Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Internationally, there has been a growing interest among educational systems in reassessing the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary for success in the 21st-century global world. This paper aims to add to the literature about how and to what extent the global emphasis in education is approached, framed, and practiced within different national contexts at the primary and secondary level. The focus is on the federal US education system, where internationalization pathways are established and shaped by a complex constellation of actors, as well as horizontal and vertical policy directions. Specifically, this article discusses recent US discourses and frameworks of internationalization and provides an overview of the ways in which the public school system in Washington, DC has pursued a comprehensive approach to internationalization, which is both locally responsive and inclusive.

Keywords

Internationalization global competence global education federal United States innovation in education inclusion

Introduction

Internationally, there has been a growing interest among educational systems in reassessing the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary for success in the 21st-century global world. Both the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) articulate the need for international education initiatives aimed at building global competence and global citizenship, yet little is still known about how and to what extent the global emphasis in primary and secondary education is approached, framed, and practiced within different national contexts.

In the United States (US), there is a highly fragmented context for internationalization of compulsory schooling, where discourse of policymakers, educational leaders, and stakeholders at multiple levels has increasingly emphasized the importance of global citizenship and competence among US students (US Department of Education, 2018). This fragmentation relates to the complexity of the US education system, in which internationalization pathways are established and demarcated by a complex constellation of actors – both governmental and non-governmental – and which involve horizontal and vertical policy directions (Savage and O’Conner, 2015). Given the flexibility engendered by the federal US education system, which bolsters considerable local control, this article discusses recent US discourses and frameworks of internationalization and provides insight into the ways in which the federal city of Washington, DC – a hyper-local case – has become a “laboratory of innovation” for internationalization of US schools (Wallner, Savage, Hartong and Engel, 2018).

The paper is organized into three sections. The first section provides a broad literature review of internationalization of education. Second, I discuss internationalization within the US primary and secondary schooling context, where a growing emphasis has been placed on fostering global competence across various levels and by a range of policy actors, but which has resulted in a multitude of internationalization pathways. Third, I focus on the case of District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) Global Education, a unit within the central DCPS office launched in 2014, describing and elaborating some of the key examples of its internationalization programming and practices. This case illustrates a unique innovation in internationalization across a local system – one led by goals of equitable access to global learning and local responsiveness to the DC community. Through the case study, this article is able to provide new insights into local pathways of school-level internationalization within a federal system, as well as illustrate a model of comprehensive and inclusive internationalization, filling a notable gap within literature related to internationalization of schools.

Internationalization of schools

Frequently invoked, the concept of internationalization emerging from literature in international higher education and, more recently, being applied to the context of schools contains intercultural, international, and global dimensions of education (Knight, 2015; Yemini, 2012). At the primary and secondary level, the term internationalization often is used interchangeably with global education, global citizenship, and global competence, all of which entail intercultural, international, and global dimensions. Despite the frequent debates over terminology (e.g. Frey and Whitehead, 2009; Torres, 2015), internationalization refers to a set of processes and approaches evolving in response to an increasingly globalized world. It stresses cross-national and cross-cultural relationships, maintains a “sense of worldwide scope” (Knight, 2015: 3), and considers global competency a primary output (Cantu, 2013).

Within systems, there are a variety of rationales (e.g. economic, political, sociocultural, academic) underlying the initiatives in internationalization, complicating our understanding of what is meant by internationalization, why it is indeed significant, and how it is practiced (De Wit, 2002; Engel and Siczek, 2017, 2018; Torres, 2015; Warner, 1992). As summarized in Engel and Siczek (2017), rationales of internationalization vary from global cooperation and justice-oriented social transformation to market-based national competition and security. Several may be employed simultaneously, as evidenced by recent frameworks developed by international organizations (Engel, Cannon, and Fundalinski, 2016; Engel and Siczek, 2018). For example, UNESCO (2015) refers to cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral aspects of global citizenship education, stressing the importance of relationships across cultural boundaries, with emphasis on the interconnections between local, national, and even global spaces. This rationale leans toward a more liberal and social transformative worldview (Warner, 1992). In another example, the OECD (2018) has defined global competence as

the capacity to examine local, global and intercultural issues, to understand and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others, to engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions with people from different cultures, and to act for collective well-being and sustainable development. (7)

Here, too, the liberal and social transformative models are illustrated in their focus on tolerance and sustainable development; yet, also within the OECD’s framework there is a notion of the knowledge, aptitudes, and behaviors required for success in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, which arguably represents a more market-based orientation.

Much of the literature stresses a wide-ranging approach to internationalization, often reflecting these multiple policy rationales. Coined as “comprehensive internationalization,” this approach reflects “a commitment to action to infuse international, global, and comparative content and perspective throughout the teaching, research and service missions” of education (Hudzik, 2011: 10). Scholars have argued that comprehensive internationalization leads to

development of skills, competences, attitudes, and values;

a culture to support international/intercultural perspectives;

attention to the link between internationalisation and overall educational quality;

integration of reflexivity into everyday school life; and

greater access of all students to internationalization. (de Wit and Engel, 2015: 201)

More than an “add-on” or “extra” educational program or focus, comprehensive internationalization aims to infuse globally relevant curriculum and pedagogy, a global ethos of inclusion and belonging, and global experiences throughout the education system. There is therefore an assumed potential for internationalization to facilitate broader goals of educational equity and quality learning (de Wit and Engel, 2015).

