Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education: Theoretical and Practical Issues 9780815355489, 9781351129848

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
List of Contributors
Preface
Teachers’ Education and Global Citizenship Education: An Introduction
1 Different Views on Global Citizenship Education: Making Global Citizenship Education More Critical, Political and Justice-Oriented
2 Critical Global Citizenship Education in Canada, England, and the United States: Interrogating (In)justice and Self-reflexivity in Teacher Education
3 The Struggle for ‘Thick’ or Transformative Citizenship: A Global Perspective on Educators’ Views on Democracy and Citizenship
4 Citizenship Education Beyond the Nation State: Implications for Teacher Education
5 Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education: Is There Any Alternative Beyond Redemptive Dreams and Nightmarish Germs?
6 UNESCO ASPnet Schools, Global Citizenship Education, and Conviviality as a Tool to Live Together on a Shared Planet
7 Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education in Africa
8 Global Citizenship Education in East, South, and Southeast Asia
9 Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education in Asia: A Case Study From Vietnam
10 Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education in Spain and Portugal
11 Exploring Global Citizenship in Teacher Education Across Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland and Italy
12 Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education in Canada and the US: Trends, Barriers, and Possibilities
13 Teacher Education and Global Citizenship Education in Latin America: The Cases of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia
14 Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education in Oceania
Index

Citation preview

Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education

Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education brings together scholars and practitioners from all continents to explore the role of teacher education in formulating a practice of citizenship that has a global scope and is guided by critical and emancipatory approaches. By considering educational responses to global challenges—such as global warming, rising levels of inequalities, intensification of armed conflicts, growing streams of international migration, and the impact of neoliberal policies— this book provides valuable analyses for researchers, teacher educators, and educators. The volume examines historical and conceptual issues relating to the incorporation of global citizenship education in teacher education, and presents examples from across the world that showcase main trends in research and practice from across the world. This book is of great interest to graduate and postgraduate students, researchers, and libraries in the fields of citizenship education, global education, teacher education, international and comparative education, and education policy and politics. Daniel Schugurensky is Professor of Justice and Social Inquiry and Director of the Social Pedagogy Program at Arizona State University, USA. Charl Wolhuter is Comparative and International Education Professor at North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa.

Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education Theoretical and Practical Issues

Edited by Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

First published 2020 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Taylor & Francis The right of Daniel Schugurensky & Charl Wolhuter to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title has been requested ISBN: 978-0-815-35548-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-12984-8 (ebk) Typeset in Baskerville by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

List of Contributors Preface

viii xvi

C AR LO S A L BERTO TO RRES

Teachers’ Education and Global Citizenship Education: An Introduction

1

DAN I E L S C H U G U RENSKY AND C HARL WO LH UTER

1 Different Views on Global Citizenship Education: Making Global Citizenship Education More Critical, Political and Justice-Oriented

20

W I E L V E UGELERS

2 Critical Global Citizenship Education in Canada, England, and the United States: Interrogating (In)justice and Self-reflexivity in Teacher Education Programs

40

J E N N I F E R K . BERG EN, SHARO N A. C O O K, AND LORNA M c LEA N

3 The Struggle for ‘Thick’ or Transformative Citizenship: A Global Perspective on Educators’ Views on Democracy and Citizenship

56

DAV I D Z Y N GIER

4 Citizenship Education Beyond the Nation State: Implications for Teacher Education

85

S E UN GHO MO O N AND C HARLES TO C C I

5 Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education: Is There Any Alternative Beyond Redemptive Dreams and Nightmarish Germs? GUS TAVO E . FISC HMAN AND MARTA EST ELLÉS

102

vi

Contents

6 UNESCO ASPnet Schools, Global Citizenship Education, and Conviviality as a Tool to Live Together on a Shared Planet

125

LY N E T T E S HU LT Z AND MAREN ELFERT

7 Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education in Africa

139

S AM S O N M A EKELE T SEG AY AND MC JERRY ATTA BEKOE

8 Global Citizenship Education in East, South, and Southeast Asia

161

M I C H AE L GOH AND MEG AN C . D EU T SC HMAN

9 Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education in Asia: A Case Study From Vietnam

179

HOA T RUO N G -W HIT E AND T HI NHAT HO

10 Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education in Spain and Portugal

201

AL FR E D O GOMES D IAS, ANTO NIO ERNESTO GÓM EZ RO D R I GUE Z , ANTO NI SANT IST EBAN, AND JOA N PAGÈS BLA NCH

11 Exploring Global Citizenship in Teacher Education Across Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland and Italy

215

M AS S I M I L I A NO TARO Z Z I

12 Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education in Canada and the US: Trends, Barriers, and Possibilities

233

K AR E N PA S HBY AND LAU RA C . ENG EL

13 Teacher Education and Global Citizenship Education in Latin America: The Cases of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia GUS TAVO A . G O NZ ÁLEZ -VALENC IA, MIG U EL A NGEL JA RA , S I XT I NA P I N OC HET PINO C HET, LÉIA AD RIANA DA S ILVA S A NTIAGO AN D J OAN PAG ÈS BLANC H

250

Contents 14 Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education in Oceania

vii 264

N I R A N JAN C ASINAD ER

Index

285

Contributors

Mcjerry Atta Bekoe has a PhD in educational leadership and policy from Beijing Normal University and a master of ublic policy from Peking University. He is the former director of research and elections for the New Patriotic Party in the Akuapem North Constituency in Ghana and currently serves as Director of Communication for the same political party. Dr. Bekoe has an interest in public policy and in educational policy. He is the co-author of the article “Barriers and challenges of educational development in China: an analysis on rural-urban migrant residents.” Jennifer K. Bergen is a PhD candidate at the University of Ottawa, and teaches social studies methods courses in the Bachelor of Education program at the University of Saskatchewan. Her work in social and environmental justice youth engagement led her to study youth civic education and representations of civic identities in curricula. Her current research focuses on the intersections of anti-racist, social justice, and civic education in settler colonial contexts. Specifically, she interrogates the ways that bachelor of education programs in Canada are engaging white teacher candidates in developing anti-racist civic engagement pedagogy. Niranjan Casinader is Senior Lecturer (Curriculum and Assessment) in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. A geographer by training, his research and teaching are built on his experience of over 30 years of teaching and leadership in Victorian schools as well as other educational programs. His research and publications focus on the relationships between education, culture, thinking, development, and globalization, both contemporary and historical. Currently his work centers on the impact of globalization on the expectations and realities of teacher expertise, especially in relation to cultural education and inquiry teaching. In 2016, he received the Australian Council for Educational Leaders State Fellowship for his contributions to education. Sharon A. Cook is Distinguished University Professor and Professor Emerita at the University of Ottawa. Her research interests are in peace and global and civic education, women and evangelicalism, the history of women’s

Contributors

ix

health, the pedagogy of history and the history of education in Canada. Her latest books are A history of the faculty of education, University of Ottawa, 1875–2015 (Ottawa: Baico Publishing, 2018) and Sex, lies and cigarettes: Canadian women, smoking and visual culture, 1880–2008 (Montreal and Kingston, McGill-Queens University Press, 2012). Megan C. Deutschman is a PhD candidate in the Comparative and International Development Education program at the University of Minnesota. As a former elementary educator, Megan is passionate about equity in education. Her research focuses on systemic racism in education, specifically the ways in which whiteness is enacted by teachers and how that enactment can uphold or dismantle racism. While working on her PhD, Megan mentors and teaches pre-service elementary educators at the university. In the future, Megan plans to continue her work with pre-service teachers and to continue her research on racism and whiteness in education. Alfredo Gomes Dias holds a bachelor degree in history and a doctorate in human geography from the University of Lisbon (2012) and a doctorate in education at the University of Barcelona (2019). He is a researcher at the Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning at the University of Lisbon and Adjunct Professor at the Politechnic Institution of Higher Education in Lisbon. He coordinates the social sciences scientific area, and is Professor of Social Science in Teacher Education Programs. He was the coordinator of the project University Curriculum of Global Citizenship Education and Networks of Intervention. From 2013 to 2019, he was a researcher at Synergies Education Development. Maren Elfert is Lecturer in Education and Society in the School of Education, Communication and Society at King’s College London (UK). She also holds a National Academy of Education/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship. She obtained a PhD from the University of British Columbia, Canada. Before pursuing doctoral studies, she worked for more than a decade as a member of the professional staff at the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Her research focuses on how international organizations contribute to the globalization of educational ideas and policies. She is the author of UNESCO’s utopia of lifelong learning: An intellectual history, published by Routledge in 2018. Laura C. Engel is Associate Professor of International Education and International Affairs, Director of the International Education Program, and co-chair of the GW UNESCO Chair in International Education for Development at George Washington University. Her interests focus on global education policy trends in federal systems, including education policy uses of international large-scale assessments, and internationalization of education. She authored over 50 articles, book chapters, and policy briefs. Her latest book is The machinery of school: internationalization in action (Routledge, 2019). Dr. Engel serves on the board of directors of the NEA Foundation

x

Contributors and is joint editor of International Studies in Sociology of Education. Dr. Engel earned her PhD in education policy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Marta Estellés is Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at the University of Cantabria, Spain. Her research interests include citizenship education, social studies education, curriculum policies, and teacher education. She has published on democratic citizenship education and initial teacher education. She is currently working on a research project related to teachers’ political views and behaviors and their attitudes towards including controversial issues in the classroom. She is part of the Fedicaria collective, which advocates for critical social studies education. Her publications include Evidence of curricular standardization: Environment pedagogy in the Chilean and Spanish official curricula in primary education (2013), Lo que no vemos sobre la educación ciudadana en la formación del profesorado: supuestos y sobreentendidos (2015), and Teacher education for citizenship in a globalized world: A case study in Spain (2017). Gustavo E. Fischman is Professor of Educational Policy and Comparative Education at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University. His work focuses on understanding and improving the processes of knowledge-production and exchange between scholars, educators, activists, practitioners, administrators, media workers, policymakers, and the broader public. Dr. Fischman has authored more than 150 academic publications. He was a visiting scholar in several graduate programs in Europe and Latin America and received many awards and appointments. He is the editor of Education Review, consulting editor of Education Policy Analysis Archives, and a co-editor of the 2018 and 2020 Review of Research in Education (AERA). Among his books are Imagining teachers: Rethinking teacher education and gender, Dumb ideas won’t create smart kids and Made in Latin America: Open access, scholarly journals, and regional innovations. Michael Goh is a full professor in the Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, and an affiliated faculty in counseling and student personnel psychology at the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Global Change, at the University of Minnesota, USA. Dr. Goh also serves as vice-president for equity and diversity for the University of Minnesota’s five-campus system and previously as associate vice-provost and director of the Institute for Diversity, Equity, and Advocacy. Dr. Goh is an interdisciplinary scholar and educator who applies an interculturalist or culturally intelligent framework on the science and practice of multicultural and international counseling psychology, teacher education, and diversity and inclusion work in higher education. Antonio Ernesto Gómez Rodríguez (deceased 2019) was a professor of social studies education at the University of Malaga. He was also the Head of the Andalucia Education Council (Spain) and Sponsor of CIVES Foundation. He was a representative of the social studies professors in Spain, and

Contributors

xi

the founder of the Social and Citizenship Education Research Group. His work is relevant for social studies teaching and particularly for the teaching of citizenship education. He conducted several comparative studies in Europe in the fields of social studies education and citizenship education. Gustavo A. González-Valencia holds a PhD in social science education from the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain) where he works as Serra Hunter lecturer at the Faculty of Education. He is a member of Grup de Recerca en Didàctica de les Ciències Socials (GREDICS). His research interests are citizenship and democratic education, social studies education, initial teacher training and research methodology. His recent projects are Ready to Teach Global Citizenship? and Teaching and Learning to Interpret Contemporary Problems and Conflicts: How do social sciences contribute to the formation of a critical global citizenship? His latest publications are Heritage education and global citizenship education, Global citizenship education in Latin America and participation in citizenship education courses: A study on the social representations of teachers. He was a member of the group of experts that developed the last curricular proposal for social studies education in Colombia. Thi Nhat Ho is a lecturer at the Faculty of Psychology and Education, Hanoi National University of Education in Viet Nam. She obtained her PhD from Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Her research focuses on educational assessment, effective teaching and learning, teaching for creativity, comparative education, and teacher education programs for the 21st century. Among her recent publications are Developing assessment criteria of a lesson for creativity to promote teaching for creativity and The development of critical thinking for students in Vietnamese schools: From policies to practices. Miguel Angel Jara is a history teacher, educational research specialist, and holds a master’s degree in teaching social studies research. He has a PhD in teaching social studies (Autonomous University of Barcelona). He is Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Humanities and the Faculty of Education in National University of Comahue. He is a researcher in various projects about teaching and learning and teacher training in social studies. He is a principal investigator of “social studies learning in digital culture context”. He is an active member of Association of Professors of Teaching of History of the National Universities (APEHUN). Lorna R. McLean is a full professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada. She is the Director of the Research Unit ‘Making History’ and participates in the project ‘Developing a Global Perspective for Educators’. She is a member of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies and teaches courses in the society, culture and literacies concentration. Her research interests include the history of citizenship and education, and pedagogical approaches to teaching social studies, global citizenship and environmental education. Her publications include Conceptual

xii

Contributors clarity and connections: Global education and teacher candidates (2009), Expecting the exceptional: Pre-service professional development in global citizenship education (2011) and Rethinking global citizenship resources for new teachers: Promoting critical thinking and equity (2016).

Seungho Moon is an associate professor in curriculum studies at Loyola University Chicago (LUC). He received his EdD in curriculum studies from Teachers College, Columbia University (2011). His research and passion center on releasing the social imagination for promoting equity and justice in education by interrogating interdisciplinary knowledge in curriculum studies, community-university-school partnerships, and transnational theories. He has published more than 30 peer reviewed journal articles, book reviews, and books. Representative books are The curriculum foundations reader (Co-authored with Ryan and Tocci, 2020) and Three approaches to qualitative research through the ARtS: Narratives of teaching for social justice and community (2019). He was the recipient of an early career award from the Critical Issues in Curriculum and Cultural Studies (CICCS) Special interest Group at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in 2017. Joan Pagès Blanch is Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences Teaching at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. He holds a bachelor of philosophy and letters (modern and contemporary history) and a doctorate in education sciences. He specializes in the curriculum of social sciences and education for citizenship in teacher training. He is the author of more than four hundred publications including books, chapters of books and articles, and has supervised 40 doctoral theses. He was Dean of Faculty of Education and Head of Department of Teaching Language, Literature and Social Sciences Education. He was a founder and coordinator of Research Group in Teaching Social Studies Group (GREDICS). His research interests are social studies teaching, citizenship education and teacher training. Karen Pashby is Reader of Education Studies at Manchester Metropolitan University. She teaches undergraduates and postgraduates and is a core member of the Education and Social Research Institute and co-lead of the Education and Global Futures Research Group. She is Adjunct Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at University of Alberta and Docent in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at University of Helsinki. A former secondary educator (in Canada and Brazil) and experienced teacher educator, her research draws on postcolonial and decolonial theoretical resources to examine productive pedagogical tensions in education for global citizenship in multicultural contexts. She is a widely published contributor to research on global citizenship education, and her participatory research with secondary educators received funding from the British Academy and Swedish Research Council. She is an active participant in multi-stakeholder networks supporting global learning in Europe such as the Bridge 47 and ANGEL networks.

Contributors

xiii

Sixtina Pinochet Pinochet has a PhD in teaching history, geography and social studies (Autonomous University of Barcelona). She is Professor at The Metropolitan University of Educational Sciences (Chile). She is an academic member of the School of Education at Catholic University of the North (Chile) and a member of Interdisciplinary Research Observatory of Citizenship Education. Her research interests are citizenship and democratic education, social studies education, initial teacher training and invisible actors in history teaching. Antoni Santisteban is a professor at the Faculty of Educational Sciences of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. He is the Head of the Department of Language, Literature and Social Science Education, and has coordinated the master’s and doctoral programs in social science didactics. He has published over 200 articles, book chapters and books. He is a member of scientific committees of national and international journals and Principal Researcher of GREDICS, a research group recognized by the Catalan Agency for University Quality. He currently coordinates a research project on the contribution of social sciences to the development of a critical global citizenship. He was President of the University Association of Social Science Teaching Staff, which organizes the annual International Symposium on Social Science Teaching. Daniel Schugurensky is a professor at Arizona State University, with a joint appointment in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Social Transformation. His areas of interest include citizenship education, civic engagement, and participatory democracy. He is the director of the graduate program in social and cultural pedagogy, and the Participatory Governance Initiative. Among his recent publications are Sustainable development and ecopedagogy (2019), Participatory budgeting, civic education, and political capital (2019), Social pedagogy and social education: connecting traditions and innovation (2018) and ‘By the People’: Participatory democracy, civic engagement and citizenship education (2017). Lynette Shultz is Professor and Director of the Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research at the University of Alberta, Canada as well as co-editor of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education. She has published widely on the topics of education policy, democracy, social justice, and global citizenship with a particular focus on the geo-politics of knowledge. Among her publications are Engaging the multiple discourses of global citizenship education within a Canadian university: Deliberation, contestation, and social justice possibilities; Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: theories, practices, policies; Global citizenship education and the role of the academy: a critical introduction; Decolonizing social justice education: from policy knowledge to citizenship action; and What do we ask of global citizenship education? Léia Adriana da Silva Santiago is a professor at the Federal Institute of Science and Technology Goiano, Brazil, where she coordinates the masters in professional and technological education. Her areas of research interest

xiv

Contributors are history of education, curriculum, textbooks, Latin American public policy, and ethnic issues. Dr. da Silva graduated in history from the Federal University of Santa Catarina and has a master in education from the same institution. She obtained her PhD in education from the Federal University of Paraná, with a postdoctoral fellowship at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain.

Massimiliano Tarozzi is Co-Director of the IOE- Development Education Research Centre. He is also full Professor of Global Citizenship Education and General Education at the University of Bologna (where he gained his original PhD). At the same university he is founding director of the International Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education. He has been studying in the field of intercultural education for more than 20 years, and has extensively published on the topics of global citizenship education, intercultural education, citizenship education, social justice education, and qualitative research methods. In 2016, he co-authored (with C.A. Torres), Global citizenship education and the crises of multiculturalism. Charles Tocci is an assistant professor of education in the School of Education at Loyola University Chicago. His work explores the connections between American education and democracy in the past and in the present. He is currently focused on the ways that teaching practice changes in intentional, responsive, and sustained ways. His current research interests include history and civics education, changes to teacher practices, and education history archives. He is the Associate Editor for Review of Research in Education, a flagship journal published by the American Educational Research Association, and co-author of the Curriculum foundations read (2020). Other publications include Teaching, learning, and leading: Preparing teachers as educational policy actors, Wild and small and realizing mutual benefits through partnering on teaching and learning: Loyola, Senn High School, and the International Baccalaureate. Hoa Truong-White is a PhD candidate with the Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, Canada. Her previous research focused on youth civic engagement and teacher candidates’ civic identities. Currently, her research engages issues of critical global citizenship education and participatory visual and digital research with youth. She holds a scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council: Canada Graduate Scholarship to Honour Nelson Mandela. Samson Maekele Tsegay has a doctoral degree in educational leadership and policy (comparative education) from the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. He is the author of many articles in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Tsegay has also served as a reviewer and editorial member of different journals. He is currently a PhD scholar and visiting lecturer at the School of Education, University of Roehampton. His research interests focus on globalization, migration, and higher education.

Contributors

xv

Wiel Veugelers is Professor of Education at the University for Humanistic Studies in Utrecht (the Netherlands). He coordinated the Erasmus+ strategic partnership ‘Education for Democratic Intercultural Citizenship’ and the research project ‘Teaching Common Values’ on education for democracy and tolerance in the European Union. He has been chair of the AERA SIG Moral Development and Education and of the EARLI SIG Moral and Democratic Education. He has published over 80 articles in international academic journals and six books in English. He is Editor and Founder of the book series ‘Moral Development and Citizenship Education’, Associate Editor of the Journal of Moral Education, and a member of the international program advisory board of the IEA study on citizenship education (ICCS). In 2012, he received the Maslowaty Award of EARLI for his book Education and humanism and the Association of Moral Education the Kuhmerker Career Award in 2015 for his contribution to research on moral and citizenship education. Charl Wolhuter is Professor of Comparative and International Education at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University, South Africa. He has a doctorate in comparative education from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, and held visiting professorships in several countries, including Canada, the Netherlands, Greece, United Kingdom, Finland, Australia, Italy, Slovakia, Ukraine, China; Namibia, Hong Kong, and Germany. He is the author of several books and many articles on history of education and comparative education. Among his recent publications are An examination of the potential of cultural-historical activity theory for explaining transitions in national education systems, Thirty years since the fall of the Berlin wall: Educational reforms worldwide, Comparative and international education: Survey of an infinite field and Teacher education in a post-1989 world: A comparison between Lithuania and South Africa–global isomorphism, regional hegemony/homogeny, or resilient local context? David Zyngier is Associate Professor at Southern Cross University, Australia after 17 years at Monash University. A former teacher and school principal, he has written extensively on student engagement, social justice, democracy and education and pedagogies that enhance achievement for all students but in particular those from communities of disadvantage. He works within a critical and post-structural orientation to pedagogy that is distinguishable by its commitment to social justice and by investigating how school education can improve student outcomes for all. His research covers interrelated areas focusing on teacher pedagogies and beliefs and how they impact on children’s learning and achievement from disadvantaged and marginalized communities. He is Fellow of the Australian Council of Education leaders and a recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Award. He has established the Public Education Network in Australia and is a frequent commentator on education issues in the Australian media.

Preface Teachers’ Bildung and Global Citizenship Education in an Era of Uncertainty and Instability Carlos Alberto Torres In his speech at the World Economic Forum Annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2020, the United Nations Secretary General António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres defined the world in two words: Uncertainty and Instability.1 This is the world in which teachers, who for many scholars are considered the first line of defense of rationality, democracy and peace, live, enter their classrooms daily, teach, conduct research, and shall believe in their own profession as one that may be able to change this global and local conditions. Teachers’ training and teachers values are central to the survival of the human species. The main aim of this volume was to put together an international collection of essays on global citizenship education and teacher education that reflected theoretical debates, research findings and emerging practices from around the world. In doing so, the editors had two purposes: theory and research (Chapters 1–6) and landscapes of practice (Chapters 7–14). As editors Schugurensky and Wolhuter claim “it is encouraging that U.N. member countries have made a formal commitment to help achieve the SDGs, and that over 85 percent report including human rights and fundamental freedoms in education policy. However, gaps between discourses and practices are not infrequent (p. 4).” Including GCE in the formal national curriculum has been a central responsibility of many institutions associated with UNESCO such as the APCEIU and the Mahatma Gandhi Institute.2 The meta-theory (Morrow & Torres, 1995, pp.  19–25) and the emerging movement of the global commons was developed by many programs in the United Nations system, and in our work at the Paulo Freire Institute-UCLA and the UNESCO Chair in Global Learning and Global Citizenship Education (2015–2020) (Torres, 2017). It is also reflected in the Global Commons Review.3 This meta-theory and movement defines as its core concern equality in the human condition. From this premise, it should be important to focus on teachers as potential global public democratic intellectuals in action as one of the prerequisites to confront the perils of our time. (Torres & Van Heertum, 2009, pp. 221–240; Torres & Van Heertum, 2020) As Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter argue, “a key agenda of global citizenship education is to go beyond notions of national citizenship and support humanity’s struggle for the three Ps of the ‘global commons’: ‘planet,

Preface

xvii

peace and people’” (Bosio & Torres, 2019). To put it in UNESCO language, in the teaching of global citizenship education “it is essential to avoid narratives that glorify violence and militarism, and instead promote models of peace and reconciliation, inviting students to question received knowledge” (Unesco, 2018, p. 210). Moreover, UNESCO’s discourse on GCED emphasizes the need to nurture respect and solidarity in learners in order to build a sense of belonging to a common humanity and help them become responsible and active global citizens in building inclusive, just and peaceful societies. (p. 6)” This comprehensive book offers several vistas on teachers and teacher training education institutions in the global north and the global south. One question that can be raised is how teaching the global commons, and developing a social movement about the global commons, including the concepts of global citizenship education and education for sustainable development, may create a new bildung in teacher professional development, identity and practice; a bildung that rescues the concept of democracy from the critique of its ungovernability, or notions such ‘illiberal democracy’ or post-democracy models as the solution, and sets the tone for a model of dialogical or deliberative democracy. A model of deliberative democracy is based on a new ‘social pedagogical contract’ both in our classrooms, lifelong learning programs, and society more generally, with the support of the ethical and legal framework of human rights. We should add the contribution of the work of Paulo Freire as part of the tradition of critical modernism, as we have defended in our work with Raymond Morrow: “This epistemological, theoretical and political Aufheben was able to recognize and celebrate the presence of diverse emancipatory experiences in the social struggles of Europe and in the Western world, emerging as what we called critical modernism” (Torres, 2019, pp. 5–6). A central premise of this book is that teachers properly educated are able and apt actors who can reinforce GCE and democratic behavior, beliefs, goals and values in practical, analytical, moral and institutional terms. We need new teachers moving from technocratic and instrumental rationality to communicational rationality. Putting it differently, the construction of democracy requires the importance of dialogue in the educational paideia. Paulo Freire spoke many times about dialogue as the essence of democracy. Scholars discussing alternative conceptions of democracy should follow this lead. Using C. B. Macpherson, Bruce Ackerman, and John Rawls as exemples, Constitutionalist Philosopher Carlos Santiago Nino, tells us that The moral qualities of dialogue or deliberation account for yet another conception of democracy relying on the transformation of people’s preferences. Despite many versions of this general outlook, all rely on dialogue as a means of containing selfish interest and the power of factions based on them. This constraint is achieved by dialogue’s tendency to exclude those positions which cannot be sustained on an impartial basis. (Nino, 1996, p. 101)

xviii

Preface

Nino attempted to substantiate the foundations of deliberative democracy in an epistemological constructivism, positioning himself between Rawls and Habermas. For Nino, “democracy is the most reliable procedure for obtaining access to the knowledge of moral principles” (Nino, 1996, p. 107). In line with Freire, for dialogue to prevail requires that key values be sustained, defended, and practically implemented. We may ask: are teachers up to the task? What are the predominant values and views of teachers—beyond their areas of expertise and competence—regarding democratic governance and behavior? The three core concepts of global citizenship education are cognitive, affective and behavioral traits.4 Traditionally, the metrics for measuring cognitive training, considering the technocratic nature of most modern education, have predominated.5 However, how to ‘measure’ the affective and behavioral traits embedded in Global Citizenship Education (GCE)? This work is not only about measurement, but we need to link the work on these three core concepts of GCE, connecting them to the global commons meta-theory and movement, and to the constitution of global public democratic intellectuals interacting with teachers and teachers training education institutions experimenting a silent revolution of Global Citizenship Education.6 OCDE or World Bank policy documents as well as recurrent UNESCO recommendations emphasize the demand to equip teachers to meet diverse learning needs. Several chapters in this timely book examine how various inputs from the teacher education continuum enhance teachers’ self-efficacy relative to their work with pupils with different cultural backgrounds and learning needs and to promote—and how—an ethos of social cohesion, citizenship and solidarity in schools. Most countries around the world are increasingly aware of the need to provide tailored teacher education programs to support these education needs, and each offers a model unique to its national or local context. A broader aim of teachers training is to understand how specific institutional mechanisms as well as teachers’ beliefs and attitudes may promote equity and social cohesion and inclusion in schooling and teaching. Much has been written about the relevance of the context in comparative education including in the area of GCE and social inclusion in schools. However, very few studies provide a more specific investigation of the influence of policy contexts in value terms. Though GCE and democratic behavior, beliefs, goals and values in education are widely debated in the literature, little is known about the policies promoting them through the education of the educators, and even less about how teachers make sense of these policies in educational settings, comparatively. In the US or China, for instance, it has been shown that educating for citizenship and inclusive education may be supported but also hindered by resources, policies, discourses and institutional arrangements. The politics of inclusion require the commitment of teachers and school staff to integrate in situ principles in the curriculum, in teaching and assessment. What is the uniqueness of the context and teachers’ characteristics which are key to understanding teacher learning? Teacher preparation is a major ingredient to build teachers’ lenses and conceptions, and this insight is

Preface

xix

particularly relevant for empowering teachers to strive for the inclusion of all learners and the promotion of democratic values within the classroom. This book offers a comparative perspective because scholarship among countries is uneven. While in some countries there is a more consolidated research tradition investigating teacher preparation and its contribution to citizenship education and democratic values, in others, such scholarship and equipment are rather limited or inexistent. Studies on citizenship education that include teachers’ voices and learning are still largely absent from the literature, such as studies on teachers’ beliefs about their own students’ ability to learn and engage in learning. We still have important research questions unanswered.7 a) b)

c) d) e)

f)

How teaching for citizenship and social justice is shaped and influenced by educational and social policies locally, nationally and globally? How to understand individual teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward citizenship, equity and inclusion in schooling and teaching in the context of each country but also comparatively? What are the constraints and resources for teachers to build a democratic project? How organizations both in higher education and schooling systems empower or de-skill teachers to meet diverse learning needs? Which institutional and governance arrangements best support teachers’ beliefs of fair inclusion, and which lessons may be derived by policy makers? How Global Citizenship Education and education for sustainable development (ESD) can be included in the regular curriculum as generative themes that unify the whole curriculum rather than create ‘watertight compartments’ in curriculum and instruction?

The chapters in this book, written by authors from every corner of the world with a deep commitment, expertise and knowledge of teachers training in the area of global citizenship education offer a cornucopia of insights, theoretical responses and empirical evidence, making this book a most relevant contribution to global citizenship education in teacher’s education.

Notes 1. www.weforum.org/press/2020/01/uncertainty-and-instability-the-world-in-twowords-says-un-secretary-general 2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (UNESCO APCEIU); The UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development (MGIEP) 3. See Globalcommonsreview.org 4. UNESCO (2015). Global Citizenship Education: Topics and Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO. 5. See Carlos Alberto Torres. The Travails of Global Governance and Democratic Education. Foreword to António Teodoro: Contesting the Global Development of Sustainable and Inclusive

xx

Preface

Education. Education Reform and the Challenges of Neoliberal Globalization. (Routledge, New York and London, in press) 6. Carlos Alberto Torres. ‘The Silent Revolution of Global Citizenship Education.’ www.taylorfrancis.com/sdgo/aboutus?key=leading-thoughts 7. Antonio Teodoro, José Beltran, Régis Malet, and Carlos Alberto Torres, Understanding teacher praxis for sustaining the public good: A cross-national study of teacher bildung and global citizenship education in an age of extremes. Research proposal in progress.

References Bosio, E., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational theory of the common good? A conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy Features in Education, 1–16 .https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210319825517 Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (1995). Social theory and education: A critique of theories of social and cultural reproduction. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Nino, C. S. (1996). The constitution of deliberative democracy. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. Teodoro, A., Beltrán, J., Malet, R., & Torres, C. A. Understanding teacher praxis for sustaining the public good: A cross-national study of teacher bildung and global citizenship education in an age of extremes. Research Proposal in Progress. Torres, C. A. (2017). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education (Vol. 1). New York: Taylor & Francis. Torres, C. A. (Ed.). (2019). The Wiley handbook of Paulo Freire. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons and Blackwell. Torres, C. A. (2020). The silent revolution of global citizenship education. Retrieved from www. taylorfrancis.com/sdgo/aboutus?key=leading-thoughts Torres, C. A. (in press). The travails of global governance and democratic education: Foreword to António Teodoro: Contesting the global development of sustainable and inclusive education: Education reform and the challenges of neoliberal globalization. New York and London): Routledge. Torres, C. A., & Van Heertum, R. (2009). Education and domination: Reforming policy and practice through critical theory. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 221–240). New York: American Educational Research Association and Routledge. Torres, C. A., and Van Heertum, R. (2020). UNESCO as the global public intellectual for the twenty-first century. In Humanist futures: Perspectives from UNESCO chairs and UNITWIN networks on the futures of education. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2018). Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. A review of education for sustainable development and global citizenship education in teacher education. UNESCO-Global Education Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO.

Teachers’ Education and Global Citizenship Education An Introduction Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

The Sustainable Development Goals and Global Citizenship Education For 21st century educational systems around the world, the processes of globalization present a new host of challenges and opportunities for the promotion of citizenship education. The traditional model of civic education of the 20th century aimed at promoting national identity and at nurturing obedience to authority appears more and more outdated and insufficient to tackle many contemporary challenges that cross international borders. At the same time, the need for an education for citizenship that has a global scope and is guided by critical and emancipatory approaches becomes more evident in the context of worrying global trends. Among them are pandemics, global warming, ocean acidification, freshwater scarcity, wider socioeconomic inequalities, nativism and xenophobia, brain drain, the refugee crisis, chemical pollution, the misuse of technology, the threat of nuclear weapons, and the rise of authoritarian rule and democratic deconsolidation in various parts of the world (Foa & Mounk, 2017; Lenton et al., 2019). Global citizenship education (GCED) could make a valuable contribution to address some of these issues. Some of the contemporary impetus for GCED can be traced back to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stressed that the inherent dignity and equality of rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Among the 30 articles of the Declaration, the second section of article 26 is particularly relevant for readers of this book, because it stated the main aims and purposes of education: Article 26.2: Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. The two sentences of article 26.2 set out an important moral compass for educational systems around the world, and should be read in the context of the

2

Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

totality of civil, political and social rights that are part of the 1948 Universal Declaration. At the same time, it is pertinent to acknowledge that in the mid20th century there were limited concerns among the international community about education for sustainable development (ESD) and by extension about sustainable development in general. The ideas of article 26.2 appeared again in the report of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century to UNESCO, also known as the Delors Report. That report argued that education has an indispensable role to play in promoting tolerance, peace and social justice globally. Moreover, the Report pointed out that, among the four pillars proposed as the foundations of education for the 21st century (learning to know, learning to do, learning to be and learning to live together), the last one is of crucial importance to foster international cooperation in the global village. From this perspective, learning to live together refers to developing an understanding of others and their history, traditions and values, to the recognition of our growing interdependence, to implement common projects and to manage conflicts in a peaceful way (Delors, 1996). A few years later, in the Earth Charter, adopted in 2000, the language of ESD appears front and center. For instance, its article 14 called for the integration into formal education institutions and lifelong learning the knowledge, values and skills needed for a sustainable way of life and for the provision of educational opportunities that empower learners to contribute actively to sustainable development. Two years later, in 2002, the Maastricht Declaration conceptualized global education as “an education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the world and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all”. The Maastrich Declaration also proposed the five main dimensions connecting global education with citizenship education: a) development education, b) human rights education, c) education for sustainability, d) education for peace and conflict prevention and e) intercultural education (Europe-wide Global Education Congress, 2002, p. 2). By 2015, the deadlines of both the Millennium Development Goals and the Education for All (EFA) expired and were replaced with a new and ambitious development program: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This agenda includes 17 goals operationalized through 169 targets, to be achieved by 2030. The fourth goal deals with education, and its seventh target updates Article 26.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the 21st century by incorporating (and expanding) the language of the Maastricht declaration. Moreover, target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals makes an explicit reference to education for global citizenship: Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable

Global Citizenship Education

3

lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development. (UNESCO, 2017) UNESCO has observed that target 4.7 is one of the most important targets in terms of linkageswith other sustainable development goals. In this regard, Benavot (2017) noted that as education becomes an integral member of the grand international development coalition, it could gain new prominence and its rightful place as the key enabler of all other sustainable goals. More specifically, target 4.7 is closely connected to target 12.8 (“ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature”) and target 13.3 (“improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning”). Along these lines, Biccum (2018) called for a new politics of truth and knowledge in which GCED contributes to the solution to global problems by nurturing the development of critical, globally minded, globally competent and active citizens. Likewise, Misiaszek (2017), in one of the recent books of this Routledge series, called for an approach to sustainable development education that goes beyond anthropocentric citizenship framings. In short, target 4.7 is important for at least two related reasons. First, because the traditional inward looking model of citizenship education is insufficient to tackle many contemporary challenges that cross international borders. Second, because education is a necessary condition to achieve many of the sustainable development goals. Moreover, as UNESCO (2017) observed, target 4.7 touches on the social, humanistic and moral purposes of education, connects education to the other SDGs and captures the transformative aspirations of a new development agenda. From the perspective of an emancipatory GCED, this agenda has to consider at least three key challenges. First, significant inequalities between and within countries that are further exacerbated by neoliberal economic policies that privilege the profit-motive above the common good and give rise to authoritarian regimes. The second is the prevalence of violence to solve conflicts, from households and local communities to large-scale armed conflagrations. The third is a planetary emergency that poses an existential threat to civilization.

Evaluating Progress on Target 4.7: The Four Areas of Indicator 4.7.1 Since 2030 is not too far off, it is pertinent to ask how we are going to know whether the 193 countries that signed the Agenda 2030 are making significant progress in achieving target 4.7. The main strategy advanced by the global partnership is the indicator 4.7.1, which consists in evaluating the extent to

4

Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

which global citizenship and ESD are mainstreamed in four areas: education policies, curricula, student assessment and teacher education, the topic of this book. First, regarding national education policies, it is encouraging that U.N. member countries have made a formal commitment to help achieve the SDGs, and that over 85% report including human rights and fundamental freedoms in education policy. However, gaps between discourses and practices are not infrequent. Indeed, the signing of a document is not enough evidence to determine that a policy has been implemented. Additionally, self-assessments of policy implementation may be biased (UNESCO, 2017). In some countries, political environments favoring crude nationalistic perspectives and policies may obstruct the inclusion of GCED in national education policies. Moreover, education policies often compete with other priorities in the context of limited budgets and an emphasis on standardized testing in a few specific subjects. However, teacher educators can play an important role in reminding policy makers and civil society of the Agenda 2030 commitments, particularly those related to target 4.7; they can also develop creative strategies to persuade policy makers to include GCED and ESD content in teacher education courses and in K–12 curricula. Second, the mainstreaming of ESD and GCED in national curricula is a key strategy to achieve target 4.7 by 2030. Currently, countries address the principles of ESD and GCED in a variety of ways. Among them are extracurricular activities, specific subjects (e.g. civics), and cross-curricular and whole school approaches. In the fifth UNESCO consultation (2012), it was reported that about 50% of participating countries covered peace, non-violence, human rights and fundamental freedoms, 16% of countries covered cultural diversity and tolerance, and only 7% covered ESD. Likewise, only 7% of reporting countries provided stand-alone courses on global citizenship subjects at any level. In the sixth UNESCO consultation that took place in 2016, most countries (91%) reported more efforts in curriculum reform, especially regarding equality, inclusion and non-discrimination. However, only 66% of countries reported increased emphasis on global citizenship. In terms of peace education, only 10% of textbooks had explicit statements on conflict prevention, conflict resolution and reconciliation. This is troubling because these are important topics to consider in developing a culture of peace and nonviolence. Moreover, in some countries the textbooks still tend to glorify war and military leaders, exclude pluralistic perspectives and undermine certain ethnic groups (UNESCO, 2017). More comparative and international research is needed to better understand the ways in which target 4.7 is translated into curriculum content and textbooks, and how the curriculum is actually implemented by actual teachers in educational institutions. Third, regarding student assessment, a key challenge is the lack of consensus on the desirable outcomes of GCED and ESD. Target 4.7 speaks of the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, global citizenship, human rights, peace and the like, but there is no shared agreement on the

Global Citizenship Education

5

specifics of these knowledge and skills. Moreover, knowledge and skills should be complemented with the development of competencies, attitudes and values, and there is no consensus on them either. The Global Citizenship Education Working Group is addressing this challenge and has already identified eight key global citizenship competencies that should be at the core of educational efforts related to target 4.7: empathy, critical thinking/problem solving, ability to communicate and collaborate with others, conflict resolution, sense and security of identity, shared universal values (human rights, peace, justice, etc.), respect for diversity and intercultural understanding, and recognition of global issues and interconnections between environmental, social and economic dynamics (Brookings Institution, 2017). This is certainly good progress, but it is still unclear how competencies like empathy, critical thinking, sense of identity or respect for diversity will be understood in different social, cultural and institutional contexts, and how those understandings will translate in teachers’ pedagogical approaches and practices. As the different chapters of this book will illustrate, it is possible to find a variety of approaches to GCED among scholars, practitioners and teacher education programs. This leads us to the area of indicator 4.7.1 that concerns this book: teacher education.

Teacher Education and Global Citizenship Education Until recently, many countries had limited content on global citizenship and sustainable development in both initial and in-service programs. This has created a gap between K–12 school curricula that increasingly include GCED and ESD content, on the one hand, and teachers who are rarely well prepared to teach topics related to these fields, on the other. In the last few years, however, many teacher education programs have started to incorporate these topics. Among the areas relevant to SDG 4.7 that are increasingly covered in teacher education are environmental awareness, intercultural competencies, human rights and gender equality. Peace education has also gained traction in teacher education programs, especially in conflict-affected contexts. These efforts show a positive trend, but unfortunately they are often contingent upon the interest, creativity, motivation and enthusiasm of individual teacher educators rather than overall institutional commitments. For this reason, these efforts can be fragmented, limited and short-lived (Hunt, 2012; Bourn, Hunt, & Bamber, 2017). At least three reasons may help to explain the weak support for GCED and ESD in many teacher education programs. The first is that other contents (those more likely to be included in standardized testing) tend to take precedence. The second is that the GCED and ESD contents tend to align with a social constructivist and critical approach to teaching and learning that contradicts the prevailing perspectives and pedagogical practices in teacher education that are present in many societies. The third reason is that in many countries GCED is perceived as a ‘difficult’ or ‘hot’ topic because it challenges the discourse of national citizenship and the nurturing of national identities

6

Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

that have provided the basis for one of the main purposes of public education since its beginnings (allegiance to the nation-state), and because it engages with controversial issues like colonialism and imperialism, world inequalities, global poverty, migration, power relations and social justice (Ferreira, Ryan, & Davis, 2015; Gaudelli, 2016; Aktas et al., 2017; Bourn et al., 2017; McEvoy, 2017; Harshman, Augustine, & Merryfield, 2015; Hutchings, 2018; Scoffham, 2018; UNESCO, 2018; Rapoport, 2019). Having said that, GCED is slowly permeating teacher education programs. In these pioneering programs, the goals of citizenship education are no longer framed exclusively as promoting patriotism and fostering national identity. Instead, these programs adopt a more comprehensive approach to citizenship education that nurtures the development of planetary-minded, critical, globally competent and engaged citizens with an interest in understanding and solving global problems (Biccum, 2018). As cellist Pablo Cazals once noted, “the love of one’s country is a splendid thing, but why should love stop at the border?” In other words, GCED aims to develop a sense of belonging not just to one’s country but also to the broader global community, emphasizing our common humanity and the connections between peoples and between local and global contexts. This teaching does not occur in a moral vacuum, but in a normative framework guided by values and principles like of human rights, democracy, social justice, intercultural understanding, inclusiveness and respect for diversity (Davies & Pike, 2010; Torres, 2017a; Bosio, 2019; Reilly & Niens, 2014). Hence, a key agenda of GCED is to go beyond notions of national citizenship and support humanity’s struggle for the three Ps of the ‘global commons’: ‘planet, peace and people’ (Bosio & Torres, 2019). To put it in UNESCO language, in the teaching of GCED “it is essential to avoid narratives that glorify violence and militarism, and instead promote models of peace and reconciliation, inviting students to question received knowledge” (UNESCO, 2018, p. 210). Moreover, UNESCO’s discourse on GCED emphasizes the need to nurture respect and solidarity in learners in order to build a sense of belonging to a common humanity and help them become responsible and active global citizens in building inclusive, just and peaceful societies. However, in some quarters this discourse on GCED has been perceived as a façade that hides a project to promote ‘globalization’, meaning by this the imposition of western values and practices in all continents. This may be a misplaced criticism, as many societies around the world endorse ideas that are at the core of GCED. As Deardorff, Kiwan, & Pak (2018) have observed, among them are the 12th century Charter of Manden in Mali, the main principles of the 1789 French revolution (liberté, egalité, fraternité), the philosophies of Ubuntu in Africa and Sumak Kawsay (buen vivir, or well living) in Bolivia and Ecuador, the Gross National Happiness in Bhutan, the concepts of Karama, Aadala, Nithaam (Freedom, Dignity, Justice, Order) in Tunisia, the HongikIngan approach in Korea and the practices of Shura in several Islamic countries, to name a few. Deardorff and her colleagues pointed out that these local concepts resonate with the three notions that distinguish UNESCO’s approach

Global Citizenship Education

7

to Global Citizenship Education from other educational approaches: “respect for diversity”, “solidarity”, and a “shared sense of humanity”. Of the four areas contemplated by the educational community to make progress towards the achievement of target 4.7 (education policies, curricula, student assessment and teacher education) we decided to focus on teacher education because, in our view, the role of teachers will be pivotal in forging a new model of planetary citizenship in which national citizenship would be a subsidiary or scaffolding part. The belief that the teacher is a very important factor in determining the quality of any education project was explicitly stated in the report What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future (National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996) and borne out by empirical research. Indeed, while it is widely acknowledged that many out-of-school factors (such as individual characteristics, family background, socioeconomic factors and neighborhood experiences) contribute to a student’s academic performance, the available evidence suggests that among school-related factors, teachers matter most. For instance, when it comes to student performance on reading and math tests, a teacher is estimated to have two to three times the impact of any other school factor, including services, facilities, and even leadership (Rand Corporation, 2012; Jackson, 2012; Slater, Davies, & Burgess, 2012; Gershenson, 2016; Harris, Jones, & Huffman, 2017). Moreover, several studies have found that the effect of teaching on student learning is stronger for poor and/ or minority students than for their more affluent and/or white peers, and that the effects accumulate over the years Sanders & Horn, 1998; Center for Public Education, 2005; Metzler & Woessmann, 2010). This means that teachers can make a significant difference in the way GCED is taught and learned in actual classrooms, and teacher education can make a difference in the development of the content knowledge and the pedagogical knowledge of teachers in the area of GCED. Teachers are uniquely situated to expand students’ perspectives, to challenge ethnocentric assumptions and to introduce them to different places and cultures. This is important, because if teachers do not take this role, they may perpetuate stereotypes and repeat the patterns of thought that justified ideas of cultural superiority and colonialism (Martin, 2012; Andreotti, 2013; Scoffham, 2013, 2018). Teachers can also play an important role in problematizing blind patriotism, understood as an attachment to country characterized by unquestioning positive evaluation, staunch allegiance and intolerance of criticism. Conversely, constructive patriotism is characterized by support for questioning and criticism of group practices that are intended to result in positive change (Schatz, Staub, & Lavine, 1999). From this perspective, teachers could be considered the main agents of change to ensure that humanity makes substantial progress towards the achievement of target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. In this context, teacher education is the main pathway to ensure that changes are sustained over time for several generations. In this regard, a recent international study of target 4.7 in primary and secondary schools that included 18 countries found that two key strategies to ensure the implementation of target 4.7 are

8

Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

to integrate ESD and GCED across all subjects and to provide professional development for teachers (Laurie, Nonoyama-Tarumi, Mckeown, & Hopkins, 2016). However, ‘global citizenship education’ is not a term that is widely used by teachers. One study, for instance, found that while teachers used a variety of frameworks and curricular devices to raise students’ awareness of global problems and their understanding of global interdependence, on the one hand, and believed in the importance of infusing global dimensions into all aspects of citizenship education, on the other, they rarely used the concept of ‘global citizenship education’. Moreover, teachers who participated in this study did not have a clear vision of what global citizenship entailed and did not possess a conceptual framework for teaching this and related concepts (Myers, 2006). This is not entirely surprising if we consider that in most classrooms the textbooks determine what and how teachers teach, and only 25% of textbooks worldwide mention global citizenship. Furthermore, close to 90% of secondary school social studies and history textbooks focus on national citizenship (Buckner & Russell, 2013; Hutchings, 2018). Along the same lines, additional research on this topic suggests that despite reform efforts to incorporate global dynamics in the education system, most teacher education programs across the world still do not provide teachers with the knowledge and attitudes for teaching in a global age, and when they have them, they lack the confidence to translate them into classroom practices (Schweisfurth, 2006; Kissock & Richardson, 2010; Shaklee & Baily, 2012; Parkhouse, Glazier, Tichnor-Wagner, & Montana Cain, 2015; Tichnor-Wagner, Parkhouse, Glazier, & Cain, 2016; Myers & Rivero, 2019). Moreover, it has been found that teachers need more rigorous methodological, content and curricular assistance to teach emerging types of citizenship (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006; Lee & Leung, 2006; Meyer, 2006; Rapoport, 2009; Barth, Michelsen, Rieckmann, & Thomas, 2016). A related challenge to using real-world pedagogical strategies is the difficulty that teachers (and most people, we would add) have to keep up with new dynamics of globalization and anti-globalization and with the new knowledge production about these issues ( Johnson, Boyer, & Brown, 2011). Indeed, previous studies of pre-service education programs recommended paying more attention to local-global relationships, to supranational dimensions of citizenship and to current scholarship on globalization (Myers, 2006; Rapoport, 2010). More recently, McEvoy (2017) found that only 7% of countries included ESD in teacher education.

Six Tensions Summing up, we would like to conclude this section by flagging six tensions in teacher education and GCED. The first one is the tension between national citizenship education and GCED. As Rapoport (2019) noted, since the time when nationalism played a critical role in unifying new nations, nationality and citizenship have been virtually synonymous terms. This constructed conflation of citizenship and national identity has resulted in citizenship education

Global Citizenship Education

9

programs that focused on preparing loyal citizens who would identify primarily with the nation-state. In this context, the ideas of global citizenship are still trying to find a place in the curricula despite the absence of a tradition in the educational system. It is pertinent to recognize that although teacher education programs have some degree of autonomy to determine their curricula, they are also heavily influenced by dominant discourses, government guidelines and educational policies and standards. Currently, in most countries the hegemonic paradigm is still the one of national citizenship. The tension between these two levels of citizenship education (national and global) is likely to continue for several decades. Moreover, in some contexts, the tension between these two levels is further complicated by the presence of subnational and supranational identities that may create additional conflicts and negotiations in citizenship education programs. As an example, in Catalonia we can observe conflicts and complementarities among four identities: the Catalonian identity, the Spaniard identity, the European identity, and the global identity. The second tension, already hinted at in the previous pages, can be found in the epistemological and normative approach to citizenship education. On the one hand, the traditional approach does not problematize social reality, accepts the status quo as given and nurtures a passive, obedient model of citizenship. On the other hand, there is a critical perspective that examines power relations, social inequalities and the legacy of colonialism and promotes a participatory, justice-oriented and ecological model of citizenship. While in the first approach nations are seen as natural, unquestionable entities, in the second approach they are seen as social constructed ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson, 1983). Likewise, whereas the first approach emphasizes obedience to existing laws, the second approach also helps students to examine how laws have changed over time, encourages them to propose new laws and policies and develops their agency to increase their political efficacy. The third tension can be observed inside the teacher education curriculum, in the competition between citizenship education and other subject matters. On the one hand, it is argued that teacher education can make an important contribution to the fulfillment of the Sustainable Development Goals by incorporating ESD and GCED, peace education, human rights education, intercultural education and related topics to the professional development of future teachers. On the other hand, in many teacher education programs this content is perceived as optional extras to core courses. The fourth tension can be found between two distinct pedagogical approaches in teacher education. GCED tends to favor experiential learning, problem posing and project based learning, constructivist approaches, and a dialogue between theory and practice. However, in many countries these approaches challenge prevailing perspectives and practices in teacher education and are often rejected or marginalized (Bourn et al., 2017). The fifth tension relates to social class inequalities, particularly the GCED opportunity gap between upper class students and low-income students. Upper class students are more likely to become members of a mobile, global elite class able to fully participate in the global political economy via international

10

Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

travel, cosmopolitan capital and exposures to different cultures and global issues. Lower income students have less opportunity, and teachers’ expectations and practices tend to reinforce these inequalities. Teacher education can help teachers to better understand this situation, to view students as potential global citizens regardless of their SES, and to develop agency to encourage students (and their families) to go beyond the focus on the development of knowledge and skills to compete in the global society and consider collective action to address social and environmental problems (Goren & Yemini, 2017). Last but not least, the last tension relates to the fact that in many countries ESD and GCED tend to be promoted along parallel lines within teacher education programs. While the language of target 4.7 is inclusive and has a holistic educational approach, both in schools and in teacher education programs ESD and GCED tend to operate separately. In many cases, this is due to the disciplinary separation between social studies and natural sciences.

This Book This book is the latest addition to the Routledge series Critical Global Citizenship Education: Globalization and the Politics of Equity and Inclusion. Hence, it is part of a tradition that aims at engaging with the theory, research and practice of the twin fields of global citizenship education and education for sustainable development, especially regarding target 4.7 of the sustainable development goals 2030. In this context, this volume follows the contributions of prior volumes of the series, particularly Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Critical Global Citizenship Education (Torres, 2017b), and Teacher Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship: Critical Perspectives on Values, Curriculum and Assessment (Bamber, 2019). The main aim of this volume was to put together an international collection of essays on global citizenship education and teacher education that reflected theoretical debates, research findings and emerging practices from around the world. In doing so, we had two purposes. The first was to bring more attention to the theme of global citizenship education among those interested in teacher education. The second purpose was to raise the topic of teacher education among all those working in the nascent scholarly field of global citizenship education. The book is organized in two parts. The first part (Chapters 1–6) unpacks key conceptual and theoretical issues at the intersection between global citizenship education and teacher education and connects them with past and current research on teachers’ perspectives and on teacher education. The second part of the book (Chapters 7–14) provides an overview of the landscape of global citizenship education and teacher education in different parts of the world, with snapshots from different regions. Part I (Chapters 1–6) In the first chapter, Wiel Veugelers discusses teachers’ views on global citizenship education. The chapter begins with a historical and theoretical discussion

Global Citizenship Education

11

on the concepts of globalization and citizenship, and then examines three types of citizenship that emerged from his research with educators: adaptive, individualized and critical-democratic citizenship. These three ways of understanding citizenship correspond, in an ideal way, to specific pedagogical approaches, goals and classroom practices. In terms of global citizenship, the chapter distinguishes among three models: an open global citizenship, a moral global citizenship and a social-political global citizenship. The author argues that these distinctions are grounded in different ideologies and have implications for education policy and for citizenship education, teacher education and teachers’ professional development. In the second chapter, Jennifer K. Bergen, Sharon A. Cook and Lorna MacLean examine some of the pedagogical practices that aim to prepare teacher candidates to teach civic education. Continuing the discussion of the first chapter on different approaches to global citizenship education, this chapter uses examples from Canada, England and the United States to explore the main features of teacher education programs. The authors pay particular attention to those features (e.g. goals, recognition of structural injustice, selfreflexivity and definitions of citizenship engagement) that situate those teacher education programs closer to ‘soft’ or to ‘critical’ approaches. The study found that approaches to implementing citizenship education in teacher education vary according to national context. While the three countries showed a prevalence of ‘soft’ initiatives, in Canada and the United States they also found hopeful examples of ‘critical’ initiatives that embraced self-reflexive analysis and actions oriented towards structural change. In the third chapter, David Zyngier investigates the perceptions of teachers and student teachers about global citizenship education. The study is part of the international Global Doing Democracy Research Project, which has more than 50 scholars in over 25 countries examining perspectives and perceptions of democracy in education among pre- and in-service teachers as well as among teacher educators. Through the lens of a critical framework, the research compares these perceptions taking into account diverse political contexts (what the author calls ‘old democracies’, ‘emerging democracies’ and ‘new democracies’. The findings suggest that most teachers view democracy in a narrow or thin way and that this may impact on their classroom practice where they would be teaching ‘about’ but not ‘for’ democracy. In the last part of the chapter, Zyngier proposes a conceptual model that includes a continuum of five distinct kinds of citizenship. In Chapter 4, Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci discuss the implications of three simultaneous, related trends on global citizenship education and on teacher education: a re-emergence of populist ethno-nationalism, the formation of a highly mobile, massively wealthy transnational elite and the rapid growth of migratory flows, particularly refugees and indigent labor. In this context, they argue that global citizenship education in teacher education plays a crucial role in fostering new conceptualizations of citizenship in various regions of the world. Furthermore, they contend that teacher educators working on global citizenship education need to develop innovative, layered,

12

Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

and generative theoretical frameworks and practices in order to promote conversations concerning equity for students of all backgrounds. Moon and Tocci identify four main approaches to global citizenship education (a liberal humanistic approach, a critical theory approach, a phenomenological, autobiographical approach and a post-structural, feminist approach) and examine how each one of these approaches are taken up in the concrete practices of teacher education. In Chapter 5, Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés argue that global citizenship education is often presented as the latest stage of natural processes of pedagogical evolution and innovation, and consequently the best and most comprehensive model. In addition, global citizenship education programs are frequently considered as nationally located educational solutions able to address and solve non-educational global problems. While the authors recognize the potential transformative potential of global citizenship education in teacher education, they are also concerned with the extension of redemptive, romanticized conceptual frames that may have unintended (and possibly detrimental) implications for the promotion of ineffective pedagogical models. A key concern of this chapter is that current calls for expanding global citizenship education programs in teacher education (GCED-Ted) coincide with the consolidation of a Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM) narrative that advocates for the replacement of public education with private for-profit educational programs. The authors argue that the redemptive idealized prototype of professional educators that underlies many GCED-TEd proposals is not a good antidote for GERM, because it ultimately weakens the emergence of serious challenges to the consumerist options offered by the neoliberal GERM model. In Chapter 6, Lynette Shultz and Maren Elfert explore the unique opportunity that UNESCO’s global network of schools offers for education for global citizenship and highlight the importance of teacher education in such a project. The chapter begins with a decolonial analysis of UNESCO’s educational goals and the system of UNESCO schools as well as with a geopolitical analysis of knowledge. Throughout the chapter, Schultz and Elfert argue that ‘conviviality’ should be the guiding concept to place the work of education in the context of ‘learning to live together’ as a resistance to current neoliberal approaches to education. The notion of conviviality is rooted in ideas about modes of living together and a concern for the human condition. Drawing on this concept, the authors examine the network of UNESCO schools as potential sites to transform education and society. The chapter concludes with recommendations for teacher education to support and expand the goals of the UNESCO schools. Part II (Chapters 7–14) Chapter 7 opens the second part of the book with a study that uses a decolonial perspective similar to the previous chapter, but in this case in the particular

Global Citizenship Education

13

context of Africa. In this chapter, Samson Maekele Tsegay, Mcjerry Atta Bekoe and Mulugeta Zemuy Zegergish focus on how GCED and teacher education in Africa relate to educational policies, course content and pedagogical practices. They argue that the interconnection between GCED and teacher education in Africa can only be understood by looking at the socioeconomic and political structure of a continent based on colonial legacy. They emphasize that preparing student teachers for GCED requires a critical pedagogy approach that could be used in any discipline and class, regardless of the subject specialization and course content. In Chapter 8, Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman provide a detailed examination of global citizenship education and teacher education in East, South and Southeast Asia, a region with a heterogeneity of histories, economies, politics, ethnicities, languages and religions. The authors explain that in countries of this region, citizenship education often aims at reconciling indigenous meaning and preservation of traditional values, one the one hand, and modern foreign values that frequently come with developing democracies, on the other. In pluralistic societies, this tension manifests in national identity struggles and debates on the crucial elements of citizenship that take into account the complexity and multidimensional nature of the issue. In racially homogenous or religiously theocratic societies, the question becomes how to balance pride without marginalizing minority groups. Goh and Deutschman also note that whereas GCED in Asia is becoming widespread, its implementation is not coterminous, nor is it always being implemented in the context of UNESCO goals. This could be due to differences in the understanding of terms and goals, to a variance in cultural preference or to a combination of both factors. The chapter provides an overview of the situation in the region, paying particular attention to China, India and Singapore, and to a less extent to other countries such as South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines. Chapter 9 continues the exploration of global citizenship education in teacher education in Asia, with a focus on Vietnam. Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho point out that Vietnam is a particularly interesting context for an analysis of global citizenship education given its socialist political organization, open market economy and Confucian-Buddhist cultural heritage. After discussing global citizenship education trends in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Bhutan, the chapter focuses on Vietnam, and reports the findings of a qualitative content analysis conducted to identify characteristics of global citizenship education and education for sustainable development underpinning the teacher education courses. As part of the Renovation agenda, Vietnam introduced several global issues into the national curriculum, including peace education, international cooperation, environmental education and education to improve quality of life and also committed to integrate global citizenship education into the national curriculum and in teacher education, often in collaboration with UNESCO. The findings of the study indicate that these reforms present several opportunities for engaging with advocacy forms of global citizenship and with critical approaches that engage

14

Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

with diverse perspectives, power relations and complexity and help students to develop strategic solutions. Chapter 10 takes us to the European continent. Alfredo Gomes Dias, Antonio Ernesto Gómez Rodríguez, Antoni Santisteban and Joan Pagès Blanch examine the coverage of global citizenship in the curricula of teacher education programs in Spain and Portugal in the context of European Union policy. The authors present evidence that documents the double dimension of citizenship education: the development of a national identity, on the one hand, and the development of a global consciousness, on the other. In Spain and Portugal, this global consciousness has gained space in the discourse on civic education as much as the various national identities, and in between these two identities there is a powerful European conciousness. The chapter reviews several policy documents that make reference to the development of competences that allow students to understand and value the relations between economic, social and political rights within a global perspective and to undertake a critical interrogation and interpretation of the world and its problems. However, there is a gap between those discourses and reality, as a large percentage of teachers have not received any education in the teaching of global citizenship education and do not feel competent to do so. Interestingly, although Spain and Portugal share many features and both are members of the European Union, in their teacher education programs the topic of global citizenship education follows different traditions. In Spain, global citizenship education is part of the civic education curricula, whereas in Portugal it is directly related to development education. At the same time, in both countries teacher education programs are supported by nongovernmental organizations. At the end of the chapter, policies regarding initial teacher education as well as continuous teacher education are considered and evaluated, and recommendations for future development are advanced. Chapter 11 continues the exploration of the European context with a comparative analysis of global citizenship in teacher education in four countries: Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland and Italy. In this study, Massimiliano Tarozzi highlights the pedagogical ideas, educational approaches and theoretical patterns underpinning the development and delivery of pioneering in-service primary teacher education programs for GCED in order to identify success factors, conditions for failure, and promising practices. The main argument of this chapter is that teachers play a major role in GCED implementation and teacher education is a strategic field for policy enactment. In the analysis of the case studies, Tarozzi identified nine themes, 32 sub-themes, and three pedagogical narratives. The two main findings of this research address the political dimension of the GCED implementation. The first is that the pioneering programs explored demonstrate that collaboration between multiple actors is critical for the success of teacher education programs. The second is that successful collaborative and values-based programs enable teachers to achieve their agency. In this regard, Tarozzi and his team found that collaborative teacher education programs involving civil society organizations have considerable

Global Citizenship Education

15

potential for curriculum change and large-scale school reform and are highly valuable in developing transformative processes, engaging teachers to achieve positive agency towards school change. In contrast, teacher education based on the mainstream culture of performativity, rigidly prescriptive curricula and oppressive regimes of testing tends to inhibit teacher agency, de-professionalize their role and dampen their enthusiasm and commitment for change. In Chapter 12, Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel examine global citizenship education in teacher education programs in North America (Canada and the United States). To begin this exploration, they revisited the pioneering study of Merry Merryfield (1996) on teacher educators in these two countries and noted that while the six components identified in that study remain relevant, the neoliberalization of higher education has raised new challenges for GCED in teacher education. Pashby and Engel point out that GCED in teacher education is still tied up in the tensions of global citizenship and internationalization, with overlapping and sometimes contradictory orientations like employability and entrepreneurship, on the one hand, and global justice advocacy, on the other. Likewise, they identify tensions between popular narratives about benevolent motives for internationalization and ongoing processes of colonization and capitalist accumulation. Another tension was found between the emphasis on global competences (the skills an individual must acquire to compete in a global economy) and the development of critical discourse analysis informed by decolonial approaches. In this regard, while Pashby and Engel acknowledge the need to prepare teachers to take up complex issues facing local and global communities as classrooms become more diverse, they also problematize the assumptions and power relations underlying cross-cultural experience in the form of service-learning trips. Chapter 13 takes us from North America to Latin America. In this chapter, organized in four sections, Miguel Angel Jara, Léia Adriana da Silva Santiago, Sixtina Pinochet Pinochet, Gustavo A. González and Joan Pagés Blanch present an overview of the situation pertaining to global citizenship education in teacher education in Latin America, and then focus on four large South American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia. In the first three countries, the curricula of citizenship education are still focused on the consolidation of a democratic political culture. This can be explained by the transition from dictatorial political systems to fragile democratic regimes in the late 20th century, and the preoccupation to strengthen democratic institutions and practices. With the transition from military rule to democracy, a paradigm shift from civic education to citizenship education took place, with the introduction of themes such as diversity, inclusivity, human rights, gender equality and participation. Colombia presents a different situation because the main problem is the armed conflict between the government and the guerillas, and this is reflected in the citizenship education orientation towards a postconflict society. The authors note that most educational laws, school curricula and teacher education programs in these four countries tend to deal with the national dimension of citizenship education, with only marginal references

16

Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

to the concept of global citizenship. Sometimes, in between them there are contents dealing with Latin American integration, identity and citizenship. Although global citizenship education is mostly absent in teacher education courses (both in pre-service and in-service training), the authors identified some programs in which teachers and future teachers are introduced to global citizenship education through comparative and international perspectives (e.g. how other societies deal with conflict) and through the examination of topics like universal human rights and universal values, multiculturalism and environmental issues. Concluding this international voyage through all continents, in Chapter 14 Niranjan Casinader takes us to Oceania and presents us a comparative analysis of global citizenship education in teacher education programs in five countries: Australia, New Zealand, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and Fiji. Casinader explains that the geographical isolation of the States and Territories of Oceania has significantly influenced the ways in which global citizenship education is conceived and practiced within the region. He points out that even in the case of larger, wealthier and more established contemporary societies such as Australia and New Zealand, national identity and sensibilities remain the starting point. Similar to the findings reported in the previous chapter on Latin American, Casinader found that in Oceania global citizenship education remains an exotic topic in teacher education programs. Hence, GCED in teacher education tends to be the responsibility of units related to teaching area specialisms, rather than being seen as a basic component of general teacher capability. This particular curricular engagement with GCED is also reflected in the relevant national professional teaching standards, in that GCED is not identified as a specific aspect of teacher expertise. In the last part of the chapter, Casinader reports that signs of a shift are appearing in different countries and describes the case of Fiji, where capacity building in the GCED component is now becoming an important aspect of teacher education. We trust that this collection of essays on theoretical issues and regional overviews on global citizenship education in teacher education makes a valuable contribution to this incipient field of research, policy and practice, and hopefully assists teacher educators and teachers themselves in their quest for a more just, sustainable and peaceful world.

References Abowitz, K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 653–690. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso. Andreotti, V. (2013). Global education and social change: The imperative to engage with different discourses. Global Education in Europe, 171–177. Aktas, F., Pitts, K., Richards, J. C., & Silova, I. (2017). Institutionalizing global citizenship: A critical analysis of higher education programs and curricula. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(1), 65–80.

Global Citizenship Education

17

Bamber, P. (Ed.). (2019). Teacher education for sustainable development and global citizenship: Critical perspectives on values, curriculum and assessment. New York: Routledge. Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M., & Thomas, I. (Eds.). (2016). Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Abingdon: Routledge. Benavot, A. (2017). Education for people, prosperity and planet: Can we meet the sustainability challenges? European Journal of Education, 52(4), 399–403. Biccum, A. R. (2018). Editorial: Global citizenship education and the politics of conceptualization. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 10(2), 119–124. Bosio, E. (2019, September 28). The need for a values-based university curriculum. University World News. Bosio, E., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational theory of the common good? A conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy Futures in Education, 19(6). Bourn, D., Hunt, F., & Bamber, P. (2017). A review of education for sustainable development and global citizenship education in teacher education. UNESCO GEM Background Paper. Paris, France: UNESCO. Brookings Institution. (2017). Measuring global citizenship education: A collection of practices and tools.Washington, DC: Brookings. Buckner, E., & Russell, S. G. (2013). Portraying the global: Cross-national trends in textbooks’ portrayal of globalization and global citizenship. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), 738–750. Center for Public Education. (2005.) Teacher quality and student achievement: Research review. Retrieved March 16, 2017 from www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/ Staffingstudents/Teacher-quality-and-student-achievement-At-a-glance/Teacherquality-and-student-achievement-Research-review.html Davies, I., & Pike, G. (2010). Global citizenship education: Challenges and possibilities. In R. Lewin (Ed.,) The handbook of practice and research in study abroad (pp. 83–100). New York: Routledge. Deardorff, D., Kiwan, D., & Pak, S. Y. (2018). Global citizenship education: Taking it local. Paris: UNESCO. Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Paris: UNESCO. Europe-wide Global Education Congress. (2002), November 15–17. Maastricht global education declaration. Maastricht. Ferreira, J.-A., Ryan, L., & Davis, J. (2015.) Developing knowledge and leadership in pre-service teacher education systems. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 31(2,) 194–207. Foa, R. S. & Mounk., Y(2017). The signs of deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 5–16. Gaudelli, W. (2016.) Global citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. New York: Routledge. Gershenson, S. (2016). Linking teacher quality, student attendance, and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 11(2) 125–149. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). The global citizenship education gap: Teacher perceptions of the relationship between global citizenship education and students’ socioeconomic status. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 9–22. Harris, A., Jones, M., & Huffman, J. B. (2017). Teachers leading educational reform: The power of professional learning communities. New York: Routledge. Harshman, J., Augustine, T., & Merryfield, M. (Eds.). (2015). Research in global citizenship education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

18

Daniel Schugurensky and Charl Wolhuter

Hunt, F. (2012). Adopting a subject-based approach to integrating the global dimension in initial teacher education. TEESNet Conference: London South Bank University. Hutchings, J. (2018). The global education monitoring report. New York: UNESCO. Jackson, C. K. (2012). Non-cognitive ability, test scores, and teacher quality: Evidence from 9th grade teachers in North Carolina (No. w18624). National Bureau of Economic Research. Johnson, P. R., Boyer, M. A., & Brown, S. W. (2011). Vital interests: Cultivating global competence in the international studies classroom.  Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 503–519. Kissock, C., & Richardson, P. (2010). Calling for action within the teaching profession: It is time to internationalize teacher education. Teaching Education, 21(1), 89–101. Laurie, R. Nonoyama-Tarumi, Y., Mckeown, R., & Hopkins, C. (2016). Contributions of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) to quality education: A synthesis of research. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 10(2), 226–242. Lee, W., & Leung, S. (2006). Global citizenship education in Hong Kong and Shanghai secondary schools: Ideals, realities and expectations. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 68–84. Leicht, A., Combes, B., Byun, W. J., & Agbedahin, A. V. (2018). From Agenda 21 to Target 4.7: The development of education for sustainable development.  Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development, 25. Lenton, T., Rockstrom, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., & Schellnuber, H. (2019). Climate tipping points: Too risky to bet against. Nature, 575, 592–595. Martin, F. (2012). The geographies of difference. Geography, 97(3), 116–122. McEvoy, C. (2017). Historical efforts to implement the UNESCO 1974 recommendation on education in light of 3 SDGs targets. Paris: UNESCO. Merryfield, M. (1996). Making connections between multicultural and global education: Teacher educators and teacher education programs. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Metzler, J., & Woessmann, L. (2010). The impact of teacher subject knowledge on student achievement: Evidence from within-teacher within-student variation. IZA Discussion Paper 4999. Bonn: IZA. Misiaszek, G. W. (2017). Educating the global environmental citizen: Understanding ecopedagogy in local and global contexts. New York: Routledge. Myers, J. P. (2006). Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: Education for global citizenship in the US. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(3), 370–394. Myers, J. P., & Rivero, K. (2019). Preparing globally competent preservice teachers: The development of content knowledge, disciplinary skills, and instructional design. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 77(1), 214–225. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Carnegie Foundation. Parkhouse, H., Glazier, J., Tichnor-Wagner, A., & Montana Cain, J. (2015). From local to global: Making the leap in teacher education. International Journal of Global Education, 4(2). Rand Corporation. (2012). Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Rapoport, A. (2009). A forgotten concept: Global citizenship education and state social studies standards. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(1), 91–112. Rapoport, A. (2010). We cannot teach what we don’t know: Indiana teachers talk about global citizenship education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5(3), 179–190.

Global Citizenship Education

19

Rapoport, A. (Ed.). (2019). Competing frameworks: Global and national in citizenship education. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Reilly, J., & Niens, U. (2014). Global citizenship as education for peacebuilding in a divided society: Structural and contextual constraints on the development of critical dialogic discourse in schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44, 53–76. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee ValueAdded Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256. Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20(1), 151–174. Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Education for global citizenship: Teacher agency and curricular structure in Ontario schools. Educational Review, 58(1), 41–50. Scoffham, S. (2013). “Do we really need to know this?” The challenge of developing a global learning module for trainee teachers. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 5(3), 28–45. Scoffham, S. (2018). Global learning: A catalyst for curriculum change. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 10(2), 135–146. Shaklee, B. D., & Baily, S. (2012). Introduction: A framework for internationalizing teacher education. Internationalizing Teacher Education in the United States, 1–13. Slater, H., Davies, N. M., & Burgess, S. (2012). Do teachers matter? Measuring the variation in teacher effectiveness in England. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(5), 629–645. Tichnor-Wagner, A., Parkhouse, H., Glazier, J., & Cain, J. M. (2016). Expanding approaches to teaching for diversity and social justice in K-12 education: Fostering global citizenship across the content areas. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 59. Torres, C. A. (2017a). Why global citizenship?: An intervention in search of a theory. In Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education (pp. 14–19). New York: Routledge. Torres, C. A. (2017b). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education (Vol. 1). New York: Routledge. UNESCO. (2017). Measurement strategy for SDG target 4.7 proposal by GAML Task Force 4.7 global alliance for monitoring learning fourth meeting 28–29 November 2017 madrid. Spain GAML4/17. UNESCO. (2018). Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. A review of education for sustainable development and global citizenship education in teacher education. UNESCO-Global Education Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO.

1

Different Views on Global Citizenship Education Making Global Citizenship Education More Critical, Political and Justice-Oriented Wiel Veugelers

Globalization: A Long History Globalization is the process of forging stronger links between different parts of the world under the umbrella of a particular ideology. For the specific idea of globalization, both these connecting links and the ideological framing of this development are crucial. Globalization as a process suggests that due to globalization there is a progress in civilization and human well-being. Such a globalization process is not new in history (Conrad, 2016). The Roman Empire consisted of a large part of Europe, the Western part of Asia and the Northern part of Africa. It was an empire with the ideology of building societies and human culture under the dominance of the wisdom, power and cultural hegemony of Roman emperors and their elite (Beard, 2015). This globalization process is also not exclusively a Western-oriented development; think of the Kingdoms in Western Africa, the Chinese Han dynasty and the Andes and Maya civilizations in Latin America. Some of these ‘nonWestern’ globalization processes had already started before the Roman Empire or took place during what in Europe was called the ‘middle ages’, a period in Europe that has been considered as a stagnation in culture and politics: a dark period of 1000 years after the collapse of the Roman Empire. A renaissance was necessary to reinvent Western culture and scholarship (Aloni, 2007). And new technologies made boat trips over the oceans possible. Physical and military occupation of strategic positions in other parts of the world was the footprint of this globalization out of Europe. The Dutch had a strong position in this new wave of globalization in the 17th century (Schama, 1988). The Dutch founded New Amsterdam, later called New York, and in Asia Singapore with its strategic control of South and East Asia. An ideology of trade and a Western cultural and political tradition of rationality and cultural superiority were dominant in the globalization process of the 17th and 18th centuries. Control, administration and governance were the technical-instrumental signs of this globalization; rationality and an awaking liberalism with its freedom and competition the more overt ideology. Like in ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire, this rationalism and liberalism was

Views on Global Citizenship Education

21

not for everybody, in fact it was only for the cultural, political and economic elite. The lower social class had to be cultivated and often exploited: creating subordination of a large part of the population to a cultural, economic and political dominance by the elite. Globalization in the 17th and 18th centuries had in practice two faces: conquering and oppression. Together it was a wave of dominance and exploitation. Globalization extended and still extends economic inequality (Piketty, 2014). It is also interesting to look at the dominant countries in these processes of globalization. The important global players were the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal in the 17th century, France and Germany in the 19th century, and the UK and the USA in the 20th century So there were changes within the hegemony of globalization. With the growing possibilities of communication and media, culture and language became even more important in the last 50 years. An Anglo-American culture and an American lifestyle were spread over the world and supported the dominance of the English language in politics, science and daily life (Macedo, Dendrinos, & Gounari, 2003). American and English universities are leading all the university rankings. In the last decade, a new wave of globalization has influenced the world and accelerated its process. Enormous technological progress in means of transportation has made the moving of persons and goods easier. Imagine transportation in the world a hundred years ago and even fifty years ago. A hundred years ago there were only a few cars. Fifty years ago, airplanes were scarce and used only for urgent needs or luxury. The same fast development is visible in communication technology, or maybe better the spread of information, as often there is no real communication. Many people have access to all kind of information on the Internet and in more traditional media, and even if some people are not open to this information, they are confronted with it daily. These contemporary processes of globalization, in transport and information and communication technology, make the world smaller and more connected. Globalization is again considered, at least as promoted by some opinion makers, as a positive development that brings economic welfare and chances and freedom to everybody and on every part of the planet. Even more than before, the world is now connected. And maybe also more than before globalization is driven by a dominant ideology, an ideology of neoliberal freedom; a freedom of a market economy of free exchange of trade goods and money.

Growing Influence Culture In the Western ideological perspective, the market economy is supported by liberalism in the personal sphere and in politics. Individuals that take care of themselves and compete with others are considered agencies in the worldview of a free market of people and goods. According to Torres (2017), a neoliberal perspective on the market is strongly embedded in contemporary globalization. But this market-oriented dominance doesn’t exclude other perspectives from

22

Wiel Veugelers

being part of the arena. Human rights are part of a more moral globalization that supports the autonomous development of people and the protection of human dignity. Democracy is considered in this liberal worldview as the political construct that regulates individuals living together in a peaceful and just way. It is interesting to see how non-Western countries respond to the economic globalization and to the moral and political globalization. Most non-Western countries accept and often embrace the free market globalization but argue that they want to keep their own social, cultural and political values, institutions and systems (Mahbubani, 2008). Sometimes these non-Western moral and political orientations are opposite to the liberal views of personal freedom and democracy. Think of the traditional Arab countries, in particular the rich oil nations, or China and to some extent other East Asian countries with their mix of a market economy and a centralized cultural and political system of control. Controlled sometimes by one political party, or by a social life that has been shaped by obedience and adaptation. These mixed, complicated and hybrid patterns of dominance clearly show that contemporary globalization is not a one-way direction with a clear view and policy. It is more what Mouffe (2005) calls a multipolar system with different power centers and power relations. Nevertheless, a neoliberal market ideology is now dominant and seems to be synonymous with globalization. Our analysis makes clear that it’s relevant to distinguish different views on globalization, and to inquire about different practices, and in particular contradictions in theory, policy and practice.

Changes in the Concept of Citizenship Deepening and Broadening of the Concept of Citizenship The concept of citizenship is used in policy, research and practice to describe the role of individuals in society, in how individuals relate to structures and to each other. Traditionally the concept of citizenship has been linked to the nation state (Isin & Turner, 2002). In the past decades the concept has been what we call both deepened and broadened (Veugelers, 2011b). The deepening of the concept shows that citizenship is not only located on the political level anymore, but also on the social and the cultural level. It is about the kind of culture and identity a nation is focusing on: it’s making the political development of people part of a broader socialization process. It is an overt policy of state-based or at least state-guided socialization. It is very surprising that such strong social and cultural policy has emerged, or has even become more important, in an area formally presented as neoliberal, with one of its targets a limited influence of the state and a celebration of personal autonomy. Paradoxically, the contemporary social and cultural socialization in many countries doesn’t even seem that liberal and stressing

Views on Global Citizenship Education

23

autonomy because of its strong focus on adaptation, dominant culture and sustaining hegemony. The broadening of the concept of citizenship implies that the concept is not exclusively bounded to the national state anymore, but extended to the regional and the global level. At the regional level, for example, European citizenship is linked to the European Union. Also, less formal regional unions like Mercosur in Latin America and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Southeast Asia stimulate a regional citizenship with a common tradition and a joint future. They look at what countries have in common and construct, or even reconstruct, a common history and culture. The global extension of the concept of citizenship implies the whole world and all its human inhabitants and sometimes even its material foundation, the planet. Even if it is not a formal citizenship, a kind of connectedness is supposed. An important difference between a national and a regional or global citizenship is its orientation. The national citizenship is inward directed, the regional and in particular the global citizenship is more outward directed. The national citizenship is also more backwards, and oriented towards adaptation to the status quo and to build support for the nation state (Spring, 2004). The regional and global citizenship is more future-oriented and aspiring. It refers to less stable institutions that are not always supported by everybody and by each country; think of the European Union and the United Nations. In both the national and the global citizenship different views and practices are possible. In the next section we will focus on these differences in citizenship and what this implies for citizenship education. Different Political Orientations of Citizenship The concept of citizenship can express different political orientations. Traditionally the division in citizenship has been made by distinctions as weak and strong (Barber, 1984). Citizenship in this perspective seems to be in its perception a linear construct, from weak to strong. The academic scholarship on citizenship is in particular related to democracy, but in non-democratic societies there is also a citizenship, an authoritarian citizenship. Citizenship is a concept about participation in a nation, not about a certain kind of participation. It’s in fact an ideologically neutral concept. Even about democracy there are many different ideas (e.g. Gutman, 1987; Touraine, 1997; De Groot, 2013). The differences are about the way the people participate, the influence the people have and also about the societal domains that can be part of democratic processes like labor organizations, educational institutions and even religions.

Different Educational Goals and Types of Citizenship In our own empirical research among teachers, students and parents, we found three orientations in citizenship, each expresses a clear and different political

24

Wiel Veugelers

orientation. Educational systems, schools within a system and teachers within a school; they all can have different educational goals. In several research projects (with both quantitative and qualitative instruments), we asked teachers, students and parents which educational goals they find important. Statistical analyses showed three clusters of educational goals: discipline, autonomy and social involvement (Leenders, Veugelers, & De Kat, 2008a, 2008b). (for more conceptual explorations of these clusters see Veugelers, 2007, 2017a). Discipline, for example, has to do with listening and behaving well. These are goals that are especially emphasized in the educational movement that is called ‘character education’ (Lickona, 1991). It is about promoting good behavior and following norms. In socialization research, like in the work of the sociologist Durkheim (1923), disciplining is considered an educational task: education teaches you how you should behave. Autonomy refers to personal empowerment and formulating your own opinion. These goals are central to the moral development tradition of Kohlberg (Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989; Oser & Veugelers, 2008; Zizek, Garz, & Nowak, 2015) but also in the structural sociology of Giddens (1990), with the emphasis on ‘agency’. Autonomy can be defined as the experience of freedom and giving meaning to your own life. In the Western world and in modernity, the development of autonomy of people is considered very important. The third cluster, social involvement, shows a broad spectrum of social goals: from an instrumental coexistence, a socio-psychological empathy, to a social justice-based solidarity and combating of inequality in society. Under the social spectrum, different scientific orientations can be found: the justice approach of Rawls and Kohlberg, the concept of care of Noddings (2002) and the empowerment of the Brazilian pedagogue Freire (1985). Social involvement can vary greatly in its political orientation. Our research, with both quantitative and qualitative instruments, shows that these three clusters (discipline, autonomy and social involvement) are important educational goals for teachers, students and parents. Types of Citizenship Further analyzing our data (with person-centered factor analyses), we construct three types of citizenship, which expressed different orientations: The first type is adaptive citizenship. This type scores high on discipline and social involvement. Socially involved not in a political sense, but in a moral commitment to each other, especially your own community. For autonomy, the scores are not so high for the adaptive type.

Views on Global Citizenship Education

25

The second type, individualized citizenship, scores high on autonomy and fairly high on discipline but relatively low on social involvement. This type has a strong focus on personal development and freedom, not on the social. The third type, critical-democratic citizenship, scores high both on social involvement and on autonomy. On discipline this type scores low. We call this type critical-democratic because of its focus on the social and on society, with a critical engagement with the common good, and that leaves room for individual autonomy and personal articulation. In a survey of Dutch teachers in secondary education, with a representative sample, we could conclude that 53% of teachers are pursuing a criticaldemocratic citizenship, 29% an adaptive type and 18% an individualized type. This variety is not the same for the diferent levels of education: in preuniversity secondary education we see more support for the individualized type and in the pre-vocational education for the adaptive type. Support for a critical-democratic type was the same for both levels. A reproduction of social class positions and power relationships becomes visible in these citizenship orientations (Leenders et al., 2008a). Types of Citizenship and Civic Education Practice These three types of citizenship each correspond, in an ideal way, to a specific practical operationalization of citizenship education with its own methodology and a focus on certain goals: Adaptive: much transmission of values, in particular adaptive values, and attention to standards and norms. Teacher-directed education, and students are seated in rows. Values are embedded in the hidden curriculum. Individualized: great attention to developing the independence of the students and to their learning critical thinking. Students often work individually. Values are a personal choice. Critical-democratic: focus on learning to live together and to appreciate diversity and on active student participation in dialogues. Cooperative and inquiry-oriented learning is often practiced. Attention to social values and critical reflection on values. Of course, the types of citizenship and the corresponding practical classroom interpretations are ideal-typical constructions. In the views of people and in educational practice, we find many hybrid forms with a combination of these types of citizenship and citizenship education. But these three types of citizenship and citizenship education demonstrate that citizenship is not a matter of bad or good citizenship, and that diferent orientations in the political nature of citizenship and citizenship education are possible. It also shows that nations,

26

Wiel Veugelers

schools and teachers can make choices in their educational goals and in their practice of citizenship education.

