Research on International Education as a Vehicle of U.S. Soft Power, 1945-2000

Recently, I finished some research on international education as a vehicle of soft power in the United States. The first aim of my research was to determine the intended outcome of the international education legislation and funding in the United States between 1945 and 2000.

Throughout the United States’ history of international education legislation and funding it is clear that soft power is an underlying objective of the federal government. The term “cultural exchange” is used frequently throughout the related literature and legislative language. Often times the term “cultural exchange” is used interchangeably with the term “international educational exchanges.” The interchangeability of these two terms, however, was more prevalent in the literature and legislation of the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s. These two terms were used more separately in the 1970’s through the year 2000.

Another finding is, that for the most part, the language used during the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s focused more on “mutual understanding between cultures” while the language used during the 1990’s and into 2000 had a much stronger tone and emphasized the benefit to the “national security” of the United States. An exception to this is the National Defense Education Act of 1958 which encouraged and supported international education exchanges but the focus was more on U.S. national security and competition with the Soviet Union during this challenging period of the Cold War.

Interestingly, the language used in The International Academic Opportunity Act not only focused on the benefit that these study abroad scholarships would give to the United States in terms of soft power and national security but it also focused on the personal benefits that scholarship recipients gain and that the purpose of the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship was to better prepare students to assume significant roles in an increasingly global economy. It took until the year 2000 for the federal government to fully understand the economic benefits of international education exchanges and that the economic dimension is just as important to the United States as soft power and national security objectives.

I was also interested in investigating the importance that the international education legislation and literature place on the inflow of international students and scholars into the United States and on the outflow of American students and scholars who are studying and/or conducting research abroad? It’s not surprising that in the years immediately following World War II and into the 1960’s the federal government and the greater higher education community placed significant importance on the inflow of international students and scholars into the United States. Certainly, the federal government saw value in funding and supporting U.S. students and scholars going abroad for academic purposes but their main focus was on the academic inflow into the United States. While support for international education exchanges increased through the last half of the twentieth century, the international education legislative focus of the 1990’s and into 2000 tended to favor the outflow of U.S. students and scholars than on the inflow of academics from abroad. What changed, however, was that major federal legislation focusing on international students and scholars in the United States was found more in the immigration arena.

Study Abroad Resources for Serving Students with Disabilities

I just returned from the CIEE conference in Toronto and several people in attendance had questions and were looking for resources to better serve students with disabilities. This summer I compiled a brief list of resources available on the web so I thought I'd share. The resource list follows:

Mobility International USA (MIUSA)
Excellent Site with Many Resources for Administrators and Students
http://miusa.org/publications

University of Minnesota Learning Abroad Center ~ Access Abroad
Excellent Site with Many Resources for Administrators and Students
http://www.umabroad.umn.edu/access/index.html

Mental Health and Crisis Management: Assisting University of Notre Dame Study Abroad Students (2002)
http://www.nd.edu/~ucc/International_Eds_Hdbk_I.html

Study and Work Abroad for People with Disabilities
http://www.independentliving.org/studyworkabroad/
A website which lists the programs available in a multitude of countries worldwide including information about local conditions as well as the organizations which are looking for new contacts.

Higher Education Accessibility Guide
http://www.european-agency.org/heag/
This website is a guide to the accessibility services which are available in Higher Education Institutions across Europe. The information includes contact information to a large number of European institutes and programs which specialize in providing resources for those with disabilities who would like to travel abroad.

Student Disability Travel Resources for Europe
http://www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/magazine/0103/students_with_disabilities_in_europe.shtml A resourceful website with contact information for various institutions and programs specializing in those with disabilities.

No Barriers to Study (NBTS)
http://www3.vjc.edu/nobarrierstostudy/index.html The NBTS is a consortium of college and university professionals from the areas of disability services, international programs, study abroad, diversity and other interested groups. The NBTS group meets twice a year to discuss issues and concerns regarding students with disabilities studying abroad.

A Brief Summary of China’s Astounding Economic Growth

In 1950, China’s foreign trade was a meager $1.14 billion. (Chang 1995, 956). According to Cable and Ferdinand (1994) “the most tangible economic manifestation of China’s ‘open door’ policy is its trade performance. Its trade turnover grew from $15 billion in 1977 to $165 billion in 1992.” (245) Avery Goldstein (1997-1998) provides additional data which shows a more complete picture of China’s trade volume when combined with the data from Cable and Ferdinand (1994). Goldstein states that “over the same time period [the 1980’s to the mid-1990’s], China’s trade volume ballooned from $38.2 billion to more than $250 billion.” (41). During the first ten months of 2006, according to the Chinese Government (2006), China’s foreign trade volume increased 24.1 percent “year-on-year” and reached $1.425 trillion. The increase in China’s trade volume from $15 billion dollars in 1977 to $1.425 trillion during the first ten months of 2006 equates to an astounding 9,400% total increase in a little less thirty years.

The present and projected growth of China’s economic growth continues to be on the rise. Prior to the February 27, 2007 drop in the Chinese market, the Shanghai Index had gained 12% year-to-date and, if it continues at this pace, China will see its fifth straight year of double-digit growth. In 2006, the Chinese economy grew 10.7% and projected growth for 2007 is at 10.8% according to Goldman Sachs (Cheok, 2007). Further, the 2008 Olympics in Beijing are bound to bring in substantial revenues from tourist and media dollars related to the event which will likely continue the double-digit growth for a sixth year.

