ensuring equal access”,¹⁶ the Department has been shaping academic standards and defining interventions in schools with persistently low performance since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Since the U.S. Constitution does not refer to federal responsibility for public education, according to the 10th amendment of the Constitution, the states have the main responsibility in matters of public education. Each of their governments has its own branch responsible for public education. In forty-eight states, these branches are overseen by boards of education appointed by the Governor or the public. State Boards set standards, approve the assessment system, set the accountability system and approve both school accreditation and teacher certification. The state superintendent supervises the implementation of the state policy.

Each state can grant authority over education to local units, such as school districts. There are approximately 15,000 school districts in the US, that each gave a school board. These boards have authority on the hiring of schools' local superintendent and principals, as well as on the supervision of study programs for districts and schools. The local school superintendent designs the district's educational program and supervises the operation of schools by the principals.

### 8.3.2 Teacher Training and Employment

The hiring of teachers in the USA is the responsibility of the schools or the district. However, each state's education branch of government dictates the requirements individuals must meet to be selected as teachers. Furthermore, the national Department of education sets certain standards of qualification for teachers.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that all teachers of core academic subjects (these include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography) be 'highly qualified' as defined by law.

More specifically, teachers are supposed to obtain at least a bachelor's degree, as well as a teaching license from their state, plus demonstrate expertise in their field. To demonstrate subject knowledge, new elementary school teachers must pass a test for their teaching skills, as well as in the areas of elementary school curricula. New middle and high school teachers must demonstrate expertise in the subjects they teach, either by passing a specified academic subject test or by successfully completing an undergraduate major (or coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major), a graduate degree, or an advanced certification or credentialing.

A common path to a teacher's credential begins by applying to a four-year teacher education program at an accredited college or university. The typical
ensuring equal access”,¹⁶ the Department has been shaping academic standards and defining interventions in schools with persistently low performance since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Since the U.S. Constitution does not refer to federal responsibility for public education, according to the 10th amendment of the Constitution, the states have the main responsibility in matters of public education. Each of their governments has its own branch responsible for public education. In forty-eight states, these branches are overseen by boards of education appointed by the Governor or the public. State Boards set standards, approve the assessment system, set the accountability system and approve both school accreditation and teacher certification. The state superintendent supervises the implementation of the state policy.

Each state can grant authority over education to local units, such as school districts. There are approximately 15,000 school districts in the US, that each gave a school board. These boards have authority on the hiring of schools' local superintendent and principals, as well as on the supervision of study programs for districts and schools. The local school superintendent designs the district's educational program and supervises the operation of schools by the principals.

### 8.3.2 Teacher Training and Employment

The hiring of teachers in the USA is the responsibility of the schools or the district. However, each state's education branch of government dictates the requirements individuals must meet to be selected as teachers. Furthermore, the national Department of education sets certain standards of qualification for teachers.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that all teachers of core academic subjects (these include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography) be 'highly qualified' as defined by law.

More specifically, teachers are supposed to obtain at least a bachelor's degree, as well as a teaching license from their state, plus demonstrate expertise in their field. To demonstrate subject knowledge, new elementary school teachers must pass a test for their teaching skills, as well as in the areas of elementary school curricula. New middle and high school teachers must demonstrate expertise in the subjects they teach, either by passing a specified academic subject test or by successfully completing an undergraduate major (or coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major), a graduate degree, or an advanced certification or credentialing.

A common path to a teacher's credential begins by applying to a four-year teacher education program at an accredited college or university. The typical
teacher education program is structured so that the required credit hours to graduate are completed in 8 semesters. The first seven semesters are mainly composed of university courses, whereas during the eighth semester, credit hours are typically made up of teacher internship hours. All public school teachers must be licensed. Each state's department of education is responsible for granting public school teacher licenses.

Because certification requirements vary by state, subject and grade level, pre-service teachers are trained to work in a specific state: therefore pre-service teachers from Temple University, Philadelphia, tend to become teachers in the state of Pennsylvania. In addition to a bachelor's degree, teachers in Pennsylvania must have completed a teacher education program that has both regional accreditation and accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). Having a minimum of 13 weeks of hands-on classroom experience is also required to become a teacher in Pennsylvania.

Furthermore, future Pennsylvania teachers must complete a variety of pedagogical, general skills, and subject-specific exams, such as the Pre-service Academic Performance Assessment (PAPA), Praxis Core exams, and any relevant Praxis subject exams, such as high school history for a person wishing to become a high school history teacher.

More specifically, in the case of GlobalSense (GS), some of the pre-service teachers from Temple University taking part in GS are undergraduates studying for their Bachelor of Science in Education in Secondary Education: Social Studies Education. This training will enable them to “Help high school students develop the global perspectives they need to be good citizens in the 21st century [...] and teach students about the global community and how dynamic geopolitical forces impact communities and cultures around the world”.¹⁷

Other pre-service teachers taking part in GS are graduates studying for their Master of Education in Secondary Education. With a Master's degree, the future teachers will work with grades seven to twelve, and “create an informed citizenry with respect for diversity in a democratic society. Focus on critical thinking about curriculum frameworks and materials; curriculum development grounded in teaching for understanding; and sensitivity around areas such as race relations, gender, war and peace, equality of economic and social opportunities, and global interdependence”.¹⁸

On top of learning to apply literacy instructional methods for English language learners and to create classroom settings that accommodate special education needs, for instance, pre-service teachers must choose and complete the major coursework requirements in an area of specialisation (economics, geography and urban studies, history, political science or sociology). Pre-service
teacher education program is structured so that the required credit hours to graduate are completed in 8 semesters. The first seven semesters are mainly composed of university courses, whereas during the eighth semester, credit hours are typically made up of teacher internship hours. All public school teachers must be licensed. Each state's department of education is responsible for granting public school teacher licenses.

Because certification requirements vary by state, subject and grade level, pre-service teachers are trained to work in a specific state: therefore pre-service teachers from Temple University, Philadelphia, tend to become teachers in the state of Pennsylvania. In addition to a bachelor's degree, teachers in Pennsylvania must have completed a teacher education program that has both regional accreditation and accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). Having a minimum of 13 weeks of hands-on classroom experience is also required to become a teacher in Pennsylvania.

Furthermore, future Pennsylvania teachers must complete a variety of pedagogical, general skills, and subject-specific exams, such as the Pre-service Academic Performance Assessment (PAPA), Praxis Core exams, and any relevant Praxis subject exams, such as high school history for a person wishing to become a high school history teacher.

More specifically, in the case of GlobalSense (GS), some of the pre-service teachers from Temple University taking part in GS are undergraduates studying for their Bachelor of Science in Education in Secondary Education: Social Studies Education. This training will enable them to “Help high school students develop the global perspectives they need to be good citizens in the 21st century [...] and teach students about the global community and how dynamic geopolitical forces impact communities and cultures around the world”.¹⁷

Other pre-service teachers taking part in GS are graduates studying for their Master of Education in Secondary Education. With a Master's degree, the future teachers will work with grades seven to twelve, and “create an informed citizenry with respect for diversity in a democratic society. Focus on critical thinking about curriculum frameworks and materials; curriculum development grounded in teaching for understanding; and sensitivity around areas such as race relations, gender, war and peace, equality of economic and social opportunities, and global interdependence”.¹⁸

On top of learning to apply literacy instructional methods for English language learners and to create classroom settings that accommodate special education needs, for instance, pre-service teachers must choose and complete the major coursework requirements in an area of specialisation (economics, geography and urban studies, history, political science or sociology). Pre-service
teachers have many fieldwork assignments during their coursework, which ends with a whole semester of teaching experience in an area high school.

Furthermore, Temple University prepares the future teachers to successfully complete state certification exams, allowing them to apply for a Pennsylvania Instructional I Teaching Certificate. Public school teachers in the United States are employed by government entities at the state or local level, such as school districts or municipal school systems.

### 8.3.3 Civic and Citizenship Education in the USA

The civics education curricula vary depending on the state. In a 2018 report on the state of civics education, Sarah Shapiro, a research assistant at the Centre for American Progress and Catherine Brown, who is the Centre's vice president for education policy, presented the state of high school civics education in the USA. They notably indicated that

> State civics curricula are heavy on knowledge but light on building skills and agency for civic engagement. An examination of standards for civics and U.S. government courses found that 32 states and the District of Columbia provide instruction on American democracy and other systems of government, the history of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, an explanation of mechanisms for public participation, and instruction on state and local voting policies. However, no state has experiential learning or local problem-solving components in its civics requirements.
> (Shapiro & Brown, 2018, p. 4)

In Act 35 of 2018, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided that, beginning with the 2020–2021 school year, each school entity:

> Shall administer at least once to students during grades seven through twelve a locally developed assessment of United States history, government and civics that includes the nature, purpose, principles and structure of United States constitutional democracy, the principles, operations and documents of United States government and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Following Act 35, in July 2019, the Pennsylvania Department of education established a Civics program, based on three pillars: knowledge, skills and actions.

According to the program,¹⁹
teachers have many fieldwork assignments during their coursework, which ends with a whole semester of teaching experience in an area high school.

Furthermore, Temple University prepares the future teachers to successfully complete state certification exams, allowing them to apply for a Pennsylvania Instructional I Teaching Certificate. Public school teachers in the United States are employed by government entities at the state or local level, such as school districts or municipal school systems.

### 8.3.3 Civic and Citizenship Education in the USA

The civics education curricula vary depending on the state. In a 2018 report on the state of civics education, Sarah Shapiro, a research assistant at the Centre for American Progress and Catherine Brown, who is the Centre's vice president for education policy, presented the state of high school civics education in the USA. They notably indicated that

> State civics curricula are heavy on knowledge but light on building skills and agency for civic engagement. An examination of standards for civics and U.S. government courses found that 32 states and the District of Columbia provide instruction on American democracy and other systems of government, the history of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, an explanation of mechanisms for public participation, and instruction on state and local voting policies. However, no state has experiential learning or local problem-solving components in its civics requirements.
> (Shapiro & Brown, 2018, p. 4)

In Act 35 of 2018, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided that, beginning with the 2020–2021 school year, each school entity:

> Shall administer at least once to students during grades seven through twelve a locally developed assessment of United States history, government and civics that includes the nature, purpose, principles and structure of United States constitutional democracy, the principles, operations and documents of United States government and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Following Act 35, in July 2019, the Pennsylvania Department of education established a Civics program, based on three pillars: knowledge, skills and actions.

According to the program,¹⁹
The knowledge pillar underscores planned instruction to support stu-
dent understanding of concepts of the Academic Standards. Assessment
focuses on the four critical components of civics education:

- Principles and Documents of Government

- Rights and Responsibilities

- How Government Works

- International Relationships.

The skills pillar seeks to have students engage in active civic partici-
pation: applying the knowledge gained in the first pillar. At the school
level, students participate in student council/school governance, extra-
curricular activities, mock trials and similar simulation activities, service
learning, and various clubs and organisations. Opportunities for civil dis-
cussions, discourse, and debate also provide opportunities to hone skills.
Another important aspect of skills development is the need for tolerance
and acceptance of others. Anti-bullying initiatives and programs such as
Positive Schoolwide Behaviour Support (PBIS) are critical components in
the schoolwide setting.

[Regarding the actions pillar] Responsible and involved citizens take an active role through a myriad of actions and dispositions [such as Acceptance of diversity, Involvement in the community]. By incorporating all three pillars in a civics program, students acquire the knowledge behind the meaning of 'We the People'. They have an opportunity to operate as a citizen, experience citizenry and understand that the government of the United States is theirs. This encourages each generation to 'secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity'.

8.3.4 GCE in the USA

However, GCE faces three main obstacles in the US: they are suspected of political bias, are based on different disciplinary areas, and linked to a vague concept. More specifically, Rapoport explains the US politics of trying to control what students are taught:

State legislatures that approve state standards, the principal curricular documents, or State Boards of Education that control textbook adoption, are elected political agencies that have levers to control curricular content. The remnants of the anti-globalist and isolationist tradition in American education can also be found in an opposition to including more non-US-centred content in many social studies or language arts curricula. (Rapoport, 2021, p. 115)
The knowledge pillar underscores planned instruction to support stu-
dent understanding of concepts of the Academic Standards. Assessment
focuses on the four critical components of civics education:

- Principles and Documents of Government

- Rights and Responsibilities

– How Government Works

- International Relationships.

The skills pillar seeks to have students engage in active civic partici-
pation: applying the knowledge gained in the first pillar. At the school
level, students participate in student council/school governance, extra-
curricular activities, mock trials and similar simulation activities, service
learning, and various clubs and organisations. Opportunities for civil dis-
cussions, discourse, and debate also provide opportunities to hone skills.
Another important aspect of skills development is the need for tolerance
and acceptance of others. Anti-bullying initiatives and programs such as
Positive Schoolwide Behaviour Support (PBIS) are critical components in
the schoolwide setting.

[Regarding the actions pillar] Responsible and involved citizens take an active role through a myriad of actions and dispositions [such as Acceptance of diversity, Involvement in the community]. By incorporating all three pillars in a civics program, students acquire the knowledge behind the meaning of 'We the People'. They have an opportunity to operate as a citizen, experience citizenry and understand that the government of the United States is theirs. This encourages each generation to 'secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity'.

8.3.4 GCE in the USA

However, GCE faces three main obstacles in the US: they are suspected of political bias, are based on different disciplinary areas, and linked to a vague concept. More specifically, Rapoport explains the US politics of trying to control what students are taught:

State legislatures that approve state standards, the principal curricular documents, or State Boards of Education that control textbook adoption, are elected political agencies that have levers to control curricular content. The remnants of the anti-globalist and isolationist tradition in American education can also be found in an opposition to including more non-US-centred content in many social studies or language arts curricula. (Rapoport, 2021, p. 115)
The author indicates that the second main obstacle for GCE is linked to its
multidisciplinary aspect:

The result is the absence of a proper, adequate curriculum. [...] This is where all inter-and multidisciplinary areas stumble. Most curricula in US schools are designed on a disciplinary basis. [...] In this environment, inter-disciplinary areas such as human rights education or citizenship education are not particularly welcome in any cluster, which, in turn, makes them unattractive for teacher education programmes. (Rapoport, 2021, p. 115)

Thirdly, Rapoport (2021) indicates that GCE faces a more normative chal-
lenge: global citizenship is criticised for the vagueness of the global citizenship
concept.

Despite progress in the development of GCE and global education in gen-
eral, many educators in the United States are still sceptical about global
citizenship-related issues [...]. The principal reasons for scepticism are
the absence of a global government, the perception of citizenship as a
predominantly nation-related phenomenon, lack of exposure to global
education courses in teacher education, and a false perception of patri-
otism. (p. 116)

Here the author mentions two types of reasons that GC remains vague: the lack of a global institutional frame that could give weight to the concept and make it less abstract; the fact that US citizens, including teachers, might not be educated enough on the question of global issues or of patriotism. This listing of obstacles seems to present a vicious circle, where the lack of education on the concept of GC, due in part to politics, makes people suspicious of what they are ignorant of, and therefore they resist it.

In brief, it seems that the curriculum in Pennsylvania is largely centred on
national citizenship and, though it might not focus as much as other states'
curricula on knowledge, is still not particularly open to global issues.

8.4 *The Israeli Education System*

8.4.1 Governance and Administrative Organisation

The Ministry of Education is in charge of public education institutions in Israel. The education system is centralised, and the curriculum is standardised at a national level (Feniger, Shavit, & Caller, 2021). However, the system is divided into three tracks: public secular schools, public religious schools, independent orthodox schools.²⁰ The Arab sector is included in public education but as a
The author indicates that the second main obstacle for GCE is linked to its multidisciplinary aspect:

> The result is the absence of a proper, adequate curriculum. [...] This is where all inter-and multidisciplinary areas stumble. Most curricula in US schools are designed on a disciplinary basis. [...] In this environment, inter-disciplinary areas such as human rights education or citizenship education are not particularly welcome in any cluster, which, in turn, makes them unattractive for teacher education programmes. (Rapoport, 2021, p. 115)

Thirdly, Rapoport (2021) indicates that GCE faces a more normative challenge: global citizenship is criticised for the vagueness of the global citizenship concept.

> Despite progress in the development of GCE and global education in general, many educators in the United States are still sceptical about global citizenship-related issues [...]. The principal reasons for scepticism are the absence of a global government, the perception of citizenship as a predominantly nation-related phenomenon, lack of exposure to global education courses in teacher education, and a false perception of patriotism. (p. 116)

Here the author mentions two types of reasons that GC remains vague: the lack of a global institutional frame that could give weight to the concept and make it less abstract; the fact that US citizens, including teachers, might not be educated enough on the question of global issues or of patriotism. This listing of obstacles seems to present a vicious circle, where the lack of education on the concept of GC, due in part to politics, makes people suspicious of what they are ignorant of, and therefore they resist it.

In brief, it seems that the curriculum in Pennsylvania is largely centred on national citizenship and, though it might not focus as much as other states' curricula on knowledge, is still not particularly open to global issues.

## 8.4 The Israeli Education System

### 8.4.1 Governance and Administrative Organisation

The Ministry of Education is in charge of public education institutions in Israel. The education system is centralised, and the curriculum is standardised at a national level (Feniger, Shavit, & Caller, 2021). However, the system is divided into three tracks: public secular schools, public religious schools, independent orthodox schools.²⁰ The Arab sector is included in public education but as a
separate division (Resnik, 2001). Outside of these tracks, there are also inde-
pendent schools, such as boarding schools and international schools.

These tracks exist from kindergarten through primary school. Parents have
the right to choose, within their residential district, the type of educational
institution they prefer for their children.

Since 1953, Israel's Public Education Act has confirmed the existence of sep-
arate education systems between the religious and secular, private and public
sectors, but does not officially recognise the Arab-Palestinian education sys-
tem. To this day, it functions as a separate, subordinate and often discriminated
body within the public education system. Most Palestinian and Jewish Israeli
students therefore pursue separate school courses until they enter university.

A 2001 report by the Human Rights Watch organisation, based on official statistics as well as on-site visits to twenty-six schools in the two systems and interviews with students, parents, teachers, administrators, and national education authorities, underlines the segregation in the Israeli education system.

