V irtual Exchange (VE) provides a strategic approach for higher education institutions to interna... more V irtual Exchange (VE) provides a strategic approach for higher education institutions to internationalize. This study investigated how a US Community College (US-CC) system and their partners started and grew their internationalization program through VE with teacher training, assessment, and support from a nonprofit bridge organization. Data were collected on program growth over three years, 2017-20, totaling 13 modules, 29 faculty, and 14 campuses. Cumulatively, students completed 341 premodule and 202 post-module surveys which assessed the community colleges' student learning goals: intercultural competence and awareness of the wider world, confidence in finding success in the global workforce, and ability to deploy 21st century skills (e.g. technology and teamwork). Quantitative and qualitative results provided concrete and nuanced evidence of program effectiveness and suggested positive impact. Our findings have two main implications: (1) positive student impact can help grow and sustain VE and other international programming; and (2) teacher training informed by and adapted with student assessment can help institutionalize VE programs.
Web 2.0 presents massive changes in global knowledge infrastructure and learning cultures. The In... more Web 2.0 presents massive changes in global knowledge infrastructure and learning cultures. The International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) community is beginning to harness these innovations to pursue global competence and expertise, providing the scaffolding to ensure pathways to expertise as it builds an ever deeper and stronger foundation in global citizenship. U.S. federal policy can help higher education, particularly the IFLE community, to make this transition by adopting web 2.0 tools itself and shifting focus to structure incentives around strategic priorities and universities’ strengths of creativity, community, and flexibility. Policy 2.0 needs to support the development of national platforms in three key areas: first, linking IFLE graduates and lifelong IFL skills with the job market; second, providing benchmarks of success in IFLE resources and outcomes; and third, ensuring regulatory frameworks support open educational resource and open access norms, especially in government funded research and through international organizations. Policy 2.0 needs to identify clear strategic challenges and tailor funding to enable universities to compete and collaborate to provide the best approaches. Policy 2.0 must support innovation and related research on outcomes with a set of tiered funding windows, described in this paper, perhaps taking lessons from development banks or venture capitalists. And the policy 2.0 recommendations come full circle with a national portfolio system that allows students to link their IFLE education and experience with internships, employers, and fellow travelers.
From 1958 to 1988, federal policy was aimed at creating and sustaining capacity within the U.S. h... more From 1958 to 1988, federal policy was aimed at creating and sustaining capacity within the U.S. higher education system to provide international, regional, and language expertise and experts for the country. Title VI was forged into the core operational model of the federal international higher education policy arena, through the legislative and implementation trajectory of three programs: Title VI, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) university programs, and the never-funded International Education Act (IEA) of 1966. The chapter addresses two key questions. One, the capacity question, How did the history of the federal relationship with higher education affect the institutional capacity of the higher education systems (some 3,000 institutions) to sustain and expand its international dimension, to internationalize? Two, the diffusion question, How far and how deeply did the programs reach into the higher education system. The chapter focuses on the domestic legislative stream implemented by the Department of Education with a serious counterpoint from the foreign affairs policy stream implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The boundaries of the current international higher education policy arena were defined and limited in the dynamics of the failed International Education Act.
This paper focuses on one dimension of the US federal government’s human resources challenge: it ... more This paper focuses on one dimension of the US federal government’s human resources challenge: it examines the national demand and supply of Area, International and Foreign Language (AIFL) talent and expertise. In particular, it looks at the federal government’s needs (or demand), higher education’s resources (or supply), and the mechanisms connecting them. I contend that these mechanisms are not working properly. The AIFL resources are not meeting the government’s needs because the connections between supply and demand are underdeveloped and underexploited, not because the supply is inadequate but because demand signals are weak and opaque. A brief review of the key trends and challenges shaping the public service functions of the United States government will set the context for a specific analysis of the supply and demand of AIFL talent and expertise. First, I will address the major question, “How many federal employees with AIFL skills does the federal government need?” by comparing the Perkins Commission’s carefully measured and concrete 1979 data with an estimate of what it would be today. Next, I present three key metaphors that put the numbers in context: the “shadow government,” the “quiet crisis,” and the “over the cliff” demographic crisis. With the macro-situation in mind, detailed case studies of four federal agencies highlight their foreign language needs and staff shortfalls. These agencies offer alternative strategies to meet government AIFL needs. The third section considers how the higher education sector can respond robustly and meet government AIFL needs effectively when those needs are clearly communicated. I focus on the Higher Education Act (HEA) Title VI programs in particular. The paper ends with policy recommendations and suggests specific action steps.
In October 2001 a conference at Yale on “International Higher Education and African Development” ... more In October 2001 a conference at Yale on “International Higher Education and African Development” brought together an interdisciplinary group of international experts on higher education in Africa, development in Africa, and for comparative purposes, higher education in Latin America, Europe and the U.S. Although many of the participants regularly attend conferences on Higher Education in Africa, the participation of experts from other sectors and with other approaches brought new insights and new directions to the discussions. The goal of the conference was to explore research and policy issues for higher education and international development with special focus on Africa. More specifically, we aimed to generate new perspectives and approaches for both applied research and policymaking in this field. The two keynote addresses, of broad scope and vision, were delivered to the invited experts plus a larger public audience. The five “anchor papers”, of more targeted scope and detailed analysis, received commentary from two experts from different regional or disciplinary perspectives. They provided the basis for discussion among the conferees.
