draft of 23 November, 2001)



Download 384.55 Kb.
Page5/10
Date conversion15.05.2016
Size384.55 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

1939
The popularity of the Herman-Jordan Plan that originated from the early meetings of the World Federation of Education Association in 1923 can be measured to some extent that in the 1939 WFEA convention the original Herman-Jordan Plan was re-interpreted and extended by WFEA at the same time that the association created a new committee to take over the work of its historical ÔHerman-Jordan Section.Õ The new section was termed the Committee on International Education [emphasis added] and the purpose of the committee was noted as: Òto enlist education in creating a compelling world opinion for peace and against aggression; and to do this by calling the attention of the teaching profession, of governments, and of other organizations in society to the importance of education in world understanding, goodwill and cooperation among all peoples and all nations, and by promoting the spread of these ideals through education and their practical embodiment in civic and government agencies suitable to the needs of the world community.Ó (WFEA 1939, pp 154-155) The association also outlined specific activities in international education for the Committee on International Education including; teaching international relations, teaching of foreign languages and cultures, establishing international speakers bureaus, promoting residence and study abroad as well as international correspondence, review of textbooks and peace education among others.
1943
George Zook, the president of the American Council on Education writing in the opening pages of a 1943 report (Schnapper 1943) on the establishment of a world-wide effort at teaching responsible world-citizenship reflected on the missed opportunities in international education: ÔWe had the same opportunity [as presented then in 1943] twenty-five years ago and we ÔmuffedÕ it, partly because of our inability to suppress selfish ambitions but largely because we did not give education and mutual understanding that primary place in the world organization which we have long recognized as essential in the successful practice of self-government in domestic affairs. True there were the valiant efforts of the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation under the league and the International Bureau of Education. But on a starvation diet and with little official recognition they could not possibly be more than moderately successful. (Zook in Schnapper 1943, v)
Francis Kemeny (1914) was instrumental in providing an early proposal for an international bureau for education. Rossello (trans. Butts 1944) cites KemenyÕs interest in cultural internationalism: ÒHe does not wish to weaken the cultural autonomy of any nation. There again, he does not oppose nationalism to internationalism, which would hinder cultural internationalism by setting up a reaction. The two tendencies - national and international - should progress concurrently and develop into a higher unity. It would however, be futile to try to reach cultural internationalism - the groundwork of all internationalism - without first developing international education [emphasis added].
George Carr the secretary of the Educational Policies Commission in Washington writing in the opening pages of a 1943 report (Schnapper 1943) on the urgent requirement on education for world citizenship noted that two distinct efforts by the American Association of School Administrators and by the National Education Association on the issue of education for world citizenship resulted in remarkably similar documents: ÒBoth [documents] agree that education for understanding of international affairs and world citizenship must begin as soon as possible, in each of the United Nations, in order to develop a clear understanding of the common purposes of these nations and to preserve their unity through the trying years ahead.Ó (Carr in Schnapper 1943, vi)
In 1941 the London International Assembly and the Council for Education in World Citizenship appointed a joint commission to consider the educational needs in age of postwar reconstruction. Among the focal points of the resulting report was the need for education for world citizenship: ÒThere are members of the Commission who hold strongly that all education should have a sound religious foundation. Others hold a different view. But, however we may differ in this, we all agree that all truly civilized men hold in common certain principles. They believe in the dignity of the human person and the oneness of the human family. These principles and the rules of conduct derived from them should be inculcated not only by the example of the daily practice of parents and teachers, but also in the form of either religious instruction or moral lessons, or both, according to country and school, for the organization of such teaching in every country must, in our view, be completely in the hands of the people of these countries.Ó (Schnapper 1943, p 76)
1944
Ralph Turner, an educational and cultural official at the Department of State wrote of the responsibilities of American institutions with regard to international education at the tertiary level: Òif those thousands of foreign students who will come among us attend truly American schools, they will receive a critical, and functional humane education suited to the needs of these times. Only by providing this education will American institutions of higher learning meet fully their responsibility in international education [emphasis added] these times impose upon them.Ó (Turner 1944, p 48)
Issac Leon Kandel writing in the 1944 Annual of the American Academy of Political and Social Science entitled ÒInternational Frontiers in EducationÓ (edited by William Carr) presented a critical analysis of the needs of international education: ÒAs to the paramount aim which has stimulated the plans for an international education office - the desire to promote peace and international understanding and cooperation...... The aim will not be achieved by an over-all international organization, for it involves a change of spirit which must be developed through the relations of each human being with his immediate neighbors irrespective of race, creed, or color. to suggest, as has been done by one closely associated with the educational system of New York City, that an international agency should promote the ideals of tolerance, justice and peace is to shelve a problem which New York City has been unable to solve. It may be a paradox, but it is none the less true, that international education is in fact national education, just as international politics are national politics. Internationalism must begin at home, and an international education office may contribute something to it but cannot direct its development, as seems to be assumed in the idealistic plans for its organization.Ó
In ButtÕs translation of RosselloÕs (1943) landmark work it is evident that the International Bureau of Education and those early supporters of its work represent the institutional memory of international education in the first several decades of the 20th century. RosselloÕs description of that history is indicative of such: ÒFor years only an Žlite, or a small minority, took any interest in education considered from the world point of view. Voices were raised here and there to advocate the participation of the school in the crusade for peace. A few called boldly for the international co-ordination of curricula and methods. Others only went the length of proposing the exchange of educational information. But these were isolated appeals; they found no echo among cabinet ministers or educational authorities, and to the mass of educationists such questions appeared remote and artificial.Ó (Rossello in Butts 1944, p 72)
1945
What renders a consideration of the teacherÕs part in One World is that the whole issue which confronts all concerned with the future of education has been obscured by devoting too much attention to means and too little to the end to be achieved. So far a school education is concerned and for the majority of pupils in elementary and high schools the end to be achieved is of the greatest importance. That end is the development of the good neighbor ideal and that development must begin with the pupilÕs own environment and branch out to the community, the nation and the world. It is nothing less than the cultivation in each one of us of the recognition of the worth and dignity of human beings regardless of race, color or creed. There are some who would define the ultimate end to be attained as a sense of world citizenship, but that sense can only become a reality as it grows out of and is continuous with local and national citizenship. (Kandel 1945, p 3)
Donald Tewksbury of Teachers College in New York wrote extensively in 1945 on the ÒNew Directions in International EducationÓ and reflected on the history and emergent definition of the field of international education at that time: ÒInternational education is not a new phenomenon, it is as old as human society. Intercultural relationships involving education were a characteristic of primitive society. Ancient civilizations, such as those in Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, China, India, Greece, and Rome engaged in widespread educational activities involving the interchange of culture and learning. The Buddhist, Moslem, and Christian religions became the carriers of culture on an international scale. The Catholic Church, and later the Protestant denominations, engaged in missionary activities on a world-wide basis. With the rise of national states, international education, within the strict meaning of the term, became a characteristic activity of modern times, particularly among European states and between countries bordering on the Atlantic Ocean.Ó (Tewksbury 1945, p. 293) Tewksbury then summarizes the present need for international education: ÒAs the nations and peoples of the earth have been brought physically closer and closer to one another, the world has indeed become a neighborhood; albeit not yet a brotherhood. The promotion of international understanding and cooperation through education, as well as through other means, has become a vital necessity in our times. This situation calls for a planned development of international education activities on the part of all nations and a re-evaluation of aims and methods.Ó (p. 293) Tewksbury then proposed seven ÔpropositionsÕ with regard to international education given the Ôworld conditions.Õ The seven propositions were: Ò1.) International education must be conducted on a firm basis of reciprocity and mutuality between nations.... 2.) International education must be deeply rooted in the study of comparative cultures and education.... 3.) International education must be directly concerned with the basic problems of intergroup tension and conflict... 4.) International education must be associated closely with world-wide movements for relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction.... 5.) International education must be actively concerned with the promotion of a ÒpeopleÕs educationÓ in all lands.... 6.) International education must be concerned with the closer integration of academic and vocational education..... 7.) International education must be conducted as a cooperative undertaking of governmental and non-governmental agencies....Ó (Tewksbury 1945, p 299)
1946