Nearly one in four of Israel's 1.6 million schoolchildren are educated in a public school system wholly separate from the majority. The children in this parallel school system are Israeli citizens of Palestinian Arab origin. Their schools are a world apart in quality from the public schools serving Israel's majority Jewish population. Often overcrowded and understaffed, poorly built, badly maintained, or simply unavailable, schools for Palestinian Arab children offer fewer facilities and educational opportunities than are offered other Israeli children. [...] The Israeli government operates two separate school systems, one for Jewish children and one for Palestinian Arab children. Discrimination against Palestinian Arab children colors every aspect of the two systems.²¹

This situation of segregation at the detriment of the Palestinian Arabs had
been anticipated by Sami Khalil Mar'i in a 1985 essay (Mar'i, 1985).

8.4.2 Teacher Training and Employment

According to IEA'S TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre, Initial teacher education takes place in colleges of education and in schools of education at universities. Teacher education in college combines disciplinary and pedagogical content, typically in a four year program, and results in a bachelor's degree in education and a certificate to teach at the primary or lower secondary level. Since a policy was introduced in 2003, teachers are also required to complete an induction year (their first year of teaching) before they may obtain a teaching license. The teaching certificate program is not designed for one
separate division (Resnik, 2001). Outside of these tracks, there are also inde-
pendent schools, such as boarding schools and international schools.

These tracks exist from kindergarten through primary school. Parents have
the right to choose, within their residential district, the type of educational
institution they prefer for their children.

Since 1953, Israel's Public Education Act has confirmed the existence of sep-
arate education systems between the religious and secular, private and public
sectors, but does not officially recognise the Arab-Palestinian education sys-
tem. To this day, it functions as a separate, subordinate and often discriminated
body within the public education system. Most Palestinian and Jewish Israeli
students therefore pursue separate school courses until they enter university.

A 2001 report by the Human Rights Watch organisation, based on official statistics as well as on-site visits to twenty-six schools in the two systems and interviews with students, parents, teachers, administrators, and national education authorities, underlines the segregation in the Israeli education system.

Nearly one in four of Israel's 1.6 million schoolchildren are educated in a public school system wholly separate from the majority. The children in this parallel school system are Israeli citizens of Palestinian Arab origin. Their schools are a world apart in quality from the public schools serving Israel's majority Jewish population. Often overcrowded and understaffed, poorly built, badly maintained, or simply unavailable, schools for Palestinian Arab children offer fewer facilities and educational opportunities than are offered other Israeli children. [...] The Israeli government operates two separate school systems, one for Jewish children and one for Palestinian Arab children. Discrimination against Palestinian Arab children colors every aspect of the two systems.²¹

This situation of segregation at the detriment of the Palestinian Arabs had
been anticipated by Sami Khalil Mar'i in a 1985 essay (Mar'i, 1985).

8.4.2 Teacher Training and Employment

According to IEA'S TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre, Initial teacher education takes place in colleges of education and in schools of education at universities. Teacher education in college combines disciplinary and pedagogical content, typically in a four year program, and results in a bachelor's degree in education and a certificate to teach at the primary or lower secondary level. Since a policy was introduced in 2003, teachers are also required to complete an induction year (their first year of teaching) before they may obtain a teaching license. The teaching certificate program is not designed for one
educational track or another; in other words, the same certificate is required
to teach in public secular schools and public religious schools, Jewish schools
or Arab schools.

According to the teacher trainers from HUJI that are members of GlobalSense,
most of their Jewish pre-service teachers are training to work in public secu-
lar secondary schools, and most of the Arab pre-service teachers will go on
to teach in public Arab schools. Some however do go on to teach in private
Arab schools, particularly when they themselves are from East Jerusalem or
the West Bank. Others still, go on to teach in Jewish state schools. Schools in
Israel recruit their own teachers.

8.4.3 Civic and Citizenship Education in Israel
According to Heela Goren (2021),

Israeli citizenship is a contested issue [...]. Smooha [...] asserts that Israel
does not fall under the category of a Western liberal democracy, as it is
often perceived or presents itself, but rather, it embodies a model of eth-
nic democracy, in which the major ethnic or religious group uses state
structures and resources to maintain its own interests, sometimes at the
expense of minority group rights. [...] The tension between the Jewish
and democratic definitions of the state is often raised in the public dis-
course and comprises a particularly potent issue, and competing notions
and conceptions of citizenship have been shown by Cohen (2017, 2019) to
create ambivalence in Israeli classrooms. (p. 82)

Goren underlines how the Israeli form of citizenship departs from the norm
– rights and responsibilities or obligations that reflect a legal mutual bond
between a state and its people – particularly with regard to its Arab-Palestinian
citizens but also the Orthodox Jewish citizens, since both groups are exempt
from military service. Furthermore, the author underscores that Israel diverges
from other modern democratic states regarding the process of naturalisation,
which is much easier for Jews due to the law of return; consequently, the notion
of equality between Israeli citizens is challenged. She further explains that

these issues, of course, also shape the education system and specifically
citizenship education in Israel. The state has a divided education system
as previously mentioned – but a core curriculum that is uniform through-
out the system. This means Arab-Palestinian (and other minority) pupils
and Jewish pupils study the same citizenship curriculum in secondary
educational track or another; in other words, the same certificate is required
to teach in public secular schools and public religious schools, Jewish schools
or Arab schools.

According to the teacher trainers from HUJI that are members of GlobalSense,
most of their Jewish pre-service teachers are training to work in public secu-
lar secondary schools, and most of the Arab pre-service teachers will go on
to teach in public Arab schools. Some however do go on to teach in private
Arab schools, particularly when they themselves are from East Jerusalem or
the West Bank. Others still, go on to teach in Jewish state schools. Schools in
Israel recruit their own teachers.

8.4.3 Civic and Citizenship Education in Israel
According to Heela Goren (2021),

Israeli citizenship is a contested issue [...]. Smooha [...] asserts that Israel
does not fall under the category of a Western liberal democracy, as it is
often perceived or presents itself, but rather, it embodies a model of eth-
nic democracy, in which the major ethnic or religious group uses state
structures and resources to maintain its own interests, sometimes at the
expense of minority group rights. [...] The tension between the Jewish
and democratic definitions of the state is often raised in the public dis-
course and comprises a particularly potent issue, and competing notions
and conceptions of citizenship have been shown by Cohen (2017, 2019) to
create ambivalence in Israeli classrooms. (p. 82)

Goren underlines how the Israeli form of citizenship departs from the norm
– rights and responsibilities or obligations that reflect a legal mutual bond
between a state and its people – particularly with regard to its Arab-Palestinian
citizens but also the Orthodox Jewish citizens, since both groups are exempt
from military service. Furthermore, the author underscores that Israel diverges
from other modern democratic states regarding the process of naturalisation,
which is much easier for Jews due to the law of return; consequently, the notion
of equality between Israeli citizens is challenged. She further explains that

these issues, of course, also shape the education system and specifically
citizenship education in Israel. The state has a divided education system
as previously mentioned – but a core curriculum that is uniform through-
out the system. This means Arab-Palestinian (and other minority) pupils
and Jewish pupils study the same citizenship curriculum in secondary
school, a curriculum which is often criticised for focusing heavily on the Jewish narrative. (Goren, 2021, p. 82)

Therefore, rather than focusing the civics curriculum on universalistic principles, it has incrementally concentrated on the particularistic principles of Jewish nationalism.

Halleli Pinson confirms that Israel's civic education curricula, in contradiction to a global trend in the Global North, has been moving towards a neo-nationalistic religious discourse. It highlights Jewish aspects of Israel and the power of the government, over the focus on components of democracy such as civil and human rights, the status of the Arab minority, judicial oversight and equal rights (2020). Furthermore, regarding the fact that the curriculum mentions that the state of Israel recognises the right to live in the culture of one's choosing, the author specifies that this recognition constraints minorities' culture to a limited sphere:

> At first glance, this explanation appears promising as the textbooks seem to relate to ideas that stand at the heart of liberal discussions on the meaning of culture rights. But whereas Kymlicka, for instance, refers to cultural rights in terms of the ability of minority groups to realise their culture both in the private and public spheres [...], we can see that the textbook defines cultural rights as, first and foremost, the right of the majority group to shape the public sphere, where the protection of minorities rights is reserved to the possibility they are given to express such rights *locally*. This distinction, between the majority and the minority collective rights, is actually a complete distortion of the notion of cultural rights, utilised here, in fact, to justify the exclusion of minorities from the public sphere. This quote should also be read in the context of Israel, whereas by and large (with the exception of several mixed cities) the Arab-Palestinians and Jewish citizens live in separated communities and attend separate schools. In other words, what the textbooks actually suggests is that the cultural expression of minorities would be kept within the boundaries of their own communities, and more specifically to Israel, that Palestinians may express their culture in Arab towns and villages but not in the public civic sphere. (Pinson, 2020, p. 31)

### 8.4.4 GCE in Israel

In spite of a sectarian education system and more generally, the organisation of the country, Israel wishes to influence GCE. Goren explains that
school, a curriculum which is often criticised for focusing heavily on the Jewish narrative. (Goren, 2021, p. 82)

Therefore, rather than focusing the civics curriculum on universalistic principles, it has incrementally concentrated on the particularistic principles of Jewish nationalism.

Halleli Pinson confirms that Israel's civic education curricula, in contradiction to a global trend in the Global North, has been moving towards a neo-nationalistic religious discourse. It highlights Jewish aspects of Israel and the power of the government, over the focus on components of democracy such as civil and human rights, the status of the Arab minority, judicial oversight and equal rights (2020). Furthermore, regarding the fact that the curriculum mentions that the state of Israel recognises the right to live in the culture of one's choosing, the author specifies that this recognition constraints minorities' culture to a limited sphere:

> At first glance, this explanation appears promising as the textbooks seem to relate to ideas that stand at the heart of liberal discussions on the meaning of culture rights. But whereas Kymlicka, for instance, refers to cultural rights in terms of the ability of minority groups to realise their culture both in the private and public spheres [...], we can see that the textbook defines cultural rights as, first and foremost, the right of the majority group to shape the public sphere, where the protection of minorities rights is reserved to the possibility they are given to express such rights *locally*. This distinction, between the majority and the minority collective rights, is actually a complete distortion of the notion of cultural rights, utilised here, in fact, to justify the exclusion of minorities from the public sphere. This quote should also be read in the context of Israel, whereas by and large (with the exception of several mixed cities) the Arab-Palestinians and Jewish citizens live in separated communities and attend separate schools. In other words, what the textbooks actually suggests is that the cultural expression of minorities would be kept within the boundaries of their own communities, and more specifically to Israel, that Palestinians may express their culture in Arab towns and villages but not in the public civic sphere. (Pinson, 2020, p. 31)

### 8.4.4 GCE in Israel

In spite of a sectarian education system and more generally, the organisation of the country, Israel wishes to influence GCE. Goren explains that
As a whole, the Israeli education system is open to internationalisation, as can be seen through [...] examples pertaining to higher education, its participation in projects led by the EU and other supranational organisations, and its widespread acceptance of international standardised testing through PISA and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). (Goren, 2021, p. 84)

The author goes on to nuance the importance of these involvements:

> This same openness does not necessarily apply to GCE or even a looser sense of globalisation or internationalisation of the curriculum, particularly at the primary and secondary school levels. [...] Yemini, Bar-Nissan, and Shavit (2014) showed that over the last 20 years, the global contents on the history matriculation exam have, in fact, been pushed aside in favour of more locally-focused issues. This too suggests that the Israeli education system applies a highly selective strategy as to which aspects of the system to internationalise and to what extent. [...] Different constructs of GCE are developed under these national conditions in differently constituted local contexts. [...] Israel's socio-political characteristics have oriented the education system inwards, neglecting the global sphere, and only providing pupils with abstract and scattered information about the world. As of yet, GCE is not an officially recognised component of the citizenship education curriculum administered by the Ministry of Education [...] The current, right-wing government and the policies enacted by the past three Ministers of Education have clarified through funding and official documents that the education system is first and foremost concerned with the development of (Jewish) pupils' Jewish identities. (Goren, 2021, p. 85)

## 8.5 The French Education System

### 8.5.1 Governance and Administrative Organisation

Historically, the organisation of the French education system is centralised. From the early 1980s, the state embarked on a vast operation of decentralisation of powers which strengthened the weight of local authorities. Indeed, the decentralisation laws of 2 March 1982, 7 January 1983, 22 July 1983, and 25 January 1985 profoundly transformed the educational landscape, with the primary goal of making the system efficient by adapting it to the needs of each territory. The principle is therefore to give the representatives of the state in the regions and departments the leeway to better respond to local issues, by mobilising more easily the human and budgetary resources at their disposal, adapting
As a whole, the Israeli education system is open to internationalisation, as can be seen through [...] examples pertaining to higher education, its participation in projects led by the EU and other supranational organisations, and its widespread acceptance of international standardised testing through PISA and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). (Goren, 2021, p. 84)

The author goes on to nuance the importance of these involvements:

> This same openness does not necessarily apply to GCE or even a looser sense of globalisation or internationalisation of the curriculum, particularly at the primary and secondary school levels. [...] Yemini, Bar-Nissan, and Shavit (2014) showed that over the last 20 years, the global contents on the history matriculation exam have, in fact, been pushed aside in favour of more locally-focused issues. This too suggests that the Israeli education system applies a highly selective strategy as to which aspects of the system to internationalise and to what extent. [...] Different constructs of GCE are developed under these national conditions in differently constituted local contexts. [...] Israel's socio-political characteristics have oriented the education system inwards, neglecting the global sphere, and only providing pupils with abstract and scattered information about the world. As of yet, GCE is not an officially recognised component of the citizenship education curriculum administered by the Ministry of Education [...] The current, right-wing government and the policies enacted by the past three Ministers of Education have clarified through funding and official documents that the education system is first and foremost concerned with the development of (Jewish) pupils' Jewish identities. (Goren, 2021, p. 85)

## 8.5 The French Education System

### 8.5.1 Governance and Administrative Organisation

Historically, the organisation of the French education system is centralised. From the early 1980s, the state embarked on a vast operation of decentralisation of powers which strengthened the weight of local authorities. Indeed, the decentralisation laws of 2 March 1982, 7 January 1983, 22 July 1983, and 25 January 1985 profoundly transformed the educational landscape, with the primary goal of making the system efficient by adapting it to the needs of each territory. The principle is therefore to give the representatives of the state in the regions and departments the leeway to better respond to local issues, by mobilising more easily the human and budgetary resources at their disposal, adapting
the organisation of services under their authority and better coordinating the
action of state services and operators present at the local level.

However, the state remains the guarantor of the functioning of the pub-
lic service and of the coherence of education. As stipulated in the thirteenth
paragraph of the preamble to the constitution of 1946, confirmed by the pre-
amble to the constitution of the Fifth Republic, education cannot be totally
decentralised: “the organisation of public and secular education at all levels of
the state is obligatory”. The definition and implementation of education pol-
icy is therefore the responsibility of the government. Within the government,
the Minister of National Education and the Minister of Higher Education,
Research and Innovation are responsible for educational policy. They guaran-
tee the organisation and content of teaching, the delivery of diplomas, recruit-
ment and personnel management.

It is in the field of school planning that the sharing of competences is best
reflected: at a local level, each department (département) and each region
(région)²² draw up a provisional investment program that defines notably
where a new school (departments are in charge of middle school and regions,
of high schools) needs to be opened and how many students it needs to wel-
come. However, it is up to the regional prefect, responsible for implementing
national and policies in the region, to make the final decision to create a col-
lege or high school. Finally, it is the decentralised representative of the Min-
istry of national education at a regional level (rectorat) who decides on the
educational structure of the school, while the Ministry itself provides the nec-
essary teachers for the school.

8.5.2 Teacher Training and Employment

To become a statutory schoolteacher, college or high school teacher or senior
education advisor (conseiller principal d'éducation [CPE]), it is imperative
to have a bachelor's degree, then study at a teacher training college (Institut
national supérieur du professorat et de l'éducation, Inspired) to obtain a master's
degree.

The objective of the teacher training college is to provide a high-level the-
oretical background, but also to support the entry into the professional world
of future teachers through: courses related to the discipline(s) of the future
teacher; practice-oriented teaching; many internships in the first year of the
Master's degree, followed by dual training in the second year; some courses
shared with all other future education professionals; and a progressive
specialisation.

The teacher training college offers a Master's in professions of teaching, edu-
cation and training (*Master mention métiers de l'enseignement, de l'éducation et*
the organisation of services under their authority and better coordinating the
action of state services and operators present at the local level.

However, the state remains the guarantor of the functioning of the pub-
lic service and of the coherence of education. As stipulated in the thirteenth
paragraph of the preamble to the constitution of 1946, confirmed by the pre-
amble to the constitution of the Fifth Republic, education cannot be totally
decentralised: “the organisation of public and secular education at all levels of
the state is obligatory”. The definition and implementation of education pol-
icy is therefore the responsibility of the government. Within the government,
the Minister of National Education and the Minister of Higher Education,
Research and Innovation are responsible for educational policy. They guaran-
tee the organisation and content of teaching, the delivery of diplomas, recruit-
ment and personnel management.

It is in the field of school planning that the sharing of competences is best
reflected: at a local level, each department (département) and each region
(région)²² draw up a provisional investment program that defines notably
where a new school (departments are in charge of middle school and regions,
of high schools) needs to be opened and how many students it needs to wel-
come. However, it is up to the regional prefect, responsible for implementing
national and policies in the region, to make the final decision to create a col-
lege or high school. Finally, it is the decentralised representative of the Min-
istry of national education at a regional level (rectorat) who decides on the
educational structure of the school, while the Ministry itself provides the nec-
essary teachers for the school.

8.5.2 Teacher Training and Employment

To become a statutory schoolteacher, college or high school teacher or senior
education advisor (conseiller principal d'éducation [CPE]), it is imperative
to have a bachelor's degree, then study at a teacher training college (Institut
national supérieur du professorat et de l'éducation, Inspired) to obtain a master's
degree.

The objective of the teacher training college is to provide a high-level the-
oretical background, but also to support the entry into the professional world
of future teachers through: courses related to the discipline(s) of the future
teacher; practice-oriented teaching; many internships in the first year of the
Master's degree, followed by dual training in the second year; some courses
shared with all other future education professionals; and a progressive
specialisation.

