Adelina Calvo-Salvador^[1]University of Cantabria, Spain. & Carlos Rodríguez-Hoyos^[2]University of Cantabria, Spain.

Abstract:

Research on Global Citizenship Education (GCE) has shown that although its theoretical focus has great critical and transformative potential, this is not always reflected in educational practices. This article analyses GCE practices in Spanish schools from a qualitative research approach. Teachers from five schools from Cantabria were selected due to having received the Development Education national award. The analysis carried out facilitates dialogue between international and national research which has been evolving based on the “generations approach” of Development Education. The results identify a diversity of practices and approaches and highlight the need for further research in order to truly explore their transformative potential.

Keywords: Global Citizenship Education; Development Education; Generations Approach; Primary Schools; Social Justice.

Resumo:

A investigação no campo da Educação para a Cidadania Global tem indicado que, embora as suas propostas teóricas apresentem um grande potencial crítico e transformador, isso nem sempre se percebe nas práticas educativas. Este artigo analisa práticas de Educação para a Cidadania Global em escolas espanholas, utilizando uma metodologia qualitativa. Para tal, foram selecionadas as cinco experiências práticas que receberam o prémio “Vicente Ferrer” de Educação para o Desenvolvimento (atribuído anualmente pela AECID) na Cantábria (norte de Espanha). A análise promove um diálogo entre a literatura especializada em Espanha (modelo das gerações de Educação para o Desenvolvimento) e o enquadramento internacional. Nos resultados, identifica-se uma diversidade de práticas com orientações bastante distintas e sublinha-se a necessidade de aumentar a investigação para determinar o verdadeiro potencial transformador das experiências educativas de cidadania global.

Palavras-chave: Educação para a Cidadania Global; Educação para o Desenvolvimento; Modelo das Gerações; Ensino Básico; Justiça Social.

Resumen:

La investigación en el campo de la Educación para la Ciudadanía Global viene señalando que, aunque sus propuestas teóricas tienen un gran potencial crítico y transformador, esto no siempre se percibe en sus practicas educativas. Este artículo analiza prácticas de Educación para la Ciudadanía Global en escuelas españolas desde una metodología cualitativa. Para ello, se han seleccionado las cinco experiencias prácticas que han recibido el premio “Vicente Ferrer” de Educación para el Desarrollo (que anualmente otorga la AECID) en Cantabria (norte de España). El análisis permite un diálogo entre la literatura especializada en España (modelo de las generaciones de Educación para el Desarrollo) y el marco internacional. En los resultados se identifican una diversidad de prácticas con orientaciones muy distintas y se subraya la necesidad de aumentar la investigación para determinar el verdadero potencial transformador de las experiencias educativas de ciudadanía global.

Palabras clave: Educación para la Ciudadanía Global; Educación para el Desarrollo; Modelo de las Generaciones: Educación Primaria; Justicia Social.

I. Introduction

In order to understand the characteristics of the Global Citizenship Education (GCE) approach in Spain it is necessary to review the generations approach of Development Education (DE) (Boni, 2011; Mesa, 2011). Specialised literature in this area indicates that the current situation of the field in Spain can be defined within the parameters of a 6th generation of DE, called Critical Global Citizenship Education, Education for Social Transformation or Post-development Education (Boni et al., 2020; Calvo-Salvador, 2017; Santamaría-Cárdana, 2020).  The introduction of the 6th generation entails a critique of the concept of development on account of its economistic and Eurocentric dimension, and also challenges the citizenship model that a GCE approach could be promoting. The question that arises is whether GCE could be a form of domination, a new form of colonisation, an attempt to universalise Western norms and lifestyles (Barrenechea, 2012).

These national debates connect with international debates that have been taking place in the field and which raise the need to critically analyse our ways of understanding (as they are deeply rooted in modernity and coloniality) and take into account the visions and voices of the Global South, the so-called epistemologies of the South (Andreoti, 2010 y 2021; Odora Hoppers, 2015; Pashby et al., 2020; Quijano, 2000; Tuhiwai Smith, 2015).

Therefore, in order to understand the characteristics of GCE in Spain today, it is necessary to carry out a brief historical overview of the DE generations. The conceptual evolution of DE has been summarised in the following table:

Although GCE has a critical and transformative potential at a conceptual level, its educational practices have sometimes supported a model that is uncritical and very restricted to awareness and fundraising activities (Pashby et al., 2020, p. 49). In Spanish schools educational practices still coexist based around several generations of DE explained in Spanish literature as part of the theoretical evolution of the field (Calvo-Salvador, 2020; Proyecto Queirón, 2014; Tiedeke, et al., 2015).