Differences Between Goals, Practices and Experiences of Citizenship Education Until now we have talked about the goals that teachers want to pursue. Do teachers realize these goals in practice? Teachers say that they are often unable to entirely realize these objectives. This is particularly true of the goals of autonomy and social involvement. It is striking that in the Netherlands teachers, as well as parents, indicate that discipline in education still receives relatively a lot of attention and is also fairly well developed in students. They realize that it is much more difficult to develop good autonomy, where students take real responsibility for their own actions and deliberate on alternatives in a grounded manner. The social orientation, and especially the attitude in it, gets much less attention in educational practice and is also more difficult to achieve (Veugelers, 2011b, 2017a). These are the differences between the ideal curriculum (the abstract level), the interpreted curriculum (what teachers want to do) and the operationalized curriculum (the practice;) the reality of education. Adaptation, Individualization and the Social: Cultural and Political Differences In traditional education, the disciplinary mode gets a lot of attention. In more modern ways of teaching and in more child-centered pedagogical perspectives, the individual is more central. This individual orientation and identity development is further strengthened in a specific manner, and in a less positive mode, by the competition and selection that is strongly embedded in many educational systems. Students have to compete with each other and are made responsible for their own educational success. We see this individual educative competitive orientation in the Western world and the Netherlands is a good example of it, but we also see it in Asian countries like South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. The social, in its positive sense, seems to be less intertwined in educational systems. We see some more social orientations in Scandinavian countries, countries with a strong social democratic political orientation (Green & Janmaat, 2011), in some Latin America countries as results of strong social movements (Teodoro & Guilherme, 2014; Veugelers, De Groot, Llomovatte, & Naidorf, 2017) and in some East Asian countries as part of a more collective culture (Kennedy, Lee, & Grossman, 2010; Sim, 2011). International comparative studies like the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (2010, 2017) showed how adolescents think and act in the area of citizenship. In particular, many youngsters support democracy and individual freedom on an abstract level. But these studies also showed that in many Western countries the social involvement of youngsters is not very strong.

Views on Global Citizenship Education

27

For example, in Northwest European countries like the Netherlands, the UK and Belgium, youngsters indicate a lack of interest in being involved in politics or the common good; however, they do express certain political opinions such as restricting rights and support to immigrants. In our own research with the three types of citizenship, we found among youngsters a strong focus on autonomy and a social involvement that is more psychological and focused on their own communities rather than global and social justice oriented (Leenders et al., 2008b; Leenders, Veugelers, & De Kat, 2012). The Necessity of Distinguishing Different Types of Citizenship and Citizenship Education The relevance of the distinction made in these types of citizenship and citizenship education is that it shows that at the different policy levels choices can be made, that these choices have consequences for practices of citizenship education and that these differences are grounded in different ideologies. There are more scholars who make distinctions in citizenship (see for a review Johnson & Morris, 2010). Westheimer and Kahne (2004) made a distinction between a personally responsible, a participatory and a social justice-oriented citizen. Our distinction came out of research on pedagogical goals of teachers. It shows that teachers can have different ideas about citizenship. Westheimer and Kahne did their research in a research project about in-service learning. They inquired what students were doing in these projects and which goals were set for the projects. Therefore, their focus was more on how people can contribute to society. A strong point of the Westheimer and Kahne typology is the focus on social justice. In the Veugelers’ typology the focus is on the participation in the societal and political processes and power relations and on which ideological orientation people express in their conceptualization of citizenship (adaptation, from their individual view, or as a critical and engaged participant in democratic processes).

Global Citizenship Education as Contested Concept We just argued that the concept of citizenship has been broadened from the nation to the region and to the global. Now the notion of global citizenship is often used in policy, theory and even sometimes in educational practice. In this part of the chapter we will give another example of how people can differ about citizenship and citizenship education. Now we shift the focus to global citizenship. Politicians, researchers and practitioners often use the concept of global citizenship. Many people get a warm feeling when they hear this word. However, when people start talking about it, it becomes clear that people can have really different ideas about what the concept of global citizenship means. In a study, we explored different meanings and practices of global citizenship and global citizenship education (Veugelers, 2011a). We analyzed the literature and we had interviews with teachers about their concepts and practices.

28

Wiel Veugelers

Based on the literature review, we distinguished three types of global citizenship. We extend here the former descriptions: •

•

An open global citizenship with a focus on knowledge about different cultures and openness to other cultures. It is difficult to find scholars who clearly express such a liberal view on global citizenship. A good example, however, is Soros with his arguments for an open society. Soros supports a liberal market economy; he himself earned his fortune on the stock market. Attacking the British pound made him rich and famous. Now he is supporting the development of open societies, in particular in East Europe. The open global citizenship is a neoliberal mix of cultural diversity and market economy. A moral global citizenship education that supports human development, humanity and a concern about the global world. This kind of global citizenship has three pillars: 1. 2.

3.

•

Creating possibilities for each human being to develop their capabilities (Nussbaum, 1997). A concern for the planet and all its inhabitants. This type of global citizenship includes a focus on sustainability and challenges each human being to take moral responsibility and to contribute to it (Gaudelli, 2016). An open communication in which everybody can participate. This is often called cosmopolitanism and refers to the old Greek idea of the polis (Appiah, 2005; Hansen, 2011).

Attention to human rights and democracy are often linked with this moral global citizenship. A sociopolitical global citizenship addresses unequal power relations and is oriented to social justice and political change. The moral global citizenship doesn’t take into consideration political power relations. It is a moral call not a political analysis or a transformative practice. The sociopolitical global citizenship is oriented to combatting inequality and creating a more just society for all human beings. This position can be found in the work of critical pedagogy, in particular Paulo Freire (1985), neo-Marxist political theory (Mouffe, 2005), and postcolonialism (Andreotti, 2011).

There is a hierarchy in this typology. The moral global citizenship adds to the open global citizenship a moral concern for each human being, humanity and the planet. The sociopolitical global citizenship approach not only challenges people to become a moral global citizen, but also ask for change, empowerment, equality and social justice. These diferent types of global citizenship are linked, like in the national typology, with diferent educational practices.

Views on Global Citizenship Education

29

Global Citizenship in Educational Practice In an exploratory study, interviews have been conducted with nine people (Veugelers, 2011a, pp. 282–284): Three teaching methodologists in the areas of civics, history and geography; four teachers of civics, history and religion and worldview education; and two school principals. In the following, we refer to all of them as teachers. These people were selected because in other projects they showed interest in global citizenship education and demonstrated in these projects and sometimes also in their articles that they reflect on global citizenship education and their own position in it. Teachers value knowledge of global citizenship highly. Even when they value education of attitudes higher, they argue that a broad knowledge base is required. The teachers also stress the need for an open attitude. Open means being receptive to different ideas and experiences as well as critically reflecting on our perception of the global. To the teachers, global citizenship means attention to the local, that is, for the ways in which the broader global developments become visible in the student’s own environment. Teachers certainly want to develop moral attitudes in their students, for instance taking responsibility, increasing people’s opportunities and appreciating diversity. But teachers also try to refrain from transferring these values. Their critique of the former global education of the 1980s is that it was too normative. Presently, teachers try to stimulate a critical and active attitude in students through openness to different ideas and experiences. Restraint in the Political Context: More Moral Than Politics The teachers who participated in this study are certainly aware of the political contexts of global citizenship education, but they are reluctant to embed knowledge in a strong sociopolitical context, to develop critical student attitudes regarding social and political relations and to promote collective action that aims for more equal social and political relations. The arguments the teachers give for this apolitical teaching is: the young age of their students; the political sensitivity of the matter; and the danger of trying to transfer values too urgently. The teachers in this study were all very involved in the topic of citizenship education, and they try to prevent citizenship education from being restricted to a national perspective or an emphasis on proper social behavior. They prefer a broader form of citizenship education that focuses more on moral and democratic aspects. They are, however, reluctant with regard to a more critical and political form that aims at reducing inequality in power relations. They doubt if it would have the desired effects on students and if school boards and the school inspectorate would allow such a critical position. At the same time, the teachers acknowledge that sometimes power relations cannot be ignored. The teachers prefer to stimulate an open and critical attitude in their students and an appreciation of diversity and involvement. The teachers seem to have a

30

Wiel Veugelers

more developmental approach. Their implicit theory seems to be that a focus on the development of the moral could be an important stage in citizenship education. From such a developmental perspective, the raising of moral values such as justice, involvement and humanity would have a priority and the hope is that the students use them later in analyzing and acting on political relations. Training in practicing these moral values in social-political relations is not part of the curriculum now. The teachers hope morality functions as a critical consciousness that challenges ideas and practices. The interviews with the teachers have shown that the distinctions in types of global citizenship are useful, and that the three types of global citizenship that were distinguished are connected with different educational practices. For pedagogical reasons, teachers usually opt for a moral global citizenship. They feel that an open global citizenship neglects its moral dimensions. A moral global citizenship, on the contrary, does pay attention to moral values like diversity, increasing opportunities and taking responsibility. Teachers also try to connect the global and the local, but they do not make a clear choice for a socialpolitical global citizenship. Teachers acknowledge though that global citizenship is embedded in social and political relations and that a political stance is always implicit. But the teachers do not want to put too strong an emphasis on political relations because of the age of their students and because politics is a rather sensitive area in education, in particular in Dutch education. An explicit choice for social change, i.e., reducing social and political inequalities, is also not made by these teachers, because that would mean a reversal to forms of value transfer, even if it is in a transformative way. The social-political nature of global citizenship is therefore at the same time present and not present in secondary education. Present, because moral values are always embedded in social and political relations. Not present, because teachers are reluctant to explicitly stress this embedment and because they do not want to impose their own opinions on the students. Compared to ‘world education’ in the 1980s, global citizenship education at present is much more open. Teachers now try to stimulate a critical view in their students. The message is broadcast less explicitly. Teachers presently try to develop a moral consciousness in their students, along lines such as involvement and appreciation of diversity. The global dimension of citizenship contributes to a broadening of the concept of citizenship; citizenship is no longer connected only with nationality but with a global outlook: on one’s own environment and on the world as a whole. Social-Political Global Citizenship as One of Possible Perspectives The teachers in our study are very reluctant to work from a social-political global citizenship perspective. A social-political global citizenship only presents itself in education when the moral global citizenship is embedded in concrete contexts and when these contexts are analyzed for their social and political

Views on Global Citizenship Education

31

power relations. This happens seldom in Dutch educational practice, according to the teachers. In education there is always a tension between forces that focus on social reproduction and forces that focus on social transformation (Veugelers, 2008). In most countries, however, the reproductive forces are much stronger then the transformative forces (Apple, 1999). This is also the case in the Netherlands. This reproductive dominance restrains teachers in their capabilities to choose a social-political global citizenship. The study on global citizenship education and also our survey study among Dutch teachers on citizenship education (Leenders et al., 2008a) show that teachers do not choose a social-political global citizenship. Given the strong reproductive tendency in citizenship education policy and practice and the reluctance of teachers in the social-political domain, what would be pedagogical possibilities for a more critical form of global citizenship education? Instead of a social-political global citizenship education practice in which teachers put values in a social and political context and aim at transformation, we would plead, given the policy and the conditions for teachers, for a multi-perspective approach by showing that a social-political global citizenship is one of the possible perspectives. It implies that global citizenship can be interpreted in several ways and that a social-political view is one of these perspectives. In such a multiplied pedagogical approach, the teachers will tend to show less explicitly which view of global citizenship they personally have. They then will show that different perspectives are possible, including a socialpolitical view. They can demonstrate that global citizenship can be regarded from an open global perspective, a moral global perspective and a socialpolitical perspective. The fear of over-politicizing global citizenship education seems to have led to an over-moralizing of global citizenship education. However, demonstrating the moral in the political, without emphasis on one’s own political choice in these power relations, might achieve that the social-political will become part of a dialogue on global citizenship education in schools: that the social-political is recognized as one of the perspectives.

Recent Studies on Global Citizenship and Global Citizenship Education In recent years, many articles and books about global citizenship and global citizenship education have been published. We will discuss the most relevant ones. In general, there is a striking contrast between the ease with which people use the concepts global citizen and global citizenship education and how precisely these concepts have been defined. Many scholars have written about their ideas (e.g., Gaudelli, 2016) and done review studies. Review studies, like Oxley and Morris (2013), show that there are not many empirical studies and most publications are about ideas of global citizenship and global citizenship education. Oxley and Morris (2013) make a distinction between cosmopolitan types and advocacy types. Cosmopolitan types are more open and moral. Advocacy types

32

Wiel Veugelers

are more focused on interconnection. Sometimes these types are critical and oriented to empowerment, but spiritual is also a category. Goren and Yemini (2016) used the types of global citizenship of Veugelers (2011a) in a study in Israel with a comparison of an international school and a local Israeli school. They speak of the global citizenship (GC) divide: the GC divide could mean that some students will be taught to be global citizens who are mobile and can navigate and compete in the modern, international workplace, while others will only be taught what is deemed relevant to their limited life trajectories, as perceived by the teachers. (Goren & Yemini, 2016, p. 849) They conclude: Teachers at the international school seemed slightly more comfortable discussing or mentioning the socio-political aspects of global citizenship as per Veugelers (2011)—referring to some sort of practical allegiance to a global society—as opposed to Israeli teachers, who made absolutely to this form of global citizenship. The Israeli teachers defined global citizenship in terms that Veugelers associated with both moral and open global citizenship, as environmentalism and globalization. . . . However, it could also be said that while international schools teachers adopted more neoliberal and moral-cosmopolitan models, the Israeli teachers opted more for the environmental model. It is interesting that many of the empirical studies that have done on global citizenship education focus on international schools and not on regular schools (Harshman, Augustine, & Merryfield, 2015). A recent international study conducted by a large group of international scholars focused on the efect of migration on global citizenship education (Banks, 2017), particularly on the acceptance of migrants in the social and political life of diferent countries. In an analysis of the cases, Parker (2017) argues that a focus on human rights education is the logical consequence of migration and the reduction of the importance of national memberships rights. Banks (2017, p. xxiii) concludes that ‘as long as democratic politics is tied up with ideas of membership and belonging, educators will also need to help students think about membership in an ethically responsible way’. In a study requested by the European Parliament, Veugelers, De Groot, and Stolk (2017) inquired together with experts in all 28 European Union member states the policy and practice of teaching common values, in particular democracy and tolerance. Regarding global citizenship education they conclude: ‘While the national orientation gets abundant attention in education policy, attention given to the international dimension is not very strong, although it is growing. Teaching about the own nation is often susceptible to an uncritical approach’ (Veugelers et al., 2017, p. 193).

Views on Global Citizenship Education

33

Moral Global Citizenship Many recent publications focus on a moral global citizenship, often using the word cosmopolitan. For example, Hansen (2011) argues for a cosmopolitan education that includes an open space in which everyone can enter and be part of a dialogue. A quite typical example of a moral global citizenship education perspective is the book by Gaudelli Global Citizenship Education: Everyday Transcendence. Gaudelli (2016, p. 6) is aware of the difficult aspects of globalization and mentions that often there are concerns about the fast integration of the world (hyper-globalization), in particular for the economic and environmental consequences. Gaudelli (2016, p. 6) formulates as educational goal: ‘An aspirational sense of being human as a universal condition coupled with openness to the plurality of people and their environs’. Gaudelli is aware of inequalities in access to welfare, social engagement and political participation. These are part of ‘our global inheritance from legacies of oppression and exploration that shape interactions, including the trafficking of woman and slavery to colonialism and subsequent misdistribution of resources to mass violence and genocide’. Gaudelli (2016, p. 6) argues for ‘GCE that robustly engages the inheritance of a global legacy and how we can educate to address past harms towards contemporary and future redress’. Gaudelli focuses his view on global citizenship education on human rights, sustainability and intra/intercultural learning. However, in writing about globalization as a powerful economic force, he doesn’t problematize that this is the consequence of the liberalization of financial markets moves, this: While the economic aspects of globalization are largely the drivers of the changes we have witnessed and will continue to witness, the political dimensions are more prominent in public consciousness and are therefore more likely to be part of how global citizenship is talked about. Human rights, for example, are in a way the public face of global citizenship. (Gaudelli, 2016, p. 15) The attention to unequal power and economic relationships gets lost in examples of crimes against humanity. Of course, human rights are very important, but from a social-political view on global citizenship this is just part of the story. Unequal power relations should be addressed too. Social-Political Global Citizenship A more political and transformative view on global citizenship can be observed in the work of Andreotti (2011) and Torres (2017). Relative to authors in the moral global citizenship camp, they are more likely to include in their analyses political power relations, to criticize the dominance of the neoliberal marketoriented method of globalization and to take an empowerment perspective. Torres (2017) speaks of competitiveness versus solidarity, and referring to the

34

Wiel Veugelers

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) policy, argues for human rights. It is interesting that Torres criticizes the neoliberal economic market-orientation in globalization, but not the cultural and political dominance of the Western world. This poses the challenging question for critical intellectuals and politicians of how to create a more multipolar world order (Mouffe, 2005) and keep a moral order based on human rights and democracy. The direction for such a balance should be a stronger connection of human rights and democracy with economic equality, social justice, more equal power relations and the recognition of greater equivalence of different cultures. This kind of social-political citizenship in which the personal and the social and the cultural and the political is more connected is the challenge for future academic, policy and actionoriented work.

Comparative Research on Global Citizenship Education We continued working on inquiring about global citizenship and global citizenship education and developed a questionnaire based on the preceding three types of global citizenship. For each type we formulated three items. Open global citizenship • • •

I find it important to gain knowledge about different cultures. I am open to new cultural experiences. I want to meet people from different parts of the world.

Moral global citizenship • • •

I feel responsible for our global world and for humanity. I want to work on enlarging the opportunities of all human beings. I appreciate cultural differences between people.

Social-political global citizenship • • •

I am aware of social and political power relations in the global world. I want to strive for more equal social and political power in the global world. I support the struggle of underprivileged people to gain more power.

In an exploratory study, we used this questionnaire in the Netherlands and Indonesia with student teachers in moral and citizenship education. In the Netherlands, we included students in the Education Department (moral and citizenship education) of the University of Humanistic Studies (30 students) and in Indonesia students in the Citizenship Education Department of Yogyakarta State University (52 students). We asked them how important are these

Views on Global Citizenship Education

35

goals for secondary education schools according to you? On a 5-point scale we asked how important these goals are. The results (the average scores) are presented in Table 1.1. Ours is a small exploratory study, and we should be cautious about the conclusions; nevertheless, we discuss the results and consider them as questions for future research. Maybe you would expect that the Dutch students are more oriented to global citizenship education than the Indonesian students. However, the Indonesian students are the ones who often score higher. There are really no differences between Dutch and Indonesian student teachers for an open and a moral global citizenship, but there are quite big differences on the social-political global level. Indonesian students are far more political and social-justice oriented than Dutch students. The Dutch students are more moral oriented than social-political. This study shows again that people can differ in their ideas about citizenship and that these differences need to be addressed in research, political debates and in education itself. Globalization as a Contested Concept The results of the comparative study also showed that globalization cannot be considered as a Western wave that cultivates other nations. Globalization, as a process of connections, is not only a contested concept full of ideology; it is also a contested practice in which power relations are at play. Global citizenship education should help students to analyze these developments and relations. Moreover, the concept of globalization itself can be criticized, in particular on its contradictory social and economic effects: favoring the mobility and

Table 1.1 Goals of global citizenship education in the Netherlands and Indonesia NED INDO (n = 30) (n = 52) Open global citizenship 1. Important knowledge about different cultures 4.1 2. Open to new cultural experiences 4.2 3. Meet people from different parts of the world 3.5 Total 11.8 Moral global citizenship 4. Responsible for our global world and humanity 4.6 5. Enlarging the opportunities of all human beings 3.9 6. Appreciate cultural differences between people 4.2 Total 12.7 Social-political global citizenship 7. Social + political power relations in the global world awareness 4.0 8. More equal social + political power relations in the global world 3.7 9. Support underprivileged people to gain power 3.5 Total 11.2

4.3 4.0 4.1 12.4 4.7 4.2 4.3 13.2 4.3 4.2 3.6 12.1

36

Wiel Veugelers

capital accumulation of social, cultural and financial elites and giving up the protection by the nation state of the working class who face a downward spiral of job possibilities and wages to the bottom. A second criticism is the favoring of Western social and cultural capital and (re-) colonizing life styles, discourses and cultures in the non-Western world. Our types of global citizenship are hierarchical. This implies that a sociopolitical global citizenship includes a moral and an open global citizenship education. Really sociopolitical global citizenship education cannot exist without the moral and the open perspective. The connection of the moral and the political is crucial.

Desirable Educational Strategy for Teachers What does this all means for teachers? We end by formulating guidelines for teachers’ practice. These areas of knowledge, skills and attitudes should be developed in teacher education and in teachers’ professional development. 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Giving voice to everybody. From the cosmopolitan global citizenship, we learn that all participants should get the chance to give their voice and to participate in a dialogue. From a more social-political perspective, in particular the work of Paulo Freire, we learn that we should give voice to the ‘silenced’ (Veugelers, 2017b). Analyze different conceptualizations of globalization, global citizenship and global citizenship education. Teachers must develop the knowledge and the skills to analyze conceptualisations of globalization, global citizenship and global citizenship education in their embedded values and ideologies, and on possible differentiating effects on different social classes, gender and parts of the world. Showing diversity and different perspectives. From the open global citizenship perspective, we focus on experiencing and valuing diversity. From a socialpolitical perspective, this implies to not be naïf and to challenge the often hidden unequal valuing of these differences. Showing that the social-political is one of the alternatives. A pedagogical approach to global citizenship should avoid the transfer of the ‘right’ values. Instead it should present different perspectives and invite students to compare them and to develop their own perspective. A social-political perspective on global citizenship should be included and not silenced like it often is now in education. Stimulating openness/dialogue and valuing diversity. This kind of education already results from points 1–3, but it is important to mention it separately. This is, in our view, the heart of the pedagogical work of the teachers. Focusing on moral values embedded in social and political power relations. The moral and the political are linked. If the moral is taught separately, it is separated from concrete practices and the moral is only a call that can shape consciousness. To bring moral values to life, they should be linked with the

Views on Global Citizenship Education

7.

8.

37

political. Teacher education should function as an example of this (Veugelers, 2010). Care about the world, autonomy, humanity and democracy. This is the crucial paradox. On the one hand, we should appreciate different values. On the other hand, we find certain moral values very important; values that create a more human, just and sustainable world. A good balance between autonomy and a social orientation is crucial (Veugelers, 2011a). Showing own values, I hope social justice and autonomy. Teachers can never be neutral; they always show their own values, and they cannot avoid this. It is important that they also show other perspectives, other values. Teachers can, from a socio-constructivist view (Haste, 2004), not transfer values, but they always show their values. I hope the values they show are social justice and autonomy.

References Aloni, N. (2007). Enhancing humanity. Dordrecht: Springer. Andreotti, V. (2011). The political economy of global citizenship. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4,) 307–310. Appiah, K. (2005). The ethics of identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Apple, M. (1999). Power, meaning and identity. New York: Peter Lang. Banks, J. (Ed.). (2017). Citizenship education and global migration. Washington, DC: AERA. Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Beard, M. (2015). SPQR: A history of ancient Rome. London: Norton & Company. Conrad, S. (2016). What is global history? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. De Groot, I. (2013). Adolescents’ democratic engagement. Utrecht: University of Humanistic Studies. Durkheim, E. (1971[1923]). Moral education. New York, NY: Free Press. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power and liberation. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. New York: Routledge. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2016). Global citizenship education in context: Teacher perceptions at an international and a local Israeli school. Compare, 46(5) 832–853. Green, A., & Janmaat, G. (2011). Regimes of social cohesion: Societies and the crisis of globalization. Hampshire: Palgrave. Gutman, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hansen, D. (2011). The teacher and the world. New York: Routledge. Harshman, J., Augustine, T., & Merryfield, M. (Eds.). (2015). Research in global citizenship education. Charlotte, NC: IAP. Haste, H. (2004). Constructing the citizen. Political Psychology, 25(3), 413–440. International Civic and Citizenship Education Study. (2010). ICCS 2009 international report. Amsterdam: IEA. International Civic and Citizenship Education Study. (2017). ICCS 2010 international report. Amsterdam: IEA. Isin, E., & Turner, B. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of citizenship studies. London: Sage. Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 77–96.

38

Wiel Veugelers

Kennedy, K., Lee, W. O., & Grossman, D. L. (Eds.). (2010). Citizenship pedagogies in Asia and the Pacific. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Leenders, H., Veugelers, W., & De Kat, E. (2008a). Teachers’ views on citizenship in secondary education in the Netherlands. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(2), 155–170. Leenders, H., Veugelers, W., & De Kat, E. (2008b). Moral education and citizenship education at pre-university schools. In F. Oser& W. Veugelers (Eds.), Getting involved: Global citizenship development and sources of moral values (pp. 57–74). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Leenders, H., Veugelers, W., & De Kat, E. (2012). Moral development and citizenship education in vocational schools. Education Research International, 2012 https://doi. org/10.1155/2012/901513 Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character. New York: Random House. Macedo, D., Dendrinos, B., & Gounari, P. (2003). The hegemony of English. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Mahbubani, K. (2008). The new Asian hemisphere: The irresistable shift of global power by the East. New York: Public Affairs. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge. Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people. New York: Teachers College Press. Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Oser, F., & Veugelers, W. (Eds.). (2008). Getting involved: Global citizenship development and sources of moral values. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishers. Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 3, 301–325. Parker, W. (2017). Towards a powerful Human Rights Curriculum in schools. In J. Banks (Ed.), Citizenship education and global migration (pp. 457–481). Washington, DC: AERA. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Power, F., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press. Schama, S. (1988). The embarrassment of riches: An interpretation of Dutch culture in the Golden Age. New York: Knopf Inc. Sim, J. B-.Y. (2011). Social studies and citizenship for participation in Singapore: How one state seeks to influence its citizens. Oxford Review of Education, 37(6), 743–761. Spring, J. (2004.) How educational ideologies are shaping global society. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Teodoro, T., & Guilherme, M. (Eds.). (2014). European and Latin American higher education between mirrors: Conceptual frameworks and politics of equity and social cohesion. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Torres, C. A. (2017). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education. New York: Routledge. Touraine, A. (1997). What is democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical-democratic citizenship education: Empowering humanity and democracy in Dutch education. Compare, 37(1), 105–119. Veugelers, W. (2008). Youngsters in transformative and reproductive processes of moral and citizenship education. In K. Tirri (Ed.), Educating moral sensibilities in urban schools (pp. 79–91). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Veugelers, W. (2010). Moral values in teacher education. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 7, pp. 650–655). Oxford: Elsevier. Veugelers, W. (2011a). The moral and the political in global citizenship education: Appreciating differences in education. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 473–485.

Views on Global Citizenship Education

39

Veugelers, W. (Ed.). (2011b). Education and humanism. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Veugelers, W. (2017a). Education for critical-democratic citizenship: Autonomy and social justice in a multicultural society. In N. Aloni & L. Weinrob (Eds.), Beyond bystanders: Educational leadership for a humane culture in a globalizing reality (pp. 47–59). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Veugelers, W. (2017b). The moral in Paulo Freire’s educational work. Journal of Moral Education, 46, 412–421. Veugelers, W., De Groot, I., Llomovatte, S., & Naidorf, J. (2017). Higher education, educational policy and citizenship education. Education and Society, 35(1), 27–42. Veugelers, W., De Groot, I., & Stolk, V. (2017). Research for cult committee: Teaching common values in Europe. Brussels: European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policy. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Zizek, B., Garz, D., & Nowak, E. (Eds.). (2015). Kohlberg revisited. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

2

Critical Global Citizenship Education in Canada, England, and the United States Interrogating (In)justice and Self-reflexivity in Teacher Education Programs Jennifer K. Bergen, Sharon A. Cook, and Lorna R. McLean

Introduction The rise in interest and research in civic education in Canada and internationally over the past two decades (Hébert, 2002; Hughes, Print, & Sears, 2010) has been accompanied by research and advocacy for global, critical, postcolonial, and social justice-oriented forms of civic education (Abdi, Shultz, & Pillay, 2015; Andreotti & de Souza, 2012; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Leonardo & Vafai, 2016; Pashby, 2012; Peterson, Hattam, Zembylas, & Arthur, 2016; Stein & Andreotti, 2016). Civic education is often cited as one of the primary rationales for publicly funded schooling in Western democracies, where students learn about civic responsibility and, in particular, about the national values required to promote unity amongst a nation’s citizens (Dewey, 1916). Many justice-oriented, anti-oppressive, and anti-racist scholars and educators, however, are critical of the ways that public schools in Canada continue to uphold and promote uncritical engagement with settler colonial government structures (Battiste & Semaganis, 2002). Educators and theorists ask what civic education that resists and dismantles the settler colonial legacy of education (Abdi et al., 2015; Andreotti & de Souza, 2012; Pashby, 2012) and promotes social justice in civic education (Leonardo & Vafai, 2016; Peterson et al., 2016) could look like. Whether this increased interest in citizenship education is the result of political rhetoric in Western democracies (Hughes et al., 2010), the rise of globalization (Yemini, 2017), or the neoliberalization of economies (Kennelly & Llewellyn, 2011), these debates affect how curricula is conceptualized and produced, and how teacher candidates are trained and supported (or not) to teach citizenship education (Kennelly, 2009; Phelan, Pinar, Ng-A-Fook, & Kane, 2020; Wilkinson, 2007). Reid, Gill, and Sears (2010) assert that there are three main components informing these debates: 1) the structure, funding, and supports accorded by the state for civic education; 2) the formal civics curricula; and 3) the culture and processes that are used to teach these curricula (including pedagogical

Education in Canada, England, and the US

41

choices, relationships between students and teachers, and classroom and school structures). Although much attention has been paid to formal curricular standards, less research has explored how teacher candidates, in their teacher certification programs, are taught to navigate teaching civics, and the role that their own civic identities have in this process (Chin & Barber, 2010). This latter component of the debate, combined with the structure of civic education as defined by the state, is the focus of this chapter. Teachers’ own identities (Chin & Barber, 2010; McLean & Truong-White, 2016), racial consciousness (Levine-Rasky, 2006; Solomon, Portelli, Daniel, & Campbell, 2005), and civic knowledge (Butler & Milley, in press), all influence how civic education is taught (Cone, 2012; Journel, 2013; Milner & Lewis, 2011; McLean, Cook, & Crowe, 2008; Urrieta & Reidel, 2008). If civic education pedagogy in teacher education programs ignores the sociopolitical context of teaching and fails to enable teacher candidates to understand their own social positioning in relation to inequitable power structures, these omissions will affect the conceptions of civic education encouraged by teacher education programs, the ability of teacher candidates to forge ethical relationships as a basis for civic action (Andreotti, 2010; Dion, 2007; St. Denis, 2007), and subsequent pedagogical development by teacher candidates. Given the gap between visible minority student populations and overwhelmingly White teaching forces in Canada (Ryan, Pollock, & Antonelli, 2009), the United States (Sleeter, 2017), and England (Miller, 2016), without an interrogation of structural injustice, teacher education programs risk reproducing teachers that will reinscribe inequitable structures (Dei, 2001) and promote conceptions of civic education that primarily serve White citizens (Urrieta & Reidel, 2008). The purpose of this chapter is to examine some examples of the pedagogical practices that aim to prepare teacher candidates to teach civic education. Through this investigation, we seek to answer the following questions: 1.

2.

What are the major initiatives that exist in teacher certification programs to prepare teacher candidates to enact justice-oriented citizenship pedagogies in Canada, England, and the United States? What characteristics of these pedagogies make them ‘soft’ or ‘critical’ initiatives, based on their goals, recognition of structural injustice, attention paid to self-reflexivity, and definitions of citizenship engagement?

In order to frame our discussion of the teacher education citizenship initiatives in three countries, we first ofer definitions of citizenship and global citizenship education and briefly discuss major critiques of these fields. Next, we outline the conceptual framework that we draw on to analyze the initiatives to place them on a spectrum of ‘soft’ to ‘critical’ initiatives (Andreotti, 2006). For the purposes of this review, citizenship and global citizenship eforts in teacher education are analyzed together, given the conflation of these concepts in many programs (Yemini, 2017). Next, we briefly outline the relevant

42

Jennifer K. Bergen et al.

educational policy context for Canada, England, and the United States, before describing and analyzing a sample of the initiatives present in each country. In doing so, we argue that the majority of the programs reviewed represent ‘soft’ initiatives, which serve to reinforce injustices, structures of power, and outdated ideas about change. A lesser (but hopeful) number of programs analyzed represent more ‘critical’ initiatives, which aim to prepare teacher candidates to teach for reflexive, justice-oriented, and ethical citizenship and engagement.

Citizenship and Global Citizenship Education While research examining traditional forms of civic education has existed for many decades, journals devoted specifically to citizenship studies, global citizenship education, and decolonizing civic education have only surfaced in the past 10–15 years. In particular, debates concerning citizenship education interrogate civic knowledge, skills, and values, as well as pedagogical approaches to teaching civics. These debates have precipitated research to determine what conceptions of a ‘good’ citizen look like in state-sanctioned curricular systems (Bickmore, 2006, 2008; Journell, 2010; Llewellyn, Cook, & Molina, 2010; Schugurensky & Myers, 2003; Sears, 1994; Sears & Hughes, 2006). Additionally, recent research has examined the civic interests of youth (McLean, Bergen, Truong-White, Rottmann, & Glithero, 2017), and the civic education pedagogy used by teachers (Geboers, Geijsel, Admiraal, & Dam, 2013; Pasek, Feldman, Romer, & Jamieson, 2008; Torney-Purta, 2002). Westheimer and Kahne (2004), for example, developed a schema outlining personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented citizens. Within their research, the personally responsible citizens might recycle and donate to a food bank, the participatory citizen would organize recycling and food drives, and the justice-oriented citizen would investigate the root causes of overconsumption and hunger, respectively (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Global citizenship education, too, has become a field for discussions about what a ‘good’ global citizen should be, and how these conceptions of citizenship are negotiated in curricula and taught in classrooms (Cook, 2008; Mundy & Manion, 2008; Shultz, 2007; Young, 2010). In this area, Shultz (2007) developed a spectrum to define forms of global citizenship, spanning from encouraging a neoliberal global citizen, to a radical global citizen, to a transformationalist global citizen, each with underlying assumptions about how citizens should act. Within Shultz’ model, a neoliberal global citizen values international mobility and individualistic actions, a radical global citizen challenges power structures, and a transformationalist global citizen endeavors to build local and global democratic spaces (Shultz, 2007). These discourses have garnered attention from advocates of critical, postcolonial, and decolonial pedagogy (Abdi et al., 2015; Abdul-Jabbar, 2015; Andreotti, 2010; Au, 2012; Battiste & Semaganis, 2002; Donald, 2012; Giroux, 2004, 2013; Kincheloe, 2008), as certain forms of citizenship education pedagogy do not engage all students equally, specifically those students who experience the effects of oppressive social, economic, and political systems

Education in Canada, England, and the US

43

(Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Mirra, Morrell, Cain, Scorza, & Ford, 2013). In the Canadian and American contexts, specifically, the notion of democratic citizen participation in a settler colonial context is rife with problematic assumptions. As Battiste and Semaganis explain, “current issues of citizenship in Canada carry baggage that again drives First Nations relationships, treaties, and selfdetermination to a bias towards Eurocentric perceptions of citizenship and governance” (2002, p. 93), where students’ cultural knowledge of citizenship is absent or actively contradicted by curricular definitions of citizenship. For countries that have multicultural populations, including Canada, England, and the United States, legal definitions of citizenship are also problematic. Sociopolitical citizenship rights do not extend to all occupants, which can be alienating (Strong-Boag, 2002) and promote unquestioning nationalism in newcomers (Abdul-Jabbar, 2015). Only by understanding citizenship as de-centered from the state can Indigenous, non-Indigenous, and newcomer citizens participate in ethical, community- and culturally-affirming ways.

Conceptual Framework Given the well-founded critiques levelled against citizenship education and global citizenship education alike (Harshman, Augustine, & Merryfield, 2015; Pashby & Andreotti, 2015; Shultz, Abdi, & Richardson, 2011), we engage with a conceptual framework proposed by Andreotti (2006) that endeavors to account for these critiques. Andreotti argues that teacher educators must employ a postcolonial way of thinking about citizenship education, positioning some initiatives as ‘soft’ and others as ‘critical’. ‘Soft’ citizenship education initiatives continue to promote individualistic solutions to problems of inequality and fail to attempt to critique the structural roots of such problems. They reinforce Eurocentric ways of viewing the world, and often silence multiple ways of knowing while entrenching binary ideas about power. On the other end of the spectrum, ‘critical’ initiatives seek to equip students with the language to talk about dismantling hegemonic, ethnocentric, ahistorical, apolitical, and paternalistic structures (both more broadly and as part of their own ways of thinking) (Pashby & Andreotti, 2015, p. 12). These critical initiatives do not seek to prescribe ways of acting or engaging, and focus on “continuous deconstruction and hyper-self-reflexivity as a way to de-center the self in its encounter with those who live in very different contexts from oneself ” (Pashby & Andreotti, 2015, p. 13). To critically analyze citizenship and global citizenship education initiatives in some of the teacher education programs in Canada, England, and the United States, we draw upon Andreotti’s spectrum of ‘soft’ to ‘critical’ approaches to guide grouping, comparing, and contrasting the programs reviewed in this chapter. Andreotti’s typology describes 16 areas for comparison (for full descriptions of these categories, please see Appendix, Andreotti, 2006). Our analytic focus consults many of these areas, including how the initiatives frame the nature of the ‘problem’, justifications for positions of privilege (within

44

Jennifer K. Bergen et al.

cisheteropatriarchy, settler colonialism, and neoliberalism), grounds for acting, and ways of understanding interdependence. In some cases, we also probe how programs define what needs to be changed about these systems, why systems need to be changed, what individuals can do, and how change happens in each type of initiative (Andreotti, 2006). Canada In Canada, Kindergarten to Grade 12 (K–12) curricula are developed by provincial and territorial Ministries of Education and can vary dramatically from region to region. Many provinces and territories include civic education in their social studies courses, whereas others have optional civics courses as stand-alone subjects (including British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec). As Faculties of Education across the country adapt to train their teacher candidates to teach these provincial curricula, teacher certification programs vary substantially in their pedagogical foci, core subject matter, practica placements, and program length (Christou, 2017). In addition, the Accord on Indigenous Education, signed by Deans of Education in 2010, underscored the importance of incorporating Indigenous content and pedagogies into teaching (Blimkie, Vetter, & Haig-Brown, 2014), particularly in social studies courses, where civic education often takes place. The release of the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRCC, 2015) further stressed the need for teachers to interrogate historical and ongoing settler colonialism in educational contexts. Educators, and the post-secondary programs that train new teachers, are called upon to take seriously their responsibility to teach, and prepare to teach, in anti-racist and anticolonial ways, including about the history of the attempted and ongoing genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Canada (NIMMIWG, 2019; Starblanket, 2018). As a result of these factors, efforts to prepare teacher candidates to teach civic education vary greatly across the country. Based on recent studies, Canada’s civics classrooms frequently identified using teacher-directed activities in the classroom (Evans, 2006; Llewellyn et al., 2010; Tupper & Cappello, 2012). That said, teachers often recognized that civics should use more student-centered and deliberative-based teaching strategies (Evans, 2006; Losito & Mintrop, 2001). Teachers report, however, that they do not have the training or resources needed to teach in more student-centered ways (Hughes et al., 2010), are intimidated by the use of child-centered pedagogical approaches (McLean et al., 2008), or are disheartened by public opinion and perceived curricular restrictions (Schweisfurth, 2006). In terms of citizenship education that endeavors to incorporate Indigenous perspectives, teacher candidates reported being uncomfortable integrating these perspectives into their teaching (Deer, 2013) and claim ignorance or not knowing ‘how’ to teach the treaties (Tupper, 2011). Canada’s range of citizenship education initiatives in teacher certification programs fall on various points along Andreotti’s (2006) ‘soft’ to ‘critical’

Education in Canada, England, and the US

45

continuum. On the ‘softer’ end of the spectrum are community service-learning placements that do little in the way of reflection on individual privilege and structures of power. Observations of teacher candidates during a 120-hour service-learning practicum at a community organization (Maynes, Hatt, & Wideman, 2013) and during an international service-learning practicum (Larsen & Searle, 2017) both revealed that although the teacher candidates’ awareness of social inequality increased, the authors were skeptical of the depth of analysis and future engagement possibilities. In one case, the authors reported that “93% [of teacher candidates] felt they could make a difference in their community” (Maynes et al., 2013, p. 90), but concluded that more space and time for reflection might have aided in the transformational nature of the experience. It is also unclear from these studies if teacher candidates’ commitments to future community involvement were motivated by an attitude of ‘helping’, or through an analysis of their own positions in perpetuating structures of power (Andreotti, 2006). Studies of teacher candidates’ perspectives during the infusion of Indigenous content and pedagogies into their teacher education programs typically contained both ‘soft’ and ‘critical’ elements (Blimkie et al., 2014; Kanu, 2011). Teacher candidates in these programs were exposed to content that contradicted what they had been previously taught, allowing them to challenge their assumptions about diverse students. In one study, 75% of teacher candidates reported incorporating Indigenous content in their teaching placements, but the authors worried about the tokenistic effects of such integrations (Blimkie et al., 2014). Kanu (2011), using a similar integration method within an English and social studies methods course, also found that Indigenous perspectives were only added occasionally into largely Eurocentric curricula by teacher candidates. Although these teacher candidates were faced with interrogating their own privilege, their integration of Indigenous perspectives into their practicums may have been motivated more by ‘awareness raising’ than by thinking critically about how to upset a Eurocentric curriculum. Andreotti (2006) warns that a potential problem with these types of citizenship education is that they only reinforce cultural superiority and colonial assumptions by paying limited amounts of attention to cultural minorities. Examples of ‘critical’ initiatives in Canada include teacher candidates looking at structural power dynamics in classrooms, curricula, and their own education programs (Anderson et al., 2015; Kelly & Brandes, 2010; Schick & St.  Denis, 2005; St. Denis, 2007). In one course, students were asked to ‘rewrite’ national and personal narratives regarding their social location based on various identities (race, gender, class, etc.) and reflect on the ongoing implications of these identities within systems of power. Teacher candidates navigated issues of injustice by allowing themselves to feel the discomfort of being a White teacher planning anti-racist activities (Schick & St. Denis, 2005) and by being better positioned to challenge racializations (St. Denis, 2007). Other teacher candidates observed the diversity of student identities and power dynamics (including racial and gender dynamics) in their classrooms

46

Jennifer K. Bergen et al.

and designed lessons that would address the dynamics they observed. Teacher candidates reported being more committed to anti-oppressive approaches in their teaching after their practicum experiences (Kelly & Brandes, 2010). In a similar-but-different approach, Anderson et al. (2015) worked with teacher candidates to interrogate the sites of learning about social and environmental justice issues in their own program. The evolution of this project led candidates to consider issues of power and privilege and to brainstorm solutions together. All of these studies describe teacher candidate deliberation about the justification for their positions of privilege, and how their positionality was implicated in the perpetuation of structural injustice. They also positioned social problems as the result of inequality and not due to poverty or a lack of ‘development’, emphasizing that part of what individuals can ‘do’ is to analyze and understand their own position and attitudes in relation to the power structures they encountered (Andreotti, 2006, p.  47). These analyses by teacher candidates demonstrate heightened awareness of the roots of structural injustice, and by implication, a pedagogy that would reflect this in classroom processes. England In England, The Education Reform Act (1988) concentrated curricular development at the national level, reallocating it from a previous design by teachers at the local level. Following a wave of national curricula and the election of the Labour government in the late 1990s, the release of the Report of the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools (the “Crick Report”) in 1998 made citizenship education a priority. In 2000, citizenship education was piloted in select schools, and by 2002 it was a mandatory high school subject for all students (Osler, 2011). In addition, following the Race Relations Act of 2000, citizenship education also became the avenue to teach about racial inequality in British society. However, there is skepticism that the early-2000 versions of citizenship curricula tackled this challenge at all, and the most recently released curriculum (2008) continues to avoid issues of race (Osler, 2011). More recently, Ross and Davies (2018) describe the lack of traction that global citizenship education has received in curricula in the European Union more broadly. Pedagogical approaches in civics classes in England used mainly teacherdirected classroom activities (Evans, 2006; Hughes et al., 2010; Keating, Kerr, & Lopes, 2009; Losito & Mintrop, 2001; Osler, 2011). Losito and Mintrop’s (2001) study of civics teachers’ approaches across Europe found that recitation, textbooks, and worksheets were widely used, and that knowledge transmission was the main goal of many countries’ civic education programs. Keating et al. (2009) confirmed this in the case of England and also observed a heavy reliance on textbooks and note-taking. In a study of civics teachers in England, Osler (2011) reported that some of the teachers used local volunteering and tried to emphasize that student action through project work and community-based learning was needed (Osler, 2011). Teachers also valued participatory learning (Davies, Flanagan, Hogarth, Mountford, & Philpott, 2009),

Education in Canada, England, and the US

47

but faced similar barriers to Canadian teachers: a lack of resources and training to teach in student-centered ways and inadequate professional development to learn these skills (Davies et al., 2009; Hughes et al., 2010). At the same time that the government mandated citizenship, it also allotted 200 seats per year to Post Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) teacher education programs to train civics teachers. In 2005, CitizED was established, a project aimed at coordinating initiatives in citizenship education for teacher candidates (Hughes et al., 2010, p. 302). Despite these national commitments, studies describing teacher candidates’ preparation to teach in support of citizenship in England are sparse. However, there are studies looking at the extent to which teacher candidates felt that their degrees prepared them to teach civic education (Chikoko, Gilmour, Harber, & Serf, 2011; Harber & Serf, 2006; Peterson, Durrant, & Bently, 2015), and country-wide assessments that contain insights about teacher education (Keating et al., 2009). These studies suggest that teacher training for citizenship education in England is on the ‘soft’ end of Andreotti’s spectrum. Harber and Serf (2006) concluded that, apart from the teacher candidates who were training specifically to be civics teachers (for which there are 200 seats per year), none of the other teacher candidates felt adequately equipped to teach democratic citizenship. In a follow-up study, the authors noted that the teacher candidates surveyed were also not prepared to teach controversial issues (Chikoko et al., 2011). Finally, Peterson et al. (2015), in their study of 295 teacher candidates who completed their Post Graduate Certificate of Education, noted that while over 65% of the respondents felt that it was ‘important’ or ‘very important’ to teach young people about civic engagement, only 13% said that they felt prepared to teach civics. In an interview, one respondent noted that during the course of their training there should have been a workshop on citizenship (Peterson et al., 2015, p. 354), signaling the absence of direct experiences with major initiatives that encouraged teacher candidates to think about teaching for democratic citizenship. In addition to minimal citizenship education, in general, in teacher certification programs in England, Keating et al. (2009) reported that in 2008 less than half of current practicing teachers in England had any citizenship education. However, there is evidence that citizenship education for teachers is being taken up on a professional development basis by nonprofit, social, and private organizations. Smith describes this outcome as one of the effects of mandating citizenship education: “goals were not specifically outlined by government guidance, [as a result] foundations and support groups for [citizenship education] began to pop up across the educational landscape” (2016, p.  3) (see Davies, Gregory, & Riley, 2005, for example). The degree to which these initiatives prepare teachers to develop critical citizenship education pedagogical practices, however, is unclear based on these studies. United States Education in the United States is similar to education in Canada, in that curricula are developed at the state level. Unlike Canada, however, the United States

48

Jennifer K. Bergen et al.

has several civics standard documents that were produced as a result of national debates around citizenship, which are included in many history, social studies, and civics courses. In addition, The Civic Mission of Schools project laid out goals and approaches to civic education that have seen “a high degree of consensus across the USA” (Hughes et al., 2010, p. 300). Any lack of national curricula centralization has not hindered the growth of global citizenship education in social studies curricula (Peck & Pashby, 2018, citing Rapoport, 2015). Teacher candidate training is not coordinated across the United States. However, some argue that the influence of a handful of organizations, such as the Center for Civic Education, provide some consistency for training that Canadian Faculties of Education do not have (Hughes et al., 2010). Current teaching methods for citizenship in the United States are described as falling within a continuum of approaches, including those that educate for personally-responsible citizens, for participatory citizens, and for justiceoriented citizens (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Westheimer and Kahne (2004) argue that teachers educating for personally-responsible citizenship was the most common approach amongst programs studied, including pedagogies that encourage honesty, integrity, and patriotism over deeper analysis of social problems. Other scholars contend that issues of race and identity, as they relate to settler colonialism and global citizenship education, are excluded or omitted altogether in classrooms in the United States (Bondy & Johnson, 2018; Leonardo & Vafai, 2016). Initiatives in the United States on the ‘soft’ end of Andreotti’s continuum included service-learning experiences for teacher candidates that served as ‘exposure’ to culturally diverse communities (Cone, 2012; Boyle-Baise, 1998; Boyle-Baise & Kilbane, 2000; Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 2000; Sunal, Kelley, & Sunal, 2009). These initiatives were typically part of multicultural education courses, requiring students to contribute 20–50 hours to a community organization and to reflect on their experiences. Findings indicated that through acting and observing, some teacher candidates moved away from deficit views of students. These initiatives, however, reinforced narratives that some people are part of the ‘problem’, and others (the teacher candidates) are part of the ‘solution’ (Andreotti, 2006). The teacher candidates’ perceptions of democratic education pedagogy did not shift significantly during the course of the projects, and some authors concluded that the teacher candidates “demonstrated a quite shallow understanding of democratic citizenship education” (Sunal et al., 2009, p. 61). In support of this view, Boyle-Baise and Kilbane (2000) recommended that their service-learning projects in the future should investigate the root causes of inequality, provide more opportunities for student teachers to understand their own positionality in relation to power structures, and place a greater emphasis on social change. Examples of initiatives that straddled the middle of the ‘soft’ to ‘critical’ spectrum typically engaged teacher candidates in learning about citizenship through service-learning combined with an interrogation of these experiences through various lenses (Sulentic Dowell, 2008; Tinkler & Tinkler, 2013).

Education in Canada, England, and the US

49

Teacher candidates (who were mostly White students in both studies) participated in service-learning opportunities, such as tutoring and maintaining community gardens with students. The authors assert that the teacher candidates’ perspectives on diversity were expanded and their self-reflexivity increased. Seventy percent of the respondents in one study indicated being more aware of educational inequalities as a result of the program (Tinkler & Tinkler, 2013), and in another study Sulentic Dowel (2008) concluded that teacher candidates developed greater responsiveness to sociocultural issues that face their future students. Both of these initiatives saw teacher candidates reflecting on their experiences and introduced them to reflexive ways of thinking about difference (Andreotti, 2006). Despite this increased awareness, the students’ understanding of these experiences were not located in an analysis of the structures that were causing educational inequalities, which prohibits student teachers from moving past the ‘awareness’ stage towards a ‘responsible and ethical action’ phase in their future pedagogical choices (Andreotti, 2006). The most prominent examples on the ‘critical’ end of the civic education spectrum were those that gave teacher candidates the responsibility of defining the ‘problem’ through a critical pedagogical lens (Ponder, Vander Veldt, & Lewis-Ferrell, 2011; Shultz & Baricovich, 2010; Stenhouse & Jarrett, 2012). Stenhouse and Jarrett’s (2012) Problem Solutions Project and Shultz and Baricovich’s (2010) Social Action Curriculum Projects saw teacher candidates identify problems as a group, brainstorm solutions, implement actions, and write reflections on the process. Projects ranged from a lack of resources and books in elementary schools to hunger rates faced by teacher candidates’ own communities. Findings revealed that teacher candidates felt a sense of empowerment as a result of being engaged in issues that affected their own realities (Stenhouse & Jarrett, 2012). Similarly, Ponder et al. (2011) found that asking teachers to implement a service-learning project in their classrooms enabled them to effectively foster a democratic classroom environment where studentled initiatives could be facilitated to make connections and build partnerships with communities outside of the classroom and to reflect on their own growth throughout the process. In addition, in all of the projects, ethical action was prioritized over ‘exposure’ or ‘awareness’ (Andreotti, 2006). Teacher candidates were learning to teach active citizenship education through addressing injustices that affected their own lives, in addition to the lives of their students.

Conclusion For teacher candidates, the type of citizenship education that they are engaged in during their teacher certification programs will influence the reflexivity of their own identities and the civic education pedagogies that they employ in their future teaching careers. Approaches to implementing citizenship education in teacher education vary according to their national context; England appears to be home to mostly ‘soft’ initiatives, and Canada and the United States also house many ‘soft’ initiatives. However, the latter two countries also

50

Jennifer K. Bergen et al.

have hopeful examples of ‘critical’ initiatives, with approaches that embrace self-reflexive analysis, attend to issues of race and settler colonialism, and work for structural change. As critical inquiries into justice issues, these types of critical civic education require an interrogation of teacher candidates’ own positionality within power structures, which is a crucial part of pedagogical approaches teaching for justice-oriented civic engagement. Although the ‘soft’ civic education initiatives discussed encourage teacher candidate learning in some areas, this learning may unintentionally reinforce social inequalities rather than work to dismantle them. In this way, the goals, design, and implementation of civic education programs for teacher candidates must be carefully considered in order to foster transformative learning experiences.

References Abdi, A. A., Shultz, L., & Pillay, T. (2015). Decolonizing global citizenship education. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Abdul-Jabbar, W. (2015). Reclaiming the citizen and renouncing citizenship. In A. A. Abdi et al. (Eds.), Decolonizing global citizenship education (pp.  131–140). Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Anderson, V., McKenzie, M., Allan, S., Hill, T., McLean, S., Kayira, J., . . . Butcher, K. (2015). Participatory action research as pedagogy: Investigating social and ecological justice learning within a teacher education program. Teaching Education, 26(2), 179–195. Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–51. Andreotti, V. (2010). Glimpses of a postcolonial and postcritical global citizenship education. In G. Elliott, C. Fourali, & S. Issler (Eds.), Education and social change: Connecting local and global perspectives (pp. 238–250). London: Continuum. Andreotti, V., & de Souza, L. (Eds.). (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. New York: Routledge. Au, W. (2012). Critical curriculum studies: Education, consciousness, and the politics of knowing. New York: Routledge. Battiste, M., & Semaganis, H. (2002). First thoughts on First Nations citizenship: Issues in education. In Y. M. Hebert (Ed.), Citizenship in transformation in Canada (pp. 93–111). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bickmore, K. (2006). Democratic social cohesion (assimilation)? Representations of social conflict in Canadian public school curriculum. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(2), 359–386. Bickmore, K. (2008). Social justice and the social studies. In L. Levstik & C. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 155–171). New York: Routledge. Blimkie, M. M. F., Vetter, D., & Haig-Brown, C. (2014). Shifting perspectives and practices: Teacher candidates’ experiences of a First Nation, Métis, and Inuit infusion in mainstream teacher education. Brock Education Journal, 23(2), 47–66. Bondy, J. M., & Johnson, A. (2018). Race, national exclusion, and the implications for global citizenship education. In I. Davies et al. (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education (pp.  393–408). London: Springer Nature. https://doi. org/10.1057/978-1-137-59733-5 Boyle-Baise, M. (1998). Community service learning for multicultural education: An exploratory study with preservice teachers. Equity & Excellence of Education, 31(2), 52–60.

Education in Canada, England, and the US

51

Boyle-Baise, M., & Kilbane, J. (2000). What really happens? A look inside servicelearning from multicultural teacher education. Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLearning, 7(1), 54–64. Boyle-Baise, M., & Sleeter, C. (2000). Community based service-learning for multicultural teacher education. Educational Foundations, 14(2), 33–50. Butler, J. K., & Milley, P. (in press). Teacher candidates’ policy agency to reframe the meaning of citizenship in the Ontario secondary school curriculum. Canadian Journal of Education. Chikoko, V., Gilmour, J. D., Harber, C., & Serf, J. (2011). Teaching controversial issues and teacher education in England and South Africa. Journal for Education and Teaching, 37(1), 5–19. Chin, K., & Barber, C. E. (2010). A multi-dimensional exploration of teachers’ beliefs about civic education in Australia, England, and the United States. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(3), 395–427. Christou, T. M. (Ed.). (2017). The curriculum history of Canadian teacher education. New York: Routledge. https://doi-org.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/10.4324/9781315411378 Cone, N. (2012). The effects of community-based service learning on preservice teachers’ beliefs about the characteristics of effective science teachers of diverse students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(8), 889–907. Cook, S. A. (2008). Give peace a chance: The diminution of peace in global education in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(4), 889–914. Davies, I., Flanagan, B., Hogarth, S., Mountford, P., & Philpott, J. (2009). Asking questions about participation. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 4(1), 25–39. Davies, I., Gregory, I., & Riley, S. C. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of citizenship in England. In W. O. Lee & J. T. Fouts (Eds.), Education for social citizenship: Perceptions of teachers in the USA, Australia, England, Russia, and China (pp. 131–173). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Deer, F. (2013). Integrating aboriginal perspectives in education: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(2), 175–210. Dei, G. J. S. (2001). Rescuing theory: Anti-racism and inclusive education. Race, Gender & Class, 8(1), 139–161. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Macmillan Company. Dion, S. D. (2007). Disrupting molded images: Identities, responsibilities and relationships— teachers and Indigenous subject material. Teaching Education, 18(4), 329–342. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10476210701687625 Donald, D. (2012). Forts, colonial frontier logics, and Aboriginal-Canadian relations: Imagining decolonizing educational philosophies in Canadian contexts. In A. A. Abdi (Ed.), Decolonizing philosophies of education (pp. 91–111). Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Evans, M. (2006). Educating for citizenship: What teachers say and what teachers do. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(2), 410–435. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. Geboers, E., Geijsel, F., Admiraal, W., & Dam, G. (2013). Review of the effects of citizenship education. Educational Research Review, 9, 158–173. Giroux, H. (2004). Critical pedagogy and the postmodern/modern divide: Towards a pedagogy of democratization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 31–47. Giroux, H. (2013). On critical pedagogy. New York and London: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc. Harber, C., & Serf, J. (2006). Teacher education for a democratic society in England and South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 986–997.

52

Jennifer K. Bergen et al.

Harshman, J., Augustine, T., & Merryfield, M. (Eds.). (2015). Research in global citizenship education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Hébert, Y. M. (Ed.). (2002). Citizenship in transformation in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Inc. Hughes, A. S., Print, M., & Sears, A. (2010). Curriculum capacity and citizenship education: A comparative analysis of four democracies. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(3), 293–309. Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 77–96. Journell, W. (2010). Standardizing citizenship: The potential influence of state curriculum standards on the civic development of adolescents. PS, Political Science & Politics, 43(2), 351–358. Journell, W. (2013). What preservice social studies teachers (don’t) know about politics and current events—and why it matters. Theory and Research in Social Education, 41, 316–351. Kahne, J., & Sporte, S. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738–766. Kanu, Y. (2011). Integrating aboriginal perspectives into the school curriculum: Purposes, possibilities, and challenges. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Keating, A., Kerr, D., & Lopes, J. (2009). Embedding citizenship education (CE) in secondary schools in England (2002–2008), citizenship education longitudinal study: 7th annual report. London: Department for Communities, Schools, and Families. Kelly, D. M., & Brandes, G. M. (2010). “Social justice needs to be everywhere”: Imagining the future of anti-oppression education in teacher preparation. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(4), 388–402. Kennelly, J. (2009). Good citizen/bad activist: The cultural role of the state in youth activism. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 127–149. http:// doi.org/10.1080/10714410902827135 Kennelly, J., & Llewellyn, K. R. (2011). Education for active compliance: Discursive constructions in citizenship education. Citizenship Studies, 15(6–7), 897–914. Kincheloe, J. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Larsen, M. A., & Searle, M. J. (2017). International service learning and critical global citizenship: A cross-case study of a Canadian teacher education alternative practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 196–205. Leonardo, Z., & Vafai, M. M. (2016). Citizenship education and the colonial contract: The elusive search for social justice in US education. In A. Peterson, R. Hattam, M. Zembylas, & J. Arthur (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of education for citizenship and social justice (pp. 613–634). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Levine-Rasky, C. (2006). The practice of whiteness among teacher candidates. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 10(3), 263–284. http://doi.org/10.1080/ 09620210000200060 Llewellyn, K. R., Cook, S. A., & Molina, A. (2010). Civic learning: Moving from the apolitical to the socially just. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(6), 791–812. Losito, B., & Mintrop, H. (2001). The teaching of civic education. In J. Torney-Purta (Ed.), Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen (pp. 157–173). Amsterdam: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Education in Canada, England, and the US

53

Maynes, N., Hatt, B., & Wideman, R. (2013). Service learning as a practicum experience in a pre-service education program. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(1), 80–99. McLean, L. R., Bergen, J., Truong-White, H., Rottmann, J., & Glithero, L. (2017). Far from apathetic: Canadian youth identify the support they need to speak about and act on issues. Citizenship, Teaching, and Learning, 12(1), 91–108. McLean, L. R., Cook, S. A., & Crowe, T. (2008). Imagining global citizens: Teaching peace and global education in a teacher-education programme. Citizenship, Teaching and Learning (UK), 4(1), 50–64. McLean, L. R., & Truong-White, H. H. (2016). Toward self-authoring a civic teacher identity: Service-learning in teacher education. McGill Journal of Education, 51(3), 1081–1101. Miller, P. (2016). “White sanction”, institutional, group and individual interaction in the promotion and progression of black and minority ethnic academics and teachers in England. Power and Education, 8(3), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1757743816672880 Milner, H., & Lewis, J. P. (2011). It’s what happens on the front lines of civic education policy that matters: Reflection on a natural experience on youth turnout in Ontario. Canadian Political Science Review, 5(2), 136–146. Mirra, N., Morrell, E. D., Cain, E., Scorza, D., & Ford, A. (2013). Educating for a critical democracy: Civic participation reimagined in the council of youth research. Democracy & Education, 21(1), 1–10. Mundy, K., & Manion, C. (2008). Global education in Canadian elementary schools: An exploratory study. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(4), 941–974. National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. (2019). A legal analysis of genocide: Supplementary report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. Retrieved from www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2019/06/Supplementary-Report_Genocide.pdf Osler, A. (2011). Teacher interpretations of citizenship education: National identity, cosmopolitan ideals, and political realities. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 1–24. Pasek, J., Feldman, L., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2008). Schools as incubators of democratic participation: Building long-term political efficacy with civic education. Applied Developmental Science, 12(1), 26–37. Pashby, K. (2012). Questions for global citizenship education: Education in the context of the “new imperialism”: For whom, by whom? In V. Andreotti & L. de Souza (Eds.), Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education (pp. 9–26). New York: Routledge. Pashby, K., & Andreotti, V. (2015). Critical global citizenship in theory and practice: Rationales and approaches for an emerging agenda. In J. Harshman, T. Augustine, & M. Merryfield (Eds.), Research in global citizenship education (pp. 9–34). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Peck, C. L., & Pashby, K. (2018). Global citizenship education in North America. In I. Davies et al. (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education (pp. 51–65). London: Springer Nature. Peterson, A., Durrant, I., & Bentley, B. (2015). Student teachers’ perceptions of their role as civic educators: Evidence from a large higher education institution in England. British Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 343–364. Peterson, A., Hattam, R., Zembylas, M., & Arthur, J. (Eds.). (2016). The Palgrave international handbook of education for citizenship and social justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

54

Jennifer K. Bergen et al.

Phelan, A. M., Pinar, W. F., Ng-A-Fook, N., & Kane, R. (2020). Introduction. In A. M. Phelan, W. F. Pinar, N. Ng-A-Fook, & R. Kane (Eds.), Reconceptualizing teacher education: A Canadian contribution to a global challenge (pp. 1–18). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Ponder, J., Vander Veldt, M., & Lewis-Ferrell, G. (2011). Citizenship, curriculum, and critical thinking beyond the four walls of the classroom: Linking the academic content with servicelearning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 45–72. Rapoport, A. (2015). Global citizenship education: Classroom teachers’ perspectives and approaches. In M. M. Merryfield, T. Augustine & J. Harshman (Eds.), Research in global citizenship education (pp. 119–135). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Reid, A., Gill, J., & Sears, A. (2010). Forming of citizens in a globalising world. In A. Reid, J. Gill, & A. Sears (Eds.), Globalization, the nation-state and the citizen: Dilemmas and directions for civics and citizenship education (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge. Ross, A., & Davies, I. (2018). Europe and global citizenship. In I. Davies et al. (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education (pp. 21–36). London: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59733-5 Ryan, J., Pollock, K., & Antonelli, F. (2009). Teacher diversity in Canada: Leaky pipelines, bottlenecks, and glass ceilings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 591–617. Schick, C., & St. Denis, V. (2005). Troubling national discourses in anti-racist curricular planning. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 295–317. Schugurensky, D., & Myers, J. P. (2003). Introduction—Citizenship education: Theory, research and practice. Encounters on Education, 4, 1–10. Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Education for global citizenship: Teacher agency and curricular structure in Ontario schools. Educational Review, 58(1), 41–50. Sears, A. (1994). Social studies as citizenship education in English Canada: A review of research. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22(1), 6–43. Sears, A., & Hughes, A. (2006). Citizenship: Education or indoctrination? Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 3–17. Shultz, B., & Baricovich, J. (2010). Curriculum in the making: Theory, practice, and social action curriculum projects. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(2), 46–61. Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 248–258. Shultz, L., Abdi, A. A., & Richardson, G. H. (Eds.). (2011). Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Sleeter, C. E. (2017). Critical Race Theory and the whiteness of teacher education. Urban Education, 52(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916668957 Smith, K. (2016). Curriculum, culture and citizenship education in Wales: Investigations into the curriculum cymreig. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Solomon, R. P., Portelli, J. P., Daniel, B. J., & Campbell, A. (2005). The discourse of denial: How white teacher candidates construct race, racism and “white privilege”. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(2), 147–169. http://doi.org/10.1080/13613320500110519 Starblanket, T. (2018). Suffer the little children: Genocide, Indigenous Nations and the Canadian state. Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press, Inc. St. Denis, V. (2007). Uniting Aboriginal education with anti-racist education: Building alliances across cultural and racial identity politics. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(4), 1068–1092. Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2016). Postcolonial insights for engaging difference in educational approaches to social justice and citizenship. In A. Peterson, R. Hattam,

Education in Canada, England, and the US

55

M. Zembylas, & J. Arthur (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of education for citizenship and social justice (pp. 229–245). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Stenhouse, V. L., & Jarrett, O. S. (2012, Winter). In the service of learning and activism: Service learning, critical pedagogy, and the Problem Solution Project. Teacher Education Quarterly, 51–76. Strong-Boag, V. (2002). Who counts? Late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century struggles about gender, race, and class in Canada. In Y. M. Hebert (Ed.), Citizenship in transformation in Canada (pp. 37–56). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sulentic Dowell, M. M. (2008). Academic service learning as pedagogy: An approach to preparing preservice teachers for urban classrooms. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 1–21. Sunal, C., Kelley, L., & Sunal, D. (2009). Citizenship education in the elementary classroom: Teacher candidates photograph and describe their perceptions. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(1), 33–70. Tinkler, B., & Tinkler, A. (2013). Experiencing the other: The impact of servicelearning on preservice teachers’ perceptions of diversity. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(4), 41–62. Torney-Purta, J. (2002). A school’s role in developing civic engagement: A study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 203–212. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRCC). (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Calls to action. Retrieved March 13, 2020, from http://trc.ca/ assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf Tupper, J. (2011). Disrupting ignorance and settler identities: The challenges of preparing beginning teachers for treaty education. In Education, 17(3), 38–55. Tupper, J., & Cappello, M. (2012). (Re)creating citizenship: Saskatchewan high school students’ understanding of the “good” citizen. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(1), 37–59. Urrieta, L. Jr., & Reidel, M. (2008). Citizenship normalizing and White preservice social studies teachers. Social Justice, 35(1), 91–108. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Wilkinson, G. (2007). Civic professionalism: Teacher education and professional ideals and values in a commercialised education world. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(3), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470701450593 Yemini, M. (2017). Internationalization and global citizenship. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38939-4_4 Young, M. J. (2010). Problems with global education: Conceptual contradictions. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(2), 143–156.

3

The Struggle for ‘Thick’ or Transformative Citizenship A Global Perspective on Educators’ Views on Democracy and Citizenship David Zyngier

Opening Remarks This chapter reports on the research of the international Global Doing Democracy Research Project, (GDDRP) which currently has more than 50 scholars in over 25 countries examining perspectives and perceptions of democracy in education among pre- and in-service teachers, teacher education academics and educators, in general. The focus of the project is on how education supports, cultivates and engages in, and with, democracy. Using a critical pedagogical framework the research compares and contrasts these findings and implications across diverse political contexts, including the old democracies, emerging democracies (those countries coming out of autocratic, military or other dictatorships and/or colonial rule) and what we have termed the new democracies (places and countries that are doing democracy differently as a result of public initiatives found in Latin America). Using a critical pedagogical framework datum from online surveys and focus group discussions, global scholars have collected, between 2008 and 2017, both quantitative and qualitative responses of contrasting understandings of democracy from teachers and pre-service teachers. I begin by outlining the development of the GDDRP, the concepts of thick and thin democracy and why this is important in relation to contemporary debates about the state of civics and citizenship education (CCE), and then explain the conceptual framework of critical pedagogy and methodology. The datum analyzed is discussed in relation to neoliberalism and indicates that the teachers in these studies too often view democracy in a narrow or thin way and that this may impact on their classroom practice where they would be teaching about but not for democracy. A more critical and thicker understanding of democracy is suggested as essential if we desire our students to become active and transformative citizens. As a conclusion I present a reconceptualization of Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004b) “Three Kinds of Citizens” that is expanded to include five distinct kinds of citizenship.

Introduction Reducing the notion of citizenship to a set of dispositions, skills, practices, and ideals that can be “delivered” and then performed by purely conscious rational

‘Thick’ Citizenship

57

subjects in institutions that are often not even organized democratically, not only ignores the tensions of governmentality but also disregards the importance of automatic, non-conscious learning in human cognition. (Fischman & Haas, 2012, p. 185) The most important task the citizens have in any democratic system is voting: they select their own leaders through the electoral process. . . . Participation in elections is perhaps the most common measure of political participation. (Rapeli, 2014, p. 62)

These two opening quotes are clearly in contradiction. They both cannot be correct. The origin of peoples’ beliefs is largely the result of a combination of family and culture, including factors like religion, socioeconomic background and education. While there have been many efforts by past and present regimes to impose their will on the way people should think, this has never lasted very long. On the other hand, there is much research evidence—as well as of course teachers’ own experiences—that demonstrate that education can and does have a much deeper and longer lasting impact on peoples’ beliefs. Unlike religion and family, education is formative and not prescriptive. Educators in general and pre-service teachers in particular, therefore, are an important target-group for this research because of their obvious impact in educating young people; although other disciplines, such as law, medicine, social work, engineering, etc., would also be interesting and important to study. The focus on education, however, provides a more distinct linkage into how concepts and understandings of democracy and citizenship are constructed within schools and the broader education field. This chapter reports on the research arising from the international Global Doing Democracy Research Project1 (GDDRP), which currently has some 50 scholars in over 25 countries examining school educators’ perspectives and perceptions of democracy among pre- and in-service teachers, teacher education academics and educators, in general. Some of these scholars are actively researching while others perform supportive, advisory and consultative roles and tasks. The focus of the project is on how education supports, cultivates and engages in, and with, democracy. Attempting to determine the linkage between education and democracy at the educator level is important as it may have far-reaching implications for the delivery of teaching and learning that subsequently influences how students relate to, and do, democracy (Lund & Carr, 2008; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004b) within the classroom, within the school and, more broadly, at the societal level. While there have been important studies of how school students understand democracy and democratic participation,2 no extensive and comparative study of teachers, pre-service teachers and education faculty has been attempted. There are many online networks created among academics for the exchange and sharing of ideas, but the development of such an online activist research group focused on democracy and democratic education is uncommon if not unique. The project uses a collaboratively developed and locally contextualized

58

David Zyngier

online survey tool to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. Each researcher is responsible for the analysis of the data within the shared critical pedagogical framework (Carr, 2010a). The aim of the research, ultimately, is to compare and contrast these findings and their implications for education policy and delivery of teacher education programs across diverse political contexts, including the old and established democracies (countries such as the USA, Australia, Canada, England), emerging democracies (those countries coming out of autocratic, military or other dictatorships and/or colonial rule such as Argentina, Cyprus Greece, Malaysia, South Africa, Russia, Ukraine) and what we have termed the new democracies (places and countries that are doing democracy differently as a result of public initiatives found in Latin America, Brazil and Uruguay). The Project began as an outcome of the second Doing Democracy by Learning Conference held at OISE (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education), University of Toronto, Canada, in October 20083 where Paul R. Carr, from Montreal Canada, with Gina Thésée (Carr & Thésée, 2009) presented the initial results of their comparative research of Canadian and USA pre-service teachers’ views on democracy. As part of the audience, David Zyngier, from Melbourne Australia, recognized the potential significance of this study for a global research program. By late 2008, a project website had been established (http://doingdemocracy. ning.com), which was available for members only. Financial support for the project was sourced from various university research funds to both maintain and grow the project. The project website facilitated the sharing of documents, active discussion groups, explanatory videos and electronic collaboration—through

Figure 3.1 Map of the Global Doing Democracy Research Project 2017

‘Thick’ Citizenship

59

Figure 3.2 Welcome page of GDDRP website

the website and the odd face-to-face encounter at conferences—as the project grew from an initial handful of interested scholars to over 50 academic researchers, project advisors and supporters. Researchers were invited to join the project by Carr and Zyngier, the co-directors, or were recommended by other participants. Building on the original research conducted with a sample of education-students in the United States and Canada (Carr, 2007, 2008), a pilot Australian study (Zyngier, 2009) sought to understand the differences between pre-service teachers, in-service teachers and education academics in Australia in their understanding and teaching of democracy. Today, the Project has spread to every continent far beyond the scope of the original surveys and has also been awarded major research funding by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada ($265,000) and the Australian Research Council ($366,000) as well as various faculty small grants in different institutions.

The Need to Understand the Perspectives, Experiences and Perceptions of Teachers in Relation to Democracy in Education Democracy is an unfinished project . . . [that it is] not only about a better form of government, more transparent and participatory governance, and more fair

60

David Zyngier and equitable policies. It is also an ongoing process of community building, of healthier relations with other community members and with nature. (Schugurensky, 2013, p. xi)

Studying the perspectives, experiences and perceptions of educators, and how they understand cultivate and anchor democracy within the educational experience has, apart from small case studies (Osler, 1997), not been attempted before. Such research should be considered to be an important piece of the equation in the development of a more participatory, empowered and engaged citizenry, thereby safeguarding democratic society. Contemporary debates about citizenship are not just about who is and is not a citizen, but ask: Is citizenship a status or a practice? Does citizenship liberate or control populations? Is citizenship only national or could it also be cosmopolitan and transnational? (Fischman & Haas, 2012, p. 171). Democracy means many things to many people. The research project that this chapter reports on seeks a more robust, critical, thicker interpretation of what democracy is, what it should be, and, significantly, how it can be beneficial to all peoples (Carr, 2010b). Our research critiques the belief that elections are the key component to building a democracy. The research of the author and associates and others over the past several years has raised the pivotal concern of the role of education in forming, buttressing, cultivating and sustaining a meaningful, critical democratic experience for all sectors of society (Banks, 2001; Lund & Carr, 2008; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004c). The shift toward and acceptance of market-based neoliberalism in education has had a wide range of effects and consequences on society which are well-documented and accepted (Porfilio & Carr, 2010). Democracy incorporates strong participatory and deliberative elements in which citizens are engaged at local and national levels in a variety of political activities and regard discourse, debate and deliberation as essential conditions for reaching common ground and arbitrating differences among people in a large multicultural society Participatory citizenship expects every member of the community to participate in self-governance which ultimately leads to the building of a strong democracy (Green, 1999). Deep or thick democracy goes beyond just the formal institutional framework that outlines or governs how society should function and is a set of structures, concepts, habits and practices that reach out to the community as well as to the very core of individuals—there is an element of interconnectedness with the community where people are able to voice their opinion freely and also to learn from others about creating spaces for social transformations by including voices of the under or disenfranchised and not focusing only on the needs, aspirations and prosperity of the selected few—the elites (Green, 1999). Democracy must be constantly cultivated, conceptualized and reworked, with less dependence on the formal political process and cycle of elections and more on critical engagement in developing the conditions for emancipation,

‘Thick’ Citizenship

61

enhanced power relations and epistemological discovery that may lead to some of the virtues that are commonly extolled when discussing democracy (freedom, liberty, rights, common virtues, etc.). Critical pedagogy offers a framework to understand political literacy and social transformation, in which static representations of power, identity and contextual realities are rejected (Darder & Miron, 2006; Denzin, 2009; McLaren & Kincheloe, 2007). This is not about providing a checklist against which one can determine the level of democracy within a given society (Carr, 2008), rather, it is concerned with oppression and marginalisation at all levels and seeks to interrogate, problematize and critique power and inequitable power relations. The traditional approach in civics/citizenship education in schools focuses on an understanding of formal political structures and is often isolated to a single unit of study in primary and/or secondary education. Preliminary research undertaken by team members in this project underscores how educators in Canada, the United States, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia and Australia have, generally, only a superficial conceptualization of democracy (Paul R Carr, 2010a; Carr, Zyngier, & Pruyn, 2012; Westheimer, 2008). The data analyzed here comes from a wide range of countries and contexts collected since 2008. We seek to understand, complexify and contextualize how those involved in school education comprehend, experience, perceive and implement democracy in education. Attempting to determine the linkage between education and democracy at the educator level is important, as we believe that it may have far-reaching implications for the delivery of teaching and learning that subsequently influences how students relate to, and do, democracy (Lund & Carr, 2008; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004c) within the classroom, within the school and, more broadly, at the societal level. The discourses over democracy have been variously characterized in terms of representative versus participatory democracy,4 with the former highlighting thin electoral processes, and the latter focusing on thick critical engagement and social justice. The notion of thick and thin democracy attributed to Gandin and Apple (2002) builds on the seminal work of Barber (Barber, 1984, 2004), who raised pivotal questions on the saliency of liberal democracy, including the tension between individualism and the rights of all citizens framed by concepts of shallow and deep democracy, suggesting that participatory citizenship demands every member of the community participates in selfgovernance which ultimately could lead to the building of a strong democracy. This tension has been problematic and even disenfranchising for many citizens. What Furman and Shields (2005) call ‘deep democracy’ attaches “significant value to such goods as participation, civic friendship, inclusiveness and solidarity” (p. 128). Deep or thick democracy, according Furman and Shields, espouses a number of principles that champion individual rights and responsibility within diverse cultural communities in the interests of the common good. In practice, thin democracy is exemplified in activities such as students contributing to a food drive, whereas thick democracy would explore why people are hungry (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004c). Through the notion of thin versus

62

David Zyngier

thick democracy, we conceptualize the visible tension between the superficial features often associated with teaching about democracy and the fundamental scaffolding that permits people to appropriate the deeper meaning of the term teaching for democracy. Bolstering efforts to teach through the academic disciplines—whether pursued through high-stakes exams or well-crafted curriculum frameworks—is insufficient to further the goals of teaching for democracy (Davies & Issitt, 2005).

New Civics as Thin Democracy In many countries today, this tension in school education has played out in their various CCE programs. The rhetoric of active participation found in these programs usually is “not achieved in the activities that are provided for school students” (Davies & Issitt, 2005, p.  404). Dejaeghere and Tudball (Dejaeghere & Tudball, 2007) conclude that most recent assessments of CCE programs suggest that “further work is required to promote depth and breadth” (p. 41). The lack of agreement around the philosophical and practical applications of education for democracy led to the exclusion of concerns about social justice from the material distributed nationally to every school which was orientated towards a thin understanding of democracy. Giroux (2006) boldly states that Democracy cannot work if citizens are not autonomous, self-judging, and independent—qualities that are indispensable for students if they are going to make vital judgments and choices about participating in and shaping decisions that affect everyday life, institutional reform, and governmental policy. (p. 73) Schwille and Amadeo (2002) in their analysis of the Civic Education Study (Torney-Purta, J., et al., 1999) argue that “as long as parts of the political system aspire to foster active, informed and supportive citizens, schools will be considered a possible means to this end” (p. 105). Schools which model democratic practices in classrooms by creating an open climate for discussing issues are most efective in promoting civic knowledge and engagement in thick ways; however, this is rarely found in schools (Kahne & Westheimer, 2003). Democratic citizenship education is one of the central aims of public schools generally and the social studies curriculum in particular. One has a hard time finding a curriculum document that does not trumpet “the preparation of students for informed citizenship in our democratic society” or words to that effect (Fischman & Haas, 2012). The CCE Project places a “growing emphasis on the promotion of civic awareness and individuals’ rights and responsibilities embedded in discourses of citizenship” (Garratt & Piper, 2008), highlighting the conflicting discourses in approaches to citizenship education (Criddle, Vidovich, & O’Neill, 2004), which “permeate both policy production and policy practices across all levels” (p. 32).

‘Thick’ Citizenship

63

The CCE project emphasises a passive consumption of knowledge about citizenship with a strong historical focus—thin democracy—whereas what is required is more critical and active participation in change, which is labeled as an ‘active citizenship’—thick democracy. Many researchers (Forsyth & Tudball, 2002; Knight, 2000; Tudball, 2005) have extensively critiqued the CCE curriculum for its restricted or thin scope, reflecting the struggle over how democracy is to be perceived. Overwhelmingly we see that the thin conceptions of citizenship of “privilege, education markets and individual choice at the expense of public and democratic purposes for education” (Reid & Thomson, 2003, p. xi) privileging the “aggregation of individual votes . . . [that] endorses hierarchy, elite agency and mass passivity” (Seddon, 2004, p. 173)—that has been dominant. Davies and Issitt argue that CCE “seems in the eyes of policy-makers to be the instrument by which societies can find a way still to cohere in the face of new challenges” and compensate for “civic deficit” (Davies & Issitt, 2005, p. 393), concluding that this form of thin democracy has promoted a pragmatic conservatism.

Conceptual Framework and Methodology Critical Pedagogy (CP) underpins the analytical approach to understanding how democracy is perceived. CP considers how education can provide individuals with the tools to better themselves and strengthen democracy in order to create a more egalitarian, equitable and socially just society. It seeks to empower the powerless and transform those conditions which perpetuate injustice and inequity. Unlike traditional perspectives of education claiming to be neutral and apolitical, CP views all education theory as intimately linked to ideologies shaped by power, politics, history and culture. Using this framework of analysis signals how questions of audience, voice, power and evaluation actively work to construct particular relations between teachers and students and classrooms and communities, illuminating the relationship among knowledge, authority and power. A previously validated instrument (Carr, 2008) was modified for each of the country contexts and then administered anonymously online to educators to identify their beliefs about democracy. It contained approximately thirty open and closed questions in three sections: (1) an introductory section requesting demographic information; (2) questions on democracy and education; and (3) questions on citizenship, social justice and education. We did not define such terms as democracy, citizenship and social justice to participants but, rather, asked them to do so. In addition to providing a quantitative score based on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, the survey instrument invited respondents to expand on their answers.

Participant Countries While the GDDRP continues with its research, this chapter reports on data collected from the following countries: Argentina (Buenos Aires n = 251),

64

David Zyngier

Australia (Victoria n = 450), Brazil (Porte Alegre n = 35, Viçosa n = 314), Canada (British Columbia n = 44; Quebec n = 260), Cyprus (n = 37), Greece (n = 220), Malaysia (n = 45), Netherlands (n = 38), Norway (n = 75), Pakistan (n = 87), Russia (n = 312), Scotland (n = 297), South Africa (Durban n = 25), Turkey (Antioch n = 72), Ukraine (n = 43), and USA (Illinois n = 112, Ohio n = 129).

