International teaching partnerships

by Dr. Luigi Iannacci (he/him), Professor, Trent University

I have been asked several times to write about the experience of bringing teacher candidates to various countries to teach since I began coordinating international alternative settings placements for the Trent University School of Education in 2017. None of these opportunities felt appropriate to follow through on as I was resistant to the dominant and problematic narrative of Canadian teachers going to countries and ameliorating the lives of students and teachers within the schools they were teaching in. I have heard these stories many times and the saviour theme that is present within them always struck me as deeply problematic. It is a narrative that has at times, fuelled interest in my international work. As Education Forum however, is committed to addressing the complex and collaborative ways people and power operate within organizations toward social justice focussed ends, I felt it was the right publication for me to finally share some of what I have experienced and learned about international teaching and collaborations. Further, as I was asked to centre this article on international education focussed partnerships, their value to new educators, and how they act as places of global solidarity building with educators, it was clear that the dominant saviour narrative was not what was being sought. I was also pleased to find out that this piece would be published in the very last issue Tracey Germa would serve as editor on. I have worked with Tracey and have observed her deep commitment to students and equity for many years. I want to acknowledge her long-standing dedication to public education and congratulate her on a well-earned retirement. For all these reasons, this issue of Education Forum is the right place to share critical reflections about international teaching/partnerships.

The critical hesitancy I have had about publishing my international teaching/partnerships experiences was also present eight years ago when I was first asked to coordinate a placement in Cambodia. I had many questions about the purpose of the placement and the sustainability of the school in which the teacher candidates and I would be teaching. Like other Canadian education scholars who have engaged in international service-learning, I was concerned about the colonial relations of power well-meaning people can perpetuate when engaged in this type of initiative (Heidebrecht & Balzer). This form of colonialism is established from the onset when Canadian partners have a deficit view of international partners, schools, teachers, communities and cultures that ensures a pedagogy of pity arrogantly intended to “train and fix” without considering assets, knowledge, values, pedagogies and practices international partners have developed as a result of their contexts. This deficit lens does not recognize, respond to or foster agency and autonomy with international partners, but rather imposes agendas and ethnocentric approaches. It was clear to me given what I had previously learned working with international schools and global educational organizations that social justice education focussed partnerships can be “colonialism in sheep’s clothing” (Walsh, 9). Partners involved in the first Cambodia placement addressed my critical questions and concerns. They also demonstrated that there was a need for the work as identified by local community members associated with the school located in a very rural and underserved area of Cambodia. It became apparent to me that although remaining critical was necessary given the sensitive and complex nature of what is required when teaching in other countries, an overindulgence of this type of thinking can lead to a very privileged form of analysis paralysis, where doing nothing can be justified by the anxiety caused by complexities that need to be considered when entering, fostering and sustaining an education focussed international partnership. Rather than facing these issues and grappling with them, there can be a tendency to abandon these potentially rich collaborations and placements due to problematics they can engender.

Although I have referred to some of the literature that has been published about international service learning (ISL), I need to make explicit and differentiate the type of international teaching placements/partnerships that through time and experience, I have developed. What I am presently coordinating and referring to in this article is not about offering service to or being in servitude to Canadian organizations carrying out international education focussed initiatives. These partnerships are also not reflective of edutourism. Placements require the team coming from Trent University to support students and faculty as directed and needed regarding pedagogy, practices and related content in response to the general and specific context of the schools we are teaching in. Teacher Candidates receive professional development in advance to prepare for the placement that includes an exploration of the country they are teaching in as well as its history and current sociocultural, political, economic and educational context. Communication with teachers and administrators from the partner institution occurs throughout this preparation period. The focus is always learning from others as opposed to exclusively learning about them (Larkin). It is a complete professional, pedagogic and personal immersion into learning that enables teacher candidates to fully engage in teaching within a specific international educational setting.

What is offered in the next section is a frame I have developed that illustrates what needs to be critically considered in cultivating the type of partnership that is vital to establish when engaging in international education focussed collaborations; responsiveness, research, respect, reciprocity, reflexivity and resources. Although each of these tenets of the frame are explored separately, they coalesce and are inextricably linked in ways that ensure that relationship building is at the very heart of what is being fostered and developed throughout the collaborative process. All of the following tenets serve to build and maintain relationships with everyone involved in international partnerships (students, teachers, administrators, organization members etc.), in ways that reflect social justice focussed principles and practices.

