The Journal of Social Studies Research

Volume 33, Issue 1

A Forgotten Concept: Global Citizenship Education and State

Social Studies Standards

Anatoli Rapoport
Purdue University

In today's global environment, social studies educators have the

opportunity to expand their students vision of the role of
citizenship in developing a democratic understanding by adopting
multiple perspectives on citizenship. Global citizenship education
is becoming an important component in citizenship education in
many countries. However, unlike their colleagues in Europe or
Asia, US teachers are still less enthusiastic about incorporating
global citizenship perspectives into their instruction. This paper
describes the obstacles that prevent social studies teachers from
using global citizenship perspectives. It also explores whether
state academic standards in social studies provide sufficient
curricular guidance for global citizenship education.

Introduction
Thanks to Thomas Friedman (2005), we now all know that
the world is flat. And it is going to become flatter yet. But it is also
going to be far more equal, far more active and energetic
(Zakaria, 2005, p. 92). We also know that the forthcoming and
imminent equality, activism, and energy are going to challenge our
traditional perceptions of the world. Global processes in economy,
science, and technology have provided a tremendous impulse to
changes in values, customs, and mores. Regardless of how
positively or negatively globalization is seen throughout the world,
it has already started to change the world, and these changes are
irreversible. Economically, scientifically, and technologically, the
United States has more or less, and I would argue more than less,
succeeded in meeting the challenges of globalization. But are we
prepared to face the inevitable moral, ideological, and political

91
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

changes that go hand in hand with the changes in global

economies? Even more importantly, are we preparing our students
morally, politically, and ideologically to become citizens of a
future world that is going to be more equal, active, and dynamic
than this one? The future world is not only a world of common
markets of goods, capital, or labor. It is also a world of common
values, a world of tolerance, a world of multiple identities and
loyalties, and a world of shared responsibilities. The tragic events
of September 11, and even more so, the events that followed,
demonstrate that citizenship education, particularly in regard to its
global dimension, faces multiple contextual, methodological,
curricular, and even semantic challenges.
In this article, I will demonstrate how such concepts as
globalization and global citizenship are represented in social
studies standards in various states. I will also argue that despite the
interdisciplinary nature and content of the terms globalization and
global citizenship, the social studies classroom is the primary locus
of their curriculum application. Further, the reasons for the lack of
interest among educators in addressing these two powerful
concepts in the US classroom will be discussed.

Literature Review
The terms global citizenship education and education for
global citizenship as well as other terms related to the concept of
global citizenship are becoming more and more frequently used at
scholarly conferences and in various educational discourses.
However, one can rarely hear these terms in the classroom. There
are reasons for this, both objective and subjective. First, there is no
consensus on the meaning of global citizenship. We cannot use the
familiar definition derived from the definition of citizen, argued
Noddings (2005), because global citizenship is not about
allegiance to a global government that is nonexistent. To Noddings,
a global citizen is one who can live and work effectively anywhere
in the world, supported by a global way of life. Guadelli

92
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

and Fernekes (2004) referred to the non-normative stance of global

citizenship and highlighted its complexity, transcendency, and
inchoate status. McIntosh related the idea of the global citizen to
habits of mind, heart, body, and soul that have to do with working
for and preserving a network of relationships and connections
across lines of difference and distinctness, while keeping and
deepening a sense of ones own identity and integrity (2005, 23).
Dunn (2002) referred to a citizenry that knows and cares about
contemporary affairs in the whole world (p. 10). The absence of a
mutually agreed upon definition of global citizenship, which spans
from a vague sense of belonging to a global community to more
specific ways of individual and collective involvement in global
politics (Heater, 1997; Ibrahim, 2005), has enabled researchers and
educators to use this term and related terms loosely. It is not much
of a surprise that this relatively new concept has also generated a
lot of criticism, much of which is related to its social and political
aspects. The emerging global civil society that perpetuates global
citizenship and is supposed to give it a political character
(Armstrong, 2006, p. 349) faces several accusations itself: it is
terminologically ambiguous, its supporters uncritically apply
nation-state phenomena to global processes, and it undermines
democracy by weakening the democratic institutions of nation-
states (Corry, 2006). Armstrong (2006) argued that the supposedly
global elements of global citizenship are much less universal and
transcendental and thus, the claim that a meaningful global
regime of citizenship is emerging should be treated with
caution (p. 355). Second, global citizenship education is usually
conceptualized within the framework of international education,
global education (Davis, Evans, & Reid, 2005), multicultural
education (Banks, 2004; Dunn, 2002), peace education (Smith &
Fairman, 2005), human rights education (Guadelli & Fernekes,
2004), or economic education. Practitioners are very well aware
that none of these approaches, except maybe economic education,
has secured a position in school curricula so far. Thus, global

