Transforming the World in Which We Live : Laureate ’ s Transnational Civic Learning Project

Higher education serves as an agent of social change that plays a significant role in the development of socially conscious and engaged students. The duty higher education has toward society, the role for-profit educational institutions play in enhancing the public good, and the prospect of making social change an element of these providers’ missions are discussed. Laureate’s Global Citizenship Project is introduced, highlighting the development of the project’s civic engagement rubric and the challenges of assessing civic engagement.


Introduction
Laureate Education, Inc. (Laureate) has begun an ambitious project drawing on the strength of its global network of colleges and universities to address directly one of the great challenges of the 21st century: how to adequately prepare leaders for a precarious and uncertain future, one in which the very sustainability of the planet depends on the ability and will of nations and their peoples to work together across national borders, languages, cultures, religions, politics, and economic ambitions for shared goals and values. The challenge is not new, but the degree of urgency is.

Education: A Lever of Change
Over 100 years ago, John Dewey made a prescient statement that resounds more strongly today than it did in 1900: One can hardly believe there has been a revolution in all history so rapid, so extensive, so complete. Through it the face of the earth is making over, even to its physical forms; political boundaries are wiped out and moved about as if they were indeed only lines on a paper map; population is hurriedly gathered into cities from the ends of the earth; habits of living are altered with startling abruptness and thoroughness; the search for the truths of nature is infinitely stimulated and facilitated and their application to life made not only practicable but commercially necessary. … That this revolution should not affect education in other than formal and superficial fashion is inconceivable. (Dewey, 1900, p. 22) Things were changing a century ago, but they are changing even more rapidly today. Society is now grappling with new instances of age-old challenges-this time with unprecedented implications for the global common good and even the world's survival.
Climate change is now literally remaking the earth's physical forms as glaciers melt; seas warm; species migrate; and droughts, floods, and pollution spread famine and conflict. There is an extraordinary mass movement of people through migration, immigration, deportation, and urbanization. Economic disparity grows even more rapidly than innovation and production. The search for truth is more urgent than ever; but it also is more easily compromised by the capacity of technology and new media to manipulate falsehood into the appearance of fact and truth. Political boundaries are at once fluid and changing as new political forms, such as the European Union or the North American Free Trade Agreement, are made and unmade. As some walls crumble, others are being built. Pandemics with names of growing familiarity, such as HIV, Ebola, SARS, or Zika, respect no borders and spread with the speed of air travel, upending social order and testing the progress of science.
A century-old assessment of change might not hold much interest for those living in such an interesting time as the early 21st century were it not for John Dewey drawing attention to the conditions for change. Dewey, more than any other educational philosopher, made the link between education and social change, between learning and experience, between understanding and the pursuit of democracy as an ethical as well as political mandate for the role of education in society. The force of Dewey's arguments has solidified a near-universal acceptance of the reality of education as the foundation for the recognition, development, and preservation of a public or common good as well as individual achievement.
Dewey understood and even predicted that education would not only be changed along with other social organizations, but that education itself would be the most important lever of change to guide and direct the revolution underway. Then and now, education moves society toward ends that are for the common good, that is, for the advancement of society as a whole. His vision of education was grounded in community and the development of community for the benefit of all, for the common good. As he observed the changing conditions at the dawn of the 20th century, when the industrial and technological revolutions of the period were maturing, he understood that community also had to embrace the world; communities as local places were interconnected through the movement of ideas, people, and tools. Habits of living were being altered, and it was the potential of education to give those alterations direction and purpose.
Fast forward to the present, and society faces similar but more urgent conditions. This time, the role of education is not only important, but its very forms must change as rapidly as world events, politics, climate, and technological innovations. This is essential if the world is to be made safe and if the very idea of the common good is to be preserved against snarling and competitive forces unleashed by uncertainty, fear, anger, anxiety, and distrust.

Education and the Global Common Good
In December 2015 the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued an important report developed over several years, Rethinking Education: Towards a Global Common Good? The question mark in the report title is prophetic. There is a real question both as to whether education can change quickly enough to advance, if not save, the common good and even as to whether there actually is a global common good or only the protected common good of separate nations, religions, or other self-proclaimed groups.
UNESCO makes the case for education's shaping the revolution that Dewey anticipated with his remarks. In issuing the report, UNESCO not only asserts the place of the common good as essential for the world's future, but it offers constructive guidance on why and how the forms and providers of education can adapt quickly enough to make a difference. More importantly, the UNESCO report, not surprisingly, makes a compelling case for the common good being a global good.
