Tag: Targets

  • Trump Order Targets Undocumented Students’ In-State Tuition

    Trump Order Targets Undocumented Students’ In-State Tuition

    Immigrant rights advocates are urging state and higher ed leaders not to make any hasty changes to their in-state tuition policies after President Trump issued an executive order on Monday threatening to crack down on sanctuary cities and localities with laws that benefit undocumented immigrants.

    The blow to undocumented students, who in nearly half the country pay in-state tuition, is tucked into an executive order focused mostly on pressuring state and local officials to abandon their cities’ sanctuary status and cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The order demands federal officials make lists of “sanctuary jurisdictions” and the federal funds that could be suspended or cut if they don’t change course. The order also commands them to take “appropriate action” to stop the enforcement of state and local laws and practices “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” including in-state tuition benefits to undocumented students “but not to out-of-state Americans.”

    The move has the potential to affect 24 states and Washington, D.C., which allow in-state tuition for local students with or without citizenship. (Florida previously allowed undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates but ended its decade-old, historically bipartisan policy in February.) Undocumented students and supporters have long touted these policies as a way to make college more affordable for those who can’t access federal financial aid but who grew up in the states and plan to work in their local communities after they graduate.

    “What immigrant, international and refugee students bring is needed talent, skills and contributions,” said Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. “In-state tuition increases the number of a state’s residents who are college educated, who are able to contribute far more to the state’s economy and to their communities than if they did not have a college education.”

    Gaby Pacheco, president and CEO of TheDream.US, a scholarship provider for undocumented students, said many of these students come from low-income backgrounds and couldn’t afford college otherwise.

    Her organization is currently scrambling to help undocumented students in Florida pay for the remainder of their credits and graduate before they have to pay much higher out-of-state tuition rates. In some cases, that means helping them transfer to more affordable institutions.

    For many, “it’s just impossible for them to be able to come up with that money,” she said.

    She’s encouraging state and institutional leaders to avoid “panicking” or “making abrupt policy changes” in response to the executive order.

    Other executive orders have “created so much panic and unnecessary movement from colleges, universities, states, that it was more hurtful than anything,” she said. The administration is putting forward a “belief” that charging undocumented students in-state tuition rates is unlawful, but “that belief is legally dubious.”

    Deciphering the Executive Order

    Immigrants’ advocates and legal scholars say the meaning of the executive order is somewhat hazy. For example, it’s unclear what it means for federal officials to “take appropriate action” to prevent in-state tuition policies from being enforced.

    The order also doesn’t directly say states or institutions with such laws will lose any federal funding, noted Ahilan Arulanantham, professor from practice at the UCLA School of Law and co-director of the law school’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy.

    Still, the order’s threatening tone toward sanctuary cities’ federal funds could be “a window into where this fight could go if the federal government wants to expend significant political capital on this issue,” Arulanantham said. Congress, for example, could decide to pass a law to cut federal funds from universities that offer undocumented students in-state tuition—a proposal outlined in Project 2025. But the executive order itself doesn’t explicitly take away federal dollars from anyone or have the power to do so, he said.

    “If I were a local government or state government official, I probably wouldn’t sue tomorrow over this,” Arulanantham said. “I would wait to see if this is actually going to have any teeth, or if it’s just like a press release.”

    Pacheco similarly described the order as “warning” states of the administration’s posture toward these policies. At the same time, she believes it’s important to plan ahead in case Trump takes the issue further.

    “They’re trying to tell states, ‘We believe that you providing certain benefits for undocumented students is against the law,’” she said. “We’ve known this forever—these states are not violating the law.”

    The order suggests that in-state tuition for undocumented students “may violate” a federal statutory provision that says undocumented people can’t receive higher ed benefits unless citizens are also eligible. But in-state tuition policies are designed to serve citizens living in these states, as well. For example, under California’s Assembly Bill 540, any nonresident who spent three years in California high schools is eligible for in-state tuition. That policy also benefits citizens who grew up in the state who may have left for any reason and returned.

    These types of in-state tuition policies, including California’s, have faced legal challenges in the past, “but all the challenges have failed, said Kevin Johnson, dean of the UC Davis School of Law. He described the executive order as “vaguely worded,” while the state laws, by contrast, are “very clear.”

    The legal argument is that undocumented students are “just being treated equally as all other residents of the state,” he said. “The idea is that they’re residents, which means they’re taxpayers—maybe it’s sales tax, maybe state income tax, federal income tax—whatever it is, they should be treated like other residents and not discriminated against because of their immigration status.”

    What Happens Next

    Arulanantham worries that despite their strong legal foundation, states and higher ed institutions may rush to end in-state tuition benefits for undocumented students out of fear.

    “That’s actually almost certainly the primary purpose of this order”: to spur “pre-emptive discrimination because [institutions] think they have to or they think it’s safer to,” he said.

    Feldblum noted that, prior to the executive order, some state lawmakers were already starting to shift on the issue, perhaps “to align themselves with the federal government.”

    While some states have recently doubled down on such policies, proposing new legislation to expand in-state tuition eligibility, others have also moved to curtail them. Following in Florida’s footsteps, lawmakers in other states, including Kansas, Kentucky and Texas, are considering legislation to prohibit in-state tuition for undocumented students. Texas was the first to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates in 2001, joined by California that same year.

    “This is not coming in a vacuum … We have to take this seriously and substantively, consider the kinds of actions we need to take to defend in-state tuition—including, if needed, legal action,” Feldblum said. “And then also make sure we’re placing equal emphasis on supporting and communicating with potentially impacted students so that they know their education is important and that they’re important.”

    Source link

  • Brown University targets student journalist for sending DOGE-like emails

    Brown University targets student journalist for sending DOGE-like emails

    “Describe what tasks you performed in the past week.” 

    That’s what student journalist Alex Shieh asked 3,805 administrators at Brown University in a March 18 email. The backlash was swift. 

    Just two days later, Brown told Shieh it was reviewing his DOGE-inspired email — based on allegations that he had “emotionally harmed” several employees and “misrepresented” himself by saying he was a reporter for the conservative student newspaper The Brown Spectator, which he was. 

    Elon Musk, de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), wields a chainsaw at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference.