93
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

citizenship education, if taught as one of the topics within those

frameworks, has become even more secondary.
Obviously, global citizenship education should be placed
within the broader framework of citizenship education due to the
similarity of rationale and the variability of models that the latter
offers (Davis, Evans, & Reid, 2005). Citizenship education is
about civic knowledge, skills, and values. The traditional
concentration on national citizenship compared to a more global
perspective comprises one of the constraints in the national v.
global dilemma (Davies, Evans, & Reid, 2005; Parker, Ninomiya,
& Cogan, 1999; Thornton, 2005). Akhmad and Szpara (2005)
argued that traditional citizenship education is inherently state-
centered because it over-emphasizes teaching and learning about
government. But out of the four levels of government, namely,
local, regional, central/federal, and global/international, the lions
share of curriculum covers central/federal government. Such an
approach could be justified at a time of nation-state building, or
during the fairly recent time of the Cold War. Such an approach
was possible in a pre-globalized world. But to what extent is this
position justified now? UNESCO resolution No. 39 affirms that the
values of tolerance, universality, and mutual understanding are
relevant to international organizations, states, and civil societies as
well as individual citizens (Pigozzi, 2006). Global citizenship
education is not expanded local or nation citizenship education
(Davies, 2006). It is the logical development of a citizenship that is
st
required for all citizens in the 21 century. It should help students
to develop cultural, national, and global identifications; it also
significantly contributes to civic democratic development (Banks,
2004). Educators outside the United States understood this long
ago (Ebbeck, 2006; Engler & Hunt; 2004; Holden, 2000; Ibrahim,
2005; Oxfam, 2006), while the attitudes of many US educators to
global citizenship education can still be described as cautiously
suspicious. Teaching and learning about the functions of
democratic government or about decision-making cannot be only

94
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

based on local or central/federal paradigms. Robin Richardson

(quoted in Davies, 2006, p. 6) contended that global education
implies a focus on many different, though overlapping levels from
very local and immediate to the vast realities named with phrases
such as world societies and global village. Kristen Sheppard
(2004) put it even more succinctly: Global citizenship is a daily
responsibility (p. 35).
Another controversy that haunts education for global
citizenship, the fourth obstacle in our list, is the fear that global
citizenship education undermines patriotism towards the state. In
most cases, patriotism is conceptualized in its traditional meaning.
This is particularly true in the United States where, as John Myers
(2006) argued, on the one hand, schooling disproportionately
favors national identity over learning about the world and, on the
other hand, teachers are accused of being unpatriotic when they
allow critical discussion of government policy. However, the
traditional meaning of patriotism is being challenged more and
more often (Apple, 2002; Branson, 2002; Nussbaum, 1994; Merry,
2007). The idea of patriotism as a more inclusive construct,
particularly in regard to multicultural and intercultural discourses,
is becoming more acceptable. A useful definition of patriotism,
noted Akhmad and Szpara (2005), should not hinge on the legal
status in a polity but embrace citizens' allegiance to universal
human values, democratic ideals, and the human rights and dignity
of all people in the world (p. 10).
What happens in the classroom when practitioners teach
about global citizenship? After examining how individual teachers
in Ontario schools prioritized global citizenship issues in their
teaching in the context of other curricular demands, Michele
Schweisfurth (2006) concluded that the teachers had to and were
able to interpret the prescribed curriculum imaginatively (p. 49)
to justify their own aims in teaching about global citizenship.
Despite global citizenship education-friendly Civics curriculum
and standards in Ontario, the general encompassing message to