In her forward to the report, Irina Bokova, the director-general of UNESCO, speaks plainly and urgently about the role of education: Education is key to the global integrated framework of sustainable development goals. Education is at the heart of our efforts both to adapt to change and to transform the world within which we live. A quality basic education is the necessary foundation for learning throughout life in a complex and rapidly changing world. (Bokova, 2015, p. 4) Education is both a means and, as a foundation for living, an end in itself. In discussing the role of colleges and universities as a part of the larger hierarchy of formal learning, the report's authors stress that "the current industrial model of schooling was designed to meet the production needs of well over a century ago, that modes of learning have changed dramatically over the past two decades, and sources of knowledge have changed, as have the ways in which we exchange and interact with it" (UNESCO, 2015, p. 48). There is no doubt, however, in the convictions of the authors that a growing array of providers of education, colleges and universities in particular, are essential for securing the benefits of education for the common good. They cite the rapid development of a global middle class as both the evidence of the effects of education and the need for its continuing evolution to meet the enormous challenges of the 21st century.
Irina Bokova concludes her introduction of the report with a powerful reminder of why adapted and evolved forms of education are essential to personal, national, and global wellbeing: There is no more powerful transformative force than educationto promote human rights and dignity, to eradicate poverty and deepen sustainability, to build a better future for all, founded on equal rights and social justice, respect for cultural diversity, and international solidarity and shared responsibility, all of which are fundamental aspects of our common humanity. This is why we must think big again and re-vision education in a changing world. For this, we need debate and dialogue across the board, and that is the goal of this publicationto be both aspirational and inspirational, to speak to new times. (Bokova, 2015, p. 4) Here is the wisdom of John Dewey and UNESCO's urgent call to action converge.
One of the most comprehensive responses has come in the form of the sixth report in the Global University Network for Innovation's (GUNi) series on the social commitment of universities: Towards a Socially Responsible University: Balancing the Global With the Local. Issued in March 2017, the report comprises contributions from more than 30 experts drawn from nations and organizations around the world.
In the final, integrating chapter of the report, its editors draw their major conclusions from the different perspectives and approaches of the essays, noting that there is a dual perspective on global affairs generally: … on the one side, there is competition between national and regional economic systems in developing their respective societies, and on the other, there is the global sustainability of the sum of all these developments. Higher education institutions (HEIs) can be identified as key players from both perspectives and, thus, have the singular responsibility of helping to provide appropriate and adequate responses to both legitimate needs and interests: i) to address the global challenges of the world, which are very well summarized by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and ii) to contribute to the social, cultural and economic development and international competitiveness of their societies. Universities compete on the global stage for students, faculty and research contracts, but are expected at the same time to contribute to the economic competitiveness of their localities and to sustainable and inclusive global and local development. … From this perspective, it becomes necessary to make explicit the dual engagement of universities: with the immediate needs of our local societies and with the global challenges of the world, of our global society. (Grau, Goddard, Hall, Hazelkorn, & Tandon, 2017, p. 503)

Higher Education's Duty to Society
From the beginning of the 20th century to the early development of the 21st century there is a continuum of thought that higher education plays a unique role in integrating local and global interests and in providing the very basis of human advancement for individuals and humanity alike. It is a heavy responsibility for those who lead, manage, and deliver education in everexpanding and constantly changing forms. As Dewey foresaw, habits of living are indeed changed with startling abruptness and thoroughness.
Because of the high seriousness of the duality noted by the GUNi and UNESCO reports (along with hundreds of other books, reports, and essays), higher education institutions, networks, new providers, governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations of many kinds, and thought leaders in many sectors have all weighed in on the duty of higher education to their localized constituencies and to society as a whole. Some would frame the duality in terms of priority as many leaders of states and nations have done in their emphasis on economic development, work preparation, and gaining competitive advantage. Others, less concerned with re-election, have given priority to the transnational needs of humanity and the world itself, highlighting climate change, immigration and migration, food and water security, terrorism, pandemics, and other challenges to the survival of people, places, and the planet. Not surprisingly, commentators representing transnational organizations have come down squarely in favor of both sides of the duality.
