Thoughts on International Education

Judith Harris published an article in the mid-90’s that has had a profound effect upon the underlying thinking in the nature versus nurture debate. She doesn’t get into the debate on the division between the two, though acknowledges that the general consensus out there is that it is about half and half. Her impact was in challenging the assumption that the term nurture heavily involved the parents. She argues, instead, that the biggest influence upon kids growing up are not their parents. No, she says, it is their peer group; and the most important influence parents have on their kids is in putting them in environments that will determine their peer group. The one rationalization that really stands out to me is ‘why don’t immigrant kids ever pick up their parents’ accents’? Instead they sound like the other kids in the neighborhood. By extension then, according to Harris’ central idea, much of the value of an international education is derived from the putting kids around other international kids. Hmm….this actually makes some sense.

By the way, Harris’ path to intellectual glory is a really great story. Admittedly I read her book about decade ago so forgive me if my details aren’t entirely accurate, but she dropped out of a PhD program and then began writing introductory physc. textbooks for first year university students: from what I know of such things, this is roughly the academic equivalent to flipping intellectual burgers. Well as she is writing these textbooks and summarizing the research, something about the nature / nurture thing strikes her as being off. And then she come up with this idea about the influence of peer groups, gets published in one of the world’s leading psychology journals and rockets to intellectual stardom. (Off the top of my head, Pinker—who has written a collection of the most accessible and popular ‘brain research’ books you will probably find on the shelves—is a big fan. Harris’ theory even she got an honorable mention in Freakonmics if my memory serves me correctly.)

Anyway, if you are parent, don’t feel to proud or too guilty about your actions and how you kids have turned out. Your biggest role is probably picking their environment and the candidate pool of friends. If you are teacher, be mindful of who is hanging out with who—it really matters. If you were ever a kid, ask yourself: Who were your friends growing up…?

Curriculum is one of those great terms we throw around as educators yet, as anyone who has researched the term knows, there is no commonly accepted, single definition. Nonetheless, it has been my experience that most educators prefer a very broad interpretation of the word that includes both intended and unintended outcomes encompassing learning happening both inside and outside of the classroom. However, I think how we use the word nowadays may be changing our practical definition. Here’s why I think so.

‘Curriculum mapping’ is something that is increasingly common in our schools. (In fact, accreditation standards at most international schools now require articulated horizontal and vertical curriculum links and this has been a big focus in many schools lately.) Curriculum mapping, however, really only intends to map the formal, intended curriculum. Simplistically speaking, it doesn’t attempt to deal with some of the intangibles of education. Rather it focuses on mapping what the teacher is going to teach, how it will be taught, when lessons will be delivered and how learning is going to be measured. All this is done with view of allowing the aggregation of all the teachers’ mapping to comprise the school’s ‘mapped curriculum’.

With the term ‘curriculum mapping’ becoming an increasingly common in our schools, and with everyday conversations filled with people talking about mapping their ‘curriculum’, I think our practical interpretation of the word curriculum has changed. It has narrowed and today some teachers might assume that if it doesn’t show up on the curriculum map, then it is not ‘curriculum’. What I am suggesting then is that subtly our professional understanding of curriculum is changing.

And this is a problem. Schooling is much more than just the formal curriculum and we must guard against our focuses becoming too narrow.

I think instead we should be talking about programmes, of which ‘curriculum mapping’ becomes a subset. (While I would prefer we keep with the idea curriculum is broader than just what is mapped, I am conceding the current usage of the term makes this very problematic.) Programmes, at nowadays, may allow for a much broader interpretation and open us up to thinking about education more holistically. The use of the word ‘programme’ allow us to put extra and co-curricular activities, the hidden curriculum, values education, and many of the intangible elements that go into an international education back into the discussion. While I feel strongly that academics remain a foundational core activity for schools, this does not mean that our job starts and ends there. We should never let academic outcomes define us as international educators. Instead, all the ‘stuff’ happening outside of the formal curriculum that both attracted many of us to education in the first place and will define graduates of international schools well into the future should be receiving a lot of attention.

And on this note, if indeed much of the value of an international education is derived beyond the limits of formal, academic curriculum then might mapping be appropriate outside of the formal curriculum domain too? Are we not remiss if are we leaving this ‘stuff’ to chance and not applying the same rigor as we might with academics?

Imagine for moment what a classroom would look like if all the students were legally intoxicated, having just consumed two alcoholic drinks before sitting down in their seats. This image (which hopefully requires some imagination for most educators to conjure up!) would likely produce a very negative reaction from most educators. Imagine again, if the same classroom and same students had the same impairment level, but caused by another factor? Would and should the reaction of be the same?

Research has shown that sleep is a critical component in brain development and learning. We all know that sleep is a biological imperative, affecting all humans.  It is a critical variable in people’s ability to function (Loehr and Schwartz, 2003: 55). Despite its importance, most educators tend to dismiss such factors as being outside of their control and beyond the jurisdiction of the school. Perhaps this view is correct, but it does not change the fact that a lack of sleep seriously impairs cognitive performance.  In fact, ’stay awake longer than 18 consecutive hours and your reaction speed, short-term and long-term memory, ability to focus, decision-making capacity, math processing, cognitive speed, and spatial orientation all start to suffer.’ (Fryer, 2006). Plenty of research also demonstrates how proper sleep cycles are essential of for memory consolidation and learning, as well as in helping to determine overall health and performance.

To understand the seriousness of sleep deprivation and its effects, it is insightful to compare the affects on the body of alcohol to sleep deprivation. Sleeping only 4-5 hours per night for a week, or going without any sleep for 24 hours, ‘induces an impairment equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 0.1%’. (Fryer, 2006). International school teachers, especially those teaching in the high school, are probably familiar with such situations and have looked out on a class with sleepy students gazing back at them.

So why would we react so strongly if the kids were drinking, but dismiss impairment caused by other means?  Food for thought….

This is post about problems. But not normal ones: wicked ones!

Back in 1973, two Berkley professors put forth the idea that certain types of social problems were ‘wicked problems’. They proposed 10 properties of wicked problems, and while these ten criteria to not provide mechanistic diagnosis of wicked problems, they do provide key insights into the degree and nature of social problems. The ten properties are:

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but good or bad.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one shot’ operation; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not have an exhaustively describable set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways.
10. The planner has no right to be wrong.

Reading this, I though to myself: ‘So many of the problems and issues we deal with in schools share many of these characteristics’. And of course they should: schools are social organizations with social missions.  (By the way, wicked problems do not need to share all of these qualities: its a highly subjective business and is a matter of degree as much as anything).

Anyway, think of all the ‘problems’ (or issues) we have in international education. Off the top of my head:  What should the curriculum look like and how do we develop it? I would argue yes to 1-4, 8-10 and possibly some of the characteristics apply. And what about the role international education plays promoting world peace: one could maybe argue 2-8. On a different level, how do you attract and retain the ‘best’ staff. Make your own list, but this is subjective, difficult and imperative. And how best should a school strike the right balance between the pragmatic concerns (like test scores, finances and operational issues) and the ideological aspirations of international education.? 3, 4 and 10 spring immediately to mind for this one.

The next time you are facing a challenge or problem in your school, think about these characteristics. It may not solve the problem for you, but if may help contextualize the discussion and thinking and help to produce better decisions going forward. Good luck!