95
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

teachers was about curriculum standardization. Although teachers,

who were interested in introducing global perspectives into their
classrooms, were taught through the system of professional
development how to look at the curriculum guidelines from a
global citizenship education angle, they found themselves at the
periphery of the concerns of the profession as a whole.
John Myers (2006) explored two exemplary programs that
incorporated global and multicultural curricular perspectives. His
research indicated that even in these selected programs, the
concept of global citizenship, suggesting a commitment and
responsibility to the global community based in human rights, is
less coherent (p. 389). This is the result of the lack of attention to
globalization and related processes in social studies education. The
author argued that social studies curriculum makers should
consider the ways that curriculum topics can address the local-
global relationship as well as integrate current scholarship on
globalization (pp. 389-390).
Schools play a key role in citizenship education and,
therefore, are one of the critical providers of global citizenship
education. Due to the schools potential to be aligned with
transnational efforts in promoting global civility (Reimers, 2006),
the role of teachers can hardly be overstated. Nonetheless, as
research demonstrates, teachers are mostly oblivious to the
purposes, methods, and content of global citizenship education.
For example, out of over 700 teachers in England who rated
education for global citizenship as important, very few were
confident of their ability to teach it (Davies et al. in Yamashita,
2006). Overall passive and in many cases skeptical attitudes to
global citizenship and related concepts eventually has resulted in
neglect of global citizenship education in many US schools. The
growing amount of research, particularly comparative research,
demonstrates that the traditional notion of developing democratic
understanding needs to be expanded to encompass attention to
decision making, controversial issues, and civic action set in

96
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

multicultural and global contexts (Hahn, 2001, p. 21).

Furthermore, because the US education system has not yet
overcome the stigma of globalization as being anti-American, the
reality of the U.S. education system at best approximates the goal
of developing national citizens with some relativistic
understanding and awareness of the rest of the world (Myers,
2006, p. 389).
The works just mentioned as well as other scholarship
(Bottery, 2006; Engler & Hunt, 2004; Reimers, 2006) clearly
indicate that education practitioners, even those who are genuinely
committed to teaching from a global perspective, need clear and
straightforward curricular guidance to justify their initial interest in
teaching about global citizenship. The absence of such
unambiguous guidance only sends mixed messages and
undermines teachers motivation to engage students in this most
useful and necessary endeavor.
One of the most powerful tools in curriculum development
is state standards. Since the mid-1990s, voluntary national, and
later, state standards in various areas of education, including social
studies, have defined what students should be taught and what they
should know (Finn & Kanstoroom, 2001). Despite their relative
rigidity due to the complex revision process, state standards can
serve as a reliable indicator of curriculum content changes in
various states. Thus, it has become possible to determine the
general direction of content development in various areas of
education by analyzing the state standards.
The purpose of this paper is to determine how the concept
global citizenship is represented in state standards for social
studies. The following questions guided this research: 1) Do state
standards for social studies or equivalent state curriculum guiding
documents contain the terms globalization and global citizenship?
2) What concepts or terms semantically related to globalization
and global citizenship are used in state standards for social studies,
if the former concepts are not explicitly mentioned in the text?

97
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

For the purpose of this work, the term state standards

includes various curricular documents (Academic Standards,
Content Standards, Frameworks, Courses of Study, Trace Maps,
etc.) that contain content standards for social studies.

Method
The electronic texts of state standards for social studies or
relevant curriculum content documents (usually in PDF files) were
downloaded from the websites of State Departments of Education
or state departments, agencies, or offices responsible for public
instruction. In those cases where the standards for different content
areas (History, Geography, Civics, or Economics) or grade levels
were posted separately, all texts were downloaded. The
downloaded texts were then scanned and analyzed using the
conceptual content analysis technique (Holsti, 1969; Krippendorf,
1980) to determine if they contained the terms globalization or its
derivatives (e.g. global, globalized, globalizing) or global
citizenship. The texts were also analyzed to find out what terms
synonymous or closely associated with globalization and global
citizenship they contained.