The teacher training college offers a Master's in professions of teaching, edu-
cation and training (*Master mention métiers de l'enseignement, de l'éducation et*
*de la formation*, MEEF). According to the Ministry of national education,²³ this Master is a university training that mobilises teaching teams from different backgrounds. Primary and secondary teachers, researchers, teacher trainers, professionals in practice (inspectors, principals, etc.) are involved throughout the training course, to ensure a training in line with the reality of the profession.

In this Master's in professions of teaching, education and training, students
can choose between four paths:

- Primary school, to become a school teacher;

- Secondary school, to teach in middle or high school (excluding aggregation);

- Secondary school, to become a senior education advisor;

- Training practices and engineering.

Throughout the Master's, some lessons are common to all students of the college. These lessons focus notably on the areas of secularism and the values of the Republic, professional gestures related to learning situations, appropriation of transversal educational issues and major societal issues, fight against all discrimination, child psychology, civil service law, sociology of school populations, diversity management, school guidance, learning processes, professional communication (voice, gestures, etc.), management of conflict and violence, etc. The point of all future actors of the educational community following common teachings is to favour a shared culture that enhances the cohesion of education teams on the ground, which is a key factor in student success.

To become civil servants in the public education sector, students must obtain their Master's degree, but also pass a specific examination, depending on whether they wish to work in primary or secondary education, become a senior education advisor or a pedagogical engineer. Once they have obtained their Master's degree and passed the examination, candidates must enter their application on a national platform. The Ministry of National Education and Youth then assigns teachers, senior education advisors and pedagogical engineers to schools on the whole national territory.

More specifically, in the case of Nantes students taking part in GS, half are training to become secondary school history and geography teachers; the other half are training to become senior education advisors. Once they finish their training and get the required titles, they will be assigned by the Ministry to schools that need staff, which can be potentially anywhere in France.

### 8.5.3 Civic and Citizenship Education in France

Due to France's historical, social and political contexts, ever since the Third Republic (1870–1940), citizenship education has been closely linked to a political regime (the Republic) and to the country's territory. The issue therefore in
*de la formation*, MEEF). According to the Ministry of national education,²³ this Master is a university training that mobilises teaching teams from different backgrounds. Primary and secondary teachers, researchers, teacher trainers, professionals in practice (inspectors, principals, etc.) are involved throughout the training course, to ensure a training in line with the reality of the profession.

In this Master's in professions of teaching, education and training, students
can choose between four paths:

- Primary school, to become a school teacher;

- Secondary school, to teach in middle or high school (excluding aggregation);

- Secondary school, to become a senior education advisor;

- Training practices and engineering.

Throughout the Master's, some lessons are common to all students of the college. These lessons focus notably on the areas of secularism and the values of the Republic, professional gestures related to learning situations, appropriation of transversal educational issues and major societal issues, fight against all discrimination, child psychology, civil service law, sociology of school populations, diversity management, school guidance, learning processes, professional communication (voice, gestures, etc.), management of conflict and violence, etc. The point of all future actors of the educational community following common teachings is to favour a shared culture that enhances the cohesion of education teams on the ground, which is a key factor in student success.

To become civil servants in the public education sector, students must obtain their Master's degree, but also pass a specific examination, depending on whether they wish to work in primary or secondary education, become a senior education advisor or a pedagogical engineer. Once they have obtained their Master's degree and passed the examination, candidates must enter their application on a national platform. The Ministry of National Education and Youth then assigns teachers, senior education advisors and pedagogical engineers to schools on the whole national territory.

More specifically, in the case of Nantes students taking part in GS, half are training to become secondary school history and geography teachers; the other half are training to become senior education advisors. Once they finish their training and get the required titles, they will be assigned by the Ministry to schools that need staff, which can be potentially anywhere in France.

8.5.3 Civic and Citizenship Education in France

Due to France's historical, social and political contexts, ever since the Third
Republic (1870–1940), citizenship education has been closely linked to a polit-
ical regime (the Republic) and to the country's territory. The issue therefore in
France is not so much for students to become free citizens, but French republican citizens. Among the different national policies that frame this process, there is notably the ministerial circular of 20 June 2016 on the ‘Citizen journey’. The aim is for students to be trained to become citizens in their school, by all members of the pedagogical and educational staff. The citizen journey contributes to the transmission of the values and principles of the Republic by addressing the major fields of citizenship education such as: secularism, the fight against all forms of discrimination, the prevention and fight against racism and anti-Semitism, environmental education and sustainable development ... In fact, this training is mostly done during Moral and civic education classes, by history & geography teachers (Douniès, 2018).

Article L121-4-1 of the French Education code stipulates that

> As part of its mission of citizenship education, the public service of education prepares students to live in society and become responsible and free citizens, aware of the principles and rules that underpin democracy. The lessons mentioned in article L. 312-15 and the actions undertaken within the framework of the committee provided for in article L. 421-8 are part of this mission.

The lessons mentioned by article L.312-15 are as follows:

> In addition to the teachings contributing to the objectives defined in article L. 131-1-1,²⁴ moral and civic education aims in particular to encourage students to become responsible and free citizens, to form a critical sense and to adopt a thoughtful behaviour, including their use of the internet and online public communication services. This education includes, at all stages of schooling, training in the values of the Republic, the knowledge and respect of the rights of the child enshrined in law or in an international commitment, and the understanding of the concrete situations that undermine it. It provides information on the role of non-governmental organisations working for the protection of children.

According to the Ministry of education's official bulletin of July 2018, the curricula for moral and civic education in middle school – which is the level that most of the pre-service students from Nantes will be working with – follows three aims. These are: Respecting others, Acquiring and sharing the values of the Republic, Building a civic culture. The specific curriculum for each grade builds on the previous grade's curriculum. For instance, regarding respect for others, in the equivalent of seventh grade (cinquième), “Notably in
France is not so much for students to become free citizens, but French republican citizens. Among the different national policies that frame this process, there is notably the ministerial circular of 20 June 2016 on the ‘Citizen journey’. The aim is for students to be trained to become citizens in their school, by all members of the pedagogical and educational staff. The citizen journey contributes to the transmission of the values and principles of the Republic by addressing the major fields of citizenship education such as: secularism, the fight against all forms of discrimination, the prevention and fight against racism and anti-Semitism, environmental education and sustainable development ... In fact, this training is mostly done during Moral and civic education classes, by history & geography teachers (Douniès, 2018).

Article L121-4-1 of the French Education code stipulates that

> As part of its mission of citizenship education, the public service of education prepares students to live in society and become responsible and free citizens, aware of the principles and rules that underpin democracy. The lessons mentioned in article L. 312-15 and the actions undertaken within the framework of the committee provided for in article L. 421-8 are part of this mission.

The lessons mentioned by article L.312-15 are as follows:

> In addition to the teachings contributing to the objectives defined in article L. 131-1-1,²⁴ moral and civic education aims in particular to encourage students to become responsible and free citizens, to form a critical sense and to adopt a thoughtful behaviour, including their use of the internet and online public communication services. This education includes, at all stages of schooling, training in the values of the Republic, the knowledge and respect of the rights of the child enshrined in law or in an international commitment, and the understanding of the concrete situations that undermine it. It provides information on the role of non-governmental organisations working for the protection of children.

According to the Ministry of education's official bulletin of July 2018, the curricula for moral and civic education in middle school – which is the level that most of the pre-service students from Nantes will be working with – follows three aims. These are: Respecting others, Acquiring and sharing the values of the Republic, Building a civic culture. The specific curriculum for each grade builds on the previous grade's curriculum. For instance, regarding respect for others, in the equivalent of seventh grade (cinquième), “Notably in
their use of digital technology, [students] apprehend the notions of personal
and legal identities". The following year, students focus "on the question of law
and its relationship to ethics. The notions of rights and duties for an individual
in relation to the other".²⁵

Though the curricula focus mostly on training French republican citizens,
and do not explicitly mention GCE, in certain places they do pertain to global
issues.

8.5.4 GCE in France

Citizenship education is very much centred on the French state and nation. However, certain parts of the curricula open up to the outside world. Regarding the aim of teaching students to respect others, the ninth grade curriculum references the necessity for students to understand that all human beings have equal dignity: "Civic morality taught at school is closely related to the principles and values of the republican and democratic citizenship. It is based on the awareness of the dignity and integrity of the human person". In the ninth grade, "In connection with the history program and reinvesting the work done in seventh and eighth grade on respect, tolerance and individual and legal responsibility, students work on antisemitism, racism and xenophobia".

When it comes to acquiring and sharing the values of the Republic, in the
eighth grade (quatrième), “In connection with the history program, students
identify the different stages that led to the construction of [the French] demo-
cratic state that is part of a democratic European Union”.

Concerning the aim of building a civic culture, seventh grade students are
to be made aware “of individual and collective responsibility [that] can work
in fruitful links with curricula of geography and life and earth sciences on the
theme of development and sustainable development. Discussions and debates
are an opportunity to confront arguments and understand ecological issues”.

Only a few points of the curricula encourage students to think outside of the
nation and the state. However, the values of the Republic (freedom, equality,
fraternity, secularism (*liberté, égalité, fraternité, laïcité*)), based on article 1 of
the 1789 Declaration of human and citizen rights, claim to be universal. In fact,
article 1 of the Universal declaration of human and citizen rights is inspired by
the former. Therefore, though the Moral and civic education curricula are cen-
tred on French citizenship, the values they convey invite the Nation's citizens
to reflect on, and feel concerned by global issues.

...
their use of digital technology, [students] apprehend the notions of personal
and legal identities". The following year, students focus "on the question of law
and its relationship to ethics. The notions of rights and duties for an individual
in relation to the other".²⁵

Though the curricula focus mostly on training French republican citizens,
and do not explicitly mention GCE, in certain places they do pertain to global
issues.

8.5.4 GCE in France

Citizenship education is very much centred on the French state and nation. However, certain parts of the curricula open up to the outside world. Regarding the aim of teaching students to respect others, the ninth grade curriculum references the necessity for students to understand that all human beings have equal dignity: "Civic morality taught at school is closely related to the principles and values of the republican and democratic citizenship. It is based on the awareness of the dignity and integrity of the human person". In the ninth grade, "In connection with the history program and reinvesting the work done in seventh and eighth grade on respect, tolerance and individual and legal responsibility, students work on antisemitism, racism and xenophobia".

When it comes to acquiring and sharing the values of the Republic, in the
eighth grade (quatrième), “In connection with the history program, students
identify the different stages that led to the construction of [the French] demo-
cratic state that is part of a democratic European Union”.

Concerning the aim of building a civic culture, seventh grade students are
to be made aware “of individual and collective responsibility [that] can work
in fruitful links with curricula of geography and life and earth sciences on the
theme of development and sustainable development. Discussions and debates
are an opportunity to confront arguments and understand ecological issues”.

Only a few points of the curricula encourage students to think outside of the
nation and the state. However, the values of the Republic (freedom, equality,
fraternity, secularism (*liberté, égalité, fraternité, laïcité*)), based on article 1 of
the 1789 Declaration of human and citizen rights, claim to be universal. In fact,
article 1 of the Universal declaration of human and citizen rights is inspired by
the former. Therefore, though the Moral and civic education curricula are cen-
tred on French citizenship, the values they convey invite the Nation's citizens
to reflect on, and feel concerned by global issues.

...
Across these five different systems, certain similarities and differences appear: for instance the Israeli and French education and training systems are far more centralised than the other three. Furthermore, regarding the main aims of the civic and citizenship education curricula, it seems that they all include a level of knowledge students must learn, to be articulated with the ability to analyse information and think for oneself. By encouraging critical analysis and thinking in civic education, these curricula all align, to different extents, with principles found in political liberalism.

Might these similarities indicate a tendency towards the forming of global citizens? The moderns are increasingly reticent to the idea of associating the status of citizen to a particular nation, which the GCE slogan expresses in its own way. It incites international cooperation that involves, as initiated in GlobalSense, an international division of labour in the field of citizenship education, which is why we find Durkheim's work in particular especially useful.

Before further exploring the differences and similarities between the five countries in terms of the governance and organisation of their education and teacher training systems, as well as their curricula, we wish to underline two main points. Firstly, regarding the level of centralisation, the French and Israeli systems are centralised as opposed to the Belgian, German and US, which are decentralised systems. In terms of the countries' civic and citizenship education curricula, they all contain instructions aimed at students acquiring knowledge and learning to articulate it with skills and/or actions, in order to "realise [their] cultural rights" in Israel, have "an opportunity to operate as a citizen" in the US state of Pennsylvania, and "participate reflectively and democratically in public policy processes" in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. Concerning the extent to which the five countries' curricula include goals to educate students on global issues – despite the fact that most do not so much as mention the terms Global Citizenship Education – we can note that these vary from very little inclination towards the global level (Israel, US) to an explicit influence of GCE objectives as notably specified by the UN (Germany).

## Notes

<footnote n="1">1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:c11090</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Internal relations within the social body are distinct from the State recognised by external bodies "who provide it with an identity [within the framework] of international relations and foreign affairs [where] governing and governed merge into a unitary entity, in this case the nation" (Kaufmann, 2010, p. 353).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Except for when he grasps it no longer in its ontological but ideological aspect, which is obviously part of social reality.</footnote>
Across these five different systems, certain similarities and differences appear: for instance the Israeli and French education and training systems are far more centralised than the other three. Furthermore, regarding the main aims of the civic and citizenship education curricula, it seems that they all include a level of knowledge students must learn, to be articulated with the ability to analyse information and think for oneself. By encouraging critical analysis and thinking in civic education, these curricula all align, to different extents, with principles found in political liberalism.

Might these similarities indicate a tendency towards the forming of global citizens? The moderns are increasingly reticent to the idea of associating the status of citizen to a particular nation, which the GCE slogan expresses in its own way. It incites international cooperation that involves, as initiated in GlobalSense, an international division of labour in the field of citizenship education, which is why we find Durkheim's work in particular especially useful.

Before further exploring the differences and similarities between the five countries in terms of the governance and organisation of their education and teacher training systems, as well as their curricula, we wish to underline two main points. Firstly, regarding the level of centralisation, the French and Israeli systems are centralised as opposed to the Belgian, German and US, which are decentralised systems. In terms of the countries' civic and citizenship education curricula, they all contain instructions aimed at students acquiring knowledge and learning to articulate it with skills and/or actions, in order to "realise [their] cultural rights" in Israel, have "an opportunity to operate as a citizen" in the US state of Pennsylvania, and "participate reflectively and democratically in public policy processes" in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. Concerning the extent to which the five countries' curricula include goals to educate students on global issues – despite the fact that most do not so much as mention the terms Global Citizenship Education – we can note that these vary from very little inclination towards the global level (Israel, US) to an explicit influence of GCE objectives as notably specified by the UN (Germany).

## Notes

<footnote n="1">1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:c11090</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Internal relations within the social body are distinct from the State recognised by external bodies "who provide it with an identity [within the framework] of international relations and foreign affairs [where] governing and governed merge into a unitary entity, in this case the nation" (Kaufmann, 2010, p. 353).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Except for when he grasps it no longer in its ontological but ideological aspect, which is obviously part of social reality.</footnote>
4 This is not to say that it would be impossible to separate citizenship and nationality. However, the stakes are high and the experiences in that respect are limited; the most typical one, on an inter-state scale, is the European Union.

5 "Durkheim believes that the moral integration of society precedes the democratic exercise that is absent from school discipline, while Dewey wants to develop the democratic virtues in school since it is democracy that makes society. [...] For Durkheim, school must impose rules; for Dewey, school must teach students the art of debate, compromise and decision" (Dubet, 2018, p. 63). These cleavages, according to the author, do not change the fact that the question of institutional and symbolic frameworks of education, posed by Durkheim more than a century ago, still imposes itself on us. It is in this sense that one can always be Durkheimian.

6 The countries involved in GlobalSense are few and belong to a fairly common cultural area: three European states, the United States (Pennsylvania), and Israel which is in the Middle East, but remains a nation created mainly by settlers on the basis of Zionist ideals elaborated in Europe.

7 https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/countries/germany/

8 https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/germany/conditions-service-teachers-working-early-childhood-and-school

9 https://km-bw.de/, Lde/startseite

10 https://lehrer-online-bw.de/, Lde/Startseite/vdonline

11 https://www.ph-weingarten.de/studium-weiterbildung/bachelorstudiengaenge/lehramt-an-grundschulen/

12 https://www.ph-weingarten.de/studium-weiterbildung/bachelorstudiengaenge/lehramt-sekundarstufe-i/

13 https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/, Lde/LS/BP2016BW/ALLG/LP/LFDB

14 http://www.enseignement.be/index.php?page=27096&navi=4064

15 http://www.enseignement.be/index.php?page=26791&navi=4036

16 https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

17 https://www.temple.edu/academics/degree-programs/secondary-education-social-studies-major-ed-sess-bsed

18 https://www.temple.edu/academics/degree-programs/secondary-education-med-ed-sece-med

19 https://www.education.pa.gov/Pages/default.aspx

20 https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/education_guides_tuota/he/Hinuch_fr.PDF

21 https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-01.htm

22 There are thirteen administrative regions in metropolitan France. Each region is made up of a varying number of departments. The teacher-training college of Nantes is situated in the department of Loire-Atlantique, which is part of the region called Pays de la Loire.

23 https://www.devenirenseignant.gouv.fr/apres-une-licence-3-le-master-meef-217

24 According to article L. 131-1-1 of the Education code: "The purpose of the right of the child to education is to guarantee him, on the one hand, the acquisition of the fundamental instruments of knowledge, basic knowledge, elements of general culture and, depending on the choices, vocational and technical training and, on the other hand, education enabling him to develop his personality, his moral sense and his critical mind, to raise his level of initial and continuing training, to integrate himself into social and professional life, to share the values of the Republic and to exercise its citizenship".

25 https://ww2.ac-poitiers.fr/valeurs-republique/spip.php?article1556
4 This is not to say that it would be impossible to separate citizenship and nationality. However, the stakes are high and the experiences in that respect are limited; the most typical one, on an inter-state scale, is the European Union.

