Despite attempts to address the global learning crisis, the widespread illiteracy and innumeracy persistent in developing nations worldwide, education systems in many low- and middle-income countries continue to be plagued by service delivery failures and programs that fail to produce effective learning in schools (UNESCO, 2013, p. 2; Bruns et al., 2011, p. 1). A number of factors contribute to these service delivery failures. Inequitable spending is often skewed to favor wealthy regions and individuals (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 7). Funding leaks see money diverted before it reaches schools, such as in the case of Uganda’s capitation grants, of which initially only 20% of intended funds made it to their intended recipients (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 7; UWAZI, 2010, p. 8). High teacher absence rates, low quality teaching, and lack of class time spent on instruction results in poor learning outcomes (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 7-9; Watkins, 2012a).There is a need for increased accountability to address these and other issues in education service provision in developing nations (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 2).

​Bruns et al. (2011) offer three promising routes towards more education accountability in developing nations: information for accountability, school-based management, and teacher accountability measures like contract tenure reforms and pay for performance. 

​Countries around the world, including developing nations, are increasingly carrying out national and international standardized learning assessments and leveraging their use in  policy-making and reform and as indicators for monitoring and evaluating progress and learning achievement regionally and cross-nationally (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 29; NORRAG, 2016, pg. 4; Lockheed, 2016, pg. 8). Unfortunately, actual reforms and policies are often only weakly influenced by these assessments and data is frequently misused (Lockheed, 2016, p. 30; NORRAG, 2016, p. 4). Also, some mid- and low-income nations refrain from sharing results or participating due to feelings of shame or concerns about negative public confidence and pressure to turn towards private sector solutions over low scores (Lockheed, 2016, p. 27; NORRAG, 2016, pg. 7).

​Information sharing at the community level seems fraught with fewer negatives. Citizen report cards and parent-teacher associations have been used to increase social accountability and parent involvement in a number of developing nations (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 13–14; Watkins, 2012b), supporting parents and students in choosing schools and making parents aware of issues to empower them to lobby for reform (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 14, 34). Key success factors when using information for accountability are ensuring widespread availability, ease of understanding, addressing the local context, and including paths for stakeholders to offer input (Bruns et al., 2011, pg. 72). 

​The decentralization of school-level decision-making is being implemented by increasing numbers of developing nations to improve efficiency and learning outcomes and overcome financial constraints (Bruns et. al, 2011, pg. 88; Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, pg. 44). Parent involvement is often sought out, usually through creating school committees to monitor outcomes and processes and take part in planning and budgeting (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 15–16). Attempts to decentralize effectively can be hindered by low-capacity local administrators and lack of ability of the community to voice their concerns (Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, p. 46). Norms and values about education specific to local context may also reduce parent voice and participation (Phlong, 2018). Decentralization reforms are supported by accounting for such capacity issues, establishing short- and long-term process and outcome goals and indicators, and basing interventions on evidence (Bruns et al., 2011, pp. 129-130; Barrera-Osorio et al., 2009, pg. 101).

​Teachers represent the most important input in the educational process, with great variations in student achievement and growth based on student experiences with individual teachers, but fixed salary schedules, lifetime tenures, and advancement based on inputs rather than performance provide little incentive for extra effort and innovation (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 14; Bruns et al., pp. 18-19, 142). Teacher incentives such as contract tenure and merit-based pay bonuses offer the possibility of addressing such concerns without the need for broad, system-wide reform (Bruns et al., 2016, pg.19).Contract tenure leads to greater accountability, and localized hiring promotes closer monitoring of teacher performance (Bruns et al., 2016, pg. 19). The short-term impact of such reforms is good if power to sign and renew contracts is decentralized, but weak oversight, de facto guaranteed contract renewal, and ability to transfer off contract and into the civil service decrease its power (Bruns et al., 2011, pg. 156-157). Providing teachers with merit-based bonus pay based on inputs or outcomes is one of the strongest levers for influencing their performance and, when bonuses are based on student achievement, are an example of results-based financing that focuses on the learner rather than just schooling (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 2; Holland & Lee, 2017, p. 5). Key factors in the success of such reforms are the predictability of the incentive, which should be attainable but not unchallenging and the size of the bonus provided (Bruns et al., 2011, pg. 189). Care should be taken to ensure that the measured outcomes can be affected by the teacher’s work, as poor assessment outcomes may often result due to outside influences like widespread malnutrition (Bruns et al., 2011, p. 18; Holland & Lee, 2017, p. 12; Watkins, 2012b). 

