top of page
Search
  • Writer's picturelizgreyling266
    • Jul 14
    • 31 min read

Global Citizenship Education at International Schools: A Critical Review


This literature review was written as part of my M. Ed. Module: “Education Research”.


Introduction

This literature review will critically examine “Global Citizenship Education”, how it is conceptualized and practiced at international schools, and how it promotes a neoliberal agenda and reinforces elite social hierarchies. 


In its current conception and implementation, Global Citizenship Education often flies under the radar of critical examination due to the implicit favorable assumptions associated with it. Superficially, Global Citizenship Education is seen as promoting cultural diversity and global awareness, however, as this paper will demonstrate, these values are often undermined by this policy instead. While Global Citizenship Education has the potential to make a positive impact on students, schools and communities, it can also be a shallow, apolitical approach that frames success and citizenship through a Western, neoliberal lens. As educators, we are obliged to consider which aspects of Global Citizenship Education are being implemented at our schools and in our communities, and what the consequences might be.   

This review will draw on ethnographic case studies (Bellino, 2018; Clark & Savage, 2017; Howard et al., 2018; Howard, 2022; Ledger, 2016; Young, 2023), exploratory frameworks (Bunnell, 2022), critical discussions (Davids, 2018; Yemini, 2023), mixed-method studies (Elerian & Solomou, 2023), and discourse analysis (Howson & Lall, 2020; Le & Duong, 2022) in order to explore Global Citizenship Education as implemented at international schools around the world. 


First, this paper will define the term “international school”, providing the historical context for this institution, and outlining how its role has changed in recent decades, driven by globalization and shifting socio-economic trends. Next this paper will examine the rise of Global Citizen Education (GCE) as an increasingly influential and desirable component of contemporary educational policy at international schools. The most preeminent criticisms against Global Citizen Education will then be explored - the distinction between “soft GCE” and “critical” GCE, the role of Global Citizen Education as a vehicle for neoliberal values, and the potential for Global Citizen Education to reproduce and reinforce elite power structures and social hierarchies. The discussion will next consider the implications of Global Citizen Education for diverse communities and the impact of technology, before concluding with recommendations for a more effective and engaging model of Global Citizen Education. 


International Schools in Context

Although the concept of an “international school” is not new, its role in education on a local and a global scale have changed significantly since its inception. Traditionally, international schools were primarily focused on serving the globally-mobile expatriate business and diplomatic “international community” in a foreign nation, facilitating an exclusive schooling experience for a limited, privileged, transnational elite clientele (Bunnell, 2022). 

The presence of international schools helped nations to attract globally-mobile capital, their employees, and the accompanying economic development, by offering access to the kind of education that met the needs of these mobile professionals and their children (Bunnell, 2022). International schools were established for international clientele, and were not intended to serve the local communities in the host nation. Over time, the increasing influence of globalization on national economies and education policies would drastically change the form and function of these schools.  


Since the introduction of state supported education across multiple nations from the early nineteenth century onwards, schooling has become a central mechanism for nation-building and state formation, and education has played an integral role in the creation of citizens (Clark & Savage, 2017). Globalization, however, has vastly complicated the historically nation-centric aims of education systems and citizen building, and the traditional emphasis on civic action within national borders is now increasingly viewed as inadequate for addressing emerging transnational realities (Clark & Savage, 2017). Social demographics and social mobility are changing, and people want to participate successfully in the global economy. International schools, the spaces they occupy, and the opportunities they offer, have been recognized as a powerful means towards achieving this goal, and various stakeholders have seized this opportunity. Parents, politicians, policy makers, and corporations have all taken notice of desire and demand for a new kind of ‘global citizen’, and how international schools are uniquely positioned to facilitate this development.


Between 2000 and 2019, the total number of international schools has increased four-fold, the number of students has increased six-fold, and many of these schools have entered the domestic schooling market to compete for local students, previously served by national public schools (Bunnell, 2022). This growth is not driven by an increase in the traditional clientele of international schools, the globally-mobile business and diplomatic expatriates. Rather, the forces behind this demand are the emerging aspiring local middle class seeking a competitive edge, and who are deliberately choosing international schooling as an alternative pathway to local education (Bunnell, 2022). Successful participation in the global economy, acceptance into prestigious Western universities, and the transcendence of national boundaries and limitations - all these factors motivate parents and students, and are promised by  modern international schools (Bellino, 2018; Bunnell, 2022; Clark & Savage, 2017; Elerian & Solomou, 2023; Howard et al., 2018; Le & Duong, 2022; Young, 2023).


At present, most international schools are independent institutions that follow an international curriculum and foster an international orientation in the knowledge and attitudes of their attendees (Elerian & Solomou, 2023). This approach is not that different from the past, however there is great variation in how and to whom this approach is presented. At least 80% of attending students are now local children from the host nation (Bunnell, 2022). Massive growth in the industry has also led to a wide variety of schools touting the “international” brand. Only 19% of all “International Schools” are accredited, while the remaining 81% are split between “bilingual schools” that are arguably “International” in name only, and “Non-Traditional” international schools such as those popular in China, that offer a blend of international and national curricula (Bunnell, 2022).  Besides the “International” label, the most common thread connecting all of these schools is their appropriation, endorsement, or commitment to Global Citizenship Education. 


