What next for Global Citizenship Education?, Caroline Ferguson

International schools are important institutions for promoting Global Citizenship Education. With multicultural, multilingual student populations, diverse staff and international curricula, there is the potential in such schools for high levels of global awareness and many different perspectives. Yet international schools can also be bubbles of privilege, averse to investigating what it means to have global responsibility. Furthermore, international schools exist in various political settings that are not always accepting of critical discussion about equity, human rights and democracy.

International schools value global citizenship. It often stars in mission statements, reflecting the priority given to Global Citizenship Education by international organizations such as UNESCO, and the role international schooling plays in the global economy. Yet how many schools actually consider what global citizenship entails? Indeed it is a difficult term to define. Is it a moral obligation to the planet – to the human community and natural environment? Is it a pledge to social justice? Or is it an intercultural competence that allows us to network in cosmopolitan societies?

Global citizenship is a contested concept and inherently political. With recent anti-globalist sentiment associated with nationalist politics, nurturing nativism and rigid national identity over international collaboration, Global Citizenship Education has taken a blow. However, localism and globalism are opposing sides that exist together and can’t be separated (Beiner, 1995). As history has shown, the complicated search for the space between them will continue. It is the space that explains our loyalty beyond the nation, and our concern about pressing challenges that affect the whole planet. There is a crucial paradox between our global reality and national legal power (Held, 2015). It’s impossible to support one without the other.

Rather than retreating from the present barrier of nationalist politics, international schools must persist in exploring our global belonging and the tension with national allegiance. Despite politicians telling us otherwise, patriotism, national citizenship and global citizenship are compatible (Nussbaum, 2002). Universal human rights can be applied in local and global contexts for cosmopolitan citizenship (Osler & Starkey, 2010). Indeed, the complex relationship between rights, duty and identity has always been a struggle as citizenship stretches elastically and extends (Heater, 2004). This could be the perfect time to join the conversation and strengthen Global Citizenship Education in our international communities.

The discourse on the theory of Global Citizenship Education continues to develop, but what does it mean in

practice? While teaching for global citizenship will always be a matter of negotiation in our contexts, educational inquiry has found that there are essentially two paths that we tend to take. Schools usually approach global citizenship in either a ‘thin’ superficial way or a ‘thick’ meaningful way. The thin interpretation involves activities such as international food fairs and costumed festivals. This is a shallow celebration of diversity where cultures are reduced to essential confines, and controversial issues are avoided. A thick articulation of Global Citizenship Education can be considered radical. In its strongest expression, it profoundly looks at why global problems occur through a critical race and post-colonial lens with the ultimate goal of social justice (Andreotti, 2006).

There is of course a spectrum of dichotomous thin and thick versions of Global Citizenship Education in international schools, but we lack empirical evidence of what exactly that looks like. Furthermore, we know more about the ways that international educators want to teach for global citizenship than we do about the experience of learners. When we claim to create global citizens, there deserves to be more research emphasis on the students themselves. Yet this is not a call for measurement of the impact of Global Citizenship Education. That would be a detrimental and dangerous pursuit, which belies the political nature of citizenship.

International schools that intend to create global citizens need not shy away from the polarizing rhetoric that says we can’t be both local and global. In our various settings, international educators are in a unique position to investigate how Global Citizenship Education is enacted. With an understanding of the evidenced tendency to teach global citizenship in either a superficial or a meaningful way, we can look closely and not only challenge how we teach, but also take the time to explore the experience of young learners. A commitment to the fundamentally politically charged concept of Global Citizenship Education involves participation in its progress in international schools.

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Development Education Policy and Practice, 3, 83-98. Beiner, R. (1995). Theorizing Citizenship. Albany: State University of New York Press. Heater, D. (2004). Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Held, D. (2015). Cosmopolitanism: Ideas and Reality. Cambridge: Polity Press. Nussbaum, M. (2002). For Love of Country? Boston: Beacon Press. Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2010). Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Times Higher Education, 2017

in all major UK league tables

QS Graduate Employability Rankings 2018

Find out more: warwick.ac.uk/lcc Contact us: appling@warwick.ac.uk