Pluralisation of Identities: Shifting citizenship conceptions, national narratives and European education going global? The case of BNE in Germany by Pia Marleen Lange Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a graded credit for the European Master of Arts Study Programme “Human Right and Democratisation” in 2015/ 2016 Submission Date: 14 July 2016 Programme Director: Assoc. Prof. Petra Roter, Ph.D. Thesis Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Irena Bačlija Brajnik, Ph.D. European Inter-University Centre (EIUC) Abstract In times defined as uncertain, ‘liquid’, ‘flat’, globally interdependent and ‘post-national’ traditional national citizenship and citizenship education concepts are shifting and turning into transformative forces to activate, react and counter global challenges based on universal values such as human rights, democracy, social justice, diversity, equality, tolerance etc.. This paper approaches citizenship and education from a perspective of transcendence of traditional political and social structures through an additional global dimension that is slowly finding its way into European education systems. In Western countries like Germany, that have been struggling with their national identities for decades a global dimension in (citizenship) education could instead of constituting a threat for replacing national narratives establish a complementary aspirational, individual- and future-oriented perspective. I argue that similar to its support for European citizenship and European identity, a global focus could be realizable and beneficial for the individual citizens with their competences at the core as well as a solidary, sustainable, international-oriented and responsible community. The implementation of initiatives and programmes such as Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship Education in the last decade in the German education and school system are analysed focusing on common universal and transferable skills, values and attitudes as well as national, European and global notions. Keywords: citizenship and global education; identity; transformation; Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE) List of abbreviations AfD Alternative für Deutschland BMBF Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung BNE Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung BPB Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung CoE Council of Europe CSO Civil Society Organisation DUK Deutsche Unesco Kommission EFA Education for All ESD Education for Sustainable Development EU European Union GCE Global Citizenship Education GEFI Global Education First Initiative ICCS International Civic and Citizenship Education Study ICT Information and Communication Technology IEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement IMF International Monetary Fund KAS Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung KMK Kultusministerkonferenz MDG Millennium Development Goal NATO North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NRW Nordrhein-Westfalen NUA Natur- und Umweltschultzakademie OECD Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development SDG Sustainable Development Goal TEFU Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union TEU Treaty of the European Union TNC Transnational Cooperation UN United Nations UNESCO United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation WTO World Trade Organisation Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 6 2. From national to European to global citizenship: Changing level of participation, belonging and governance ................................................... 10 2.1 National and European perspective on citizenship .......................................... 10 2.2 The global citizenship dimension .................................................................... 25 3. Citizenship education in Europe: concepts, dimensions and interests ..... 38 3.1 National and European citizenship education ................................................. 39 3.2 The arising global citizenship perspective - GCE ......................................... 48 4. Germany – Case study ................................................................................. .54 4.1 The historical and socio-political context of citizenship education in Germany …………………………………………………………….…………….........55 4.2 The post-2015 agenda: BNE (Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung) and GCE as part of citizenship education in Germany……………… ........................... 63 4.3 Analysis of BNE implementation in two federal states: North Rhine Westphalia and Saxony…………………………………..........69 4.3.1 North Rhine Westphalia…………………………………………….....70 4.3.1.1 The School of the Future - Education for Sustainable Development Project………………………………………....72 4.3.2 Saxony…………………………………………………………………74 5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 77 6. References..................................................................................................... ..81 5 1. Introduction In the last years the political and socio-economic realities of the global community were marked by tremendous challenges and changes. Natural disaster, violence in form of armed conflicts, wars, terrorism, emerging and disappearing democratic states, migration and refugee flows and demographic changes, pandemics, resource scarcity, financial crisis, poverty, increasing mobility, ever advancing information and communication technology (ICT), are some of the major challenges of the late 20th and 21st century. Globalisation, capitalism and liberalisation of the global market economy are often identified as the global forces shaping the societies we live in. These processes and conditions impose threats as well as significant chances and opportunities for the world community for fundamental transformation of traditional societal concepts and ideas. Goods and peoples movement increased global interconnection but also awareness and understanding of interrelations and interdependence beyond nation states.1 Due to that, the frame of reference for individuals as citizens is shifting and expanding towards regional polities and transnational governmental and non-governmental organisations offering additional legal, political and social frameworks, guidelines, protection and solutions for complex problems that sovereign nation states cannot solve individually. Yet, the orientation within this complex net of responsibilities, diverse political and socio-economic stakeholder, interests, cooperation and power relations compound the orientation for individuals who themselves inherit various ‘memberships’ connected with feelings of belonging, in- and exclusion, lifestyles, behaviour etc. constructing multiple identities.2 The idea to rethink, reconstruct and relearn fundamental concepts and with it ways to understand, handle and interact with these led to debates on necessary knowledge, values, skills and attitudes of a more universal, globally-oriented, flexible and transformative character to efficiently manage the complex demands and 1 Bauman, 1998; Croucher, 2004; Yunker, 2004. 2 Bauman, 2004; Croucher, 2004. 6 requirements of modern life.3 One identified and well established measure addressed by academics4 as well as politics5 to convey and eventually possibly transform global phenomena and challenges are education and (lifelong) learning, in particular based on existing global, development and citizenship education. This paper analyses the relations of the state as remaining focal point for citizens, the offered citizenship education and the influence of European and global developments on the slow progress and content of permanent implementation of the new dimensions in national curricula. In the last two decades, the European Union (EU) has gained increasing regional political impact influencing political and socio-economic matters of its member states including the sovereign education policy area. The economic and political integration however, evolved separately which lead to a debate on the EU’s political efficiency, accountability and democratic legitimacy regarding its political structures and the level of civic participation.6 Chapter 2 is going to give an overview of traditional national structures, linked citizenship concepts, national narratives and the sense of belonging that are traditionally located and reproduced through national formal education. The main sources are the works of academics from various backgrounds and the EU treaties, guidelines, declarations, communication paper etc. as well as the Eurydice reports of the EACE - Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency for the European Commission. The chapter analyses the shifting role of the nation state as first instance for identification, solidarity within the community, the role and definition of citizenship, the connected individual and collective national identity concept. The first part looks at the trend and promotion of European citizenship as additional identification and orientation layer based on the developing European multi-level governance. While the second part goes a step further, analysing the structures, framework and limitations of the global citizenship perspective. Legality and the sense of belonging constitute the 3 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012; Gibson, Rimmington, Landwehr-Brown, 2008; Jarvis, nd.; Johnson, 2015; Medel-Añonuevo, Mitchell, 2003. 4 Medel-Añonuevo, Mitchell, 2003; Gibson, Rimmington, Landwehr-Brown, 2008; Osler & Starkey, 2003. 5 Council of Europe, 2010; Council of the European Union, 2001; OJ L 394; O’Loughlin, Wegimont, 2003; UNESCO, 2016a. 6 Magnette, 2003; Scalise, 2015; Zweifel, 2002. 7 greatest distinction and challenge for further promotion and fostering of the emerging concept outside education. The significance of the latter, subjective perceived membership in a time which is under constant flux is analysed in an international BBC poll published this year. The results concerning instances of identification world-wide are presented to highlight some tendencies of the sense of belonging often neglecting political and legal legitimacy and accountability components. Within the field of education, (national) identity construction also goes beyond legality equipping individuals with the competences, norms and attitudes needed to live a self-determined life as part of diverse and complex communities. Identification and belonging as components of identity construction have to be redefined in times that Bauman7 and Friedman8 define as uncertain, ‘liquid’ and ‘flat’. Chapter 3 addresses the formal citizenship education in European schools, established as cross-curricular and separate subject approaches to educate and prepare citizens for participation in democratic communities. The European Commission Eurydice report and the yearly Standard Eurobarometer are fundamental information sources for member states implementation of citizenship education. These reports are utilized as well as research of academics from the political and educational field. Due to shifts in legitimacy of political power and responsibilities towards multi- level governance the European and global dimension of citizenship education found their way into national education systems and syllabi. The EU has been increasingly active in promoting the European citizenship model as additional legal layer tackling the gap in its political legitimacy while the global citizenship perspective particularly gained international momentum due to the launched UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and the UN Secretary General’s Global Education First Initiative (GEFI). These programmes and initiatives internationally 7 Bauman, 2007. 8 Friedman, 2005. 8 paved the way for a global perspective in citizenship education as one of the main objective of international development cooperation and comprehensive societal transformation for the next years.9 The universal, participative and competence-based focus of post-2015 education agenda is now translated and transformed into various contexts of member states and partly also included in European structures and guidelines. Chapter 4 is an analysis of the implementation of the established conceptual shifts utilizing Germany as exemplary case. Several academics, educator and researcher emphasis German citizenship and national identity as extra compound due to the historical particularities and the resulting federalism. Therefore, the context is first established to identify the framework for formal citizenship education to filter the influence of the European agenda and the integration of ESD and GCE (in Germany: Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, BNE) into the existing structures. The underlying information stem from academics from the political, sociological and educational field, the Eurydice reports of European Commission, the German UNESCO Commission as national agency in charge of the decades implementation, German political and educational agencies such as the German Federal Agency for Civic Education (BPB), the involved national and federal states ministries for education, research, environment, foundations like the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) and the homepages for the practical realisation of BNE. In particular, the focus on competences, skills, values, attitudes and norms as fundamental components of citizenship education is highlighted to identify differences and similarities of national, European and global citizenship dimensions. The implementation of the ESD agenda and the post-2015 education aspects in two different German federal states as additional aspects of citizenship education are analysed by identifying outstanding projects and approaches. 