    In Brown’s letter, officials also claimed he violated operational procedures and demanded he “return any confidential information,” warning that his access to university data systems could be restricted.

    Days later, Associate Dean and Associate Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards Kirsten Wolfe threatened to charge Shieh with “failure to comply” unless he provided evidence that he had deleted unspecified confidential information that Brown alleged he may have accessed. Wolfe also demanded Shieh keep even the existence of this investigation private. Nor has Brown revealed what confidential information they believe he published, and Shieh denies having taken any confidential information.

    He pointed out that even if he did have any confidential information — an allegation the university has not begun to substantiate — providing evidence that he deleted it would also provide Brown incriminating evidence that he had the information in the first place — violating Brown’s promise that students have a right against self-incrimination. 

    Brown’s response here flies in the face of its due process and free expression guarantees, and threatens to chill student reporting on campus. Due process is essential not just to guarantee defendants a fair shake, but to uphold the legitimacy of campus disciplinary proceedings. It also acts as a bulwark protecting students’ individual liberties. As FIRE has said before, universities that guarantee their students free expression cannot base investigations on the very speech they promise to protect — and for good reason. 

    Telling someone they are the target of an investigation can have a chilling effect on speech, especially in cases like this one, where universities also can’t use chilling investigations as fishing expeditions. Brown’s effort to get Shieh himself to substantiate its assertions against him by providing evidence he thinks could relate to the allegations against him flips the disciplinary process on its head. ​​

    Fundamental fairness requires that the university bear the burden of proving the allegations, not the student to prove his innocence.

    Moreover, Brown’s threats also burden newsgathering practices protected by the university’s guarantee of press freedom. Certainly, administrators are within their rights to investigate actual breaches of confidentiality policies. But investigating journalism, offbeat though it may be, is a far cry from that.

    University President Christina Paxson declared in a recent letter that Brown will defend free expression against encroachments from the federal government. Shieh’s case suggests that her promise does not extend to Brown’s own encroachments on free expression.

    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

    Source link

  • Heat networks could help institutions meet net zero targets

    Heat networks could help institutions meet net zero targets

    Heat networks enable heat and hot water to be distributed from a central ‘energy centre’, via mainly underground pipes, to multiple buildings.

    Boiler systems in connected buildings would be replaced with new infrastructure, to enable circulation of heat from the network. The energy centre becomes the source of the heat supply.

    Heat networks have a long history — with the first networks being tested nearly 150 years ago. Distribution of heat from a centralised heat source was taken forward in New York city in the late nineteenth century. In the UK, heat networks were used in blocks of flats in the 1960s and 70s. Denmark was one of the first countries to start using heat networks on a wide scale, in response to the oil crisis in 1973. Currently, heat networks are commonly used in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and in cities across the USA and Canada. There are around 14,000 heat networks in the UK with many being campus-style, providing heat to groups of social housing or hospital/NHS campuses.

    Modern heat networks can utilise sources of low carbon heat. These include energy from waste facilities, geothermal sources, solar thermal arrays, air and ground source heat pumps and data centres.

    Participating in a heat network is likely to be more environmentally friendly and, in some cases, more cost-effective than maintaining older, inefficient gas-fired heating systems.

    Funding available

    It’s estimated that fifty per cent of buildings in the UK are located in areas suitable for the construction of a heat network, which currently supply around 2 to 3 per cent of the UK’s heat. The Committee on Climate Change predicts that in order to meet net zero targets (with around 20 per cent of heat supply being from heat networks), it is estimated that investment will need to be around £60 to £80 billion by 2050.

    The government has confirmed its support for the sector, as re-iterated at November’s Association for Decentralised Energy Conference by Miatta Fahnbulleh, Minister for Energy Consumers. The government has set a target for at least 18 per cent of the UK’s heat demand to be met from heat networks by 2050. Over £600 million of government funding has been allocated to develop and improve heat networks.

    The government’s recently published “Clean Power 2030” action plan sets out that the national wealth fund will make available an expanded suite of financial instruments, as part of investment in heat networks and other clean energy sectors.

    The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero already significantly supports the sector via capital grant funding from the Green Heat Network Fund. Education institutions have a range of grant options available to them. One example is the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (via its delivery body, Salix Finance), being a fund dedicated to supporting energy efficiency and decarbonisation initiatives.

    Financial support for heat networks is supplemented by the work of other bodies such as the Heat Networks Industry Council, which is a joint industry and Government forum that aims to grow the heat network sector.

    Taken together, it is clear that there is genuine ambition to ensure that heat networks play a key role in helping the UK meet its net zero ambitions.

    Notable heat network developments

    A number of major heat network projects are underway, including the hugely ambitious South Westminster Area Network (referred to as “SWAN”), which will supply low carbon heating to the Houses of Parliament, the National Gallery and large areas of Whitehall, and the Leeds PIPES heat network, which connects to over 3000 dwellings.

    The existence of these projects, and numerous others, is evidence of a growing trend in the emergence of heat networks as a major contributor to the UK’s net zero ambitions.

    Campus based networks

    Heat networks can work well on campus-style facilities. Given the location of the projects mentioned above, city-based higher education institutions should also consider whether it is feasible for their buildings to connect to a heat network, and whether a heat network is planned in their area.

    There are a number of recent adopters of heat networks in the education sector, including the University of Liverpool, the University of Bradford and the University of Warwick, with many more universities considering becoming heat off-takers.

    Heat networks present academic institutions with an exciting opportunity to forge the way in supporting both new sources of heat, and decarbonising heat in urban areas.

    Regulation matters

    Aside from regulations that govern billing and metering, the heat network sector is not regulated. This, however, will change – the heat networks market framework regulations 2025 (currently in draft) is to come into force in stages over the next 12 months.

    Future regulation is subject to ongoing consultation, which includes consideration of how different groups of consumers are to be protected, and specific arrangements on standards of conduct and billing transparency.

    In particular, the proposed regulations do not specifically refer to a ‘supplier of last resort’ regime, which would enable a state-nominated entity to continue the operation of a heat network where the relevant operator had become insolvent. We understand that Ofgem and the government are considering how this would work, given the complexity of arranging for the ownership transfer of infrastructure and capital assets. We await further developments on this.

