Immigration and
education are two issues among many that are constantly coming up in American
politics, as well as politics all over the world. Is there a correlation between immigration
and education? In order to explore this,
and analyze the impact of international relations theory on it, it’d be best to
compare and contrast the education systems and immigration statistics of four
different states. The four states are
the United States and, rated as countries with the best education systems in
the world, New Zealand, Finland, and Singapore.
New Zealand,
Finland, and Singapore all show similar characteristics in their education
systems and policies. Much of the New
Zealand system was based on the Finland system, and the Singapore system is
built around adopting successful programs from around the world (“New Zealand”,
“Singapore”). One of the defining
characteristics of the Finland system is the emphasis on “high quality
teachers.” Teachers in Finland have
salaries similar to other high-ranking professionals in the country, such as
medial doctors and lawyers, and it is usually only the brightest students who
go on to become teachers. There is also
an extremely high level of respect for teachers in Finland, and special
recruiting policies have been put in place to select only the best candidates
for teaching. Aside from the emphasis on
high quality teachers, another defining characteristic of the Finland system is
the focus on a “unified comprehensive education structure and national
curriculum guidelines” (“Finland”). The
Singapore system has a similar emphasis on high teachers, recruiting only from
the top third of all classes and implementing a difficult application and
licensure process. Besides focusing on
high quality teachers, the Singapore system also focuses on increasing literacy
and quality of education, and now has implemented the program “Teach Less,
Learn More,” taking less focus off memorization of facts and instead placing it
on problem-solving techniques (“Singapore”).
When New Zealand adopted a new system in the eighties, rather than
focusing on what it would like to accomplish in terms of education, it instead
focused on what drives students’ performance.
It was determined that poor management led to poor student performance,
and so the system was overhauled so that each school was, essentially, in
charge of itself. The community would
vote for a principal, the principal would choose his faculty, and the Ministry
of Education would pay for the faculty and fund the school (“New Zealand”).
Compared to these
three other states, the United States seems reactionary in its education
policies. The process for licensing
teachers is very easy compared to the other states’ policies, meaning that not
enough teachers get high quality education or training. Recently, the United States education
policies have “emphasized mastery of basic skills and used exams largely based
on multiple choice questions and administered by computers.” Money is not equally distributed to schools
evenly and, though the US spends the most money per capita on education, more
money goes to schools that already have an advantage. Each state within the United States has its
own curriculum rather than a unified, nation-wide curriculum (“US Data”).
But what does all
this have to do with immigration or IR theory?
It has been
suggested that the United States’ low performance can be connected to its
highly diverse population and the many different cultures located within its
boundaries. Read in a very negative
light, this suggestion can be interpreted as blaming immigration or immigrants
in poor inner-city schools for the United States’ poor performance on an
international stage (“US Data”). This is
in no way correct. As of 2004,
approximately 4% of the United States’ population is made up of persons who
were foreign-born (Huntington). True,
the United States has a diverse population, with 80% of the population Caucasian,
12% black, and 15% Hispanic (included in other races) (“US Data”), especially
compared to Finland, with 93% of the population Finnish and 6% Swedish. In Singapore, however, over 30% of the
population is made up of non-citizen permanent residents, and at least 23% of
the population is foreign-born (“Statistics Singapore”), meaning that it is in
fact possible to create an education system that can cater to the needs of a
diverse population. The population of
New Zealand is similarly diverse, with significant percentages identifying as
European, Maori, and Asian (“New Zealand”), and with a significant number of
people immigrating to the area (approximately 22% living in New Zealand were
foreign-born in 2006) (“QuickStats”).
By comparing the
demographics of the United States and Finland, and then comparing the
performance of students in each state, it is easy to point out a correlation
and possible causation between immigration and student performance. The homogeneity of Finland, some may suggest,
makes education easier and more successful.
However, when the demographics and student performance of New Zealand
and Singapore are thrown into the mix, it is easy to see that immigration is
not the problem here; it is how the United States approaches education.
What, then, does
this have to do with IR theory?