In this regard, it is important to carry out an analysis of the educational practices developed under this approach for the following reasons: (1) To clarify under which general approach they have been conceived (Calvo-Salvador, 2020); (2) To assess whether GCE is responding to the challenges arising from the historical moment we are currently experiencing (Pashby et al., 2020); (3) To analyse whether its objectives are genuinely emancipatory or whether they are focused on the preparation of a type of global citizenship that needs to compete in an increasingly competitive and interconnected labour market (Bourn, 2021); (4) To further discussion on what the most appropriate methodological approaches are for achieving critical and transformative GCE (Blackmore, 2016; Hunt, 2020); and (5) As a preliminary step to promote a comparative study on pedagogical practices between several countries (Hahn, 2016).

II. The “Vicente Ferrer” Development Education national award

In 2009 the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (abbreviated in Spanish as AECID) created a national programme called Teachers for DE in collaboration with the Ministry of Education. Its objective was to “strengthen the active, participatory and co-responsible citizenship of Spanish teachers with regard to the development of communities, promoting transformations, and linking thoughts and criteria that forge a global vision of development, with shared ethics and legal approaches” (AECID website). The programme is currently developing the following actions:

• The “Vicente Ferrer” DE award. Each year 15 educational practices from all levels of education (early childhood, primary, secondary and adult education as well as baccalaureate and vocational training) are awarded prizes “aimed at raising awareness, promoting and developing critical thinking and encouraging the active participation of students in the achievement of global citizenship in solidarity with a commitment to the eradication of poverty, its causes and sustainable human development” (AECID, 2010-2019, p. 8).
• Publication of good GCE practices. The AECID publishes the good practices that have received the prize, as well as other educational material produced within the DE teachers’ network.
• National DE teachers meeting (to exchange their educational practices, debate and reflection) that brings together all the schools that have received the national prize and other GCE stakeholders (unions, NGO´s, universities, etc.).

As a continuation of a previous research where a national analysis of these educational practices was carried out (Calvo-Salvador, 2020) this article analyses GCE initiatives that have received the national DE award given by the AECID in the autonomous community of Cantabria, in the North of Spain. This article is part of a larger research project that aims to map good GCE practices in this region (Calvo-Salvador, 2021). From its beginnings (2009) to date, a total of 5 schools have received the award.

III. Methodology

The main objective of the research is to find out which route each school has followed to develop GCE practices and what typologies of GCE are shaping them. We believe that only by having a deep understanding of these practices and sharing a common account of them with their protagonists will we find ways of improving them (Omodan, 2020). In our case, and due to the design of the research, these protagonists were the adults involved in the practices analysed. No data were collected from the children.

The choice of the qualitative methodology (Simons 2014) responds to four issues: (1) Understanding the singularities of the CGE approach in each practice, in a specific context and with specific professionals, (2) Assessing whether the practices share any common aspects across each other, (3) Analysing the generation(s) of CGE that may be dominant in each school and (4) Considering the application of this methodology as a learning opportunity.

The research questions guiding this analysis are:

• What are the objectives of these experiences? What type of skills do they aim to promote?
• What content, activities and methodologies have been developed?
• What GCE typologies or generations are present in these practices?

1. Participants and data collection

The schools participating in this study are those that have received the national DE award in the autonomous community of Cantabria (Spain) from the first edition of the award to 2024.

Data collection was conducted by: (1) Searching for and selecting the award-winning educational practices in Cantabria based on the publication of good practices carried out annually by the AECID (2010-2022). This is a text written by the coordinators of the practice in each school. The account of the educational practice of each school is what is submitted for the aforementioned award. The last of these publications was produced in 2022; (2) Semi-structured interviews with coordinating teachers for the experience in each school.

The main characteristics of the experiences analysed are summarised below:

The content analysis of the educational practices was aimed at analysing the objectives pursued, the methodology and activities developed, links to the curriculum, the agents involved in each practice, as well as the language used by the protagonists themselves (teachers) to describe their practice, given that, as we have already noted, the published good practices was the report of the project that the school itself sent to the AECID in order to participate in the prize.

The information analysed for each school was used as a starting point for the preparation of the interview script (the same for all 5 educational practices). It sought to expand the information about each experience in relation to aspects such as: the most significant milestones of the experience, the most appropriate terminology to describe it (DE, GCE, etc.), facilitators and barriers encountered in its development, participation of all members of the educational community and other external agents, sustainability of the project, the role of the management team and the role of students. Out of the 5 interviews conducted, 3 of them were individual and the other 2 were done in pairs. This decision was taken by the schools involved.