Global Citizenship Education

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is a concept that has gained popularity in recent years, as it was incorporated into the UN Sustainable Development Goals framework and subsequently into national and international curricula in many countries, promoting values and knowledge that help students to become informed and responsible citizens in the global world (Yemini, 2023). Therefore, it is closely tied to expanding globalization and the increasing economic, social, and political mobility of individuals world-wide. 


While there is much debate about the meaning of GCE, it is commonly understood that GCE cultivates a sense of belonging to a broader community and common humanity, that it promotes a global gaze that links the local to the global, and requires students to interact responsibly with others while being self-critical of their own position (Howard et al., 2018). There are several common assumptions about GCE - that it is a worthwhile goal to pursue, that it helps promote multiculturalism, that it develops global awareness, and that it encourages cooperation and understanding among different people (Le & Duong, 2022). A global citizen, therefore, is a person who can successfully navigate and understand a global world, someone who can live and work and be social in spaces other than their own native, local context, and who can access and leverage tools such as technology, language and social media to aid in their global success.


For many students and parents, the allure lies not in the moral aspects of GCE, but in the economic potential. As Young (2023) notes, for middle-class and affluent families in China, international schooling and GCE is a deliberate choice that fits into larger family migration strategies, or is seen as a way to diversify and expand families’ opportunities beyond local borders. In other words, GCE offers students opportunities for economic and social upward mobility. 


In Vietnam, GCE explicitly emerged in official educational policy in 2018, and the government strongly endorses GCE as part of developing “responsible citizenship” (Le & Duong, 2022). The vision of the ideal, modern Vietnamese citizen is strongly correlated to global citizenship, and the government has recognized and mobilized the power of education in the creation of these citizens.


There is also a strong “bottom-up” demand, as evidenced by the proliferation of programs with GCE components in the private education industry, such as English language centers, private schools (K-12), ‘study abroad’ consulting firms, private tutoring, and youth-centered organizations, all growing out of the awareness that global citizenship has become an extremely popular trend, and marketable commodity, in present-day Vietnam (Le & Duong, 2022).


This trend has also grown in other South-East Asian countries, where GCE is increasingly institutionalized as a new educational industry with international private schools, transnational corporations, educational technology start-ups, and the massive English language teaching and testing sector (Le & Duong, 2022). In Australia, GCE is now espoused in most official national and international curriculum policy documents (Ledger, 2016). In other countries, such as South Africa (Davids, 2018), Ghana (Howard et al., 2018), Guatemala (Bellino, 2018), Thailand (Clark & Savage, 2017), and Cyprus (Elerian & Solomou, 2023), GCE has become a core component in the curricula of the various international schools that were researched. 


One concept that is intimately connected to GCE and frequently mentioned in any literature discussing GCE is “cosmopolitanism”. Cosmopolitanism can be understood as an orientation toward and attachment to the global, as opposed to the local or national (Young, 2023). Therefore, a person who aspires to be cosmopolitan frames their social and economic aspirations in a global context. It may seem that by stressing the global, cosmopolitanism challenges the boundaries that nation-states construct between citizens and foreigners, and that it encourages a shift away from the nation-state as the primary organizer of social life and definer of collective identities (Young, 2023). However, many adopters of GCE promote a “cosmopolitan nationalism”, meaning that the promotion of cosmopolitanism or internationalization of education is ultimately embedded in nationalistic concerns, as demonstrated by the Vietnamese government’s official use of GCE in formulating modern citizens (Le & Duong, 2022). Young (2023) also proposes a difference between “mundane cosmopolitanism”, related to consumption, and “pragmatic cosmopolitanism”, which allows individuals who exhibit a strong sense of national identity while strategically cultivating global competency to obtain an edge when competing in global markets.  


It has been demonstrated that GCE and the cosmopolitan identity it promotes are increasingly prolific world-wide, with official and national endorsements, and corporate and non-profit support. However, GCE is not without fault. These criticisms should be acknowledged and addressed in order to salvage the many positive aspects of GCE, which are losing the full potential of their beneficial impact due to the many shortcomings of current implementation.   


A Critique of Global Citizenship Education


Soft GCE vs Critical GCE

The most common critique against GCE is that it is poorly defined. Among policy makers, educators, students, and scholars, there is no real consensus on what “global citizenship” means, and competition exists between these different actors to articulate their own version of global citizenship based on their particular interests and capacities (Le & Duong, 2022). This criticism is particularly relevant with regards to the fact that more than 80% of “International Schools” lack official accreditation. This leaves GCE open to manipulation and to be used as an empty label for marketing purposes, with no real oversight for how GCE is actually implemented in a curriculum, if at all. 


As demonstrated by Young (2023) in her comparative study of cosmopolitan identities at international schools in China - just having GCE and cosmopolitan values exist passively in the curriculum produces negligible effects on students’ identities or worldviews. In other words, it takes more than paying lip-service to the idea of GCE for it to actually have an effect. It has to be deliberately and appropriately implemented. This is something for parents and students to consider when choosing where to enroll and where to spend their money. Even if a school does take a more active approach to GCE, which approach does it take?