Findings This section reports on some of the key findings in relation to the particular understandings of democracy and seeks to understand these in relation to the framework of thin and thick democracy. We come to interpret, understand and enact teaching, in our profession, as mediated through our own schooling experiences. Sacristán (1992) elaborates on this point: [There are] several processes or phases of professional socialization. The first professional experience undergone by teachers—which is certainly crucial—is the long period in which they are students, before they choose to be professors and during their professional training. . . . The phase of initial training is, as a matter of fact, the second process of professional socialization, where rules of behavior acquired as students can be consolidated or modified. (As cited in Alliaud & Duschatzky, 1998, p. 24) From a critical point of view, it is crucial to reflect on the ideas of ‘democracy’, ‘citizenship’ and their relation to education that the students bring with them when entering the field, so as to encourage the practice of reflecting on those constructions that foster the development of a liberating practice (Freire, 1974). The challenge is to educate future teachers committed to democratic participation and democracy at school, even though their own school biographies may have failed to foster experiences in that sense. Those who participate in our teacher education classes today will soon be leading groups of students and running educational institutions; they will be referents and role models. For that reason, we need to focus on teaching our students to be capable of undertaking critical revision of internalized patterns and structures in inequitable power. We concur with Giroux (1993), when he states that teachers must create pre-conditions so that the student acquires critical skills, both personal and social, in terms of what they teach, the way in which they teach it and the means by which they can make the knowledge they convey to be worth it and interesting. It is crucial, in both cases, that power is associated with knowledge. (p. 163)

‘Thick’ Citizenship

65

Understanding Democracy The vast majority of participants related democracy to voting as the voice of the people and espoused a thin understanding of democratic principles, suggesting that being actively engaged in democracy is about staying current with political issues through watching or even reading the news. However, across all of the samples, some respondents were also critical of the lack of power the average person has over decisions made by the government in their name. The majority of respondents stated that democracy was about personal freedom of opinion and free and fair elections where governments are chosen by the majority of the people, stating that elections are very important to democracy. This is not surprising, especially in countries where elections historically have been either absent or ‘rigged’. Overall, the majority had a thin conception of democracy with voting and elections as central to democracy, where individual rights are equal in value tothose of the majority or national interests, and a narrow or non-existent engagement with alternatives to mainstream political parties. Approximately 25% nominated voting as the most significant aspect of democracy and 65% highlighted the ‘freedom and right to choose’ as the essence of democracy, while 30% raised issues of equality and fairness. Diversity, when mentioned, was understood in very narrow terms in generally essentialised ways with “limited linkages to .  .  . inequitable power relations” (Paul R. Carr, 2010b). Yet there were also differences. A very limited number in each of the countries indicated a justice orientation (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004a, 2004c) through an understanding that democracy was also about recognition of difference and social justice, highlighting concepts such as “recognition of universal human rights and laws against discrimination; fairness and working towards equality for the people; power vested in the people; a government powered by the people that promotes equality and social justice”. Only 10% raised the concept of ‘power’ that needed to be controlled by the people. It was notable that a number highlighted the requirement to be able to speak freely without fear of retribution or punishment where “everyone has a say . . . when people listen and value your opinion”. Very few respondents raised issues of social justice as being intrinsic to democracy. These indicated an understanding that there is an unequal distribution of power and highlighted an “equal participatory role” where “all citizens have equal input”. This understanding was most common in Norway where their CCE program has a strong focus on social justice, antiracism and equality.

Do You Believe Your Country Is a Democratic Country? While there was a range of views on how democratic their country was, some issues need to be highlighted. About one third indicated that they had serious concerns about the degree of democracy that they experienced in their country with only 20% believing that their country is very democratic. Such

66

David Zyngier

views were more prevalent in the newer democracies such as Russia and Ukraine but also in Argentina, Brazil and Greece where many of the respondents were sceptical about their politicians, commenting about widespread cronyism and corruption. Yet for those who felt their country is very democratic, they explained their decision on the basis of thin conceptions, such as equality of rights, freedom of speech and voting rights. Typical comments often made a comparison to other countries, including: “we are free to vote and speak out on issues that concern us without fear”, “Ours is a fair country”, “we have choice, rights and options in nearly every aspect of the community”, “the government listens to what the majority of people want”; “Everybody is able to have a voice here and there is an equality of opportunity” and “processes are equal, just and fair for all citizens”. These respondents uncritically stressed the importance of elections: “We vote in a fair electoral process”; “Anyone can run for a government position, regardless of policy platform and personal background. Education, information and a legal system are accessible to everyone regardless of personal background, sex, age, wealth” or “nearly everyone can vote”. However, many raised issues in relation to minority groups, especially the treatment of First Nations People, where many commented that these peoples were not a full part of the democratic system. On the other hand, some other respondents were also prepared to exclude minority groups such as Muslims from the democratic process. A significant minority (10%) in almost all countries were prepared to call their state not democratic, highlighting that while “we flaunt that we have freedom of speech, equal rights and are fair to all, you will be thrown in jail before you actually get the chance to speak what you believe is wrong or should be changed”. As stated previously, respondents in the newer democracies were more likely to share this view. Further, many of these mentioned the “class based distribution of power” that leads to a reduced democracy. These reflected a thicker democratic analysis of class and social hegemony. The following is typical of such comments: We live in a pseudo democracy even though we get to vote and have a say it does not go far and is not really taken on board by politicians as they have their own agenda. Underlying our society is still inequality for the colour of your skin, gender and disability until this is rectified we cannot have a true democracy. Another stated that “there are very narrow ideas about education, ways of life, and languages dominating school systems . . . people don’t have full freedom because of their economic or social status”. Typical comments stated that “as a country by and large we fail to cater for the needs of and often ignore the rights of our Indigenous peoples and those groups of people with limited access to the instruments of power (social, cultural and economic capital) such as refugees and migrants” and that “consciously or

‘Thick’ Citizenship

67

not, racism and indirect discrimination is inherent in our societies structures, schooling, workforce”. One stated that: I have difficulty labeling our country a true democracy [because] one particular type of citizen (high-status, white, Christian, high economic capital etc) is being more valued (and more likely to have their wants and needs represented) than other citizens, including those who are vulnerable or disadvantaged. With institutionalized racism and discrimination common in Australia, many citizens are considered “second-rate”, including migrants and their descendants, refugees, indigenous Australians, women, those of low socioeconomic status and those with little cultural, social or financial capital, and it would be inaccurate to state that Australia values every citizen or considers every citizen to be of equal worth. Another added succinctly that “underlying our society is still inequality for the colour of your skin, gender and disability until this is rectified we cannot have a true democracy”. Another questioned the power of money: “The rich can push their views more (too much)”. These respondents, while in a minority, were able to diferentiate between thin conceptions of democracy that emphasize elections and superficial equality of rights and a thicker democracy beyond voting to establish a clear connection with social justice. The following is a typical comment from these respondents: There are many disenfranchised people .  .  . some groups in society are disadvantaged in this system . . . many voices are silenced . . . we still need a lot of work when it comes to our own indigenous people. A very small number also referred to power imbalances between social and economic groups because “the minority hold(s) the power and the voice in major decisions”. The most critical participants who were negative about democracy commented that “full participation (is) often dependent on who you are and where you live”. They referred to the rhetoric of democracy being “strictly reduced to majority vote via a political system which serves to turn the majority of from politics. Our representative system does not include enough public forums or encouragement to be involved in political matters of a public nature”. Similarly, another wrote critically about the unequal distribution of power: “Top 1%’ of population has a disproportionate influence and power over government”; “some people have equal opportunities but many do not— indigenous people and refugees do not have the same opportunities or support so it is not equal and therefore not democratic”; “some groups of society are not treated equally”. Another added that [our people] people do not have decision making power in proportion to how much they are affected by the decisions . . . the wealthy have disproportionate power.

68

David Zyngier Highlighting the superficiality of the choices available within the system, one wrote “that in reality we are dictated by the mainstream—white, middle-class and male—and the assumptions that everyone can access the things that make us powerful, and must necessarily want to, underpins our education and political systems”.

These respondents were also able to highlight the lack of a thicker democracy, and one suggested that we only have a very active democracy when citizens take a stand against government action, and that our society “is not very democratic in its norms and values”. A number also volunteered that they felt there is a strong link between education and democracy. They suggested that: some minority groups can sometimes not have their opinions heard due to a lack of education; many people may also lack the knowledge of the working of this system failing to be beneficial for them . . . it provides a great way of life for those that are educated. Again, this reflects an understanding that power can come with, and from, education. Teaching About and for Democracy We can learn that students have the power and intellect to mold their own education, because it is in fact their doing and their life of lifelong learning . . . democracy is in the way we allow students to un-tap their own inner light and power, and we cannot do that if we are stapled to a standard that is not prioritizing empowerment and critique and change. (Respondent)

While responses to many of the questions in the survey differed dramatically among the respondents, there was a previously unseen congruence with over 70% agreeing teachers should promote a sense of democracy in students. One of those who were unsure (30%) whether teachers should strive to promote a sense of democracy stated that “Class isn’t a democracy; it’s a benign dictatorship. Democracy is an integral part of global history and society so it’s important to learn about it and link knowledge into the broader social framework that democracy is a part”. Another added that “They should [only] educate students on what democracy is” while another worries about bias “as long as it is balanced and they respect the views of others. I don’t think one agenda should be forced but students should hear many voices”. Others, especially common among educators in the USA, were concerned about issues of potential conflicts of interest and bias when dealing with controversial topics stating that “this can be done neutrally though, not trying to influence children one way or another”. Whether one actually does this,

‘Thick’ Citizenship

69

however, one said depends “on whether bias or ignorance influences their presentations”. About one third returned to the importance of teaching about the system, understanding the political and electoral system. “I think students should be made aware of their voting rights, the way our system of government works and what democracy is opposed to” or that “students should be politically aware—they will vote one day”. They reflected the view that “we need to prepare students for the future and educate them about the political system we live within”. Such views reflect a thin understanding of democracy, focussing on the individual and not actual participative action. “Democracy is a very important concept, and if we nurture those values in our students we can continue a legacy of freedom and the fight for equality”. “Teachers are capable of manufacturing or nurturing any value in students is definitely important as students need to understand what happens regarding a democracy”. Others referred back to their definition of democracy, relating this to freedom of speech (but not necessarily to action) so that “it is very important for students to understand that their opinions count”. Those that had a thicker understanding believed that “educating students to be concerned, involved and contributing citizens of our country” was very important because “allowing students to critique and question and write letters to politicians . . . we cannot do that if we are stapled to a standard that is not prioritizing empowerment and critique and change”. One added that it is actually important for teachers to learn that “students have the power and intellect to shape their own lives”. Another added that: If kids start learning early that their voice is important, that their opinion matters and can make a difference, there is more chance that they will be engaged and care about what is happening around them, and this can only create better, more active people and citizens for the future.

Discussion: What Kind of Citizenship Education? Learning About but Not for Democracy How are we to understand and contextualise the contrasting and sometimes contradictory views presented across so many respondents from diverse contexts? Print (2007) argues that the challenge to democracy is not from an external or internal enemy but from its own citizens “who have grown distrustful of politicians, sceptical about democratic institutions and disillusioned about how the democratic process functions” (p. 325). However, he points to the paradox of CCE: “as the demand for democratic citizenship grows, youth participation in formal democracy is declining” (p.  326). He reiterates the importance of “learning about participation . . . developing of political engagement . . . to learn about democracy, government and citizenship . . . to acquire civic knowledge, and skills and values” (p. 336). He concludes that this may “enhance

70

David Zyngier

political knowledge and probably political engagement (p.  336) .  .  . [and] can influence engagement and participation” (p.  337) in the future. Criticising “participatory pedagogy” (p. 338) as weak in schools, Print explains that “engaged or conversational pedagogy” epitomized by “class voting, group inquiry, simulations, fieldwork and co-operative learning” has a strong correlation with future civic engagement. However, this pedagogy may only reinforce the illusion of democracy. What emerges is that too many educators believe that children are required to learn about and not for democracy, and certainly not—at least in a serious way—do democracy. Missing from their comments was a thorough understanding of what is a good citizen. The civics versus citizenship debate can be seen in terms of the struggle between thin and thick democracy. Giroux (2000) suggests that because there has been a shift from responsibility for creating democracy of citizens to producing a democracy of consumers: Public education becomes a venue for making a profit, delivering a product, or constructing consuming subjects, education reneges on its responsibilities for creating a democracy of citizens by shifting its focus to producing a democracy of consumers. (p. 173) Seddon (p. 172) concludes that: Contemporary education policy, practice and politics has become primarily framed within a dominant economic discourse which marginalizes and obscures the political purposes of education necessary to the formation and sustainability of a democratic citizenry. The challenge is to reacknowledge the crucial contribution of political education outcomes in sustaining democracy and to work for a pattern of citizen learning that accommodates necessary learning for work and life-with-risk, and also learning for citizen action that can imagine the democratic ideal, support ethical judgment and protect democratic decision-making. The research of the GDDRP raises concerns that much of the contemporary CCE may actually “pose a significant threat to . . . democracy” (Reid & Thomson, 2003, p. xi). How then can CCE be “remade to serve the purposes of a just and democratic society” (Seddon, 2004)? Countering this requires what she calls a deliberatively thick democracy which “assumes ethical and informed citizens who participate as equals in the public sphere” (Seddon, 2004, p. 171). Thick democracy goes beyond the championing of electoral and legislative processes, rule of law and basic civil rights (Howard & Patten, 2006). It encourages and facilitates the legitimacy of collective citizen and civil action as external to government and business. Thick democracy envisages a ‘social citizen’—an individual always in relationship with others—capable of

‘Thick’ Citizenship

71

reflexive agency (Giddens, 1994). Paradoxically, many of the older democracy exporting countries like the USA are those experiencing crises of democracy at home.5 In contradistinction, the active citizen of neoliberalism is conceived as an entrepreneur and a ‘can do achiever’ to benefit the individual. While schools are expected to prepare students to live in diverse democratic societies (Furman & Shields, 2005), many of the respondents in this research at least indicate that their school practices will be largely undemocratic. Thick democracy must be about “voice, agency, inclusiveness and collective problem solving” that is “rooted in the capacity to see oneself reflected in the cultures of society” (Howard & Patten, 2006, pp. 462–463), and not just in the freedom to pursue one’s own individual self-interest. Howard and Patten (2006) explain that, despite the common rhetoric of active citizenship, there are two perceptible trends within the new civics: the thin neoliberal and the thick(er) radical democratic trends. They suggest that the latter is motivated by egalitarian commitments and “the desire to extend democracy while enhancing the political agency of once marginalized citizens” (p. 459). Being active in this sense means being “socially engaged and committed to collective problem solving at all levels of the political community” (Howard & Patten, 2006, p. 460). Democracy, then, should be more than elections and includes all power-structured social relationships. In essence, they explain that this requires the ability to “navigate and influence the power-structured social relations that characterize the politics of civil society” (Howard & Patten, 2006, p. 460). It would, therefore, be advantageous that educators acknowledge that what is necessary is an equalization of agency for students. Otherwise, this is not possible. Thick democracy actively challenges the view that “unregulated markets are by definition realms of freedom that produce equality of opportunity” with “extensive social and cultural citizenship rights” (Howard & Patten, 2006, p. 461) associated with a politicized empowerment in the social processes that shape society where all are visible and heard despite their social status. Thick democracy must be about “voice, agency, inclusiveness and collective problem solving” (Howard & Patten, 2006, p. 462) and not in the freedom to pursue one’s own individual self-interest. Therefore thick democratic teaching will be concerned with a recognitive, not just redistributive, social justice (Gale & Densmore, 2003). A thick democratic teaching is incorporated in Westheimer and Kahne’s vision that goes beyond the personally responsible citizen urged by Dejaeghere and Tudball (2007) to incorporate both the participatory and justice orientated citizen. Nevertheless, Westheimer and Kahne warn that: While pursuit of both goals may well support development of a more democratic society, it is not clear whether making advances along one dimension will necessarily further progress on the other. Do programs that support civic participation necessarily promote students’ capacities for critical analysis and social change? Conversely, does focusing on social

72

David Zyngier justice provide the foundation for effective and committed civic actors? Or might such programs support the development of armchair activists who have articulate conversations over coffee, without ever acting? (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004a, pp. 242–243)

Thick democracy will not be easily achieved, either in society, generally or in schools, in particular. As the agents of society in which they exist, teachers (rightly) can claim they are, therefore, restricted in what they alone can achieve as the national agendas and budgets are nationally and state controlled. The test for us as educators is to ask questions of, rather than to accept, neoliberal received wisdom. Armstrong (2006) suggests that the definition of teaching as the uncritical transmission of knowledge begs the question of “what and how knowledge is constituted as a social and political stance towards the truth” (Armstrong, 2006, p. 10). Armstrong argues that as participation and dissent are central to democratic life, then these too should be central to school systems that are fundamental to the contestation between a thin and thick democracy. For teachers, These possibilities are revealed through dialogue with our students and in dialogues with the communities of policy and practice with whom we work. We cannot simply be concerned with the accumulation and transmission of knowledge and competencies; it is our duty to interrogate what is meant by knowledge and how it is formed and to understand the limits of competency. As educators we are engaged in a process of human inquiry that makes us human. (p. 10) Can this be done without both “education in and for democracy” (Dobozy, 2007, p. 116)? School students cannot acquire the knowledge, attitudes and skills to successfully become agentic citizens without the simultaneous democratization of pedagogy, schools and school systems. The role-playing of democracy and student parliaments or mock elections—too often recommended in CCE and reflected by the majority of respondents—means too often that students are involved in decision making on “an abstract and often detached level” (Dobozy, 2007). Programs associated with a thin democracy are unable to take the “social organization of specific schools and the everyday life of individual students into consideration” (p. 118). The responses detailed here indicate that it requires a change in educational practice at all levels to “inspire political empowerment” beyond the implementation of of-the-shelf products or programs. This GDDRP’s purpose is to demonstrate how democracy is understood, experienced, cultivated within a comparative educational context. This can have great benefit to educators, scholars, decision makers and others in developing, implementing and assessing democratic education programs, practices and pedagogy in schools. As we compare the cross-national results, we find

‘Thick’ Citizenship

73

both similarities and differences. How are we to understand and contextualise the contrasting, and sometimes contradictory, views? Missing from much of the data has been a thorough understanding of what it means to be a good citizen. Dictatorships such as China and the Democratic Republic of Korea and semi-dictatorships such as Singapore all have elections and all have CCE. The civics versus citizenship debate can be seen in terms of the struggle between thin and thick democracy. As Giroux (2000) suggests, there has been a shift from the responsibility for creating a democracy of citizens to producing a democracy of consumers: Public education becomes a venue for making a profit, delivering a product, or constructing consuming subjects, education reneges on its responsibilities for creating a democracy of citizens by shifting its focus to producing a democracy of consumers. (p. 173) Prior (2006) concludes that the existence of stand-alone unlinked or decontextualised one-of programs does not provide the lasting efects planned for, while the schools were accused by students of ‘talking the talk but not walking the walk’ because teachers were not able to model good citizenship in their practices (p. 125). Many respondents have noted the importance of the concepts such as “sovereignty” and “freedom of speech”. Dissatisfaction with public ofcials, political candidates and the national political context are also frequent. This reality seems to demoralize participants instead of encouraging participation in eforts to change these shortcomings. The notion of “the people” and “the majority” amongst participants are often understood only in abstract terms. It is necessary to deepen such concepts with students—to build on these similarities—to explore how human, social and political rights are held, how they operate and to what ends they are exercised. There are also a number of points of convergence between the samples. While “social rights” and “freedom of speech” were important in all contexts, they held special meaning in the new or emerging democratic contexts owing to the history of military dictatorships that is connected to the “Never Again” ethos. Understandably, “voting” while important in all country samples, held special significance in these contexts owing to the many years of being denied that right. The relationship between democracy and racism appeared to be problematic, where issues of racism in relation to refugees, immigrants and in particular Indigenous peoples were often highlighted as problematic for democracy. It is important to ensure that as educators we reflect on these realities in our teacher preparation contexts, to reflect on the role immigration and racism plays at both a country level and in our students’ lives. This would be a step in the right direction in terms of beginning the resolution of xenophobic, homophobic and other discriminatory problems in schools.

74

David Zyngier

The majority of respondents reflect a reified approach (Freire, 1974) to complex ways of understanding democracy, echoing how it has been presented to them in their own schooling, popular culture or in political movements. Their lack of trust in officials, political candidates and political parties encourages cynicism, sceptical attitudes and indifference. The danger of such attitudes— something we need to problematize in the pedagogy and content of our democracy teaching—is that they might lead teachers to think that if structural democracy does not produce improvements, it is better to return to the past situation (to authoritarianism, silence, inertia or to self-disenfranchisement.)6 This is a potentially dangerous form of cynicism. The responses indicate that it requires a change in educational practice at all levels to “inspire political empowerment” of young people beyond the implementation of off-the-shelf products or programs.

Conclusion Civics-related knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for “becoming a competent democratic citizen” (Schwille & Amadeo, 2002). However, thick democracy has the potential to become the site of struggle for social justice and equity and not necessarily assimilationism (Taylor, 1996). Teachers have a choice between a thicker democracy that is reflective, critical, participatory, tolerant and non-hierarchical and a thinner, authoritarian democracy, based on uncritical knowledge, standards and competencies as the measure of the ‘good citizen’. A thick democracy focuses on “how citizens understand themselves as members of a public with an obligation to promote the public good” (Howard & Patten, 2006, p. 472) and the competencies required of civic citizenship that encompass informed and active citizens participating in political debate and action on equal terms (Reid, 2002). Education needs to assume a “deep democratic engagement” (Reid, 2005, p.  292). The top-down imposition of policies designed by ‘teams of experts’ is incompatible with thick democracy, and must be rejected, if we aspire to the true ideals of democracy, in favor of the active involvement of the least powerful (Reid, 2002). There have been detailed studies of school students’ attitudes to democratic values and participation in society that conclude that while Australian students have a well-developed set of democratic values (Walsh & Black, 2011), they adopt a passive rather than an active style of engaging in conventional citizenship activities. There has not been any commensurate study on pre-service teachers. No claim is being made that the views expressed by these participants are anything more than that and should not be seen necessarily as generalizable to the broader population of each country or context. This current research indicates that the empirical and qualitative data analyzed suggests that practicing educators have a thin conception of democracy and if they indeed are typical of our current teachers then this raises many concerns for the health of democracy and also begs the question about the stickability of teacher education

‘Thick’ Citizenship

75

programs and the acknowledged pressures and influences of the old hands on new teachers to adopt accepted practices. Education, including the use of citizenship education within schools, cannot overcome the lived experiences of students’ lives. On the contrary, school experience too often challenges “the notion of self and identities of large groups of students especially among minorities and those such as refugees, stateless migrants, and others who do not easily fit the traditional definitions of citizens within the nation-state” (Fischman & Haas, 2012, p. 177). A more holistic and dynamic approach—pedagogical, experiential, political, social, economic and cultural—is a necessary step to attaining a more decent society, and to produce citizens who are engaged, critical, and productive agents of positive change. We now propose an extension of Westheimer and Kahne’s seminal typology of three kinds of citizens (personally responsible, participatory and socialjustice oriented) as a result of the research as a continuum of citizenship (Westheimer, 2015; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c):

Figure 3.3 The continuum of democracy

This does not attempt to ‘label’ a person as one or the other on the continuum, on the contrary we recognize that we are very complex in our beliefs (and in our behavior too) and that we can respond to a given situation in many and varied ways. The continuum is cumulative. We have therefore added two additional types of citizens to reflect the views of the participants in the GDDRP more accurately and also expanded and refined Westheimer and Kahne’s original typology as follows in Table 3.1. Again these five citizens are complimentary and cumulative. Preliminary research into the CCE in various countries indicates that their programs are largely focused on the personally responsible and participatory citizen. Those countries that are doing democracy differently—in particular Norway in this study— however have a focus on the social justice-oriented and even the social justice activist citizen. Our research revealed three main findings: 1.

Many participants had a predisposition to understand democracy and politics in a “thin” way.

Feels sorry for the hungry—donates money Citizens keep to themselves & don’t interfere with others

Sample actions

To solve social problems and improve society

Minimizes taxes, keeps their own front yard clean and litter free, and donates blood in exchange for money. Helps family and close friends

Citizens must have good character; be honest, responsible and law-abiding

Pays taxes due, will pick up rubbish in street, and voluntarily donates blood. Helps strangers in need especially during times of crisis Contributes food to hungry

Acts responsibly in the community

Obeys laws

Description

Personally Responsible Citizen

Passively Responsible Citizen

Table 3.1 What kind of citizen? A continuum of democracy

Citizens contribute to community organizations within established systems and community structures

Active member of community organizations Organizes to care for those in need, promotes economic development & clean environment Knows how government agencies work & is involved with them Helps organize a food drive

Participatory Citizen

Critically assesses social, political & economic structures Enacts strategies for change that address root causes of problems Involved in social movements to effect social change Acts to prevent hunger locally & globally Citizens question, critique and act to change established systems and structures that reproduce injustice

Knows about social movements & how to effect social change Tries to find out why some are hungry & others not Citizens actively participate and lead within established systems and community structures

Social-Justice Activist Citizen

Assesses social, political & economic structures Explores strategies for change that address root causes of problems

Social-Justice Oriented Citizen

‘Thick’ Citizenship 2.

3.

77

While not without challenges, it was indeed possible to ‘do democracy’ in education, although most participants did not experience a robust democratic educational experience. It was important to understand “power” and “difference” in relation to democracy.

The research by the GDDRP highlights the following four themes and underscores how educators have only a superficial conceptualization of democracy: 1. 2. 3. 4.

the apparent predisposition among education-students (future teachers) and educators to understand democracy and politics in a thin way; the potential for university education teachers and classroom teachers to do transformative or thick democracy in education; the importance of understanding power and difference in relation to democracy; and the cultivation of a critically and meaningfully engaged educational experiences that links social justice to education and democracy.

Civics-related knowledge is necessary but not sufcient for “becoming a competent democratic citizen” (Schwille & Amadeo, 2002). However, thick democracy has the potential to become the site of struggle for social justice and equity (Taylor, 1996). While neoliberalism seemingly has a stranglehold on education in many of the countries studied so far, it is at least potentially vulnerable— educators have an opportunity to construct a transformative curriculum that includes the following possibilities for advancing education for democracy through: • • • • • • • •

revizing thecurriculum based on social justice as part of the democratic process; moving away from viewing students as insecure ‘objects’ to agentive ‘subjects’; understanding and promoting democracy at both super-structural and micro-structural levels; centralizing the participation of ‘critical citizens’ in the process of becoming more democratic; working for both conceptual and practical understandings of democracy in schools; furthering the awareness of the power of ‘reflection-action’ and praxis; generating contextual teaching spaces; and analyzing mass-media as part of political/democratic literacy.

Further research will provide insight for the broader educational community and will serve to expand knowledge in education. Instead of education reproducing the current thin democracy that leads to disengaged citizens (Dejaeghere & Tudball, 2007), examples of excellent teacher practice would enable

78

David Zyngier

the development of an educational framework of teaching for thick democracy that leads to a more participatory, empowered and engaged citizenry and a more inclusive participation in, and therefore safeguarding of, democratic society. Ongoing research by the members of the GDDRP will not only enable the development of a framework for conceptualizing democracy in education and highlighting, in particular, what educators can do to become more critically aware and engaged in democracy within their teaching, but will also enable better understanding of any correspondence between teacher habitus, their cultural and social capital and their perceptions and beliefs. Schooling can and does contribute to the production of citizens’ identities, but such contribution cannot be controlled or measured in the same way systems assess how much a student has learned about mathematics or literacy in any given year. Citizenship education is: always an educationally unfinished project, an unsolvable tension that cannot be learned and understood through conscious rationality alone and thus not solved through the delivery of explicit instruction on what democracy is and how a good citizen should act. (Fischman & Haas, 2012, p. 174) The GDDRP has, since 2008, undertaken, supported, coordinated and analyzed a range of projects based on the validated research protocol developed for studies in many diverse political and geographical settings, privileging wherever possible the Global South as a place from where the old democracies can potentially gain a renewed understanding about democracy. We expect this research to generate insightful, critical comparative data to allow us to more efectively tease out themes, trends and findings, thus elucidating concerns at a broader international level, which can further facilitate comparative policy, and pedagogical, curricular and experiential analyses. The objective is not replication of our original studies but, rather, to achieve enough saturation into diverse contexts with significant numbers of participants in order to ascertain, with exponentially greater authority, how democracy is perceived, experienced and undertaken in and through education. The GDDRP research demonstrates that “teacher habitus”, how educators experience, perceive, and engage with democracy can impact on their classroom pedagogy. This has serious implications for how future citizens will themselves perceive understand and engage with democracy (Banks et al., 2005; Carr, 2010a). This research draws renewed attention to social justice, democracy, and how these should be central parts of the teacher education curriculum. It is hoped that this project will generate a broader, more inclusive discussion amongst teachers and teacher educators in and among other countries Not only do teachers need to understand and feel confident with teaching the narrow issues in civics education, they must also help students engage with

‘Thick’ Citizenship

79

this political reality and let them know they do have a voice and they can help build a better world.

Notes 1. At this time, we have researchers working on the project in Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Iran, Malaysia, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey, Uruguay, and the USA. The online survey has been translated into these local languages and has been adapted and applied in over 25 international contexts. The comparative analysis of these is an ongoing and major task for the Global Doing Democracy Research Project http://doingdemocracy.ning.com/ Interested readers are encouraged to join the group and will be supported to replicate the study in their context. 2. IEA-CIVED Civic education study 1999 and 2005. 3. This 2008 conference was organized by Professor Daniel Schugurensky. The first conference of the series was held in 2003 in Toronto, and the third took place in Rosario (Argentina) in 2010. The Doing Democracy by Learning Conference attempts to address this gap by bringing together researchers interested in the theoretical and practical intersections between social action learning and participatory democracy as well as their contribution to nurturing an enlightened and active citizenship. Presentations at the Toronto conference examined past or present innovative and progressive practices of transformative citizenship learning and participatory democracy in different settings, including formal and non-formal educational institutions, civil society organizations, municipal governments and workplaces. 4. Others have referred to democratic binaries such as weak and strong (Swift, 2002), passive and active (Criddle, Vidovich, & O’Neill, 2004), minimalist and maximalist (McLaughlin, 1992). 5. The massive youth led unrest of the 2011 Occupy Movement is an example of this phenomenon. 6. In the most recent federal elections in Australia, where voting is compulsory, the highest ever informal vote was recorded and over 1 million mainly young people did not register to vote.

References Alliaud, A., & Duschatzky, C. (Eds.). (1998). Maestros: formación, práctica y transformación escolar. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila Editores. Andriotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review (3): 11. Armstrong, D. (2006). Dreaming our future: Developing democratic professional practice? Australian Educational Researcher, 33(3), 1–11. Banks, J. A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022487101052001002 Banks, J. A., S. Cherry A. Mcgee Banks, Carlos E. Cortés, Carole L. Hahn, Merry M. Merryfield, Kogila A. Moodley, Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu, Audrey Osler, Caryn Park, & Walter C. Parker. (2005). Democracy and diversity: Principles and concepts for educating citizens in a global age. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Center for Multicultural Education. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

80

David Zyngier

Barber, B. R. (2004). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age (20th anniversary ed.). Berkeley, CA and London: University of California Press. Carr, P. R. (2007) Experiencing democracy through neo-liberalism: The role of social justice in education. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 5, 307–341. Carr, P. R. (2008). Educators and education for democracy: Moving beyond “thin” democracy. International Journal of Education and Democracy, 1(2), 147–164. Carr, P. R. and G. Thésée (2009). “The Critical Pedagogy of Understanding how Future Educators Relate to Democracy.” Learning Democracy by Doing: 274. Carr, P. R. (2010a). Does your vote count? Critical pedagogy and democracy. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Carr, P. R. (2010b). Re-thinking normative democracy and the political economy of education. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 1–40. Carr, P. R., Zyngier, D., & Pruyn, M. (Eds.). (2012). Can education make a difference? Experimenting with, and experiencing, democracy in education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Criddle, E., Vidovich, L., & O’Neill, M. (2004). Discovering democracy: An analysis of curriculum policy for citizenship education. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 27(1), 27–41. Darder, A., & Miron, L. F. (2006). Critical pedagogy in a time of uncertainty: A call to action. Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies, 6(1), 5–20. Davies, I., & Issitt, J. (2005). Reflections on citizenship education in Australia, Canada and England. Comparative Education, 41(4), 389–410. Dejaeghere, J. G., & Tudball, L. (2007). Looking back, looking forward: Critical citizenship as a way ahead for civics and citizenship in Australia. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 40–57. Denzin, N. K. (2009). Critical pedagogy and democratic life or a radical democratic pedagogy. Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, 9(3), 379. Dobozy, E. (2007). Effective learning of civic skills: Democratic schools succeed in nurturing the critical capacities of students. Educational Studies, 33(2), 115–128. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03055690601068279 Fischman, G. E., & Haas, E. (2012). Beyond idealized citizenship education embodied cognition, metaphors, and democracy. Review of Research in Education, 36(1), 169–196. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X11420927 Forsyth, A., & Tudball, L. (2002). Listening to the voices of teachers: How should we define and implement civics and citizenship education in the future? Paper presented at the Australian Association of Research in Education Annual Conference, Brisbane University of Queensland. Retrieved from www.aare.edu.au/02pap/for02438.htm Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Furman, G. C., & Shields, C. M. (2005). How can educational leaders promote and support social justice and democratic community in schools. In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for educational leadership (pp. 119–137). New York: Teachers College Press. Gale, T., & Densmore, K. (2003). Engaging teachers: Towards a radical democratic agenda for schooling. Maidenhead and Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill Open University. Gandin, L. A., & Apple, M. W. (2002). Thin versus thick democracy in education: Porto alegre and the creation of alternatives to neo-liberalism. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 12(2), 99–116. Garratt, D., & Piper, H. (2008). Citizenship education in England and Wales: Theoretical critique and practical considerations. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(5), 481–496.

‘Thick’ Citizenship

81

Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell. Giroux, H. A. (1993). La escuela y la lucha por la ciudadanía. México: Siglo XXI. Giroux, H. A. (2000). Stealing innocence: Youth, corporate power and the politics of culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Giroux, H. A. (2006, Fall). Higher education under siege: Implications for public intellectuals. Thought & Action The NEA Higher Education Journal, 63–78. Green, J. M. (1999). Deep democracy: Community, diversity, and transformation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Howard, C., & Patten, S. (2006). Valuing civics: Political commitment and the new citizenship education in Australia. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(2), 454–475. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2003). Teaching democracy: What schools need to do. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 34–68. Knight, T. (2000). Longitudional development of educational theory: Democracy and the classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Conference Australian Association Research in Education, The University of Sydney. Retrieved from www.aare.edu.au/00pap/ kni00515.htm Lund, D. E., & Carr, P. R. (2008). Doing democracy: Striving for political literacy and social justice. New York: Peter Lang. McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. (Eds.). (2007). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? New York: Peter Lang. McLaughlin, T. H. (1992). “Citizenship, Diversity, and Education: A Philosophical Perspective.” Journal of Moral Education, 21(3), 235–250. Osler, A. (1997). Black teachers and citizenship: Researching differing identities. Teachers and Teaching, 3(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354060970030104 Porfilio, B. J., & Carr, P. R. (2010). Youth culture, education and resistance: Subverting the commercial ordering of life. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Print, M. (2007). Citizenship education and youth participation in democracy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(3), 325–345. Prior, W. (2006). Civics and citizenship education. Ethos, 14(4), 6–10. Rapeli, L. (2014). What should the citizen know about politics? Two approaches to the measurement of political knowledge. Democratic Theory, 1(1), 58–93. http://doi. org/10.3167/dt.2014.010104 Reid, A. (2002). Public education and democracy: A changing relationship in a globalizing world Reid A. Journal of Education Policy, 17(5), 571–585. Reid, A. (2005). Rethinking the democratic purposes of public schooling in a globalizing world. In M. W. Apple, J. Kenway, & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education: Policies, pedagogies, & politics (p. vii, 311 p.). New York: Peter Lang. Reid, A., & Thomson, P. (2003). Introduction: What’s public about curriculum? In A. Reid & P. Thomson (Eds.), Rethinking public education: Towards a public curriculum (pp. i–xxvii). Brisbane: Post Pressed Australian Curriculum Studies Association. Sacristán, J. F. G. (1992). Profesionalización docente y cambio educativo. In A. Allard & C. Duschatzk (Eds.), Maestros: formación, práctica y transformación escolar Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila Editores. Schugurensky, D. (2013). Foreward. In A. Abdi & P. R. Carr (Eds.), Educating for democratic consciousness: Counter-hegemonic possibilities (pp. i–xii). New York: Peter Lang. Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (2002). The paradoxical situation of civic education in schools: Ubiquitous and yet exclusive. In G. Steiner-Khamsi, J. Torney-Purta, & J. Schwille (Eds.), New paradigms and recurring paradoxes in education for citizenship: An international comparison (Vol. 5, pp. 105–136). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

82

David Zyngier

Seddon, T. (2004). Remaking civic formation: Towards a learning citizen? London Review of Education, 2(3), 171–186. Taylor, A. (1996). Education for democracy: Assimilation or emancipation for aboriginal Australians? Comparative Education Review, 40(4), 426–438. Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (eds.). (1999). Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IEA Secretariat. Tudball, L. (2005). Changing constructions of ‘social education’ in Victoria: New challenges for teachers. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Research in Education Annual Conference, Parramatta. Retrieved from www.aare.edu.au/05pap/tud05657.pdf Walsh, L., & Black, R. (2011). In their own hands: Can young people change Australia? Camberwell: ACER Press. Westheimer, J. (2008). No child left thinking: Democracy at-risk in American schools (Vol. 17). Ottowa: University of Ottawa. Westheimer, J. (2015). What kind of citizen?: Educating our children for the common good. New York: Teachers College Press. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004a). Educating the “good” citizen: Political choices and pedagogical goals. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37(2), 241–247. https://doi. org/10.1017.S1049096504004160 Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004b). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004c). What kind of citizen?: The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Zyngier, D. (2009). Doing Democracy: A comparative analysis of pre-service teacher educators in Australia, Canada and the USA Paper presented at the American Education Studies Association, Pittsburgh, PA.

Appendix

Soft versus critical citizenship education spectrum (Andriotti, 2006, pp. 46–48)  

Soft Citizenship Education

Critical Citizenship Education

Inequality, injustice. Complex structures, systems, assumptions, power relations and attitudes that create and maintain exploitation and enforced disempowerment and tend to eliminate difference. Benefit from and control over Justification for ‘Development’, ‘history’, unjust and violent systems and positions of education, harder work, privilege (in the structures. better organization, North and in the better use of resources, South) technology. Justice/complicity in harm. Basis for caring Common humanity/ Responsibility TOWARDS being good/sharing and the other (or to learn with the caring. Responsibility FOR the other (or to other) accountability. teach the other). Political/ethical (based on Grounds for acting Humanitarian/moral normative principles for (based on normative relationships). principles for thought and action). Understanding of We are all equally Asymmetrical globalization, interdependence unequal power relations, interconnected, we all Northern and Southern elites want the same thing, we can all do the same imposing own assumptions as universal. thing. What needs to Structures, (belief) systems, Structures, institutions change institutions, assumptions, and individuals that are a barrier to cultures, individuals, development. relationships. What for So that everyone achieves So that injustices are addressed, more equal grounds for dialogue development, harmony, are created, and people can tolerance and equality. have more autonomy to define their own development. Problem Poverty, helplessness. Nature of problem Lack of ‘development’, education, resources, skills, culture, technology, etc.

(Continued )

(Continued)  

Soft Citizenship Education

Critical Citizenship Education

Some individuals are part We are all part of the problem and part of the solution. of the problem, but ordinary people are part of the solution as they can create pressure to change structures. Analyze own position/context Support campaigns to What individuals and participate in changing change structures, can do structures, assumptions, donate time, expertise, identities, attitudes and power and resources. relations in their contexts. From the inside to the outside. From the outside to How does change the inside (imposed happen change). Reflexivity, dialogue, contingency Basic principle for Universalism and an ethical relation to (nonnegotiable vision change difference (radical alterity). of how everyone should live, what everyone should want or should be). Empower individuals to reflect Goal of citizenship Empower individuals to critically on the legacies and education act (or become active processes of their cultures, citizens) according to to imagine different futures what has been defined and to take responsibility for for them as a good life decisions and actions. or ideal world. Promoting engagement with Strategies for Raising awareness of global issues and perspectives citizenship global issues and and an ethical relationship education promoting campaigns. to difference, addressing complexity and power relations. Independent/critical thinking Potential benefits Greater awareness of and more informed, of citizenship some of the problems, responsible and ethical action. education support for campaigns, greater motivation to help/do something, feel-good factor. Guilt, internal conflict Potential problems Feeling of selfand paralysis, critical importance and disengagement, feeling of self-righteousness and/ helplessness. or cultural supremacy, reinforcement of colonial assumptions and relations, reinforcement of privilege, partial alienation, uncritical action. Role of ‘ordinary’ individuals

4

Citizenship Education Beyond the Nation State Implications for Teacher Education Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci

At present, teacher educators around the world are witnessing the emergence of three simultaneous, related trends: a re-emergence of populist ethnonationalism, the formation of a highly mobile, massively wealthy transnational elite, and the rapid growth of migratory flows, particularly of refugees and indigent labor. These trends threaten the well-being of minority, immigrant, and other marginalized populations and make the concept of global citizenship education (GCED) all the more vital and vexing. Scholars and teacher educators investigating citizenship education beyond the nation state now require innovative, layered, and generative theoretical frameworks and practices in order to promote conversations concerning equity for students of all backgrounds. There is a consensus that the attention to global citizenship education in teacher education plays a crucial role in fostering new conceptualizations of citizenship in various regions of the world. As we approach issues of teacher education for global citizenship education, we first consider two major open questions: 1. 2.

How do we understand global citizenship as a general concept? How do we understand global citizenship as a distinct concept?

There are multiple, varying responses to these questions. How we respond to these questions has implications for how we frame our work in teacher education. This chapter traces out an array of intersections that mark the relationship between global citizenship and teacher education. As an overarching goal of the present chapter, we explore current approaches to GCED in an efort to broaden our perspectives. A new, varied landscape of citizenship and global citizenship education provides implications for teacher education. The second part of the chapter outlines four dominant frameworks exploring theoretical and practical components of global citizenship education in teacher education: (a) humanistic approaches, (b) critical theories approaches, (c) phenomenological and autobiographical approaches, and (d) poststructuralist and feminist approaches. We aim to provide multiple notions of global citizenship education with practical, representative samples for teacher educators as a preliminary guide for local implementation.

86

Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci

Global Citizenship, Generally and Distinctly The very idea of “citizenship” as a kind of national fraternity and comradeship is increasingly tested as we move into the future (Anderson, 2016). It is now possible for one to buy citizenship from St. Kitts for $250,000, and it is now possible for a state to purchase citizenship to another nation en masse for thousands of its residents, such as the United Arab Emirates did for Bidoon people to become citizens of the Comoros Island (Abrahamian, 2015). Similarly, in late 2017, there was a novel development in the notion of citizenship when “Sophia,” a humanoid robot with artificial intelligence, was granted citizenship by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Wootson, 2017). These events raise a host of profound questions across practical, legal, and conceptual spheres—all spaces in which citizenship operates. For instance, was Sophia a man or a woman, a designation that entails significant attendant restrictions or freedoms in Saudi Arabia? Can the Bidoon people be recognized as citizens of a nation they never sought to become part of ? If citizenship can be bought, as it can be in St. Kitts or in many other nations under policies seeking foreign financial investments, then what relationship is operating between a citizen and one’s country? On what basis, with what notion of “global” and of “citizenship” do we begin to educate youth and their teachers? The ability to consider these dizzying developments relies on the basic questions of how we understand global citizenship as both a general concept and a distinct concept. The difference in the question is one of position. The general concept of global citizenship is a universal rendering in contrast to the distinct conceptualization, which is rooted in the specificities of its realization. Yet each form of citizenship is fundamentally constituent of the other, the general and distinct illuminating each other, while the global operates by simultaneously totalizing and particularizing the world such that the differentiation of position (both location in space and in relation) becomes a shared territory. Our differential access to global citizenship provides us our unique, common grounds.

The General Understanding of Global Citizenship The classical roots of citizenship in the Western tradition are traced back to the ancient Greek and Romans (Pocock, 1995). The first clearly developed conceptualization of citizenship was among the Athenians. In Aristotle’s (1996) terms, citizens were those who “shares in the administration of justice, and in offices” (p.  62), that is those who directly participated in the political institutions of the state. This republican form of citizenship was highly constricted, making a clear distinction between the few Athenian men who were empowered to deliberate and engage in political institutions and the many subjects who had no purchase in these processes. The Romans, as purveyors of a vast empire, approached the notion of citizenship as a mode of legal identification (Walzer, 1989). This liberal form of

Global Citizenship and Teacher Education

87

citizenship was assigned to peoples living across Roman-controlled territories, not as a right to political participation, but as a medium through which to interpellate and protect members of the political community. In this move, juridical and social dimensions of citizenship were wedded such that the legal status of “citizen” formed a political identity not necessarily bound by either physical territory or participation in political processes. One could become citizen by designation. The Enlightenment restoration and renovation of “citizenship” by theorists such as Rousseau, Locke, and Jefferson sought an integration of the Greek and Roman forms of citizenship, that is, the development of a concept that entailed both republican participation and political identity. In this formulation, citizens had “political liberty” (Walzer, 1989) comprised of rights and responsibilities that undergirded legal status, political agency, and community. Citizenship in this manner was being theorized in conjunction with the modern nation state, thereby creating deep, abiding ties between notions of territorial sovereignty, the state, and nationality, on one hand, and legal status, agency, and community on the other. In contemporary nation states, this set of core concepts exist in a complex web of tension and relation with each other, which makes the attempt to rethink any one element of the nation-state-citizenship nexus a profound challenge to the entire edifice of political liberty, individual or collective. Global citizenship, in its general form, presents such a challenge. How can one become a “global citizen” in the absence of a global sovereign state, defined global identity, and adjudicated legal status? That is, many of the vital components of national citizenship that shape the potentials and expressions of political liberty have no parallel in the global. There are limited, proto-elements of a conceptual framework for global citizenship: the United Nations and a wide range of multilateral treaties and agreements that form a system of global governance (Murphy, 2000); the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; the International Court of Justice in the Hague; and other supernational institutions. What these lack are well developed political cultures (Habermas, 1971) as well as the power of direct intervention to assert order. In other words, the world currently lacks the necessary institutions and legal frameworks through which an individual could identify as a global citizen and express political liberty outside the status provided by national citizenship.

The Distinct Understanding of Global Citizenship The abstract, idealized form of global citizenship stands in distinction to the specific, particular realities of being a“citizen” in various places across the world. Abrahamian (2015) harshly critiques gauzy, optimistic formulations of global citizenship by interrogating what people actually do with such a concept. She asserts that “global citizenship is itself a new form of statelessness” (p. 16) and then pointedly asks, “Who among us gets to be ‘global’?” (p. 17).

88

Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci

Abrahamian explores the deep inequalities that exist among those people who live beyond a single nation state. On one side, there is a small cadre of wealthy elites that are able to accumulate multiple national citizenships. While some states, such as St. Kitts, may sell citizenship, numerous others, such as the United States and South Korea, have policies that expedite citizenship for those who make significant business investments. Multiple passports provide legal, financial, and political opportunities unavailable to individuals bound by the institutions of a single state. But rhetorical framing of these privileges often obscures their material benefits, instead focusing on a kind of contemporary cosmopolitanism and “moral superiority of identifying with humanity at large” (Huntington, 2004, p. 9). Found on the other side of statelessness is a severe marginalization, a vulnerability to exploitation and deprivation made possible when people have no access to the political institutions necessary to protect one’s rights. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees (2018) currently estimates that there are 65.6 million forcibly displaced people in the world, with some 22.5 million refugees among them. The statistics here gloss a staggering array of situations that produce displaced people around the globe, such as: people fleeing the Syrian civil war; Rohingya families seeking refuge from paramilitary forces in Myanmar; unaccompanied minors arriving at the United States’ southern boarder; and government collapse in South Sudan. Then there are those crossing borders to work either without legal status, such as undocumented immigrants to the United States, or who have their passports confiscated, such as the Nepalese laborers helping build Qatar’s World Cup stadiums. All of these people are part of transnational migrations that entail the possibility of cosmopolitanism but are denied access to global citizenship. Instead, their statelessness places them at the bottom, far removed from the multiple-passports-holding global elite. The many gaps and discrepancies between global citizenship in its ideal form and its actual form raise a host of difficult questions for educators and teacher educators. What, exactly, do we intend when we seek to educate for global citizenship? How can we productively grapple with stratified access to global citizenship that reinforces both privilege and oppression? What is possible—in the present world and in the future? In the midst of this uncertainty, clear theoretical frameworks provide entry points to begin the work of conceptualizing, critiquing, and educating prospective teachers.

Global Citizenship Education: Four Major Approaches1 Multiple theoretical and practical approaches represent the nexus between global citizenship education (GCED) and teacher education. The literature shows the complexity of global citizenship education as the result of dynamic exchanges both in a local and global context. Nearly 25 years ago, Johnston and Ochoa (1993) succinctly proposed four research agendas in teacher education to improve global perspectives for teachers, including research on critical

Global Citizenship and Teacher Education

89

perspective, teacher reflection, pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs, and cognitive-developmental studies of teachers. This seminal work has shifted the ways to review research on global citizenship education, moving beyond providing more content knowledge in education. This section draws upon Johnston and Ochoa’s (1993) study to examine the dominant voice in GCED and aims to act as a catalyst for understanding the following relevant approaches to GCED in teacher education programs: (a) liberal, humanistic approaches; (b) critical theories approaches; (c) phenomenological, autobiographical approaches; and (d) poststructural, feminist approaches. As Table 4.1 indicates, each approach conceptualizes global citizenship differently and thus, translates into a diverse and different set of pedagogical implications for teacher education programs. We explicate each of the approaches as we move on. Having reviewed each, we introduce teacher education programs or research studies that have built their works upon the philosophical groundings. Teacher educators from across the world have employed multidimensional approaches to global citizenship education as a source for educational policy as well as a guide for classroom implementations (Grossman, 2002; Law, 2007). This section reviews existing approaches to global citizenship education, envisages alternative options to advance pre- and in-service teachers’ global

Table 4.1 Four major theories and practices of global citizenship education Approaches

Perspectives

Key theoretical terms (Tenets)

Liberal, humanistic approaches

Ways of integration and extension of citizenship

Local citizen to global citizen Free will and autonomy

Teacher education practices

Extending the scope of citizenship through service learning and study abroad Enhancing cultural awareness Critical theories Ways of change Power issues among Structural analysis of global inequity and resistance nation states Inclusion models Ways of inclusion Structural and recognition understanding about inequity Inclusion and recognition Phenomenological Ways of being and Lived experience Writing reflection approaches being-in-the Interpretation of papers on lived world experience experience Meaning searching Poststructural, Ways of unknow- Power operations Challenging existing feminist ingness and Self-reflexivity and taken-forapproaches interdependency ethics grantedness about Relationship self-other Embracing uncertainty in global citizenship

90

Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci

awareness, and encourages social agency to lay the groundwork for a more just global community.

Humanistic Approaches to Global Citizenship: From Local to Global From a humanistic lens, global citizenship education makes it possible for one to acquire a preliminary understanding about self, other, and community beyond a local, nation state level to a global one. This approach supports the idea that global citizenship is a broader, more inclusive version of regional and national citizenship. Sound and solid knowledge of national citizenship will enable and motivate one to pursue global citizenship more fervently. Banks (2006), for example, identifies “globalism and global competency” as the final stage in developing cultural identity, possible only after “cultural and national identifications” (p.  36) have been achieved. The Enlightenment ideals about autonomous self, trust of human reasoning, and development of human will theoretically influence the humanistic approach. The bulk of humanisticfocused studies of global citizenship education extend citizens’ scope from a local community within national borders to global communities without borders. Key discourses in the literature emphasize global citizenship, self-reflection, and free will in order to understand “other” cultures and embrace otherness into the mainstream culture. These studies assume that the capacity of understanding self-other is enhanced if the target of citizen and citizenship is expanded globally (Banks, 2006; Hansen, 2008). Notably, Nussbaum (2002) highlights global citizens who are compatible with living in “a complex interlocking world” (p. 292). A global citizen has the ability to think as “a citizen of the whole world” (Nussbaum, 2002, p. 289) and cultivate one’s humanity toward the “other.” Allegiance to humanity, rather than a loyalty to a nation state, is a major discourse in cosmopolitan education. Cosmopolitan, global citizens practice acting properly to the legitimate claims of the oppressed in global communities. Drawing from the humanities, Nussbaum lays emphasis on “narrative imagination,” imagination that incorporates empathy towards the “other.” Similarly, Appiah (2006) argues for empathy and mutual understandings among global, cosmopolitan citizens by keeping an individual’s cultural heritage as well as respecting the “presence of the other” (p. 21). Two major elements of empathy and mutual respects are prerequisites for proper recognition via dialogues among people from “different” cultural groups. Learning from difference is a key component of Appiah’s notion of cosmopolitan, global education because perceiving difference from openness is a starting point to expand a person’s paradigm towards self, other, and community. Such discussions in global citizenship education align with Kantian ethics of the universality of rights, obligations, and an autonomous human being. Moral obligations, strengthened by maxims of free will and proper responsibility, are essential to global citizenship education. Therefore, teacher education programs should

Global Citizenship and Teacher Education

91

meaningfully enhance cultural awareness about other global citizens. Consequently, teacher candidates revisit the notions of liberty and responsibility expanding the boundaries of duties from a local region to global communities. Practices in Teacher Education From the humanistic vantage point, the optimal output for teacher education programs with a global citizenship orientation is an active citizen who has a positive cultural, national, and global identity, as well as the knowledge and propensity required to work collaboratively through their nation and the world. Teacher educators remind teachers of the universal principles of equal human rights and human dignity regardless of national and cultural backgrounds. Teacher education programs encourage teacher candidates to participate in service learning for both the local and global community, as well as promoting study-abroad programs. During study-abroad programs, teacher candidates actively participate in teaching in local schools. In promoting internationally minded teachers, experiences such as service learning and study abroad become the centerpiece of global citizenship education (Cushner, 2007). Teacher candidates share their eye-opening experiences during study-abroad programs and claim, “I learned that the United States is not the center of the universe” (Cushner, 2007, p. 27). This awakening about others becomes a launching pad to challenge the border between national citizens and global citizens.

Critical Theories and Citizenship Education: Social Engagement via “Critical Consciousness” Critical theorists suggest power, recognition, and critical consciousness as major approaches to global citizenship education. They problematize a lack of critical perspectives on global inequity and social injustice in discussing global citizenship. Liberalism in global citizenship education, as explained earlier, is a good starting point. However, critical theorists have voiced concerns that a liberalistic attitude to global citizenship may reproduce a belief “system” or ideology that perpetuates social inequity for the poor and other marginalized, unprivileged groups (Niens & Reilly, 2012). Habermas (1971), Gramsci (1971), and Freire (1970/2006) articulate the way in which knowledge is constituted and maintained by the dominant group’s interests of control and management. Gramsci (1971) coined the term “cultural hegemony,” arguing that hegemonic institutions continue to work to present and sustain dominant ideologies as a set of social norms. In the global context, Western values of meritocracy and the ultimate pursuit of individual rights are acknowledged as normal and the other so-called “developing countries” accept this ideology as if it is the only way to consider global equity and fairness. Hence, critical global citizenship education underlines the necessity of political action for equal recognition and education for humanization via critically raising the consciousness of the oppressed and the oppressor (Freire, 1970/2006).

92 Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci The theory and practice of “recognition” has been an important issue in the political philosophies of Taylor, Habermas, and others. Although political philosophers do not explicitly include global citizenship in discussing proper recognition, their argument is still relevant in global citizenship education in relation to explaining unequal power relationships among nation states and the lack of equal recognition among them. In his book chapter, “Politics of Recognition,” Taylor (1994) underscores how the “equal recognition” imperative in modern democratic societies has influenced current politics (p. 36). Taylor’s main argument is whether liberal democratic governments and policies create space for equal recognition of people from different backgrounds, employing politics of equal dignity and politics of difference to highlight proper recognition. The politics of equal dignity originates in the idea that “all humans are equally worthy of respect” (Taylor, 1994, p. 41). The emphasis on this equal dignity is crucial in the modern global community because withholding a proper recognition of an individual or a cultural group is another hegemonic form of oppression toward any marginalized cultural group and economically, politically oppressed nation states. Furthermore, by underscoring the politics of difference, Taylor argues that the uniqueness of an individual group or its distinctiveness should not be covered in a “difference-blind fashion” (p. 43), that is, reproducing inequalities by letting one hegemonic culture dominate other cultures under the guise of universal values. That is why critical theorists argue against a humanistic approach to global citizenship education, reasoning that the universalized approach to human dignity perpetuates the Eurocentric values of freedom, autonomy, and choice in considering and defining global citizenship. Practices in Teacher Education Teacher educators advocating critical theories postulate that global citizenship is a framework for action, and therefore, it can be a radical, politicized area in curriculum and teacher education (Davies, 2006). Delineating a globally aligned teacher education for global perspectives, Johnston and Ochoa (1993) made a case for critical perspectives in education. Drawing from critical theorists in education (e.g., Giroux, Apple), the researchers listed at least eight key questions to be raised in exploring sociopolitical contexts of schooling and education. Respecting diverse nation state, cultural subtleties and norms requires teacher candidates to critically transform their existing values. These values include Eurocentric understandings of autonomy, freedom, and choice, to name a few. Teacher educators should be mindful of raising the critical consciousness of teacher candidates in understanding unequal sociopolitical interactions among nation states. Critical theory guides teacher educators to examine the ways ideology functions in discussing civic virtues (e.g., openminded, industrious, respectful) in global citizenship education. Civic virtues are used to promote competency-based values that advocate global integration of markets and thus, stress freedom and choice as universalized moral values (Schattle, 2008).

Global Citizenship and Teacher Education

93

Advancing social equity in education, Goren and Yemini (2016) support teacher agency and decry its absence in classroom practices. The researchers call for a more active role on the part of teachers to make students aware of opportunity gaps among global citizens. To do this, an interdisciplinary approach is crucial to move beyond a discipline-based articulation of global citizenship. Additionally, teachers’ self-efficacy about global citizenship education could be enhanced, though teacher education programs and teacher agency should be transferred beyond classroom boundaries. Within the framework of critical theory, teacher educators envision advancing teacher candidates’ and students’ critical consciousness and actions with structural analyses of global inequity. The focus of inquiry is to sensitize to diverse needs of fellow citizens, to educate students, to distinguish social injustice and critically inquire about social problems, and to enlighten students to seek social transformation from a structural change. The belief that participatory and justice-oriented actions truly minimize social problems and inequity has motivated efforts (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Thus, global democratic citizenships are not detached from efforts to improve social justice in teacher education. Carr, Pluim, and Howard (2014) argue that critical global citizenship “provides the necessary analysis of historical, political, and social development of . . . [an] ever changing globalized world” (p. 6). Then, critical global citizenship encompasses the examination of neoliberalism, hegemonic structures of global inequity, and power operations and their realizations in global decision-making processes.

Phenomenological, Autobiographical Approach: Teachers and Students’ Lived Experience and Reflection Phenomenology is the study of consciousness, experience, and the meaning/ interpretation of such experience within a historical context. It focuses on the ways in which lived experience receives meanings through interpretation and on the search for meanings. Gallagher (2012) explain phenomenology as the “first-person point of view,” referring to the study on a person’s own experience from the point of view of living through such lived experience (p. 7). Husserlian phenomenology introduces a process of epoché, which suspends all judgment or bias required to discover the essence of existence and experience. “Bracketing” is a process that reviews and returns to one’s personal experience. By suspending and “bracketing” the doctrines, theories, and biases imposed on us, human beings attend to consciousness and the “experienced” world drawing from their subjectivity (Gallagher, 2012). Depending on which philosophical tradition a person follows, multiple versions of phenomenology exist. Macann (1993) introduces phenomenology drawing from four major philosophers in Western tradition: Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty. In the field of global teacher education, leading scholars adopt and explicate their own version of phenomenology and

94

Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci

highlight lived experience, interpretation, and consciousness in education. Van Manen’s (1990) phenomenology has been highly regarded for its description and analysis of lived experience. Heideggerian hermeneutics influenced van Manen’s (1990) conceptualization of seeing lived experience as “text” for interpretation. The recovery of Being, Dasein, is possible by interpreting situated experience, that is, our experience of being in the world. A human being’s freedom and choice, then, becomes center stage in this meaning-making process. Phenomenologically speaking, global citizenship education concentrates on depicting and interpreting “meanings in the ways that they emerge and are shaped by consciousness” (van Manen & Adams, 2010, p. 644). On the other hand, Greene (1995) articulates key themes for global teacher education, prioritizing releasing the imagination. Having reviewed the existential, phenomenology tradition, Greene defined imagination as “the one that permits us to give credence to alternative realities. It allows us to break with the taken for granted, to set aside familiar distinctions and definitions” (p.  3). Artistic and aesthetic experiences take a crucial role to be wide-awake in social, global injustice. They release educators’ imagination towards different, alternative realities. Encompassing social, ethical, political, and narrative imagination is a place to transform lived experience into “narrative to be a source of meaning making” (Greene, 1995, p.  3). Greene encourages teacher educators to find meanings driven from their lived experience of the past while interacting with present-day experiences with self and others. Critical reflection of subjectivity and lived experience aided by art and aesthetic experience opens up possibilities to imagine alternative realities and take actions for social change. Phenomenological traditions in global citizenship education, accordingly, focus on the descriptions and interpretations of students and teachers’ educational experiences and their meanings. The method allows for an inclusive, wide-ranging insight into the subject’s lived experience within a given social and educational context. Practices in Teacher Education Phenomenology has brought to the fore the importance of teacher candidates’ lived experience and self-reflection in teacher education. Teacher educators following Heideggerian phenomenology make a case for lived experience of teacher candidates as beings-in-the-world. Wang and Hoffman (2016) use the phrase “the ironic emphasis on ‘self ’ within ostensibly ‘global issues’” (p.  8) to review and challenge personal positionality and the construction of otherness in a global sociopolitical context. They argue that such a self-critical, reflective practice becomes the foundations of civic engagement and activism. The contextual scrutiny of their lived experience becomes a focal inquiry concern and teacher candidates are encouraged to interpret meaning out of their experience in a given sociopolitical context. Deliberation and self-reflection operate as pedagogical tools to advance teacher candidates’ ability to decipher complex, diverse culturally laden meanings. Having explored Maxine Greene’s

Global Citizenship and Teacher Education

95

(1989) existential phenomenology, Johnston and Ochoa (1993) emphasized reflective teaching and action in teacher education, inviting teachers to selfreflect about their beliefs and teaching practices about global perspectives. As a teaching artist, Gaines (2016) extends Greene’s phenomenology to encourage students and teachers into “more engaged and better-informed citizens” through aesthetic experience. In promoting global, cosmopolitan competency informed by phenomenology, Englund (2011) coined “deliberative democracy,” according to which students develop the moral and intellectual capacities of cosmopolitans and global citizens via reflection on global issues. A sense of responsibility to the other is a prerequisite for deliberative democratic practices as a responsive action to build trust and facilitate deliberative communication. Roth (2011) moved beyond Englund’s deliberative democracy, underscoring global citizenship education as a Habermasian deliberation site—that is, nurturing a teacher candidate’s reflective structure of mind. This approach involves aiming at educating an empathetic person who is deliberate and responsive in dealing with global issues. Another interesting approach to global citizenship education originates from the phenomenological attempt to examine the teacher candidate’s subjectivity. In his book, The Worldliness of a Cosmopolitan Education, Pinar (2009) shifted the focus of cosmopolitanism from political-geographical approaches to the cultivation of subjectivity through education. He explored subjectivity’s passionate engagement with alterity in the public space by introducing Jane Addams (1860–1935), Laura Bragg (1881–1978), and Paolo Pasolini (1922–1975) as three public, cosmopolitan intellectuals. This biographical approach to global citizenship education adds to our understanding of how to examine and interpret global citizen subjectivity in the public space. Similar to Pinar (2009), Andreotti, Biesta, and Ahenakew (2015) reconceptualize global mindedness as a mode of being, which concentrates on existence and exposure about self and other by moving beyond a cognitive, empathetic approach to the other. In practicing global citizenship education, Appleyard and McLean (2011) emphasized experiential learning, reflection, and explicit modeling that provides specific instruction to address all intellectual, affective, and action domains of global citizenship education. This approach refers to active collaboration with like-minded professionals in school, involving reflection on the actual implementations of global citizenship education.

Poststructuralist, Feminist Approaches: Interrelationality and Openness Toward the Unknown Global citizenship education is boundless in scope as suggested by enriched recent literature on poststructural, feminist discourses in education. Poststructuralists review and analyze discourses of identity, self-other, and culture as an effect of transnational flows and mobilities, where everyone and everything is in a flux of change in the global scene (Miller, 2006). Global citizenship is continuously restructured by defying standardized and fixed understandings

96

Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci

such as “First world male,” or “Third world female.” Openness towards the self-other duality and the global community becomes a jumping board for imagining unexplored possibilities. The subject is sociopolitically constructed by the interactions with others. In his book, Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform: Science, Education, and Making Society by Making the Child, Popkewitz (2008) addressed cosmopolitanism and governmentality. The ideology of the reason/ unreason binary is implemented in school reform and global citizenship, which creates a duality in the approach to global citizenship education. According to Popkewitz, a major focus of cosmopolitanism is on Enlightenment’s dream of creating idealized, universalized values of humanity, which transcend any local/provincial concerns. Practitioners of cosmopolitanism and global teacher education hope to set free the individual from any local and national attachment to universalized values of humanity, agency, and rationality. However, the promise to educate cosmopolitan citizens has ironically “differentiated, divided, and abjected” individuals into a citizen/non-citizen dichotomy, and normalization is used to exclude a certain group from the mainstream discourse (Popkewitz, 2008, p. xiv). Poststructural, feminist theorists avoid a static notion of global citizenship or multiculturalism. Notably, Butler (2009) proposed to look at multiculturalism or global citizenship through a different lens when people take for granted the “already constituted communities, already established subjects” who are not recognized as lives (p. 31). Rather, Butler encourages educators to investigate the interdependency among nation states and their interwoven networks of power in ongoing lives. In doing so, global citizenship education shifts its mission from an obsession with the sameness/difference discourse grounded in the predetermined to inquiries about power functions, in a bid to understand the root cause of recurring local and global massacres. That is, it seeks to move away from examining “how to include more people within existing norms,” to considering “how existing norms allocate recognizability differently” (Butler, 2009, p. 6). Teacher educators have sought to explore new possible norms and lexicon to value living as recognizable lives. Rather than try to figure out where one stands, for example, “in” or “outside” the frame, the main goal is to explore “what vacillates between those two locations, and what, foreclosed, becomes encrypted in the frame itself ” (Butler, 2009, p. 75). Practices in Teacher Education Transnational identity discourses are more than just “discovering” one’s own identities and “understanding” cultural differences between teachers and immigrant students. Teacher educators avoid the writing of reflection papers drawing from any stable identities in understanding global citizenship (e.g., I am a White, middle class female teacher candidate who grew up in the suburbs .  .  .). Self-reflexivity is a crucial pedagogical practice to get an insight into the “unknowingness” of the self-other and ambiguous realities. Notably, Pillow’s (2003) self-reflexivity built her argument upon a “discomfort” about

Global Citizenship and Teacher Education

97

self-other, truth, and reality. Teacher educators, through a concentration on discourse, subjectivity, and interrelationality of self-other, come to hearten teacher candidates to launch an in-depth analysis about global conflicts of historical, sociopolitical, and economic nature. Teacher candidates scrutinize power-knowledge and power operations (Foucault, 1980) embedded in local and global massacres, and they cast doubt on habitual ways of looking at cultural difference/sameness as being predetermined. The examination of cultural norms to assign differential recognition to global citizens introduces more complexity into global citizenship education (Moon, 2017). Teacher candidates interrogate the biased legitimization of a certain group or behavior, and rather than including more “marginalized” groups into the existing norms or advancing cultural awareness, strive to read discursive practices of inclusion and exclusion analytically. Poststructural, feminist scholars also highlight the interrelationality of the self-other, rejecting the idea that subjectivity is an independent entity. Instead, they argue that subjectivity arises discursively and materially from interactions with others. Moreover, from poststructural, feminist perspectives, subjectivity is not a function of cultural categories of race, nationality, or gender, and the self-other relation is linguistically constructed within the proximity of self and other (Todd, 2009). Driven by this ontological understanding of self-other, the poststructural, feminist approach requires global citizenship education programs to educate teachers on raising questions about the sociopolitical interrelationality existing between self and other. A major question is how racial/ ethnic, gender, and class identities are constructed in actual interactions with others. That is, the identities should not be based on assumptions driven from the subject’s collective identity. Teacher candidates explore their narratives with the help of their subjectivity, which is always constructed by interacting with the other. Subjectivity is not a pre-fixed entity; it is a consequence of a complicated intersection of race, class, gender, and more (Santoro, 2009). Overall, this approach challenges “already inscribed entitlements and obligations” (Todd, 2009, p.  156) in global affairs and thus, envisages different approaches to addressing the complexity of subjectivity discursively and materially constructed by interacting with the alterity in a global context.

Directions of Global Citizenship in Teacher Education A global citizenship provides social space to self-define and reform in relationship to the constraints and opportunities of life in situations. Global citizenship is not to be without national citizenship; those who have had their national citizenship stripped away or held in suspension are deeply vulnerable and readily exploitable (e.g., stateless people, undocumented, refugees, or the indentured laborers of the Middle East). Similarly, to rack up multiple national citizenships, as the wealthy often do these days as a way to maintain political and financial dominance, is not global citizenship. Rather, this is a kind of subscription privilege afforded to global elites. The transnational circuits created

98

Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci

through the exertion of this influence do not make them global; it inscribes an international hegemony that gleefully, determinedly mocks the old Communist Internationals and religious calls for the universal brotherhood of all peoples. A consensus exists about a need for developing a vision of global citizenship. This chapter provides at least four major theoretical frameworks and strategies of them in teacher education. Thus, teacher educators encourage preservice and in-service teachers to advance their critical understanding of and respect for human rights and due responsibilities. Teacher education is the process of empowering students to work for creating a more just and sustainable world through democratic processes (Ibrahim, 2005). Global citizenship, thus, is multidimensional with multiple approaches to it, including a political status, cultural heritage and identity, democratic ideals, actual public practice, and social actions (Mutch, 2004). Teacher educators have addressed these multiplicities of global citizenship by applying diverse pedagogical strategies as articulated in the previous section. We highlight the value of a bottom up global citizenship, as an intellectual, political, and practical suggestion. In her article, “Education and the Contested Meanings of ‘Global Citizenship,’” Roman (2003) analyzed the meaning of global citizenship “from below” (p. 269). She argued for leaving space to decolonize curriculum by analyzing what such curriculum looks like and how it is taught. Her suggestion of working from below is a concrete political action minimizing any essentialized slogan system related to global citizenship. She argues that global citizenship is not an abstract, essentialized concept from top-down, and that global citizenship education involves actual local and global interactions embodied in particular policies, curricula, and education. We support Roman’s notion of from below in order to avoid the reinforcement of classed, gendered, and racialized nationalism. Teacher educators desire to invent and update new pedagogical and research methods advancing global citizenship. Open-ended inquiry on global citizenship, particularly grounded in this from below approach leaves hope to develop and implement multiple, alternative methods to global citizenship education.

Note 1. With a minor revision, conceptual definitions of phenomenology, critical theory, and poststructuralist approaches appear in a book entitled, Moon, S. (2019). Three approaches to qualitative research through the ARtS: Narratives of teaching for social justice and community. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill|Sense.

References Abrahamian, A. (2015). The cosmopolites: The coming of the global citizen. New York: Columbia Global Reports. Anderson, B. (2016). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism (2nd ed.). New York: Verso.

Global Citizenship and Teacher Education

99

Andreotti, V., Biesta, G., & Ahenakew, G. (2015). Between the nation and the globe: Education for global mindedness in Finland. Globalization, Societies and Education, 13(2), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.934073 Appiah, K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: W. W. Norton. Appleyard, N., & McLean, L. R. (2011). Expecting the exceptional: Pre-service professional development in global citizenship education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 7(2), 6–32. Aristotle. (1996). The politics: Book III. In S. Everson (Ed.), Aristotle: The politics of Aristotle and the constitution of Athens (pp. 61–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: When is life grievable? Brooklyn: Verso. Carr, P. R., Pluim, G., & Howard, L. (2014). Linking global citizenship education and education for democracy through social justice: What can we learn from the perspectives of teacher-education candidates? Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 4(1), 1–21. Cushner, K. (2007). The role of experience in the making of internationally-minded teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 27–39. Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5–25. Englund, T. (2011). The potential of education for creating mutual trust: Schools as sites for deliberation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(3), 236–248. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Freire, P. (1970/2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gaines, A. M. (2016). Ambassadors of aesthetic experience: The healing legacy of Maxine Greene. Teaching Artist Journal, 14(1), 24–29. Gallagher, S. (2012). Phenomenology. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2016). Global citizenship education in context: Teacher perceptions at an international school and a local Israeli school. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(5), 832–853. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers. Greene, M. (1989). Reflection and passion in teaching. In C. Eisele (Ed.), Reflective teaching. Normal, IL: Illinois State University for the John Dewey Society for the Study of Education and Culture. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essay on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Grossman, D. (2002). Multidimensional citizenship and teacher education. Pacific Asian Education, 14(2), 36–45. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Hansen, D. T. (2008). Curriculum and the idea of a cosmopolitan inheritance. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(3), 289–312. Huntington, S. P. (2004). Dead souls: The denationalization of the American elite. National Interest, 75, 5–18. Ibrahim, T. (2005). Global citizenship education: Mainstreaming the curriculum? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 177–194. Johnston, M., & Ochoa, A. (1993). Teacher education for global perspectives: A research agenda. Theory into Practice, 32(1), 64–68.

100

Seungho Moon and Charles Tocci

Law, W. (2007). Globalization, city development and citizenship education in China’s Shanghai. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(1), 18–38. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.04.017 Macann, C. (1993). Four phenomenological philosophers: Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, MerleauPonty. New York: Routledge. Miller, J. L. (2006). Curriculum studies and transnational flows and mobilities: Feminist autobiographical perspectives. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 3(2), 31–50. Retrieved from http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci Moon, S. (2017). Reframing learning to teach diversity: Multicultural curriculum within a cosmopolitan context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 469–486. Moon, S. (2019). Three approaches to qualitative research through the ARtS: Narratives of teaching for social justice and community. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill|Sense. Murphy, C. (2000). Global governance: Poorly done and poorly understood. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), 76(4), 789–803. Mutch, C. (2004). Teacher education for global citizenship: An example from New Zealand. Pacific Asian Education, 16(1), 42–55. Niens, U., & Reilly, J. (2012). Education for global citizenship in a divided society? Young people’s views and experiences. Comparative Education, 48(1), 103–118. Nussbaum, M. (2002). Education for citizenship in an era of global connection. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(4), 289–303. Pillow, W. S. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. Pinar, W. F. (2009). The worldliness of a cosmopolitan education: Passionate lives in public service. New York: Routledge. Pocock, J. (1995). The ideal of citizenship since classical times. In R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing citizenship (pp. 29–53). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Popkewitz, T. (2008). Cosmopolitanism and the age of school reform: Science, education and making society by making the child. New York: Routledge. Roman, L. G. (2003). Education and the contested meanings of “global citizenship”. Journal of Educational Change, 4(3), 269–293. Roth, K. (2011). Good will: Cosmopolitan education as a site for deliberation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(3), 300–312. Santoro, N. (2009). Teaching in culturally diverse contexts: What knowledge about “self ” and “others” do teachers need? Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(1), 33–45. http://doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587111 Schattle, H. (2008). Education for global citizenship: Illustrations of ideological pluralism and adaptation. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13569310701822263 Taylor, C. (1994). Politics of recognition. In C. Taylor, K. A. Appiah, J. Habermas, S. C. Rockefeller, M. Walzer, S. Wolf, & A. Gutman (Eds.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25–73). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Todd, S. (2009). Toward an imperfect education: Facing humanity, rethinking cosmopolitanism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. UNHRC. (2018). Facts at a glance. Retrieved from www.unhcr.org/en-us/figures-at-aglance.html van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: SUNY.

Global Citizenship and Teacher Education

101

van Manen, M., & Adams, C. A. (2010). Phenomenological research. In C. Kridel (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 641–645). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walzer, M. (1989). Citizenship. In T. Ball, J. Farr, & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Political innovation and conceptual change. (pp. 211–220) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wang, Ch., & Hoffman, D. M. (2016). Are WE the world? A critical reflection on selfhood in U.S. global citizenship education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(56), 1–18. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Wootson, C. (2017, October 29). Saudi Arabia, which denies women equal rights, makes a robot a citizen. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost. com/news/innovations/wp/2017/10/29/saudi-arabia-which-denies-womenequal-rights-makes-a-robot-a-citizen/?utm_term=.d6c8adcbdaca

5

Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education Is There Any Alternative Beyond Redemptive Dreams and Nightmarish Germs? Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

Trends in Global Citizenship Education for Teacher Education Perhaps more than ever before, today’s teachers are expected to equip students with the knowledge, values, attitudes and skills required to succeed in an increasingly globalized society (Cuturara, 2009; Evans, 2006; Mundy & Manion, 2008; Smith, 2006; War Child Canada, 2006). Taking up this challenge, proponents of global citizenship education (GCED) seek to develop students’ knowledge and capacities for actively participating as global citizens, with the end goal of creating a more just, peaceful and democratic world (Blaney, 2002; Gallavan, 2008; Garratt & Piper, 2003; Hicks & Bord, 2001; Mundy & Manion, 2008; Trotta Tuomi, 2004). Given the weight of responsibility placed on today’s teachers, these issues warrant careful analysis to inform pre-service and in-service professional development for educators. (Appleyard & McLean, 2011, p. 6) The rationale that the previous quote presents is remarkably common in the introductory sections of the literature on GCED used in Teacher Education (TEd) programs.1 This interest in GCED and emphasis on the language of cosmopolitanism2 (Popkewitz, 2008) within TEd literature and programs is coinciding with a notable resurgence of nationalistic discourses (e.g, from the “America First” in the USA, the Brexit in the UK, the pro-independence movements in Scotland and Catalonia and others).3 Given the seemingly ever-increasing scholarly production about the ideas and ideals of GCED, it was not surprising to find out that those discussions started to gain influence in TEd. Proponents of GCED’s incorporation into TEd justified their position through pragmatic reasoning: “Starting with teachers and teacher candidates as a foundation for global citizenship is wise because teachers have an immense impact potential on the lives of their students” (Byker, 2016, p. 264).

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

103

There is a strong continuity between the principles undergirding current support for GCED and previous civic education discourses that underscore the power of schools and teachers in providing individuals with freedom and saving them from the clutches of ignorance and barbarism (Popkewitz, 2008, 2009). Both types of civic education discourses, global and traditional, are often based on lofty ideals and the promise of developing new professional educators who embody the enlightened principles of equity, multiculturalism, sustainable development, social justice and economic growth, emancipatory principles that have historically provided a strong rationale for expanding educational systems (Fischman & Haas, 2014). Similarly, GCED is a proud heir of the cosmopolitan pedagogical imaginary. Pedagogical projects from the 19th century to the present have viewed reason—through education—as the universal way to liberate the individual from provincialism, the barriers of nationalism, theological dogma and the irrationalities of mystical faith. Behind cosmopolitanism lies an implicit optimism in reason to change the world and people. That optimism involves both a hope of progress and inclusion and a fear of all those that constitute a threat to that progress (Popkewitz, 2008, 2009). While we find the engagement with proposals advocating for GCED-TEd quite interesting and potentially transformative, we are also concerned with the extension of redemptive, romanticized conceptual frames that may have unintended, and possibly detrimental, implications for the promotion of ineffective pedagogical models. As we will show in the next sections, GCED is often presented as the result of natural processes of pedagogical evolution. In this evolutionary frame, GCED represents the latest, most advanced stage of pedagogical innovation and consequently the best and most comprehensive model. In addition, GCED programs are frequently considered as nationally located educational solutions able to address and solve non-educational global problems. GCED’s romanticized assumptions have the effect of ignoring two concurrent developments that weaken and reinforce the expansion of GCED. On the one hand, fear and exclusion paradoxically involve the cosmopolitan hope of inclusion on which most GCED models are based. On the other, current calls for expanding GCED-TEd are happening in tandem with the increasing consolidation of a Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM) narrative (Lingard, Martino, & Rezai-Rashti, 2013; Sahlberg, 2010). At its core, GERM advocates call for the transformation of models of public education and their replacement with private for-profit commercialized educational programs. This shift has direct pedagogical implications for GCED, because these programs prioritize the rights of a neoliberal “global consumer” over “global citizen/civic” rights. We conclude this chapter by discussing why the redemptive idealized prototype of professional educators that underlies many GCEDTEd proposals is not a good antidote for GERM, because it ultimately weakens the emergence of serious challenges to the consumerist options offered by the neoliberal GERM models.

104

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

Redemptive Frames Within GCED–TEd In the 1990s and the beginning of the 21st century there was an explosion of research, policies and programs related to citizenship education. With international projects such as the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Study and influential reports like the Crick Report in 1998, the focus of civic education discussion has visibly moved towards global citizenship education. This shift reveals an interest in considering cultural, political and economic transformations resulting from globalization (capital transnationalization, large demographic movements across and within national territories, changes in political and legal frameworks) and going beyond narratives of nationally bound membership. For advocates of GCED, nationally bounded models of citizenship are no longer adequate for the new global scenarios and subjectivities (Bauman, 2001; Dale & Robertson, 2007; Robertson & Dale, 2008). As Enslin (2000) points out, “[c]itizen education based on identity defined by membership in a ‘nation’ rests on the mistaken assumption that democracy is effectively pursued within the nation-state, whose influence and authority has been reduced by globalization” (p. 149). Although some GCED advocates appear to naively ignore that citizens only exercise full citizenship rights and responsibilities at the local and national level (Marshall, 2011),4 GCED discourses undoubtedly challenge those forms of civic education restricted to nationalistic discourses that emphasize ritualized patriotism and citizen’s subordination to the authority of the state. This is not the space to discuss if there is a worldwide weakening of political models of national citizenship,5 but it is important to recognize that as a concept, citizenship is no longer fixed and easily defined, and it is now transactional (Benhabib, 2005, 2007). In democratic states—as it has been shown with the persistent debates about how to address the migratory situation of the millions displaced by war and endemic poverty—Benhabib (2005) argues the people decide who does and does not qualify for citizenship: today we are caught not only in the reconfiguration of sovereignty but also in the reconstitutions of citizenship. We are moving away from citizenship as national membership increasingly towards a citizenship of residency, which strengthens the multiple ties to locality, to the region, and to transnational institutions. (p. 66)6 The trends in the educational literature show a robust interest on all things global: global education, international education, human rights education, development education, environmental education, peace education, and intercultural education, among other topics. Davies, Evans, and Reid (2005, p. 74) have pointed out that GCED was born from the explicit convergence of the two currents “citizenship education” and “global education”.7 As the overarching

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

105

concept “global education” previously unified other educational models focused on global issues such as human rights education, development education, environmental education and peace education (Pike, 2008, pp. 468–469), GCED resulted from the integration of all global education trends and citizenship education perspectives, meaning, in short, embracing notions of citizenship that recognize rights and duties beyond the boundaries of the nation-state (Davies, 2006, p. 6). GCED is frequently presented as the result of a simple evolutionary pedagogical model, that is, the latest, best and the most comprehensive model that incorporates all the positive goals and practices from previous efforts (human rights education, citizenship education, multicultural education, global education, environmental education, peace education . . .) and overcomes their limitations. To cite a few examples: Hahn (2005) advocates GCED because human rights education, although essential, is not always sufficient; Davies et al. (2005) critique the limitations of “global education” and “citizenship education” supporting the integration of both in GCED; Mannion, Biesta, Priestley, and Ross (2011) advocates GCED as it brings together “environmental education”, “developmental education” and “citizenship education”; for Su, Bullivant, and Holt (2013), GCED is the result of the development and convergence of “global education”, “developmental education” and “citizenship education”; Eidoo et al. (2011) conceptualizes GCED “as a natural extension to multicultural education” (p. 67); and the professional development program in GCED described by Appleyard and McLean (2011) “integrate[s] the themes of peace and justice, human rights, environmental sustainability and international development into educational curricula and practice” (p. 10). The approval of this model has been so widespread that Yemini (2017) has described “GCED” as a buzzword. Others have called it the “umbrella” term, considering the broad range of perspectives and themes that this model has integrated (Davies, 2006; Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012). To be able to identify the weaknesses of other models is not the same as overcoming the limitations of traditional citizenship education models. For instance, the notion of “citizen” informing most citizenship education programs, both globally oriented and nation-state bounded, is often based on a disembodied Cartesian citizen (Fischman & Haas, 2012), that is, an idealized active subject whose political behaviors are the direct effect of rational and deliberate processes. This idea of human actors as purely conscious beings has been largely questioned by both cognitive scientists (Ariely, Damasio, Kahneman, Lakoff, and so on) and social scholars (Bourdieu, Foucault, Giddens, and so on). Although these scholars present very different points of departure, methods and conclusions, all of them point to the limitations of models that explain “rationality” in terms of conscious and self-regulated mind exercises. In fact, automatic and emotional ways of thinking play a key role in our daily actions and perceptions. Citizens, either global or national, are not dispassionate (Marcus, 2002). Romanticized images are dominant in the ideals of global

106

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

citizenship. The following two examples capture the romanticism inherent in this concept of an idealized enlightened citizen: A picture, then, of the global citizen: not merely aware of her rights but able and desirous to act upon them; of an autonomous and inquiring critical disposition; but her decisions and actions tempered by an ethical concern for social justice and the dignity of humankind; therefore able, through her actions, to control and enhance the ‘trajectory of the self ’ through life while contributing to the commonweal, the public welfare, with a sense of civic duty to replenish society. (Griffiths, 1998, p. 40) Guo (2014) identifies the following crosscutting characteristics that a global citizen should have, according to most literature on GCED philosophy:8 Respect for fellow humans, regardless of race, gender, age, religion, or political views; Appreciation for diversity and multiple perspectives; A view that no single society or culture is inherently superior to any other; Cherishing the natural world and respecting the rights of all living things; Practicing and encouraging sustainable patterns of living, consumption and production; Striving to resolve conflicts without the use of violence; Be responsible for solving pressing global challenges in whichever way they can; Think globally and act locally in eradicating inequality and injustice in all their forms. (p. 2) Griffiths and Guo’s portrait of the global citizen implicitly assumes that any given citizen will act consistently, following well-established rational ideas and values (perhaps homo-economicus or homo-politicus). Accordingly, for GCEDTEd advocates, it is necessary to manufacture a new type of professional educator, one that shares the tradition of the romanticized, idealized teacher whose political behaviors are honest, disinterested and emerging from autonomous rational and deliberate processes. The presence of the notion of the disembodied citizen in GCED-TEd proposals can be traced in the importance given to how teachers define GCED.9 Actually, a large part of these programs is dedicated to enrich teachers’ conceptualizations of global citizenship, based on the evidence that teachers have a narrow awareness of being global citizens (Byker, 2016; Duckworth, Levy, & Levy, 2005; Longview Foundation, 2008; Zong, 2009), and consequently, they hardly ever use the concept of global citizenship in their discourses and classrooms (Rapoport, 2015). For instance, one of the objectives of the GCED-TEd project advocated by McLean, Cook, and Crowe (2006) “aims to expand the teacher candidates’ understanding of global citizenship” (p.  4). Likewise, An (2014) explains that her “goal as a teacher educator [is] to introduce the multiple, contested nature of global citizenship to teacher candidates and challenge them to reflect on their own notions of global citizenship” (p. 27).