In this ‘era of accountability’, demands on education systems for transparency in demonstrating the efficient and effective use of public resources are common worldwide, and the importance of school effectiveness to the field of development means that developing nations are no exception  (Shaked & Scheckter, 2013, p. 773; Bruns, Filmer, & Patrinos, 2011, p. ix). The challenges facing low- and middle-income countries in implementing accountability reforms, such as lack of local capacity, funding, cultural barriers to community engagement, and lack of political will need to be borne in mind, especially when tying the implementation of such policies to results-based funding disbursements  (Lockheed, 2016, p. 26; Bates, 2013, p. 39; Phlong, 2018; Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 3; Holland & Lee, 2017, p. 14). Addressing the global learning crisis will require that students have access to quality resources, learning environments, and teachers, and ensuring accountability from school to ministry levels can help to make this happen. (UNESCO, 2013; Bruns et al., 2011, p. 2).

Arunatilake, N., & Jayawardena, P. (2010). Formula funding and decentralized management of schools—Has it improved resource allocation in schools in Sri Lanka? International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 44–53.

Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T., Patrinos, H. A., & Santibanez, L. (2009). Decentralized Decision-Making in Schools: The Theory and Evidence on School-Based Management. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Bates, A. (2013). Transcending systems thinking in education reform: implications for policy-makers and school leaders. Journal of Education Policy, 28(1), 38–54.

Bruns, B., Filmer, D. and Patrinos, H.A. (2011). Making schools work: New evidence on accountability reforms. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/2782001298568319076/makingschoolswork.pdf

Holland, P. & Lee, J. (2017). Results-based financing in education: Financing results to strengthen systems. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/715791489054110215/pdf/113265-REVISEDRBF-Approach-Final-Digital.pdf

Kingdon, G. G., Little, A., Aslam, M., Rawal, S., Moe, T., Patrinos, H., … Sharma, S. K. (2014). A rigorous review of the political economy of education systems in developing countries. Final Report. Department for International Development.

Lockheed, M.E. (2016). Measures that Matter: Learning outcome targets for Sustainable Development Goal 4 – An examination of national, regional and international learning assessments. Global Education Monitoring Report. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002458/245842E.pdf

NORRAG (2016). Learning from Learning Assessments: The Politics and Policies of Attaining Quality Education. Roundtable Report. Geneva: NORRAG. Available at http://www.norrag.org/fileadmin/Workshop_Reports/Learning_from_Learning_Assessmen ts_Roundtable_Report_June_2016.pdf 

Phlong, P. (2018, June 16). Re: Policy vs Implementation, experiences from Tanzania [online discussion forum post]. Retrieved from: https://owl.uwo.ca/portal/site/55ec12c0-3680-4226-bafc-de0b479d74b3/tool/3802fa22-7d83-4060-988b-de19402d6e90/discussionForum/message/dfViewMessage

Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2013). Seeing wholes: The concept of systems thinking and its implementation in school leadership. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l’Education, 59(6), 771–791.

UNESCO. (2013). The Global Learning Crisis: Why every child deserves a quality education. Paris: UNESCO.

UWAZI. (2010). Capitation grant for education: When will it make a difference. Policy brief TZ.08/2010 (Version Policy brief TZ.08/2010.). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.twaweza.org/uploads/files/Capitation%20Grant%20for%20Primary%20Educaton.pdf

Watkins, K. (2012a, July 26). Holding out for the super-voucher: Kevin Watkins responds to Justin Sandefur on private v public education. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/holding-out-for-the-super-voucher-kevin-watkins-responds-to-justin-sandefur-on-private-v-public-education/

Watkins, K. (2012b, August 10). Education wonkwar: the final salvo. Kevin Watkins responds to Justin Sandefur on public v private (and the reader poll is still open). Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/education-wonkwar-the-final-salvo-kevin-watkins-responds-to-justin-sandefur-on-public-v-private-and-the-reader-poll-is-still-open/

According to some estimates, by the end of the 21st century half of the world’s children will live in Africa (Bold et al., 2017, p. 197 citing You, Hug, & Anthony, 2014)). Currently, millions of children in low-income countries, including many in the African continent, complete their primary education lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills, a situation that UNESCO (UNESCO, 2013, p. 2) has referred to as The Global Learning Crisis. Despite, and perhaps partly as a result of, greatly increased enrollment in primary education in developing nations, the low-quality instruction, flat learning curves, poor outcomes, and regional discrepancies in education in low-income nations remain a challenge of global development (Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, pp. 44–47; Chapman, Burton, & Werner, 2010, p. 77; Sandefur, 2012a; UWAZI, 2010, p. 3; Watkins, 2012a). 