The most common distinction made in the discourse is between “soft GCE” and “critical GCE”. “Soft GCE” is mostly limited to teaching about non-controversial global issues and promoting shallow awareness campaigns, while “critical GCE” focuses on engagement with global issues, and requires students to think analytically and critically about these issues (Elerian & Solomou, 2023). “Soft GCE” highlights the tenuous and contradictory position of international schools and cosmopolitanism existing in foreign, non-Western nations - issues which are frequently avoided or ignored in order to continue operating in these spaces. 


GCE can be problematic in schools where certain national, traditional, and cultural values may be in opposition to the ‘universal’ ideas on which GCE is constructed, and schools may be reluctant to engage with any kind of material that could be construed as unpatriotic or offensive (Elerian & Solomou, 2023). International schools, their staff, and many of their students, are guests in a foreign host country, and there are expectations and obligations embedded in that relationship.  It may seem inappropriate, ill-advised, or even dangerous to give voice to certain controversial topics. In the case of bilingual or blended-curriculum “international” schools, discussing such topics may seem unnecessary, irrelevant, or totally anathema. 


At an international school in Guatemala, many students’ families were owners or senior employees of big corporations, mines, and hydroelectric companies, and as such any critical discussions about topics like local politics, environmental degradation, and indigenous rights, were not possible nor desirable by the school administration (Bellino, 2018). This illustrates how “soft GCE” encourages students to learn about concepts like ‘poverty’ or ‘development’ in the abstract and from a distance, while avoiding any critical discussions about them in the local context. These constraints, on critiquing injustice within Guatemala, made looking outward to share in moral outrage at injustice practiced elsewhere less complicated, and the same teachers who dismissed one student’s efforts to discuss local injustices were eager to support other students in projects focused on distant, foreign examples of injustice (Bellino, 2018).


The moral component of GCE appears to be at odds with the critical component. In other words, GCE advocates for a socially and economically connected global landscape in which cosmopolitan citizens successfully interact and live productive lives, yet (soft) GCE is mostly silent on the obstacles opposing this vision, removing them from their political and historical contexts, or downplaying and ignoring local issues in favor of less controversial foreign abstractions. At an international school in Ghana, Howard et al. (2018) note that “soft GCE”  circumvents the political engagement needed to promote the liberation promised in the school’s Pan-African vision, but instead indirectly reproduces existing unjust beliefs and practices. By teaching students to remain outwardly focused on Western values and ambitions, and by denying students opportunities to engage critically with local social and political issues, “soft GCE” tacitly endorses those Western values, as apart from and better than local Ghanaian values and priorities. 


As previously mentioned, some schools like those in Vietnam and China circumvent this problem by strategically choosing only those elements of GCE that will benefit their economic and social aspirations, and ignoring the moral or political aspects of GCE that don’t fit in with their vision of “cosmopolitan nationalism”. 


“Soft GCE” can be applied regardless of the composition of the student body. When students are mostly local, the school administration represents the local community and will conform to the popular sentiments regarding local ideas, beliefs, culture and politics; and when the students are mostly international, the school represents so many nationalities that everything is diluted in an effort not exclude anyone or cause controversy, and not to offend the host country, in which the school and students are guests (Elerian & Solomou, 2023). Therefore, being an “international school” does not necessarily mean that the school’s outlook or practices are any more globally oriented or critically engaging than other national or local schools. Yet “international schools”, and “global citizenship education” are still tacitly associated with this notion, hence the proliferation of schools and academies using these labels to draw in clients.   


Does “critical GCE” offer a more constructive approach? While there is arguably more value in active engagement with the other and in critical self-reflection, unless it is actually implemented, it remains an impotent strategy. As already discussed, international schools are far more inclined to take a “soft GCE” approach, and there appears to be little incentive for them to do otherwise. “Critical GCE” implies taking action and speaking out against injustice (Davids, 2018), but it is not always clear who the victims and perpetrators of injustice are. In the case of Guatemala, impoverished indigenous communities were protesting new construction projects on their ancestral land, but most of the families and students at the international school considered themselves the victims of injustice, and viewed the indigenous people as the perpetrators, standing in the way of progress and the rise of Guatemala on the global economic stage (Bellino, 2018). The answer to this riddle - “How can I be a global cosmopolitan citizen who stands against social injustice, when the forces behind the injustice are unclear?” - is linked to the next major criticism of GCE.


GCE as a product and producer of the Neoliberal Agenda

Neoliberalism is a politically imposed discourse that constitutes the hegemonic principles of western nation states, and promotes the reproduction and legitimation of market driven identities and values (Howson & Lall, 2020). Neoliberalism is a driver of, and driven by globalization. Globalization can be conceptualized as an artifact of multiple flows of information, technology, culture, capital, media, ideas and people occurring with increasing rapidity across space, however these flows are highly uneven, and subject to political, social and economic influences (Clark & Savage, 2017). This has consequences for any concepts of ‘education’ and ‘citizenship’ that would align with or define themselves in terms of a global, cosmopolitan context. 


