Global Citizenship Education

Front matter

ali slil AL Va Ao all NN aG LE à NS i ne Maleq Editors

Global Citizenship Education

Critical and International Perspectives

Foreword

Across the world, democracy and citizenship appear to be in crisis. Beyond specific events such as the election of Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro, a number of global trends have been identified as potentially undermining democracy. Furthermore, countries worldwide are faced with challenges such as growing inequalities in terms of both wealth and income; increasing flows of migrants escaping poverty, war and other circumstances; and the rise of extremism. In addition, the dominance of technocratic and bureaucratic cultures and practices is gradually reducing the scope for political engagement and access to full citizenship.

Neoliberalism as the main driver of globalization has had a tremendous impact on society and institutions. As Marx and Engels wrote, “all that is solid melts into air.” Indeed, neoliberal globalization has degraded the environment, hindered social cohesion and produced multilevel social exclusion resulting in economic, political, cultural, and ethnic inequalities (Rogers 1995). Furthermore, in today’s global world, Palmade (1968) argues that society is witnessing a breakdown of traditional values within nation-states, political and economic spheres, cultures, religions, and schools.

Globalization, which has defined the world’s economy in recent decades, is not a natural phenomenon but a ramification of capitalist hegemony on peripheralization. While some areas have flourished, globalization has widened the gap between the world’s poorest and richest nations, with most of the world’s profits flowing back into the pockets of the wealthiest.

This current model of globalization appears to be very distant from Kostas Axelos’s (1964) utopian vision of a global world that would promote “planetary thinking.” With his poetic philosophical style, he depicted a world that would use technology to create a loving, supportive, and egalitarian society.

Paulo Freire, the extraordinarily influential Brazilian pedagogue, argued that education is freedom as it is the only way to break free from domination, where the poor are rendered powerless and voiceless (Freire 1996). Drawing our attention to the contrast between the ideal democratic citizen and the ideal capitalist consumer, Freire (1974) argues that capitalism requires the maintenance of naive consciousness, whereas democracy demands the development of critical and autonomous thinking.

vi Foreword

One of the great if not the greatest tragedy of modern man is in his domination by the force of these myths and his manipulation of organized advertising, ideological or otherwise. Gradually, without ever realizing the loss, he relinquishes his capacity for choice; he is expelled from the orbit of decisions. Ordinary men do not perceive the tasks of the time; the latter are interpreted by an ‘elite’ and presented in the form of recipes, of prescriptions (Freire 1974, p. 5).

In the periphery countries, citizenship building in schools is generally promoted through civic and moral education and aims to educate all citizens as individuals respectful of the established order. For instance, in Brazil, the dictatorial regimes of the 1930s, 1960s, and 1970s gave great importance to moral and civic education in national curricula in order to form obedient and uncritical citizens (Gramsci 1975). Currently, an opposite, but equally problematic, strategy has been adopted by Brazil’s current neoliberal theocratic government that plans to remove citizenship education from the secondary curricula after having already marginalized human sciences in higher education. This educational policy is far from Dewey’s (1916) liberal conception of citizenship education as a means of forming democratic, autonomous, critical, and free citizens.

In the present era of globalization, social, economic, and political changes have generated the need to rethink traditional models of citizenship in order to address global challenges and promote peace, human rights, equality, tolerance of diversity, and sustainable development. However, Colliot-Thélene (1999) asserts that it is impossible to design a single model capable of embracing the diversity of civic consciousnesses acquired historically around the world.

This book, Global Citizenship Education: Critical and International Perspectives, seeks to provoke discussion on the educational challenges posed by globalization and its philosophical and political underpinnings. The chapters examine the role of citizenship education in building more inclusive societies, respectful of cultural diversity, ethnicity, gender equality and human rights, while fighting against social and economic exclusion. The authors discuss the concept of global citizenship education and analyze the principal issues regarding citizenship education in various geographical contexts — Latin America, Asia and Pacific, Africa, North Africa, Europe and North America — as well as valuable contributions from experts in the field of international education and innovation.

Adressing some of the most burning issues of our time, such as inequality, human rights violations and exclusion, the chapters in this book, edited by A. Akkari and K. Maleq, provide local perspectives on conceptions and issues related to global citizenship education and demonstrate the gap between the discourse of international organizations, particularly within the UN’s framework of Sustainable Development Goals, and the reality of the marginalized and the excluded.