Findings
The texts of social studies standards of fifteen states
contain the term globalization:

Arizona Academic Content Standards/ Social Studies

th
(2005): PO 3. Analyze how world events of the late 20
st
century and early 21 century (e.g., terrorism, globalization,
conflicts, interdependence, natural disasters, advancements
in science and technology, environmental issues) affected,
and continue to affect, the social, political, geographic, and
economic climate of the world (p. 95).

98
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

Georgia Performance Standards for Social Studies (revised

in 2006): SSWH21. The student will analyze globalization
in the contemporary world (p. 26).

Kentucky Standards/Core Content for Social Studies

Assessment (2006): SS-HS-5.3.6: Students will explain
how the second half of the 20th century was characterized
by rapid social, political and economic changes that created
new challenges (e.g., population growth, diminishing
natural resources, environmental concerns, human rights
issues, technological and scientific advances, shifting
political alliances, globalization of the economy) in
countries around the world, and give examples of how
countries have addressed these challenges (p. 18).

Minnesota Academic Standards in History and Social

Studies (2004): III. WORLD HISTORY. Students will
describe and analyze processes of globalization as well as
persistent rivalries and inequalities among the worlds
regions, and assess the successes and failures of various
approaches to address these. (p. 37).

Mississippi Social Studies Framework and Guide (2004):

Describe movements that led to conflicts and revolutions in
th th th
the late 18 /19 /20 centuries (e.g., Enlightenment,
nationalism, unification, liberalism, industrialization,
imperialism, modernization/westernization, militarism,
globalization, etc.) (p. 97).
Montana Standards for Social Studies (2000): Content
Standard 6. 6. Analyze the interactions of individuals,
groups and institutions in society (e.g., social mobility,
class conflict, globalization) (p. 7).

99
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

The New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards for

Social Studies (2004): 6.5.12.B. Economics and Society
Grade 12: Analyze the connections and potential effects of
the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the
United States, the decline in labor union membership since
1950, rapidly advancing technology, globalization, and
problems of public schools (p. 94).

Ohio Academic Content Standards/K-12 Social Studies

(December 2002): Globalization - The act, process or
policy of making something worldwide in scope or
application (Glossary, p. 322).

Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Civics and

Government/ History/Geography (2003): 7.3.12. GRADE
12: Analyze the significance of human activity in shaping
places and regions by their economic characteristics. Forces
that are reshaping business (e.g., the information economy,
business globalization, the development of off-shore
activities) (p. 9).

South Carolina Social Studies Academic Standards

(2005):Gr. 5 Standard 5-6. 5. Summarize the changes that
have taken place in United States foreign policy since 1992,
including the globalization of trade and the war on
terrorism (p. 45).

The Tennessee Social Studies Curriculum Standards

(2001): K-Gr. 8/Economics/Content Standard 2.0.
Globalization of the economy, the explosion of population
growth, technological changes and international
competition compel students to understand, both personally
and globally, the production, distribution, and consumption
of goods and services.

100
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

Utah Core Curriculum (2002): US History II/Standard

10:Trace the development of computers and the Internet
and their impact on American business and globalization
(p. 23).

Grade Expectations for Vermonts Framework of Standards

and Learning Opportunities (2004): H&SS9-12:13.
Students analyze how and why cultures continue and
change over time by Analyzing the contributions of various
cultural groups to the world, both past and present,
including immigrants and native peoples; hypothesizing
about the impact of the globalization of culture (p. 35).

The Washington State Social Studies Framework (2003):

Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of
globalization to countries, regions, and people with
different cultural and economic advantages (p. 87).

21st Century Social Studies Content Standards and

Objectives for West Virginia Schools (2007, effective in
2008): SS.C.O.12.04.05 Students will examine the impact
of sprawl (rural and urban) on society and the environment
(e.g., globalization of agriculture, energy dependency,
water/soil, green houses emissions, parking lots) (p. 104).