Global level actors like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank exert significant influence on decision-making and education policy development in developing nations, and governments feel pressure to enact suggested reforms that bring with them grants and funding (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 2; Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 156). However, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of some of these reforms; the Education for All Fast Track Initiative may have actually disrupted national structures and weakened reform for quality education in some instances (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 20).  Strong and motivated central leadership is needed within developing nations to chart a course out of the global education crisis (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 19).

Unfortunately, such leadership currently seems to be in short supply. State control of education in developing nations is generally weak and of low capacity, providing little support to districts and schools and resulting in lower student performance (Bold et al., 2017, p. 186; Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 4). The state governance that is present is often corrupt and steeped in clientelism and patronage, pushing states to expand access to, but not quality of education (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 2).  In Africa, leaders have done little meaningful work in in transforming education for the better, with policy-making too often shaped by commercial interests (Dlamini, 2008, p. 3).  In 2006, Uganda adopted free Universal Secondary Education (USE) as a means of garnering political support with little attention to system capacity or involvement of school-level stakeholders (Chapman et al., 2010, p. 77). In Tanzania, state disbursements of capitation funds to schools are typically less than budgets suggest, deviate significantly from the mean at the district level, and often late, unpredictably timed, or parceled in amounts too small to be effectively utilized (UWAZI, 2010, pp. 7–9). Furthermore, weak central oversight to ensure proper resource use has resulted in the use of pirated resources of dubious quality, and books left unpurchased or unused in storage (UWAZI, 2010, pp. 7–9).

Clearly, stronger state governance and leadership in educational policy-making and oversight is needed, as weak local administration and the limited ability of local communities to voice their preferences limits the benefit of decentralization in developing countries compared to more developed nations with strong democracies, social infrastructure, and empowered citizenry (Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, p. 46; Barrera-Osorio, Fasih, Patrinos, & Santibanez, 2009, p. 10). Developing nations have been shown to benefit from centralized control, and the scope of the issues faced in developing nations, from extreme malnutrition, child labor, and gender disparity require action and financing at the national level to address (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 29; Watkins, 2012b). 

According to Patrick Awuah, founder of Ashesi University College in Ghana, “Africa can only be transformed by enlightened leaders and . . .  the manner in which we educate our leaders is fundamental to progress on this continent.” (Awuah, 2017, 0:30). Charting a course out of the global education crisis will require leaders in developing nations to support an increase in democratic processes, a reduction in corruption, and a shift from eurocentric and colonial policy and practice (Dlamini, 2008, p. 3; Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 3). Governments need to increase their capacity to support education at the district and school level, provide equitable public financing for early education,  and ensure accountability from the ministry to the classroom level through inspections and development of social accountability infrastructure (Arunatilake & Jayawardena, 2010, pp. 46–52; Watkins, 2012a, 2012b). Where leadership failures are too expansive to quickly address, some nations may benefit from accessing balanced solutions from the private sector temporarily as a more timely way to address student learning needs in their individual context (Sandefur, 2012b; Watkins, 2012b). 

​The right to an education is universal and most governments have promised to protect this right of their citizens in their national constitutions (UNESCO, 2013, p. 1). It is the responsibility of governments in the developing world, with support from international aid providers as required,  to provide the leadership needed to keep this promise and begin charting a course out of the global learning crisis. 

Arunatilake, N., & Jayawardena, P. (2010). Formula funding and decentralized management of schools—Has it improved resource allocation in schools in Sri Lanka? International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 44–53.

Awuah, P. (2017). How to educate leaders? Liberal arts. Ted.com. Retrieved 7 June 2017, from https://www.ted.com/talks

Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T., Patrinos, H. A., & Santibanez, L. (2009). Decentralized Decision-Making in Schools: The Theory and Evidence on School-Based Management. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Bold, T., Filmer, D., Martin, G., Molina, E., Stacy, B., Rockmore, C., … Wane, W. (2017). Enrollment without Learning: Teacher Effort, Knowledge, and Skill in Primary Schools in Africa. The Journal of Economic Perspectives: A Journal of the American Economic Association, 31(4), 185–204.