China’s middle class continues to rise and current estimates place the number of Chinese middle-class citizens at 400 million and it is this population within China that will provide a domestic market for goods that would normally be sold to other countries. Also, according to Vogel (2004), in addition to China’s rising middle-class she has roughly 150 underemployed rural laborers which provides a “virtually unlimited supply of future workers, low wages can continue for a long time to come. Wages can therefore remain low and China can continue to compete in labor-intensive production.” (46)

References

Cable, Vincent., and Ferdinand, Peter. 1994. “China as an Economic Giant: Threat or
Opportunity?” International Affairs 70: 243-261.

Chang, Maria Hsia. 1995. “Greater China and the Chinese ‘Global Tribe.’” Asian
Survey 35: 955-967.

Cheok, Dora. 2007. “A China Affair” CNBC.com,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17806732/for/cnbc (March 30, 2007).

Chinese Government. (2006). “China’s Foreign Trade Volume Hits New High.”
http://english.gov.cn/2006-11/13/content_441227.htm (November 13, 2006).

Goldstein, Avery. 1997-1998. “Great Expectations: Interpreting China’s Arrival.” International Security 22: 36-73.

Vogel, Ezra F. 2004. The Rise of China and the Changing Face of East Asia.” Asia
Pacific Review 11: 46-57.

The Development of Federal Aid for U.S. Students at Home and Abroad from 1945 to 1961

In 1945, as a direct response to the tragedy of World War II, Senator J. William Fulbright introduced legislation sponsoring exchange programs for students and faculty between the United States and foreign countries that was eventually signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on August 1, 1946. Fulbright (1976) stated that “it is…fair to say that the Exchange Program is an instrument of foreign policy, not just for the Untied States, for all participating nations – as well as a memorable educational experience for the individual participants” (p. 2). The Fulbright Act set in motion a great history of international exchange between the United States and the rest of the world. The international educational exchange and foreign language components from additional legislation such as The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (also known as The Smith-Mundt Act), amendments to The Mutual Security Act of 1951, and The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 were consolidated into The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (better known as The Fulbright-Hays Act). In addition to the international educational exchange legislation and related funding that came during this time period (1945 to 1961) the federal government also focused significant attention and energy on increasing and funding scientific research. During these early years of the Cold War the federal government understood that international educational exchange and foreign language study were both essential to the U.S. national security efforts and were just as important as the major scientific research of the time.

One afternoon in late September, 1945 during a routine session of the United States Senate, then freshman Senator J. William Fulbright took the floor and made the following statement:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill for reference to the
Committee on Military Affairs, authorizing the use of credits established abroad for the promotion of international good will through the exchange of students in fields of education, culture, and science (Johnson and Colligan, 1967).

Senator Fulbright’s proposed to fund these exchanges through the sale of surplus United States Senator Fulbright proposed a Bill to amend the Surplus Property Act of 1944 to designate the Department of State as the disposal agency for surplus property outside the United States, its territories and possessions, and for other purposes (Johnson and Colligan, 1967). The Fulbright Act was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on August 1, 1946. The first participants in the program from the United States received funding to study in the 38 countries that received money and/or equipment as a result of the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. Additionally, students from these 38 Lend-Lease countries received Fulbright Program funding to study in the United States. Since the initial funding of the program from sales of surplus property the primary source of funding is appropriated annually by the United States Congress to the United States Department of State (Fulbright.org). Additionally, participating countries are expected to contribute finances to the program but these resources are dwarfed by the funds allocated by the United States. The Fulbright Program was (and remains) a competitive scholarship process. The review and selection of Fulbright fellows focused primarily on academic merit rather than on financial need. During the selection process, weight was not to be given with respect to financial need (it was a secondary consideration), the educational level of the application, or to the geographical distribution of applicants (Board of Foreign Scholarships, 1986). This remains true today except that specific quotas are set for individual countries or specific regions of the world. property (primarily from the military) to allies and other countries at the conclusion of World War II.

In 1948 the United States Congress passed The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act (also known as The Smith-Mundt Act). In addition to bringing the Voice of America and other operations under the Office of International Information of the U.S. Department of State, The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act was established to promote better understanding of the United States among the peoples of the world and to strengthen cooperative international relations. The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act also expanded the Fulbright program to include countries other than those Lend-Lease countries originally specified in the original Fulbright Act of 1946 and facilitated the establishment of bi-national centers around the world to coordinate the exchanges between countries. Although the impact of The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act on U.S higher education was quite minimal; expanding the number of participating countries in the Fulbright Program beyond the Lend-Lease countries only two years later was an important development of the program.

In 1957, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) launched the tiny Sputnik I satellite thus beating the Untied States in innovation and exploration of the new and unexplored frontier of outer space. As a result, the United States Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (often referred to as NDEA). The National Defense Education Act highlighted the critical importance of education to national defense and was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on September 2, 1958. Scarfo states, that “by passing this legislation, the United States Congress understood that the defense and security of the United States were bound with education” (1998, p. 23). Vestal (1994) also highlights the importance of the National Defense Education Act by describing it as the most important federal legislation in international studies (p. 5). The National Defense and Education Act provided federal funding to colleges and universities in order to develop graduate programs focusing on mathematics, the sciences, foreign languages and area studies. According to Brown (1988) “Sputnik dramatized the effort but it was fought in the basements, classrooms, and auditoriums, as educators adapted schools to the national security threat of atomic warfare and claimed a proportionate federal reward for their trouble” (p. 68). In addition, The National Defense Education Act created the Graduate Fellowship Program and the National Defense Student Loan Program, the precursor to the Perkins Loan Program, which was the first federal student aid program for low-income students.