Comprehensive internationalization is a manifestation of a variety of programs, policies, and activities (Helms and Brajkovik, 2017) representing what Knight (2004) referred to as “at home” and “abroad” internationalization practices. Applied to the context of schooling, “at home” orientations, for instance, might include school-level strategies or curricular/extracurricular pedagogical approaches, such as the teaching of world languages or internationalizing teacher professional development, whereas “abroad” internationalization of schools might include incoming and outgoing mobility programs for students and educators (Engel, Cannon, and Fundalinski, 2016). However, rather than a blanket “one size fits all,” it is stressed that comprehensive internationalization approaches should be tailored to fit the contextual factors within the local institution or school, as well as the needs within the surrounding community. In higher education, for example, scholars have pointed to both internal and external conditions, assets, strategic alliances, and expertise emboldened by the institution as central factors in the shape and content of internationalization within the institution (Hudzik, 2011; Knight, 2004). As such, while broad components of internationalization, such as mobility programs or curricular innovations, are held in common, there is an emphasis on the institution remaining locally responsive as it shapes its internationalization approach and associated practices.

Scholars also advocate for inclusive internationalization, citing the considerable equity gaps in access to global opportunities that exist locally, nationally, and worldwide (de Wit and Jones, 2018). As shown in the literature, including in England, the US, and Israel, students of more elite backgrounds tend to pursue educational opportunities with an international focus (Brooks and Waters, 2015). For example, study abroad opportunities for US students are more frequently accessible to white students of more affluent backgrounds (Engel, 2017). Research in the Israeli context (Goren and Yemini, 2017; Yemini, 2014) suggests that schools tend to create internationalization strategies based upon the socio-economic and cultural backgrounds of the students served in the school. Collectively, this research points to different school-level internationalization strategies, approaches, and practices within a single national space, reflecting a similar trend to that in the higher education sphere, where higher education institutions vary considerably by the different internationalization initiatives they offer, often tailored to both the realities and the imagined futures of the students served (Helms and Brajkovic, 2017; Hudzik, 2011). However, in the compulsory schooling space, it is not simply a matter of supply of options but also the demand of parents and communities. There is a tendency, as shown in Weenink’s (2008) research, for elite classes to seek out international education experiences for their children, viewing internationalization as a primary means to enhance their children’s competitiveness.

The above overview of literature related to internationalization – its definitions, orientations, and approaches – points to a need to examine what the “global turn” in schooling looks like, the extent to which systems are pursuing internationalization, and the character of these approaches. These issues are often not studied in compulsory schooling, especially in federal systems, where more of a shared governance structure entails power being distributed across local, state (or sub-nation), and federal levels. As Wallner et al. (2018) described, in federal systems, sub-nations, and, I would argue, in the context of the US even local districts, can become “laboratories of innovation” for a range of policy ideas, including those like internationalization, which could be challenging to promote at a national scale. The following section provides a summary of the recent attention within the US on the internationalization of education before elaborating the case of DCPS Global Education.

Internationalization of US schools

The US system is decentralized, whereby individual states and local authorities possess considerable control over education. The federal government maintains the US Department of Education, established in 1867, which has long had a controversial and changing role (Harris, Ladd, Smith, et al., 2016). Over the past several decades of educational reform, the federal government has become more influential in education policy formation at state and local levels, with new developments in test-based accountability and standards-based reforms (e.g. Engel and Olden, 2012; Manna, 2011). This evolving role is largely a response to shifts – both economic and demographic – that have shaped the US societal landscape since the 1980s (Fowler, 2004) and fervent concerns over the stagnation of US students’ global competitiveness, spurred by the 1983 A Nation at Risk report and continued in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, as well as more recent reforms (Engel and Siczek, 2018).

US states, which each have their own state-level departments of education, are largely responsible for educational governance including financial, political, and administrative aspects. Adding to the complexity, each individual state’s educational governance model varies, as some states are more centralized than others. Additionally, local levels in the US carry considerable power over educational decision-making, both at the school and district level. At the local level, in addition to school-level leadership, there is a school board comprised of members elected by the public, a superintendent, and staff within a school district.

At the same time, various cross-state organizations, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, and interest groups are key education policy actors in the US, resulting in a system that involves both horizontal and vertical policy flows (Savage and O’Conner, 2015). From advocacy organizations (e.g. Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which helped inspire the re-establishment of the bipartisan Congressional 21st Century Skills Caucus) through powerful teachers’ unions (e.g. the National Education Association, which has supported global competence education) to philanthropic entities (e.g. the Longview Foundation and the Aspen Institute’s Stephens Initiative, which financially support internationalization activities across the US), non-governmental organizations are advocating for advanced internationalization of US schools (e.g. policy statements emphasizing US students’ globally relevant skills: Barker, 2000; Committee for Economic Development, 2006; the National Education Association, 2010; National Research Council, 2007; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).