A lot of the
differences lie in the various states’ policies on immigration. Because a sizeable amount of immigrants
coming into the United States are supposedly illegal, and from a neighboring
country, they are having difficulties accessing decent education. This view on immigration, from the United States’
point of view at the very least, can be considered Constructivist. Constructivism is all about identity, and the
identity of the United States has, for a long time, been “white, European, and
Christian.” Though this is slowly changing,
it still remains strong, and clashes with the identity of the new immigrants,
many of whom are Mexican and will still identify as Mexicans after coming to
live in America (Huntington). Many
Americans are characterized at being unwilling to extend their country’s collective
identity to include the growing population of Hispanics. Comparatively, the societies and cultures of
the other states, especially Singapore, are not as defensive of their state’s
identity. From a realist perspective,
the United States may also perceive the growing numbers of immigration from
Mexico and other Latin American countries as a threat to the nation’s security,
thereby making immigration more difficult and becoming more responsive to
illegal immigration. This includes
making public education less accessible to immigrants, and of less value. A liberalist perspective would suggest that
the institution of education in New Zealand, Singapore, and Finland, is more
liberal; that is, education in those states work more towards serving the
people and promoting good relationships within the society. The institution of education within the
United States is, therefore, flawed, and can only be saved by improving the
institution.
When
considering how to better the United States’ system of education so that the
performance of its students is equal to that of New Zealand, Singapore, and
Finland students, it then makes sense to follow suggestions by the liberal and
constructive theories. First, it is
important to change the identity of Americans to not be so exclusive, thus promoting
an open-minded approach to a changing society and an education system that
reflects that. Second, it is important
to change the institution of education within America, so that all people have
the opportunity to easy achieve an equal and beneficial education. It is also important to change the
institutions that handle immigrants and immigration within America.
Works Cited
“Finland Overview.” Center on International Education Benchmarking. NCEE, Nov. 2012.
Web. 29 No. 2012. <http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/finland-overview/>.
Huntington,
Samuel P. "The Hispanic Challenge." Foreign Policy. The
Foreign Policy Group, LLC, 1 Mar. 2004. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/03/01/the_hispanic_challenge?page=full>.
“New
Zealand Overview.” Center on
International Education Benchmarking. NCEE, Nov. 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/new-zealand-overview/>.
"QuickStats
About Culture and Identity." Statistics New Zealand.
Government of New Zealand, 2006. Web. 30 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/culture-and-identity/birthplace-and-people-born-overseas.aspx>.
“Singapore
Overview.” Center on International
Education Benchmarking. NCEE, Nov. 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/singapore-overview/>.
"Statistics
Singapore - Latest Data." Department of Singapore Statistics.
Government of Singapore, 30 Nov. 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/latestdata.html>.
"US
Data & Analysis." Center on International Education
Benchmarking. NCEE, Nov. 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/us-data-analysis/>.
Nice blog post! It brought up a counter-argument to a very popular arguement in America today. I; however, felt a little skeptical about your comparison of America to New Zealand, Singapore, and Finland. It was a great argument using these countries at your disposal, but I wonder if this analysis actually applies to all countries in the same way. While I realize that you obviously cannot look at all countries, this small sample makes me wonder if the causes and effects can be skewed because of this. Can you find another country that your hypothesis applies to?
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the comparisons were lacking, but it was mainly because I only focused on three very successful education systems and America, which, on a global scale, is still very successful. Had I more time and researching ability, I would definitely look into more states with a similar success rate as America, which is based mainly on graduation rates as well as other variables, as well as states with lower success rates than America. With this data, I would also be able to compare those immigration rates and statistics. Unfortunately, there is not an easy way to identify countries with poor or just average education systems. A great deal of emphasis is placed on those countries who are especially spectacular, in the hopes that other countries will be able to replicate their system and success.
DeleteWhat would you say is the best way to change Americans to be less exclusive and more accepting of outsiders? The US has a history of being a melting pot and at one point allowed immigrants to enter freely for decades. Today, according to the 2010 US census, 17% of Americans identify themselves a Hispanic, 13% as black, and 5% as Asian. For those who are hostile to immigration, especially toward Latinos, what can be done to make them more accepting?
ReplyDeleteThis is perhaps the most expected and least creative answer to your question, but the best way to change Americans to be less exclusive and more accepting of outsiders is education. Most behavior and opinions are learned, especially if the behavior or opinion in question is modeled by a parent or close guardian. Therefore, it is important to catch kids early and encourage acceptance. Very little can be done about people of the older generation; psychologically speaking, their opinions and beliefs are very set in stone. Aside from education, stereotypes, stigmas, and slurs in the media must be reduced to prevent further spread of negative representations. It's difficult to target those who are hostile to immigration because forcing one's opinion on others only seems to strengthen the original opinion, so really the importance lies in the next generation.
Delete