International education

The coronavirus outbreak is the biggest crisis ever to hit international education

Reseñas

By: Martin La Monica.

The coronavirus outbreak may be the biggest disruption to international student flows in history.

There are more than 100,000 students stuck in China who had intended to study in Australia this year. As each day passes, it becomes more unlikely they will arrive in time for the start of the academic year.

Of course international affairs are bound to sometimes interfere with the more than 5.3 million students studying outside their home country, all over the world.

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States closed its borders temporarily and tightened student visa restrictions, particularly for students from the Middle East. Thousands were forced to choose different study destinations in the following years.

In 2018, Saudi Arabia’s government instructed all its citizens studying in Canada to return home, in protest at the Canadian foreign minister’s call to release women’s rights activists held in Saudi jails.

A significant proportion of the 12,000 or so Saudi students in Canada left to continue their studies elsewhere, before the Saudi government quietly softened its stance.

So we have seen calamities before, but never on this scale. There are a few reasons for this.

Why this is worse than before

The current temporary migration of students from China to Australia represents one of the largest education flows the world has ever seen. Federal education department data show there were more than 212,000 Chinese international students in Australia by the end of 2019.

Screenshot/Department of Education

This accounts for 28% of Australia’s total international student population. Globally, there are only two study routes that involve larger numbers of students. The world’s largest student flow is from China to the United States and the second largest is from India to the US.

It’s also difficult to imagine a worse time for this epidemic to happen for students heading to the southern hemisphere than January to February, at the end of our long summer break.

Many Chinese students had returned home for the summer and others were preparing to start their studies at the end of February.

By comparison, the SARS epidemic in 2003 didn’t significantly dent international student enrolments in Australia because it peaked around April-May 2003, well after students had started the academic year.

Read more: We need to make sure the international student boom is sustainable

Ending in July that year, the SARS outbreak infected fewer than half the number of people than have already contracted coronavirus. Even during the SARS outbreak Australia didn’t implement bans on those travelling from affected countries.

What will the impact be?

This crisis hits hard for many Chinese students, an integral component of our campus communities. It not only causes disruptions to their study, accommodation, part-time employment and life plans, but also their mental well-being.

A humane, supportive and respectful response from the university communities is vital at this stage.

Australia has never experienced such a sudden drop in student numbers.

The reduced enrolments will have profound impacts on class sizes and the teaching workforce, particularly at masters level in universities with the highest proportions of students from China. Around 46% of Chinese students are studying a postgraduate masters by coursework. If classes are too small, universities will have to cancel them.

And the effects don’t end there. Tourism, accommodation providers, restaurants and retailers who cater to international students will be hit hard too.

Chinese students contributed A$12 billion to the Australian economy in 2019, so whatever happens from this point, the financial impact will be significant. The cost of the drop in enrolments in semester one may well amount to several billion dollars.

The newly-formed Global Reputation Taskforce by Australia’s Council for International Education has commissioned some rapid response research to promote more informed discussion about the implications and impacts of the crisis.

Read more: What attracts Chinese students to Aussie universities?

If the epidemic is contained quickly, some of the 100,000 students stuck in China will be able to start their studies in semester one, and the rest could delay until mid-year. But there might still be longer-term effects.

Australia has a world-class higher education system and the world is closely watching how we manage this crisis as it unfolds.

Prospective students in China will be particularly focused on Australia’s response as they weigh future study options.

The world is watching

Such a fast-moving crisis presents a range of challenges for those in universities, colleges (such as English language schools) and schools who are trying to communicate with thousands of worried students who can’t enter the country.

Australian universities are scrambling to consider a wide range of responses. These include:

  • delivering courses online
  • providing intensive courses and summer or winter courses
  • arrangements around semester commencement
  • fee refund and deferral
  • provision of clear and updated information
  • support structures for starting and continuing Chinese students, including extended academic and welfare support, counselling, special helplines, and coronavirus-specific information guidelines
  • support with visa issues, accommodation and employment arrangements.

A coordinated approach involving different stakeholders who are providing different supports for Chinese students is an urgent priority. This includes education providers, government, city councils, international student associations, student groups and professional organisations.