Abstract. The intensity, speed and reach of global change combined with the reverberations of th... more Abstract. The intensity, speed and reach of global change combined with the reverberations of the events of September 11, 2001 all challenge higher education to internationalize, to integrate understanding the rest of the world into core programs and values. This study has confirmed that the historical relationship between the federal government and the higher education system in the United States over thirty years (1958 to1988) has created a solid foundation for building international capacity in higher education. While expanding international expertise and studies itself may be subject to near infinite regression and changing expectations, the system wide ability to create and adjust international capacity is strong. Tracing the development of this policy arena highlighted ways that the federal higher education relationship has strengthened the structural and innovative capacity of the national higher education system to respond to past internationalization challenges. Barely there but powerfully present. That describes how the federal policy arena for international higher education in the United States interacted with and affected the higher education system from 1958 to 1988. The two on-going federal programs of Title VI and AID clearly helped to internationalize, to sustain and expand higher education’s international capacity and to diffuse that capacity system-wide. Though chronically under-funded in Title VI and, with AID barely aligned with the operational structures of universities, these programs clearly had a powerful effect on shaping the international capacity of the higher education system. Though never funded or implemented, the IEA of 1966 molded the legislative core inspiring new programs and extending the boundaries of the policy arena, especially through Title VI. These two federal programs supported the entire range of institutions within the system with particular depth in the research universities but reaching all other groups through community colleges. They achieved good balance between private and public institutions and fairly balanced coverage in all regions of the country. Summary of Findings. Internationalization was characterized and defined as a complex innovation, spanning the enterprise and disciplinary dimensions of higher education with particularly strong roots individual campuses but relying on strong ties to national system networks (see figure 1.1). In the United States, higher education has evolved into a highly differentiated and interdependent national system, the configuration deemed most likely to sustain and diffuse innovations effectively. Both compatibility and profitability were shown to be important in introducing, sustaining and diffusing such innovations. Internationalization appears in many forms across the range of campuses and has become a generally accepted or even prized innovation. As a growing part of the system’s values if not a gold standard, its compatibility grew and its profitability was also deemed high. Despite being relatively costly compared to other academic programs, during fiscal stress, international education could prove a cost-effective route to academic dynamism with its focus on interdisciplinary programs and collaboration across administrative units. In abundance, it could thrive and even embed itself in one of the more successful institutional patterns, enclaved as a professional school or disseminated as a university wide agenda. As a shared aspiration of administrators and faculty alike, internationalization could stimulate academic convergence and emulation throughout the system, both of which enhanced its institutionalization and diffusion prospects in higher education. As the federal government took on greater importance in the institutional market of higher education, categorical programs became the primary focus of international higher education (see figure 2.1). The categorical programs fit internationalization well since targeted but ambitious externally funded programs were found to be the best vehicle to help institutionalize change. Both the education and the foreign policy legislative streams have intersected in international higher education. There has been dynamic tension and growing activity over time, with interests and resources of the two policy streams represented by legislators, executive agency implementers, political leaders and higher education actors, both institutional and disciplinary. Over thirty years, the resulting international higher education policy arena has become an enduring forum for resolving conflicting national and higher education interests characterized by a stable set of legislative structures and resources. The internationalist higher education advocacy community also has grown and solidified. International interests were embedded in the substantive core of the larger higher education policy arena but this did not translate into equivalently deep funding. Policy goals were translated into the causal theory underlying the two case programs examined in this book. Expertise, advanced knowledge and highly trained personnel in economic, military and political spheres have been a cornerstone. For international higher education, national security and fields like languages and area studies have been the paramount and enduring motivators for federal funding in both case programs. Economic security, especially as global economic competition increased, has become a regular part of the rationale especially for the Title VI programs after 1980. Others goals have not translated as successfully or consistently into federal support of international higher education. Humanitarian interests motivated specialized federal programs such as AID’s university programs. Economic and social mobility of individual citizens for productivity and social justice, were a cornerstone of federal support overall but were not mirrored in the international arena. A citizenry educated for broad international understanding has not approached national security and expertise or even economic competitiveness as compelling rationales. As the exception to prove the rule, the Title VI IS/Undergrad program was largely justified by this citizen education goal which was also at the heart of the IEA. The IEA failure was instructive for insights into the policy arena’s fault lines. Overstretching the goals and other boundaries of the policy arena was one reason the IEA legislation failed to be funded. The IEA encompassed both higher education and school systems, a dual track that had proved impossible in earlier higher education laws. The IEA merged foreign affairs with domestic higher education policy interests and such policy adjacency raised anxieties of overstepping the limits on federal control of curricular matters. Locating a proposed super unit in OE to coordinate all overseas related education and exchange affairs of the federal government was rejected and the function was placed squarely in the State Department. The IEA focused on three national goals at once: international expertise for education and foreign affairs, humanitarian assistance overseas and citizen education. Pairing the latter two weaker rationales with the dominant one of expertise was not wise but ignoring the national security rationale was damaging. The focus on international, problem-focused themes with barely a nod to language studies or a clear relationship to the other NDEA Title VI fields also made acceptance of the IEA difficult. Ill-fated timing and other environment factors also contributed to the IEA’s failure. Nonetheless, many of the aspirations of the IEA came alive in Title VI programs with outreach to the schools, with IS/Grad focused on professional schools and the later addition of cross-cutting thematic topics as a legitimate for Centers and the IS/Undergrad program aimed at citizen education capacity broadly. The fact that the AID university programs were never killed may also have been a testament to the power of the ideals embodied in the IEA. The main program studied, Title VI from the education stream, and the briefer counterpoint of AID from the foreign assistance stream were both within the policy arena. Title VI focused squarely on expertise and national security. AID focused on expertise and humanitarian assistance. Indeed, Title VI was at the core of the policy arena after 1972. Title VI goals were clearly congruent with the internationalization ideal. This held especially true for the program elements, the institutional and the diffusion or network elements (see figure 1.1). The AID program goals were less congruent with the ideal but supplemented expert resources on campus and were especially useful when combined with Title VI programs at an institution. The research universities were the most likely to take advantage of such complementarities but so did the two year colleges and a few others. Title VI programs were well structured to enhance sustainability or institutionalization as well as diffusion of international capacity. The AID programs, less so. Between the two case programs, they supported virtually all fields including languages, social science and humanities fields as well as many professional and technical and even some natural sciences fields. Title VI focused primarily on languages, the other humanities and social science with a dip into the professional and technical fields while the AID balance of coverage was the reverse.