9 Osborn, Cutter, Ullah, 2015; UNESCO, 2016b, 2016d, nd.; 9 2. From national to European to global citizenship: Changing level of participation, belonging and governance The emerge of supranational organisations and increasing transnational cooperation following the second world war, the raising awareness of the interconnectedness, interrelation and interdependency of the global community based on a human rights system were some of the crucial influence factors world order we have today. This chapter is going to give an admittedly brief introduction into the contemporary status of citizenship in European nation states focusing on rights and obligations but particularly the level of civic participation in democratic processes as part of the national identity and sense of belonging. There has been a reconstruction and reconceptualization of democratic political structures concerning the legitimacy of governance. The influence on the European citizens and the institutional accountability are therefore at the core of the considerations made and the consequences for the people regarding their roles, functions, identification and the competences needed as members of eroding nation states in a challenging world. 2.1 National and European perspective on citizenship Hannah Arendt’s famous words “the right to have rights”10 address best what citizenship promises. It expresses the necessity of a human being to belong to a place which facilitates individual claims for basic human rights. This makes it a legal status, a membership which T. H. Marshall11 approached applying a distinction of this status in civil, political and social rights. These rights and also duties characterize individuals as “full members of a community”12 which in democratic states translates into the political right to participate in the governance of that state and grants additional social, cultural, economic and other political rights. Joppke13 identifies three functions, the status of 10 Arendt, 1962, p. 296. 11 Marshall, 1950, p. 30. 12 Marshall, 1950, p. 28. 13 Joppke, 2007, p. 38. 10 legal membership shaping its access, the rights that come with it and the third for this paper crucial function of citizenship as identity-giving construct. He defines this identity as “behavioral aspects of individuals acting and conceiving of themselves as members of a collectivity, classically the nation, or the normative conceptions of such behavior imputed by the state”14. Yet, the close link of identity and the nation state did not arise naturally but was according to Bauman15 established due to a “crisis of belonging” in the modern sovereign nation state. The establishment of nation states constructed a gap between the actual state or ‘condition’ of society and the needed one. National identity and civil obedience was therefore a forced consequence necessary to develop and uphold states cohesion and legitimacy. Nations as community relying on unity of individual subjects who’s bibliography by now is built of diverse bits and pieces however, were doomed from the beginning to fight for their future existence.16 Further notions on identity and belonging will be discussed in connection with the complementary European citizenship layer. Nevertheless, national citizenship as membership in Europe is argued to be unconditional and independent in terms of separated application as well as disconnected from economic ties. Civil rights are the most basic form offering fundamental human rights and civil freedoms. The access to social and political rights such as social welfare and electoral participation is rather exclusive and links citizenship to certain conditions and obligations but also feelings of belonging and solidarity.17 The nation state and the democracy concept are exposed to changes over time responding to various variables embedded in a frame of “liquid modernity”18. There have been at least four conceptualisations of democracy since the Ancient Greek time. Besides stable and effective institutions, the ‘demos’ or citizen are the key factor in exercising power in a more or less participatory system.19 Yet, the national and European system have been 14 Joppke, 2007, p. 38. 15 Bauman, 2004, p. 20. 16 Ibid., pp. 54-57. 17 Dahrendorf, 1950, p. 12-13. 18 Bauman, Haugart, 2008, p. 113. 19 Crick, 2007, p. 240ff. 11 exposed to various challenges with rapid and permanent transformation of institutions, the framework that citizens act and move within and the function the state serves. The relationship of states and transnational organisations are at the same time marked by being influenced and influencing global integration processes, sometimes as an active facilitator or an obstacle for transcendence of global forces to the local level. Yet, they are not just loosing autonomy and power as organising principle but sharing the primacy and centrality which goes hand in hand with new types of belonging challenging the very idea of a single citizenship.20 Accordingly, the concept and understanding of citizenship as individual actor within these processes has also been of growing interest in the last two decades. A contemporary public discourse addresses notions of active citizen participation as a necessity and decreasing feature of established democratic states.21 While this constitutes one focus on the role of citizens within representative democracies, the new emerging perspective addresses citizens as actors in multi-level governance structures. The emergence of supra-national organizations and their international impact and force in decision-making processes are flourishing and adding a second and third layer of authority and exercise of control upon the nation state and its citizens. The hegemonic legitimacy for defining rules and rights of the citizen has been expanded by transnational organisations and multi-layered polities like the EU as a powerful regional political and economic actor.22 While Heater23 argued that “[f]or two hundred years citizenship and nationality have been political Siamese terms”, European integration and ‘European governance’ establishing a new legitimate political and legal supranational entity, seemingly dislocate or multiply the traditional national citizenship identity.24 20 Croucher, 2004, pp. 30-35. 21 Mitchell & Moore, 2002, p. 1 22 Keating, Ortloff and Philippou, 2009, p. 146; Magnette, 2003, p. 1. 23 Heater, 1999, p. 95. 24 Heater, 1999, p. 95. 12 With the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)25 EU citizenship was established which directly linked with the national citizenship of a European member state. It is highlighted to be additional and does not replace nationality or domestic legislation. This complementarity is based on the general Principle of Subsidiarity of the European institutions and legislation embedded in Article 5 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU). Subsidiarity as a principle is implemented in various ways. The power relations of national governments and European institutions are defined through conscious distribution and assignation of competences, power and objectives to regulate and control the scope of international governance.26 Another aspect of European subsidiarity concerns the decentralisation of decision-making away from institutionalized apparatus to a democratic governance by and for ‘[t]he peoples of Europe’27. This ideal is rooted in the believe in common and universal values based on the rule of law and the principle of democracy while acknowledging and valuing differences and diversity within and across countries.28 Being a national of a European country guarantees certain unconditional fundamental rights and freedoms granted in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union29. Nevertheless, the EU was first and foremost an economic trade union growing to a major economic global power and regional polity. The interest for membership enlargement therefore was a decisive decision for expansion of influence over territory, access to new markets and resources and establishment of competitiveness. European integration and the accession of a common market based on free movement of goods and people, against optimistic prospects, disadvantaged certain society groups resulting in increasing inequality and social and economic exclusion.30 25 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2012. 26 Colombo, 2004, pp. 5ff. 27 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012, Preamble. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Liebert, 2007, p. 427. 13 Establishing a sense of belonging and European identity in an unstable, unequal Union with structures differing from the known national institutions and framework presents quite a challenge. Liebert31 argues that none of the well-established citizenship concept are appropriate to address and solve the paradox surrounding European citizenship. She names the cosmopolitan, liberal-market and republican model arguing for the inability of all three separately create equality and inclusion among high diversity in terms of religion, gender, ethnic and other groupings. Concluding among other things that these models need to be rethought and adapted in practice possibly by citizens themselves which was disregarded in the overnight establishment of European citizenship. Her ‘deliberative’ European citizenship model offers for instance further procedural rights, a public space for debate on issues such as hierarchies, norms and practices and generally adds a deliberate character and forms for citizen participation in transnational, democratic European governance. Hence, this governance would be based on communication, respect, openness, collective decisions and equality in collective as well as inclusive construction and application processes.32 So far, the European structures have opened up but by far cannot meet these expectations and claims. Instead, fostering active citizenship education instead has been the motto representing perhaps the first stepping stone for inclusive transformation with the citizens at the core of a functioning, progressive and prosperous Union. The emergence of transnational organizations offered a new scope for exploring new constellations of actors, participation, interests and accountability. The European context compared to the institutional settings of nation states allows for a wider formal and in-formal participation of non-state actors. This includes social movements, NGOs and national and transnational corporations (TNCs) who widen the democratic scope fostering accountability and transparency of European institutions. This allows on the one side wider representation and participation of ideas and needs of the civil society and on the other hand increases democratic accountability by decreasing the often 31 Liebert, 2007, pp. 434-436. 32 Ibid. 14 academically and politically addressed ‘democratic deficit’33. The positions on the European polities status and purpose and the democratic level remains divided.34 Erman & Follesdal as well as Magnette35 discuss among other aspects the for this paper more relevant lack of traditional direct democratic participation of citizens in decision-making processes replaced by a subsidiarity guided indirect rule of governments. According to Bellamy36 the civic participation of the 508 Million Europeans37 for instance in electoral mechanisms, is a crucial factor with citizens not as subjects to politics but active individuals having the right to engage in shaping their rights within the EU. Expanding citizens inclusion in organization and adjustment processes guarantees direct feedback, input, co-shaping and negotiating to increases the rules legitimacy while at the same time strengthening the people sense of responsibility and belonging.38 This process occurred in nation states and could as well work on European and global level if already established or new appropriate forms of communication and measures are applied. The German Bundesverfassungsgericht confirmed this view of a union of states lacking factors of nation-hood due to “more decision-making centers and access points, less authoritative control over its territorial area, and fewer powers of implementation […] lack[ing] the use of violence and coercion, a defining characteristic of the state in classical political theory”39. Whereas it inherits multiple features of a state such as a currency and Central Bank, a flag, clearly defined territory, a court and executive and legislative forces.40 However, one of the identified ways out is the concept of ‘multi- level governance’ turning the ‘deficit’ into a normal feature of its occurrence due to new measures and actors for legitimate decision-making.41 Normalisation of diverse forms of governance is a recent occurrence and can pave the way for complementary 33 Magnette, 2003; Scalise, 2015; Warleigh, 1998; Zweifel, 2002. 