 

Source of the review: https://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-outbreak-is-the-biggest-crisis-ever-to-hit-international-education-131138

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

UK visa changes ‘discriminate’ against Indian students

Noticias

Asia/Inda/universityworldnews

Resumen: Los movimientos del gobierno del Reino Unido para facilitar los procedimientos de visa de estudiantes para una docena de países no europeos han causado indignación en India cuyos estudiantes, entre los más numerosos en el Reino Unido, han sido excluidos mientras que los estudiantes chinos se benefician de los cambios que entran efecto el 6 de julio.  El anuncio del 15 de junio, que amplía la lista de países de «vía rápida» de 15 a 26, se presentó en el parlamento británico el mismo día. Permite una documentación reducida para los requisitos de competencia en idioma inglés, educativo y financiero y coloca a países como Argentina, Bahrein, Camboya, China, Indonesia, Serbia, Tailandia y Estados Unidos a la par con Canadá y Nueva Zelanda, cuyos nacionales ya se benefician de procesos simplificados para visas para estudiar en el Reino Unido.  Pero India, uno de los tres países principales que envían estudiantes al Reino Unido después de China y Estados Unidos, no ha sido incluido, y se considera que sus ciudadanos están en mayor riesgo de ‘desaparecer’ una vez que ingresan con visas de estudiante, a pesar de la falta de Evidencia del Ministerio del Interior para respaldar este reclamo frente a estudiantes de otras nacionalidades. De hecho, un informe de la Oficina de Estadísticas Nacionales del Reino Unido del año pasado señaló que la mayoría de los estudiantes indios solían irse poco después de graduarse de las instituciones del Reino Unido, antes de que sus visas expiraran.En 2016, unos 7,469 estudiantes indios abandonaron el país antes de la fecha de vencimiento de su visa, mientras que 2,209 se quedaron para solicitar una extensión de visa.  «Los estudiantes tailandeses, chinos, indios y norteamericanos tenían más probabilidades de partir antes de que expiraran sus visas de estudio, mientras que los estudiantes rusos, bangladesíes, paquistaníes y sauditas tenían más probabilidades de extender su permiso para permanecer [en el Reino Unido]», según el informe. Oficina de Estadísticas Nacionales.

Moves by the United Kingdom government to ease student visa procedures for around a dozen non-European countries have caused outrage in India whose students – among the most numerous in the UK – have been excluded while Chinese students stand to benefit from the changes which come into effect on 6 July.

The announcement on 15 June which extends the list of ‘fast-track’ countries from 15 to 26, was tabled in the British parliament the same day. It allows reduced documentation for educational, financial and English language proficiency requirements and puts countries like Argentina, Bahrain, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Serbia, Thailand and the United States on a par with Canada and New Zealand whose nationals already benefit from streamlined processes for visas to study in the UK.

But India, one of the top three countries sending students to the UK after China and the US, has not been included, with its nationals regarded as being at a higher risk of ‘disappearing’ once they enter on student visas, despite a lack of Home Office evidence to back up this claim vis-a-vis students of other nationalities.

In fact, a UK Office for National Statistics report last year noted that a majority of Indian students tended to leave soon after graduating from UK institutions, before their visas expired. In 2016, some 7,469 Indian students left the country before their visa expiry date while 2,209 stayed to request a visa extension.

“Thai, Chinese, Indian and North American students were more likely to depart before their study visas expired, whereas Russian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Saudi Arabian students were more likely to extend their leave to remain [in the UK],” according to the Office for National Statistics.

It additionally noted the “strong evidence” that the methodology used by the UK government is likely to “underestimate student emigration” so that student figures as part of net immigration are likely to be an overestimate.

A Home Office paper released in August 2017 on exit checks of all people known to have left the UK found that 97.4% of 181,024 international students from outside Europe left on time.

The UK government’s exclusion of Indian students contrasts with Canada which announced a ‘Student Direct Stream’ earlier this month to speed up visa processing times for students from China, India, Vietnam and the Philippines for certain categories of students who satisfy language and financial requirements.