5 "Durkheim believes that the moral integration of society precedes the democratic exercise that is absent from school discipline, while Dewey wants to develop the democratic virtues in school since it is democracy that makes society. [...] For Durkheim, school must impose rules; for Dewey, school must teach students the art of debate, compromise and decision" (Dubet, 2018, p. 63). These cleavages, according to the author, do not change the fact that the question of institutional and symbolic frameworks of education, posed by Durkheim more than a century ago, still imposes itself on us. It is in this sense that one can always be Durkheimian.

6 The countries involved in GlobalSense are few and belong to a fairly common cultural area: three European states, the United States (Pennsylvania), and Israel which is in the Middle East, but remains a nation created mainly by settlers on the basis of Zionist ideals elaborated in Europe.

7 https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/countries/germany/

8 https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/germany/conditions-service-teachers-working-early-childhood-and-school

9 https://km-bw.de/, Lde/startseite

10 https://lehrer-online-bw.de/, Lde/Startseite/vdonline

11 https://www.ph-weingarten.de/studium-weiterbildung/bachelorstudiengaenge/lehramt-an-grundschulen/

12 https://www.ph-weingarten.de/studium-weiterbildung/bachelorstudiengaenge/lehramt-sekundarstufe-i/

13 https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/, Lde/LS/BP2016BW/ALLG/LP/LFDB

14 http://www.enseignement.be/index.php?page=27096&navi=4064

15 http://www.enseignement.be/index.php?page=26791&navi=4036

16 https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

17 https://www.temple.edu/academics/degree-programs/secondary-education-social-studies-major-ed-sess-bsed

18 https://www.temple.edu/academics/degree-programs/secondary-education-med-ed-sece-med

19 https://www.education.pa.gov/Pages/default.aspx

20 https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/education_guides_tuota/he/Hinuch_fr.PDF

21 https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-01.htm

22 There are thirteen administrative regions in metropolitan France. Each region is made up of a varying number of departments. The teacher-training college of Nantes is situated in the department of Loire-Atlantique, which is part of the region called Pays de la Loire.

23 https://www.devenirenseignant.gouv.fr/apres-une-licence-3-le-master-meef-217

24 According to article L. 131-1-1 of the Education code: "The purpose of the right of the child to education is to guarantee him, on the one hand, the acquisition of the fundamental instruments of knowledge, basic knowledge, elements of general culture and, depending on the choices, vocational and technical training and, on the other hand, education enabling him to develop his personality, his moral sense and his critical mind, to raise his level of initial and continuing training, to integrate himself into social and professional life, to share the values of the Republic and to exercise its citizenship".

25 https://ww2.ac-poitiers.fr/valeurs-republique/spip.php?article1556
# Global Citizenship

A Commitment in the Search of a Theory

The point of this approach is to continue mobilising a sociology that is at once classical, yet flexible and evolutionary enough to study educational phenomena sometimes labelled ‘postmodern’. This anchoring in classical sociology avoids two pitfalls.

The first is to embrace GCE in an uncritical way, claiming citizenship to be already global, or that citizenship education can be projected onto the world, though this would require bypassing national realities in terms of education policies, institutional realities and professional constraints. The second pitfall consists on the contrary in rejecting GCE in a dogmatic way by saying, contrary to a cosmopolitan Durkheimian perspective, that forms of social belonging do not evolve and that citizenship therefore is irremediably linked to its national anchorage. Debates on global citizenship education are *de facto* situated between these two poles. While some education scientists are explicitly in favour of GCE (Banks, 2008; Torres, 2017), others approach the notion with great distance (Matthews & Sidhu, 2005; Oxley & Morris, 2013) or even challenge it (Mannion, Biesta, Priestley, & Ross, 2011; Papastephanou, 2018).

Discussions on GCE are too rich to be summarised here. Nonetheless, the tools developed so far make it possible to solve part of the problem, serving an inextricably linked sociological and philosophical approach in ETS. If being a citizen means taking part in the goals of a collective entity (nation, etc.) and being obliged by its decisions (cf. Chapter 3), then what does citizenship become if one tries to broaden its scope (internationally) or even reformulate it (GCE)? The answer will depend on the ability to identify (references to) a collective entity such as the ‘global political community’, to specify its status in certain enunciations (logical, ontological, ideal), and to define its place in the ideology of modern societies – those whose collective representations promote individualism.

## 1 Being a Citizen, Belonging to a Society

However, to fully associate reflection on collective entities with a reflection on citizenship, it is necessary to specify the former's nature. Belonging to a nation
# Global Citizenship

A Commitment in the Search of a Theory

The point of this approach is to continue mobilising a sociology that is at once classical, yet flexible and evolutionary enough to study educational phenomena sometimes labelled ‘postmodern’. This anchoring in classical sociology avoids two pitfalls.

The first is to embrace GCE in an uncritical way, claiming citizenship to be already global, or that citizenship education can be projected onto the world, though this would require bypassing national realities in terms of education policies, institutional realities and professional constraints. The second pitfall consists on the contrary in rejecting GCE in a dogmatic way by saying, contrary to a cosmopolitan Durkheimian perspective, that forms of social belonging do not evolve and that citizenship therefore is irremediably linked to its national anchorage. Debates on global citizenship education are *de facto* situated between these two poles. While some education scientists are explicitly in favour of GCE (Banks, 2008; Torres, 2017), others approach the notion with great distance (Matthews & Sidhu, 2005; Oxley & Morris, 2013) or even challenge it (Mannion, Biesta, Priestley, & Ross, 2011; Papastephanou, 2018).

Discussions on GCE are too rich to be summarised here. Nonetheless, the tools developed so far make it possible to solve part of the problem, serving an inextricably linked sociological and philosophical approach in ETS. If being a citizen means taking part in the goals of a collective entity (nation, etc.) and being obliged by its decisions (cf. Chapter 3), then what does citizenship become if one tries to broaden its scope (internationally) or even reformulate it (GCE)? The answer will depend on the ability to identify (references to) a collective entity such as the ‘global political community’, to specify its status in certain enunciations (logical, ontological, ideal), and to define its place in the ideology of modern societies – those whose collective representations promote individualism.

## 1 Being a Citizen, Belonging to a Society

However, to fully associate reflection on collective entities with a reflection on citizenship, it is necessary to specify the former's nature. Belonging to a nation
as a citizen is not the same as belonging to a university, an ETS department or a gourmet club. A major difference lies in the ability to leave the collective entity: this is easier for a member of the gourmet club than for a citizen. Can I be a member of a collective entity if I do not respect its rules of procedure? Probably, but maybe not for very long. However, as a citizen, disobeying the laws is not a direct reason for exclusion: deprivation of citizenship by a state only happens for very specific reasons. One can be excluded from a particular social life in the case of imprisonment, but prisoners, in general, remain citizens. Even the death penalty in the United States does not deprive the person of their American citizenship (this is only the case if it can be assumed that the criminal act was carried out with the intention of renouncing it).

There are too many other possible examples and it is not necessary to reflect comprehensively on the subject; let us rather indicate that researchers of the holist current, notably Descombes, have worked on the tools to ask these questions. In what sense can one say that the Sorbonne is the same today as the Sorbonne of the 13th century, even though it disappeared in the meantime? How about Poland, that has disappeared three times in recent history? The point is not to provide a definitive answer, but rather to guide our reflection on the nation as a collective entity. The question is both important and difficult, see Gilbert's aborted attempts (Chapter 3). One of the difficulties is related to the need to feel obliged by collective decisions: where, for instance, can we situate the eminently citizen phenomena of conscientious objection and civil disobedience? This touches on the paradox of political liberalism in its contractual form, which derives from Hobbes and Locke: that of dissolving individuals' consciences in the private arena, just as it is claimed they must be respected in order to expand political freedom.

However, in the modern era we regularly see refusals to obey laws that cannot be equated with simple private opinions: protests against the US war in Vietnam, campaign for civil rights in South Africa, mobilisations against climate change including blockades and sabotages, etc. How then can the idea of civil disobedience be reconciled with that of collective obligation? This paradox is actually not as great as it seems: one can have a sense of obligation towards collective decisions whilst contributing collectively, through disobedience, to a reorientation of the purposes of the collective entity. Here is the crucial point: if one can practice civil disobedience, it is because one does it on behalf of the collective entity, even if one acts alone. Indeed, contrary to some appearances, conscientious objection leading to civil disobedience is not fully individual: "the conscience that protests perceives itself as tied to other members of a community by virtue of a collective moral responsibility" (Saada & Antaki, 2018, p. 27).
as a citizen is not the same as belonging to a university, an ETS department or a gourmet club. A major difference lies in the ability to leave the collective entity: this is easier for a member of the gourmet club than for a citizen. Can I be a member of a collective entity if I do not respect its rules of procedure? Probably, but maybe not for very long. However, as a citizen, disobeying the laws is not a direct reason for exclusion: deprivation of citizenship by a state only happens for very specific reasons. One can be excluded from a particular social life in the case of imprisonment, but prisoners, in general, remain citizens. Even the death penalty in the United States does not deprive the person of their American citizenship (this is only the case if it can be assumed that the criminal act was carried out with the intention of renouncing it).

There are too many other possible examples and it is not necessary to reflect comprehensively on the subject; let us rather indicate that researchers of the holist current, notably Descombes, have worked on the tools to ask these questions. In what sense can one say that the Sorbonne is the same today as the Sorbonne of the 13th century, even though it disappeared in the meantime? How about Poland, that has disappeared three times in recent history? The point is not to provide a definitive answer, but rather to guide our reflection on the nation as a collective entity. The question is both important and difficult, see Gilbert's aborted attempts (Chapter 3). One of the difficulties is related to the need to feel obliged by collective decisions: where, for instance, can we situate the eminently citizen phenomena of conscientious objection and civil disobedience? This touches on the paradox of political liberalism in its contractual form, which derives from Hobbes and Locke: that of dissolving individuals' consciences in the private arena, just as it is claimed they must be respected in order to expand political freedom.

However, in the modern era we regularly see refusals to obey laws that cannot be equated with simple private opinions: protests against the US war in Vietnam, campaign for civil rights in South Africa, mobilisations against climate change including blockades and sabotages, etc. How then can the idea of civil disobedience be reconciled with that of collective obligation? This paradox is actually not as great as it seems: one can have a sense of obligation towards collective decisions whilst contributing collectively, through disobedience, to a reorientation of the purposes of the collective entity. Here is the crucial point: if one can practice civil disobedience, it is because one does it on behalf of the collective entity, even if one acts alone. Indeed, contrary to some appearances, conscientious objection leading to civil disobedience is not fully individual: "the conscience that protests perceives itself as tied to other members of a community by virtue of a collective moral responsibility" (Saada & Antaki, 2018, p. 27).
Here lies the ambiguity of conscientious objection: invoking the sacred
domain of conscience, it can destroy the conditions of equality between citi-
zens made possible by law (and the associated mutual obligations) just as well
as it can accomplish higher and fairer purposes. The refusal by conscientious
objection to administer an abortion as a doctor, or to marry a same-sex couple
as a mayor, has little to do with civil disobedience, because the professions
exercised have been defined collectively, via liberal laws. However, to alert on
the radical spying practices of the United States can be considered civil disobe-
dience. At least this is how Edward Snowden managed to justify his behaviour
by taking into account the superior ends of his own nation.

Thus, to say that citizenship is a matter of collective obligation to a political society does not amount to denying the content of disobedient individual conscience since it is asserted in the service of higher collective ends. This is how Durkheim goes beyond the theories of the social contract. The non-pathological division of labour (integrated and regulated by the state) deepens the autonomy of individuals, whose social aspirations are in turn always likely to challenge the established order, in particular the rules and norms laid down in relation to a previous stage of the division of labour. This holistic line, considering that society in its morphology and physiology is at the principle of deepening individualism, provides a guideline for analysing cosmopolitanism.

Republican cosmopolitanism emphasises that the feeling of belonging to a modern political society is a condition of cosmopolitanism, and this feeling is none other than patriotism. Certainly, by not being a patriot one benefits from a feeling of detachment that is undoubtedly liberating – one can claim to be a full citizen of the world for example – but also does not invite one to correct the mistakes of the nation to which one belongs. Indeed, we might then consider the attachment to one's country as a simple individual preference. This is the difference between a Frenchman and a Francophile: the second cannot, as such, contribute to the cosmopolitan order. This is why the Republican cosmopolitan, on the other hand, does not say “my country right or wrong”, but rather “my country, if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right” (Erez & Laborde, 2020, p. 197).

Nor is it necessary, to preserve the sacred idea of individual consciousness (cf. Durkheim), to dilute citizenship in ethics. On the contrary, the notion of citizenship must be taken seriously, because it appears that defensive loopholes – declaring that citizenship in fact is only a question of ethics, perspective or commitment – have their limits, which are due to the fact that our modern ideology conveys a principle of radical equality. Therefore, it does not say that humans must be generous, or ethical, or tolerant, or sympathetic to each other. What individualist ideology suggests is that all humans are truly equal and
Here lies the ambiguity of conscientious objection: invoking the sacred
domain of conscience, it can destroy the conditions of equality between citi-
zens made possible by law (and the associated mutual obligations) just as well
as it can accomplish higher and fairer purposes. The refusal by conscientious
objection to administer an abortion as a doctor, or to marry a same-sex couple
as a mayor, has little to do with civil disobedience, because the professions
exercised have been defined collectively, via liberal laws. However, to alert on
the radical spying practices of the United States can be considered civil disobe-
dience. At least this is how Edward Snowden managed to justify his behaviour
by taking into account the superior ends of his own nation.

Thus, to say that citizenship is a matter of collective obligation to a political society does not amount to denying the content of disobedient individual conscience since it is asserted in the service of higher collective ends. This is how Durkheim goes beyond the theories of the social contract. The non-pathological division of labour (integrated and regulated by the state) deepens the autonomy of individuals, whose social aspirations are in turn always likely to challenge the established order, in particular the rules and norms laid down in relation to a previous stage of the division of labour. This holistic line, considering that society in its morphology and physiology is at the principle of deepening individualism, provides a guideline for analysing cosmopolitanism.

Republican cosmopolitanism emphasises that the feeling of belonging to a modern political society is a condition of cosmopolitanism, and this feeling is none other than patriotism. Certainly, by not being a patriot one benefits from a feeling of detachment that is undoubtedly liberating – one can claim to be a full citizen of the world for example – but also does not invite one to correct the mistakes of the nation to which one belongs. Indeed, we might then consider the attachment to one's country as a simple individual preference. This is the difference between a Frenchman and a Francophile: the second cannot, as such, contribute to the cosmopolitan order. This is why the Republican cosmopolitan, on the other hand, does not say “my country right or wrong”, but rather “my country, if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right” (Erez & Laborde, 2020, p. 197).

Nor is it necessary, to preserve the sacred idea of individual consciousness (cf. Durkheim), to dilute citizenship in ethics. On the contrary, the notion of citizenship must be taken seriously, because it appears that defensive loopholes – declaring that citizenship in fact is only a question of ethics, perspective or commitment – have their limits, which are due to the fact that our modern ideology conveys a principle of radical equality. Therefore, it does not say that humans must be generous, or ethical, or tolerant, or sympathetic to each other. What individualist ideology suggests is that all humans are truly equal and
should therefore be considered as such, at least legally. This is an ideal, but it
is nevertheless the logic of moral individualism, transpiring in land egalitari-
anism, in social contract theories that are artificial, varied and ambiguous; and
yet that make sense to us, if only in the structuring of the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, this “triumph of the Individual [...]
that would exert a powerful action, in truth irresistible, throughout the nine-
teenth century and up to the present day” (Dumont, 1991, p. 120).

2 Global Citizenship as a Type of Citizenship

What happens if one seeks to grasp global citizenship without defining it in
terms of ethics but only by involving the law, in order to understand the radical
meaning of global citizenship as a component of the ideology of the modern?
To answer this question, we invoke four examples: the Conference of the Par-
ties (COP), which meets under the auspices of the UN Climate Change Agency;
the status of NGOS; the International Criminal Court (ICC); finally, the Euro-
pean Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

1. The COP. The COP echoes global citizenship: its subject is global; sustain-
able development is explicitly mentioned by UNESCO as a quintessential
theme of GCE; 'citizen' and 'responsible' attitudes are expected of indi-
viduals in order to limit the consumption of fossil fuels, etc. However,
according to our theoretical guidelines, no indicators allow us to see here
the emergence of a global citizenship. Indeed, it is not so much citizens
who are obliged by the decisions of the COP, as it is nation-states: "The
Paris Agreement [2015] builds upon the Convention and – for the first
time – brings all nations into a common cause".¹ If citizens are obliged by
these collective decisions (carbon tax, polluter pays principle, taking into
account negative externalities), it is because they are part of the nations
that are committed – and especially say that they are committed – to
limiting climate change in the context of the COP. Furthermore, when
citizens feel that the commitment has not been met, their legal action
is not clearly situated within a global framework. In the 'Case of the
Century', conducted by NGOS (Greenpeace-France, Oxfam-France), the
litigation was handled by the Administrative Court of Paris that ended up
condemning the French state.² What remains then of global citizenship?
The task of identifying it deserves further investigation.

2. NGOS. Though the 'Case of the Century' is circumscribed within a national legal framework, the fact is that the NGOS that initiated it benefit from an important international or even global recognition. However, the
should therefore be considered as such, at least legally. This is an ideal, but it
is nevertheless the logic of moral individualism, transpiring in land egalitari-
anism, in social contract theories that are artificial, varied and ambiguous; and
yet that make sense to us, if only in the structuring of the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, this “triumph of the Individual [...]
that would exert a powerful action, in truth irresistible, throughout the nine-
teenth century and up to the present day” (Dumont, 1991, p. 120).

