Global Citizenship Education in context: Teacher ...

Global Citizenship Education in context: Teacher perceptions at an international school and a local Israeli school Heela Goren and Miri Yemini1 School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel

We apply semi-structured interviews to conceptualize perceptions of global citizenship among teachers at an international school and teachers at a local public school in Israel, revealing discrepancies between theory and practice in Global Citizenship Education (GCE). We find that teachers perceive global citizenship differently along three major axes: boundaries of global citizenship, practical aspects of GCE, and the effect of Israel’s context. This study offers a comparative perspective that discerns the differing impacts of school context and student backgroundon teacher perceptions at different kinds of schools and highlights the importance of teacher agency in GCE.. Keywords: citizenship education , peace education, international education, global citizenship, teacher agency

Introduction Social changes brought on by globalization in the 21st century have caused a paradigm shift in the role schools play in socializing students. Whereas once, schools were entrusted mostly with promoting nationalistic values among students, today many schools are adopting a global citizenship perspective as well, seeking to prepare students for global competition, global problem solving, and the changing nature of modern society in general (Dill, 2013; Reilly & Niens, 2014; Vidovich, 2004). Notably, global citizenship, like cosmopolitanism, evolved from its roots in the theoretical musings of philosophers to become a reality that scholars face difficulty in following. Davies (2006) posits that Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is particularly useful in conflict-ridden states and multi-cultural contexts, given its potential for peace education. In the conflict-ridden state of Israel, GCE has remained underdeveloped, possibly in part because of the national orientation of the Israeli curriculum (Yemini, Bar-Nissan, & Shavit, 2014). Indeed, studies concerning the Israeli civics curriculum have shown that the frequent attempts to legitimize Israel’s 1

Corresponding author: [email protected]

1

definition as the ‘Jewish State’ have left little room to discuss civics issues on a global level (Pinson, 2007; Nasser & Nasser, 2008; Yemini, Bar-Nissan, & Shavit, 2014). At international schools, as opposed to local schools, global citizenship plays an integral part in the discourse and curricula and comprises a natural component of the pedagogic framework (Brunold-Conesa, 2008; Cambridge & Thompson, 2004). International schools are generally free of the constraints placed on local schools to teach local heritage and prepare students for local citizenship, and therefore are naturally more globally oriented (Bates, 2012; Cambridge & Thompson, 2004). The role of teachers in promoting and executing GCE is essential, as studies have shown that teachers often avoid many topics associated with global citizenship for various reasons, , especially in regions coping with conflict and in cases of a lack of clear policy towards GCE.(Eidoo et al., 2012; Reilly & Niens, 2014; Schweisfurth, 2006; Yamashita, 2006). It is therefore important to explore the perceptions of teachers regarding GCE, especially in a conflict ridden-state such as Israel, in order to explore their practices and beliefs surrounding the subject. In this study, we apply a qualitativecomparative analysis of in-depth interviews of teachers at one local and one international school located in the same area, all catering to students of high socio-economic status, in order to explore the differences in perceptions of global citizenship education among teachers at these kinds of schools. The case of Israel is quite interesting in this context, as the country is considered modernized and hi-tech (Doron, 2011) but simultaneously nationalistic and conservative in many areas, partly as a result of its continuing conflict with the Arab world (Waxman, 2006). This complex situation and the research lacuna regarding perceptions and aspects of global citizenship education in the Israeli context highlight the importance of applying qualitative methodologies to capture the full range of perspectives. The study contributes to the research on GCE in general and at international schools in particular, while also attaining initial insights into the landscape of GCE at Israeli schools, which has not yet been explored.

Theoretical framework and literature review

Global citizenship

2

The concept of global citizenship and related terms such as cosmopolitanism, globalmindedness, global consciousness, and world citizenship have been used for decades in both religious and secular discourses (Oxley & Morris, 2013; Unterhalter, 2008). While these notions were once applied abstractly to address individuals’ global orientation in general and (usually elite) citizens’ perceptions of themselves as part of a global culture, they have come to comprise concrete attempts made by scholars and educators worldwide to define or mediate identities in the age of globalization (Nussbaum, 1996; Oxley & Morris, 2013). No single, agreed-upon definition for global citizenship exists; indeed, some of the related scholarship makes no attempt to define it theoretically but rather notes and focuses on specific related phenomena (i.e., Oxley & Morris, 2013; Schattle, 2008). Scholars like Veugelers (2011) have dealt with the lack of a comprehensive definition by creating a typology of their own. Veugelers distinguished three categories of global citizenship: open global citizenship, which recognizes the interdependence between nation-states in the global age and recognizes opportunities for cultural diversification; moral global citizenship based on equality, human rights, and an emphasis on global responsibility; and socio-political global citizenship, which seeks to shift the balance of political power to promote equality and cultural diversity. Veugelers’ models are hierarchical, he claims that while open global citizenship is more of a passive construct, necessary for understanding the effects of globalization (whether social economic or environmental), moral global citizenship builds upon this construct and adds a more active global responsibility towards issues such as social justice and human rights. The socio-political model Veugelers describes is another step forward, which puts an emphasis not only on action but on political identification with some sort of global society. Veugelers claims that teachers usually adopt the moral model of global citizenship, feeling this model does not clash with national identities.Veugelers’ model echoes in part the framework suggested by Schattle (2009, 2008), whereby the definitions of global citizenship can be categorized according to four ideologies: moral cosmopolitanism, liberal multiculturalism, neoliberalism, and environmentalism. Both scholars suggest that moral aspects of global citizenship are not the same as its more concrete manifestations; however, while Veugelers’ model is hierarchical, Schattle (2008) views the different types of global citizenship as independent yet sometimes overlapping, and does not address the

3

interplay between the different types of global citizenship and the conservative model of national citizenship. The concept of global citizenship is not devoid of political and academic criticism (Bowden, 2003; Miller, 1998). Most critics argue that the concept could weaken nation-states by providing citizens with alternative identity (Bowden, 2003) or call attention to the fact that the concept itself is moot given the absence of any global governmental body that could assume responsibility for the global society we aim to foster (Bates, 2012; Miller, 1998). One of the possible risks associated with global citizenship is the possibility that, like globalization, global citizenship would improve the position of members of elite groups only, thereby deepening social inequality and gaps (Gardner-McTaggart, 2014; Roman, 2003).

Global Citizenship Education Many studies support the claim that while national citizenship education remains an important tenant of nearly all formal education systems, many countries have already begun incorporating aspects of GCE into their curricula (see Hahn, 2015; Ramirez & Meyer, 2012; Moon & Koo, 2011; Schweisfurth, 2006). While the aforementioned definitions of the term global citizenship concentrate, as we noted, on the various dispositions and agendas it embodies, definitions and models of GCE focus on its goals in terms of student outcomes; meaning, different models of GCE may be used to promote any of the conceptions of global citizenship discussed in the previous section. Andreotti (2006) for example, differentiates between ‘soft’ and ‘critical’ GCE. While soft GCE could be equated to education about global citizenship (as per Dobson, 2003; Marshall, 2011) that provides students with an understanding of the world and cultural tolerance, critical global citizenship requires deeper engagement. Critical GCE, which Andreotti (2010) later developed into post-critical and postcolonial GCE, requires students and teachers to ‘unlearn’ their previous assumptions regarding the supremacy of western culture and the distribution of power and replace them with a completely novel understanding of the world. This type of GCE provides students with the skills to reflect upon and engage with global issues involving conflict, power, and opposing views; to understand the nature of assumptions; and to strive for change.