‘Discriminatory policy’

The National Indian Students and Alumni Union (NISAU) UK expressed disappointment at India’s exclusion, which it said effectively categorises Indian students as “high risk”, and said it was unfair that Indian students should be treated differently from Chinese or other nationals on the list. It raises the question, “Will China continue to get even more favourable actions while India gets the rhetoric?” said Sanam Arora, NISAU UK president.

“Such a discriminatory move has naturally caused outrage among Indians who feel cheated and humiliated. One feels compelled to ask why India is deemed high risk only when it comes to students, while the same Theresa May government has removed the visa cap for Indian doctors and nurses?” an English-language tabloid newspaper DNA said in an editorial last Monday.

It was referring to the exemption of doctors and nurses from the UK’s annual cap of 20,700 visas announced by the May government recently amid shortages being experienced by the country’s National Health Service.

India has repeatedly raised the issue of visas for students and professionals during high level meetings, including during Theresa May’s visit to India in 2016, and most recently during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to London in April.

Indian MP, Ahmed Patel of the opposition Congress party, tweeted: “Extremely unfortunate that our students have been left out from UK’s simplified visa process,” and called for the Ministry of External Affairs to take the issue up with the British government at the “highest levels”.

The Indian High Commission in London said High Commissioner YK Sinha met with UK Minister of State for Universities Sam Gyimah earlier this month and “made special mention of the challenges regarding smoother and greater student, faculty mobilities” between the two countries.

Sinha has in the past contrasted the UK’s treatment of Indian students with countries such as Australia, Germany and France which are “actively going on to campuses in India and trying to attract students there”, he said. “There is something going wrong here because the UK has obviously been the first preference for Indian students.”

Link to trade relations

In the UK, criticism of the exclusion was linked the need to improve trade relations with non-EU countries as Britain leaves the European Union. India is seen as an important potential trading partner.

In a statement issued last Monday, James Kirkup, director of the Social Market Foundation, an independent public policy think tank based in London, said: “Being seen to discriminate against Indian students is an act of economic and diplomatic self-harm” by the British government.

The decision to exclude Indian students from new immigration rules was a missed opportunity for Britain. “Brexit means it is more important than ever for Britain to demonstrate that it is economically and intellectually open to the world. This decision sends the wrong message to India and its students,” Kirkup said.

In the year that ended in September 2010, Britain gave visas to 60,322 students from India. By September 2017, the figure had fallen to 14,081. During the same period, the number of Indians studying at American and Canadian universities had risen, according to the think tank.

Lord Karan Bilimoria, president for the UK Council for International Student Affairs, said the exclusion was an insult to India and an example of Britain’s “economically illiterate and hostile attitude to immigration”.

Excluding India from the list “is myopically short-sighted and is damaging what has always been a special relationship between our countries”.

Bilimoria, founder of Cobra Beer and founding chair of the UK India Business Council, said: “It is completely hypocritical that this is announced at the same time that Britain is talking about doing a post-Brexit free trade agreement with India. If this is the way they treat India, they can dream on about an FTA with India.”

According to the Home Office, 90% of Indian students who apply for a UK visa are successful, up from 86% in 2014 and 83% in 2013, and the Home Office added that Indian student visa applications are up 30% on last year. “We continue to have regular discussions with the Indian government on a range of issues, including on visas and UK immigration policy,” it said.

Fuente: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20180619132721781

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

International education a form of privatization, group says Institute for Public Education

Noticias

Institute for Public Education  says K-12 program would be more diverse, equitable if education benefits were prioritized

Resumen: El Instituto de Educación Pública, un nuevo grupo de expertos que promueve la educación pública en Columbia Británica, plantea dudas sobre el programa de educación internacional, considerándolo como una forma de privatización de la educación. Puede encontrar más información sobre la organización en instituteforpubliceducation.org.

The Institute for Public Education, a new think tank promoting public education in B.C., said catering to foreign students is a form of privatization of B.C.’s public education system where the benefits aren’t shared equally and business priorities trump educational experiences.

In a paper produced for a BC Teachers’ Federation conference in June, the institute criticized long-entrenched fundraising efforts, including international education, which has quintupled in B.C. since 2001, as an “insidious form of privatization” that have become a normal part of funding schools.