IV. Results

1. Aims and Skills for GCE

The analysis of the objectives pursued by these experiences reveals two major trends: (1) The difficulty of dialogue between local/near and global/far, i.e. whether the experiences focus on realities close to the students or in distant countries and territories and (2) The importance of an education on values, competencies and skills that move from a humanistic and liberal approach to a more socio-political/critical approach.

   1.1 The difficult balance between local/near and global/far

Three of the five practices analysed present objectives that focus GCE on understanding diverse realities, different to those of the students, but above all, geographically distant. These practices show a conception of GCE as an approach that aims to help those territories or populations with the greatest needs, nurturing the idea that the poor or needy are the ‘others’, others that we should help. This is an approach to the problem that limits the establishment of relations between the situation in these more distant contexts and the students’ immediate context. It makes it difficult to understand the real causes of poverty and the role of the countries of the Global North in creating it. For example:

Promote knowledge, participation and cooperation with children in India and to learn about social, cultural and economic realities different to our own (Aims_ Report_ 4).

In the same line:

[The practice began because] we wanted to do something so that children in India could improve their education (…) we wanted to do activities to improve the education of some of the children with whom we were already corresponding. They knew that their education…well they had to walk a lot of kilometres to go to school, not all of them had the possibility of going to school, above all the girls did not go (Interview_ 4).

In the other two practices analysed, all objectives are proposed that situate the GCE field of action in closer, local contexts, places where students develop their lives. As an example:

Promote sustainable development practices: cultivate crops at school, collect plastic on the beach, carry out responsible consumption surveys, and school canteen contracting. Also promote gender equality, challenge stereotypes (stories about girls who are not princesses, not just football in the playground but by proposing a more inclusive and co-educational use of the school playground, make women visible in traditionally male professions) (Aims_ Report_ 5).

And the project coordinators explain:

We educate our students to be global citizens, citizens of the world. (…) We want to make students aware of the world in which they live, provide them with tools for action, commitment, raise awareness… so that no one is left behind, because we all fit in the world, in the classroom. It is about achieving more than just raising awareness. We have to go a step further, there has to be commitment, we have to act (…). Understanding reality means taking care of the world, the planet we live in, working on concepts such as sustainability, solidarity and social exclusion (Interview_ 5).

In the first group of practices, there is less possibility of understanding how all the levels through which our citizenship develops today interact, from local to global. However, the second group of practices shows an effort to connect what is happening in different parts of the world, starting from the local reality of the children themselves.

Analysing the dialogue that these experiences establish between local/near and global/far, we can perceive a difference between those that locate the problems and the need for help in areas far from the local reality (in these cases, in India) and others that start from their nearby community to analyse a problem that is global. In fact, the analysis of the relationships and interdependencies between local and global, between the Global North and the Global South is an element that has been considered central in critical GCE practices (Bourn, 2014; Pashby et al., 2020).

   1.2 Education on values, competencies and skills

The objectives of these practices are aimed at promoting education on values (solidarity, respect and tolerance), skills (negotiation, conflict resolution, critical thinking) and competencies (social and civic), issues that have been identified as central to a GCE that must combine cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions (Boni et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2015). However, within this broad common framework two major trends can be identified which we explain below. The first of these emphasises the so-called “soft skills”, skills, values and competences that need to be developed in order to be successful citizens in a global world. The second emphasises the development of values, skills and competences that allow us to advance in the education of people who perceive themselves as part of a common humanity. Precisely underlining this interdependence allows this second type of practice to highlight issues such as social justice or inequality (Bourn, 2021).

The first of these places greater emphasis on the development of the student as a person independent of their context and history, suggesting that all humans have common traits, a common humanity that identifies a set of universal skills, values and competencies that should be taught and learned. The intercultural dialogue is conceived as a process of knowledge free of conflict. From this perspective, relations of power and oppression are put on the side-line, placing the focus on the subject. An example is the following two objectives:

Receive an education in values that provides them with training that allows them to shape their own identity. Adopt a responsible, generous attitude in the face of social injustice (Aims _Report_ 1). Children should know that there are injustices, poverty, inequality… and they must show compassion towards these situations and be generous to those who need it most (Interview_1).

Bring different cultural realities closer together for common enrichment. Develop self-esteem, listening abilities, communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, decision making skills (Aims_Report_ 2). The aims of our educational practice respond to our conviction that GCE should promote the autonomy of students, improve their self-esteem and their emotional skills (Interview_2).

These trends are the majority of the practices analysed (practices 1, 2 and 3).