4

Dill (2013), suggests that two main approaches to GCE exist, from which clearly different goals can be inferred: the global competencies approach aims to provide students with the necessary skills to compete in global society; the global consciousness approach aims to provide students with a global orientation, empathy, and cultural sensitivity, stemming from humanistic values and assumptions. Dill shows that different teachers use the two approaches differently and that the teachers’ perceptions of their students’ characteristics mold these approaches. Researchers concentrating on GCE policy development and processes avoid the criticism posed against the abstract concept of global citizenship by highlighting the benefits of global citizenship for the nation state itself (see Davies, 2008; Gill & Niens, 2014). Such scholars seek to develop definitions that are both abstract enough to avoid instigating antagonism and precise enough to maintain students’ sense of commitment and loyalty to their particular nation state. Parekh (2003) claims that this delicate balance can be achieved through the use of the term ‘global citizenship orientation,’ rather than GCE. Parekh (2003) argues that global citizenship orientation is not threatening to the sovereignty of nation states yet still enables public discourse and encourages an understanding of the way globalization changes social boundaries. In contrast, one might argue that semantically differentiating GCE from other concepts that essentially refer to the same thing is naïve and that global citizenship should be defined simply and operationally through its goals. Davies (2006), one of the most prominent researchers in the field of GCE, attempts just that. Rather than offering one clear definition of GCE, Davies presents an aggregation of concepts. For example, Davies often points out the guidelines OXFAM (1997) suggests in answer to the question, ’who is a global citizen?’ and emphasizes the importance of human rights and other perceptions in the development of the concept, without identifying with any particular theoretical definition. Operational definitions such as that employed by Davies are effective in that they enable us to examine and assess the outcomes of GCE at the student level. Nevertheless, a comprehensive definition still seems to be called for. Such a definition, however, is not the focus of this particular research endeavor. Moreover, no matter how GCE is framed and defined, teachers’ perceptions and stances profoundly impact the outcomes of GCE – even if GCE appears as an explicitly-stated goal of the school or the education policy of the state, but especially in contexts that lack such clarity (Reilly & Niens, 2014; Schweisfurth, 2006). Studies 5

conducted in the US (Rapoport, 2010), Canada (Schweisfurth, 2006), and Northern Ireland (Reilly & Niens, 2014) uncover similar struggles that teachers experience when asked to discuss controversial issues in the context of GCE with their students and when required to discuss international affairs in which they do not feel proficient (Davies, Harber & Yamashita, 2005; Eidoo et al., 2012; Rapoport, 2010). Teachers usually attribute high importance to global citizenship, but their definitions often lack a proactive or critical component (Macqueen & Ferguson-Patrick, 2015; Reilly & Niens, 2014). American teachers from Indiana who participated in Rapoport’s (2010) study claimed they sometimes avoid adding global materials to the curriculum for fear that they may be perceived as unpatriotic. Moreover, they exhibited an aversion to or lack of familiarity with the term ‘global citizenship’. The plethora of understandings regarding GCE could cause substantial gaps between theory and practice. These gaps have been acknowledged previously in studies surveying teachers’ perceptions of the term (notably Rapoport, 2010).

GCE at international schools Traditionally, international schools are schools which cater to a diverse student population and offer internationally-recognized diplomas (Tarc & Tarc, 2015). The most prominent and widespread of these international diplomas is offered by the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) (Tarc & Tarc, 2015). International schools present a unique context for GCE, because they are not required to foster a particular nationalistic sense of citizenship in their students – neither towards the host country nor towards their country of citizenship. These schools often incorporate the development of global-mindedness or global citizenship into their mission statements, aiming to imply that they prepare their students to be members of a global society (Doherty, 2009; Hayden & Wong, 1997; Tarc & Tarc, 2015). This conception of global citizenship is reminiscent of the early, idealistic conceptions

of

cosmopolitanism and of ‘voluntary nomads’ that Martha Nussbaum (1996) presents and is less befitting of more recent conceptions of global citizenship that attempt to leave room for local civic values. Despite the common inclination to think that international schools inevitably develop cosmopolitan citizens, Brunold-Conesa (2010) provides evidence of

6

variations in the global orientation of international school programs and notes that merely placing students from different backgrounds in one school cannot in itself create a global orientation. The assumption that global citizenship could naturally sprout under the conditions of proximity between students of different backgrounds is rooted in the psychological intergroup contact theory, which simply put claims that the placement of groups experiencing conflict together will cause them to bridge over differences and develop more positive opinions of one another (Pettigrew, 2008). However, in relation to global citizenship and bridging over differences within international schools, this approach has been criticized for removing responsibilities from the schools themselves without having been proven to be effective (Van Oord, 2008). The approach to global citizenship in international schools and in schools offering the IB diploma in particular is the competencies approach, as Dill (2013) defined it. The IB’s ‘learner profile’ that guides curricular choices at all IB schools has been found to perfectly match the ideal ‘global worker,’ found in management scholarly literature (Resnik, 2009), indicating that these schools seek not only to promote tolerance and acceptance through abstract notions of cosmopolitanism, but also to prepare their students for a competitive global work environment. International schools in countries and regions experiencing conflict have mostly been discussed with relation to tensions that might arise within classrooms at these schools between local students on different sides of the conflict (Van Oord, 2008). Van Oord sees international schools as potential promoters of local peace both within their own classrooms and outside of the schools themselves through the institution of programs enabling the schools to host events and provide grounds for dialogue between the groups engaged in conflict. The effect of the geographic location of international schools in general is usually studied with regards to community outreach without addressing the ways in which the schools’ environment affects curricular contents or interactions within the schools themselves (Brunnell, 2005)

GCE at Israeli schools In Israel, GCE remains a fringe phenomenon and is strikingly absent from the formal curriculum. A recent historical review of the Israeli citizenship curriculum and the latest textbook(Avnon, 2013) the term is not mentioned neither by the author nor by 7

the documents reviewed. However, the curricula for civics education and geography do include topics associated with globalization and human rights (Avnon, 2013). In fact, GCE’s absence in school curricula or policies may not indicate that the term has not penetrated the national education discourse; rather, this lack of mention may provide evidence of nationalistic perceptions that are common in the Israeli educational landscape and in conflict-ridden states in general (as per Banks, 2008). Civics education, as opposed to GCE, is a highly studied sub-field in Israeli education research and often enters the public discourse (see research review in Avnon, 2013). The civics curriculum instituted since the establishment of the Jewish state has been based on Israel’s self-definition as a Jewish and democratic state (Alexander, Pinson, & Yonah, 2012; Pinson, 2007). This self-conception yielded many tensions in the development of curricula and textbooks and in defining civics education’s goals. A Review performed by Ichilov, Solomon & Inbar (2005) shows the changes in the citizenship curriculum from the periods preceding the declaration Israel’s statehood until recently, shows the constant interplay between the Jewish and democratic definitions of the state, each one overshadowing the other at times. The tensions in defining Israeli citizenship within the curriculum are mostly a result of the diversity of the population and the different groups which need to be included within such a definition. These groups include secular and religious Jews, as well Arab-Israeli students, all of whom study in schools which are supervised by the Israeli ministry of education and are required to learn the curriculum imparted by it (Al-Haj, 2005). Until 1994 Arab-Israeli students studied a different citizenship curriculum than that studied by the Jewish population (Ichilov, 2003, Avnon, 20013). In 1994, after arriving at the conclusion that citizenship education could bridge gaps in Israeli society rather than widen them, the curricular distinction was canceled, and since then both Jewish and Arab students have essentially studied the same curriculum (Pinson, 2007). In practice, Ichilov (2003) found that even within the same curriculum teachers in the Arab-Israeli schools put different emphases on the material than teachers in the Jewish schools, and she was not optimistic about the ability to truly arrive at a common ground in relation to citizenship education. Another problem which arose after the introduction of the new curriculum was the emphasis it put on the Jewish narrative and identity while delegitimizing the Palestinian side (Pinson, 2007; Al-Haj, 2005).This article will not discuss the differences between Arab and Jewish schools, and will focus solely on secular-Jewish schools; however, it is important to explain 8