Yale's MacMillan Center implemented a comprehensive assessment of international education resourc... more Yale's MacMillan Center implemented a comprehensive assessment of international education resources and outcomes for Yale students (graduate, professional, and undergraduate) from 2011-2015. Designed with the Office of Institutional Research, five area councils executed a common plan (Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America and Middle East) with federal Title 6 NRC-FLAS grant funds. Led by Dr. Nancy Ruther, Associate Director of MCMC and expert in Title 6 policy and programs, the assessment was designed as a 15 year case study of Yale which has been a continuous competitor for T6 grants, both awarded and lost, since the 1960s. GLOBAL EDUCATION CONTEXT: BEYOND THE BASICS TO BUILDING EXPERTISE ♦ Global awareness is a necessary but insufficient goal for international higher education nationwide • International higher education focuses heavily on enabling undergraduates to achieve cross-cultural skills outcomes. Language skills are too often downplayed, perniciously signaling that English is sufficient. Curricular paths to achieve greater, more complex expertise are too often lacking. • As a core strategy, study abroad misses 90% of US college graduates and virtually all graduate students. Mobility is important but not sufficient to meet the need for global skills. • Increasingly, international educators are focusing on curricular and virtual strategies where all students can participate. Developing pathways to expertise and workforce/career links can follow. ♦ " Back to the Future: " curriculum and expertise as federal model for international higher education • Title 6 has had laser focus for sixty years on three critical elements – language skill, interdisciplinary curriculum and workforce outcomes. With limited national coverage, its lessons are easily ignored. • Yale adapted the Title 6 model to produce strong pathways to expertise, using Area Studies Councils to flexibly develop skills for all levels of students with paths from generalist to top expertise levels • This case study tested the model and revealed high value outcomes for Yale and national policy goals and most importantly for students – undergraduates, MA and professional school degrees and PhDs. KEY FINDINGS: HIGH VALUE OUTCOMES Student outcomes: International " specialist " students clearly stand-out positively from their peers ♦ After graduation in their plans for the future and actual lives • More likely to plan to and actually use foreign languages in their work • More likely to pursue international careers, especially in government or education ♦ During their studies in their utilization of and demand for IAFL resources • Start with more and higher levels of foreign language proficiency, gain more and lose less • Most likely to pursue critical and least commonly taught languages • Show greater demand for international travel resources to support their studies Curricular resources: International, area and foreign language courses were strong (≥ 25% content) ♦ Yale's IAFL curricular resources were very stable, with some growth over the 12 years analyzed ♦ Yearly variation by region and in " high-content " courses raised a " yellow flag " Title 6 policy results: The T6 NRC area studies model succeeded at Yale. It produced desired curricular inputs, high level of student engagement across many fields and units, and graduates with desired expertise that they used in work in priority employment sectors of education and government
V irtual Exchange (VE) provides a strategic approach for higher education institutions to interna... more V irtual Exchange (VE) provides a strategic approach for higher education institutions to internationalize. This study investigated how a US Community College (US-CC) system and their partners started and grew their internationalization program through VE with teacher training, assessment, and support from a nonprofit bridge organization. Data were collected on program growth over three years, 2017-20, totaling 13 modules, 29 faculty, and 14 campuses. Cumulatively, students completed 341 premodule and 202 post-module surveys which assessed the community colleges' student learning goals: intercultural competence and awareness of the wider world, confidence in finding success in the global workforce, and ability to deploy 21st century skills (e.g. technology and teamwork). Quantitative and qualitative results provided concrete and nuanced evidence of program effectiveness and suggested positive impact. Our findings have two main implications: (1) positive student impact can help grow and sustain VE and other international programming; and (2) teacher training informed by and adapted with student assessment can help institutionalize VE programs.
Web 2.0 presents massive changes in global knowledge infrastructure and learning cultures. The In... more Web 2.0 presents massive changes in global knowledge infrastructure and learning cultures. The International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) community is beginning to harness these innovations to pursue global competence and expertise, providing the scaffolding to ensure pathways to expertise as it builds an ever deeper and stronger foundation in global citizenship. U.S. federal policy can help higher education, particularly the IFLE community, to make this transition by adopting web 2.0 tools itself and shifting focus to structure incentives around strategic priorities and universities’ strengths of creativity, community, and flexibility. Policy 2.0 needs to support the development of national platforms in three key areas: first, linking IFLE graduates and lifelong IFL skills with the job market; second, providing benchmarks of success in IFLE resources and outcomes; and third, ensuring regulatory frameworks support open educational resource and open access norms, especially in government funded research and through international organizations. Policy 2.0 needs to identify clear strategic challenges and tailor funding to enable universities to compete and collaborate to provide the best approaches. Policy 2.0 must support innovation and related research on outcomes with a set of tiered funding windows, described in this paper, perhaps taking lessons from development banks or venture capitalists. And the policy 2.0 recommendations come full circle with a national portfolio system that allows students to link their IFLE education and experience with internships, employers, and fellow travelers.