While rhetorically it may be facile and deflecting to argue that institutions can be both local and global, in reality it is much harder. As the editors of the GUNi report note, institutions compete for students, faculty, research developments, and prestige. There are, of course, global networks and voluntary associations of institutions that are committed to serving the greater, common good locally and internationally, such as the Talloires Network, Campus Compact, or GUNi itself. Yet while observing shared principles and values, network members largely act independently and individually. Even those universities that have established branches or learning centers in geographically distributed locations or deployed advanced communications technologies to reach learners anywhere there is an Internet or phone connection tend to be guided by uniform policies, procedures, and principles.
In an era of startling, abrupt change in higher education when new technologies, new media, and new providers driven by vast amounts of data, enhanced analytic capabilities, and venture funds are exploring innovative disruptions to the "industrial model of schooling" designed to meet last centuries' production needs, new concepts and new models are emerging. Some are much more narrowly focused, such as the boot camps and coding academies providing certificates and microcredentials for mastery of specific competencies. Others, such as Minerva, the Open University, or the African Virtual University, are advancing new models to exploit both technology and the potential of attracting constituents who lean toward advancing the global common good. In many nations and regions, innovation is also driven by the prospect of cashing in on a highly attractive educational marketplace where degrees and credentials of all kinds can command high prices, as well as attract schemers and frauds who offer worthless credentials for a price. The volatility of the global education marketplace thus places a premium on quality control, reputation, and verification.
Responding to the demand for higher education. As demand for higher education increases dramatically around the world, because it is considered to be the best and most reliable means to personal self-advancement, many nations have been unable to respond adequately, thus reducing the quality and value of already-stretched, government-supported providers. Where allowed by national policy, nonprofit and for-profit providers have stepped in to meet demand, often with mixed results and with varying levels of regulation. In some nations, such as Turkey, nonprofit universities such as Koç, Sabanci, or Bilkent have emerged as among the best and most respected, whereas in other nations, for-profit universities such as Universidad Europea Madrid in Spain or Universidad de Las Américas in Ecuador have risen to the highest levels.
In all nations, however, the more recent expansion of for-profit colleges, universities, and specialized certificate providers has given rise to doubt and suspicion about quality and motive, often with good reason. Nowhere has both public and regulatory scrutiny of for-profit institutions attracted more attention than in the United States, where the U.S. Department of Education has issued special regulations to ensure that graduates have "gainful employment" upon graduation sufficient, at a minimum, to repay federal educational loans. Think tanks of varying political persuasions, newspapers, and individual commentators have amplified the discussion about how profit and motive can ensure quality, let alone accommodate a commitment to the common good.
Quality assurance agencies in the United States and elsewhere have struggled with this issue as a consideration for accreditation or government recognition. While there is no specific accreditation or recognition based on an institution's commitment to the public good, in the United States there is an elective Carnegie classification for community engagement based on criteria and a review process; other nations have adopted some form of elective review and acknowledgment of special commitments to the common good. A few of the seven U.S. institutional accreditors, notably the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), have specifically required all institutions-public, nonprofit, and for-profit-to document their commitment to the public good as a condition of accreditation (WSCUC, 2013, p. 12). Even a few of the program accreditors take note of a provider's contribution to the greater societal goodespecially those where professional duty reflects an accountability standard to the public good as a good faith measure to ensure trust. managers an ability to include a duty to the public good as a component of their fiduciary responsibilities. Profit is not the only bottom-line measure, as long as public benefit can be documented. At least one nonprofit organization, B Lab, has been established to provide thirdparty verification of public benefit contributions and, by its own claim, to serve "a global movement of people using business as a force for good" (B Lab, n.d.).
A mission to enhance the global public good. As perhaps the world's largest public benefit corporation and certainly the largest certified by B Lab, Laureate offers a strong example of how a for-profit company, through its network of some 70 universities and colleges in more than 25 nations, can make enhancing the global public good a distinct part of its mission: "Expanding access to quality higher education to make the world a better place" (Laureate, n.d.b). Laureate seems to be fulfilling Dewey's notion that the search for truths "and their application to life [has to be] made not only practicable but commercially necessary" (Dewey, 1900, p. 22) In becoming a public benefit corporation and electing to become B Lab certified, Laureate has made a commitment to have not only the corporate office reviewed but also each of its institutions. All member institutions must file the required documents and meet the independent requirements for certification on their own merit. Laureate is showing the world that an organization can be both for-profit and socially motivated.
