Action Area 8: Educate for Global and Local Citizenship

Too often, our teaching and learning is narrowly local. We fail to teach adequately for a world of global interconnectedness. In the context of globalization, new ways of thinking about curriculum have become necessary. This is so because education now needs to pay greater attention to how it uniquely spans the cultural, economic and interpersonal dimensions of global relations. Schools and colleges need to recognize their transformative power, and their capacity to become responsive to contemporary global changes. The context in which education now occurs has been re-shaped by globalization.

Much has been said and written in recent years about globalization. Some of it is hype. But a great deal of it is seeking to understand the profound global changes are helping to integrate the world into one extensive system. Recent developments in information and communication technologies, for example, involve knowledge production and exchange that defy traditional boundaries. This has resulted in a major shift towards international integration of products and markets. National institutions are still significant in the global environment but now must become engaged in the global processes or face obsolescence. International competition and technological change is associated with a workplace that is more integrated and more devolved, and requires higher levels of cognitive and communication skills. The post-Fordist vision of flatter organizational structures demands higher level of participation, strong teams, multi-skilling and life-long learning. The future of work is increasingly shaped by technology, the capacity of labor and change management in an international context. Competitive international advantage is determined by capacity for continuous innovation and by a workplace culture that is self- and skill- reflective; that is, a workplace in which workers can put into practice their own judgments about the skills and knowledge they require in order to meet the needs of technology and competition.

The contemporary context is also characterized by the changing global knowledge economy. Among other features this includes: an exponential increase in the amount of internationally distributed and globally accessible knowledge; wider dispersal of the centers of knowledge creation; a huge development in globally focused knowledge-mediated industries and services; changes in the access to and control over knowledge on a global scale; and the emergence of new ways of thinking about the links between knowledge and innovation. The traditional links between knowledge and culture are also changing, with a greater recognition that knowledge creation and use is mediated by cultures. The changing nature of the knowledge economy involves an intricate global- local relationship. It suggests that the nature of knowledge use and innovation demands a simultaneous engagement with local factors as well as global processes. This is so because in cultural terms the local is now re-shaped globally, and because the idea of global is meaningless without its local references.

These large trends highlight the importance of looking at globalization through the lens of the changing nature of social relations its spawns. In the new context, the changing boundaries of nationhood, geography and identity become fluid and shifting. The changes that we now experience come partly from increasing exposure to cultural diversity through the influences of international news and media, information and communication technologies and consumer products as well as greater personal and employment mobility. These increases in cultural globalization are experienced as pressure towards both heterogeneity and homogeneity at the same time, a resurgence of localized cultural identities as well as the development of globalised cultural practices. The global context is defined by a language that highlights cultural aspects of economic relations, and the need to develop products that are responsive to local needs, values and traditions.

In terms of these considerations, one possible definition of the internationalization of education is to view it as both an expression of and response to the processes of globalization. However, the relationship between what might be viewed as the global context and educational goals is not a simple one. This is so because what is seen as –‘the context’ is never self-evident, but always requires interpretation. Descriptions of global processes are highly contested, as are the suggestions about how best to explain them, respond to them, react to them or indeed to use them for our competitive advantage. The questions we might ask about the implications of globalization are often as complex and as pertinent as the possible answers. In terms of the internationalization of curriculum, this suggests a curriculum approach that seeks to provide students with skills of inquiry and analysis rather than a set of facts about globalization. Since we are confronted a fast-changing knowledge economy, students need to develop questioning skills so that they are able to identify the sources of knowledge, assess claims of its validity and legitimacy, examine its local relevance and significance, determine its uses and applications and speculate about how it might be challenged and refuted. The ability to think reflectively and critically about knowledge creation and use requires a form of global imagination; the capacity to determine how knowledge is globally linked, no matter how locally specific its uses.

— Fazal Rizvi

Action Items

Action Item 8.1: Internationalize Curriculum and Pedagogy

New approaches to global studies need to be develop which balance specific ‘area studies’ with generalized capacities: intercultural communication, global rights, international business, and interpreting and negotiating differences. The Live Local Learn Global Initiative will support initiatives that represent a paradigm shift in the focus and pedagogy of global studies.

Action Item 8.2: Build Global Studies as a Discipline Area

Pre-service teacher education must be fundamentally reformed to create a national cadre of instructors, capable of educating their students about the issues the nation and they confront in a global context. Currently, only about five percent of the nation’s K-12 teachers have had any academic preparation in global studies. To support the development of the field once global studies teachers are in service, a network of global studies high schools should be created. Among the distinguishing properties of Global Studies Lighthouse Schools would be four-year, performance-based language instruction, including Less Commonly Taught Languages, deep knowledge of at least one non-Western culture, and the institution of a problems-based approach to global issues throughout the curriculum.