Foreword vii

Axelos, K. (1964). Vers la pensée planetaire: Le devenir-pensée du monde et le devenir-monde de la pensée. Paris: Edition Minuit.

Colliot-Thélene, C. (1992), Le désenchantement de | "État. De Hegel a Max Weber. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Bloomsbury.

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogia da Autonomia. Sao Paulo: Paz e Terra.

Rogers, G. (1995). What is special about social exclusion approach? In: G. Rogers, C. Gore, & F. José (Eds.), Social exclusion: rhetoric, reality, responses (pp. 43-56). Geneva: International Institute for Labor Studies.

Part I Introduction

1 Global Citizenship Education: Recognizing Diversity ia Global World iieri pairirsireitrveiee t rkt whee aber ees Abdeljalil Akkari and Kathrine Maleq

Part II Latin America

2 Citizenship, Social Exclusion and Education Mylene Santiago and Abdeljalil Akkari

3 Paraguayan Indigenous Peoples Dominique Demelenne

Part II Asia and Pacific

4 Three Educational Approaches Responding Aoi Nakayama

5 The Construction of Citizenship in Kazakhstan Almash Seidikenova, Abdeljalil Akkari, and Aitkali Bakitov

6 Global Citizenship Through the Lens of Indigenous Pedagogies Nigel Bagnall and Sarah Jane Moore

Contents

PartIV Africa

Moussa Mohamed Sagayar

Global Citizenship Education in West Africa: A Promising Concept? ss usucusureresreosedanens eee oti 99 Thibaut Lauwerier

Part V North Africa

Citizenship Education in Post-conflict Contexts:

The Case of Alberia 1: facsacachecaviseedesadicediveeneseuas 113 Naouel Abdellatif Mami

Halima Ouanada

Part VI Europe and North America

Global Citizenship Education in Canada and the U.S.: Sarah Ranco, Alexis Gilmer, and Colleen Loomis

Global Citizenship Education in European Multicultural Myriam Radhouane and Kathrine Maleq

Part VII International Education and Innovation

Conrad Hughes Vlad Glăveanu

Part VIII Conclusion

Rethinking Global Citizenship Education: A Critical Perspective: 2655654402945 iecadieeed as okta nkra 205 Abdeljalil Akkari and Kathrine Maleq

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors

Abdeljalil Akkari is a professor and the director of the research group on International Education at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. He is also a guest professor at the faculty of International Relations at the Kazakh National University Al-Faraby and regular consultant for UNESCO and other international organizations. He was the dean for research at the Higher Pedagogical Institute HEP- BEJUNE, Bienne, Switzerland, and assistant professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, United States. His main experience and major publications include studies on international cooperation, educational planning, multicultural education, teacher training, and educational inequalities. His principal research interests are currently centered on teacher education and reforms of educational systems in a comparative and international perspective.

Kathrine Maleq is a research and teaching fellow at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Switzerland. Previously, she was responsible for the design, coordination, implementation, and evaluation of nationwide and regional education for peace programs for an NGO. Her research focuses on global citizenship education, multicultural education, preschool-family collaboration from a cross-cultural perspective, and early childhood education in the Global South.

Contributors

Naouel Abdellatif Mami is a professor at Mohamed Lamine Debaghine, Sétif 2 University, Algeria. She has extensive experience in cooperation, international research, and project development and management. She is the coordinator of several research projects nationally and internationally such as ABDEM, Dire-MED, xi xii Editors and Contributors

ESAGOYV, and PreNet and has extensive experience in the Erasmus+ Program. Her research relates to educational psychology, education, internationalization, citizenship, human rights, intercultural dialogue, digitalization and IT in education, and artificial intelligence in social sciences.

Nigel Bagnall has extensive professional and consulting experience in a wide range of educational settings. His work in international schools and his research on the International Baccalaureate have established his reputation in the field of international curriculum in cross-cultural settings. His current research interests include education and belonging, global identity, youth transition, and the role of international schools as agents for change.

Aitkali Bakitov is a lecturer in the Department of Diplomatic Translation, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan. His interests cover international relations, languages, interdisciplinary research, and translation. Previously, he was granted a fellowship from the Swiss Confederation and successfully completed his studies at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.