    The scheme rules of the Heat Trust, which operates to protect the interests of domestic and micro-business customers of heat networks, partly informed the content of forthcoming regulations. The Heat Trust’s voluntary scheme is intended to establish common standards of heat supply and associated customer service (with standards of service comparable to those required by Ofgem of electricity and gas suppliers). We therefore anticipate robust standards to be introduced within the regulations, for a wider group of consumers.

    Connecting to a heat network involves technical aspects relating to design, maintenance, service standards, and availability of a ‘green’ heat supply. Legal support is essential in navigating new networks as well as specialised technical support. For example, procurement risks, design and delivery risks, real estate and contamination issues, constructions issues, particularly around connection work and secondary side works, exclusivity arrangements and “change in law” provisions given forthcoming regulatory requirements.

    Mills & Reeve advises a number of Universities and other bodies on their participation in heat networks.

    If you are considering participating in a heat network and would like to speak to us about how we can help, please do contact any member of the M&R team.

    Source link

  • Top lawyer targets tenure after being sued for ignoring it

    Top lawyer targets tenure after being sued for ignoring it

    Kansas lawmakers are considering a bill that would sap tenure of its meaning for faculty at the state’s public colleges and universities.

    House Bill 2348, introduced this month in the Kansas Legislature, doesn’t specifically say it would ban tenure. But according to the proposed law, “any special benefits, processes or preferences conferred on a faculty member” by tenure “can be at any time revoked” by a higher education institution or the Kansas Board of Regents, which governs the state’s public universities. It also says tenure wouldn’t “create any entitlement, right or property interest in a faculty member’s current, ongoing or future employment.”

    The bill would end such rights not just for future “tenure” earners but for already tenured professors, too. Mallory Bishop, a nontenured instructor at Emporia State University who serves as faculty president, said HB 2348 would “remove the core premise of tenure,” which is “you cannot be fired without cause.”

    “The bill itself seems to remove everything except the name of tenure,” Bishop said.

    It’s part of a growing trend among Republican lawmakers in multiple states seeking to weaken or eliminate tenure in public institutions. Ohio’s Senate passed a bill this year that would weaken tenure, though the House hasn’t yet followed suit. So far, no state has fully banned tenure at public institutions.

    But the Kansas bill is noteworthy for its origins. The Board of Regents and the state’s two top research universities publicly oppose it. So where did it come from?

    Steven Lovett, general counsel for Emporia State University, says he wrote it. And the top of the bill includes one sentence saying a lawmaker requested it on Lovett’s behalf.

    The bill materialized after Emporia State suffered a setback in its continued defense against a federal lawsuit filed by 11 tenured professors whom the university decided to lay off in 2022. A judge—rebuffing the university defendants’ request to toss out the suit—allowed the faculty to move forward with their allegations that they weren’t provided sufficient due process. Emporia State officials, including Lovett himself, are among the defendants in the continuing suit.

    Those faculty were among 23 tenured professors whom Emporia State laid off, citing financial pressures and other possible reasons. The university’s handling of the situation led the American Association of University Professors to censure the institution. The controversy presaged layoffs over the past two years by other U.S. universities, which also cited financial concerns and didn’t spare tenured faculty. West Virginia University made headlines in 2023 for axing a swath of tenured faculty, followed by the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and Western Illinois University.

    A university spokesperson wrote in a statement to Inside Higher Ed that Emporia State supports tenure and that Lovett’s “submission of this bill comes as a surprise to the university.” But the statement also defended Lovett’s “constitutional right” as “a private citizen” to submit the legislation.

    The statement doesn’t say whether the university supports or opposes the bill. Emporia State didn’t provide an interview or respond to written questions about its position on the legislation.

    Bishop said she’s asked top university officials for their stance but hasn’t received an answer; she said university president Ken Hush told her in a private conversation that even if the bill were to pass, “tenure still exists.” Lovett—saying he was commenting as a private citizen—has told lawmakers that universities that speak out against the bill are violating state law.

    And while the university says it was surprised by Lovett’s submission of the bill, an online video of an earlier legislative hearing shows Hush appearing to urge lawmakers to support similar legislation not long before his top lawyer introduced it.

    Reversing a Court Loss?

    The university attempted to dismiss the laid-off professors’ lawsuit by arguing that tenure didn’t give them a “property right” to continued employment. “Property right,” or “property interest,” is a legal term, and if tenured professors possess this right, it could mean they should have received due process before being ousted, in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

    In December, a U.S. district court judge in Kansas allowed the case to progress, ruling that the professors’ legal complaint sufficiently alleged that the faculty did have so-called property rights to keep their jobs. The case continues.

    As the Kansas Reflector previously reported, a Kansas House Higher Education Budget Committee member asked Hush about the suit during a Jan. 31 hearing. According to a video of the proceedings, Hush said the property right ruling “means an entitlement and job forever, until this is settled in some form. Obviously, as a state agency, we’re working with the attorney general on this. And the other option to correct that is via legislation.”

    About a week later, House Bill 2348 appeared at the request of Representative Steven K. Howe—who chairs the committee Hush spoke to—on behalf of Lovett. Howe declined to comment for this article.

    The bill, however, is currently before the House Judiciary Committee—not Howe’s committee. Lovett advocated for the legislation during a Feb. 11 Judiciary hearing, in which he was introduced as “Mr. Steven Lovett, private citizen.” Lovett told the lawmakers the university didn’t encourage him to write the bill “and had no knowledge of it before I submitted it.”

    He said the bill “eliminates the property right of tenure but not tenure itself.” The idea that tenure is a property right “obligates Kansans to a long-term, unfunded fiscal liability,” he said, adding that the due process required to oust tenured faculty “costs even more.” He argued the First Amendment makes tenure and due process unnecessary to protect academic freedom.

    “A nontenured faculty member enjoys as much legal protection to pursue academic freedom as a tenured faculty member,” he said. Tenure “primarily results in nothing more than personal gain.”

    Lovett said Board of Regents members echoed part of his arguments amid the lawsuit filed by the laid-off professors, arguing that any universities that opposed the bill would be violating state law that says the board manages public universities. As of now, though, a judge has dismissed all board members as defendants, leaving only Lovett, Hush and one retired Emporia State official facing the lawsuit.

    At the end of his speech, Lovett, who’s also an associate professor of business law and ethics at Emporia State, publicly renounced the tenure the university gave him.