“Of course, there are educational reasons for encouraging international students to attend B.C. schools, but such an approach would emphasize equity, the opportunity for a rich international experience for both foreign and Canadian students; would distribute students across school districts; and would be open to all foreign students not simply the wealthy,” states the “Many Faces of Privatization” paper.

According to the paper, SD43 is second only to West Vancouver in the proportion of its budget — 11% — that relies on $15,000 fees foreign students pay, and the institute’s executive director said the district could do more to make the educational experience more fruitful.

“One of the things we would want to suggest is there is a difference between having a business management model versus having an educational plan,” said Sandra Mathison, a UBC education professor and the institute’s executive director.

“There is an argument that could be made incorporating international students in B.C. schools on an education basis, what happens now is entirely a revenue generation strategy.”

For example, she questions whether SD43 continues to need the $37 million revenue from foreign fees to add more resources to local schools when a new Classroom Enhancement Fund set up by the province to fulfill collective agreement requirements following a Supreme Court decision is adding staff to school budgets.

SD43 expects to receive $23.3 million for additional teachers and support staff under the Memorandum of Agreement reached with the teachers’ union.

Mathison suggested the primary reason for international education should be to enhance the educational experience for all students.

And while SD43 does emphasize that international education makes students better prepared for a globally connected world, financial benefits are also important.

In a recent presentation, SD43 pointed out that the program generates $37 million for schools, enabling it to hire more teachers, create more blocks of a popular course, pump $60 million into the local economy and helps disadvantaged students pay for grad.

“By going global, SD43’s International Education Program is generating numerous opportunities for everyone to learn and benefit,” SD43s presentation states.

If education benefits were the priority over financial resources, Mathison says the program would look much different than it does now.

“The international students who are coming are not from central Africa, probably relatively few from middle east, incoming students are not adding a lot of diversity.,” she said, noting the program attracts mostly those who can afford to pay for fees and housing.

“I think there is an argument to be made, when you bring students from other cultures into schools it does create opportunities for new experiences even for domestic students. The challenge is whether the students who are coming in are different enough, if they provide a unique experience by being in the school context to justify that,” Mathison said.

International education could open up to include a broader range of students, some who can’t afford the fees on their own, Mathison said, if education was prioritized over financial benefits.
The institute is also concerned about inequality, Mathison said, because not all school districts are equally positioned to solicit and cater to potential international students.

According to the most recent figures, at more than 2,000 students, SD43 has the largest public school international education program in the province.

Fuente: http://www.tricitynews.com/news/international-education-a-form-of-privatization-group-says-1.23348991

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Malaysia’s International Education by 2020 and Beyond

Noticias

Malaysia/January 16, 2018/By: Kris Olds/ Source: http://www.insidehighered.com

Editor’s note: This guest entry has been kindly contributed by Professor Dato’ Dr Morshidi Sirat. Morshidi was the former Director-General of Higher Education Malaysia, and is now Director of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Facility (CTEF) based at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang. Morshidi is also a Senior Research Fellow at the National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN), Universiti Sains Malaysia. Given Morshidi’s expertise and experience in higher education policy, he is often engaged in consultancy work on higher education policy in Malaysia, then Association of Southeast Asian Region (ASEAN) and the South Pacific Island States.

This entry is based on recent work in ASEAN and South Pacific Island States, specifically to address confusion between international education and the internationalisation of education in many emerging and developing higher education systems. In many systems, these terms are used interchangeably. This entry is an attempt to re-examine international education as a concept and a strategy for both international understanding and economic development as implemented in Malaysia. Arguably, lessons learnt should provide guidance for Malaysia’s international education beyond 2020, especially with respect to the manner in which Malaysia’s citizens “engage with others in this globalised and yet highly divisive world.” Kris Olds

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Malaysia’s International Education by 2020 and Beyond:

Re-examining Concept, Targets and Outcome

Morshidi Sirat

Preamble

It is important to address international education in this era of globalisation and unsettling geopolitical issues, in particular on Malaysia’s response to preparing Malaysians for future global and regional scenarios. Anyone that studies international development dynamics from the ‘people perspective’ as opposed to the ‘economic and neo-liberalism perspective’ will almost immediately agree that we are in dire need of international and intercultural understanding as we try to deal with longstanding and more importantly, emerging geopolitical issues. As such, international education is not merely about the dynamics of flows in terms of the numbers of students, scholars, and/or programs between countries. More importantly, it is about qualitative impact, in particular about the content of international education and related programs. It must be emphasized that “in any educational program, of any educational system, for any educational process and under any educational material”, the aims and objectives of international education must be communicated in order to realise international understanding among nations (Juan Ignacio Martínez de Morentin de Goñi, 2004: 94).

