# data[].attributes.body
As a Residence Manager for IIT Jammu, I witnessed the clash between internationally accepted education standards and India’s affinity with its cultural values. Baker and LeTendre (2005) stated that mass schooling has emerged as a global institution based on homogenizing ideals such as human capital development and economic productivity. But it often contradicts national imperatives; India’s system balances meritocratic rigour with equity-oriented measures like caste-based reservations. When we compare both parameters, IITs are formatted after standardized STEM models, highlighting global productivity. Student quotas based on reservations are localized adaptations for enhancing marginalized students' access to elite institutes. This duality emphasizes the degree to which philosophical tensions between global efficiency and national equity influence frames for policymaking in practice (OECD, 2018).

As a graduate student at UNB, I witnessed Canada’s emphasis on “global citizenship” in learning spaces, as exemplified by OECD (2018) calls to cultivate inclusive and environmentally aware learners. But India’s emphasis on technical skill-building instead of fields like liberal arts highlights a prioritization of individual economic mobility aligned with, rather than at odds with, national development goals. Across groups, such differences highlight how philosophical orientations—collective welfare versus meritocratic individualism—control resource allocation. For instance, while India devotes a significant amount of taxpayer funds towards subsidized technical education (OECD, 2018), Canada’s federally mandated goals for the education system emphasize student-centred pedagogies.

At the same time, my professional and academic experiences support the notion that global trends are mediated by national education policies in the name of cultural identity and socio-economic aspirations. Initiatives prioritize either standardized metrics designed for comparison (e.g., OECD’s PISA rankings) or localized outcomes — and dominant principles like equity or meritocracy get to decide which. It shapes priorities — from funding to pedagogy.

References
Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). Global trends in national education systems. In The Global Environment of National School Systems (pp. 1–15).

OECD. (2018). Equity in the education sustainable development goal. In Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators (pp. 27–28). OECD Publishing.

# data[].attributes.body
This tension between education that has been globally influenced by nature and increased standardization versus unique cultural and political contexts in education is a widespread problem in modern schooling. Philosophical principles that dominate the underlying structure of national education systems are vital components of a country that dictate the directions and priorities in education. I will be examining the principles of individual good vs collective good, meritocracy vs equity and national identity vs global citizenship-informed education policy and priorities.

Another debate is whether education is for the individual or collective good. This is simply one of the main philosophical principles for analyzing education policies. Nigeria, for instance, abolished the use of punishment in schools due to globalization. While this change is assumed to benefit society as a whole, what about the individual student?

Young children have become increasingly unruly and disrespectful. Some even challenge and physically confront teachers because they have been told that no teacher has the right to punish them. This has led to a loss of respect for educators, and students' individuality is in disarray. In contrast, individualism and meritocracy have influenced the education systems in the United States to prioritize standardized testing and competition for limited resources (Ravitch, 2013). Countries like Finland, as such, do not share the ring-fenced feeling — a sort of collective good takes precedence over individual gain in their education spaces, one of equity and inclusivity where their education system (Sahlberg, 2011). In Finland, both the rich and poor attend the same schools, which is a crucial consideration in education that balances meritocracy and equity. Systems that prioritize academic achievement, such as those in South Korea and Singapore, often produce high-achieving students. However, these systems can also perpetuate social inequalities (Tamura, 2015). On the other hand, equity-focused systems, such as those in Canada and Sweden, prioritize inclusivity and social mobility, leading to more equitable outcomes (OECD, 2020).

The interplay between national identity and global citizenship is another vital aspect of education. Some countries, like Japan and France, place a strong emphasis on national identity and cultural heritage. In contrast, countries like Australia and New Zealand focus on fostering global citizenship and multiculturalism (Halsey, 2018).

Ultimately, the philosophical principles that underpin national education systems have a profound impact on education policies and priorities. Developing a nuanced understanding of these principles is crucial for creating education systems that are equitable, effective, and relevant in a globalized world.

References:

Halsey, A. H. (2018). Education and national identity. Journal of Educational Philosophy, 32(2), 147-158.

OECD (2020). Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility. OECD Publishing.

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools.

Alfred A. Knopf.

Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Teachers College Press.

# data[].attributes.body
In Vietnam, the way post-secondary education is shaped involves balancing traditional values with the pressures of globalization. Three important ideas—individual vs. collective good, meritocracy vs. equity, and national identity vs. global citizenship—affect the policies and direction of higher education.

Meritocracy vs. Equity in Post-Secondary Education

Vietnam’s post-secondary education is based on merit. This means that students’ success is mainly determined by their exam results. Students who do well on exams are given access to better universities and educational opportunities. The meritocratic system aims to reward hard work and intelligence, which helps students from different backgrounds enter higher education (OECD, 2018).