Responsiveness

Foci and agendas for international placements/partnerships cannot be set by people or organizations within minority world countries1 (e.g., Canada) for majority world schools/educational institutions (e.g., Cambodia). Like Heidebrecht & Balzer, I contend that the locus of decision-making must rest with those who comprise the host community. My experiences demonstrate that this way of operating cultivates collaborative rather than coercive relations of power (Cummins) and as such, actively resists reinscribing coloniality under the guise of social justice focussed work. What is key is fostering coequal partnerships and responsive collaboration. What this requires from the onset, is the pinpointing of needs and reasons for the placement/partnership (that may change over time) as determined by the host community. This is the impetus for what follows, a co-constructed plan that addresses these needs. These plans are dynamic and can be re-established in situ. Pivoting and adjusting instruction/initiatives and the work that needs to be done is a matter of maintaining flexibility and necessary responsiveness to context-bound community needs.

Research

Prior to commencing any placement, preparation is vital. Exploring research and a variety of texts (e.g., documentaries, books, art, images, journal and newspaper articles etc.) to understand the historical and current context of where the teaching placement is occurring is essential in becoming familiar with factors that mediate the ways in which education within that country has been shaped and is currently configured. For example, understanding what led to and the aftermath of the genocide in Cambodia has been essential for my students and I to understand prior to arriving and beginning a placement. Resources that identify future economic and education goals and visions for the country as articulated by Cambodian researchers and organizations (Eam et al.), are also vital to become familiar with, as is ensuring ongoing communication (via Zoom meetings and email) with host community members.
During one of the international teaching placements situated at Camtech University in Phnom Pehn, Cambodia, the President of the university, Dr. Sothy Khieng, stressed the importance of learning about the genocide but fully seeing Cambodia and Cambodians as much more than just the genocide. It is therefore essential to be immersed in research and communication from the host country/collaborators that contextualizes rather than fossilizes a culture and its people and as such, is attentive to the past, the present, and the future. Once again, this form of preparation is designed to promote learning from and with others, rather than solely about them.

Respect

Developing respect begins with what I have described thus far as it fosters a form of attentive and informed listening that establishes what international collaborators involved in partnerships are saying, suggesting and requesting throughout the initiative, and the ways in which context has shaped the impetus for the partnership. This type of listening and respectful ethos also requires being attuned to cultural norms and etiquette that research and preparation can’t always provide. For example, during a placement in a rural school in Cambodia teacher candidates were playing Duck, Duck, Goose during recess with Cambodian students who came to receive free English classes. As the game began, I noticed the Cambodian teacher walking quickly towards me. He took me aside and gently explained that in Cambodian culture, children’s heads were considered sacred and should not be touched. It was clear to me that he did not want some form of belaboured apology. I quietly took the teacher candidates aside and briefly explained what I had been told and was clear about not making too much of the situation, but rather, quickly adapting the game so that the children’s shoulders rather than heads were being tapped. I have seen cross-cultural incidents lead to prolonged and overstated apologies that create a great deal of awkwardness for international partners who have simply and directly pointed out a cultural norm. What is intended to demonstrate respect deteriorates into disrespectful behaviour as it imposes uncomfortable interactions onto international partners that intensifies rather diminishes cultural offense.

 

Reciprocity

Reciprocity has been described frequently as essential in relation to education focussed international partnerships. However, there has been vast imprecision in conceptualizing reciprocity in the literature, and a lack of evidence in demonstrating it (Heidebrecht & Balzer). My experiences have illustrated that reciprocity needs to be understood and approached as malleable and (re)defined in partnership as it is formed and reformed throughout the collaborative process. It can therefore constantly be in flux requiring ongoing conversation with partners where the work and teaching is happening. There have been several times throughout the eight years I have been coordinating international teaching placements where what teacher candidates and I were expected to provide, what we would be subsequently learning, what partners wanted us to do and therefore what they would receive from us changed over the course of the partnership and placement. In each instance of this renegotiated reciprocity, what both parties garnered was far richer and fuller than what was initially established. The unfortunate dominant and essentializing notion that has sometimes problematically explained away in situ shifts has equated these dynamic relations as inherently due to the international partner’s “culture”. My work in education for over 30 years has unequivocally demonstrated that pivots and revised forms of reciprocity that come with them are necessary by products of complex educational landscapes that require sophisticated and swift navigation and negotiation to ensure that all stakeholders are mutually benefitting from collaborations.

Reflexivity

Throughout the process of developing and actualizing international partnerships and placements, it is essential to constantly be in a state of “continual self-conscious critique” (Viruru & Cannella). This is not a paralyzing form of reflection, but rather an ethos of not just thinking about what is working or not working, but also ensuring that privilege, power, pedagogy and practice are contextualized within larger sociocultural/economic systems and dominant discourses and as such, critically understood as factors that impact the ways in which partnerships and the dynamics that occur throughout them are shaped and reshaped. Reflexivity is a productive process that ensures an alertness to contextual specificity that enables an understanding of how to attend to complex factors. Our positionalities are a vital source of information that once critically explored, can lead to altered praxis.

