In year-end reports, the internationalization section is usually presented as a single number: how many memoranda of understanding were signed. That number is easy to collect and easy to grow. It also says almost nothing about what students and teachers actually gained.
The number of MOUs only reflects initial connections. A school that signs ten memoranda with none of them running will have a prettier report than a school that signs two and operates both — even though reality says the opposite.
Why this indicator is so widely used
Because it is cheap. Signing a memorandum takes one working session and one signature. Operating an exchange program takes staff, budget, processes and an entire school year.
When the measure is much cheaper than the real work, an organization will optimize for the measure. This is not the fault of whoever writes the report — it is the natural consequence of counting the wrong thing.
Four indicator groups that reflect reality better
Opportunities created for learners. How many students and teachers actually take part in an international activity in a given year — exchanges, summer camps, joint courses, seminars with a foreign partner. This is the indicator closest to the educational mission, and also the one parents can feel.
Partnership repeat rate. Of the partners worked with last year, how many return this year. A returning partner means the first round was good enough for them to invest effort a second time. This indicator is hard to dress up simply by signing more agreements.
Number of processes that have been handed over. How many activities currently have enough documentation for another person at the school to take over. This is a measure of capability, distinct from a measure of activity: if the person in charge leaves and the program keeps running, the school has accumulated something real.
Time from signing to first operation. Measured in months, for each memorandum. This number immediately exposes any memorandum that has never left the drawer, something the “number of MOUs” metric conceals.
How to read the four indicators together
They should not be viewed in isolation. A school with many opportunities for learners but a low repeat rate is often buying one-off activities rather than building relationships. Conversely, a high repeat rate with few opportunities suggests good relationships that have not yet been scaled up.
The most worrying case is when the number of hand-off-ready processes is zero, even though the other three indicators look good. In that situation, all international activity lives in the heads of a few people, and the school does not truly own any capability.
How to collect this data without adding work
The four indicators above do not need a new system. They need a single table, updated monthly, with four columns: partner, activity, number of participants, and process documentation status.
That table should be kept by the international cooperation point of contact, and should be reviewed at regular meetings, not only at year-end. An indicator that is only looked at once a year leaves no time to fix anything.
What to say in the report
Instead of “four more memoranda of understanding were signed,” a more accurate statement would be: how many students and teachers took part in international activities this year, how many partners returned, and how many processes can now be run by a second person.
Do not measure by the number of memoranda signed. Measure by the number of real opportunities created for students and teachers each year.
Next Steps
If your school is preparing an internationalization report, in thirty minutes we can review these four indicators together using existing data, and identify where record-keeping needs to be added starting next semester.