With this as a preamble and context, we can then proceed to re-examine international education as a concept and as a strategy for both international understanding and economic development as implemented in Malaysia.

Introduction

With globalisation, many terms connected with the “international” are loosely defined and liberally adopted in policy circles particularly in the formulation of strategic planning directions on education and higher education. These policy documents and the people behind these policy documents are equally guilty of adopting terms and terminologies without proper definition, contextualisation and correct usage of these terms. Thus, in our attempt to trace and assess the progress of international education in Malaysia to-date it is important at the outset to provide a working definition of ‘international education’. But more importantly, it is pertinent for us to establish whether, at the time of target setting for the so-called international education in 2007 (for the National Higher Education Strategic Plan Phase 1), the Economic Transformation Plan (ETP)and in 2013 (in the case of the Malaysia Education Blueprint), did we conceptualise and operationalise the term ‘international education’ as it should be conceptualised and operationalised? Moving on from issues and questions which I have raised earlier, this entry will begin with a deliberation on the term ‘international education’, detailing the aims and objectives of international education. Subsequently, a working definition is adopted in order to assess where Malaysia is in terms of international education. Following that, the ‘international education’ element in the Malaysia Education Blueprint and the National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP) will be highlighted and the implementation of international education rated. A statement of “where we are” and “where we should be heading” will be offered for further consideration and deliberation based on the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2015-2025 (Higher Education).

What is International Education?

Admittedly, the term ‘international education’ has yet to acquire a single, consistent meaning. The reason for the uncertainty, confusion and disagreement lies partly in the many interpretations of the term ‘international education’. As James (2005:314) notes, further confusion arises because the word ‘international’ itself is equally ambiguous as not all things regarded as international are in essence international. To understand the meaning of international education, we need to explicate the term in terms of aims and objectives.

Epstein (1994: 918) describes ‘international education’ as fostering «an international orientation in knowledge and attitudes and, among other initiatives, brings together students, teachers, and scholars from different nations to learn about and from each other. In other words, “All educative efforts that aim at fostering an international orientation in knowledge and attitudes” (Huse´n and Postlethwaite, 1985: 260) and seek “to build bridges between countries” (McKenzie, 1998: 244) fit this idea of international education. Arum (1987) divides international education into three parts: (1) international studies (including all studies involving the teaching or research of foreign areas and their languages); (2) international educational exchange (involving American students and faculty studying, teaching, and doing research abroad and foreign faculty and students studying, teaching, and doing research in the United States); and (3) technical assistance (involving American faculty and staff working to develop institutions and human resources abroad, primarily in Third World countries).

The justification for international education can be approached from two directions: a ‘top-down’ approach considers addressing global and national needs, and a ‘bottom-up’ approach, that is the development of the individual. These approaches are not mutually exclusive (James, 2005: 315). Thomas (1996: 24), writing on the development of an International Education System, asserts that ‘education is uniquely placed to provide lasting solutions to the major problems facing world society’, problems which transcend political borders (Gellar, 1996).

The Mission and Aims of International Education

Belle-Isle (1986) states that the “mission of international education is to respond to the intellectual and emotional needs of the children of the world, bearing in mind the intellectual and cultural mobility not only of the individual but . . . most of all, of thought”.