Resources

When resources are mentioned, money and things often come to people’s minds. It is of course essential to enter a partnership well resourced, rather than be a burden that partners cannot sustain. The knowledge I have acquired through international education focussed partnerships has however importantly demonstrated that the most vital resource that needs developing well before a school building is erected and filled with furniture and instructional materials is a teacher. From their inception, international education focussed initiatives must be committed to developing teacher capacity. The TDSO (Teacher Development Support Organization) in Siem Reap, Cambodia is a superb example of a Cambodian run organization fully committed to professionally developing teachers. This is clear in their mission and articulated in their belief that “Every child has the right to a trained teacher” (https://tdso.ngo/). The school provides free education to multiple age students and quality professional development for future teachers that is responsive to the context and community the school is located in. What I have observed and experienced resonates with their mission. Developing teachers prepared to be pedagogically responsive to students rather than programs or prescriptions is central to fostering effective learning environments. Brick, mortar, and things do not a school make. When a building structure and materials are the focus of what constitutes resourcing an initiative, it becomes instantly evident that what has been constructed is a place for children to go to receive instruction, but once there, experience pedagogic conditions that may not allow them to learn. Years ago, during one of our many interesting and critical conversations about international education focussed initiatives, Dr. Sothy Khieng referred to a provocative image of an NGO (non-government organization) school bus with no wheels filled with students. It is an image that I have worked to ensure does not encapsulate partnerships/placements teacher candidates and I are involved in.

Conclusion

The word transformative has become ubiquitous in education and misapplied in ways that do not reflect or are linked to processes of conscientization (Freire). I can however say with sincerity that what teacher candidates and I have experienced because of these partnerships/placements has been personally and professionally transformative. What has often resulted from these collaborations is immense growth and the garnering of a new consciousness about the world, teaching, and life. Although these initiatives are not without inherent complexities, they cultivate informed and attentive listening, as well as a sustained responsiveness to diverse individuals and contexts—thereby supporting the identification and engagement of the needs, aspirations, abilities, and assets of all participants. It has been an absolute privilege to develop these relationships and experience what they powerfully demonstrate about partnership, pedagogy and possibilities.

____________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge Trent University President Dr. Cathy Bruce for her support of this initiative and financial support from the President’s Endowment and Advancement funds, as well as the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (ETFO) for their donation. Without this support, an upcoming placement in Cambodia would not be possible. If you would like to donate to this initiative, please email luigiiannacci@trentu.ca. Donations to the Teacher Development Support Organization (TDSO) in Siem Reap, Cambodia can be made through this website: https://tdso.ngo

[1] Minority world and Majority world are terms intended to remind Western countries that they make up a minority of the world’s population, and that most of the world is comprised of countries that have been problematically referred to as ‘developing’ in opposition to ‘developed’ countries. This binary problematically depicts what is ‘developed’ as fossilized and finished, and development as a linear and monolithic process that mirrors what has occurred in developed countries. The terms ‘third world’ and ‘first world’ have also reinforced us/other binaries that further the idea that economically disadvantaged countries are backwards and deficient, as opposed to first world countries who are positioned as superior and ‘civilized’.

WORKS CITED
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Eam, P., Len, P., Khieng, S., Son, S. (2022). Cambodian Post-Secondary Education and Training in the Global Knowledge Societies. Cambodia Development Research Institute.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Heidebrecht, L. & Balzer, G. (2020) Decolonial Experimentations in International Service Learning Research and Practice: Learnings from Mayan Indigenous Host Communities. Michigan Journal of Service Learning, 26 (1), 143-159.
Khan, T, Abimbola, S, Kyobutungi, C, Pai, M. (2022). How we classify countries and people—and why it matters. BMJ Global Health Journal. 7(6), n.p. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9185389/
Khieng, S, Chhem, K.R., Srinivasa, M. (2015). Cambodia Education 2015: Employment and Empowerment. Cambodia Development Research Institute.
Larkin, A. (2015). Close encounters of the Other kind: Ethical relationship formation and International Service Learning education. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 10 (2), 143 – 155.
Viruru, R. & Cannella, G. (2001). Postcolonial ethnography, young children, and Voice. In, Embracing identities in early childhood education; Diversity and possibilities, eds. Susan Grieshaber and Gaile Cannella. New York: Teachers College Press,158-172.
Walsh, S. (2014). Trojan horse aid: Seeds of resistance and resilience in the Bolivian highlands and beyond. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.