34 Magnette, 2003, pp. 1-3. 35 Erman & Follesdal, 2012, pp. 280ff; Magnette, 2003, pp. 2ff. 36 Bellamy, 2008, p. 597ff. 37 European Union, 2016a, nd. 38 Bellamy, 2008, pp. 599-600. 39 Zweifel, 2002, pp. 813. 40 Ibid, pp. 813-814. 41 Magnette, 2003, p. 3. 15 mechanisms without undermining or even abandoning the national institutions and functions. Alcantara, Broschek and Nelles argue that multi-level governance evolved into “a sort of catch-all concept”42 addressing several factors that influenced the blurring of borders between the state and society affecting the political, social and economic framework. They identified a three folded approach or characteristics of the multi-level governance concept that should support applicability of legitimate decision-making also outside the European context: - the urge to foster cooperation of state and non-state actors on multi-territorial levels due to growing interconnectedness and interdependency, - the following need for a wider scope of territorial politics or political authority based on inter- and supra-national organisations and jurisdiction, - a more inclusive decision-making process regarding the civil society due to increasing mobilization43, for instance social movements, online networks and initiatives like for instance the Country Global Citizenship Report and Card Project Prototype44. The project is a cooperation of the civil The Global Citizens’ Initiative (TGCI), a research and analytics company and an education institute offering a reporting system of countries functioning as global citizens and their compliance and support of universal values and global problems. The Card project rates the participation and implementation of international treaties, conventions and best practices in the area of human rights, gender equality, good governance, poverty reduction, global peace and justice and environmental stewardship according to their own standards and indicators in 15 international countries. Germany scored the highest ranking for implementation, reporting and monitoring and the convention status. Human rights were the highest of the domain scores.45 Inclusion of such initiatives and results of reliable and creative 42 Alcantara, Broschek, Nelles, 2016, p. 37. 43 Ibid. 44 Global Citizens Initiative, 2014-2015. 45 Global Citizens Initiative, 2014-2015. 16 projects could add additional domains, information and flow to static institutions and also be used by national authorities for further promotion and encouragement in the field of education and domestic and regional citizenship engagement in existing structures. Accordingly, the general transformative trend of political authority to a multi- layered ‘polity’, occurs territorial and actor-wise. The theoretical concept of multi-level governance emerged in a European framework in the 1990s and therefore has mostly been utilized and researched in this context.46 However, Alcantara et al.47 argue that it aims at constructing appropriate forms of contemporary decision-making structures to produce public good beyond nation states. Compared to traditional formal governments, multi-level governance or also politics are evaluated to be less hierarchical focusing on the relations and partnership of multi-level actors and the scope of actual collaboration and participation in decision-making processes. Accordingly, it theoretically aims at being more inclusive, value consensus and bottom-up strategies to increase accountability, effectiveness and confidence in European politics and leadership. Yet, in terms of civic participation, the reality proofs to deviate. Magnette48 argues that like in every other type of democracy the participation remains limited to interest groups and consultations with stakeholders which are involved in a ‘neo-corporatist’ manner. The terms ‘civil society’, ‘citizen’, ‘people’ etc. therefore often remain a rhetorical feature while participative inclusion of non-state actors implies “functional groups with particular ends: trade-unions and employers, NGOs, professional associations, grass- roots and community-based organisations, charities and religious communities”49. Nevertheless, a democratic steering power needs informed and active individuals constituting a European citizenry relying on a sense of commonality as European 46 Magnette, 2003, pp. 2-4. 47 Alcantara et al., 2016, p. 40. 48 Magnette, 2003, p. 5. 49 Magnette, 2003, p. 6. 17 identity.50 The Council of Europe (CoE) and the EU institutions have been promoting notions of European citizenship, skills and key competences since the Second World War in form of trainings, conferences, various initiatives and action programmes. The policy for internal social cohesion, a Europe “close to its citizens”51 and expanded cooperation was set force in the Amsterdam Treaty.52 Education and training of youth and adults on a life-long learning basis in a changing Europe were identified by the EU institutions to accomplish this mission. Keating53 uses the convenient term ‘Educating for Nation-Europe’ which is symbolic for the inherent tensions between the national and transnational polity. The coexistence and promotion of national and European values, traditions etc. fuelled a debate on the changing roles of political stakeholders and membership.54 Who is the legitimate actor in what areas, on which grounds based on which of power relations? What are the consequences for citizens, their changing self- constructed identities and individual and collective responsibilities? Henriette Marshall55 addresses the multiple dimensions of the citizenship concept and linked implications and contradictions for education in practice which she analysed in a case study of in the United Kingdom (UK). Among other differentiated types such as liberal and republican citizenship she identifies new forms of citizenship and ‘[m]ultiple’, ‘multi-levelled’, ‘flexible’, ‘shifting’, ‘manufactured’, and ‘imagined’ citizenships [which] accompany those geographically specified concepts such as ‘local’, ‘community’, ‘national’, ‘European’, ‘South-American’, and ‘global’ citizenships, or those indicating levels of involvement such as ‘maximal’, ‘minimal’, ‘active’, ‘thick’, ‘thin’, ‘participatory’, and 56 ‘passive’. These diverse concepts have implications for the rights and duties of citizens as well as for the construction and consistency of identities. Having this variety of layers and 50 Marshall, 2008; Keating, 2009. 51 Cresson, 1998, p. 3 52 Ibid. 53 Keating, 2009, p. 130 54 Liebert, 2007; Warleigh, 1998. 55 Marshall, 2009, p. 247. 56 Ibid. 18 perspectives in mind, any statement about social cohesion within one group or region as well as its independence from other influence factors seem difficult. Citizenship and identity are interdependent constructs. Like Bauman, Smith57 argues that nationality is a fundamental aspect used to create a collective identity based on an constructed nation. He defines national identity as global phenomenon and the most powerful collective identity leading for instance to national and ethnic conflicts and shaping international relations. The coexistence of collective identities like religion, gender, class, race are also identified but seen as less influential which might not proof true in the current situation in Iraq or Syria. It shapes individuals identity creating in- and outgroups through indicators defining sameness and difference internally and externally. The basis are chosen and self-defined features and conditions such as language, law, institutions, values, memories, norms, traditions, myth, skills, attitudes, resources etc. bound to a territory and an alliance of people.58 Ross59 categorises these into membership or belonging to a (social) group, a geographic factor and relationships which helps to understand the plurality, simultaneity and fluidity. Multiple identities often have one predominant factor, yet it is not always a conscious aspect or decision depending on the social context and environment. Therefore within a nation, national identity might be imagined and perceived very differently. Some collective identities have constant cores but also fluid or variable elements constituting a process of identity construction and reconstruction as well as in- and exclusion. 60 The traditional nation state concept still is the dominant collective identity shaping most of international interaction as legitimate actors in political matters. Regardless of the somehow unclear common objectives and function of the European Union, it has been very active in the last decades in fostering European citizenship and European identity “including legal changes (EU citizenship status), institutional reforms (transforming the European Parliament into a directly elected 57 Smith, 1991, p. 143. 58 Smith, 1991, pp. 143-144. 59 Ross, 2007, pp. 287-290. 60 Ibid. 19 chamber with universal suffrage), and creating supposedly unifying symbols (a European anthem, common passports, and border exit signs)”61. In general the EU, particularly the European Commission issued various initiative, reports, public consultations, a campaign year and polls regarding European citizenship to conduct reliable sources to depict citizens relation with the EU concerning the image, trust, degree of identification, involvement, applicability, access to rights and information, perception of the future of the EU, its economic situation and the individual perception of citizenship. The main poll for public opinion on European citizenship is the Standard Eurobarometer conducted every year.62 The last published Standard Eurobarometer 83 survey on European citizenship, European identity, the perceived achievements of the EU and European values was carried out in Spring 2015 in 35 countries - 28 member states, five candidate states and the Turkish Cypriot community which is not unter the Cyprus government control.63 According to this last poll, two-thirds (67%) of the Europeans see themselves as European citizens. Yet, the answers were subdivided into “Yes, definitely” (27%) and the favoured “Yes, to some extent” (40%) with two negative options and abstention. This is the highest number in the barometers five year young history with the lowest sense of European citizenship in Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria where it still represented half of the population while Luxembourg took the lead with 88% followed by Malta (84%), Finland (81%), Germany (81%), Estonia (79%), Sweden and Lithuania (both 78%). Italy, the UK, France and Czech Republic also scored some of the lowest results in terms of European citizenship sense.64 The low sense in the UK and Henriette Marshall’s65 analysis of European notions in citizenship education in the UK may point to a lack of fostering of cultural European notions besides the traditional economic- and rights-based approaches following the republican citizenship model. She identifies the different economic and political interests at stake in the UK as well as the media 61 Keating, 2006, p. 160. 62 European Commission, 2016, nd. 63 European Commission, 2015, p. 2. 64 Ibid., p. 15-17. 65 Marshall, 2009, pp. 250-263. 