2 Global Citizenship as a Type of Citizenship

What happens if one seeks to grasp global citizenship without defining it in
terms of ethics but only by involving the law, in order to understand the radical
meaning of global citizenship as a component of the ideology of the modern?
To answer this question, we invoke four examples: the Conference of the Par-
ties (COP), which meets under the auspices of the UN Climate Change Agency;
the status of NGOS; the International Criminal Court (ICC); finally, the Euro-
pean Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

1. The COP. The COP echoes global citizenship: its subject is global; sustain-
able development is explicitly mentioned by UNESCO as a quintessential
theme of GCE; 'citizen' and 'responsible' attitudes are expected of indi-
viduals in order to limit the consumption of fossil fuels, etc. However,
according to our theoretical guidelines, no indicators allow us to see here
the emergence of a global citizenship. Indeed, it is not so much citizens
who are obliged by the decisions of the COP, as it is nation-states: "The
Paris Agreement [2015] builds upon the Convention and – for the first
time – brings all nations into a common cause".¹ If citizens are obliged by
these collective decisions (carbon tax, polluter pays principle, taking into
account negative externalities), it is because they are part of the nations
that are committed – and especially say that they are committed – to
limiting climate change in the context of the COP. Furthermore, when
citizens feel that the commitment has not been met, their legal action
is not clearly situated within a global framework. In the 'Case of the
Century', conducted by NGOS (Greenpeace-France, Oxfam-France), the
litigation was handled by the Administrative Court of Paris that ended up
condemning the French state.² What remains then of global citizenship?
The task of identifying it deserves further investigation.

2. NGOS. Though the 'Case of the Century' is circumscribed within a national legal framework, the fact is that the NGOS that initiated it benefit from an important international or even global recognition. However, the
existence of NGOS depends on the states, which alone are empowered to give them a legal identity. The question becomes more complicated when states have signed international conventions guaranteeing freedom of association; but this does not change the nature of the question. Thus, the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of NGOS establishes that “the legal personality and capacity of an NGO as acquired in the Party [that is, the state] in which it has its registered office shall be automatically recognised in the other Parties”.³ Therefore, the anchoring is at a state level. It may be objected that NGOS can be interlocutors of global bodies such as the UN. Examples include Oxfam, Amnesty International, Rockefeller Foundation, Qatar Charity, the Christian Embassy for Campus Crusade for Christ ... The commitment of individuals within these organisations is therefore global. However, they are not thus attributed a status of world citizen: individuals remain citizens of their own state (unless they are stateless). So is it global citizenship, or global mobilisation?

3. *The ICC.* While NGOS lack the status of subjects of international law, the International Criminal Court (ICC) appears to be a quasi-global entity. The decisions it takes apply directly to all the state Parties and as such, it can be considered a true political community. Admittedly, the ICC concerns only very limited areas of human actions (war crimes). But on the principle, one could speak here of world citizenship. On the one hand, actions are judged neither at a national arena level, nor at a pseudo-federal level (such as the ECHR), but in a much broader framework. On the other hand, as a citizen member of a state Party of the ICC, one must for example recognise Ratko Mladic as a war criminal, on the basis of a collective decision that was not conducted in a national framework. That being said, experts on the subject agree that the ICC is not very effective, if only because it does not include major states such as Russia, the United States or Israel. The establishment of *ad hoc* tribunals by the UN Security Council does not seem to allow the trial, and even less the conviction, of suspects of war crimes from these countries such as George W. Bush, Ariel Sharon and Vladimir Putin. Indeed, although an ‘arrest warrant’ was issued in 2023 against the latter, its implications are very limited since the two main belligerents in terms of military spending, the United States and Russia, are precisely not members of the ICC.

4. *The ECHR.* The ECHR is transnational, but it should be remembered that, under the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine allowing member states a “margin of appreciation”, the Court makes judgments only in the light of national regulations. This is why it can, for example, ban a teacher
existence of NGOS depends on the states, which alone are empowered to give them a legal identity. The question becomes more complicated when states have signed international conventions guaranteeing freedom of association; but this does not change the nature of the question. Thus, the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of NGOS establishes that “the legal personality and capacity of an NGO as acquired in the Party [that is, the state] in which it has its registered office shall be automatically recognised in the other Parties”.³ Therefore, the anchoring is at a state level. It may be objected that NGOS can be interlocutors of global bodies such as the UN. Examples include Oxfam, Amnesty International, Rockefeller Foundation, Qatar Charity, the Christian Embassy for Campus Crusade for Christ ... The commitment of individuals within these organisations is therefore global. However, they are not thus attributed a status of world citizen: individuals remain citizens of their own state (unless they are stateless). So is it global citizenship, or global mobilisation?

3. *The ICC.* While NGOS lack the status of subjects of international law, the International Criminal Court (ICC) appears to be a quasi-global entity. The decisions it takes apply directly to all the state Parties and as such, it can be considered a true political community. Admittedly, the ICC concerns only very limited areas of human actions (war crimes). But on the principle, one could speak here of world citizenship. On the one hand, actions are judged neither at a national arena level, nor at a pseudo-federal level (such as the ECHR), but in a much broader framework. On the other hand, as a citizen member of a state Party of the ICC, one must for example recognise Ratko Mladic as a war criminal, on the basis of a collective decision that was not conducted in a national framework. That being said, experts on the subject agree that the ICC is not very effective, if only because it does not include major states such as Russia, the United States or Israel. The establishment of *ad hoc* tribunals by the UN Security Council does not seem to allow the trial, and even less the conviction, of suspects of war crimes from these countries such as George W. Bush, Ariel Sharon and Vladimir Putin. Indeed, although an ‘arrest warrant’ was issued in 2023 against the latter, its implications are very limited since the two main belligerents in terms of military spending, the United States and Russia, are precisely not members of the ICC.

4. *The ECHR.* The ECHR is transnational, but it should be remembered that, under the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine allowing member states a “margin of appreciation”, the Court makes judgments only in the light of national regulations. This is why it can, for example, ban a teacher
from wearing a *hijab* (in a Swiss canton), while allowing crucifixes on
classroom walls (in Italy). This is not to highlight the inconsistency of
European judgments (McCrea, 2018), but to recall the powerful national
anchorages of a European political community gathered, through inter-
state treaties, around common principles.

Given these examples, how can a global citizenship be imagined without
a corresponding political society? The question can once more be avoided,
if one argues that rather than being about citizenship, it is about an ethical
an educational ideal that can eventually lead to changes in the law. The fact
remains that aiming for an ideal, especially if it is distant, requires taking into
account what fits it (or not) and the conditions that can make it happen.

3 The Multiple Paths of Cosmopolitanism

The majority of GlobalSense members remain convinced of the relevance of
the concept of global citizenship, including in official educational require-
ments. These are particularly present in Germany, driven as they are by the
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (hence the
ambiguity of this educational slogan carried by an economic ministry). How-
ever, other GlobalSense members remain sceptical and want to discuss this
concept. Thus, rather than bend researchers and teacher trainers from all five
countries to a prescription that does not necessarily make sense to them, the
goal is to find a common vocabulary and common ground.

One possible compromise is to dilute or relax the notion of citizenship,
admitting that though global citizenship does not exist, our project is about
giving pre-service teachers a global outlook. This is an invitation for teacher
trainers to deal with local issues with a broad approach and through the study
of directly global issues such as rising waters, economic inequalities between
continents, world hunger or prospects of perpetual peace. Though this is an
attractive path, it tends to render the term of global citizenship useless, since it
is enough to use the notion of global outlook and global issues.

Several colleagues of the GlobalSense consortium reply that the expres-
sions ‘global outlook’ and ‘global sensitivity’ may be conducive to neoliberal
exploitations, while the word ‘citizenship’ suggests political mobilisation, in
favour of protecting migrants’ rights, or to fight climate change, for example.
The concern is commendable, but is it sufficient to justify the use of the word
‘citizenship’? In any case, the fact that global citizenship is already being taken
up by neoliberalism is documented (Mannion, Biesta, Priestley & Ross, 2011).
from wearing a *hijab* (in a Swiss canton), while allowing crucifixes on
classroom walls (in Italy). This is not to highlight the inconsistency of
European judgments (McCrea, 2018), but to recall the powerful national
anchorages of a European political community gathered, through inter-
state treaties, around common principles.

Given these examples, how can a global citizenship be imagined without
a corresponding political society? The question can once more be avoided,
if one argues that rather than being about citizenship, it is about an ethical
an educational ideal that can eventually lead to changes in the law. The fact
remains that aiming for an ideal, especially if it is distant, requires taking into
account what fits it (or not) and the conditions that can make it happen.

3 The Multiple Paths of Cosmopolitanism

The majority of GlobalSense members remain convinced of the relevance of
the concept of global citizenship, including in official educational require-
ments. These are particularly present in Germany, driven as they are by the
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (hence the
ambiguity of this educational slogan carried by an economic ministry). How-
ever, other GlobalSense members remain sceptical and want to discuss this
concept. Thus, rather than bend researchers and teacher trainers from all five
countries to a prescription that does not necessarily make sense to them, the
goal is to find a common vocabulary and common ground.

One possible compromise is to dilute or relax the notion of citizenship,
admitting that though global citizenship does not exist, our project is about
giving pre-service teachers a global outlook. This is an invitation for teacher
trainers to deal with local issues with a broad approach and through the study
of directly global issues such as rising waters, economic inequalities between
continents, world hunger or prospects of perpetual peace. Though this is an
attractive path, it tends to render the term of global citizenship useless, since it
is enough to use the notion of global outlook and global issues.

Several colleagues of the GlobalSense consortium reply that the expres-
sions ‘global outlook’ and ‘global sensitivity’ may be conducive to neoliberal
exploitations, while the word ‘citizenship’ suggests political mobilisation, in
favour of protecting migrants’ rights, or to fight climate change, for example.
The concern is commendable, but is it sufficient to justify the use of the word
‘citizenship’? In any case, the fact that global citizenship is already being taken
up by neoliberalism is documented (Mannion, Biesta, Priestley & Ross, 2011).
Therefore, what can replacing one word with another achieve? Rather, by promoting the global outlook, are we not *de facto* in the field of ethics or social and civic skills, even though they are broadened to the extent that they claim to exceed, in terms of curriculum content, the national framework?

The point here is not to answer these questions – it seems more fruitful to keep them open so that each national team can make them its own – but to affirm that if we really wish to move towards an ideal, then we might as well identify the limits of the notion we idealise. This requires a (meta) theoretical reflection: “GCE is an intervention in search of a theory. [...] I believe what we need now is a meta-theory” (Torres & Bosio, 2020, p. 107).

## 4 Teachers, Citizenship, the State

In order to establish this theory, it is useful to revisit Durkheim's work. We must however overcome certain ambiguities, which Durkheim had not clarified but undoubtedly perceived, as evidenced by his hesitations about the state.

On the one hand, he maintained that “collective activity is always too complex to be expressed by the one and only organ that is the state” (Durkheim, 1893/1996, p. 32). On the other hand, he maintained the need for “an equal force greater than all the others”, embodied by the state, which was certainly to be counterbalanced by secondary groups, but nevertheless led to a radical requirement of probity of civil servants to “contain [secondary groups and] prevent their excesses” (Durkheim, 1905/2020, p. 175). Thus, Durkheim denied civil servants the right to unionise (a right granted later, in 1925), “neglecting the multiple dysfunctions of the state as an institution that occur under the Third Republic”, and revealing, ultimately, a “quasi-contradiction, in the work of Durkheim, between the role attributed to the division of labour and that for which the state is responsible” (Birnbaum, 2018, pp. 219, 224).

Thus appears the GCE slogan's worth: it consists in opening a plural field of studies to treat this quasi-contradiction. To do this, we must take into account on the one hand, the contemporary phenomenon of “trend dissociation between citizenship and nationality”; and, on the other hand, the deep will of individuals to “be the first actors of a citizenship outside of the state’s control” (Déloye, 2018, p. 257). Having not fully been a contemporary of these developments, Durkheim had an essentially statutory conception of citizenship. However, a more recent definition, in terms of ‘acts of citizenship’, values people’s concern to ‘co-produce’ their citizenship. Thus, it is not so much a question of possessing it, as it is of exercising it. This is how the many vocabulary shifts identified above are illuminated. Indeed, if we consider a citizenship in action,
Therefore, what can replacing one word with another achieve? Rather, by promoting the global outlook, are we not *de facto* in the field of ethics or social and civic skills, even though they are broadened to the extent that they claim to exceed, in terms of curriculum content, the national framework?

The point here is not to answer these questions – it seems more fruitful to keep them open so that each national team can make them its own – but to affirm that if we really wish to move towards an ideal, then we might as well identify the limits of the notion we idealise. This requires a (meta) theoretical reflection: “GCE is an intervention in search of a theory. [...] I believe what we need now is a meta-theory” (Torres & Bosio, 2020, p. 107).

## 4 Teachers, Citizenship, the State

In order to establish this theory, it is useful to revisit Durkheim’s work. We must however overcome certain ambiguities, which Durkheim had not clarified but undoubtedly perceived, as evidenced by his hesitations about the state.

On the one hand, he maintained that “collective activity is always too complex to be expressed by the one and only organ that is the state” (Durkheim, 1893/1996, p. 32). On the other hand, he maintained the need for “an equal force greater than all the others”, embodied by the state, which was certainly to be counterbalanced by secondary groups, but nevertheless led to a radical requirement of probity of civil servants to “contain [secondary groups and] prevent their excesses” (Durkheim, 1905/2020, p. 175). Thus, Durkheim denied civil servants the right to unionise (a right granted later, in 1925), “neglecting the multiple dysfunctions of the state as an institution that occur under the Third Republic”, and revealing, ultimately, a “quasi-contradiction, in the work of Durkheim, between the role attributed to the division of labour and that for which the state is responsible” (Birnbaum, 2018, pp. 219, 224).

Thus appears the GCE slogan's worth: it consists in opening a plural field of studies to treat this quasi-contradiction. To do this, we must take into account on the one hand, the contemporary phenomenon of “trend dissociation between citizenship and nationality”; and, on the other hand, the deep will of individuals to “be the first actors of a citizenship outside of the state’s control” (Délaye, 2018, p. 257). Having not fully been a contemporary of these developments, Durkheim had an essentially statutory conception of citizenship. However, a more recent definition, in terms of ‘acts of citizenship’, values people’s concern to ‘co-produce’ their citizenship. Thus, it is not so much a question of possessing it, as it is of exercising it. This is how the many vocabulary shifts identified above are illuminated. Indeed, if we consider a citizenship in action,
co-produced by people rather than by the state, then we can think of the idea
of global citizenship as a global commitment.

Though Durkheim had not perceived the distant consequences of deepening individualism in the field of citizenship, his theory nevertheless provides tools for studying it. Because fundamentally, Durkheim “makes citizenship a sort of indicator of modernity [and] thus invites [us] to [...] move away from the analysis of the strictly legal field [...] towards the historical field” (Délaye, 2018, p. 254). This is why, after theorising the abandonment of major religions, then national communalisation, the author remained able to envisage a ‘human homeland’ by suggesting that ‘the human ideal’ was a latent aspiration of our societies, whose individualism today seems less and less compatible with a citizenship (pre)defined by specific states.

5

Undertaking the Necessary Reflexivity in Research and Training

It has been said that while the ideological content of citizenship can be poten-
tially global, it is exercised locally. However, contrary to this dichotomy, the
regulated division of labour in modern societies makes it more and more plau-
sible that people, so different from each other in terms of beliefs, profession,
culture (etc.), have only one thing left in common: their humanity. Hence con-
temporary moral individualism not being naturally satisfied with this contra-
diction, as illustrated by the success of the global citizenship slogan. If organic
solidarity values differentiation and interdependence, then it is no longer
necessary for people to be similar (in terms of beliefs, profession and culture)
in order to be considered, without distinction, as human beings. Is that not a
good enough reason to imagine each other as fellow citizens on a global scale?

Hence the importance of the GlobalSense research. Inviting future teachers
to consider how citizenship (statutory or active) might be taught in a transna-
tional framework is a Durkheimian way of accompanying and co-regulating
the division of labour, between our five countries, in an area where European
(Erasmus+) and quasi-global (UNESCO) directives are growing.⁴ This is how
the sociological framework is gradually refined – to be confronted with the
empirical field resulting from GlobalSense – concerning secondary groups, of
which the trainers and the (future) teachers are part.

But here too, it is necessary to distinguish between, on the one hand, the
Durkheimian toolbox and its contemporary extensions; and on the other
hand, the Durkheimian theses on the state in its relationship with secondary
groups. On this second level, the Bordeaux sociologist's analysis is rather dated.
In addition to the fact that today, a large minority of teachers are not civil
co-produced by people rather than by the state, then we can think of the idea
of global citizenship as a global commitment.

Though Durkheim had not perceived the distant consequences of deepening individualism in the field of citizenship, his theory nevertheless provides tools for studying it. Because fundamentally, Durkheim “makes citizenship a sort of indicator of modernity [and] thus invites [us] to [...] move away from the analysis of the strictly legal field [...] towards the historical field” (Délaye, 2018, p. 254). This is why, after theorising the abandonment of major religions, then national communalisation, the author remained able to envisage a ‘human homeland’ by suggesting that ‘the human ideal’ was a latent aspiration of our societies, whose individualism today seems less and less compatible with a citizenship (pre)defined by specific states.

5

Undertaking the Necessary Reflexivity in Research and Training

It has been said that while the ideological content of citizenship can be poten-
tially global, it is exercised locally. However, contrary to this dichotomy, the
regulated division of labour in modern societies makes it more and more plau-
sible that people, so different from each other in terms of beliefs, profession,
culture (etc.), have only one thing left in common: their humanity. Hence con-
temporary moral individualism not being naturally satisfied with this contra-
diction, as illustrated by the success of the global citizenship slogan. If organic
solidarity values differentiation and interdependence, then it is no longer
necessary for people to be similar (in terms of beliefs, profession and culture)
in order to be considered, without distinction, as human beings. Is that not a
good enough reason to imagine each other as fellow citizens on a global scale?

Hence the importance of the GlobalSense research. Inviting future teachers
to consider how citizenship (statutory or active) might be taught in a transna-
tional framework is a Durkheimian way of accompanying and co-regulating
the division of labour, between our five countries, in an area where European
(Erasmus+) and quasi-global (UNESCO) directives are growing.⁴ This is how
the sociological framework is gradually refined – to be confronted with the
empirical field resulting from GlobalSense – concerning secondary groups, of
which the trainers and the (future) teachers are part.

But here too, it is necessary to distinguish between, on the one hand, the
Durkheimian toolbox and its contemporary extensions; and on the other
hand, the Durkheimian theses on the state in its relationship with secondary
groups. On this second level, the Bordeaux sociologist's analysis is rather dated.
In addition to the fact that today, a large minority of teachers are not civil
servants, it is necessary to underline the extreme variety of configurations in terms of division of labour, communities of practice, collegiality (spontaneous or forced), decision-making power, degree of responsibility, uncertainties on how to define the teaching profession, relationships between training and the profession's realities, reasons for becoming a teacher, attractiveness, recognition and occupational prestige.