In response to a building momentum around the importance of global competence, in 2018 the US Department of Education re-released its first-ever international education strategy, initially published in 2012, entitled Succeeding globally through international education and engagement. The strategy outlines three objectives: increase global competencies, learn from and with other countries to improve US education, and engage in education diplomacy. The strategy focuses on education for global and cultural competence, framed as encompassing skills and knowledge for understanding and action, with emphasis on “expanding access to international education and training, especially for traditionally underrepresented students” (US Department of Education, 2018: 4). Analysis of the 2012 strategy suggests an overarching “nationalistic perspective[…] one that seems more concerned with economic and educational competition over broader goals of global citizenship” (Engel and Siczek, 2018: 28). Global competence is thereby articulated as a means to be globally competitive at an individual and national level.

Although arguably there has been an increasing discourse focused on global competence, the internationalization of US schooling has tended to be “fragmented” and divided across states and districts (Ortloff and Shonia, 2015; Rapoport, 2010). In many instances, internationalization at the state and local level precedes the development of any federal initiative, such as the US international education strategy. Some states have developed internationalization initiatives, such as Utah’s focus on teaching world languages, North Carolina’s state-wide Task Force on Global Education, or Wisconsin’s Global Education Achievement Certificate, whereas other states do not have – or have only recently developed – a global focus, such as Illinois, which recently launched its state-wide Global Scholars Certificate Program. Adding to the fragmentation of US internationalization, the literature suggests that often teachers, despite an interest in internationalization, are unaware, uncomfortable, and/or underprepared to lead internationalization initiatives (Engel and Siczek, 2017, 2018; Rapoport, 2010), fueling initiatives to internationalize teacher education and teacher professional development in different places (Longview Foundation, 2008).

In part, this fragmentation is symbolic of the decentralized governance of the US system, designed to keep authority at local and state levels, yet fragmentation is also reflective of the deep inequities within the US education system, which bolsters widely varying access to educational opportunities (Reardon, Kalogrides, and Shores, 2016). Indicating a lack of inclusive internationalization across the US, access to world languages, the International Baccalaureate program, experiential international education programs, and study abroad are frequently not as widely accessed by underrepresented student groups. The US system therefore presents an important context for examining internationalization of compulsory schooling with questions about whether and to what extent schools and school systems are embracing internationalization and in what forms.

Methods

This paper focuses on a case study of DCPS Global Education programming since its launch in 2014. I draw upon contextual and qualitative data collected as part of an ongoing mixed-methods study (2016–present) of outcomes related to one of the signature DCPS Global Education programs: DCPS Study Abroad. These data include publicly available information and documents, presentation materials, internal DCPS reports and data, field notes from program events, three evaluation reports, and individual interviews carried out in 2016 and 2018 with staff involved in the design and implementation of the different DCPS Global Education programs.

The case study was driven by a basic interpretive qualitative design to make meaning of the internationalization approach developed by DCPS Global Education. I examined these data for common themes and patterns against the body of literature related to internationalization. These themes included the various types of approaches to internationalization reflected in the data, including “abroad” and “at home” internationalization, as well as the goals/objectives of these different programs. Key questions included ‘What are these programs designed to do?’ and ‘What objectives are articulated?’ I also examined the outreach and inclusion of these different approaches to internationalization, asking ‘Who are these programs and initiatives aimed at, and who has access to them?’ I do not report outcomes of any of these programs as the aim is to illustrate the approach to internationalization undertaken within the DCPS context.

Global Education in DC Public Schools

Washington, DC occupies a unique place in the US political landscape. Although the city is not a state in its own right, it also does not fall under the jurisdiction of any state. This was the result of political compromise among the country’s founding leaders and a deliberate choice to ensure that the seat of government would be less vulnerable to influence by any single state. The result is a hybrid model that differs dramatically from the 50 states. Washington, DC citizens have no voting representatives in the US Congress. Their budget is partially controlled by the federal budgeting process, giving Congress disproportionate influence in DC relative to the states. DC City Council, DC Mayor, and the DC State Board of Education in some ways function just like representatives in any US city, but they also take on some roles usually reserved for the state level of government. For the DC State Board of Education, one of these roles is in education policy leadership, where the Board functions both as state and school district leadership for DC. Given that education policy in the US context is usually largely determined by a combination of state and school district decisions, the Washington, DC context offers a glimpse into decisions an empowered and flexible district has made within the multi-scalar US federal system.

The Washington, DC setting offers both tremendous opportunities for global education and compelling reasons to invest in it. As the capital of the US and center for political activity, Washington, DC is home to an incredible array of global resources, including the hundreds of foreign embassies, international organizations, globally focused research, cultural and non-profit organizations, and a host of museums and other cultural institutions. Yet, often these learning opportunities have not been fully accessible to all students in Washington, DC. There are multiple reasons for this lack of access, among them the considerable income and racial inequality present in Washington, DC. According to 2016 American Community Survey data, Washington, DC had a higher level of income inequality than any state in the US, with households in the highest quintile earning 29 times that of the lowest, which means students in different parts of the city live in dramatically different socio-economic surroundings (US Census Bureau, 2016). Compared to the 12.7% national average, 18.6% of DC residents lived in poverty, and the poverty rate disproportionally affected DC’s residents of color, as only 7.9% of white DC residents fell beneath the poverty line compared to 27.9% of Black residents and 17.8% of Latinx residents (Naveed, 2017).