Dominique Demelenne is head of the Department of Social Sciences at the Catholic University of Asunción, Paraguay, and a professor of sociology and research methodology. His work focuses on the relationship between knowledge production and public policy management. He was an advisor on indigenous education policy in Paraguay and is currently working on the definition of the National Plan for Indigenous Peoples.

Alexis Gilmer is a doctoral student in the Public Health Program at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. Her research focuses on improving the psychosocial outcomes of youth in the child welfare system. She is also interested in evaluating the effectiveness of mental health programming to achieve desired outcomes. She hopes her research will contribute to advancing the mental health options available within the country.

Vlad Glaveanu is an associate professor and the head of the Department of Psychology and Counseling at Webster University Geneva, Switzerland; associate professor II at Bergen University, Norway; and director of the Webster Center for Creativity and Innovation (WCCI). His work focuses on creativity, imagination, culture, collaboration, and societal challenges. He received in 2018 the Berlyne Award from the American Psychological Association for his outstanding earlycareer contributions to the field of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts.

Conrad Hughes is the campus and secondary principal at the International School of Geneva, La Grande Boissiere, Switzerland. He teaches philosophy and holds a PhD (University of the Witwatersrand) and an EdD (University of Durham). He is a member of the educational advisory board for the University of the People and a UNESCO-IBE fellow. His research interests include twenty-first-century education, critical thinking, international education, and assessment.

Editors and Contributors xiii

Thibaut Lauwerier is a research and teaching fellow at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Switzerland. He is interested in the role of international cooperation in educational policy development, the quality of basic education in the South, and inequality in education. He is also the coordinator of the Master in Advanced Studies International Education and Research and the coeditor of the journal Education in Debate: Comparative Analysis.

Colleen Loomis is an associate professor in the School of International Policy and Governance at Wilfrid Laurier University and the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Canada. She is on the advisory committee for Master of Advanced Studies in International Education and Research at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. Her research focuses on educational agendas and policies.

Sarah Jane Moore is an independent creative artist and academic with a PhD in Reconciliation through music and art from the University of Sydney, Australia. Her research interests include indigenous education, oceanic research, and creative research and project partnerships. She has extensive experience in qualitative research methodology partnerships with the University of Guam, UNSW Sydney, the University of Sydney, Western Sydney University, and the University of Tasmania. Her research on songwriting and art-making explores themes of belonging and identity.

Aoi Nakayama is a professor at the Center for Global Education and Research, Osaka Kyoiku University, Japan. Her principal research interests are intercultural and international education, comparative education between Japan and Europe, and global and democratic citizenship education. She is also a research member of the project “development of a model program of teacher training for the teachers in charge of education for foreign children and students” entrusted by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

Halima Ouanada is a teacher-researcher of eighteenth-century French literature at the University of Tunis El Manar, Tunisia, president of the Tunisian Association of Studies on Enlightenment, and member of the Voltaire Society (ATEL) and of the Scientific Council of the Center for Research, Studies, Documentation and Information on Women (CREDIF). Her work focuses on philosophers of the Enlightenment, Voltaire, female characters in literature, and Enlightenment philosophy in the Arab-Muslim world.

Myriam Radhouane holds a postdoctoral position at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. Her research mainly focuses on intercultural approaches in teacher training and the teaching profession. She also works on the recognition of students’ language and culture, teachers’ cultural identity, and social justice in education.

Sarah Ranco is a doctoral student in the Community Psychology Program at Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada. Her research interests are influenced by her history as an educator and include youth-adult partnerships in schools, promoting xiv Editors and Contributors youth engagement in social justice, and educational pedagogies. She seeks to ground her work in community-based applications, as well as use her research to center youth voice.

Moussa Mohamed Sagayar is a professor at the Ecole Normale Supérieure of Abdou Moumouni University, Niamey, Niger, deputy coordinator of the Center of University Pedagogy (CDPU), director of Open and Distance Training (FOAD- TICE), and coordinator of the Master in Conceptualization and Design of Educational Alternatives at Abdou Moumouni University. His research interests cover support in teacher training (observation and analysis of practices), quality of initial teacher training in Niger, citizenship education in contexts of ethnic tension, open and distance learning, and “good practices” for quality education.