Whilst taking these aspects into account, this book nevertheless must identify priorities to avoid dispersion. This is why the focus is on the renewal of the Durkheimian and more broadly the holistic thinking, to grasp citizenship education from an international perspective. The questions usually dealt with by sociology of teachers and of teacher training will therefore be more secondary here, since our approach so far is based on the following conviction: studying the words we use, as researchers, provides reflexivity, essential to the scientific approach. For if educational notions are tools, they are also objects to be scrutinised. The question therefore is less about promoting GCE than about

questioning, from a comparative and transnational perspective, how the notion of citizenship circulates in educational and social spaces in the era of globalisation, and explore the observable variations and circular relationships between policies that promote these notions and their manifestations in context in educational and cultural practices. (Malet & Garnier, 2020, p. 16)

To this end, let us study the most visible recommendation in favour of GCE, which is the one from UNESCO. As academics in ETS, we must take it seriously, since ETS undertake a social project, whilst also submitting it to a necessary criticism.

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, peace and sustainable development continue to be threatened by human rights violations, inequality and poverty. Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO's response to these challenges. Through its work, the Organisation empowers learners of all ages to think about these issues globally, not just locally, and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, safe and sustainable societies. GCED is a strategic area of UNESCO's Education Sector programme, which benefits from the Organisation's work in the fields of peace and human rights. It aims to instill in learners the values, attitudes and behaviours that underpin responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development.⁵
servants, it is necessary to underline the extreme variety of configurations in terms of division of labour, communities of practice, collegiality (spontaneous or forced), decision-making power, degree of responsibility, uncertainties on how to define the teaching profession, relationships between training and the profession's realities, reasons for becoming a teacher, attractiveness, recognition and occupational prestige.

Whilst taking these aspects into account, this book nevertheless must identify priorities to avoid dispersion. This is why the focus is on the renewal of the Durkheimian and more broadly the holistic thinking, to grasp citizenship education from an international perspective. The questions usually dealt with by sociology of teachers and of teacher training will therefore be more secondary here, since our approach so far is based on the following conviction: studying the words we use, as researchers, provides reflexivity, essential to the scientific approach. For if educational notions are tools, they are also objects to be scrutinised. The question therefore is less about promoting GCE than about

> questioning, from a comparative and transnational perspective, how the notion of citizenship circulates in educational and social spaces in the era of globalisation, and explore the observable variations and circular relationships between policies that promote these notions and their manifestations in context in educational and cultural practices. (Malet & Garnier, 2020, p. 16)

To this end, let us study the most visible recommendation in favour of GCE, which is the one from UNESCO. As academics in ETS, we must take it seriously, since ETS undertake a social project, whilst also submitting it to a necessary criticism.

> As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, peace and sustainable development continue to be threatened by human rights violations, inequality and poverty. Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO's response to these challenges. Through its work, the Organisation empowers learners of all ages to think about these issues globally, not just locally, and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, safe and sustainable societies. GCED is a strategic area of UNESCO's Education Sector programme, which benefits from the Organisation's work in the fields of peace and human rights. It aims to instill in learners the values, attitudes and behaviours that underpin responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development.⁵
This means thinking about problems from a different (global) perspective and actively promoting better societies (peaceful, inclusive, safe, tolerant, sustainable), by inculcating values, attitudes and behaviours. We see here the theme of learning and skills, but not of citizenship as such. Indeed, it is not enough to inculcate values, to give pause and arouse certain behaviours (in the learner) in order for a global citizen to emerge (this is something the GlobalSense pre-service teachers often acknowledge, as we shall see). At most, the approach can lead to a form of active citizenship, different from a statutory citizenship. But is it global?

This is not to say that UNESCO's action does not concern (global) citizenship, for the historical stake is undeniable. In 2012, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon launched the Global Education First Initiative with three objectives:

- Getting all children of the world to go to school;

- Improve the quality of learning;

- Develop global citizenship.

However, this is an institutional framework whose content still needs to be clarified: "the concept of global citizenship is subject to polarizing forces, diverse and divergent interests, ideologies and, by implication, contestation" (Torres, 2015, p. 10). It remains to be seen what exact form GCE can take, while avoiding the 'dissolving consensus' (Rosanvallon, 2006) specific to such political initiatives.

For Carlos Torres, the most legitimate content to 'fill' the GCE without sacrificing it to divergent interests is that of Paulo Freire's pedagogy of emancipation. Though the path is seductive, Torres' vision is fundamentally liberal, in Rawls' sense (Torres & Bosio, 2020, p. 107). The author does not hide this, defining citizenship education as developing virtues such as loyalty, autonomy, open-mindedness, work ethic, as well as analytical and critical ability. Torres admits that these are values defined in the context of Western philosophies, while suggesting that they are shared, to varying degrees, in other civilisations: "Though these values are defined and defended in the context of Western philosophies, the question that one could raise is whether these values are shared by other civilisations such as the African, Arab or Asian civilizations" (Torres, 2017, p. 15).

This interpretation was confirmed during the Torres conferences in Bordeaux, on October 24 and 27, 2022. The speaker strongly emphasised a world division between a liberal bloc (whose central pole is in Europe and North America) and an illiberal bloc (composed of Iran, China, Russia, India). In this context, the promotion of GCE can only be of the liberal conception
This means thinking about problems from a different (global) perspective and actively promoting better societies (peaceful, inclusive, safe, tolerant, sustainable), by inculcating values, attitudes and behaviours. We see here the theme of learning and skills, but not of citizenship as such. Indeed, it is not enough to inculcate values, to give pause and arouse certain behaviours (in the learner) in order for a global citizen to emerge (this is something the GlobalSense pre-service teachers often acknowledge, as we shall see). At most, the approach can lead to a form of active citizenship, different from a statutory citizenship. But is it global?

This is not to say that UNESCO's action does not concern (global) citizenship, for the historical stake is undeniable. In 2012, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon launched the Global Education First Initiative with three objectives:

- Getting all children of the world to go to school;

- Improve the quality of learning;

- Develop global citizenship.

However, this is an institutional framework whose content still needs to be clarified: "the concept of global citizenship is subject to polarizing forces, diverse and divergent interests, ideologies and, by implication, contestation" (Torres, 2015, p. 10). It remains to be seen what exact form GCE can take, while avoiding the 'dissolving consensus' (Rosanvallon, 2006) specific to such political initiatives.

For Carlos Torres, the most legitimate content to 'fill' the GCE without sacrificing it to divergent interests is that of Paulo Freire's pedagogy of emancipation. Though the path is seductive, Torres' vision is fundamentally liberal, in Rawls' sense (Torres & Bosio, 2020, p. 107). The author does not hide this, defining citizenship education as developing virtues such as loyalty, autonomy, open-mindedness, work ethic, as well as analytical and critical ability. Torres admits that these are values defined in the context of Western philosophies, while suggesting that they are shared, to varying degrees, in other civilisations: "Though these values are defined and defended in the context of Western philosophies, the question that one could raise is whether these values are shared by other civilisations such as the African, Arab or Asian civilizations" (Torres, 2017, p. 15).

This interpretation was confirmed during the Torres conferences in Bordeaux, on October 24 and 27, 2022. The speaker strongly emphasised a world division between a liberal bloc (whose central pole is in Europe and North America) and an illiberal bloc (composed of Iran, China, Russia, India). In this context, the promotion of GCE can only be of the liberal conception
of citizenship, i.e. geographically implanted in the liberal pole, made up of
liberal societies. This is what gives relevance to arguments that underline the
national, therefore relatively local, anchors of political liberalism (Miller). Cit-
izenship is potentially global because it is liberal, and it is liberal because it is
defended primarily, as Torres acknowledges, by Western liberal philosophies.

In this, Torres' position remains consistent, because it admits the subjec-
tive aspect of the researcher's commitment on behalf of the GCE, which is
firstly a narrative mobilised according to very diverse interests. Nevertheless,
UNESCO's initiative in favour of GCE must be seen from a broader perspective.
Indeed, it concerns the

transformations [which] take place [in part] as a result of an integration
into supranational political groups and the dissemination of organisa-
tional principles and common transnational school standards, generat-
ing a certain formal convergence of the school's regulatory framework
[...]. The pressures on education systems converge, but nevertheless do
not lead to a homogenisation of the solutions implemented, despite the
adopted reforms' congruence. National societies [...] are called to refor-
mulate their democratic and civic education project, because of these
circulation phenomena, but also because they no longer constitute the
exclusive or ultimate scope of reference for the individuals who com-
pose them, themselves stretched between different spaces and scopes of
achievement and recognition. (Malet & Garnier, 2020, p. 12)

Educational projects related to citizenship are therefore reformulated on a
global scale, yet, according to the authors, national societies remain the actors
of this reframing. In other words, if educational conceptions of citizenship
can no longer remain within the exclusive horizon of a single nation, this does
not eliminate the question of how citizenship and its education can become
global, and thus how national societies reformulate their respective projects.

6 GlobalSense Pre-Service Teachers: Which Scale Is Pertinent to Approach Global Issues?

The exploration of student teachers' perspectives within the GlobalSense
program unveils a narrative that to some extent transcends borders, delving
into the interactions of individual perceptions, national influences, and the
broader global landscape.
of citizenship, i.e. geographically implanted in the liberal pole, made up of
liberal societies. This is what gives relevance to arguments that underline the
national, therefore relatively local, anchors of political liberalism (Miller). Cit-
izenship is potentially global because it is liberal, and it is liberal because it is
defended primarily, as Torres acknowledges, by Western liberal philosophies.

In this, Torres' position remains consistent, because it admits the subjec-
tive aspect of the researcher's commitment on behalf of the GCE, which is
firstly a narrative mobilised according to very diverse interests. Nevertheless,
UNESCO's initiative in favour of GCE must be seen from a broader perspective.
Indeed, it concerns the

transformations [which] take place [in part] as a result of an integration
into supranational political groups and the dissemination of organisa-
tional principles and common transnational school standards, generat-
ing a certain formal convergence of the school's regulatory framework
[...]. The pressures on education systems converge, but nevertheless do
not lead to a homogenisation of the solutions implemented, despite the
adopted reforms' congruence. National societies [...] are called to refor-
mulate their democratic and civic education project, because of these
circulation phenomena, but also because they no longer constitute the
exclusive or ultimate scope of reference for the individuals who com-
pose them, themselves stretched between different spaces and scopes of
achievement and recognition. (Malet & Garnier, 2020, p. 12)

Educational projects related to citizenship are therefore reformulated on a
global scale, yet, according to the authors, national societies remain the actors
of this reframing. In other words, if educational conceptions of citizenship
can no longer remain within the exclusive horizon of a single nation, this does
not eliminate the question of how citizenship and its education can become
global, and thus how national societies reformulate their respective projects.

6 GlobalSense Pre-Service Teachers: Which Scale Is Pertinent to Approach Global Issues?

The exploration of student teachers' perspectives within the GlobalSense
program unveils a narrative that to some extent transcends borders, delving
into the interactions of individual perceptions, national influences, and the
broader global landscape.
## 6.1 *The Perceptions of Migration by Student Teachers: A Global or National-Dependent Topic?*

The student teachers, particularly in Israel, the US and France reflect on the fact that national contexts influence pre-service teachers' representations of global issues such as migration, which affects and interconnects most countries:

> Moreover, the online meeting with student teachers from other countries reminded me that there are prevailing issues – such as immigration policy – which are global, but are experienced according to the context of a country. (Matteo, TUP, USA)

> We realised how our point of view is influenced by the country we live in. (Oléann, NU, France)

> Though migration is a global issue, is it approached differently in each country, which is why I am not convinced it is relevant to debate with other teachers how to teach about it. (Asaf, HUJI, Israel)

Some go further, noticing similarities or differences in the way pre-service teachers from different countries plan to approach the topic of migration in the classroom:

> Israelis took a different perspective, because Israel has a particular perspective of Jewish migration. But the Germans took a more similar approach [to ours], so we probably have the same point of interest. (Etienne, NU, France)

> When it comes to migration, French and German are more focused on definition & motives of migration in a social and historical context, whereas Israelis are more focused on construction of identity. (Batiste, NU, France)

It is interesting to note that student teachers from the Weingarten University of Education (WUE) in Germany and the Free University of Brussels (FUB) in Belgium do not mention these national perspectives. Can these differences be linked to the fact that they are trained in decentralised systems, as opposed to their Israeli and French peers? Quite possibly, with the level of centralisation of an education system being linked to that of standardisation of the curriculum. If so, why are their US peers so focused on their and their fellow student teachers' national 'biases' towards migration? We are inclined to look here at the civic education curriculum they themselves were taught as
## 6.1 *The Perceptions of Migration by Student Teachers: A Global or National-Dependent Topic?*

The student teachers, particularly in Israel, the US and France reflect on the fact that national contexts influence pre-service teachers’ representations of global issues such as migration, which affects and interconnects most countries:

> Moreover, the online meeting with student teachers from other countries reminded me that there are prevailing issues – such as immigration policy – which are global, but are experienced according to the context of a country. (Matteo, TUP, USA)

> We realised how our point of view is influenced by the country we live in. (Oléann, NU, France)

> Though migration is a global issue, is it approached differently in each country, which is why I am not convinced it is relevant to debate with other teachers how to teach about it. (Asaf, HUJI, Israel)

Some go further, noticing similarities or differences in the way pre-service teachers from different countries plan to approach the topic of migration in the classroom:

> Israelis took a different perspective, because Israel has a particular perspective of Jewish migration. But the Germans took a more similar approach [to ours], so we probably have the same point of interest. (Etienne, NU, France)

> When it comes to migration, French and German are more focused on definition & motives of migration in a social and historical context, whereas Israelis are more focused on construction of identity. (Batiste, NU, France)

It is interesting to note that student teachers from the Weingarten University of Education (WUE) in Germany and the Free University of Brussels (FUB) in Belgium do not mention these national perspectives. Can these differences be linked to the fact that they are trained in decentralised systems, as opposed to their Israeli and French peers? Quite possibly, with the level of centralisation of an education system being linked to that of standardisation of the curriculum. If so, why are their US peers so focused on their and their fellow student teachers’ national ‘biases’ towards migration? We are inclined to look here at the civic education curriculum they themselves were taught as
students of Pennsylvanian schools. Indeed, it centres mostly on US citizenship, as explained previously. This is also largely the case of the French and Israeli curricula, which do not officially recognised GCE as a component of civic and citizenship education.

This is different, however, from what student teachers in Wallonia-Brussels and Baden-Württemberg will have experienced at school. The former will have learnt about global issues, thanks to the involvement of actors outside the education system. The latter will have followed courses on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), a broad concept that seeks to equip learners with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary to contribute to sustainable societies and address global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty, and inequality.

These broader perspectives, to which FUB and WUE pre-service teachers were faced with as students, may explain why their reaction to taking part in the GlobalSense project and, more specifically, the exchanges with their peers from the other countries, is centred on the importance of emotions. This seems to serve three main purposes according to the data collected: not hurting students' feelings who might have a history of migration in their own background; not being judgemental of their students' opinions on migration; and encouraging them to have an open mind towards migrants, but also towards people's views on migration:

> I found Patricia and Jessica's lesson very creative and pertinent as they used a game to make students think of what a 'privilege' is. [...] I realised [that] what a privilege is for someone, is not for someone else. Those are notions that encompass a very large spectrum and we, as teachers, have to be open-minded and let our students express themselves freely even if their interpretations are not the same as ours. (Vanessa, FUB, Brussels)

> The most important thing is to always see the human and not the big 'problem' migration. [...] During the lessons it is important to treat the topic very carefully because each student could be affected. (Johannes, WUE, Germany)

The pre-service teachers who took part in GlobalSense tend to either see the topic of migration, which questions the concept of citizenship, through a national lens of 'immigration policy', and 'definition of migration in a social and historical context' (France, Israel and USA) or from a more global perspective, that leads participants to evoke questions of empathy and understanding (Germany and Belgium).
students of Pennsylvanian schools. Indeed, it centres mostly on US citizenship, as explained previously. This is also largely the case of the French and Israeli curricula, which do not officially recognised GCE as a component of civic and citizenship education.

This is different, however, from what student teachers in Wallonia-Brussels and Baden-Württemberg will have experienced at school. The former will have learnt about global issues, thanks to the involvement of actors outside the education system. The latter will have followed courses on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), a broad concept that seeks to equip learners with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary to contribute to sustainable societies and address global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty, and inequality.