A city that was once predominantly African American has, in recent times, become more diverse. For example, whereas 70% of the DC population was African American in 1970, the percentage has recently dropped below 50%. This decline is associated with patterns of gentrification, which has increased the share of white residents in the district (Orfield and Ee, 2017). Moreover, according to the American Immigration Council (2017), one in every seven residents of Washington, DC is an immigrant, which is about 14% of the total DC population. Linguistically, 17% of all DC residents speak a language other than English at home (US Census Bureau, 2016).

According to DCPS data from the 2017–2018 school year (DCPS, 2018), 77% of the DCPS student population is economically disadvantaged and 14% are English-language learners. Demographically, 84% of DCPS students are students of color (60% Black, 20% Hispanic, and 4% Asian, Multi-Racial or Other). Despite the increasing diversity in DC, its schools have remained segregated by race and economic class, which Orfield and Ee (2017) argue is associated with lower academic achievement in DC schools enrolling higher proportions of low-income students of color. DCPS has persistent achievement gaps: African American students’ 2015 graduation rates (61.7%) are significantly lower than white students’ (85.6%). A 2016 Stanford study indicated that along with having one of the largest Black–white achievement gaps, DC also has a wide Hispanic–white achievement gap (Reardon, Kalogrides, and Shores, 2016).

In DCPS, as in many districts in the US, there have been notable gaps in access to global educational opportunities, which have historically been more accessible in affluent schools enrolling higher proportions of white students. For example, short-term abroad experiences traditionally were offered in DC schools where families of students were able to fund those experiences, and there was an overall lack of world language access in schools enrolling higher proportions of low-income students of color. With a core focus on providing all students with access to global learning opportunities, in 2014, under the leadership of Chancellor Kaya Henderson, DCPS formed its current Global Education unit. Part of the central office, the mission of DCPS Global Education is “providing the resources, expertise and opportunities necessary to ensure that every DCPS graduate is an inquisitive, informed and active world citizen, prepared for success in college, career and life in an increasingly diverse international community” (DCPS, n.d.a). Global education is defined as “an interdisciplinary approach to learning the content, concepts and 21st century skills necessary to succeed in an increasingly interconnected and culturally diverse world” (DCPS, n.d.b). Frequent mention is made of building global competence among students through “an understanding of world languages, global cultures and international issues” (DCPS, n.d.-b).

The main areas under Global Education include ongoing but intermittent programs, such as the Embassy Adoption Program and International Food Days, curricular and pedagogical initiatives, such as World Languages, International Baccalaureate and Global Studies Program Schools, and transformative programs such as DCPS Study Abroad Program and a Local Global Spaces pilot program. In addition, DCPS uses two diploma recognitions – the Seal of Biliteracy and the Global Scholar Certificate to signal global education achievement for high school graduates. According to a DCPS staff member, these areas were originally intended to be coherent and comprehensive: “from the beginning when I started, the way that the Director talked about our work is we’re going to have world languages instruction, global programming and global studies” (Engel, personal communication) with a vision for a fully funded mobility program. The following discussion will provide insights into these initiatives and how they serve the goals of increasing global competence, connecting the local to the global by leveraging DC as an international city and focusing on equitable access to learning experiences associated with global education. Together, they are not only reflective of a comprehensive form of internationalization but also serve larger aims of equity and quality learning for all students, suggesting a model of inclusive internationalization.

DCPS Global Education programming takes advantage of the opportunities inherent in Washington, DC’s local situation, a city filled with international entities. One of the older global education programs unique to DCPS is the Embassy Adoption Program, established in 1974 to “expose DCPS students to international perspectives and cross-cultural lessons” (DCPS, n.d.c) via communication with diplomats. The Embassy Adoption Program is a partnership between DCPS and the Washington Performing Arts. Since its inception, over 50,000 students have participated in the program, interacting with over 100 embassies (DCPS, n.d.d). Classrooms of students aged approximately 10–12 years old (fifth and sixth grades) are paired with volunteer embassies and other global entities. During the school year, the classroom learns about the represented country by exploring its food, culture, arts, history, and government. Ultimately, the classrooms participate in a mini UN scenario with other Embassy Adoption Program classrooms. Students then prepare and deliver presentations to share what they have learned (DCPS, n.d.d). According to the DCPS Global Education Year in Review (2017), there is an effort to grow the number of participating classrooms from 50 to 100 by 2020, widening access to the benefits of this program.

As a reflection of intercultural dimensions of internationalization, DCPS also leverages its local environment through the DCPS International Food Day program. Each year, DCPS partners with local embassies to have DCPS Food and Nutrition Services create and prepare a menu representing food from a chosen country (DCPS, n.d.e). Past menus have varied widely, including Bolivia (January 2017), Belgium (October 2017), Cameroon (May 2018), and Curacao (October 2015). The idea is to engage in “food diplomacy” (DCPS, n.d.e), introducing all DCPS students to different perspectives through cuisine. Not only does this program use local resources through connections to the embassies, but it also applies them in an equitable way. All DCPS school lunches served on International Food Days serve the international menu, making global cuisine available to all DCPS students.

In addition to these in-school programs, DCPS offers a World Language program consisting of seven languages of instruction (American Sign Language, Arabic, French, Italian, Latin, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish) and offers content across these languages from kindergarten to Advanced Placement level courses in high school. DCPS invested heavily in world languages starting in 2012, expanding instruction to begin in kindergarten for all students. In comparison, across the US, world language instruction is declining among public elementary schools: in 2008, only 15% of elementary schools offered world language instruction (Pufahl and Rhodes, 2011). In DCPS, students have an opportunity to receive up to two credits of world language coursework in middle school and must complete a minimum of two credits by high school to meet graduation requirements.