On the other hand, there are some objectives that have a more political potential, such as the development of critical thinking, the participation of all sectors of the educational community or the struggle to achieve greater quotas of social justice (distributive justice, recognition justice and participatory justice). In these practices we can identify the need to analyse the structural inequalities of our societies or the causes of social injustice. As an example:

Develop attitudes of solidarity, awareness and social justice in all students at our school (Aims_Report_ 4). At our school we discussed a lot about some values such as solidarity. We have always been very critical of the idea of solidarity. Solidarity as a value is important but it must be accompanied by a critical analysis of what and who we are in solidarity with and what unjust social forces or structures are generating this need for solidarity (Interview_5).

Raise awareness among the entire educational community about the importance of being active citizens in caring for our planet and avoiding inequality. Turn the school into a driving force for change and focus school organisation on issues of diversity. Among our aims is to create active citizens. Although there seems to be agreement on what we mean by this term, in our school we think that not all children have the same opportunities to participate in our society. Therefore, when we talk about citizenship, we have to relate it to inequalities. Also, when we talk about diversity (Aims_Report_ 5).

The question of what values, competences and skills need to be promoted by GCE is crucial because “global citizenship needs to move beyond being a marketing ploy, a one-off activity, or as repackaging existing courses to respond to changing external agendas. GCE should be seen as a distinctive pedagogical approach that is encouraged and promoted as an integral component of students ‘learning experience (…) equipping them to respond to the challenges of globalization” (Bourn, 2021, p. 86). Therefore, the necessary question would be what values, competences and skills we need to work to promote a critical understanding of how globalization affects our lives and to critically understand our interdependence.

2. Methodologies and activities

This section analyses the level of detail which schools describe the methodology used to promote GCE, description of activities only or description of the methodological approach. And when they describe the methodological approach in detail, to what extent it allows them to improve their teaching practices. Secondly, we can identify some practices that take place in parallel to the curriculum without an apparent profound change in school culture and, on the other hand, schools in which GCE activities embedded in their curriculum. Thirdly we analyse what dimension predominates, if one more closely linked to awareness-arising or another linked to a social justice view.

The methodological analysis shows that some schools describe in little detail the methodological approach used and focus only on exemplary activities carried out, for example and exhibition or a solidarity activity for raising money (practices 1 and 2). A second group of schools describes in more detail their methodological options. For example, the use of  “ a GCE/DE methodological approach based on the observation of the local and global reality, thus raising questions about what is observed, questioning beliefs and prejudices and  the promotion of active learning” (Methodology_Report 3); “the use of debate, dialogue, group work and research” (Methodology_Report 4) or “the importance of using a variety of methodological strategies to address the diversity of students, increase their participation, reduce situations of exclusion, promote the collaborative work of teachers and review the policies, practices and cultures of the school itself” (Methodology_Report 5).

This variety shows that GCE can be a lever not only in addressing global issues from critical, participatory and active methodological approaches (Blackmore, 2016; Leivas, 2019; Simpson, 2018), but also in undertaking a process of school self-review that facilitates gathering evidence on educational processes in order to evaluate them and propose improvements, with the aim of achieving an inclusive school that welcomes all students and values diversity (Ainscow, 2016).

In all practices there is a perceived drive to introduce GCE/DE into the school curriculum, although this articulation is very different in each of the schools and there are numerous activities that are carried out in parallel to the curriculum. The analysis shows that in the practices where the awareness dimension and fundraising activities prevail (practices 1, 2 and 4), the attempt to link the activities to the curriculum often involves either one-off activities (e.g., film forum, a workshop) or more long-term workshops that are highly dependent on fundraising activities,  which are subsequently donated to NGO projects (practice 1), scholarships for studies (practice 2) or the construction of a school in another country (practice 4).

Other educational practices have a strong GCE/DE focus on social justice, believing that “by engaging in social justice positive outcomes will eventually be produced such as challenging stereotypes and promoting equality on a personal level, or bringing about changes within society on a social level” (Simpson, 2016, 3). An example of this would be the activity entitled “My school is the world” (practice 3), which aimed:

To observe, analyse and value the diversity of the students in our school and which subsequently allowed us to work on the value of schooling in the early stages of childhood (Activities_Report_ 3).

This activity addressed issues such as:

Equality. Being equal and different. Gender analysis/race analysis. Discovery of common and different aspects between people. The concept of equal rights.  Awareness of our environment and the world we live in. Reflection on the diversity of the environment, which we form an active part of. Knowledge of other cultures and customs, within an enriching framework of mutual exchange (Activities_Report_ 3).