However, this focus on merit can lead to inequalities. Wealthier students often have more access to extra help, like tutors or preparatory courses, which can give them an advantage in exams. Students from poorer families may not have the same opportunities, which makes it harder for them to compete. While the government has tried to improve access to higher education for students in rural areas, gaps in opportunities still exist (OECD, 2018).

In our class, we discussed the importance of a high-quality public education system that is accessible to the majority of students, regardless of their financial background. Unfortunately, this ideal remains beyond the current capacity of our government. Achieving true equity in education may therefore take considerable time and resources to realize.

References

OECD. (2018). Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en

# data[].attributes.body
Educational systems all over the world are affected and influenced by global trends. The level of its influence is very intense, for that matter countries are finding it difficult to deal with their externalities due to their pervasive nature. As rightly, reiterated by Baker and LeTendre, (2005) “But just like the shrinking of the world marketplace, media, and politics, education too is undergoing intensive globalization” (p.3). The virtual realities of education and its effects call for a concerted effort between governments and policymakers to forge an educational policy responsive to national interest.

The most effective approach to tackle the excessive influence of globalisation is to develop a curriculum that reflects the national values of a country while taking into cognisance global trends in education. To deal with the canker of globalisation educational policies must be consciously biased and must seek to maintain the customs and traditions of the people in its entirety to ensure the preservation of national heritage. Husen, (1967, as cited in Baker and LeTendre,2005) “Any education system can only be fully understood in the context of the culture, tradition, history and general social structure of the nations it is designed to serve” (p.220).

Ghana is a perfect example of a country trying to preserve its culture and tradition through education.  At the basic level of education school children are required to study at least one local language before they graduate from junior high school (Middle school). Also, they are required to study citizenship education aimed at instilling the spirit of nationalism and patriotism. Every morning these school children assemble at one place, pray, sing and recite the national anthem of Ghana before they go to the classroom to start the day's activities. Canada is also another country that strives to maintain such practice of making their school children sing its national anthem in their homeroom before beginning class. It is a way to foster and build a love for a country and achieve the real essence of education.

Even though education has assumed global dimension, it must not override the local beliefs and demands of the country. It must be responsive to the current demand of the people to whom it intends to benefit. It must give value and not take or obtain value, it must be both public and social good, and not private good. The generic cycle of education influenced by full foreign endorsement must end somewhere.

Reference

Baker,D.,&LeTendre,G.K.(2005).TheGlobalChallengesofNationalSchoolSystems.In               Nationaldifferences, global similarities: Worldcultureandthefutureofschooling

(pp.1-15). StanfordUniversityPress.

# data[].attributes.body
The dominant philosophical principles that underpin national education systems such as individual versus collective good, meritocracy versus equity, and national identity versus global citizenship profoundly influence a country's educational policies and priorities. These tensions underscore the challenge of preserving national distinctiveness while adapting to global educational trends. As an educator deeply invested in educational leadership, I have observed how these competing philosophies shape school policies and student experiences.

For instance, education systems that emphasize meritocracy, such as in the United States, prioritize standardized testing and competition to reward individual achievement. While this fosters innovation and excellence, it also deepens social inequalities, as access to high-quality education remains uneven. In contrast, Finland's approach focuses on equity, limiting standardized testing and providing strong state support to ensure education is a right rather than a privilege. Similarly, Nigeria's education system faces the challenge of balancing meritocracy and equity. Admission into universities is largely based on standardized exams like the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), conducted by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) . However, disparities in access to quality secondary education mean that students from wealthier backgrounds often have an advantage. This reinforces the need for policies that promote both academic excellence and fair opportunities for all students.

The tension between national identity and global citizenship adds another layer of complexity. Many nations resist reforms that prioritize global competencies over national traditions. In Jamaica, for example, the curriculum emphasizes national history and cultural identity while incorporating global perspectives. Similarly, Nigeria's National Policy on Education promotes national unity through subjects like Civic Education, while also integrating international best practices in STEM education . From my teaching experience, I have seen the value of blending global perspectives with local knowledge to help students develop a balanced worldview. Rizvi and Lingard argue that education systems must find ways to cultivate global awareness while preserving national distinctiveness.

Additionally, traditional schooling structures often resist change, even when global trends demand reform. Tyack and Tobin describe how rigid grade levels and standardized curricula persist because they are deeply embedded in national education systems. This challenge is evident in Nigeria, where educational reforms—such as the introduction of the 9-3-4 system—have struggled to replace deeply ingrained traditional models. In my work with children, I have observed the difficulty of implementing student-centered learning in systems that prioritize exams over holistic development.

Reflecting on these issues, I recognize the importance of intentional policymaking in balancing national priorities with global trends. While I value international best practices, I also believe that education systems must preserve cultural identity and address local needs.