Despite these innovations in world language study, considerable gaps remain in access to world language instruction across DC schools. DCPS data from an internal report suggest that in 2016–2017, 93% of white middle school students received world language instruction compared to 66% of students of color. At the high school level, the gap is narrower: 69% of white students received world language instruction compared with 58% of students of color. Examining access to world languages by income, 88% of middle school students not eligible for Free and Reduced-priced Meals (generally an indicator of higher socio-economic status) received world language instruction compared with only 63% of those who are eligible for Free and Reduced-priced Meals. At the high school level, 65% of students not eligible for Free and Reduced-priced Meals received world language instruction compared with 57% of those eligible for Free and Reduced-priced Meals. In a school system serving a majority of low-income students of color and where attaining world language course credits is a graduation requirement, these data reflect inequities in access to world language instruction, with greater opportunities for affluent white students.

One of the challenges noted by DCPS is the lack of a steady world languages teacher workforce. An innovative attempt to provide further access to world language instruction is the DCPS Global Education partnership with the Peace Corps in a program named the DC Global Language Corps (DC GLC). The DC GLC brings returned Peace Corps volunteers with proficiency in DCPS’ seven languages of instruction into DCPS classrooms as world language teachers (DCPS, 2017; DCPS, n.d.f). This program operates as an alternative route to teacher licensure, leveraging the skills of individuals with considerable linguistic and global competencies. As part of the program, DC GLC members completing specific requirements, including ongoing professional development and teacher evaluation, can receive their DC Teaching License after two years (DCPS, 2017).

Reflecting a more whole-school internationalization approach, there are currently eight schools using the IB program (DCPS, 2017). Following the IB model, these schools offer globally oriented curriculum and inquiry-based projects. The school settings are diverse, serving students of different racial and economic backgrounds. Additionally, in 2016 DCPS opened three Global Studies schools: one elementary, one middle school, and one high school. Each of the schools bolsters high percentages of low-income students of color. Pedagogy at the Global Studies schools flows from a collaboration between DCPS and Harvard’s Project Zero, supporting selected Teacher Fellows in globally oriented teacher professional development. According to Project Zero,

This initiative takes the local cultural capital of the city – i.e., its ethnic diversity, cultural life, neighborhoods identity, cultural institutions, NGOs and international presence – as a point of departure. It does so in order to nurture a form of global competence that opens students’ minds and engagement with the world while also deepening their local belonging as they explore manifestations of the world in their city, Washington DC. (Project Zero, n.d.)

The Project Zero focus on capitalizing on DC as an international city and connecting the local to the global indicates the ways in which DCPS leverages its local environment to serve its global education goals. Global Studies schools actively reach out to and welcome partners in order to expose students to engaging global content (DCPS, n.d.g). The aim to infuse global themes throughout the curriculum and the K-12 pathway of the Global Studies schools, from elementary to high school, is indicative of a comprehensive approach to internationalization with emphasis on both teacher and student global competence.

Additionally, an inclusive form of internationalization appears to be a core mission of these programs. For example, there are frequent statements of “all students can be global citizens” and “all teachers can be global educators” (DCPS, n.d.a). According to a DCPS staff member,

DCPS has always been committed to equity… it's always been part of our core values, a recognition of DC's unique identity as a global city, the responsibility this city has to its citizens and its young people, to prepare them for the careers that are waiting for them in their backyard and beyond, to prepare them for the diversity in the world, and offer them a million more opportunities than they might have even dreamed of as possible (Engel, personal communication).

The mission of equitable access to global learning opportunities is at the heart of the design and implementation of the DCPS Study Abroad Program with its aim to make study abroad “the expectation, not the exception” for all students (DCPS, n.d.a).

The Study Abroad Program, launched in 2015–2016, stemmed from the “vision of Chancellor Henderson to send all eighth and eleventh graders abroad,” according to a DCPS Global Education staff member (Engel, personal communication). The Study Abroad Program supports short-term global trips during the summer for selected eligible DCPS students in middle and high school. The program, the first trips for which took place in the summer of 2016, covers the full costs of travel for students regardless of family income or grade point average and aims to help prepare students for success in an increasingly diverse global community. Its primary focus is enhancing equity by offering all students opportunities to study abroad regardless of socio-economic status, gender, or racial/ethnic background. With initial funding of US$2m from the DC Public Education Fund, and now supported by public funds, the program offers travel opportunities to middle and high school students, students who have been identified as requiring special accommodations, and students attending one of four Opportunity Academies, which serve overage students who do not have sufficient credits to graduate.

The program is the nation’s first fully funded K-12 global travel program, sending students to a choice of locations – including New York City – in total 18 countries. To date, over 1800 students and educators have studied abroad through this program, which has provided over 800 new passports to program participants. It is an application-based program, which is weighted individually toward those who do not have previous travel experiences. The number of placements per school is weighted by the school’s Title I percentage, an indicator of the percentages of children from low-income families that a school serves. In contrast to higher education study abroad, where participants are overwhelmingly white and often affluent, 91% of 2017 travelers were students of color (higher than the DCPS average of 84%), and 85% of students in 2017 were eligible for the Free and Reduced-priced Meals scheme. The majority of students (67% of total students in 2017) are first-time international travelers. The study abroad program, now in its fourth year of operation, is a model initiative building equitable access to overseas experiences, shifting the narrative around who can and ought to be global citizens (for further background on this program and related outcomes, see Engel et al., 2017, 2018).

