As is often the case, reading my colleagues' comments is fascinating. A few thoughts to share...
I appreciate how Reimers relates the need for global competency to the 21st century skills that have been part of our faculty discussions in previous years. Many of these skills are essential for living in this "flat" world; being better communicators, creative problem-solvers and flexible learners will enable our students to have greater connections beyond their own personal communities.
Individually, or by departments, we can foster global competency, but once students are no longer in the homeroom model (MS and US), we seem to provide fewer interdisciplinary opportunities for students. Wouldn't it be great if the morning of the next professional day were dedicated to having campus -wide discussions of how we could foster increased interdisciplinary work, and then the afternoon session could be allotted for beginning actual work on the creation of curriculum that enables us to move forward with our work to become a school where this is a priority. Having a common definition for global competency is an important first step; is the definition as stated in the conclusion of the Mansilla and Jackson reading the one upon which BB&N and the Board have agreed? What is our metric? How will we know when we are doing a "good" job teaching global competency?