Mainstream conceptualizations of global citizenship and GCE tend to emphasize economic instrumentalism, human capital formation, and the acquisition of competencies in order to compete successfully in a globalized, Westernized world (Le & Duong, 2022). In the Global South, this promise of transforming students into successful participants in the global market is arguably the most attractive reason to choose an “International” or “GCE” education. This sentiment was demonstrated by schools in China (Young 2023), South Africa (Davids, 2018), Ghana (Howard et al., 2018), Guatemala (Bellino, 2018), Myanmar (Howson & Lall, 2020), Vietnam (Le & Duong, 2022), and Cyprus (Elerian & Solomou, 2023), that the predominant reason for attending these schools, and justifying the high school fees, was the perceived competitive edge that this education would give them on the global stage.


In some cases, such as in Guatemala (Bellino, 2018) and Ghana (Howard et al., 2018), the international schools justified this neoliberal approach by balancing it with a strong focus on nationalist values and patriotic identities, and by insisting that it was necessary for students to first succeed in a global context, and then to reinvest their new wealth, power, and knowledge, back into their local communities. As Howard et al. (2018) note, the international school in Ghana was explicit in their goal of preparing students to enter Western universities and to build future lives outside of Africa, despite their strong focus on Pan-African values and nationalism. Students were pressured into narrow academic choices, putting financial incentives before personal or cultural preferences, and were told that in order to freely pursue the kind of life that they desire, they must first leave Africa to acquire the means to do so (Howard et al., 2018). International schools in Jordan and Taiwan also echoed this sentiment - that students must go to the West to advance their privilege and power, and that the skills, knowledge and competencies fostered through global citizenship practices are essential for such outward mobility (Howard, 2022).


However, once students have adopted Western values, moved to a Western country and successfully built their lives and careers there, what is the incentive for them to return to their native countries? The reality, as stated by school leaders, is that many students do not return, and opt to stay and work in Western countries (Howard, 2022; Bellino, 2018). This is an example of how GCE is composed of neoliberal values, a product, and how it perpetuates neoliberal values in practice, a producer. It also raises interesting questions about identity - Can one be both a global citizen and a national citizen simultaneously? If not, which do we choose, how and why do we choose, and what are the consequences for that choice? This answer also has implications for the concept of ‘cosmopolitan nationalism’. If we can embody both, does that change or weaken the concept of ‘citizen’?   


Neoliberal agendas are often at odds with national politics and local cultural values. Bellino (2018) described how international school students in Guatemala constructed a neoliberal vision of citizenship that allowed them to disregard national politics of diversity and indigenous rights, and instead focused their efforts on becoming globally competitive, often at the expense of reproducing inequality and division. In Myanmar, neoliberal education reforms focused on human capital creation and meeting international benchmarks, but were at odds with issues of local social justice, upliftment, and inclusion, as policy makers had to decide where to assign limited resources (Howson & Lall, 2020). This points towards another major criticism of GCE and neoliberalism. 


GCE preserves and reproduces the dominant social hierarchy:

As a product and producer of neoliberal policies, GCE, especially “soft GCE”, does little to challenge or interrogate the economic and social hierarchies that are also the products and producers of neoliberal (and in the Global South - neocolonial) policies. A cross-national study of elite schools in the UK and former British colonies found that school actors selectively adopt certain aspects of globalization, and mediate their adoption and interpretations of global citizenship discourses, in an effort to reproduce and secure their status as members of a global elite or global capitalist class (Bellino, 2018). As Young (2023) notes, the growing popularity of international education in China will likely have important implications for social stratification, solidifying the social positions of the new economic and social elites. “Caught up in the ever-changing conditions of globalisation, elite schools use globally-oriented practices and frameworks as means for reproducing power and privilege” (Howard, 2022, p. 6).


One could argue that due to the democratization of information through technology and the proliferation of interconnected online spaces, that the economic gatekeeping of GCE and international education has been greatly reduced in recent years. This is also demonstrated in the widespread adoption of GCE in official national curricula, by non-profits and by private educational providers that have little to do with traditionally elite International School spaces. However, this does not address the cultural hegemonies and social hierarchies that GCE, as an agent of neoliberalism and neocolonialism, passively and actively endorses.  


As previously mentioned, international schools, especially those engaged in “soft GCE”, are committed to remaining apolitical and preserving the status quo to ensure that all their students of various backgrounds feel included, and even more importantly, not offended (Elerian & Solomou, 2023). This leads to a dissonance between an awareness of socio-political issues and taking a critical approach, and the reluctance to discuss issues like equal opportunity, stereotyping, marginalization, race, gender, poverty, power and religion (Elerian & Solomou, 2023). One could further argue that the choice to remain apolitical, is itself a political choice, since this abstention passively promotes the neoliberal values endorsed by GCE.


Cultural and social diversity can be celebrated, but only to the extent to which they do not interfere with the GCE vision. For instance, at an international school in South Africa, native black students were not allowed to speak their own languages or present any aspect of their own culture in their appearance at school, and were given punishments and fines for any deviation from the strict global citizen identity as envisioned by the school administration (Davids, 2018). 