    Doug Girod, chancellor of the University of Kansas, followed Lovett at the lectern.

    “I don’t believe I’m breaking the law, because I am here with the full knowledge of my board,” Girod said. Eradicating “meaningful tenure” would mean losing “our best faculty, and we will not be able to replace them,” he said.

    After Kansas State University’s president spoke against the bill, Blake Flanders, the top administrator at the Board of Regents, told lawmakers the board is also against it, citing similar recruitment and retention concerns. Further, his written testimony suggested he doesn’t buy Lovett’s argument that he’s acting as a private citizen.

    He pointed out that Board of Regents policy requires legislative proposals from institutions it governs first be presented to the board for approval “before being submitted to the Legislature.” He wrote, “That policy was not adhered to in the case of this bill.” A board spokesperson didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview or answer written questions about whether the board is pushing for Lovett to be disciplined.

    Even if the bill passes, it’s unclear whether it would actually help Emporia State in its current suit or erase the meaning of tenure for other Kansas faculty who have already earned it. J. Phillip Gragson, attorney for the laid-off professors, said in an email that that would be unconstitutional.

    “While the state can certainly commit higher education academic and economic suicide by passing a bill that eliminates tenure prospectively only if it wants, the state cannot take away tenure rights from those professors who have already obtained tenure without due process,” he wrote.

    Source link

  • Trump Previews Elon Musk’s Next DOGE Targets (Forbes Breaking News)

    Trump Previews Elon Musk’s Next DOGE Targets (Forbes Breaking News)

    The Higher Education Inquirer continues to document the DOGE takeover of the US Department of Education. 

    While some Democratic officials in Congress have protested this action by DOGE, there has been little resistance otherwise. 

    DOGE consists of Elon Musk and several young men who have been tasked to reduce the federal budget by at least $1 Trillion. The US Senate has oversight of the Department of Education through the HELP (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) Committee, but Republicans, who are led by President Trump, control the Senate, and appear to be supporting these aggressive measures. 

    While Mr. Musk has claimed that the Department of Education no longer exists, its website is still operating. 

    DOGE also promotes the buying and selling of cryptocurrency.  

    Source link

  • The barriers that must be removed for degree apprenticeships to meet NHS workforce targets

    The barriers that must be removed for degree apprenticeships to meet NHS workforce targets

    The recent notion that level 7 apprenticeships will be ineligible for support from the apprenticeship levy has caused consternation amongst training providers, especially in healthcare.

    Training providers and employers are urgently seeking clarity on the government’s position – the current “announcement without action” leaves stakeholders unclear about next steps and further risks the reputation and role of apprenticeships in skills development.

    The development of advanced roles in health or shortened routes to registerable qualifications significantly relies on level 7 apprenticeships. The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan is full of examples of how advanced and new roles are needed now and in the future.

    Once again, decisions are being made by the Department for Education without consulting or collaborating with the Department of Health and Social Care, which means that questions are left unanswered. It is not the first time that training providers and University Alliance have called for joined up thinking and, unfortunately, it certainly won’t be the last.

    Expansion of opportunity

    Health apprenticeships at the University of Derby started small with level 5 provision about ten years ago (subsequently expanding to levels 6 and 7) – we could not have foreseen the enormous expansion of opportunity both in health and other industries that would follow.

    I am proud to say that “I was there” when the nurse degree apprenticeship standard was approved in 2017 – the culmination of two years’ collaboration between the Nursing and Midwifery Council, government, Skills for Health, employers and training providers.

    There were challenges, but we made it, and it opened the door to transformation in how healthcare professionals are educated.

    A bumpy road

    But the journey remains bumpy, and apprenticeships seem to be experiencing a particular period of turbulence. New research conducted by the University of Derby on behalf of University Alliance demonstrates the need for change in how the levy is utilised, the importance of partnership working, and the support that those involved with apprenticeship delivery need in order to secure successful outcomes.

    While the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan of 2023 is itself being refreshed, we can be confident that apprenticeships will continue to have a significant part to play in workforce development. However, our new research has shown how and where employers and training providers need support to make this happen.

    Employers told us how expensive they find it to support apprenticeships, with apprentice salaries, backfill and organisational infrastructure contributing to the financial burden. We know that apprentices need significant support through their learning journey, taking time and investment from employers.

    To make apprenticeships truly successful, the support required is over and above that normally expected in healthcare programmes, yet apprenticeships are specifically excluded from the NHS Healthcare Education and Training tariff. This feels like a double whammy – no support from the tariff and no flexibility in how the levy could be utilised differently, meaning that the responsibility remains with the employer to resource.

    Equally, training providers reported the additional activities and responsibilities associated with the delivery of apprenticeships. The University of Derby has recently successfully completed its inspection by Ofsted. The week of the inspection required input from teams across the University, but the enduring responsibilities of compliance and record keeping make this a continuous activity for a skilled and specialist team.

    The Education and Skills Funding Agency then came hot on the tails of Ofsted – while this is not unexpected, it has again required teams from across the University working long hours to be audit ready. These inspections have served as a reminder of the regulatory burden placed on training providers, especially in healthcare.

    A matter of commitment

    Today marks the start of National Apprenticeship Week. At the University of Derby, we are hosting a week of activities and events, encouraging aspirant apprentices and a range of employers to come and find out more about what apprenticeships can do for them. It is heartening to hear that the number of young people coming to the campus this year has more than doubled since last year’s event.

    Finally, the word is beginning to spread about apprenticeships, and we find school leavers are increasingly well informed about their post-16 and post-18 options.

    The week’s events will be ably supported by our employer partners and apprentices, truly reflecting the partnerships that have developed over the years. These partnerships take a significant amount of investment on all sides – anyone in the vocational education and training world will know that strong partnerships take time and effort to build and maintain. But even the briefest of conversations with apprentices will tell you that it is all worth it. Their confidence, passion and knowledge (their skills and behaviours too) shine through. In a city like Derby, the awareness of the positive difference you are making not only to the apprentice, but also to their family and friends, is never far from your thoughts.

    It is difficult to know how the advent of Skills England will impact the pace and scale of reform, but the present inertia may set the country back – and it certainly will if a blanket approach to level 7 apprenticeship funding is adopted, and lack of join-up between DfE and DHSC remains the status quo.