From 1958 to 1988, federal policy was aimed at creating and sustaining capacity within the U.S. h... more From 1958 to 1988, federal policy was aimed at creating and sustaining capacity within the U.S. higher education system to provide international, regional, and language expertise and experts for the country. Title VI was forged into the core operational model of the federal international higher education policy arena, through the legislative and implementation trajectory of three programs: Title VI, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) university programs, and the never-funded International Education Act (IEA) of 1966. The chapter addresses two key questions. One, the capacity question, How did the history of the federal relationship with higher education affect the institutional capacity of the higher education systems (some 3,000 institutions) to sustain and expand its international dimension, to internationalize? Two, the diffusion question, How far and how deeply did the programs reach into the higher education system. The chapter focuses on the domestic legislative stream implemented by the Department of Education with a serious counterpoint from the foreign affairs policy stream implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The boundaries of the current international higher education policy arena were defined and limited in the dynamics of the failed International Education Act.
This paper focuses on one dimension of the US federal government’s human resources challenge: it ... more This paper focuses on one dimension of the US federal government’s human resources challenge: it examines the national demand and supply of Area, International and Foreign Language (AIFL) talent and expertise. In particular, it looks at the federal government’s needs (or demand), higher education’s resources (or supply), and the mechanisms connecting them. I contend that these mechanisms are not working properly. The AIFL resources are not meeting the government’s needs because the connections between supply and demand are underdeveloped and underexploited, not because the supply is inadequate but because demand signals are weak and opaque. A brief review of the key trends and challenges shaping the public service functions of the United States government will set the context for a specific analysis of the supply and demand of AIFL talent and expertise. First, I will address the major question, “How many federal employees with AIFL skills does the federal government need?” by comparing the Perkins Commission’s carefully measured and concrete 1979 data with an estimate of what it would be today. Next, I present three key metaphors that put the numbers in context: the “shadow government,” the “quiet crisis,” and the “over the cliff” demographic crisis. With the macro-situation in mind, detailed case studies of four federal agencies highlight their foreign language needs and staff shortfalls. These agencies offer alternative strategies to meet government AIFL needs. The third section considers how the higher education sector can respond robustly and meet government AIFL needs effectively when those needs are clearly communicated. I focus on the Higher Education Act (HEA) Title VI programs in particular. The paper ends with policy recommendations and suggests specific action steps.
In October 2001 a conference at Yale on “International Higher Education and African Development” ... more In October 2001 a conference at Yale on “International Higher Education and African Development” brought together an interdisciplinary group of international experts on higher education in Africa, development in Africa, and for comparative purposes, higher education in Latin America, Europe and the U.S. Although many of the participants regularly attend conferences on Higher Education in Africa, the participation of experts from other sectors and with other approaches brought new insights and new directions to the discussions. The goal of the conference was to explore research and policy issues for higher education and international development with special focus on Africa. More specifically, we aimed to generate new perspectives and approaches for both applied research and policymaking in this field. The two keynote addresses, of broad scope and vision, were delivered to the invited experts plus a larger public audience. The five “anchor papers”, of more targeted scope and detailed analysis, received commentary from two experts from different regional or disciplinary perspectives. They provided the basis for discussion among the conferees.
Abstract. The intensity, speed and reach of global change combined with the reverberations of th... more Abstract. The intensity, speed and reach of global change combined with the reverberations of the events of September 11, 2001 all challenge higher education to internationalize, to integrate understanding the rest of the world into core programs and values. This study has confirmed that the historical relationship between the federal government and the higher education system in the United States over thirty years (1958 to1988) has created a solid foundation for building international capacity in higher education. While expanding international expertise and studies itself may be subject to near infinite regression and changing expectations, the system wide ability to create and adjust international capacity is strong. Tracing the development of this policy arena highlighted ways that the federal higher education relationship has strengthened the structural and innovative capacity of the national higher education system to respond to past internationalization challenges. Barely there but powerfully present. That describes how the federal policy arena for international higher education in the United States interacted with and affected the higher education system from 1958 to 1988. The two on-going federal programs of Title VI and AID clearly helped to internationalize, to sustain and expand higher education’s international capacity and to diffuse that capacity system-wide. Though chronically under-funded in Title VI and, with AID barely aligned with the operational structures of universities, these programs clearly had a powerful effect on shaping the international capacity of the higher education system. Though never funded or implemented, the IEA of 1966 molded the legislative core inspiring new programs and extending the boundaries of the policy arena, especially through Title VI. These two federal programs supported the entire range of institutions within the system with particular depth in the research universities but reaching all other groups through community colleges. They achieved good balance between private and public institutions and fairly balanced coverage in all regions of the country. Summary of Findings. Internationalization was characterized and defined as a complex innovation, spanning the enterprise and disciplinary dimensions of higher education with particularly strong roots individual campuses but relying on strong ties