20 coverage with a predominantly national and global focus.66 The educational focus and prioritisation of the global over a European dimension and identification might have influenced the recent elections leading to the European ‘Brexit’. Less surprising are the findings of the socio-demographic analysis of the Eurobarometer. Due to that, key factors for likelihood of positive answers were - higher education, - a high subjective social status, - financial stability, - a positive image of the EU, - support for the Euro and - young age. The age category is subdivided in three generations: born before 1946 (54%), the baby- boomer generation which was born between 1946 and 1964 (61%), Generation X, born between 1964 and 1980 (69%) and the leading Generation Y, born after 1980 (73%). The different social, political and cultural context, the development and expansion of the EU, its institutions, tasks and objectives during those years changed the life world that the interviewees grew up in tremendously. The European citizenship concept, image that have been promoted by the EU from the 1940s until now also developed towards a more culture-based approach which might additionally influence the level of identification of the respondents. This might be one of the reasons why still 38% of all interviewees would solely define themselves in terms of ‘Nationality only’.67 So which factors or indicators are crucial for European citizenship and its transfer into member states education systems? The poll Eurobarometer offered 16 ‘ingredients’ with a maximum of three choices “that most create a feeling of community among EU citizens”68. According to that, unifying factors are common culture (27%), economy (22%), history (21%), values (19%), sports (18%), geography (18%), the rule 66 Marshall, 2009, pp. 250-263. 67 European Commission, 2015, pp. 15-21. 68 Ibid, p. 28. 21 of law (18%), solidarity with poorer regions (15%), languages (13%), healthcare, education and pensions (13%), inventions, science and technology (12%) and last but not least religion (8%) and Other (1%) plus abstention.69 These factors are determined to create community, a collective sense of shared identity with consequences for social inclusion or exclusion. How does the answering individual interpret culture or particularly common culture? Is it linked to Europe’s past, Christian heritage, culture and values?70 Or rather intersections in the areas of art, music, language, movies, habits? The importance of the economic factors can be linked to the history of the trade Union and the future-oriented national interests of freedom of movement for persons and goods and the common internal market. What does that say about the commonalities and belonging of a community and causes or rationales for internal solidarity or solidarity with poorer regions? The prevailing of national economic, political and social interests over common political decisions in the Union became recently visible during the ‘refugee crisis’ and the collapse of the internal non-border and control system. Furthermore, a global option for identification as comparative component in the European polls might be interesting due to its scale and regularity. Of the established factors for European togetherness and community, ‘values’ ranking fourth priority were further inquired. While every fifth person chose ‘values’ as an important ingredient of community, a small majority (51%) of those answers polled and weighted, agreed to the statement of closeness in terms of shared values among EU member states with 42% disagreeing.71 When it comes to national closeness and cohesion of people in the own country, 71% answered positively to the statement of having “a lot of things in common” 72 but just 16% ‘totally agree’ and 24% who ‘totally disagree’. The percentage of those who agree in Hungary (57%), Italy (57%) and France (58%) are surprisingly low compared for instance to Sweden (91%), Cyprus (90%), 69 European Commission, 2015, p. 26. 70 Murray, 2009; McLeod, 2015. 71 European Commission, 2015, pp. 44-45. 72 European Commission, 2015, pp. 49-50. 22 Ireland (89%) and Greece (88%).73 Social cohesion and shared values are crucial for solidarity within a society and identified by one-fifth of Europeans as one of the three most important factors for creating a feeling of community. While there is quite high decisiveness of Europeans on commonality and shared values within the EU as well as in their own countries, the personal values are more distinctly defined. From the 14 options, 45% chose ‘peace’ as one of their most important personal values, followed by ‘human rights’ (40%) and ‘respect for human life’ (35%). Individual freedom (27%), democracy (26%), equality (21%), tolerance (17%), solidarity (16%), rule of law (15%), respect for other cultures (9%), self-fulfilment (9%) and religion (5%) were the other offered choices.74 These are mostly universal values or individual or collective rights and freedoms that can be interpreted in an individual or societal perspective. While the poll took place in European member states, personal values mostly do not stop at European borders or just include European citizens. Germany for instance scored the highest level for ‘peace’ whereas Swedish citizens seemed to prioritise ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ and Austrians ‘individual freedom’. The German focus on peace can be identified in its approach for political education that is going to be analysed in Chapter 4. Consequently, political and social citizenship in the EU and individual member states, compounding of entitlements and legality, does not necessarily create togetherness and similarities. The aim is to create a community, a sense of equality despite tremendous diversity within and across countries to turn Europeans into European agents, a civil public to uphold political legitimacy.75 One aspect of this unification process is the EU’s acknowledgement of increasing mobility between member states as well as inflows into the Community from outside, and the assertion of the right to difference by minority groups — indigenous or otherwise — [which] is now a well-established feature of European social 73 European Commission, 2015, pp. 49-50. 74 European Commission, 2015, pp. 53-54. 75 Liebert, 2007, p. 417. 23 and political life. This means that learning to live positively with difference and diversity is becoming a core dimension of the practice of citizenship in Europe76. Yet, individual freedoms and particularly the right to freedom of movement is often the first to be infringed under the banner of ‘public interest’ giving a sense of the dependency of Union citizenship despite actual ‘direct effect’ provisions on member states accordance and cooperation. Especially in the course of EU enlargement mobility, residency and labour rights are commonly limited.77 Hence European citizenship is defined as a concept needing to be flexible and adaptable to the diverse, fluid and dynamic European societies it is embedded while basing European integration and unity on tolerance, acceptance for fundamental human rights and freedoms, equality and human dignity as core values and norms firmly established in several European treaties, resolutions and policies.78 Yet, academics and scholars warn of losing sight or compromising core values such as non-discrimination, gender equality, freedom of sexual or religious orientation, minority protection due to tensions between national identity protection and social, political and economic interests as opposing objectives underlying the European integration processes.79 Furthermore, there is an almost ironic momentum that the establishment and enlargement of the Union with the objective of a breakdown of domestic markets for a common market society marked by mobility, shaped by an external boundary and common universal norms and values, threatened national identity and internal cohesion.80 The process takes places along the ambiguous intersection of equality and diversity, inclusion and exclusion (individuals, groups on the inside as well as non-Europeans on the outside), overlapping, complementarity or duality of identities, rule of law and social, political and economic interests. 76 European Commission, 1998, p. 11. 77 Liebert, 2007, pp. 426-427. 78 European Union, 2016b. 79 Weiler, 1999, p. 343. 80 Weiler, 1999, p. 343. 24 2.2 The global citizenship dimension Social tensions and challenges stemming from internationalization, globalisation of relations, trade etc. led already to the emergence of ideas of world or cosmopolitan citizenship mostly supported by elites. The interpretation of these concepts changed over centuries while the core idea remained. This chapter is an introduction to the contemporary debate on global citizenship, the term, conception and diverse forms of interpretation, application, implementation, accountability and responsibilities of global citizens. Hand in hand with legal and political components of global citizenship, questions surrounding the fundamental components, stakeholder and legitimacy of the complex global governance construct arose. The aspirational and future-oriented global citizenship concept is introduced focusing ideals and those identifying with it. In the light of Jenkins’81 European identity crisis and the EU’s inherent ambiguity concerning European citizenship, the collective identity and democratic governance structures , how can global citizenship be distinguished regarding those features? What are for instance rights, duties, values and skills of global citizenship? Is it a complementary or contradictory process? The analysis follows Oxley and Morris82 distinction of global citizenship and global citizenship education as separate conceptual approaches and therefore discussed in the next chapter in connection with citizenship education and global educational components in European member states. The concept of global citizenship inherits various layers, perspectives and contradictions. Dower83 discusses it as a reaction to global phenomena addressing global problems through common approaches, ethics and developments in the framework of the citizenship concept. Utilizing and lifting the term ‘citizenship’, which is directly linked to certain legal and political rights and duties between a nation-state and an individual, to an international sphere leaves a legal and institutional vacuum.84 81 Jenkins, 2008, pp. 154-155. 82 Oxley & Morris, 2013. 83 Dower, 2006, p. 3-6 84 Lagos, n.d. 25 While some argue that in absence of a political authority global citizenship can never be a legitimate and valid concept others focus on the deeper morality and ethical commitment.85 As established earlier, citizenship is more than a formal relationship of individual and government of a sovereign state. It is also a method for construction of individual and collective identity and a sense of (often national) community which is highly influenced by globalisation processes and effects such as internationalisation, universalisation or westernisation, liberalisation, deterritorialisation and modernisation.86 The results or reactions to these processes questioning the artificial and constructed hegemony and legitimacy of nation states can to some extent be identified in global citizenship ideals and ethics.87 According to Dower88, global citizenship inherits an understanding of the subjective individual status as a global citizen as well as a moral perspective towards other human beings as part of a global civil society. Therefore, he identifies three dimensions of global citizenship: - normative, - existential and - aspirational. The normative aspects are values, morals and global ethics which should be addressed critically under the incentive of being universal. The existential claim is based on the understanding of the ‘accepted fact’ of being part of a global community with common general values and ideals combined with the third future-oriented aspirational claim to transform, strengthen and build structures upon these common ideas. Therefore, it attempts to move beyond moral agency towards active participating global citizens with ‘new’ global concerns and working towards social justice.89 Besides Dowers distinction, Schattle90 identifies two different underlying discourses: 85 Oxler & Morris, 2013, p. 303. 86 Dower, 2006, p. 42 87 Bottery 2003, p. 101-103 88 Dower, 2006, p. 3-7 89 Davies, 2006, pp. 6-7 90 Schattle, 2005, p. 120. 26 - a civic republican discourse that emphasizes concepts such as awareness, responsibility, participation and cross-cultural empathy, and - a libertarian discourse that emphasizes international mobility and competitiveness.91 While both streams of thought are originating from fundamentally different motives, both advocate notions of national transcendence of communities and international interconnectedness. Stein92 applies similar positions referring to contents of the republican model as an inclusive ‘liberal humanist’ position and the libertarian as ‘entrepreneurial’ with economic benefit ends. She addresses two additional positions: - First the anti-oppressive concept as a more critical, politicized, and historicized approach to global engagement. […] This position tends to identify how colonial, racialized, and gendered flows of power, wealth, and knowledge operate to the advantage of the Global North, as a whole, and elites in both the Global North and South. In response, it tends to advocate for more equitable distribution of resources, cognitive justice, and more horizontal forms of governance, and aspires to radical 93 transformation of existing structures, up to and including their dismantling. - Secondly, the incommensurable position which goes another step further than anti-oppressive concept. It aims at dismantling presumptions and the relation with ‘the other’ but with the aim of avoiding any form of reconstruction while accepting difference, the unknown and ambiguity as a natural aspect of human life.94 These different concepts and positions on global citizenship go beyond functions and ends of national or European citizenship. Whereas the two concepts inherit quite concrete objectives, tasks, rights and frameworks, global citizenship lacks a global polity as frame of reference and legal membership. While it does not offer the same amenities and protection mechanisms, Falk95 argues that a feeling of belonging and “strong gender, religious and civilisational identities that to some extent have displaced 91 Schattle, 2005, p. 120. 