    National Apprenticeship Week 2025 has the potential to be a force for good – and should be the week that all stakeholders commit to making a difference.

    Source link

  • Canadian study permit approvals fall far below cap targets

    Canadian study permit approvals fall far below cap targets

    Canadian study permit approvals are on track to fall by 45% in 2024, rather than the 35% planned reduction of last year’s controversial international student caps, new IRCC data analysed by ApplyBoard has revealed.  

    “The caps’ impact was significantly underestimated,” ApplyBoard founder Meti Basiri told The PIE News. “Rapidly introduced policy changes created confusion and had an immense impact on student sentiment and institutional operations.  

    “While aiming to manage student numbers, these changes failed to account for the perspectives of students, and their importance to Canada’s future economy and communities,” he continued.  

    The report reveals the far-reaching impact of Canada’s study permit caps, which were announced in January 2024 and followed by a tumultuous year of policy changes that expanded restrictions and set new rules for post-graduate work permit eligibility, among other changes.  

    For the first 10 months of 2024, Canada’s study permit approval rate hovered just above 50%, resulting in an estimated maximum of 280,000 approvals from K-12 to postgraduate levels. This represents the lowest number of approvals in a non-pandemic year since 2019. 

    Source: IRCC. Disclaimer: Data for 2021-Oct 2024 is sourced from IRCC. Full-year 2024 figures are estimates extrapolated from Jan-Oct 2024 and full-year 2021-2023 IRCC data. Projections may be subject to change based on changing conditions and source data.

    “Even from the early days of the caps, decreased student interest outpaced government estimates,” noted the report, with stakeholders highlighting the reputational damage to Canada as a study destination.  

    “Approvals for capped programs fell by 60%, but even cap-exempt programs declined by 27%. Major source countries like India, Nigeria, and Nepal saw over 50% declines, showing how policies have disrupted demand across all study levels,” said Basiri.  

    Following major PGWP and study permit changes announced by the IRCC in September 2024, four out of five international student counsellors surveyed by ApplyBoard agreed that Canada’s caps had made it a less desirable study destination. 

    Though stakeholders across Canada recognised the need to address fraud and student housing issues, many had urged the federal government to wait until the impact of the initial caps was clear before going ahead with seemingly endless policy changes.  

    At the CBIE conference in November 2024, immigration minister Marc Miller said he “profoundly disagreed” with the prevailing sector view that the caps and subsequent PGWP and permanent residency restrictions had been an “overcorrection”.

    Post-secondary programs, which were the primary focus of the 2024 caps, were hit hardest by the restrictions, with new international enrolments at colleges estimated to have dropped by 60% as a result of the policies.  

    While Canada’s largest source destinations saw major declines, the caps were not felt evenly across sending countries. Senegal, Guinea and Vietnam maintained year-over-year growth, signalling potential sources of diversity for Canada’s cap era.   

    The report also highlighted Ghana’s potential as a source destination, where approval ratings – though declining from last year – remain 175% higher than figures from 2022. 

    Rapidly introduced policy changes created confusion and had an immense impact on student sentiment

    Meti Basiri, ApplyBoard

    The significant drop in study permit approvals was felt across all provinces, but Ontario – which accounted for over half of all study permit approvals in 2023 – and Nova Scotia have seen the largest impact, falling by 55% and 54.5% respectively.

    Notably, the number of study permits processed by the IRCC dropped by a projected 35% in 2024, in line with the government’s targets, but approval rates have not kept pace.

    When setting last year’s targets, minister Miller only had the power to limit the number of applications processed by the IRCC, not the number of study permits that are approved.  

    The initial target of 360,000 approved study permits was based on an estimated approval rate of 60%, resulting in a 605,000 cap on the number of applications processed. 

    Following new policies such as the inclusion of postgraduate programs in the 2025 cap, Basiri said he anticipated that study permit approvals would remain below pre-cap levels.  

    “While overall student numbers may align with IRCC’s targets, the broader impact on institutional readiness and Canada’s reputation will be key areas to watch in 2025,” he added.  

    Source link

  • This week in 5 numbers: Trump directive targets college DEI

    This week in 5 numbers: Trump directive targets college DEI

    The maximum number of organizations, including colleges with endowments over $1 billion, that President Donald Trump asked each federal agency to identify as potential targets for “civil compliance investigations.” The directive — which targets diversity, equity and inclusion programs — came in an executive order on Tuesday, the first full day of the new Trump administration.

    Source link

  • New UK government video targets international students

    New UK government video targets international students

    Secretary of state for education, Bridget Phillipson, addressed students considering studying abroad, highlighting the benefits of a UK education and promoting the country’s post-study work opportunities.

    “In the new academic year, we will welcome thousands of international students who will be starting courses in our universities and I hope to see many more in the future,” Phillipson said in the video shared by the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA).

    “The UK is a wonderful and safe place to study. Our country is home to some of the very best universities in the world – four of the world’s top 10 can be found right here in the UK.

    “An education from a British university has been the springboard for success for so many global trailblazers, from politics to business, from the arts to the sciences, in fact dozens of current and recent world leaders studied here in the UK and our universities have driven some of the most exciting and valuable research anywhere in the world.

    “You could be part of the next groundbreaking wave of research and join a new generation of inspiring leaders,” she told prospective students.

    Phillipson went on to describe some of the ways in which UK universities support their international students through pastoral support, work experience, scholarships and bursaries.

    “You’ll also get have the chance to join Alumni UK – a global group of people from around the world who have studied here. It’s a fantastic professional network that you can tap into to get great advice and guidance.”

    Phillipson went on to promote the UK’s Graduate Route, describing the opportunity which lets graduates “work, live and contribute” in the UK.

    International students forge international friendships so by studying abroad, you can help build bridges between our countries, and these connections help make the world a better, brighter place.

    Bridget Phillipson, UK secretary of state for education

    “Studying in the UK sets you up for success in your career, but it’s more than that. International students forge international friendships so by studying abroad, you can help build bridges between our countries, and these connections help make the world a better, brighter place.”

    Phillipson previously addressed international students in a video not long after stepping into the role in July 2024.