From a methodological point of view, we can classify the experiences into two large groups. In the first of these we find practices with a lower level of methodological reflection and which explain the GCE approach based on the description of isolated activities. These schools work on the GCE approach through activities that run parallel to the curriculum and which work, above all, from an awareness-raising and charitable perspective. In the second group, we find schools with a greater methodological reflection in their description of the GCE approach. These are schools that work transversally on global issues and that underline the importance of focusing the analysis not on “the others” who need our help, but on ourselves, trying to understand to what extent our stereotypes and prejudices sustain inequalities and injustices in a global world. These schools seem to adopt Nussbaum´s idea which states that all countries face problems linked to human development, that all are failing in the task of guaranteeing that all people have a dignified life in which they can develop all their capacities (Nussbaum, 2012).

3. From a charity mentality to a social justice mentality

These practices analysed show the different paths that Cantabrian schools have found to develop a GCE approach. On the one hand, some practices see GCE/DE as a pedagogical approach aimed at learning about cultures located in the Global South and helping these areas economically (through scholarships, raising money to build a school, etc). An idea of “otherness” is constructed as something different from us, with different cultural values that must be celebrated without entering into a discussion of our own values and culture and without analysing the power relations implicit in all intercultural dialogue. In line with other research carried out in Spain we conceptualize this vision as being close to the first and second generation of GCE/DE (Mesa, 2011; Calvo-Salvador 2017 y 2020). “First-generation DE was focused on awareness-raising activities that revolved around issues such as famines or natural disasters (fund-raising telethons, sponsorships etc.). They are considered to be profoundly charitable (…) Second-generation DE promoted action focused on providing information about the situation of the countries of the South, local realities where NGDOs operated and their projects. It has been recognized that a Eurocentric and economic concept of development prevailed within it (…). The structural causes of poverty were not analysed and the belief that increasing cooperation projects would improve the situation of the countries of the South was maintained” (Calvo-Salvador, 2017, p. 19).

On the other hand, other schools promote a GCE/DE approach that connect the local with the global, what happens in the schools of Cantabria, in the daily life of that educational community with the situation at a global level. In this second practices, the international agendas (Millennium Development Goals -MDGs- and Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs-) have acted as a lever for the introduction of the GCE approach in schools, in line with the fifth-generation DE: “we are now faced with a context in which education needs to address the challenges posed by globalization, the weakening of the welfare state and the privatization of the economy. It is ‘a constant educational process that fosters an understanding of the economic, political, social and cultural interrelations between the North and South, which promotes values and attitudes related to solidarity, social justice and seeks ways of achieving sustainable human development’ (Boni Aristizábal and Baselga Bayo, 2003: 402). Such education presents a multidimensional agenda addressing new content such as gender, the consideration of voices from the global South, the culture of peace and human rights, sustainability and interculturality (Baselga Bayo et al., 2004)” (Calvo-Salvador, 2017, p. 20).

These results show the coexistence of different generations of DE in formal education, as highlighted in previous national research (Calvo-Salvador, 2020; Mesa, 2011). This is consistent with the results of research carried out in other countries which have also noted the plurality of approaches (Hunt, 2020; Pashby et al., 2020; Simpson, 2016).

In three of the five practices (practice 1, 2 and 4), fundraising activities played a central role in the emergence and development of the whole project. At the same time, an effort was made by the project team at the school to involve teachers and subjects from different fields of knowledge in order to learn more about the country or region for which the funds were intended:

We tried to work on all aspects related to India at the level of society, customs, traditions, food, politics, geography… So, we tried to fit all that into our curriculum (…). For example, in social sciences, the subject of politics, as well as their customs, was addressed, especially in the higher levels. In mathematics, and linked to the solidarity market, we worked on accounting prices, etc. (Interview_4).

In practice 1 fundraising activities were carried out throughout the academic year, with the money going to the “project of the year”, which was linked to a specific country (Mozambique, Equatorial Guinea, Sahara, Guatemala, India, etc.). In practices 2 and 4 the schools participated in the Vicente Ferrer Foundation’s “School to School” programme aimed at bringing Indian culture closer to Spanish children and young people through a school linking programme for mutual knowledge and the exchange of materials throughout the school year. In practice 2, fundraising activities (calendar sales, book market, sale of tapas cooked by students, charity races, etc.) were aimed at financing a scholarship for the schooling of a child in India. In practice 4, the educational community was mobilised to raise funds (Christmas charity markets, desert sales and a charity march) for the construction of a school in India, which would bear the same name as the school in Cantabria that was leading the initiative.