These broader perspectives, to which FUB and WUE pre-service teachers were faced with as students, may explain why their reaction to taking part in the GlobalSense project and, more specifically, the exchanges with their peers from the other countries, is centred on the importance of emotions. This seems to serve three main purposes according to the data collected: not hurting students' feelings who might have a history of migration in their own background; not being judgemental of their students' opinions on migration; and encouraging them to have an open mind towards migrants, but also towards people's views on migration:

> I found Patricia and Jessica's lesson very creative and pertinent as they used a game to make students think of what a 'privilege' is. [...] I realised [that] what a privilege is for someone, is not for someone else. Those are notions that encompass a very large spectrum and we, as teachers, have to be open-minded and let our students express themselves freely even if their interpretations are not the same as ours. (Vanessa, FUB, Brussels)

> The most important thing is to always see the human and not the big 'problem' migration. [...] During the lessons it is important to treat the topic very carefully because each student could be affected. (Johannes, WUE, Germany)

The pre-service teachers who took part in GlobalSense tend to either see the topic of migration, which questions the concept of citizenship, through a national lens of 'immigration policy', and 'definition of migration in a social and historical context' (France, Israel and USA) or from a more global perspective, that leads participants to evoke questions of empathy and understanding (Germany and Belgium).
## 6.2 Balancing Global Approaches and Adaptation to Local or National Contexts

The student teachers' self-reflections further illustrate the tension between approaching global issues in the classroom from a global perspective, and a national or local one. One pre-service teacher for instance believes that she and her peers all share certain values:

> The fact, that all of our lesson plans had an eye for empathy and to foster that empathy was something I really enjoyed. [The exchange] has accompanied all of us and it will keep doing that. (Leonie, graduate student, FUB, Belgium)

Another of her peers from Weingarten in Germany indicates her wish to use a global approach when tackling global issues in the classroom, putting aside the national scale all together:

> So, for me it seems, that the challenges with migrations are more or less the same, especially in Europe. Because of this similarity I thought about some more similarities in challenges with migration, that do not just affect Germany, but other countries as well. Why should we not teach that from the beginning on in a global way? [...] because in case we sit all in the same boat and have to solve the challenges together for a better world. (Julia, WUE, Germany)

Other pre-service teachers also acknowledge the importance of taking into account the global scale when approaching certain topics such as migration, but not at the expense of the national scale:

> It is important to mention the impact of global issues on a national level but also a global level, because our students will be citizens of the world. It will make them more aware & able to handle such topics. (Rukiye, FUB, Belgium)

> I think that this [GC] is an issue to defend in order to face new challenges. [...] Students must grow up with a sense of global belonging as well as a sense of national belonging. (Clara, Senior education advisor, NU, France)

> The discussion helped me understand my role as a future teacher in exposing my students to the ways things are done in other places, so they will always know and remember that the world is a much bigger place
## 6.2 Balancing Global Approaches and Adaptation to Local or National Contexts

The student teachers' self-reflections further illustrate the tension between approaching global issues in the classroom from a global perspective, and a national or local one. One pre-service teacher for instance believes that she and her peers all share certain values:

> The fact, that all of our lesson plans had an eye for empathy and to foster that empathy was something I really enjoyed. [The exchange] has accompanied all of us and it will keep doing that. (Leonie, graduate student, FUB, Belgium)

Another of her peers from Weingarten in Germany indicates her wish to use a global approach when tackling global issues in the classroom, putting aside the national scale all together:

> So, for me it seems, that the challenges with migrations are more or less the same, especially in Europe. Because of this similarity I thought about some more similarities in challenges with migration, that do not just affect Germany, but other countries as well. Why should we not teach that from the beginning on in a global way? [...] because in case we sit all in the same boat and have to solve the challenges together for a better world. (Julia, WUE, Germany)

Other pre-service teachers also acknowledge the importance of taking into account the global scale when approaching certain topics such as migration, but not at the expense of the national scale:

> It is important to mention the impact of global issues on a national level but also a global level, because our students will be citizens of the world. It will make them more aware & able to handle such topics. (Rukiye, FUB, Belgium)

> I think that this [GC] is an issue to defend in order to face new challenges. [...] Students must grow up with a sense of global belonging as well as a sense of national belonging. (Clara, Senior education advisor, NU, France)

> The discussion helped me understand my role as a future teacher in exposing my students to the ways things are done in other places, so they will always know and remember that the world is a much bigger place
than we sometime think. I would like my students to realize that while an issue is very important for us here in Israel, it can also be relevant in other places and we can maybe learn from each other. (Noa, HUJI, Israel)

I want to teach students what it means to be a global citizen and have them contrast and compare it with what it means to be a United States citizen. This in a sense will get them to focus on the varying meanings and interpretations of what a citizen is and how it can both be loosely and strictly defined depending on the context. (Jimmy, TUP, USA)

However one student teacher in particular, from Temple University in Philadelphi, believes that these issues, though they might be global, cannot be framed with an approach and practices shared by all (future) teachers:

> I do not believe that there is a singular globalized process that would work [...] in all of our nations. Our methods should be catered specifically to our students because their experiences are inherently different, even from other students in our nations. (Jessica, undergraduate student, TUP, USA)

This is similar to what Asaf, a pre-service teacher from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJI) expressed and that we mentioned above, feeling that the students exchanges are of no interest since “Though migration is a global issue, is it approached differently in each country”.

These quotes highlight the importance given by the professional group of pre-service teachers to the idea of raising their students' awareness to the world around them and its influence on nations. Yet they are not necessarily prepared to give up their prerogative, which consists in adapting their approach of these topics to their students' particular context.

Clara's (NU, France) views, mentioned above, might be linked to the fact that in France, civic education is closely tied to republican citizenship and mainly focuses on national issues. Nonetheless, it does also encourage students to consider global perspectives, reflecting universal values and indicating a partial alignment with the principles of Global Citizenship Education.

Regarding Asaf and Noa's (HUJI, Israel), what might explain their differing perspectives? The Israeli education system is centralised and the curriculum is standardised, with an emphasis on particularistic principles of Jewish nationalism: is it possible that the curriculum, while it incites Asaf to align his approaches on it, is in part what prompts Noa to advocate for a broader outlook, fearing as some scholars that it has become too nation-focused?
than we sometime think. I would like my students to realize that while an issue is very important for us here in Israel, it can also be relevant in other places and we can maybe learn from each other. (Noa, HUJI, Israel)

I want to teach students what it means to be a global citizen and have them contrast and compare it with what it means to be a United States citizen. This in a sense will get them to focus on the varying meanings and interpretations of what a citizen is and how it can both be loosely and strictly defined depending on the context. (Jimmy, TUP, USA)

However one student teacher in particular, from Temple University in Philadelphi, believes that these issues, though they might be global, cannot be framed with an approach and practices shared by all (future) teachers:

> I do not believe that there is a singular globalized process that would work [...] in all of our nations. Our methods should be catered specifically to our students because their experiences are inherently different, even from other students in our nations. (Jessica, undergraduate student, TUP, USA)

This is similar to what Asaf, a pre-service teacher from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJI) expressed and that we mentioned above, feeling that the students exchanges are of no interest since “Though migration is a global issue, is it approached differently in each country”.

These quotes highlight the importance given by the professional group of pre-service teachers to the idea of raising their students' awareness to the world around them and its influence on nations. Yet they are not necessarily prepared to give up their prerogative, which consists in adapting their approach of these topics to their students' particular context.

Clara's (NU, France) views, mentioned above, might be linked to the fact that in France, civic education is closely tied to republican citizenship and mainly focuses on national issues. Nonetheless, it does also encourage students to consider global perspectives, reflecting universal values and indicating a partial alignment with the principles of Global Citizenship Education.

Regarding Asaf and Noa's (HUJI, Israel), what might explain their differing perspectives? The Israeli education system is centralised and the curriculum is standardised, with an emphasis on particularistic principles of Jewish nationalism: is it possible that the curriculum, while it incites Asaf to align his approaches on it, is in part what prompts Noa to advocate for a broader outlook, fearing as some scholars that it has become too nation-focused?
The views of the two Brussels pre-service teachers quoted here also differ from one another. While one student emphasises the positive impact of empa- thy to approach global issues with students, the other underlines the impor- tance of a double focus on a national and a global perspective. This difference may be explained by the fact that Belgium supports Global Citizenship Edu- cation (GCE) through the Development Cooperation Act and a cooperation agreement. While the curriculum does not explicitly mention GCE or SDGs, various actors contribute to global awareness, meaning that both student teachers' views align with the Wallonia-Brussels curriculum.

Similarly, though the two Philadelphian student teachers’ perspectives dif- fer, they both align with the Pennsylvania curriculum, albeit for different rea- sons. By focusing on comparing global and U.S. citizenship, Jimmy’s approach aims to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of citizenship in a globalised world, fostering critical thinking and global awareness within the flexibility of the U.S. education system. On the other hand, Jessica under- scores the importance of localised, context-specific approaches that consider the unique experiences of students within the nation. These differences align with broader discussions about the challenges and perceptions of global citi- zenship education within the U.S. educational system.

Julia's viewpoint is the most focused on the global scale, resonating with the Baden-Württemberg (Germany) education system and curriculum in several ways. By aligning with the curriculum's commitment to international cooper- ation in education, by emphasising the fostering of a sense of shared respon- sibility, by aiming to cultivate informed and engaged students, by focusing on empathy and collaboration, and by wanting to tailor approaches, she acknowl- edges the flexibility within the German curriculum, empowering teachers to adapt content based on students' unique contexts.

These perspectives illustrate how educators navigate and adapt their approaches based on their cultural and educational contexts. Some stress that they will focus on context-specific approaches within their national system. The others all, to a certain extent, call for a broader outlook than the national level: either by still making a place for this scale, or by advocating for inter- national cooperation or an empathy-based approach that seems to have no borders.

## 6.3 What Is (Global) Citizenship?

Thus, the participants in the online exchanges indirectly question the scale at which citizenship should be approached. By doing so, they also challenge the concept of citizenship: is it a status, produced by the state and that one then possesses? Or does it require action, in which case, it is not so much a question
The views of the two Brussels pre-service teachers quoted here also differ from one another. While one student emphasises the positive impact of empa- thy to approach global issues with students, the other underlines the impor- tance of a double focus on a national and a global perspective. This difference may be explained by the fact that Belgium supports Global Citizenship Edu- cation (GCE) through the Development Cooperation Act and a cooperation agreement. While the curriculum does not explicitly mention GCE or SDGs, various actors contribute to global awareness, meaning that both student teachers' views align with the Wallonia-Brussels curriculum.

Similarly, though the two Philadelphian student teachers’ perspectives dif- fer, they both align with the Pennsylvania curriculum, albeit for different rea- sons. By focusing on comparing global and U.S. citizenship, Jimmy’s approach aims to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of citizenship in a globalised world, fostering critical thinking and global awareness within the flexibility of the U.S. education system. On the other hand, Jessica under- scores the importance of localised, context-specific approaches that consider the unique experiences of students within the nation. These differences align with broader discussions about the challenges and perceptions of global citi- zenship education within the U.S. educational system.

Julia's viewpoint is the most focused on the global scale, resonating with the Baden-Württemberg (Germany) education system and curriculum in several ways. By aligning with the curriculum's commitment to international cooper- ation in education, by emphasising the fostering of a sense of shared respon- sibility, by aiming to cultivate informed and engaged students, by focusing on empathy and collaboration, and by wanting to tailor approaches, she acknowl- edges the flexibility within the German curriculum, empowering teachers to adapt content based on students' unique contexts.

These perspectives illustrate how educators navigate and adapt their approaches based on their cultural and educational contexts. Some stress that they will focus on context-specific approaches within their national system. The others all, to a certain extent, call for a broader outlook than the national level: either by still making a place for this scale, or by advocating for inter- national cooperation or an empathy-based approach that seems to have no borders.

## 6.3 What Is (Global) Citizenship?

Thus, the participants in the online exchanges indirectly question the scale at which citizenship should be approached. By doing so, they also challenge the concept of citizenship: is it a status, produced by the state and that one then possesses? Or does it require action, in which case, it is not so much a question
of possessing citizenship, as it is of exercising it. By extension, if we consider
a citizenship in action, co-produced by people rather than by the state, then
we can think of the idea of global citizenship as a global commitment. Some
pre-service teachers' self-reflections after their exchanges illustrate this point,
anticipating the importance of carefully choosing how they approach a topic
and involving their students in more practical activities, in order to enrich
their individual understanding of (global) citizenship:

After listening to the various perspectives, I realized that the decision of
which topic to teach, and why and how to teach it develops a cognitive
framework in students. That is, it shapes the way that students learn to
think about topics, and the way in which they perceive topics. (Matteo,
TUP, USA)

I think it is also important that the teacher does not dogmatically deter-
mine which values are right and which are wrong. Rather, his task is to
encourage his students to judge and reason for themselves. (Tom, FUB,
Belgium)

In other words, regardless of how their national contexts influence their
views on global issues and whether to approach them in the classroom from a
historical perspective or a social perspective for instance, it would seem most
of the participants in the online exchanges believe in the necessity of not using
a top-down posture, but of getting their students to actively search for and
confront their ideas and opinions:

It is important that the students work independently or in groups while
the teacher takes a back seat. (Yvonne, WUE, Germany)

We [speaking of the Nantes University and Temple University students]
agree on the importance of debating with students on issues as import-
ant politically. (Quentin, NU, France)

One thing I did find interesting was that a majority of the students from
other countries wanted their students to participate in student-led discus-
sions regarding the topic of migration, in the hopes that students would
be able to share their own opinions and viewpoints. (Joy, TUP, USA)

Furthermore, they believe this approach requires an emotion-based approach
rather than a more classical knowledge-based approach:
of possessing citizenship, as it is of exercising it. By extension, if we consider
a citizenship in action, co-produced by people rather than by the state, then
we can think of the idea of global citizenship as a global commitment. Some
pre-service teachers' self-reflections after their exchanges illustrate this point,
anticipating the importance of carefully choosing how they approach a topic
and involving their students in more practical activities, in order to enrich
their individual understanding of (global) citizenship:

After listening to the various perspectives, I realized that the decision of
which topic to teach, and why and how to teach it develops a cognitive
framework in students. That is, it shapes the way that students learn to
think about topics, and the way in which they perceive topics. (Matteo,
TUP, USA)

I think it is also important that the teacher does not dogmatically deter-
mine which values are right and which are wrong. Rather, his task is to
encourage his students to judge and reason for themselves. (Tom, FUB,
Belgium)

In other words, regardless of how their national contexts influence their
views on global issues and whether to approach them in the classroom from a
historical perspective or a social perspective for instance, it would seem most
of the participants in the online exchanges believe in the necessity of not using
a top-down posture, but of getting their students to actively search for and
confront their ideas and opinions:

It is important that the students work independently or in groups while
the teacher takes a back seat. (Yvonne, WUE, Germany)

We [speaking of the Nantes University and Temple University students]
agree on the importance of debating with students on issues as import-
ant politically. (Quentin, NU, France)

One thing I did find interesting was that a majority of the students from
other countries wanted their students to participate in student-led discus-
sions regarding the topic of migration, in the hopes that students would
be able to share their own opinions and viewpoints. (Joy, TUP, USA)

Furthermore, they believe this approach requires an emotion-based approach
rather than a more classical knowledge-based approach:
In raw terms, I knew that France and Germany host refugee populations, I knew that human rights [...] are important for them. But until now [...], I didn't feel their urge to change it [...]. I couldn't become aware of such 'emotional knowledge' without interaction. It might even be that raw knowledge about the issues cannot transfer things successfully [in the classroom]. (Germàn, HUJI, Israel)

The self-reflections of student teachers illustrate the academic debates regarding the appropriate scales for addressing citizenship-related questions. Originating from what Durkheim termed differentiated countries, the participants exhibit varying perspectives on this matter. While they explore the nuances between national and global considerations, they all recognise the significance of broadening perspectives on migration. Despite their diverse national backgrounds, the common thread emerges in the dual conceptualisation of citizenship: as a commitment or as a status. Operating at the professional level, these educators navigate the inherent tensions between commitment and status, translating them into emotions or considerations of the national context. Hence, while there can be a debate between GC conceived as a status or a commitment, we see that the cosmopolitan perspective that forms the aspirations of the GlobalSense student teachers, necessitates embracing both dimensions.

## Notes

1 https://unfccc.int/most-requested/key-aspects-of-the-paris-agreement

2 https://media.greenpeace.org/Detail/27MDHUJO3WM

3 https://rm.coe.int/168007a67c

4 It should be noted that since 2018, the United States and Israel are no longer part of UNESCO. Hence an interesting question: how can one promote a global content slogan carried by an organisation of which one's own nation is not a member?

5 https://www.unesco.org/en/global-citizenship-peace-education
In raw terms, I knew that France and Germany host refugee populations, I knew that human rights [...] are important for them. But until now [...], I didn't feel their urge to change it [...]. I couldn't become aware of such 'emotional knowledge' without interaction. It might even be that raw knowledge about the issues cannot transfer things successfully [in the classroom]. (Germàn, HUJI, Israel)

The self-reflections of student teachers illustrate the academic debates regarding the appropriate scales for addressing citizenship-related questions. Originating from what Durkheim termed differentiated countries, the participants exhibit varying perspectives on this matter. While they explore the nuances between national and global considerations, they all recognise the significance of broadening perspectives on migration. Despite their diverse national backgrounds, the common thread emerges in the dual conceptualisation of citizenship: as a commitment or as a status. Operating at the professional level, these educators navigate the inherent tensions between commitment and status, translating them into emotions or considerations of the national context. Hence, while there can be a debate between GC conceived as a status or a commitment, we see that the cosmopolitan perspective that forms the aspirations of the GlobalSense student teachers, necessitates embracing both dimensions.

## Notes

1 https://unfccc.int/most-requested/key-aspects-of-the-paris-agreement

2 https://media.greenpeace.org/Detail/27MDHUJO3WM

3 https://rm.coe.int/168007a67c

4 It should be noted that since 2018, the United States and Israel are no longer part of UNESCO. Hence an interesting question: how can one promote a global content slogan carried by an organisation of which one's own nation is not a member?

5 https://www.unesco.org/en/global-citizenship-peace-education
# The Educator State in the Context of Globalisation

As announced at the beginning of this book, the goal is to clarify terminologies in the most honest way possible, by explaining the normative ideals that necessarily frame our approach. Indeed any notion, even the most apparently neutral and generous like global citizenship, carries non-demonstrable principles and a relationship to values. The course taken leads to the refusal of two postures already mentioned:

- The nominalist stance, which barely recognises collective entities (such as nations);

- The conservative stance, which believes it responds to the nominalist motif by hypostasising these entities (national-republican, Christian) at the risk of weakening the ideal of individual autonomy.

To avoid these pitfalls, the third posture claimed here is that of critical republicanism, itself close to the socialist ideal, which some aspire to rebuild in Durkheim's wake (Callegaro & Marcucci, 2018). In this perspective, the nation is the form taken by the social relations on which the constitution of our individuality depends; while nations, being conceived in what makes them different, give form to a pluralised process of promotion of relatively common (transnational) ideals. Moreover, in this process, "the plural of nations [...] comes to be reflected in each of them" and that is why "inter-nationalism, taken literally, is the axis of restoration of the national idea against [conservative] nationalism" (Karsenti & Lemieux, 2017, p. 19).

We just saw how the reality of nations is important for the student teachers, and so it is important to specify further the place of nations in the endeavours to go towards GC. We will see that there are certain conceptual obstacles, precisely because of this type of pendulum between the idea of humanity understood as a sum of individuals and the idea of moral individualism, which is an ideal formed in certain nations, even if it spreads in the world. Hence, a debate between conservatives who believe citizenship must be linked to a nation, and the nominalists who push for global citizenship. We believe there is a middle way.
# The Educator State in the Context of Globalisation

As announced at the beginning of this book, the goal is to clarify terminologies in the most honest way possible, by explaining the normative ideals that necessarily frame our approach. Indeed any notion, even the most apparently neutral and generous like global citizenship, carries non-demonstrable principles and a relationship to values. The course taken leads to the refusal of two postures already mentioned:

- The nominalist stance, which barely recognises collective entities (such as nations);

- The conservative stance, which believes it responds to the nominalist motif by hypostasising these entities (national-republican, Christian) at the risk of weakening the ideal of individual autonomy.

