How Americans Think about International Education and Why it Matters

Abstract

The public has not yet embraced international education. It is time, Ms. Bales argues, to articulate a clear vision of international education to replace the perception that it is a nonessential add-on to the conventional curriculum. SCHOLARS of social movements offer important advice for those who would attempt to catapult international education onto the nation's policy agenda: There is no such thing as a social problem, until enough people, with enough power in the society, agree that there is. Social problems are produced by public opinion, not by particular social conditions, undesirable or otherwise.1 Taken in this light, the fact that student knowledge of the world is demonstrably inadequate or that fewer than 40,000 American students study Chinese is unlikely to result in a widespread call for education reform. And, despite the fact that policy leaders in government and business have publicly expressed their concern about isolationism, elite opinion in itself is insufficient to propel the changes that are necessary to transform the curriculum. That will depend on the reactions of constituents and of influential individuals who must weigh international education against other priorities. The challenge for those who would advance internationalizing the American curriculum as an important public goal lies in helping opinion leaders engage citizens in the issue in a way that makes vivid the transformative power of the educational changes proposed. At the same time, educators and opinion leaders must anticipate and avoid unproductive habits of thinking that are likely to derail public understanding. The public has a lot on its mind just now, from jobs and health care to failing schools and terrorist threats. Without a clear and well-stated message about the importance and promise of international education, this issue is unlikely to attach itself to other public goals that Americans are eager to address. The findings reported here come from an admittedly small sample of research projects on international education conducted by the FrameWorks Institute. FrameWorks interviewed 20 average citizens in Colorado and Connecticut to elicit their associations with international education and conducted two focus groups in North Carolina. However, this body of work is amplified dramatically by FrameWorks' multi-year investigation of American attitudes toward international issues in general -- funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and others -- which consisted of more than a dozen multi-method studies, including two large-scale surveys of public opinion. The following observations are based on work conducted by FrameWorks' partners, the independent research organizations Cultural Logic and Public Knowledge. Through a Glass Darkly a review of previous research on U.S. attitudes toward international education, public opinion expert Meg Bostrom concluded, In several ways, Americans demonstrate strong support for international education, including foreign language requirements, international education courses, study abroad, and international students on U.S. campuses. However, few say these skills are essential, leaving international education easily displaced by other priorities.2 The research by FrameWorks confirms this assessment. Framing, as it is used by FrameWorks researchers, refers to the subtle selection of certain aspects of an issue in order to cue a specific response. As researchers have shown, the way an issue is framed explains who is responsible and suggests potential solutions conveyed by images, stereotypes, messengers, and metaphors. The advantage of strategic frame analysis is that it allows researchers to document and deconstruct the frames currently in the public consciousness and to understand their impact on public policy preferences. Perhaps the most important finding in FrameWorks' research is the lack of a well-defined public vision or definition of international education. …