Alongside these initiatives which were more focused on fundraising activities, we found two educational practices with a different philosophy. In these, the international agendas (MDGs and SDGs) acted as a lever for introducing the GCE approach (practices 3 and 5). For example, in one of these schools the work on the MDGs was articulated around several projects addressing issues such as poverty and hunger, education, equality and the environment (in early childhood education) and poverty and hunger, education, equality and gender, sustainability and the environment, child mortality and health and illness (primary education) (Educational contents_Report_3). The curricular dimension of the project becomes evident when the school reflects on the sustainability of the experience and notes:

The project has allowed us to contextualise reality with subjects at different levels, it has opened different doors towards a more universal knowledge (Future perspectives_Report_3).  Not in the sense of thinking that there is only one way of knowing the world, but in the sense of exploring what happens in other parts of the world from our local reality. What is universal here is the need to open that critical dialogue and contrast (Interview_3).

Table 3 – Main results.

V. Discussion

The analysis of the objectives pursued by these educational practices allows us to state that some of these practices focus on getting to know other parts of the planet that present perceived needs and deficiencies, as illustrated in the educational practices that focus on getting to know India. Although there is an effort to connect this knowledge with different subjects (geography, history, etc.), it is no less true that the focus seems to be on “the others”, on groups located in the “South” of the planet that we (those of us located in the “North” of the planet) approach in order to “help” (Andreotti, 2006). The numerous fundraising activities described in the educational practices analysed are an example of this.

This perspective is based on the first and second generation of GCE/DE (Calvo-Salvador, 2020; Mesa, 2011) which does not address how power functions in our societies and the interconnection that exists between the “South” and “North” of the planet. From a global social justice perspective (Bourn, 2022), it is necessary to inform these experiences with the legacy of decolonial critical pedagogy (Walsh, 2013) in order to further problematise these relations and understand social problems not as a lack of “development”, culture, education or resources of certain territories and societies, but from the existence of complex structures, power relations and assumptions of which we are all part and which create and maintain exploitation and enforced disempowerment (Andreotti, 2006, p. 48).

While values education has been recognised as a central element in GCE (Boni et al. 2020; UNESCO 2015), these values should not be only those that highlight the existence of a common humanity and the need for respect and solidarity, but also those that highlight the need for social justice in its triple perspective of redistribution, recognition and representation (Sant et al., 2018) and equity for all which again requires understanding inequalities in today’s world (Bourn, 2014). At the same time, it is necessary to problematize these values and understand their diverse meanings and origins within the framework of colonial and capitalist ways of understanding which have historically silenced the perspectives and voices of the Global South (Andreoti and De Souza, 2008).

The educational practices analysed offer different degrees of reflection on the need to think about the most appropriate methodological approaches in the promotion of the GCE approach. In this regard, we can identify activities that run parallel to the curriculum, but there is also an attempt by all the schools to modify subjects to include other content that has a GCE focus.

On the one hand, it can be seen that schools modify their curriculum to address cultural and political aspects of other territories considered to have a lower level of well-being or “development”, which raises the question of “how to help them”. These methodologies and activities that make it possible to get to know other territories are subordinated to fundraising activities (to pay for scholarships or to build a school). This allows work on diversity and difference to be carried out in classrooms and focuses attention on more participatory and socio-affective methodologies aimed at transforming certain territories.

On the other hand, schools modify their curriculum to address global issues and link them to the everyday lives of children and young people, something which also requires a methodological change that seeks to value diversity and difference, improve the participation of all members of the educational community and increase the voice of students, including those who have historically had less presence in schools or who are at risk of social exclusion. As Nussbaum points out, we could speak of schools that embrace the idea that “all nations are developing countries, as they contain problems of human development and personal struggles to achieve a fully adequate quality of life and a minimum of social justice” (Nussbaum, 2021, p. 35).

As noted in previous research, it is important to advance the clarification of methodological approaches that enable the development of critical thinking, addressing issues of identity, diversity, equality and social justice for social transformation (Blackmore, 2016; Hunt, 2020; Simpson, 2018; Calvo-Salvador and Fueyo-Gutiérrez, 2024). These methodologies allow “making connections within and between systems particularly in terms of social, economic and environmental dimensions” (Bourn, 2014, p. 20) and highlight interdependence and ecodependence as basic characteristics of the historic moment we are currently experiencing.

At the same time, the existence of similar educational methodologies in educational practices that have such different philosophical approaches underlines the need to broaden the discussion on a critical and transformative GCE beyond curricular decisions (objectives, contents, methodologies and more appropriate assessment), to discuss more ontological and epistemological questions, i.e. what we are/who we are and what we think/how we understand. This will allow us to recognise the power relations that exist in our modes of knowledge that draw on a modern/colonial imaginary (Pashby et al., 2020).