The aims of international education are related to developing ‘international understanding’ for ‘global citizenship’, and the knowledge, attitudes and skills of ‘international-mindedness’ and ‘world-mindedness’ (Hayden and Thompson, 1995a, 1995b; Schwindt, 2003; YAIDA, 2007). Admittedly, none of the aims of modern ‘international education’ are exclusively international (James, 2005: 324). Therefore, and in a post-9/11 world, the term ‘internationalist’ may no longer be sufficient to describe the values espoused by the movement; it might be time to transcend ideas based on nation-states (Sarup, 1996; in Gunesch, 2004). Gunesch (2004) proposes ‘cosmopolitanism’ as an alternative name for the outcome intended of ‘international education’ (Mattern, 1991). While the aims of international education are laudable, it is misleading to relate them to internationalism, for they extend beyond differences in nationality (James, 2005: 323). Peterson (1987) asserts that international education seeks instead to produce what might be termed ‘cosmopolitan locals’, who have a national identity, understand others better, seek to co-operate and have friends across frontiers. That cosmopolitan is “familiar with many different countries and cultures” and “free from national prejudices”. OED (2004) indicates the potential limitations of the cosmopolitanism, in associating prejudices with nations. But, it is preferable as a term to ‘international’ in the sense that it does transcend purely nation-based associations.

Towards a Working Definition

Any working definition for international education should appropriately address the issue of “global interconnectedness that characterizes the contemporary world, and point to a form of international understanding required by the citizen of the future that must comprise some understanding of the world perceived as a whole.”

UNESCO experts have developed conceptual approaches to international education that resulted in an operational definition being adopted by UNESCO (1974). I must emphasize here that we are more interested in a working definition and not an academic definition. UNESCO’s effort may be considered as the only large-scale effort to provide a working definition of the term “international education” by a widely recognized international educational body. The definition, agreed at UNESCO General Conference level, combined the elements of international understanding, cooperation and peace with the range of focal points of international education under the overall rubric of “education for international understanding”. UNESCO (1974: 2) outlines the following relevant educational objectives for international education:

  • a curriculum with a global perspective
  • understanding and respect for other peoples and cultures
  • human rights and obligations
  • communication skills
  • awareness of human interdependence
  • necessity for international solidarity
  • engagement by the individual in the local, national and global scale

Malaysia’s International Education

At this juncture, let us pose some pertinent questions: To what extent is international education important in the educational process and the education system in Malaysia? Personally, I like to think it should be important as “There is nothing that is more effective than having nations-states and people break down barriers between themselves.” In fact, in this highly globalised and inter-connected world it is imperative that we understand other cultures, languages, institutions, and traditions. More so, in today’s globalized world, Malaysian students and in fact students of ASEAN need more international experience. For Malaysia, foreign students enrich our campuses and our culture, and they return home with new ideas and ways to strengthen the relationship between countries. But interestingly, since the early 1990s, the market place and international education have become intertwined and international education has and continues to be seen as an engine for growth (see http://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/IIEB/IIEB0114/index.php – /38). Let us not mention the contribution of international students to the Malaysia economy at this juncture as I want to focus on aspects or issues that are beyond the monetary in this entry. That is, I want to focus on to what extent Malaysia has been successful in leveraging international education as a vital part of 21st century diplomacy. Admittedly, we send undergraduates, graduate students, administrators, faculty, and researchers on short and long-term programs abroad but what is more important and pertinent question to ask is: what are the impacts of our programs on students and scholars from abroad in Malaysian education system? Another question that beg some answers: Malaysia education institutions are implementing internationalisation-related activities such as international student mobility, but are these institutions themselves internationalised in its leadership, governance and management arrangement, curriculum content and pedagogy?

The National Higher Education Strategic Plan, 2020 (NHESP), while adopting UNESCO’s operational definition for international education, could not be regarded as intending to progress the comprehensive aims and objectives of international education. This strategic planning document addresses the internationalisation of higher education and not international education. The NHESP fleetingly touched on the aims and objectives of international education by way of the benefits of international exposure and experience. For instance, while a “curriculum with a global perspective” is embedded in many courses offered by Malaysian universities, this is targeted at international student enrolment and recruitment or providing exposure to local students with limited global citizenship or international understanding objective. At best, these are offered at the “exposure level”. Promoting the establishment of Malaysian branches of foreign universities in Malaysia is widely regarded by policy makers as one element of international education. However, the introduction of the Malaysia’s Global Reach component in phase two of the implementation of the NHESP, 2011-2015 is an attempt to insert amendment to what is incomplete from the perspective of international education. Malaysia’s Global Reach was introduced with international education for 21st century diplomacy in mind.