Mylene Santiago holds a PhD in Education from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. She is a professor and vice-coordinator of the Nucleus of Support to Inclusion of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, professor of the Postgraduate Program in Education of the Fluminense Federal University, and researcher of the International Observatory of Inclusion, Interculturality, and Pedagogical Innovation. She has experience in education, working mainly on teacher training, inclusion in education, and interculturality.

Almash Seidikenova is an associate professor and head of the Diplomatic Translation Department, Faculty of International Relations, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan. Previously, she was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Her research mainly focuses on university mobility.

Part I Introduction

Chapter 1 A Global Citizenship Education: Recognizing ss Diversity in a Global World Abdeljalil Akkari and Kathrine Maleq

In today’s globalized and interconnected world, inequality, human rights violations and poverty still jeopardise peace and environmental sustainability. In response to these challenges, global citizenship education (GCE) has been identified as a means to prepare youth for an alternative, inclusive and sustainable world. Indeed, efforts to move along a sustainable development path may only be achieved by promoting global social justice. Therefore, schools have a fundamental role to play in empowering learners to become responsible and active global citizens.

GCE has suddenly become a strong policy focus in international agendas, in particular in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015. Its promising aim to empower learners to act responsively towards global issues draws attention to the pressing need to foster global citizens; thereby promoting more peaceful, inclusive and sustainable societies. Closely linked to human rights, it conveys values of respect, diversity, tolerance and solidarity (UNESCO 2015).

However, this publication attests that GCE is a contested concept and subject to multiple interpretations. Despite the universal reach of its human values, the practice of citizenship is closely related to national context. GCE therefore requires an adaptation to regional, national and global dimensions of citizenship, making its operationalization in national educational policies challenging.

This book aims to contribute to the international debate, question the relevancy of GCE’s policy objectives and their possible articulation with local and national perspectives, ideologies, conceptions and issues related to citizenship education.

A. Akkari (%4) Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: abdeljalil.akkari @unige.ch

K. Maleq University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: kathrine.maleq @unige.ch

© The Author(s) 2020 3 A. Akkari, K. Maleq (eds.), Global Citizenship Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44617-8_1

To this end, we aim to open new perspectives, counterbalance the mainstreaming and normalisation of the GCE discourse in global agendas and give a voice to stakeholders from diverse regions that are too often overlooked in the GCE debate.

Global Citizenship Education: A Reshaped Concept in International Agendas

We must foster global citizenship. Education is about more than literacy and numeracy. It is also about citizenry. Education must fully assume its essential role in helping people to forge more just, peaceful and tolerant societies (Ki-moon 2012).

While cosmopolitanism and cross-national border thinking is not new in the history of humanity, we consider that contemporary discourse on GCE is mainly linked to international organisations’ agendas. Although GCE is a relatively new concept in UNESCO’s policies, its roots go back to the founding texts of the organisation. AS we can see in its Constitution, the primary goals of UNESCO have many similarities to those of GCE: peace, human rights and equality.

Extract from the UNESCO Constitution:

The purpose of the Organisation is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion (UNESCO 2018a, p. 6).

The 1974 “Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” aimed to develop a sense of social responsibility and solidarity towards less privileged groups, paving the way for the GCE framework.

A few years later, in 1989, the concept of a “culture of peace” was formulated at the International Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men, laying the foundations for GCE. Henceforth, education has been envisioned with a global perspective: “an educational concept is developed that no longer merely advocates civic education, education for democracy, human rights education, peace education and intercultural understanding, but does so with a global perspective, i.e. with an awareness of global interconnectedness” (Wintersteiner et al. 2015, p. 6).

The Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) launched in 2012 by the United Nations Secretary-General identified fostering global citizenship as one of the three priorities. This marked a paradigm shift: framing education in a global perspective and aiming to enable learners to understand global issues and empower them to take action. “This investigation of the relationship between micro- and macro-level issues and developments is a critical element in equipping learners to fulfil their potential in a fast-changing and interdependent world” (UNESCO 2014a, p. 15). Following this initiative, GCE became a key priority of UNESCO policy and is a central objective in UNESCO’s Medium-Term Strategy for 2014-2021 (UNESCO

1 Global Citizenship Education: Recognizing Diversity in a Global World 5

2014b), highlighting the need to foster global citizenship in an increasingly interconnected world.

In 2015, the Incheon Declaration and the global Education 2030 Agenda marked a milestone in the advancement of GCE advocacy as the Member States of the United Nations committed to promote and implement GCE within the SDG! (Sustainable Development Goal) 4.7 target.