Chapman, D. W., Burton, L., & Werner, J. (2010). Universal secondary education in Uganda: The head teachers’ dilemma. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 77–82.

Dlamini, S. N. (2008). Introduction. In S. N. Dlamini (Ed.), New Directions in African Education: Challenges and Possibilities (pp. 1–14). Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Kingdon, G. G., Little, A., Aslam, M., Rawal, S., Moe, T., Patrinos, H., … Sharma, S. K. (2014). A rigorous review of the political economy of education systems in developing countries. Final Report. Department for International Development.

Sandefur, J. (2012a, July 25). Waiting for Superman in Lahore: do poor people need private schools? Guest post by Justin Sandefur. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/waiting-for-superman-in-lahore-do-poor-people-need-private-schools-guest-post-by-justin-sandefur/

Sandefur, J. (2012b, August 9). Private schools or public? Justin Sandefur responds to Kevin Watkins (and this time you can vote). Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/private-schools-or-public-justin-sandefur-responds-to-kevin-watkins/

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014). Cross-national policy borrowing: understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153–167.

UNESCO. (2013). The Global Learning Crisis: Why every child deserves a quality education. Paris: UNESCO.

UWAZI. (2010). Capitation grant for education: When will it make a difference. Policy brief TZ.08/2010 (Version Policy brief TZ.08/2010.). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.twaweza.org/uploads/files/Capitation%20Grant%20for%20Primary%20Educaton.pdf

Watkins, K. (2012a, July 26). Holding out for the super-voucher: Kevin Watkins responds to Justin Sandefur on private v public education. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/holding-out-for-the-super-voucher-kevin-watkins-responds-to-justin-sandefur-on-private-v-public-education/
​
Watkins, K. (2012b, August 10). Education wonkwar: the final salvo. Kevin Watkins responds to Justin Sandefur on public v private (and the reader poll is still open). Retrieved June 3, 2018, from https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/education-wonkwar-the-final-salvo-kevin-watkins-responds-to-justin-sandefur-on-public-v-private-and-the-reader-poll-is-still-open/

One of a few prevailing controversies in international education is the idea of a Western neoliberal agenda to colonize and enculturate other nations through the medium of globalization and neoliberal education policies (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 19). Certainly, many developed nations recognize and capitalize on the benefit of exporting their national educational trademarks globally, drawing in international students to post-secondary institutions, exporting educational resources, and building satellite campuses abroad to the tune of billions of dollars  in profit (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 158). Moreover, this transfer is generally unidirectional from North to South or West to East; and can be coercive due to the international education funding provided by various NGOs to developing nations that choose to adopt certain “best practices” as defined by the OECD, IEA, or World Bank  (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, pp. 154–156), despite little evidence to support their effectiveness and their potential to disrupt national structures and weaken reform when implemented (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 20). 

In her investigation of cross-national educational policy borrowing. Steiner-Khamsi (2013) presents an intriguing argument that turns this idea on its head. She posits that “globalization is not an intervention that is introduced by external forces but . . . it is stakeholders in the system that use the semantics of globalization or international standards . . . to shake up the power dynamic in a system.” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 160). In her view, domestic policy debates result in policy-makers seeking support for their positions through global education policies or borrowing policies from global sources in order to build coalitions and compromise around externally-sourced “third reform possibilities” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, pp. 155–156). Actors in the domestic context, in other words, apply the rhetoric of globalization, in order to build pressure for change to suit their local agendas ((Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 157). She goes so far as to say that many western created standards and practices wind up as little more than “empty vessels . . . filled with local meaning”. (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 157)

While the greater influence that global actors have on decision-making regarding educational policy in developing nations is undeniable (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 20), Steiner-Khamsi’s view puts more agency in the hands of the domestic policy-maker, and shifts the narrative from one of all-powerful neo-liberal globalizers forcing policy changes on unwitting and unwilling developing nations to one that involves a more reciprocal balance of power and benefit: Western globalizing nations produce educational products for export abroad, and local actors select from what is on order to fuel and credentialize ther domestic political rhetoric. 

Unfortunately, corruption and patronage politics often present in the governance of developing nations means that improved student outcomes are often not the top priority for politicians or educators when deciding on policy reform (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 2). One need only look to the haphazard and politically-motivated implementation of Universal primary and secondary education in Uganda detailed by Chapman, Burton, and Werner (2010) initiated in order to garner votes from parents and business-owners but with no attention paid to system capacity or involvement of head teachers (pg. 77). Ultimately, the initiatives were successful politically, but resulted in a drop in the quality of education nationwide (pg. 77). 