Butts (in Deighton 1969) cites the landmark event for international education in the United States as being the Fulbright Act of 1946 which provided Òthat currencies and credits of certain countries acquired by the United States from the sale of war-surplus materials could be used for international educational exchangeÓ (p. 168)


1947

Kenworthy (1951) in reviewing the early work of UNESCO in education for international understanding cites an international seminar in Sevres, France which examined the social studies programs in various countries. ( see also Wilson, 1947a,b) The seminar which was held for six weeks on the outskirts of Paris starting on 21 July, 1947 was the very first meeting of record by the newly-formed world education body with regard to international education. Over one hundred educational professionals from all the continental areas of the globe were included as participants who all had the benefit of fifty-one visiting lecturers who served the seminar for a period up to ten days. The Director of the Seminar, Howard E. Wilson who had been recently named the associate director of the Division of Intercourse and Education of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, indicated in his report to UNESCO that the seminar was both an experiment and a pioneering effort. (Wilson 1947a, p 1) Wilson also edited several group working reports including one dealing with the education of adolescents in the area of international understanding. In this report (Wilson 1947b) the aims of international education were proposed by the working group: ÒIn our discussions of the relationship of educational aims to international understanding, we found that four such dimensions or areas of objectives seemed to constitute the essential ingredients of international understanding or for the development of a world citizen: 1) Knowledge, ideas, concepts; in other words intellectual awareness; 2) Attitudes, sensitivities, feelings; emotional awareness; 3) Thinking, the technique of using knowledge and applying it to new problems and experiences; 4) Skills, or the techniques with which to put what one knows, what one believes, and what one can reason out into practical operation.Ó (pp 27-28)