92 Stein, 2005, p. 243. 93 Stein, 2005, pp. 246-247. 94 Ibid, pp. 247-249. 95 Falk, 2002, p. 26. 27 the Westphalian identities” emerge from strong social movements like global citizenship. However, a global citizen is for now somebody who sees himself as such, someone who identifies with the self-implied values in an attributive manner and also goals. Therefore interpretations and applications vary across the globe often with emerging internal ambiguities. Oxler and Morris96 identified eight concepts belonging to two distinct forms or types of global citizenship, either ‘cosmopolitan’ or ‘advocacy’. These two categories are subdivided into different focuses while both also contain more radical approaches questioning former concepts of the same domain. The domains of the ‘cosmopolitan’ category are - cultural, - political, - economic and - moral approaches which mostly reject the sometimes equivalently used ‘citizenship’ term. The ‘advocacy’ sub-domains are - environmental, - critical, - spiritual and - social concepts. The advocacy approaches often rejecting at least one of the cosmopolitan categories.97 Yet, again within all these diverse and overlapping sub-categories Oxler and Morris identified three additional general trends underlying the global citizenship debate on concepts and help to dismantle the complexity: the tendency to apply attributes such as empathy and responsibility to identify aims and objectives, dichotomous notions to differentiate between to trends like ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ global citizenship and the use of –isms such as ‘liberalism’, ‘capitalism’, ‘elitism’ which are also used in this thesis.98 96 Oxler & Morris, 2013, p. 97 Oxley & Morrison, 2013, pp. 305-306. 98 Ibid., pp. 303-305. 28 Taking this complexity and rhetorical nature into account, is a common approach as aspirational or also political concept even possible and if so desirable? The question of displacement, complementation and infiltration of national constructs resembles the discussion on European citizenship. The role as an additional layer in a multi-level, decentralised political authority with modified boundaries and promoted common values present a desirable future for the global citizenship movement while in political and legal terms could turn into international despotism or ruling of the elite. However, Arneil99 argues referring to Habermas and Benhabib that the necessary political global context may already be a reality due to the global order marked by decreasing influence of nation states in an international market-dominated world. Following this argumentation, global citizenship is not farfetched but rather a following necessity or maybe already reality for citizens world-wide. As an examples and comparison Arneil100 refers to the American “civilizing mission” in foreign politics as realpolitik as an equivalent for the globalizing “liberal empire” spreading around the world under the cover of universal values and laws. Morality replaces economy but it remains a mission set out to civilise and bring good like ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’ and with it ‘universality’. The actions of the United States (US) taken abroad, particularly those in the Middle East, are justified as part of the unofficial moral liberal empire or in political jargon ‘war on terrorism’. Furthermore, the due to imperialism formerly exclusively Western concept of nation states and citizenship became normal occurrences in the whole world while the power relations remained. Therefore citizens, as ‘subjects’ to political power, are also exposed to the negative neo-liberal forces and as such might influence their participation in defining global citizenship again. Arneils argumentations add crucial knowledge to the assumption of universality of global citizenship values and norms scrutinise the ‘citizenship’ term. Like almost every existing concept or idea, global citizenship can also be instrumentalized and fostered by political, economic and educational institutions for 99 Arneil, 2007, pp. 301-302. 100 Ibid. p. 305. 29 competitive means in our globalized “knowledge economy”101 for “modes of business”102. As such it is an either consciously or unconsciously individually applied world view highlighting others well-being independent from geographical localization. The importance of ‘the other’s’ well-being is however based on the belief in universal values such as human rights, social justice and solidarity. While these might remain questionable in terms of universality, let us assume the core of the idea is the physical and mental integrity of another human being. In the next paragraph, the scope and level of global citizenship identification and a sense of belonging to a global community is going to be analysed based on the data of a BBC survey recently issued. The BBC survey was conducted by GlobeScan in 21 countries on all continents interviewing 20.000 people, ca. 800-1200 per country via telephone and face-to-face from 18+ between December 2015 and April 2016 as part of the ‘BBC World Service Identity Season’. Yet, not all questions were asked in all countries so a complete comparability is not given. The offered answers are similar to those of the European poll ranging from ‘Strongly agree or approve’ over ‘Somewhat agree/ disagree’ to ‘Totally disagree’ and ‘Neither’, ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Depends on which/ what extent’ while not all questions were asked in all countries.103 Whereas 67% of Europeans define themselves as EU citizens rather than not, a majority of 51% of the interviewees in 18 countries across the world prioritize identifying as global citizens over their national identity. This is the highest level and the first time since first polled in 14 countries in 2001 that a majority leans towards global identification. The global dimension is opposed by 43% who see themselves primarily as national citizens. However, when given more choices for identification factors across 19 countries, the majority again switched to national citizenship (51%), with world citizenship (17%) still ranking second before identification through the local community (11%), religion (9%) race (8%) or culture (8%). 101 Jorgensen & Schultz, 2012, p. 1-2. 102 Falk, 2002, p. 26. 103 BBC World Service, 2016, pp. 1-12. 30 104 Spaniards scored the highest results for world citizen identification while particularly increasing numbers have been identified in non-OECD countries or ‘emerging economies’. An interesting reverse trend has been taking place in OECD and non- OECD countries since 2001. While in seven OECD countries the global identification has been decreasing, dropping to a low in 2011 (39%) and remaining rather low since then (46%, 2016), the ‘emerging economies’ reached a peak of 56% in 2015 and 2016. In 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the identification with global citizenship of OECD and non-OECD countries has been fairly even. The trend has been particularly significant in Germany. Since 2009 the level has dropped 13 points to an absolute low of 30% since the first poll in 2001. This trend is accompanied by other results mirroring alarming signs of insecurity and indecisiveness regarding international perspectives and questions of multicultural societal make-up in Germany. Other issues raised in the poll concern demographic and global trends shaping societies. These are for instance approval with intermarriage of ethnic and race groups, immigration in general, welcoming of refugees from Syria as specific example but also other regions.105 104 Grimley, 2016, nd. 105 Ibid., BBC World Service, 2016, p. 1. 31 The overall approval of intermarriages as one of the exemplary global trends shaping societies was most clearly defined while even in the other areas the majority of all 19 countries generally approved of accepting refugees from Syria and other countries and approved immigration.106 However, in the German case the statistics show the ‘white gap’ of indecisiveness or insecurity quite vividly. A total approval number of just 34%, even less than in Russia (43%) compared to up to 90% in Canada, Kenya, Australia and even 91% in Spain paint a radically conservative picture. On a positive note, solely 20% disapproved which is less than in six other countries whereas the majority (46%) replied with “Depends on which, what extent”, “Neither” and “Don’t know/No answer”. The level of approval for immigration from other countries is equally hostile from a global citizenship perspective. Merely 27% of the respondents approve of immigration from other countries which is just slightly above the lowest Russian response (18%). Again Canada, Spain, Australia ranked above the global average but this time followed by the South and Middle American countries Chile, Peru and Mexico as well as China, USA, South Korea, Nigeria and Ghana. 107 106 BBC World Service, 2016, pp. 1-9. 107 GlobeScan, 2016, nd. 32 108 The ‘somewhat’ and ‘strongly’ disapproval concerning immigration brings Germany once again to one of the ‘leading’ positions in this race to the bottom. Just Russia, France, Pakistan, Indonesia score higher disapproval rates with India being even at 39%. However, again 34% did not lean either direction. This indecisiveness might be a sign of conservative and observant societal stance due to the recent increase of Syrian refugees reaching Germany or an expression of fear of speaking one’s mind. Risking to be stigmatised as a racist still constitutes a fundamental fear in Germany. A case of pupils in a Berlin school mentioned in Chapter 4 shows even feelings of being restricted or under social pressure in terms of freedom of speech when it comes to national identity issues. Furthermore, Forouta’s109 Germany case study for the Migration Policy Institute in 2013 whose results are going to be further discussed in Chapter 4, shows that the German national identity in public discourse and media presentation still predominantly paints a picture of homogeneity neglecting its long history as country of immigration and heterogeneous demographic make-up. This opposes the good standing 108 GlobeScan, 2016, nd. 109 Forouta, 2013, pp. 33 of Germany in the field of human rights portrayed in the Country Global Citizenship Report in the previous chapter. Yet, these results mostly reflect its political and financial external efforts and not necessarily the internal affairs. Critical voices or supporter of the anti-oppressive and incommensurable position in the global citizenship discourse raised important concerns of Eurocentric, Westernised imageries which impose or reproduce directly or indirectly hierarchical, hegemonic, imperialistic or colonialist power relations.110 These assumptions are particularly addressed by academics and in organisations dominated by Western representatives, showing first of all an attempt for critical, reflected examination but due to the own background and framework still risking the very same thing. Having to debate this issue, ignores the fact that global citizenship primarily is a Western concept tackling effects of globalisation, marketization, capitalism and powerful elitism that are linked with the colonial past of major countries of the ‘Global North’.111 Following Arneils argumentation, Dobson112 also identifies it as a privileged, asymmetrical, dominant and controlling position from which the Global North too often defines and impacts the definition of ‘global’. Nonetheless, why do particularly people from so called ‘emerging economies’ or also ‘newly industrialising countries’ identify with global citizenship while having the national alternative? Yet, the complex definition of what a global citizen is, was left to the interviewees to interpret and may range from travelling every once in a while, speaking different languages, tolerating other religions or cultures, caring about the well-being of others to being an activist in the name of global solidarity or justice. In any of these cases, there is a subjective perception and construction of the ‘me’ as global citizen, inheriting also notions of a ‘we’ as global society and also ‘the other’ as distinct entity. Identification with national or European citizenship definitely create a 110 Andreotti, 2006; de Oliveira Andreotti, 2011a; Arneil, 2007; Beck, 2002; Pashby, 2014; Dobson, 2005. 