​Clearly, despite the elevation of domestic policy-makers in Steiner-Khamsi’s (2014) view of globalization and transnational educational policy borrowing, the outlook for students when warnings against transnational policy adoption are ignored is not positive. In fact, given the disingenuous motives of some local policy-makers in many developing nations (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 4), the political will required to develop capacity and delivery systems to effectively implement the strategies borrowed is questionable (Kingdon et al., 2014, p. 3).

Chapman, D. W., Burton, L., & Werner, J. (2010). Universal secondary education in Uganda: The head teachers’ dilemma. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 77–82.

Kingdon, G. G., Little, A., Aslam, M., Rawal, S., Moe, T., Patrinos, H., … Sharma, S. K. (2014). A rigorous review of the political economy of education systems in developing countries. Final Report. Department for International Development.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014). Cross-national policy borrowing: understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153–167.

​Bunnell, T. (2015). International schools and international curricula: A changing relationship. In: 
Hayden, M., Levy, J., & Thompson, J. J., (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Research in International Education (2nd ed.). London, U. K.: Sage. 325-336.

Cambridge, J. (2013). Dilemmas of international education: A Bernsteinian analysis. In Pearce, R. (ed.) International education and schools: Moving beyond the first 40 years. Oxford, UK: Bloomsbury Publications Ltd. 183-204.

Dunne, S., and Edwards, J. (2010). International schools as sites of social change. Journal of Research in International Education, 9(1), 24-39.

Hayden, M. (2012). Third culture kids: The global nomads of transnational spaces of learning. In Bunnell, T., Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (eds.), SAGE Library of Educational Thought and Practice - International Education, Vol. 3. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.

Khalifa, M.A., Gooden, M.A., & Davis, J.E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4): 1272-1311.

Pearce, R. (ed.) (2013). Student Diversity: The core challenge of international schools: Moving 
beyond the first 40 years. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. 61-84.

Shields, C. (2010). Transformative Leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Education Administration Quarterly, 46(4): 558-589.

Skelton, M. (2016). What should students learn in international schools? In Hayden, M., & 
Thompson, J. J. (eds.) International schools: Current issues and future prospects. Symposium Books, Oxford. 71-83.

Tate, N. (2012). Challenges and pitfalls facing international education in a post-international world. Journal of Research in International Education, 11, 205-217.

Taylor, M. (2015). International schools - creative communities with a cause. The International Schools Journal, 35(1), 16-20.

Looking more closely at the conflicting motivations within international education has been illuminating, as was learning about the major research approaches. In order to review and synthesize what I’ve learned, I’m going to review each of the research approaches described by Dolby and Rahman and try to reflect on them through the lenses of dichotomies presented by Allan (2008) and Tarc (n.d.) with the hopes of more clearly defining the ultimate goals of each. Of course, the lines will be blurred and every approach exists on a spectrum. The exercise is simply one in reflection that might spur some debate.

Tarc (n.d.) outlines two visions for international education: the ‘instrumental’, involving actual interactions that “cross political borders” (p. 1) and the ‘normative’, which seeks to foster international understanding (p. 2).

Allan (2009) describes discourses within international education. Two macro-discourses are the ‘multinational’, which concerns ‘market-driven globalization’ (p. 154), and the ‘international’,  focused on “global citizenship and cultural literacy” (p. 157). Dolby and Rahman (2009) outline six broad research approaches in international education into which much of the research being done in the field can be placed. They are comparative and international education, the internationalization of higher education, international schools, international research on teaching and teacher education, the internationalization of K-12 education, and globalization in education.

Comparative and international education is divided into four trajectories. The first, tries to compare education in different national contexts to promote reform (Dolby & Rahman, 2008, p. 681). The second, traditional international education, focuses on practices in a single national context, avoiding comparisons (p. 682). Both seem to fall more within Tarc’s (n.d.) ‘normative’ vision, since they don’t really involve interactions between states or systems, but rather compare and promote an understanding of the systems involved. The data obtained from such studies would most likely be applied to Allan’s (2009) multi-national discourse as countries try to improve their national education systems based on the data. A third trajectory that Dolby and Rahman provide is based on development in the third-world.  While the application of the data would almost certainly be considered ‘multinational’ within Allan’s (2009) framework, within Tarc (n.d.) would likely label it ‘instrumental’ as the actors involved would be sharing resources across national boundaries.