To avoid these pitfalls, the third posture claimed here is that of critical republicanism, itself close to the socialist ideal, which some aspire to rebuild in Durkheim's wake (Callegaro & Marcucci, 2018). In this perspective, the nation is the form taken by the social relations on which the constitution of our individuality depends; while nations, being conceived in what makes them different, give form to a pluralised process of promotion of relatively common (transnational) ideals. Moreover, in this process, "the plural of nations [...] comes to be reflected in each of them" and that is why "inter-nationalism, taken literally, is the axis of restoration of the national idea against [conservative] nationalism" (Karsenti & Lemieux, 2017, p. 19).

We just saw how the reality of nations is important for the student teachers, and so it is important to specify further the place of nations in the endeavours to go towards GC. We will see that there are certain conceptual obstacles, precisely because of this type of pendulum between the idea of humanity understood as a sum of individuals and the idea of moral individualism, which is an ideal formed in certain nations, even if it spreads in the world. Hence, a debate between conservatives who believe citizenship must be linked to a nation, and the nominalists who push for global citizenship. We believe there is a middle way.
1 Reacting to Liberal Nominalism without Giving in to Conservatism

In this perspective, it is necessary to take manifestations of conservative nationalism seriously, as reactions to an anomic division of labour that tends to disembed the economy from national society. It is therefore necessary to think of the three motifs constitutive of modernity– liberal, conservative and socialist – together for, while they oppose each other, they also contribute to defining the present situation. Typically, national-conservative reactions, often xenophobic, could indicate that interdependent relationships have increased on a global scale; thus the national-conservative reaction might indicate a certain success of the liberal motif, which values globalisation and blurred borders in the name of the principled autonomy of individuals. The challenge is then to draw an alternative, socialist response to this liberal motif, which, associated with economic neo-liberalism, has increasingly obvious limits.

According to Karsenti and Lemieux, this requires serious thinking about the nation and bringing the national idea to life through education, providing an increased ability to grasp oneself within a totality, in order to perpetuate and transform it. Therefore, the authors question the disembodied trans-national. If the idea of a European cosmopolitanism is not an empty word,

> it is to the extent that Europe was built on the basis of internationalism, that is, as an association of nations [...]. As such, it is not an exaggeration to say that Europe matters even more than the UN [of which UNESCO is a part]. Because the United Nations are in this way fundamentally different from Europe: as a supranational entity, it brings together all states indistinctly, liberal and democratic or not, fully assuming the gaps that may exist between 'facticity and validity' and limiting itself to formulating 'idealising assumptions'. In the case of Europe [...] the gap between facticity and validity is not allowed for any of its constituent parts. (Karsenti & Lemieux, 2017, p. 98)

The specificity of the European model is therefore that its implementation is constantly judged by its results. In addition, it is today the regulation and integration of the division of labour within it that is one of the conditions of its survival. The resulting socialism is therefore intimately linked to national realities and even to national-conservative expressions as a reaction, perceived by Durkheim, to a pathological division of labour. Strikingly, the authors go so far as to write that socialism

is quite comparable, and in some respects identical, to reactionary thinking. Only to the extent that it succeeds in transmuting this primary
1 Reacting to Liberal Nominalism without Giving in to Conservatism

In this perspective, it is necessary to take manifestations of conservative nationalism seriously, as reactions to an anomic division of labour that tends to disembed the economy from national society. It is therefore necessary to think of the three motifs constitutive of modernity– liberal, conservative and socialist – together for, while they oppose each other, they also contribute to defining the present situation. Typically, national-conservative reactions, often xenophobic, could indicate that interdependent relationships have increased on a global scale; thus the national-conservative reaction might indicate a certain success of the liberal motif, which values globalisation and blurred borders in the name of the principled autonomy of individuals. The challenge is then to draw an alternative, socialist response to this liberal motif, which, associated with economic neo-liberalism, has increasingly obvious limits.

According to Karsenti and Lemieux, this requires serious thinking about the nation and bringing the national idea to life through education, providing an increased ability to grasp oneself within a totality, in order to perpetuate and transform it. Therefore, the authors question the disembodied trans-national. If the idea of a European cosmopolitanism is not an empty word,

> it is to the extent that Europe was built on the basis of internationalism, that is, as an association of nations [...]. As such, it is not an exaggeration to say that Europe matters even more than the UN [of which UNESCO is a part]. Because the United Nations are in this way fundamentally different from Europe: as a supranational entity, it brings together all states indistinctly, liberal and democratic or not, fully assuming the gaps that may exist between 'facticity and validity' and limiting itself to formulating 'idealising assumptions'. In the case of Europe [...] the gap between facticity and validity is not allowed for any of its constituent parts. (Karsenti & Lemieux, 2017, p. 98)

The specificity of the European model is therefore that its implementation is constantly judged by its results. In addition, it is today the regulation and integration of the division of labour within it that is one of the conditions of its survival. The resulting socialism is therefore intimately linked to national realities and even to national-conservative expressions as a reaction, perceived by Durkheim, to a pathological division of labour. Strikingly, the authors go so far as to write that socialism

is quite comparable, and in some respects identical, to reactionary thinking. Only to the extent that it succeeds in transmuting this primary
attitude into a will of social science, in order to allow effective political action, does socialism separate itself from reactionary thinking and finally come to occupy a position that is diametrically opposed to it. (Karsenti & Lemieux 2017, p. 48)

How then can we transmute this reactionary thought, some aspects of which, in particular the will to think the totality, are identical to socialism? For Durkheim and many of his followers, only the state is likely to ensure a 'normality', understood as avoiding the pathological, by making society aware of itself and, consequently, of new rules and standards corresponding to the irreversible deepening of the division of social work.

## 2 Overcoming Plain Liberalism: Yes, but How?

These avenues must now be put to the test. This requires pointing out the blind spots of Karsenti and Lemieux' position: for though their purpose is politically lucid, it nevertheless remains fragile from an epistemological point of view.

First, the authors accuse 'liberalism' of abandoning the idea of social totality, thus legitimising their search for an inseparably socialist and sociological third path. However, the typically liberal edifice of John Rawls would collapse if he did not refer to a social totality in reference to the idea of people. Furthermore, political liberalism is constantly evolving internally; it is therefore important not to freeze its reading. In other words, "instead of mobilising our prior conception of what liberalism is to understand Rawls, we should better mobilise Rawls to develop a new conception of what liberalism could be" (Laden, 2006, p. 342).

Moreover, the authors of *Socialism and Sociology* exaggerate by imagining that sociology – once freed from the ‘mental grip’ that methodological individualism supposedly exerts on it – would be a more socialist discipline and, therefore, more democratic than anthropology (too conservative), history (too individualistic) and the law (too contractualist and therefore liberal). Does this thesis not telescope too much the political, ontological and epistemological levels? Only a fixed reading of ‘liberalism’ makes it possible to oppose ‘socialism’ and legitimise the said ‘sociological’ path which would be in ‘elective affinity’ with the latter. To be convincing, Karsenti and Lemieux would have had to distinguish the ontological register from the political one. And once these different registers at stake are unfolded, which is the least one can do when one intends to find ‘elective affinities’ between a discipline such as sociology and a political current such as socialism, then it becomes difficult to play Socialism, supposedly in ‘elective affinity’ with Sociology, against Liberalism that would parasite the latter.
attitude into a will of social science, in order to allow effective political action, does socialism separate itself from reactionary thinking and finally come to occupy a position that is diametrically opposed to it. (Karsenti & Lemieux 2017, p. 48)

How then can we transmute this reactionary thought, some aspects of which, in particular the will to think the totality, are identical to socialism? For Durkheim and many of his followers, only the state is likely to ensure a 'normality', understood as avoiding the pathological, by making society aware of itself and, consequently, of new rules and standards corresponding to the irreversible deepening of the division of social work.

## 2 Overcoming Plain Liberalism: Yes, but How?

These avenues must now be put to the test. This requires pointing out the blind spots of Karsenti and Lemieux' position: for though their purpose is politically lucid, it nevertheless remains fragile from an epistemological point of view.

First, the authors accuse 'liberalism' of abandoning the idea of social totality, thus legitimising their search for an inseparably socialist and sociological third path. However, the typically liberal edifice of John Rawls would collapse if he did not refer to a social totality in reference to the idea of people. Furthermore, political liberalism is constantly evolving internally; it is therefore important not to freeze its reading. In other words, "instead of mobilising our prior conception of what liberalism is to understand Rawls, we should better mobilise Rawls to develop a new conception of what liberalism could be" (Laden, 2006, p. 342).

Moreover, the authors of *Socialism and Sociology* exaggerate by imagining that sociology – once freed from the 'mental grip' that methodological individualism supposedly exerts on it – would be a more socialist discipline and, therefore, more democratic than anthropology (too conservative), history (too individualistic) and the law (too contractualist and therefore liberal). Does this thesis not telescope too much the political, ontological and epistemological levels? Only a fixed reading of 'liberalism' makes it possible to oppose 'socialism' and legitimise the said 'sociological' path which would be in 'elective affinity' with the latter. To be convincing, Karsenti and Lemieux would have had to distinguish the ontological register from the political one. And once these different registers at stake are unfolded, which is the least one can do when one intends to find 'elective affinities' between a discipline such as sociology and a political current such as socialism, then it becomes difficult to play Socialism, supposedly in 'elective affinity' with Sociology, against Liberalism that would parasite the latter.
However, a closeness exists between our approach and that of the authors of *Socialism and Sociology*. If they do not focus on the divides between liberalism and republicanism, but between liberalism and socialism, the fact remains that their reflection integrates a third common term: nationalism. They stress that it is precisely the denial of nationalism, as a properly modern phenomenon, that prevents the formation of a real socialist path. Furthermore, relying in part on the spirit of the nationalist demands – as reactions to unbridled liberalism – can bring out the socialist third way, nationalism being in part the expression of a need to integrate and regulate the division of social work.

Therefore, the Durkheimian gesture suggested in this book gives critical republicanism a new meaning, by thinking its articulation with the holistic perceptive, at the ontological level (collective entities such as the nation as a modern form of society), as well as at the political level (its affinities with socialism). It is to try, through a research on citizenship education, to grasp the social aspirations emerging from the deepening division of labour, making it possible to raise awareness of its expression at the state level. This implies developing, in teacher training, new working methods at the service of a communication circuit between societies and states (Callegaro, 2018), promoting new professional rules.

There is no doubt that global citizenship is linked to the context of globalisation, in which Western education systems are inserted and which Western universities try to grasp as an object of research and training, whilst being impacted by this object. Completeness on the subject is out of reach here, but here is a summary of the situation in broad strokes with a focus on themes touched on in GlobalSense: migration, climate, relations between nations and minorities from post-colonial immigration. As members of modern societies, we tend to be aware that events taking place thousands of kilometres away are nevertheless part of our close reality. When the Amazon forest goes up in smoke, we know that it has an impact on the global climate. When migrant boats sail on the Mediterranean, we know that our European states can decide, depending on the elected governments, to welcome or reject them, and under what conditions. When Islamist attacks tear apart Africa and the Middle East, we assume that it has to do with decolonisation, with the strategic and commercial links established between our states and certain dictatorships, and with our consumption of fossil fuels that contribute to the revenues of well-known companies and diplomatic relations between our states and authoritarian regimes.

## 3 Moral Individualism as a Collective Ideology

People may of course interpret these elements differently. Has decolonisation not already taken place? Is the Amazon not situated in Latin America? Can
However, a closeness exists between our approach and that of the authors of *Socialism and Sociology*. If they do not focus on the divides between liberalism and republicanism, but between liberalism and socialism, the fact remains that their reflection integrates a third common term: nationalism. They stress that it is precisely the denial of nationalism, as a properly modern phenomenon, that prevents the formation of a real socialist path. Furthermore, relying in part on the spirit of the nationalist demands – as reactions to unbridled liberalism – can bring out the socialist third way, nationalism being in part the expression of a need to integrate and regulate the division of social work.

Therefore, the Durkheimian gesture suggested in this book gives critical republicanism a new meaning, by thinking its articulation with the holistic perceptive, at the ontological level (collective entities such as the nation as a modern form of society), as well as at the political level (its affinities with socialism). It is to try, through a research on citizenship education, to grasp the social aspirations emerging from the deepening division of labour, making it possible to raise awareness of its expression at the state level. This implies developing, in teacher training, new working methods at the service of a communication circuit between societies and states (Callegaro, 2018), promoting new professional rules.

There is no doubt that global citizenship is linked to the context of globalisation, in which Western education systems are inserted and which Western universities try to grasp as an object of research and training, whilst being impacted by this object. Completeness on the subject is out of reach here, but here is a summary of the situation in broad strokes with a focus on themes touched on in GlobalSense: migration, climate, relations between nations and minorities from post-colonial immigration. As members of modern societies, we tend to be aware that events taking place thousands of kilometres away are nevertheless part of our close reality. When the Amazon forest goes up in smoke, we know that it has an impact on the global climate. When migrant boats sail on the Mediterranean, we know that our European states can decide, depending on the elected governments, to welcome or reject them, and under what conditions. When Islamist attacks tear apart Africa and the Middle East, we assume that it has to do with decolonisation, with the strategic and commercial links established between our states and certain dictatorships, and with our consumption of fossil fuels that contribute to the revenues of well-known companies and diplomatic relations between our states and authoritarian regimes.

## 3 Moral Individualism as a Collective Ideology

People may of course interpret these elements differently. Has decolonisation not already taken place? Is the Amazon not situated in Latin America? Can
and do we really want to welcome migrant boats? Is our consumption really in question, knowing that the 10% richest people on the planet emit almost half the greenhouse emissions? As a citizen, any answer to those questions is possible. However, few pre-service teachers and teacher trainers would deny their relevance. This is already a way of recognising the global scope of the themes that should be taken into account in citizenship education.

Though Durkheim had not perceived the ecological question, which connects people's subjectivities around the planet, he did sense a growing cosmopolitan feeling as the deepening of the integrated and regulated division of labour produced organic solidarity. This important idea emphasises that the perception of these new connections between people, potentially global, is a product of the ideology of the modern. Thus, if I think that the fate of the Uighurs concerns me because they are my fellow beings, it is due to the fact I perceive them from the point of the collective ideology that Durkheim called (with no pejorative connotation) the cult of the human person.

It is therefore an ideology with an individualistic content, but which nevertheless remains, as has been said, formed at the societal level. Without an integrated and regulated division of labour and without organic solidarity, it would be hardly viable and therefore not widespread beyond particular individuals. Indeed, the idea of a humanity composed of fellow beings is found in many societies; but it is in only some of them, at a given time, such as the France described by Durkheim and the United States described by Tocqueville, among others, that this idea became a collective representation.

That is why, contrary to what a superficial analysis of the global citizenship slogan might suggest, humanity is not itself a community, and each nation relates to the world differently. Insofar as it is of interest to our research, we note that the teacher trainers and pre-service teachers within GlobalSense are members of 'modern' countries and are, therefore, marked by the collective ideology of the cult of the human person. Thus, they are aware of the importance of citizenship education from an international perspective.

However, official national requirements remain to some extent marked by an earlier stage in the division of labour that confers the quasi-exclusive framework of training of the citizen to the nation. This is not a problem in itself, but we can hypothesise that individuals marked by moral individualism, in increasingly differentiated societies, have new aspirations in this field.

In which case the researcher's role is to promote their conscious expression, possibly leading to the creation of new rules within self-regulated (professional) secondary groups. For division of labour creates eminently practical problems, that professional corporations, according to Durkheim, are best able to respond to. If the word 'corporation' strikes strangely on the ear, one can also mention professional associations, unions and, more occasionally, some
and do we really want to welcome migrant boats? Is our consumption really in question, knowing that the 10% richest people on the planet emit almost half the greenhouse emissions? As a citizen, any answer to those questions is possible. However, few pre-service teachers and teacher trainers would deny their relevance. This is already a way of recognising the global scope of the themes that should be taken into account in citizenship education.

Though Durkheim had not perceived the ecological question, which connects people's subjectivities around the planet, he did sense a growing cosmopolitan feeling as the deepening of the integrated and regulated division of labour produced organic solidarity. This important idea emphasises that the perception of these new connections between people, potentially global, is a product of the ideology of the modern. Thus, if I think that the fate of the Uighurs concerns me because they are my fellow beings, it is due to the fact I perceive them from the point of the collective ideology that Durkheim called (with no pejorative connotation) the cult of the human person.

It is therefore an ideology with an individualistic content, but which nevertheless remains, as has been said, formed at the societal level. Without an integrated and regulated division of labour and without organic solidarity, it would be hardly viable and therefore not widespread beyond particular individuals. Indeed, the idea of a humanity composed of fellow beings is found in many societies; but it is in only some of them, at a given time, such as the France described by Durkheim and the United States described by Tocqueville, among others, that this idea became a collective representation.

That is why, contrary to what a superficial analysis of the global citizenship slogan might suggest, humanity is not itself a community, and each nation relates to the world differently. Insofar as it is of interest to our research, we note that the teacher trainers and pre-service teachers within GlobalSense are members of 'modern' countries and are, therefore, marked by the collective ideology of the cult of the human person. Thus, they are aware of the importance of citizenship education from an international perspective.

However, official national requirements remain to some extent marked by an earlier stage in the division of labour that confers the quasi-exclusive framework of training of the citizen to the nation. This is not a problem in itself, but we can hypothesise that individuals marked by moral individualism, in increasingly differentiated societies, have new aspirations in this field.

In which case the researcher's role is to promote their conscious expression, possibly leading to the creation of new rules within self-regulated (professional) secondary groups. For division of labour creates eminently practical problems, that professional corporations, according to Durkheim, are best able to respond to. If the word 'corporation' strikes strangely on the ear, one can also mention professional associations, unions and, more occasionally, some