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

107

In the GCED-TEd course analyzed by Guo (2014), the first three topics (out of nine) developed were: “1) Introduction to global citizenship and global citizenship education 2) Goals and objectives of education for global citizenship? 3) Key concepts and themes in global citizen education” (p. 5). Therefore, it is tacitly assumed that having an approach to this concept is crucial to be a global citizen. This assumption might have also guided research on GCEDTEd considering the attention that has been paid to pre-service and in-service teachers’ perceptions on global citizenship (e.g., Carr, Pluim, & Howard, 2014; Günel & Pehlivan, 2016; Myers, 2006; Rapoport, 2010; Robbins, Francis, & Elliot, 2003). The presence of that vision of the citizen as disembodied and purely rational political actor in GCED discourses is just an example of a weak point of that seemingly perfect model. The Cartesian tradition of “cogito, ergo sum” ignores the importance of emotion and lived experiences in civic learning, resulting in excessively impractical models (Fischman & Haas, 2012; Knight Abowitz, 2008; Schugurensky, 2010). This even happens to those GCED-TEd proposals that promote cross-cultural exchange and study-abroad programs (Roberts, 2007) as they consider these experiences enough to obtain globally competent teachers (Parkhouse, Tichnor-Wagner, Cain, & Glazier, 2016; Trilokekar & Kukar, 2011). Another frequent and pertinent critique of GCED is its Western cultural bias (Andreotti & de Souza, 2012; Dill, 2015; Handler, 2013; Hartman & Kiely, 2014; Jeffress, 2012; Wang & Hoffman, 2016). It is, therefore, very questionable to consider GCED as the most evolved model. This consideration, however, makes full sense within a romanticized discourse of redemption, which we explain next. GCED: Redemptive Educational Solution to Non-Educational Global Problems GCED proposals have been driven by very different conceptual frameworks with no consensus on what GCED means10 (Gaudelli, 2009; Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012; Noddings, 2005; Shultz, 2007). Some authors stress the importance of human rights (Osler, 2005), connecting with the ancient Stoic tradition of cosmopolitanism (Heater, 2004; Nussbaum, 1997), while others emphasize students’ participation in global governance (Pike, 2008), considering the lack of democratic control and regulation of globalization (Archibugi & Held, 2011; Held, 1997, 2010). Some focus on the development of a sense of belonging to a global community (De Rivera & Carson, 2015), while others highlight the critical awareness of global power asymmetries (Arnold, 2014; Camicia & Franklin, 2011). Perhaps the only unifying implicit trend is the recognition of the existence of a new geopolitical scenario and a sense of urgency to respond to the challenges derived from globalization (Stromquist & Monkman, 2014; Suárez-Orozco, 2007). Most GCED policies and institutional documents exalt the relevance of including GCED in national curricula to face global challenges by preparing

108

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

students to become “proactive contributors to a more just, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable world” (UNESCO, 2013, p.  3). The global issues and problems commonly referred to by national GCED policies are usually those related to conflict resolution, sustainable development, respect for human rights and diversity, economic interdependence and social inequalities (Mannion et al., 2011).11 Of course, this trend is also present in many GCETEd programs. As Guo (2014) states in her defense of a GCED-TEd course: Today’s students are graduating into a world that is interconnected as never before. As citizens in the 21st century, they are required to be responsible and responsive to the myriad complex problems and issues of global and local concern, whether in health, environment, peace, or economic security. This shifting global context demands that students today develop the knowledge, skills, attributes, and commitment to global citizenship through the educational process. (p. 2) By embracing the idea that “GCED aims to empower learners to engage and assume active roles, both locally and globally, to face and resolve global challenges” (UNESCO, 2014, p. 15), it is implicitly assumed that the responsibility for solving those problems lies with the individuals, not with governments or international organizations. Obviously, the resolution of wars, climate change, social disparities, hunger and so forth do not just depend on the global citizenship competence of the individuals and their cooperation (Held, 2016). This is not the first time, however, that governments and international organizations promote curricular and civic oriented measures to address social and political problems, ignoring or minimizing the incidence of other structural reasons (Evans, 2015; Gimeno, 2009; Romero & Estellés, 2015). This idealized conception of education reinforces the neoliberal perspective of minimizing the public sphere and governments’ obligations towards their citizens (Evans, 2015; Romero & Estellés, 2015). Instead of questioning this perverse implication of idealizing GCED, GCED-TEd programs tend to exalt this narrative. Another example of this can be found in the ACT! Active Citizens Today Canadian project for global citizenship educators, which is: aimed to support global citizenship educators in teaching students to take an active role in confronting injustice and inequality, both locally and globally. In this respect, the ACT! teaching kit project recognizes the potential and responsibility of both teachers and students as global citizens to be change agents in an interconnected and interdependent world. (Larsen & Faden, 2008, p. 74) Considering the drama pedagogy GCED-TEd program advocated by Blanks (2013) in the US, “encouraging in students the belief that they can make a

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

109

diference in the world, for the better, was the most important desired outcomes” (p. 13) and, actually, teachers after the workshop recognized they had “increased optimism and inspiration” (p. 13). As these statements indicate, considering GCED as the key factor of a more just and sustainable world invokes an all-powerful educationally redemptive discourse. Another hidden reasoning and simplification underlying such idealized advocacy of GCED is the following: GCED can solve global problems but if GCED is not solving them it is because it is not well implemented. Here, the teacher is the main agent of GCED. This narrative is especially evident in the introduction sections of the literature on GCED-TEd (Appleyard & McLean, 2011; Blanks, 2013; Guo, 2014; McLean et al., 2006; Zong, 2009), which often follows the logic that GCED is crucial to address the demands of globalization; GCED is implemented by teachers; thus, preparing teachers for GCED is imperative. This claim is well summarized in the first three lines of Zong’s (2009) self-study of a GCED web-based project for pre-service teachers: “teacher educators today are faced with an urgent responsibility to transform curriculum and pedagogy to respond to the accelerating growth of global interdependence in economy, technology, politics, and culture” (p. 617). The literature reflects an under-analyzed belief that globalization demands GCED and the success of GCED depends largely on a new form of preparation and perhaps resocialization of teachers (Günel & Pehlivan, 2016). The formulation is deceptively simple and clear: if society wants GCED, teachers need to educate their students to be global citizens, thus, teachers themselves should also be global citizens. Several GCED-TEd proposals are based on the premise that GCED teachers should be global citizens first of all (see An, 2014; Appleyard & McLean, 2011; Blanks, 2013; Byker, 2016; Guo, 2014; McLean et al., 2006). As Byker (2016) states, “The development of global citizenship among teachers needs to begin even before teachers sign their first contract” (p. 264). In this simple model, GCED-TEd programs need to promote future teachers: to be aware of the global nature of societal issues, to care about people in distant places, to understand the nature of global economic integration, to appreciate the interconnectedness and interdependence of peoples, to respect and protect cultural diversity, to fight for social justice for all, and to protect planet earth—home for all human beings. (Zhao, 2010, p. 426) Given that idealized profile, it does not surprise that many studies have found that teachers usually lack the confidence and pedagogical skills to address GCED, although they consider its importance (An, 2014; Appleyard & McLean, 2011; Carr et al., 2014; McLean et al., 2006; Reimer & McLean, 2009; Robbins et al., 2003). In this regard, we embrace Yemini’s (2017) advice when she says that: “teacher education programs aimed at the promotion of GCED should place greater emphasis on the difculties teachers often face when implementing GCED in the classroom, rather than limiting the discussion

110

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

to its many potential benefits” (p. 74). After all, although teachers show a better understanding of GCED after GCED-TEd programs (An, 2014; Appleyard & McLean, 2011; Blanks, 2013; Byker, 2016; Guo, 2014; McLean et al., 2006), that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have become more engaged global citizens or that the optimism that these programs apparently inspire will last long. What cannot be ignored is that the simple formulation of a GCED idealized framing generates a potent narrative that inspires both scholars and educators. GCED becomes a renewed contemporary version of pedagogical redemptive salvation: the process through which the child becomes the cosmopolitan citizen whose reason produces freedom and inclusion (Popkewitz, 2008, 2009). However, the supposed liberating virtues of GCED cannot but have a Januslike double face: at the same time as the globally educated cosmopolitan citizen is defined and equipped with new global languages, measures, norms and images, a simultaneous process of defining and identifying what is intended to be excluded as parochial and backwards non-global traits occurs (Popkewitz, 2008, 2009). For this reason, Popkewitz (2008) states that paradoxically emancipatory principles lying behind cosmopolitanism are “double gestures of hope and fear, producing processes of exclusion with those of inclusion” (p. 301). In Andreotti’s (2015) words, this global imaginary divides humanity: between those who perceive themselves as knowledge holders, hard workers, world-problem solvers, rights dispensers, global leaders; and those who are perceived to be (and often perceive their cultures as) lacking knowledge, laid back, problem creators, aid dependent and global followers in their journey towards the undisputed goal of development. (p. 3) It is not surprising then that some begin to consider cosmopolitanism as a form of capital12 (Marshall, 2011; Veugelers, 2011; Weenink, 2008) and as such a trend being incorporated as one way to expand the commercialization of educational opportunities, especially among some international schools and educational programs that use cosmopolitan GCED as part of their brand and sign of social distinction (Gardner-McTaggart, 2016; Resnik, 2009, 2012). For example, Gardner-McTaggart (2016) showed how the growing expansion of the International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum in the Global South has occurred “not for reasons of equity, or global citizenship, but rather in pursuit of relative advantage” (p. 1). According to him, the key advantage that IB schools provide is related to the cultural and symbolic capital that they confer as it produces a clear sense of distinction and privilege (Gardner-McTaggart, 2016).13 Something similar happened in international schools. As Hayden (2011) says, international schools have “rapidly emerged as a means of catering not only for the globally mobile professional classes, but also for the socioeconomically advantaged national elites for whom an English-medium form of education is perceived to bestow further advantage” (p. 18).

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

111

GERM and Teacher Education As noted earlier, it is important to understand the move towards expanding GCED-TEd programs within the profound economic impact of globalization on practices favoring free trade, foreign investment, private enterprise and liberalized trade that prevail and have changed the type of employees demanded for this context (Stromquist & Monkman, 2014). The shift in the type of worker needed for global markets has influenced educational policies, curricula and practices, including those related to GCED. In fact, preparing students with the necessary knowledge, skills and competences to compete in an increasingly global economy is also a declared intention of many GCED programs (Evans, Ingram, MacDonald, & Weber, 2009). As Arnold (2014) says, GCED “is often employed with the objective to produce a generation of young people equipped with the cross-cultural skills needed to succeed in a global market—a generation of leaders-in-development” (p.  35). Some studies also demonstrate that GCED practices often have that focus as well (Arnold, 2014; DiCicco, 2016). This connection between GCED and global market demands is not independent from the fact that GCED has been largely fostered by international economic organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Effectively, current attention in GCED is not the result of teacher demands or public debates about the functions and goals of national schooling. It has not been initiated either by developing countries or groups excluded from traditional forms of citizenship (i.e. refugees or migrants). On the contrary, it has been started in countries like Britain and the US14 and adopted by international organizations that have rapidly expanded it all over the world. In particular, some of those transnational organizations that have given that impulse to GCED are strictly economic institutions. One of the most relevant is the OECD, which has also been called the “World Ministry of Education” (Spring, 2015, p. 64). This organization has largely put on the same level “economic competiveness”, “global competence”, “21st century skills” and “global citizenship skills” (Nilsson, 2015). In this sense, GCED has focused on preparing students to be successful global citizens and “life-long learners” with a high dose of flexibility in knowledge and skills. In what appears to be a paradox, the discourse on GCED has been largely shaped and expanded by neoliberal policies that are far from pursuing global solidarity, sustainability or cross-cultural literacy (Andreotti & de Souza, 2012; Arnold, 2014; DiCicco, 2016; Myers, 2016). Paradoxically, neo-liberalism, alongside its critique of the deadening consequences of the ‘intrusion of the state’ into the life of the individual, has nonetheless provoked the invention and/or deployment of a whole array of organizational forms and technical methods in order to extend the field in which a certain kind of economic freedom might be practiced in the form of personal autonomy, enterprise, and choice. (Rose, 1996, p. 37)

112

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

GERM is characterized by a strong advocacy for individual choice in the selection of educational opportunities, and also tied to school and teacher accountability, high stakes standards, standardized testing, school autonomy, privatization and the mitigation of the role of teacher unions and state regulation of education. At the center of the GERM model is how to best accommodate educational institutions to marketplace-like logic. GERMs strongly believe in the inherently superior performance of the private for-profit sector, but they cannot advance without a strong state intervention (Hursh, 2001). Within the GERM neoliberal hegemony, the focus and agendas have shifted to financially driven and assessed programs of school reform with direct consequences for TEd. These agendas are centered on increasing the accountability and efficiency of the schools through processes of privatization/ commercialization and outsourcing of educational services, and expansion of online and digital platforms with the goal of generating teachers and students with entrepreneurial spirits and highly developed senses of individualized educational responsibility. In the specific case of TEd, with the development of alternative paths to teacher certification and the increased use of “globally” oriented and commercialized curriculum and educational packages. This restructuring is mainly understood as a process of producing more effective systems of rewards and punishments to promote a merit-based educational market, while simultaneously thoroughly transforming the goals, epistemological bases and the methods and procedures of school systems. In some ways, this is again a simple and powerful transposition of logics from the market into the public sector. Teachers and students are held to account, their efficiency measured by international large-scale educational assessments. But this is not simply a process of measurement and comparison; it also affects and changes what the evaluation and accountability programs measure, driven by the reductionist idea that everything is a matter of accounting and the only educational lessons that are worthwhile to teach are those that can be counted and measured in the international exams. In teacher education institutions, the GERM movement can be detected in the relationship that GCED-TEd proposals have with 1) the global market demands of education, 2) the standardization and accountability culture and 3) the internationalization of teacher education. Although the relationship between education and economic growth is rather uncertain (Ramirez, Luo, Schofer, & Meyer, 2006), global market demands have subordinated teacher education institutions. The cause of competition in an increasingly globalized economy has become the core of teacher education today.15 “Flexibility”, “lifelong learning”, “IT skills” and “creativity” have turned out to be the mantra of numerous teacher education discourses (Bates, 2008; Bernstein, 2000). This makes sense in a context where problem solving, creativity, flexibility and familiarity with new technologies are the qualities that employers want from competitive candidates (Stewart, 2007; Wagner, 2008). As a consequence, teachers are required to develop the capacity to continuously train their students to respond to the instability of markets and technology.

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

113

By using these slogans, the idea that education and teacher education has to serve the economic demands becomes more and more accepted. Moreover, it is assumed that future citizens will have to work in a constantly changing global economy characterized by free trade (Arnold, 2014; Nilsson, 2015). This type of political economy is therefore naturalized, and this naturalization ultimately serves as a way to reduce the responsibilities of the states for the well-being of their citizens (Stiglitz, 2012). As Arnold (2014) astutely observes, “[b]y envisioning the economy as a given, governments are absolved of responsibility in the regulation of the economy and the mitigation of structural inequalities among populations” (p. 5). This view of teacher education focused on training for an essentially privatized market has led to a growing concern about the effectiveness of teaching and its result: a regime of standards and accountability aimed to make teachers and students economically competitive (Sleeter, 2008; Tonna, 2007). Indeed, the echoes of the global imperative for teacher education resound in many standards documents for TEd, frequently with a clear economic bias (Aydarova & Marquardt, 2016). These standards serve as parameters for testing that end up redefining the global perspective of teacher education (Aydarova & Marquardt, 2016). Within this context, it is also not surprising that large efforts have been destined to develop standards and ways of GCED measurement (see, for example, OECD, 2016; UNESCO, 2013). Some of these efforts were directly promoted by international economic organizations. For instance, the OECD decision to include global competences in the 2018 round of PISA, which has had a great impact on how GCED is conceptualized to the point that “the OECD positions GCED within an economic framework of global competitiveness” (Nilsson, 2015, p.  2). Decisions adopted by governments in this regard seem to take the same direction. After studying the global citizenship standards of 10 U.S. states, Blevins (2011) concluded that they were more focused on global economic competitiveness: “[t]he conclusion that seems most likely from this sample of standards documents is that global citizenship standards have been developed in attempt to more adequately prepare students for the increasingly globalized world of work” (p. 157). GERM’s focus on accountability also has another significant impact on GCED related to its over-preoccupation with core areas of performance (Robertson, 2015). When GCED occupies a secondary position in the curriculum, it becomes a privilege for those schools within higher socioeconomic communities that can go beyond basic requirements (Carnoy, Elmore, & Siskin, 2003, p.  56). Under the accountability regime, GCED becomes, therefore, a “form of elitism, undermining the ideals of justice and equality that are central to the basic concept of global citizenship” (DiCicco, 2016, p.  5). Thus, GCED becomes in turn a product to be consumed rather than a civic right. Furthermore, teacher education faculties and programs have experienced a process of internationalization across the world in recent decades (Acedo, 2012; Bégin-Caouette, 2012; Low & Lee, 2012; Lugovtsova, Krasnova, & Torhova, 2012; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010). Yet, if those internationalization

114

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

efforts are critically examined, it is easy to find global market values at their base (Aydarova & Marquardt, 2016). Certainly, the internationalization of teacher education cannot be understood without considering the neoliberal trend of promoting a business model of education. As a response to the global pressures of economic competition, several TEd programs have introduced international perspectives in curricular content and promoted study and teaching abroad experiences (Larsen, 2016). Moreover, many non-English speaking countries increasingly use English as a medium of instruction in higher education as a manifestation of global market demands (Larsen, 2016) that position English as a lingua franca with cultural and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1991). In this scenario, global citizenship is often framed as a cultural capital or prestigious status obtained by familiarizing oneself with other languages and cultures (Weenink, 2008; Zemach-Bersin, 2012). The most obvious opportunities for such engagement emerge in study abroad programs, often considered as a reference of both intercultural and global citizenship education (Dunn, Dotson, Cross, Kesner, & Lundahl, 2014; Wilson & Flournoy, 2007). The expansion of study abroad programs and other international initiatives such as international schools and baccalaureates, far from being a process to achieve global justice, operates as a tool to promote a type of global citizenship based on prestigious and labor competitiveness (Gardner-McTaggart, 2016; Resnik, 2009, 2012). Global citizenship becomes, therefore, an elitist identity and a social form of distinction (Veugelers, 2011; Weenink, 2008).

Can We Find Non-Redemptive Antidotes to a GERMInfected GCED for TEd? Optimism and pessimism have become synonymous with consumer confidence, or the lack of thereof. Radical ideas about a different world have become almost literally unthinkable. The expectations of what we as society can achieve have been dramatically eroded, leaving us with the cold, hard truth that without utopia, all that remains is a technocracy. (Bregman, 2017, p. 15)

Bregman’s reflection captures quite well the tension and challenges posed by GCED for TEd. As we noted in the introduction, we find hints of optimism and potential for real transformation in non-romanticized GCED proposals; we also remain pessimistically concerned with the coupling of the dominant redemptive GCED models that, in most cases, unintentionally lend their unexamined ideals for the promotion of commercialized winner-takes-all GERMs. We want to be explicit, there is no formal or explicit alliance between those sectors that are promoting—and are profiting with—GERM and those who enthusiastically embrace romantic visions of GCED-TEd. The key challenge, as we understand it, is to maintain the transformational utopian impulses of radical cosmopolitan global educational projects by avoiding the easy temptation of

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

115

reducing them to good citizen checklists, abstract normative blueprints of cosmopolitanism, or technocratic globally flavored top-down pedagogical practices detached from real students’ ordinary experiences. How to spot a GERM-infected TEd-GCED program? Unfortunately we don’t have a simple and preventive procedure, but we believe that any TEdGCE program that willfully ignores the local and global conflicts increasing social and economic inequalities and dismisses the complexities, controversies and dynamics lying behind benignly reified notions of globalization and citizenship is not only GERM-infected, but also pedagogically negative. Exploring the intentional social and pedagogical interests of how any TEd program embraces particular perspectives on GCED and what is really done to teach about globalization with contemporary educators is the only way to identify the scope of a potential pedagogical transformation or the technocratic illusion of a politically neutral education. GCED-TEd programs can only avoid serving the interests of neoliberal-inspired GERMs to the extent that they are skeptical about redemptive entrepreneurial discourses shaping some GCED proposals. We defend a GCED-TEd that renounces redemptive narratives and the romantic idealization of the teaching profession, and the notion that more education is the solution to the most pressing global problems. We also advocate a rejection of any view of the teacher in training as a “passive receptor of a list of ‘good cosmopolitan behaviors’” (Rizvi & Beech, 2017, p. 128). We agree with Rizvi and Beech (2017) that abstract normative views of cosmopolitanism end up favoring top-down pedagogical practices disconnected from students’ everyday experiences. Renouncing a romantic idealized GCED-TEd also entails paying more attention to how programs actually carry out GCED (not only under this label) rather than to how they should do it. Neoliberal GERM-infected TEd programs and their seemingly innocuous romantic ideas about conflict-free global solidarities cannot be sustained without a complementary insistence on the supremacy of individual choice and competition as the only rational response to global challenges. These types of programs will most likely offer a consumer-oriented GCED program that willfully sits silently and perhaps comfortably as a response to increasing educational inequalities at the local and global levels. A new form of cosmopolitan GCED requires a constant tension between radical utopian imagination and a pedagogical ambition of experimentation oriented to reaffirm the principles of human equality, diversity and differences while working towards the democratization of educational access and permanence with more inclusive learning opportunities for all students. GCED is a new unknown pedagogical territory, yet we have no other option than to use some older maps and tools that were developed to prospect the territory of nationally focused citizenship education. It is worth recalling what John Maynard Keynes said in 1935 in the preface of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, “the difficulty lies, not with the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones” (2018). That’s our humble ambition, we cannot provide a new pedagogical map with a detailed route to

116

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

replace the old redemptive citizenship education cartography, but we want to be part of the journey, to share the exploration, to contribute to a better understanding of the potential cracks and accidents as well as the enthusiasm for the discovery of better GCED. While it won’t solve all the problems affecting TEd, we believe that a critical non-redemptive cosmopolitan GCED can contribute to the production of spaces for pedagogical reflections, interventions and collaborations that can encourage teacher educators to go beyond nostalgic dreams of romantic nationalistic schooling and nightmarish GERMs.

Notes 1. See, for example, Blanks, 2013; Guo, 2014; McLean, Cook, & Crowe, 2006; Zong, 2009. 2. The idea of cosmopolitanism is almost as old as the ancient notions of citizenship. At the end of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) and the erosion of power of Athens as the model city-state, Diogenes of Sinope, an early critic of the notion of the city-state, was asked what city he considered to be his home. His reply: “I am a citizen of the world (cosmopolites)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes 3. As Rizvi and Beech note, cosmopolitan ideals cannot be separated from a global ambition. “The idea of cosmopolitanism has traditionally been linked to notions of social solidarity, cohesion and a global sense of belonging (Nussbaum, 2002). What cosmopolitanism challenges is the spatial reference for social solidarity. So if communitarianism is based on the idea of solidarity across a given community (Etzioni, 2004), and nationalism implies developing a sense of belonging to a nation (Smith, 2010), cosmopolitanism appeals to solidarity and belonging along the whole cosmos or the universe” (Rizvi & Beech, 2017, p. 127). 4. For this reason, some scholars advocate for what they call “multiple citizenship” (Held, 1997, 2016; Urry, 1998), which implies recognition of the plurality of levels where citizen engagement can take place: the state, the local, the supra-state and/ or transnational level. 5. See Archibugi & Held, 2011; Benhabib, 2005; Benhabib et al., 2006; Held, 1997, 2010, 2016. 6. Political philosopher Seyla Benhabib (2005), one of the most influential scholars in the field, conceptualizes that contemporary societies are witnessing processes of disaggregation of citizenship because the three the pillars of national citizenship are becoming “unbundled”. Benhabib notes that these pillars, collective identity, the privileges of belonging to a nation-state’s political identity, and the entitlement to social rights and benefits of being ascribed to a given nation-state are no longer integrated into a consistent coherent construct (Benhabib, 2005, 2007) 7. Others associate GCED with the connection of globalization and education (Dolby & Rahman, 2008; Spring, 2008) or with different conceptions of citizenship (Knight Abowitz & Harnish, 2006). 8. See Abdi & Shultz, 2008; Bennett, 2008; Carr & Porfilio, 2012; Davies, Evans, & Reid, 2005; Dower, 2003; Evans, Ingram, MacDonald, & Weber, 2009; Hébert, 2010; Hicks, 2003; Kerr, 2002; Mundy, Manion, Masemann, & Haggerty, 2007; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Peters, Blee, & Britton, 2008; Pike, 2000; Shultz, 2007. 9. See An, 2014; Appleyard & McLean, 2011; Blanks, 2013; Byker, 2016; Guo, 2014; McLean, Cook, & Crowe, 2006. 10. Certainly, debates about its definition have been prolific and typologies abound: soft and critical global citizenship education (Andreotti, 2006); neoliberal, radical and transformational approaches (Shultz, 2007); open, moral and sociopolitical global citizenship (Veugelers, 2011); technical-economic and social justice approaches

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

117

(Marshall, 2011); cosmopolitan and advocacy types of global citizenship (Oxley & Morris, 2013) and so forth. Given those ambitious purposes, not surprisingly many authors have critiqued that GCED ideals do not translate to real structural changes (Myers, 2006, 2016; Rapoport, 2009, 2015). While many curricular documents could embrace global goals, they nonetheless are firmly framed within the limits of each given nationstate curriculum and standards. As Myers (2016) concludes his comparative analysis, “the strategy of internationalizing the curriculum with global discourses for citizenship education has rarely challenged the dominant national paradigm” (p. 8). It appears that in terms of its institutionalization, while GCED as field has developed a lot during last years, there is still a long way to be consolidated (Gaudelli, 2016). Weenink (2008) defines cosmopolitan capital as “a propensity to engage in globalizing social arena. [It] comprises bodily and mental predispositions and competencies (savoir faire), which help to engage confidently in such arenas. Moreover, it provides a competitive edge, a head start vis-à-vis competitors. People accumulate, deploy, and display cosmopolitan capital while living abroad for some time, visit and host friends from different nationalities, attend meetings frequently for an international audience, maintain a globally dispersed circle of friends or relatives, read books, magazines, and journals that reach a global audience, and possess a near-native mastery of English and at least one other language” (p. 1092). It is important to consider that the 76% of IB schools are in Anglo-Saxon countries, but the organization is also expanding in the Global South. (IBO, 2013). According to the study done by Parmenter (2011), 56% of the top 250 articles related to GCED on WorldCat were from US institutions, 18% from UK institutions, 6% from Australian institutions and 5% from Canadian institutions (p. 370). See the critical assessments of Apple (2011), Bates (2008), Sleeter (2008), Romero and Luis (2007) and Tonna (2007).

References Abdi, A., & Shultz, L. (Eds.). (2008). Educating for human rights and global citizenship. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Acedo, C. (2012). Internationalization of teacher education. Prospects, 42, 1–3. An, S. (2014). Preparing elementary teachers as global citizenship educators. Journal of Education, 194(2), 25–38. Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–51. Andreotti, V. (2015). Global citizenship education otherwise: Pedagogical and theoretical insights. In A. Abdi, L. Shultz, & T. Pillay (Eds.), Decolonizing global citizenship education (pp. 221–230). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Andreotti, V., & de Souza, L. M. T. M. (Eds.). (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. New York: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (2011). Global crises, social justice, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 222–234. Appleyard, N., & McLean, L. R. (2011). Expecting the exceptional: Pre-service professional development in global citizenship education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 7(2), 6–32. Archibugi, D., & Held, D. (2011). Cosmopolitan democracy: Paths and agents. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(4), 433–461.

118

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

Arnold, E. (2014). Cultivating global citizens: Global citizenship education in a moment of neoliberal globalization, Masters thesis. Simon Fraser University. Aydarova, E., & Marquardt, S. K. (2016). The global imperative for teacher education: Opportunities for comparative and international education. Forum for International Research in Education, 3(1), 23–40. Bates, R. (2008). Teacher education in a global context: Towards a defensible theory of teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(4), 277–293. Bauman, Z. (2001). The individualized society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bégin-Caouette, O. (2012). The internationalization of in-service teacher training in Québec cégeps and their foreign partners: An institutional perspective. Prospects, 42(1), 91–112. Benhabib, S. (2005). Crises of the republic: Transformations of state sovereignty and the prospects of democratic citizenship. Justice, Governance, Cosmopolitanism, and the Politics of Difference—Reconfigurations in a Transnational World, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, pp. 45–78. Benhabib, S. (2007). Democratic exclusions and democratic iterations, dilemmas of “just membership” and prospects of cosmopolitan federalism. European Journal of Political Theory, 6, 445. Benhabib, S., Waldron, J., Honnig, B., Kymlicka, W., & Post, R. (2006). Another cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bennett, W. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Blanks, D. E. (2013). Nobel women: Drama pedagogy for global citizenship education. Global Partners in Education Journal, 3(1), 3–21. Blevins, D. (2011). New directions in citizenship education: Globalization, state standards and an ethical/critical social studies curriculum, Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from http:// rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1321839149 Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bregman, R. (2017). Utopia for realists: How we can build the ideal world. New York: Back Bay Books. Byker, E. J. (2016). Developing global citizenship consciousness: Case studies of critical cosmopolitan theory. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 20(3), 264–275. Camicia, S. P., & Franklin, B. M. (2011). What type of global community and citizenship? Tangled discourses of neoliberalism and critical democracy in curriculum and its reform. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 311–322. Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., & Siskin, L. (Eds.). (2003). The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing. New York: Routledge-Falmer. Carr, P. R., Pluim, G., & Howard, L. (2014). Linking global citizenship education and education for democracy through social justice: What can we learn from the perspectives of teacher-education candidates. Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 4(1), 1–21. Carr, P. R., & Porfilio, B. J. (Eds.). (2012). Educating for peace in a time of ‘permanent war’: Are schools part of the solution or the problem? New York: Routledge. Dale, R., & Robertson, S. L. (2007). New arenas of global governance and international organisations: Reflections and directions. In K. A. Martens, A. Rusconi, & K. Leuze

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

119

(Eds.), New arenas of education governance: The impact of international organizations and markets on educational policy making (pp. 217–228). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Davies, I., Evans, M., & Reid, A. (2005). Globalising citizenship education? A critique of “global education” and “citizenship education”. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), 66–89. Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5–25. De Rivera, J., & Carson, H. A. (2015). Cultivating a global identity. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(2), 310–330. DiCicco, M. (2016). Global citizenship education within a context of accountability and 21st century skills: The case of Olympus High School. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(57). http://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2364 Dill, J. S. (2015). The longings and limits of global citizenship education: The moral pedagogy of schooling in a cosmopolitan age. New York: Routledge. Dolby, N., & Rahman, A. (2008). Research in international education. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 676–726. Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Duckworth, R. L., Levy, L. W., & Levy, J. (2005). Present and future teachers of the world’s children How internationally-minded are they? Journal of Research in International Education, 4(3), 279–311. Dunn, A. H., Dotson, E. K., Cross, S. B., Kesner, J., & Lundahl, B. (2014). Reconsidering the local after a transformative global experience: A comparison of two study abroad programs for preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 36, 283–304. Eidoo, S., Ingram, L. A., MacDonald, A., Nabavi, M., Pashby, K., & Stille, S. (2011). “Through the kaleidoscope”: Intersections between theoretical perspectives and classroom implications in Critical Global Citizenship Education. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(4), 59–85. Enslin, P. (2000). Education and democratic citizenship: In defence of cosmopolitanism. In M. Leicester, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (Eds.), Politics, education and citizenship (pp. 149–150). New York: Falmer Press. Evans, M., Ingram, L. A., MacDonald, A., & Weber, N. (2009). Mapping the “global dimension” of citizenship education in Canada: The complex interplay of theory, practice and context. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 17–34. Evans, R. W. (2015). Schooling corporate citizens: How accountability reform has damaged civic education and undermined democracy. New York: Routledge. Fischman, G. E., & Haas, E. (2012). Beyond idealized citizenship education embodied cognition, metaphors, and democracy. Review of Research in Education, 36(1), 169–196. Fischman, G. E., & Haas, E. (2014). Moving beyond idealistically narrow discourses in citizenship education. Policy Futures in Education, 12(3), 387–402. Gardner-McTaggart, A. (2016). International elite, or global citizens? Equity, distinction and power- the International Baccalaureate and the rise of the South. Globalization, Societies and Education, 14(1), 1–29. Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1), 68–85. Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. New York: Routledge.

120

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

Gimeno, P. (2009). Didáctica crítica y comunicación: un diálogo con Habermas y la Escuela de Frankfurt. Barcelona: Octaedro. Griffiths, R. (1998). Educational citizenship and independent learning. London: Jessica Kingsley. Günel, E., & Pehlivan, A. (2016). Pre-service social studies teachers’ perception of global citizenship. Journal of Education and Future, 10, 51–69. Guo, L. (2014). Preparing teachers to educate for 21st century global citizenship: Envisioning and enacting. Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 4(1), 1–23. Hahn, C. L. (2005). Diversity and human rights in England and the United States. In A. Osler (Ed.), Teachers, human rights and diversity (pp. 23–34). London: Trentham Books. Handler, R. (2013). Disciplinary adaptation and undergraduate desire: Anthropology and global development studies in the liberal arts curriculum. Cultural Anthropology, 28(2), 181–203. Hartman, E., & Kiely, R. (2014). A critical global citizenship. In P. Green & M. Johnson (Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Tension and transformation in international service-learning (pp. 215–242). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hayden, M. (2011). Transnational spaces of education: The growth of the international school sector. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(2), 211–224. Heater, D. (2004). A history of education for citizenship. London: Routledge Falmer. Hébert, Y. (2010). Politics, citizenship education policy in twelve countries, and cosmopolitanism: A commentary. In A. Reid, J. Gill, & A. Sears (Eds.), Globalization, the nation-state and the citizen (pp. 230–240). New York: Routledge. Held, D. (1997). La democracia y el orden global. Del estado moderno al gobierno cosmopolita. Barcelona, Spain: Paidós. Held, D. (2010). Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and realities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Held, D. (2016). Elements of a theory of global governance. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(9), 837–846. Hicks, D. (2003). Thirty years of global education: A reminder of key principles and precedents. Educational Review, 55(3), 265–275. Hursh, D. (2001). Neoliberalism and the control of teachers, students, and learning: The rise of standards, standardization, and accountability. Cultural Logic, 4(1), 1–9. IBO. (2013). IB fast facts. IBO. Retrieved from www.ibo.org/facts/fastfacts/ Jeffress, D. (2012). The “me to we” social enterprise: Global education as lifestyle brand. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 6(1), 18–30. Jorgenson, S., & Shultz, L. (2012). Global Citizenship Education (GCED) in postsecondary institutions: What is protected and what is hidden under the umbrella of GCED. Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 2(1), 1–22. Kerr, D. (2002). Citizenship education: An international comparison across sixteen countries. International Journal of Social Education, 17(1), 1–15. Keynes, J. M. (2018).  The general theory of employment, interest, and money. London: MacMillan. Knight Abowitz, K. (2008). On the public and civic purposes of education. Educational Theory, 58, 357–376. Knight Abowitz, K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 653–690. Larsen, M. A. (2016). Globalization and internationalisation of teacher education: A comparative case study of Canada and Greater China. Teaching Education, 27(4), 396–409. Larsen, M. A., & Faden, L. (2008). Supporting the growth of global citizenship educators. Brock Education, 17, 71–86.

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

121

Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 539–556. Longview Foundation. (2008). Teacher preparation for the global age: The imperative for change. Retrieved from www.longviewfdn.org/122/teacher-preparation-for-the-global-age. html. Low, E. L., & Lee, S. K. (2012). Bringing Singapore’s teacher education beyond its shores. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 11(1), 43–51. Lugovtsova, A., Krasnova, T., & Torhova, A. (2012). Internationalizing teacher education: The case of Belarus. Prospects, 42, 71–90. Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 443–456. Marcus, G. E. (2002). Sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. Pennsylvania University, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Marshall, H. (2011). Instrumentalism, ideals and imaginaries: Theorising the contested space of global citizenship education in schools. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 411–426. McLean, L. R., Cook, S. A., & Crowe, T. (2006). Educating the next generation of global citizens through teacher education, one new teacher at a time. Canadian Social Studies, 40(1), 1. Mundy, K., Manion, C., Masemann, V., & Haggerty, M. (2007). Charting global education in Canada’s elementary schools: Provincial, district, and school level perspectives. Toronto, ON: UNICEF Canada. Myers, J. P. (2006). Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: Education for global citizenship in the US. Theory & Research in Social Education, 34(3), 370–394. Myers, J. P. (2016). Charting a democratic course for global citizenship education: Research directions and current challenges. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(55), 1–19. Rose, N. (1996). Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.) (2013), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and the rationalities of government (pp. 37–64). London: UCL Press. Nilsson, I. (2015). Constructing global citizenship education: An analysis of OECD discourse on global competence, Unpublished Paper. Department of Political Science, Lund University. Noddings, N. (2005). Global citizenship: Promises and problems. In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating citizens for global awareness (pp. 1–21). New York: Teachers College Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. OCDE. (2016). Global competency for an inclusive world. Paris: OECD. Olmedo, I., & Harbon, L. (2010). Broadening our sights: Internationalizing teacher education for a global arena. Teaching Education, 21(1), 75–88. Osler, A. (2005). Teachers, human rights and diversity. London: Trentham Books. Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. Parkhouse, H., Tichnor-Wagner, A., Cain, J. M., & Glazier, J. (2016). “You don’t have to travel the world”: Accumulating experiences on the path toward globally competent teaching. Teaching Education, 27(3), 1–19.

122

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

Parmenter, L. (2011). Power and place in the discourse of global citizenship education. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 367–380. Peters, M., Blee, H., & Britton, A. (2008). Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Pike, G. (2000). A tapestry in the making: The strands of global education. In T. Goldstein & D. Selby (Eds.), Weaving connections: Educating for peace, social and environmental justice (pp. 218–241). Toronto, ON: Sumack Press. Pike, G. (2008). Global education. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 468–480). London: Sage. Popkewitz, T. S. (2008). Education sciences, schooling, and abjection: Recognizing difference and the making of inequality? South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 301–319. Popkewitz, T. S. (2009). El cosmopolitismo y la era de la reforma escolar. La ciencia, la educación y la construcción de la sociedad mediante la construcción de la infancia. Madrid: Morata. Ramirez, F., Luo, X., Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. (2006). Student achievement and national economic growth. American Journal of Education, 113(1), 1–29. Rapoport, A. (2009). A forgotten concept: Global citizenship education and state social studies standards. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(1), 91–112. Rapoport, A. (2010). We cannot teach what we don’t know: Indiana teachers talk about global citizenship education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5(3), 179–190. Rapoport, A. (2015). Global citizenship education. Classroom teachers’ perspectives and approaches. In J. R. Harshman, T. Augustine, & M. M. Merryfield (Eds.), Research in global citizenship education (pp. 119–135). Greensboro, NC: Information Age Publishing. Reimer, K., & McLean, L. R. (2009). Conceptual clarity and connections: Global education and teacher candidates. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(4), 903–926. Resnik, J. (2009). Multicultural education: Good for business but not for the state? The IB curriculum and global capitalism. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(3), 217–244. Resnik, J. (2012). The denationalization of education and the expansion of the International Baccalaureate. Comparative Education Review, 56(2), 248–269. Rizvi, F., & Beech, J. (2017). Global mobilities and the possibilities of a cosmopolitan curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 47(1), 125–134. Robbins, M., Francis, L. J., & Elliott, E. (2003). Attitudes toward education for global citizenship among trainee teachers. Research in Education, 69(1), 93–98. Roberts, A. (2007). Global dimensions of schooling: Implications for internationalizing teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 9–26. Robertson, S. L. (2015). What teachers need to know about the “Global Education Reform Movement” (or GERM). In G. Little (Ed.), Global education ‘reform’: Building resistance and solidarity (pp. 10–17). Britain: Russell Press. Robertson, S. L., & Dale, R. (2008). Researching education in a globalising era: Beyond methodological nationalism, methodological statism, methodological educationism and spatial fetishism. In J. Resnik (Ed.), The production of educational knowledge in the global era (pp. 19–32). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Romero, J., & Estellés, M. (2015). Educación para la ciudadanía y currículum: sus regímenes de verdad en perspectiva histórica. In B. Borghi, F. F. García, & O. Moreno (Eds.), Novi cives: Cittadini dall’infanzia in poi (pp. 63–76). Bologna: Pàtron Editore. Romero, J., & Luis, A. (2007). ¿Sirven las políticas y prácticas de formación del profesorado para mejorar la educación? Una respuesta desde el análisis de la construcción social de la docencia. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 15(19). http://doi. org/10.14507/epaa.v15n19.2007

Global Citizenship in Teacher Education

123

Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 45–61. Schugurensky, D. (2010). Citizenship learning for and through participatory democracy. In E. Pinnington & D. Schugurensky (Eds.), Learning citizenship by practicing democracy: International initiatives and perspectives (pp.  1–19). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholarly Press. Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 248–258. Sleeter, C. (2008). Equity, democracy, and neoliberal assaults on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1947–1957. Spring, J. (2008). Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 330–363. Spring, J. (2015). Globalization of education: An introduction. New York: Routledge. Stewart, V. (2007). Becoming citizens of the world. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 8–14. Stiglitz, J. (2012). The price of inequality. New York: Norton & Company. Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (2014). Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Su, F., Bullivant, A., & Holt, V. (2013). Global citizenship education. In W. Curtis, et al. (Eds.), Education studies: An issues based approach (pp. 231–244). Exeter: Sage/Learning Matters. Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (Ed.). (2007). Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Tonna, M. A. (2007). Teacher education in a globalized age. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(1), 1–28. Trilokekar, R. D., & Kukar, P. (2011). Disorienting experiences during study abroad: Reflections of pre-service teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1141–1150. UNESCO. (2013). Global citizenship education: An emerging perspective. Outcome document of the technical consultation on global citizenship education. Retrieved from www.unesco. org/new/en/education/resources/online-materials/single- view/news/unescos_seoul_ consultation_deepens_understanding_of_global_citizenship_education/#.UjxKSXbFng UNESCO. (2014). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/ 002277/227729e.pdf Urry, J. (1998). Globalization and citizenship. Department of Sociology, University of Lancaster, UK. Retrieved from www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/urry-globalizationand-citizenship.pdf Veugelers, W. (2011). The moral and the political in global citizenship: Appreciating differences in education. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 473–485. Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York: Basic Books. Wang, C., & Hoffman, D. M. (2016). Are WE the world? A critical reflection on selfhood and global citizenship education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(56). Weenink, D. (2008). Cosmopolitanism as a form of capital: Parents preparing their children for a globalizing world. Sociology, 42(6), 1089–1106. Wilson, A., & Flournoy, M. A. (2007). Preparatory courses for student teaching abroad. In K. Cushner & S. Brennan (Eds.), Intercultural student teaching: A bridge to global competence (pp. 34–56). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Yemini, M. (2017). Internationalization and global citizenship: Policy and practice in education. Palgrave Macmillan.

124

Gustavo E. Fischman and Marta Estellés

Zemach-Bersin, T. (2012). Entitled to the world: The rhetoric of U.S. global citizenship education and study abroad. In V. Andreotti & L. M. T. M. de Souza (Eds.), Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education (pp. 87–104). New York: Routledge. Zhao, Y. (2010). Preparing globally competent teachers: A new imperative for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 422–431. Zong, G. (2009). Developing preservice teachers’ global understanding through computer-mediated communication technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 617–625.

6

UNESCO ASPnet Schools, Global Citizenship Education, and Conviviality as a Tool to Live Together on a Shared Planet Lynette Shultz and Maren Elfert

Introduction As we begin the end of the third decade of this century, global environmental, social, political, and economic issues hang heavily over all people in the world. We see a rising inequality; we are closer to nuclear war than at any time in the past 50 years; climate instability reveals the real possibility that the earth may soon be unable to sustain life on the planet. A January 2018 report on the state of the world (Oxfam International, 2018) highlighted that 82% of the wealth created in 2017 went to the top 1% of people in the world. In this same time, the world’s billionaires increased in number at the rate of 1 every 2 days and these people saw an increase in wealth of 762 billion US dollars. This inequality in wealth distribution rests on a globalized economic system that “rewards wealth not workers” (ibid, p. 1). Meanwhile, ordinary citizens experience an unfair distribution of the burdens of this system including low wages, a compromised environment, rising housing prices, lessening access to democratic processes, and the delegitimization of citizenship entitlements, such as public health care, public education, and legal frameworks to ensure environmental and health safety. Against this background, it is not surprising to see renewed and contested interests in the role of education. This chapter explores the goals of the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPnet) within the context of these current global issues and educational responses. The chapter’s theoretical approach rests on a decolonial analysis of UNESCO’s goals of education and the system of ASPnet schools (Abdi, 2008; Abdi, Shultz, & Pillay, 2015; Shultz & Abdi, 2017) and a geopolitical analysis of knowledge (Santos, 2014; Dussel, 2013), highlighting the need for a re-visioning of not only UNESCO ASPnet goals but of ideas of global citizenship education as presented by UNESCO. To bring these ideas together, the concept of conviviality (Gilroy, 2008, 2016; Illich, 1973; Morawska, 2014; Nowicka & Vertovec, 2014), rooted in ideas of modes of living together and a concern for human conditions, is used. Conviviality is well suited to place the work of education in the area of “learning to live together” as a resistance to current neoliberal notions of education as a way to sort individuals. Conviviality is connected

126

Lynette Shultz and Maren Elfert

to Haraway’s (2016) call for “making odd-kin”, the forging of good and deep relations across categories of difference to sustain life on the planet, bringing the decolonial imperative into a reshaped understanding of what a peaceful existence on a healthy planet might entail where humans are decentered and hierarchies of difference are dismantled. This theoretical frame is used to examine the network of ASPnet schools as potential sites of transformational education and considers the network itself as a transformational actor. The chapter concludes with recommendations for teacher education to support and extend the ASPnet goals.

What Are ASPnet Schools? The UNESCO ASPnet was created in 1953 during the post-World War II period when countries devastated by the war were rebuilt and international relations were being reconstructed. The constitution of the United Nations renders the spirit of that historical moment: We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. (Preamble to the United Nations Charter)1 The constitution of the United Nations was signed in October 1945, followed by the adoption of the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization’s (UNESCO) constitution one month later. From its inception, the ASPnet schools network had a mandate to promote peace and international understanding through education, as reflected in the much cited phrase from the UNESCO constitution, “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed”. It was understood that the peacebuilding needed in the world required “committed teachers, participatory methods of learning, relevant curricula, unbiased textbooks, a climate of mutual respect and non-violence, in the classroom, in the school, in the family and in the community” (UNESCO ASPnet, 2003, p. 5). ASPnet was viewed as a network that could create and disseminate innovative and experimental education into formal, informal, and non-formal education sites around the world. From its humble beginning with 33 schools in fifteen countries, the network grew until, in 2017, ASPnet included about 10,000 schools in 181 countries. People within and outside UNESCO consider the ASPnet network to be an opportunity to reach thousands of teachers and students and instill in them a critical awareness and understanding of our

A Tool to Live Together on a Shared Planet

127

interconnectedness, our global responsibilities, and the key challenges that we are facing today on our planet. In this, the ASPnet schools are positioned as the recipients of education ideas and materials rather than a source for these. Although there are some exceptions to this where school level input is solicited at UNESCO country and international levels (see Shultz, Guimaraes-Iosif, Chana, & Medland, 2009), the current reinvigorated interest in the network suggests key global stakeholders see the network as a dissemination tool of global development goals, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A recent evaluation of the ASP network states that ASPnet constitutes an important mechanism for UNESCO in facilitating Member States in implementing the holistic and inclusive SDG4-Education 2030 Agenda—such as through developing, testing and applying innovative educational material, as well as pioneering new teaching and learning approaches such as related to Global Citizenship Education (GCED) and Education for Sustainable Development, or through adhering to global and regional flagship initiatives on priority topics. (UNESCO Internal Oversight Service, 2016, p. 1) Schools interested in joining the network are required to go through a certification process that demonstrates their commitment to and enactment of the goals of UNESCO and ASPnet. Research has indicated that schools join the network for diferent purposes but mainly because they are attracted by the legitimation ofered by the association with UNESCO and by the idea of being part of a global initiative (Shultz & GuimaresIosif, 2012; Shultz et al., 2009). “While there is no package of liberation and transformational education that comes with being a UNESCO Associated School, there is encouraging evidence that educators are working in creative and critical ways to educate toward more engaged citizens who are capable of contributing to a strengthened public sphere” (Shultz & Guimares-Iosif, 2012, p. 1). A study of ASPnet schools in two Canadian provinces revealed that: ASPnet schools are unique in their willingness to cross the traditional boundaries between school and community, curriculum and subject area, age and grade, ability and disability, local focus and global concern. Such a willingness to move beyond accepted thinking gives ASPnet schools the potential to transform students into actively engaged citizens. (Shultz et al., 2009, p. 2) Interest in the ASPnet network of schools tends to view the transmission of ideas from UNESCO (the top) to the schools (the bottom) in a one-way flow of dissemination that is widely considered to work against transformational change. Even the rather cautious goals of UNESCO ASPnet fail if teachers and learners are not engaged in a much more robust and dynamic way. As

128

Lynette Shultz and Maren Elfert

an alternative, we can view “the network” as a powerful actor and not just an object (see for example Law, 1992), and the possibility of a multidirectional engagement among these schools across the world becomes a much more dynamic contribution to change. “The ASPnet schools system could be ignited to address the social justice, equity, and even survival concerns that youth have” (Shultz, 2017, p.  27). The network, with its thousands of schools and even more students, crosses boundaries of class, geography, gender, and culture, shifting how these individual schools and students might understand the world. By shifting from top-down management processes to feeding the power of the network, we could see ASPnet make an important global contribution (Shultz, 2017).

UNESCO Goals and Themes for ASPnet Education UNESCO ASPnet schools include public schools, private schools, charter schools, and teacher education institutions. The majority of the participating schools are public and secondary schools. The range of governance structures is certainly wide and presents some challenges in the accreditation process as efforts are made to make the network transparent, legitimate, and engaged. The established themes that ASPnet schools use as UNESCO affiliates reflect the topics and idealist approach to international relations of the times in which they were written. While the foundational ideals continue to speak to how humans might live peacefully and create a world where that is the norm for all people, the themes are meant to provide a range of topics of focus for the schools. From the focus of the early years on international understanding and the role of the United Nations, the ASPnet themes shifted with the (geo-) political context. While the 1960s were dominated by decolonization, the 1970s saw the rise of the environmental, feminist, and human rights movements. In the 1980s disarmament and a new international economic order constituted key themes, with human rights still high on the agenda (UNESCO ASPnet, 2003; Mabunga, 2016). In 1996, the UNESCO report Learning: The Treasure Within, otherwise known as the Delors report, was published, proposing four pillars around which education and learning should be organized in order to promote the peaceful world that exists in the center of the UNESCO vision. In the next decades, these pillars became the foundation for ASPnet schools: learning to know; learning to do; learning to be; and learning to live together (Delors et al., 1996, pp. 85–98), quietly replacing the original UNESCO themes in the minds and programs of many ASPnet teachers and schools. The members of the Delors Commission regarded “learning to live together” as the most important among the “four pillars of education” (Delors et al., 1996, p. 22; see also Carneiro & Draxler, 2008): Developing an understanding of others and their history, traditions and spiritual values and, on this basis, creating a new spirit which . . . would

A Tool to Live Together on a Shared Planet

129

induce people to implement common projects or to manage the inevitable conflicts in an intelligent and peaceful way. (Delors et al., 1996, p. 22) This is a significant demand on schools wishing to become ASPnet schools or to maintain their accreditation. Given the neoliberal context that was emerging globally at that time, the focus on this social learning goal flew in the face of calls for education that was focused on individual learning and success. Globally education goals were shifting quickly toward education that had a selfaware, life-long learning, geographically and occupationally mobile individual as its main subject. There was little time in either classrooms or boardrooms for discussions of common good, publicness, or democratic engagement. During the 2000s, the pillars were pulled toward a neoliberal view of education (see Shultz & Guimares, 2009) and considerations of social goals of education were subsumed into a strengthening competitive global system of education focused on individual achievement in outcome-based learning. The shifting themes (See Figure 6.1) reflect the changing global context in which UNESCO operates as well as notions of the role of education in creating change in wider society. Through the decades in which neoliberalism started to fully shape the world, starting in the late 1970s, the themes shifted to focus on mobility and a borderless world, and peacemaking in individual, private relations. Learning themes focused on individual learning through a particular use of Delors’ (1996) ideas that schools should focus on “learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together”. With the rising impact of the OECD in homogenizing curriculum outcomes and raising the norm of standardization and international comparisons to a hegemonic level, along with the entry of new private sector education policy actors (see Shultz, 2013, 2015), the role of education as a mechanism for social change became muted. It is only in 2015 that there seems to be a renewed energy building within UNESCO to “’think big’ about education again” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 3). UNESCO’s most recent educational manifesto, Rethinking Education: Towards a Global Common Good? (UNESCO, 2015) situates itself in the tradition of the Delors report, reaffirming UNESCO’s humanistic and universal vision of education and reclaiming many of the concepts of the Delors report, such as lifelong learning, citizenship, and solidarity. However, its key idea is the common good that emphasizes the aspect of knowledge. The authors of the report consider education and knowledge “global common goods . . . inspired by the values of solidarity and social justice grounded in our common humanity” (p. 11). In paying tribute to “spiritual dimensions”, (p. 38), the document goes further than the Delors report in putting greater emphasis on “non-scientific” and alternative approaches to development, such as the notion of buen vivir. UNESCO’s recently shifted focus on knowledge and learning for collective societal goods returns to the importance of learning to live together (see UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network, n.d. [2018]). This shift creates an important educational vision and

• Peace & Security • Ending Colonialism • Raising standards of living • International Issues • Young people’s concerns

• Living in a world community • International understanding • Foreign countries and cultures • Women’s rights • Peace and International Cooperation • The role of the United Nations and its specialised agencies in solving world problems • Human rights • “Devotion” to the UNESCO ideals

Figure 6.1 UNESCO ASPnet themes from 1953–2015

1963–1973

1953–1962 • Green movement • Feminist movement • Human Rights • Disarmament • New International Economic order

1974–1983 Mobility Borderless world Youth Making Peace and Friendships • Indigenous Peoples

• • • •

1984–1993 • Inequality • Environment • Human Rights Education • AIDS • Fragility of peace • Curriculum materials for teachers

1994–2003

• Learning to Live Together • Education for Sustainable Development • Renewed interest in role of education in international issues and relations • Rethinking normative principles of governance • Collective social endeavours • New development model • Environmental sustainability • Peace, inclusion, social justice • Global citizenship

2004 +

A Tool to Live Together on a Shared Planet

131

focus for education. However, it is difficult to see how this focus alone will provide the depth and complexity needed to move education toward any of the goals of human rights, democracy, peace, or a sustained future.

Refocusing ASPnet Goals: Conviviality and a Cartography of Living Together Theorists and practitioners have contributed to the idea of conviviality as an analytic tool and as a way to move toward a shared future. In education, the work of Ivan Illich (1973) has been influential. Illich described “tools for conviviality” as “tools that promote learning, sociality, community, and autonomous and creative communication among people” (p. 27). Here institutions, ideas, technology, and material settings contribute to helping people live together in complex contexts and conditions. Illich identified the important role that education plays in creating and sustaining conviviality in local variations but also in a wider planetary scheme. (See also Illich, 1973, in Nowicka & Vertovec, 2014). We can understand conviviality as having to do with the human capacity to relate to the world and to each other. The key issue here is the capacity to be affected by the world. It is not a description of an individual interacting in the world but of the capacity of that person to be impacted by the world. Conviviality is about shifting the spaces and relations of encounter. Gilroy (2005) distinguishes conviviality from other forms of organizing society as one that creates the conditions of place, space, and conflict that normalize relations beyond essentialized cultural categories that are all too readily apprehended to suit a dehumanizing and violent hierarchy of categories of difference (e.g., racist and sexist categories). For him, “conviviality does not describe the absence of racism or the triumph of tolerance” (Gilroy, 2005, xv). He also distances the concept from the “ambiguous” term of “identity” (xv). Conviviality depends on a kind of banality in a range of interactions across difference (Gilroy, 2005, 2008), building an everydayness in social relations that acts as a reparative humanism (Gilroy, 2016) that can undo the damage of hierarchies of difference employed through the violence of colonialism, imperialism, and patriarchy. A frame of conviviality, according to Gilroy (2005), is a global opportunity to understand “the damage that ‘race’ and racism have done to democracy and hope” (p. 151) and then to reconstitute the structures and relations that hold this damage in place. Ewa Morawska (2014) provides a cartography of meanings and conditions of conviviality showing how ranges of conviviality shape a convivial culture in a “continuous becoming” (p. 358) of interactions among human actors and their environments. Morawska cautions against a rigid idea of conviviality but rather sees the elasticity of acts of conviviality as key. Her definition consists of six elements: 1) the recognition of individual and group difference; 2) an appreciation for pluralism and polyvalence of characteristics of difference; 3) relations based on a particularist universalism or pluriversalism where conflict is negotiatory rather than confrontational for some form of resolution or appeasement; 4) a

132

Lynette Shultz and Maren Elfert

sympathetic indifference and empathic interest in others; 5) a horizontal view of difference that avoids categorization into unequal hierarchies of arranged depictions; and 6) an endurance for ongoing everyday relations (p. 359). Given the educational tasks proposed for ASPnet schools, Morawska’s mapping can inform an important deepening of educational pedagogy as well as direct supporting policy and procedures. UNESCO goals for ASPnet currently highlight the importance of global citizenship education and education for sustainable development. UNESCO links global citizenship closely with sustainable development but there is not a clear articulation of the way that this is to happen except for doing “more” or “less” of what humans are currently doing. While there have been variations of these same foci over the past two decades, the urgency of global issues such as climate instability and increased militarization requires these topics of education become, at least, intensified if not reimagined. By extending our relations of conviviality, we can begin to create the conditions for survival on the planet. Haraway (2016) and Moore (2015) describe how relations of class, state, and capital have contributed to the massive, destructive geophysical changes we see (and experience) on the planet. By changing these relations, we can make life on the planet less precarious if, as Haraway describes, we might live more fully human lives based on good relations with humans and non-humans. In the same way that Morawska and Gilroy (earlier) describe the banality of conviviality as a descriptor of how everyday good relations build a convivial culture of pluralism and inclusion without denying difference, Haraway (2016) says that “a common livable world must be composed, bit by bit, or not at all” (p. 40). Here she proposes that we are moving into a time where we are forced by the rapidly deteriorating natural conditions of the world to take “response-ability” (p. 2) for the urgent global environmental and sociopolitical issues that make life on the planet precarious. When this happens, we will “require each other in unexpected collaborations and combinations” (p. 40) . . . we will make “oddkin” (ibid) through sympoeisis or “making with”, where difference is viewed as a key part of “living together”. In her book, The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins, Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing (2015) discusses the importance of engagement with others: We are contaminated by our encounters; they change who we are as we make way for others. As contamination changes world-making projects, mutual worlds—and new directions—may emerge. Everyone carries a history of contamination; purity is not an option. One value of keeping precarity in mind is that it makes us remember that changing with circumstances is the stuff of survival. . . . [S]taying alive—for every species—requires livable collaborations. Collaboration means working across difference, which leads to contamination. Without collaborations, we all die. (pp. 27–28) In the processes of contamination and conviviality, traditional and well-worn categories of identity and relations reveal their instability as we realize our

A Tool to Live Together on a Shared Planet

133

vulnerability and our interdependence with others (and not just human others). “It is unselfconscious privilege that allows us to fantasize—counterfactually— that we each survive alone” (p. 29). By bringing together these ideas of conviviality, the gaps in a human only perspective of sustainability or global citizenship are revealed. What we need is not a scaled-up version of citizenship that valorizes self-interested individuals, educated to compete and conquer in a world that exists as something external and foreign, but rather an understanding of how planetary (or global) relations are assemblages of localized encounters and contaminations, each working to shape the world. The ASPnet theme of “learning to live together” takes on new depths when viewed as being about all planetary relations. The subjects of this education are not just humans but all life on the planet. In making this shift, robust meanings of what and who are global citizens emerges and here we can link global citizenship education with sustainable development in a way that provides a strong ethical foundation from which to build an education for our times. An expanded notion of conviviality takes us beyond humans to see a world that is interconnected. Current research on decolonial knowledge and worldviews shows the importance of relations across species borders particularly as we seek to address global environmental issues. Using this frame of conviviality along with anti-colonial and decolonizing readings of the connection among humans and non-humans reveals the onto-epistemic platforms and subsequent practical shifts that are needed. A key place that an anti-colonial analysis makes its demands is in the acknowledgement of the location of the territory, people, conditions, and analysis that people use. In this, the deep relations among humans, the earth, and non-humans have become clear and the binary of local and global becomes troubled as the interconnection becomes the point of interest. This frame highlights not only the overflowing and overlapping of discursive arenas, sites of struggle, and exchange of ideas and materials across borders, but also provides a view of how visible, hidden, and invisible power works (Gaventa, 2006). There are an abundance of curriculum goals and materials available to teachers within ASPnet schools. Despite this, very little has changed in how we educate about the world and for the world. Education is highly influenced by a liberal universalist worldview, presuming “a single linear path of human progress, and the universal value of Western knowledge, liberal democracy, and a capitalist economy as a means to achieve it” (Andreotti & Stein, 2015, para. 11). What is lacking is the ethical and transformational foundation to put these materials into a praxis that can actually create the changes to which educators aspire. A conviviality framework can be a contribution to this foundation. In order to educate for peace, environmental protection and sustainability, justice, and global citizenship, education must focus on “Learning to live together” that is founded on conviviality experienced as: 1.

Transformational Encounters Between Humans and Non-humans Transformational encounters do not position humans or groups of humans as “greater than” but acknowledge the deep interconnection

134

Lynette Shultz and Maren Elfert and interdependence of humans and non-humans. Notions of hierarchies of difference have served to disconnect humans from each other and the planet, and are destructive to creating peace or sustainability at all levels of interactions, and certainly within education efforts. Education about the histories of encounters is important and provides pathways for shifting structures of oppression and violence and creating new institutions (ie. Illich’s Tools for Conviviality) through encounters. Indigenous knowledge provides histories and conceptual approaches to a reframing of human– non-human relationships (Watts, 2013; Panelli, 2010).

2.

Acknowledging Vulnerability: Beyond Self Containment and Self Interest Not only are humans interdependent with others but also vulnerable if relations with other species and other humans are broken. The mythology of enlightened self-interest and the empowered individual that is popular within Western societies and a global elite forms the basis of much of the education planning at global levels including at UNESCO. There are no winners in a destroyed planet or one that is ravished by modern war. Every living thing on the planet is connected through this reality and no one individual or small homogenous group can escape this interdependence. This is the global commons; the common wealth that all humans are a part of. We need others in order to survive or even to live a good life on a thriving planet.

3)

Everyday Livable Collaborations: Making Odd-Kin Conviviality exists in the everyday interactions among humans and nonhumans where these encounters normalize our shared future. This is a profound shift in humanism, where decisions can be made that are in the best interest of more-than-humans and the planet itself. Working and living together is a normal way to be human on the planet. In this, collaboration is radical at a time when competition is misunderstood as highly civilized.

It is possible to shift the current educational goals toward a focus on conviviality giving them a more robust relational view that places conviviality at the core of the education work. In this, the underlying hopes for education for sustainable development and global citizenship education might be realized (UNESCO Associated Schools, 2014). (See Figure 6.2)

Conclusion: Conviviality and the Power of the Network ASPnet schools form a vast network of teachers and learners spread throughout 181 countries. While there are great variances in the education that happens in individual schools in the network, overall, these schools are guided by UNESCO’s ideals and a recently renewed set of goals that mainly focus on global citizenship and sustainable development. While the organization of

Current ASPnet Focus

Adding Teaching and Learning for Conviviality

Students should “acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, […]” (Target 4.7 of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda).

Students will understand their interconnectedness with others through a share future, a shared planet, and complex histories of engagements, in order to understand the problems of unsustainable lifestyles and find new relations for sustainability, justice, and peace as interlocking requirements for life. The colonial histories of encounter based on racism, imperialism, and patriarchy will be used to understand how new non-hierarchal relations need to be co-created.

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is about enabling learners to address present and future global challenges constructively and creatively and to create more sustainable and resilient societies. By acquiring the values, attitudes, skills and knowledge that are needed to contribute to sustainable development, learners can take informed decisions and responsible actions and become agents of change in their schools, communities and societies.

To sustain life on the planet, learners are enabled to co-create a common, livable world, working to develop and strengthen good relations within and across differences. Learners engage in ethical negotiations to address the challenges of living together and sharing a planet. Rather than western universalism, pluriversalism or particular universalism is used to understand planetary citizenship. Students, in their communities, learn to co-create a sustainable, shared future by developing “odd-kin” and working together to identify and solve problems as well as to maintain good relations. Students learn an endurance for everyday relations and how to negotiate conflicts; students learn to collaborate to make decisions based on good relations.

Schools endeavour to integrate local and global sustainability issues into the curriculum, while reinforcing interactive, participatory teaching and learning that foster critical thinking and bring about changes in attitudes. The whole campus is used as a learning environment; the school is run in an environmentally-friendly manner and its work is linked with sustainable development activities in the local community.

To be environmentally friendly, learners are helped to understand themselves within a complex web of relations that includes humans, non-humans, and the systems that support life on the planet.

Figure 6.2 Shifting focus to teaching and learning for conviviality

136

Lynette Shultz and Maren Elfert

The aim of Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is to empower learners of all ages – children, young people and adults alike – so they assume active roles in facing and resolving global challenges and become proactive contributors to a more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure world.

Individual action is viewed as part of a pattern of relations within a complex web that extends from the personal to the global. Critical thinking and analysis of issues and systems begins with acknowledgement of the web of relations and positions within it.

Objective #1 of GCED is to acquire knowledge, understanding and critical thinking about global issues and the interconnectedness/ interdependency of countries and different populations. Objective #2 of GCED is to have a sense of belonging to a common humanity, sharing values and responsibilities, sharing empathy, solidarity and respect for differences and diversity. Objective #3 of GCED is to act responsibly a local, national and global levels for a more peaceful and sustainable world.

Learners are engaged as co-creators of networks of relations that both enact and teach about the interconnectedness of all living things in order to critically understand and act on global issues and challenges. In this, these relations and actions build an endurance for everyday relations across difference and with the aim of learning to live well together as a global commitment.

Figure 6.2 (Continued)

the network can easily become a top-down mechanism for dissemination of ideas and materials from a global elite, there is evidence that this is not the case. Instead, the network might act as a much more transformational actor, where ideas circulate and are transformed through nodes of collaboration and exchange. This chapter proposes that by shifting the foundation of the network to one of conviviality, this dynamic network can be ignited into a bold and powerful mechanism of change, a “tool for conviviality”.

Note 1. www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/preamble/index.html

References Abdi, A. A. (2008). Europe and African thought systems and philosophies of education: “Reculturing” the trans-temporal discourses. Cultural Studies, 22(2), 309–327. Abdi, A. A., Shultz, L., & Pillay, T. (Eds.). (2015). Decolonizing global citizenship education. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

A Tool to Live Together on a Shared Planet

137

Andreotti, V. de O., & Stein, S. (2015). Higher education, development, and the dominant global imaginary. The Association of Commonwealth Universities. Retrieved from https://beyond2015.acu.ac.uk/submissions/view?id=142 Carneiro, R., & Draxler, A. (2008). Education for the 21st century: Lessons and challenges. European Journal of Education, 43, 149–160. Delors, J., Al Mufli, I., Amagi I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B., . . . Zhou, N. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first century. Paris: UNESCO. Dussel, E. (2013). Agenda for a South-South philosophical dialogue. Human Architecture. Journal of Self-Knowledge, XI(1), 3–18. Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33. Gilroy, P. (2005). Postcolonial melancholia. The Welleck Lectures. New York: Columbia University Press. Gilroy, P. (2008). Multiculture in Europe. Melancholia or conviviality. Lecture 26/05/2008. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/83659295 Gilroy, P. (2016). Antiracism and (re)humanization. In T. Claviez (Ed.), The common growl: Toward a poetics of precarious community. New York: Fordham University Press. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham/, NC and London: Duke University Press. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. London and New York: Marion Boyars Publishers. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(1992), 379–393. Lowenhaupt Tsing, A. (2015). The Mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mabunga, R. A. S. (2016). Peace education among Unesco ASPnet schools and teacher education institutions in the Philippines: A peace education framework. The Normal Lights, 10(1), 78–108. Moore, J. (2015). Capitalism and the web of life: Ecology and the accumulation of capital. London: Verso. Morawska, E. (2014). Composite meaning, flexible ranges, and conditions of conviviality: Exploring the polymorph. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 357–374. Nowicka, M., & Vertovec, S. (2014). Comparing convivialities. Dreams and realities of living-with-difference. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 341–356. Oxfam International. (2018). Reward work not wealth. Retrieved from www.oxfam.org/ sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp-reward-work-not-wealth-220118en.pdf Panelli, R. (2010). More-than-human social geographies: Posthuman and other possibilities. Progress in Human Geography, 34(1), 79–87. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. London: Routledge. Shultz, L. (2013). Engaged scholarship in a time of the corporatization of the university and distrust of the public sphere: A decolonizing response. In L. Shultz & T. Kajner (Eds.), Engaged scholarship: The politics of engagement and disengagement (pp. 43–54). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Shultz, L. (2015). Decolonizing UNESCO’s post 2015 education agenda: Global social justice and a view from UNDRIP. Postcolonial Directions in Education, 4(2), 96–115. Shultz, L. (2017). UNESCO Associated Schools (ASPnet): How might the power of the network be ignited? Global Commons Review, 26–28.

138

Lynette Shultz and Maren Elfert

Shultz, L., & Abdi, A. A. (2017). Decolonizing information ethics for the liberation of knowledge. In T. Samek & L. Shultz (Eds.), Essays on information ethics, globalization, and citizenship: Ideas to praxis. New York: McFarlane. Shultz, L., & Guimares-Iosif, R. (2012). Citizenship education and the promise of democracy: A study of UNESCO associated schools in Brazil and Canada. Education, Citizenship & Social Justice, 7(3), 241–254. Shultz, L., Guimaraes-Iosif, R., Chana, T., & Medland, J. (2009). The impact of becoming a UNESCO ASPnet school in Alberta and Manitoba, Canada, Alberta Teachers’ Association Monograph No. 1. Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Teachers’ Association. Retrieved from www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/HumanRights-Issues/MON-1%202009%20The%20Impact%20of%20Becoming%20 a%20UNESCO%20ASPnet%20School.pdf UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO ASPnet. (2003). UNESCO Associated School Project Network (ASPnet). Historical review 1953–2003. “Navigators for peace”. Ko nga Kaiwhakatere mo te Rangimarie. 50th Anniversary International Congress. Quality education for the 21st century. Auckland, New Zealand, 2003 August 3–8. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001305/ 130509e.pdf UNESCO Associated Schools. (2014). ASPnet strategy 2014–2021. Global network of schools addressing global challenges: Building global citizenship and promoting sustainable development. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/ 002310/231049E.pdf UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network. (n.d. [2018]). Retrieved from https:// aspnet.unesco.org/en-us UNESCO Internal Oversight Service. (2016, July). Evaluation of the UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPnet). Evaluation Office. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002454/245418E.pdf Watts, V. (2013). Indigenous place-thought & agency amongst humans and non-humans (First woman and Sky Woman go on a European world tour!). Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2(1), 20–34.

7

Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education in Africa Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

Introduction This chapter explores the development and ongoing discourse of Global Citizenship Education (GCED) and teacher education in Africa. The study is informed by theories of globalization and critical education. In addition, we take some specific examples from different African countries to validate our cases and arguments. The nature of global citizenship is better understood when it is analyzed in accordance with the concept of globalization (Davies & Pike, 2010). Despite the togetherness view of globalization, the world is still diverse and multicultural (Wang, 2007). The world is becoming ever more like a country because of the global transfer of ideas, knowledge and practical experiences (Torres, 2002). Simultaneously, the multicultural nature of many countries is increasing because of the movement of people within and across different parts of the globe (Wang, 2007). In these circumstances, education in general and GCED in particular is a key element in adaptation to the diverse social and cultural environment within and across borders (Marginson, 2010). It enables individuals to participate in local and global communities and show fundamental competence to engage in rational and enlightened thinking (Streitwieser & Light, 2010). Aware of its advantages, many scholars including Wang (2007), Marginson (2010), and Streitwieser and Light (2010) observed that globalization could also bring a great threat to the world, unless it is dealt with properly. One way to challenge the threats posed by globalization is to educate citizens in the right way—to be global citizens. However, it is evident that citizens cannot be educated in the right way without first training teachers with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to be competent global citizens. The central argument and theoretical foundation of this research draws on the argument of Stoner, Perry, Wadsworth, Stoner, & Tarrant (2014). Along with disciplinary-based course content, global citizenship competency is an integral component of teacher education, reflected in practical pedagogical experiences connected with real world problems (Stoner et al., 2014). Fostering global citizenship needs critical skills that go beyond specific subject matter, linking the course content to real world situations. This indicates that,

140

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

regardless of their subject specialization, every student teacher can be trained with GCED. In such cases, all teachers can teach their students to not only acquire a specific skill for employment, but at the same time to be competent global citizens (Banks, 2004). In this study, we particularly focus on how GCED and teacher education in Africa relate to educational policies, course content and pedagogical practices. However, we argue that it is difficult to comprehend the interconnection between GCED and teacher education in Africa without looking at the socioeconomic and political structure of the continent, which is mainly based on colonial legacy. Therefore, we start our analysis by discussing global misconceptions of Africa, which is mainly viewed as a single nation rather than a continent with multiple nation-states and cultural identities. Here, we acknowledge that in this study we use the term “Africa” to refer to the African continent, and we use it in circumstances when we believe that the situation could be applicable to (all or if not, most) African countries. Then, we critically analyze teacher education policies and practices in Africa. Simultaneously, we provide a comprehensive assessment of teacher education and GCED in the continent. In this section, we argue that African education including teacher education can better be explored in relation to the socioeconomic and political context of the continent. Hence, we show that colonial legacy and African political structure have limited room for the inclusion of GCED in teacher education programs in many parts of the continent. Furthermore, we discuss the need for GCED in teacher education programs. We provide thorough analysis of GCED in accordance with the concept of globalization and address the major arguments from its critics. Moreover, we navigate how tribal and ethnic politics and the absence of GCED have negatively affected many countries in the continent. Finally we look at how student teachers can be prepared to be competent global citizens. In doing so, we examine the GCED frameworks in line with African indigenous knowledge and worldviews. Since colonial times, Western knowledge has dominated indigenous knowledge or traditional wisdom of African people (Snively & Corsiglia, 2001). However, we believe that there are many African values and norms that are significant to GCED. We conclude by stating pedagogies that could foster GCED in teacher education and other programs in Africa.

Africa: The Diverse Continent In October 2015, Mehdi Hasan stated one of the greatest misconceptions about the African continent. Africa is home to 54 different nations, and more than 2,000 languages, but it is often referred as one nation (Hasan, 2015). This section discusses Africa and looks at the continent beyond the various misconceptions people have created. Just like Europe and Asia, Africa is a continent with 54 sovereign countries and 1.03 billion people (Asante, 2007). African countries have their own diversities with distinctive cultures that even vary

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

141

within a country. According to Sayre (2009), Africa covers 6% of the Earth’s total surface area and 20.4% of the total land area. However, it has been common to listen to different people including politicians refer to Africa as a single country. Many people see it as similar to the term “America”, which is used to represent the United States of America. However, although the name America has a hegemonic representation by itself, Africa and the United States of America are quite different. Africa as a continent has been misunderstood and misinterpreted as a single country by many foreign media and people. “Are you from Africa?” This is a question that we have been asked frequently, especially in many Asian countries like China. On the other hand, many claim that they visited Africa by just visiting one country, and depict the picture they saw in one country to the entirety of African countries. Mcjerry was amazed and at the same time shocked when a colleague from South Korea contacted him during a summer vacation. She messaged him that she would like to meet him because she is in his country “Africa”. After he inquired about her location, he found that she was in Morocco, which is very far from his country, Ghana. We argue that this misconception of Africa as a country is not new. It has been in existence for quite a long period of time. Western media has been using the term “Africa” to indicate a single case in one country in the continent. Such sweeping generalization has almost made the term “Africa” a normal word to represent any country in the continent. Some scholars have tried to identify common cultural values or principles of African people. While trying to differentiate African and European cultures, Kenyatta (2015) stated fourteen common principles of African cultures. Similarly, Jenkins (1991, 2007) identified seven common concepts of African worldviews. Jenkins (2007) and Kenyatta (2015) concur on viewing the African culture as communalistic and present-centered. Furthermore, Jenkins (2007) explained that the African viewpoint of the world is religious, sprit-oriented and dynamic. However, we argue that many of the commonalities explained by Kenyatta (2015) and Jenkins (2007) are not convincing. For instance, Samson’s experience as an Eritrean who resided in the country for more than three decades shows that very few of these points are pertinent to the Eritrean culture. Most Eritrean societies have a communalistic, accommodational and unifying life style. Nonetheless, most Eritreans are not matrilineal and polyandrous/ polygamous. Furthermore, the depiction of Africa as a single country has been taken for granted by many people from the continent. One may ask, why many people from different countries in Africa introduce or view themselves as Africans. This is a question that needs thorough analysis. In one’s humble opinion, it seems that people from the entire continent see themselves as brothers and sisters regardless of their countries and other differences. However, we argue that such sense of identity is superficial and sentimental. It lacks deep understanding and allegiance to multiple identities and citizenships, including the national (local) and global (continental) ones. Therefore, it is not surprising to

142

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

see different kinds of violations of human rights in different African countries. In fact, this has reached its worst stage where people are sold as slaves. Recently CNN released footage showing blacks from different African countries being sold at an auction in Libya (Kinsella, 2017; McKeman, 2017). Here, it is significant to note that Libya is the country of the late Muammar Gaddafi, the revolutionary leader who aspired for the unity of African countries and styled himself the “king of the kings of Africa” (Beaumont & Stephen, 2011). Gaddafi was a leader who promoted stronger unity within the African Union (AU) and previously outlined his vision for a United States of Africa with a single African military force, a single currency and a single passport for Africans to travel freely within the continent. However, now it has become evident that Gaddafi’s promises were all rhetoric or politically motivated. He failed to educate his citizens to treat human beings equally regardless of their color, race, religion and other differences. We believe that the barbaric act in Libya was done bya few radical groups and does not represent the entire Libyan people, but still it is beyond imagination that the situation happened in the 21st century. Therefore, we argue that it is significant to see beyond the rhetoric of “African-ness” in order to understand the differences that African countries and societies have. We are not trying to erode the broad picture of Africa as a continent and the socioeconomic and other similarities that African states may share. However, being aware of the similarities that some African states and their societies may share, it is also important to understand the diverse socioeconomic and political structures that exist between and within African states. Understanding the differences helps to develop our educational policies and practices that can nurture students with the ability to see the world with a different lens; with a lens that could make the world a better and safer place. In conclusion, the term “Africa” is connected to socioeconomic and political developments. The negative impression created by Western media that Africa is a vast land with sand dunes in the desert with inhabitants subject to abject poverty, diseases and ethnic wars does not represent the entire continent. It is true that contact with the outside world through wars, migration, slavery and colonialism has redefined the history of Africa. Nevertheless, Africa is not a country as perceived by many. The continent is abounding with energetic people who are contributing to the development of humanity in all walks of life. The continent is endowed with rich and diverse cultures, values, traditions, religions and beliefs as well as social and political configurations. We are confident in saying that Africa is a continent of diversity that can contribute to the world’s development through its many means of production including knowledge production, which has been heavily dominated by Western modern science.

Teacher Education Policies and Practices in Africa According to Sanyal (2013, p.  13), teacher education refers to “the policies and procedures designed to equip prospective teachers with the knowledge,

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

143

attitudes, behaviors and skills they require to perform their tasks effectively in the classroom, school and wider community”. Sanyal (2013) stated that teacher education can be divided into three stages: pre-service teacher training, induction, and continuing teacher professional development. As stated above, African education system including teacher education can better be explored, examined or understood in relation to its socioeconomic and political history, which is mainly dominated by colonial legacy. Berman (1998) stated that the post-colonial Africa has been fashioned by its colonial past. The socioeconomic and political structure of most African countries is a social construction of the colonial period through the reactions of pre-colonial societies to colonial structures. Similarly, research shows that the introduction of teacher education programs in many African countries dates back to the colonial period (Antwi, 1992; Dirar, 2007). Hence, in this section, we discuss African teacher education policies and practices in relation to the impact of colonialism, and the presence or absence of GCED. Almost all African countries (except Ethiopia and Liberia) had been under different European colonial powers (Nanjira, 2010). In fact, some African countries like Eritrea were colonized by more than one colonial power. Daniel (1980) opined that colonialism is associated with monopolism, racism, materialism, seizure of territory and enslavement of the indigenous population. Colonialism is the imposition of an alien rule over a native setting. It is subjugation of the indigenous in all walks of their political, cultural, social and economic as well as religious systems. As many argue, the main goal of colonialism was economic exploitation (Bond, 2006). The advent of the industrial revolution in the eighteenth and nineteenth century led many countries to seek raw materials and a market for their industries. However, we argue that colonialism was also the vessel for the introduction of cultural imperialism in the world and in many African states. It is in this line that Madeira (2011) noted that colonial state institutions extended the range and depth of their operations to govern at a distance. The institutions executed their colonization processes and exercised their power through various means and authorities such as the military, governors, teachers, doctors and missionaries. In her article “Evolving African Attitudes to European education”, Assié-Lumumba (2016) argued that African freedom fighters had to fight on two fronts to fully emancipate the continent from colonialism. She stated: In addition to their struggle against colonial rule in its entirety when faced with a brutal European military strategy to conquer the African continent, Africans realized that colonialism had catastrophic and deeply imbedded implications for African social institutions, especially education. Thus, safeguarding the mind and soul of Africans through education became a pivotal motivation in the battle against colonialism, as this embodied the present and future existence of Africans as a people with their own culture and civilization.