Despite the stated commitment to Pan-African nationalism, the international Ghanaian school’s curriculum did not include much information on local history, nor a local language course, but did offer several European language courses in addition to globally oriented social studies classes (Howard et al, 2018). This structuring of the curriculum sends a message to the students about what should be valued. Students are discouraged, and even forbidden, to talk about their differences and unique traditions while at school, except on special occasions such as National Day and Independence Day, when diversity and national pride are celebrated (Howard et al, 2018). This superficial approach to diversity is typical of “soft GCE” and serves to further distance students from their traditional roots, forcing them to compartmentalize aspects of their identity and place them in a hierarchy. 


In Guatemala, students actively chose to adopt the identity of a global citizen, as framed by neoliberal values, since this allowed them to distance themselves from less-desirable indigenous identities, while still expressing a patriotic commitment to their nation’s economic development (Bellino, 2018). In this case, as in Vietnam (Le & Duong, 2022 ) and China (Young, 2023), it may seem that “cosmopolitan nationalism” is a way to reconcile traditional identities and global citizenship, however closer inspection reveals that these concepts are really expressing the same neoliberal sentiments. This kind of nationalism still lacks any critical engagement with local issues of social and political injustice.  


GCE also affects the ways in which international schools interact with their host communities. Lack of critical engagement with local realities can lead to adhoc, tokenistic interactions between the school and the community, cultivating paternalistic attitudes and feelings of superiority and pity, rather than empathy, and encouraging a dependency relationship (Ledger, 2016). Foreign staff, students and parents may find themselves in a “cultural bubble” or enclave, in which their interaction with their host nation is limited to non-threatening subjects like food, fashion, and festivals (Ledger, 2016). In this way, GCE reiterates the separateness between groups and identities, and reinforces their place in the social and cultural hierarchy. 


Implications for Diverse Populations

GCE presents a contradiction with regards to diversity. Despite the lack of consensus on a single definition, most forms of GCE emphasize an acceptance of diversity, welcoming a broad range of participants and honoring their uniqueness, and teaching global citizens how to interact with diverse groups in a respectful manner. Yet, the aims of GCE - the kind of citizen it aims to produce, the global landscape those citizens will inhabit, and what that interaction will look like - these all conform to a rather singular vision. As already mentioned, according to “soft GCE”, a global citizen speaks a Western Language, has a Western education, holds Western values and conforms to a neoliberal definition of success - that they participate as human capital in the global market economy. Diversity is welcomed at the outset, at least to the extent to which it is inoffensive and malleable.  


GCE rhetoric often uses the terms “acceptance” and “tolerance” interchangeably, but they are not the same. “While tolerance might hold some implications of forbearance and patience, it also holds some association with ‘putting up with the other’, rather than engaging with the otherness of the other” (Davids, 2018:17). This difference between tolerance and acceptance is the difference between “soft GCE” and “critical GCE”.


Besides distinguishing between global citizens and national citizens, there is also a tendency in the GCE discourse to define “national citizens” as a homogenous group with a singular identity or perspective. This is blatantly not the case, as most nations are composed of many distinct ethnic groups, with their own languages, traditions, and positions in the national social hierarchy. At international schools in Ghana (Howard et al., 2018), South Africa (Davids, 2018), and Guatemala (Bellino, 2018), students were encouraged to view themselves as equal despite their different socio-economic backgrounds, and were expected to participate in GCE in the same way, even though privileged students and disadvantaged students had very different experiences and interpretations of being a “global citizen”.


Education in general, and international education in particular, is still highly uneven and access is subject to many social, economic, and political factors. Although there may be great diversity within the student bodies of international schools, that cohort could typically be distinguished by its elevated position in the social hierarchy, whether as a globally-mobile expatriate, part of the national diplomatic or business elite, or as a member of the emerging global middle class. When investigating who has access to international education and GCE, one could also ask, who has access to citizenship? What does "citizenship" mean in a world of migrants and refugees, or for those in post-colonial contexts or nations at war (Davids, 2018)?


When viewed through a neoliberal lens, “soft GCE” is therefore in opposition to true diversity. This criticism is neatly summed up by Bellino (2018):


As students embrace a version of global citizenship oriented toward the market and to which their elite status is uniquely suited, they find support to dismiss Indigenous and collective struggles on the basis that local cultural expressions lack global market value. The school’s largely economic and individualized emphasis on accruing global connections and consuming global culture, without attention to local intercultural relations or the history of exclusionary power structures, undermine the critical goals of global citizenship, intercultural education, and multicultural democracy. (p. 19)


However, “critical GCE”, which focuses on active engagement and critical reflection, does have the potential to celebrate and preserve individual and cultural diversity. For example, schools can establish collaborative partnerships with local organizations, where students can develop their knowledge of local and global issues through personal experiences, and also to engage critically with these issues through experience, action, and emotion (Elerian & Solomou, 2023). This is the opposite approach to that typically taken by “soft GCE”, in that it situates global issues in a local context, and engages with the political and historical facets of that local context in a respectful and self-reflexive manner. Instead of being guided by a neoliberal agenda of development and a shared vision of global market participation, the intent is to engage, as Davids (2018) suggests, with the otherness of the other. 