The terms and concepts that are semantically related to

globalization are present almost in all state standards for social
studies. They are (in parentheses are abbreviations of states):
global interdependence of economies, global connections, global
interactions, interconnected world (CO, GA), global
interdependence of places (DE), global community, international
interdependence (IN), tightly interrelated world (IL), human
interdependence (MD), interdependence within global

101
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

communities (MI), connected and interdependent world (MN),

global understanding (NE), interdependent increasingly connected
world (NH), interrelationship (NM), interdependence of global
economy (OR), the effects of economic, geographic, and political
interactions (SC), worldwide economic interdependence (SC),
constantly changing, increasingly complex world (SD), global
trade interdependence (UT), global cooperation among groups
and governments (VT), networks of economic interdependence
(VA, VT), increasingly culturally diverse, and interconnected
world (WV).
The term global citizen(ship) is mentioned in the standards
of two states:

Maryland Voluntary State Curriculum Social

Studies/Core Learning Goals Government (June 2002):
1.0 Content Standard: Political Science - 2. Analyze the
importance of civic participation as a citizen of the world.
B. Analyze the concept of a global citizen and how the
awareness and responsibilities have changed during the
information age (Gr. 7, p. 4).

Mississippi Social Studies Framework and Guide (2004):

The overarching goal of the 2004 Mississippi Social
Studies Framework and Guide is citizenship education in
order to foster the development of life-long, responsible,
accountable, global citizens in a democratic society
(Mission Statement, p. 1).

Other terms, concepts, or phrases that are semantically

related to global citizen(ship) are: informed, responsible, and
participating citizens at the international level (AL, MS, MO),
responsible citizens and active participants in global society
(AL), global stewardship (AK), members of the world community
(AZ, NH, OH), citizen in an interdependent world (KS), citizens

102
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

and participants in an increasingly connected world economy

(KY), citizen of the world (MD, WV), Americans as citizens of a
global community (MS), economic citizen in a global economy
(MT), capable citizens in a culturally diverse and interdependent
world (NE), productive, informed citizens in a global society (NV).

Discussion
The development and implementation of state content
standards possess their own dynamics that explain, in part, why
standards lag behind real life. This is particularly the case in social
studies education where, in comparison with other areas of
education, the rapidly changing world dictates its own pace. This
can be one of the possible explanations of the fact that social
studies standards of only 15 states contain the term globalization,
one of the most powerful and most controversial concepts at the
th st
end of the 20 and beginning of the 21 centuries. Even in the 15
cases where globalization is presented, it is predominantly used as
an economic concept (e.g. globalization of economy, business
globalization, globalization of trade) ignoring or leaving unnoticed
and therefore untaught its omnipotent and ubiquitous influence on
all sides of human activity (Bottery, 2006; Waters, 1995). This is
why it is so important and also promising that in more recently
developed or revised standards, globalization is interpreted as a
more complex phenomenon (e.g. globalization of culture). At least,
standards developers are no longer focused on just one component,
the economic component of globalization.
The case of global citizen(ship) is even more complex. This
concept is only mentioned in the standards of two states. Although
the terms related to global citizen(ship) (e. g. citizen of the world,
world citizen, cosmopolitan) existed long before the term
globalization, the controversial nature of the term global citizen, a
narrowly and sometimes falsely understood patriotism, an outdated
understanding of citizenship, obsolete views on civic education, let
alone the notorious conservatism of many school districts have