144

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

In her explanation, Assié-Lumumba (2016) indicated that many communities in Africa had their own way of life including their means of governance before the coming of European colonizers. However, the Berlin Conference (1884–85) divided Africa into many colonial territories for the process of military conquest and changed the socioeconomic and political structure of the continent. This allowed colonial culture to creep into every fabric of African societies. Colonialism garbled and retarded diferent African civilizations and discredited much indigenous knowledge. As Mimiko (2010) posited, the social fabric of Africa was completely devastated and a new culture was implanted. For instance, the Italian colonialism united Eritrea under a common political identity (Makki, 2011) and left various tangible marks in the Eritrean society in general and in the architecture and way of living in particular (Dirar, 2007). Makki (2011) stated that the formal declaration of Eritrea as an Italian colony in 1890 marked the birth of a new nation, Eritrea. From 1898 to 1941, the Italians developed many towns and cities with modernist buildings in diferent parts of Eritrea in which most of the buildings are well preserved until now (BBC, 2017; Fuller, 2011). In addition, the Italians abolished most of the indigenous rules and introduced modern legislative, administrative and education systems in Eritrea (Dirar, 2007). Nonetheless, the education system introduced by the Italians was mainly aimed to facilitate their colonial administration, rather than to benefit the people. Hence, the Italians limited educational opportunity for Eritreans up to fourth grade (Kidane, 2004). The cultural heritage in many African countries began to deteriorate as a result of the conquest and domination by the Western colonial masters (Mimiko, 2010). Before the influx of European colonizers into Africa, African states had an informal type of education such as religious education, apprenticeship or craftsmanship. This form of education was designed to be particularly functional for the societies, but the colonial powers later introduced formal education for a different goal. It was designed to serve as a vessel or conduit for the enforcement of a different type of civilization and culture to the indigenous people. Africans were taught that Westerns culture is the elite and progressive one while the indigenous African ones are backward. Above all, European education systems that taught Africans to despise their indigenous knowledge, race, and culture affected the consciousness of the people. For instance, according to Zvobgo (1994), the colonial masters used education to propagate inferior roles into indigenous Zimbabweans. It is evident that, owing to such aspirations of the colonizers, the spread of literacy and numeracy was inevitably a matter of urgency. Moreover, the introduction of Western education did not come without the introduction of the so-called new and modern knowledge, skills, religion and culture. We concur with Ekeh (1975) on the assertion that the experiences of colonialism in Africa led to the emergence of a unique historical configuration and formation of classes that are still prevalent in modern postcolonial African states. Even though the social stratification had existed before the advent of the Europeans, it was not that common and obvious as compared to today’s societies. Nowadays, the formation of classes has become not only evident, but they have also become the root causes for many of Africa’s

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

145

socioeconomic and political problems (Ekeh, 1975). The dichotomy of the African societies to a large extent is the result of the colonial or Western education. Colonial education laid great emphasis on hard work for materialism and individualism, and it made the difference between the rich and the poor so crystal clear (Omotosho, 1988). This is still prevalent in many African societies, shifting their communal life to individualistic and materialistic ways. The effects of colonial policies including education policies are still reigning in many African states and their people. As indicated earlier, colonial education changed the social and educational organization of societies in many African states (Cilliers, 1985). Indigenous African knowledge is no longer appealing to many young people who mainly aspire for Western education. It is not a secret today that individuals with an academic degree from the West have better employment opportunities than those from within African states. Moreover, the efforts of post-colonial African states to amend their curriculum in order to suit the needs and interests of their people have not been fully successful. Traces of colonial education are seen in most African states. A typical example is the fact that the medium of instruction in many African states is the colonial language (mostly English or French), because the continent was mainly colonized by Britain and France. We understand the fact that we are living in a global village and education in African states should conform to global trends, but we also want to indicate that the relegation of African languages (mother tongue) to the background as it is happening in many African countries is problematic. In fact, it was a shocking moment when Samson met a person from Cameroon who stated that his native language is French. The person said that he couldn’t speak his native language as it is dominated by French. The issue of language instruction cuts across many African countries. It is critical to note that the language issue has a lot to do with the development of indigenous knowledge. Hence, relegation of the indigenous language relegates indigenous science and literature and, thus, indigenous knowledge. It has been half a century since most African states got their independence, but less has been done to include indigenous knowledge in their curricula and method of teaching (Connell, 2007). After independence, most African countries have tabled the need for a curriculum change in their educational systems to meet the new socioeconomic and political existence of the countries. However, policies to that effect have not been adhered to in practice. For instance, Connell (2007) said that, checking the curricula of universities in sub-Saharan African countries, many scholars found little indigenous African content, or teaching in indigenous languages, half a decade after political independence. In connection with this, Shizha (2006) explained that, in postcolonial states, the endorsement of Eurocentric knowledge that advances the dominance and supremacy of Western knowledge is spread by the education system. Moreover, the education system invalidated ideals on cross-cultural education and the function of the local or native knowledge in students’ school experiences. Similarly, Nyambe (1997) stated that the present curriculum in African countries is failing to address and prepare its graduates for the realities of the future. Moreover, we believe that less has been done to change the colonial supremacy

146

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

and decolonize the mind of African societies. So far, “Whiteness” is seen as favorite complexion and a positive color in many parts of Africa like Eritrea. At the same time, on many occasions, “Black” has been a color and word used to depict negative notions and offend people. As Ekeh (1975) stated, the most effective vehicle for the reproduction of the colonial legacy is the teaching of colonial history without sensitive use of words, which illustrates an adventurer as a “discoverer”. This leads to the fact that even postcolonial African states have done less to design an education system that challenges the colonial ideals and thoughts. We believe that African states should no longer excuse colonial intervention, at least in their education system. They should devise an education system that recognizes the African values and cultures as much as the Western modern science. The increase in students’ enrollment has expanded teacher education programs in Africa. However, there is still lack of adequate and qualified teachers in the continent (Sanyalm, 2013). African states are increasing access to education. The countries have been striving to meet the objectives set by different international initiatives such as Education for All, Millennium Development Goals, and the Sustainable Development Goals and 2030 agenda. Moreover, the perception of African countries that education is a means for sustainable peace and development is increasing (Waghid, 2009). For instance, many postconflict African states such as South Africa, Rwanda and Liberia are using GCED to reconcile the disintegrated societies and maintain sustainable peace in the countries (Smith, 2005). Hence, teacher education programs are seen as a key to the survival and success of all these initiatives. This indicates that African countries understand the value of teacher education programs (Adegoke, 2003; Komba & Nkumbi, 2008). Nevertheless, we argue that the countries differ in their commitment to GCED, particularly in the inclusion of GCED in their education systems including teacher education programs. One main reason for this is the fact that governments use education policies to implement their political agendas and programs (Tikly, 2003). This indicates that GCED needs a democratic state that recognizes cultural diversity, mutual respect and transparency that are lacking in many African states. Teacher education programs are not different as they are guided by the education policy of the countries. Therefore, the stipulation of GCED in the educational policies and practices of many African teacher education programs is ambiguous. Oziambo (2010) stated that teachers in Tanzania are responsible for the transmission of national values and norms to their students. Similarly, Adegoke (2008) explained that the mission of Ghana’s teacher education program is to provide pre- and in-service training that would produce committed, competent and dedicated teachers to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Conversely, as indicated previously, some countries like South Africa have explicitly integrated GCED in their education policy, textbooks and teaching practices (Hammett & Staeheli, 2011). Yet, different sources indicate that there is a deficit in teaching student teachers the knowledge, values and skills to challenge their negative perceptions and become good role models (Komba & Nkumbi, 2008; Prinsloo, 2007; Sanyalm, 2013).

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

147

In a nutshell, education is the means that enables change to the culture and mindset of societies. The influence of colonialism and its education system is obvious in almost all aspects of African societies. Western colonizers used their education system to erode African indigenous cultures and ways of life and colonized the minds of the people to ensure the supremacy of Western cultures. Besides, African states are doing less to challenge Western supremacy. Instead, they are empowering it by emphasizing on Northern ideologies and epistemologies. Therefore, African states need to design an education policy and teacher education programs that enables rectification of the damage done by colonial powers and promotes peace and justice in the continent.

Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education Programs Recently, great focus has been given to GCED and teacher education. They are at the center of the educational policy in many nation-states including African countries. For instance, according to the Eritrean Ministry of Education (2012), the main goal of education in Eritrea is to produce skills for employment as well as global citizenship. This indicates that the purpose of education in Eritrea is to simultaneously nurture qualified citizens to respond to the existing world market (Stromquist, 2002) and to engage in rational and enlightened thinking to make the world a better and safer place (Streitwieser & Light, 2010). Similarly, educational institutions have the primary responsibility for achieving the designed goals of a curriculum (Goodlad, 1979). Therefore, the development of qualified citizens depends on the skills, knowledge and attitudes of the practicing professionals, especially teachers. This section discusses GCED and its need in teacher education programs. Davies and Pike (2010, p. 61) asserted that “any consideration of the nature of global citizenship needs to be undertaken in the context of an appreciation of the meaning of globalization”. Despite the contested nature of globalization, we believe that GCED is better analyzed in accordance with a clear understanding and navigation of the local, the national and the global phenomena. Globalization is a contested terrain with different perspectives from different scholars (Tsegay, 2016). Some scholars argue that globalization is increasing the homogeneity of societies, whereas others perceive it as a diversifying factor which results in new and hybrid cultures (Kellner, 2002; Torres, 2002). Within the diverse perspectives of scholars, Giddens (1990) offered an intermediate definition of globalization as “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (p. 64). The definition of Giddens navigates across the local, the national and the global in both directions. If we consider the case of Africa as a continent, a situation in Cairo may affect the entirety of Egypt and other nation-states in the world. Globalization has created both positive and negative effects socially, politically and economically (Tsegay, 2016). With the increasing economic integration and technological advancement, countries are becoming closer to each

148

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

other more than ever before. Hence, globalization enables people to share ideas, knowledge and practical experiences to fight against common problems and enjoy a better life. On the contrary, ethnic and cultural diversities of nation-states are increasing (Suárez-Orozco, 2001; Banks, 2008), and new economic and cultural orientations are developing (Marginson, 2010) throughout the world. In this sense, globalization intensifies personal, political and cultural differences of people and provides a favorable environment for terrorism and other evil acts. Therefore, unless people are educated in a way to challenge injustice and live in peace and harmony, it is inevitable that our differences become catastrophic (Torres, 1998). Given the opportunity for liberal education, we believe that peoples’ homogeneity still outshines their differences. One way to tap into that is to educate citizens to tolerate or appreciate their differences and engage in constructive dialogue, which are the core values of GCED. Similar to globalization, global citizenship is a highly disputed and multifaceted term. The common and frequently used definition of GCED comes from Oxfam. A global citizen is someone who: is aware of the wider world and has a sense of their own roles as a world citizen; respects and values diversity; has an understanding of how the world works; is outraged by social injustice; participates in the community at a range of levels, from the local to the global; is willing to act to make the world a more equitable and sustainable place; and takes responsibility for their actions. (Oxfam, 2016, p. 3) In addition, Stoner et al. (2014) stated that a true global citizen is a person who is aware of the interconnections between the local, the national and the global contexts, and the role personal decisions play in each context. Stoner et al. (2014) added that a global citizen should engage to drive social change towards democratic ideas and values and civic culture. Many scholars (e.g. Banks, 2004; Morais & Ogden, 2011; Streitwieser & Light, 2010; Torres, 1998) also share the thoughts of Stoner et al. (2014). According to Streitwieser and Light (2010), global citizens are individuals who participate in local and global communities and engage in rational and enlightened thinking. Furthermore, Banks (2004) indicated that global citizens should possess multiple identifications. As indicated in the following figure (Figure 7.1), global citizenship demands allegiance to local (cultural), national and global identifications in which the local widens to an outermost circle encompassing all of humanity. Associated with the concept of citizenship, GCED has been supported and criticized by different groups (Davies, Evans, & Reid, 2005; Davies & Pike, 2010). GCED is mainly hailed for its role in combating war, environmental pollution and terrorism and preserving world peace and security (Farahani, 2014). On the other hand, the opponents of GCED argue that it undermines the development of patriotism and lacks legal enforceability (Davies & Pike, 2010). The first argument posits that teaching GCED contradicts the development

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

149

Figure 7.1 Cultural, national and global identification Source: Banks, 2004, p. 301

of patriotism and undermines the need and the importance of transferringa nation’s own history and culture to the future generations. This statement refers to the binary understanding of people as “we” and “them” mostly used in a place (situation) where there are immigrants. Therefore, it tends to deprive the basic human rights of people by empowering a nationalistic view of citizens. The second point indicates that GCED is more simplistic as it lacks any virtue of ordinary citizenship by birth or other status. The main argument here is that GCED is not accompanied by a package of rights and duties to be legally enforceable. Indeed, we have met many scholars who say: “I don’t believe in GCED”. Such scholars, as Samson faced in his dissertation defense, perceive that GCED is about acquiring a world or an international passport. However, we concur with Davies and Pike (2010) that the previous two criticisms of GCED lack profound understanding of the concept. GCED doesn’t dispute the fact that individual identity is tied to nationhood. At the same time, it argues that individuals should be nurtured with multiple identities or citizenships to maintain concurrent allegiance to several places (Davies & Pike, 2010). Since the advent of colonial powers, the issues of identity and patriotism have become more complex in many African states. Being aware of the critics of tribalism and ethnicity as the main sources of conflict in African states (Paglia, 2007; Wiley, 2013), it is also important to understand that many political forces exploit ethnic, tribal, religious and other differences to come to or stay in power (Deng, 1997; Juma, 2012; Kwatemba, 2008). After studying the case of Sudan, Paglia (2007, p. 36) argued that “the assumption that tribalism and ethnicity are the root causes of African civil conflicts is both presumptuous and misleading”. Paglia (2007) further asserted that political actors exploit tribalism and ethnicity for political and economic purposes, and that this narrative shapes conflicts as ethnic-based scenarios. We believe that such political

150

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

actors are more concerned with the tension between GCED and patriotism. They use the patriotic feeling of citizens to suppress and degrade their fellow human beings merely because they have tribal, ethnic, religious or/and national differences from them. By navigating the politics of Kenya and Somalia, Juma (2012) concluded that “tribal interests have played a major role in armed conflict and civil unrest across the continent (Africa)”. The situation was not quite different in Liberia’s 14-year civil war (1989–2003) which caused to the death of about 250,000 people. In a study conducted by Vinck, Pham, and Kreutzer (2011), 40% of the surveyed adult Liberians identified identity and tribal divisions as the main causes of the civil war. This leads to the fact that many political forces in different African countries are benefiting from the divisions that colonial powers created for them. In fact, some of them create an ethnic- or tribal-based government, which widens the tribal or ethnic rift. The case of the Rwandan genocide that killed an estimated 800,000 Rwandans in the space of 100 days was another evident example of tribal conflict in African states (Magnarella, 2002; Nikuze, 2014; Van Haperen, 2012). At the same time, it indicates the failure of the education system to nurture global citizenship in the country. Van Haperen (2012, p.  113) stated that “between 6 April and the end of June 1994, in just 100 days, approximately three quarters of the total Tutsi population of Rwanda was killed”. The Tutsi-Hutu rivalry didn’t come as a surprise in 1994. It had been there since the early 1960s (Van Haperen, 2012). On the other side, Nikuze (2014) noted that the precolonial Rwanda was a united territory with a people who shared similar culture including the same language. Nikuze (2014, p.  1089) explained that “during the pre-colonial era, Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were commonly known as Rwandans. From time immemorial, they lived together on the same territory, had the same culture and used the same language: Ikinyarwanda”. We believe that the Rwandan genocide, Ethiopia’s ethnic violence and other similar conflicts across the continent exemplify the lack of GCED and the need to look back at indigenous knowledge. It shows the failure of the education system to bring peace and stability in the countries. Above all, it indicates the incapacity of teachers to nurture competent global citizens who despise inhumanity and strive for democratic culture. The need for GCED in teacher education is significant to empower teachers to be the leaders of change by decolonizing the mind of African students and educating them to love themselves and all humanity. Teachers carry the burden of being the bearers of democracy for the current and next generation of citizens (Castro, 2014). Hence, teachers first need to embrace GCED to be role models for their students and other community members. They need to be competent global citizens to address the implications of ethnicity, religion, class, race and gender to promote tolerance beyond the particular interests of specific forms of identity (Tsegay, 2016). Furthermore, the need for GCED in teacher education programs is significant for reclaiming African indigenous knowledge. As Corsiglia and Snively (2000) stated, indigenous knowledge can offer significant knowledge which cannot be obtained from Western modern

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

151

science. Hence, teacher education programs in Africa should teach student teachers on the legacy and contribution of their indigenous knowledge instead of focusing only on Western thoughts and practices. To conclude, teacher education centers are hubs for distribution of knowledge. A teacher-training center with one thousand student teachers can reach hundreds of thousands of students in a year. Therefore, there is no better place than teacher education programs to teach GCED. The next section deals with preparing student teachers for GCED.

Preparing Student Teachers for Global Citizenship Education This section discusses how student teachers can be prepared to be competent global citizens. As indicated previously, some African countries have integrated GCED into their educational system including teacher education. In his article “The role of global citizenship education in world peace and security”, Farahani (2014) stated that many countries design a citizenship education course or a form of cross-disciplinary or interdisciplinary course to equip people with citizenship education. In this chapter, we mainly focus on GCED that can be taught along any disciplinary-based course content. Student teachers can be trained in a way to nurture competent global citizens while teaching their course content (Banks, 2004; Stoner et al., 2014; Tsegay, 2016). Stoner et al. (2014) stated that, along with disciplinary-based course content, GEC can be an integral component of teacher education, reflected in practical pedagogical experiences connected with real world problems. The argument of Stoner et al. (2014) indicates that every student teacher needs to be trained to integrate GCED in their ordinary classes. Hence, they can simultanously teach their students to acquire a specific skill in their subject matter and become competent global citizens to contribute making the world a better and safer place (Banks, 2004). In line with this, it is significant to identify the components of GCED and understand the pedagogy required to deliver GCED. Stoner et al. (2014) stated that teaching GCED is a fundamental component of a school’s core curriculum often associated with critical learning experience. This shows that nurturing global minded student teachers needs an interplay between course content and critical pedagogy (Tsegay, 2016). Morais and Ogden (2011) identified three interrelated dimensions of GCED: social responsibility (concern for others, for society at large, and for the environment), global competence (understanding and appreciation of one’s self in the world and of world issues), and civic engagement (active engagement with local, regional, national and global community issues). As Morais and Ogden (2011) indicated, student teachers should be equipped with multidimensional skills starting from self-awareness to global awareness in order to engage in local and global issues. Self-awareness is a stepping-stone for student teachers to embrace global citizenship and perceive themselves as active participants in local and global issues (Freire, 2010; Hooks, 2010; Torres, 998, 2002; Tsegay, 2016). It helps them to

152

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

reflect on themselves and their environment and challenge any injustice that affects the health and wealth of societies and the environment. Furthermore, Oxfam (2016) stated three main elements of GCED: knowledge and understanding, skills and values and attitudes. Likewise, Farahani (2014) explained that the appropriate content for GCED could be designed according to these three elements in order to make students ready to live in a multicultural society in peace and solidarity. Table 7.1 Key elements for developing global citizenship Knowledge and understanding

Skills

Values and attitudes

• Social justice and equity • Identity and diversity • Globalization and interdependence • Sustainable development • Peace and conflict • Human rights

• Critical thinking • Ability to argue effectively • Ability to challenge injustice and inequities • Respect for people and things • Cooperation and conflict resolution

• Sense of identity and self-esteem • Empathy • Commitment to social justice and equity • Value and respect for diversity • Concern for the environment and commitment to sustainable development • Belief that people can make a difference

Source: Oxfam, 2016

It is vital to use both Western modern science and indigenous (African) knowledge to teach the elements (Table 7.1). Connell (2007) stated that the cultural and intellectual resurgence of African countries is closely connected with the revalidation of indigenous knowledge. The accumulated wisdom and observation of societies especially by elders has a lot to do in reviving African indigenous knowledge. This can be found in different sources including ritual poems, customary laws and others. In her book Southern Theory, Connell (2007: 91) summarized the Asuwada principle of Akinsola Akiwowo into the following four points. Akiwowo (1980) used a Yoruba-language ritual poem from Oyo State in western Nigeria to derive ontological principles and sociological propositions. As indicated here, the sociological propositions of Akiwowo show the contribution of indigenous knowledge to GCED: 1. 2. 3.

4.

The unit of social life is the individual’s life, being, existence or character. The corporeal individual, essentially, cannot continue-in-being without a community. Since the social life of a group of individual beings is sustained by a group of solidarity, any form of self-alienation for the purpose of pursuing a purely selfish aim is, morally speaking, an error or sin. A genuine social being is one who works daily, and sacrifices willingly, in varying ways, his or her cherished freedom and material acquisitions for

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

153

self-improvement as well as for the common good. For without one, the other cannot be achieved. The preceding points indicate the richness and role of African (societies) indigenous knowledge even to modern societies. There are many similar examples from different societies and countries in Africa. Nonetheless, it is significant to critically examine the pros and cons of various African customs and traditions since some of the traditional practices, such as female genital mutilation and unjustifiable local healing practices, could be harmful. If any knowledge is taken for granted, its consequences might not be a happy ending (Connell, 2014). In addressing the issues of student teacher identity and their approach to classroom practice, Clarke and Drudy (2006) argued that the impact of initiatives in initial teacher education could better be understood in accordance with students’ approaches to their praxis. Similarly, as indicated earlier, Tsegay (2016) indicated that there are important interplays between critical pedagogy and course content to nurture competent global citizens. He further explained that “GCED needs a pedagogy that could engage students with alternative lenses and orientations” (p. 190). Such pedagogy contains one or more features of student-centered learning including participatory learning (Tongsakul, Jitgarun, & Chaokumnerd, 2011; Hooks, 2010; Zabit, 2010), culturally relevant learning (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and liberatory learning (Freire, 2010). The underlining point here is that students are not only the rational consumers or primary beneficiaries of class activities, but they are also important precursors for teaching and learning (Van Uden, Ritzen, & Pieters, 2013). Hence, critical pedagogies that foster global citizenship must start by recognizing students as active members of the class. Participatory teaching strategies engage students and create two ways of communication with students, from teacher to students and vice versa. This dialogue enables both the teacher and the students to be recognized as persons with knowledge, understanding, feeling and interest who come together in a shared educational process (Freire, 2010). Moreover, participatory teaching is collaborative in the way that everyone contributes to the teaching-learning process (Hooks, 2010; Tongsakul et al., 2011; Zabit, 2010). Students use their different talents and experiences to help one another and learn from each other collaboratively. Collaboration occurs when students share their diverse thoughts and perspectives in the form of questions, answers, comments, etc. On the other side, the thinking, belief, perception and self-knowledge of the teacher and students are challenged during class discussion and interaction (Zabit, 2010). Then, both the teacher and students start to see things critically and in different perspectives. In a class of diverse experiences and backgrounds, students develop an atmosphere of appreciating (or at least tolerating) the different positions and viewpoints of any member of the class. Hence, the teacher and students foster a sense of trust and tolerance between and among each other and with the outside environment (Freire, 2010; Hooks, 2010; Lizzio & Wilson, 2005; Torres, 1998; Zepke, 2013).

154

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

Although international experiences provide powerful insights and experiences leading to deep reflection, critical analysis and synthesis, local contexts can be utilized to engage students with global issues (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teachers can draw on the students’ culture, family and interests to create pedagogy that is culturally relevant to the students’ experiences within and outside of the school setting. Such pedagogy makes constructive use of the wealth of knowledge within and outside of the classroom. Students learn by integrating theoretical and practical knowledge simultaneously. In addition, Freire (2010) argued that critical consciousness could not exist outside praxis or the actionreflection process. The action-reflection process is mainly constructed from our own experiences and local situations. Human beings are curious. With every word they read, they struggle to read their situation, their environment and their world. If we look at things critically, the next step will surely be wondering “why are they in a particular way or why are they changing”. Therefore, if learning is associated with our wealth of experiences, it is likely that through the transformation that we had experienced, through our eagerness to know, through critical contemplation and through action and reflection, culturally relevant teaching fosters critical consciousness. Finally, it is through this sharing of experiences among students and with their teacher and through their interaction in the world and with the world that students develop a capacity to reflect on their ideas and apply them (Freire, 2010). According, culturally relevant pedagogy promotes students’ critical consciousness and cultural competence. Furthermore, liberatory pedagogy enables citizens to be aware of any oppressive environment. It takes education as a means of liberating the mind from fear and other negative perceptions. Such pedagogy also rests on the assumption of the banking concept of education that regards men as adaptable and manageable beings (Freire, 2010). Freire (2010) noted that the more students remain passive, the less they develop critical consciousness. This indicates that students need to engage in the teaching-learning process and intervene in the world to become effective agents of social change, rather than simply adapting to the world as it is. In general, in order to foster global citizenship, students have to be taught the knowledge, skills and attitudes as well as how to use these skills to create just, civilized and democratic societies (McGee Banks & Banks, 1995).

Conclusion The term “Africa” has been used as a catch-all phrase for any country within the continent. As indicted in this chapter, despite some basic commonalities, African countries have diverse cultures and traditions. Some countries may share relatively similar culture and traditions with their colonial countries rather than their neighboring African states. In addition, the colonializationAfrican education link has been evident in this study. Education including teacher education programs in most African countries was devised by colonial powers during colonization. The colonial education system served as a means

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

155

to degrade the indigenous African knowledge and exploit the continent as long as possible. Yet, little change has been done in the post-colonial African states to challenge such colonial legacy. The policies, procedures and provisions devised to train qualified teachers should include GCED in order to enable the teachers to execute their tasks in the classroom, the school and the community as a whole. The increase in the number of students has caused the expansion of teacher education programs in Africa. Many African states are also relying on their education system to reconcile the broken societies and promote peace and security. However, the commitment of all African countries to GCED in their education system, including teacher education, is not the same. The inclusion of GCED in many countries’ education systems is still vague, and this is mainly associated with the political programs of the countries. Student teachers are not well equipped with the knowledge, values and skills to become competent global citizens, even in countries that have integrated GCED in their education system. In addition, most of the education systems focus on Western epistemologies and ideals that give less attention to African indigenous knowledge. Therefore, it is imperative to understand that African countries need to develop their GCED policy and practice in accordance with their socioeconomic and political development. As discussed above, many African values and norms are significant to GCED. Hence, the development of country-based GCED could allow African countries to exploit their indigenous knowledge, which has been dominated by Western ideas and thoughts. Despite its unclear contours, globalization has influenced the world in many ways. The movement and diversification of societies at national and international levels have challenged citizenship in many ways, putting forth new issues. This has put the question of GCED at the center of education policy in many countries, including African countries. GCED emerged as a way to identify the importance of multiple identities. In line with this, the study addressed the criticisms of GCED that mainly arise from a lack of understanding about the concept of GCED. GCED realizes the expansion and interdependence of knowledge from local to global arenas and vice versa. Hence, it empowers local citizenship and true patriotism, which challenges and criticizes any injustice. Moreover, the study identified three basic elements for GCED: knowledge and understanding, skills, and values and attitudes. It futher emphasized that preparing student teachers for GCED needs an interplay between course content and critical pedagogy. With the inclusion of critical pedagogy, GCED can be taught in any discipline and class regardless of the subject specialization and course content. Student teachers have to develop a delicate balance of cultural (local), national and global identifications in order to nurture competent global citizens as well as lead by example. Similarly, transformative learning experience coupled with critical reflection ultimately lead to a change in perspective towards betterment of the world. Finally, it is significant to note that this study

156

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

should be taken as a broad analysis of GCED in Africa. It mainly lays a fundamental theoretical basis for GCED in teacher education programs in the continent. Therefore, similar country-specific studies should be pursued.

References Adegoke, K. A. (2003). Capacity building of lead teacher training institutions in sub-Saharan Africa: Ghana. Accra, Ghana: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0014/001434/143483e.pdf Adegoke, K. A. (2008, November 12–14). Towards the enhancement of teacher education in the new millennium [Paper presentation]. Second Biennial National Conference on Teacher Education at AOCOED, Lagos, Nigeria. Akiwowo, A. (1980). Ajobi and Ajogbe: Variations on the theme of sociation. Nigeria: University of Ife Press. Antwi, M. K. (1992). Education, society, and development in Ghana. Accra, Ghana: Unimax Publishers. Asante, M. (2007). The history of Africa. New York: Routledge. Assié-Lumumba, N. D. T. (2016). Evolving African attitudes to European education: Resistance, pervert effects of the single system paradox, and the Ubuntu framework for renewal. International Review of Education, 62, 11–27. Banks, J. A. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global world. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 296–305. Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129–139. BBC. (2017, July 8). Eritrea capital Asmara makes World Heritage list. Retrieved from www. bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-40544406 Beaumont, P., & Stephen, C. (2011, October 23). Gaddafi’s last words as he begged for mercy: ‘What did I do to you?’. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/23/ gaddafi-last-words-begged-mercy Berman, B. J. (1998). Ethnicity, patronage and the African State: The politics of uncivil nationalism. African Affairs, 97(388), 305–341. Bond, P. (2006). Looting Africa: The economics of exploitation. London and New York: Zed Books. Castro, A. J. (2014). The role of teacher education in preparing teachers for critical multicultural citizenship. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 38(4), 189–203. Cilliers, J. K. (1985). Counter-insurgency in Rhodesia. London, Sydney, Dover, and New Hampshire: Croom Helm Ltd. Clarke, M., & Drudy, S. (2006). Teaching for diversity, social justice and global awareness. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 371–386. Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Connell, R. (2014). Using southern theory: Decolonizing social thought in theory, research and application. Planning Theory, 13(2), 210–223. Corsiglia, J., & Snively, G. (2000). Rejoinder: Infusing indigenous science into western modern science for a sustainable future. Science Education, 85(1), 82–86. Daniel, A. O. (1980). Imperialism and dependency. Nigeria: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd., Enugu.

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

157

Davies, I., Evans, M., & Reid, A. (2005). Globalising citizenship education? A critique of “global education” and “citizenship education”. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), 66–89. Davies, I., & Pike, G. (2010). Global citizenship education: Challenges and possibilities. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 61–78). New York and Abingdon: Routledge. Deng, F. M. (1997, June 1). Ethnicity: An African predicament. Retrieved from www.brookings. edu/articles/ethnicity-an-african-predicament/ Dirar, U. C. (2007). Colonialism and the construction of national identities: The case of Eritrea. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 1(2), 256–276. Ekeh, P. P. (1975). Colonialism and the two publics in Africa: A theoretical statement. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 17(1), 91–112. Farahani, M. F. (2014). The role of global citizenship education in world peace and security. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 934–938. Freire, P. (2010). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Fuller, M. (2011). Italy’s colonial futures: Colonial inertia and postcolonial capital in Asmara. California Italian Studies, 2(1). Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw Hill. Hammett, D., & Staeheli, L. A. (2011). Respect and responsibility: Teaching citizenship in South African high schools. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(3), 269–276. Hasan, M. (2015, October 3). Reality check: Africa is not a country. Retrieved from www. aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2015/10/reality-check-africa-country151003102911239.html Hooks, B. (2010). Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. New York and London: Routledge. Jenkins, O. B. (1991). Dealing with differences: Contrasting African and European world views. Kenya: Communication Press. Jenkins, O. B. (2007). Dealing with cultural differences: Contrasting the African and European worldviews. Retrieved from http://strategyleader.org/langlearn/pdf/dealdiffbooklet. pdf Juma, C. (2012, November 22). Viewpoint: How tribalism stunts African democracy. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20465752 Kellner, D. (2002). Theorizing globalization. Sociological Theory, 20(3), 285–305. Kenyatta, D. (2015, January 22). List of differences between African and European. Retrieved from http://diallokenyatta.tumblr.com/post/108694272606/list-of-differencesbetween-african-and-european Kidane, E. (2004). A brief historical account of formal education in Eritrea. Retrieved from www.ehrea.org/kidaneed.htm Kinsella, L. (2017, December 4). Slave auctions uncovered in Libya. Retrieved from www. news.com.au/world/africa/slave-auctions-uncovered-in-libya/news-story/0535a6e a3ae33f7de417fd78bd5b1afc Komba, W. L., & Nkumbi, E. (2008). Teacher professional development in Tanzania: Perceptions and practices. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 11(3), 67–83.

158

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

Kwatemba, S. W. (2008). Ethnicity and political pluralism in Kenya. Journal of African Elections, 7(2), 77–112. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2005). Self-managed learning groups in higher education: Students’ perceptions of process and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 373–390. Madeira, A. I. (2011). Popular education and republican ideals: The Portuguese lay missions in colonial Africa, 1917–1927. Paedagogica Historica, 47(1–2), 123–138. Magnarella, P. (2002). Explaining Rwanda’s 1994 genocide. Human Rights and Human Welfare, 2(1), 25–34. Makki, F. (2011). Culture and agency in a colonial public sphere: Religion and the anticolonial imagination in 1940s Eritrea. Social History, 36(4), 418–442. Marginson, S. (2010). Higher education in the global knowledge economy. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2010), 6962–6980. McGee Banks, C., & Banks, J. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory into Practice, 34, 152–158. McKeman, B. (2017, December 3). The rest of the world has woken up, but migrants are still sleepwalking into Libya slave markets. Retrieved from www.independent.co.uk/news/ world/middle-east/african-migrants-libya-slave-markets-aim-europe-refugeeshuman-trafficking-smugglers-a8087591.html Mimiko, N. O. (2010). Would Falola frustrations suffice?: Tradition, governance challenges and the prospects of change in Africa. In Niyi Afolabi (Ed.). Toyin Falola: The man, the mask, the muse. North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press. Ministry of Education. (2012). Overview of the education. Retrieved from http://www. ecss-online.com/data/pdfs/ecss-OVERVIEW-EDUCATION-eritrea.pdfMorais, B. D., & Ogden, C. A. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 445–466. Nanjira, D. D. (2010). African foreign policy and diplomacy from antiquity to the 21st century (Vol. 1). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Nikuze, D. (2014). The Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda: Origins, causes, implementation, consequences, and the post-genocide era. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 3(5), 1086–1098. Nyambe, J. (1997). Curriculum for development or underdevelopment? An analysis of some of the major evils of the current curriculum system, and the way forward. In R. Avenstrup (Ed.), Shaping Africa’s future through innovative curricula (pp. 42–47). Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan Publishers. Omotosho, A. O. (1988). The impact of colonial education and culture on the Muslims of Nigeria. Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies, 1, 52–60. Oziambo, B. (2010). The contribution of head teachers to curb teacher misconduct in Tanzania public primary schools, Unpublished Master’s Dissertation. University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam. Oxfam. (2016). Education for global citizenship: A guide for schools. London: Oxfam GB. Paglia, P. (2007). Ethnicity and tribalism: Are these the root causes of the Sudanese civil conflicts? Africa Economic Analysis. Retrieved from www.africaeconomicanalysis.org/ articles/pdf/sudan0807.pdf Prinsloo, E. (2007). Implementation of life orientation programmes in the new curriculum in South African schools: Perceptions of principals and life orientation teachers. South African Journal of Education, 27(1), 155–170.

African Citizenship and Teacher Education

159

Sanyal, B. C. (2013). Quality assurance of teacher education in Africa: Fundamentals of teacher education development 5. Addis Ababa. UNESCO-International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002292/ 229200e.pdf Sayre, A. P. (2009). Africa. Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-First Century Books. Shizha, E. (2006). Legitimizing indigenous knowledge in Zimbabwe: A theoretical analysis of postcolonial school knowledge and its colonial legacy. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education, 1(1), 20–35. Smith, A. (2005). Education in the twenty-first century: Conflict, reconstruction and reconciliation. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 35(4), 373–391. Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 6–34. Stoner, L., Perry, L., Wadsworth, D., Stoner, R. K., & Tarrant, A. M. (2014). Global citizenship is key to securing global health: The role of higher education. Preventive Medicine, 64(2014), 126–128. Streitwieser, B., & Light, G. (2010). University students and conceptions of global citizenship: A Case study (Working Paper No. 10–001). Evanston, IL: Center for Global Engagement. Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power, technology, and knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little field Publishers. Suárez-Orozco, M. (2001). Globalization, immigration, and education: The research agenda. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 345–366. Tikly, L. (2003). Governmentality and the study of education policy in South Africa. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 161–174. Tongsakul, A., Jitgarun, K., & Chaokumnerd, W. (2011). Empowering students through project-based learning: Perceptions of instructors and students in Vocational Education Institutes in Thailand. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(12), 19–34. Torres, C. A. (1998). Democracy, education, and multiculturalism: Dilemmas of citizenship in a global world. Comparative Education Review, 42(4), 421–447. Torres, C. A. (2002). Globalization, education, and citizenship: Solidarity versus markets? American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 363–378. Tsegay, S. M. (2016). The role of higher education in nurturing global citizenship in Eritrea. Spanish Journal of Comparative Education, 28, 183–201. Van Haperen, M. (2012). The Rwandan genocide, 1994. In W. ten Have & B. Boender (Eds.). The holocaust and other genocides: An introduction (pp.  97–119). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Retrieved from www.niod.nl/sites/niod.nl/files/Rwan dan%20genocide.pdf Van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2013). Engaging students: The role of teacher beliefs and interpersonal teacher behavior in fostering student engagement in vocational education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37(2014), 21–32. Vinck, P., Pham, P., & Kreutzer, T. (2011). Talking peace: A population-based survey on attitudes about security, dispute resolution, and post-conflict reconstruction in Liberia. Human Rights Center. Berkeley: University of California. Waghid, Y. (2009). Patriotism and democratic citizenship education in South Africa: On the (im) possibility of reconciliation and nation building. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(4), 399–409. Wang, L. (2007). Diaspora, identity and cultural citizenship: The Hakkas in ‘Multicultural Taiwan’. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5), 875–895. Wiley, D. (2013). Using “tribe” and “tribalism: To misunderstand African societies. Retrieved from www.africa.upenn.edu/K-12/Tribe-and-tribalism-Wiley2013.pdf

160

Samson Maekele Tsegay and Mcjerry Atta Bekoe

Zabit, M. N. (2010, June). Problem-based learning on students’ critical thinking skills in teaching Business Education in Malaysia: A literature review. American Journal of Business Education, 3(6), 9–32. Zepke, N. (2013). Student engagement: A complex business supporting the first year experience in tertiary education. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 4(2), 1–14. Zvobgo, R. J. (1994). Colonialism and education in Zimbabwe. Harare: SAPES Books.

8

Global Citizenship Education in East, South, and Southeast Asia Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman

Countries of East, South, and Southeast Asia represent arguably some of the most diverse pluralistic populations in the world that are characterized by a heterogeneity of histories, economies, politics, ethnicities, languages, and religion. In these countries, there are growing discussions about concepts of citizenship and citizenship education that strive for indigenous meaning and preservation of traditional values while at the same time reconciling with modern and foreign values that frequently come with developing democracies. Perhaps more revealing are the tensions and national identity struggles that are naturally provoked because of the complexity and multidimensional nature of deciding on crucial elements of citizenship in pluralistic societies. In the case of racially homogenous or more religiously theocratic societies, the question becomes how to balance pride without marginalizing minority groups. Goh (2012) in a special issue on character and citizenship education in the Asia Pacific Journal of Education argued for the inextricable relationship between character and citizenship education and cultural intelligence. Goh postulated that developing multiculturally educated and globally engaged citizens is at once an aspirational educational goal as well as a pragmatic and economic goal for the increasing need for individuals to work effectively in intercultural and international teams. In particular, Goh suggested that theories such as cultural intelligence could act as a foundation upon which educators can structure character and citizenship education for their students. Consequently, this places a certain burden on the success of Global Citizenship Education (GCED) on teachers who must be interculturally educated in order to effectively enact GCED. Much has evolved in the world of citizenship education since the 2012 article. This chapter critically reviews the current status of GCED in the case of East, South, and Southeast Asia and highlights the examples of China, India, and Singapore in enacting GCED from theory to practice.

CHAPTER LIMITATIONS AND FOCUS While it is important to examine GCED in the entirety of Asia, there are limitations to such a large scope. First, it was difficult to locate scholarly articles addressing GCED in these regions with the exception of Singapore. We searched extensively

162

Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman

using traditional academic search engines like ERIC, Education Source (EBSCO Host), digital library JSTOR, and Google Scholar. We used variations of the keywords “Asia” and “citizenship education” and then combined these keyword variations with each specific country. We also used different variations of “citizenship education” such as “moral education”, “global citizenship”, and “character education”. Naturally, we also limited in our search to English language venues. Our search resulted in more reports that scholarly articles. Second, we mostly focused on finding scholarship in the past five years because of the 2012 establishment of the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU) and the subsequent announcement of the 2015 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that further clarified the vision for GCED. Third, this chapter also makes a discerned effort to provide concrete examples of GCED moving from theory to practice, thus the in-depth examination of the three countries listed earlier. These countries are not meant to be representative of the diverse regions of Asia covered by this chapter, but were chosen because of the variety of implementation strategies that these specific cases speak to. Looking closely at these specific cases also allows for a more holistic picture of GCED in action and provides a greater understanding of the successes and complications that arise when a theory is put into practice. These countries were also selected because they offer some insights, even if indirectly, into the role of teachers in GCED. Examination of functioning citizenship education is vital, as this leads not only to the creation of best practices models for other countries to follow, but it also illuminates opportunities for further work and study in this field. To that end, this chapter will (1) define and trace the evolution of terms used when discussing global citizenship education in the region; (2) outline the progress that has been made in global citizenship education since 2012; (3) describe broadly the implementation of GCED in Asia; (4) present three country-specific cases of GCED in action and the varying contexts in which these systems exist; (5) overview other GCED work in Asia; and (6) critique GCED in Asia and highlight opportunities for further study.

Definitions and the Evolution of Terms The definition of GCED has changed rapidly since 2012, and its fluidity and complexity can often be confusing. The definition of GCED is expanding to include other similar spheres of work, such as peace education or sustainable development education (Lockhart, 2016). For the purpose of this chapter, a short evolution of relevant terms is provided. Multicultural Education and Global Engagement Many of the terms used in the paper have now become part of one allencompassing concept: global citizenship education. In the original paper,

Global Citizenship Education in Asia

163

multicultural education was a two-part concept. The goal of multicultural education was to provide students with “knowledge of their own cultural backgrounds and include learning about cultural similarities and differences in the cultural plurality of their peers. This cultural awareness helps students navigate their way around their multicultural societies and the world” (Goh, 2012, p. 3). The second part of the concept was global engagement. A student becomes multiculturally educated when the student can “understand that the relevance of their cultural and national identities exists in the global context” (Goh, 2012, p. 3). As the following section will demonstrate, these terms have been pulled into the overarching definition of GCED. Global Citizenship and Global Citizenship Education In 2015, UNESCO put forth the SDG, which will be discussed in the next section of this chapter, and the term global citizenship has become critical to understanding GCED. In a manual on the basics of GCED, UNESCO claims the following definition of global citizenship: there is no widely agreed definition of global citizenship. In all cases, global citizenship does not entail a legal status. It refers more to a sense of belonging to the global community and a common sense of humanity, with its presumed members experiencing solidarity and collective identity among themselves and collective responsibility at the global level. Global citizenship can be seen as an ethos or a metaphor rather than a formal membership. Being a framework for collective action, global citizenship can, and is expected to, generate actions and engagement among, and for, its members through civic actions to promote a better world and future. (UNESCO, 2016a) It is apparent that this definition encompasses parts of the definition of multicultural education from the original paper, especially in the sense that global citizens, or those who are multiculturally educated, are able to navigate successfully through an increasingly global society. UNESCO also provides a definition for global citizenship education. Note that this term is mainly defined by its goal: The goal of global citizenship education is to empower learners to engage and assume active roles both locally and globally to face and resolve global challenges and ultimately to become proactive contributors to a more just, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable world. Global citizenship education has three conceptual dimensions. The cognitive dimension concerns the learners’ acquisition of knowledge, understanding and critical thinking. The socio-emotional dimension relates to the learners’ sense of belonging to a common humanity, sharing values and responsibilities,

164

Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman empathy, solidarity and respect for differences and diversity. The behavioral dimension expects the learners to act responsibly at local, national and global levels for a more peaceful and sustainable world. (UNESCO, 2016a)

After reading this definition it is apparent that GCED has grown to encompass a variety of terms, including multicultural education, citizenship education, moral education, peace education, and even cultural intelligence (Lockhart, 2016; UNESCO, 2016b; Goh, 2012). There is also a clear call to action in this goal, asking learners to take the socio-emotional and cognitive skills and knowledge and integrate them into daily behavior for the betterment of society. It is also important to note the interchangeability with these terms. Scholars Bajaj and Hantzopoulos (2016) state: “The scope of peace education has expanded in recent years to become more inclusive of areas such as human rights education, citizenship education, multicultural education, environmental education and social justice education” (p. 51). Many terms and concepts, like peace education, that used to be independent have now moved in a similar direction with the UNESCO goals. Even though GCED encompasses many concepts, UNESCO’s framework and conceptual dimensions do lay forth a framework and an outcome for actors in GCED. When focusing on GCED in Asia, there is one group in the forefront: APCEIU. APCEIU tends to use the term “Education for International Understanding” (EIU) in the majority of their GCED work and publications. EIU is defined as, “a major educational tool aimed at promoting a Culture of Peace, EIU addresses issues related to cultural diversity, globalization, social justice, human rights, peace, and sustainable development” (Asia Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding [APCEIU], 2012). Again, the terms vary but the concept and goals are similar. Since this chapter examines the work that has been done in GCED since 2012, and because of the large role UNESCO plays in this work, the UNESCO definitions of GCED will be the standing frame of reference. When in reference to Asia, and in particular the work done by the APCEIU, the definition of EIU will also be used.

Progress Since 2012 There have been major developments in GCED since 2012, largely due to UNESCO and the goals UNESCO have set to improve education across the world. In 2000, UNESCO established the Education for All goal, which focused on providing basic education for all children. To make progress on the massive undertaking of Education for All, UNESCO launched the Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) in 2012 (UNESCO Global Education First Initiative, n.d.). There were three main priorities to this initiative, one of which was to foster global citizenship. At the time that this initiative came out, the context of GCED was such:

Global Citizenship Education in Asia

165

The world faces global challenges, which require global solutions. These interconnected global challenges call for far-reaching changes in how we think and act for the dignity of fellow human beings. It is not enough for education to produce individuals who can read, write and count. Education must be transformative and bring shared values to life. It must cultivate an active care for the world and for those with whom we share it. . . . Education must fully assume its central role in helping people to forge more just, peaceful, tolerant and inclusive societies. It must give people the understanding, skills and values they need to cooperate in resolving the interconnected challenges of the 21st century. (Priority #3: Foster Global Citizenship, n.d.) This initiative expanded the expectations of basic education and became the foundation for the current understanding of GCED. In September 2015, UNESCO created the current construct and framework for GCED when they released the SDG. While there are seventeen SDGs, it is SDG 4.7 that specifically targets citizenship education. SDG 4.7 states: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development. (SDG Goal 4, n.d.) The partner to the SDG goals is the Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action, which was created at the 2015 World Education Forum. This framework is intended to act as a guide for SDG 4 and contains strategies and recommendations surrounding the implementation of the goal. The overall aim of Education 2030 is to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (UNESCO Relationship between sustainable development goal 4 and the education 2030 framework for action, n.d.) and to help forge a path to success for SDG 4.

Implementing GCED in East, South, and Southeast Asia There are many scholarly articles critiquing UNESCO, the SDGs, and the framework of GCED. Many have valid examples of problems, such as the amorphous definition of terms (Chung & Park, 2016) or the practical issue of how this goal should be implemented (Torres & Dorio, 2017). However, there are very few published academic works that outline how countries, with the exception of Singapore, have moved GCED from a goal and a theory to actual practice. This is where the work of the APCEIU is critical. APCEIU is a key partnership for UNESCO in GCED work in Asia. APCEIU’s mission is “to

166

Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman

integrate individuals, communities, nations and international/global systems, and foster a sustainable relationship between humanity and nature” (APCEIU, 2012). APCEIU is a leading actor in Asian GCED and also provides the largest body of material on practical application. The APCEIU and UNESCO partnership provides trainings, workshops, curriculum, newsletters, books, games, reports, and strategy guides to help Asian countries reach SDG 4.7. APCEIU has developed a comprehensive catalogue of resources for students of all ages, teachers, NGOs, and special interest groups (APCEIU Resources, n.d.). APCEIU and UNESCO also produced the Global Clearinghouse, a global database of resources to aid in teaching global citizenship education. The Clearinghouse aims to provide “good quality and evidence-based information and resources on GCED under one umbrella” (UNESCO Clearinghouse, n.d.) and was designed to satisfy a demand for resources by countries participating in the SDGs. Amongst the plethora of resources, there are two APCEIU publications that provide examples of GCED education in practice. One of those guides, Sangsaeng, is a “platform for constructive discussion of EIU issues, methods and experiences in the field of education for international understanding-including education for peace, human rights, cultural diversity and sustainable development” (APCEIU Resources, n.d.). Each Sangsaeng publication provides at least one example of best practices in GCED and is widely available online and in print. The other guide, the EIU Best Practices series, is published five times a year. The EIU “aims to encourage educators, scholars, and activists to implement and share local initiatives . . . the selected five cases are published into monographs and widely shared throughout the whole region, thus contributing towards achieving a Culture of Peace” (APCEIU Resources, n.d.). It is this publication that provides a valuable look into GCED education in practice, as well as models of replicable action. Following are three examples that allude to teacher roles in GCED. GCED in China One example of GCED education in practice comes from the APCEIU Best Practices publication Teacher Training and Whole School Approach for Improving Teacher EIU Competences, which reports on the work being done in Beijing, China. This publication presents the work of Hong (2013) at the Beijing Institute of Education and examines the three avenues in which GCED, or to use APCEIU’s terminology, EIU, is being approached. The first approach to implementing EIU was through textbook development. Primary and secondary level textbooks were created “based on the meaning of EIU as advocated by UNESCO and understanding of cultural similarities and differences” (Hong, 2013, p. 2). These textbooks were the first attempt to build the framework for EIU in schools. Teacher training was the second approach that the Beijing Institute for Education took towards implementing EIU. This training program was built on a foundation and reputation of the Beijing Institute being “the specialized teacher training institute for primary and secondary

Global Citizenship Education in Asia

167

school teachers in Beijing since 1999” (Hong, 2013, p. 5). For the purposes of implementing EIU, the Beijing Institute developed a theoretical course for all teachers that provided each educator with a solid understanding of the history, context, and relevance of EIU. After completing the coursework, each teacher was paired with an expert in the field and sent to teach with the expectation that they “implement the content of the theoretical study to primary and secondary school classrooms” (Hong, 2013, p. 6). After each teaching experience, participants took part in a feedback-oriented discussion that reflected on the teaching process and what individual needs each educator still had after the experience. The final part of the Beijing Institute’s training program was an “achievement expedition” (Hong, 2013, p. 6) where educators could share “experiences, reactions, observations, and reflections” (Hong, 2013, p.  6). This expedition also allowed the Beijing Institute to get feedback from the teachers about the training program. Since the implementation of the program, feedback from educators has been very positive and follow-up trainings to keep relevant on EIU education are encouraged for teachers who have completed the program (Hong, 2013). The last approach that the Beijing Institute for Education took towards implementing EIU was to target “programs related to school ethos and environment” (Hong, 2013, p. 4). To illustrate how EIU can be woven into school climate, the Beijing Institute worked with a specific school, the Fangcaodi International School, and highlighted the school’s approach to EIU as a model to other schools. Fangcaodi International School does have a number of students who are from countries other than China and this has led to the creation of the following goal: “cultivating students with Chinese characteristics and international vision” (Hong, 2013, p. 11). In order to help reach this vision, Fangcaodi International invited three sponsors to join the school in a project to create EIU student centered activities. Each sponsor was responsible for a portion of the project: (1) Fengtai District Educational Science Research Institute, in charge of the project organization, (2) Beijing Institute of Education, in charge of the project theoretical introduction and professional direction, and (3) Fangcaodi International School Lize Branch school research group, in charge of project design and specific implementation (Hong, 2013, p. 11). Each sponsor worked with school leadership and the teachers at Fangcaodi International School to create EIU activities for specific age groups. While all projects centered on the theme of “experiencing festivals in China and in foreign countries” (Hong, 2013, p. 14), each activity was carefully targeted to the corresponding age groups’ “cognitive levels so as to improve students competencies in international understanding” (Hong, 2013, p.  13). For example, students in grades 1 and 2 learned about “minority peoples dresses, customs and life” (Hong, 2013, p. 14) by having a fashion show where students wore minority populations clothing and by visiting an Ethnic Cultural Park that was outside of school grounds. Students in grades 1 and 2 also read age appropriate, classical Chinese poetry and then read poems and fables from other countries for comparison.

168

Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman

At the end of the semester, all students participated in a showcase activity where each student highlighted what they learned about another culture. Through the medium of dance, art, singing, and photos, the students shared their knowledge with other students, parents, teachers, and community members (Hong, 2013, p. 16). The work done by the Beijing Institute strongly correlates to all three of the conceptual goals that UNESCO set for GCED. The creation of new textbooks, as well as training teachers on GCED, fits the cognitive dimension of the goal, as there is a clear “acquisition of knowledge, understanding and critical thinking” (UNESCO, 2016a). The work of Fangcaodi International School brings the socio-emotion piece of the UNESCO goal to students, as it teaches them “respect for differences and diversity” (UNESCO, 2016a). These socio-emotional activities correlate to the last part of the goal, which is behavioral. By gaining knowledge and respect for other students, it is the hope that the students will “act responsibly [on] local, national and global levels” (UNESCO, 2016a). The Beijing Institute did analyze their work in Fangcaodi International School, although the research methods are unclear. They report that “practical activities received approval from the whole faculty, students and parents” (Hong, 2013, p.  21), and that the activities received “favorable comments” (Hong, 2013, p. 21), but there has not been a formal academic study to determine the effectiveness of this work. Despite this, the Beijing Institute has provided a clear example of GCED implementation as well as work towards accomplishing all three conceptual dimensions of the UNESCO GCED goal. This report provides an example of movement from GCED theory to GCED practice and can serve as a model for other countries that are at the implementation phase of GCED work. GCED in India Another APCEIU Best Practices publication titled Student Empowerment Through Values in Action (SEVA) provides a very different lens for GCED implementation and a valuable comparison to the work being done in China, as well as other case studies that will be outlined later in this chapter. This report focuses on GCED at Him Academy Public School in Himachal Pradesh, India, and the program that was initiated there called Student Empowerment through Values in Action (SEVA). This program originated as a behavior management system, as teachers and parents had begun to notice that students were becoming “disrespectful, undisciplined, intolerant and above all disconnected” (Student Empowerment Through Values in Action (SEVA) [SEVA], 2016, p.  3). SEVA encouraged student investment in putting “essential values into practice in the context of personal, social and environmental domains” (SEVA, 2016, p.  4) and it quickly became apparent that a program with these goals aligned with the UNESCO GCED goals. Since Him Academy was already associated with UNESCO, a partnership was created to draft the framework for SEVA. Teachers, parents, and school leadership provided input and the UNESCO GCED goals, as well as the

Global Citizenship Education in Asia

169

Character and Citizenship Education curriculum for Singapore schools, were used as structural resources (SEVA, 2016, p. 4). Once the SEVA program was complete, Him Academy declared that not only would it be used to help manage behavior, it was also so closely aligned with the UNESCO GCED goals that it would be a tool to promote global citizenship traits in students at the school (SEVA, 2016, p. 5). SEVA encourages children to act with “respect, responsibility, care, integrity, resilience and cyber-wellness” (SEVA, 2016, p. 4&5) each day in “real life situations” (SEVA, 2016, p. 5). While there are various stakeholders in this program: students, teachers, parents, the community, and a number of international school partners, teachers have been identified as the critical implementers of the program (SEVA, 2016, p. 6&7). The teachers at Him Academy not only model desirable behavior, they also track each student’s “SEVA score” (SEVA, 2016, p.  10) with a point system. This entails monitoring each student and giving them “frowny” faces and “smiley” faces for “undesirable” or “appreciable” behavior (SEVA, 2016, p. 10) as well as providing students with reflection sheets as a space to think about their behavior (SEVA, 2016, p. 19). All scores are tallied weekly and at the end of the quarter students with high scores are “appreciated through certificates and SEVA badges” (SEVA, 2016, p. 11). SEVA has three main platforms of implementation. The first occurs though weekly teacher and student-led talks on the “value of the day” (SEVA, 2016, p. 13). These assemblies provide space to discuss specific values and also encourage students to “confess for whether or not he/she was able to show the values through actions and, if yes, then to what extent” (SEVA, 2016, p. 13). There are also monthly meetings where students meet to discuss specific values and how to apply those values to real-life situations. The final platform is a series of organized events that match GCED themes. For example, during “Tree Plantation Week”, students work on the theme of responsibility and care by planting saplings and plants (SEVA, 2016, p. 16). Participation in all events, as well as participation in weekly and monthly talks, can result in “smileys” and a boost in a students’ SEVA score (SEVA, 2016, pp. 16&17). Him Academy has reflected on the SEVA program and determined that there have been various positive effects on students, parents, teachers, and the community. Him Academy reports that students demonstrate a “positive change in behavior” and that teachers have also become “more reflective in their actions” (SEVA, 2016, p.  20). Furthermore, Him Academy has determined the program to be “very effective in fulfilling GCED principles as it is helping to groom the students into valuable global citizens” (SEVA, 2016, p. 21). While all of these observations are positive, Him Academy has not done a formal study or evaluation on the effect of the SEVA program. GCED in Singapore To provide an example of a well-studied implementation of GCED, one must turn to Singapore. Singapore has a long history of implementing GCED in some capacity; by some accounts a version of GCED has existed in Singaporean

170

Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman

curriculum since 1967 (Baildon, Sim, & Paculdar, 2016). While GCED, or as it’s called in Singapore, Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), has changed and evolved over the years, the emphasis on values and morals and the connections between those values and citizenship has always been present (Baildon et al., 2016; Tan & Tan, 2014). UNESCO’s development of the SDG in 2015 brought heightened attention and importance to citizenship education, and the SDG was in part created in response to a world that is becoming globalized at a rapid rate. Singapore, however, was ahead of UNESCO in recognizing the importance that internationalism and multiculturalism has on citizenship, and in 1997 the National Education framework was created to educate all Singaporean children on the “knowledge, skills and values necessary for national citizenship in Singapore” (Baildon et al., 2016). An even higher value was placed on this skill set in 2001 when Singapore implemented a national Social Studies curriculum with the explicit goal being to: “inculcate values and build competencies in our students to develop them to be good individuals and useful citizens” (Ministry of Education Singapore, 2014). This goal, in conjunction with Social Studies now being an “examinable subject” (Baildon et al., 2016; Sim, Chua, & Krishnasamy, 2017), pushed GCED education to the forefront of the Singaporean school system. The Ministry of Education (MoE) in Singapore has created a complex and detailed CCE curriculum for all age levels. For each age level, the curriculum includes core values, socio-emotional competencies, and skills related to civic competencies; these strands are then broken into even more subsets and tied to learning outcomes per age level. (Ministry of Education Singapore, 2014). The MoE also provides guides for the amount of time these components should be taught in the classroom, as well as a scope and sequence for teachers to use throughout the school year. Much like the examples of China and India, Singapore places a majority of the responsibility for CCE on teachers. In a document of guiding principles, the MoE outlines the expectations for teachers as: Teachers are best placed to lead and uphold the core values. Teachers will role model and create learning opportunities to shape and instill in every student the core values. Teachers will develop in each of them a sense of self-worth and confidence, a spirit of resilience, care and compassion for others. Teachers will take ownership of their professional development to equip themselves with the expertise and competencies to nurture every student to become an active citizen of good character. (Ministry of Education Singapore, 2014) This document goes on to say that in addition to modeling CCE values, teachers should “engage students through various modes of delivery” when teaching CCE topics, as well as partner with parents to encourage student development (Character & Citizenship Education Syllabus, 2014). Considering that teachers play

Global Citizenship Education in Asia

171

such a critical role in CCE, it is surprising that there isn’t more literature on teacher efectiveness. Scholars Sim et al. (2017) noted that “the role of teachers in citizenship education has received little attention” (p. 93). While GCED may seem prescriptive and scripted given Singapore’s CCE curriculum-based approach, there is evidence of innovative implementations of GCED in Singapore even in early iterations of CCE in Singapore. In Lim (2008), elementary school students engage GCED through a game-like learning environment that is embedded in English, Mathematics, and Science pedagogy. Through document analysis, survey, interviews, and observation, Lim found that this combination of teaching English, Mathematics, and Science with students acting as global citizens in a realistic simulated scenario enhanced students’ learning engagement, academic motivation, and social commitments. In a more recent Singapore example, student council leaders in schools worked on developing a tool to measure other students’ acquisition of leadership skills. Students learned that the desired traits of leaders fit well with the CCE curriculum that already exists in Singapore, as well as UNESCO’s goals on global citizenship. This project was grounded in extensive research on best practices in curriculum development, leadership skills in students, and the importance of incorporating student voice into the school system (APCEIU, 2017). The teacher in this study argues for the need for greater student involvement in curriculum development and the ties between GCED and leadership development. Absent, however, in this report is evaluation of the impact of this program. While CCE in Singapore has a longer and more developed history than GCED in other Asian countries, this history means that there is more to critique in terms of Singaporean CCE implementation. An emerging body of literature has recently suggested that CCE in Singapore is more a tool for “an important means to forge common national values, instill social discipline and foster necessary commitments and capacities for ongoing economic development” (Baildon et al., 2016, p. 107). Tan and Tan (2014) also point out that CCE in Singapore provides a platform to foster the desired outcomes of social cohesion. This reflects the central role of the Singapore MoE in developing curriculum that fosters sociocultural diversity and harmony (Tan & Tan, 2014; Sim et al., 2017) and the importance the government places on maintaining control over “the dominate historical, political and social narratives of the country .  .  . in order to advance particular conceptions of citizenship” (Ho, 2016, p. 485). Throughout the literature on Singapore, there are clear designs in the curriculum that emphasize national pride and shared values. Other Examples of GCED in Practice The three examples of China, India, and Singapore provide an in-depth look at GCED in practice, but these are clearly not the only countries in the region that are implementing GCED. GCED is in various stages of progress all

172 Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman across Asia. A recent case study, Citizenship Education and Education for ASEANness in Thailand (Chanbanchong, Thongthew, Boonsombuti, & Sangnapaboworn, 2016), examined the progress that citizenship education has made in Thailand in the context of Thailand being a part of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). This study specifically “identifies strategies of citizenship education and ASEAN studies basic education”, identifies “citizenship characteristics of Thai students” and “clarifies the present situation of ASEAN literacy among Thai students” (Chanbanchong et al., 2016, pp. 150&151). This study found that the Thai government has been more encouraging of citizenship education, has passed a number of educational policy plans, and the government has also launched various projects to promote citizenship education (Chanbanchong et al., 2016). One particular project, “Project Citizen”, helps to train teachers across Thailand so that teachers are prepared to “cultivate knowledge and understanding of democracy, to participate in solving legal problems, to develop public awareness, and to formulate public policy” (Chanbanchong et al., 2016, p. 154). One important part of Chanbanchong’s study was a lengthy report outlining the data on how the Thai students in the study responded to a questionnaire about their ideas of Thai ASEANess and global citizenship. The study outlines areas of strength and weakness and makes suggestions for furthering the education of Thai students. Other recent work on GCED in Asia includes a 2002 policy by the Filipino government called Makabayan, which was equated to being a “laboratory of life” (Baildon, Sim, Paculdar, 2016, p. 106) that encourages the development of “self-reliant and patriotic citizens and critical and creative thinking” (as cited in Guidelines for the Implementation of Basic Elementary Education, 2002). Sri Lanka established the Unit for Social Cohesion and Peace Education to help teach children “to live together peacefully in Sri Lanka’s multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multilingual society” (UNESCO Education for Social Cohesion, n.d). In Indonesia, an IT teacher integrated GCED into an existing project where students made short films and showed them to their classmates. Since the students were already being taught various GCED concepts and themes throughout the school day, the teacher decided to focus all the short films around the theme of peace. He designated his project the Children’s Film Festival for Peace (Lee, 2017). The students had to go through the entire process of creating a short film, which included everything from making storyboards, writing scripts, filming, editing, and even writing original music. Teachers in other departments collaborated to help students with various parts of the project. Since students were placed in groups for this project, they were expected to show character and team building skills, which related back to GCED themes. The project culminated in the final film festival, where students showed their completed film to the entire school. The students were then required to write a reflection paper on what they learned from the films. This reflection

Global Citizenship Education in Asia

173

served to measure the level of global understanding students gained from the films. While this project was an interesting way to implement global citizenship concepts into the school, it was never formally measured. More research is required to directly understand the impact that this project had on the students and the school as a whole. South Korea has seen a “rapid rise in citizenship education” (Moon & Koo, 2011, p.  576) as South Korean curriculum and texts reflect this subject of growing importance (Moon & Koo, 2011). Jeong (2017) completed a master’s thesis that sought to learn about teachers’ perceptions of global citizenship education as a way to “constitute global solutions through transformative learning” (p. 3). Before measuring teachers’ perceptions, Jeong provided a brief history of education and current context for a number of ASEAN countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Through document review, Jeong searched for evidence of GCED in national curriculum and found that most countries teach some aspect of GCED, although Jeong, like us, similarly noted discrepancies with GCED definitions and goals and the complications that this created for implementation. Jeong’s study is unfortunately limited by selecting only three countries (Thailand, Singapore, and Cambodia) to be studied, a small sample of 2–3 teacher interviews for each country, and unsuccessful interviews for Thailand. Jeong found that since Cambodia emphasizes Buddhism in schools, most teachers drew connections between GCED and Buddhism. Many of the “interviewee teachers answered that global citizens are those who have open minds for different cultures and understand other cultures with the awareness of diversity” (p. 50). One of the major findings of the Cambodian case study was that teachers did not feel prepared or knowledgeable about how to teach GCED to students and struggled to access appropriate materials for their students. Jeong found Singapore to have the most advanced GCED curriculum out of all the ASEAN countries. During the interviews, most teachers described GCED in terms of a “focus on practical skills and competencies, and that is assumed to be because of the detailed plan of government” (p. 61). Teachers also focused on values and the importance of transferring those values to the students. Many of the teachers cited “staying updated and current” as their biggest challenge to implementing GCED in Singapore. Jeong concluded that while elements of GCED exist in varying states in Singapore, Thailand, and Cambodia, teachers have yet to acquire a clear understanding of what GCED is in ASEAN countries, excluding Singapore. Additionally, Jeong’s work and research echoes the challenges we have noted thus far about the lack of consistent definition and terminologies in GCED applications amongst ASEAN countries. While these examples do not provide an in-depth analysis of implementation, it is apparent that GCED is being taught across Asia in varying ways. Some GCED curriculums are clearly more related to UNESCO, like the case

174

Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman

from Him Academy in India, and other curriculums, like Singapore’s, are more tied to nationalistic drivers (Sim et al., 2017; Tan & Tan, 2014).

Summary and Recommendation for Further Study Terminology One of the main issues with GCED is the complication of various groups using different terms and definitions to describe closely related concepts. Even among partnerships, like UNESCO and APCEIU, we see a variation in terms, GCED versus EIU. This can lead to confusion and a lack of alignment, particularly as these terms continue to evolve. However, we are mindful that while our quest for consistency allows for better comparative discourse, perhaps variations in terms and language reflect necessary adaptations to country contexts, language translatability, religious worldviews, and for relevance and meaning to specific national agendas. APCEIU Reports Both examples from China and India come from an APCEIU Best Practices report and both reports show how countries can utilize resources provided by UNESCO and APCEIU. One important role of these reports is to specifically illustrate how countries can tailor GCED to fit their diverse, country-specific needs. These reports also provide replicable examples for schools at the beginning stages of GCED implementation. The Beijing Institute in partnership with the Fangcaodi International School and Him Academy went about GCED in different ways—that is, a broader approach to GCED that included clear and distinct ties to the conceptual dimensions of the UNESCO goals. In contrast, Him Academy in India used SEVA as a blended approach to reach cognitive, socio-emotional and behavior goals and also tied these goals to incentives. Despite the variations in the approach to GCED, the end goal was the same in that each program was attempting to build and encourage global awareness and a more developed sense of international citizenship for students. It must be acknowledged that the cases in these best practices reports have not been formally studied and evaluated, and thus these reports currently serve only as prototypes to other countries. Without formal evaluation, it is difficult to determine if indeed these are examples of best practices. However, these reports provide the most consistent and concrete examples of GCED in practice today. They are at best characterized as a “starting point” for schools looking to implement GCED. Since there are no formal evaluations of the best practices reports, an area of further study would be to evaluate the work being done by some of the schools highlighted by APCEIU. This is critical in that it would provide an effective, proven method for implementing GCED. Evidence of impact, whether quantitative or qualitative, affords other countries some measure

Global Citizenship Education in Asia

175

of confidence to consider similar implementations and applications in their countries. Implementation Since the announcement of the UNESCO SDGs, while there have been discourses about the goals, the framework, and the theories behind the SDGs, the literature lacks a critical view of goal implementation and, for the purposes of this chapter, we noticed a lack of critical review of GCED implementation. Outside of UNESCO and APCEIU’s publications, there is little work examining the actual teaching of GCED in Asia. The exception to this being Singapore, as Singapore has a longer history of working with the concept of GCED than that of other Asia countries and a centralized MoE-directed approach that is unambiguous and manualized. Teachers and GCED All GCED cases presented in this chapter involve schools, thereby intersecting in some manner with teachers. Singapore’s CCE curriculum is the clearest articulation of the role and expectations of teachers in GCED. The role of teachers is implied in the China and India examples given that GCED is located in the schools mentioned but neither the role nor the specific tasks that teachers play in delivering GCED are clearly described. Similarly, for the other countries mentioned, teachers play some part in GCED even if the brevity of the reports does not allow us much insight into what is expected of teachers in regards to GCED, how they teach GCED, and what outcomes or challenges are faced. Studying the Role of Teachers in GCED Along with the lack of publications examining theory moving to practice, there is also a lack of information on how teachers are being trained to teach GCED in the classroom. It has already been discussed that teachers play a critical role in GCED, which is why studies similar to Sim’s (2008) Citizenship Conceptions of Social Studies Teachers in Singapore need to be more prevalent and done in other countries besides Singapore. Sim found that despite Singapore’s centralized training and delivery of GCED, what actually gets delivered varies by teacher’s identities, levels of civic participation, awareness of history, and whether creative and critical thinking is encouraged. Lim’s (2008) study highlights the challenges of teachers’ capacity to offer GCED in authentic and sustainable ways and suggests that the capability for teachers to competently conduct GCED requires both professional training and personal development. Cho’s (2016) study of South Korean teachers highlights the impact of teacher ideology influencing the conscious as well as hidden curricula that undergird governmental agendas for GCED.

176

Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman

GCED is a complex topic, and for each culture and country, teachers will approach this body of knowledge differently. It is important to know more about the role that teachers play in GCED and how to develop strong cultural competency skills in teachers so that they are effective teachers of GCED. Furthermore, if Goh (2012) is correct to suggest that GCED and intercultural competence (cultural intelligence) are inextricable, then we need to consequently address how teachers develop their intercultural competence in order to role model the global awareness and intercultural skills inherently taught in GCED.

Conclusion The introduction of UNESCO’s SDG changed the playing field for GCED. While GCED in Asia is becoming widespread, an examination of countryspecific examples makes it clear that GCED implementation is not coterminous, nor is it always being implemented in the context of the UNESCO goal. This could be because of the lack of unification of terms and goals, a variance in cultural preference, or a combination of both factors, although more study on this topic is needed. It is also necessary to better understand how GCED functions in different cultures, as the context in which GCED is implemented plays a large part in how GCED is understood by students and educators. More country-specific work is needed on this complex topic. In tandem with that is a need for culture-specific evaluation tools so that the effectives and outcomes of GCED can be measured and compared across countries. Teachers are time and again mentioned as the most critical part of GCED, yet little is known about how teachers’ attitudes, training, backgrounds, and cultures affect GCED in the classroom. We believe that teachers are key to shaping GCED in the future and are charged with the important role of shaping and developing students who will someday become global citizens. It is with that thought in mind that we recommend further study of GCED focused on the role of the educator.

References APCEIU. (2012). Mission & mandate. Retrieved from www.unescoapceiu.org/en/m12. php?pn=1&sn=2 APCEIU. (2016). Student empowerment through values in action (SEVA). Retrieved from www. unescoapceiu.org/en/m411.php?pn=4&sn=1&sn2=1 APCEIU. (2017). The children film festival for peace. Retrieved from www.unescoapceiu.org/ board/bbs/board.php?bo_table=m4112&wr_id=92&page APCEIU. Resources. (n.d.) Retrieved from www.unescoapceiu.org/en/m411.php?pn= 4&sn=1&sn2=1 Baildon, M., Sim, J., & Paculdar, A. (2016). A tale of two countries: Comparing civic education in the Philippines and Singapore. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2014. 940848

Global Citizenship Education in Asia

177

Bajaj, M., & Hantzopoulos, M. (Eds.). (2016). Peace education: International perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Chanbanchong, C., Thongthew S., Boonsombuti, S., & Sangnapaboworn, W. (2016). Citizenship education and education for ASEANness in Thailand. In K. J. Kennedy, & A. Brunold (Eds.). Regional contexts and citizenship education in Asia and Europe. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Cho, H. S. (2016). The gaps between values and practices of global citizenship education: A critical analysis of global citizenship education in South Korea, Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edudissertations_2/736 Chung, B. G., & Park, I. (2016). A review of the differences between ESD and GCED in SDGs: Focusing on the concepts of global citizenship education. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 18(2), 17–35. Goh, M. (2012). Teaching with cultural intelligence: Developing multiculturally educated and globally engaged citizens. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(4), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.738679 Ho, L. C. (2017). Freedom can only exist in an ordered state: Harmony and civic education in Singapore. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(4), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.10 80/00220272.2016.1155648 Hong, C. (2013). Teacher training and whole school approach for improving teacher EIU competences. Retrieved from www.unescoapceiu.org/en/m411.php?pn=4&sn=1&sn2=1 Jeong, B. (2017). Teachers’ perception on global citizenship education in ASEAN countries, Master’s Thesis. Seoul National University. Retrieved from http://s-space.snu.ac.kr/ handle/10371/127245Lee, Y. (Ed.). (2017). Student voice in curriculum development. Retrieved from www.unescoapceiu.org/board/bbs/board.php?bo_table=m4112&wr_id=94 Lim, C. P. (2008). Global citizenship education, school curriculum, and games: Learning Mathematics, English, and Science as a global citizen. Computers and Education, 50(3), 1073–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.005 Lockhart, A. S. (2016). Paper commissioned for the global education monitoring report 2016, education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Retrieved from http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245625e.pdf Ministry of Education Singapore. (2014). Character and citizenship education syllabus. Retrieved from www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/character-citizenship-education Moon, R. J., & Koo, J. (2011). Global citizenship and human rights: A longitudinal analysis of social studies and ethics textbooks in the Republic of Korea. Comparative Education Review, 55(4), 574–599. SDG Goal 4. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/themes/education2030-sdg4 SEVA. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.gcedclearinghouse.org/sites/default/files/ resources/EBP2016_India%20(No.41).pdf Sim, J. (2008). What does citizenship mean? Social studies teachers’ understandings of citizenship in Singapore schools. Educational Review, 60(3), 253–266. https://doi. org/10.1080/00131910802195836 Sim, J., Chua, S., & Krishnasamy, M. (2017). “Riding the citizenship wagon”: Citizenship conceptions of social studies teachers in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 92–102. Tan, C., & Tan, C. S. (2014). Fostering social cohesion and cultural sustainability: Character and citizenship education in Singapore. Diaspora, Indigenous and Minority Education, 8(4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2014.952404 Torres, C. A., & Dorio, N. J. (2015). The do’s and don’ts of global citizenship education. Adult Education & Development, 82, 4–7.

178

Michael Goh and Megan C. Deutschman

UNESCO. (1995–2016). Global education first initiative. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/ new/en/gefi/home/? UNESCO. (2016a). The ABC’s of GCE. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0024/002482/248232e.pdf UNESCO. (2016b). Global education monitoring report. Retrieved from http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247430E.pdf UNESCO. (2017). Sustainable development goal 4, sustainable development knowledge platform. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg UNESCO. Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-clearinghouseglobal-citizenship-education-hosted-apceiu UNESCO. Global citizenship education—UNESCO’s approach. Retrieved from http:// en.unesco.org/gced/approach UNESCO. Relationship between sustainable development goal 4 and the education 2030 framework for action. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/culture/pdf/edu/SDG4-Ed2030relationship.pdf

9

Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education in Asia A Case Study From Vietnam Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

The past two decades have witnessed a plethora of educational reforms in many Asian countries, including considerable reforms to citizenship curriculum. There is a general consensus among scholars in the region that these reforms are in response to the impacts of globalization—the proliferation of information and communication technologies enhancing international interactions, the rise of transnational corporations and organizations facilitating the spread of capitalist market practices, and the expansion of Western ideals of democracy (Choo, 2015; Lee, 2012). Within this landscape, modern Asian societies are pressed to equip students with global competencies to compete in the global knowledge economy. They are also challenged with the call to educate for global consciousness (Dill, 2013), to prepare students to engage in ethical encounters with others, who may have different, and oftentimes conflicting, values and belief systems. A global consciousness is needed in order to collectively address critical global concerns, such as climate change and social injustices. There is an emerging body of literature examining the trends, tensions, and contentions in citizenship curriculum reforms in Asian countries such as China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan (see for example, Goren & Yemini, 2017; Grossman, Lee, & Kennedy, 2008).1 The purpose of this chapter is to add to these existing conversations by contributing perspectives from Vietnam, a country that is underrepresented in the literature on citizenship education. Vietnam is a particularly interesting context for an analysis of global citizenship education (GCED) given its socialist political organization, open market economy, and Confucian-Buddhist cultural heritage. Our research comes on the heels of the Vietnamese government’s commitment to integrate global citizenship education into the national curriculum in collaboration with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Nguyen, 2017). Given the critical role of teachers in enacting this new initiative, we focused our chapter on the analysis of teacher education curricula at a leading teacher education institute in the northern region of Vietnam. Two questions framed our exploratory analysis of the teacher education documents: (1) Which conceptions of GCED are promoted in teacher education courses at a Vietnamese university of education in

180

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

relation to existing typologies of global citizenship in the scholarly literature? and (2) what patterns and tensions emerged, and how do they relate to the local and broader regional (Asian) contexts? We begin this chapter by sketching the context of GCED as it is taken up in policies and curriculum in general, and teacher education programs more specifically, in Asian countries. Our aim is not to generalize citizenship education in Asia, but to illuminate different national responses to perceived problems brought about by globalization. We then situate our analysis of Vietnam within this broader landscape, focusing on conceptions of global citizenship reflected in teacher education curriculum policies and course syllabi at a large teacher training university. Given the scope of this chapter, we concentrate our literature review on countries in East Asia with strong Confucian cultural heritage, including China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. We also examine studies from Bhutan, a small country in South Asia with a citizenship curriculum rooted in Buddhism. Our reason for focusing on countries with Confucian and Buddhist traditions is that despite growing Western influences, Vietnamese culture has always maintained its Southeast Asian roots; thus, to understand the Vietnamese context, we must understand the complementary influences of Confucianism and Buddhism (Huu Ngoc, 2016). From a postcolonial perspective we consider the challenges and possibilities of preparing teachers to educate for critical and transformative approaches to GCED (Andreotti, 2011; Shultz, 2007) within the context of a citizenship curriculum based on principles of traditional morality (Confucianism and Buddhism) and socialist morality (Leninist-Marxist philosophy) (Doan, 2005) and UNESCO priorities (UNESCO, 2015). For practical reasons, our review was limited to studies published in English.

Global Citizenship Education: Towards a Conceptual Framework Educating for global citizenship invokes multiple meanings and goals in different contexts. For example, in their review of studies on GCED, Goren and Yemini (2017) found that in many countries with high concentrations of immigrants or refugees, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, GCED is often presented as a peace-building tool. The study of human rights or other cultures is commonly addressed with the purpose of calling attention to similarities or commonalities between national-born citizens and recent immigrants. In countries with lower economies, educational policymakers and researchers often see GCED as a tool for student empowerment, although “its meaning is sometimes reduced to knowledge of the English language that would enable students to exercise the opportunities for mobility offered by globalization” (p. 176). Goren and Yemini’s analysis also revealed that in many countries worldwide, ideological discourses and educational policies often subsume GCED within neoliberal and nation-centric reforms. This instrumentalist approach hampers efforts

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

181

towards critical GCED. Thus, rather than addressing global issues and social injustice, these discourses forward economic growth that further divides societies based on social class, power, and privilege. Conceptions of GCED are often entwined with a number of overlapping ideas such as education for sustainable development, peace education, human rights education, social justice education, environmental education, and global education (Davies, 2006; Mannion, Biesta, Priestley, & Ross, 2011). Critiques of the term GCED point to its broadness and ambiguity. This has led scholars to develop a variety of definitions and frameworks to articulate and assess GCED policies and programs. Dill (2013), for example, distinguishes two main approaches to GCED. The first is the global competencies approach that seeks to provide students with skills—such as collaboration and problem-solving— needed to thrive and prosper in a competitive global economy. The second is the global consciousness approach, which is concerned with developing an ethic of care, respect for human rights, and dialogue across difference towards making the world a better place. Andreotti’s (2006) model of “soft versus critical” GCED engages with a postcolonial lens to differentiate approaches that promote cultural awareness, tolerance, and weak analysis of global problems, from those that underscore critical analysis of global issues, power relations, histories of colonialism, conflicting viewpoints, and Eurocentric assumptions of modern progress and democracy. International agencies such as UNESCO (UNESCO, 2015) have also developed GCED frameworks. UNESCO’s conception has, in recent years, shifted from an instrumentalist approach towards a more critical and transformational approach (VanderDussen Toukan, 2017). Through an extensive review of the literature, Oxley and Morris (2013) attempted to construct an integrative and comprehensive typology for distinguishing the diverse conceptions of GCED in policies, curriculum, and practice. Based on the work of prominent GCED theorists, they distinguished two broad forms of GCED: cosmopolitan types and advocacy types. Within each form, they identified four prevailing conceptions, each distinct, but with overlapping ideas (see Table 9.1). Cosmopolitan global citizenship is derived from Ancient Greek ideas of universality, where the world (cosmos) is one’s community. Premised on the notion that all human beings share the same fundamental values, cosmopolitan global citizenship is often situated within a framework of human rights. Advocacy forms of global citizenship are grounded in relativist and holistic ideologies. For example, critical approaches to GCED (Andreotti, 2006; Shultz, 2007) focus on deconstructing oppressive structures that perpetuate global injustice and advocate social transformation based on localized contexts. We recognize that Oxley and Morris’ (2013) typology makes few references to scholars from Asian countries, but given the lack of a local framework, we draw on their typology as a starting point for teasing out the similarities and differences related to the conceptions of global citizenship underlying teacher education courses at a teacher education university in Vietnam.

182

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

Table 9.1 Conceptions of global citizenship Conception

Focus and key concepts

Cosmopolitan types Political global A focus on the relationships of the individual to the state and citizenship other polities, particularly in the form of cosmopolitan democracy Moral global A focus on the ethical positioning of individuals and groups citizenship to each other, most often featuring ideas of human rights Economic global A focus on the interplay between power, forms of capital, citizenship labour, resources and the human condition, often presented as international development Cultural global A focus on the symbols that unite and divide members of citizenship societies, with particular emphasis on globalization of arts, media, languages, sciences, and technologies Advocacy types Social global A focus on the interconnections between individuals and citizenship groups and their advocacy of the “people’s” voice, often referred to as global civil society Critical global A focus on the challenges arising from inequalities and citizenship oppression, using critique of social norms to advocate action to improve the lives of dispossessed/subaltern populations, particularly through a post-colonial agenda Environmental A focus on advocating changes in the actions of humans in global citizenship relation to the natural environment, generally called the sustainable development agenda Spiritual global A focus on the non-scientific and immeasurable aspects citizenship of human relations, advocating commitment to axioms relating to caring, loving, spiritual, and emotional connections Source: Oxley and Morris 2013, p. 306

Methods We performed a qualitative content analysis (Prasad, 2008) in order to identify characteristics of global citizenship education underpinning the teacher education courses. In our first reading of the documents we used Oxley and Morris’ (2013) typology to identify key words, phrases, and themes relating to the various types of global citizenship. Ten documents were selected for further analysis: Foreign Languages (Ngoại ngữ), Information and Communication Technologies (Tin học), Education for Sustainable Development (Giáo dục vì sự phát triển bền vững), Environmental Education (Giáo dục môi trường), Climate Change (Biến đổi khí hậu), Marxist-Leninist Ideology (Các nguyên lý cơ bản của chủ nghĩa Mác-Lênin), Ho Chi Minh Ideology (Tư tưởng Hồ Chí Minh), Defense Education (Giáo dục quốc phòng), Directions of the Communist Party of Vietnam (Đường lối cách mạng của Đảng cộng sản Việt Nam), and Pedagogy (Giáo dục học). To provide a broader context for these documents, we also examined national curriculum policies

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

183

related to each. Individually, then collaboratively, we used Oxley and Morris’ typology to analyze the conceptions of global citizenship that emerged from these documents.

Emerging Conceptions of Global Citizenship Education in Asia Although the term itself is relatively new to the scholarly literature in Asia (see for example, Chong, 2015; Moon, 2010), tenets of GCED are already evident in educational policies and curricula in many Asian countries. Our review of the literature revealed several trends and tensions in the emergence of GCED across the Asia region. We discuss these later. A Predominance of Political and Economic Approaches to GCED First, reviews of empirical studies on GCED in Asia have noted that despite limited examples of more critical and transformative approaches to GCED, instrumentalist approaches emerged as most prominent (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016b; Goren & Yemini, 2017). Most notably, studies from China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore tended to reflect a view of global citizenship education as a response to global political and economic changes. As a result, curricular approaches tend to focus on the development of 21st century skills needed for students to compete in the global economy and contribute to national economic prosperity. Global citizenship dispositions (e.g. a commitment to human rights and social justice) and reflexive analysis of power relations and global interdependence, on the other hand, are often overlooked (Choo, 2015; Goren & Yemini, 2017). A case in point is the revised Social Studies curriculum in Singapore. Citizenship education has a history of prominence in Singaporean education and is taught at the secondary level through Social Studies (Lee, 2012). Introduced in 2001, and revised several times since then, Social Studies is compulsory and examinable (Sim, Chua, & Krishnasamy, 2017). The 2008 Social Studies curriculum was centered on two core ideas: being rooted and living globally. While the curriculum featured the study of global issues, the idea of living globally highlighted Singapore’s role in contributing to the defense of other countries, and its strength in sustaining a politically and economically stable nation (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016a). The most current version, released in 2010, places greater emphasis on promoting active citizenship and critical thinking; however, a recent study found that very few Singaporean teachers conceptualize citizenship in those terms (Sim et al., 2017). Despite the rhetoric of active citizenship, the new curriculum espoused more intentionally citizenship education and 21st century competencies to develop the “intellectual capital of its young citizens” (Lee, 2012, p. 508).