to national system networks (see figure 1.1). In the United States, higher education has evolved into a highly differentiated and interdependent national system, the configuration deemed most likely to sustain and diffuse innovations effectively. Both compatibility and profitability were shown to be important in introducing, sustaining and diffusing such innovations. Internationalization appears in many forms across the range of campuses and has become a generally accepted or even prized innovation. As a growing part of the system’s values if not a gold standard, its compatibility grew and its profitability was also deemed high. Despite being relatively costly compared to other academic programs, during fiscal stress, international education could prove a cost-effective route to academic dynamism with its focus on interdisciplinary programs and collaboration across administrative units. In abundance, it could thrive and even embed itself in one of the more successful institutional patterns, enclaved as a professional school or disseminated as a university wide agenda. As a shared aspiration of administrators and faculty alike, internationalization could stimulate academic convergence and emulation throughout the system, both of which enhanced its institutionalization and diffusion prospects in higher education. As the federal government took on greater importance in the institutional market of higher education, categorical programs became the primary focus of international higher education (see figure 2.1). The categorical programs fit internationalization well since targeted but ambitious externally funded programs were found to be the best vehicle to help institutionalize change. Both the education and the foreign policy legislative streams have intersected in international higher education. There has been dynamic tension and growing activity over time, with interests and resources of the two policy streams represented by legislators, executive agency implementers, political leaders and higher education actors, both institutional and disciplinary. Over thirty years, the resulting international higher education policy arena has become an enduring forum for resolving conflicting national and higher education interests characterized by a stable set of legislative structures and resources. The internationalist higher education advocacy community also has grown and solidified. International interests were embedded in the substantive core of the larger higher education policy arena but this did not translate into equivalently deep funding. Policy goals were translated into the causal theory underlying the two case programs examined in this book. Expertise, advanced knowledge and highly trained personnel in economic, military and political spheres have been a cornerstone. For international higher education, national security and fields like languages and area studies have been the paramount and enduring motivators for federal funding in both case programs. Economic security, especially as global economic competition increased, has become a regular part of the rationale especially for the Title VI programs after 1980. Others goals have not translated as successfully or consistently into federal support of international higher education. Humanitarian interests motivated specialized federal programs such as AID’s university programs. Economic and social mobility of individual citizens for productivity and social justice, were a cornerstone of federal support overall but were not mirrored in the international arena. A citizenry educated for broad international understanding has not approached national security and expertise or even economic competitiveness as compelling rationales. As the exception to prove the rule, the Title VI IS/Undergrad program was largely justified by this citizen education goal which was also at the heart of the IEA. The IEA failure was instructive for insights into the policy arena’s fault lines. Overstretching the goals and other boundaries of the policy arena was one reason the IEA legislation failed to be funded. The IEA encompassed both higher education and school systems, a dual track that had proved impossible in earlier higher education laws. The IEA merged foreign affairs with domestic higher education policy interests and such policy adjacency raised anxieties of overstepping the limits on federal control of curricular matters. Locating a proposed super unit in OE to coordinate all overseas related education and exchange affairs of the federal government was rejected and the function was placed squarely in the State Department. The IEA focused on three national goals at once: international expertise for education and foreign affairs, humanitarian assistance overseas and citizen education. Pairing the latter two weaker rationales with the dominant one of expertise was not wise but ignoring the national security rationale was damaging. The focus on international, problem-focused themes with barely a nod to language studies or a clear relationship to the other NDEA Title VI fields also made acceptance of the IEA difficult. Ill-fated timing and other environment factors also contributed to the IEA’s failure. Nonetheless, many of the aspirations of the IEA came alive in Title VI programs with outreach to the schools, with IS/Grad focused on professional schools and the later addition of cross-cutting thematic topics as a legitimate for Centers and the IS/Undergrad program aimed at citizen education capacity broadly. The fact that the AID university programs were never killed may also have been a testament to the power of the ideals embodied in the IEA. The main program studied, Title VI from the education stream, and the briefer counterpoint of AID from the foreign assistance stream were both within the policy arena. Title VI focused squarely on expertise and national security. AID focused on expertise and humanitarian assistance. Indeed, Title VI was at the core of the policy arena after 1972. Title VI goals were clearly congruent with the internationalization ideal. This held especially true for the program elements, the institutional and the diffusion or network elements (see figure 1.1). The AID program goals were less congruent with the ideal but supplemented expert resources on campus and were especially useful when combined with Title VI programs at an institution. The research universities were the most likely to take advantage of such complementarities but so did the two year colleges and a few others. Title VI programs were well structured to enhance sustainability or institutionalization as well as diffusion of international capacity. The AID programs, less so. Between the two case programs, they supported virtually all fields including languages, social science and humanities fields as well as many professional and technical and even some natural sciences fields. Title VI focused primarily on languages, the other humanities and social science with a dip into the professional and technical fields while the AID balance of coverage was the reverse.