103
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

all prevented the new/old concept from appearing in state

standards. Standards developers and state boards of education
faced a dilemma. On the one hand, life persistently required that
the concept that would embrace new approaches to values
education, human rights education, the role of international NGOs
or global government be presented in curricular documents, while
on the other hand, traditionalism and political relativism cautioned
social studies educators not to move too fast. It would also be
interesting to explore how the events of September 11 impacted the
eagerness or reluctance to include the term global citizen(ship) in
state social studies standards. The tragedy of 2001, which could
have helped social studies educators demonstrate the deficiency of
narrowly understood allegiances, was sometimes used as a pretext
for unleashing ultra-patriotic hysteria with hardly predictable
outcomes. It can be assumed that under these circumstances in the
first years after the tragic attack, the developers of social studies
standards experienced tremendous political and ideological
pressures to nicely avoid the suspicious ideas of global citizenship
and thus concentrate on more patriotic themes.
As a result, the term (and concept) global citizen(ship) is
only mentioned in the standards of two states although attempts to
conceptualize civic commitments that transcend national
boundaries are made in the social studies standards (civics and
government standards in particular) of many other states. Clearly,
how much is the phrase global citizen semantically different from
citizen of the world? Not much; they are almost synonymous. This
is not, however, the case with other substitutes, or rather political
and ideological euphemisms. Such phrases as informed,
responsible, and participating citizens at the international level,
responsible citizens and active participants in global society,
productive, informed citizens in a global society, or capable
citizens in a culturally diverse and interdependent world are
ambiguous and shift the focus. They can be interpreted as an
invitation to teachers to use the term citizen at their discretion.

104
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

Considering the tenacity of the existing traditions and ideological

dogmas, there should be little doubt about how the majority of
practitioners will construe such terms. There is really more than a
two-letter difference between citizen of an interdependent world
and citizen in an interdependent world, let alone economic
citizen in a global economy. Mixed messages like these in a
prescriptive curricular document eventually turn into neglect of a
very important concept in the classroom.
Conversely, it should be noted that despite their vagueness
and ambiguity, the terms mentioned provide classroom teachers
with at least some guidelines regarding global citizenship
education, unlike the social studies standards of those states where
this concept is not introduced at all in any form. This does not
necessarily mean, however, that teachers ignore global citizenship
education in those states. But it does mean that teachers lack
curricular justification and support if they decide to include
elements of global citizenship education in their curricula. It also
means that, under the pressure of omnipresent and omnipotent
accountability, which as many practitioners know, usually implies
that what is not tested is not taught, topics related to global
citizenship are buried under more necessary materials.
The analysis conducted here also demonstrates some
positive steps in the dynamics of curricular promotion of global
citizenship education and its elements. For example, the 21st
Century Social Studies Content Standards and Objectives for West
Virginia Schools, which were filed in 2007 and became effective
on July 1, 2008 state, Social Studies, as a field of study, embodies
the essence of mankind and interconnects the past, present, and
future. It investigates where people live and how they participate
as citizens of the world (p. v). This is a new phrase that was
recently absent in the standards.

105
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

Conclusion
The analysis of the texts of state social studies standards
demonstrated that the standards of only 15 states contain the term
globalization, and only two states included the term global
citizen(ship) in their social studies curriculum standards. This
absence of the terms that define the rapidly developing
phenomenon of global citizenship in state curricular documents
can negatively impact an important area of civic education. Despite
the existing criticism, content standards have become an
inseparable part of the educational process. They are critical in
curriculum development and they also provide in-service and pre-
service teachers with curricular and content guidance. The nature
and logic of content standards require that they should work for the
future. Taking into account the dynamics of standards revision, it is
crucial that their developers, in cooperation with teachers and
scholars, consider and discuss changes regarding the introduction
of emerging social phenomena such as global citizenship. This
example of the term globalization, which has been in use in
scholarly, educational, and informal everyday discourse for several
decades but is only mentioned in the standards of 15 states, should
serve as a serious warning. Content in social education is a rapidly
changing area and we as educators have to make sure that our
students will be prepared to become responsible and informed
global citizens in the world of the future.

References
Ahmad, I. & Szpara, M. Y. (2005). Education for democratic
citizenship and peace: Proposal for a cosmopolitan model.
Educational Studies, 38(1), 8-23.
Apple, M. (2002) Patriotism, pedagogy, and freedom: On the
th
educational meaning of September 11 . Teachers College
Records, 104(8), 1760-1772.
Armstrong, C. (2006). Global civil society and the question of
global citizenship. Voluntas, 17(4), 349-357.