184

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

Multidimensional Models The case of Singapore also exemplifies another trend in citizenship education in Asia: the use of multidimensional models of GCED. Singapore is one of few countries, globally, that explicitly differentiates educational tracks for citizenship education (Ho, 2014). In line with the three existing academic tracks— Elite Integrative Program, Mainstream, and Vocational—secondary students are sorted into three distinct citizenship roles through differentiated citizenship curricula: “(1) elite cosmopolitan leaders, (2) globally oriented but locally rooted midlevel executives and workers, and (3) local “heart-lander” followers” (p. 31). While elite students are taught to critique government policies, analyze social problems, and research controversial issues, students in the other two tracks are provided with simplified civic content. As Ho (2014) argued, meritocratic principles may prepare students to take up different positions in stratified national and global economies, but they limit who can develop the capacities to engage with controversial issues, address ethical concerns that transcend national boundaries, and participate more fully in political processes. Political and economic approaches to GCED that construct competencies like problemsolving and critical thinking as marketable skills for the workforce might lead to personal and national economic growth; however, this neoliberal agenda can also reinforce depoliticized forms of civic identity and reinforce social inequalities (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016a). Another form of multidimensional GCED is reflected in China’s citizenship curriculum. Law (2007), in his study with teachers and students in Shanghai, pointed out that the structure of the citizenship curriculum separates self, local, national, and global citizenship identities. Students learn about different levels of citizenship in progression from lower to upper secondary school. Consequently, global issues are presented from a noncritical standpoint and students are left with vague understandings of how global citizenship relates to their everyday realities. Furthermore, while students learn about global issues, schools provide little opportunity for students to participate in the global community, for example to address environmental problems or poverty. Law concluded, “students’ perception of a global identity is a conceptualized relationship between self and world, with few real points of contacts between the two, [therefore], students’ stated pride in being global citizens is largely rhetorical or imagined, without strong evidence of an affective attachment to a global identity” (p. 295).

Morals, Values, and Relationality Lee (2012) posited that a distinct trait characterizing citizenship education in Asian societies is the twin relationship between moral and civic education, where civics is usually placed before moral education. In other words, national interests precede community and individual interests. In a previous work, Lee (2008) explained that moral education helps students develop values

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

185

and attitudes such as loyalty, perseverance, obedience, bravery, cooperation, filial piety, responsible citizenship, and honesty. Civic education is socially and politically driven—focused on national identity, economic growth, and maintaining harmony and peace. In China, for example, the processes of modernization and marketization have made society more susceptible to external influences on values. In response, the Chinese government, in 2006, developed eight pairs of opposing morals, Eight Honours and Eight Shames, reflective of its socialist core values. These ethical standards became an integral component of citizenship education. So while curricular reforms in China during the past two decades have turned towards a more global dimension—with the introduction of courses such as international studies, world history, world geography, and current world issues (Larsen, 2016)—notions of global citizenship in China remain rhetoric as discourses of nationalism pervade (Camicia & Zhu, 2011). The focus on values, particularly traditional Confucian values, is rather contentious amongst scholars in the region. China and Singapore, for example, have reinforced Confucian traditions in citizenship curricula in response to a growing intrusion of Western values amongst the younger generation that threaten national unity (Lee, 2008). This can be interpreted as a form of “strategic essentialism” (Andreotti, 2011, p. 61) used by governments to justify their political agendas. As Ong (2006) pointed out, the notion of Asian values of hard work, respect for authorities, meritocracy, and social harmony has been deployed to build a skilled workforce in the global economy for the benefit of the nation. Moreover, critics of Confucianism argue that its principles ensure power relations within society and place the role of males over females in the context of family, community, and society (see Li, 2009 for a discussion). On the other hand, Doan (2005) suggested that Confucian morality, which places high value on the contributions of individuals towards the progress and wellbeing of the community, might serve to counter individualism fueled by a consumerist society. For example, although young Vietnamese citizens are anxious about career and financial success, they are equally concerned with achieving harmony and happiness in relationships, particularly those with parents and partners; their idea of success would be incomplete based on individualistic gain at the expense of familial success (Doan, 2005). The Issue of Culture The issue of culture is also prominent and contentious in studies on citizenship education in Asia. The context of South Korea provides a good example. Until recently, South Korea’s educational system has reinforced its relatively monocultural and monolingual society (So, Lee, Park, & Kang, 2014). Since the mid-1990s, there has been an influx of transnational corporations and sale of domestic firms to overseas, a rapid increase of South Korean students studying abroad, and a rise in international marriages and children born to multi-racial couples. Consequently, South Korea has revised its Social Studies and Moral Education curricula several times in order to foster a cosmopolitan

186

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

identity among its students: “a global citizen living in harmony with people from all over the world who understands global issues, holds responsible attitudes and seeks solutions to global problems” (Presidential Committee on Education Reform, 1995, as cited in So et al., 2014, p. 11). The most recent revisions, made in 2009, highlighted a key idea: a Korean identity should be preserved and pursued together with a global citizenship identity. To this end, key changes have been made across the curriculum to integrate education for international understanding, education for sustainable development, human rights education, multicultural education, and foreign language education, with English as a Second Language starting in Primary school and other world languages starting in middle school (So et al., 2014). This change reflects the fact that, amid its increasingly multicultural nation, South Korean society strives to harmonise the dual identities of being both global and Korean. From this perspective, South Korea’s model of GCED reflects a cultural and social discourse focused on both openness to multiple cultures and social cohesion (Oxley & Morris, 2013). Similarly, citizenship curriculum reform in Hong Kong has also focused on building understanding and acceptance of diverse cultures and values. After 150 years under British colonial rule, Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. However, it maintains an autonomous territory, politically and economically, with a government that has “embraced its narrative as a global city” (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016a, p. 9). Since reunification, teaching and learning about global citizenship and world issues has become more prominent through citizenship courses such as Moral and Civic Education, Integrated Humanities, and Liberal Studies, at the secondary level; and Social Studies, Economic and Public Affairs, and Life and Society, at the lower secondary level (Chong, 2015). Reunification with China has influenced the way many people in Hong Kong identify as citizens. As Asian countries become more diverse, policy makers and educators must grapple with the question, “What kind of culture should be upheld in global citizenship education?” Should traditional culture be prioritized over “critical acculturation” (Lee, 2008, p. 339)? Environmental and Spiritual Global Citizenship So far, our review of the literature on Asia has suggested the predominance of economic and political models of GCED but also the presence of moral, cultural, and social approaches. Studies from Bhutan contribute yet another layer of diversity and complexity to the narrative of GCED in Asia. Bhutan, the world’s newest democracy since 2008, has prioritized reforms in education to improve the economic standing of the country (VanBalkom & Sherman, 2010). Although never colonized by the British, Bhutan was under the control of British India from 1865 to 2007 (Ball & Wangchuk, 2015). Public schools were not introduced until the 1960s and followed the British system. However, in 2010, Bhutan introduced a radical reform to their education system: Gross National Happiness (GNH), a philosophy grounded in Buddhism (Gyamtso,

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

187

Sherab, & Maxwell, 2017). Educating for GNH is seen as being critical for the sustainable development of Bhutan. The policy has shifted an academically oriented curriculum to one that prioritizes happiness and well-being as vital for education and daily life. As opposed to gross national product, GNH is steeped in Buddhist teachings, specifically that merit is gained through prayer and right action. Different from many other Asian countries, curriculum reform in Bhutan was not driven by economic growth alone. Change was fueled by the need to address social problems in the country: weakened ties to family and community; youth-related problems such as drugs and petty crime; and national poverty (Gyamtso et al., 2017). The philosophy was introduced in 1970 by Bhutan’s fourth king and permeates all economic, social, political, and religious activities. Underpinning the idea of sustainability is using available resources modestly for the wellbeing of future generations. It is a philosophy that serves to unify the nation (Ball & Wangchuk, 2015). To that end, the Ministry of Education adopted the Green Schools for Green Bhutan initiative in 2012 as a means to realize the aims of educating for GNH (Drupka & Brien, 2010). The Green Schools principles are integrated into the citizenship curriculum, which is taught through Values Education. Despite the absence of the term global citizenship in much of the literature on Bhutan, the Values Education curriculum reflects aspects of environmental and spiritual global citizenship (Oxley & Morris, 2013). For example, the K–3 curriculum includes topics like the environment, education for citizenship, international relations, and agricultural skills (Sakurai, 2011). The GNH model promotes religious global citizenship in that it advocates a faith-based, holistic manifestation of GCED that emphasizes relationships and intangible phenomena such as love and caring (Oxley & Morris, 2013). As Lokamitra (2004) explains, Buddhist practice is rooted in the understanding that our lives are inextricably bound up with others. Morality involves transforming behaviour and speech—both of which are directly concerned with others. Caring and concern for others moves us to work effectively for their well-being. Happiness and well-being are not related to material possessions, but to “living an increasingly skillful and pure life, having a clear conscience, from generosity and helping others, from friendship, and from creative endeavor” (p. 475). Despite its aspirations, GNH policies have been the subject of critique among some scholars. For example, Alviar-Martin and Baildon (2016b) asserted that GNH policies working in tandem with Values Education curricula might impede the exploration of contentious issues and result in learning that is depoliticized and lacking in critical thinking. For instance, in order for a school to be recognized as an official GNH school, teachers must abide by 17 “attitudinal cautions” such as being “morally, culturally, and politically correct in language/ speech” (Sakurai, 2011, p.  182). From that perspective, Bhutan seems to be justifying GNH-infused education in order to fortify a cohesive national identity whereby the government tries to strengthen its control over the people.

188

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

Pellegrini and Tasciotti (2014) also draw attention to the stark contrast between GNH policies and the government’s treatment of Nepali refugees living in Bhutan, particularly in relation to the marginalization of Nepali-Bhutanese children’s culture and language in schools. Teacher Education for Global Citizenship Education As the preceding research shows, education for citizenship and global citizenship in Asia is complex and, at times, contentious. Within this context, how can teachers be prepared for these challenges? In our review of the literature, we found few studies that examined specifically how GCED was taken up in teacher education programs in Asia. Studies that do exist highlighted that teacher training is highly centralized and follows rigid national curriculum guidelines. In many cases, this results in an overemphasis on political ideology over practical experiences (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Larsen, 2016; UNESCO, 2016). Furthermore, many teachers feel underprepared to teach GCED. The case of Hong Kong illustrates these challenges. In a review of global citizenship in Hong Kong’s secondary curriculum, Chong (2015) noted that the revised curriculum has moved GCED from a soft approach towards a more critical one. For example, students are encouraged to conduct inquiry projects on controversial world issues; examine the processes and impacts of colonialism in History; and analyze inequalities related to imperialism and hegemony. Additionally, Liberal Studies, a compulsory course in secondary school, focuses on engaging with conflicting values of people from different social and cultural backgrounds, and examining, from diverse perspectives, issues like inequalities wrought by globalization (Chong, 2015). Despite the aspirations of the curriculum, researchers found that teachers in Hong Kong felt vastly unprepared to teach these courses, specifically those like Liberal Studies that involved teaching about issues such as international relations and human rights (AlviarMartin, Randall, Usher, & Engelhard, 2008). Although teachers recognized the value of teaching issues like human rights, they tended to avoid controversial issues (Leung & Lo, 2012). Also problematic was the finding that while teachers saw the importance of engaging with diverse values and cultures, they did not favour rights for ethnic minority groups or immigrants if those rights conflicted with their own interests (Leung & Lo, 2012). Thus, similar to findings in Western countries (e.g. Ferguson Patrick, Macqueen & Reynolds, 2014), teachers’ personal views and conceptions of citizenship have pedagogical implications and can influence their practice (Wong, Lee, Chan, & Kennedy, 2017). This is further illustrated in a study with Singaporean secondary teachers. Sim et al. (2017) found that teachers’ conceptions of citizenship influenced their classroom practices. They reported that most teachers subscribed to character-driven citizenship that stresses personal responsibility to one’s community, rule keeping, and being a person of high morals. Few teachers conceptualized citizenship as social-participatory, concerned with rights and responsibilities

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

189

as well as civic engagement. Fewer teachers, still, conceptualized citizenship as critically-reflexive in terms of challenging underlying assumptions in official knowledge, addressing controversial global concerns, or analyzing issues of power. Furthermore, Karsten, Cogan, Grossman, Liu, and Pitiyanuwat (2002) argued that how pre-service teachers from Asia saw themselves as national and world citizens might also influence their willingness to implement a curriculum oriented to the development of global citizenship. For example, Lee, Chang, Choi, Kim, and Zeidler (2012) reported that many teachers in South Korea failed to see themselves as moral agents and tended to prioritize individual profits or the welfare of the nation over global concerns like the environment. Studies from Bhutan revealed that the lack of a formal curriculum for training pre-service teachers to teach for GNH had negative impacts (Gyamtso et al., 2017; Sakrai, 2011). Consequently, most teacher educators incorporated GNH principles through modelling behaviours, such as critical reflection on their own beliefs and values, and inviting pre-service teachers to disagree with their views. As such, pre-service teachers did not have a clear idea of how to incorporate GNH principles into their future classrooms (Gyamtso et al., 2017). This pointed to the importance of training teacher educators as well as pre-service teachers in how to teach for global citizenship.

The Context of Vietnam Vietnam is a geographically small country in Southeast Asia with a population of almost 100 million—three times that of Canada’s. Like many other countries in the region, Vietnam is currently undergoing ambitious educational reforms aimed at equipping a future labour force with the knowledge and skills necessary for the nation’s integration into a globalized world. The development of life skills, creativity, foreign-language proficiency, and technological competencies are key (Nguyen & Hall, 2017). In 1986, emerging from decades of war and extreme poverty, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam introduced ĐổiMới, or Renovation, literally translated as “to make a change”. Vietnam opened up its economy and education to the private sector and expanded bilateral relations with other countries. The decentralization of higher education, along with the increase and diversification of training approaches, transformed higher education during this period (Pham & Fry, 2004). A national system of comprehensive, research-oriented universities replaced the Soviet model of education, which generally consisted of small, specialized institutes and colleges (Pham, 2006). The process of Renovation has lifted Vietnam from among the world’s poorest countries to middle-income status (Good afternoon, Vietnam, 2016). Today, Vietnam spends more on education than countries at a similar level of economic development and has one of the highest primary school enrolment rates in the world. But having opened its doors to international trade, investment, and tourism, Vietnam is facing new challenges. Youth are increasingly more anxious about success related to career and wealth, and there are growing

190 Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho questions about whether citizenship education, grounded in traditional Confucian morality and socialist morality, is still relevant for Vietnamese youth growing up in a consumerist, global, and digital society (Doan, 2005; Salomon & Vu, 2007). Citizenship education in Vietnam is taken up in primary school (grades one to five) through Moral Education and focuses on ethics in matters relating to self, relationships to others, nature, national identity, and love for nation, community, and society. At the lower secondary level (grades six to nine), Moral Education focuses on citizenship, particularly the rights and duties of a Vietnamese citizen. In high school (grades 10–12), citizenship education introduces students to the philosophy and principles of Marxism and Leninism associated with Vietnam’s struggle for independence from the French. Ho Chi Minh Ideology is also a mandatory course for all undergraduate university students (Salomon & Vu, 2007). Moral education is a key venue for the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) to maintain a strong national identity; therefore, it is mandated across the formal curriculum (Doan, 2005). While the term itself is relatively new in Vietnamese educational discourse, aspects of GCED are already an integral component of its educational policies. For example, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) identified several global issues to be included in the national curriculum at the start of the Renovation agenda. Among these were education for peace and cooperation transnationally; education for environmental protection; and education to improve quality of life (MOET, 1990, as cited in Marker, 1995, p. 22). To that end, the government released the National Action Plan of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in 2010 (VNCDESD, 2010). Most recently, the Vietnamese government committed to integrating global citizenship education into the national curriculum in collaboration with UNESCO (Nguyen, 2017). The latest draft of the General School Curriculum (MOET, 2017) indicates Vietnam’s intention to take up the initiatives and general directions of UNESCO in education overall, particularly in the area of children’s rights. Teacher education programs, like the one to which we now focus our attention, will play a significant role in implementing these new initiatives. Founded in the early 1950s, the University of Education (UE)2 is a large, leading teacher-training institute. It offers a four-year teacher education program to high school graduates who qualify. Credits are awarded through completion of three categories of subjects: general subjects (compulsory or elective, 15%); specialized subjects and graduation thesis (60%); and pedagogical professional subjects and practicum (25%). The university has autonomy to design its own curriculum for teacher training. Although the UE does not offer a specific course on GCED, a number of their teacher education courses reflect aspects of global citizenship in relation to Oxley and Morris’ (2013) typology. Given the Vietnamese government’s recent announcement to introduce global citizenship into its national curriculum, we believe our findings can provide insights for integrating GCED principles across multiple disciplines as an alternative to introducing another subject into an already crowded curriculum.

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

191

Findings and Discussion In their systematic review of empirical studies on GCED, Goren and Yemini (2017) reported that studies from the Asia-Pacific region reflected a predominantly economic and political model of global citizenship in terms of Oxley and Morris’ (2013) typology. Our review of teacher education courses at the UE, while it supports Goren and Yemini’s findings, also reveals possibilities for advocacy models of GCED to take root as well.

(A) Political, Economic, and Moral Approaches Similar to China, a strong nationalist discourse is reflected in educational curricula in Vietnam—education is seen as an important vehicle for promoting socialist ideology. It was notable that four of the 10 compulsory courses at the UE are aimed directly at nation building: Defence Education, Marxist-Leninist Ideology, Ho Chi Minh Ideology, and Directions of the Communist Party of Vietnam. The description for the course Ho Chi Minh Ideology, for instance, includes studying: the life of the revered leader who liberated Vietnam from French rule; how he came to adopt Marxist-Leninist theories to the context of the Vietnamese people; and their implications for Vietnam and education. As Doan (2005) pointed out, central to overall citizenship education in Vietnam is the development of a socialist citizen, “a patriot who . . . knows how to live and work for the harmony and benefits of the community” (p. 455). Similarly, Camicia and Zhu (2011), explained that the mantra of “serving the people” (p. 609) could usually strike a chord with people in China and remind them to put the collective interest first before personal rights can be fulfilled. Another way that teacher education supports a political model of global citizenship is through extracurricular activities organized by the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union (locally referred to as the Youth Union). The activities range from workshops, seminars, and art performances, to opportunities to share learning and research, excursions to historical places, and volunteering. Some activities are mandatory while others are optional. The purpose of the activities is to promote moral values such as honesty, responsibility, love and respect for teachers, soldiers and women, creativity, tolerance, and a desire for a socialist Vietnam. According to Doan (2005), many students and professors alike are critical of the overemphasis on political subjects at all levels of education in Vietnam. Students do not see them as practical for their future careers. Moreover, the ideal socialist society, where social equality is ensured for every individual, contradicts students’ everyday lived realities in an emerging competitive and consumer society. These sentiments are echoed in studies from China as well. For example, Li’s (2009) large-scale study found that college students in China did not find mandatory ideological (socialist) courses relevant to their lives, rather, they reported that mass media played a greater role in their political socialization. Hence, while information and communication technology (ICT) is a key

192

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

focus in educational reforms towards meeting a nation’s priorities of building a skilled labour force, its use can also hinder a government’s political agenda in terms of political socialization. Spaces for Building Critical Cultural Global Citizenship Like many other nations in Southeast Asia, the Vietnamese government sees ICT and foreign language learning, particularly English as a Foreign Language (EFL), as a driving force for socioeconomic advancement and enhancing Vietnam’s position in the global economic and political arena (Dang, Nguyen, & Le, 2013; Peeraer & Petegem, 2011). As previous research in Vietnam has demonstrated, the importance placed on EFL and ICT in university programs as well as in K12 schools reflects Vietnam’s strategic response to globalization, specifically to train “high quality human resources in line with international standards . . . signifying Vietnam’s aspirations to integrate into the globalized world” (Dang et al., 2013). In 2000, the MOET released its Master Plan for ICT in education. EFL was introduced into the national curriculum in 1996 and became compulsory at the primary level beginning in 2010. Initially, EFL instruction focused heavily on the rules of speech and grammar, but in 2008 the government launched the National Foreign Language 2020 Project to revitalize English language education. At the UE pre-service teachers must select English, Russian, or French; EFL is the most popular. Multicultural education is a component of the EFL course. At present, multicultural education is limited primarily to learning about American and British culture and civilization. In relation to Oxley and Morris’ (2013) typology, the compulsory ICT and EFL courses fall into the category of economic and cultural global citizenship. Firstly, they are responses to political and economic changes worldwide requiring global skills and knowledge of the English language in order to compete in the global age. This is consistent with the trend across the Asia region (Goren & Yemini, 2017). Indeed, when the Vietnamese government announced its intentions to introduce GCED into the national curriculum earlier this year, the rationale was to advance the economic development of the country (Nguyen, 2017). However, the eagerness to spread EFL instruction across the nation raises concerns with some educators and researchers. While the current Vietnamese policy advocates learning EFL for intercultural learning, so learners can be competent in multicultural and multilingual interactions, curriculum has focused narrowly on learning about other cultures. In his study with EFL educators at a university in the North of Vietnam, Nguyen (2014) observed that the curriculum policy was not clear on what content and how it should be taught. Consequently, educators tended to teach about English-speaking countries and how to appropriately communicate within those cultural contexts while avoiding “interference from [students’] own linguistic and cultural backgrounds” (p.  176). Opportunities to reflect on the importance of language in preserving local culture, or compare textbook representations of Western ideas and

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

193

lifestyles to Vietnamese cultures and values, were absent from these educators’ classrooms. In another study, Davis, Phyak, and Bui (2012) reported that mandatory EFL instruction marginalizes the cultures, traditions, and languages of Vietnam’s 54 ethnic minority groups3 who make up about 15% of its population. Despite the Marxist rhetoric of equality and Ho Chi Minh’s call for national unity, the push to modernize through ICT and EFL integration represents a form of neoliberalism in which policy discourses articulate indigenous groups’ traditional lifestyles and cultivation practices as “backwards” (DeJaeghere, Wu, & Vu, 2015, p. 128). Thus, indigenous youth in Vietnam rarely see their cultures and identities reflected in the formal school curriculum,4 despite having to (re)negotiate their local cultures and identities with regional and international influences stemming from expanding numbers of foreign workers, tourism, and Internet access. Furthermore, in reviewing the UE program, we found that while the courses Information Technology and Foreign Languages are compulsory (Foreign Languages is mandatory in three of the four years of the program), subjects such as Education for Sustainable Development, limate Change, and Environmental Education are electives; as such, few students enroll in these classes. A political and economic model of GCED is clearly valued over environmental and critical ones (Oxley & Morris, 2013). We argue, however, that there are spaces within the ICT and EFL courses at the UE to engage with cultural GCED from a more critical perspective (Andreotti, 2006). For example, critical analysis and discussions about a one-size-fits-all curriculum and its impact on ethnic minority groups could be incorporated into EFL and ICT training. Teacher education programs need to do more than engage pre-service teachers in learning about and cultivating openness to diversity. While those are important, preservice teachers need opportunities to analyze critically how political, cultural, and economic discourses shape curricular policies, and how these policies benefit some students while creating barriers for others. For example, in their work with teachers of multicultural education in Singapore, Alviar-Martin and Ho (2011) observed that teachers needed spaces to question how the government’s decision to categorize the diverse population into four racial groups meant the erasure of traditional cultures and languages for some students, particularly those from low-income and ethnic minority families. We concur with Alviar-Martin and Ho (2011) that teacher education can serve as a form of advocacy in addressing social inequalities towards achieving social justice through education. It is important for teachers and teacher educators to be engaged in this complex and uncomfortable work in order to influence educational reforms, given that teachers and teacher educators are at the forefront of bringing about change on the ground (Nguyen & Bui, 2016; Nguyen & Hall, 2017). Davis et al. (2012) work in Vietnam and Nepal showed how a community engagement approach can bring together teachers, students, and community members in unraveling how indigenous cultures and languages are portrayed in educational policies and how marginalization of

194

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

indigenous ways of speaking and being can perpetuate social and educational inequalities towards finding solutions. At the UE the mandatory course, Pedagogy, also offers spaces for critical cultural global citizenship to emerge. Among the 14 chapters of the textbook for the course, one chapter is dedicated to the theme of international education. The topics covered in this chapter include equality of nations, international respect, peace and cooperation, human rights including children’s rights, sustainable development, environmental issues, human heritages, and the role of international organizations such as the United Nations. While the content focuses on global citizenship themes, the textbook presents global issues as content to be learned rather than issues to be critically analyzed. Whereas the aims of the chapter are to promote critical thinking, skills in problem solving, discussions and cooperation, this part of the course is often left out of the final exam; therefore, it is given little attention by most professors. Training teacher educators to engage more critically with these issues alongside pre-service teachers is crucial if Vietnam is to take up UNESCO’s GCED initiatives, which has shifted over the years from economic/market-driven rationales towards more transformative approaches (VanderDussen Toukan, 2017). Civic Education The civic education course prepares pre-service teachers for teaching Moral/ Civic/Citizenship education and is primarily concerned with values. In that way it reflects a moral global citizenship model (Oxley & Morris, 2013). According to Vietnamese scholar Doan (2005), citizenship education in Vietnam is based on two systems of morality: traditional morality and socialist morality (Doan, 2005). The first is rooted in Confucian philosophy, which holds human relations at the core of social order in the family and society at large. Confucianism places high value on the contributions and commitment of individuals towards the progress and well-being of the community. Critics of Confucianism argue that its principles ensure power relations within society and place the role of males over females in the context of family, community, and society (see Li, 2009 for a discussion). In Confucian thought, a person’s identity is built upon a complex web of social relationships, which govern all interactions with the aim of maintaining harmony and peace; in this sense, citizenship is relational (Lee, 2008). As Doan (2005) pointed out, research with young Vietnamese citizens indicates that while they are concerned about career and financial success, they are equally concerned with achieving harmony and happiness in relationships, particularly those with parents and partners; their idea of success would be incomplete based on individualistic gain at the expense of familial success. This supports, to some extent, Li’s (2009) assertion that the Confucian belief that “everybody has an obligation for the well-being under heaven” (p. 394) is entrenched in societies with Confucian cultural heritage. However, there are debates about whether all Confucian values are still relevant for today’s generation (Choo, 2015; Li, 2009; Huu Ngoc, 2016). The Civics course at the UE can

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

195

provide a space for pre-service teachers to deliberate these contentions, given that pre-service teachers beliefs can have a strong influence on their pedagogy and practice (Sim et al., 2017). Environmental Global Citizenship Contrary to Goren and Yemini’s (2017) findings that environmental global citizenship is not a focus in most Asian countries, our findings indicate that in Vietnam, education for sustainable development (ESD) presents several opportunities for engaging with advocacy forms of global citizenship (Oxley & Morris, 2013). Education for sustainable development has been a priority in Vietnam since 2004 with the adoption of the Strategic Orientation for Sustainable Development in Vietnam as part of its Vietnam Agenda 21 policy (PM & GV, 2004). This national strategy identified the key role of education in meeting Vietnam’s SD goals. Subsequently, in 2009, the National Action Plan for Education for Sustainable Development in Vietnam (VNCDESD, 2010) was launched (Nguyen, 2017). Since then, environmental education and climate change education have been formally introduced into the national curriculum. The MOET has explicitly linked ESD to the nation’s industrialization, modernization, and international integration agenda (Nguyen, 2017). While a strong economic discourse underpins Vietnam’s ESD policy, a closer examination of meanings of sustainable development in the Vietnam Agenda 21 policy highlights competing, sometimes incommensurable discourses of SD (Bengtsson, 2016). As Bengtsson (2016) pointed out, the Vietnam Agenda 21 positions the environment in economist terms related to economic growth but also recognizes that a market economy can increase the gap between the poor and the wealthy. A socialist discourse, thus, also underscores the SD policy with demands for social equality and equity. The UE is the only teacher education university, currently, to offer ESD as a course for pre-service teachers of geography (Nguyen, 2017). In her study with teachers of geography in lower and upper secondary schools in Vietnam, Nguyen (2017) reported that teachers focused on teaching ESD knowledge and paid little attention to more critical elements of ESD, such as “taking responsibility for present and future generations” and promoting practical skills and “exploratory, action-oriented and transformative learning” (p. 13). In general teachers felt that integrating ESD into the geography curriculum was adequate for promoting ESD. The teachers expressed that new teachers graduating from the UE in the past 10 years would likely be more prepared to teach ESD. At first glance, our review of the syllabi for the courses Education for Sustainable Development, Climate Change, and Environmental Education suggested that pre-service teachers completing these courses would likely have a similar understanding of ESD as the teachers observed in Nguyen’s (2017) study. In other words, there is an overemphasis on learning content such as “fundamental knowledge” and history of SD, climate change, and environmental issues in Vietnam. Teachers are also encouraged to recognize their important role

196

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

as teachers to develop in students the proper attitudes and behaviours to protect and build a green, clean, and beautiful environment. A closer examination of the course syllabi reveals opportunities to move from a “soft” approach (Andreotti, 2006) that focuses on raising awareness of environmental issues and promoting campaigns, towards a “critical” approach that engages with diverse perspectives, power relations, and complexity as it relates to SD issues. For example, the course description for ESD states that students will develop an understanding of the relationship between environmental degradation and development, and how human activity negatively impacts the environment. The course description for Climate Change indicates that students will critically analyze the impact of climate change in Vietnam and develop strategic solutions. While we do not know how teacher educators enact this curriculum in the classroom, there are spaces to examine issues such as how development impacts different populations differently and can contribute to greater inequalities between people with low and high incomes within Vietnam and globally. Second, the ESD curriculum not only invites pre-service teachers to reflect on their roles as teachers, but also as citizens in protecting the environment. As McLean and Truong-White (2016) have observed experiences that help preservice teachers to identify as civic actors can support them in developing a sense of civic self-efficacy and agency. Nguyen and Bui’s (2016) work with teachers in rural Vietnam demonstrated that Vietnamese teachers are highly capable of enacting their agency in questioning issues of inequality in educational policies and transforming their practices; however, they need greater opportunities to collaborate and participate in decision-making processes aimed at educational reforms. It is equally important to develop the citizenship identities of teacher educators. In their study, Nguyen and Hall (2017) found that pre-service teachers’ willingness to accommodate new teaching practices was influenced by how teacher educators embraced and demonstrated new theories and practices.

Conclusion We have argued that there are already spaces within the teacher education program at the UE that can be expanded upon in order to prepare future teachers to play a key role in advancing advocacy types of GCED in Vietnam. Our findings point to the importance of conducting research with and providing training for both pre-service teachers and teacher educators. Transforming teacher education for GCED requires a holistic effort amongst researchers and educators at all levels. It requires collaboration across disciplines to critically analyze educational policies and imported frameworks, towards developing curriculum and practices grounded in local contexts.

Notes 1. We use the term country, nation, and territory interchangeably when referring to regions of Asia, recognizing that Hong Kong and Taiwan are autonomous territories of Mainland China.

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

197

2. Pseudonym. 3. The term ethnic minority group is commonly used in government documents and academic writing in Vietnam. 4. In recent years, the Vietnamese government has started to pay more attention to multicultural education, but mostly through extracurricular activities.

References Alviar-Martin, T., & Baildon, M. C. (2016a). Context and curriculum in two global cities: A study of discourses of citizenship in Hong Kong and Singapore. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(58), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2140 Alviar-Martin, T., & Baildon, M. C. (2016b). Issues-centred global citizenship education in Asia: Curricular challenges and possibilities in nation-centric and neoliberal times. Curriculum Perspectives, 36(2), 65–75. Alviar-Martin, T., & Ho, L. C. (2011). “So, where do they fit in?” Teachers’ perspectives of multi-cultural education and diversity in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.009 Alviar-Martin, T., Randall, J., Usher, E., & Engelhard, G. (2008). Teaching civic topics in four societies: Examining national context and teacher confidence. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), 177–187. Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 3(4), 40–45. Andreotti, V. (2011). Actionable postcolonial theory in education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ball, J., & Wangchuk, K. C. (2015). Using a policy of “Gross National Happiness” to guide the development of sustainable early learning programs in the Kingdom of Bhutan: Aspirations and challenges. Global Education Review, 2(1), 5–22. Bengtsson, S. L. (2016). Hegemony and the politics of policy making for education for sustainable development: A case study of Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Education, 47(2, SI), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1021291 Camicia, S. P., & Zhu, J. (2011). Citizenship education under discourses of nationalism, globalization, and cosmopolitanism: Illustrations from China and the United States. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(4), 602–619. Chong, E. K. M. (2015). Global citizenship education and Hong Kong’s secondary school curriculum guidelines responsibility to challenging inequality. Asian Education and Development Studies, 4(2), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-05-2014-0016 Choo, S. S. (2015). Citizenship education in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(2), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1048764 Dang, T. K. A., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Le, T. T. T. (2013). The impacts of globalization on EFL teacher education through English as a medium of instruction: An example from Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 52–72. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5–25. Davis, K. A., Phyak, P., & Ngoc Bui, T. T. (2012). Multicultural education as community engagement: Policies and planning in a transnational era. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(3), 1–25. DeJaeghere, J., Wu, X., & Vu, L. (2015). Ethnicity and education in China and Vietnam: Discursive formations of inequality. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(1), 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.841034

198

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

Dill, J. (2013). The longings and limits of global citizenship education: The moral pedagogy of schooling in a cosmopolitan age. New York: Routledge. Doan, D. H. (2005). Moral education or political education in the Vietnamese educational system? Journal of Moral Education, 34(4), 451–463. Drupka, K., & Brien, K. (2010). Educating for Gross National Happiness: A new paradigm for education in Bhutan. Antistasis, 3(2), 11–16. Ferguson Patrick, K., MacQueen, S., & Reynolds, R. (2014). Pre-service teacher perspectives on the importance of global education: World and classroom views. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(4), 470–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602. 2014.881639 Good afternoon Vietnam: Having attained middle-income status, Vietnam aims higher (2016, August 6). The Economist. Retrieved from www.economist.com/news/financeand-economics/21703376-having-attained-middle-income-status-vietnam-aimshigher-good-afternoon-vietnam Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). Global citizenship education redefined: A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.004 Grossman, D. L., Lee, W. O., & Kennedy, K. J. (Eds.). (2008). Citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific. Hong Kong, China: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong/Springer. Gyamtso, D. C., Sherab, K., & Maxwell, T. W. (2017). Teacher learning in changing professional contexts: Bhutanese teacher educators and the Educating for GNH initiative. Cogent Education, 28(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1384637 Ho, L. C. (2014). Meritocracy, tracking, and elitism: Differentiated citizenship education in the United States and Singapore. The Social Studies, 105(1), 29–35. Huu Ngoc (2016). Vietnam: Tradition and change. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Karsten, S., Cogan, J. J., Grossman, D. L., Liu, M.-H., & Pitiyanuwat, S. (2002). Citizenship education and the reparation of future teachers: A study. Asia Pacific Education Review, 3(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024910 Larsen, M. A. (2016). Globalisation and internationalisation of teacher education: a comparative case study of Canada and Greater China. Teaching Education, 27(4), 396– 409. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1163331 Law, W. W. (2007). Globalization, city development and citizenship education in China’s Shanghai. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(1), 18–38. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers ’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925–953. Lee, W. O. (2008). Tensions and contentions in citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific. In D. L. Grossman, W. O. Lee, & K. J. Kennedy (Eds.), Citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific (pp. 215–231). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center, University of Hong Kong/Springer. Lee, W. O. (2012). Education for future-oriented citizenship: Implications for the education of twenty-first century competencies. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(4), 498–517. Leung, Y. W., & Lo, Y. L. (2017). Are Liberal Studies teachers ready to prepare human rights respecting students? A portrait of teachers’ attitudes towards human rights. Intercultural Education, 23(4), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2012.716725 Li, J. (2009). Fostering citizenship in China’s move from elite to mass higher education: An analysis of students’ political socialization and civic participation. International

GCED in Teacher Education in Asia

199

Journal of Educational Development, 29(4), 382–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijedudev.2008.10.001 Lokamitra, D. (2004). The centrality of Buddhism and education in developing Gross National Happiness. In K. Ura & K. Galay (Eds.), Gross national happiness and development (pp. 472–482). Thimphu: The Centre for Bhutan Studies. Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 443–456. Marker, P. M. (1995). Vietnam’s emerging social studies curriculum. The Social Studies, 86(1), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.1995.9956325 Mclean, L. R., & Truong-white, H. (2016). Toward self-authoring a civic teacher identity: Service-learning in teacher education. McGill Journal of Education, 51(3), 1–22. Ministry of Education and Training [MOET]. (1990). Forty-five years of educational development in Vietnam. Hanoi: Education Publishing House. Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2017). Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông tổng thể (Dự thảo) [The general curriculum for general education levels (Draft)]. Hanoi. Moon, S. (2010). Multicultural and global citizenship in the transnational age: The case of South Korea. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 12(1), 1–15. Nguyen, H. T. M., & Bui, T. (2016, January). Teachers’ agency and the enactment of educational reform in Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4208, 1–18. Nguyen, L. A. (2014). Integrating pedagogy into intercultural teaching in a Vietnamese setting: From policy to the classroom. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2014.9.2.171 Nguyen, L. A. (2017). Vietnam as a pioneer country in global citizenship education. Global Commons Review, 1, 7–9. Nguyen, T. M. H., & Hall, C. (2017). Changing views of teachers and teaching in Vietnam. Teaching Education, 28(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016. 1252742 Nguyen, T. P. (2017). Environmental education for sustainable development in Vietnam: Exploring the geography teachers’ perspectives Education for Sustainable Development in Vietnam. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 27(4), 341–356. Ong, A. (2006). Experiments with freedom: Milieus of the human. American Literary History, 18(2), 229–244. Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2011). ICT in teacher education in an emerging developing country: Vietnam’s baseline situation at the start of “The Year of ICT”. Computers and Education, 56(4), 974–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.015 Pellegrini, L., & Tasciotti, L. (2014). Bhutan: Between happiness and horror. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 25(3), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2014.898673 Pham, L. H., & Fry, G. W. (2004). Education and economic, political, and social change in Vietnam. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(3), 199–222. Pham, T. H. T. (2006). The development of the higher education sector of Vietnam within the globalization discourse: Using futures methodologies. Journal of Futures Studies, 11(2), 35–60. Prasad, B. D. (2008). Content analysis: A method in social science research. In D. K. Lal Das & V. Bhaskaran (Eds.), Research methods for social work (pp. 173–193). New Delhi: Rawat Presidential.

200

Hoa Truong-White and Thi Nhat Ho

Presidential Committee on Education Reform. (1995). Education reform for establishing a new education system leading globalization and informationization. Seoul: Author. Prime Minister and Government of Vietnam (PM & GV). (2004). The strategic orientation for sustainable development in Vietnam (Vietnam Agenda 21) (No: 153/2004/QD-TTg). Hanoi: National Political Publishing House. Sakurai, R. (2011). Preserving national identity and fostering happiness in an era of globalization: A comparative exploration of values and moral education in Bhutan and Japan. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 14(2), 169–188. Salomon, M., & Vu, D. K. (2007). “Doi Moi”, education and identity formation in contemporary Vietnam. Compare, 37(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03057920701330222 Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 248–258. Sim, J. B. Y., Chua, S., & Krishnasamy, M. (2017). “Riding the citizenship wagon”: Citizenship conceptions of social studies teachers in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.002 So, K., Lee, S., Park, J., & Kang, J. (2014). The idea of cosmopolitanism in Korea’s national curriculum. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(1), 1–14. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2016). Preparing and supporting teachers in the Asia-Pacific to meet the challenges of twenty-first century learning: Regional synthesis report. Bangkok: UNESCO. VanBalkom, W. D., & Sherman, A. (2010). Teacher education in Bhutan: Highlights and challenges for reform. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(1), 43–55. VanderDussen Toukan, E. (2017). Educating citizens of “the global”: Mapping textual constructs of UNESCO’s global citizenship education 2012–2015. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197917700909 Vietnamese National Commission of the Decade on Education for Sustainable Development (VNCDESD). (2010). National action plan for education for sustainable development of Vietnam. Hanoi: Vietnamese Education Publishing House. Wong, K. L., Lee, C. K. J., Chan, K. S. J., & Kennedy, K. J. (2017). Constructions of civic education: Hong Kong teachers’ perceptions of moral, civic and national education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(5), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2016.1262756

10 Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education in Spain and Portugal Alfredo Gomes Dias, Antonio Ernesto Gómez Rodríguez, Antoni Santisteban, and Joan Pagès Blanch

Introduction Citizenship Education and Global Citizenship Education in Spain and Portugal have been taking place in the context of the European Union and the Council of Europe since at least the end of the twentieth century. Efforts are made to realise a European idea of education with distinct traditions through concrete curricula. This plurality has made it necessary that a debate is constantly waged, aiming at consensus, besides the differences regarding citizenship education in each country, to support the development of a common idea of European citizenship. In this chapter the situation regarding the curriculum of global citizenship education and teacher education in Europe, particularly Spain and Portugal, is presented. The differences between these two countries are highlighted.

The Curriculum of Global Citizenship Education in Spain and Portugal: The European Context Education for democratic citizenship has been a preoccupation in Europe. In this regard some remarkable actions have been taken by the Council of Europe, and these have had a major impact on Portugal and Spain. Since 1997, the Council of Europe has developed the project Education for Democratic Citizenship, a forum for discourse around the definition of concepts and the design of strategies and good practices in democratic citizenship education. The results of this project have produced recommendations for policies and content of democratic citizenship. In a publication by Bîrzéa et al. (2004) different national foci, amidst similar fundamental principles are noted: In spite of some differences in national approaches to policy development in the countries, the main principles of educational reform are similar throughout the region. They stress democratisation, humanism, decentralisation, autonomy, flexibility, accountability, personal development, national identity and global awareness. EDC is defined, and declared a priority in the area of societal and educational development. (Bîrzéa et al., 2004, 92)

202

Alfredo Gomes Dias et al.

In this chapter we present evidence regarding the double intention of citizenship education. On the one hand, importance is attached to the development of a national identity. On the other hand, this is always complemented by the development of a global consiousness. This global consciousness has gained space in the discourse about civic education as much as the various national identities. Between these two consciousnesses, there is a forceful European conciousness (Eurydice, 2005). In 2010, all member states of the European Union adopted the Council of Europe’s Charter for Education for Democratic Citizenship and for Human Rights. In 2012, a study by EURYDICE was released, in which policies and curricula for citizenship education and for teacher education were outlined. This placed special emphasis on the active participation of students and educational institutions, to nurture solidarity with the Creed of Human Rights, in formal as well as informal education (Eurydice, 2012). For its part, the European Council has among its important goals the promotion of education for active citizenship aimed at inclusion and social cohesion. The idea of a European and a global perspective existing side by side and simultaneously, as well as the ideas of equality in diversity and intercultural dialogue are advocated (Council of Europe, 2008, 2011). In 2016 the European Council published the document “Competences for democratic culture: Living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies”. This document proposes twenty competences that “enable an individual to participate effectively and appropriately in a culture of democracy”, which are organised into four major blocks: “values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding” (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 11). If the idea of the construction of multiple identities is adopted, a global orientation will develop, although shaped by different national and local contexts. Among the competences are a critical knowledge and understanding and valuing of the interrelations between economic, social, and political rights, within a global perspective. This document places emphasis on the need to value human rights, human dignity and, especially, a critical interrogation and interpretation of the world and its problems. The European Council is, in its policies on citizenship education and human rights in Europe (Council of Europe, 2017), informed by UNESCO’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Regarding education and training of youth, as related to Human Rights and Citizenship, the Council of Europe has stated: “all countries have committed to ensuring that learners are provided with the knowledge and skills to promote human rights and global citizenship” (Council of Europe, 2017, p. 11). In this the Council of Europe gets informed by a perspective based upon the interdependence of all human beings in coexisting on one planet, requiring a Global Citizenship Education.

Spain In Spain, Education for Global Citizenship is a relatively new field. Its immediate political antecedent is the promulgation of the Ley Orgánica de Educación1 (Organic Act of Education) in May 2006. This Act introduced citizenship

Education in Spain and Portugal

203

education and education for human rights in the Spanish curriculum. Also important were the reforms regarding compulsory secondary education brought about by the government of the People’s Party in 2003. Furthermore, since 1990,2 mandatory material has been inserted in curricula.3 Despite this, citizenship education and education in human rights have been the object of criticism from the conservative sector of the Roman Catholic Church (Ley Wert, 2013). The content of citizenship education and human rights education as specified in the Organic Act of Education for compulsory secondary education contains a block on global citizenship education (Table 10.1). The withdrawal of the Act signalled an important step backwards. Despite this, citizenship education, and in particular global citizenship education, remains present in progressive education sectors, such as those of different governmental organizations and summer schools, whose seminars project an image of innovation and whose curricula have been influenced by that of Intermon/ Oxfam. Education for Global Citizenship is a vivid aspiration of the education reform movements, such as “Rosa Sensat”, the Catalan Education Reform Movement, which stated, during the time of the transition of the Franco Government to the Democratic Dispensation: “In the final instance, recognition of the cultural diversity and the specificities of each people and each culture in the world, . . . valuing the struggle against one people by the other, of one section of humanity by the other . . . nurturing a conscience among the citizens of the world” (Pagès, Pujol, Roig, Sala, Tacher, 1981, p. 186).

Table 10.1 Global citizenship: Subjects and content Subject

Content

Education for Citizenship and Human Rights (one of the three primary courses)

Block 5. Citizenship in a global world The conflicts in the world: terrorism, suppress failed stated, religious fanaticism, international human rights. The struggle against underdevelopment and action to create a more prosperous and a more just world. Globalisation and Interdependence: The use of information and communications technology; new modes of relations. Rights to privacy and protection of intellectual property. Block 5 Societal Problems in the Contemporary World General problems of discrimination. Ethical valorisation of human rights. Proposals for action. Globalisation and Development. Communication meida and power. Global Citizenship. Sustainable human developmentcooperation. Forced movements and the defence of human rights. Armed conflict and the resolution thereof and the realisation of an international community

Ethico-Civic Education in the Fourth Course

Source: Royal Decree 1631/2006, of 29 December, por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas correspondientes a la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria.4

204

Alfredo Gomes Dias et al.

Portugal The situation in Portugal is somewhat different from that of Spain. In 2008, the Ministry of Education, the Portuguese Institute for Developmental Aid and the Platform of Portuguese Non-governmental organizations initiated a process of discussion in order to créate a National Strategy of Education for Development, 2010 (Estrategia Nacional de Educación para el Desarrollo, 2010–2015 (ENED)). The ENED considers that the economic, social, and cultural realities in the world today will render obsolete the definition of citizenship from notions of “born within which borders” and departs from a “national community”, recognising the necessity of each person and of the collective for “global governance” (Ministérios dos Negócios Estrangeiros e da Educaçâo, 2009, p. 48392). The immediate antecedent goes back to the year 2002, when the NonGovernmental Organizations for Development conceptualised education as a dynamic, interactive, and participatory process aiming at the conscientization and understanding of the problems of development and of local and global inequality within the context of interdependence and the striving for justice, equality, and solidarity. In 2005, they stated that education for development should be considered as a continuous educaton process favoring social, cultural, and political interrelationships between the North and South and promoting values and attitudes of solidarity and justice characterizing a responsible global citizenship. Although it did not advance a definition of education for development, the National Strategy for Education for Development has identified the dimensions thereof: • • •

education for the development of processes of learning (pedagogical dimension); the principles for reflection and action for solidarity, equality, justice, and inclusion (ethical dimension); and the objective of social transformation, based on critical self-reflection (political dimension).

As a result of the National Strategy of Education for Development, in December 2012, a working group, consisting of representatives of the Institute of Cooperation and Languages, the Director General of Education and of some non-governmental organizations (Fundación Gonçalo da Silveira y Centro de Intervención para el Desarrollo Amílcar Cabral) commenced to work on a new document delineating the practices of education for development in formal education contexts. In August 2016, this document Referencial de Educación para el Desarrollo—Educación Preescolar, Enseñanza Básica y Educación Secundaria, (Report on Education for Development: Pre-primary, basic and secondary education) was approved. The vision of education for development in the Report “favours above all eduaction for global cirizenship” as an objective, an international orientation (ONU/UNESCO), to “learn to be creative and responsible global citizens”

Education in Spain and Portugal

205

(Torres et al., 2016, p. 6). In this sphere, the school, at all levels of learning, assumes a fundamental place to prepare the youth for a critical, informed understanding and participation in the construction of a world characterised by justice, inclusivity, and solidarity (Torres et al., 2016, p. 5). The Education for Development document proposes six main themes, each one with several sub-themes (Table 10.2): Table 10.2 Themes and sub-themes of education for global citizenship Main themes

Sub-themes

Development

• Perspectives and essential concepts associated with development • International cooperation • Cultural diversity and visions for the world • Visions for the future, alternatives, and social transformation Interdependency • Interdependency and the dialectic relation between global and globalization and local • Globalization and the growing complexity of human societies • Transnationalization and governance at a global level Poverty and • Enrichment and impoverization Inequality • Inequality, poverty, and social exclusion • The struggle against inequality, poverty, and social exclusion Social justice • Rights, obligations, and responsibilities • Social and territorial cohesion and coexistence • Construction of social justice Global citizenship One common planet • Creation of a sustainable and social just world • Participation and co-responsibility Peace • Construction of peace • Situations of insecurity, violence, war, and peace • Peace, human rights, democracy, and development

In September 2017, the Portuguese government launched the National Strategy for Education for Citizenship (Estratégia Nacional de Educaçâo para a Cidadania) (República Portuguesa, 2107), which includes many aspects of the ENED and which aims at a citizenship education responding to local and global problems.

Teacher Education: A European Perspective One of the fundamental problems in Citizenship Education in Europe is the lack of Teacher Education specifically on Citizenship Education (Eurydice, 2005, 2012). Education for Citizenship calls for a special education for teaching this. The Council of Europe (2017) requested, in an informed directive to all European Union members, to educate their teachers in the professional competences for global citizenship education and human rights as a way to fend off violent extremism and to prepare for a democratic future, based on critical thinking. In addition, the efforts of public school systems should

206

Alfredo Gomes Dias et al.

be supplemented by those of non-governmental organizations in offering resources to schools. Many of these schools and their teachers in favor of such reforms have begun to teach global education for global peace and a critical and humane approach to contemporary conflict. Even today, citizenship education has a national component much stronger than any universal or cosmopolitan perspective. Global Citizenship Education is a new trend in education which necessitates a revisión of teacher education programs. Future social studies teachers, for example, have not received education in citizenship from a global perspective. Thus, in the case of history teachers, for example, three question should be asked (Santisteban, Pagès, & Bravo, 2017): are these teachers, in their education, educated in a conceptualization of the history of a diversity of cultures? Do they understand the relations between diverse processes taking place simultaneously over time? Do they have the capacity to offer a universal, global vision of history?

Global Citizenship Education in Initial Teacher Education in Spain In Spain, Global Citizenhip Education as part of initial teacher education is urgently required. Our classrooms have become much more diverse linguistically, culturally, and ethnically, because of a rapid increase in immigration and refugees. These circumstances require teachers who are culturally competent and can tackle diversity as well as the promotion of inclusive education. On top of this, globalization has increased the interconnection between countries, especially economically, culturally, technologically, and in the pursuit of peace. All these circumstances have created a need for teachers to be competent in three areas: a) b) c)

guiding students to study intellectually and morally complicated and controversial global themes, guiding students towards responsable sustainable development in the local and global communities, and promoting a holistic thinking and comprehension of interculturality.

The real situation on the ground is not that rosy though. Eurydice informed in 2012 that the majority of teachers have not received any education in the teaching of global citizenship education, nor do they feel competent to do so. In the case of Spain, for example, CIVES’5 (2015) project ENGAGE6 found that only 52 percent of teachers teaching Citizenship Education felt they had adequate education. As far as teacher education is concerned, the structure of the state of Spain plays a decisive role, as the Autonomous Communities play an important part in the development and implementation of education policy (Amnistía Internacional, 2012). Since the end of 2006, each Autonomous Community has had autonomy to decide the content of what is taught in schools.

Education in Spain and Portugal

207

Futhermore, an Act of 2007 authorised universities to draft their own programs.7 In some cases, such as the education of secondary school teachers though, the central government does specify some minimum requirements. It is prescribed that “the profesional education should include knowledge and development of Human Rights, underscoring the principles of equality and solidarity between all human beings, protection of the environment, and the promotion of a culture of peace”. Likewise, the requirements for the education of teachers at pre-primary, primary, and secondary school levels include competences related to citizenship education. In general terms, it can be stated that preparation for citizenship education is adequate in policies for initial teacher education programs. However, because of the autonomy of universities as far as interpretation and implementation are concerned, curricula often leave much to be desired. On numerous occasions, it has resulted in a dispersed set of material, with the vested, traditional interest of departments salient in teacher education programs. In several universities, this has caused tension between the Departments of Theory and History of Education and Didactics of Social Sciences; the competences valued by the market place claim first place, those of the social sciences, including citizenship education, have to be satisfied with second place. Another problem is the result of the incoherence and the incapacity of the universities to design and to implement new curricula in line with the 2012 guidelines of Amnesty International. Only two of the 32 universities and seven of the autonomous communities include human rights as an obligatory part and a further two as an elective in their teacher education programs.

The contents of the Citizenship and Global Citizenship courses offered in the various programs in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (2016–2017) are: Block 1. 1. 2. 3.

Citizenship in a globalised world. The concept of citizenship and education: evolution and reality. Social and political trends and social studies for democratic citizenship. Digital technology and social media and new forms of democratic participation and social studies.

Block 2. 1. 2. 3.

The concept of education for citizenship: plurality, power, conflict, political culture, civic culture. Communication media and development of critical thinking in citizenship. Competencies for citizenship in comprehending twenty-first century society.

Alfredo Gomes Dias et al.

208

Block 3. 1. 2. 3.

Methods and strategies for teaching and learning citizenship education. Political, juridical, and economic education for social inclusion, in the context of formal and non-formal education. Valuing difference in education and human rights.

In the area of teacher education, the differences become perceivable and notorious. The Autonomous Communities, which are supported by the Ministry in implementing Citizenship Education, have numerous activities regarding teacher education. Thus they are able to organise Citizenship Educaiton courses at their Teacher Education Centers and at other institutions. One of the most outstanding activities is that of the CIVES Foundation, which attends to the education of teachers, especially in Andalucia, Extremadura, and the Canaries. The situation is also changing all the time as the availability of funding for Citizenship Education ebbs and flows.8 Furthermore, the fortunes of Global Citizenship Education vary with the interests of the professoriate at a particular institution at a particular point in time. The issue of Global Citizenship Education also receives attention in journals and conferences (including conference proceedings). Organizations whose primary brief are not in education that support teacher education for Global Citizenship Education include: •

•

•

•

•

The Institute for Women, organised by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, which had edited in 2007 a manual entitled “Educación para la Ciudadanía” (“Education for Citizenship”) integrated into the collection “Cuadernos de educación no sexista” (“Manual for Gender Education”). The objective of this publication is to diseminate contributions on Citizenship Education and Human Rights concerning men and women. The Federation of Fathers and Mothers of Alumni of Aragon who, in 2008, published “Educación para la Ciudadanía: una asignatura necesaria en la sociedad del siglo XXI” (“Education for Citizenship: A subject necessary for the Twenty-First century”). The Association HEGOA9 developed a document entitled “Educación para la Ciudadanía Global” (“Education for Global Citizenship”) (Argibay, Celorio, Celorio, Garagalza, Lopez De Munain, 2009). The Project Atlántida which, since 1997, has been waging a theoreticalpractical discussion on education and democratic culture in its seven Education Centres in the following autonomous communities: Canaries, Murcia, Madrid, Andalucía, Extremadura, Valencia, and Ceuta. An extensive diversity of material has been developed on “Common Citizenship and Democracy”. The Institute of Transnational Studies published in 1997 a document “El Mediterráneo, camino abierto o frontera” (“The Mediterranean,

Education in Spain and Portugal

•

209

open road and frontier”). This publication contains material for primary and secondary school teachers engaging in Global Citizenship Education. The OXFAM/Intermón Foundation has formulated a vision for Global Citizenship Education. On their webpage,10 under the rubric KAIDARA are publications containing plans and models for teachers. In their publication “Pistas para cambiar la escuela” (“Suggestions to change the school”) (Intermon/Oxfam, 2009, p. 9) it is stated that education for Global Citizenship is not a casual or arbitrary option, nor is it the product of a political fad. The political and social situation today means that the concept of citizenship cannot be limited to a consumer vote. On the contrary, education is a victim of the ideology of the market. A compromise has to be struck between cautious citizenship and the assumption of responsibility by all to be mobilised in the search for answers to global problems.

•

•

The document proposes a crtical theory drawing on the ideas of Freire, Morin, and Habermas for a transformative intelectual practice in classrooms. In 2007, the Ministry of Defence and of Education and Science published with ADALEDE (Asociación de Diplomados en Altos Estudios de la defensa nacional) a publication entitled “Educación para la Ciudadanía: la Defensa, compromiso cívico y solidario al servicio de la Paz” (“Education for Citizenship: A compromise of Defence and Civic Solidarity in Service of Peace”), a proposal for the develoment of curricula in primary and secondary schools for use by teachers. The Foundation CIVES too has done interesting work on the organization of Citizenship Education and has, in collaboration with the education authorities, organised courses for teachers.

Finally, the Association of University Professors of Social Science Education has released a relevant document. This Association is mainly composed of professors who have developed materials for the teaching of the Social Sciences, History and Geography, in these Citizenship Education and Human Rights appear in various places. It has organised six conferences11 on themes related to citizenship, democratic values, multiculturalism, etc. These themes are also touched upon in other conferences as well as in articles in journals such as Enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales.12

Teacher Education in Portugal The situation in Portugal is rather different from that in Spain. Portuguese legislation adopted the main principles of the Declaration of Bologna of 1999, which also refer to the education of primary and secondary school teachers and even to educators at higher education institutions. The declaration

210

Alfredo Gomes Dias et al.

circumscribes the number of credits distributed among the different components of education—areas of instructional science, educational foundations, pedagogical content knowledge, and profesional practice—and that limits the scope for citizenship education, human rights education, intercultural education, peace education, and global citizenship education. Information can be gleaned from a documentary analysis of teacher education programs at different higher education institutions. What follows are the answers on a survey comprising six questions, obtained from the fourteen institutions engaged in teacher education. The presence of a group of teacher education educators sensitive to the need for developing Global Citizens is clear from the National Strategy of Education for Development, 2010–2015. In this is encoutered a profesor at Lisbon (2016) and in Bragança (2017) who reflected seriously on the issue of Global Citizenship Education. In this document the following appear: a. b. c. d. e. f.

the need to deepen the conceptual framework for education and development and for global citizenship education; the importance of different institutions of higher education sharing knowledge and experience; the need for a structure for offering global citizenship education, independent from political power; space for new ideas and proposals to implement education for development and global citizenship education; the need to incorporate these in teacher education programs in higher education institutions; and the proposal to promote the creation of courses of continuous profesional development for teachers in the area of global citizenship education.

The strategies of higher education institutions for developing global citizenship difer. Generally ofers are limited. Among the institutions that did participate in the reflexion, a unified, central curriculum for teacher education entitled “Educación para el Desarrollo” (Education for Developoment) was developed in 2012 and a curriculum entitled “Educación para la Ciudadanía Global” (Education for Global Citizenship) was developed in 2016. In schools there are often subjects entitled “Educación para . . .” (“Education for . . .”). In this respect, areas privileged are peace education, environmental education, citizenship education, and intercultural education. Furthermore, certain themes occur frequently: global citizenship, the definition of controversial concepts, and orientation towards a politically unified Europe. The methods used are generally those of theoretical orientations and experience with relevant civic organizations that work on these themes, seminars, and open clases. Furthermore, an important event occurred in 2000, when the Committee for Education and Development Studies was established as part of the School of Teacher Education of the Polytechnical Institute of Viana do Castelo. This body has in scope cooperation in education and development between all

Education in Spain and Portugal

211

Lusophone countries. Its work includes the Project Global Schools—Learn to Live, which started in 2015. Global Schools is a project implemented in ten countries of the European Union. The Project is co-financed by the Program of Education and Development of the European Commission. At the national level, the following projects are noteeworthy: the Red de Educación for Global Citizenship and the Project Sinergias ED. The Red organization organises an annual conference on Education for Global Citizenship, which in 2015 attracted 127 participants from all parts of the country. Other fields in which the organization is active include in-service courses and the dissemination of pieces of communication. The members of the Red meet three times annually, and digital means of communication were also used. The Sinergias ED Project has as its goal the promotion of quality of intervention in education for development in Portugal. The main strategy of this Project is to promote collaboration between higher education institutions and civil organizationss, with the objectives of (1) conducting and disseminating research on education for development and national, international, and global citizenship, and (2) to build the capacity for education development between institutions of higher education and civil society. Among the activities of the SED Project, mention should be made of its procduction of scientific material. These activities include the founding of the journal Sinergias—Diálogos educativos para la transformación social, which has already published five issues. The first issue appeared in December 2014. This journal is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal that offers a platform for the discussion of and reflection on cenceptual, theoretical, and practical issues in the field of education for development and global citizenship and serves as a vehicle for the dissemination of knowledge in this area. The outlook the future looks positive. In July 2017, the Ministry of Education of Portugal published a directive opening the possiblity for schools to exercise autonomy and a flexible curriculum, and a regimen of a pedagogy strong on practical experience.13 Among the principles spelled out (section 3) are “the promotion of education for citizenship and for development over the total compulsory school cycle”. This intention is confirmed in section 4. Schools may also opt for several themes associated with citizenship education and with education for development. Teachers are depicted in the introduction to this document on the flexible curriculum as “agents of curricular development, putting in place significant, relevant learning experiences for students”. This recognition of the autonomy of teachers has also implied an opportunity for the development of Citizenship Education in teacher education programs of institutions of higher education. Thus, an opportunity has opened for teacher education in competences of citizenship, of relecting on global issues, and on local and global intervention.

Summary and Conclusions The curricula of teacher education programs in Spain and Portugal differ much from each other, although both are members of the European Union

212

Alfredo Gomes Dias et al.

and of the Council of Europe. In Spain, global citizenship education takes place as part of civic education. In Portugal, it is direclty related to development education and continues as an important curricular content. In Spain, global citizenship education in initial teacher education programs has been negatively affected by debates on redundant departments in institutions of higher education. In both countries, global citizenship education in teacher education programs often tends to be present only very coincidentally. In both countries, the universities are supported by the strong role played by civil society in organising courses and developing material. The reasons for the differences between the two countries can be searched for in their distinct traditions. The Spanish tradition follows the francophone model and the bonapartist public school. Therefore, immediately after the end of the Franco dictatorship, Spain opted for a civic education system alongside the French model, and eventually citizenship education was in line with the rest of Europe. Portugal, instead, has followed the Anglophone model. However, there is also the impact of the former colonies (now Lusophone countries, especially in Africa), which explains the strong link with and emphasis on education and development, and the división between civic education and global citizenship education, linking the latter rather with development education than with civic education. The incorporation of global citizenship education in education for development was an easy process in Portugal, brought about or facilitated by contextual imperatives. In the political context, the differences are therefore evident. To conclude, we recommend that teacher education programs in Spain and Portugal begin a profound reflection on citizenship education that covers all levels (local, national, European and global) and considers at least six key goals: a) b) c) d) e) f)

Connects global citizenship with social justice. Cultivates critical thinking in addressing citizenship issues. Promotes discussions on current issues, including social media as means of communication. Promotes critical literacy, helps to identify stereotyping and prejudice, and is action-oriented. Educates teachers in humanism and helps them to reflect on the question of “what does it mean to be human”? Equips teachers with the capacity to critically analyze curricula (Giroux, 1990), and to take decisions accordingly on global citizenship education.

Notes 1. Ley Orgánica de Educación, 2/2006, 3 May 2. Ley Orgánica de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo, 1/1990, de 3 de octubre 3. Los Temas Transversales eran: Educación para la Salud, Educación Medioambiental, Educación para la Convivencia y la Paz, Educación para el Consumo, Educación para la Igualdad de los Sexos, Educación Vial y Educación Multicultural

Education in Spain and Portugal

213

4. «BOE» núm. 5, de 05/01/2007. www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2007238. Accessed August 2017 5. CIVES is a non-governmental organization committed to the development of citizenship and citizenship education. See: www.fundacioncives.org/ 6. See: www.fundacioncives.org/rec/recursos/encuesta-sobre-el-estado-de-la-educacionpara-la-ciudadania-en-espa-a-.html 7. Real Decreto 1393/2007, 29 October 2007, «BOE» núm. 260, de 30/10/2007 8. For example, see El País of 28 March 2008 “La Comunidad (de Madrid) anula un curso para formar profesores de EpC” 9. HEGOA, in Sur en Euskera, is an Institute for Development and Cooperation Studies created at the University of Pais. See www.hegoa.ehu.es/hegoa 10. See www.oxfamintermon.org/es 11. Lleida, 1988; Alicante, 2004; Almería, 2005; Bolonia, 2009; Sevilla, 2012 y Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 2016. Ver, y descargar, these materials can be downloaded from http://didactica-ciencias-sociales.org/publicaciones/libros/ 12. See www.raco.cat/index.php/EnsenanzaCS 13. See Diário da República, 2.ª série—N.º 128–5 July 2017, 13881–13890

References Amnistía Internacional. (2012). Educación en Derechos Humanos en España. Algo más que una assignatura. Sección española de Amnistía Internacional, Madrid. Argibay, M., Celorio, G., Celorio, J. J., Garagalza, A., & Lopez De Munain, A. (2009). Educación para la Ciudadanía Global. Debates y desafíos. Bilbao: Hegoa. Bîrzéa, C., et al. (2004). All-European study on policies for education for democratic citizenship. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe. (2008). White paper on intercultural dialogue: “Living together as equals in dignity”. Strasbourg: Committee of Ministers. Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/source/white%20paper_final_revised_en.pdf Council of Europe. (2011). Living together: Combining diversity and freedom in 21st century Europe. Report of the group of eminent persons of the council of Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/2011/ KYIV%20WEBSITE/Report%20on%20diversity.pdf Council of Europe. (2016). Competences for democratic culture—Living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from www.coe.int/en/web/education/competences-for-democratic-culture Council of Europe. (2017). Learning to live together: Council of Europe report on the state of citizenship and human rights education in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/the-state-of-citizenship-in-europe-e-publication/168072b3cd Eurydice. (2005). Citizenship education at school in Europe. Strasbourg: European Commission. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/ Eurydice. (2012). Citizenship education in Europe. Strasbourg: European Commission. Retrieved August 2017 from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/EURYDICE/ documents/thematic_reports/139EN.pdf Fundación CIVES. (2015.) Proyecto ENGAGE. Creación de un currículo europeo universal de Educación para la Ciudadanía. UE. Erasmus. Giroux, H. A. (1990). Los profesores como intelectuales. Hacia una pedagogia crítica del aprendizaje. Barcelona: Paidós/MEC. Intermón/Oxfam. (2009). Pistas para cambiar la escuela. Retrieved from www.kaidara.org/ upload/267/Pistas_Interactiu.pdf

214

Alfredo Gomes Dias et al.

Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembrem para la mejora de la calidad educative (LOMCE), BOE nº 295, de 10 de diciembre de 2013, called the Wert Act by name of the Minister if Education. Ministérios dos Negócios Estrangeiros e da Educaçâo. (2009). Estratégia Nacional de Educaçâo para o Desenvolvimiento (2010–2015). Diário da República, 2.ª série— N.º 230–26 de Novembro de 2009, 48391–48402. https://dre.pt/application/file/ a/2003945 Pagès, J., Pujol, R. Mª., Roig, A. Mª., Sala, C., & Tacher, P. (1981). L’Educació Cívica a l’Escola. Barcelona: Edicions 62/Rosa Sensat. Edición en español, 1984. Barcelona, Paidós. República Portuguesa. (2017). Estratégia Nacional de Educaçâo para a Cidadania. Retrieved from www.portugal.gov.pt/download-ficheiros/ficheiro.aspx?v=f95a1095-79fc-4d8a8f34-13e3a98bea68 Santisteban, A., Pagès, J., & Bravo, L. (2017). History education and global citizenship education. In I. Davies, L-.C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, & Y. Waghid (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. (En prensa). Torres, A., Figueirido, I., Cardoso, J., Pereira, L. T., Neves, M. J., & Silva, R. Referencial de Educação para o Desenvolvimento—Educação Pré-Escolar, Ensino Básico e Ensino Secundário. Ed. Ministério da Educaçâo. Récupéré de www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/ ECidadania/educacao_desenvolvimento/Documentos/referencial_de_educacao_ para_o_desenvolvimento.pdf

11 Exploring Global Citizenship in Teacher Education Across Europe A Comparative Analysis of Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland and Italy Massimiliano Tarozzi Introduction This chapter provides an account of the process of Global Citizenship teacher education in four European countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland and Italy), drawing upon a broader study comparing European Global Citizenship Education (GCED) policy with a special focus on teacher education practices (Tarozzi & Inguaggiato, 2019). This comparative research is aimed at highlighting the pedagogical ideas, educational approaches and theoretical patterns underpinning the development and delivery of pioneering in-service primary teacher education programs for GCED. I have elsewhere analysed the role of higher education institutions alongside NGOs within the provision of teacher education for GCED (Tarozzi & Mallon, 2019). In this chapter, specifically, I narrow my presentation on the results concerned (1) with the relationships between the main actors within programs and their collaborative development of GCED teacher education and (2) with the role that teacher education can play for GCED policy implementation and curriculum change. My argument is structured as follows: first of all, it is necessary to theoretically position myself among GCED definitions. Then, after having stressed the relevance of research on GCED Teacher Education (TE), I will briefly review the recent literature by stressing the need for further research on teacher education for policy implementation. Next the comparative research design and method of the “Global school” will be illustrated, followed by the main results organized around two main issues: (1) a focus on the actors involved in GCED TE and (2) a conceptualization of the three main contrasting pedagogical narratives. Furthermore, the key notion of teacher agency and its relationship with teacher education and curriculum change will be explained. In the end some concluding remarks and recommendations are provided.

Global Citizenship Education Definition(s) GCED is a slippery concept, widely and differently conceptualized in the last few years, open to many different interpretations in Europe (Bourn, 2015; Davies, 2006; Dower, 2003; Heater, 2002; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Pike & Selby,

216

Massimiliano Tarozzi

1988), which could be placed on a spectrum between two extreme poles: On the one hand, GCED is understood as an approach suitable for the preparation of global elites for a flexible and competitive global labor market, developing human capital for the international knowledge economy (Hartung, 2017; Schattle, 2009); on the other hand, it can be understood as a way to challenge global inequality, providing a pedagogy for “global social justice” (Davies, 2006; Bourn, 2015; Jefferess, 2008; Torres, 2017), or to advocate a postcolonial perspective (Andreotti, 2006, 2010, 2011b; Abdi, Shultz, & Pillay, 2015). As I have argued elsewhere, I embrace a non-neutral Global Social Justice Framework (Tarozzi &Torres, 2016) that considers GCED not only as new educational content, a mere extension of the citizenship’s concept from the national to the global level, but, following UNESCO’s view a “framing paradigm” (UNESCO, 2014, p. 9), a new perspective that allows policy-makers and practitioners to reconceptualize old issues within a new educational perspective to frame theoretically and methodologically different types of knowledge, abilities and values. In other words, it offers a new angle combining inter-multicultural education with a perspective of education to environmental sustainability and providing new meanings to the problems of citizenship in global, plural and heterogeneous societies (Tarozzi & Torres, 2016). In Europe, in particular, GCED has been used as an umbrella term to try and be as inclusive as possible to encompass different issues and different political agendas (GENE, 2018). This approach can be tracked back to 1997, under the still prevailing name of “Global Education”, with the Global Education Charter adopted by the Council of Europe (CoE) (CoE, 1997), and especially with the Maastricht Declaration embraced in 2002 by the CoE, which represents a framework for a European strategy on Global education (Forghani-Arani, Hartmeyer, O’Loughlin, & Wegimont, 2013). From the Maastricht Declaration follows the definition of Global Education, then broadly spread by GENE:1 Global Education is education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the world and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all. GE is understood to encompass Development Education, Human Rights Education, Education for Sustainability, Education for Peace and Conflict Prevention and Intercultural Education; being the global dimensions of Education for Citizenship. Such a manifold and inclusive definition has the merit of merging several themes under the same notion, encompassing several topics such as Development Education, Environmental Education and Citizenship Education (Mannion, Biesta, Priestley, & Ross, 2011). Such a holistic approach is regarded as a single educational response able to interconnect diverse global issues and current challenges like migrations, inequalities, human rights and environmental issues. It also makes it possible to encompass diferent national policies and to mobilize international cooperation and therefore it can support a transformational agenda and the pursuit of global social justice.

Teacher Education Across Europe

217

However, it has been argued that the lack of clear conceptual boundaries and the continuous semantic widening of established concepts (such as development education, global education and sustainable development education) risk making GCED an obscure and indefinite concept, especially for practitioners (Goren & Yemini, 2017), being unable to produce coherent practice. Moreover, the frequent conceptual and/or nominal changes are perceived by practitioners, and in particular by NGOs, as particularly disturbing (Concord, 2018). Having in mind this debate, in this research, instead of imposing a preset definition we adopted the participants’ point of view in defining GCED to see how actors conceptualize it.

GCED and Teacher Education Research From previous research, teacher education emerges as a key indicator for effective policy implementation (Tarozzi & Inguaggiato, 2018). Moreover, both initial and in-service teacher education are considered by UNESCO (2015) to be enabling factors contributing to successful delivery of GCED. More broadly, some scholars both in Europe (Alleman-Ghionda, 2009) and in North America (Sleeter & Grant, 1999), observed that the lack of systematic but diffuse intervention in teacher education is one of the main causes for the feebleness of educational policies for promoting diversity and inclusion. Not to mention that teacher education is incorporated as indicator 1 (letter c) of the target 4.7 in the SDGs, Agenda 2030. In sum, there is a broad awareness that teacher education (especially initial) is crucial to make the integration of GCED possible, and therefore both policy and practice of teacher education is currently a meaningful field of research to explore the understanding, adoption and delivery of GCED in national education policies. Research also shows that teachers express positive attitudes towards GCED (Bryan, Clarke, & Drudy, 2009; Dillon & O’Shea, 2009; Gleeson, King, O’Driscoll, & Tormey, 2007; McCormack & O’Flaherty, 2010), but, as we mentioned earlier, they tend to have a vague (i.e. no precise) understanding to the term (Goren & Yemini, 2017). Bourn and others, in their background paper prepared for the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report stress the importance of teachers’ own motivation and enthusiasm (Bourn, Hunt, & Bamber, 2017) as a key factor for delivery GCED. However, teachers perceive themselves as ill-equipped to deal with this new and vague concept (Niens, O’Connor, & Smith, 2013). In the UK, in particular, they are likely to avoid complex global issues (Steiner, 1992), where some may also be reluctant to teach about issues perceived as controversial (Davies, Gregory, & Riley, 1999) or ethical sensitive ones. Research across Europe also demonstrates that non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations are major drivers in promoting GCED through teacher education (Bourn et al., 2017; Tarozzi & Inguaggiato, 2018). Robbins, Francis, and Elliott (2003) underline that, although Geography is the subject with the highest obvious promise of inculcating GCED, teacher

218

Massimiliano Tarozzi

education in general is usually accorded the highest priority in initial teacher education, as GCED is regarded as being relevant for all subject areas. Consequently, teacher education is becoming increasingly significant for policymakers (Bracken & Bryan, 2010). However, not enough research is being done about the relationship between policy implementation and teacher education. In the wake of this line of research, my paper is aimed at exploring to what extent teacher education can favor GCED enactment in schools, who are the main actors and their collaborative role in this process. Drawing upon a broader study which comparatively analyzed GCED teacher education practices in four EU countries, I argue here that teachers play a major role in GCED implementation and that teacher education can be seen to some extent as a strategic field for policy enactment. More precisely, not every pedagogical approach is suitable for this purpose, but a values-based one stands out as the most promising driver of this process. Research Background The data used for the comparative analysis were collected in the framework of the research activity of the EU co-funded (within the DEAR program) Global Schools project.2 The study investigated nine GCED in-service teacher education programs across four EU countries, namely Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland and Italy. The broad purpose of the multinational research team was to analyze GCED teacher education practices in order to identify success factors, conditions for failure and promising and innovative practices. The first part (2015) of the three year research investigated existing educational policies, strategies and school curricula in ten EU countries. The second part (2016–2017) consisted of a comparative research examining the emerging processes of nine GCED TE courses in four European countries with the aim to highlight the pedagogical ideas, educational approaches and theoretical patterns in which GCED TE practices are rooted. Each one of these countries had adopted national strategies for GCED and, according to normative and recommendatory policy documents, had a clear political agenda for GCED implementation. In each country, two settings were selected: a) a teacher education program internal to the project for in-service primary school teachers funded by the DEAR program and b) a program outside the project addressing themes related to GCED but organized by an external organization. Extreme case sampling was employed in the selection of the external case to expand the range of programs within the study. Except within the Italian context, two external cases were selected. In the framework of a multiple-site case-study design, we chose ethnography as an overall methodological approach for data collection and analysis. Table 11.1 summarizes the nine settings selected for the ethnographic exploration. It must be noticed that all of them are trailblazer pioneering courses which pose GCED at the core of the program. All of them are understandably inservice or continuing professional developments programs, since Initial training

Teacher Education Across Europe

219

Table 11.1 Nine research settings main characteristics Country

Program A (internal)

Austria

136 h NGOs and HEI Globales Lernen— Bildung für WeltbürgerInnen (introduction to GCED) Czech 32 h Republic NGO Introducing GCED Ireland

Italy

Program B (external) 16 h, College of education Erasmus+ HEI Regional identity and European citizenship. International exchange

16 h, National Institute for Further Education, NGO Immigration, islamophobia and environmental education 5 years 30 h Irish Aid, NGO HEI, NGO Green to Global: Cross Rights Sparks. Global Citizenship Education training for teachers curricular activities Peer led well-established tradition for citizenship of ITE on DE and IE issues education 48 h 20 h 36 h NGO Erasmus+ NGO Training HEI, NGO Insegnare una nuova trainers to cittadinanza—corso Acteurs du territoire pour une build the Education à la Citoyenneté introduttivo per new global insegnanti per l’ECM Mondiale citizenship (introduction to GCED)

on Global Learning exists only in Austria, while everywhere else non-diffuse or systematic programs to GCED education have been implemented to date. Data Collection Six types of data were collected in two years: • • • • • •

observation field notes of primary school teacher education sessions and of planning meetings among course organizers; formal semi-structured interviews, verbatim transcribed, with both teacher educators and course promoters; informal interviews with key informants during observations; project documents such as course leaflets, course resources and other course materials visual data (pictures) taken during the teacher education sessions; and participating teachers’ open-ended questionnaires administered before and after sessions.

The amount and typology of data collected by country are summarized in Table 11.2.

220

Massimiliano Tarozzi

Table 11.2 Amount and typology of data collected by country Data type

Austria

Czech Republic

Ireland

Italy

Total

# of # of # of # of # of # of # of # of # of # of

4 10 44 15865 5 39

13 7 48 9399 13 96 23 4 57 5

6 18 36 33700 32 782 37 0 48 8

22 17 118 65027 70 946 45 57 66 10

45 52 246 123991 120 1863 105 80 200 29

interviews training and planning sessions hours of observation words of transcripts documents documents’ pages emails exchanged photos questionnaires memos

19 29 6

Data Analysis Data have been analyzed using two main strategies: (1) a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of national settings following a shared schema of relevant domains and peoples and (2) an inductive collaborative analysis to identify relevant codes and themes. Through this inductive analysis a common codebook was developed. The codebook, tested by independent coders to ensure reliability and credibility, is both a result as such, providing a definition of every category and subcategory and a coding schema for scrutinizing all data. Through a systematic and collaborative coding of all the data collected in each country, nine themes and 32 sub-themes were identified, each carefully defined by the research team. Here are listed the main themes and subthemes that the researchers agreed to share as transversal across all the settings investigated: A. Reasons to attend (Factors influencing the attendance and participation of teachers within teacher education programs) 1. 2. 3. 4.

Barriers Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Expectations

B. GCED implementation in school (Issues that are perceived to influence GCED practice in classrooms or schools) 1. 2.

Opportunities Threats

C. Contrasting cultures (Different perspectives, worldviews and beliefs among stakeholders’ culture by also highlighting intergroup conflicts and tensions)

Teacher Education Across Europe 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

221

Different actors in GCED training Trainer profile In methods In contents In ethics/politics

D. Course organization (Description of the characteristics or general information on the training course) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Course evaluation Information on the course Trainee profile Resources Planning

E. Teaching approaches (General principles, pedagogy and management strategies used for classroom instruction) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. F.

Aims and goals Trainee assessment Classroom atmosphere Teaching methods Pedagogical/theoretical approaches Classroom setting Activity

GCED conception (Ways in which GCED is conceived by different actors that contribute to the organization and implementation of the course) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Visions Issues Terms to refer to GCED GCED competences GCED teacher profile

G. GCED policy (Political process that has an impact on the integration of GCED in formal primary education system) 1. 2.

Normative documents Recommendations/guidelines

H. GCED values (GCED values that are observable in documents used in teacher education as well as in the practice of trainers. GCED values stated by trainees) 1. 2. I.

Ethics Politics

Local codes (Aspects that emerge as very relevant only for the national or regional context analyzed).

Massimiliano Tarozzi

222

Results From the inductive analysis, three major themes emerged as most meaningful, based on the frequency of occurrences and on their conceptual density (Table 11.3). In this chapter I focus my discussion on “Teaching approaches” in relationship with “Contrasting cultures”.

Actors Involved in GCED Teacher Education The inquiry demonstrates that GCED TE is a collective endeavor involving diverse stakeholders, who are more or less crucial depending on the specific context. Everywhere the following actors have been actively involved: • • • • • •

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) NGOs/CSOs Teacher educators Teacher participants Funders (governmental organizations) Local authorities, (especially in Italy and Austria).

Table 11.3 Three core theme occurrences per country Austria C C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Total E E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 Total F F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Total

Contrasting cultures Different actors in GCED training Trainer profile In methods In contents In ethics/politics Teaching approaches Aims and goals Trainee assessment Classroom climate Teaching methods Pedagogical/theoretical approaches Classroom setting Activity

Czech Republic Ireland

6 30

0 18

15 16 29 8 104

27 19 37 54 155 21 3 35 87

66 21 79 85 28

24 34 337 GCED Conception 37 Vision 42 Issues 134 Terms to refer to GCED 8 GCED competences 89 GCED teacher profile 37 347

6 7 14 173 15 46 10 23 8 102

Italy

19

0 104

Total 171

40 8 13 9 89

85 52 34 8 283

27 37 12 5 54

74 158 24 149 95

167 95 113 79 625 21 104 230 123 154 155

62 26 223 7 193 84 13 67 89 453

9 74 583 111 17 2 34 25 189

78 114 979 44 361 348 33 213 162 1161

Teacher Education Across Europe • •

223

Head masters Teaching unions (only in one case, in Ireland).

Among them, two actors arise as pivotal in the development of programs, especially playing the role of teacher educators: (1) NGOs are involved in all of the programs examined, as key actors. As political agents, they have been regarded as “new global civil society” (Castells, 2008; Kaldor, 2003) with complex but strategic relationships with other actors. (2) HEIs are involved in six of the nine programs. In one (AT) of them a University College is the sole actor, while in four cases HEIs worked in close collaboration with NGOs. Governmental organizations, namely Ministry of Education, Ministry of Foreign Afairs or National Agencies for international Cooperation are important not only as funders, but at least in two cases, Ireland and Austria, they contributed to the course organization and design too. Everywhere collaboration between actors is perceived as positive or even a necessary element for a successful GCED TE. In particular, the responsibility for effective GCED TE is posited as a collective endeavor by both the formal education system and the NGOs, as the two following excerpts from course description show: Appreciation of different, diverse opinions and approaches is central in the concept of the teacher training. (Austria, course description, 2016) The module starts with an awareness that global citizenship education cannot be the exclusive responsibility of the school but needs a network of multiple actors: Associations of NGOs. (Italy, course description, 2016)

The Pedagogical Triangle Most of the participants echo the mainstream narrative, which tends to divide school approaches, especially for the so-called “adjectival educations”, into two opposite poles: (1) a traditional pedagogical model, based on content and their transmission, ethically neutral and centred on learning (mostly cognitive) and the teacher and (2) an emancipatory school, grounded in values, aimed at educating pupils according to a set of ethical or even political principles. Similarly, teacher education can be divided into one which is content-based, where “content” is not only teaching subjects but also methods and techniques to teach them. At the opposite side lies a values-based teacher education model aimed at engaging teachers to embrace values or to activate them to promote school change and students’ emancipation. The present research shows a more complex outlook where the content–values dichotomy is broader, and it encompasses also the slippery concept of competence. Therefore, the traditional polarized divide is transformed into a triangle whose vertices are: content-based, values-based and competence-based perspectives (Figure 11.1).

224

Massimiliano Tarozzi

Content-based

Pedagogical triangle

Competence-based

Value-based

Figure 11.1 The pedagogical triangle

This triangle echoes what Werner Wintersteiner and others called the “three crucial dimensions of GCED”, namely knowledge, competences and values and perceptions (Wintersteiner, Grobbauer, Diendorfer, Reitmair-Juárez, 2015). This also resonates with three UNESCO key conceptual dimensions for both ESD and GCED: cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioral. However, these three dimensions that arose from the analysis should be understood as teacher pedagogical narratives, i.e. as discursive constructions by the participants (teachers and teacher educators) rather than proper pedagogical approaches or models objectively described. Hence, it is far beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a systematic account of the main teacher education approaches adopted in the countries analyzed, as Westbrook and others (2013) did in classifying major pedagogical approaches as: Behaviorist: (teacher centered, aimed at behavioral change); Constructivist (experiential learning); Social constructivist (learner centered, teacher guided and inquiry based) and Liberationist (based on critical pedagogy). In the following section I will briefly expand the three pedagogical narratives as elaborated by participants.