If we examined international education from more recent government documents, in particular the recently launched Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013-2025, it is stated that:

“…it is …imperative that Malaysia compares its education system

against international benchmarks. This is to ensure that

Malaysia is keeping pace with international educational

development.” (Ministry of Education, 2013: 3-5).

Our reading of this important document is that the emphasis is on “international educational development” and not “development in international education.” The international education element of the Blueprint is the International Baccalaureate (IB) programme, which is designed to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect (international education), are offered only in two Fully Residential Schools in Malaysia) (Ministry of Education, 2013:4-6).

At another level, the International Schools, which use international curriculum such as the British, American, Australian, Canadian, or International Baccalaureate programmes, sourced their teachers from abroad. In terms of enrolment, data as of 30 June 2011 shows that 18% of Malaysian students in private education options are enrolled in international schools nationwide (Ministry of Education, 2013:7-11).

With a very restricted notion or definition of international education, based on the NHESP and re-emphasized in the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013-2025, the Performance Management Delivery Unit, and Prime Minister’s Department (PEMANDU) subsequently identified prioritised segments of the education system to drive the economic growth of the nation, namely:

  • Basic Education (primary and secondary), with Entry Point Project (EPP) identifying the private sector as playing an important role in improving basic education in terms of the provision of international education, as well as in the training and upskilling of teachers.
  • Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET), with EPP 12: Championing Malaysia’s International Education Brand aims to position Malaysia as a regional hub of choice in the global education network. This will include marketing vocational training to international students. This EPP’s goal is to transform a foreign student’s experience in Malaysia into one that is comparable to that in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Thus, targets are set as Gross National Income (GNI) by 2020 (mil) RM2, 787.7 and 152,672 -projected jobs by 2020.

The prioritised segments identified above complement the regional education hub, which is the thrust for the NHESP. For the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2015-2025 (Higher Education), the notion of international education was not conceptualised in the context of achieving UNESCO’s aims and objectives of international education as opposed to internationalisation of higher education and its monetary aspect to the Malaysian economy. In this Blueprint, the shifts on “Holistic, Entrepreneurial and Balanced Graduates’ and ‘Global prominence’ are conceived primarily in terms of monetary return and institutional reputation. There is no direct and clear statement in the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2015-2025 (Higher Education), with respect to UNESCO (1974) guidelines on international education and the outcome for the students in a highly interconnected but at the same time highly divisive world. What can we improve upon in the next 15 years, is to present the idea of international education beyond the notion that international education is about “engine of growth for the national economy”. Arguably, we need to re-orientate our efforts towards international understanding, citizenship and (mutual rather than soft power) diplomacy (Knight, 2014).

Conclusion

The term international education has yet to acquire a single, consistent meaning. But the manner in which Malaysia interprets and uses this concept/term in the context of economic development need some reflection and re-examination. We may achieve the targets set for 2020 in terms of international student enrolment in our education system, but what about the real aims and objectives of international education, which is to realise international understanding among nations. We need to seriously examine whether the aims and objectives of international education are effectively embedded in Malaysia’s (i) educational program, (ii) educational system, (ii) educational process and (iv) educational material.” There is a need to reassess Malaysia’s commitment towards creating the goals of international mindedness and ‘international understanding’ beyond 2020 and in the context of the Transformasi Nasional 2050 or National Transformation 2050 (TN50). In the case of Malaysia, where economic development is of top priority, we need to seriously think in terms of the economic impetus for better intercultural understanding. Nothing much could move forward in the Malaysian context unless and until there are clear economic impetus for any initiatives coming out of the higher education institutions. We need to re-look at this economic premise if we are to emerge as a nation of ‘global prominence” with respect to the manner our citizen engage with others in this globalised and yet highly divisive world.

References

ARUM, S. ‘International Education: What Is It? A Taxonomy of International Education of U.S. Universities.’ CIEE Occasional Papers on International Educational Exchange, 1987, 23, 5–22.

BELLE-ISLE, R. (1986) ‘Learning for a new humanism’. International Schools Journal 11 Springs: 27–30.