The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (commonly known as the Fulbright-Hays Act), which was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy, is linked to much of the post-World War II legislation that provided funding to higher education in the United States. As previously mentioned, the international educational exchange and foreign language components from the original Fulbright Act of 1946 and additional legislation such as The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Smith-Mundt Act), amendments to The Mutual Security Act of 1951, and The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 were consolidated into The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (better known as The Fulbright-Hays Act). The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act is quite extensive and it includes a variety of programs that provide funding for and have an impact on higher education in the United States.

Scarfo (1998) notes that section 102 of the Fulbright-Hays Act authorized a range of cultural, technical and educational exchange activities but section 102(b)(6) focused entirely on education in foreign languages and area studies across American higher education (p. 24). According to the International Education Programs Service in the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) of the United States Department of Education the “Fulbright-Hays is viewed as the overseas counterpart to the domestic capacity-building Title VI programs” (of the National Security Education Act of 1958). The Fulbright-Hays Act originally provided financial support for the following four initiatives: Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA), Faculty Research Abroad (FRA), Group Projects Abroad (GPA), and Foreign Curriculum Consultants (FCC) (OPE and Scarfo, 1998). The Fulbright-Hays Act remains law today and represents the world’s flagship international educational exchange policy and program. The Fulbright Program is the largest U.S. international exchange program offering opportunities for students, scholars, and professionals to undertake international graduate study, advanced research, university teaching, and teaching in elementary and secondary schools worldwide.

The history of the federal government’s involvement of providing both institutional funding and individual student financial aid and scholarships packages has been both long and interesting. This cannot be more true than the federal function of financing higher education during the period of 1945 to 1961. From Senator’s proposal in 1945 to the signing of The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act by President Kennedy in 1961, this time period saw the development of a new vision and purpose of education in the United States and the federal government’s responsibility in funding these new visions and purposes.

References

Board of Foreign Scholarships. (1986, December). Forty years: The Fulbright program 1946-1986, Twenty-third annual report of the Board of Foreign Scholarships. Washington, DC: U.S. Information Agency.

Brown, J. (1988). “A is for atom, B is for bomb”: Civil defense in American public education, 1948-1963. The Journal of American History, 75 (1), 68-90.

Flemming, A.S. (1960, January). The philosophy and objectives of The National Defense Education Act. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Scienc, (327), 132-138.

The Fulbright Act of 1946 (Public Law 584; 79th Congress).

Fulbright, J.W. (1976). The most significant and important activity I have been privileged to engage in during my years in the senate. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Scienc, 424, 1-5.

Fulbright.org (date unknown). About Fulbright. Cyprus: Fulbright.org. URL retrieved November 27, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fulbright.org.cy/fulworld.htm.

Johnson, W., & Colligan, F.J. (1967). The Fulbright program: A history. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, 22 U.S.C. § 2458a.

National Science Foundation. (2000). Science and engineering indicators. National Science Foundation. URL retrieved November 20, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/intro.htm.

Office of Postsecondary Education (date unknown). The history of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays: An impressive international timeline. Washington, DC” International Education Programs Service, Office of Postsecondary Education, United States Department of Education. URL retrieved November 27, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/history.html.

Rosenzweig, R.M. (1963). NDEA Title IV after four years: A record of substantial Achievement. The Journal of Higher Education, 34 (1), 1-9.

Scarfo, R.D. (1998). The history of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays. In J.N. Hawkins, C.M. Haro, M.A. Kazanjian, G.W. Merkx and D. Wiley (Eds.), International education in the new global era: Proceedings of a national policy conference on The Higher Education Act, Title VI, and Fulbright-Hays Programs (pp. 23-25). Los Angeles: International Studies and Overseas Programs, University of California Los Angeles.

Teeter, J.H. (1945, December). Federal aid to research. The Journal of Higher Education, 16 (9), 455-459.

The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act (Public Law 402; 80^th Congress).

Vestal, T.M. (1994). International education: Its history and promise for today. Westport, CT: Praeger.

The Chinese “Global Tribe”

An important variable in the analysis of China’s significant economic growth has been the connection to and the recruitment of Chinese diaspora/expatriates around the globe. According to Cable and Ferdinand (1994), “50,000 expatriates a year are being recruited and over 100,000 Chinese work overseas on contracts and growing numbers of the Chinese elite are educated abroad. (p. 245) The value of such a huge network of Chinese residing and working around the globe is also echoed by Walder (1995) who states that “the Chinese Diaspora in South-East Asia and North America are filled with ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs who have proved to be valuable sources of knowledge and investment and who have served as important bridges to the world economy.” (p. 971) Maria Chang (1995) refers to this phenomenon as the Chinese ‘global tribe.’ She describes five major ‘global tribes’ of the world as being the Jewish diaspora, the Japanese, Asian Indians, the British and the English-speaking progeny (which includes Americans), and the Chinese. Chang further supports the claims of Cable and Ferdinand and Walder and concludes that “China stands on the cusp of a transformation in which the overseas Chinese ‘global tribe’ plays a pivotal role. Driven by the traditional motives of market-governed enterprise, the overseas Chinese have fueled the furious pace of China’s economic growth and development.” (p. 967)

The Chinese are one of the most academically mobile student populations on the planet and it is this population that is helping fuel the Chinese economy. According to the Institute of International Education, during the 2005-2006 academic year there were 62,582 students from China studying in the United States. This represents approximately 11% of the total international student population studying in the United States. Further evidence of the large numbers of Chinese students studying abroad can be found in the Institute of International Education’s Atlas of Student Mobility where 15.4% of the 344,335 international student population (the largest percentage) in the United Kingdom hails from China and in Germany students from China represent the largest percentage at 10.5% of the 246,334 total international students.