Kenworthy (1947) was the lead author of a working group paper on Social Studies teaching at the UNESCO Seminar at Sevres in 1947. The working group report was significant in that for the first time, a detailed description of an Ôinternationally-mindedÕ person, in educational terms, was developed by a widely representative group of educators. The report begins by setting the stage of the historic imperative of such a consideration: ÒIf we are to emerge from the chaos and confusion of this period in history, and develop a world-wide community based on justice, peace and goodwill, we must consider far more seriously and far more skillfully than we have done so far the characteristics of the internationally-minded individual and the means by which such persons can be developed by the thousands and the millions.Ó (Kenworthy et al 1947, p 1) The report of the working group on Social Studies at the Sevres Seminar provided a detailed description of the belief structures of such an internationally-minded individual: ÒWhat then, are some of these attitudes of the internationally minded persons towards which all social studies teaching, whether in the early years of childhood or in the later years of adolescence, whether in the courses known as geography, history, social studies, economics, sociology, civics, government or by any other title, should lead? Briefly stated, pupils should be aware of and act upon the belief that: a) All persons should be respected and appreciated despite differences in nationality, race, religion, economic or social status, sex, or ability. b) The peoples of the world have much in common. c) Differences do exist between people, between groups, and between nations, but most differences should be tolerated and some differences are even to be desired. d) The spirit of cooperation should be sought for in all oneÕs relationships with others. e) Differences can be solved without resort to violence. f) Sensitivity to the needs of society and a sense of responsibility for building a better community, a better nation, and a better world is essential. g) Change occurs constantly in many aspects of human life and must be expected and allowed for. h) The worldÕs cultural and political heritage should be assessed and its best aspects respected. i) Patience and persistence are necessary in building a better community, nation or world; progress is possible but not inevitable. j) Each person has prejudices and that they can be removed or minimized. k) Self-reliance and self-restraint are important disciplines. l) A spirit of inquiry should be encouraged. m) Each person has a part to play in building world peace. n) Loyalty to oneÕs family, oneÕs community, and oneÕs nation should be extended to include humanity.Ó (Kenworthy et al 1947, pp 32-33)
1948
In an important joint report of the National Education Association, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the National Council for Social Studies, the NEA published for guidelines for international education in 1949. Significantly the term international education was explicitly defined: ÒInternational understanding is a broad term and necessarily encompasses many things. It does not connote the absence of national loyalty nor an unrealistic approach to the world. Rather, it includes the process of making students informed and loyal citizens of their own country - aware of the nature of the world in which they live, the relationship of their nation to the world as a whole, the forces that motivate national action, the life and institutions of other nations, and a host of other things in order that they may bring their intelligence and judgment to bear upon the problems of living in an interdependent world.Ó (NEA 1949, p 9) The report went on to outlined the aims of international education: ÒThe long range goal of education for international understanding is world peace and human welfare, achieved and maintained through a peaceful world order operating through international organizations. The immediate purpose of such education in the elementary and secondary schools of the United States is the development of American citizens who are conscious of their new obligations to mankind.Ó (p 11)
1949
In the teaching of national history and geography, care should be taken not to magnify the ethnocentrism found in every group, nor to exaggerate the worth of the accomplishments of oneÕs own group over those of other groups. The interdependence of living in one world, the common aspirations of human beings, their common problems and dangers, should be emphasized.(Adolph Meyer 1949, p 139)
Kenworthy (1951) notes that the International School of Copenhagen was opened in the Fall of 1949 under the influence of a committee made up of Danes, English and Americans. The aims of the school as reported at that time was Òto train children to meet the requirements of live in their own country and at the same time to qualify them to become active and suitable members of a Ôone worldÕ community.Ó (p 218)_
UNESCO convenes a ÔConference of Principals of International SchoolsÕ in Paris which attracted 15 schools Òwishing to develop an international outlookÓ (Hill, 2001, p 17) Kees Boeke compiled the list of invitations based on those that he had previous contact with regarding international education. Those invited included, Kurt Hahn of Gordonstoun School in Scotland, Madame Hatinguais of the Centre International dÕEtudes PŽdagogiques in Sevres, Madame Roquette of the International School of Geneva, Prince of Hannover from the Salem School in Germany, Quakerschool, in Eerde-Ommen in the Netherlands, the Dartington Hall and Badminton School in England, the Pestalozzi ChildrenÕs School in Switzerland, the Oldenwaldschule of Scotland, Germany, the College CŽvŽnol in France, Viggbyholomsskolan in Sweden, as well as the Riverdale Country School from the United States. Hill describes this meeting as Òthe first such meeting concerning international education ever to be held.... (p 18) This claim is made with very little historical evidence to support it. It was further reported that the meeting in Paris discussed both the establishment of a worldwide network of international schools and the training of teachers for such schools. (p 18)