Implications for Technology

As has been established, a core component of GCE is teaching students the skills necessary to thrive in a highly competitive, diverse and interconnected globalized world, for example -  English language competency, critical thinking, effective communication, and adaptability (Howard, 2022). Arguably the most important skill is technological savvy, being able to use the tools of technology to facilitate living and working as successful global citizens. As with GCE, technology has the potential to provide greater social mobility and access to opportunities for previously marginalized groups, or to act as another product and producer of a neoliberal agenda that will further exacerbate social divides and preserve the elite status of those privileged to have access to it. 


For example, students in China exposited on the benefits of international education giving them access to foreign technology that could be used to make a positive difference on a local level, a kind of “strategic cosmopolitanism” (Young, 2023). On the other hand, at the international school in Guatemala, equipping students to cope with rapid technological advancements was intimately connected with the school’s neoliberal vision of global citizenship, intended to give students a competitive edge in the international marketplace (Bellino, 2018). 


Technology has the potential to have the greatest impact on education in the online space, in the proliferation of online academies, tutors, videos, and of course, social media. With a simple internet connection, even accessed from a mobile phone, diverse communities from around the world have unprecedented access to an incredible range of educational resources. The crucial skill, which makes all the difference in how these resources are consumed, is Media Literacy. This skill allows consumers to successfully and safely navigate technology and social media in the era of fake news, emphasizing an awareness of current affairs, online vigilance, the importance of not relying on media opinions but learning to search out legitimate sources, and how to understand diverse perspectives and communicate respectfully (Elerian & Solomou, 2023).


Technology plays an important part in how the different actors involved in an international school interact with each other, but also in how international schools interact with the local communities among which they are situated. Ledger (2016) provides an example of how technology is appropriately used by an international school in Indonesia to build a positive relationship with a local community and create a platform for genuine engagement. Instead of holding a simple fundraiser to buy the village a new generator, a program of cultural exchange was developed, where students participated in authentic local events, and the community was given the opportunity for technological up-skilling by being granted access to the school’s computer facilities, some using this experience to gain better employment (Ledger, 2016).  


While technology is an integral part of modern life and global citizenship, care should be taken that it does not succumb to the criticisms against “soft GCE”, such as blindly furthering the neoliberal agenda, upholding social hierarchies, or being used for superficial communication and tokenistic engagement. 


Experiences in Myanmar

Before closing this paper with recommendations for more effective implementation of GCE, I would like to briefly outline my current experiences as a teacher at an international school in Myanmar, as they are highly relevant and demonstrative of many of the themes already discussed. I’ll limit this discussion to three areas - the use of “international” and “GCE” as a marketing strategy instead of a pedagogical commitment; the promotion of “soft” GCE and lack of critical engagement with global issues; and finally, the suitability of GCE and an American curriculum given the current socio-political context of Myanmar.


This newly-opened school (2023) is for-profit and privately owned, and falls into the category of non-accredited bilingual school with over 96% of the student body being local children who speak English as a second, or even third language. Despite this, the school is heavily marketed as an accredited “International School” committed to developing global leaders, with a diverse student body - using stock photos of multicultural students on its website, as well as proudly displaying its fictitious Cognia accreditation. The qualifications of many of the teachers are equally fictitious. One teacher had no more than a TEFL certification, another had not worked in education in 20 years and spoke English as a second language, and another teacher lacked any certification and had no experience in the content areas he was hired for. When he pointed this out to the administration, he was directed to a website to obtain a fake degree, “for visa purposes”, and was assured that he would be fine for the job, implying that his status as a native-speaking Westerner would be enough to satisfy the parents. Yet these fictions have not deterred the school’s marketing team from selling the dream of a respected, recognized, accredited international school with professional and experienced foreign teachers, to any prospective parent. 


Another promise made by the school is that of equivalency - that their child could finish 5th grade at this international school, move to the United States, and integrate seamlessly with a U.S. 6th grade class. Students graduating from our school will have an equivalent diploma to a U.S. graduate, and the same access to any top U.S. university. However, without official accreditation, this is a blatant lie. And as it stands, the school cannot receive accreditation, because the Myanmar government has made changes to international school curricula, which they must adhere to as a condition of their continued operation. Under these new regulations, there are not enough school days in an academic year to qualify for US accreditation, and at least half the subjects must now be taught in Burmese. And still the school markets itself as an “international school”, and charges its fees accordingly. 


The criticisms against “soft GCE” discussed in this paper are all present at this school, with a superficial focus on diversity and inclusion, and the absence of any critical engagement with global issues. The most obvious “elephant in the room” is the 2021 military coup and ongoing civil war. There are severe restrictions on education and free speech under this military dictatorship. Many of the parents are either in direct support of the coup, or at least in no position to offer any criticism. There is no room for “critical GCE” in this regard. While this is happening outside the classroom, inside the classroom the students are learning about US democratic elections, the bill of rights, and free speech.


Like the other schools mentioned in this paper, students here are being inculcated with Western values, in preparation for leaving Myanmar and building a new life in a Western country. They share a neoliberal vision of success and global citizenship. In the case of Myanmar students, such a goal may in fact be life or death, as the government has just instituted mandatory conscription for all citizens above 18. If they cannot graduate and leave Myanmar successfully, they will likely be forced to go to war, to fight against their own people. This is also an exaggerated case of international education and GCE reinforcing social hierarchies, as only those with the highest financial and social mobility can access this kind of education, and therefore access the opportunities such an education can provide. 