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 (United Nations 2015, p. 19).

We note that the SDG 4.7 target provides a list of ambitious objectives aiming to promote sustainable development. However, the lack of structure and prioritization of these numerous objectives inhibits educators’ ability to understand and pursue the target. Furthermore, the wording of this target implies a universal validity without reflecting the complex reality. Concepts such as citizenship and human rights are interpreted differently according to the political, economic and cultural background. Moreover, depending on geopolitical, conflict and post-conflict contexts, concepts such as “promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence” are unlikely be addressed in the same way.

Despite UNESCO’s recent attempts to make the concept both universally and locally rooted (UNESCO 2018b), the voices of all stakeholders around the world are not taken into account equally in the GCE debate. As pointed out in several international forums and seminars on GCE: the difficulty resides in the lack of a shared international understanding of the concept.

As of now, member states must provide further conceptual input, acknowledging the interdependence of global/national citizenship and global realities. The linkage between them must open global citizenship agendas to diversity and indigeneity rather than mainstreaming and narrowing the scope.

We believe that the United Nation’s recent focus on the need to foster global citizenship is not a random choice but rather the refection of the hard realization that the mission entrusted to the League of Nations founded in Geneva in 1920 to prevent wars, unite countries and establish a global governance of international relations has not succeeded. Above all, increasing developmental and environmental challenges, which by definition are global, call for each and every one of us to act as responsible global citizens.

Furthermore, by putting GCE in the spotlight, the Education 2030 agenda also appears to have acted in response to the growing influence of PISA’s (Programme for International Student Assessment) focus on learning outcomes in reading, mathematics and science literacy. In turn, GCE has not escaped the prevailing

'The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has set 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 targets. The SDG 4 aims to ensure incisive and equitable quality education and promote life-long learning opportunities (United Nations 2015).

domination of international educational assessments. Indeed, most educational systems are currently concerned with assessing the impact of reforms and educational innovations.

However, assessing the progress achieved in meeting the SDG 4.7 target is not an easy task and the vagueness regarding its ambitious objectives has resulted in a lack of precision in the formulation of indicators.

UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report exemplifies this lack of precision in their global indicator:

The extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at all levels in (a) national education policies, (b) curricula, (c) teacher education and (d) student assessment (UNESCO 2016, p. 79)

And four thematic indicators:

e Percentage of students by age group (or education level) showing adequate understanding of issues relating to global citizenship and sustainability.

e Percentage of 15-year-old students showing proficiency in knowledge of environmental science and geoscience.

e Percentage of schools that provide life skills-based HIV and sexuality education.

e Extent to which the framework of the World Programme on Human Rights Education is implemented nationally. (UNESCO 2016, p. 79)

We can identify three key issues in these assessment tools: (1) the indicators do not cover all the goals outlined in the SDG 4.7 target; (2) the lack of precision in the indicators limits the possibility of international comparisons (3) the quality and relevance cannot be assessed without a shared definition among stakeholders and learners.

For its part, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) seems to have responded to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development goals by broadening the framework of the 2018 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), evaluating young people’s understanding of global issues, and their attitudes toward cultural diversity and tolerance. In doing so, they postulate the existence of a universal and measurable global competence they define as “the capacity to examine local, global and intercultural issues, to understand and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others, to engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions with people from different cultures, and to act for collective well-being and sustainable development” (OECD 2018). This could be seen as a measure of the impact of GCE programs, however, the subjective nature of the standardized assessment tests and questionnaires casts serious doubt on the overall validity.

Although some may welcome this initiative, it is important to state that no single international large-scale assessment can fully grasp the complexity of students’ global competence as a learning goal, especially regarding the socio-emotional, attitudinal and value dimensions.

1 Global Citizenship Education: Recognizing Diversity in a Global World 7 National or Multicultural Identities

Traditional conceptions of citizenship have evolved under the influence of globalization, international treaties and conventions, and frameworks for international human rights protection. In addition, the expansion of ICT (information and communications technology) has facilitated the creation of international networks and communities with shared interests and concerns (Sassen 2002). This has reinforced a feeling of belonging to a global community, creating a sense of world citizenship identity and a civic engagement in global issues. Increasingly diverse societies have also shaped this evolution. The traditional national model of citizenship no longer reflects today’s changing realities (Castles and Davidson 2000).

