Internationalization and Educators' Understanding of Issues in Educational Leadership

Abstract

This paper reports on a study of the effects of international professional dialogue on educators' understanding of issues in educational leadership. The study involved a group of graduate students in a three-day conference in Canada and a parallel group of graduate students in a two-week institute in New Zealand. The instructional design of the conference, institute, and related activities was based on the Boundary-Breaking Leadership Development Model (Robertson and Webber 2000,2002?, 2002b; Webber and Robertson 1998,2003) in which the descriptor "international perspectives" was identified as a basic attribute of the model.

The themes that emerged from this study of international professional dialogue-understanding one's educational context, moving from ethnocentricity to cross-cultural understanding, and thinking about leadership in learning-are described. A support infrastructure, which may enhance the benefits and address the cautions associated with international leadership development networks, is provided.

Internationalization had a very low profile in the minds of the prominent American educational researchers who were asked to reflect upon the most important educational developments of the 20th century. A Who's Who of American researchers, including O. L. Davis, Jr., Howard Gardner, Henry Giroux, John Goodlad, Maxine Greene, Martin Haberman, Frances Klein, NeI Noddings, and Seymour Sarason, collectively identified a wide range of other educational milestones, including progressive education, university education for war veterans, location of teacher education in universities, (over)emphasis on standards and accountability, multicultural education, unionization of teachers, school desegregation, educational technology, the civil rights movement, and school choice (Wolfe 2001). Internationalization or globalization, however, did not stand out as a major influence on American education in the 20th century, at least from the perspective of the researchers whose views were solicited.

Interestingly, many of the American researchers listed in the preceding paragraph were quoted in the Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (Leithwood and Hallinger 2002), a publication in which internationalization emerged as a significant educational issue. In the handbook, British researchers Stoll, Bolam, and Collarbone (2002, 42) stated, "The world is increasingly viewed as a global village," and cautioned that while technology might have made the world smaller, it also may be contributing to personal isolation, uncertainty about ownership of information, reduced privacy, and the privileging of some populations over others.

Other cautions about internationalization can be observed in the handbook and in other literature. Sapre (2000) noted that, from an Indian perspective, there is an observable dominance of the West in economic policy, international trade and industry, science and technology, and popular culture. Saffu (2000) suggested that internationalization, in the form of strategic alliances among institutions of higher learning, might not be as focused on academic goals as much as aimed at generating revenue for the partner institutions. Saffu's claims were countered by Trim's (2002) description of the positive social and academic impacts of a Canada-United Kingdom higher education partnership. Further, Robertson and Webber (2002a, 547) highlighted the possible positive impact of national and international linkages by noting that learning communities "that are isolated from the educational, social, and political trends in other settings cannot prepare students adequately to take their place in the mainstream of an increasingly global society."

Internationalization in education has led to global migration of information, policies, politics, and significantly, people. One result is the emergence of school communities comprised of populations that are diverse and mobile. Shields (2002) wrote about "communities of difference" in which educators should engage in meaningful dialogue with all educational stakeholders-students, parents, other social service providers, and community members-to negotiate the rules and customs that are unique to each school community. According to Beckett (2003), the cocreation of school culture with an internationalized community is necessary to facilitate student motivation for educational success. Though North American educators always have dealt with students from a variety of cultural backgrounds (Riehl 2000), we live in an era when success in addressing diversity that is accentuated by increasing internationalization is more critical than ever. This is particularly true if we aim to educate a citizenry that understands and cares about its nation and other countries, and has the skills to challenge political leaders in all areas of governance, including foreign affairs (Dunn 2002). Importantly, we should recognize that diversity and mobility have caused educational leaders to be less familiar with the cultural complexities of their school communities (Earl and Katz 2002).