Content-Based Approach While this approach is the least frequent, it is still predominant at least in two cases. It is perceived as transmissive, teacher-centered, based on a factual presentation of some topics such as history or legislation. “The main goal of the course is to transmit GCE and its fields of competences as well as GCE didactics and methods to be able to implement the dimensions of GCE in their own classroom practice” (CR, course description). Otherwise, this pedagogical attitude is not necessarily related to the idea of transmissive “banking education”, but it also sometimes depends on teacher educators’ and their associated organizations’ foci. As is the case of Austria’s

Teacher Education Across Europe

225

racism and discrimination; Czech Republic’s climate change and human rights; and Ireland’s and Italy’s migration.

Values-Based Approach The values-based approach is aimed at engaging teachers to embrace values or to activate teachers to promote school change. Its main goal is transformative: it tends toward teachers’ attitude change. The content is functional for promoting commitment and engagement across teachers; similarly values, beliefs or an ethos are important to be developed throughout teacher education programs. To this end, experiences and classroom atmosphere are crucial. “Let them experience empathy and decentralization and enhancing the affective aspect of the activities proposed at school” (Italy, observation, 2016) “to promote a bottom-up reform, to expand the network of people who can train others” (Italy, interview, 2017). The values dimension is more often enhanced by NGOs than university teacher educators with a few exceptions, such as one course in Ireland, one in Austria and one peer course “for teachers by teachers” in Ireland. This lays the foundation for a potential conflict between different pedagogical cultures. Arguably, values-based teacher education represents both an opportunity and a threat: It is an opportunity since values and beliefs empower teachers’ agency (Biesta, Priestley, M., & Robinson, 2017) and somehow enable them to act as agents of change. At the same time it poses a risk too, since NGOs tend to overemphasize the social-affective and ethical dimensions and pay less attention to knowledge and competences.

Competence-Based Approach This is the most coded theme, and the term was used 86 times, although with different variations (competence, competency or more generally skill). Data indicate two main ideas of “competence”. The first is understood as a pedagogical approach: a narrative of skills integrating the value dimension, identifying skills such as critical thinking, finding creative solutions, or dealing with complexity and ambiguity, as nicely illustrates the following excerpt from one of the Austrian programs: [the course main aim] is to build a reflective agency grounded on crucial GCE competencies like critical thinking, reflecting one’s own values, finding creative solutions, dealing with complexity and ambiguity as well as identifying with issues like global justice, sustainability, human rights, democracy and intercultural learning. (Course description, Austria) The second one is competence as an instrumental means. In this sense it provides a structured system of knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to compete in a global context. Teacher education based on this idea of competence

226

Massimiliano Tarozzi

aims at learning a pre-set list of competences that teacher-students in turn should be able to transmit to students in diferent settings. Here the role of education should not interfere with teachers’ ethos and there is little or no space for teachers’ agency and independent thinking: “We do not test values that learners develop. We should train pupils to acquire the four competences and not teach them how to think” (University teacher educator, Italy). The first idea is mostly promoted by NGOs and resounds with the Oxfam’s framework for education for global citizenship (2006), widely spread across European NGOs and civil society organizations. By contrast, the second one is mostly popular in formal education, with school staf and in two programs promoted by HEIs. In sum, the competence approach is perceived as an approach especially suitable for the current school settings but understood in a twofold way in relation to the previous approaches: either tending toward content-based or tending toward values-based. The ambiguity of “competence” and the vague use of the term is not surprising, and it should be regarded in relation to the different cultures of different actors. The researchers have the know-how on didactics by competence. NGOs bring the content on citizenship, sustainable development etc. NGOs should provide those content that compose a crucial part of the didactic model, but they should not substitute the teachers in class. (University teacher educator, Italy) Teachers and NGO experts are both important, but they also play diferent roles: Knowledge is important, but so is classroom expertise. In some of the cases, and in particular in Italy, NGOs are blamed by school staf and teacher educators for lacking in such expertise. These tensions between values vs. content, competence-as-pedagogy vs. competence-as-means and ethical neutrality vs. engagement, make sense within the current European and global scenario dominated by neoliberal forms of “technicalisation” of teachers work, and the “learnification” of education (Biesta, 2010), where teachers are required to set aside personal beliefs and commitments (Ball, 2003), and within this broader social and political scenario should be comprehended, as we discuss in the next section.

Discussion Let’s go back to my main argument: Teachers play a major role in GCED implementation and teacher education is a strategic field for policy enactment. Our research comparing nine different teacher education programs across Europe cannot provide the ultimate answer to this question, but two main findings address the political issue of the GCED implementation. First, the pioneering programs explored demonstrate that collaboration between multiple actors is critical for the success of teacher education programs. Second, successful collaborative and

Teacher Education Across Europe

227

values-based programs enable teachers to achieve their agency. Teacher agency is a contested and elusive term. It concerns teachers’ active contribution to shape their work and actively influence learning processes (Priestley, Edwards, Priestley, & Miller, 2012). This is often contrasted by top-down polices which de-professionalize teachers, replacing their independent and professional ability to act on their learning environment with prescriptive curricula and oppressive regimes of testing, inspections and accountability (Priestley, Priestley, Biesta, &Robinson, 2015). I now would like to further elaborate these two main findings in the light of my main argument. My first statement is that multiple agent collaboration is a critical dimension for a successful teacher education program. Everyone perceives collaboration as a positive or even a necessary element for a well-designed and well-received program of teacher education. Diversity of opinions, approaches, worldviews and expertise are more than welcome in educating teachers to the global dimensions of education. However, the research also demonstrates that what we called “contrasting cultures” risk diminishing the effect of teachers’ agency. Different theoretical, pedagogical and institutional cultures, especially between NGOs and teachers, could lead to conflict which undermines the effectiveness of constructive partnerships among different actors and diminishes the effect on teachers’ agency. While sometimes HEIs exacerbate these conflicts by dogmatically endorsing one pedagogical approach, in the majority of the cases observed they facilitated negotiation between different pedagogical narratives, bridging contrasting cultures and divergent educational goals. Research also shows that sometimes HEIs can contribute in providing theoretical clarification which may stand in contrast to GCED’s theoretical insufficiency. They also offer a precious contribution to carrying out empirical research (on curriculum, on teacher education processes, on assessment) and in framing teacher education within the institutional setting through the supply of professional expertise. Therefore, HEIs involvement, providing research, theory and teacher education expertise, could be very fruitful for the success of multi-stakeholders programs. Second, teacher education, especially the values-based approach, is pivotal to engage teachers in the promotion of school change and in the empowerment of teacher agency. The research further shows that the main goal and result of the best observed courses lie in promoting teacher agency, which may somehow facilitate GCED policy enactment and school change. In other words, our research confirms what other studies showed, namely that educating teachers in GCED rests primarily on achieving teachers’ agency (Priesley et al., 2015; Vongalis-Macrow, 2007) and empowering them as agents of change (Fullan, 2003). A values-based pedagogical approach (usually stimulated and lead by NGOs) is a major driver of this process (Biesta et al., 2017) and a factor in engaging teachers in the promotion of school change. Therefore, values-based, transformative teacher education can be regarded not only as a tool to equip teachers with the knowledge, skills and abilities required to improve students’ learning but also as the political apparatus for curriculum

228

Massimiliano Tarozzi

change. This is also confirmed by recent large-scale school reform in Finland, taking very seriously into account the role, professionality and agency of the teacher (Pyhältö, Pietarinen, & Soini, 2014). It must be noticed that teacher agency is also a notion recently to some extent overestimated, especially by policy-makers who sometimes regard it as a powerful tool for school reform. Teacher agency is certainly a crucial dimension for policy enactment and school change, but it is not an omnipotent device. Following Biesta’s ecological approach, teacher agency should not be regarded only as an individual’s capacity but as something emerging in the interplay between subjective capacity and environmental conditions. In other words, without strong political support, economic and human resources, a long-lasting policy agenda and other structural and contextual conditions is impossible to expect a real contextual change from individual agency only. Moreover, teacher agency is not only enhanced by teacher education but perhaps even more by personal experiences, values, capacities and relationships. Sometimes—and we have observed many cases of this—a values-based teacher education program may have little influence on agency because teachers attending courses already share similar values. To sum up: since effective school reform cannot be reduced to a top-down process, it requires teacher agency. However, teachers cannot be seen as the sole agent of change, since there are other powerful structural constraints. Therefore, while teacher agency is vital for GCED enactment in schools, to promote it is not only a matter of teacher education and professional development, but also requires attention to (political and economic) structures. Without it, it is unlikely that teachers can become real agents of change (Priestley et al., 2015).

Conclusions The United Nations Global Education First initiative (UNESCO, 2012) and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals have had a great impact on the political European agenda by encouraging member states to integrate GCED in schools. Teacher education is increasingly viewed as a key indicator and a potential resource for policy implementation. In this chapter I have outlined the role of teacher education as an enabling factor to successful delivery of the GCED policy agenda, drawing on comparative research of nine pioneering teacher education programs in four European countries, which represent insightful cases into what is currently going on across Europe. Collaborative teacher education programs, involving in particular civil society organizations, have considerable potential for curriculum change and large-scale school reform, like the ones currently influencing the education policy agenda of many European countries. NGO-driven values-based teacher education (coupled with critical skills) is highly valuable in developing transformative processes, engaging teachers to achieve positive agency towards school change. In contrast, teacher education based on the mainstream culture of

Teacher Education Across Europe

229

performativity, rigidly prescriptive curricula and oppressive regimes of testing (Biesta, 2010) tends to inhibit teacher agency, de-professionalize their role and dampen their enthusiasm and commitment to change. Research also shows tensions and opportunities between two key actors, NGOs and Formal Education Systems. There are risks that different GCED conceptions create confusion among teachers and that contrasting cultures could diminishing the effect on teachers’ agency. Collaborative multiple-actor GCED teacher education, as an amalgam of different cultures, agendas, pedagogies and discourses, is an adventurous opportunity and a fascinating threat. Yet this complexity is the way to macro large-scale national reform and micro school change. Research demonstrates that it is an uneven but a sustainable path.

Notes 1. The Global Education Network of Europe (GENE) is a network of Ministries and Agencies with national responsibility for Global Education in European countries. GENE has supported by national EU governments through i.a. round tables, reports and peer reviews. It has been created by the Council of Europe within the context of the Maastricht conference in 2002. GENE has recently established the Academic Network of Global Education and Learning (ANGEL) with the scope of establishing and reinforcing a network between academics and researchers of GCED across the globe and to fill the gap between research and policy makers (www.angel-net work.net). 2. This research project took place within the framework of the EU co-funded Global Schools project. Started in 2015, Global Schools was a three-year-long European project carried out in ten EU countries by 17 partners, led by Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy. It was co-funded by the DEAR Programme of the European Commission. The multinational research team was composed of Sandra Altenberger (AT), Martina Novotna (CR), Ben Mallon (IE), Carla Inguaggiato and Debora Antonucci (IT), and Massimiliano Tarozzi (Principal Investigator).

References Abdi, A. A., Shultz, L., & Pillay, T. (2015). Decolonizing global citizenship education. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Allemann-Ghionda, C. (2009). From intercultural education to the inclusion of diversity: Theories and policies in Europe. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education. New York and London: Routledge. Andreotti , V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 3(Autumn), 40–51. Andreotti, V. (2010). Postcolonial and post-critical global citizenship education. In G. Elliott, C. Fourali, & S. Issler, (Eds.) Education and social change (pp. 223–245). London: Continuum. Andreotti, V. (2011a). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 381–397. Andreotti, V. (2011b). Actionable postcolonial theory. New York: Palgrave. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.

230

Massimiliano Tarozzi

Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. London: Routledge. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching. Theory and Practice, 21(6), 624–640. Bourn, D. (2015). The theory and practice of development education: A pedagogy for global social justice. London and New York: Routledge. Bourn, D., Hunt, F., & Bamber, P. (2017). Review for SDE and GCE in teacher education. Background paper for UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report. Bracken, M., & Bryan, A. (2010). The reflective practitioner model as a means of evaluating development education practice: Post-primary teachers’ self-reflections on “doing” development education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 11(Autumn,) 22–41. Bryan, A., Clarke, M., & Drudy, S. (2009). Social justice education in initial teacher education: A cross border perspective. A report for the Standing Conference on Teacher Education North and South. SCoTENS. Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93. Concord. (2018). Global citizenship education in Europe. How much do we care? Brussels: Concord Europe. Retrieved from https://concordeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/03/CONCORD_GCE_FundingReport_2018_online.pdf ?56c6d0&56c6d031/ 10/2018 Council of Europe (CoE)—North South Centre. (1997). The global education charter. Retrieved 2017, November 18 from https://rm.coe.int/global-education-charter-bydakmara-georgescu-institute-for-educationa/168070f05d Davies, I., Gregory, I., & Riley, S. C. (1999). Good citizenship and educational provision. London and New York: Falmer Press. Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5–25. Dillon, S., & O’Shea, M. (2009). From the college to the classroom: The impact of DICE courses on the inclusion of development education and intercultural education in the primary classroom. Dublin: DICE. Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Forghani-Arani, N., Hartmeyer, H., O’Loughlin, E., & Wegimont, L. (2013). Global education in Europe: Policy, practice and theoretical challenges. Münster: Waxmann Verlag. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–32). New York: Basic Book. GENE. (2017). The state of global education in Europe 2017. Global Education Network Europe. Retrieved 2018, October 31 from http://gene.eu/wp-content/uploads/ State-of-Global-Education-2018-with-cover.pdf Gleeson, J., King, P., O’Driscoll, S., & Tormey, R. (2007). Development education in Irish post-primary schools: Knowledge, attitudes and activism. Retrieved 2018, October 31 from www.ubuntu.ie/media/report-2007-gleeson.pdf Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). Citizenship education redefined: A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 170–183.

Teacher Education Across Europe

231

Hartung, C. (2017). Global citizenship incorporated: Competing responsibilities in the education of global citizens. Discourse, 38(1), 16–29. Heater, D. (2002). World citizenship: Cosmopolitan thinking and its opponents. London: Continuum. Jefferess, D. (2008). Global citizenship and the cultural politics of benevolence. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 2(1), 27–36. Kaldor, M. (2003). Global civil society: An answer to war. Cambridge: Polity Press. Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 443–456. McCormack, O., & O’Flaherty, J. (2010). An examination of pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of development education into Irish post-primary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6), 1332–1339. Niens, U., O’Connor, U., & Smith, A. (2013). Citizenship education in divided societies: Teachers’ perspectives in Northern Ireland. Citizenship Studies, 17(1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2012.716214 Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. Pike, G., & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London: Bloomsbury. Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42, 191–214. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2014). Comprehensive school teachers’ professional agency in large-scale educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 15(3), 303–325. Robbins, M., Francis, L., & Elliott, E. (2003). Attitudes toward education for global citizenship among trainee teachers. Research in Education, 69(1), 93–98. Schattle, H. (2009). Global citizenship in theory and practice. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 3–20). New York: Routledge. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Steiner, M. (1992). World studies 8–13: Evaluating active learning. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, World Studies Trust. Tarozzi, M., & Inguaggiato, C. (2018). Implementing global citizenship education in EU primary schools : The role of government ministries. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 10(1), 21–38. Tarozzi, M., & Inguaggiato, C. (Eds.). (2019). Teachers’ education in GCE: Emerging issues in a comparative perspective. Bologna: Università di Bologna repository. Tarozzi, M., & Mallon, B. (2019). Educating teachers towards global citizenship: A comparative study in four European countries. London Review of Education, 17(2), 112–125. Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C. A. (2016). Global citizenship education and the crises of multiculturalism: Comparative perspectives. London: Bloomsbury. Torres, C. A. (2017). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education. New York: Routledge. UN. (2012). Global education first initiative. Retrieved from www.globaleducationfirst.org UNESCO. (2014). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO.

232

Massimiliano Tarozzi

UNESCO. (2015) Global Citizenship Education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO. Vongalis-Macrow, A. (2007). I, teacher: Re-territorialization of teachers’ multi-faceted agency in globalized education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(4), 425–439. Westbrook, J., Durrani, N., Brown, R., Orr, D., Pryor, J., Boddy, J., & Salvi, F. (2013). Pedagogy, curriculum, teaching practices and teacher education in developing countries. Final Report. Education Rigorous Literature Review. Department for International Development. Wintersteiner, W., Grobbauer, H., Diendorfer, G., & Reitmair-Juárez, S. (2015). Global citizenship education: Citizenship education for globalizing societies. Klagenfurt, Salzburg, Vienna. Retrieved 2018, October 31 from www.demokratiezentrum.org/fileadmin/ media/pdf/Materialien/GlobalCitizenshipEducation_Final_english.pdf

12 Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education in Canada and the US Trends, Barriers, and Possibilities Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel Introduction There is considerable contestation around what it means to educate for global citizenship (Mannion, Biesta, Priestley, & Ross, 2011). A wide range of rationales and purposes for educating young people to become global citizens are evident: promoting economic competitiveness, responding to increasingly heterogeneous populations, advancing critical thinking needed to address global problems, and providing transformative learning to advance social justice aims. Scholars have identified tensions within these varied rationales as part of the larger debates surrounding the very aims of education (Torres, 2015). These complexities and contestations are reflected in the field of teacher education (Merryfield, 2000). As part of the wider context of teacher education interfacing with global education more broadly, global citizenship education (GCED) is not isolated to a particular level of education. As GCED is prevalent in primary, secondary, and tertiary education, and teacher education bridges across various levels, there has been considerable attention on adapting teacher education with “global” perspectives. Yet, as we discuss in the paper, these notions of the “global” are highly contested. For example, Target 4.7 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals focuses on global citizenship as part of education for sustainable development, emphasizing the solidarity and collaboration required to solve global challenges. Yet, at the same time, recent efforts to fold in teacher education as part of movements to internationalize higher education suggest a narrower scope on skills formation in order to yield individual and national competitiveness, potentially usurping the broader goals of GCED (Engel & Siczek, 2017). In this chapter, we draw on Merryfield’s (1996) six main components of international teacher education: a) cross-cultural experience; b) teaching multiple perspectives to understand difference within and across cultures; c) making connections between teachers and diverse communities; d) modeling commitments to equity, diversity, and interconnectedness; e) theoretical frameworks enabling these components; and f) critical reflection of oneself, one’s culture, and the deconstruction of one’s worldview (pp. 17–19). Against these identified

234

Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel

components, we consider the current context of GCE within teacher education in two federal systems (Canada and the United States). Although there are differences across and within these two national contexts, there are some common trends in both systems, particularly in regards to directions of global, multicultural, and citizenship education. These foci are well-noted in the rise, since the 1990s, in theoretical and policy scholarship focused on incorporating a global dimension in citizenship education (e.g., Banks, 2004; O’Sullivan & Pashby, 2008; White & Openshaw, 2005) that corresponds with intersections of discourses of citizenship and globalization (e.g., Delanty, 2000; Tully, 2000). A consistent concern in both contexts is that there are multiple versions of global citizenship at play amid the increased internationalization of higher education. In particular, there is a strong influence of a neoliberal, economic rationale wherein global citizenship is often assumed to be a natural outcome of increased numbers of international students and/ or experiential learning (Engel & Siczek, 2017; Haapakoski & Pashby, 2017; Stein, 2017). At the same time, theoretical and empirical research points to important possibilities in the areas of critical and post/de-colonial approaches to GCED (e.g., Andreotti & Souza, 2012; Pashby & Andreotti, 2015; TruongWhite & McLean, 2015), which form areas for further development in teacher education.

Building Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education Programs A substantive report by Merryfield (1996) examined teacher education programs in both the US and Canada with a focus on the connection between multicultural and global education. She rationalized this connection by promoting the challenges of how teacher education can support educators for “preparing young people for a world that is undergoing dramatic change” (p. 11). Specifically, Merryfield note that educators have developed these “new fields” in the decades leading up to the turn of the 20th century in response to phenomena associated with globalization. These include the inequities of power and “cultural differences” associated with “the acceleration of economic, political, environmental, and technological interconnectedness among the world’s peoples” as well as pressure on ecological systems and corresponding human conflicts (p.  11). It is important to note the assumption that multicultural and global education work together; indeed much of the work of GCED in Canada and the US conflates these two fields (see Kolar, 2012; Pashby, 2013, 2015). Merryfield’s (1996) report speaks to the prioritization of these related fields in teacher education, noting dedicated efforts to connect them within K–12 teaching through teacher education as “more and more states and district have mandated both multicultural and global education” (p. 11). The report itself also relays the rationales for what is now referred to as GCED. It aims to share insights gained from an ongoing study of teacher educators in the US and Canada “bridging the gap between what are commonly called multicultural

GCED in Teacher Education–Canada and US

235

and global education to prepare teachers for diversity, equity, and interconnectedness in the local community, the nation, and the world” (p. 11 preface). Merryfield’s (1996) study found that while each teacher educator has their own foundational framework, there are commonalities across contexts. Specifically, the study identifies six major components of teacher education for multicultural and global education. First, the component most frequently mentioned by teacher educators participating in the study was the importance of “cross-cultural experience” both locally and overseas (Merryfield, 1996, p. 16). Second, teacher educators spoke to the importance of teaching multiple perspectives to understand differences within and across cultures as “the social construction of worldviews and perspective taking, and the complexity of the human experience over time and space” (p. 17). Third, teacher educators make connections between teachers and diverse cultures in neighborhoods, communities, cities, regions, continents, and the world: “connections with diverse peoples, particularly those marginalized within a national or global system, is a significant part of building the dialogue and community that can lead to conflict management and social justice” (p. 17). Fourth, teacher educators are models of the “teaching, learning, and lifestyle of a person committed to equity, diversity, and interconnectedness” and foster classroom climates that support diverse ideas and experiences (p. 17). Here, Merryfield identifies collaboration with diverse people and active inquiry into multicultural and global issues as a “way of life” for teacher educators who prioritize multicultural and global education. Fifth, the study found that theory is important in teacher education for multicultural and global education: “Theoretical frameworks provide structure for development of program goals, integration of required and optional courses, interdisciplinary connections, and collaboration across campus and within local and global communities” (p. 17). Finally, Merryfield found a significant emphasis on reflection: “Reflection begins with knowing oneself, one’s culture, and the deconstruction of one’s own worldview” (p. 17). This builds from the cross-cultural experiences, multiple perspectives, local-global connections, and modeling classroom pedagogy drawing on theory so that teacher candidates can analyze, synthesize, and apply new knowledge and skills to their personal and professional lives. Each of these components on its own is a significant contribution. However, it is the sixth component identified that Merryfield argued was essential: “Reflection and reflective inquiry can serve as the critical glue that brings all elements together in a teacher education program” (pp. 17–18). For the purposes of our chapter, Merryfield’s study provides insight into the broader context from which attention to GCED has been built in the US and Canadian contexts throughout the past three decades. In what follows, we consider how specific political pressures and ideological mobilizations have both enabled and constrained the trends she captured at the end of the 20th century. More recently, scholarship has pointed to key tensions in the perceived relationship between multicultural and global education. Agbaria’s (2011) discourse analysis of social studies literature relating to the mission of preparing citizens for

236

Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel

the global age describes a great deal of conceptual ambiguity around the discourse of globalization and the conflation between multicultural and global education. Educators are assumed to be ready and able to prepare their students for globalization: “[In the social studies literature] globalization is commonly conceived as a threat that a “different” and “improved” education will help the students cope better with its complicated problems” (p. 61). Further, globalization is often applied to “rationalize and thus legitimize emphasizing cross-cultural skills” (p. 61). It is important to consider, therefore, the extent to which the ideals identified by Merryfield have evolved or have been constrained by two key developments related to globalization and education. First, there is a rising influence of neoliberalism in education and a heightened corporatization and internationalization of higher education. For example, in her study of multicultural education in Canada, England, and the US, Mitchell (2003) argued that in the rise of neoliberalism in education, “educating a child to be a good citizen is no longer synonymous with constituting a well-rounded, nationally oriented, multicultural self, but rather about attainment of the “complex skills” necessary for individual success in the global economy” (p. 399). This work highlights a dual crisis of globalization and education: performance (global market skills) and legitimacy (increasingly diverse demographics and continued/rising inequalities) (Agbaria, 2011). In the UK context, Marshall (2009, 2011) found this dual crisis to characterize discourse on GCED where it tends to reflect either a techno-economic or liberal social justice agenda, while neither significantly challenges extant notions of citizenship. Arguably, the approach to promoting GCED in teacher education in the US and Canada increasingly reflects this tension.

US Context In the US federal system of education, education policy is primarily governed by local districts and individual states. While there is a federal US Department of Education, each of the 50 US states also has its own Department of Education. Important for the US education context, local levels wield significant power in key policy decisions. The division of power is significant as although teacher education is governed by states, there are non-governmental and accrediting bodies creating a kind of standardization of teacher education in the US. For example, in teacher education, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1998 mandated that information on teacher quality (e.g., pass rates on licensure examinations as well as the number of teachers holding emergency or alternative certificates) be reported by colleges and state governments. As part of this mandate, teacher education must include training in multicultural education. The US system’s overall focus on GCED is often referred to as “fragmented” (Ortloff & Shonia, 2015; Rapoport, 2009). Pertinent to teacher education, scholars have frequently pointed to the US teacher education as having an

GCED in Teacher Education–Canada and US

237

underdeveloped international or global focus, and often highlight a number of barriers (Shaklee & Baily, 2012; Roberts, 2007; Zeichner, 2010; Zhao, 2010). For example, schools of education in the US are often considered to be the least advanced in terms of internationalization; consistently only about 4% of study abroad participants are education majors (Institute of International Education, 2016). Moreover, scholars have critiqued the narrow focus on social studies, arguing for more comprehensive approaches across subject areas (e.g., Myers, 2006; Rapoport, 2009). Lastly, despite the shifts toward greater diversity within the population of US students, the demographics of US teachers remain predominantly white and female; a 2016 report by the US Department of Education showed that 82% of public school teachers are white. This homogeneity is also found amongst teacher educators, who may not have developed their understanding of their own cultural, national, or global identifications, unless they are from a diverse cultural heritage (Merryfield, 2000). There have been attempts to address these gaps, with a growing emphasis on the importance of teachers in the development of global citizenship among students. For example, a range of stakeholders across local, state, and national levels focus on teachers as key to building GCED in US schools. These include non-profits, edu-businesses, associations, and philanthropists, such as the American Council on Education, Asia Society, Committee for Economic Development, Longview Foundation, National Education Association, the National Association of State Boards of Education, AACTE, and Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which also collectively suggest the lively “third sector” within the federal US context in terms of exercising education policy influence. Many recent reports from these and other key stakeholders have emphasized the importance of teacher professional development and teacher training institutions to enhance student global competency (Longview Foundation, 2008). In the US, there is often a diffuse set of approaches to internationalizing teacher education. As the Longview Foundation (2008) report, Teacher Preparation for the Global Age: The Imperative for Change, highlights, internationalization of teacher education often focuses on movement of faculty for research purposes or knowledge exchange, student mobility for studying, and addition of courses to curriculum, such as comparative education, multicultural education, or international topics courses. The report noted, “these activities, however, are rarely connected or integrated in an overall strategy” (pp. 5–6). These different opportunities and approaches are also reflected in the literature where four key trends can be identified: a) enhancing study abroad opportunities for preservice teachers (Cushner & Mahon, 2002; Kambutu & Nganga, 2008; Marx & Moss, 2011); b) incorporating international perspectives into teacher education curriculum (Schneider, 2007), with notable examples from University of Maryland, College Park, Miami University, and University of Wisconsin-Madison (Longview Foundation, 2008), and training pre-service teachers to work more effectively with international families (Day, 2012); c) developing intercultural competency of teachers through student teaching (Cushner & Brennan, 2007);

238

Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel

and d) providing further opportunities for teachers to build their own cognitive understanding of global education reforms (Siczek & Engel, 2017). In addition, Title VI National Resource Centers, funded by the US Department of Education, seek to build world languages and area studies centers by providing funds to US higher education institutions. Considerable outreach is done both with preservice and in-service teachers, such as in the examples of The Ohio State University and Indiana University (Longview Foundation, 2008). While examples of growth, these diverse approaches in teacher education “seldom reach all students in a teacher preparation program. Course requirements and student teaching take up significant space in most pre-service teachers’ schedules, leaving little room for study abroad, world language study, or internationally oriented electives” (Longview Foundation, 2008, p. 6). One of the larger challenges relates to accreditation programs, which mandate only one course to focus on multicultural issues and may focus more narrowly on diversity within the US but lack a richer global orientation. Parker’s (2011) work provides some insights into the ideological struggles inherent in multicultural education and GCED. In tracing historical and contemporary discourses of global education in the US, he identified a wave of enthusiasm for global perspectives in US education in the 1960s to 1980s. This embracing of global education occurred against the backdrop of the Cold War and rhetoric of the “global village” and “spaceship Earth.” Today, he finds “a re-scaling of ‘multicultural education’ from the national arena, where traditionally it had been kept, to a more global arena [by extending] one of multiculturalism’s key principles—knowledge, recognition, and respect for diverse cultures—from within the nation to cultures outside the nation” (Parker, 2011, p. 11). Additionally, Parker identifies the cosmopolitan discourse with a transnational political meaning where schools should shift primary allegiance from national to global citizenship. He notes that frequently heard terms like “global citizens” or “world citizens” are used most frequently in academic symposia, rarely influencing educational practices in the US (p. 495). Ironically, while schools with multicultural student populations rely on a discourse of internationalism, Parker (2011) noted that the discourse of “global perspectives” is stronger than “cosmopolitanism” among educators because there is a basic adoption of multiculturalism as a principle of ensuring pedagogy and curriculum reflects students’ diverse cultural heritage. The “cosmopolitanism” discourse is less likely to find a stronger position because it is seen as contrasting a nation-centric view whereas multiculturalism is consistent with a national view. Furthermore, at the very least, the intersections of the dominant and marginal discourses he identifies are demonstrative of the inherent dichotomy in broad understandings of citizenship education, global education, and multicultural education in the context of teaching and learning for the 21st century. There is both a tension between national and global allegiances, as well as between economic and social/cultural rationales. Further showcasing the varied rationales of GCED in teacher education is the tendency in the US education policy discourse to focus on global

GCED in Teacher Education–Canada and US

239

competence, rather than global citizenship. For example, global competence education is emphasized both in the US Department of Education’s 2012 international strategy and in the 2017 framework for cultural and global competencies (US Department of Education, 2017). A small but growing number of US states have spotlighted global competence as an explicit objective. Often the focus on global competence highlights the need for the individual student, including the teacher, to obtain and demonstrate a set of observable and measurable skills necessary for future success in preparing students for the global economy. These skills emphasize how a learner behaves and works rather than a set of normative values related to a shared global community (Engel, 2014), reflecting a dual logic of economic and cultural/social rationales.

Canada There are similar trends in teacher education for global citizenship in Canada in terms of the wider tensions between economic internationalization and a social justice approach. Both are evident as is an increasingly prevalent critical scholarship in this area promoting post/de-colonial approaches. In Canada there is no federal department of education. Therefore, education is the purview of the provinces with no standardization of teacher education nationally. The 10 provinces and three territories each have their own curricula and programs (for a list of universities and colleges offering teacher education in Canada see http://resource.educationcanada.com/foe.html). The discourse of global citizenship is evident, and increasingly so, across ministries of education, school boards, teacher organizations, and teacher education programs (Evans, Ingram, Macdonald, & Weber, 2009; Peck & Pashby, 2018). Various K–12 curricula in jurisdictions across Canada include themes of accommodating diversity and promoting social cohesion as part of a strong commitment to multicultural education (Joshee, 2004). Pedagogically, Canadian education saw a shift from more assimilationist and passive instructional practices towards active and experiential approaches that went beyond didactic instructions of government functions towards citizenship education that fostered critical thinking, controversial issues, and community action projects (MacDonald-Vemic, Evans, Ingram, Weber, 2015, p. 87). This coincided in the 80s and 90s with an increase in scholarship on global education that influenced important organizations such as the Canadian Ministries of Education, school boards, and faculties of education (p. 88). And increasingly, the ideas of citizenship education and global education have been brought together. Broadly, in terms of curriculum, as in the US, global citizenship has tended to be connected more to social studies, and there are now some attempts to broaden it across disciplines. Similar to the mapping of key discourses in the US (Parker, 2011), Richardson’s (2008) tracing of the history and presence of GCED in Canada identifies the imaginaries of GCED that are tied to Canada’s evolving image of itself internationally. He found three main historical discourses: a) one focusing on

240

Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel

membership in the British Empire and Commonwealth, b) a second focused on UN involvement (particularly in peacekeeping) and relationship with the US, and third, c) a post-Cold War period with participation in various organizations and agreements (e.g., G8, NATO). The more recent imaginaries indicate somewhat of a dualism, echoing Agbaria’s dual crisis of globalization and education—of performativity for the global market and of legitimacy to increasingly diverse and unequal societies. In a monopolar imaginary based on individualism and neoliberal economic ideals, GCED is about developing the knowledge and skills students will need to be competitive and successful in the global arena. An ecological imaginary engages notions of ecological relationships, interrelatedness, and the importance of physical and cultural diversity so that through GCED students develop a sense of connectedness, empathy, and appreciation for diversity and differences. Similar to the US context and Parker’s (2011) findings, this imaginary is more strongly iterated in scholarly work than evident in practice (Evans et al., 2009). According to Richardson (2008), curricula are caught in a tension between these competing discourses (see Pashby, 2013 for examples). According to Pike (2008), there is less of a dualism and more of an outright dominance of neoliberalism. Building from work such as Richardson’s, GCED is a strong area of research interest across Canada (e.g., Abdi & Shultz, 2008; Abdi, Shultz, & Pillay, 2015; O’Sullivan & Pashby, 2008), with dedicated attention at, for example, The Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research at the University of Alberta. Research identifies some key trends and areas of concern across provinces that have implications for teacher education: • • •

• •

a piecemeal approach to global education, generally not connected to critical literacy or active citizenship (Mundy & Manion, 2008); tokenistic approaches to studying global others, reinforcing superficial treatments of the good fortune of Canadians (Taylor, 2012); concerns about the extent to which there is transformative or critical work in Canadian schools related to global education despite multiple decades of work on the part of some dedicated teachers (Pike, 2008); a tendency to conflate GCED with multiculturalism so as to reinforce neoliberal and soft approaches (Pashby, 2013); and concerns about the extent to which GCED has become an umbrella term most strongly associated with neoliberalism in higher education ( Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012).

Teacher education has been the focus both of research in this area and of eforts towards promoting GCED. There are several initial teacher education programs explicitly attending to GCED (e.g., University of Ottawa, University of Toronto, University of Alberta, University of British Columbia, University of Western Ontario, University of Prince Edward Island, and Queen’s University) (MacDonald-Vemic et al., 2015, p. 88). For example, for nearly 15 years there was a specific cohort dedicated to Global Citizenship and Sustainable

GCED in Teacher Education–Canada and US

241

Development in the secondary teacher education program at University of Toronto, as well as a number of initiatives such as Inquiry into Practice: Learning and Teaching Global Matters in Local Classrooms (Montemurro, Gambhir, Evans, & Broad, 2014). Similarly, at University of Ottawa, there has been a Developing Global Perspective Cohort (Reimer & McLean, 2009). Many of these programs include direct links with non-governmental and civil society organizations, which have had a strong influence on GCED in Canada (Evans et al., 2009). Guo’s (2014) study of a collaboration between the University of Ottawa cohort and UNICEF speaks to both the opportunities and challenges of integrating GCED into teacher education and promoting a holistic approach. At the University of Western Ontario there is a two-year International Education Bachelor of Education cohort (Larsen, 2016). Larsen (2016) points out that more than half of the teacher education programs across the country include opportunities to complete teaching practicum placements abroad. For example, research has examined the international placement experiences of teacher candidates from York University (Trilokekar & Kukar, 2011). These types of initiatives specific to GCED across teacher education programs in Canada are indicative of the explicit treatment of GCED in teacher education and are also tied to the research activity in the area across faculties of education in Canada. Canadian scholars, among others, have called attention to the importance of a critical approach to GCED in teacher education, particularly in relation to post/decolonising pedagogy. In Taylor’s (2012) narrative case study of a social justice in education preservice course offered in a small liberal arts college, she shares a pedagogy of embodied reflexivity wherein “students are challenged to examine their implication and investment in Eurocentric colonial imaginaries and exploitative North-South power relations, and plan deconstructive curriculum which seeks to learn from rather than about the other” (p. 178). This pedagogy offers an important corrective to the tendency of pre-service teachers to see global issues as those of “others” “over there” and being resistant to examining their own implication in systems of power. An important related recent development is the release of the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). It investigated the impact of the Indian Residential School system on First Nations, Métis, and Inuit persons who attended these schools (the last one closed in 1996). In response, educational jurisdictions across the country, including universities and teacher training programs, are revising curricula and implementing new programs. Post and de-colonial approaches to understanding settler–colonial relations and efforts across Universities in Canada towards responding to the Recommendations of the TRC of Canada has heightened the need for teaching about the history of colonialism as well as including epistemological pluralism (e.g., Andreotti, Stein, Ahenakew, & Hunt, 2015; St. Denis & Walsh, 2016). Taylor’s (2012) research demonstrating the possibilities of a reflexive approach is extremely important given Appleyard and McLean’s (2011) findings that pre-service teachers lack confidence in handling complex and controversial issues. Their research with teacher education students who attended

242

Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel

professional development activities designed to promote GCED found teacher candidates need more opportunities to become familiar with multiple dimensions of GCED in terms both of specific curriculum pedagogies and theoretical research informing these approaches. Similarly, in Reimer and McLean’s (2009) study on global education in teacher education, they found teacher candidates require support towards a nuanced understanding of global education, towards what they refer to as “confidence and cognizance” (p. 924). The trend towards international experiences in teacher education also supports calls for a reflexive approach as described by Taylor (2012). Trilokekar and Kukar’s (2011) found a degree of opportunity for reflection but also a limited ability of teacher candidates going abroad to translate those experiences into new frames of reference. They link back to Merryfield (2000) in posing the question as to how teacher educators who have not examined their own privilege or experienced what it is like to live like the other can teach for equity and diversity (p.  441 as cited in Trilokekar & Kukar, 2011, p.  1149). As Larsen (2016) points out, internationalization of teacher education, including opportunities to complete practicum placements abroad “can be viewed as manifestations of economic globalization” (p. 402). This coexists with a specific need in the Canadian context for educators who can professionally respond to the diverse student needs of a culturally and linguistically diverse school population (Larsen, 2016, p. 402), and thus ties in directly with federal immigration policies. It is important to note that at the same time that there has been an upswing in research in the area of GCED, particularly critical work informed by post/ decolonial critiques and critical literacy (e.g., Eidoo et al., 2011; Taylor, 2012), across Faculties of Education, there have been strong initiatives towards internationalizing higher education across the country. There is a federal strategy, put forward by the former Conservative Government under Prime Minister Harper, specific to internationalization of higher education, but that has been developed through the Ministry of Trade as the federal government has no direct role in education. This policy has been critiqued for an overemphasis on economic rationales (e.g., Haapakoski & Stein, 2018). The wider context of internationalization of higher education has indicated a context of multiple versions of internationalization operating largely around a neoliberal, economic rationale with global citizenship often assumed through experiential learning (Pashby, Taylor, & Tarc, 2016). Importantly, faculties of education are strongly engaging with key ethical concerns regarding the rush to internationalize higher education as indicated in the Association of Canadian Deans of Education’s (2014) Accord on the Internationalization of Education. In it, they assert that institutional capacity is strained in responding in socially accountable ways to service demands of rapid internationalization. The Accord sets out to provide guidelines for “principled international education practices” (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014, p. 4) and aims to “stimulate discussion of critical issues and institutional responsibilities in the internationalization of

GCED in Teacher Education–Canada and US

243

education, and to give careful consideration to representations of marginalized individuals, groups, and communities” (p. 1).

Overall Trends in Northern North American Context In the northern portion of North America (the US and Canada), the context of increasing internationalization of higher education is placing both a support for GCED initiatives in teacher education and a pressure that can be tied to neoliberal aims of the university. Jorgenson and Shultz (2012), in their study of GCED in higher education in North America and the UK, argued that while global citizenship is “certainly drawn into the realm of internationalization agendas [, it] tends to direct education towards other educational and institutional goals” (p. 2). They posited that “global citizenship education is distinguishable from programs for the internationalization of higher education given its combination of global perspectives linked to citizenship” (p. 2). In line with a strengthening call from Canadian education researchers, they argued that: GCED can be a call to change the way things are done; to strive toward education at its best. Education that is based on postcolonial inquiry, critical thinking, and deep engagement that results in changes in learning, action, and both local and global social conditions. (p. 12) While they argued that “this education does not belong to any faculty or discipline,” it appears that faculties of education in Canada are doing important work in the areas of pedagogy, curriculum, and service learning that could be significant to university-wide internationalization eforts. The critical impulse in GCED research relating to teacher education in Canada could be very significant to “finding and naming what is under the umbrella of GCED to ascertain if what is hidden might be undermining what is overt in GCED eforts” ( Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012, p. 12). For example, in 2014, the Association of Canadian Deans of Education published an Accord on International Education. It outlined both the possibilities and ethical risks of the increased imperative to internationalize higher education. It is important that this area of scholarship be taken up. As Jorgenson and Shultz (2012) find, “While GCED programs may claim to be working for justice and inclusion, these claims mask more competitive projects of internationalization and marketization at the foundation of the program” (12). Much of the work of GCED in higher education seeks to build global citizen competencies. These themselves are often an overlapping and possibly contradictory set of skills from employability and entrepreneurship to global justice advocacy ( Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012, see also Shultz, 2007). Thus, GCED in teacher education is again tied up in the paradoxes and tensions of global citizenship and internationalization as wider sets of agendas: “As students

244

Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel

have begun to seek global competencies, institutions have become more competitive to attract students by offering such programs” (12). Further, as Stein (2017) points out, “it can be difficult to challenge popular narratives about countries’ and institutions’ benevolent motives for internationalization,” and yet it is important to recognize that internationalization is linked “to ongoing processes of colonization and capitalist accumulation” (p. S32, drawing on Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011). She highlights the possibilities found in alternative institutions such as the Dechinta Bush University Centre for Research and Learning in northern Canada that brings together elders, university professors, and community leaders to lead courses and where no student is restricted because of lack of funds. The curriculum includes topics such as indigenous law and arts (Stein, 2017, p. S68, drawing on Luig et al., 2011). It appears that the set of components Merryfield (1996) identified in her study of teacher educators in universities in the US and Canada as central to teacher education in support of multicultural and global learning remains relevant today. There is a continued if not heightened sense of urgency to prepare teachers to take up complex issues facing local and global communities as classrooms continue to diversify in demographics. However, research out of and about faculties of education is increasingly problematizing the assumptions and power relations underlying cross-cultural experience in the form of service-learning trips. The theoretical grounding identified by Merryfield (1996) as both diverse and somewhat inconsistent across teacher education programs and essential to promoting multicultural and global learning is increasingly important. Critical scholarship bringing in post and de-colonial theory is an important trend that continues to develop the final and most essential component identified by Merryfield (1996): reflexivity. While the components identified in that study remain relevant, it appears that the neoliberalization of higher education has raised important challenges for GCED in teacher education. Additionally, recent US educational reforms have tended to emphasize GCED but have focused the “C” not on citizenship, but on competence. For example, the focus of the US Department of Education and many states on the production of cultural and global competences from early childhood through post-secondary levels of education suggest the skills orientation. In contrast, in Canada, while global competence is also prevalent, a strong focus has remained on global citizenship. Interestingly, in an exploration of Google trends in search terms, which captures Google users’ search terms over a certain period of time, those searching “global citizenship” tended to be from Canada, Australia, the UK, the US, and India, and “global competence” searches were entirely from users in the US (Engel, Fundalinski, & Cannon, 2016). At an international level, we also note similar distinctions between the mention of global citizenship by UNESCO and in Sustainable Development Goals Target 4.7, whereas the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has promoted global competence. On the one hand, it is possible to argue that the different terms used are not meaningful, but rather can be used

GCED in Teacher Education–Canada and US

245

interchangeably across mission statements, institutional rhetoric, and policy documents. And yet, on the other hand, as “policy is the authoritative allocation of values” (Easton, 1953, p. 129), discourse matters. By focusing primarily on competence, the priority is on the skills an individual must maintain to compete in a global economy, dismissing the central tenets of GCED. Thus, a comparison of teacher education in Canada and the US highlights similar ideological constraints around a neoliberal context of internationalization of higher education and a potentially reductive understanding of global competency but also highlights important research in the area of critical discourse analysis, and, particularly in Canada, a strong connection to critical approaches informed by post- and de-colonial theory. Teacher education thus is an important site of the tensions of praxis informed by critical research on GCED and the pressures of a competency model of preparing learners for the global economy.

References Abdi, A. A., & Shultz, L. (Eds.). (2008). Educating for human rights and global citizenship: An introduction. In A. Abdi & L. Shultz (Eds.), Educating for human rights and global citizenship (pp. 1–10). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Abdi, A. A., Shultz, L., & Pillay, T. (Eds.). (2015). Decolonizing global citizenship education. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Agbaria, A. K. (2011). The social studies education discourse community on globalization: Exploring the agenda of preparing citizens for the global age. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(1), 57–74. Andreotti, V., & Souza, M. (Eds.). (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education (pp. 1–6). New York: Routledge. Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations of decolonization in the context of higher education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), 21–40. Appleyard, N., & McLean, L. R. (2011). Expecting the exceptional: Pre-service professional development in global citizenship education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 7(2). Association of Canadian Deans of Education. (2014). Accord on the internationalization of education. Retrieved from www.csse-scee.ca/docs/acde/Accord_Internationalization_ EN.pdf Banks, J. (Ed.). (2004). Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education 62(Winter): 15–17. Cushner, K., & Brennan, S. (Eds.). (2007). Intercultural student teaching: A bridge to global competence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Cushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2002). Overseas student teaching: Affecting personal, professional, and global competencies in an age of globalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6(1), 44–58. Day, M. (2012). Engaging teachers in building relationships with international families. In B. Shaklee & S. Bailey (Eds.), Internationalizing teacher education in the US (pp. 115– 137). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

246

Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel

Delanty, G. (2000). Citizenship in a global age: Society, culture, politics. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Eidoo, S., Ingram, L., MacDonald, A., Nabavi, M., Pashby, K., & Stille, S. (2011). Through the kaleidoscope: Intersections between theoretical perspectives and classroom implications in critical global citizenship education. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(4), 59–84. Engel, L. C. (2014). Citizenship education and national (re)formations: Reflections from Spain. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, 9(3), 239–254. Engel, L. C., Fundalinski, J., & Cannon, T. (2016). Global citizenship education at a local level: A comparative analysis of four U.S. urban districts. Revista de Educación Comparativa Espanola [Journal of Spanish Comparative Education], 28, 23–51. Engel, L. C., & Siczek, M. (2017). A cross-national comparison of international strategies: National competitiveness or global citizenship? Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 48(5), 749–767. Evans, M., Ingram, L. A., Macdonald, A., & Weber, N. (2009). Mapping the “global dimension” of citizenship education in Canada: The complex interplay of theory, practice and context. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 17–34. Guo, L. (2014). Preparing teachers to educate for 21st century global citizenship: Envisioning and enacting. Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 4(1), 1–23. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/jgcee/index.php/jgcee/article/viewArticle/ 121/168 Haapakoski, J., & Pashby, K. (2017). Implications for equity and diversity of increasing international student numbers in European universities: Policies and practice in four national contexts. Policy Futures in Education, 15(3), 360–379. Haapakoski, J., & Stein, S. (2018). The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy: A critical discourse analysis approach to contemporary strategies in Finland and Canada. In V. Korhonen & P. Alenius (Eds.), Internationalisation and transnationalisation in vocational and tertiary education (pp. 42–67). New York: Peter Lang. Institute of International Education. (2016). Open doors 2016: Data [web page]. Retrieved from www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data Jorgenson, S., & Shultz, L. (2012). Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in Post-Secondary Institutions: What is protected and what is hidden under the umbrella of GCE?. Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 2(1). Joshee, R. (2004). Citizenship and multicultural education in Canada: From assimilation to social cohesion. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 127–156). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Kambutu, J., & Nganga, L. W. (2008). In these uncertain times: Educators build cultural awareness through planned international experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 939–951. Kolar, N. (2012). A comparison of K-12 multicultural and international education in the United States. In B. Shaklee & S. Bailey (Eds.), Internationalizing teacher education in the US. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Larsen, M. A. (2016). Globalization and internationalisation of teacher education: A comparative case study of Canada and Greater China. Teaching Education, 27(4), 396–409. Longview Foundation. (2008). Teacher preparation for the global age: The imperative for change. Silver Spring, MD: Author.

GCED in Teacher Education–Canada and US

247

Luig, T., Ballantyne, E. F., & Scott, K. K. (2011). Promoting well-being through landbased pedagogy. International Journal of Health, Wellness and Society, 1(3): 13–26. MacDonald-Vemic, A., Evans, M., Ingram, L., & Weber, N. (2015). A question of how: A report on teachers’ instructional practices when educating for global citizenship in Canada. In J. Harshman, T. Augustine, & M. Merryfield (Eds.), Research on global citizenship education (pp. 83–118). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Research in Social Education Series. Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9, 443–456. Marshall, H. (2009). Educating the European citizen in the global age: Engaging with the postnational and identifying a research agenda. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(2), 247–267. Marshall, H. (2011). Instrumentalism, ideals and imaginaries: Theorising the contested space of global citizenship education in schools. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 411–426. Marx, H., & Moss, D. (2011). Please mind the culture gap: Intercultural development during teacher education study abroad program. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 35–47. Merryfield, M. M. (1996). Making connections between multicultural and global education: Teacher educators and teacher education programs. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Merryfield, M. M. (2000). Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(4), 429–443. Mitchell, K. (2003). Educating the national citizen in neoliberal times: From the multicultural self to the strategic cosmopolitan. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28, 387–403. Montemurro, D., Gambhir, D., Evans, M., & Broad, K. (2014). Inquiry into practice: Teaching global matters in local classrooms. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE). Retrieved from www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise/UserFiles/ File/TEACHING_GLOBAL_MATTERS_FINAL_ONLINE.pdf Mundy, K., & Manion, C. (2008). Global education in Canadian elementary schools: An exploratory study. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(4), 941–974. Myers, J. (2006). Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: Education for global citizenship in the U.S. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(3), 370–394. Ortloff, D. H., & Shonia, O. (2015). Teacher conceptualizations of global citizenship: Global immersion experiences and implications for the empathy/threat dialectic. In B. Maguth & J. Hilburn (Eds.), The state of global education: Learning with the world and its people (pp. 78–91). London: Routledge. O’Sullivan, M., & Pashby, K. (Eds.). (2008). Citizenship education in the era of globalization: Canadian perspectives. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishing. Parker, W. (2011). “International education” in U.S. public schools. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 487–501. Pashby, K. (2013). Related and conflated: A theoretical and discursive framing of multiculturalism and global citizenship education in the Canadian context. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Canada: University of Toronto. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle. net/1807/35921

248

Karen Pashby and Laura C. Engel

Pashby, K. (2015). Conflations, possibilities, and foreclosures: Global citizenship education in a multicultural context. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(4), 345–366. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03626784.2015.106430 Pashby, K., & Andreotti, V. (2015). Critical global citizenship in theory and practice: Rationales and approaches for an emerging agenda. In J. Harshman, T. Augustine, & M. Merryfield (Eds.), Research on global citizenship education (pp. 9–23). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Research in Social Education Series. Pashby, K., Taylor, L., & Tarc, P. (2016, July 29). Ethical internationalization in higher education: Implications of a large-scale study for teacher education pedagogy. Presented at Internationalizing Higher Education Conference. Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC. Peck, C., & Pashby, K. (2018). Global Citizenship Education in North America. In I. Davies, L. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, & Y. Waghid (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education. London: Palgrave. Pike, G. (2008). Reconstructing the legend: Educating for global citizenship. In A. Abdi & L. Shultz (Eds.), Educating for human rights and global citizenship (pp. 223–237). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Rapoport, A. (2009). A forgotten concept: Global citizenship education and state social studies standards. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(1), 91–112. Reimer, K., & McLean, L. R. (2009). Conceptual clarity and connections: Global education and teacher candidates. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(4), 903. Richardson, G. (2008). Conflicting imaginaries: Global citizenship education in Canada as a site of contestation. In M. O’Sullivan & K. Pashby (Eds.), Citizenship education in the era of globalization: Canadian perspectives (pp. 53–70). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Roberts, A. (2007). Global dimensions of schooling: Implications for internationalizing teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 9–26. Schneider, A. I. (2007). To leave no teacher behind: Building international competence into the undergraduate training of K-12 Teachers. A Research Report. Washington, DC. Shaklee, B., & Baily, S. (Eds.). (2012). Internationalizing teacher education in the US. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Siczek, M., & Engel, L. C. (2017). Teachers’ cognitive interpretations of U.S. global education policy. Educational Policy, 33(3), 486–515. Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 248–258. St Denis, N., & Walsh, C. (2016). Reclaiming my Indigenous identity and the emerging warrior: An autoethnography. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 5, 1–17. Stein, S. (2017). The persistent challenges of addressing epistemic dominance in higher education: Considering the case of curriculum internationalization. Comparative Education Review, 61(S1), S25–S50. Taylor, L. (2012). Beyond paternalism: Global education with preservice teachers as a practice of implication. In V. Andreotti & M. Souza (Eds.), Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education (pp. 177–199). New York: Routledge. Torres, C. A. (2015). Solidarity and competitiveness in a global context: Comparable concepts in global citizenship education? The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 14(2), 22–29. Trilokekar, R. D., & Kukar, P. (2011). Disorienting experiences during study abroad: Reflections of pre-service teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1141–1150. Truong-White, H., & McLean, L. (2015). Digital storytelling for transformative global citizenship education. Canadian Journal of Education, 38, 1–28.

GCED in Teacher Education–Canada and US

249

Tully, J. (2000). The challenge of reimagining citizenship and belonging in multicultural and multinational societies. In C. McKinnon & I. Hampsher-Monk (Eds.), The demands of citizenship (pp. 212–234). London: Continuum. US Department of Education. (2012). Succeeding globally through international education and engagement. Washington, DC: Author. US Department of Education. (2017). Framework for developing global and cultural competencies to advance equity, excellence and economic competitiveness. Washington, DC: Author. White, C., & Openshaw, R. (Eds.). (2005). Democracy at the crossroads: International perspectives on critical global citizenship education. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Zeichner, K. (2010). Preparing globally competent teachers: A US perspective. 2010 Colloquium on the Internationalization of Teacher Education. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Retrieved from www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/zeichner_collo quium_paper.pdf Zhao, Y. (2010). Preparing globally competent teachers: A new imperative for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 422–431.

13 Teacher Education and Global Citizenship Education in Latin America The Cases of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia Gustavo A. González-Valencia, Miguel Angel Jara, Sixtina Pinochet Pinochet, Léia Adriana da Silva Santiago and Joan Pagès Blanch Introduction This chapter provides an overview of global citizenship education in teacher education in Latin America, with a focus on the cases of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia. The chapter is organized in four sections. The first section examines the presence of global citizenship in the curriculum. It starts with a brief general account of citizenship education in Latin America, and concludes with a description of the main features of global citizenship education in each of the four countries that are part of this study. The second section describes the main characteristics of intitial teacher education. The third section focuses on the relations between initial teacher education and global citizenship. The fourth and final section provides a summary and some conclusions.

Education for Global Citizenship in Latin America In all Latin American countries, the idea of building global citizenship is subordinated to the construction of national identity. However, the idea of global citizenship has also emerged in relation to economic issues and particularly to the participation of developing countries in the global economy and the role of supranational organizations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the design, financing and monitoring of economic policies. These institutions also have a relevant role in shaping the way national education systems contribute to those economic policies. The role of these and other organizations and institutions (such as the Interamerican Development Bank, the Organization of American States, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Pacific Alliance) should be understood in the context of the so-called Washington Consensus. Other regional organizations,

Citizenship Education in Latin America

251

such as Mercosur, Alba, Unasur and Celac have played an important role in the context of countries governed by center-left coalitions in the last decades. At the same time, there are many civil society movements and organizations that promote human rights and the inclusion of those who have been marginalized as a result of economic processes. These organizations (among which are those that monitor human rights violations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) have played a relevant role in introducing specific ideas related to global citizenship (Sant y González, 2017). In the educational world there are institutions dedicated to the promotion of an academic debate on the design of policies aimed at the construction of a citizenship oscilating between the global and the local. Among these institutions are the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) and the Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO), which conduct investigations from the perspectives of international promotion of human rights and social justice. Each Latin American country has an education system and a curriculum in which citizenship education, and particularly global citizenship education, takes place, and this is largely informed by the country’s unique situation. For this reason, there are distinct traditions in citizenship education and in teacher education, as have been explained in publications in which the regional context receives attention and in which the education of teachers in Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Bolivia and Paraguay are compared (e.g. Magendzo & Arias, 2015) and the publication in which citizenship education in Colombia and Mexico are compared (e.g. Quiroz & Gómez, 2011). In their publication, Educación ciudadana en América Latina: prioridad de los currículos escolares, Cox, Bascopé, Castillo, Miranda, and Bonhome (2015) compared citizenship education in six Latin American countries: Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, México, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic. They found that the curricula mostly display similar traits: civic values/principles; citizenship and democratic participation; identity, plurality and diversity; and peaceful coexistence, all within macro national contexts. What is noticeable is the concept of global citizenship with a Latin American identity, intertwined with a national citizenship. The main reason for the introduction of a form of citizenship education is that most of these countries have recently undergone the transition from dictatorial political systems to democratic regimes, and therefore look to education to establish and to reinforce a democratic culture. Colombia presents an exceptional situation because the main problem is the armed conflict between the state and the guerillas. The educational laws promulgated in Latin American countries after the return to democracy deal mainly with national citizenship education, making only marginal references to the concept of global citizenship. In some instances, between them a Latin American citizenship is also discernible. Citizenship education is usually conceptualized as a cross-curricular area, and is more visible in the curricula of social studies, geography and history. In the case of Argentina, there have been several education laws (especially the federal law 21.195

252 Gustavo A. González-Valencia et al. of 1993, the higher education law 24.521 of 1995, and the national education law 26.206 of 2006 that replaced the Federal Education Law). The 2006 Law regulates the establishment of a structure of compulsory education1 of all modalities at all levels. The Law defines the responsibilities and obligations of the national government, provincial governments and the autonomous city of Buenos Aires, regulates the constitutional right to teaching and learning, and upholds that education and knowledge are public goods and personal rights that must be guaranteed by the state. The model of citizenship that appears in the National Education Law of Argentina is fundamentally one of national citizenship, oriented to “strengthen national identity, based upon respect for cultural diversity and local specificities, and open to universal values and to regional and Latin American integration” (article 3). In general terms, the Argentinean provinces have adopted the principles and goals established in the National Education Law. For example, Article 10 of the education law No. 819 of the Provincia of Río Negro (2012) states, “Strengthening national identity as a collective and intercultural construction . . . recognising our belonging to the Latin American continent and its cultures, linked by a common history and promoting the integration of the region in the world”. A similar language can be found in Article 7 of the Education Law N° 2.945 of the province of Neuquén (2014): “Strengthening the national and provincial identity on the basis of respect for cultural diversity and local particularities. Achieving an identity that is open to universal values and to regional and Latin American integration”. In Brazil, the democratization process of the decade of the 1980s promoted citizenship education as a response to the concerns related to the consolidation of democracy itself. Federal Education Law Nº 9.394, of December 20, 1996, states in sections 2, 3 and 22: a) that education shall aim at the development of the learners, exercising their citizenship and equipping them for the world of work; b) that education shall implement the principles of equality of access and permanence in school; c) that education should promote freedom to learn, to teach, to conduct research, to disseminate culture, through art and knowledge, respect for freedom and appreciation of tolerance; and d) that preparing students for the exercise of their citizenship, shall be an aim of education. Preoccupation with civic education is also evident in the national curriculum. For instance, in presenting cross-curricular themes, the Minister of Education and Sport, Paulo Renato Souza stated: The parameters of the National Curriculum should be based, on the one hand, on respect for regional, cultural and political diversity within the country, and on the other, consider the need to construct common national reference points for all regions of Brazil. With this, it will be attempted to create conditions, in schools, which permit the youth to have access to social knowledge required for the exercise of citizenship. (Ministério da Educaçâo, 1998a, p. 5)

Citizenship Education in Latin America

253

In Colombia, the General Education Law of 1994 is oriented towards citizenship education with the goal of contributing to democracy building, integrated development and national identity. In article 2 of this law it is possible to observe, among other things, three main policy principles for compulsory education. The first is that education should promote the respect of life, human rights, peace, the principles of democracy, coexistence, pluralism, justice, solidarity and equality, and the exercise of tolerance and liberty. The second is that education should provide a solid ethical and moral education, promoting the practice of human rights. The third is that education should create and nurture a critical conscience of international solidarity (Congreso de la República, 1994, pp. 2 and 4). This last principle suggests an intention to balance national and global citizenship. Chile has a different situation, because citizenship education has been a controversial topic in curriculum debates since the return of democracy. The 1992 Education Reform made the shift from civic education to citizenship education and promoted an expanded curriculum on issues related to citizenship. Later, it was stated that disctinct transformation in the sphere of citizenship as foreseen by the Commission of Citizenship Education of 2004, the Revised Curriculum of 2009, and the elaboration of new curricular basis in 2012–2013 had to occcur. Finally, the Plan de Formación Ciudadana (Citizen Education Plan) (2016) gave new ímpetus to citizenship education. The 1992 Education Reform established three ways to implement citizenship education: a) emphasis in subjects related to history, geography and social studies, from elementary to high school; b) as a complementary content in the teaching of life orientation education in basic education, in philosophy and psychology in secondary education; and c) through cross-curriculum content (García y Cox, 2015). A significant development of the new curriculum emanated from the educational reform was the redefinition of the notion of citizenship, which would no longer be circumscribed by national borders. Indeed, the document was oriented towards imagined communities that went beyond the nation and were articulated to universal values and concepts of citizenship (Bascopé, Cox, y Lira, 2015, p. 249). This transition was also reflected in the promotion of a much more learner-centred pedagogy that focused on the participation of the students in the development of democractic values. Citizenship Education became one of the key aspects of education when the proposed curriculum of the 1990s was released. Despite the intention to include citizenship education in the Chilean school curiculum, the implementation of this curriculum in classrooms faced important difficulties (Muñoz, 2010). This can partially be attributed to teachers’ lack of understanding of the proposal to promote citizenship. This happened despite the emphasis on continuing teacher education on education for the entrenchment of democracy and for raising consciousness of human rights (Cerda, Egaña, Magendzo, Santa Cruz, Varas, 2004). For these reasons, a Commission of Experts was formed in the year 2004 to analyze the impact of citizenship education in

254

Gustavo A. González-Valencia et al.

schools. The main problems identified were a lack of development of critical thinking in analyzing information on social issues, the big gap between the prescribed curriculum and its implementation in the classrooms and the lack of attention to teacher education in citizenship education. The Revised Curriculum of 2009 has incorporated some of the suggestions of the Commission regarding Citizenship Education. In 2012, a new curriculum was introduced (MINEDUC, 2012) in which some of the suggestions were adopted, and in which emphasis was laid on “development of civic competences”, “respect for human diversity”, and “a political and economic perspective”. Finally, the law 20.911, approved in 2016, created a Plan for Citizenship Education, recognised by the State. This law deals with a Plan for compulsory Citizenship Education in the primary and secondary education cycle. Law 20.911 introduced the Plan for Citizenship Education with three themes and eight objectives: knowledge of and comprehension of democracy (objectives a, c, g and h); promotion of participation in democracy (b, f and g), and respect for and promotion of human rights (d, e and i) (Pinochet y Mercado, 2017, p. 10). This entire process has had a strong impact on the curricula of schools in Chile. On the online platform of the Ministry of Education, for example, under citizenship education appears a large quantity of sources available to teachers2 and for schools,3 In Chile, as in the other three countries, the fundamental focus of citizenship education is the nation-state. In the area of social studies a degree of Global Citizenship Education is posible. For example, in Argentina, the curriculum includes human rights, environmental education, education for conflict resolution, education for the promotion of integration between the countries of Latin America, intercultural education, education of global perspectives, etc. In Brazil too, the themes on cultural diversity and on the environment present an opportunity for Global Citizenship Education. The main function of the study of the environment is to contribute to nurturing a civic conscience, appropriate to the social reality and to the benefit of everyone in the local community and in the global society. For this, teachers should be educated to know and to reflect on problems impacting on the lives of students, their commnity, their country and their planet, drawing attention to diverse solutions—simple and ingenous, valuing the initiatives of students and making creative use of the environment (Ministério de Educaçâo, 1998, p. 189). In Colombia, education for citizenship has been included in both the areas of social studies and natural sciences. In the curriculum of social sciences (2002),4 references to citizenship education include national and global perspectives, as can be observed in the generative themes of the curriculum: 1) women and men as guardians and as beneficiaries of the earth; 2) the need to strive for sustainable economic development while preserving human dignity; 3) our planet as a space for interactions, with its limits and possibilities; 4) cultural constructions of humanity as generators of identities and conflicts; and 5) different cultures as creators of valuable knowledge by various means (science, technology, communication).

Citizenship Education in Latin America

255

The basic curricula for Natural and Social Sciences (2004)5 places emphasis on the economic and environmental dimensions of the global. Reference is also made to human rights, and to the action of terrorists in various parts of the world: “Assuming a critical position with regard to violent action by armed groups in the country and in the world” (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2004, p. 39). The Basic Education Act (2016) is the last oficial document from the Ministry of National Education. In this, global citizenship is referred to transversally, in its historical, political, economical and environmental aspects: “Describe the political and economic reasons for countries maintaining power and for the problema of global warming, and how to change the situation” (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2016, p. 49). A compulsory component in Citizenship Education is the teaching of civic competences.6 It contains the clause “citizenship for valuing democracy, human rights, and social obligations in order to live in peace” (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2011, p. 14). The citizenship competences comprise three areas: peaceful coexistence, responsable participation in democracy, and plurality, identity and valuing of difference. In the outcomes benchmarks of these competences, the global dimension of citizenship, in relation to human rights, the environment, norms and international institutions do appear.

Global Citizenship Education in Initial Teacher Education Even in terms of the curricula of intitial teacher education programs, Global Citizenship Education in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia are diverse (UNESCO, 2017). In these countries there is no separate subject dealing explicitly with Global Citizenship Education. The institutionalization of citizenship education in primary and secondary schools has not been accompanied by corresponding changes in teacher education programs. The focus will now shift to teacher education in each of these four countries. The education of teachers in Argentina is entrusted to higher education institutions and universities. Until the passing of the National Act on Teacher Education, secondary teachers, at least as far as their academic education was concerned, were educated at universities and primary teachers at Teacher Training Colleges falling under the various Provinces. Furthermore, the Law created within the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MECyT) the National Institute for Teacher Education tasked with planning and executing the initial and continuous education of teachers. Generally, global citizenship education is seldom present in teacher education programs, even if the legislation and norms provide a positive framework for its implementation. This is probably the result of two factors. The first is a traditional perspective on citizenship that ignores the problems of the rapidly changing current world. The second is a pedagogical approach focused on knowledge transmission and not on nurturing informed, engaged and critical citizens.

256

Gustavo A. González-Valencia et al.

An example of the situation pertaining to intitial teacher education can be found in the Province of Neuquén, in the south of Argentina. The Faculty of Science and Education and the Faculty of Humanities at the National University of Comahue educates teachers of History, Geography, Anthropology, Social Science, and Economics for primary and lower secondary schools. The plan has an outline of the education of history teachers. In broad terms the Plan contains a structure for covering contemporary sociopolitical problems. This entails mainly the history of the fifteenth century to the 1990s. The increasing changes of the recent past, as part of the process of globalization, also receive attention. Perspectives on multiculturalism, human rights, democracy, citizenship, and others which appear in teacher education programs too contribute to Global Citizenship Education preparation for teaching in primary and secondary schools. In 2017, a new plan for the education of primary school teachers began to be implemented. It is a plan of little innovation though. In this plan, however, there was no space specifically allocated to citizenship education or democracy. In the curricula of teacher education programs, the following are incorporated: human rights, citizenship, gender issues in society, interculturalism, and the construction of a society characterised by inclusivity and social justice. In Brazil, changes occurred in basic education as part of the process of redemocratization and also generated changes in teacher education. Since 2000, a series of documents concerening the training of basic education teachers has been promulgated. One of the first documents was the National Curricular Directive for Teacher Education for Basic Schools, with the objective to educate children and youth to connect with their natural environment, build social institutions and produce and circulate goods, services, information and knowledge for contemporary life. The intention was to develop a school oriented towards the “construction of an active and conscious citizenship, which could allow citizens the cultural foundations to position themselves in relation to transformations and to incorporate into productive life” (Ministério da Educação, 2001, p. 10). Initial Teacher Education Programs contain distinct aspects of the concept of citizenship, with the intention of cultivating in future teachers a critical conscience regarding the exercise of citizenship, including global citizenship. In bachelor degree courses (which provide initial teacher education to primary school teachers) and in History, Geography, Languages and Mathematics courses at public and private universities, the following four topics are included: culture and citizenship, education and human rights, history and cultural diversity and environmental education. In these courses, future teachers are introduced to the concepts of culture, citizenship, universal human rights, multiculturalism, democracy, environmental issues and the like, all in relation to education. The situation in Chile is different. One of the most debilitating points of Citizenship Education in Chile is its implementation in the classrooms. Initial teacher education—competences and knowledge and practical experience

Citizenship Education in Latin America

257

required for creative and critical citizenship education—is a huge assignment. The revision of curricula for History and Social Science teachers in Basic Education covers a wide field. What can be noted is a paradigm shift from civic education to citizenship education. Included in the latter are themes such as diversity, inclusivity and human rights. Among the courses offered, it is possible to identify, among others, human rights and diversity; education for diversity; family, school and society; inclusivity; political theory; didactics of citizenship education; Chilean political theory; education and values; and problems and challenges of contemporary citizenship. An example of this is the History and Social Science Education curriculum at the Catholic University of Temuco. In this program, students in their final year of studies are required to do a project on citizenship, applicable to their practical professional context. This arrangement enables schools to become sites where participation in democratic citizenship gets practiced. Finally, we have the case of Colombia. Teacher education takes place in Normal Schools and in Universities. Both institutions provide teacher education for primary schools, while secondary school teachers are educated in universities only. In the case of the Normal Schools, all students are prepared for teaching the entire primary school curriculum, while in the case of the secondary school teacher education programs at universities, students specialised in a particular science or field. The directive determining teacher education (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, Decreto 2450 of 2015 and 02041 of 2016) acknowledges the necessity for political orientation and citizenship education, education in peaceful coexistence, understanding the world politically and culturally, and for the teaching and learning of the comepetences of citizenship needed for these purposes. In teacher education programs of social studies teachers, conceptual categories related to global citizenship education, such as citizenship, democracy, politics, geopolitics, globalization and others appear, either in conventional courses (such as “The Constitution” and “Citizenship education”) or in interdisciplinary courses (such as “Current issues in the world”).

Global Citizenship Education of Teachers The situation pertaining to teacher education is diverse. This also applies to education for citizenship and, specifically, to education for global citizenship. There is very little material specifically aimed at global citizenship education. In Argentina, the development of continuous development structures and courses for teachers, presented by facilitators holding master’s and doctoral degrees, have worked to the benefit of global citizenship education for teachers. The academic nature of courses has regretably limited participation, also the fact that these courses are not offered free of charge. Proposals and action regarding global citizenship education in teacher education frequently take place in universities and in Institutes for Teacher Education as well. While there are no courses specifically dedicated to global citizenship, there are postgraduate courses which permit the covering of themes touching on

258

Gustavo A. González-Valencia et al.

global citizenship. An example is that which is offered at the National University of Comahue. It offers the specialisations gender and women studies, education and intercultural studies, and the didactics of social studies, mentioning geography, history and citizenship education. The Faculty of Education Sciences offers graduate programs in the epistemology of the Didactics of Social Sciences. Continuous teacher education programs in Didactics of Social Sciences also have space for global citizenship education. This can be stated, in particular for the following courses being offered: problems of Latin American and Argentinan history of the twentieth century; processes of contemporary history; geographic space and territory; social problems; citizenship and human rights; socio-cultural problems in contemporary society; and citizenship education for teachers. Furthermore, at the graduate level the following seminars are offered: Epistemology of Didactics of Social Sciences; Research into the Didactics of Geography; Research into the Didactics of History; and Research into Citizenship Education. In both cases, content relevant to global citizenship education is offered in the fields of Education and the Social Sciences. The appearance of global citizenship in master’s and doctoral programs in Brazil is at a rather incipient stage. One example is the Catholic University of Brazil. The subject “Education, citizenship and public policy: challenges of diversity, poverty and human rights” covers a variety of themes, including: • • • • • • •

•

globalization and the weakening of the nation-state; the rise of “global citizenship” and the role of civil society organizations in the struggle for fundamental rights; local and global perspectives on citizenship; the influence of international organizations and agreements on educational policy; the strategic role of formal and non-formal education in the process of democratization; emancipation and social equality; the strugle of “minorities (poor, Blacks, First Nations, women, roma, LGTBQ , etc.) for educational rights and other citizenship rights in comparative perspective; and analysis of legislation, policies, international agreements and social programs dealing with diversity, poverty and the guarantee of the right to education in Brazil and in the world.

In master’s and doctoral programs there are signs of global citizenship education in programs on environmental education, where the impact of human action on the environment and the resultant efect on quality of human life is linked to the development of a collective conscience on environmental problems. There are also master’s and doctoral programs dealing with human rights, where citizenship education is touched upon too. In addition to the graduate

Citizenship Education in Latin America

259

programs, the university also ofers courses touching on global citizenship to teachers. In 2016, the Catholic University of Brazil established the “Centre for Global Citizenship at the Interschool Centre of Languages of Taguatingua” with the objective to establish an alliance between national and international schools, universities and institutions. An opportunity is provided for students to interact with students from other countries and to cultivate in this way a global citizenship.7 Another example is the initiative of the Federal University of Santa Maria, in Rio Grande do Sul, namely the “International Seminar of Public Policy for Basic and Higher Education”, with the theme “Education for Global Citizenship: Policy and practice”. The objective is to promote and to strengthen the field of research into national and international education policies. Further to the initiatives of universities, some civil societies, such as the Athena Palas Association, the Paulo Freire Institute—with the “Planetary Citizenship” program, and the Centre of Children of Popular Imagination have contributed to the development of curricula for Global Citizenship, aligned to the principles appearing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Finally, also notable is the publications of UNESCO since 2015, which have facilitated teacher education in Global Citizenship Education in Brazil. These publications, “Education for Global Citizenship: Preparing students for the challenges of the 21sr centiry” and “Education for Global Citizenship: Topics and objectives” have guided curricula and discussions in classes. In Chile, one of the weak factors in citizenship education was the continuous education of teachers. Teachers have asked for continuous teacher education that includes topics related to citizenship. This has informed the promulgation of Law 20.911. Accordingly, since 2015, Education students are taught Human Rights at the National Institute of Human Rights, in conjunction with some universities. Also since 2015, the University of Chile is offering a hybrid diploma (face-to-face and online) on citizenship education. The program at the University of Chile, titled “Education in Citizenship and Human Rights for the School of Today” offered all modules online in order to reach teachers all over Chile. In addition to the online modules, the program included six face-toface intensive sessions at the beginning and at the end of the program. This Institute proclaims that the main goal of this diploma is to produce an impact in the management of the schools incorporating citizenship education initiatives through a variety of available means, and to transfer knowledge and experiences to teachers and administrators in schools.8 The program was organized around five thematic modules: • • • • •

Democracy, Human Rights and Citizenship; Youth, childhood and politics: new imaginaries for citizenship; Citizenship and the National Curriculum: analysis and debate; Didactic strategies for Citizenship Education; and Management of schools in providing education for citizenship.

260

Gustavo A. González-Valencia et al.

This program also allowed participants to question the role of schools in society. On the one hand, as Ossandón, Aguila, y Carrasco (2016, p. 67) noted, schools are part of the industrial model of massification and control, and for this reason all the attempts to create democratic and learner-centred pedagogies have produced a low impact in the context of the educational systems. On the other hand, teachers recognised their roles as change agents who could re-elaborate contents to give them a political meaning and a civic orientation. The scope of teachers’ professional development in the field of citizen education can be deepened as these programs become more widespread and also include teachers who work in private institutions and charter schools. In Colombia, the political situation places severe limitations on citizenship education for teachers. The solution to the armed conflict and the construction of a post-conflict society are the major factors shaping and informing citizenship education in teacher education programs. Because of these national imperatives, education for global citizenship has taken second place. It is possible to trace some references to it in components of geopolitics in the subject History of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Century, where global citizenship appears. In some universities there are some initiatives, like that of the Chair of International and Multicultural Education at the Technological Universities of Santander (UTS), the objective of which is teacher education in these fields, including critical thinking and reflection on the contemporary world, and the development of attitudes of global citizenship.9 Furthermore, some universities offer Masters in Education programs (for example the University of Antioquía and the Technological University of Pereira) in which global citizenship takes a central role.

Summary and Conclusions In general, in these four countries, it is possible to identify both strengths and weaknesses in initial and continuous teacher education in the area of global citizenship education. Generally speaking, the curricula promote a national identity and a national citizenship and emphasize internal social cohesion within countries. That is the result of a complex political history characterized by recurrent cycles of dictatorships and democracies that delayed the continuous development of a democratic citizenship conscience. Moreover, the presence of social problems such as widespread corruption, extreme poverty, violence, drug trafficking and even mass repression and genocide has not favored the existence of educational policies and curricula oriented to the development of a citizenry able to actively participate in the solution of social problems. However, there are plans and initiatives and curricular innovations (especially at the master’s and doctoral levels) that transcend the national dimension of citizenship education and aim at promoting at least a Latin American dimension, sometimes through a postcolonial curricular approach and sometimes through comparative and international perspectives. For example, in many cases the study of internal conflict is undertaken through a comparative

Citizenship Education in Latin America

261

analysis of cases from different countries. The same approach is often applied to the study of recent history, particularly the transitions from dictatorships to democracy. Comparing the political proccesses in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, for instance, makes possible the development of a certain conception of global citizenship, at least within the scope of Latin America. The development of global citizenship education in the schools of these four countries (and all other countries as well) requires the presence of teachers who are convinced that students need to be prepared to face a twenty-first century that is already global and hence they need to comprehend the relationships between local and global dynamics in order to act effectively. Perhaps Latin American teachers should remember Paulo Freire’s reflections expressing on global citizenship: Before becoming a citizen of the world, I was first a citizen of Recife, and arrived there when I left my backyard and my neighborhood. The more rooted one is in their locality, the greater the possibilities to go beyond it and become more global. Nobody becomes local from a universal point of departure. The existential road goes the opposite way. Here, allow me to point out the obvious: my world is not only my geographical world which I can reproduce with closed eyes, but also a temporal, gegraphical, historical, and cultural space. My world is one of pain, famine, misery, and hope for milions, equally a hunger for social justice. (Freire, 1995, pp. 25/6)

Notes 1. The National Ministry as well as the provinces and the autonomous city of Buenos Aires recognize private education, of a confessional as well as of a non-confessional nature. (Act 26.206. Section. 13) 2. Source: https://formacionciudadana.mineduc.cl/ 3. For the implementation and information about content, cf. https://formacionciudadana. mineduc.cl/ 4. www.mineducacion.gov.co/1759/articles-339975_recurso_1.pdf 5. http://eduteka.icesi.edu.co/pdfdir/MENEstandaresCienciasSociales2004.pdf 6. www.mineducacion.gov.co/1621/articles-75768_archivo_pdf.pdf 7. Available at: www.doity.com.br/i-encontro-de-formao-em-liderana-juvenil-e-cidadaniaglobal-do-cilt. Accessed on: 04/07/2017 8. Programa de Diplomado, available at enhttp://pecuchile.cl/wp/informacioncurso-ciudadania/Julio 2017 9. www.uts.edu.co/portal/seccion.php?id=790&key=3c5b87fb00ed864fabb234d1f50 303db

References Bascopé, M., Cox, C., & Lira, R. (2015). Tipos de ciudadano en los currículos del autoritarismo y la democracia. In C. Cox y J. Castillo (Eds.), Aprendizaje de la ciudadanía. Contextos, experiencias y resultados (pp.  245–282). Santiago: Ediciones Universidad Católica.

262

Gustavo A. González-Valencia et al.

Cerda, A., Egaña, M., Magendzo, A., Santa Cruz, E., & Varas, R. (2004). El complejo camino de la formación ciudadana. Una mirada a las prácticas docentes. Santiago: LOM. Congreso de la República de Colombia. (1994). Ley 115 de Febrero de 1994 por la cual se expide la ley general de educación (pp. 2 and 4). Retrieved from www.mineducacion.gov. co/1621/articles-85906_archivo_pdf.pdf Cox, C., Bascopé, M., Castillo, J. C., Miranda, D., & Bonhome, M. (2015). Educación ciudadana en América Latina: prioridad de los currículos escolares. In C. Cox y J. C. Castillo (Eds.), Aprendizaje de la ciudadanía. Contextos, experiencias y resultados (pp.  321– 371). Santiago: Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile. Freire, P. (1995). À sobra desta mangueira. Sâo Paulo: Olho d’Água. García, C., & Cox, C. (2015). Objetivos y contenidos de la Formación Ciudadana escolar en Chile 1996–2013: tres currículos comparados. In C. Cox & J. Castillo (Eds.), Aprendizaje de la ciudadanía. Contextos, experiencias y resultados (pp.  283–320). Santiago: Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile. Magendzo, A., & Arias, R. A. (2015). Informe Regional 2015. Educación ciudadana y formación docente en países de América Latina. SREDECC/PADCCEAL. Editorial Gente Nueva. Retrieved from http://sredecc.com/sites/default/files/Documentos/informe-regional2015-web.pdf MINEDUC. (2012). Bases curriculares Educación Básica. Santiago: Ministerio de Educación. Récupéré de www.curriculumenlineamineduc.cl/605/articles-30013_recurso_ 14.pdf Ministério da Educaçâo. (1998a). Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais. Temas Transversais— Apresentação. Retrieved 2017, July 2 from http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/ pdf/pluralidade.pdf Ministério da Educação. (1998b). Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais-Meio Ambiente. Récupéré 2017, July 2 de http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/meioambiente.pdf Ministério da Educação. (2001). Proposta de Diretrizes para a Formação Inicial de Professores da Educação Básica, em Cursos de Nível Superior. Récupéré 2017, July 3 de http://portal.mec. gov.br/cne/arquivos/pdf/basica.pdf Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2004). Guía 6. Estándares básicos de competencias ciudadanas (IPSA). Bogotá. Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2011). Orientaciones para la institucionalización de las competencias ciudadanas. Brujula 1. Bogota: Amado Impresores S.A.S. Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2016). Derechos Básicos de Aprendizaje. Ciencias Sociales. Bogotá. Retrieved from www.slideshare.net/sbmalambo/derechos-bsicos-deaprendizaje-de-sociales-dba-ciencias-sociales Muñoz, C. (2010). El estudiantado y la formación ciudadana en la escuela. Una aproximación a partir de métodos cuantitativos y cualitativos de investigación. En R. Ávila, M. Rivero, & P. Domínguez (Eds.), Metodología de investigación en Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales (pp. 129–137). Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico. Ossandón, L., Aguila, E., y Carrasco, A. (2016). Desafíos y brechas en formación ciudadana: relato de una experiencia con profesores. En Revista Docencia, 58, 60–71. Pinochet, S., y Mercado, J. (2017). Reflexiones en torno a la implementación del plan de formación ciudadana en la región de Antofagasta: perspectivas desde los equipos responsables. Ponencia XV Seminario de Didáctica de la Historia, Geografía y Ciencias Sociales. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. Quiroz Posada, R. H., & Gómez Nashiki, A. (2011). Formación ciudadana: una mirada desde Colombia y México. Universidad de Antioquia.

Citizenship Education in Latin America

263

Sant, E., & González-Valencia, G. (2017). Global citizenship education in Latin America. In I. Davies, L. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, & Y. Waghid (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. UNESCO. (2017). La Formación Inicial Docentes en Educación para la Ciudadanía en América Latina. Análisis comparado de seis casos nacionales, Centro de Estudios de Políticas y Prácticas en Educación, Oficina Regional de Educación para América Latina y el Caribe (OREALC/UNESCO Santiago.