111 Stein, 2015, pp. 246-249. 112 Dobson, 2005. pp. 261-262. 34 certain sense of the latter. Creating in- and outgroups serves certain functions such as in- and exclusion as well as dominance mechanisms for the purpose of competition. It also leads to a more forceful exclusion in a sense of rejection leading to negative images and feelings towards individuals or groups based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or other ascribing features across all societies. It is an act of narration which attributing characteristics to individuals or groups.113 The realisation of this defining power calls for a self-critical reflection of complex citizenship concepts and narratives in academics, politics and education. Hence, the current global citizenship debate goes beyond the claim of being a solely abstract philosophical and elitist notions often referred to as part of the cosmopolitan perspective.114 Nevertheless, particularly the claims of reproduction of hegemonic power relations have to play a crucial role in fruitful ongoing and future considerations valuing inclusive, critical and participatory approaches. This is for instance a bottom-up approach of civil society and social movements in a manner of “lifestyle politics”115. It is an expression of new ways of interacting and influencing as a “self-actualisation in a post-traditional context, where globalising influences intrude deeply into the reflexive project of the self, and conversely where the processes of self- realisation influence global strategies.”116 This correlation and perspective puts global citizenship in a more pro-active position of complementarity, response and defining force which can foster and guide global governance. Nevertheless, the engagement in creating global common good is still embedded in the national framework, through domestic NGOs or networks but aiming for a wider scope and depth.117 How can a critical and transformative character of global citizenship, taking the introduced arguments into account, be achieved in a national framework? Who are or should be legitimate and accountable actors engaged in a global civil society or representing global perspectives on national or European level? Furthermore, is the rooting of the 113 Slocum-Bradley, 2010, pp. 51-53. 114 Furia, 2005, pp. 332ff. 115 Giddens, 1991, p. 214. 116 Ibid. 117 Muetzelfeldt & Smith, 2002, pp. 55-56. 35 bottom-up global citizenship movement in national and regional structures sufficient or does a global civil society require formal structures of world or global governance? Whereas the European governance is based on quite defined structures, institutions and roles, the European multi-level governance poses multiple challenges. The attempt to generalize its’ approach to make it applicable to a global scale will proof equally complex with contradicting sovereign statuses, accountability issues and the questions of legitimate stakeholders. The considerations on global governance address issues of institutionalisation, democratisation, representation, participation and accordingly power relations. Similar to the European multi-level governance, the debate arose in the 1990s in the course of UN affairs which made it primarily a political discourse rather than one of economic interests. Nevertheless, economic considerations played and play of course a crucial role in all state-centred decisions. Discussing global governance inherits the transcendence of the hegemony of the sovereign nation state claiming the necessity for ‘post-national’ cooperation and action. The global sphere is characterised by a multiplicity of state and non-state actors, global phenomena like public-private hybrids, voluntary regulations for TNCs, alliances between states, states as actors of interstate organisations or in collaboration with NGOs, global initiatives and networks.118 Existing international organisations such as the UN, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or macro-regional ones such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) offer partly or specialised global governance structures. However, the growing complexity of this ‘global web’, also expanded the options for civil society to relate to these actors, take influence, increase democratic legitimacy and for advocacy globally.119 The pursuit of democratic governance structures and the global civil society should be done on a large scale to be as representative and inclusive as possible setting the scene: 118 Hazenberg & Mulieri, 2013, pp. 302-306; Scholte, 2007, pp. 311-312. 119 Scholte, 2007, pp. 312-314. 36 - As an enabling space for dialogue, mutual learning, participation and purposeful interaction of citizens - As a value based, non-profit economic alternative to the business sector - 120 As a global watchdog, counter power and pioneer in political and economic processes. So the next tasks to watch the ‘watchdog’ would be to define the rights and responsibilities for a global citizenry. It needs “democratic ownership over policies and development initiatives that affect their lives, with an emphasis on the poor and marginalized”121 in form of equal partnership and dialogue that avoids “powerful giver – grateful receiver”122 structures. The main actors of the global civil society are civil society organisation (CSOs) which are “voluntary, diverse, non-partisan, autonomous, non-violent, working and collaborating for change”123 non-state and non-market organisations that represent interests of a several citizens in the public domain. These groups that organise outside their family are local-based, grassroots- but also national organisation concerned with gender equality, minorities and children’s rights, sexual and reproductive rights, environmental issues, sustainability, human rights etc.. These CSOs are set in a policy and practice context of a state which exposes them to external influences. Due to that various CSOs organised a global forum where they formulated principles and roles to guarantee efficiency recognising and highlighting that their engagement in development issues can despite their commitment be shaped, affected and limited by the circumstances as well as public and private donors.124 The funding issue exposes organisations to vulnerability, nevertheless they remain a strong force within the citizenry in monitoring and confronting states as well as inter-state organisation regarding their development policies and misconducts. In Europe Oxfam took on a significant pioneering role in research and concretisation of the global citizen conception, global education and the formulation of curriculum suggestions since 1997. They embody an important role in international development field applying a rights- 120 Fricke, Gathercole, Skinner, 2011, p. 4. 121 Open Forum for CSO Development Efficiency, 2011, p. 122 Ibid, p. 4. 123 Open Forum for CSO Development Efficiency, 2011, p. 26. 124 Open Forum for CSO Development Efficiency, 2011, pp. 2ff. 37 based approach which reflects in their research and work. Oxfam looks back on 70 years of experience particularly in the field of global education.125 Yet, UNESCO, the EU, CoE and other NGOs followed working on curricular but mostly extra-curricular approaches. 3. Citizenship education in Europe: concepts, dimensions and interests This chapter is focusing on citizenship education as a political and societal tool for preparing people as citizens to act within communities. Citizenship education takes place in formal and informal settings to provide knowledge, values, skills and attitudes to enable citizens to (actively) participate in a democratic society, strengthen solidarity, a sense of responsibility and social cohesion.126 This chapter analyses the influence and authority of the three-folded approach of citizenship education. The influence, authority and focal points of nation states, the EU and global stakeholders like the UNESCO shaping, framing and exercising educational objectives, methods, contents and ends. With global challenges the focus to prepare learner shifted towards rather universal, transferable and transformative values, skills, attitudes and knowledge which taking on diverse dimensions. After introducing the diverse European members states approaches to citizenship education, GCE is introduced highlighting its particularities, complementary, overlapping or contradictory components as well as legal, political and social notions and aspects of legitimacy in contemporary nation states. Further emphasis is given to the sense of belonging and identity as key concepts of citizenship at the core of the reflections and arguments. The introduced shifting citizenship education framework will then in the following chapter be applied to a case study of educational practice in the last decade in Germany. 125 OXFAM, 2016, nd. 126 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2005, p. 13. 38 3.1 National and European citizenship education Having the right or being entitled to participation does not equal being properly equipped with knowledge, values and abilities to engage. Education and training particularly citizenship education aim at preparing individuals for the tasks connected to citizenship and living in a bounded community to foster a sense of belonging and loyalty. The right to education and access to training is guaranteed for ‘everyone’ in Article 14 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.127 However, the responsibility for equipping citizens has traditionally been located first and foremost in the sovereign nation state as first political agency. In the recent decades, following the described fundamental global changes and the emerging regional and global supra-national organisations challenged the exclusive hegemony and legitimacy of states in the education policy domain. Whereas national citizenship curricular were “[s]eeking to fashion ‘disciplined workers’, ‘loyal recruits’, and a cohesive, governable community […] to instill nation-state allegiances as well as sub-state affiliations”128 European and global initiatives foster complementary elements and further opportunities for participation, necessary skills and values influencing a former distinct national identity. Education as a formal or informal learning experience in or outside schools remains a crucial factor for forming individual and collective identity arguably based on common culture, history, languages, symbols etc. to maintain cohesion within a society. Identity building is a process rooted in socialisation in families, through friends, school and external influences fostering political, social, civil and cultural values, skills and knowledge.129 Schools in Western countries became integrative institutions channelizing necessary civic or citizenship contents to guarantee a functioning state based on ‘informed’ citizens. Educational approaches emerging from national education curricular range from conservative to progressive critical citizenship formation serving 127 European Union, 2012, Article 14. 128 Keating, Ortloff, Philippou, 2009, p. 146. 129 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2005, p. 13. 