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.