References

Federal Ministry of Education. (2013). National policy on education (6th ed.). Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council.

Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board. (n.d.). About JAMB. Retrieved from

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Reimagining globalization and education. Routledge.

Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The grammar of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479.

# data[].attributes.body
In my years of experience in education, I believe learning should extend beyond the classroom. Education should not be seen merely as a means to pass exams but as a tool for empowerment, transformation, and community-building. Furthermore, education should be rooted in love, empathy, and fairness, ensuring that every student feels seen, heard, and valued. I have observed that education is not just about acquiring knowledge; it also fosters kindness, inclusivity, and respect for diversity. These values are essential in creating a positive learning environment where students can grow holistically.

As Baker and LeTendre (2005) discuss, global education systems are often shaped by international trends, sometimes prioritizing global standards over the unique needs of local students. In Nigeria, for example, these global influences emphasize standardized testing and individual success. However, this approach can sometimes overlook local needs and the importance of equipping students with problem-solving skills relevant to their communities. When too much focus is placed on global standards, Nigeria risks neglecting opportunities to prepare students for meaningful contributions to their immediate environments. If properly developed, these skills could have a broader impact beyond local settings.

Nigeria’s education system has traditionally emphasized individual success through exams and competition, placing immense pressure on students. This exam-driven culture can sometimes hinder comprehensive learning. In contrast, countries like Finland, which prioritize equity and student well-being, offer valuable insights (Baker & LeTendre, 2005). In my experience, I have sought to balance these pressures by incorporating interactive teaching methods and fostering a supportive classroom environment.

Another key challenge is balancing merit and fairness. High-achieving students are often rewarded based solely on exam results, reinforcing educational inequalities. Socioeconomic factors also influence learning outcomes and promoting inclusive policies could help create more equitable opportunities for all students (OECD, 2018).

Education in Nigeria also shapes national identity, similar to Japan’s approach to moral education (Baker & LeTendre, 2005).

As Nigeria’s education system continues evolving, educators must balance global influences and local needs. A system rooted in fairness, empathy, and inclusivity will better serve students and contribute to a more meaningful and effective education system for the future.

References

•           Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford University Press.

•           Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. OECD Publishing.

# data[].attributes.body
In today’s increasingly diverse but deeply divided world, I wonder if nations still have underlying philosophical principles guiding education. They may espouse same on paper but philosophy is subject to the vagaries of government and politics- I think we touched on that last week when we talked about the government of the day controlling what is taught in schools cf. Policy 713 in New Brunswick (also looming in the US under Trump A.K.A Musk, Bezos, or whoever is his new best friend – definitely not Vance!).

In my opinion, national educational policies/priorities are no longer shaped (in practice) by philosophy but by power. The “success” of the factory model of education (not in terms of outcomes but in terms of adoption) is hinged on capitalist/neo-liberal model views under which education is for training/conditioning of future “workers” whose taxes will run the economy. That model of education was unknown in Nigerian pre-colonial societies. It is a colonial legacy aimed at churning out workers in service of the “Mother Country”. Hence, critical thinking and curiosity were neither encouraged nor built into the curriculum, and training was in basic tasks required for them to function in their subservient roles. This legacy of colonialism has persisted in education in Nigeria today. Though the curriculum has been developed beyond basic learning for subservience, the Western view is still the only correct view, the teacher remains a ‘demi-god’ and the student dares not disagree or critique the prevailing perspective. This then flows from school to the workplace (“master-servant” relationships).

It is one thing to talk about noble philosophical ideas like “collective good”, “meritocracy” “equity”, “diversity” etc. On the face of it, these routinely constitute part of the curriculum in today’s educational system and are taught in schools all over the world. However, the hidden curriculum (which is arguably more compelling) does not include these fine ideas and students can see that! Hence, due to globalisation, immigrant students in increasingly diverse classrooms in the West learn under predominantly white teachers who look nothing like them nor understand their prior socialisation; filthy-rich parents offer endowments/donations to guarantee Ivy League admissions for their children/wards at the expense of more-qualified disadvantaged students (cf. “varsity blues scandal”); grades are traded for sexual and monetary favours (cf. “sex for grades scandals”) and “DEI” policies are discontinued in exchange for acclamation by the government in power (Amazon, Meta, Walmart etc.).

I will conclude by proposing that the philosophical ideas in the question should not be a matter of “either/or” or “this v. that”. They should not be mutually exclusive in today’s globalised world. Students ought to be versed in all of them to make them more rounded learners who are able to do life from all perspectives and adjust where necessary. National education policies will do well to incorporate all perspectives. Times are changing!

# data[].attributes.body
The world of education is changing rapidly. Traditionally, schools were viewed as purely national institutions, but they are now part of a global system. This shift is creating tension between global trends and local needs in education.