39 socio-economical and socio-political functions. These approaches imply numerous interests varying from reproducing social order, ensuring national cohesion and ensuring security of sovereign states to offering tools and freedoms for participation and also transformation.130 But what factors influence the form and manner of national education curricular? How and when do reform strategies succeed and what are current core themes in Europe? The Faure Report131 of 1972 addresses functions and ends of education putting it in a relation to society as subject to it and simultaneously direction giving and energy channelizing medium. The theoretical definition resembles the one of the ‘demos’ as subject and engine of its own progress, transformation or also limitation. The report identifies four schools of thought: - Idealism, which considers that education exists in and for itself. - Voluntarism, consisting in the conviction that education can and must change the world, independently of any changes which may take place in the structure of society. - Mechanistic determinism, according to which the form and future of education are directly controlled by and more or less synchronized with surrounding environmental factors. - Finally, the school of thought which derives from all three of these, and which postulates that education necessarily reproduces and even exacerbates and perpetuates the vices inherent in the societies which supporters of this school are currently criticising very sharply. Their view is that there can be no conceivable remedy for education apart from radically changing society. However, in apparent contradiction to this, they maintain that the educational world may well set the stage, with an interior revolution of its own, for a subsequent social revolution.132 First of all, current ends and means of citizenship education in a globally interconnected and interdependent world should be clarified taking some of the endo- or exogenous forces and factors behind educational shifts that have been highlighted in the last chapter into account. Nation states still enjoy sovereignty and most control over education and curriculum policy domains while being part of the EU and the CoE as member state organisations consisting of distinct governance structures such as 130 McLaughlin, 1992. 131 Faure et al., 1972, p. 56. 132 Faure, 1972, p. 56. 40 institutions, European legislation and jurisdiction granting complementary rights and duties and following own interests.133 In the last two decades, European actors have issued various education and curriculum policies and launched initiatives promoting European citizenship, European values, norms and active social and political participation to progress the idea of a ‘greater Europe’134, social cohesion and equity135. However, European education policies are merely guidelines and frameworks that are open to member states interpretation and voluntary implementation.136 The main recent European publications and actions directly and indirectly effecting the member states citizenship education practice have been established after the Lisbon European Council in 2000. In the aftermath, the EU established the Europe 2020 strategy in 2009, a framework for cooperation in the field of education and training. The four identified strategic education objectives are : 1. Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality, 2. Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training, 3. Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship; 4. Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training137 In report on these objectives earlier in 2001 to the European Commission the delegated Education Council states the priority to meet the Lisbon goal that Europe should become "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion"138. In ‘Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes’ the future core strategy for European education and its purpose is also clearly defined and argued as necessary: 133 Keating, 2009b, pp. 138-139. 134 European Commission, 1996. 135 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012, Introduction. 136 Keating, 2009a, p. 160. 137 Council of the European Union, 2009. 138 Council of the European Union, 2001, p. 4. 41 to boost growth and competitiveness: skills determine Europe's capacity to increase productivity. In the long-term, skills can trigger innovation and growth, move production up the value chain, stimulate the concentration of higher level skills in the EU and shape the future labour market. The massive increase in the global supply of highly skilled people over the last decade puts Europe to the test. The time when competition came mainly from countries that could offer only low-skilled work has come to an end. The quality of education and supply of skills has increased worldwide and Europe must respond.139 This educational reform or broad mission addresses active citizenship as one of the objectives for achieving growth, economic competitiveness and countering increasing youth unemployment and lack of higher education. Furthermore, it is a reaction to emerging or growing economies threatening the position of the European economic and political union in the world. Yet humanistic values are also highlighted and included in the general objectives of the Education Council: - the development of the individual, who can thus realise his or her full potential and live a good life;[and] - the development of society, in particular by fostering democracy, reducing the disparities and inequities among individuals and groups and promoting cultural diversity […].140 Dr. Peter Jarvis141 argues that these two diverging objectives are tensions of ‘the human condition’ and the ‘human potential’. It is a result of the knowledge society or knowledge economy where self-fulfilment and –achievement was replaced by employability and labour with a social status and judgement and low intrinsic satisfaction. The European Commission (EC)142 also addresses this demand for increasing flexibility resulting in claiming formal, informal and non-formal lifelong learning strategies to transfer the key competences influencing the social, professional as well as personal life. Yet again, the European policy and implementation emphasis is on “[p]eople's competences [which] also contribute to their motivation and job- satisfaction, thereby affecting the quality of their work and life – thereby bringing added 139 COM(2012) 669, p. 2. 140 Council of the European Union, 2001, p. 4. 141 Jarvis, n.d.. 142 European Commission, 2008, p. 3. 42 value for the whole organisation of labour and production.”143 At best it could be a dual or double motivation for serving the self-fulfilment of individuals but does the incentive for education or just the outcome matter? It does matter if the incentive influences and shapes the outcome in a way that the societal development disadvantages people or does not create public good in a wider sense than just economic growth and well-being for parts of a society. Furthermore, eight general key competences as guidelines for future-oriented education in Europe have been identified in 2006 as part of the reference or strategic framework by the EU Commission and Council: 1. Communication in the mother tongue; 2. Communication in foreign languages; 3. Mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology; 4. Digital competence; 5. Learning to learn; 6. Social and civic competences; 7. Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship; and 8. Cultural awareness and expression.144 The reasons for the necessity of the adaption of skills, knowledge and attitudes to counter-balance increasing inequality, discrimination and social exclusion in Europe are for instance the access to new information and communication technologies (ICTs), decreasing hierarchies leading to new working structures, demographic changes such as growing proportions of elderly, scarcity of young skilled people, migration as challenge and chance, general changing living conditions and contexts influenced by processes of 143 European Commission, 2008, p. 3. 144 OJ L 394, ANNEX. 43 liberalisation and standardisation. Education and training need to address these challenges.145 While recent education policies, recommendations, initiatives and action programmes still follow and refer to the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality set force in Article 5 of the TEU146, recommendations and directives got more pressing, precise, periodically and also increasingly evaluated. The European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice147 monitors the approach and implementation of citizenship education which is according to its survey part of every national curriculum or an equivalent official steering document in European member states. Citizenship Education in Europe “is normally meant to guide pupils towards (a) political literacy, (b) critical thinking and the development of certain attitudes and values and (c) active participation.”148 However the education policies, reforms initiated, the school curriculum approaches (eg. content, objectives and scope) vary while the survey argues that main features of democratic societies, European and international dimension and contemporary societal issues are covered by all countries. The formal approach is either done as cross-curricular dimension, stand-alone subject or part of another subject while there are some cases of whole school approaches. Following European active citizenship strategies, informal democratic structures and activities are said to be encouraged in the national education steering documents of European countries. For instance fostering students and parents active participation in governance of schools but also strategies for activation and participation in local communities and the wider society to get a sense of democratic structures, their functioning and locally addressed contemporary issues such as environmental protection or sustainable development.149 Practical experiences like this are a result of the paradigm shift approaching a more comprehensive or holistic dimension in citizenship 145 OJ L 394, ANNEX; CoE 5680/01 EDUC 18, 2001, pp. 5-6. 146 OJ L 394, Paragraph (14). 147 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012, p. 13. 148 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2005, p. 10. 149 Ibid., pp. 13-15. 44 education aiming to combine the subject matters with appropriate skills to develop transferable key competences that can be acquired and applied in all kind of contexts. The comprehensive approach additionally paves the way for transformable competences and therewith lifelong learning. ‘Learning by doing’ is an increasingly valued approach building up trust in learners relying on existing knowledge and skills and improving practical skills.150 However, the member states prioritize different skills, values, attitudes and behaviour to promote certain key competences impacting the citizenship concept people develop, the effectivity level and also transformative power associated with and released by education. To analyse and assess citizenship education in European member states the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS)151 defined several indicators, domains and influence factors. There are three interrelated and interdependent domains for effective citizenship education which are also applied in GCE: 1. Cognitive (Knowing, analysing and reasoning) 2. Affective-behavioural (Values belief, attitude, behavioural intentions, behaviours) 3. Content with four areas: - civic society and systems, - civic principles, - civic participation - and civic identities152 These domains are embedded and analysed four contexts: the individual, the home environment, school and classroom and the wider community.153 Particularly interesting for this paper are the aspects of the civic principles, participation and the influence on 150 European Commission, 2010, pp. 8-9. 151 Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, Losito, 2010. 152 Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Losito, Agrusti, 2016, p. 10. 153 Ibid., p. 21. 45 identities. The civic identities consist of a civic self-image and civic connectedness. The self-image is crucial for any sense of belonging and relies on the individual experiences, roles and values, the understanding of and towards these roles, values and in relation to the civic communities he or she belongs to. This approach allows the coexistence and overlapping of multiple communities. Yet, the relation can be congruent or under tensions and this influences the level and depth of the connectedness to each group. The interplay of the individual and the community is also influenced by the image and openness to diversity of roles and values and the effects on the community as a whole.154 Therefore roles and values influencing the civic identities of youth of a particular nation or a local territory such as a federal state should be taken into account when drafting a curriculum. To create a sense of belonging and responsibility towards the nation, Europe or the global community the curriculum needs to consider these experiences, contexts and circumstances. Soysal, Bertilotti, Mannitz155 did a cross- national analysis and comparison of national identities and European and transnational notions in syllabus and textbooks in civic and history subject textbook in the secondary school in France and Germany. There are several variables that have to be taken into account when analysing the identity narrative: the general unification process, the structure of the school system, its institutions and those of the school book production determining the selection, organisation and channel for information transmittance. Particularly history textbooks shape national narratives, national remembrance and therewith collective identity and continuity of the past and future. The collective identity, national narrative and memory can have crucial impact on a countries development and the contemporary and future society as the examples of the involved Second World War countries France and Germany as well as former Yugoslavia show.156 154 Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Losito, Agrusti, 2016, p. 22. 