Resources

Cable, Vincent., and Ferdinand, Peter. 1994. “China as an Economic Giant: Threat or
Opportunity?” International Affairs 70: 243-261.

Chang, Maria Hsia. 1995. “Greater China and the Chinese ‘Global Tribe.’” Asian Survey 35: 955-967.

Institute of International Education. (2006). “Atlas of International Student Mobility.” http://www.atlas.iienetwork.org/

Institute of International Education. (2006). “Opendoors Online: Report on International Educational Exchange.” http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/

Walder, Andrew G. 1995. “China’s Transitional Economy: Interpreting Its Significance.” The China Quarterly 144: 963-979.

The State of Research on Heritage-Seeking in Study Abroad

Heritage-seeking in study abroad is not a new phenomenon. For decades, students have been traveling to and studying in countries and regions of the world where they share racial/ethnic, religious and/or linguistic connections. However, research on heritage-seeking in study abroad is relatively new. During the 1960’s and 1970’s a few studies emerged that focused on American Jewish students studying in Israel but it wasn’t until the 1990’s that we begin to see more research and attention paid to heritage-seeking in study abroad. While there is relatively little research on heritage-seeking in a study abroad context, there is a growing body of research and literature related to minority students studying abroad. Much of the literature identifies barriers to and factors influencing participation of minority students on study abroad programs and many studies on underrepresented students abroad offer only anecdotal observations and data on heritage-seeking. The majority of the current research on heritage-seeking in study abroad focuses on African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American students. However, there is literature that also focuses on heritage-seeking students studying in Western and Eastern Europe.

In an attempt to organize all of the known articles on heritage seeking in study abroad I have compiled and annotated a bibliography for use by students, study abroad administrators and researchers. This bibliography presents a broad listing of research studies, position papers, conference presentations and news articles on heritage seeking. This bibliography is available by e-mailing David Comp at international.ed.consulting@gmail.com. This bibliography is currently being updated. Notifications of current research, comments and article submissions are invited and encouraged.

Originally published in IIENetworker: The International Education Magazine, 29 (Fall, 2006).

International Education as an Agent of Democratization

Abstracted from a longer manuscript available on ERIC

Since the end of World War II the number of internationally mobile students continues to increase on a world wide annual basis. The flow of students between countries creates a learning opportunity like no other. International education creates an environment of cultural understanding that exposes participants to new and different approaches to life, ways of thinking, and governance. Only when we are able to develop an understanding of others and we can appreciate our differences will we be able to have civil dialogue and work together on the world problems of tomorrow. International education and exchange plays a significant role in bringing the world together. This paper is inspired by Aaron Benavot’s question, “what are the specific mechanisms and processes linking higher education and increasing levels of democracy in the recent period?” (1999, p. 79). Benavot recommends that one research approach to answering this question should concentrate on international students studying abroad in Western Europe and North American colleges and universities, where exposure to democratic practices is plentiful, in order to understand the effects these educational experiences have on the development of democratic governments and practices upon their return home.

Several current world dignitaries and leaders previously studied in or officially visited the United States and/or in the United Kingdom at some point during their careers where they were exposed to democratic processes. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan earned a degree in Economics from Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1961. Afghan President Hamid Karzai was one of nine participants on a U.S. Department of State International Visitors Program from Afghanistan in a 1987. And, King Abdullah Bin Al-Hussein of Jordan after completing his secondary education in both the United Kingdom and the United States went on to attend Oxford University in 1984 to study International Politics and World Affairs and then returned to the U.S. to attend the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University where he was a Mid-Career Fellow in Advanced Study and Research in International Affairs under the support of the Master of Science in Foreign Service Program (AIEF, 2004; DiscoverJordan.com, 2001; U.S. Department of State, 2002). More importantly, there have been thousands of educators, legislators, journalists and business leaders from around the world who have studied in the United States and other western countries and have taken away from these experiences a better understanding of democracy and the motivation for creating and maintaining a democratic society in their home countries. This was highlighted during a 2000 U.S. State Department dinner honoring international education where Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke to the importance of international education and stated:

Today, Fulbright alumni are building a democratic Bosnia, bridging the digital divide in West Africa, keeping Americans informed about developments in southern Europe, and fighting HIV/AIDS in Guatemala. Our Humphrey alumni are doing equally impressive things from managing immigration in Macedonia to advocating the rights of Filipino migrant workers, to serving on the Supreme Court of Brazil.

Earlier in the same year, during a speech given at the La Maison Française in Washington, D.C., Secretary of Education Richard Riley, who is a staunch supporter of international educational exchange, discussed his Department’s efforts in promoting democracy through education and emphasized:

I strongly believe that the growth of democracy, economic prosperity and economic stability throughout the world is linked to the advance of education. This is one of the strongest reasons why the United States should have an active and strong international education agenda. Education and democracy go hand in hand…All throughout the world there are thousands of leaders in other nations-political, economic and social leaders-who got a taste of democracy in all of its complexity when they came to study here in the United States. (2000)

Secretary Riley delivered these remarks on the same day that President Clinton signed his executive memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies implementing a national international education policy. President Clinton’s memorandum implementing an international education policy for the United States was the first of its kind. Never before in the history of the United States had international education been highlighted and celebrated in such a manner. President Clinton proclaimed that “we are fortunate to count among our staunchest friends abroad those who have experienced our country and our values through in-depth exposure as students and scholars” (2000). This same message has been repeated in some manner by the President and Secretaries of Education and State each November since the inaugural International Education Week held November 13-17, 2000.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 changed the world and our approach to international educational issues. The fear of terrorism and the decline of students studying abroad around the globe were real issues of concern to the international education community. On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush released the first message of his presidency opening International Education Week which was the first such message after the terrorist attacks in Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C. and New York. In his message, President Bush declared that the United States must reaffirm its commitment to international education by promoting opportunities for U.S. students to study abroad and to encourage more international students to come to the U.S. to study. Although the United States is currently fighting a war on terrorism and U.S. troops are actively engaged in combat operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush Administration maintains its stance towards welcoming international students and scholars while ensuring secure borders. Secretary of State Colin Powell affirmed this position while speaking at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Reception for Humphrey Fellows and Foreign Diplomats in Washington, D.C. on November 15, 2004 on the importance of international exchange and scholarship stated:

This wonderful experience will put you in touch with America’s next generation of leaders. Together you will build the partnerships and lay the foundations for future collaboration and exchange. You will work together to apply the best knowledge we have to the biggest challenge we face as one international community: Promoting democratic principles, creating free and vibrant economies, curing HIV/AIDS. These are not simply American goals that we are trying to accomplish. They are universal goals, universal human aspirations…one of you may help your country chart it’s long awaited course to freedom and democracy.

The real task for the Bush Administration has been to convince the world that the United States is an open society by reaching out to prospective international students and scholars by reevaluating existing immigration regulations and refining procedures in order to create the most efficient and welcoming system possible.

The United States continues to allocate significant funds annually towards exchange programs such as its flagship Fulbright program and works hard to create new opportunities for foreign citizens to come to the U.S. to study and be exposed to democratic processes and principles. For example, the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs recently developed the Youth Exchange and Study (YES) program for students from predominately Muslim countries and the Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) program for students 15 to 17 years of age from countries of the former Soviet Union. Student participants spend a year living with host families and studying in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. On Election Day, November 2, 2004, these programs offered a unique opportunity for program participants to see democracy in action and learn about the U.S. political process first hand. Students attended a State Department briefing on the U.S. electoral process followed by a tour of a local polling place where they observed voting, discussed the political process and asked questions of local election officials (McIntosh, 2004). In addition, the U.S. government continues to evaluate existing funding and exchange opportunities in an effort to enhance current programs and create new exchange opportunities. For example, the YES program, saw 160 students from Nigeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan, West Bank/Gaza, Egypt, Kuwait, Malaysia, Syria, Yemen, Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia participate in the first year. The YES program was an overall success and as a result, the State Department plans to increase the total number of participating students to 480 and include students from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, India, Morocco, Oman, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the Arab community in Israel (Nash & Bullock, 2004).

After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the Bush Administration was faced with the enormous task of securing our borders and implementing various provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which was signed into law by President Clinton on September 30, 1996. One of the major provisions of the Act required U.S. colleges and universities to collect and report information to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on nonimmigrant foreign students. The type of information that was required to be reported was the student’s identity and current address in the United States, the nonimmigrant classification of the student and the date the visa under such classification was approved, the current academic status of the student including whether the they are maintaining full-time status and any disciplinary action taken against a foreign student as a result of the student being convicted of a crime. By September 11, 2002, the U.S. Government put a temporary web based student data collection system known as the Interim Student and Exchange Authentication System (ISEAS) in place and by February 2003 SEVIS became operational and all international students studying in the United States were required to be entered into this database by August 1, 2003.

It is my conclusion that the United States government does support international education and values the contribution international students and scholars make to the United States while they are studying here and, more importantly, when they return home and apply democratic principles they learned in shaping the future of their countries. Current immigration regulations and procedures no doubt deter many international academics from applying to schools in the United States. The United States government is keenly aware of the difficulties international students and scholars have experienced in the past and has allocated significant resources towards making the process of coming to the U.S. as fair and seamless as possible.


References
AIEF. (2004). Resources – Foreign student facts: World leaders education in the U.S. American International Education Foundation (AIEF). URL retrieved November 17, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ief-usa.org/resources/foreignstudent/foreign_leaders.htm.

Albright, M.K. (2000, November 30). U.S. global education programs “incredible investments.” Remarks by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright a dinner honoring international education, Washington, D.C. URL retrieved November 4, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-c234.html.

Benavot, A. (1999). Education and political democratization: Cross-national and longitudinal findings. In N.F. McGinn, & E.H. Epstein (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on the Role of Education in Democratization (pp. 45-79). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH.

Bush, G.W. (2001, November 13). Message from the U.S. President George W. Bush to those observing International Education Week, 2001. URL retrieved January 8, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://exchanges.state.gov.iew2001/messages.htm.

Clinton, W.J. (2000, April 19). International education policy. Memorandum from U.S. President William J. Clinton for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House.

Discover Jordan (2001). Monarchy. DiscoverJordan.com. URL retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.discoverjordan.com/directory/kingdom/monarchy.asp.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) http://www.visalaw.com/docs/IIIRA.html.

McIntosh, P. (2004). Mideast, European and Asian students observe American democracy. Embassy of the United States Japan.

Nash, S., & Bullock, T. (2004). Living with Americans alters Muslim students’ views of the U.S. Washington File. URL retrieved November 4, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040708-12.html.

Powell, C.L. (2004, November 15). Speech by U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Reception for Humphrey Fellows and foreign diplomats in the Benjamin Franklin diplomatic Room, Washington, D.C. URL retrieved November 17, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://exchanges.state.gov/news/2004/111604.htm.

Riley, R.W. (2000, April 19). The growing importance of international education. Remarks by U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley at the La Maison Française, Washington, D.C. URL retrieved August 7, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/04-2000/000419.htm.

U.S. Department of State. (2002). International education week 2002: Alumni. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of State. URL retrieved November 23, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://exchanges.state.gov/iew2002/alumni/.

The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, 1896-1904 (the Dewey Years)

The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools are internationally known and respected. In order to fully understand and appreciate the factors that led to the establishment of the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools (known as the Dewey School from 1896 to 1901) one must not only inform themselves on John Dewey and his educational philosophy but also on William Rainey Harper, the first president of the University of Chicago. A third individual who was influential to the organization and early development of the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools was Colonel Francis Wayland Parker. The following brief description provides some historical context and reveals the relationships between John Dewey, William Rainey Harper and Colonel Francis Parker.

One cannot discuss the history of the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, specifically the first years of the school, without giving significant credit given to William Rainey Harper. President Harper, along with John D. Rockefeller, had the early vision to make the University of Chicago a world class institution of higher education. During the first few years of the University of Chicago’s existence, President Harper was charged with the task of recruiting educational leaders from across the country to become faculty members. Although John Dewey was first to make contact with President Harper, it was President Harper who understood and agreed with Dewey’s vision and invited Dewey to Chair the Department of Philosophy and allowing him to develop the University of Chicago into a leader in pedagogy. Two years prior to coming to the University of Chicago to Chair the Department of Philosophy in 1896, John Dewey wrote to President Harper informing him what other institutions, including Cornell, Harvard, and Columbia, were doing in the fields of pedagogy and experimental psychology (Harms and DePencier, p. 3). It is notable that in 1894, when John Dewey wrote President Harper, the University of Chicago was only two years old and it was already being compared to the Ivy League. John Dewey’s tenure at the University of Chicago was from 1894 to 1904 until his departure to Columbia University.

After the Civil War, Colonel Parker served as the school Superintendent in Quincy, Massachusetts and then came to Chicago in 1880 to serve as Principle of the Cook County Normal School. In 1899 a wealthy philanthropist from Chicago, Mrs. Emmons Blaine, wanted to start a private school called the Chicago Institute to serve as a teachers college under the leadership of Colonel Francis Parker. Mrs. Blaine’s commitment to provide one million dollars was very appealing to President Harper and the Chicago Institute became the School of Education at the University of Chicago in 1901 (Harmes and DePencier, p. 7) or 1902 (Mayhew and Edwards, p. 12). The Dewey School had already been operational under the direction of John Dewey and the University’s Department of Pedagogy for approximately five years by the time that Colonel Parker and his Chicago Institute began their affiliation with the University of Chicago. Both Dewey and Parker were progressive but held many differing views on education. Parker’s school was heavily endowed while Dewey’s school had no endowment. For a couple of years, the University of Chicago operated two separate elementary schools, the Dewey Laboratory School and the Parker University Elementary School (Harms and DePencier, p. 7). In 1902 (Harmes and DePencier, p. 8) or 1903 (Mayhew and Edwards, p. 14), Colonel Parker died and after much discussion between President Harper and the trustees, Harper agreed to merge the two schools along with two other local schools (The Chicago Manual Training School and the South Side Academy) and John Dewey became head of the School of Education at the University of Chicago (Mayhew and Edwards, p. 14).


References

Harms, W., & DePencier, I. (1996). Experiencing education: 100 years of learning at The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. Orland Park, IL: Alpha Beta Press.

Mayhew, K.C. & Edwards, A.C. (1966). The Dewey School: The Laboratory School at The University of Chicago, 1896-1903. New York: Atherton Press.

A Brief History of the Fulbright Legislation and Biography of Senator J. William Fulbright

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill for reference to the Committee on Military Affairs, authorizing the use of credits established abroad for the promotion of international good will through the exchange
of students in fields of education, culture, and science

J. William Fulbright, freshman Senator from Arkansas
One afternoon in late September, 1945 during a routine session of the U.S. Senate


A Bill to amend the Surplus Property Act of 1944 to designate the Department of State as the disposal agency for surplus property outside the United States, its Territories and possessions, and for other purposes

The Fulbright Act of 1946

In 1945, as a direct response to the tragedy of World War II, freshman Senator J. William Fulbright from Arkansas introduced legislation sponsoring exchange programs for students and faculty between the United States and foreign countries that was eventually signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on August 1, 1946. Fulbright (1976) stated that “it is…fair to say that the Exchange Program is an instrument of foreign policy, not just for the Untied States, for all participating nations – as well as a memorable educational experience for the individual participants” (p. 2). The educational exchange and foreign language components from additional legislation such as The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (also known as The Smith-Mundt Act), amendments to The Mutual Security Act in 1952, and The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 were consolidated into The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (better known as The Fulbright-Hays Act). The Fulbright-Hays Act remains law today and represents the world’s flagship international educational exchange policy and program. The Fulbright Act set in motion a great history of international exchange between the United States and the rest of the world. The year 2006 marked the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program.

The following is a summary of J. William Fulbright’s biography from the Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs of the U.S. State Department: J. William Fulbright received his B.A. degree in 1925 from the University of Arkansas followed by an M.A. degree from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. During the early 1930’s Fulbright studied law at George Washington University followed by a brief stint working for the Justice Department and lecturing at George Washington University’s School of Law. In 1936 he began lecturing in law at the University of Arkansas and from 1939 to 1941 he served as president of this same institution, at that time he was the youngest serving university president. Fulbright was elected to the United States Congress in 1942 and served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He then served in the United States Senate from 1945 to his retirement in 1974. During his tenure in the Senate he was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1949 to 1974, serving as committee chairman from 1959 to 1974. Senator J. William Fulbright was one of the most influential politicians of his time.


References

Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs. (date unknown). Biography of J. William Fulbright. Bureau of Cultural and Educational Affairs, United States Department of State. URL retrieved November 11, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright/fulbbio.htm.

The Fulbright Act (Public Law 584; 79th Congress).

Fulbright, J.W. (1976). The most significant and important activity I have been privileged to engage in during my years in the senate. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 424, 1-5.

Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, 22 U.S.C. § 2458a (Fulbright-Hays Act).

Open Doors Data on Study Abroad

Recently, I've been looking at the Open Doors data and how we use this data when talking about study abroad participation rates in the U.S. Open Doors institutional rankings by participation rates is calculated based on the total of undergraduate degrees conferred as reported in IPEDS data (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System at the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education) [see April 16, 2012 update note below]. Frequently, researchers, practitioners and the press state that approximately or less than 2% of U.S. students study abroad each year. My calculation for the 2003-2004 academic year is that 7% of U.S. students studied abroad based on the total number of degrees offered in the U.S. My calculations for the 2004-2005 academic year (based on estimated IPEDS data) is that 7.4% of U.S. students studied abroad. My data follows:

2003-2004 - NCES/IPEDS and Open Doors data

Total degrees awarded in U.S.: 2,711,661
Associate's = 665,301,
Bachelor's = 1,399,542
Master's = 558,940
1st Professional = 83,041
Ph.D. = 48,378

Total U.S. higher education enrollment = 16,681,877
Total U.S. students studying abroad = 191,321

U.S. Study Abroad Participation Rate Using Total U.S. Higher Education Enrollment

191,321 study abroad students / 16,681,877 higher education enrollment = 1.1% study abroad participation rate

U.S. Study Abroad Participation Rate Using Total U.S. Degrees Awarded

191,321 study abroad students / 2,711,661 degrees awarded = 7.0% study abroad participation rate

To be sure, a 7% participation rate is very low and it's debatable on the significance this 5% difference makes. I think it's important for the field to be consistent, however, in how we talk about and report participation data and since the number of U.S. students studying abroad continues to grow so does the participation rate.

Note April 16, 2012:  Earlier today I posted the following to Twitter "It is incorrect to say that only 1% of U.S. students study abroad.  The percentage is closer to 10% than to 1%.  Still low but not 1%..."  This tweet generated some retweets and some messages back asking where I come up with 10% and this "discussion" of course made me happy as I like to see/hear people engaging and thinking critically about the field!  So, I thought I would enter this update as a way to continue the debate and dialogue on data collection efforts in the field.

The reason I used NCES/IPEDS data to calculate overall study abroad participation rates [in my original post above] is because this is the data set that IIE Open Doors uses to calculate institutional participation rates.  Footnote 1 on p. 20 of the 2009 Open Doors Report states "the estimated undergraduate study abroad participation rate is calculated by dividing the undergraduate study abroad total by the number of undergraduate degrees conferred (as reported in IPEDS)".

The 2011 Open Doors "Fast Facts" [using 2011 as this data was not previously presented] provides the following breakdown:

U.S. higher education system  270,604 (U.S. Study Abroad Total)  19,805,000 (U.S. Higher Education Total)  = 1.4%
U.S. undergraduates  233,169 (U.S. Study Abroad Total) 2,452,218* (U.S. Higher Education Total) = 9.5%
U.S. undergraduates pursuing bachelor's degrees  230,752 (U.S. Study Abroad Total) 1,642,979* (U.S. Higher Education Total) = 14.0%

* Total undergraduate degrees awarded [assuming that this is NCES/IPEDS data]

To be honest, I'm not a fan of the Open Door's methodology of calculating institutional study abroad participation rates using NCES/IPEDS degree conferral data.  I don't think we get an accurate figure of institutional study abroad participation rates by using the total number of degrees granted.  If, for example, an institution sends undergraduates at all levels (freshman/first-year, sophomore/second-year, junior/third-year, senior/fourth-year and beyond) how can determine a study abroad participation rate if we divide the total of all these students by those who have their degrees conferred (seniors)?  We can't, in my opinion.

This is, however, how IIE Open Doors calculates and presents participation data so this is what I used in my argument above.

Personally, I think the best way to calculate a participation rate is to take a portion [number of U.S. students who studied abroad] and divide that figure by the total [entire higher education enrollment].  This does, in fact, bring the total number of U.S. students who study abroad closer to 1%.  I think the 2011 Open Doors "Fast Facts" data could use some additional data and here is one that I think could be helpful:

233,169 (total U.S. undergraduates who studied abroad in 2009/10) ÷ 17,565,300 (total undergraduate enrollment in the U.S. in 2009) = 1.3%.

Above are various thoughts and configurations of how to think about, calculate and present study abroad participation numbers.

What are your thoughts?

Standards of Good Practice in the Field of Education Abroad

Recently during my research, I came across an historical article (1967) that was one of the first to address the development of standards in the field of study abroad. The citation is as follows:

Durnall, Edward J. (1967, November). Study-Abroad Programs: A Critical Survey. The Journal of Higher Education, 38 (8), 450-453.

In this brief four page article, Durnall discusses his survey of undergraduate programs in Europe conducted by U.S. institutions and mentions the methods used during his program evaluation as he utilized six of fifteen principles developed at a conference on study abroad held at Mount Holyoke College in 1960.

I just returned from the 3rd annual Forum on Education Abroad conference in Austin, Texas, with the theme of Standards in a Diverse World: The Future of Education Abroad, where the Mount Holyoke conference was mentioned and discussed by colleagues such as Bill Hoffa whose History of Study Abroad, Volume I: Beginnings to 1965 was distributed to all conference attendees.

While some of the material in Durnall’s article is dated I find the following comment by Durnall to remain valid today, “while it would be hoped that all institutions with study-abroad programs would voluntarily examine their programs in the light of commonly accepted standards and either make the necessary improvements to meet these standards or discontinue the programs, the realities of higher education in the United States today make this an unlikely event.”

International Educational Exchange as a Vehicle of Soft Power

Many scholars in the Social Sciences fail to address the role of education in their scholarship and how it connects with their discipline. This is not to say that education has a place in all social science scholarship. In a recent article by Joseph Nye Squandering the U.S. ‘Soft Power’ Edge he highlights the importance international education and cultural contacts played during the Cold War. Nye describes the three ways a nation can achieve power: “by using or threatening force, by inducing compliance with rewards, or by using soft power.” He provides examples from Yale Richmond’s work Cultural Exchange and the Cold War highlighting the significant role that academic exchanges played in enhancing American soft power. One example is that "between 1958 and 1988 fifty thousand Soviets visited the U.S. as writers, journalists, officials, musicians, athletes and academics and an even larger number of Americans went to the Soviet Union during this time period. For example, Aleksandr Yakovlev studied under political scientist David Truman at Columbia University in 1958, became a Politburo member and had much influence on Mikhail Gorbachev. Additionally, Oleg Kalugin who was a high official in the KGB is quoted as saying 'exchanges were a Trojan Horse for the Soviet Union. They played a tremendous role in the erosion of the Soviet system…They kept infecting more and more people over the years.'"[1]

A question I pose for debate is: Why is education so often left out of the discussion on the rise and fall of nations and do you agree or disagree with the importance that Nye and Richmond place on education, in this case academic exchanges, in contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union?

[1] Quotes and description taken from Joseph S. Nye. (2007) Squandering the U.S. ‘Soft Power’ Edge. International Educator, (16) 1, 4-6. Joseph S. Nye is Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University.

Initiatives in 2006 to Increase Student Diversity in Education Abroad

Academy for Educational Development (AED) Colloquium on Diversity in Education Abroad

On May 2, 2006 the Academy for Educational Development (AED) organized a Colloquium on Diversity in Education Abroad at their headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Colloquium was held as part of the AED Center for Academic Partnerships new Education Abroad Initiative <http://www.cap-aed.org/>. The AED Education Abroad Initiative is lead by consultant Carl Herrin of Herrin Associates. The goals of the AED Colloquium on Diversity in Education Abroad were to[1]:

1. To advance the understanding of the underlying factors that cause certain groups of students to be underrepresented within the education abroad population;
2. To bring together a new constellation of interested stakeholders among higher education generally and international educators specifically to review, discuss, and recommend solutions to improving diversity in education abroad; and,
3. To initiate a new national effort to successfully address diversity in education abroad in the immediate future.

The Colloquium proceedings are scheduled to be published in late fall of 2006. Additionally, the keynote address by Eileen B. Wilson-Oyelaran, President of Kalamazoo College, as well as a power point presentation and handout from the Colloquium are available online at <http://www.cap-aed.org/index.php?id=153>.

The AED Advisory Council on Education Abroad

Eyamba G. Bokamba – University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Joseph L. Brockington – Kalamazoo College
Wayne Decker – University of Arizona
Margery A. Ganz – Spelman College
Devora Grynspan – Northwestern University
Judith T. Irwin – American Association of Community Colleges
Nicole Norfles – Council for Opportunity in Education
Norman J. Peterson – Montana State University
Susan M. Thompson – University of Nevada-Las Vegas

Institute of International Education (IIE)
Advisory Council on Increasing Diversity in Education Abroad (IDEA Council)

On August 29, 2006 the Institute of International Education (IIE) announced the establishment of the IIE Advisory Council on Increasing Diversity in Education Abroad (IDEA Council) to IIENetwork members and the greater international education community. The goals of the IDEA Council will focus on analyzing current practices in the field, publicizing and marketing efforts and on financing study abroad opportunities. IDEA Council members will also work on identifying new methods of reaching underrepresented students to make study abroad a reality for all students.[2]
IIE Advisory Council on Increasing Diversity in Education Abroad (IDEA Council)

Carole Artigiani - Global Kids, New York Ambassador Charles Baquet, III - Xavier University John Covington - Pueblo School District 60, Colorado
Margery Ganz - Spelman CollegeEvelyn Guzman - Brooklyn College of The City University of New York Julian Johnson - Sponsors for Educational Opportunity, New York José Mercadé - Glendale Community College
Nicole Norfles - The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education; Helen Ochs - Hanover College Kelli Pugh - Wayne State University Christine Vogel - AFS Intercultural Programs USA
Brian Whalen – Dickinson College and The Forum on Education Abroad

The recent initiatives of both the Academy for Educational Development and the Institute of International Education along with other major efforts such as the Project for Learning Abroad, Training, and Outreach (PLATO) lead by Gary Rhodes at Loyola Marymount University which is dedicated to increasing diversity in education abroad are leaders in this effort. The demographics of U.S. students abroad have changed little since the Institute of International Education began collecting this data for the 1993/1994 Open Doors Report. While the numbers of underrepresented students heading abroad for a portion of their higher education are increasing each year the overall percentages have remained virtually the same. Professionals in the field must make a concerted effort to increase the diversity of our students heading abroad with a minimum goal of mirroring the demographics of U.S. higher education enrollment.

[1] The three goals of the AED Colloquium on Diversity in Education Abroad were obtained from the AED Center for Academic Partnerships Education Abroad Initiative website for the Colloquium at <http://www.cap-aed.org/index.php?id=145>.
[2] Description of IDEA Council’s goals and focus obtained from the August 29, 2006 edition of IIE.Interactive sent to IIENetwork members.