Young Americans Aren’t Getting the Global Education They’ll Need to Thrive in a New Era

By J. Michael Adams and Angelo Carfagna

 This column appeared in The Star Ledger on June 13, 2006

Our modern American educational system was founded to forge a national culture and a national sense of identity. Mission (somewhat) accomplished. But in an age of globalization, when companies like Coca-Cola earn 70 percent of their profits outside the United States, when Al Qaeda plots attacks throughout the world, and when harmful pollutants cross borders unimpeded, we need to learn more about other cultures and countries.

Are our schools up to the task?

It’s not looking good, according to two recent publications. Douglas McGray, in the latest edition of Foreign Policy magazine, argues that, despite all the changes produced by globalization, the average classroom lags behind. His article “Lost in America,” concludes sadly that young Americans “represent something of a paradox: surrounded by foreign languages, cultures and goods, they remain hopelessly uninformed, and misinformed, about the world beyond U.S. borders.”

That conclusion is supported by the Committee for Economic Development’s report on the importance of international studies. Bottom line: “Most schools have not responded adequately” to America’s global challenges. As a result, American students lack knowledge of other regions, languages and cultures, and “are likely to be unprepared to compete and lead in a global work environment.”

Corporate leaders tell us that professionals must work with individuals from different cultures and succeed in different environments. As the CED report states, nearly 30 percent of large U.S. firms believe the lack of international skills among employees has cost them business opportunities. Cross-cultural training and sensitivity can produce new deals and prevent embarrassing mistakes. Microsoft, for example, developed a time-zone map for its Windows 95 operating system that showed the disputed state of Kashmir outside the borders of India. That didn’t go over so well in India, which banned the software.

Beyond professional imperatives, our greatest challenges require international cooperation. Deadly diseases like AIDS do not carry passports, environmental perils like global warming do not stop for customs inspections, and terrorists sow their seeds wherever they find the most fertile soil. 

Facing these challenges requires networks of nations. And to work with others, we must learn about them. It’s a matter of humanity and compassion, but it’s also a matter of national interest. No less an American patriot than President Bush has said, “America’s leadership and national security rest on our commitment to educate and prepare our youth for active engagement in the international community.” He has called on schools, parents and community leaders to encourage youngsters to participate in activities that expand their knowledge and appreciation of other cultures and global issues.

The president has this one right. Earlier this year, he established the National Security Language Initiative, which provides modest funding for teaching languages critical to national security and encourages educational exchanges. Not bad, but so much more is necessary, especially when the administration’s policies are yielding mixed results.

A study by the Center on Education Policy this year showed that, since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, 71 percent of the nation’s 15,000 school districts had reduced the amount of time spent on subjects like social studies to focus on the law’s reading and math requirements. Reading and math are certainly important, but knowledge of other countries and cultures must also be viewed as fundamental.

Surveys by groups like the American Council on Education indicate that large majorities support international studies programs. And yet schools continue to come up short. Why? One answer is that schools and colleges often regard new programs and methods with great suspicion. Also, because international lessons are scattered outside traditional academic disciplines, there is often little coordination or support. And when funds and time are limited, international programs are judged expendable.

Perhaps most significant, there is no clear consensus about how to change the curriculum. Rather than engage in the debate about where to start, many decide it’s not worth the trouble.

But reaching a consensus is not the solution. While international lessons must be integrated at all educational levels, there are many possible approaches. Learning another language provides an important gateway to other cultures, and language programs must be expanded. The Internet can allow collaboration with students and faculty from around the world. Study abroad and hosting international students are excellent ways to gain new perspectives.

Above all, the most important force for change in the schools is the teacher. Delivering a global education comes down to how teachers view the world and how they help students expand their worldviews.

There is an urgent need to think and act beyond borders. The corporate community understands this. So, unfortunately, do terrorists. But schools continue to lack the commitment to help students make global connections. If that doesn’t change, the next generation will inherit a world they do not understand and cannot save. 

J. Michael Adams is the president of Fairleigh Dickinson University, where Angelo Carfagna is a political scientist and the director of communications. They are the authors of Coming of Age in a Globalized World: The Next Generation, www.nextgenerationbook.com