the distinction between the systems because in conflict –ridden society, citizenship education plays an important part in the creation of a national identity (Banks, 2008), which may in fact overshadow any goals to foster global citizenship (Gill & Niens, 2014). It seems the Israeli civics curriculum is not moving in the same global direction as the corresponding curricula in other developed countries (Buckner & Russell, 2013; Moon, 2008; Ramirez & Meyer, 2012). This is no surprise; in a recent study, Yemini, Bar-Nissan, and Shavit (2014) observed that the ratio between local and global content referred to in questions on the final history matriculation exam in Israel over the last few decades has been steadily changing, reflecting greater local and less international content. This shift is particularly interesting considering another study by Yemini and colleagues (Yemini, Yeardeni-Kupperberg & Natur, 2015), revealing that history teachers rated global history topics to be much more important than the respective weight they actually receive in the official Israeli curriculum. Given this context, the current study addresses the perceptions and opinions of teachers working at a local public school and at an international school regarding GCE. The research questions guiding the article are as follows: How to teachers at local and international schools in Israel conceive global citizenship and GCE and how are their conceptions shaped by the educational context and the background/characteristics

of

their

students?

How does the Israeli context and the Israeli Palestinian conflict in particular play into teachers' understanding of global citizenship education and its relevance in their particular school and in Israel as a whole? How do teachers’ perceptions correspond with or contradict theoretical definitions surveyed in this article? Methodology The study consists of seven in-depth, semi-structured interviews with teachers at two schools: an international school teaching the IB curriculum and an Israeli public school that caters mostly to students from strong socio-economic backgrounds and runs several international programs including student exchanges and Model UN. Both schools are located in the greater Tel- Aviv metropolitan area. While the Israeli school teaches grades 7-12, the international school teaches only grades 10-12. There is only

9

one international school in Israel which teaches the IB curriculum and does not belong to a particular religious sect. This school is categorized by the MOE as an “experimental school”, a bureaucratic categorization which does not interfere with the school’s day-to-day operations but facilitates access for researchers. We chose the corresponding local school based on its geographic proximity to the international school and the high SEC population it catered to. The similar socio-economic background of the populations of both schools facilitated a comparative approach through which we compared teachers’ responses based on their students’ (and school’s) status as local or international, while essentially holding constant the variable of socio-economic class. The study population consisted of teachers who teach subjects usually associated with GCE (citizenship, history, geography, economics, literature); however, in the international school, one science teacher was interviewed as well. While hard sciences are not necessarily intuitively associated with global citizenship, teacher perceptions at the international school especially seemed to be shaped by school characteristics rather than the particular subject taught by any given teacher. The small sample of teachers, which consisted of four international school teachers (all foreigners) and three teachers from the local school (all Israeli citizens) is a result of there being only one international school in Israel relevant to our purposes. Six interviews were conducted by the first researcher at the teachers’ respective schools, in private offices or an empty teachers’ lounge; one interview was conducted via Skype. The interviews lasted between 30 to 45 minutes. Interviews with the Israeli teachers were conducted in Hebrew, and interviews with the foreign, international school teachers were conducted in English. All interviews were recorded and transcribed in order to enable thematic coding. The semi-structured interview questions were developed on the basis of Veugelers' (2011) findings in his study of teachers’ perceptions of global citizenship. Through these questions, we sought to allow for a wide array of responses without directing teachers towards a single definition. Some questions were added in order to gather information regarding the way individual teachers’ experiences, school context, and students’ backgrounds played into their conceptions. The thematic analysis of the interviews was conducted according to the guidelines suggested by Thornberg & Chamaz (2014, p. 156)) for comparative analysis

of qualitative data using grounded theory. All interviews were first 10

transcribed and read using open coding to locate emergent categories, which in turn were grouped into overarching themes. Within each theme, we then searched for units of comparison between the schools: comparable aspects of teachers’ responses along various lines. These units were then cross checked with the original categories, causing one category to become null due to its existence in only one of the schools. The data from both schools was then separated and analyzed in reference to the literature (theoretical coding) and the individual categories that emerged from the original analysis (focused coding). Indeed, this study has several limitations, mostly related to its limited scope, which precludes far-reaching conclusions that could be applied to an array of contexts. However, the patterns that emerged from our findings could certainly be identified or cross-checked in other schools and environments. As such, this exploratory study provides a solid framework for future research involving the conception and practice of global citizenship in different educational contexts.

Results and discussion

The analysis revealed three major themes. The first, inclusion and exclusion, consists of teachers’ delineations of global citizenship and the boundaries they ascribe to the concept. The second theme, GCE in practice, includes more practical aspects, such as teachers’ understanding of the benefits and purposes of education for global citizenship and teachers’ roles in determining the balance of GCE materials in the curriculum. Within these first two themes, each category is a unit of comparison that emerged from interviewees in both schools. The final theme involves issues pertaining to the Israeli context, or the context of conflict-ridden states in general, which teachers at each school perceived and framed quite differently; for this reason, the final theme comprises a unit of comparison of its own and it is not divided into inner sub-categories.

Inclusion and exclusion: The boundaries and barriers of global citizenship The first theme to emerge from the comparative analysis involves the boundaries and limitations of the teachers' conceptions of ‘global citizenship,’ including the criteria for inclusion and exclusion that they ascribed to the term. Some teachers expressed these boundaries and criteria explicitly within their definitions of global citizenship and its applicability to their students; however, for the Israeli teachers especially, the 11

