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

Effective school boards and superintendents engage in strategic planning for the future of their district and the schools they serve (Hayes, 2002, pg. 23). These strategic plans create measurable expectations for assessing  the performance of the district in meeting public needs and remaining accountable for resource use (Hayes, 2002, pg. 23). Strategic planning recognizes that school districts should be concerned with their role in the community, and the role that various stakeholders within the community play in student learning (Stewart & Bailey, 1992, pg. 6). District level strategic planning promotes strategic thinking and enhances the responsiveness of the district by supporting programming for strategies and formally operationalizing their consequences (Bryson, 1995; Sheppard,  Brown, & Dibbon, 2009, pg. 34).

Effective strategic planning applies principles of systems thinking and addresses school, community, district, and government concerns (Shaked & Schechter, 2016, pg. 183). Complex systems involve ambiguity and change and benefit from an iterative, helical planning approach including cycles of assessment, planning, and implementation that consider the multiple influences on, and reasons for, issues, and view the whole of school life as a system and not isolated, smaller parts (Sheppard et al., 2009, pg. 71; Shaked & Schechter, 2013, pp. 780-781, 786).

This post outlines how a  district superintendent might generate an educational strategic plan with measurable and timely goals that takes into account multiple stakeholder needs, state legislation, and collective agreements, while supporting organizational learning and distributed leadership at the school and district level (Sheppard et al., 2009, pg. 34).​

​Assuming that the  board has determined that the superintendent should act as facilitator, the most important step is the selection of the planning team (Hambright & Diamantes, 2004, pg. 98). It should be a broad-based panel reflecting the makeup of the district and enlisting leaders from multiple sources to represent the values and perspectives needing consideration (Sheppard et al., 2009, pg. 129). To promote student achievement through increased stakeholder engagement, the superintendent should act as a “boundary spanner” between parents, community partners, schools, collective bargaining groups, and governments to foster collaborative and distributed leadership and a culture of trust (Gordon & Louis, 2012, pp. 351, 357; Starratt, 2008, pp. 88-89; Sheppard et al., 2009, pp. 51, 102). Diverse planning teams facilitate fluid and connective opportunities that produce workable plans for action, cognitive shifts, and reframing of challenges, and apply democratic, communitarian, and economic theories of stakeholder shared leadership (Grogan & Shakeshaft, 2011, pp. 120, 125; Gordon & Louis, 2012, pg. 349; Starratt, 2008, pg. 89). Parents, teachers, and other stakeholders selected for involvement may lack the language and expertise to be participative, so superintendents should determine training needs and provide instruction on shared governance and other topics (Gordon & Louis, 2012, pp. 350, 366; Hambright & Diamantes, 2004, pg. 98). Planning team members should be asked to begin collection of internal and external data to inform later decision-making. ​

When discussing public education, it seems like there is generally a 'hair-trigger' response, at least in the popular press, to complain about funding and the disconnect between leadership, policy, and what really goes on in the classroom. Though every state or province's public education has room to improve, it's not all bad out there. Ontario, Canada's most populous province (and my home province!) is globally well-regarded for its high student performance on international tests and for its success in managing education in a 'target-driven' climate with high numbers of urban and immigrant students (Hargreaves, 2012, pg. 109).

Ontario’s success is supported by sound leadership strategies to manage capacity building at all levels of leadership, from the Ontario Ministry of Education, tasked with setting targets and providing funding and external expertise, to district leadership, in charge of aligning hiring policies with strategy and supporting schools in learning, to school leaders who create local collaborative learning communities (OECD, 2011, pg. 75).

Ontario’s success begins with teacher and principal preparation. Teachers are selected from the top 30% of graduates and implement a standard provincial curriculum developed by teachers and subject experts (OECD, 2011, pg. 69). In 2008, the ministry initiated the Ontario Leadership Strategy, outlining the skills and traits of effective school leaders and a province-wide appraisal program (OECD, 2011, pg. 76). The province also has a mandated, problem-based principal qualification program including face-to-face mentorship and problems of practice as a basis for learning (Arlestig, Day, & Johansson, 2015, pg. 222; Ontario College of Teachers, 2017, pg. 18; Hallinger, 2003, pg. 62). In Hallinger (2003), Chin states that such an approach promotes understanding and skill-retention (pg. 62) and supports the field-based approach to leadership training (pg. 65) mentioned as a hallmark of effective programs by Littky and Shen (pg. 93).