106
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

Arizona Department of Education. (n.d.). Arizona academic

standards. The social studies standards articulated by grade
level. Retrieved July 2007, from http://www.ade.state.
az.us/standards/sstudies/articulated.
Banks, J. A. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and
citizenship in a global world. The Educational Forum, 68(4),
295-305.
Bottery, M. (2006). Education and globalization: Redefining the
role of the educational professional. Educational Review, 58(1),
95-113.
Branson, M. (2002, June). Patriotism and civic literacy. Paper
presented at We the People State and District Coordinators
Conference, Washington, DC.
Corry, O. (2006). Global civil society and its discontents. Voluntas,
17(4), 303-324.
Davies, I., Evans, M., & Reid, A. (2005). Globalizing citizenship
education? A critique of global education and citizenship
education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), 66-
89.
Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework
for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5-25.
Dunn, R. E. (2002). Growing good citizens with a world-centered
curriculum. Educational Leadership, 60(2) 10-13.
Ebbeck, M. (2006). The challenges of global citizenship: Some
issues for policy and practice in early childhood. Childhood
Education, 82(6), 353-357.
Engler, J. M. & Hunt, Jr. J. B. (2004). Preparing our students for
work and citizenship in the Global Age. Phi Delta Kappan,
86(3), 197-199.
Finn Jr., C. E. & Kanstoroom, M. (2001). State academic
standards. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education
Policy (131-179). The Brookings Institution.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the
twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

107
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

Gaudelli, W. & Fernekes, W. (2004). Teaching about global human

rights for global citizenship. The Social Studies, 95(1), 16-26.
Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.). Georgia performance
standards for social studies. Retrieved June 2007, from
http://www.georgiastandards.org/socialstudies.aspx.
Gomberg, P. (1990). Patriotism is like racism. Ethics, 101(1), 144-
150
Hahn, C. L. (2001). Democratic understanding: Cross-national
perspective. Theory into Practice, 40(1), 14-22.
Heater, D. (1997). The reality of multiple citizenship. In I. Davies
& A. Sobisch (Eds.), Developing European citizens (pp. 21-
48). Sheffield: Hallam University Press.
Holden, C. (2000). Learning for democracy: From world studies to
global citizenship. Theory into Practice, 39(2), 74-80.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and
humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ibrahim, T. (2005). Global citizenship education: Mainstreaming
the curriculum? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 177-
194.
Kentucky Department of Education. (n.d.). Core content for social
studies assessment. Retrieved June 2007, from
http://www.education.ky.gov/users/OTL/CCA%204% 201%
20FINAL/ CCA_41_SS_HS.doc.
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its
methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Maryland Department of Education. (n.d.). Maryland voluntary
state curriculum/social studies/core learning
goals/government. Retrieved May 2007, from
http://mdk12.org/instruction/clg/government/goal1.html.
McIntosh, P. (2005). Gender perspectives on educating for global
citizenship. In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating citizens for global
awareness (pp. 22-39). New York: Teachers College Press.

108
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

Merry, M. (2007). Patriotism, history and the legitimate aims of

American education, educational philosophy and theory.
Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com/action/showPdf?submitPDF=Full+Text+ PDF+
%28160+KB%29&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1469-5812.2007.00363.x
&cookieSet=1
Minnesota Department of Education. (n.d.). Minnesota academic
standards in history and social studies. Retrieved June 2007,
from http://children.state.mn.us/mdeprod/
groups/Standards/documents/LawStatute/006219.pdf.
Mississipi Department of Education. (n.d.). 2004 Mississippi
Social Studies Framework and Guide. Retrieved June 2007,
from http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/ACAD/ID/Curriculum/
ss/2004_Framework/Preface_2004_Social%20Studies.doc.
Montana Office of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Montana standards
for social studies. Retrieved June 2007, from
http://opi.mt.gov/PDF/Standards/ContStds-SocSt.pdf.
Myers, J. P. (2006). Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the
context of globalization: Education for global citizenship in the
U.S. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(1), 370-394.
New Jersey Department of Education. (n.d.). New Jersey core
curriculum content standards for social studies. Retrieved May
2007 from http://www.nj.gov/education/ cccs/s6_ss.pdf
Noddings, N. (2005). Global citizenship: Promises and problems.
In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating citizens for global awareness
(pp. 1-21). New York: Teachers College Press.
Nussbaum, M. (1994). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. The
Boston Review, 19(5).
Ohio Department of Education. (n.d.). Ohio academic content
standards/K-12 social studies. Retrieved May 2007, from
http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/
ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1706&ContentID
=852&Content=59094