    On the release of the latest video, Anne Marie Graham, UKCISA chief executive, said she was “encouraged” to see the continuing messages of welcome and support from the UK’s education secretary.

    “Current and prospective students will also welcome the secretary of state’s ongoing support for the graduate visa and her reflections on the mutual benefits of a UK education – not just the contributions that international students make to the UK, but the positive impact on their own careers and ambitions,” she told The PIE.

    “We look forward to continuing to work with the UK government to ensure international students are welcomed and supported, from pre-arrival visas to post-graduation work opportunities, so that all international students have a positive experience studying here.”

    Pedram Bani Asadi, chair of the UKCISA’s Student Advisory Group commented: “I welcome the support from this government for international students’ hopes and dreams, and recognition of all the contributions we make to both UK culture and the economy.

    “Having access to the Graduate Route has been absolutely essential for me to be able to reinforce the skills I learnt in my studies and contribute to the UK. I appreciate all the friends and experiences I’ve had here and look forward to continuing my role as a #WeAreInternational student ambassador, and working with the UK government to support my fellow international students to have a positive experience.”

    Since Labour took came into power, sector stakeholders have noted the government’s more welcoming tone toward international students, a marked contrast to the rhetoric of the previous Conservative government.

    Despite a change in rhetoric, the Labour government has shown no intention of reversing the Conservative’s decision to ban international students on UK taught master’s courses from bringing dependants with them to the UK.

    “While the new government has said many positive things about international students, the focus on immigration remains acute,” said Jamie Arrowsmith, director of Universities UK International in an update to sector earlier this month.

    The UK’s international educations strategy is currently under review, and the rollout of the new approach is set for April.

    Sector leaders gathered at the QS Reimagine Education summit in London late last year to discuss priorities for the UK’s international education sector going forward, giving suggestions for a refreshed strategy, which included improved post-study work rights.

    Source link

  • Re-examining Concept, Targets and Outcome – GlobalHigherEd

    Re-examining Concept, Targets and Outcome – GlobalHigherEd

    Editor’s note: This guest entry, also available on Inside Higher Ed, has been kindly contributed by Professor Dato’ Dr Morshidi Sirat. Morshidi was the former Director-General of Higher Education Malaysia, and is now Director of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Facility (CTEF) based at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang. Morshidi is also a Senior Research Fellow at the National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN), Universiti Sains Malaysia. Given Morshidi’s expertise and experience in higher education policy, he is often engaged in consultancy work on higher education policy in Malaysia, then Association of Southeast Asian Region (ASEAN) and the South Pacific Island States.

    This entry is based on recent work in ASEAN and South Pacific Island States, specifically to address confusion between international education and the internationalisation of education in many emerging and developing higher education systems. In many systems, these terms are used interchangeably. This entry is an attempt to re-examine international education as a concept and a strategy for both international understanding and economic development as implemented in Malaysia. Arguably, lessons learnt should provide guidance for Malaysia’s international education beyond 2020, especially with respect to the manner in which Malaysia’s citizens “engage with others in this globalised and yet highly divisive world.” Kris Olds

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     

    Malaysia’s International Education by 2020 and Beyond:

    Re-examining Concept, Targets and Outcome

    Morshidi Sirat

    Preamble

    It is important to address international education in this era of globalisation and unsettling geopolitical issues, in particular on Malaysia’s response to preparing Malaysians for future global and regional scenarios. Anyone that studies international development dynamics from the ‘people perspective’ as opposed to the ‘economic and neo-liberalism perspective’ will almost immediately agree that we are in dire need of international and intercultural understanding as we try to deal with longstanding and more importantly, emerging geopolitical issues. As such, international education is not merely about the dynamics of flows in terms of the numbers of students, scholars, and/or programs between countries. More importantly, it is about qualitative impact, in particular about the content of international education and related programs. It must be emphasized that “in any educational program, of any educational system, for any educational process and under any educational material”, the aims and objectives of international education must be communicated in order to realise international understanding among nations (Juan Ignacio Martínez de Morentin de Goñi, 2004: 94).

    With this as a preamble and context, we can then proceed to re-examine international education as a concept and as a strategy for both international understanding and economic development as implemented in Malaysia.

    Introduction

    With globalisation, many terms connected with the “international” are loosely defined and liberally adopted in policy circles particularly in the formulation of strategic planning directions on education and higher education. These policy documents and the people behind these policy documents are equally guilty of adopting terms and terminologies without proper definition, contextualisation and correct usage of these terms. Thus, in our attempt to trace and assess the progress of international education in Malaysia to-date it is important at the outset to provide a working definition of ‘international education’. But more importantly, it is pertinent for us to establish whether, at the time of target setting for the so-called international education in 2007 (for the National Higher Education Strategic Plan Phase 1), the Economic Transformation Plan (ETP) and in 2013 (in the case of the Malaysia Education Blueprint), did we conceptualise and operationalise the term ‘international education’ as it should be conceptualised and operationalised? Moving on from issues and questions which I have raised earlier, this entry will begin with a deliberation on the term ‘international education’, detailing the aims and objectives of international education. Subsequently, a working definition is adopted in order to assess where Malaysia is in terms of international education. Following that, the ‘international education’ element in the Malaysia Education Blueprint and the National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP) will be highlighted and the implementation of international education rated. A statement of “where we are” and “where we should be heading” will be offered for further consideration and deliberation based on the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2015-2025 (Higher Education).

    What is International Education?

    Admittedly, the term ‘international education’ has yet to acquire a single, consistent meaning. The reason for the uncertainty, confusion and disagreement lies partly in the many interpretations of the term ‘international education’. As James (2005:314) notes, further confusion arises because the word ‘international’ itself is equally ambiguous as not all things regarded as international are in essence international. To understand the meaning of international education, we need to explicate the term in terms of aims and objectives.

    Epstein (1994: 918) describes ‘international education’ as fostering “an international orientation in knowledge and attitudes and, among other initiatives, brings together students, teachers, and scholars from different nations to learn about and from each other. In other words, “All educative efforts that aim at fostering an international orientation in knowledge and attitudes” (Huse´n and Postlethwaite, 1985: 260) and seek “to build bridges between countries” (McKenzie, 1998: 244) fit this idea of international education. Arum (1987) divides international education into three parts: (1) international studies (including all studies involving the teaching or research of foreign areas and their languages); (2) international educational exchange (involving American students and faculty studying, teaching, and doing research abroad and foreign faculty and students studying, teaching, and doing research in the United States); and (3) technical assistance (involving American faculty and staff working to develop institutions and human resources abroad, primarily in Third World countries).