The Ontario College of Teachers’ (OCT) Principal Qualification Program Guideline (2017) outlines instruction for the principalship that includes six facets: setting directions, relationships and capacity building, developing the organization, improving instruction, securing accountability, and developing personal leadership resources (pp. 5-7), all of which are cited by Chin, Littky, and Shen as being best practices in principal preparation (Hallinger, 2003, pp. 62-64, pp. 91-92). Robinson further supports shared vision and trust-building via collaborative cultures and exhibited personal integrity as positive leadership practices (Grogan, 2013, pp. 306-308). In Grogan (2013), Fink and Markbolt state the need for instructional leadership in schools (pg. 317) and Sergiovanni highlights the need for teacher capacity-building (pg. 376).

The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat (LNS) and Student Success Division (SSD), created by the Ministry of Education in 2003 and 2004 respectively, work to promote initiatives supporting increased student achievement in Ontario (OECD, 2011, pg. 72).  The LNS is tasked with increasing Elementary literacy and numeracy achievement and the SSD with increasing rates of high school completion, both considered prime factors in preparing students for life in the 21st  century (Hallinger, 2003, pg. 25). Following the creation of the LNS, and including members as representatives, the “Essential for Some, Good for All” (ESGA) project was initiated by the district-level generated Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE) to answer the call of the Education for All (EfA) special education initiative in 2005 (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012, pg. 130). The implementation of the CODE’s ESGA project was centered around professional learning communities (PLCs) engaged in studying how to leverage Universal Design for Learning and assistive technology to improve academic achievement for special education students, enhance teachers’ capacity and practice, and connect schools across districts (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012, pg. 112).

The LNS, SSD, and ESGA initiatives are examples of the benefits of strategic leadership promoting integrated policy development and leadership strategies that leverage middle-leadership development and two-way communication and feedback, both laterally and vertically, to foster trust and professional respect between stakeholders at the government, district, and school level (Hallinger, 2003, pg. 26). The LNS, SSD, and ESGA were all created separate from ministry bureaucracy and composed of field-based, relationship-building teams of respected district and school leaders tasked with promoting an integrated, shared vision of improving instruction and data-driven, practice-based collaborative learning with the support of Ontario’s teachers (OECD, 2011, pg. 74; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012, pg. 129-130). Their expertise and directive to serve as ongoing mentors and confidants rather than evaluators supported their ability to facilitate successful PLCs and support capacity-building in teachers and school administrators through constant feedback and trusting relationships (Grogan, 2013, pp. 299 & 322; Sheppard, Brown, & Dibbon., 2009, pp. 87-88).   EQAO testing is implemented as a measure of accountability, but results are not made public and struggling schools receive extra support, not punitive measures (Arlestig, et al., 2015, pg. 228; OECD, 2011, pg. 74) encouraging measured risk-taking (Sheppard et al., 2009, pg. 97).

At the policy level, ministers worked closely with the government and OECD to develop shared goals among ministers and advisors (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012, pg. 110; OECD, 2011, pg. 73) and align with other provincial policy strategies when forming the LNS (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012, pg. 125-126). This strategic leadership relates problems to the wider mission, supports effective PLCs, fosters sustainability and success, and is representative of Caldwell’s ‘boundary spanning” domain of best educational practices (Grogan, 2013, pg. 306; Sheppard et al., 2009, pp. 101-104; Hallinger, 2003, pp. 26-32). The province provided districts with funding and freedom to hire their own Student Achievement Officers (SAOs) and plan autonomously (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012, pg. 124; OECD, 2011, pg. 74).  Districts distributed leadership further by encouraging schools to find solutions to meet local needs, with school leaders encouraging teachers to engage in problem-based learning in PLCs (OECD, 2011, pg. 73-75). The ESGA project was initiated by middle-leadership and sought to further “break down silos” between specialists and teachers at the district and school level while providing mentoring support to each district, a practice that Sheppard et al. (2009, pg. 88) state is conducive to successful professional development learning (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012, pg. 112). Schools were further encouraged to communicate across districts with other schools facing similar problems (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012, pp. 129-130).


All three initiatives were resounding successes: the LNS increased provincial pass rates by 15%, the SSD increased secondary school graduation rates by 10% (OECD, 2011, pg. 72), and the ESGA was very successful in decreasing gaps in reading and writing by almost 10% and 20% respectively (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012, pg. 113). While Canadian education spending is comparable to other OECD nations, the country ranks in the top 10 in many key categories on the PISA test, especially impressive given the high immigrant population and resource based economy (OECD, 2011, pg. 77; OECD, 2015, pg. 5-7; Arlestig, et al., 2015, pg. 215).  Ontario’s approach of strategic policy development, shared vision, distributed leadership, and respect for educators as professionals is an exemplar of leadership development successfully increasing achievement and building capacity in the province’s public education system.
​