Yale's MacMillan Center implemented a comprehensive assessment of international education resourc... more Yale's MacMillan Center implemented a comprehensive assessment of international education resources and outcomes for Yale students (graduate, professional, and undergraduate) from 2011-2015. Designed with the Office of Institutional Research, five area councils executed a common plan (Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America and Middle East) with federal Title 6 NRC-FLAS grant funds. Led by Dr. Nancy Ruther, Associate Director of MCMC and expert in Title 6 policy and programs, the assessment was designed as a 15 year case study of Yale which has been a continuous competitor for T6 grants, both awarded and lost, since the 1960s. GLOBAL EDUCATION CONTEXT: BEYOND THE BASICS TO BUILDING EXPERTISE ♦ Global awareness is a necessary but insufficient goal for international higher education nationwide • International higher education focuses heavily on enabling undergraduates to achieve cross-cultural skills outcomes. Language skills are too often downplayed, perniciously signaling that English is sufficient. Curricular paths to achieve greater, more complex expertise are too often lacking. • As a core strategy, study abroad misses 90% of US college graduates and virtually all graduate students. Mobility is important but not sufficient to meet the need for global skills. • Increasingly, international educators are focusing on curricular and virtual strategies where all students can participate. Developing pathways to expertise and workforce/career links can follow. ♦ " Back to the Future: " curriculum and expertise as federal model for international higher education • Title 6 has had laser focus for sixty years on three critical elements – language skill, interdisciplinary curriculum and workforce outcomes. With limited national coverage, its lessons are easily ignored. • Yale adapted the Title 6 model to produce strong pathways to expertise, using Area Studies Councils to flexibly develop skills for all levels of students with paths from generalist to top expertise levels • This case study tested the model and revealed high value outcomes for Yale and national policy goals and most importantly for students – undergraduates, MA and professional school degrees and PhDs. KEY FINDINGS: HIGH VALUE OUTCOMES Student outcomes: International " specialist " students clearly stand-out positively from their peers ♦ After graduation in their plans for the future and actual lives • More likely to plan to and actually use foreign languages in their work • More likely to pursue international careers, especially in government or education ♦ During their studies in their utilization of and demand for IAFL resources • Start with more and higher levels of foreign language proficiency, gain more and lose less • Most likely to pursue critical and least commonly taught languages • Show greater demand for international travel resources to support their studies Curricular resources: International, area and foreign language courses were strong (≥ 25% content) ♦ Yale's IAFL curricular resources were very stable, with some growth over the 12 years analyzed ♦ Yearly variation by region and in " high-content " courses raised a " yellow flag " Title 6 policy results: The T6 NRC area studies model succeeded at Yale. It produced desired curricular inputs, high level of student engagement across many fields and units, and graduates with desired expertise that they used in work in priority employment sectors of education and government
Uploads
Papers by Nancy Ruther
A brief review of the key trends and challenges shaping the public service functions of the United States government will set the context for a specific analysis of the supply and demand of AIFL talent and expertise. First, I will address the major question, “How many federal employees with AIFL skills does the federal government need?” by comparing the Perkins Commission’s carefully measured and concrete 1979 data with an estimate of what it would be today. Next, I present three key metaphors that put the numbers in context: the “shadow government,” the “quiet crisis,” and the “over the cliff” demographic crisis. With the macro-situation in mind, detailed case studies of four federal agencies highlight their foreign language needs and staff shortfalls. These agencies offer alternative strategies to meet government AIFL needs. The third section considers how the higher education sector can respond robustly and meet government AIFL needs effectively when those needs are clearly communicated. I focus on the Higher Education Act (HEA) Title VI programs in particular. The paper ends with policy recommendations and suggests specific action steps.
U.S. Although many of the participants regularly attend conferences on Higher Education in Africa, the participation of experts from other sectors and with other approaches brought new insights and new directions to the discussions. The goal of the conference was to explore research and policy issues for higher education and international development with special focus on Africa. More specifically, we aimed to generate new perspectives and approaches for both applied research and policymaking in this field. The two keynote addresses, of broad scope and vision, were delivered to the invited experts plus a
larger public audience. The five “anchor papers”, of more targeted scope and detailed analysis, received commentary from two experts from different regional or disciplinary perspectives. They provided the basis for discussion among the
conferees.
Books by Nancy Ruther
Barely there but powerfully present. That describes how the federal policy arena for international higher education in the United States interacted with and affected the higher education system from 1958 to 1988. The two on-going federal programs of Title VI and AID clearly helped to internationalize, to sustain and expand higher education’s international capacity and to diffuse that capacity system-wide. Though chronically under-funded in Title VI and, with AID barely aligned with the operational structures of universities, these programs clearly had a powerful effect on shaping the international capacity of the higher education system. Though never funded or implemented, the IEA of 1966 molded the legislative core inspiring new programs and extending the boundaries of the policy arena, especially through Title VI. These two federal programs supported the entire range of institutions within the system with particular depth in the research universities but reaching all other groups through community colleges. They achieved good balance between private and public institutions and fairly balanced coverage in all regions of the country.
Summary of Findings. Internationalization was characterized and defined as a complex innovation, spanning the enterprise and disciplinary dimensions of higher education with particularly strong roots individual campuses but relying on strong ties to national system networks (see figure 1.1). In the United States, higher education has evolved into a highly differentiated and interdependent national system, the configuration deemed most likely to sustain and diffuse innovations effectively. Both compatibility and profitability were shown to be important in introducing, sustaining and diffusing such innovations. Internationalization appears in many forms across the range of campuses and has become a generally accepted or even prized innovation. As a growing part of the system’s values if not a gold standard, its compatibility grew and its profitability was also deemed high. Despite being relatively costly compared to other academic programs, during fiscal stress, international education could prove a cost-effective route to academic dynamism with its focus on interdisciplinary programs and collaboration across administrative units. In abundance, it could thrive and even embed itself in one of the more successful institutional patterns, enclaved as a professional school or disseminated as a university wide agenda. As a shared aspiration of administrators and faculty alike, internationalization could stimulate academic convergence and emulation throughout the system, both of which enhanced its institutionalization and diffusion prospects in higher education.