    The justification for international education can be approached from two directions: a ‘top-down’ approach considers addressing global and national needs, and a ‘bottom-up’ approach, that is the development of the individual. These approaches are not mutually exclusive (James, 2005: 315). Thomas (1996: 24), writing on the development of an International Education System, asserts that ‘education is uniquely placed to provide lasting solutions to the major problems facing world society’, problems which transcend political borders (Gellar, 1996).

    The Mission and Aims of International Education

    Belle-Isle (1986) states that the “mission of international education is to respond to the intellectual and emotional needs of the children of the world, bearing in mind the intellectual and cultural mobility not only of the individual but . . . most of all, of thought”.

    The aims of international education are related to developing ‘international understanding’ for ‘global citizenship’, and the knowledge, attitudes and skills of ‘international-mindedness’ and ‘world-mindedness’ (Hayden and Thompson, 1995a, 1995b; Schwindt, 2003; YAIDA, 2007). Admittedly, none of the aims of modern ‘international education’ are exclusively international (James, 2005: 324). Therefore, and in a post-9/11 world, the term ‘internationalist’ may no longer be sufficient to describe the values espoused by the movement; it might be time to transcend ideas based on nation-states (Sarup, 1996; in Gunesch, 2004). Gunesch (2004) proposes ‘cosmopolitanism’ as an alternative name for the outcome intended of ‘international education’ (Mattern, 1991). While the aims of international education are laudable, it is misleading to relate them to internationalism, for they extend beyond differences in nationality (James, 2005: 323). Peterson (1987) asserts that international education seeks instead to produce what might be termed ‘cosmopolitan locals’, who have a national identity, understand others better, seek to co-operate and have friends across frontiers. That cosmopolitan is “familiar with many different countries and cultures” and “free from national prejudices”. OED (2004) indicates the potential limitations of the cosmopolitanism, in associating prejudices with nations. But, it is preferable as a term to ‘international’ in the sense that it does transcend purely nation-based associations.

    Towards a Working Definition

    Any working definition for international education should appropriately address the issue of “global interconnectedness that characterizes the contemporary world, and point to a form of international understanding required by the citizen of the future that must comprise some understanding of the world perceived as a whole.”

    UNESCO experts have developed conceptual approaches to international education that resulted in an operational definition being adopted by UNESCO (1974). I must emphasize here that we are more interested in a working definition and not an academic definition. UNESCO’s effort may be considered as the only large-scale effort to provide a working definition of the term “international education” by a widely recognized international educational body. The definition, agreed at UNESCO General Conference level, combined the elements of international understanding, cooperation and peace with the range of focal points of international education under the overall rubric of “education for international understanding”. UNESCO (1974: 2) outlines the following relevant educational objectives for international education:

    • a curriculum with a global perspective
    • understanding and respect for other peoples and cultures
    • human rights and obligations
    • communication skills
    • awareness of human interdependence
    • necessity for international solidarity
    • engagement by the individual in the local, national and global scale

    Malaysia’s International Education

    At this juncture, let us pose some pertinent questions: To what extent is international education important in the educational process and the education system in Malaysia? Personally, I like to think it should be important as “There is nothing that is more effective than having nations-states and people break down barriers between themselves.” In fact, in this highly globalised and inter-connected world it is imperative that we understand other cultures, languages, institutions, and traditions. More so, in today’s globalized world, Malaysian students and in fact students of ASEAN need more international experience. For Malaysia, foreign students enrich our campuses and our culture, and they return home with new ideas and ways to strengthen the relationship between countries. But interestingly, since the early 1990s, the market place and international education have become intertwined and international education has and continues to be seen as an engine for growth (see http://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/IIEB/IIEB0114/index.php – /38). Let us not mention the contribution of international students to the Malaysia economy at this juncture as I want to focus on aspects or issues that are beyond the monetary in this entry. That is, I want to focus on to what extent Malaysia has been successful in leveraging international education as a vital part of 21st century diplomacy. Admittedly, we send undergraduates, graduate students, administrators, faculty, and researchers on short and long-term programs abroad but what is more important and pertinent question to ask is: what are the impacts of our programs on students and scholars from abroad in Malaysian education system? Another question that beg some answers: Malaysia education institutions are implementing internationalisation-related activities such as international student mobility, but are these institutions themselves internationalised in its leadership, governance and management arrangement, curriculum content and pedagogy?

    The National Higher Education Strategic Plan, 2020 (NHESP), while adopting UNESCO’s operational definition for international education, could not be regarded as intending to progress the comprehensive aims and objectives of international education. This strategic planning document addresses the internationalisation of higher education and not international education. The NHESP fleetingly touched on the aims and objectives of international education by way of the benefits of international exposure and experience. For instance, while a “curriculum with a global perspective” is embedded in many courses offered by Malaysian universities, this is targeted at international student enrolment and recruitment or providing exposure to local students with limited global citizenship or international understanding objective. At best, these are offered at the “exposure level”. Promoting the establishment of Malaysian branches of foreign universities in Malaysia is widely regarded by policy makers as one element of international education. However, the introduction of the Malaysia’s Global Reach component in phase two of the implementation of the NHESP, 2011-2015 is an attempt to insert amendment to what is incomplete from the perspective of international education. Malaysia’s Global Reach was introduced with international education for 21st century diplomacy in mind.

    If we examined international education from more recent government documents, in particular the recently launched Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013-2025, it is stated that:

    “…it is …imperative that Malaysia compares its education system

    against international benchmarks. This is to ensure that

    Malaysia is keeping pace with international educational

    development.” (Ministry of Education, 2013: 3-5).

    Our reading of this important document is that the emphasis is on “international educational development” and not “development in international education.” The international education element of the Blueprint is the International Baccalaureate (IB) programme, which is designed to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect (international education), are offered only in two Fully Residential Schools in Malaysia) (Ministry of Education, 2013:4-6).

