Internationalism in Afghanistan Education is Not Summer Travel Abroad

As internationalization has moved from a fringe to core activity in higher education in western countries, it remains imperative to scrutinize the “what and why” of international educational in developing countries.  Most major higher education systems in growing nations now say they want to be “international,” but what does that mean --and to what end?

 

Recent World Bank-sponsored Technical and Vocational Education Training (TVET) programs for the Afghanistan Ministry of Education (MoE) are a good case study. 

The purpose of having international (read “Western”) standards as part of the education process is to ensure that TVET diploma programs fulfill such quality criteria that internationally recognized western educational institutions can award Afghan students that complete their studies successfully a diploma of their studies that is equally internationally recognized until Afghanistan institutions reach those same levels independently.

The main focus is on diploma programs built and executed according to pedagogical principles.  Secondly, the content of the diploma programs are inspected after different phases of procedures, to test whether they are tailored to local needs, then verified that international standards still remained in effect.  

Therefore, internationalization is not a goal in itself.  It is an instrument to achieve something.  It is not good just because it is international.  Instead of looking at internationalization as its own end, institutions of higher education in developing countries should focus on the way global perspectives contribute to improving teaching, learning, research, innovation and civic engagement.   Afghan officials do not understand this distinction.

Most Afghani education officials, not having any true educational experience, have no idea of vocational training or what is required.  On the other hand, some institutions in Kabul have management that far exceed the abilities of government administrators--as we have traveled to, and interviewed both private and public institution administrators in Kabul.

The World Bank projects are supposed to be designed so that external standards (i.e., accreditation) would act as an incentive for everyone to improve. However, Ministry of Education and other administrators are so concerned that they are going to fail international standards that they try to “buy” accreditation from somewhere else...anywhere else.  In worse case scenarios, they threaten financial or physical detriment.

They (MoE) appreciate the leverage international standards give external educational consultants and they do not like it.  The action of attempting to buy their accreditation reflects the reality of the situation.  They succeed in “buying accreditation” with the promise of additional contracts or non-payment of existing contracts.

The political side of the World Bank becomes active during project reviews as they accuse contractors of not discussing accreditation sufficiently with Afghan Ministries and administrators despite contract documents that stress the importance of international standards and that Afghan counterparts clearly understand its importance for their country’s global competiveness.  

The simple truth that is being ignored is that not all types of educational institutions or governments can properly engage in internationalization.  Governments and international donors (World Bank, etc.) have clearly definable roles to play with immigration, visa support, internships, job placement, financial aid, in-country subsistence, standards monitoring and third party influences. 

Further, the values underlying internationalization of higher education shifted over the years as international economies and global competition shifted.  These shifts have been from cooperation to competition, mutual benefit to self-interest, exchange and partnership to commercial trade and activity, and, as illustrated by the rise in influence of global rankings, from capacity-building to status- or prestige-building.  In plain words, the political and economic “stakes” have gotten higher, as have the consequences for failure.  (As a footnote: certain World Bank contingencies continue to disregard protocols or standards an international academic community sets for accreditation for its Afghanistan higher education projects for those very political and economic reasons.)

In summary, this commentary presents a case study new to the international educational community that suggests by direct assessment that the academic results of this Afghanistan program and its educational achievements must be viewed with cautious optimism at best unless a clear baseline for the competencies claimed can be validated against a certified standard.  It extrapolates the same conclusion to other such international academic programs that are conducted under similar conditions.

We have ignored the debate about what are we doing, why are we doing it, and how are we doing it in Afghanistan.  International education is not about students or consultants spending a summer abroad.  

Spending aid effectively in Afghanistan is extremely challenging, given the security climate, abject poverty, weak indigenous capacity, widespread corruption, and poor governance.  High staff turnover, pressure from the military, imbalances between military and civilian resources, unpredictable funding levels, and changing political timelines have further complicated efforts.  Pressure to achieve results puts project personnel under enormous strain to spend development money quickly even when the conditions are not right as this project evidences.  Further, multiple reports have raised alarms about the lack of robust oversight and accountability for these multi-million dollar investments.

Ending on a more positive note, the more we learn about each other, the more we know about each other.  The more we engage in differences that we have between our societies and between our social systems and between our political points of view, the better we will solve global issues together.  The more dialogue we have at every level, and especially at the academic level, where knowledge-makers and -transferors reside, the more we will advance globally together.