Laureate's corporate slogan is "Here for Good," and the company takes a strong public stand on demonstrating it is living up to its mission and its vision through a division of social responsibility that works with each of the network institutions to realize the goal of enhancing the public good. The company website offers a number of examples of how both the corporate entity is collectively making the world a better place and how individual institutions in the network are doing so in their local communities and nations. The website proclaims: We believe society is best served when our students, faculty, and our entire organization use our collective skills and experience to create positive and lasting change. Our students and graduates are improving lives and making our world better. Our institutions are providing the critical skills, knowledge and support to help make this happen. To us, this is about permanence and purpose. This is what we mean by Here for Good. (Laureate, n.d.a) Evidence is offered through several means, including an annual social impact report. A foundation provides funding for educational improvements to address the need for a continuously evolving and adaptive system of education from primary to postsecondary levels. It supports the International Youth Foundation with its own YouthActionNet to empower young social entrepreneurs. Each year 20 Laureate Global Fellows are selected from among the more than one million students enrolled across the network to receive special training and mentoring designed to help them become global leaders of social change and to provide them with a global network of peers. The company also sponsors a Global Day of Service that engaged more than 22,000 volunteers in 220,000 hours of service provided by students, faculty, and staff of 36 institutions in 16 nations in 2016. In brief, Laureate takes its mission seriously, and it is committed to documenting its actual attainments through public accountability. Transparency is a part of its philosophy of enhancing the public good.

The Global Citizenship Project: Civic Learning and Community Engagement
As commendable as Laureate's commitment to being Here for Good in all regions and many nations of the world may be, what sets it apart from other large postsecondary organizations is its emerging commitment to ensuring that graduates of its programs are prepared for their responsibilities as globally competent citizens, as well as well-qualified employees and professionals. Other voluntary networks comprised of individual institutions, such as Campus Compact or the Talloires Network, share similar goals, but their commitment is to a set of principles, such as the leading principles set forth in the Talloires Declaration: expanding civic engagement and social responsibility programs and embedding public responsibility through personal [and institutional] example (Talloires Network, 2005). Unlike the Laureate network, these other, voluntary associations are composed of institutions with little programmatic interaction, and none across the whole membership.
To date, no other global network or consortium of universities has made a commitment to developing and implementing a set of civic learning outcomes expected of all graduates. Laureate will assess its own effectiveness in preparing graduates for the responsibilities of being citizens who can be effective locally and nationally because they understand the interconnectedness and interdependence of local communities with the world at large.
In September 2016 Laureate launched its Global Citizenship Project (GCP) with the intent to develop both civic learning outcomes to be implemented network-wide and to develop criteria for assessing community engagement that could more accurately and effectively document the organization's commitment to being Here for Good locally and globally.
Laureate has always recognized the transformative power of education in peoples' lives. Thus, it has embraced the opportunity to prepare technically competent professionals also to be civic-minded professionals who are globally competent citizens, ready to take their respective places in a world increasingly connected to and dependent on the actions of others.
This initiative seeks to add defined academic and assessment substance to the intention of being Here for Good by generating evidence to document that Laureate institutions are indeed doing good, but are doing so in ways that matter to graduates, local communities, and the world we all share. Thus, the project seeks to answer the questions "How do we know that students are learning citizenship and participatory skills in Laureate programs?" and "How do we know that Laureate's institutional community engagements are actually serving the common good locally and transnationally?" Through this initiative, Laureate intends to identify what civic learning outcomes and what results of engagement in its respective local communities the corporation and network should be able to assess and document with what evidence. The outcomes of this initiative will enable the entire Laureate network and all of its institutions to be more accountable and transparent to their stakeholders.
If its initiative succeeds, Laureate is thus uniquely positioned to be a global leader in the higher and postsecondary education world, one that has increasingly been under pressure to prove how education contributes to the global common good. As a worldwide network spanning more than 70 institutions in 25 nations with more than a million learners enrolled, Laureate's network and breadth are unmatched. The results of this initiative would be the first of their kind to be implemented on a transnational scale. Laureate has the potential to go beyond even the B Lab metrics for demonstrating how responsible corporations can ethically and responsibly serve the greater common good, doing well financially while also doing good in meaningful ways. The proof, of course, will be in the results.