As a final example of a locally driven internationalization initiative, DCPS launched the Local Global Spaces pilot program for students who applied to the Study Abroad but were placed on the wait list. Its aim is to expose teachers and students affiliated with DCPS to global influences in Washington, DC, as well as empower them to discover new global spaces in their local communities and neighborhoods. Launched in 2017–2018, Local Global Spaces organizes single day-long learning tours of Washington, DC, aimed at exposing students to learning about the global nature of their city. In doing so, students embark on cross-cultural learning experiences to drive their curiosity, empathy, and global competence. The program partners DC students and educators with the Leading Men Fellows (recent DCPS male graduates of color who are recruited to return to the classroom as trained educators), as well as representatives of local DC institutions such as the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art, Freer Gallery of Art, Pulitzer Center, and the Washington Performing Arts. While on the tour, students complete reflective journals, which include a series of questions designed using Project Zero’s Global Thinking Routines to encourage global and cross-cultural thinking (Boix Mansilla, 2016).

Lastly, DCPS Global Education offers two district-wide diploma programs, including the Seal of Biliteracy and the Global Scholars Certificate. The Seal of Biliteracy, offered in 34 states and Washington, DC, allows DCPS juniors and seniors proficient in at least two languages to apply for the chance to receive this diploma award (Seal of Biliteracy, n.d.). More recently launched in DCPS is the Global Scholars Certificate, an opportunity for students, beginning in tenth grade, to earn a certificate recognizing their global understanding and competence gained through globally oriented coursework and experiences (Manise, 2018). In doing so, DCPS joins a group of states, including North Carolina, Illinois, and Wisconsin, who also have recently offered similar versions of Global Scholars Certificates (Global Education Certificate, n.d.).

Discussion

An increasing focus both internationally and domestically in the US is placed on internationalization, an approach that integrates intercultural, international, and global dimensions into education. More frequently studied at the higher education level, internationalization seeks to build the kinds of competencies required of the more interconnected and interdependent global world. This paper has sought to build additional knowledge of the formation of internationalization initiatives within the compulsory schooling space of a federal system. The paper has explored the case of the public school system in Washington, DC and its recent internationalization efforts, since the launch of the DCPS Global Education unit in 2014.

Much of these local efforts align with what scholars in higher education have referred to as comprehensive and inclusive internationalization. The intention of comprehensive approaches is to ensure that internationalization is infused within the institution in a systematic and deliberate way and, in doing so, can serve as a mechanism to advance equity and inclusion. The robust programming within DCPS Global Education represents intentionality in the formation of both “abroad” and “at home” approaches that include examples of globally oriented content, world language learning, teacher professional development, experiential learning, and mobility-based programming. Intentionality is also illustrated in the mission of DCPS Global Education to provide opportunities so that all students and educators can be global citizens, a core mission that guides its specific initiatives. Yet, in a context compounding considerable racial and economic segregation with persistent gaps in academic achievement, the case of how DCPS Global Education is implementing its vision for comprehensive and inclusive internationalization is revealing. While several of its initiatives, in particular its Study Abroad Program, arguably shift narratives surrounding elitism and internationalization (Maxwell, Deppe, Kruger, et al., 2018), other aspects, such as the lack of equitable access to world language instruction, illustrate some of the considerable barriers to instituting inclusive internationalization.

Additionally, comprehensive approaches to internationalization in post-secondary education emphasize the importance of leveraging local context and institutional strengths. There are several informative aspects in the case of DCPS Global Education and how it leverages and arguably enhances its local context. For example, one of the common themes emerging in this case study is the leveraging of available partners in a city rich with global resources. These include, for example, partnerships with a range of DC-based organizations, cultural institutions, and embassies. In this way, DCPS Global Education is developing a localized and locally responsive form of internationalization. This more localized approach is also illustrated in the ways that several programs build relationships across schools and communities in DC. For example, in the Study Abroad and Local Global Spaces programs, students are participating from across schools and neighborhoods of Washington, DC, contributing, albeit at a small scale, to social cohesion within the local urban space. These are also examples therefore of globally oriented programming in local spaces that can enhance student engagement in local environments, as well as deepen student relationships across socio-economic, cultural, and racial/ethnic divides.