109
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

Oxfam Cool Planet for Teachers: Global Citizenship. Retrieved

June 3, 2007 from
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/coolplanet/teachers/globciti/curric/in
dex.htm
Parker, W. C., Ninimiya, A., & Cogan, J. (1999). Educating world
citizens: Toward multinational curriculum development.
American Educational Research Journal, 36, 117-145.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.). Pennsylvania
academic standards for civics and government/
history/geography Retrieved June 2007, from
http://www.pde.stat.pa.us/stateboard.ed/cwp/view.asp?Q=7671
6
Pigozzi, M. J. (2004). A UNESCO view of global citizenship
education. Educational Review, 58(1), 1-4.
Reimers, F. (2006). Citizenship, identity and education: Examining
the public purposes of schools in an age of globalization.
Prospects, 36(3), 275-294.
Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Education for global citizenship: Teacher
agency and curricular structure in Ontario schools. Educational
Review, 58(1) 41-50.
Sheppard, K. (2004). Global citizenship: The human face of
international education. International Education, 34(1), 34-40.
Smith, S. N. & Fairman, D. (2005). The integration of conflict
resolution into the high school curriculum: The example of
workable peace. . In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating citizens for
global awareness (pp. 40-56). New York: Teachers College
Press.
South Carolina Department of Education. (n.d.). South Carolina
social studies academic standards. Retrieved June 2007, from
http://www3.hcs.k12.sc.us/Departments/Instruction/SocialStudi
es/Standards/Intro05.pdf

110
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

Stewart, V. (2005). A world transformed: How other countries are

st
preparing students for the interconnected world of the 21
century. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 229-232.
Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). Tennessee studies
curriculum standards. Retrieved June 2007, from
http://www.tn.gov/education/ci/ss
Thornton, S. J. (2005). Incorporating internationalism into the
social studies curriculum. In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating
citizens for global awareness (pp. 81-92). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Utah State Office of Education. (n.d.). Secondary core curriculum.
Secondary social studies. Retrieved May 2007, from
http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/core/corepdf/SoSt7-12.pdf
Vermont Department of Education. (n.d.) Grade expectations for
Vermonts framework of standards and learning opportunities.
History and social studies. Retrieved June 2007, from
http://education.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/pubs/grade_expectati
ons/rtf_ doc_ files/history_social_sciences.doc
Office of Washington Superintendent of Public Instructions. (n.d.).
The Washington state social studies framework. Retrieved May
2007, from http://www.k12.wa.us/Curriculum
Instruct/SocStudies/
Waters, M. (1995) Globalization. London: Routledge.
West Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). 21st century social
studies content standards and objectives for West Virginia
schools. Retrieved June 2007, from http://wvde.state.wv .us/
policies/p2520.4_ne.pdf
Yamashita, H. (2006). Global citizenship education and war: The
needs of teachers and learners. Educational Review, 58(1), 27-
39.
Zakaria, F. (2005). Education for global citizenship. Independent
School, 64(3), 86-92.

111
 The Journal of Social Studies Research
Volume 33, Issue 1

About the Author

Antoli Rapoport is Assistant Professor of Curriculum and
Instruction at the Purdue University. He teaches courses in
elementary and secondary social studies methods and comparative
education. His research interests include: comparative aspects of
education, influence of culture and ideology on education, and
global perspectives in citizenship education. He has published
articles in International Education, Intercultural Education,
International Journal of Social Education, Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, and The Social Studies.

112
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: A Forgotten Concept: Global Citizenship Education and

State Social Stud
SOURCE: Journal of Social Studies Research 33 no1 Spr 2009
PAGE(S): 91-112

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is

reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.uni.edu/