Taking into account the results of this research, a second phase of work is proposed, which consists of accompanying these schools in the improvement of their educational practices. Based on previous experiences (i.e. Andreotti et al., 2020; Pashby and Sund, 2020; Coelho et al., 2020; Eten, 2020), this improvement will be oriented towards informing these educational practices with the proposals of a critical and decolonial pedagogy. The main goal is to move towards a critical approach to GCE that analyses power relations from the local to the global and vice versa, to rethink pedagogy as a re-humanising activity, as a collective task aimed at un-learning authoritarian and colonial ways of looking at the world.

VI. Conclusion

This article is based on the hypothesis that under the GCE umbrella there are educational proposals with very diverse meanings and purposes (Calvo-Salvador, 2020; DePalma, 2019; Mesa, 2011). Therefore, it is necessary to continue analysing these educational practices through qualitative approaches that not only allow an in-depth description and understanding of them, but also provide the opportunity of designing improvement proposals that make a critical and reflexive approach to GCE a reality “in which the global is not an abstract concept existing separately from student´s everyday lives, but rather local communities around the world are now more interdependent than ever before. A perspective on global interconnectivity involves a recognition of the fundamental shifts in the global circulation of capital, people, ideas, implicating, albeit in asymmetrical ways, all parts of the world” (Engels, 2014, p. 242).

The consolidation and future of GCE in Spain looks promising since the publication of The Spanish Cooperation Strategy on Development Education by the AECID and the current impetus provided by an organic education law (LOMLOE 2020) that recognises the importance of working on the SDG Agenda in formal education, as well as Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship Education, although further research in this field is required to support the documentation and critical analysis of these practices. In this regard, this article analyses educational practices in Cantabria (Spain) that have received the DE award given annually by the AECID with the objective of analysing their philosophy and understanding the diverse ways schools promote GCE, based on fundraising and charity mentality approaches focused on social justice (Hunt, 2020; Simpson, 2016). This paper is intended as a starting point to open the discussion at the national level on the need to decolonise CGE. Although there are some specific works that analyse the contributions of decolonial and feminist pedagogy to fields such as citizenship or teacher education (i.e. Martínez y Ramírez, 2017; Ramos, Martínez y Blanco, 2020), we perceive a significant lack of works that analyse CGE from decolonial perspectives.

There is a need to advance a critical and decolonial pedagogical approach that recognises, on the one hand, the interdependence and interconnectedness of our lives, the similarities and differences between collectives and communities across the world, and on the other hand, the promotion of the perspectives of the Global South and the recognition of our modernist/colonial heritage, which implies understanding which voices, collectives and perspectives are authorised and have universal appeal and which are oppressed or silenced (Bourn, 2014).