Furthermore, this article’s focus on the unique case of Washington, DC’s public school initiatives in global education has been suggestive of how internationalization can be powerfully innovative at a local level within a federal system. One illustration is the ways that local levels become spaces to invent or transform practice, what Wallner et al. (2018) referred to as “laboratories of innovation.” In the current US landscape, in which terms like “global citizenship” can be highly politicized (Engel and Siczek, 2017), local levels may perhaps be the leading policy spaces to leverage internationalization initiatives in ways that the federal government, both structurally and politically, is unable to do. With considerable space and autonomy to develop grassroots programs and strategies of internationalization, the extent to which they can be sustained over time is unknown. Moreover, it is not clear to what extent districts and states within the US borrow or inform one another’s practices in internationalization, if at all, nor is it clear if local district initiatives can and do inform federal-level policy guidance related to internationalization. Future research is therefore needed to generate new knowledge about multiple pathways (both horizontal and vertical) of internationalization of compulsory schooling within federal systems.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Heidi Gibson and the staff of DCPS Global Education.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Laura C Engel is an Associate Professor of international education and international affairs and Director of the International Education program at the George Washington University in Washington, DC. Her interdisciplinary research on globalization, citizenship, and education policy in federal systems has appeared in over 50 publications, including in Educational Policy, Compare, and Comparative Education Review. Her current projects focus on equitable access to global education. She is leading projects on outcomes of K-12 study abroad and the creation and exchange of digital environmental storytelling in Arctic and non-Arctic urban classrooms. She holds a PhD in Education Policy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

References

American Immigration Council (2017) Immigrants in the district of Columbia. Report, American Immigration Council, USA, October. Available at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-in-washington-dc (accessed 18 October 2018).

Barker

(2000) Education for international understanding and global competence. Report, Carnegie Corporation of New York, USA, January. Available at: https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/6d/b0/6db0fdc1-f2b1-4eea-982a-a313cea6822c/ccny_meeting_2000_competence.pdf (accessed 20 October 2018).

Boix Mansilla

(2016) How to be a global thinker: Using global thinking routines to create classroom cultures that nurture global competence. Education Leadership 74(4): 10–16.

Brooks

Waters

(2015) The hidden internationalism of elite English schools. Sociology 49(2): 212–228.

Cantu

(2013) Three effective strategies of internationalization in American universities. Journal of International Education and Leadership 3(3): 1–12.

Committee for Economic Development (2006) Education for global leadership: The importance of international studies and foreign language education for US economic and national security. Report, Committee for Economic Development, USA, February. Available at: https://www.ced.org/pdf/Education-for-Global-Leadership.pdf (accessed 20 October 2018).

Council on Foreign Relations (2012) US education reform and national security. Report, Council on Foreign Relations Press, USA, March.

DCPS (n.d.a) DCPS Global Education. Available at: https://dcpsglobaledorg/ (accessed 19 October 2018).

DCPS (n.d.b) DCPS Global Education: What is global education? Available at: https://dcpsglobaledorg/what (accessed 19 October 2018).

10.

DCPS (n.d.c) Embassy Adoption Program. Available at: https://dcpsdcgov/page/embassy-adoption-program (accessed 17 October 2018).

11.

DCPS (n.d.d) Global Education: Embassy Adoption Program. Available at: https://dcpsglobaledorg/eap/ (accessed 19 October 2018).

12.

DCPS (n.d.e) Global Education: International Food Days. Available at: https://dcpsglobaledorg/international-food-days/ (accessed 17 October 2018).

13.

DCPS (n.d.f) Global Education: DC Global Language Corps. Available at: https://dcpsglobaledorg/global-language-corps/ (accessed 18 October 2018).

14.

DCPS (n.d.g) Global Education: Partnerships. Available at: https://dcpsglobaledorg/partnerships/ (accessed 17 October 2018).

15.

DCPS (2017) DCPS Global Education: Year in review, 2016–2017. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5672c707e0327c81fa94fa8b/t/599713203e00be99dedb3e3b/1503073059358/DCPS+Global+Ed+2016_2017.compressed.pdf (accessed 19 October 2018).

16.

de Wit

(2002) Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport: Greenwood Press.

17.

de Wit

Engel

(2015) Building and deepening a comprehensive strategy to internationalise Romanian higher education. In: Salmi

Egron-Polak

Pricopie

, et al. (eds) Romania: Between the Bologna Process and National Challenges/Priorities. New York: Springer, pp. 191–204.

18.

de Wit

Jones

(2018) Inclusive internationalization: Improving equity and access. International Higher Education, 94: 16–18.

19.

Engel

(2017) Underrepresented students in study abroad: Investigating impacts. Report, Washington, DC: Institute of International Education.

20.

Engel

Cannon

Fundalinski

(2016) Global citizenship education at a local level: A comparative analysis of four US urban districts. Revista de Educación Comparativa Espanola [Journal of Spanish Comparative Education], 28: 23–51.

21.

Engel

Fundalinski

Gibson

(2017) DCPS goes global: 2016 study abroad. Report, Washington, DC: The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

22.

Engel

Fundalinski

Gibson

, et al. (2018) DCPS going global: 2017 study abroad. Report, Washington, DC: The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

23.

Engel, LC and Olden, K (2012) One size fits all: Globalization and standardization of US education. In: Shaklee, B, and Bailey S (eds) Internationalizing teacher education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 77--92.

24.

Engel

Siczek

(2017) A cross-national comparison of international strategies: National competitiveness or global citizenship? Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 48(5): 749–767.

25.

Engel

Siczek

(2018) Framing global education in the United States: Policy perspectives. In: Hill

Levine

(eds) Global Perspectives in Education Research. London: Routledge, pp. 26–47.

26.

Fowler

(2004) Policy Studies for Educational Leaders: An Introduction. London: Pearson.

27.

Frey

Whitehead

(2009) International education policies and the boundaries of global citizenship in the US. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(2): 269–290.

28.