14 Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education in Oceania Niranjan Casinader

GCED and Oceania: The Geopolitical Realities An assessment as to the degree to which global citizenship education principles are incorporated within teacher education programs within Oceania is, in some ways, an elusive phenomenon. In part, this is because there appears to be a disparity in how the term is perceived in the region compared with elsewhere. One view from Oceania is that global citizenship education (GCED) as a term is more commonly used within the USA than other parts of the world (Ministry of Education Republic of the Fiji Islands, 2014, p. 1) and that the circumstances of Oceania have led to a different approach to the ideas inherent in GCED. As a broad concept, global citizenship is generally perceived as a product of modern globalization (Tully, 2008, pp. 16–17), one that de-emphasizes the role of the sovereign State in the lives and obligations of individuals; it argues that local loyalties should not, and do not, supersede obligations to others (Peters, Britton, & Blee, 2008; Walsh, 2017). It is, in that sense, ‘a contested field of globalization’, for the governments of individual nations are not inclined to withdraw from any aspect of their own raison d’être (Tully, 2008). The term is also associated with the concept of global democracy (Walsh, 2017, p. 111), but the multidimensional perspectives on that term’s meaning (Hartung, 2017; Tudball, 2017), that is, what does democracy look like in practice, creates its own problematics. Others have argued that GCED encompasses four general beliefs, or dilemmas: a sense of crisis about the state of democratic citizenship (particularly the levels of engagement or disengagement amongst young citizens); a belief that the crisis can and should be addressed by effective citizenship education; a commitment to a largely civic republican conception of citizenship; and a move toward constructivist approaches to teaching and learning as best practice in citizenship education. (Hughes, Print, & Sears, 2010, p. 295) Overall, however, the GCED canon promotes the view that human beings do not only belong to a particular sovereign State, but also have a responsibility of

Teacher Education in Oceania

265

belonging to the world community as a whole. Within Oceania, however, the reality seems to be that countries in the region tend to define global citizenship education from the perspective of active citizenship of the country in which one lives and do not agree that it begins with a commitment to the global. Instead, part of that national obligation is the need to see the world, and the place of a nation within it, from a variety of scales, including the global. This is the case in Australia, where the current national curriculum and perceptions of GCED can be sourced back in its current iteration to the ‘Melbourne Declaration’ (Henderson, 2015, pp. 18–19; Ministerial Council on Education, 2008). To be a good citizen of a sovereign State, therefore, is to be engaged with the world as well as one’s own individual nation, but the local context is the starting point: ‘the dispositions and skills for participation in the civic life of the community or a nation’ (Henderson, 2015, p. 13). The notion of schooling in citizenship as a primary cementer of national unity is not a new concept in education. At the height of European colonial expansion in the 18th and 19th century, metropolitan powers such as Great Britain used education as a means of developing a local, British-centered imaginary based on acceptance of the advantages of colonial rule. In the case of Britain, this was sometimes left to non-government agencies, such as the Christian missionary societies in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), largely for financial reasons (Casinader, 2017), as government funds had a military priority, especially in the first phases of the colonizing process. Encouraged by the Colonial Office, or more often, local colonial administrations, these non-government entities spread the package of Christianity and British societal norms throughout local communities in order to inculcate and reinforce a sense of British citizenship. Likewise, since the end of World War Two, one of the central features of education systems in decolonized sovereign States has been the use of the national education systems to both create, consolidate and maintain a sense of national identity, whatever that was seen to comprise. Global citizenship education, although not described as such, was interpreted through the lens of national identity, based on how the local ruling class perceived the actual place of the country in question within the global sphere. It is this localized perspective on the broader concepts of global citizenship that is the first of the three main influences in the nature of GCED, and thus teacher education in GCED, within Oceania. It is my contention that the place of global citizenship education in Oceania, whether in a national curriculum or as a feature of teacher education, has been strongly influenced also by the geographical reality that all the countries in the region are island States. Oceania is composed of four main sub-regions: Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. The physical size of Australia does not detract from the fact that it is the only inhabited island continent, but apart from Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand, the countries of Oceania tend to be small, archipelagic entities, composed of low-lying islands with a limited resource base. With relatively low populations, these smaller island states are often very dependent economically on single industries such as tourism, although such economic limitations can also be applied to larger Oceanic

266

Niranjan Casinader

countries such as Australia, with its financial dependence on primary agricultural and mining products. Whatever their size, however, the isolation from other places created by that island status, even in the era of the Internet, can be said to contribute to an intensified national sense of self, especially in smaller States, encouraging them to place a heightened importance on national identity and national citizenship. The third, and perhaps most significant, factor in determining national attitudes to global citizenship and GCED in teacher education is Oceania’s colonial history, in which Britain, France and the US, along with Germany, were the major players. In broad terms, the region’s colonial past can be divided into two phases. On the one hand, Australia and New Zealand gained their independence in the very early 20th century, and have now developed into being important middle powers in the southeast Asian and Pacific regions. On the other, the great majority of the smaller island States include, amongst their number, some of the most recent additions to the list of sovereign states born out of post-World War Two decolonization: Samoa (1962, known as Western Samoa until 1997); Fiji and Tonga (1970); Tuvalu (1978); New Caledonia and Kiribati (1979); and Vanuatu (1980). The regional variations are even more complex when island entities such as New Caledonia and Guam are taken into account, the former existing as a semi-independent territory under the authority of France, and the latter being an overseas territory of the US. The relationship between colonizer and colonized also does not end with political independence; the provision of aid is often controlled by parameters established by the ability of the newly independent to meet standards set by the former colonial power, as illustrated by an AusAid report in relation to assistance given to Fijian education: any future Australian assistance to the education sector in the Fiji Islands should be consistent with Australian and international approaches in regard to development effectiveness, ensure sustainability of previous Australian investments, be directed towards improving quality and equity of educational outcomes in general, and address issues of access and quality for children from remote and disadvantaged communities. (Pennington, Ireland, & Narsey, 2010, p. 43) Such historical diferences mean that the nature and purpose of global citizenship education difers significantly between the two groups, with a consequent flow-on efect on the role of global citizenship principles in teacher education. What is common across all of Oceania, though, is the impact that colonialism had on the nature, type and implementation of education generally in the region. In Fiji, the impact has been seen by some as catastrophic: colonising education transformed indigenous local ways of educating. Teacher education influenced by Western ways of thinking more than traditional methods. Have been some introduction of indigenous cultures of knowledge wisdom. But there is both scope of opportunity to incorporate

Teacher Education in Oceania

267

indigenous perspectives into the educational system so as to profit from the strengths of both international and local education. (G. I. Lingam, 2004, p. 53) In teacher education, the prevalent pedagogies being taught have reflected ‘Western’ principles without regard for their cultural appropriateness or efectiveness. Some aspects of teacher education are incompatible with ‘children working alone in an competitive environment, are not readily adaptable to children’s learning in the Pacific Islands, where it is a stronger ethos of cooperation and generosity’ (G. I. Lingam, 2004, p. 53). In other instances, Fijian traditional ways of learning such as through group work have been neglected in favor of individually centered pedagogies. Consequently, in recognition of the influence of this colonial history on GCED, the remainder of this chapter will look at GCED in teacher education according to the two phases of colonialism in Oceania.

Australia and New Zealand: GCED From the Industrialized Perspective GCED in the National Curriculum As the two more industrially developed countries in Oceania, it is not unexpected that Australia and New Zealand would play a strong role in determining the direction of educational provision in the region. As ‘advanced, stable, leading democracies with well-developed systems of public education’ (Hughes et al., 2010, p. 296), it is inevitable that their collective view of GCED is formed from this perspective of economic strength. Whilst this is true to a certain extent, as reflected in the fact that these two countries are two of the major aid providers within Oceania, their influence needs to be placed in the contexts of time and place. Having been independent since the early years of the 20th century, both countries have had the time and capacity throughout a century or more of European settlement to work through the teething processes of modern political independence and develop some form of educational identity that has some elements of permanence, even though many of the key points of those educational identities are still a matter of social, economic and political debate. What Australia and New Zealand have in common with the newer independent States of Oceania, however, is a belief that the national educational curriculum is a sign or reflection of where national society needs to transition in the future. Both countries developed and implemented a national curriculum in the early 2000s, educational frameworks that can largely be seen as a detailed response to the forces of contemporary globalization that began in the 1990s (Giddens, 2003) and transformed the local, national and global environments in which we all live and work. Given the degree of intellectual exchange between the two countries, it is not surprising that there are a number of points of connection between the two national frameworks that have emerged (see Table 14.1).

268

Niranjan Casinader

Table 14.1 The national curricula of Australia and New Zealand: a structural comparison  

Learning areas

Australian • English Curriculum • Mathematics • Science • Humanities and social sciences • The Arts • Technologies • Health and physical education • Languages New Zealand • English Curriculum • The Arts • Health and physical education • Learning languages • Mathematics and statistics • Science • Social sciences • Technology

General capabilities (AUS)

Key competencies Cross-curriculum (NZ) priorities Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia Sustainability

• Literacy • Numeracy • Information and communication technology (ICT) capability • Critical and creative thinking • Personal and social capability • Ethical understanding • Intercultural understanding • Thinking • using language, symbols, and texts • managing self • relating to others • participating and contributing

Sources: Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2016; Ministry of Education New Zealand, 2007

On the surface, there are a number of similarities between the two national curriculum frameworks that are representative of their shared history of European colonization and settlement. However, it is the differences between them that are far more significant in the context of this chapter, as they highlight differences in attitudes to GCED and, ultimately, to the way in which GCED is addressed in teacher education. At first glance, there is a degree of similarity between the main learning areas that are designated to be the focus of each national curriculum (see Table 14.1). However, the way in which each set is presented is an indication of the subtler differences within the frameworks themselves. The list of learning areas in the New Zealand documents is essentially alphabetical; in contrast, the Australian listing is in order of their staged implementation over time, and can be seen as an implicit ranking of the learning areas in terms of importance. This variation, it can be argued, is but one reflection of the key definer of difference between Australia and New Zealand on a number of levels; the 1840

Teacher Education in Oceania

269

Treaty of Waitangi between the British colonial forces and the Maori peoples of what is now Aotearoa New Zealand. The Treaty of Waitangi was the result of armed conflict between the British and the local indigenous peoples, and has had the long-term effect of effectively embedding Māori and Pākehā (non- Māori) ways of life and thinking into each other, creating a more unified national identity. All students learn Māori and English at school, and the two languages are always placed side by side in official documentation or circumstances, including the national anthem. The State is overtly bicultural in all its facets, including the educational. There is no such equivalent in modern Australian history, the consequences of which are still being played out politically, economically and socially. This underlying difference is reflected in the contrasting approach to the overriding principles, or values, of both frameworks, which effectively define the type of person the national curriculum is intended to produce. In the Australian case, these are expressed in more utilitarian terms, as ‘General Capabilities’, skills or competencies that all learning areas need to engender within individuals (see Table 14.1). In New Zealand, the embedded relationship between traditional and European conceptual frameworks has resulted in a far more holistic set of ‘key competencies’ (see Table 14.1). Both approaches can be seen as indications of what is prioritized in terms of citizenship education, and specifically global citizenship education, and the differences are quite marked. Whereas the Australian context emphasizes more functional and participatory skills such as literacy and numeracy, as well as attitudes such as ethical understanding and intercultural understanding, the New Zealand set of ‘Key Competencies’ is constructed in more visionary terms that are centered on universal approaches focused on community relationships, such as thinking, managing of self, relating to others. Unlike the Australian curriculum, it specifies a set of underlying principles that are far more explicit in a notion of a New Zealand sense of citizenship. These are values that are integral to the national educational framework, in contrast to the Australian cross-curriculum priorities that are to be integrated into learning areas where appropriate. Despite the assertion that the Australian Curriculum is a three-dimensional entity—curriculum knowledge, capabilities and priorities (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2016), they are not fundamental parts of the curriculum, as in New Zealand, but more like adjuncts to the main framework (Kidman & Casinader, 2017). The consequence of these differences is significant in terms of how global citizenship education is approached, a pattern that then flows on to the place of GCED in teacher education. Since the general structure and rationale of the Australian Curriculum as a whole does not designate (implicitly or explicitly) values that should be the basis of an Australian sense of citizenship, as can be argued is the case with the New Zealand curriculum, these educational notions are, instead, assigned to being part of the Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) learning area under the specific subject of Civics and Citizenship (C&C).

270

Niranjan Casinader

Within the C&C study design, there is a clear declaration that citizenship in the modern Australian context requires not only a focus on the local and national, but an active sense of how the individual relates to global obligations (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2017). In the case of the New Zealand national curriculum, there is no such special section attributed to citizenship education. Within the learning area of Social Sciences, students are required to ‘better understand, participate in, and contribute to the local, national, and global communities in which they live and work; engage critically with societal issues’ (Ministry of Education New Zealand, 2007, p. 30) but beyond this, there is little detail specified within the curriculum itself. Connections with the local, national and global communities from the perspective of a New Zealander are embodied within the overriding principles of the curriculum as a whole, not included as a subsection within an individual curriculum learning area, the classroom teaching of which can be subject to individual school and teacher decisions.

Teacher Education and GCED: A Difference of Intent In many ways, the relative professional teaching standards for both Australia and New Zealand have more similarities than differences (see Tables 14.2 and 14.3). This is not surprising given the close intellectual relationship between the two countries in terms of educational research and academic appointments. Both have standards related to professional knowledge of what is being taught, knowledge and understanding of learners, the provision of a high quality and safe teaching and learning environment, the use of data evidence in the assessment and reporting, and engagement with the wider learning (school) community. However, in Australia, there is no direct equivalent for the New Zealand emphasis on cultural knowledge being a central attribute of teacher qualifications. In the Australian Professional Standards (APST) there are two descriptors, commonly referred to as 1.4 and 2.4, that require Australian teachers to be aware of Australian Indigenous cultural and historical perspectives on teaching and learning (see Table 14.2). But there is no specific standard that has even an oblique reference to the knowledge of the wider world beyond Australia. The New Zealand graduate teacher standards require teachers to place themselves in the wider context, which can be seen to be one of the key elements of global education. This requirement for a wider perspective is reflected in the New Zealand inclusion of a set of standards grouped under ‘Professional Values and Relationships’, which go far beyond the category of ‘Professional Engagement’ used in the APST. There is a moral obligation of community connectedness at all scales, including the global, that are not as explicitly visible in the Australian context. Arguably, this difference in global values can be attributed to the special place of Maori culture and thinking in New Zealand society, one that is carried through into teacher education programs in a way that does not exist within the

Table 14.2 Graduating teacher standards of New Zealand Graduating teacher standards: Aotearoa New Zealand Professional knowledge

Professional practice

a. have content knowledge appropriate to the 1 learners and learning areas of their programme Know what to b. have pedagogical content knowledge teach appropriate to the learners and learning areas of their programme c. have knowledge of the relevant curriculum documents of Aotearoa New Zealand d. have content and pedagogical content knowledge for supporting English as an Additional Language (EAL) learners to succeed in the curriculum a. have knowledge of a range of relevant 2 theories and research about pedagogy, human Know about development and learning learners and b. have knowledge of a range of relevant theories, how they principles and purposes of assessment and learn evaluation c. know how to develop metacognitive strategies of diverse learners d. know how to select curriculum content appropriate to the learners and the learning context a. have an understanding of the complex 3 influences that personal, social and cultural Understand factors may have on teachers and learners how contextual b. have knowledge of ikanga and te reo Māori to work effectively within the bicultural contexts factors of Aotearoa New Zealand influence teaching and c. have an understanding of education within the bicultural, multicultural, social political, learning economic and historical contexts of Aotearoa New Zealand a. draw upon content knowledge and pedagogical 4 content knowledge when planning, teaching Use and evaluating professional knowledge b. use and sequence a range of learning experiences to influence and promote learner achievement to plan for a safe, high c. demonstrate high expectations of all learners, focus on learning and recognize and value diversity quality d. demonstrate proficiency in oral and written teaching language (Māori and/or English), in numeracy and learning and in ICT relevant to their professional role environment e. use te reo Māori me ngā tikanga-ā-iwi appropriately in their practice f. demonstrate commitment to and strategies for promoting and nurturing the physical and emotional safety of learners a. systematically and critically engage with 5 evidence to reflect on and renew their practice Use evidence to promote b. gather, analyse and use assessment information to improve learning and inform planning learning c. know how to communicate assessment information appropriately to learners, their parents/caregivers and staff

(Continued)

(Continued) Graduating teacher standards: Aotearoa New Zealand a. Professional 6 values and Develop b. relationships positive relationships with learners c. and the d. members of learning communities  e. 7 Committed members of the profession

a. b. c. d.

recognize how differing values and beliefs may impact on learners and their learning have the knowledge and dispositions to work effectively with colleagues, parents/caregivers, families/whānau and communities build effective relationships with their learners promote a learning culture that engages diverse learners effectively demonstrate respect for te reo Māori me ngā tikanga-ā-iwi in their practice uphold the Education Council’s Code of Ethics/Ngā Tikanga Matatika have knowledge and understanding of the ethical, professional and legal responsibilities of teachers work cooperatively with those who share responsibility for the learning and well-being of learners are able to articulate and justify an emerging personal, professional philosophy of teaching and learning

Source: Education Council New Zealand, 2015

Table 14.3 Australian professional standards for teachers Australian professional standards for teachers (graduate level) Professional knowledge 1 Know students and how they learn

2 Know the content and how to teach it

  1.1 Physical, social and intellectual development and characteristics of learners 1.2 Understand how learners learn 1.3 Learners with diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds 1.4 Strategies for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander learners 1.5 Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of learners across the full range of abilities 1.6 Strategies to support full participation of learners with disability 2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area 2.2 Content selection and organisation 2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting 2.4 Understand and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians 2.5 Literacy and numeracy strategies 2.6 Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Implement teaching strategies for using ICT to expand curriculum learning opportunities for learners

Teacher Education in Oceania

273

Australian professional standards for teachers (graduate level) Professional practice 3 Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning

4 Create and maintain supportive, safe learning environments 5 Assess, provide feedback and report on student learning

Professional engagement 6 Engage in professional learning

  3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5   6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

7 Engaged professionally with colleagues, parents/ carers and the community

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Establish challenging learning goals Plan, structure and sequence learning programs Use teaching strategies Select and use resources Use effective classroom communication Evaluate and improve teaching programs Engage parents/carers in the educative process Support participation of learners Manage learning and teaching activities Manage challenging behaviour Maintain safety of learners Use ICT safely, responsibly and ethically Assess learning Provide feedback to learners about their learning Make consistent and comparable judgements Interpret data from learner Report on achievement of learners Identify and plan professional learning needs Engage in professional learning and improve practice Engage with colleagues and improve practice Apply professional learning and improve learning (of learners) Meet professional ethics and responsibilities Comply with legislative, administrative and organisational requirements Engage with parents/carers Engage with professional teaching networks and broader communities

Source: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2015

Australian context, primarily because there is no equivalent of the Treaty of Waitangi in Australia’s indigenous contemporary sociopolitical structures and governance policies. The impact of this acknowledged relationship on teacher education in global citizenship can be seen in the comparative structures of the professional teaching standards that apply in Australia and New Zealand. In the New Zealand case (Table 14.2), the notion of citizenship is explicitly demanded as a professional attribute, with Standard Six making an unambiguous determination that the bicultural nature of New Zealand society and education (European and Maori) has to be known, understood and practiced by graduate teachers. Such patterns are translated directly into the guiding frameworks for comparative teacher education programs. At the University of Auckland, New Zealand, for example, there is a significant correlation and flow-on between the principles of their teacher education programs, their intended graduate outcomes

274

Niranjan Casinader

(see Figure 14.1), and the national graduate teacher standards (Table 14.2). In particular, four of the 10 listed teacher education graduate outcomes are specifically related to the idea of community involvement and citizenship at local, national and global level; Outcomes 4, 5, and 7 are directly linked to the notion of local and national citizenship, as well as an understanding and acceptance of the significant place of Maori within New Zealand society, including education (see Figure 14.1). What is especially relevant is that Outcome 6 purposely designates an international (and therefore global) perspective through its specific reference to Pasifika students and culture; that is, students from Pacific Island nations who are educated in New Zealand through the country’s links with the region. For Australian teacher training institutions, the more technicist nature of the Australian Curriculum and the APST can be said to confine them within a restricted conception of teacher education. The APST at graduate level have become an immovable structure under which, following a 2015 Commonwealth Government review (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014), all teacher education courses now have to be externally accredited. More importantly in the context of this chapter, the eight principles for national accreditation (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014, p. 3) contain no reference to the quality or type of teacher that the Australian system is attempting to educate. Teacher education courses are assessed on their evidence-based impact on pre-service teacher performance and graduate teacher outcomes. With little reference to the character or type of person teacher education programs are required to develop, as the New Zealand system does, especially in respect to a global perspective, the ITE (Initial Teacher Education) accreditation process in Australia functions as a barrier that diminishes any visionary approach to teacher education, and especially to global citizenship education. The only specific reference to a degree of cultural capacity are the afore-mentioned two descriptors or sub-standards that refer to knowledge and understanding of Australian Indigenous histories, cultures and ways of learning, but these are buried under more general professional standards. They are not highlighted as is the case with the New Zealand benchmarks, and there is no explicit acknowledgement in the APST of Australia’s contemporary multicultural population composition, as is expressed in the New Zealand standards. As a result, it is left to individual teacher training institutions to build in the quality of global perspective into their teacher graduates. For example, at Monash University in Australia, the first of the two major Monash Graduate Attributes is that all Monash alumni (including, of course, teachers) should be ‘responsible and effective global citizens [who] engage in an internationalized world, exhibit cross-cultural competence, and demonstrate ethical values’ (Monash University, 2017a). Alongside this, the Faculty of Education highlights its goal of producing graduates ‘who are capable, thoughtful, ethical citizens of the world, distinguished by their knowledge, intellectual engagement and professional skill, and by their commitment to lifelong learning, innovation and excellence’ (Faculty of Education, 2017).

Teacher Education in Oceania

275

Principles Underpinning Teacher Education Programmes and Related Graduate Outcomes: PRINCIPLES Teacher education programmes will develop:

RELATED GRADUATE OUTCOMES Graduates of initial teacher education programmes will be able to: Teach in ways that raise overall achievement levels and reduce disparities.

1

The skills and understandings that enable teachers to teach in ways that raise overall achievement levels and reduce disparities.

2

The ability to access, understand, critically appraise and use validated research findings on the impact of teaching interventions on student learning.

Access, understand, critically appraise research findings on the impact of teaching interventions on student learning, and use these findings to improve practice.

3

The ability and disposition to improve practice on the basis of inquiry into the values and assumptions that inform practice and the impacts of practice on students.

Improve their own practice through inquiry into the values, assumptions and dispositions that inform their own and others’ practices and into the impacts of those practices on students.

4

The knowledge and skills necessary to practise in ways that are consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

Practise in ways that are consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

5

The skills and dispositions to respond effectively to the needs and aspirations of Māori students and communities, and to improve educational outcomes for Māori.

Respond effectively to the needs and aspirations of Māori learners and communities and work actively, on the basis of evidence about learning and achievement, to improve educational outcomes for Māori students.

6

The skills and dispositions to respond effectively to Pasifika learners, and the knowledge and skills to improve educational outcomes for Pasifika students.

Respond effectively to Pasifika students and work actively, on the basis of evidence about learning and achievement, to improve educational outcomes for these students.

7

Flexible and accurate understanding of subject matter knowledge, and related te ao Māori dimensions, associated with the core activities of teaching in curriculum areas.

Demonstrate accurate understanding of subject matter knowledge, and related te ao Māori dimensions, associated with the core activities of teaching in curriculum areas and use this knowledge in ways that are responsive to learners.

8

High level skills in teaching approaches that are effective with particular types of content.

Skilfully apply teaching approaches appropriate to particular types of content and monitor these to maximise effectiveness.

9

The ability to inquire into the values and assumptions that underlie and derive from the social, moral and political context of teachers’ work.

Inquire into the social, moral and political context of teachers’ work and into the values and assumptions that underlie and derive from these contexts.

10

Ability to establish ethical relationships, and to work collaboratively with colleagues and community to improve educational outcomes.

Establish ethical relationships, and work collaboratively with colleagues and community to improve educational outcomes.

Figure 14.1 Intended teacher education outcomes, University of Auckland Source: Faculty of Education and Social Work, 2017

In terms of teacher education programs per se in both countries, the teaching of global citizenship, or the parts that teachers should play in that process, are usually confined to units that focus on the teaching of Humanities or Social Science subjects at the undergraduate or postgraduate levels. In other words, the teaching of such principles and how they fit into an educational perspective as defined by their allocation to a specific area of learning; they are not treated

276

Niranjan Casinader

as an important aspect of teacher capability overall. This can be seen in the online unit course details of teacher programs offered by such institutions as the University of Auckland and Monash (Monash University, 2017b; The University of Auckland, 2017), as well as other universities such as the University of Western Australia and the University of Waikato (The University of Waikato, 2017; The University of Western Australia, 2017). What makes the New Zealand context very different to the Australian, however, is the explicit, integral notion of a required readiness to deal with cultural diversity at all scales that is built into the graduate teacher standards themselves. In doing so, the notion of global citizenship education, which has cultural understanding as one of its foundational precepts, is embedded into New Zealand teacher education in a way that it is not in Australia. At teacher education institutions, specific educational qualifications in bicultural (Māori/English) education are offered as a matter of course (The University of Auckland, 2017; The University of Waikato, 2017; University of Canterbury, 2017; University of Otago, 2017), a pattern of multicultural recognition that is not duplicated in their major Australian equivalents as a rule. The emphasis on seeing the cultural diversity of New Zealand as the normative state of its society, and not as a point of difference that needs to be considered as a problem in itself, designates a transcultural (Casinader, 2016a, 2017) approach to citizenship that is more aligned with the more complex nature of contemporary world society. In contrast, the Australian Curriculum and its associated graduate teacher standards highlight cultural difference as a problem issue to be addressed, emphasizing multicultural and intercultural approaches that pre-date modern globalization (Casinader, 2016b). This transcultural integration in New Zealand education is very visible and underscored from the first stages. The opening statement that accompanies the outline of the New Zealand graduate teacher standards declares very openly that the standards ‘recognize that the Treaty of Waitangi extends equal status and rights to Māori and Pākehā alike’ (Education Council New Zealand, 2015). Such visible declarations of key principles of global citizenship, whether by name or not, cannot be seen in any similar publication of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. As a result, most graduate teachers will have received little or no specialist training or development in preparing students for global citizenship. Consequently, while most Australian high schools provide some form of global citizenship education, the extent, depth and quality of this—including the rationale for doing so—is likely to differ among schools (Peterson, 2015, p. 50).

The Pacific Island States As mentioned previously, the use of education systems to cement conceptions of national identity has long been an established strategy of the newly independent sovereign States in the contemporary world. The separation of a colonial identity of the past from the reconfigured vision of the future is seen as

Teacher Education in Oceania

277

a fundamental condition for the long-term survival of a young nation-state, but for those that still have political affiliations, the colonial linkage remains a strong force for some Pacific States. What is evident, however, and as illustrated by the following case studies, is that the concept of GCED does not have the same significance as applied in the Pacific island countries as it does in Australia and New Zealand. Instead, the focus is very much on national citizenship and unity as a basis for the country’s interactions with the world beyond its borders; GCED is defined in terms of national identity, and the position of the country within and in relation to the global context. As two of the smaller island States, the contrasting situations of New Caledonia and Vanuatu illustrate this more localized framing of GCED very clearly. For New Caledonia, an existence as a territorial extension of France, albeit with a high degree of independence, has meant that citizenship education is seen in a far more nuanced fashion. The terminology of global citizenship is almost entirely absent in the territorial curriculum, and, as a result, teacher education places little importance on its value to future New Caledonian teachers (Minvielle, 2017). Instead, citizenship education focuses on issues related to the three types of citizenship that are seen as being of most direct practical relevance to the identity of New Caledonians: European citizenship, French citizenship, and Caledonian citizenship. In other words,’ global’ citizenship from the New Caledonian perspective is defined in terms of the territory’s relationship to France and Europe; that is the core of its international perspective. An analysis of the situation is made even more complex because of the tendency to use the concepts of global citizenship (citoyenneté globale) and world citizenship (citoyenneté mondiale) loosely and interchangeably (Minvielle, 2017). As a result, the concept of global citizenship within the school curriculum does not exist, except in the case of History and Geography teachers who are required to address global connections whilst dealing with the required course in moral and civic education (enseignement moral et civique). The alignment of a morality value with a more international outlook mirrors the New Zealand position. Within the teacher education system, primary school teachers have no training in the issue of citizenship in any form, although a planned 2018 reform of primary school teacher education (Minvielle, 2017) is likely to redress the situation. In the case of secondary teachers, New Caledonian candidates are required to undertake a unit entitled ‘Context of Practice’. This relates to the only mention of citizenship in the National Framework of Professional Skills, produced in 2013, which requires—as the first of the skills demanded of the teacher graduates—to share and support the values of the Republic of France ((Minvielle, 2017). The character of the graduating teacher is therefore defined in terms of understanding the foundational basis of French societal thought and structures, but from within the identity of being a citizen of New Caledonia. As with New Caledonia, teacher education in Vanuatu shows a focus on matters of national citizenship rather than ones of global responsibility. Colonial heritage is reflected in the dual language focus of the Vanuatu Institute of

278

Niranjan Casinader

teacher education, in which primary and secondary teacher education is provided in either English or French. Structurally, its courses tend to reflect the four pillars of learning outlined in the UNESCO educational vision (UNESCO, 2017), as is also the case in countries like Fiji (learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be). These particular foundations of education illustrate a stronger commonality with the more inclusive approach followed in New Zealand, rather than the more utilitarian and competency-based framework in Australia. In Vanuatu, like New Zealand, the same recognition and declaration that education needs to respect and follow the multicultural uniqueness of Vanuatu Society is explicit in the national curriculum statement: The VNCS encompasses our cultural diversity, multilingual context and the Christian principles and values on which Vanuatu is founded, and recognizes that schools must foster sound moral education and personal development and be inclusive of all children and students. The VNCS also recognizes that the curriculum must be relevant and must prepare students to participate in our country’s economy and way of life by promoting practical life skills and social skills as well as academic excellence. It must assist them to lead happy and peaceful lives as active members of their communities. (Ministry of Education, Republic of Vanuatu, 2010b, p. 2) Once again, there is a focus on the local and national community, with little reference to the teaching and learning as primary goals; the focus remains national unity, rather than one of global or international connection. Nevertheless, it is recognized that there is a need to break away from French colonial structures on education, and in this sense, it can be argued the national curriculum and, therefore, its demands upon teachers, do have some form of intellectual global perspective. But it is one based on the establishing value of a citizen’s place in the world as a singular force with an individual identity, rather than one of global awareness. In Vanuatu, the notions, if not the principles, of global citizenship have been transferred into the curriculum context to some degree. A curriculum review in 2010–2013 included a remit and goal of ‘moving ahead with climate change mainstreaming within the national curriculum at all levels’ (Ministry of Education, Republic of Vanuatu, 2010a, p. 1), demonstrating that, just because global citizenship in name has not been included as a specific concept within teacher education or the national curriculum, does not mean that issues pertinent to the notion of global citizenship are not being discussed. The relevance of climate change to the literal existence of Vanuatu as a physical entity therefore becomes a highly personal, practical and real-world connection, one between the demands being placed on teachers (and therefore teacher education programs), notions of global citizenship and the philosophical foundation of what global citizenship education should or might involve.

Teacher Education in Oceania

279

As one of the more established modern Oceanic States, having achieved its independence in 1970, the national curriculum expectations in Fiji are far more nuanced and developed than is the case in, for example, the much younger State of Vanuatu. Its national curriculum statement is explicit in that the aim of the curriculum is to produce Fijians with the ‘knowledge, skills and values to maximize the potential to meet the challenges of living in a dynamic Fiji in the global society’ (Ministry of Education, Republic of the Fiji Islands, 2007, p. 7). This clear statement of intent, one that goes beyond the aim of national unity, reflects one of the main influences on the national curriculum of Fiji and other Pacific States; the UNESCO four pillars of learning: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be (UNESCO, 2017). Although an emphasis on learning to be a member of a global community is evident within the primary education curriculum, there is no specific mention of global citizenship in the overview of secondary education; there is, however, a clear statement that a morally and spiritually fulfilling foundation that will help individuals to define themselves as good citizens of Fiji is unequivocal (Ministry of Education, Republic of the Fiji Islands, 2007, p. 9). Such a pattern has been reiterated in recent studies that have revealed that attitudes such as civic pride, compassion, cultural understanding, empathy and tolerance, and a sense of family and community figure strongly in judgments of what was seen to represent a ‘good’ Fijian citizen (Fitoo, 2017). This focus on the moral dimension in Fijian citizenship education can be partly explained by the desire to develop a national identity, and a national education system, that is more reflective and respectful of the indigenous epistemologies of the Fijian Society. In this, it displays signs of the same openness towards indigenous values evident in New Zealand education. As Puamau has summarized, the more recently independent Pacific countries have been faced with the challenge of how to ‘dismantle colonized mindsets’ (Puamua, 2007, p. 1) (2007, p. 1) as they establish their own identity, but have had to balance this ultimate goal with the reality that aid dependency has guided educational decisions (Puamua, 2007, p. 82). The persistence of this economic link for basic needs has made it difficult to reclaim a Fijian identity through ‘resistance to the domination of Western conceptions of citizenship and particularly the emphasis on individualism’(Hughes et al., 2010, p. 294). Similarly, the Cook Islands has an educational system based on developments in New Zealand, and Nauru has been influenced by developments in the State of Queensland, Australia. The influence of the USA has been seen in other Pacific islands such as the Marshall Islands. In the case of Fiji, the involvement of AusAid, formerly the Australian Agency for International Development, has influenced Fijian education in various ways, including the introduction of an educational structure that is similar to that of New South Wales. Another Australian-funded initiative was the A$28 million Fiji Education Sector Program (FESP) in 2003–2009, designed to support efforts by the Fijian Ministry of Education (MoE) to deliver quality education services and improve education outcomes, especially for children in

280

Niranjan Casinader

disadvantaged and remote communities. FESP focused on systems strengthening and capacity building (through the provision of technical assistance and funding of training activities). This partnership, in conjunction with the use of the UNESCO Four Pillars as an educational touchstone, has also led to an influence on GCED in Fiji. Between 2014 and 2016, a Global Citizenship Education Working Group developed a full framework for GCED for students, aiming to develop a comprehensive program in global competences: The GCED-WG [Global Citizenship Education Development—Working Group] builds upon existing GCED resources and contributes to the GCED pedagogical landscape by learning from educators about what works, engaging youth in dialogue, exploring new frontiers in measurement, and collecting and synthesizing resources from experts and local and national initiatives. The global dialogues on the teaching, learning, and measurement of global citizenship competencies are structured around three questions: Are there a small number of core GCED competencies relevant for youth in all countries? If so, what are some options for how they can be measured to improve learning? (including individual, local and national levels) How do we ensure education programs foster and integrate GCED curricula and instructional practices? (Ministry of Education Republic of the Fiji Islands, 2016, p. 1) What was not highlighted in these recommendations was the question of existing teacher capacity to teach such a course, given the lack of any specific teacher education in citizenship. In one sense, this was understandable, as various reports have highlighted concerns about teacher ability and quality in more fundamental aspects: Despite the continuous filtering of foreign aid towards improving the quality of teachers and teaching in Fiji and the wider Pacific, there remain widely held assumptions about the general lack of professionalism and competency of teachers, with questions regarding the ability of teachers to generate positive learning experiences and student academic success. (University of the South Pacific, University of Bristol, & University of Nottingham, 2016, p. 4)

Future Beginnings The geographical isolation of the States and Territories of Oceania has had a strong influence on the ways in which global citizenship education is conceived and practiced within the region. Even in the case of larger, more established contemporary societies such as Australia and New Zealand, national identity and sensibilities remain the starting point. Teacher education programs have

Teacher Education in Oceania

281

tended to follow the same basic pattern; global citizenship education remains an exotic, attached to accredited programs in oblique ways that are largely guided by teacher professional graduate standards that are functional, not visionary and capacity-building. It is rare to find a case like New Zealand, where colonial history has, perhaps ironically, created a multi-stranded, culturally diverse, modern national identity that is defined from its constitutional beginnings. That identity only has to be reinforced by education, not created by it, and as a result, GCED can be integrated more visibly into education generally and teacher education specifically. As discussed in this chapter, however, there is a second layer to this nuanced treatment of GCED in Oceania; that is, a difference between the longerestablished modern democracies such as Australia and New Zealand and the more recently formed sovereign States, such as those in the Pacific Islands. For the more recent additions to the ‘global community of nations’, GCED—and therefore the programs of teacher education that support it—is defined from a position that the creation of a unified national identity and perspective has a higher priority. Importantly, though, that priority also includes the inclusion of many of the GCED principles referred to earlier. The ideas contained within global citizenship, if not the term itself, are seen as being integral, and indeed, fundamental, to the existence and even survival of the young State. In both groups of countries—Australasia and the smaller island States—these differences are reflected in the way GCED is incorporated into teacher education programs. Within Oceania, it is only in the relatively well-resourced countries such as Australia and New Zealand that GCED is seen as central to the national curriculum. In other countries, the notion of citizenship education tends to be more of a nationally focused construct than an international one, and this is reflected in the lesser importance of GCED under that term in teacher education programs. Furthermore, where GCED does exist in national curricula and/or teacher education courses, it tends to be subsumed within the teaching of Humanities and/or Social Sciences. As a result, GCED in teacher education, whether explicit or not, tends to be designated as the responsibility of units related to teaching area specialisms, rather than being seen as a basic component of general teacher capability. This particular curricular engagement with GCED is also reflected in the relevant national professional teaching standards, in that GCED is not identified as a specific aspect of teacher expertise. Signs of shift elsewhere in Oceania are appearing, however, such as in Fiji. In a list of characteristics of the ideal Fijian teacher, the eighth and final one refers to the importance of the ideal teacher see[ing] a value for education beyond the schooling experience. Some teachers noted that teaching is a human encounter that extends beyond content knowledge, and there was a strong emphasis from

282

Niranjan Casinader them on lifelong learning, mirroring some of the language of the NCF [National Curriculum Framework]. (University of the South Pacific et al., 2016, p. 11)

Similarly, in a model that might be a precursor to a wider regional shift into the future, capacity building in the GCED component is now becoming a vital cog in developing a Fijian education system that prepares its younger generations for the future they will face: The forces of globalization and modernisation seem certain to gain momentum and catalyse more changes in education in future, with further impacts on teachers’ work. Since teachers are the key ingredients in children’s learning, it is important that they are engaged in the change process and also attention is paid to their capacity building. If teachers are bombarded with sweeping changes in their work without any attention to human capital development then their lack of preparation is likely to have a negative impact on the quality of school work. (G. Lingam, Lingam, & Sharma, 2017, p. 31) Such studies highlight the necessity of measures to ensure that GCED education is more specifically embedded in teacher education within Oceania, regardless of the difculties that it presents–‘the challenge of balancing the influence of global goals and targets with the demands and conditions of local contexts’ (University of the South Pacific et al., 2016, p. 3). The degree to which this might occur will contribute to be a determination as to the extent to which the island States of Oceania, regardless of size, will play a part in the future operations of global democracy.

Acknowledgments The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Dr Stéphane Minivielle, Université de la Nouvelle-Caledonié, and Dr Billy Fitoo, University of the South Pacific, in providing source material for this chapter.

References Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2016). The Australian curriculum V8.3. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2017). Civics and citizenship. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Retrieved from www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Pdf/ Intercultural-understanding Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2015). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professionalstandards-for-teachers/standards/list

Teacher Education in Oceania

283

Casinader, N. (2016a). A lost conduit for intercultural education: School geography and the potential for transformation in the Australian Curriculum. Intercultural Education, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2016.1150650 Casinader, N. (2016b). Transnationalism in the Australian Curriculum: New horizons or destinations of the past? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1023701 Casinader, N. (2017). Transnationalism, education and empowerment: The latent legacies of empire. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge. Education Council New Zealand. (2015). Graduating teacher standards: Aoteoroa New Zealand. Wellington: Education Council New Zealand. Faculty of Education, Monash University. (2017). Our vision and strategy. Retrieved from www.monash.edu/education/about/vision Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland. (2017). Programme handbook 2017: Initial teacher education—Graduate diplomain teaching (Secondary). Auckland: Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland. Fitoo, B. (2017, September 6). [personal communication with author, GCE in Fiji]. Giddens, A. (2003). Runaway world. New York: Routledge. Hartung, C. (2017). Global citizenship incorporated: Competing responsibilities in the education of global citizens. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1104849 Henderson, D. (2015). Exploring the potential to educate “good citizens” through the Australian civics and citizenship curriculum. In M. Print & Tan Chuanbuao (Eds.), Educating “good citizens” in a globalising world for the twenty-first century (pp. 11–31). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Hughes, A. S., Print, M., & Sears, A. (2010). Curriculum capacity and citizenship education: A comparative analysis of four democracies. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920903395528 Kidman, G., & Casinader, N. (2017). Inquiry-based teaching and learning across disciplines: Comparative theory and practice in schools. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Lingam, G. I. (2004). Teacher preparation for the world of work: A study of pre—service primary teacher education in Fiji, PhD. Thesis. Griffith University, Queensland Australia. Lingam, G. I., Lingam, N., & Sharma, L. (2017). Educational reforms and implications on teachers’ world of work: Perspectives of Fijian primary teachers. Australian Journal of Education, 42(1), 19–35. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Carlton South: MCEETYA. Ministry of Education New Zealand. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Republic of the Fiji Islands. (2007). The Fiji Islands National Curriculum Framework: Education for a better future. Suva. Ministry of Education Republic of the Fiji Islands. (2014). Global citizenship education working group: Draft terms of reference. Learning Metrics Task Force 2.0, Global Citizenship Education Working Group, Fiji. Ministry of Education Republic of the Fiji Islands. (2016). Global citizenship education working group: Updated working group guidelines. Learning Metrics Task Force 2.0, Global Citizenship Education Working Group, Fiji. Ministry of Education, Republic of Vanuatu. (2010a). Pacific-German regional programme on adaptation to climate change in the Pacific Island Region: Climate change curriculum in the formal education sector. Port Vila: Ministry of Education, Republic of Vanuatu.

284

Niranjan Casinader

Ministry of Education, Republic of Vanuatu. (2010b). Vanuatu national curriculum statement. Port Vila: Ministry of Education, Republic of Vanuatu. Minvielle, S. (2017, August 24). [personal communication with author, Notes on GCE in New Caledonia]. Monash University. (2017a). Aligning course outcomes educational standards frameworks. Retrieved from https://monash.edu/pubs/2017handbooks/alignmentofoutcomes.html Monash University. (2017b). Faculty of education: Become a teacher. Retrieved from www. monash.edu/education/future-students/courses/teacher-education Pennington, B., Ireland, N., & Narsey, W. (2010). Fiji education sector program: Aidworks Number: INF528 independent completion report. Retrieved from https://www.dfat.gov.au/ sites/default/files/fiji-fesp.pdf Peters, M. A., Britton, A., & Blee, H. (2008). Many faces of global civil society: Possible futures for global citizenship. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton, & H. Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 1–14). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Peterson, A. (2015). Civic virtue and global responsibilities: The possibility of a character-based approach to abdicating global citizens in Australia. In M. Print & T. Chuanbuao (Eds.), Educating “good citizens” in a globalising world for the twenty-first century (pp. 49–64). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Puamua, P. (2007). Teacher education in the Pacific: Issues and challenges Commonwealth education partnerships. Commonwealth Education Online. Retrieved from http://www.cedol. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/82-84-2007.pdf Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Canberra: Commonwealth Government of Australia. Tudball, L. (2017). Theoretical perspectives and pedagogical possibilities in the new civics and citizenship curriculum. In A. Peterson & L. Tudball (Eds.), Civics and citizenship in Australia: Challenges, practices and international perspectives (pp. 23–40). London: Bloomsbury. Tully, J. (2008). Two meanings of global citizenship: Modern and Diverse. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton, & H. Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 15–39). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. UNESCO. (2017). The four pillars of learning. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/new/ en/education/networks/global-networks/aspnet/about-us/strategy/the-four-pillarsof-learning/ The University of Auckland. (2017). Faculty of education and social work: Teacher education. Retrieved from www.education.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/programmes/teachereducation.html University of Canterbury. (2017). School of teacher education. Retrieved from www.canterbury. ac.nz/education/schools-and-departments/school-of-teacher-education/ University of Otago. (2017). College of education-undergraduate and graduate study. Retrieved from www.otago.ac.nz/education/undergraduate/ University of the South Pacific, University of Bristol, & University of Nottingham. (2016). Quality teachers and teacher education in Fiji: Identities, challenges & priorities. Retrieved from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/education/documents/policy-brief.pdf The University of Waikato. (2017). Education. Retrieved from https://papers.waikato. ac.nz/subjects/EDUCA The University of Western Australia. (2017). Graduate school of education: Future teachers. Retrieved from www.education.uwa.edu.au/courses Walsh, L. (2017). The needs and challenges for global citizenship education. In A. Peterson & L. Tudball (Eds.), Civics and citizenship in Australia: Challenges, practices and international perspectives (pp. 101–118). London: Bloomsbury.

Index

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate figures and page numbers in bold indicate tables. Abrahamian, A. 87–88 Accord on Indigenous Education (Canada) 44 Ackerman, B. xvii ACT! Active Citizens Today 108 active citizenship 63 adaptive citizenship 11, 24–26 Addams, J. 95 Adegoke, K. A. 146 advocacy types of global citizenship 31–32, 182, 182 Africa: civil conflict in 149–150; colonial education and 144–145; common cultural values in 141; diversity in 140–142, 154; global citizenship education (GCED) in 146; identity and 149–150; impact of colonialism and 143–145, 149–150, 154–155; indigenous knowledge and 145, 147, 150, 152–153; misconceptions about 140–142; patriotism and 149–150; postcolonial education and 145–147; see also specific country names African teacher education: critical pedagogy and 151, 153–155; decolonization and 150–151; educational goals in 147; expansion of 146, 155; global citizenship education (GCED) and 139, 146–147, 150–154; impact of colonialism and 140, 143; indigenous knowledge and 150–153, 155 African Union (AU) 142 Agbaria, A. K. 235, 240 agency: autonomy and 24; political rights and 87; social 90; teachers and 93, 196, 215, 225–229; thick democracy and 71

Akiwowo, A. 152 Alba 251 Alliaud, A. 64 alterity 95, 97 Alviar-Martin, T. 187, 193 Amadeo, J.-A. 62 Amnesty International 207 An, S. 106 Anderson, V. 46 Andreotti, V. 33, 43–45, 47–48, 110, 181 APCEIU see Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU) APCEIU Best Practices reports 166, 168, 174 Appiah, K. 90 Apple, M. W. 61 Appleyard, N. 95, 102, 105, 241 Argentina: education law in 251–252; global citizenship education (GCED) in 254; national identity and 252; teacher education for GCED in 255–258; teaching of democracy in 61 Aristotle 86 Armstrong, D. 72 Arnold, E. 108, 111, 113 Asia: Buddhism and 173, 180, 186–187; citizenship education in 183–184; civic education in 184–185; Confucianism and 180, 185; educational reform in 179; global citizenship education (GCED) in 161–162, 164–176, 188, 191; globalization and 179; moral education in 184–185, 187; multicultural education and 185–186; political/economic approaches in 183, 186, 191; teacher education in 180, 188; see also specific country names

286

Index

Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU) xvi, 162, 164–166, 168, 174 ASPnet: conviviality framework for 133–134, 135, 136, 136; current focus in 135; development of 126; education for sustainable development and 132; global citizenship education and 132; goals of 125–128, 132–134; membership in 127–128; peace and international understanding mandate of 126, 133; planetary relations and 133; SDGs and 127; themes in 128–129, 130, 131 Assié-Lumumba, N. D. T. 143–144 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 23, 172–173 Asuwada principle 152 AusAid 266, 279 Australasia 265, 281 Australia: citizenship education and 265, 269; European colonization in 266, 268; global citizenship education (GCED) in 267–270, 276, 281; national curriculum in 267–268, 268, 269; political independence in 266–267; professional teaching standards in 270, 272–273, 274; student values in 74; teacher education for GCED in 270, 273–276; teaching of democracy in 59, 61 Australian Professional Standards (APST) 270 Australian Research Council 59 Austria 218–219, 219, 220, 224 autonomy 22–24, 26–27, 37, 92 Baildon, M. C. 187 Bajaj, M. 164 Banks, J. 32 Banks, J. A. 90, 148 Barber, B. R. 61 Baricovich, J. 49 Bascopé, M. 251 Battiste, M. 43 Beech, J. 115 behavior management systems 168–169 Beijing Institute for Education 166–168, 174 Bekoe, M. A. 13, 141 Belgium 27 Benavot, A. 3 Bengtsson, S. L. 195 Benhabib, S. 104, 116n6

Bergen, J. K. 11 Berlin Conference 144 Berman, B. J. 143 Bhutan 180, 186–189 Biccum, A. R. 3 Biesta, G. 105, 228 Bîrzéa, C. 201 Blevins, D. 113 Bolivia 251 Bonhome, M. 251 Boonsombuti, S. 172 Bourn, D. 217 Boyle-Baise, M. 48 bracketing 93 Bragg, L. 95 Brazil 61, 252, 254, 256, 258–259 Bregman, R. 114 Brexit 102 Buddhism 173, 180, 186–187 Bui, T. 196 Bullivant, A. 105 Butler, J. 96 Calls to Action (TRCC) 44 Cambodia 173 Cameroon 145 Camicia, S. P. 191 Canada: ASPnet schools in 127; citizenship assumptions in 43; civic education and 40, 44–46; critical initiatives and 45–46; curriculum development in 44; education for globalization in 236; First Nations people and 43, 241; GCED imaginaries in 239–240; GCED research in 240–242; global citizenship education (GCED) and 180, 235, 239–240; global citizenship versions in 234; global competence and 245; impact of Indian Residential School system in 241; indigenous content/pedagogies in 44–45; internationalization of higher education in 243, 245; international teaching practicum placements 241–242; minority students in 41; peace-building and 180; post/ decolonising pedagogy in GCED 241; settler colonialism in 40, 44; teacher education for GCED in 44–46, 234, 236, 239–242, 244; teaching of democracy in 59, 61 Canadian Ministries of Education 239 Carr, P. R. 58–59, 93

Index Casinader, N. 16 Castillo, J. C. 251 Cazals, P. 6 Celac 251 Center for Civic Education (United States) 48 Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research (University of Alberta) 240 Chanbanchong, C. 172 Chang, H. 189 Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) 170–171, 175 character education 24 Chile 251, 253–254, 256–257, 259–260 China: citizenship and 73; Confucianism and 180, 185; global citizenship education (GCED) in 166–168; moral education in 185; multidimensional GCED in 184; nationalistic educational discourse 185, 191; political/economic approaches in 183 Cho, H. S. 175 Choi, K. 189 Chong, E. K. M. 188 CitizED 47 citizenship: active 63; adaptive 11, 24–26; character-driven 188; civic education and 25–26; concept of 22–23, 27, 42; continuum of 75, 75, 76; criticaldemocratic 11, 25; critically-reflexive 189; de-centered from the state 43; defining good 73; educational goals and 23–24; Enlightenment concepts of 87, 90; general concept of 87; Greek/ Roman concepts 86–87; imagined communities and 253; individualized 11, 25; national 22–23, 87–88, 97, 104; participatory 27, 60, 76; passively responsible 76; personally responsible 27, 48, 76; political liberty and 87; political orientations of 23–24; purchase of 86, 88, 97; regional 23; social justice activist 76; social justice-oriented 27, 76; socialparticipatory 188; teacher conceptions of 188–189; teachers modelling 62, 64, 70, 73; transnational 104; types of 24–27; unbundling of national 116n6; Western ideology and 279; youth and 26; see also global citizenship Citizenship Conceptions of Social Studies Teachers in Singapore (Sim) 175

287

citizenship education: active citizenship in 63; adaptive citizenship and 25–26; civic education vs 61, 70, 73; colonialism and 265; Confucianism and 185; critical-democratic citizenship and 25–26; critical pedagogy and 49, 56, 58, 61; critical perspective and 9; curriculum debates in 40–42; decolonized sovereign states and 265; ethical action and 49; Eurocentrism and 43, 45; experiences of 26; global education and 2, 104–105; globalization and 1, 3, 107–109; goals of 6, 26; indigenous content/pedagogies in 44–45; individualism and 25–26, 43; moral education and 185, 190, 194–195; multiculturalism and 185; pedagogical approaches in 11, 46–48; postcolonial thinking and 43; practices of 26; racial inequality and 46; self-reflexive analysis and 43, 49–50; social reproduction and 31; soft vs critical 43–45, 47–50, 83–84, 181, 188; student engagement and 42–43; teacher education and 11, 41, 44–49, 70; traditional approaches to 9, 61, 105; types of 27; see also civic education; civics and citizenship education (CCE); global citizenship education (GCED) Citizenship Education and Education for ASEANness in Thailand (Chanbanchong et al) 172 CIVES Foundation 208 civic education: in Asia 184–185; citizenship education vs 61, 70, 73; discourse in 103; global citizenship shift in 104; nationalistic discourse in 104; pedagogical approaches in 46–48; standards and 48; teacher education and 40–41, 194; teacher identity and 41; traditional approaches to 1, 42; types of citizenship and 25–26; Western democracies and 40; see also citizenship education; civics and citizenship education (CCE) Civic Education Study (CIVED) 62 civic engagement 151 Civic Mission of Schools project 48 civics and citizenship education (CCE) 56, 62–63, 69; see also citizenship education; civic education Clarke, M. 153

288

Index

Cogan, J. J. 189 Colombia 251, 253–255, 257, 260 colonialism: Africa and 143–145; Australia and 266, 268; Canada and 40, 44; New Zealand and 266, 268–269; Oceania and 266–267, 277–279, 281 common good 129 Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) 190 Confucianism 180, 185, 190, 194 Connell, R. 145, 152 Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO) 251 conviviality: acknowledging vulnerability in 134; anti-colonial analysis and 133; ASPnet schools and 133–134, 135, 136, 136; banality of 131–132; convivial culture and 131; education and 125, 131; elements of 131–132; everyday livable collaborations and 134; interdependency and 132–133; making odd-kin and 126; tools for 131, 136; transformational encounters and 133–134 Cook, S. A. 11, 106 Cook Islands 279 Corsiglia, J. 150 cosmopolitanism: deliberative democracy and 95; emancipatory principles and 110; Enlightenment concepts and 96; as form of capital 110, 117n12; global ambition and 116n3; global citizenship and 31, 33, 90, 115, 181, 182; governmentality and 96; historical conceptions of 116n2; pedagogical approaches and 103; teacher education and 102, 115 Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform (Popkewitz) 96 Costa Rica 251 Council of Europe 201–202, 216 Cox, C. 251 Crick Report 46, 104 critical citizenship education 83–84, 91–93, 181 critical consciousness 92–93, 154 critical-democratic citizenship 11, 25 critical global citizenship 182 critical modernism xvii critical pedagogy (CP): citizenship education and 49, 56, 58, 61; culturally relevant learning and 153–154; education theory and ideology in 63; global citizenship

education (GCED) and 155; liberatory learning and 153–154; participatory learning and 153; sociopolitical global citizenship and 28 Crowe, T. 106 cultural differences 97 cultural global citizenship 182 cultural hegemony 91 cultural intelligence 164, 176 Czech Republic 218, 219, 220, 225 Daniel, A. O. 143 da Silva Santiago, A. 15 Davies, I. 46, 63, 104, 147, 149 Davis, K. A. 193 Deardorff, D. 6 deep democracy 60–62, 64–65 De Groot, I. 32 Dejaeghere, J. G. 62, 71 deliberative democracy xvii, xviii, 95 Delors, J. 129 Delors Report 2, 128 democracies: democracy teaching in 58; elections and 60, 65–66; emerging 58; minority groups in 66–67; new 11, 56, 58, 66; old/established 11, 56, 58, 78; pre-service teachers on 65–66; unequal power in 67–68 democracy: citizenship and 23, 56–57; civic education and 40; competences for 202, 255; continuum of 75, 75, 76; globalization and 22, 179; liberal 61; moral global citizenship and 28; participatory 60–61; racism and 73, 131; representative 61; social class and 66–67; Western ideals and 179, 181; see also thick democracy; thin democracy democracy teaching: civic education and 62–63, 77; cynicism and 74; holistic approach to 75; in Latin America 61, 251–253, 255; participatory citizenship and 69–74, 77; pre-service teachers on 56, 58, 64–68; teacher habitus and 78; teacher preparation for 172; teachers as models in 62, 64, 70, 73; teachers on 56–61, 66–69; thick/ thin democracy and 60–63, 68–74, 77–78; traditional approaches to 61; transformative curriculum and 77–78 Democratic Republic of Korea 73 Deutschman, M. C. 13 Dias, A. G. 14 Dill, J. 181

Index discipline 24 Doan, D. H. 185, 191, 194 Doing Democracy by Learning Conference 58 Dominican Republic 251 Drudy, S. 153 Durkheim, E. 24 Duschatzky, C. 64 Earth Charter 2 East Asia 20, 26, 161, 180 economic global citizenship 182 Educación ciudadana en América Latina (Cox et al.) 251 education: civics vs citizenship in 70, 73; common good and 129; conviviality and 125, 131; cosmopolitanism and 103; culturally relevant learning and 153–154; democracy in 56–62, 68–74; discipline and 26; goals of 23–24; Gross National Happiness (GNH) and 186–187; individual and 26; liberatory learning and 153–154; neoliberalism and 15, 77, 114, 129, 226, 236; participatory learning and 153; social change and 129; social equity and 93; social orientation in 26; social reproduction and 31; social transformation and 31; sociopolitical context of 41; see also citizenship education; global citizenship education for teacher education (GCED-TEd); teacher education Education 2030 165 Education for All (EFA) 2, 146, 164 Education for Democratic Citizenship (Council of Europe) 201 Education for International Understanding (EIU): APCEIU and 164, 166, 168; behavior management systems 168–169; best practices and 166, 168, 174; in China 166–168; defining 164; student-centered activities and 167–168; teacher education and 166–167; terminology and 174; textbook development for 166; see also global citizenship education (GCED) education for sustainable development (ESD): ASPnet and 132; concepts in 224; international concern for 2; SDGs and 2–4, 9; student assessment and 4; teacher education and 4–5, 8–10; in Vietnam 195–196

289

Education Reform Act (England) 46 Eidoo, S. 105 Eight Honours and Eight Shames 185 Ekeh, P. P. 144, 146 elections 60, 65 Elfert, M. 12 Elliott, E. 217 Engel, L. C. 15 England 41, 43, 46–47, 236; see also United Kingdom English as a Foreign Language (EFL) 192–193 Englund, T. 95 Enslin, P. 104 environmental global citizenship 182, 195 Eritrea 143–144, 146–147 Estellés, M. 12 Estrategia Nacional de Educación para el Desarrollo , 2010–2015 (ENED) 204–205 ethical action 49 Ethiopia 150 Eurocentrism 43, 45, 92, 145, 179, 181 Europe: democratic citizenship education in 201–202; European consciousness and 202; global citizenship education (GCED) in 215–218; teacher education for GCED in 217–219, 219, 220–228; teacher education in 205–211, 215, 217–218 European Council 202 European Union (EU): Charter for Education for Democratic Citizenship and for Human Rights 202; citizenship and 23; global citizenship education (GCED) and 46; Global Schools project 211, 218; teacher education for citizenship education in 205, 211–212 Evans, M. 104 experiential learning 9, 95 Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) 251 Fangcaodi International School (Beijing) 167–168, 174 Farahani, M. F. 151–152 Fiji 266–267, 279–282 Fijian Ministry of Education (MoE) 279 Fiji Education Sector Program (FESP) 279–280 First Nations people 43, 66, 241 Fischman, G. E. 12, 57 France 21

290

Index

Francis, L. 217 Freire, P. xvii, 24, 28, 36, 91, 154, 261 Furman, G. C. 61 Gaines, A. M. 95 Gallagher, S. 93 Gandin, L. A. 61 Gardner-McTaggart, A. 110 Gaudelli, W. 33 GCED see global citizenship education (GCED) GCED-TEd see global citizenship education for teacher education (GCED-TEd) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, The (Keynes) 115 GERM see Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM) Germany 21 Ghana 146 Giddens, A. 24, 147 Gill, J. 40 Gilroy, P. 131, 132 Giroux, H. A. 62, 64, 70, 73 global citizenship: advocacy types of 31–32, 181, 182; from below 98; characteristics of 106; concept of 23, 27, 42, 182; cosmopolitan types of 31, 33, 90, 181, 182; defining 148, 163–164; distinct concept of 87–88; empathy and 90; as form of capital 114; general concept of 85–86; global/national/ cultural identification and 148, 149; hierarchy in 36; human rights and 251; Latin American identity and 250–251; models for 11; moral 28, 30–31, 33–35; mutual respect and 90; neoliberal 42; open 28, 30–31, 34–35; radical 42; recognition and 92, 97; romanticization of 103, 105–106; social change and 148; sociopolitical 28, 30–31, 33–35; statelessness and 87–88; state sovereignty and 87; studies on 31–34; teachers and 29–30; transformationalist 42; types of 28 global citizenship education (GCED): approaches to 88–91, 98; ASPnet and 132; biographical approach to 95; challenges of 3, 103; citizenship concepts in 42; civic education discourse and 103; civic engagement and 151; comparative research on 34; conceptual frameworks for

107–109, 180–181; as contested concept 27, 148; core concepts of xviii, 224; cosmopolitanism and 33, 103, 115; critical analysis and 43–44; critical non-redemptive cosmopolitan 116; critical theory and 89, 91–93, 180–181; critique of 107, 117n11, 148–149, 181; defining 116n10, 162–164, 215–216; development of 104–106; educational strategies for 36–37; elements of 152, 152, 155; experiential learning and 9; global competence and 151; global market demands and 111, 113; global social justice framework for 216; goals of 34–35, 35; instrumentalist approaches to 180–181, 183; interdisciplinary approach to 93; liberal/humanistic approaches to 89, 90–91; moral development and 30; multicultural education and 162–164; multidimensional models of 184; national citizenship education and 8–9; national identity and 250–252, 260, 265; patriotism and 149–150; peace education and 4, 164; phenomenological approaches to 89, 93–95; political contexts of 29–30; political/economic approaches to 183, 186, 191–193; poststructural/ feminist approaches to 89, 95–97; recognition and 92; SDGs and 2–4, 7–9, 132, 134, 162–163, 165, 170, 228, 233; social class inequalities and 9–10; social responsibility and 151; standards/measurements for 113; student assessment and 4–5; studies on 31–34; teacher role in 109, 175–176, 218, 226–228; tensions in 8–10; terminology and 174; UNESCO and 3–4, 6, 12, 34, 125, 132, 162–166, 170, 172, 216; Western bias in 107; see also citizenship education; Education for International Understanding (EIU) global citizenship education for teacher education (GCED-TEd): actors involved in 222–223, 229; in African states 140, 146–147, 150–155; in Asia 180, 188; in Canada 234, 236, 239–242, 244; characteristics of 182; in China 166–167; citizenship education goals and 6–8; competencebased approach to 225–226;

Index competencies and 5; conceptual frameworks for 85, 108–109; content-based approach to 224–225; contrasting cultures in 222; critical pedagogy and 151, 153–155, 193; European 217–228; expansion of 12; GCED conception in 222; GERM movement and 112–115; global issues in 108; globalization and 139; goals of 107; indigenous knowledge and 150–153, 155; in Latin America 255–261; national educational policies and 4; nationalistic discourse in 191; in Oceania 264–265, 277–278, 280–282; pedagogical approaches in 103, 223–224, 224, 227–228; in Portugal 210–212; redemptive idealized frames in 103–110, 115; research on 215; self-awareness and 151–152; in Spain 206–209, 212; teacher development and 106–107; teacher impact and 7, 102; teaching approaches in 222; tensions in 8–10; in Thailand 172; in the United States 234, 236–239, 244; values-based approach to 225, 227–228; in Vietnam 179–180, 182, 191–193; weak support for 5–6; see also teacher education Global Citizenship Education Working Group (Fiji) 280 global commons xvi, xvii, 134 Global Commons Review xvi global competence 151 global consciousness 179, 202 Global Doing Democracy Research Project (GDDRP): aims of 58; conceptual framework and methodology 63; findings of 64–69, 77–78; global projects 58; participant countries 63–64; project website 58, 59; teaching of democracy and 56–59, 70–73, 75, 77 global education: citizenship education and 2, 104–105; defining 216; globalization and 236; ideological struggles in 238; social justice promotion and 2; teacher education and 234–235, 242, 244; theory and 235 Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM) 12, 103, 112–115 Global Education Charter 216 Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) 164–165, 228

291

Global Education Network of Europe (GENE) 216, 229n1 global engagement 162–163 global inequality 125 globalization: citizenship education and 1, 107–109, 111, 139; as a contested concept 35–36, 147; dominant countries in 21; GCED discourse and 6; global education and 236; history of 20–21; moral 22; multicultural education and 236; neoliberal market ideology in 21–22; political 22; positive/negative impacts of 147–148, 155; student preparation for 236; technology and 21; threats of 139; Western ideology and 20–22, 179 Global Schools project 211, 215, 218 Global South 78, 110 Goh, M. 13, 161, 176 Gómez Rodríguez, A. E. 14 González, G. A. 15 Goren, H. 32, 93, 180, 191, 195 Gramsci, A. 91 Greene, M. 94–95 Green Schools for Green Bhutan initiative 187 Griffiths, R. 106 Grossman, D. L. 189 Gross National Happiness (GNH) 186–189 Guam 266 Guatemala 251 Guo, L. 106–108 Guterres, A. xvi Haas, E. 57 Habermas, J. xviii, 91–92 Hahn, C. L. 105 Hall, C. 196 Hansen, D. 33 Hantzopoulos, M. 164 Haraway, D. 126, 132 Harber, C. 47 Hasan, M. 140 Hayden, M. 110 Heidegger, M. 93–94 hierarchies of difference 134 higher education: in Canada 243, 245; corporatization of 236; English language in 114; global citizenship education (GCED) and 210–212, 238, 243; global competence and 244; internationalization of 233–234, 236, 242–245; in Latin America 255; neoliberalism and 15; in Portugal

292

Index

209–211; in Spain 212; teacher education for GCED in 215, 222; in the United States 243–245; in Vietnam 189 Him Academy Public School (Himachal Pradesh, India) 168–169, 174 Ho, L. C. 184, 193 Ho, T. N. 13 Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union 191 Hoffman, D. M. 94 Holt, V. 105 Hong, C. 166 Hong Kong 180, 186, 188 Howard, L. 93 human dignity 91–92 humanistic citizenship education 90–91 human rights: critical citizenship education and 92; global citizenship and 33, 251; humanistic citizenship education and 91; moral global citizenship and 22, 28, 33; peacebuilding and 180; sociopolitical global citizenship and 34; universal 16 human vulnerability 134 Husserl, E. 93 hyperglobalization 33

International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 26 International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century (Delors) 2 International Monetary Fund 250 international schools 110 international teacher education 233–234; see also global citizenship education for teacher education (GCED-TEd); teacher education Inuit people 241 Ireland 218, 219, 220, 225 Israel 32 Issitt, J. 63 Italy 218, 219, 220, 225–226

IEA International Civic and Citizenship Study 104 Illich, I. 131 imagined communities 9, 253 India 168–169 Indian Residential School system 241 Indigenous knowledge: in African states 145, 147, 150, 152–153, 155; Fijian citizenship education and 279; global citizenship education (GCED) and 150–152, 155; New Zealand curriculum and 269–270, 274, 276; teacher education and 270 Indigenous peoples: Canadian teacher education pedagogy and 44–45; citizenship and 66–67, 73; disenfranchisement of 67; Maori culture and thinking 269–270, 274, 276; neoliberal discourse and 193; see also First Nations people individualism 43, 61 individualized citizenship 11, 25 Indonesia 34–35, 172–173 information and communication technology (ICT) 191–193 Inquiry into Practice (Montemurro et al.) 241

Kahne, J. 27, 42, 48, 56, 71, 75 Kanu, Y. 45 Karsten, S. 189 Keating, A. 46–47 Kenya 150 Kenyatta, D. 141 Keynes, J. M. 115 Kilbane, J. 48 Kim, S. 189 Kiribati 266 Kiwan, D. 6 Kohlberg, L. 24 Kreutzer, T. 150 Kukar, P. 242

Japan 183 Jara, M. A. 15 Jarrett, O. S. 49 Jefferson, T. 87 Jenkins, O. B. 141 Jeong, B. 173 Johnston, M. 88–89, 92, 95 Jorgenson, S. 243 Juma, C. 150 justice orientated citizenship 71

Larsen, M. A. 241–242 Latin America: economic policies and 250–251; global citizenship education (GCED) in 250–251, 254–255; national citizenship education and 251–254; national identity and 250–252, 260; social orientation in 26; teacher education for GCED in 250–251, 255–261; teaching of democracy in 61, 252, 255; see also specific country names Law, W. W. 184

Index Lee, H. 189 Ley Orgánica de Educación 1 (Organic Act of Education) 202–203 Li, J. 191, 194 liberal democracy 61, 92 Liberia 146, 150 Libya 142 Light, G. 139, 148 Lim, C. P. 171, 175 Liu, M.-H. 189 Locke, J. 87 Lokamitra, D. 187 Longview Foundation 237 Losito, B. 46 Maastricht Declaration 2, 216 Macann, C. 93 MacLean, L. 11 Macpherson, C. B. xvii Madeira, A. I. 143 Mahatma Gandhi Institute xvi Makabayan policy (Philippines) 172 Makki, F. 144 Malaysia 61 Mannion, G. 105 Marginson, S. 139 Marshall, H. 236 Marshall Islands 279 McEvoy, C. 8 McLean, L. R. 95, 102, 105–106, 196, 241–242 Melanesia 265 Mercosur 23, 251 Merleau-Ponty, M. 93 Merryfield, M. M. 233–236, 242, 244 Métis people 241 Mexico 251 Micronesia 265 Millennium Development Goals 2, 146 Mimiko, N. O. 144 minority groups 66–67 minority students 41 Mintrop, H. 46 Miranda, D. 251 Misiaszek, G. W. 3 Mitchell, K. 236 Montemurro, D. 241 Moon, S. 11–12 Moore, J. 132 Morais, B. D. 151 moral education 184–185, 187, 190 moral global citizenship: comparative research on 34–35; cosmopolitanism and 33; defining 182; human rights and 33; pillars of 28; studies on 33; in

293

teacher education 194–195; teachers and 30–31 Morawska, E. 131–132 Morris, P. 31, 181–182, 182, 183, 191–192 Morrow, R. xvii Mouffe, C. 22 multicultural education: citizenship education and 185, 192; global citizenship education (GCED) and 162–164; globalization and 236; ideological struggles in 238; teacher education and 234–235, 244; theory and 235 multiculturalism 96 Mushroom at the End of the World, The (Tsing) 132 narrative imagination 90 National Action Plan for Education for Sustainable Development in Vietnam (VNCDESD) 195 National Action Plan of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) 190 national citizenship education 8–9, 251–254 National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future 7 National Education framework (Singapore) 170–171 national identity: Argentina and 252; Bhutan and 187; citizenship education and 201–202; Colombia and 253; decolonized sovereign states and 265; Latin America and 250–251, 260; New Zealand and 269, 281; Oceania and 265–266, 276, 279–281; Vietnam and 190 nationalism 98, 102–103, 185 National Strategy for Education for Citizenship (Portugal) 205 National Strategy for Education for Development (Portugal) 204–205, 210 nation states: citizenship and 22–23, 87–88, 116n6, 254; citizenship education and 85; interdependency and 96 Nauru 279 neoliberal global citizens 42 neoliberalism: business model of education and 114; education and 15, 77, 114, 129, 226, 236; global consumer and 103; globalization and 21–22; indigenous discourse and 193;

294

Index

individualized citizenship and 71; minimizing of public sphere in 108 neo-Marxist political theory 28 Nepal 193 Nepali refugees 188 Netherlands: citizenship education in 29–31, 34–35; discipline in education 26; globalization and 20–21; individual orientation and 26; social involvement of youth in 27 New Caledonia 266, 277 New Guinea 265 New Zealand: citizenship education and 269; cultural diversity and 276; European colonization in 266, 268–269; global citizenship education (GCED) in 265, 267–270, 276, 281; indigenous people and 269; Maori culture and thinking in 269–270, 274, 276; national curriculum in 267–268, 268, 269–270; national identity and 269, 281; political independence in 266–267; professional teaching standards in 270, 271–272, 273–274; teacher education for GCED in 270, 273–276; teacher education outcomes 275; transcultural integration in 276 Ngoc Bui, T. T. 193 Nguyen, H. T. M. 196 Nguyen, L. A. 192, 195–196 Nguyen, T. M. H. 196 Nigeria 152 Nikuze, D. 150 Nino, C. S. xvii–xviii Noddings, N. 24 Nussbaum, M. 90 Nyambe, J. 145 Oceania: citizenship education and 277–279; colonial history of 266–267, 277–279, 281; global citizenship education (GCED) in 264–268, 278–282; indigenous knowledge and 266–267, 279; national identity and 265–266, 276, 279–281; sub-regions in 265; teacher education for GCED in 264–265, 277–278, 280–282; Western teacher education and 267; see also Australia; New Zealand Ochoa, A. 88–89, 92, 95 Ogden, C. A. 151 Ong, A. 185 open global citizenship 28, 30–31, 34–35

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 111, 113, 129 Osler, A. 46 Oxfam 152 OXFAM/Intermón Foundation 209 Oxley, L. 31, 181–182, 182, 183, 191–192 Oziambo, B. 146 Pagès Blanch, J. 14–15 Paglia, P. 149 Pak, S. Y. 6 Paraguay 251 Parker, W. 32, 238, 240 participatory citizenship 27, 60, 71, 76 participatory democracy 60–61 participatory teaching 153 Pashby, K. 15 Pasolini, P. 95 passively responsible citizenship 76 Paulo Freire Institute-UCLA xvi peace education 4, 164 Pellegrini, L. 188 Perry, L. 139 personally responsible citizenship 27, 76 Peru 61 Peterson, A. 47 Pham, P. 150 phenomenological citizenship education 93–95 phenomenology 93–95 Philippines 172 Phyak, P. 193 Pike, G. 147, 149, 240 Pillow, W. S. 96 Pinar, W. F. 95 Pinochet, S. P. 15 PISA 113 Pitiyanuwat, S. 189 Pluim, G. 93 political global citizenship 182 Polynesia 265 Ponder, J. 49 Popkewitz, T. 96, 110 Portugal: European consciousness and 202; global citizenship education (GCED) in 201–202, 204–205, 205, 210–212; global consciousness and 202; globalization and 21; National Strategy for Education for Citizenship 205; National Strategy for Education for Development 204–205; teacher education for citizenship education in 209–212

Index postcolonialism 28, 145, 180–181 poststructural/feminist citizenship education 95–97 pre-service teachers: citizenship conceptions and 189; as civic actors 196; critical consciousness and 92–93; global citizenship education (GCED) and 8, 16, 91–98, 109; interdisciplinary approaches and 93; power-knowledge/operations and 97; self-awareness and 151–152; selfefficacy and 93; self-reflection and 94–95; self-reflexivity and 96–97, 241–242; service-learning and 91; study-abroad and 237; subjectivity and 95, 97; transnational identity and 96; views on democracy 56, 58, 64–68; see also teacher education Priestley, M. 105 Print, M. 69–70 Prior, W. 70, 73 Problem Solution Project 49 Project Sinergias ED 211 Puamua, P. 279 Race Relations Act of 2000 (England) 46 racial inequality 46 racism 73, 131 radical global citizens 42 Rapeli, L. 57 Rapoport, A. 8 Rawls, J. xvii, xviii, 24 recognition 92, 97 recognitive social justice 71 Red de Educación for Global Citizenship 211 Referencial de Educación para el Desarrollo— Educación Preescolar, Enseñanza Básica y Educación Secundaria 204 reflection 235, 244 regional citizenship 23 Reid, A. 40, 104 Reimer, K. 242 Report of the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools 46 representative democracy 61 Rethinking Education (UNESCO) 129 Richardson, G. 239–240 Rizvi, F. 115 Robbins, M. 217 Roman, L. G. 98 Ross, A. 46 Ross, H. 105

295

Roth, K. 95 Rousseau, J.-J. 87 Rwanda 146, 150 Sacristán, J. F. G. 64 Samoa 266 Sangnapaboworn, W. 172 Santisteban, A. 14 Sanyal, B. C. 142–143 Sartre, J. P. 93 Sayre, A. P. 141 Schugurensky, D. xvi–xvii Schwille, J. 62 SDGs see Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Sears, A. 40 Seddon, T. 70 self-other relations 97 self-reflexivity 43, 49–50, 96–97, 241–242 Semaganis, H. 43 Serf, J. 47 service-learning 48–49, 91 settler colonialism 40, 43–44, 48 Shields, C. M. 61 Shizha, E. 145 Shultz, B. 49 Shultz, L. 12, 42, 243 Sim, J. 171, 175, 188 Singapore: Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) in 170–171, 175; citizenship and 73; citizenship education in 183–184; Confucianism and 180, 185; Dutch colonialism and 20; global citizenship education (GCED) in 161, 165, 169–171, 173, 175, 183; individual orientation and 26; multidimensional GCED in 184; National Education framework in 170–171; teacher expectations in 170–171; teacher perceptions of citizenship 188–189 Smith, K. 47 Snively, G. 150 Social Action Curriculum Projects 49 social class 9–10, 66–67 social global citizenship 182 social involvement 24, 26–27 socialist morality 180 social justice 27, 61, 71, 216 social justice activist citizenship 76 social justice-oriented citizenship 27, 76 social reproduction 31 social responsibility 151

296

Index

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 59 social transformation 31 sociopolitical global citizenship 28, 30–31, 33–35 soft citizenship education 83–84, 181 Somalia 150 Soros, G. 28 South Africa 146 South Asia 161 Southeast Asia 161, 180 Southern Theory (Connell) 152 South Korea: citizenship education in 173, 175; citizenship policies 88; Confucianism and 180; cosmopolitanism and 185–186; global citizenship education (GCED) and 186; individual orientation and 26; national identity and 186; political/ economic approaches in 183; teacher perceptions of citizenship 189 Souza, P. R. 252 Spain: civic education in 212; educational reform in 202–203; European consciousness and 202; global citizenship education (GCED) in 201–203, 203, 206–209, 212; global consciousness and 202; globalization and 21; Roman Catholic Church and 203; teacher education for citizenship education in 206–209, 212 spiritual global citizenship 182 Sri Lanka 172 statelessness 87–88 Stein, S. 244 Stenhouse, V. L. 49 St. Kitts 86, 88 Stolk, V. 32 Stoner, L. 139, 148, 151 Stoner, R. K. 139 Strategic Orientation for Sustainable Development in Vietnam 195 Streitwieser, B. 139, 148 Student Empowerment through Values in Action (SEVA) 168–169, 174 students: assessment of 4–5; behavior management systems 168–169; critical consciousness and 154; culturally relevant learning and 153–154; democratic values and 74; globalization and 236; global market demands and 111–113; liberatory learning and 153–154; lived experiences and 75; participatory

learning and 153–154; teacher impact and 7 Su, F. 105 subjectivity 95, 97 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): African states and 146; ASPnet and 127; education for sustainable development (ESD) and 2–4, 9; GCED and 2–4, 7–9, 132, 134, 162–163, 165, 170, 228, 233; implementation of 175; national curriculum and 4; teacher education and 217 Taiwan 26 Tan, C. 171 Tan, C. S. 171 Tanzania 146 Tarozzi, M. 14 Tarrant, A. M. 139 Tasciotti, L. 188 Taylor, C. 92 Taylor, L. 241–242 teacher education: accreditation programs 238; advocacy and 193; bildung and xvii; CitizED 47; citizenship education and 11, 41, 44–49, 188–189; core courses in 9; cosmopolitanism and 102, 115; critical citizenship education and 92–93; cross-cultural experience and 235; cultural diversity and 235; cultural knowledge in 91, 270; defining 142–143; democracy in 58; demographics in 237; diverse/ inclusive educational policies and 217; education for sustainable development (ESD) and 4–5, 8–10; GECD and 4–10, 85, 98, 102–103, 106–107, 139; GERM and 112–115; global education and 234–235, 242, 244; global market demands and 112–114; humanistic citizenship education and 91; implementation of educational policy and 228; indigenous knowledge and 270; intercultural education and 161; internationalization of 113–114, 237, 242; multicultural education and 234–235, 244; multiple agent collaboration in 227–228; national citizenship education and 9; pedagogical approaches in 9, 11, 98; phenomenological citizenship education and 94–95; postcolonial perspective and 180, 241;

Index poststructural/feminist citizenship education in 95–97; reflection and 235; SDGs and 217; service-learning and 48–49; social class inequalities and 10; socialist morality and 180; stages of 143; stickability of 74–75; traditional morality and 180; see also global citizenship education for teacher education (GCED-TEd); pre-service teachers Teacher Preparation for the Global Age (Longview Foundation) 237 teachers: accountability and 112; agency and 93, 196, 215, 225–229; attitudes towards GCED 217; Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and 170–171; citizenship conceptions and 48, 188–189; citizenship education and 70; civic education pedagogy and 40–42; cultural competence and 175–176; educational strategies for 36–37; global citizenship and 29–30, 109–110, 237; habitus of 78; impact on student learning 7; implementation of GCED and 109, 218, 226–228; as models of good citizenship 62, 64, 70, 73, 235; moral global citizenship and 30; open global citizenship and 30; pedagogical goals of 27; postcolonial thinking and 43; power and privilege 45–46; preparation for citizenship education 47, 109, 140, 151, 155, 173, 180, 188, 195, 207, 217; sociopolitical global citizenship and 30–31; on teaching democracy 68–70, 72–74; see also pre-service teachers Teacher Training and Whole School Approach for Improving Teacher EIU Competences 166 Thailand 172–173 Thésée, G. 58 thick democracy: active citizenship and 56, 60, 63, 70–71; citizenship education and 62, 71; interconnectedness and 60; justice orientated citizenship and 71; participatory citizenship and 61, 71, 78; social justice and 71; teacher views on 64, 66–69 thin democracy: disengaged citizens and 77; electoral processes and 61, 65–67; individualized citizenship and 69; neoliberalism and 71; new civics as 62–63, 70, 72; pragmatic conservatism and 63; teacher views on 56, 64–67, 69

297

Thongthew, S. 172 Title VI National Resource Centers 238 Tocci, C. 11–12 Tonga 266 Torres, C. A. 21, 33 traditional morality 180 transformational encounters 133–134 transformationalist global citizens 42 transnational identity 96 transnational migration 88 Treaty of Waitangi 269, 273, 276 Trilokekar, R. D. 242 Truong-White, H. 13, 196 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRCC) 44, 241 Tsegay, S. M. 13, 141, 145, 149, 153 Tsing, A. L. 132 Tudball, L. 62, 71 Tuvalu 266 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 2–4, 146, 202 Unasur 251 UNESCO: constitution 126; educational goals and 125, 129, 164–165; global citizenship education (GCED) and 3–4, 6, 12, 34, 125, 132, 162–166, 170, 172, 216; global context of 129; see also ASPnet UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPnet) see ASPnet UNESCO Chair in Global Learning and Global Citizenship Education xvi United Kingdom: education for globalization in 236; global citizenship education (GCED) and 111, 180; globalization and 21; nationalistic discourse in 102; peace-building and 180; social involvement of youth in 27; teaching controversial issues in 217 United Nations (UN) xvi, 87, 126, 228 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) see UNESCO United Nations High Commission on Refugees 88 United States: citizenship assumptions in 43; citizenship education and 48–49; citizenship policies 88; civic education standards and 48; curriculum development in 47; education for globalization in 236; education policy in 236, 238–239; global citizenship education (GCED)

298

Index

and 111, 235; global citizenship versions in 234; global competence and 238–239, 244–245; globalization and 21; internationalization of higher education in 243, 245; minority students in 41; nationalistic discourse in 102; settler colonialism in 48; soft citizenship education and 48; stakeholders in GCED 237; teacher demographics in 237; teacher education for GCED in 234–239, 244–245; teaching of democracy in 59, 61; undocumented immigration and 88 Unit for Social Cohesion and Peace Education (Sri Lanka) 172 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1–2, 87 U.S. Department of Education 236, 238–239, 244 Values Education curriculum (Bhutan) 187 Van Haperen, M. 150 van Manen, M. 94 Vanuatu 266, 277–278 Veugelers, W. 10, 27, 32 Vietnam: Buddhism and 180; citizenship education in 190; Confucianism and 180, 185, 190, 194; educational reform in 189–190, 193; education for sustainable development (ESD) in 195–196; English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in 192–193; global citizenship education (GCED) in 179–180, 182, 190, 192; globalization and 192; information and communication technology (ICT) in 192–193; moral education in 190; multicultural education in 192; nationalistic

educational discourse 191; Renovation process in 189 Vietnam Agenda 21 policy 195 Vietnamese teacher education: advocacy and 193; civic education and 194; critical pedagogy and 194; education for sustainable development (ESD) and 195–196; extracurricular activities and 191, 197n4; global citizenship and 179, 182, 190–196; moral global citizenship and 194–195; multicultural education and 192, 197n4; nationalistic discourse in 191; patterns in 180; tensions in 180 Vinck, P. 150 Wadsworth, D. 139 Wang, C. 94 Wang, L. 139 Washington Consensus 250 Weenink, D. 117n12 Westbrook, J. 224 Westheimer, J. 27, 42, 48, 56, 71, 75 What Matters Most (National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future) 7 Wintersteiner, W. 224 Wolhuter, C. xvi–xvii World Bank 250 Worldliness of a Cosmopolitan Education, The (Pinar) 95 Yemini, M. 32, 93, 105, 109, 180, 191, 195 youth 26–27, 42 Zegergish, M. Z. 13 Zeidler, D. 189 Zhu, J. 191 Zimbabwe 144 Zong, G. 109 Zvobgo, R. J. 144 Zyngier, D. 11, 58–59