References

• AECID (2010-2019). I-VII Premio Nacional de Educación para el Desarrollo “Vicente Ferrer.” Madrid: AECID.
• Ainscow, M. (2016). Diversity and Equity. A global education challenges. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 139 –142.
• Andreoti, V. (2006). Soft versus global citizenship education. Policy and Practice. A Development Education Review, 3, 40 –51.
• Andreotti, V. (2010). Global education in the 21st century: Two different perspectives on the “post-” of postmodernism. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 2(2), 5–22.
• Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Siwek, D., Cardoso, C., Caikova, T., Pataxó, U., Pitaguary, B., Pitaguary, R., Huni Kui, N. and Jimmy, E. (2020). Sinalizando rumo a futuros decoloniais: observações pedagógicas e de pesquisa de campo. Diálogos educativos para a transformação social, Edição Comemorativa, 55-73.
• Andreotti, V. (2021). Depth education and the possibility of GCE otherwise. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19(4), 496-509.
• Andreotti, V. and De Souza. L. (2008). Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: Lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 1(1), 23–36.
• Baselga, P., Ferrero, G. and Boni, A. (2004). La educación para el desarrollo en el ámbito formal. Espacio común de la Cooperación y la Educación. Valencia: UPV.
• Barrenechea, A. (2012). Hacia una agenda alternativa de Educación para el Desarrollo desde una perspectiva ecofeminista. Bilbao: Hegoa. Instituto de Estudios sobre Desarrollo y Cooperación Internacional.
• Blackmore, C. (2016). Towards a pedagogical framework for global citizenship education. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 8(1), 39–56.
• Boni, A. (2011). Educación para la ciudadanía global. Significados y espacios para un cosmopolitismo transformador. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 17, 65-86.
• Boni, A., Belda-Miquel, S. and Calabuig, C. (2020.) Educación para la ciudadanía global crítica. Madrid: Síntesis.
• Bourn, D. (2014). What is meant by development education? Sinergias: Diálogos educativos para a transformação social, 1, 7–23.
• Bourn, D. (2021). Global Skills and Global Citizenship Education. In E. Bosio (Ed.), Conversations on global citizenship education. Perspectives on research, teaching, and learning in Higher Education (pp. 75-88). New York: Routledge.
• Bourn, D. (2022). Education for social change. Perspectives on Global Learning. London: Bllomsbury.
• Brinkmann, S and Steinar K. (2014). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.
• Calvo-Salvador, A. (2017). The state of development education in Spain: Initiatives, trends and challenges. International Journal of Development and Global Learning, 9(1), 18–32.
• Calvo-Salvador, A. (2020). Development Education or Global Learning? Evidence from Spanish Schools. In D. Bourn (Ed.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning (pp. 279-291). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Calvo-Salvador, A. (Coord.) (2021), Investigando nuevos escenarios socioeducativos para la construcción de la ciudadanía global en el siglo XXI. Proyecto I+D+i. PID2020-114478RB-C21 financiado por MCIN/AEI /10.13039/501100011033.
• Calvo-Salvador, A. and Fueyo Gutiérrez, A. (cords.) (2024/en prensa), Metodologías creativas y participativas para educar en ciudadanía global. Barcelona: Octaedro, open access.
• Coelho, L.S., Raposo, A., Piedade, A., Marques, H., Teixeira, L., Uva, M. Fernandes, S., Gonçalves, T., Silveiram, M., Martins, C., Bergano, S. (2020). Escolas transformadoras: colaboração, transformação e políticas educativas em educação para a cidadania global. Diálogos educativos para a transformação social, 11, 57-73.
• DePalma, R. (2019). La educación para el desarrollo y la ciudadanía global. Una experiencia de investigación-acción participativa. Barcelona: Graó.
• Engel, L. (2014). Global citizenship and national (re)formations: Analysis of citizenship education reform in Spain. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 9(3), 239-254.
• Efthymiou, G. S. and de Vries, M. (2022). Teachers reflecting on teaching global issues: “because I’ m also part of the problem”. Diálogos educativos para a transformação social, 13, 41-57.
• Eten, S. (2020). Is Global Citizenship Education relevant in Sub-Saharan African school curricula? Options ad challenges for teaching Global Citizenship through a social studies curriculum in Ghana. In D. Bourn (Ed.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning (pp. 327-341). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Hahn, C. L. (2016). Pedagogy in citizenship education research: A comparative perspective. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 11(2), 121–137.
• Hunt, F. (2020). Characteristics of a Global Learning School. In D. Bourn (Ed.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning (pp. 342–355). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Leivas, M. (2019). From the body to the city: participatory action research with social cartography from transformative education and global citizenship. Educational Action Research, 27(1), 40-56.
• Martínez, I. y Ramírez, G. (2017). Des-patriarcalizar y Des-colonizar la Educación. Experiencias para una Formación Feminista del Profesorado. Revista Internacional de Educación para la Justicia Social, 6(2), 81-95.
• Mayoral, S. (2011). Los enfoques de la educación para el desarrollo en España. Acciones e Investigaciones Sociales, 30, 43–75.
• Mesa, M. (2000). La educación para el desarrollo: entre la caridad y la ciudadanía global. Papeles 70, 11–26.
• Mesa, M. (2011). Reflections on the five-generation model of Development Education. The International Journal for Global and Development Education Research, 0, 161-167.
• Nussbaum, M. (2012). Creando capacidades. Propuesta para el Desarrollo Humano. Barcelona: Paidós.
• Odora Hoppers, C. (2015). Think piece: cognitive justice and integration without duress. The future of development education-perspectives from the South. International Journal of Development and Global Learning, 9 (2), 89-106.
• Omodan, B. I. (2020). The trajectory of transformative research as an inclusive qualitative research approach to social issues. Multicultural Education 6 (3), 34-44.
• Pashby, K, Da Costa, M., Stein, S. and Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 144-164.
• Pashby, K. and Sund, L. (2020). Critical Global Citizenship Education in the Era of SDG 4.7: Discussing HEADSUP with Secondary Teachers in England, Finland and Sweden. In D. Bourn (Ed.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning (pp. 314-326). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Proyecto Queirón. (2014). Evaluar la educación para el desarrollo. Aprendiendo de nuestras experiencias. Granada: Fundación Albihar.
• Quijano, A. (2000). Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. In E. Lander (Comp.) Cuestiones y horizontes: de la dependencia histório-estructural a la colonialidad/descolonialidad del poder. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
• Ramos, F.J, Martínez, I. y Blanco, M. (2020). Sentido de la educación para la ciudadanía desde pedagogías feministas, críticas y decoloniales. Revista Izquierdas, 49, 2103-2116.