awards for international staff activities.

Although clearly important in fostering schools’ internationalization, schools are expected to exhibit staff internationalism to a lesser extent in comparison with higher education institutions and, ultimately, internationalism among teachers may be less important in schools, since most teachers are trained within their native country, through a locally oriented education.

International students

As stated above, students’ actual mobility is one of the most important measures of internationalization intensity in higher education, but this parameter is less common in schools. Most students attend schools in their local environment and large-scale mobility or full schooling in foreign countries is less common, except for within international schools. This category – as it relates to higher education – includes enrolments, recruiting targets and strategies, financial support for international students and programmes and support services. I posit that in assessing schools, these measures can be substituted with measures of virtual mobility presently facilitated by the spread of internet connectivity, use of social networks, and other technological solutions. Involvement in this form of internationalization can be assessed by investigating students’ international engagements in e-learning and virtual courses, school resources allocated for external and international students and international activities of alumni.

Yet assessment of this type of internationalization in a given school requires identification and recognition of contextual variables that influence the school’s internationalization intensity. Contextual variables may include the school’s socio-economic compositions, location (urban versus rural), school size, sector (such as secular, religious, special), private or public status, pupils’ socio-economic background (including proportion of immigrants and bilingual speakers, and the composition of the body of teachers and school principal (for example, previous international experience, personal professional and academic background, and leadership style). The same tools of collecting information regarding the school and its environment can be applied to uncover the context under which each school operates. The categories presented above can be easily implemented in the assessment of schools’ internationalization intensity and thus serve as an important tool for research and practice.

Discussion

While the importance of internationalization in higher education has become axiomatic, the debate regarding the need for and effects of internationalization activities in schools remains in its early stages. This article presents an assessment tool adapted for evaluating the intensity of internationalization in schools. The proposed framework is an adaptation of the ACE assessment index for higher education institutions. Indeed, internationalization has become one of the major goals of university administrators as a means of increasing competitiveness, improving academic staff access to broader sources of research funding, satisfying national authorities’ desire for ‘world class’ universities, and providing students with the global competencies and skills they seek out. Internationalization’s origins in schools are less obvious, as schools have generally been regarded as strongly influenced by institutional pressures (Scott and Meyer, 1991) and forced to comply with practices and norms imposed by state authorities. As the main institutions of socialization and nation building, schools adopt policies that are congruent with government, professional group initiatives and prevailing social values and norms in order to gain support and legitimization – even in the absence of evidence that such actions in fact increase their internal efficiency (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Yet despite schools’ nationally oriented role, recent decentralization reforms in many countries have enabled schools to shift towards greater internationalism (Weenink, 2008).

Decentralization usually involves a shift in decision-making authority from the central government to local education authorities, and even to individual schools. Schools have been granted opportunities to adopt new practices that various relevant groups (such as parents, politicians, or taxpayers) perceive to be effective and contribute to the educational process (Scott and Meyer, 1991), although these new practices may not actually increase schools’ efficiency. ‘International literacy’ of external stakeholders – especially parents – may affect the desire of school leaders to pursue internationalization practices as a means of internal entrepreneurship within the school. Increased involvement of private business organizations in schools also indirectly influences and pressurizes school leaders to adopt internationalization practices in school. Owing to the increasing interest in internationalization, its assessment has become an urgent priority in the theory and practice of school level education.

I have selected to apply an assessment tool adopted from the higher education system, instead of developing a new assessment tool or using evaluation parameters for international schools, because of the many similarities between the internationalization processes undergone by higher education institutions and schools. The integration of an international, intercultural and global dimension into the purpose, function and delivery of education at the school level stems from the recognized need to prepare skilled graduates adapted to higher education and the 21st-century workplace. The proposed adaptation of a model for assessing higher education internationalization, as presented above, addresses the differences between schools and higher education institutions mainly expressed in their different levels of autonomy and the actual mobility of students and staff.

Although an enormous increase in the levels of internationalization in schools is well documented, additional questions arise regarding the nature and character of this process. Is it possible to define the starting point and the end point of the process? What degree of diversity can be observed in the way in which internationalization takes place in different schools in different countries? Is there an internationalization continuum that starts with occasional participation in international events and programmes on a self-funded basis, and terminates in an international school with mobile students and staff, and what types of potential variants exist along the continuum? At what points can the school principal/leadership act to affect internationalization? What is the relationship between schools’ decentralization and internationalization? To what extent may the desire to internationalize or the degree of internationalization be dictated by availability of resources? Should internationalization be seen as a tool for enhancing competitiveness and securing additional resources or, on the contrary, as a luxury available only in elite schools? These and other questions need to be investigated by further research, with the proposed tool serving as a starting point in attaining a clearer picture of this important worldwide phenomenon in education.

Conclusion

The debate over the benefits of internationalization in schools forms an inseparable part of the larger debate over decentralization and privatization of the education system, or even the openness of the education system to global forces of competitiveness, marketization and globalization. Internationalization in schools is certainly taking place, raising an important policy question as to whether this phenomenon should be encouraged or discouraged and what school leaders and regulators should do to support, prevent or monitor this process.

The assessment tool proposed in this essay is offered as a theoretical framework – a starting point to help overcome the research lacuna in this field. It is my recommendation that investigation of internationalization in schools should be expanded in the future to attain important goals such as (1) evaluating teachers’, pupils’ and other stakeholders’ opinions, attitudes and beliefs on a range of broadly defined ‘international’, ‘global’ and ‘multinational’ learning opportunities, and their understanding of the knowledge and skills that are gained when they acquire international experience; (2) monitoring internationalization activities in schools according to the proposed framework together with validity studies; (3) mapping the gaps in teacher training in order to identify and develop generic skills and competencies related to internationalization; (4) expanding this course of study in the context of different populations in developed and developing countries; (5) secondary analysis of schools with diverse levels of internationalization to identify parameters that assist and encourage this phenomenon; and (6) long-term follow-up of pupils and teachers to track transformations in their views of internationalization. Such studies would provide insights likely to be of benefit to all stakeholders in this rapidly developing context.