A rubric for community engagement. While the GCP comprises two parts-civic learning and community engagement-the initial focus is on developing civic learning outcomes, with community engagement measures to come later. Based on an extensive review of current national and regulatory standards for civic learning in many of the nations where Laureate supports institutions, the GCP has developed a rubric for a small set of core competencies that are to be assessed of all graduates of all network institutions worldwide. The core civic competencies will be augmented by institutionally developed competencies that reflect institutional mission, national requirements or priorities, and other factors specific to an institution.
The rubric, under development and being tested at several pilot institutions during spring 2018, establishes a small set of threshold measures that, while not sufficient by themselves to ensure that graduates are globally competent citizens, provides a foundation common to all institutions across the network. Additionally, the GCP is coordinated with another Laureate initiative to assess graduates' readiness for employability and professional performance: the Laureate Professional Assessment (LPA). The LPA includes many of the underlying cognitive and noncognitive knowledge, skills, and abilities that are necessary for success in the workplace as well as success in living, including fulfilling the responsibilities of citizenship.
Given the convergence of worldwide expectations for what citizens of the 21st century must be able to do to ensure their own national as well as global prosperity and survival, the Laureate civic learning outcomes bear many similarities to those developed or being developed in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and other nations and multinational organizations. The draft rubric that is being piloted currently will undoubtedly be revised in the light of experience, and it will be subject to continuous revision as necessary for a constantly evolving system of higher education, much as Dewey suggested.
Graduates of degree programs delivered by Laureate network institutions will demonstrate the integrated knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to be successful and competent civically oriented graduates and professionals in a globally interconnected and interdependent world. They will accomplish this by showing how they are prepared to respond to civic, social, environmental, and economic challenges at the local, national, and transnational levels by applying the knowledge and experiences they have acquired through their educational programs. The highest priority of the civic learning initiative of the GCP is to ensure that graduates of Laureate institutions can be effective local and national citizen-leaders because they are also aware of global interdependence and shared transnational responsibilities.
Developers of the civic learning template are well aware that assessing a small number of competencies cannot guarantee that a graduate will be effective as a citizen, employee, or person. By selecting an even smaller set of core competencies, the goal of the civic learning initiative is to establish a threshold level. The small set of competencies assures a minimally effective threshold of self-awareness to assure the specific competencies and responsibilities that make one an effective citizen. With many diverse institutions in so many different countries, the core competencies are necessarily a subset of a broader range of outcomes.
Accordingly, outcomes will be assessed at two levels: (1) general, transnational competencies expected of all graduates, regardless of discipline or program, across the Laureate global network; and (2) additional competencies related to specific fields of study, to institutional missions and priorities, and to national context, as determined by each institution.
The threshold of core competencies will be required of all graduates of degree programs from all network member institutions. Meeting this expectation for transnational civic learning will distinguish and empower graduates of all Laureate network institutions. Additional competencies will be added at the discretion of each member institution. Recognizing national, cultural, social, economic, religious, and political differences from across the global company network (as well as accommodating institutional autonomy and mission differences) is critical to the successful implementation of transnational civic learning outcomes; however, to promote comparability and to reduce proliferation of expected competencies, network policies will guide institutional additions to the civic learning template. Hence, each institution will require additional competencies that support transnational civic learning drawn from the graduate's discipline or profession, from the national or cultural context, or from institutional and program priorities.
Each institution defines, assesses, and records the evidence required from students to demonstrate competency at the threshold level for associate and sub-degree recipients, at the intermediate level for baccalaureate recipients, and at the advanced level for master's, doctoral, and post-baccalaureate professional degree recipients. Each level is cumulative and incorporates the learning expectations of the preceding academic degree level(s).
Assessing civic engagement. As the LPA is implemented across the network, there will be areas of overlap in expected learning outcomes between the LPA and the civic learning expectations of the GCP, especially regarding cognitive and noncognitive skills that are the foundation for both workforce education and civic learning. Through these measures, Laureate's worldwide network has the opportunity not only to distinguish itself from competitors but to assume a major global leadership role by showing how graduates of programs can earn credentials documenting their work and citizenship readiness, both locally and globally.
Because the core competencies represent threshold attainment based on academic learning and are basic to all institutions regardless of mission, their implementation will evolve over semesters and even years for some institutions, both to allow for curricular changes and to permit some institutions time to develop institutional research and assessment capabilities. Accordingly, the template for assessing civic learning will begin with each institution's current capacity to assess the core competencies and move as quickly as possible to develop the infrastructure necessary to support assessment of all of the core outcomes plus whatever additional outcomes an institution may wish to add. The beginning point for all students in all institutions is an emphasis on civic knowledge acquired through learning. Eventually, most institutions will wish to augment knowledge with experience gained though actual participation in civic organizations. Those institutions that already have well-developed community engagement programs may begin to report evidence of attainment through experience and community engagement immediately.