Local engagement of any kind is limited to the tokenistic examples described above - food, fashion, and festivals (Ledger, 2016), and only on designated occasions such as national and cultural holidays (Howard et al, 2018). On all other days, students are prohibited from speaking any language but English, and must conform to the school’s image of a “global citizen” (Davids 2018). At the start of the school year, the foreign teachers were taken to a local monument as a “cultural experience”. They were encouraged to appreciate the local history and buy the local curios, but discouraged from discussing the obvious military presence, forbidden zones, rampant poverty and population displacement as a result of the recent coup.


Community engagement at this school is an annual box to be checked, instead of an opportunity for authentic engagement. With limited support and resources, I arranged a raffle to raise money for a local orphanage. I researched the orphanage, created a detailed information packet, and spent a lesson going over the details with my students. I explained that they should reach out to their family, friends, and neighbors to tell them about our worthy cause, to show them the information packet, and to ask for their help. The next day, the raffle forms were returned. The parents had simply bought out the sheet of 20 tickets and given the money to their children. I was informed that they considered the matter closed and no more donations could be expected. When it was time to hand over the donations, the students were very excited as we all boarded the bus for the orphanage. However the visit had deliberately been scheduled while all the children were attending their school, so my students had no opportunity to meet and interact with them. When we arrived, there was no tour of the facilities or even the briefest explanation of what happens at the orphanage, or any kind of learning experience. Instead, my students had to line up behind the bags of rice and piles of blankets, while the secretary took photos for the school’s Facebook page. 


This anecdote illustrates the message that is given to the students - that community engagement is an impersonal act you do for strangers, that you give them money once and then never think about them again. This is a clear example of learning about poverty in the abstract while completely overlooking an opportunity for genuine engagement in one’s own backyard.


Finally, one has to question the suitability of a US curriculum in this particular context. While it may indeed be suitable for a genuine, accredited international school, the reality is that the students admitted this year are almost all local Burmese students with little previous exposure to an international curriculum. The 5th graders struggled so much with the language requirements that their teacher dropped science and social studies completely, just to focus on English, their third language after Myanmarsa and Chinese. Although they have shown great improvement, the school has acknowledged that it is not enough for them to succeed at a 6th grade level next year. The school has recommended that they repeat the 5th grade, (free of charge). This begs the question - How much progress could these students have made in the 5th grade if they had received instruction in their native language, instead of English? These students will now graduate a year later, and enter university a year later, but perhaps that is a worthwhile sacrifice in pursuit of an international education? That is a question only the parents can answer. 


Other grades also struggle with the international curriculum. My first grade students, for example, are trying to learn about global issues, but have very little local knowledge to base it on, and lack the English language skills to express their thoughts in a meaningful way. Students are learning about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but the only black person they have ever seen is the Marvel superhero Black Panther. When teaching students about American Independence, I tried to relate it to their own history, since Myanmar was also a British colony that gained independence. However, my students had not learned about this event in their own history, so the comparison just confused them. This echoes the above-mentioned experiences of native students at international schools not being given opportunities to learn about their own history and culture, while at the same time implying a cultural hierarchy by prioritizing Western history and subject matter.  

It is also worth noting that students at this school are far more interested in Asian culture than American or European culture. Here, China is upheld as the pinnacle for economic and cultural achievements, and all students are learning Chinese as a second language. Students enjoy K-Pop and K-dramas from South Korea, they eat at Japanese restaurants, go on vacation in Thailand, and aspire to attend universities in Beijing and Shanghai. As this paper demonstrated, GCE has strong associations with Western culture, however the reality of what students are interested in and pursuing looks quite different. This, coupled with the current socio-political situation and strong anti-Western sentiments in Myanmar, should give parents and educators pause when evaluating the most fitting pedagogical course of action.     


Recommendations

Despite the many criticisms raised in this paper, it should be made clear that they do not apply categorically to GCE as a whole, and that GCE has many positive aspects to commend itself as a valuable addition to any curriculum, provided it can be implemented correctly. The literature abounds with thoughtful and constructive recommendations for effective GCE.


As Young (2023) noted in her comparative study of Chinese schools, the passive presence of cosmopolitan values and GCE in a school’s culture produces a negligible difference in attitudes and perceptions. In other words, GCE must be deliberately implemented into the curriculum and explicitly taught. Clark & Savage (2017) mention that teachers lacked relevant training, and were thus reluctant or ineffective in incorporating GCE into their lessons, a situation that schools could easily remedy by offering targeted professional development to their staff.


Ledger (2016) recommends that schools develop culturally relevant, two-way learning opportunities, and that they should identify, celebrate, and embrace difference at the doorstep. This is contrary to the “soft GCE” strategies discussed in this paper, such as learning about issues like poverty in the abstract as something that happens far away to foreign people, and missing opportunities for authentic local engagement. Furthermore, schools need to establish protocols, priorities, perspectives and purposes when engaging in intercultural partnerships with local communities, to avoid shallow and ad hoc interactions that at best benefit neither party, and at worst act as a means to reinforce social hierarchies and neoliberal values (Ledger, 2016). 