Footnotes

Biography

Miri Yemini, PhD is a lecturer and researcher in the school of education at Tel Aviv University, Israel. Her main fields of interest are entrepreneurship education, educational policymaking and internationalization in education systems.

References

Al-Haj

(2002) Multiculturalism in deeply divided societies: the Israeli case. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26: 169–183.

Altbach

Knight

(2007) The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities. Boston, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education.

Apple

(1993) The politics of official knowledge: does a national curriculum make sense? Teachers College Record 95(2): 222–241.

Ayoubi

Massoud

(2007) The strategy of internationalization in universities – a quantitative evaluation of the intent and implementation in UK universities. International Journal of Educational Management 21(4): 324–349.

Beerkens

Brandenburg

Evers

. (2010) Indicator projects on internationalization – approaches, methods and findings. A report in the context of the European project ‘Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalization’ (IMPI). European Commission.

Bromley

(2011) Multiculturalism and human rights in civic education: the case of British Columbia, Canada. Educational Research 53(2): 151–164.

Bourdieu

(1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson

(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, 241–258.

Bunnell

(2010) The International Baccalaureate and a framework for class consciousness: the potential outcomes of a ‘class-for-itself ’. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 31(3): 351–362.

Cambridge

Thompson

(2004) Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education. Compare 34(2): 161–175.

10.

Carber

(2009) What will characterize international education in US public schools? Journal of Research in International Education 8(1): 99–109.

11.

Coulby

(2005) The knowledge economy: technology and characteristics. In: Coulby

Zambeta

(eds) World yearbook of education 2005: Globalization and nationalism in education. London: Routledge Falmer, 23–36.

12.

DiMaggio

Powell

(1983) ‘The iron cage revisited’: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.

13.

Dolby

Rahman

(2008) Research in international education. Review of Educational Research 78(3): 676–726.

14.

Dunne

Edwards

(2010) International schools as sites of social change. Journal of Research in International Education 9(1): 24–39.

15.

Goldring

Schuermann

(2009) The changing context of K–12 education administration: consequences for EdD program design and delivery. Peabody Journal of Education 84(1): 9–43.

16.

Green

Luu

Burris

(2008) Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses: 2008 Edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

17.

Green

Olson

(2003) Internationalizing the Campus: A User’s Guide. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

18.

Green

Schoenberg

(2006) Where Faculty Live: Internationalizing the Disciplines. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

19.

Hayden

(2011) Transnational spaces of education: the growth of the international school sector. Globalisation, Societies and Education 9(2): 211–224.

20.

Hayden

Thompson

(1995) International schools and international education: a relationship reviewed. Oxford Review of Education 21(3): 327–345.

21.

Hayward

(2000) Internationalization of US Higher Education: Preliminary Status Report 2000. Washington, DC: American Council of Education.

22.

Horn

Hendel

Fry

(2007) Ranking the international dimension of top research universities in the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3–4): 330–358.

23.

Knight

(2004) Internationalization remodeled: definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education 8(1): 5–31.

24.

Knight

(2005) Internationalization of Higher Education: New Directions, New Challenges. The 2005 IAU Global Survey Report. Paris: International Association of Universities.

25.

Knight

de Wit

(1995) Strategies for Internationalization of Higher Education: Historical and Conceptual Perspectives in de Wit

(ed). Strategies for Internationalization of Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America [pp 5-32] Amsterdam: European Association for International Education [EAIE].

26.

Knight

de Wit

(eds) (1999) Quality and Internationalization in Higher Education. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

27.

Kuwamura

(2009) The challenges of increasing capacity and diversity in Japanese higher education through proactive recruitment strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education 13(2): 189–202.

28.

Lawrence

(2004) Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: a historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Review of Higher Education 27(2): 281–282.

29.

Lopez

Andrade

. (2011) Functional patterns in international organizations for university cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Studies in International Education 15(2): 203–215.

30.

MacKenzie

(2010) School choice in an international context. Journal of Research in International Education 9(2): 107–123.

31.

Marshall

(2007) The global education terminology debate: exploring some of the issues. In: Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Research in International Education. London: SAGE, 38–50.

32.

Mok

(2007) Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: critical reflections. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3–4): 433–454.

33.

Murphy

(2007) Experiences in the internationalization of education: strategies to promote equality of opportunity at Monterrey Tech. Higher Education 53(2): 167–208.

34.

Ninomiya

Knight

Watanabe

(2009) The past, present, and future of internationalization in Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education 13(2): 117–124.

35.

OECD (2010) Education at a Glance OECD Indicators, Paris: OECD.

36.

Scott

Meyer

(1991) The rise of training-programs in firms and agencies: an institutional perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior 13: 297–326.

37.

Siaya

Hayward

(2003) Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses: Final Report 2003. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

38.

Trilokekar

(2010) International education as soft power? The contributions and challenges of Canadian foreign policy to the internationalization of higher education. Higher Education 59(2): 131–147.

39.

Uys

Middleton

(2011) Internationalising university schools of nursing in South Africa through a community of practice. International Nursing Review 58(1): 115–122.

40.

Weenink

(2008) Cosmopolitanism as a form of capital: parents preparing their children for a globalizing world. Sociology-the Journal of the British Sociological Association 42(6): 1089–1106.

41.

Weenink

(2009) Creating a niche in the education market: the rise of internationalized secondary education in the Netherlands. Journal of Education Policy 24(4): 495–511.