I think it is safe to say that there is always something going on in DC. Events from this week have led me to some interesting thoughts and further questions about society and education. However, while I learned a lot from reading and listening to panel discussions, debates, and lectures, the conversations following these events have led me to try to further wrap my brain around important issues and how we react to new information. After reviewing my schedule, I thought it would be good to reflect and post on some of what was presented as well as some discussions that occurred after the event in conversations at the various receptions.
On Monday, I attended a yPIE Happy Hour in order to get out after work and network with other young professionals either already in or interested in joining the field of international education. Networking events like this are really important for individuals to get outside their offices and established networks to meet new people with new ideas who have a wealth of experiences all their own. I personally met with multiple individuals who work for non-profits, universities, and private organizations, as well as interns and grad students who want to break into the international education arena. If you want to learn more about the DC chapter of yPIE, or upcoming events, check out their LinkedIn group or Twitter feed.
On Tuesday, there was a panel discussion on "Careers in International Affairs: Pathways and Opportunities in Gender, Diplomacy and Development" held by the Women's Foreign Policy Group. Primarily, the event focused on different pathways by which individuals (Candace Bates, Jennifer Hawkins, Lauren Supina, and Stephenie Foster) have come into careers which center around international affairs and diplomacy. Citing experiences from the Foreign Service, the State Department, USAID, the Office of Women's Initiatives and Outreach, and foreign embassies, it became clear that while there are many opportunities in government, non-profit, and private sectors to work in this area, there is also no one single method of progression. One panelist remarked that she wished she had taken more time to learn and gain experience before jumping directly into the Foreign Service, while another came to international affairs as a second career and would have appreciated the "trial by fire." Some found they had a passion for international affairs later in life, while others have been focused on equality for women and children throughout their careers even when not involved in the international sector. And while all would say that to do internationally-focused work, you need to have international experience, I also found it interesting that they did not reflect on the opportunities that they have been given and taken advantage of which have led them to be able to engage on an international scale. We have opportunities to engage actively with diversity each and every day within our own communities, within organizations, and even online. How we conceptualize "diversity" may be at fault, as often we don't realize that the backgrounds, values, and beliefs as well as experiences that each and every person we meet holds will be different from our own. Furthermore, the event was largely attended by women, which seems both empowering and worrisome. To gain traction and actively engage in discussions of gender equality, more men need to be welcomed and join in these conversations. However, what should we do when we don't have the opportunities to engage as we would like to? The advice from the panel - persistence pays off and when possible, work to make your own path and develop your own opportunities. If you want to learn more about the Women's Foreign Policy Group, or their upcoming events, check out their website and Twitter feed.
On Wednesday evening, the ITEP Program at American University hosted its Global Education Forum with this semester's topic "Migration and Education". The panel included: Jesus Cisneros, PhD - speaking about the needs of undocumented students in higher education; Johanna Schuster-Craig, PhD - speaking about how language is key to integration for immigrants and refugees in Germany; Suzana Velasco - speaking about narratives of migration for refugees in Brazil; and Chengzhi Yin, PhD - speaking about how regulations in China have influenced educational disparities between rural and urban areas. Across the panel, issues regarding policies, regulations, and practices came up as barriers to accessing higher education and issues of belonging/inclusion in society. Dr Cisneros suggested that higher education institutions should look at immigration status as a form of diversity, and institutions can work from the ground level to change policies and practices to intervene for individuals and their families who without education have little chance of gainful employment or legal immigration status if they don't fall under the narrow purview of DACA. Dr Schuster-Craig conveyed the message that language is the ticket to upward social mobility and without shared language and understanding, access to higher education and future opportunities for oneself and one's children are limited, citing the city of Bremen as a city of Best Practices for serving the needs of refugee populations who have sought asylum in Germany. Ms Velasco then presented a couple different thoughts on how refugees, depending on documentation and their own knowledge of the Portuguese language, are either encouraged or discouraged from higher education. Dr Yin then concluded the panel with a discussion of issues on urbanization in China where 62.5% of migrants' children aged 6-15 live with their parents in urban areas and the remaining 37.5% are left behind in rural areas either with extended family or by themselves and have no access to education benefits that might bring them to better opportunities in the future. Following the panelists' presentations, I had some further questions: What exactly makes someone a "citizen"? When talking about a society, who belongs and who doesn't, and why? How do we look at internal migration (moving between cities, states, provinces) for better opportunities versus external migration (moving to another country)? Ultimately, a lot of it resides in the importance of gaining consciousness of ourselves and others and then working towards improving mutual understandings and knowledge. To learn more about the Global Education Forum at American University, visit their website.