The assessment template consists of five broad core competencies plus the cognitive and noncognitive knowledge, skills, and abilities included in the LPA. There are five knowledge-based competencies: (1) demonstrating self-awareness and self-assessment of one's own social and cultural self as part of a larger society, both local and transnational; (2) demonstrating awareness of social diversity and different constituent elements in society as well as an understanding of the elements that define collective, group identities; (3) understanding civic issues through acquired knowledge of local, national, and transnational forces that shape civic life, reflect different power relationships among groups, and reflect universal civic values; (4) understanding the role of collective or collaborative civic actions, drawing on one's own disciplinary or professional learning; and (5) understanding the complexities of transnational civic actions based on an awareness of what comprises the global common good.
Each of these very broad competencies can be demonstrated though multiple behaviors. Within defined competencies, or levels of mastery of knowledge and/or skills, there are specific behaviors that when combined demonstrate overall competence. Behaviors are the specific knowledge or skills necessary for overall competence and may be assessed individually to assist learners in understanding where they are in their progress toward attaining overall competence. A behavior is important by itself, but it may not by itself be sufficient to demonstrate competence. The template being piloted within the Laureate network suggests up to 15 behaviors, but only one designated behavior is required for each of the five core competencies; as noted, institutions will augment the core competencies with all, some, or none of the supplemental, suggested behaviors and may add other behaviors of their own development to support institutional mission or the expectations of specific disciplines or professions.
In the template, the term transnational is used to characterize an action or concept that crosses two or more national borders. It may be global, affecting all nations and peoples, or it may be specific to a region. In all cases, the action or concept affects the citizens of more than one nation. A transnational competency, thus, is one expected of citizens regardless of the laws, religions, or cultural contexts of the nation(s) in which they may be citizens, such as information or quantitative literacy or capacity for reflection. Basic human rights are also considered to be transnational in this concept of what is expected of a globally-competent citizen.
Additionally, the global nature of a common or public good indicates that it affects and involves all nations and people, as opposed to local, national, or regional definitions of what may be in the best interests of only part of humanity. The United Nations and other organizations (and regions of the world) have further delineated the global common good, as UNESCO has in its 2015 report on Rethinking Education: "Knowledge and education [should] be considered common goods. This implies that the creation of knowledge, as well as its acquisition, validation and use, are common to all people as part of a collective societal endeavor. The notion of common good allows us to go beyond the influence of an individualistic socio-economic theory inherent to the notion of 'public good'. It emphasizes a participatory process in defining what is a common good, which takes into account a diversity of contexts, concepts of well-being, and knowledge ecosystems. Knowledge is an inherent part of the common heritage of humanity. Given the need for sustainable development in an increasingly interdependent world, education and knowledge should, therefore, be considered global common goods" (UNESCO, 2015, p. 11). The GCP civic learning expectations, however, treat the common good and the public good as interchangeable terms; in both instances, the global nature of the societal good is what is being addressed.

Conclusion
This project is ambitious and is intended to be a contribution to UNESCO's call for dialogue across the board, across the world, and across the sectors that are now so deeply engaged in providing postsecondary education: "… to be both aspirational and inspirational, to speak to new times." Even as the civic learning pilot of the GCP is underway, community engagement and the criteria and standards that should be expected of institutions that are making real contributions to the local and global public good are being developed. These two aspects of the project will converge and reinforce the primary objective of each. As institutions and students move from knowledge to experience in offering evidence of attainment, they will be approaching the hopes Dewey held for what an evolved system of education should aspire to be.
Building on the success of the Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations has established new global goals focused on sustainability that will guide the organization for the next 15 years. As Dewey and his successors have demonstrated, education holds the key to achieving global goals by preparing graduates who have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet the challenges. Through the GCP in combination with the LPA, Laureate will use the strength and purpose of its network to contribute prepared leaders who can work "in the spirit of partnership and pragmatism to make the right choices now to improve life, in a sustainable way, for future generations" (United Nations Development Programme, "What are the sustainable development goals," para. 3).