boundaries often seemed to be articulated during the interviews, as the teachers reflected on the meanings of global citizenship for the first time. Teachers' definitions and conceptual models The international school teachers seemed quite comfortable defining global citizenship, often referring to their own experiences shaping their conceptions of the term, as one teacher explained: ‘I got my training internationally. Joining an international school was progress for me in understanding what global citizenship really is … interacting with difference and different people from different backgrounds, a diverse group of people…’ This conception of global citizenship, which is representative of the views expressed by the international teachers as a whole, reflects the view long advocated by the IBO linking global citizenship with global open-mindedness and cultural sensitivity. Scholars such as Banks (2008) have criticized this humanistic model of global citizenship for lacking a proper framework enabling students to develop critical conceptions targeting inequality. As Andreotti (2006) puts it, an ‘understanding of the other’ is a component of soft GCE, as opposed to post-critical GCE (Andreotti, 2010), which would be more concerned with recognizing issues of power and cultural hegemony. The international teachers also often referred to the ‘citizenship’ aspect of the term, which falls under the socio-political model of global citizenship that Veugelers (2011) described. Notably, the Israeli teachers interviewed made no mention of this more politically concrete element of global citizenship that teachers at the international school expressed in statements such as, ’global citizenship is one helpful lens that should be a part of every curriculum in the world – getting students to think of themselves from a different perspective as kind of as citizens of the world.’ Another teacher from the international school stated: I see global citizenship as a new way – the more interconnected the world becomes the more globalized the world becomes, the more people travel … the more people’s own identities become these complex mixes of several national identities, the more nationality kind of loses its power and borders become more permeable. The socio-political model of global citizenship inferred from these statements involves an understanding of the dynamic nature of contemporary society and a pedagogic approach aimed at preparing students to navigate this society, but not to critically reflect upon issues of power and inequality. International teachers’ 12

definitions of global citizenship therefore generally fall under the ‘soft’ understandings Andreotti (2006) described, while loosely incorporating aspects of economic, cultural, moral and political notions of the term. In terms of the hierarchy described by Veugelers (2011) and in contrast to his own findings which stressed teachers’ aversion to teaching socio-political models of global citizenship and preference of moral global citizenship, international school teachers in our study did not seem to feel these notions equating global citizenship to an actual affiliation to a world society were taboo. As noted above, in contrast to the familiarity of teachers at the international school with the term ‘global citizenship’ and their awareness of its importance, all teachers at the Israeli school declared themselves previously unfamiliar with the term. However, once provided with a broad, inclusive explanation,2 all local teachers recognized components relating to global citizenship in their curriculum and at the school. During the interviews, it became apparent that the Israeli teachers preferred to discuss global citizenship in terms of a passive process, better described in their opinions as the ‘globalization of the curriculum’, despite the fact that the word globalization was not included in the broad definition provided to these teachers. In fact, some teachers expressed a clear aversion to the explicit term global citizenship and its underlying assumptions. Moreover, the teachers even framed globalization of the curriculum, which they were more comfortable discussing, in terms of a necessity: As part of being a knowledgeable and wise person, you have to know what’s going on around you and just what’s going on in your corner. It’s part of a holistic perspective, it’s part of understanding processes in their entirety, it’s also a part of understanding things within our own country – we’re influenced by international processes, and in order to understand where you’re living you must understand the world. The implied passivity of the process of globalization of the curriculum, as opposed to the active, political nature attributed to global citizenship, could point to an attempt by teachers to avoid discussing or critically reflecting upon the effects of globalization on the practices and conceptions of national citizenship. Globalization 2

Teachers who declared themselves previously unfamiliar with the term were told that global citizenship is a perception of identity as belonging to the broader world, usually alongside national identities. The interviewer explained that this perception could involve global problem solving, issues of mobility, human rights, and other issues; teachers were instructed to regard this definition loosely to enable them to incorporate their own conceptions.

13

of the curriculum is about studying the effects of globalization at home and studying the nation’s own impact on the world, but it does not engage with issues pertaining to national boundaries or necessarily address the concept of citizenship. As one local teacher proclaimed in interview when asked about aspects of GCE in the curriculum: We deal with a lot of issues of globalization and especially consumerist economic and environmental issues because global problems have no boundaries … so I don’t know how this connects to the term ‘citizenship’ but basically the orientation is ‘think global act local,’ maybe it’s about the same things differently defined. While the Israeli teachers’ responses should be considered carefully due to the broad initial definition of the term they were provided with, it is interesting to note that The conceptions and rhetoric that local Israeli teachers expressed echo those expressed by Indiana public school teachers interviewed by Rapoport (2010); the teachers he interviewed also claimed to be unfamiliar with the meaning of the term ‘global citizenship,’ but he still found that they incorporate various aspects of the term in their teaching. Patriotism is highly valued in the US, and as a result teachers may occasionally be reluctant to incorporate GCE for fear of being considered ‘unpatriotic’ (Myers, 2006); likewise, teachers in Israel – a country that also highly values national pride and loyalty – could conceivably experience similar pressures that shape their perceptions of global citizenship and their preference for less politically-loaded terms. Reilly and Niens (2014), for instance, pointed to a tendency of teachers in conflict-ridden states to adopt utilitarian conceptions of global citizenship, pertaining to uncritical aspects of education for sustainable development and similar issues that are deemed unobjectionable and universally accepted; the Israeli teachers in our sample echoed this approach. The boundaries ascribed by teachers to their conceptions of global citizenship seem closely related to the extent to which they perceive global citizenship to clash with national identities. Interviewees from both schools referred to the necessity of a national frame of reference when conceptualizing global citizenship, although only the local teachers seem to perceive it as a threat to national identity. Israeli teachers referred to understanding the local through the global and studying the effects of globalization on our society – these conceptions maintain a balance in which the dominant national identity is preserved and protected, as was suggested in the previous section. Indeed, the local teachers consider the importance of maintaining students’ national allegiance 14

to be paramount, leading in certain statements of theirs to a noticeable antipathy toward the concept of global citizenship: Essentially I dislike this [the promotion of global citizenship through the school and curriculum] … because we’re Israelis and we live in the state of Israel, which is the state of the Jewish people. I think that often, running towards the global hurts Israeli culture and identity… In contrast, teachers at the international school did not seem worried that their students would lose their national identities to the ideas of global citizenship both because they do not perceive of the two as mutually exclusive and because they do not construe the maintenance and development of students’ allegiance to their countries of citizenship as a part of their pedagogic responsibilities. As one international school teacher framed it, ‘global citizenship does not tell anyone to be unpatriotic. Global citizenship is just trying to say “hey, open your mind because there are a lot of ideas out there that we do not know about.”’ . Whereas most of the Israeli teachers we interviewed consider the possible weakening of national identity as a reason to limit the inclusion of global citizenship in the curriculum, the international school teachers are more open to seeking opportunities to strengthen their students’ own national identities while fostering global citizenship, since the two are not perceived as dichotomous categories but rather points along a spectrum of identification. This discrepancy between the schools could be related to the nationalism particularly attributed to mainstream education in countries experiencing conflict (Banks, 2008), and to the local school’s perceived role in fostering the ideals of Jewish-Israeli citizenship in its students above all else clashing with any competing model of citizenship.