As the federal government took on greater importance in the institutional market of higher education, categorical programs became the primary focus of international higher education (see figure 2.1). The categorical programs fit internationalization well since targeted but ambitious externally funded programs were found to be the best vehicle to help institutionalize change. Both the education and the foreign policy legislative streams have intersected in international higher education. There has been dynamic tension and growing activity over time, with interests and resources of the two policy streams represented by legislators, executive agency implementers, political leaders and higher education actors, both institutional and disciplinary. Over thirty years, the resulting international higher education policy arena has become an enduring forum for resolving conflicting national and higher education interests characterized by a stable set of legislative structures and resources. The internationalist higher education advocacy community also has grown and solidified.
International interests were embedded in the substantive core of the larger higher education policy arena but this did not translate into equivalently deep funding. Policy goals were translated into the causal theory underlying the two case programs examined in this book. Expertise, advanced knowledge and highly trained personnel in economic, military and political spheres have been a cornerstone. For international higher education, national security and fields like languages and area studies have been the paramount and enduring motivators for federal funding in both case programs. Economic security, especially as global economic competition increased, has become a regular part of the rationale especially for the Title VI programs after 1980. Others goals have not translated as successfully or consistently into federal support of international higher education. Humanitarian interests motivated specialized federal programs such as AID’s university programs. Economic and social mobility of individual citizens for productivity and social justice, were a cornerstone of federal support overall but were not mirrored in the international arena. A citizenry educated for broad international understanding has not approached national security and expertise or even economic competitiveness as compelling rationales. As the exception to prove the rule, the Title VI IS/Undergrad program was largely justified by this citizen education goal which was also at the heart of the IEA.
The IEA failure was instructive for insights into the policy arena’s fault lines. Overstretching the goals and other boundaries of the policy arena was one reason the IEA legislation failed to be funded. The IEA encompassed both higher education and school systems, a dual track that had proved impossible in earlier higher education laws. The IEA merged foreign affairs with domestic higher education policy interests and such policy adjacency raised anxieties of overstepping the limits on federal control of curricular matters. Locating a proposed super unit in OE to coordinate all overseas related education and exchange affairs of the federal government was rejected and the function was placed squarely in the State Department. The IEA focused on three national goals at once: international expertise for education and foreign affairs, humanitarian assistance overseas and citizen education. Pairing the latter two weaker rationales with the dominant one of expertise was not wise but ignoring the national security rationale was damaging. The focus on international, problem-focused themes with barely a nod to language studies or a clear relationship to the other NDEA Title VI fields also made acceptance of the IEA difficult. Ill-fated timing and other environment factors also contributed to the IEA’s failure. Nonetheless, many of the aspirations of the IEA came alive in Title VI programs with outreach to the schools, with IS/Grad focused on professional schools and the later addition of cross-cutting thematic topics as a legitimate for Centers and the IS/Undergrad program aimed at citizen education capacity broadly. The fact that the AID university programs were never killed may also have been a testament to the power of the ideals embodied in the IEA.
The main program studied, Title VI from the education stream, and the briefer counterpoint of AID from the foreign assistance stream were both within the policy arena. Title VI focused squarely on expertise and national security. AID focused on expertise and humanitarian assistance. Indeed, Title VI was at the core of the policy arena after 1972. Title VI goals were clearly congruent with the internationalization ideal. This held especially true for the program elements, the institutional and the diffusion or network elements (see figure 1.1). The AID program goals were less congruent with the ideal but supplemented expert resources on campus and were especially useful when combined with Title VI programs at an institution. The research universities were the most likely to take advantage of such complementarities but so did the two year colleges and a few others. Title VI programs were well structured to enhance sustainability or institutionalization as well as diffusion of international capacity. The AID programs, less so. Between the two case programs, they supported virtually all fields including languages, social science and humanities fields as well as many professional and technical and even some natural sciences fields. Title VI focused primarily on languages, the other humanities and social science with a dip into the professional and technical fields while the AID balance of coverage was the reverse.
Conference Presentations by Nancy Ruther
A brief review of the key trends and challenges shaping the public service functions of the United States government will set the context for a specific analysis of the supply and demand of AIFL talent and expertise. First, I will address the major question, “How many federal employees with AIFL skills does the federal government need?” by comparing the Perkins Commission’s carefully measured and concrete 1979 data with an estimate of what it would be today. Next, I present three key metaphors that put the numbers in context: the “shadow government,” the “quiet crisis,” and the “over the cliff” demographic crisis. With the macro-situation in mind, detailed case studies of four federal agencies highlight their foreign language needs and staff shortfalls. These agencies offer alternative strategies to meet government AIFL needs. The third section considers how the higher education sector can respond robustly and meet government AIFL needs effectively when those needs are clearly communicated. I focus on the Higher Education Act (HEA) Title VI programs in particular. The paper ends with policy recommendations and suggests specific action steps.
U.S. Although many of the participants regularly attend conferences on Higher Education in Africa, the participation of experts from other sectors and with other approaches brought new insights and new directions to the discussions. The goal of the conference was to explore research and policy issues for higher education and international development with special focus on Africa. More specifically, we aimed to generate new perspectives and approaches for both applied research and policymaking in this field. The two keynote addresses, of broad scope and vision, were delivered to the invited experts plus a
larger public audience. The five “anchor papers”, of more targeted scope and detailed analysis, received commentary from two experts from different regional or disciplinary perspectives. They provided the basis for discussion among the
conferees.