1950
UNESCO launches itself into Ôeducation for international understandingÕ with an international seminar in 1950 on ÒThe Teaching of Geography as a Means of Promoting International UnderstandingÓ (cited in Kenworthy, 1951, p 202)
The Conference on Internationally Minded Schools (CIS) which was formed in 1949 as a result of a UNESCO meeting organized a four week course in international education at the International School of Geneva for interested teachers. This four week course resulted in a broad agreement on the definition of international education by the group which was cited in an article by Ian Hill (2002) the Deputy Director of the IBO in a recent article on the history of the IBO. The group that assembled in 1950 agreed that international education: Òshould give the child an understanding of his past as a common heritage to which all men irrespective of nation, race, or creed have contributed and which all men should share; it should give him an understanding of his present world as a world in which peoples are interdependent and in which cooperation is a necessity. In such an education emphasis should be laid in a basic attitude of respect for all human beings as persons, understanding of those things which unite us and an appreciation of the positive values of those things which may seem to divide us, with the objective of thinking free from fear or prejudice..(cited in Hill 2002, taken from ÒA Course for Teachers Interested in International Education - Final Report, International School of Geneva, 1950, Section I)
Lavone Hanna, a professor from San Fransisco State College wrote on the basic principles of international education in the journal Educational Leadership in 1950 saying: ÒInternational education which attempts to equip children and youth to live intelligently in a world of rapid change and uncertainty might well focus on the following basic principles. 1) Science and technology have made all people increasingly interdependent, 2) All people have the same basic needs but have learned different ways of satisfying their needs, 3) International organization and cooperation are necessary for peace and world progress, 4) Wars are not inevitable; they are futile and destructive, 5) Democracy and totalitarianism are conflicting ideologies which can exist together in the world only when nations feel secure from change imposed from without. (Hanna, 1950, adapted from pages 19-21)
William Brickman, Distinguished Professor of Education at University of Illinois publishes the only comprehensive research bibliography on the history of international education in the modern era in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Macmillan Co, New York) Brickman is considered by Scanlon and Shields (1968) to the a Ôleading historian of international educationÕ in the absence of a formal textual history of the field. BrickmanÕs bibliography (in his comments) indicates that there were more than 30 formal plans for some sort of international educational organization put forward between the years 1814-1914 from Jullien, Kemeny, Andrews and Peeters (p. 619) Brickman also presents a range of defining characteristics to the field; ÒThe term international education may be applied to the various educational and cultural relations among nations. In this broad sense it encompasses comparative education..... More narrowly, it refers to international efforts at cooperation and harmony in the exchange of teachers and students, rehabilitation of backward cultural areas, mutual understanding through school instruction, and the like.... Although Ôinternational educationÕ has been often used in professional writings and sometimes in names of organizations, it has not gained currency as a designation of a field of professional study.Ó (Brickman 1950, pp 617-618)
1951
Everywhere nationalism is a potent force, and there is still fear lest too much emphasis upon education for a world society result in minimizing education for national citizenship... The one phrase which various nations seem to be willing to use is Òeducation for international understandingÓ as attested to by the adoption of this phraseology by UNESCO after long and heated debates. These words imply a less ambitious approach and one which most governments are willing to approve.(Leonard Kenworthy, 1951, p 200)
Kenworthy (1951) summarizes a somewhat pessimistic view of the future of international education when he noted: Ò...we must assume that educators have only begun to experiment with ways and means of developing world-minded boys and girls and men and women. We must assume, too, that if these outstanding programs fall short of the ideal, there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of schools in every country of the world which are still further from the goal of education for a world society. In fact, we may well accept the conclusion that far too large a percentage of the schools of the world are not only developing world-minded individuals, but are consciously or unconsciously developing narrow nationalists. (p 203)
Kenworthy (1951, pp 208-215) recommends a series of eight conceptual areas which could be translated into aims of education for a world society which itself could be viewed as a proposed definition of international education:

1) the ideal of a world society

2) information on peoples and nations of the world



3) interrelationship and interdependence of nations

4) institutions of a world society

5) insight into national life in relation to the world society

6) identification with the world society

7) interpretation of information

8) improvement in the art of group living


Kenworthy (1951) reviews the postwar attitude toward international education by noting; ÒAnother reason for the great variation in practice [in international education practices around the world] lies in the cynicism and disillusionment which have grown up in many countries as a result of centuries of conflict, climaxed by two world wars. Added to this is the intense interest which was manifest in teaching about the League of Nations in such countries as France and England and their consequent reticence now in launching programs in behalf of the United Nations and of education for a world society.Ó (p 205)
ÒNational contributions must not be glossed over by internationalism in education. On the contrary, they will be stressed, just as the individualÕs contributions are stressed in a democratic society. But those contributions will be cherished as part of manÕs larger heritage and not as a nationÕs jealously guarded monopoly.Ó (Lengyel, 1951, p 618)
James Quillen speaking of the responsibility of teachers towards Ôsound human relationsÕ gave civic guidelines for international education: ÒEducators who seek to contribute to the building of a free world society must broaden the childÕs horizon beyond the nation, and support agencies that are seeking to improve bilateral, regional, and world-wide inter-cultural relations. The concept of citizenship should be extended. Each individual needs to be an effective, loyal member of his own cultural group and nation, but, at the same time, he needs to be an effective citizen of a world society and to identify himself with all mankind.Ó (Quillen 1951, pp 42-43)
Leonard Kenworthy (1951) provides possibly the first historical listing of Ôinternational schoolsÕ using the criteria that they would be involved in some aspects of Òeducation for a world society.Ó His list includes both schools and institutions of higher learning. The schools were listed as; 1) The International School of Geneva, 2) Werkplaats ChildrenÕs Community, Bilthoven, Netherlands, 3)International School, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4) The Friends School, Hobart, Tasmania, 5) The Public Schools, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 6) The Public Schools and the University of Nebraska and, 7) Council for Education in World Citizenship, London, England. The institutions of higher learning were listed as 1) The International PeopleÕs College in Elsinore, Denmark, 2) The London University Institute of Education, 3) Santiniketan and Sriniketan, India, 4) Far Eastern University, Manila, Philippines, and 5) The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page