Action Item 8.3: Create Global Learning Networks

Not just ‘about’ the global, new global studies curricula need to be in and of the global. To achieve this objective, person-to-person relationships are essential. The Global Schools Network will support joint online curriculum planning and teaching between teachers in classrooms in different parts of the world; sister classrooms; global buddies; and more extensive student exchange programs.

Action Item 8.4: Expand Efforts to Recruit International Students

For some countries in the Anglophone world, international education is a significant and dynamically growing export industry. The United States has been less focused in its efforts; it is in overall economic terms comparatively less successful; and growth of the industry in recent years has stalled. Not only does international education have an immediately positive impact on balance of trade; it also creates longer term benefits in the form of ongoing, cross-border professional or business relationships and multiplier effects. It is time to invest more systematically in international education at all levels—a World Learn America Program—in the spirit of globalism, and as an export industry with immediate and longer term benefits.

Supporting Evidence

Supporting Evidence 8.1: Changing Concepts of Citizenship

The underlying political concepts of the notion of citizenship developed during the Enlightenment are in disarray under the combined and sometimes contradictory processes of globalization, localization and regionalization. Traditionally, the concept of citizenship had a home in the bounded nation-state and referred to rights, privileges and responsibilities ascribed to people born or migrated to a territory with clear boundaries.347 In the history of political philosophy the social contract is the means by which order and civil society is maintained: we agree to a social contract thereby gaining civil rights in return for subjecting ourselves to the law. This social contract was made in the name of the common good and collective security and people gave their consent it is argued because of enlightened self-interest based on the supposition that they have something to gain through the imposition of order and the rule of law. The actual political arrangements of course varied considerably from state to state as did the legal and philosophical justifications yet nothing can disguise the palpable state of affairs that the transition to civil society through the exercise of choice constitutes a social agreement which involves a moral commitment to a set of values and ethical norms that legislate and work for all members of a single moral community. To talk of a single moral community is also immediately to invoke Kant and his account of cosmopolitanism, and to talk of cosmopolitanism is immediately to invoke a globally-oriented institution that aims at the cultivation of global citizens.348 Indeed, the root stock of the word first used in 1614 to mean ‘citizen of the world’ derives from the Greek kosmopolites (kosmos ‘world’, polites, meaning ‘citizen’), registers the idea that there is a single moral community based on the idea of freedom and thus in the early twenty-first century is also seen as a major theoretical buttress to the concept of universal human rights that transcend all national, cultural and State boundaries.

Global citizenship education is a means to promote a form of democratic educational philosophy based on political socialization through community service and one that also recognizes the moral imperatives that we live in an interconnected global world that is increasing integrated. Global and local (community) citizenship education needs to be critically self-aware that all the traditional assumptions governing our situated world-views ought to be continually open to change, sometimes quite radically and unexpectedly, as when the Berlin Wall came down or the Soviet system collapsed or the neoliberal experiment faltered and failed. By contrast we seem to be confronted with ample evidence of the predicted future dominance of the world system by China and India, yet a coherent educational response to this future probability has barely begun to emerge.

President Barack Obama suggests ‘The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew’.349 He talks of a renewal of U.S. global leadership ‘grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity’. Today we have passed into an era that is best symbolised by the significance of regional trading blocs and attempts at regional governance with the huge growth also of NGOs and other global agencies that transcend national boundaries. On the one hand, there is the economic organization of the truly stateless multi- and transnational corporation, now sometimes referred to as the ‘globally integrated enterprise’, and, on the other, the development of regional forms of governance like the EU that through twin processes of integration and enlargement, is creating a ‘new Europe’ based on an alternative vision of globalization.

Global citizenship education also offers the prospect of extending the ideologies of human rights and multiculturalism in a critical and informed way. It does not name the moment of global citizenship or even its emergence so much as the hope of a form of order where the rights of the individual and of groups, irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity or creed, are observed by all governments and become the basis of participation in new global spaces that we might be tempted to call global civil society.350

— Michael Peters

Supporting Evidence 8.2: Internationalizing Curriculum

Internationalization of education involves a complex of global processes concerning conceptions of knowledge, economic exchange, the changing nature of work and labor requirements and cultural diversity. It entails a complex interplay between history, politics, knowledge development and its use, as well as teaching and learning. With increasing global flows in communication and movement, we are now all influenced by globalization, which as we have noted above, can be characterized as a process of transformation in which various practices are increasingly geared to operating in international surroundings, under international market conditions and with an international professional orientation. If this is so, then internationalized curriculum involves the development of new skills, attitudes and knowledge among students and teachers alike. It requires the creation of new learning practices, spaces, ethos and cultures. This cannot be done by an edit but through the creative utilization of imagination. This imagination itself needs to be globalized in ways that are both self-reflexive and critical. Internationalization of curriculum should therefore be seen as a dynamic process that gives staff and students the opportunity to own the processes of their own learning and knowledge production.