EPSTEIN, E.H. (1994). Comparative and International Education: Overview and Historical Development. In: Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite, eds., International Encyclopaedia of Education (p.918–923). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

GELLAR, C.A. (1996) ‘Educating for world citizenship’ International Schools Journal 16(1): 5–7.

GUNESCH, K. (2004) ‘Education for cosmopolitism? Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity model for and within international education’. Journal of Research in International Education 3: 251–75.

HAYDEN, M.C. AND THOMP SON, J. J. (1995a) ‘International Education: The crossing of frontiers’. International Schools Journal 15(1): 13–20.

HAYDEN, M.C. AND THOMP SON, J. J. (1995b) ‘International Schools and International Education: A relationship reviewed’. Oxford Review of Education 21(3): 327–45

HUSE´ N, T. AND POSTLETHWAITE , T.N. (1985) The International Encyclopaedia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon.

JAMES, KIERAN. (2005). ‘International education: The concept, and its relationship to intercultural education Journal of Research in International Education’, December 2005; vol. 4, 3: pp. 313-332. Available at: http://jri.sagepub.com/content/4/3/313.full.pdf+html

JUAN IGNACIO MARTÍNEZ DE MORENTIN DE GOÑI. (2004). What is International Education? UNESCO Answers. San Sebastian: UNESCO Centre. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001385/138578e.pdf

KNIGHT, JANE. (2014). ‘The limits of soft power in higher education’. University World News, 31 January 2014 Issue No:305.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (2013.) Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013-2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

OED (2004). The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PETERSON, A.D.C. (1987). Schools across Frontiers: the Story of the International Baccalaureate and the United World Colleges. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

MATTERN, W.G. (1991). ‘Random ruminations on the curriculum of the international school’, in P.L. Jonietz and D. Harris (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education, pp. 209–16. London: Kogan Page.

McKENZI E , M. (1998). ‘Going, going, gone . . . global!’, in M.C. Hayden and J.J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, pp. 242–52. London: Kogan Page.

SARUP, M. (1996). Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

SCHWINDT, E . (2003). ‘The development of a model for international education with special reference to the role of host country nationals’. Journal of Research in International Education 2(1): 67–81.

THOMAS , P. (1998). ‘Education for peace: The cornerstone of international education’, in M.C. Hayden and J.J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, pp. 103–18. London: Kogan Page.

UNESCO (1974). Recommendations Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: adopted by the General Conference at its eighteenth session in Paris, November, 1974. UNESCO, Paris.

YAIDA PUSUSILTHORN (2007). International Mindedness among Expatriate Teachers in Bangkok Patana School. MA Thesis. Language Institute, Thammasat University, Bangkok. Feb. available at: http://digi.library.tu.ac.th/thesis/lg/0262/01TITLE.pdf

Source:
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/globalhighered/malaysia%E2%80%99s-international-education-2020-and-beyond
Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Education Malaysia Global Services ready to work with police on visa abuse, says COO

Noticias

Malaysia/ October 17, 2017/Source: http://www.themalaymailonline.com

The Education Malaysia Global Services (EMGS) will co-operate with the Royal Malaysia Police on the issue of abusing student visa which pose a serious threat to national security.

Its chief operations officer Prof Datuk Dr Rujhan Mustafa said EMGS viewed the matter seriously and would ensure Malaysia’s integrity as an international education hub was preserved.

“There are several processes and screening involved in the processing of international student pass including continuous co-operation between the agencies involved in the exchange of information to determine the effectiveness of student management.

“Among aspects screened before receiving any recommendation from EMGS for approval of student pass by the Immigrant Department of Malaysia is that every course offered to international students must obtain full accreditation from the Malaysia Qualification Agency (MQA),” he said in a statement today.

Yesterday, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohamad Fuzi Harun was reported as saying that police had detected the existence of a syndicate bringing in Foreign Terrorist Fighters (FTF) to Malaysia through various methods, including by using student visas, following the detention of 48 suspects.

Rujhan said EMGS would conduct a detailed review on individuals involved in such activities after receiving details from the police and welcomed the effort of institutions of higher learning to always monitor their students and report any unlawful activities. — Bernama

Source:
Read more at http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/education-malaysia-global-services-ready-to-work-with-police-on-visa-abuse#bhj4e2pIL7Xckl2q.99

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »