Search

This paper examines how international education (IE) as a tool of government foreign policy is challenged in an era of new geopolitics, where China's growing ambitions have increased rivalry with the West. It compares U.S. and Canada as cases first, by examining rationales and approaches to IE in both countries, second, IE relations with China before conflict and third, current controversies and government policy responses to IE relations with China. The paper concludes identifying contextual factors that shape each country's engagement with IE, but suggests that moving forward, the future of IE in a world of new geopolitics is likely to be far more complex and conflictual.

This paper describes the current criticisms of academic research collaboration between the US and China and proposes a university-led initiative to address those concerns. The article begins with the assertion that bilateral research collaboration has historically benefitted both countries, citing cooperation in virology as an example. The paper continues with a discussion of the criticisms leveled by several US government agencies against the Chinese government, especially with regard to the Thousand Talents Program (TTP). A close examination of publicly available appointment letters under the TTP suggests that Chinese universities are given wide discretion when it comes to defining the specific terms of scholarly collaboration. Along with additional supporting arguments, the paper concludes that the most significant violations of commonly accepted research norms are owing to the behavior of individual Chinese institutions and are not directed by the TTP or the Chinese national government. The paper then suggests several steps for addressing these issues at the university level, beginning with a convening of campus leaders from both countries.

Hong Kong and Singapore are island city-states that exude the complicated tensions of postcolonial nationalism. Both are influenced directly or indirectly by the long shadow of China's rising nationalism and geopolitical power and, in the case of Hong Kong, subject to Beijing's edicts under the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Both have productive economies dependent on global trade, and each has similar rates of population density--Hong Kong's population is 7.4 million and Singapore is home to 5.8 million people. It remains to be seen whether Hong Kong's peripheral nationalist identity will be retained, or whether the increasingly assertive influence and control by mainland China will prevail and fully assimilate Hong Kong. But it is apparent that Hong Kong is at a turning point. Throughout 2019, protesters filled the streets of the city, worried about declining civil liberties, specifically Beijing's refusal to provide universal suffrage as promised previously in law and the disqualification of prodemocracy candidates, along with the growing control of Hong Kong's government and universities by Chinese central government designates and fears of an ever-expanding crackdown on dissent. Singapore provides a less dramatic but relevant example of the tension caused by the influx of foreign national students and academics who often displace native citizens, combined with government-enforced efforts to control dissent in universities. And like Hong Kong, the long shadow of China influences the role universities are allowed to play in civil society. The following is an excerpt from the book "Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, Autocrats and the Future of Higher Education" (Johns Hopkins University Press) that explores the implications of nationalist movements on universities in Hong Kong and Singapore. In both, university leaders, and their academic communities, value academic freedom and the idea of independent scholarship. Yet the political environment is severe enough, and the opportunity costs great enough, that they, thus far, remain generally neutral institutions in a debate over civil liberties and the future of their island states. The exception is the key role students have played in the protest movement in Hong Kong, but for how long?

This report provides the historical background and interpretive analysis needed to understand controversies surrounding Common Core and its associated tests. In this report, Williamson M. Evers presents a revised and expanded version of his expert report for "Jindal v. United States Department of Education et al.," No. 14-CV- 534 (M.D. La), that includes the following four points: (1) That longstanding federal statutes contain prohibitions on the federal government in general--and the U.S Department of Education in particular--from directing or controlling curriculum; (2) That Common Core in combination with its associated tests are components of curriculum and put the country on the path to a national curriculum; (3) That, notwithstanding the role of the state officials and others in the creation of Common Core and its tests, the federal government and its Department of Education got the states to adhere to the Common Core and its associate tests and are enforcing against the states policies aimed at keeping in place these national standards and national tests (or their federally-approved equivalents); and (4) That, although the Common Core and its tests are defended as needed for school-improvement purposes, there is an alternative approach to school improvement that is consistent with the Constitution and federal statutes.

One major report after another shows that the United States needs a large, innovative, and effective adult education and workforce skills system. It is essential to the national security, economic stability, and democratic way of life. To address this need fully a leadership agency focused on a singular national goal is required, one with a legislative mandate to perform strategic planning and other coordination functions between and among federal agencies and public and private sector groups. Such an agency can accomplish its mission only if it is supported by a strong governance structure. The Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy (CAAL) proposes that the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) be reauthorized with a new and broader mission, mode of operation, and governance structure, and that these transformational elements be clearly set forth in the reauthorizing legislation. This will effectively create a new agency (with a new name, National Institute for Adult Learning, NIFAL) in place of the current National Institute for Literacy. NIFL, as chartered by the 1991 and 1998 Acts, might have been an important agency in the adult education field, but it was handicapped from the outset. Redeveloped as discussed in this paper, NIFAL will be able to take on the essential and far larger task of building an adult education and workforce skills system to meet the nation's 21st Century needs. About the Authors and NIFAL Working Group are appended. (Contains 7 notes.)

Charles Vest gave the second of three Clark Kerr Lectures on the Role of Higher Education in Society on April 21, 2005 on the Santa Barbara campus. The Age of the Internet presents remarkable opportunities for higher education and research in the United States and throughout the world. The rise of a "meta-university" of globally shared teaching materials and scholarly archives, undergirding campuses everywhere, both rich and poor, could well be a dominant, democratizing aspect of the next few decades. Even as we develop the meta-university and other forms of digitally empowered educational globalization, we must maintain the openness of our campuses here in the United States. Our openness to international students, scholars, and faculty members, as well as the openness of scientific inquiry and communication, must be balanced against national security concerns in the face of terrorism. But the lessons of history confirm that openness is a great contributor to the security of our nation and world in the long run, and must be preserved. (Contains 7 footnotes.)

This paper analyzes the roots and implications of conflict between the conduct of science and government predilections in the United States, including the security state and neoconservative control of Washington. Three major conflicts are discussed: the emergence of new security and secrecy regimes that seek control of science; religiously derived moral viewpoints that seek to limit scientific research; and the purposeful shaping and censoring of scientific findings for political gain. All three policy issues, argues the author, have their roots in a growing public mistrust of science and its purposes, but also the actions of the current presidential administration. What is needed, he states, is a set of rules rooted in several common understandings or rules. First, policies resting on scientific or technological issues, like all public policies, are decided in the end not just by experts but by a variety of people and interests. Second, objective scientific results, tested by repeated efforts at confirmation, are necessary (though not sufficient) elements in such policy decisions. Third, if the scientists responsible for those findings are controlled or silenced by particular policy interests, or committed in advance to any particular category of policy outcome, the resulting decisions are likely to be wrong. If adopted in advance of the installation of the next administration, or at the outset, such a set of rules could be seen a forward-looking improvement in governance, rather than as yet another criticism of what has been going on in this one.

Presented are nine working papers prepared for the National Science Foundation as one means of assisting the Office of Science and Technology Policy in preparing the administration's "Annual Science and Technology Report to the Congress, 1982." The papers explore aspects of three broad themes central to the administration's science and technology (ST) policies and strategies for their implementation: (1) optimizing use of limited resources for research and development (R&D) so that ST can be used more effectively to achieve national goals; (2) developing a set of equitable and consistent guidelines, within the administration's overall ST policy, for dealing with the generation, organization, and dissemination of ST information; and (3) encouraging implementation, by the private sector, of new technologies that can increase the productivity and international competitiveness of U.S. industry. Papers (each preceded by an abstract) focus on: international cooperation in science--U.S. role in megaprojects; trends in collective industrial research; impact of increased defense R&D expenditures on the U.S. research system; training and utilization of engineering technicians and technologists; national security controls and scientific information; issues in ST information policy; legal and regulatory implications of the video telecommunications revolution; trends in computers and communications--offices of the future; and fostering use of advanced manufacturing technology. (JN)

As of January 2012, more than 850,000 active foreign students were in the United States enrolled at over 10,000 U.S. schools. ICE, within DHS, is responsible for managing SEVP and certifying schools to accept foreign students. GAO was asked to review ICE's fraud prevention and detection procedures for SEVP. This report examines the extent to which ICE has (1) identified and assessed risks in SEVP and 2) developed and implemented policies and procedures to prevent and detect fraud during the initial school certification process and once schools begin accepting foreign students. GAO analyzed documents, such as ICE's SEVP procedures, and tested recordkeeping controls by selecting a random sample of 50 SEVP-certified schools and reviewing case files. GAO interviewed officials from SEVP, CTCEU, and 8 of 26 ICE field offices, selected based on a mix of factors, including school fraud investigations and referrals from CTCEU. While the results of the case file reviews and interviews cannot be generalized, they provided insights about SEVP. GAO recommends that ICE, among other things, identify and assess program risks; consistently implement procedures for ensuring schools' eligibility; address missing school case files; and establish target time frames for notifying flight schools that lack required FAA certification that they must re-obtain FAA certification. DHS concurred with the recommendations. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Comments from the Department of Homeland Security; and (3) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 1 table, 3 figures and 53 footnotes.)

The Association of American Universities (AAU) calls on the Administration, Congress, and academia, with the help of the business sector, to implement a 21st Century National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative aimed at meeting the economic and security challenges we will face over the next half-century. Government and America's universities and colleges should implement this initiative now, so that it can be fully in place by 2008--the 50th anniversary of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958. The Initiative springs from a belief among AAU universities that the burden of meeting these challenges is not government's alone and that research universities and higher education have key roles to play. It therefore calls for action and resources--and change-- not only from government but also from the nation's colleges and universities. It also reflects a strong belief that, if we take the right actions, America can maintain its global leadership and that we can ensure our national and economic security for the 21st Century. The objectives of the Initiative are threefold: (1) Enhance America's research capacity in order to sustain scientific and technical innovation; (2) Cultivate American talent to enhance the nation's math, science, engineering, and foreign language expertise; and (3) Continue to attract and retain the best and brightest international students, scientists, engineers, and scholars. This report is in three parts. The first highlights the most significant recommendations contained in the Initiative. The second is a narrative that lays out the challenges, historical background, and a broad description of the Initiative. The third section of the report provides a detailed list of recommendations. Contains 4 figures.)