Barely there but powerfully present. That describes how the federal policy arena for international higher education in the United States interacted with and affected the higher education system from 1958 to 1988. The two on-going federal programs of Title VI and AID clearly helped to internationalize, to sustain and expand higher education’s international capacity and to diffuse that capacity system-wide. Though chronically under-funded in Title VI and, with AID barely aligned with the operational structures of universities, these programs clearly had a powerful effect on shaping the international capacity of the higher education system. Though never funded or implemented, the IEA of 1966 molded the legislative core inspiring new programs and extending the boundaries of the policy arena, especially through Title VI. These two federal programs supported the entire range of institutions within the system with particular depth in the research universities but reaching all other groups through community colleges. They achieved good balance between private and public institutions and fairly balanced coverage in all regions of the country.
Summary of Findings. Internationalization was characterized and defined as a complex innovation, spanning the enterprise and disciplinary dimensions of higher education with particularly strong roots individual campuses but relying on strong ties to national system networks (see figure 1.1). In the United States, higher education has evolved into a highly differentiated and interdependent national system, the configuration deemed most likely to sustain and diffuse innovations effectively. Both compatibility and profitability were shown to be important in introducing, sustaining and diffusing such innovations. Internationalization appears in many forms across the range of campuses and has become a generally accepted or even prized innovation. As a growing part of the system’s values if not a gold standard, its compatibility grew and its profitability was also deemed high. Despite being relatively costly compared to other academic programs, during fiscal stress, international education could prove a cost-effective route to academic dynamism with its focus on interdisciplinary programs and collaboration across administrative units. In abundance, it could thrive and even embed itself in one of the more successful institutional patterns, enclaved as a professional school or disseminated as a university wide agenda. As a shared aspiration of administrators and faculty alike, internationalization could stimulate academic convergence and emulation throughout the system, both of which enhanced its institutionalization and diffusion prospects in higher education.
As the federal government took on greater importance in the institutional market of higher education, categorical programs became the primary focus of international higher education (see figure 2.1). The categorical programs fit internationalization well since targeted but ambitious externally funded programs were found to be the best vehicle to help institutionalize change. Both the education and the foreign policy legislative streams have intersected in international higher education. There has been dynamic tension and growing activity over time, with interests and resources of the two policy streams represented by legislators, executive agency implementers, political leaders and higher education actors, both institutional and disciplinary. Over thirty years, the resulting international higher education policy arena has become an enduring forum for resolving conflicting national and higher education interests characterized by a stable set of legislative structures and resources. The internationalist higher education advocacy community also has grown and solidified.
International interests were embedded in the substantive core of the larger higher education policy arena but this did not translate into equivalently deep funding. Policy goals were translated into the causal theory underlying the two case programs examined in this book. Expertise, advanced knowledge and highly trained personnel in economic, military and political spheres have been a cornerstone. For international higher education, national security and fields like languages and area studies have been the paramount and enduring motivators for federal funding in both case programs. Economic security, especially as global economic competition increased, has become a regular part of the rationale especially for the Title VI programs after 1980. Others goals have not translated as successfully or consistently into federal support of international higher education. Humanitarian interests motivated specialized federal programs such as AID’s university programs. Economic and social mobility of individual citizens for productivity and social justice, were a cornerstone of federal support overall but were not mirrored in the international arena. A citizenry educated for broad international understanding has not approached national security and expertise or even economic competitiveness as compelling rationales. As the exception to prove the rule, the Title VI IS/Undergrad program was largely justified by this citizen education goal which was also at the heart of the IEA.
The IEA failure was instructive for insights into the policy arena’s fault lines. Overstretching the goals and other boundaries of the policy arena was one reason the IEA legislation failed to be funded. The IEA encompassed both higher education and school systems, a dual track that had proved impossible in earlier higher education laws. The IEA merged foreign affairs with domestic higher education policy interests and such policy adjacency raised anxieties of overstepping the limits on federal control of curricular matters. Locating a proposed super unit in OE to coordinate all overseas related education and exchange affairs of the federal government was rejected and the function was placed squarely in the State Department. The IEA focused on three national goals at once: international expertise for education and foreign affairs, humanitarian assistance overseas and citizen education. Pairing the latter two weaker rationales with the dominant one of expertise was not wise but ignoring the national security rationale was damaging. The focus on international, problem-focused themes with barely a nod to language studies or a clear relationship to the other NDEA Title VI fields also made acceptance of the IEA difficult. Ill-fated timing and other environment factors also contributed to the IEA’s failure. Nonetheless, many of the aspirations of the IEA came alive in Title VI programs with outreach to the schools, with IS/Grad focused on professional schools and the later addition of cross-cutting thematic topics as a legitimate for Centers and the IS/Undergrad program aimed at citizen education capacity broadly. The fact that the AID university programs were never killed may also have been a testament to the power of the ideals embodied in the IEA.
The main program studied, Title VI from the education stream, and the briefer counterpoint of AID from the foreign assistance stream were both within the policy arena. Title VI focused squarely on expertise and national security. AID focused on expertise and humanitarian assistance. Indeed, Title VI was at the core of the policy arena after 1972. Title VI goals were clearly congruent with the internationalization ideal. This held especially true for the program elements, the institutional and the diffusion or network elements (see figure 1.1). The AID program goals were less congruent with the ideal but supplemented expert resources on campus and were especially useful when combined with Title VI programs at an institution. The research universities were the most likely to take advantage of such complementarities but so did the two year colleges and a few others. Title VI programs were well structured to enhance sustainability or institutionalization as well as diffusion of international capacity. The AID programs, less so. Between the two case programs, they supported virtually all fields including languages, social science and humanities fields as well as many professional and technical and even some natural sciences fields. Title VI focused primarily on languages, the other humanities and social science with a dip into the professional and technical fields while the AID balance of coverage was the reverse.