These deep societal changes are reshaping the very model that underpins traditional civic identity, and as a result are increasing focus on alternative, cosmopolitan and multicultural identity models. The concept of global citizenship is therefore seeing an unprecedented rise in popularity amongst international organisations and scholars (Gaudelli 2016).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the values that embody global citizenship and related terms such as global competence, global-mindedness, global consciousness, and world citizenship are subject to divergent viewpoints and political stances. In fact, we can identify two opposing global trends: on the one hand post-national forms of identity are emerging in an increasingly interconnected, interdependent and culturally diverse world and on the other hand populism, nationalism, identitarian closure, ethnic conflicts and religious extremism are rising. Moreover, in many countries experiencing immigration, we can observe growing scepticism and sometimes even outright hostility towards multiculturalism.

In a globalised world, and in nation-states characterized by diversity, there have been calls for a renewed focus on forms of civic education which promote national belonging and loyalty; such calls often target, either explicitly or implicitly, students from minority or migration backgrounds. An apparent binary is established, between those who see the primary purpose of citizenship education as nation-building, and those who want to promote global solidarity. (Osler 2011, p. 2).

Nevertheless, one may argue that citizenship education is still the prerogative of national authorities, and this despite the reinforcement of the multiple processes of globalization. All (national) citizenship education efforts aim to consolidate national cohesion and contribute to nation-building. The question for GCE is how to integrate greater references to global interdependence and responsibility which may not necessary be in opposition to nation-building efforts.

Conceptual Debate

Global citizenship and related concepts have a long philosophical history. Cosmopolitan citizenship, central to Stoic philosophy and later taken up by Emmanuel Kant, is characterized by a sense of belonging to the worldwide community of human beings and based on the principle of respect for diversity. Originally, these ideas were those of an elite that perceived themselves to be part of a world culture. Today, scholars and educators worldwide have revisited them to define or rethink identity models in our modern globalized world (Myers 2016; Oxley and Morris 2013). These new conceptions and understandings of cosmopolitanism and global citizenship can be divided into two strands: “a conception of cosmopolitanism as a rootlessness that enables people to live and work across borders; and a conception of cosmopolitanism as the political ideology of a wellordered and conflict-free world respectful of human rights” (Papastephanou 2018, p. 179).

Differing conceptions of citizenship education in a globalized world have resulted in ongoing disagreements over GCE’s definition and scope, thereby weakening its potential. Pashby’s (2016) definition accurately shows the complex and specific nature of GCE: “Global citizenship education generally extends the idea of rights and responsibilities beyond the limits of the nation-state. It can be understood in a variety of ways and reflects different ideologies and ideas of what is and ought to be desired of citizens” (p. 85).

The framing of GCE varies significantly across different national contexts as it is strongly linked to how nation-states experience and respond to the forces of globalization (Ho 2018) and understand the link between national citizenship and the global community. Consequently, a wide range of conceptions and objectives of GCE coexist (e.g. building the capacity to participate in local and global communities, learning about global issues, empowering learners to take social and political action, becoming globally competitive, and promoting the use of information technology and global connectivity) (Gaudelli 2016). Diverging interpretations of the GCE concept and its rooting in national citizenship education consequently requires us to consider different reference models of citizenship throughout the world (Miedema and Bertram-Troost 2015). The key challenge is, however, to overcome binary conceptions of national and global citizenship and bridge the gap between them (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2018). Osler (2011) adds that coexistence between these two levels of citizenship education is only possible provided there is a critical approach to patriotism.

Nation-states remain the main actors in the real exercise of citizenship as the acquisition of national citizenship determines access to certain rights from which others are excluded. In this sense, in a world deeply divided between citizens and non-citizens, global citizenship may appear to be an oxymoron.

Nevertheless, citizenship education must be responsive to the current changes in the conception of citizenship and citizen practices and address global issues of a social, political, economic, or environmental nature. Indeed, the role of GCE may be critical for achieving sustainable development (Davies et al. 2018; Langran and Birk 2016).

In the light of these considerations, additional conceptual input is needed to reach an agreement on the scope of GCE and develop locally relevant programs. Furthermore, it is important to underline that GCE frameworks need to go beyond basic concepts such as ‘bring the world into the classroom’ or ‘send students into