    At another level, the International Schools, which use international curriculum such as the British, American, Australian, Canadian, or International Baccalaureate programmes, sourced their teachers from abroad. In terms of enrolment, data as of 30 June 2011 shows that 18% of Malaysian students in private education options are enrolled in international schools nationwide (Ministry of Education, 2013:7-11).

    With a very restricted notion or definition of international education, based on the NHESP and re-emphasized in the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013-2025, the Performance Management Delivery Unit, and Prime Minister’s Department (PEMANDU) subsequently identified prioritised segments of the education system to drive the economic growth of the nation, namely:

    • Basic Education (primary and secondary), with Entry Point Project (EPP) identifying the private sector as playing an important role in improving basic education in terms of the provision of international education, as well as in the training and upskilling of teachers.
    • Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET), with EPP 12: Championing Malaysia’s International Education Brand aims to position Malaysia as a regional hub of choice in the global education network. This will include marketing vocational training to international students. This EPP’s goal is to transform a foreign student’s experience in Malaysia into one that is comparable to that in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Thus, targets are set as Gross National Income (GNI) by 2020 (mil) RM2, 787.7 and 152,672 -projected jobs by 2020.

    The prioritised segments identified above complement the regional education hub, which is the thrust for the NHESP. For the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2015-2025 (Higher Education), the notion of international education was not conceptualised in the context of achieving UNESCO’s aims and objectives of international education as opposed to internationalisation of higher education and its monetary aspect to the Malaysian economy. In this Blueprint, the shifts on “Holistic, Entrepreneurial and Balanced Graduates’ and ‘Global prominence’ are conceived primarily in terms of monetary return and institutional reputation. There is no direct and clear statement in the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2015-2025 (Higher Education), with respect to UNESCO (1974) guidelines on international education and the outcome for the students in a highly interconnected but at the same time highly divisive world. What can we improve upon in the next 15 years, is to present the idea of international education beyond the notion that international education is about “engine of growth for the national economy”. Arguably, we need to re-orientate our efforts towards international understanding, citizenship and (mutual rather than soft power) diplomacy (Knight, 2014).

    Conclusion

    The term international education has yet to acquire a single, consistent meaning. But the manner in which Malaysia interprets and uses this concept/term in the context of economic development need some reflection and re-examination. We may achieve the targets set for 2020 in terms of international student enrolment in our education system, but what about the real aims and objectives of international education, which is to realise international understanding among nations. We need to seriously examine whether the aims and objectives of international education are effectively embedded in Malaysia’s (i) educational program, (ii) educational system, (ii) educational process and (iv) educational material.” There is a need to reassess Malaysia’s commitment towards creating the goals of international mindedness and ‘international understanding’ beyond 2020 and in the context of the Transformasi Nasional 2050 or National Transformation 2050 (TN50). In the case of Malaysia, where economic development is of top priority, we need to seriously think in terms of the economic impetus for better intercultural understanding. Nothing much could move forward in the Malaysian context unless and until there are clear economic impetus for any initiatives coming out of the higher education institutions. We need to re-look at this economic premise if we are to emerge as a nation of ‘global prominence” with respect to the manner our citizen engage with others in this globalised and yet highly divisive world.

    References

    ARUM, S. ‘International Education: What Is It? A Taxonomy of International Education of U.S. Universities.’ CIEE Occasional Papers on International Educational Exchange, 1987, 23, 5–22.

    BELLE-ISLE, R. (1986) ‘Learning for a new humanism’. International Schools Journal 11 Springs: 27–30.

    EPSTEIN, E.H. (1994). Comparative and International Education: Overview and Historical Development. In: Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite, eds., International Encyclopaedia of Education (p.918–923). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    GELLAR, C.A. (1996) ‘Educating for world citizenship’ International Schools Journal 16(1): 5–7.

    GUNESCH, K. (2004) ‘Education for cosmopolitism? Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity model for and within international education’. Journal of Research in International Education 3: 251–75.

    HAYDEN, M.C. AND THOMP SON, J. J. (1995a) ‘International Education: The crossing of frontiers’. International Schools Journal 15(1): 13–20.

    HAYDEN, M.C. AND THOMP SON, J. J. (1995b) ‘International Schools and International Education: A relationship reviewed’. Oxford Review of Education 21(3): 327–45

    HUSE´ N, T. AND POSTLETHWAITE , T.N. (1985) The International Encyclopaedia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon.

    JAMES, KIERAN. (2005). ‘International education: The concept, and its relationship to intercultural education Journal of Research in International Education’, December 2005; vol. 4, 3: pp. 313-332. Available at: http://jri.sagepub.com/content/4/3/313.full.pdf+html

    JUAN IGNACIO MARTÍNEZ DE MORENTIN DE GOÑI. (2004). What is International Education? UNESCO Answers. San Sebastian: UNESCO Centre. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001385/138578e.pdf

    KNIGHT, JANE. (2014). ‘The limits of soft power in higher education’. University World News, 31 January 2014 Issue No:305.

    MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (2013.) Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013-2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

    OED (2004). The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    PETERSON, A.D.C. (1987). Schools across Frontiers: the Story of the International Baccalaureate and the United World Colleges. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

    MATTERN, W.G. (1991). ‘Random ruminations on the curriculum of the international school’, in P.L. Jonietz and D. Harris (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education, pp. 209–16. London: Kogan Page.

    McKENZI E , M. (1998). ‘Going, going, gone . . . global!’, in M.C. Hayden and J.J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, pp. 242–52. London: Kogan Page.

    SARUP, M. (1996). Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    SCHWINDT, E . (2003). ‘The development of a model for international education with special reference to the role of host country nationals’. Journal of Research in International Education 2(1): 67–81.

    THOMAS , P. (1998). ‘Education for peace: The cornerstone of international education’, in M.C. Hayden and J.J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, pp. 103–18. London: Kogan Page.

    UNESCO (1974). Recommendations Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: adopted by the General Conference at its eighteenth session in Paris, November, 1974. UNESCO, Paris.

    YAIDA PUSUSILTHORN (2007). International Mindedness among Expatriate Teachers in Bangkok Patana School. MA Thesis. Language Institute, Thammasat University, Bangkok. Feb. available at: http://digi.library.tu.ac.th/thesis/lg/0262/01TITLE.pdf

    Source link