Class boundaries Perhaps the most prominent category to arise from the analysis involves the class boundaries of global citizenship. Teachers at both schools seemed to agree that global citizenship requires resources and therefore ‘isn’t for everyone,’ drawing a clear line between students who are potential global citizens those who are not. Teachers at the international school perceive of themselves, as well as their students, as global citizens by default. The lack of a requirement to socialize students for a particular national society seemed to leave room in the curriculum for global citizenship that is often not available in national public schools. This conception leads the international 15

teachers to perceive of local schools in general as somewhat ill-equipped for GCE, as reflected in the following statement: I think that in a purely Israeli classroom it may be difficult to introduce global citizenship … just because it’s not as natural there, they have more of a nationalistic curriculum … the experiences people there share are somewhat more similar and so it’s difficult to kind of open up and to think about the world. Yet the class boundaries the international school teachers expressed were not limited to seeing their own students as part of an elite class. Two of the teachers interviewed at the international school had previously taught underprivileged students in Canada and Jerusalem, respectively. Both those teachers expressed a similar disbelief in the ability to teach global citizenship to students who were only concerned with passing the state-mandated exams or to students who had pressing economic problems they needed to handle. The teacher who had taught at a local school in Jerusalem noted the careless attitude teachers there take towards their students’ education: ‘they just want to read what you have in the book and then that’s done, it’s over’. Another teacher who had taught at local schools previously stated that although those schools were quite diverse, their students hailed from highly underprivileged backgrounds, making the teachers challenged merely to help them pass the exams, let alone to excel in any regard. As one international teacher put it: in terms of the curriculum itself – here, just because they’re already at a very high level, you do have the space to insert all these new ideas and to insert these conversations and discussions, whereas for lower level kids you just have to catch them up so you don’t have the time to delve into these tangents and talk about all these interesting things. Not only the international school teachers considered the different challenges associated with teaching students from lower socio-economic backgrounds to comprise a barrier to GCE. Local school teachers expressed a similar argument, pertaining to less privileged students in general but also to the small percent of underprivileged students within the school that participated in this study: I think it’s a little problematic to deal with global issues with a population of students facing daily local social and economic problems.

16

This relates to all the sociological theories, Maslow’s pyramid and whatnot. If a person is busy struggling to survive, why should he care that the rainforests are being cut down in Brazil. Let the Brazilians deal with their own problems, I have problems here and now. Or, as another teacher at the local school presented the situation: The population here [at the school] is diverse. We have students coming from different places and different cities, we have boarding students … there are definitely curricular contents that are easier for some than for others. For example, when you talk about Americanization, some students have never left the country … it’s a little hard to talk about these things and I try to suppress my own experiences attained through global travel and deal more with everyday experiences that everyone has. These perceptions the Israeli and international teachers expressed can be understood through the literature regarding the civic education gap (Levinson, 2013). The civic education gap is a term used to describe differences in the opportunities provided to students of different backgrounds to learn about and practice their civil rights and become citizens who are politically aware and involved. This gap is perpetuated through education policies that are usually developed without proper input from oppressed and underprivileged groups. The reality of students of different backgrounds being prepared by school systems for different, pre-determined life trajectories is not unique to the field of citizenship education, and the views expressed by teachers in this study could be analyzed through conflict theory as a whole. However, the common goals of preparing students to function as citizens within society underlying both civic education and GCE (regardless of how GCE is defined) enable analysis of the teachers’ views within the same theoretical framework utilized by the literature on the civic education gap. Several studies have provided evidence of the various ways the civic education gap manifests and is perpetuated within schools (Cohen, 2013; Ichilov, 2002; Leenders, Veugelers & De Kat, 2008). Two of these studies were conducted in Israeli schools; Ichilov (2002) compared teachers’ and students’ conceptions of citizenship and the purpose of civic education at a vocational and academic school in Israel and found discrepancies pointing to a bleak situation. In his doctoral dissertation, Cohen (2013) conducted a qualitative study in order to inquire whether teachers of different socio-economic classes held different views of 17

citizenship within the same educational stream. His study, similarly to Ichilov’s (2002), showed a clear presence of a civic education gap based on student background which manifested itself in the perceptions of the concept articulated by teachers. While both of the studies described here as well as the one reported upon in this article address only one sector of Israeli society (secular-Jewish), the GCE divide could have even wider implications within Israeli society as a whole; Ichilov (2007) found differences in citizenship orientations of students from Arab-Israeli, secular Jewish, and orthodox Jewish schools.

GCE in practice Good global citizenship At both schools, teachers developed conceptions of good global citizenship that encapsulated moral judgments as well as perceptions regarding the skills required for one to be considered a sound global citizen. The delineation of good global citizenship was constructed on the basis of the fundamental perception of teachers at both schools of their students as global citizens to some extent. While the international students were considered global citizens by default because of their backgrounds, Israeli students were passively ‘globalized’ through their clothing, culture, and hobbies. Therefore, it was in fact up to each school to educate its de facto globalized students to be ‘good global citizens.’ Teachers at the international school perceived the IB’s learner profile as the embodiment of their vague ideas of global citizenship. In fact, the learner profile consists of ten characteristics the IB aims to promote in its students, and while it makes no mention of global citizenship, these teachers consider it to provide somewhat of an operational definition: To me, global citizenship is just recognizing the fact that you’re not necessarily the citizen of one country; you’re kind of a citizen of the world, and this idea defines what/how to be a good citizen of the world. What kind of environmental responsibilities do you have? What kind of responsibilities do you have towards human rights and democracy and the things that you believe in as a person? This leads very concretely to the learner profile, which talks about open-mindedness and kindness and all these ideas, so there are definite links there.

18

All teachers at the international school described good global citizenship similarly, along the lines of open-mindedness and the ability to understand and relate to the proverbial other. The only direct mention of environmental responsibilities and human rights among the teachers at the international school is the one quoted just above, indicating that in practice the school does not promote active global citizenship, but rather hopes to supplement the students’ existing mobility with skills to navigate different cultures, in accordance with Andreotti’s (2006) previously described ‘soft’ global citizenship and Dill’s (2013) conception of education for global competence. The use of the learner profile as a frame of reference for defining good global citizenship is reminiscent of Davies’(2008) pragmatic definition based on OXFAM’s guidelines- it is less objectionable and requires less critical thinking to describe global citizenship in terms of concrete characteristics than as an identity model. Similarly, Teachers at the Israeli school described their perceptions of good global citizenship and the skills imparted through good GCE through concrete characteristics and behaviors as well, although they did not refer to any particular artifact as the international school teachers did. One Israeli teacher described good global citizenship in terms of environmental responsibilities, articulated through specific actions: I try to emphasize the number-one environmental issue: that small is beautiful, that size doesn’t matter, that there’s value in settling for less not for the sake of financial savings or because we’re modest but because it’s the right thing to do. The environmental responsibilities addressed in this Israeli teacher’s response echo Schattle’s (2008) definition of environmental global citizenship, and Veugelers’ (2011) model of moral global citizenship. Good global citizenship could have implications regarding human rights and social justice as well, but these were not mentioned by the Israeli teachers, as that would reflect a more socio-political model of global citizenship, which could be threatening to the already threatened national civic identity and responsibilities. Another teacher at the local school posited that teaching students English is the school’s main contribution to good global citizenship: ‘If there’s one practical subject we can teach them it’s English, and we teach English at a very high level here … in global citizenship, you can’t beat English.’ 19

This echoes Dill’s (2013) conception of education for global competence, suggesting the purpose of GCE is to enable students to navigate globalized society successfully. However, more critically, it reflects a colonial view of global citizenship education (as opposed to the post-colonial GCE suggested by Andreotti (2010)), assuming the superiority of western culture and considering the English language as a basic criterion for participation in global citizenship. Notably, the perceptions expressed by local school teachers were just as ‘soft’ as those expressed by the international teachers. Israeli teachers simply saw global citizenship in utilitarian terms, understanding the ways one can reduce environmental damages at home for one’s own sake and recognizing the importance of the English language as an inclusion criterion in globalized modern society. These teachers did not advocate any sort of critical reflection on environmental or humanitarian responsibilities at the national and global level, nor recognition of unequal power distribution and the conflict resolution skills necessary for the development of critical global citizenship (Shultz, 2007; Andreotti, 2006). Seemingly, all interviewed teachers from the Israeli school felt that it was important for their students to learn about the world. However, their notion of 'globalization of the curriculum' was not aimed at preparing students for an international society, but rather at teaching them to successfully navigate and compete in their own national environment, which has become increasingly globally influenced.