Then last night, Thursday, I attended the AERA Brown Lecture on "Public Education & the Social Contract - Restoring the Promise in an Age of Diversity and Division." Marta Tienda, PhD, spoke at length about how racial and ethnic inequalities in the US are further reinforced by educational policies and practices which set some young people up for success and others up for failure later in life. She showed and explained data from federal and state policies that allow lawmakers to regulate spending and allocate resources to K-12 and higher education which take us back to the nineteenth century in terms of progress. his is exacerbated by the fact that while Americans don't want to pay more in taxes, in areas where the citizens recognize that their tax dollars towards education benefit not only their own children but also the other children and families in their neighborhoods there is less inequality between the rich and the poor. While official segregation ended in the mid-20th century, disparities in education continue and are even worse based on opportunities available based on regional and economic divisions which are often related to race, ethnicity, and the continued cycle of extreme poverty. Thus, there are wide-spread implications for looking at disparities between states as well as between districts within states regarding the funding of K-12 education. The situation for higher education is not much better. According to the OECD and many other reports, we are enrolling more students in higher education now than before but the completion rates are abysmal. While other countries are improving the overall education level of their population, the US has become complacent and growth has been stagnant when dealing with social, economic, and regional diversity. Land-grant institutions started in the 19th century used to rely primarily on funds from the government to meet their goals of educating future populations. However, when comparing funding for higher education between the 1970s and today, it is obvious that the federal government (and state governments) no longer prioritize higher education as it has largely become a private good and families are now responsible for shouldering the majority of costs for higher education themselves. The 1970s saw the post-war baby boom that stressed the capacities of higher education institutions and there were further implications from the policies and legacies from previous presidential administrations from LBJ, Eisenhower, and Lincoln. However, much of what was seen as necessary competition during the Cold War has been lost and advances have slowed. Dr Tienda argued that organizations like AARP fight for the rights and entitlements of retirees (now accounting for 45% of budgeted entitlements), yet there is no group fighting for the rights and entitlements of young people (currently receiving 9.9% of budgeted allocations). Maybe there should be an organization dedicated to the needs of the future populations of leaders as well as the needs of the aged/aging populations - the Association for the Advancement of Young People as suggested by Dr Marta Tienda. (A paper from this lecture will be produced in 2017 - more can be found at AERA's website and on their Twitter feed for the #AERABrownLecture.)
So, what have been my primary takeaways from this week? Higher education faces many problems based on policies and practices which continue to create strains and divisions, overworking staff, and requiring further monitoring and gatekeeping. However, a lot of this starts with K-12 education where we form our ideas and knowledge of ourselves and others and our place in this world. When we are given opportunities at a young age, we have more of a chance to have a positive impact on the world. However, even those who are born without opportunities can still aspire to improve their position in life through education and self-improvement. These discussions need to keep happening, within our offices, with our colleagues, with students, with friends, and then our voices need to collectively urge our politicians, lawmakers, and administrators to take action to serve the needs of all vulnerable populations. In education, what we do now affects the future.
This isn't an us versus them debate. We're all together in this, so let's sort out some solutions and use shared language so everyone can have a voice and, more importantly, use it.