The idea of internationalization of curriculum can be seen as much more radical, referring to the integration of a global perspective in both curriculum design and development and evaluation. What this means is that curriculum content should not arise out of a singular cultural base but should engage critically with the global plurality of the sources of knowledge. It should not only respond to the needs of the local community but should seek to give students knowledge and skills that assist their global engagement. It should encourage students to explore how knowledge is now produced, distributed and utilized globally. It should help them develop an understanding of the global nature of economic, political and cultural exchange. In short, it should assist them in the development of not only global understanding but also global imagination.

Significantly, however, the idea of the internationalization of curriculum should not be concerned with content alone. It should also address issues of pedagogy and cross-cultural understanding. With demographic changes in our classrooms, the issue of how to cater for and take advantage of individual and cultural differences in learning should become crucial in the development of effective pedagogies. The emergence of new communication technologies has created the possibilities of new learning spaces designed to link students to the global networks of information and ideas. With globalization, cultural diversity has become a permanent feature American schools, this diversity is its greatest strength and asset. It is an essential characteristic of a dynamic and creative society that is able to engage effectively with global forces and to meet the challenges of the new century. Internationalization of curriculum therefore should incorporate a range of values that include openness, tolerance and cosmopolitanism. It should demand culturally inclusive behavior, designed to ensure that cultural differences are heard and explored, that curriculum is a product of the determination to learn from other cultures and that there are a wide variety of factors that affect cultural change.

Finally, internationalization of curriculum requires both students and staff to become more self-reflexive about what they teach and how students learn. It also demands new practices of assessment and evaluation that are culturally sensitive and inclusive. If analysis and self-reflexivity are considered pedagogically important then such assessment practices should reward innovation and critical engagement. If schools are to prepare students for a world of ever-changing global knowledge economies and social relations then the goal of professional learning should not only be defined in terms of the global nature of work and economic and cultural exchange but also based on the premise that these matters are subject to continuous change. Preparing students to see change as positive and to manage it effectively in a global context should be a central aim of an internationalized curriculum.

— Fazal Rizvi

Supporting Evidence 8.3: K-12 Global Citizenship Education

For the first time in the evolution of the human species, we are now all members of a global society. Solving global issues requires that they be addressed simultaneously and synchronously at all levels of relevant human action; that is, globally. These issues now cover all human concerns, encompassing universal striving for sustainable economic growth, immigration, disease, crime, shared security and ecological threats, and demands for popular rule and human rights.

This revolutionary human condition poses new and formidable threats and exciting opportunities for citizens of open societies. Americans are uniquely positioned to lead in shaping the global society. The precondition for leadership and for the preservation of the American democracy is an educated population, informed in-depth about global challenges and inspired, as a civic responsibility, to contribute constructively to their resolution.

Needed urgently is a two-pronged change in how we educate the next generation of students, notably at the K-12 level. First, pre-service teacher education must be fundamentally reformed to create a national cadre of instructors, capable of educating their students about the issues the nation and they confront. Currently, only about five percent of the nation’s K-12 teachers have had any academic preparation in global studies.

Second, to create an informed populace, which is prerequisite to developing effective policies that garner public support, a network of global studies high schools should be created to produce an ever-enlarging pool of globally informed citizens throughout the nation. Among the distinguishing properties of these high schools would be four-year, performance-based language instruction, principally in Less Commonly Taught Languages, deep knowledge of at least one non-Western culture, and the institution of a problems-based approach to global issues throughout the curriculum.

Created would be an expanding cohort of informed citizenry who would be connected initially, conceivably throughout their lives and careers, through the resulting network of these high schools. Exploited fully would be the use of the internet and other innovations in communication to ensure that these high schools, their instructional staff, and students are truly networked.

Students would acquire the analytic tools and up-to-date humanistic and social science knowledge to equip them to tackle the challenges posed by global issues and to identify those solutions that maximize benefits to Americans and to peoples around the globe. Students would also develop the social skills of collaboration and cooperation and be imbued with a life-long sense of civic responsibility for community leadership in addressing global issues impacting on local interests. They would be instilled with a personal commitment to continuing self-education and self-improvement as a community asset. Introduced would be an expanding leaven of informed and civic-minded professionals within the body politics spurred to lead the nation to shape the world society to reflect its values and interests.

To address these two interdependent needs—pre-service reform and a locally based leadership corps in global issues—a national competition would be organized to assist Colleges of Education to globalize their curricula and for high schools and their communities to compete to be recognized as global studies high schools.351

— Edward A. Kolodziej