Global Education Certificate (n.d.) Home. Available at: http://globaledcertificate.org/ (accessed 19 October 2018).

29.

Goren

Yemini

(2017) The global citizenship education gap: Teacher perceptions of the relationship between global citizenship education and students’ socio-economic status. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 9–22

30.

Harris

Ladd

Smith

,, et al. (2016) A principled federal role in PreK-12 education. Report, Brookings Institution, USA. Available online: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_20161206_principled_federal_role_browncenter1.pdf (accessed 16 October 2018).

31.

Helms

Brajkovic

(2017) Mapping internationalization on US campuses: 2017 edition. Report, American Council on Education, USA.

32.

Hudzik

(2011) Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Report, NAFSA, USA.

33.

Knight

(2004) Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education 8(1): 5–31.

34.

Knight

(2015) Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33: 2–3.

35.

Longview Foundation (2008) Teacher preparation for the global age. Report for Education in World Affairs and International Understanding, Inc., Silver Spring, MD: Longview Foundation. Available at: https://longviewfdn.org/programs/internationalizing-teacher-prep/ (accessed 19 October 2018).

36.

Manise

(2018) Why states, districts, and schools should implement global certificate programs. In: EdWeek Blog. Available at: http://blogsedweekorg/edweek/global_learning/2018/06/why_states_districts_and_schools_should_implement_global_certificate_programshtml (accessed 20 October 2018).

37.

Manna

(2011) Collision Course: Federal Education Policy Meets State and Local Realities. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

38.

Maxwell

Deppe

Kruger

, et al. (eds) (2018) Elite Education and Internationalisation: From the Early Years to Higher Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

39.

National Education Association (2010) Global competence is a 21st century imperative. Policy brief, NEA Center for Great Public Schools, Available at: https://multilingual.madison.k12.wi.us/files/esl/NEA-Global-Competence-Brief.pdf (accessed 20 October 2018).

40.

National Research Council (2007) International education and foreign languages: Keys to securing America’s future. Report of the Committee to Review the Title VI and Fulbright–Hays International Education Programs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at: http://doi.org/10.17226/11841

41.

Naveed

(2017) Income inequality in DC highest in the country. In: DC Fiscal Policy Institute Blog. Available at: https://www.dcfpi.org/all/income-inequality-dc-highest-country/ (accessed 20 October 2018).

42.

OECD (2018) Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf (accessed 20 October 2018).

43.

Orfield

(2017) Our segregated capital: An increasingly diverse city with racially polarized schools. Report, UCLA, CA: The Civil Rights Project.

44.

Ortloff

Shonia

(2015) Teacher conceptualizations of global citizenship: Global immersion experiences and implications for the empathy/threat dialectic. In: Maguth

Hilburn

(eds) The State of Global Education: Learning with the World and Its People. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Friends Group.

45.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2007) Beyond the three Rs: Voter attitudes toward 21st century skills . Tuscon: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

46.

Project Zero (n.d.) The world in DC. Available at: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/projects/the-world-in-dc (accessed 18 October 2018).

47.

Pufahl

Rhodes

(2011) Foreign language instruction in U.S. schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals 44(2): 258–288.

48.

Rapoport

(2010) We cannot teach what we don’t know: Indiana teachers talk about global citizenship education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 5(3): 179–190.

49.

Reardon

Kalogrides

and Shores

(2016) The geography of racial/ethnic test score gaps. CEPA Working Paper No. 16–10: Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis. Available at: http://cepastanfordedu/wp16-10 (accessed 9 August 2016).

50.

Savage

O’Conner

(2015) National agendas in global times: Curriculum reforms in Australia and the USA since the 1980s. Journal of Education Policy, 30(5): 609–630.

51.

Seal of Biliteracy (n.d.) State laws regarding the seal of biliteracy. Available at: https://sealofbiliteracyorg/indexphp (accessed 19 October 2018).

52.

Torres

(2015) Solidarity and competitiveness in a global context: Comparable concepts in global citizenship education? The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 14(2): 22–29.

53.

UNESCO (2015) Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO.

54.

US Census Bureau (2016) American Community Survey 1-year estimates. Available at: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US1150000-washington-dc/?platform=hootsuite (accessed 20 October 2018).

55.

US Department of Education (2018) Succeeding globally through international education and engagement. Report, US Department of Education, USA.

56.

Wallner J, Savage G, Hartong S, et al. (2018) Laboratories, co-producers and venues: Illuminating the varying roles of subnational governments in the formation of standards-based assessments in federations. Paper presented at the 62nd Comparative and International Education Society annual conference, Mexico City, 25--29 March 2018.

57.

Warner G (1992) Internationalization models and the role of the university. International Education Magazine 8(1): 21.

58.

Weenink

(2008) Cosmopolitanism as a form of capital: Parents preparing their children for a globalizing world. Sociology, 42: 1089–1106.

59.

Yemini

(2012) Internationalization assessment in schools: Theoretical contributions and practical implications. Journal of Research in International Education, 11(2): 152–164.

60.

Yemini

(2014) Internationalization of secondary education: Lessons from Israeli Palestinian-Arab schools in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Urban Education, 49: 471–498.

Pathways of internationalization in US schooling: Local innovations in inclusive global education

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Internationalization of schools

Internationalization of US schools

Methods

Global Education in DC Public Schools

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

References