When I think of this, I think of my home country, Peru, whose approach to language education illustrates this tension perfectly. Despite its rich linguistic diversity—with Spanish, Quechua, and Aymara as official languages—Peru's school curriculum does not fully reflect this diversity or emphasize the need to preserve it. Instead, the country has prioritized teaching English in all schools, both public and private, aiming to create a bilingual Spanish-English population.

This exemplifies the delicate balance between preserving national identity and preparing students for a globalized world. While Quechua and Aymara are maintained in their native regions, their limited presence in the national curriculum suggests a prioritization of global economic competitiveness over the preservation of indigenous languages and cultures.

Peru's approach aligns with global education trends, where English is often viewed as essential for success in the global economy. Additionally, many Peruvians do not understand or see the need to invest time in learning a language that may not be considered "useful" outside their country. However, this raises important questions about equity and cultural heritage preservation. Like many countries, Peru is struggling to balance local cultural needs with perceived global economic demands. But how can indigenous languages survive if they are not actively taught or if there are no efforts to spark interest in learning them?

This example demonstrates how education systems are shaped by both local contexts and global pressures. As a result, policies often fail to fully represent a country's cultural and linguistic diversity, reflecting the complex interplay between national uniqueness and global standardization in modern education systems.

Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K (2005). Global trends in national education systems. In the global Environment of national school Systems

# data[].attributes.body
Mr. Ade's son, Deji, is now old enough to start school, and he was thrilled about taking him. However, he soon found himself confused by the diverse education system. With so many options available—Nigerian curriculum, British, American, British-Nigerian, American-Nigerian, and more—he struggled to decide which school would be the best fit for his son. Determined to make the right choice, he began asking questions to understand the differences.

The above, is a scenario of the kind of confusion existing in schools in my home country. Confusion caused by the need to be nationally and internationally recognized. It also speaks about where the interest and influence of the government lie.

I believe that the major reason these tensions exist in the first place is because education itself was a tool and product of colonization. Most of the structure, practices and dominant philosophical principles emanate from the colonial masters.

Educational objectives can vary greatly between countries. In Nigeria, for example, Social Studies topics like marriage and family reflect local cultural contexts, including views on same-sex relationships. When discussing money, the focus is on the Naira rather than the US dollar. However, because the education system aims to create "global citizens," the inclination towards universally relevant ideas often overshadows the unique cultural context of the nation. The most significant tension arises due to differences in priorities, values, and structural constraints etc.

When a government feels threatened by its education practices, it often implements policies to support its agenda. In Nigeria, for example, there has been a move to reinstate history classes in primary schools because many private institutions diluted historical content to align with international education standards.

Baker and LeTendre (2005, p. 4) stated that over the past three decades, there has been an explosion of information comparing schools and their outcomes, particularly the academic achievement of their students across the nation. Currently, the policies and priorities in education in most countries are shaped by the pressure of globalization and international comparisons, Hence schooling today is concerned with student achievement through standardized testing rather than learning.

Reference

Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: world culture and the future of schooling. Choice Reviews Online, 43(03), 43–1709. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-1709

# data[].attributes.body
It’s alarming how the educational system in the international context are aligning with the current global trend is considered to be deeply rooted in its. However, we do understand that this context is considered to be deeply rooted in it cultural context and economic goal of individualized country.

The tension between national identity and global citizenship is evident in certain areas of education. (i) Curriculum Design---even though schools struggle to balance the curricula in fostering identity, heritage. it also enables the school system to prepare students for a globalized world. This in turn creates a dynamic tension with having to balance local cultural priorities and international competencies. As Baker and Letendre (2005) highlight, schooling has historically been viewed as a national enterprise, designed to preserve cultural heritage and serve national economic and social goals. This helps me reflect on one of the countries I taught in Asia, rooted in the principles of nationalism and buddhist moral values, the education system historically served as a tool for the state-building, thereby promoting cultural preservation and fostering loyalty to the nation. The country ensured it prioritized curriculum content that reinforces its local language and history while maintaining a strong emphasis on traditional values. Baker and Letendre argues that schooling is increasingly shaped by international trends with global institutions like the OECD and UNESCO influencing national policies. Yet challenges such as political instability and resource disparities hinder meaningful integration of global citizenship education

Ultimately, the country education’s policies navigated a complex landscape where nationalistic priorities often outweigh global aspirations. While global educational trends encourage standardization and universal principles, the country’s approach remains deeply rooted in national identity. I believe that an inclusive system that embraces both national heritage and global competencies could better prepare the country’s students for participation in an interconnected world.

Reference

Baker, D.P, & LeTendre, G.K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: world culture and the future of schooling. Choice Reviews Online, 43 (03)