Curricular balance and teacher agency

Clearly, at both schools, teachers' perceptions of their students and of global citizenship determined their inclination to include aspects of GCE in their classrooms. At the local Israeli school, lacking a clear policy from the ministry of education, the choice to add or omit GCE contents is left completely to teachers. At the international school, although GCE seems to be understood as a more natural part of the framework, teachers do not seem to receive much clear instruction regarding the nature of GCE expected of them, so they remain the main determining agents. The perceived externality of GCE to the curriculum at both schools raised the issues of balancing curricular requirements and global citizenship and of teacher agency in the promotion of GCE. At the Israeli school, teachers consider the official curriculum to be quite locally focused; indeed, one teacher assessed a ratio of 15 20

percent global contents to 85 percent local curricular matter. At the international school, in contrast, the situation is different; the school receives its highly internationalized curriculum directly from the IBO. However, teachers still expressed a sense of agency (and thus variation) in how they teach the set curriculum. One international school teacher noted: ‘In designing out curriculum, we were told to have international stuff in there. So we already had that focus … especially for subjects like language and literature, which are very open, we get to choose our sources.’ These statements, which echo those made by other teachers at the local school as well, show the importance of teacher agency in promoting GCE in international schools. While the IBO is said to encourage global components, it does not supervise or predetermine the ‘how’ of teaching, leaving room for teachers to apply pedagogy oriented at global citizenship. However, teachers noted that the requirement to maintain high academic standards often comes at the expense of their GCE goals, placing global citizenship ‘on the back burner’. The process this teacher describes is similar to the one described by Israeli teachers at the local school who spoke of nationalistic principles guiding the education system and overshadowing any calls for GCE. Yet notably, the balance teachers strive for is different at these two schools: while at the international school the balance sought for is between GCE and the official curriculum’s academic standards, at the Israeli school the balance involves national and global contents (local teachers made no mention of academic standards). Indeed, teachers at the local school said that their students enjoy learning about the world and were sometimes disappointed by the local nature of the curriculum. Schweisfurth (2006) discussed the role of teachers as agents of global citizenship in her study of teacher agency in implementation of the Canadian global citizenship curriculum. Schweisfurth (2006: 49) concludes, very similarly to the international teachers in the present study, that ‘[w]hile there has been the significant introduction of a GCE-friendly Civics curriculum, the overall message to teachers across subject areas is about academic standards and curricular standardization.’ Apparently, even within GCE-friendly educational systems like the Canadian or IBO ones, teacher agency comprises the main determinant of actual GCE application in the classroom. Within systems that are less friendly to GCE, such as the Israeli one, the importance of teacher agency becomes even greater.

21

Indeed, Israeli teachers interviewed in the present study perceive of the Israeli Ministry of Education (MOE) as a barrier to GCE at their school, as opposed to the encouraging nature ascribed to the IBO by the international school teachers we interviewed and to the Canadian curriculum in Schweisfurth’s (2006) study. These teachers referred to political stability and national conservatism at the MOE as factors which impede the ability to find time and encouragement to critically reflect upon the curriculum– an activity that Reilly and Niens (2014) claim is paramount in the development critical GCE. In the current study, none of the Israeli teachers could recall any specific mention of global citizenship in MOE memos or official publications. This lack of any clear policy from above left nearly all aspects of GCE up to the local school teachers themselves. Matters of context: GCE in a conflict-ridden state Although teachers at both schools referred to unique aspects of the Israeli context that affect GCE at their schools in various ways, teachers at the Israeli school noted being affected much more intensely by Israel’s particular context than did international school teachers. The latter teachers referred to the term 'Israeli context' solely in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As discussed above, some international teachers perceive of the conflict as a hurdle to GCE at local schools, because students’ survival struggles hinder the option to learn about the world. As one such teacher stated, ‘in a country like Israel, there are so many problems and conflicts, it’s hard to say “let’s look at the bigger picture.”’ In contrast, teachers at the international school also felt that GCE provides a platform for dialogue and for overcoming differences and that their students were being given the tools to overcome the conflict on a personal level. One teacher described an assignment she gave her class involving protest songs. A PalestinianIsraeli student brought in a song about Gaza, which some Israeli students took offence at. The teacher made use of this in-class conflict to lead ‘a really good discussion.’ Teachers at the Israeli school perceived of the Israeli context differently; the country’s specific context was not limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but rather extended to issues of diaspora and travel limitations of Israeli citizens. The teachers interviewed stressed that the concept of global citizenship is much more appropriate for Europeans than for Israelis, who face geopolitical restrictions:

22

There is the basic barrier we face as Israeli citizens in Israel. We don’t get in the car and go from Israel to Jordan, not like a when person travels by car from the Netherlands to Belgium and doesn’t even know he’s reached Belgium …. There’s also the language: although we really want to think that we can handle ourselves in English, we can’t because we have our own language and culture. Or as another local teacher put it, ‘what does [GCE] mean? That in Sweden they don’t just learn about Sweden but also about Finland? Just by being in Europe you’re already more exposed so I’m trying to understand what it would mean [here].’ In fact, teachers at the Israeli school did not explicitly refer to the Palestinian conflict at all, but rather to what may be perceived as one of its effects on Israeli society: Israeli society at its core is kind of … militaristic – and as a militant society, it naturally chooses to elevate itself and express its own values and to concentrate less on what’s around it. I also think we’re constantly focused on survival, and when you’re busy with survival you can’t really open your eyes and look at the other side of things. This is an application of the same rationale the Israeli teachers expressed regarding underprivileged students: that global citizenship often becomes secondary to survival struggles. Seemingly, while teachers at both schools feel that the Israeli context could pose a challenge for the implementation of GCE, the international school teachers chose to highlight the advantages and opportunities for growth and dialogue it provides, particularly within their own school. The local teachers, in contrast, made no reference to GCE’s potential for overcoming local conflicts, just as they failed to discuss the benefits it could provide underprivileged students in allowing them to navigate global society and compete globally. The Israeli oversight of the transformative potential of global citizenship is characteristic of teachers in conflictridden and post-conflict states (Reilly & Niens, 2014). This points to a substantial gap between theory and practice; while theoretically, global citizenship could provide common ground for overcoming differences within society (as per Davies, 2006) , in practice, it would appear teachers in conflict-ridden states feel the conflict hinders the possibility to teach global citizenship.