The internationalization of higher education has a complicated history involving both colonialism (Dolby & Rahman, 2008, p. 684) and international efforts to promote peace after war (p. 685). Dolby & Rahman outline three research trajectories sociopolitical, economic, and academic, focusing mostly on the latter two. The economic focus fits well within Tarc’s (n.d.) ‘instrumental’ vision and Allan’s ‘multinational’ discourse as it concerns bringing international students and dollars across borders.  The academic research trajectory, on the other hand, focuses more on the experiences of the students and strongly contrasts in it’s alignments. I’d say that it’s focus on understanding the experience of international students would make it more ‘normative’ (Tarc, n.d.) and ‘international’ (Allan, 2009).

Research on international schools focused on defining the boundaries of what is considered and international school would seem to be ‘normative’ (Tarc, n.d.) as the debate is largely philosophical and centered around curricula and school visions, but also contains ‘instrumental’ concerns like the demographic of the student body. Similarly, the presence of both philosophical and socioeconomic concerns would include both ‘international’ and ‘multinational’ discourses (Allan, 2009). Research on ‘Third Culture Kids’ would tend to be more ‘normative’ and ‘international’ as it seeks to foster understanding and focuses less on economic concerns. Finally, research into the effect of changing national and global contexts might involve and analysis of both of Tarc’s (n.d.) and Allan’s (2009) visions and discourses.

International research on teaching and teacher education came out of a very ‘instrumental’ and ‘multinational’ desire to rebuild Europe and improving the quality of education globally (Dolby & Rahman, 2009, p. 695). Research into teacher education leans towards the ‘instrumental’ and ‘multinational’, when it focuses on preparing teachers for a global market, and the ‘normative’ and ‘international’ when it prepares teachers for an international population. Another research trajectory focuses on international policy development. It links to work done in the comparative and international field (Dolby & Rahman, 2009). It would seem ‘instrumental’ and ‘multinational’ as it seeks to improve economic performance in countries through education reform. The final trajectory studies the effects on teacher’s lives of changes in the global context (Dolby & Rahman, 2009, p. 696). The research seems to focus a lot on ‘multinational’ (Allan, 2009) and ‘instrumental’ (Tarc, n.d.) concerns and how they have affected the social status and practice of teachers globally.

Internationalization of K-12 education comprises the four separate trajectories of peace education, multicultural education, human rights education, and environmental education (Dolby & Rahman, 2009, p. 701). All four fields have a focus that seems ‘normative’ and ‘international’, though environmental education and human rights education would likely engage in ‘multinational’ discourse as the issues discusses would often involve interactions between states and global economic concerns.

Finally, globalization in education follows four different trajectories as well. Black education from the Revolutionary Nationalist perspective is class-focused (Dolby & Rahman, 2009, p. 705) and seems more ‘multinational’ and ‘instrumental’ while the Cultural Nationalist approach seems more ‘normative’ and ‘international’. Anthropology and education, the second trajectory, involves the movement of people globally, and ‘instrumental’ (Tarc, n.d.) concerns, and both ‘multinational’ economic and ‘international’ cultural issues. World models, the third trajectory, analyzes national elementary curricula. Two paradigms, the equilibrium and conflict paradigms, seem to approach the study from the ‘international’ and ‘multinational’ perspectives respectively, with the equilibrium focusing on cultural concerns and the conflict focusing on economic ones.  Lastly, a trajectory focusing on critical inquiry into the effect of globalization on education takes a ‘multinational’ economic and ‘instrumental’ approach to its studies.
​
Ultimately, every one of the research approaches in Dolby & Rahman’s paper includes discourses and views of international education that overlap and blur between the definitions provided by Tarc and Allen. That said, their delineation of discourses and visions are a very useful tool for examining the goals of varies fields and placing the research and concerns on a spectrum. They provide not so much a map that clearly defines and outlines the approaches to international education, but more of a compass to provide a sense of direction as questions arise.​

Allan, M. (2013). Understanding international education through Discourse Theory: Multinational, international, multicultural or intercultural? In Pearce, R. (ed.) International education and schools: Moving beyond the first 40 years. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. 149-166.
 
Dolby, N., and Rahman, A. (2008). Research in international education. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 676-726.
​
Tarc, P. (n.d). Framing international education in global times. (Draft). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/30350428/Framing_International_Education_in_Global_Times_DRAFT