Glocal and Fragile: Do all parts of the world have elements of "fragility"?

As I've been working on a section of a new book on educational leadership in fragile states, I've been compelled to re-consider what we mean by a "fragile state."

I've written elsewhere about the complexities of countries. Even within very impoverished or fragile states, there are pockets of wealth and stability. For example, parts of Petionville (part of Port au Prince) in Haiti are very wealthy. I recall counting the number of Porsche SUVs there a few years ago and counting five or six in a few minutes of time. So, despite the economic poverty of Haiti, there is significant wealth.

At the same time, Haiti is prone to risk (fragility). This risk may be due to natural disasters or political protests. Yet, for those with economic means in Haiti, this risk is minimal since they live in well-constructed homes (for natural disaster risk) and can easily leave the country (in the face of political upheavals).

Similarly, we could look at my own country, Canada, and see aspects of fragility. We certainly can see this in some First Nations communities where access to clean drinking water, health care, or education, is regularly at risk. Of course, as a country, we have the resources to minimize the risk (whether we choose to do so or not is another question) thus differentiating us from countries such as Haiti, South Sudan, or Yemen.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is changing its definition of fragility to reflect this nuanced understanding (click here to read more). For example, it is suggesting that fragility is heightened exposure to risk combined with a low capacity to mitigate or absorb these risks. This situation of vulnerability can lead to violence, conflict, chronic underdevelopment and protracted political crisis.

The focus on vulnerability is an appropriate and important distinction and I intend to incorporate this concept in my writing.

Book on school leadership in fragile and challenging contexts

I've been asked to edit a book on educational leadership in fragile and challenging contexts. As I've thought about the book, and have done a scan of the literature, I've been reminded of some key issues:

1. Why “education” and not "school"? The book will focus on what school leaders "do" in fragile contexts but will also examine beyond the school level to include regional and national efforts. For example, some colleague and I have been working on a book chapter that examines educational policy development in Haiti and Jamaica. Policy development at the national level can have a significant impact on localized practices.

2. Why “leadership”? To emphasize current practices and action which can lead to sustainable development. The focus will not be on what teachers are doing but how principals, superintendents/directors, and policy makers lead schools in these contexts.

3. Why “fragile and challenging contexts”? The book focuses on those countries and regions that have challenging socio-political-economic contexts due to war, unrest, or natural disasters. Countries are noted as fragile and developing based on various risk factors such as demographic pressures, refugees and internally displaced individuals, uneven economic development, etc. I wrote a blog post on this a few months ago and for more information, see Fund for Peace Fragile Country Rankings 2016. 

There is very limited literature that examines school leadership in fragile and challenging contexts. I hope that the book will fill this gap and will be of value to not only those in such contexts but also to those who are in more stable settings. Developing global awareness AND leadership competencies go hand-in-hand in today's connected world.

Reflections on learning in Egypt: The "similarities" and "differences" of the world

Last week's experience of supporting the professional learning of educational colleagues in Egypt, and also travelling in the country, reminded me of how similar the world is ... and how different.

Here are three ways in which I observed how "small" and similar we are:

1. Technology ... everywhere we went, we were asked to be part of "selfies" with Egyptians and to be "friends" on Facebook. Since returning to Canada, conversations continue using various social media.
2. Relationships ... we quickly formed relationships with teachers, school directors, and tour guides. People genuinely desire to know and be known.
3. English as a world language ... from Aswan to Luxor to Cairo, we had no difficulty communicating in English (although everyone also appreciated our feeble efforts at Arabic greetings!).

Yet it was also apparent that there are still significant gaps that limit our global connectivity. Here are three differences I observed:

1.  Massive slums ... I was struck by the "bigness" of Cairo and its many impoverished communities. I heard various estimates of its size - from 10 million to 27 million - but, whatever the actual size, it is clearly a massive, sprawling city with many people living in poverty. Of course, there is poverty in big cities of Europe and North America, but the scale of it was what struck me. I wonder: How many of the children who live in these slums are in school? What are the social and economic opportunities available to them?

Source: Dreamstime.com

2.  Divides between the "haves" and "have nots" ... those who are part of the tourist industry, or who service that industry, typically have means to support themselves. Our Egyptian hosts (at the school and while touring) had their own apartments and vehicles. However, many people that we observed were clearly lacking in the means to support themselves. Of course, there are haves and have nots in North America and Europe but, again, it was the scale of difference that struck me. I wonder: What kind of a social safety net is available? How does poverty impact the ability of families to move from being a "have not" to a "have"?

Our hotel for part of our stay definitely categorized us as "haves"

3.  Pervasiveness of the government and military ... in the vast majority of places we visited, there was a very strong military/security presence. Most Egyptians that we discussed this with were appreciative of this high level of security because they felt that it enhanced their ability to go to work, school, etc. Of course, there is a strong security presence in North America and Europe (maybe becoming less discrete and more apparent?) but the pervasiveness of it in Egypt was what struck me. It made me wonder: What degree of freedom of movement and speech would be tolerated? How does the pervasive armed presence effect one's psyche (i.e., in a non-conscious way)?

I could add many more "glocal" connections after this trip to Egypt and I'm gratified by the many reminders I had that "people are people" no matter where you go in the world. An endearing reminder of this will be the many people who offered assistance to us while travelling or who stopped us to exchange a few greetings and to take a "family portrait." 

Yet, it's important to recognize that our world is still a very big place with massive differences that define, distinguish, and divide us.