Conclusions 23

This study offers a unique comparative perspective on GCE in different educational contexts and within a conflict-ridden state. The comparison of international school teachers and local public school teachers enabled us to discern how school context – and the context of regional conflict in particular – informs teacher perceptions of global citizenship and GCE at both schools. With regards to the research question posed at the end of the theoretical framework, this article provides interesting insights which show that teacher perceptions of these concepts vary greatly between schools and are shaped by teachers’ perceptions of their own duties, their students, and society as a whole. Teachers at both schools seemed to believe that GCE is better suited for students of strong socio-economic backgrounds, indicating a possible expansion of the civic education and opportunity gap discussed in the scholarship to the field of global citizenship, which we have termed the ‘GC Divide.’ The main novelty of this article lies in this preliminary conceptualization, which has not yet been addressed in the literature. While GC is often criticized for its western assumptions and neoliberal foundations (Schattle, 2009; Pike, 2015), these critiques imply disparities in its applicability in different cultures and contexts; yet we claim that disparities exist in the applicability of GC within westernized societies as well, and even between students of similar backgrounds residing in the same area. This divide should be further explored, because it could have ramifications beyond those of the civic education gap in modern society. While the civic education gap claims that students of different backgrounds are taught to be different types of citizens both in terms of activity and awareness, the global citizenship divide could mean that some students will be taught to be global citizens who are mobile and can navigate and compete in the modern, international workplace, while others will only be taught what is deemed relevant to their limited life trajectories, as perceived by teachers. If such a divide is found in future research, it would behoove policy-makers to provide clear curricular guidelines regarding global citizenship to prevent the creation of a mobile group of upper class global citizens and a static, localized group of lower class citizens who will only experience globalization passively. In Israel, the GC divide could be quite complex, because the division could exist between students belonging to different groups in the divided Israeli society rather than solely along class lines. Future research should examine whether this is the case, especially because previous research

24

has found significant differences in the perceptions of citizenship among members of the different sects of Israeli society (Ichilov, 2007). The study shows that the Israeli context and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, while perceived differently by teachers at each school, was overall considered an obstacle to global citizenship education. While theoretically, global citizenship education is often discussed as a viable model for peace education (Davies, 2006), it would appear that only the international school teachers recognized the possible benefits that the particular environment and the global citizenship framework they provide for their Israeli and Arab students. The Israeli teachers perceived the conflict as a barrier for two main reasons: the survival struggle which hinders the possibility of ‘looking at the bigger picture’ and causes Israeli society and curriculums to be nationalistic and militaristic; and the barriers to geographic mobility in the region due to the conflict. The arguments made by the Israeli teachers relate to those brought forth by Niens O’conner & Smith’s (2013) in their study of perceptions of citizenship education among teachers in Northern Ireland. They found that because of the sensitivity of topics relating to societal division and conflict in their divided society, teachers often disregard the relationship between these topics and citizenship education, making it difficult to conceive of how peace education could successfully be incorporated into the civics curriculum. In Israel, the Israeli teachers’ responses relate to the works of both Pinson (2007) and Ichilov (2003) who show the Israeli education system is quite concerned with carefully constructing civic identities mostly relating to the Jewish narrative and the Jewish identity of the Israeli state, leaving little or no room for other, more inclusive, narratives. With regards to the theoretical framework, results show that teachers at both schools engaged in ‘soft’ global citizenship education, as per Andreotti (2010)’s definition, and did not promote any critical reflection upon the distribution of power or topics such as human rights. Good global citizenship was described by teachers at both schools as an aggregate of qualities and characteristics defined broadly and operationally, echoing Davies’ (2006) pragmatic conceptualization of global citizenship.

Teachers at the international school seemed comfortable discussing the

socio-political form of global citizenship, which is the highest category in Veugelers’(2011) hierarchy- referring to some sort of practical allegiance to a global society- as opposed to Israeli teachers who made no reference to this form of global citizenship. The Israeli teachers defined global citizenship in terms which Veugelers 25

associated with both moral and open global citizenship, such as environmentalism and globalization. The definitions provided by teachers and the boundaries they ascribed to the term global citizenship seem to support Veugelers’ hierarchical model more than Schattle’s (2008) typology, although it could also be said that while international school teachers adopted more economic and moral-cosmopolitan models, the Israeli teachers opted more for the environmental model. However, Veugelers’ model enables us to distinguish the extent to which global citizenship is associated with national or global allegiances rather than simply the way it is defined on its own. For example, Israeli teachers seemed uncomfortable discussing any aspects of the relationship between this concept and national citizenship and some displayed a notable antipathy towards the term ‘global citizenship’ itself. This antipathy proves to a certain extent that the teachers reject the socio-political level of global citizenship using Veugelers’ model, but could not be analyzed using Schattle’s (2008) model. The Israeli teachers’ aversion to the semantics of the term

are

reminiscent of

responses reported in Rapoport’s (2010) study of American teachers, who feared the term global citizenship itself could be perceived as unpatriotic, and therefore could be interpreted as a symptom of the nationalistic nature of Israeli society and the Israeli education system. Finally, teachers at both schools seemed to feel that GCE should provide their students with global competencies which would enable them to function in globalized society; This was especially evident at the international school, supporting Dill’s (2013) claim that this is often the dominant goal of GCE at those schools. At the Israeli school, the adoption of the global competencies approach to global citizenship could be interpreted as an attempt to avoid questions of human rights and social justice which are often tied into the global consciousness approach as defined by Dill. The aversion to discussing issues of social justice and human rights within the Israeli schools echoes Niens et al.’s (2013) conclusions regarding the fact that there is sensitivity surrounding these issues in divided societies which could lead teachers to avoid the promotion of more critical approaches to citizenship. Although the study reported upon in this article was based on a small sample of teachers from each school, it highlights several directions for future research regarding GCE in different contexts and populations and in countries experiencing conflict in particular. Most notably, it points to the importance of addressing student background when studying teacher perceptions of GCE (particularly in divided societies) because these may be closely linked. This article also suggests that policy 26

makers and researchers should address the paradox apparently present in conflictridden states and divided societies regarding the potential GCE holds for peace education. It would appear that while these claims have been theoretically explored at length, however this empirical study shows that at least in the eyes of teachers, the conflict is perceived as an obstacle to GCE rather than a reason to promote it.

Bibliography Al-Haj, M. (2012). Education, empowerment, and control: The case of the Arabs in Israel. Albany, NY: State University Press.

Alexander, H. A., Pinson, H., & Yonah, Y. (Eds.). (2012). Citizenship, education and social conflict: Israeli political education in global perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Andreotti, V. (2006). “Soft versus critical global citizenship education”. Development Education, Policy and Practice, 3(1): 83–98. Andreotti, V. (2010). “Postcolonial and post-critical ‘global citizenship educatio’”. In G. Elliott, C. Fourali & S. Issler, Education and social change: Connecting local and global perspectives, (pp. 238-250). London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Avnon, D., (2013) Research and policy in citizenship education within the secondary school system in Israel. Jerusalem: Israeli Society of National Studies (Hebrew). Banks, J. A. (2008). “Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age”. Educational researcher, 37(3), 129-139. Bates, R. (2012). “Is global citizenship possible, and can international schools provide it?” Journal of Research in International Education, 11(3), 262-274 Bowden, B. (2003). “The perils of global citizenship”. Citizenship Studies, 7(3), 349362.