While there is certainly a space for “soft GCE” in certain contexts, Howard (2022) proposes a model of GCE that emphasizes critical literacy and promotes learning opportunities for students to analyze and experiment with various ways of knowing, to challenge hegemonic forms of knowledge, to problematize dominant discourses, and to question power relations. Of course, such an approach would have to be moderated by and be sensitive to the local and national context. However, by establishing an explicit commitment to a political domain, an effort usually neglected by “soft” GCE, one opens up possibilities for GCE within elite schools to do something other than reinforce dominant social hierarchies (Howard, 2022).


Although it appears that dominant forms of GCE are grounded in Western liberal individualism, this limitation can be addressed by making room for moral sources beyond these ideals from the “global North”, instead encompassing the dynamics of social, economic, and spiritual relationships, organizations, and egalitarian formations whose roots are found within the “global South” (Howard et al., 2018). In other words, make “international” more international, make “global” more global, represent the whole, instead of misrepresenting a part as the whole. Howard et al. (2018) calls for counter-neoliberal and postcolonial models of global citizenship to contextualize learning within an ecology of multiple layered knowledges in order to foster consciousness-raising actions. This is in contrast to the tendency of “soft GCE” to remove knowledge from its historical and political context, and to place that knowledge in a hierarchy of importance and privilege.


A final thought from Yemini (2023):


These days, we are witnessing enormous transformations by many national education systems worldwide. The mind frame of “from crisis to opportunity” adopted by some intergovernmental organisations and national governments leaves room for bottom-up initiatives and teacher-led changes to penetrate school systems that are otherwise extremely resistant to change. The need for global action in light of the Covid-19 pandemic provides us with a chance to re-examine GCE and its criticisms and to design specific local and global solutions through which educators and communities will be able to engage with this concept without fear of sacred truths and biased discourses. (p. 177)


Conclusion

This paper has provided a critical appraisal of Global Citizenship Education and the ways in which different actors in the education industry access, implement, and manipulate it. International schools have changed in their role, reach, and composition. Their numbers have drastically increased, and they now cater to a largely local student population and exist in many different forms including bilingual schools and blended schools (Bunnell, 2022). Such schools are recognised to be in a prime position to offer GCE and expose students to a cosmopolitan identity, and many from the emerging, affluent middle class in developing nations are deliberately choosing this route as a strategic means of increasing their upward economic and social mobility (Young, 2023). In many countries, GCE has also been adopted as part of the national curricula, however it is not without flaws. The three main criticisms discussed in this paper are - the tendency for schools to opt for a “soft” GCE approach that lacks critical engagement with important issues like politics and inequality, the possibility of GCE being both a product of a Neoliberal agenda as well as reproducing that agenda, and the tendency for GCE to preserve the dominant social hierarchy and elite power structures. 


When implemented in this way, GCE advances a narrow vision of a global citizen and global success, which is problematic for diverse communities and those who do not fit into a Neoliberal schema, or who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy. GCE can also produce tensions between national identities and global identities, and raises questions about the meaning and efficacy of the term “citizenship” (Davids, 2018). Technology can play an important part in the effective implementation of GCE and developing a cosmopolitan identity in students, but media literacy is a crucial skill to learn to use technology effectively and responsibly (Elerian & Solomou, 2023). In order for GCE to be realized effectively, it is recommended that GCE be actively implemented in the curriculum and that teachers receive the necessary training to best incorporate GCE into their lessons (Clark & Savage, 2017). More attention should be given to “critical GCE”, where students can engage appropriately with relevant issues, have more opportunities to take action, and be encouraged to practice self-reflection (Howard, 2022). Finally, schools should explore counter-neoliberal and postcolonial models of global citizenship and move the focus beyond the “global North” (Howard et al., 2018). 


The popularity of international schools and Global Citizenship Education is on the rise and shows no signs of slowing down in the near future. As educators, we should be paying attention to these trends and carefully consider the parameters and consequences, as they affect our work, our students, our communities, and potentially global political, social and economic dynamics. GCE has many merits, and with thoughtful implementation it can be an appropriate vehicle to promote diversity, inclusion, understanding and success in an interconnected, cosmopolitan world. 



References:




  • Clark, E. B., & Savage, G. C. (2017). Problematizing ‘global citizenship’ in an international school. In S. Choo, D. Sawch, A. Villanueva, & R. Vinz (Eds.), Educating for the 21st century: Perspectives, policies and practices from around the world (pp. 405-424). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1673-8_22


  • Davids, N. (2018) Global citizenship education, postcolonial identities, and a moral imagination. In Davis, I., Peterson, A., Kiwan, D. Peck, C., Sant, E., Ho, L. & Waghid, Y. (Eds.) Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education. Pp. 193 – 208.


  • Elerian, M., & Solomou, E. A. (2023). International schools, international mindedness, and the  development of global citizenship: Reflections from a case study of international schools in Cyprus. Prospects (00331538), 53(3/4), 477–492. https://doi-org.ezproxy.se.edu/10.1007/s11125-021-09585-3 


  • Howard, A., Dickert, P., Owusu, G., & Riley, D. (2018). In service of the western World: Global citizenship education within a Ghanaian elite context. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(4), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2018.1533100 








0 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page