27

Bunnell, T. (2005). “Perspectives on international schools and the nature and extent of local community contact”. Journal of research in international education, 4(1), 43-63. Brunold-Conesa, C. (2010). “International education: The International Baccalaureate, Montessori and global citizenship”. Journal of Research in international Education, 9(3), 259-272. Buckner, E., & Russell, S. G. (2013). “Portraying the Global: Cross‐national Trends in Textbooks’ Portrayal of Globalization and Global Citizenship”. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), 738-750. Cohen, A. (2013). Conceptions of citizenship and civic educations: Lessons from three Israeli civic classrooms. Dissertation, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:20529 Davies, L. (2006). “Global citizenship: abstraction or framework for action?” Educational review, 58(1), 5-25. Davies, L. (2008) “Interruptive democracy in education” In J. Zahjda, L. Davies & S. Majhanovich (Eds.), Comparative and global pegagogies: equity, access and democracy in education (pp.15-33). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Davies, L., Harber, C. & Yamashita, H. (2005) “Global citizenship education: the needs of teachers and learners” (Birmingham, Centre for International Education and Research (CIER), School of Education, University of Birmingham). Dill, J. S. (2013). The longings and limits of global citizenship education: The moral pedagogy of schooling in a cosmopolitan age. New York, NY: Routledge. Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Doherty, C. (2009). The appeal of the International Baccalaureate in Australia's educational market: A curriculum of choice for mobile futures. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 30(1), 73-89. Doron, G. (2011). “High-tech nation: the future of the Israeli polity”. Israel Affairs,17(3), 313-326. Gardner-McTaggart, A. (2014). “International elite, or global citizens? Equity, distinction and power: the International Baccalaureate and the rise of the South”. Globalisation, Societies and Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-29. Gill, S., & Niens, U. (2014). “Education as humanisation: a theoretical review on the role of dialogic pedagogy in peacebuilding education”. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44(1), 10-31. Hahn, C. L. (2015). “Teachers’ perceptions of education for democratic citizenship in schools with transnational youth: A comparative study in the UK and Denmark”. Research in Comparative and International Education, 10(1), 95119. 28

Hayden, M. C., & Wong, C. S. (1997). “The International Baccalaureate: International education and cultural preservation”. Educational Studies, 23(3), 349-361. Eidoo, S., Ingram, L. A., MacDonald, A., Nabavi, M., Pashby, K., & Stille, S. (2012). "Through the kaleidoscope: Intersections between theoretical perspectives and classroom implications in Critical Global Citizenship Education”. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 34(4), 59-85. Ichilov, O. (2002). Differentiated civics curriculum and patterns of citizenship education: vocational and academic programs in Israel. Citizenship education and the curriculum, 3, 81-111. Ichilov, O. (2003). “Teaching civics in a divided society: The case of Israel”. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 13(3), 219-242. Ichilov, O. (2007). “Civic knowledge of high school students in Israel: Personal and contextual determinants”. Political Psychology, 28(4), 417-440. Levinson, M. (2010). “The civic empowerment gap: defining the problem and locating solutions”. In L.R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta & C.A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research in civic engagement and youth (pp.331-361). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Leenders, H., Veugelers, W., & De Kat, E. (2008). Teachers' views on citizenship education in secondary education in the Netherlands. Cambridge journal of education, 38(2), 155-170. Macqueen, S., & Ferguson-Patrick, K. (2015). “Where’s the Action in Global Education?”. In R., Reynolds, D., Bradbery, J., Brown, K., Carroll, D., Donnelly, K., Ferguson-Patrick & S. Macqueen (Eds.). Contesting and Constructing International Perspectives in Global Education (pp. 115-124). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Marshall, H. (2011). “Instrumentalism, ideals and imaginaries: Theorising the contested space of global citizenship education in schools”. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3-4), 411-426. Moon, R. J., & Koo, J. W. (2011). “Global citizenship and human rights: A longitudinal analysis of social studies and ethics textbooks in the Republic of Korea”. Comparative Education Review, 55(4), 574-599. Moon, R. J. (2008). Teaching world citizenship: The cross-national adoption of human rights education in formal schooling. (Doctoral dissertation). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Myers, J. P. (2006). “Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: Education for global citizenship in the US”. Theory & Research in Social Education, 34(3), 370-394. Niens, U., O'Connor, U., & Smith, A. (2013). Citizenship education in divided societies: teachers' perspectives in Northern Ireland. Citizenship Studies, 17(1), 128-141. 29

Niens, U., & Reilly, J. (2012). “Education for global citizenship in a divided society? young people's views and experiences”. Comparative Education, 48(1), 103118. Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). “Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions”. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301-325. Parekh, B. (2003). “Cosmopolitanism and global citizenship”. Review of International Studies, 29(1), 3-17. Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187-199. Pike, G. (2015). “Re-Imagining Global Education”. In R., Reynolds, D., Bradbery, J., Brown, K., Carroll, D., Donnelly, K., Ferguson-Patrick & S. Macqueen (Eds.), the Neoliberal Age. In Contesting and Constructing International Perspectives in Global Education (pp. 11-25). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Pinson, H. (2007). “Inclusive curriculum? Challenges to the role of civic education in Jewish and democratic state”. Curriculum Inquiry, 37(4), 351-382. Rapoport, A. (2010). “We cannot teach what we don’t know: Indiana teachers talk about GCE”. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5(3), 179-190. Ramirez, F. O., & Meyer, J. W. (2012). “Toward post-national societies and global citizenship”. Multicultural Education Review, 4(1), 1-28. Reilly, J., & Niens, U. (2014). “Global citizenship as education for peacebuilding in a divided society: structural and contextual constraints on the development of critical dialogic discourse in schools”. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44(1), 53-76. Roman, L. G. (2003). “Education and the contested meanings of ‘global citizenship’”. Journal of Educational Change, 4(3), 269-293. Schattle, H. (2008). “Education for global citizenship: Illustrations of ideological pluralism and adaptation”. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 73-94. Schattle, H. (2009). Global citizenship in theory and practice. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Routledge. Schweisfurth, M. (2006). “Education for global citizenship: Teacher agency and curricular structure in Ontario schools”. Educational Review, 58(1), 41-50. Shultz, L. (2007). “Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings”. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 248-258. Tarc, P., & Mishra Tarc, A. (2015). “Elite international schools in the Global South: transnational space, class relationalities and the ‘middling’ international schoolteacher”. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(1), 34-52

30

Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In Flick U. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 153-169). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Unterhalter, E. (2008). “Cosmopolitanism, global social justice and gender equality in education”. Compare: a Journal of Comparative and International Education, 38(5), 539-553. Van Oord, L. (2008). After culture Intergroup encounters in education. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(2), 131-147. Veugelers, W. (2011). “The moral and the political in global citizenship: Appreciating differences in education”. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9, 473–485. Vidovich, L. (2004). “Towards internationalizing the curriculum in a context of globalization: Comparing policy processes in two settings”. Compare: a Journal of Comparative and International Education, 34(4), 443-461. Waxman, D. (2006). The Pursuit of Peace and the Crisis of Israeli Identity: Defending/Defining the Nation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Yamashita, H. (2006). “Global citizenship education and war: The needs of teachers and learners”. Educational Review, 58(1), 27-39. Yemini, M., Bar-Nissan, H., & Shavit, Y. (2014). “Cosmopolitanism versus nationalism in Israeli education.” Comparative Education Review, 58(4), 708728. Yemini, M., Yardeni-Kuperberg, O., & Natur, N. (2015). “The global–local nexus: desired history curriculum components from the perspective of future teachers in a conflict-ridden society”. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(1) 26-48.

31