155 Soysal, Bertilotti, Mannitz, 2005. 156 Ibid.; Bauman, 2004, pp. 56-59; Subotic, 2013. 46 Soysal et al. suggest to include European components into national curricular by focusing on universal values promoted such as human rights, progress, diversity, democracy and environment. In their study, the ‘Celebration of Europe’ with these universal values is one of the three factors they identified to analyse nation state identity representation in the textbooks. The other two categories are internal ‘Recognition of diversity’ and ‘Valorization of the nation’. In Germany, the respective celebration of national ideals, myths and national narratives in social sciences textbooks are rather low opposed by for instance a high amount of curricular time dedicated to European and world history teaching as well as a focus on contemporary national history and the consequences of totalitarianism.157 The European perspective got integrated in the national narrative which should be approached through all three dimensions: knowledge, cognitive and affective-behavioural. Keating158 picks up this idea arguing that ‘thin’ European citizenship concepts may emerge, transferring knowledge on rights, duties and institutions but neglecting affective-behavioural aspects such as solidarity and active participation. Such examples constitute weak and less effective democratic citizenship education approaches leading to questions of appropriateness of citizenship education methods and contents in the national curriculum and also political efficiency, climate and will.159 The results of the Eurobarometer and BBC survey concerning the feeling of being European or identifying as global citizen rather than as a national are interesting indicator for the trend particularly among young people across Europe. 67% of Europeans stated to identify with a sense of European citizenship whereas 51% worldwide identified as global citizens. In the four polled European countries Spain took the lead in terms of feeling as global citizens, followed by Greece, the UK and Germany which showed a fundamental low and indecisive results.160 Yet, particularly the younger, higher educated and financially stable part of the society tended to embrace 157 Soysal et al, 2005, pp. 13-16. 158 Keating, 2009, p. 159 Keating, 2009, pp. 162-163; Osler, 2010, p. 21. 160 Grimley, 2016, nd. 47 European citizenship and enjoy the transnational European identity. The GlobeScan survey did not provide these details but the scores where noticeable high in emerging economies like Nigeria, China, India, Kenya which also belong to the countries with the youngest populations in the world.161 Perhaps the task is not to teach young people about European or global citizenship notions since they already are global citizens having their own ideas about what it means to be part of a global community. Nevertheless, that does not eliminate the necessity of adequate skills to effectively cope with effects of being a global citizen. Following the Faure report, education is designed to transform and progress and the youth are the ones who should be heard and included in addressing challenges of their reality. 3.2 The arising global citizenship perspective - GCE The debate on GCE arose in the late 1990s following ideals of cosmopolitanism in the wake of globalization. Several global education initiatives launched by UNESCO as UN’s leading education agency tackled issues such as human rights, sustainable development, active and global citizenship education through increasing quality education, lifelong learning and applying transformative pedagogical strategies with individual learner at its core. The education strategy for the years 2014-2021 is the vanguard for the ‘separate’ post-2015 agenda which put education at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The ambitious post-2015 development agenda significantly broadened and specified the goals compared to its predecessor the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). The SDGs define 17 goals with specific targets to be achieved until 2030. Goal 4 tackles the fields of education and subcategorizes 10 targets, naming GCE and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) under 4.7. to ‘Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote life- long learning’. The General Assembly’s Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals utilized the outcome of the last Education For All (EFA) meeting in 2014, the Muscat Agreement, as source of information for conceptualizing SDG 4. This 161 UNESCO, 2016c, nd. 48 process lead to the next World Education Forum 2015 resulting in the Education 2030 Agenda and Framework for Action in form of The Incheon Declaration inheriting knowledge and conclusions originating from the former EFA and education-related MDGs.162 The UN Secretary General’s Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) in 2012 was the first and most important step to get GCE on the global agenda. Ban Ki Moon’s initiative names GCE as one of its three global education goals for the period 2014- 2021, stepping from increasing the access to education onto the qualitative and sustainable level. The GEFI is a major component of the post-2015 education agenda. The ambitious priorities address the access to school for every child, improving the quality of learning and thirdly fostering Global Citizenship.163 Accordingly, education is determined to be the key factor in addressing and fighting other global issues such as poverty, inequality and foster well-being and health. UNESCO aims at forming strong and diverse coalitions to support their global mission for sustainable development supported through education. The international community supported and benefited from cooperation’s of various international formal and non-formal actors such as international agencies like UNESCO, its regional actor UNECE, the Council of Europe and the EU, EDUCATION ABOVE ALL initiative, UNICEF, transnational and national non-profit organisations like Concord (the European NGO Cooperation for Development and Relief), Oxfam, national education centres and agencies, Universities and schools, transnational corporations, civil society initiatives and movements and motivated individuals. The stakeholder’s interests, approaches, methods and claims for global citizenship vary basing it on their own conducted research or those of educators and academics such as 162 UNESCO, 2016b, c, nd. 163 UNESCO, 2016d, nd. 49 Dower164, Andreotti165, Appiah166, Davies167, Davies, Evans, Reid168, Falk169, Johnson & Morris170, Mannion, Biesta, Priestley & Ross171, Marshall172 and Pashby173. GCE fosters a transformative vision of (citizenship) education based on universal values, norms and skills such as commitment to human rights, social justice and equity, participation and inclusion, value diversity and respect for people, a belief that people can bring change and a sense of self-esteem and identity.174 Several of these values have been directly or indirectly enforced by international law through international instruments such as the UDHR whose components have been implemented into European and national legislation and constitutions. GCE draws on these preconditions and encompasses components of other education domains such as development, sustainability, human rights and citizenship.175 Due to that it is often defined as an umbrella term or concept.176 In the Maastricht Global Education Declaration, GCE and global education are compared or rather defined as educational fields with almost interchangeable contents: „Global Education is understood to encompass Development Education, Human Rights Education, Education for Sustainability, Education for Peace and Conflict Prevention and Intercultural Education; being the global dimensions of Education for Citizenship“177. The North-South Centre of the Council of Europe also ambitiously focuses on global education as “education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the world, and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all”.178 The need for 164 Dower, 2000; 2003. 165 Andreotti, 2006; de Oliveira Andreotti 2011a; 2011b. 166 Appiah, 2008. 167 Davies, 2006a, 2006b; 2008. 168 Davies, Evans, Reid, 2005. 169 Falk, 1994. 170 Johnson & Morris, 2010. 171 Mannion, Biesta, Priestley & Ross, 2010. 172 Marshall, 2009; 2011. 173 Pashby, 2011; 2015. 174 OXFAM, 2015, p. 8. 175 OXFAM, 2006; O’Loughlin, Wegimont, 2002. 176 Wintersteiner, Grobbauer, Diendorfer, Reitmair-Juárez, 2015, p. 9. 177 O’Loughlin, Wegimont, 2002, p. 147. 178 Ibid. 50 global education and GCE to equip people to interact critically with the ‘global society’ as active citizens in Europe is recognised and agreed upon as a necessity and a right of European citizens.179 These are statements and commitments that ascribe a great deal of power and hope to education. Accordingly, mainstreaming of GCE into national curricular has not taken place on a wide scale in Europe yet. The remaining vagueness and multiple percpective of the concept can be interpreted either way, as a chance or lacking ground and accountability. Another obstacle for the implementation, are tensions that may arise from components that undermine or oppose national or European values or key competences. Citizenship identity and identification with the nation, are often defined as preconditions for active participation in political decision-making processes. For GCE the citizenship term due to a lacking global governance body remains in a vacuum addressing identity and identification but without additional legal implications for the national citizen.180 Despite that, there are more identified tensions such as universality versus singularity, the already discussed global competition versus global solidarity, local versus global identities and interests, static, hierarchical versus participatory, transformative teaching and learning models challenging the status quo.181 Dower182 for instance identifies four crucial indicators why GCE is needed: - the increasing pressure of global problems requiring common solutions; - the general phenomenon of globalisation; - revived interest in the idea of citizenship itself; - and a revived interest in the perennial approach of cosmopolitanism, often called nowadays ‘global ethics’. Global citizenship is regularly linked to cosmopolitan citizenship or cosmopolitanism as a concept from the ancient Greek as an ideal of being a citizen of the world. It is defined 179 O’Loughlin, Wegimont, 2002, pp. 148-149. 180 Ibrahim, 2005, pp. 177-179. 181 UNESCO, 2014, pp. 18-20. 182 Dower, 2003, pp. 3-4. 51 as a complementary status, feeling of belonging and practice at all levels which rather supports than contradicts or denies local, national or regional identification components.183 Appiah184 argues that globalisation and “when we are faced with the sorts of conflicts, grounded in religious, ethnic, racial, and national identities, which pervade our world”185 made this ideal a reality and a necessity to address the knowledge of others and power over others coming with citizenship today. According to that he defines morality as the responsibility people develop for those that they know about and that they can affect. Osler and Starkey186 focus on citizenship education in cultural diverse or cosmopolitan societies from a perspective of multiple loyalties through analysing the concepts of ‘home’ and ‘community’ of youth in Leiceister, England. Direct involvement through information about existing knowledge, perceptions and experience of the youth increase the likelihood of shaping citizenship education that actually meets the needs and realities of youth and not just as ‘future citizens’ but competent and responsible young people. The cosmopolitan citizenship encompasses national identity on a wider scale acknowledging cultural and personal aspects and differences of belonging and citizenship identity. It is also about learning to see the connection of the main local reference community to the more anonym global community. To be able to incorporate multiple and dynamic identities and experiences implying local, national, European and global perspectives into the national citizenship identity, education needs to encourage learners to make connections and enable flexible and individual outcomes.187 GCE embodies the same three core conceptual dimensions of learning addressed in the ICCS188 assessment framework for citizenship education in Europe and the Delors189 landmark report issued by UNESCO in 1996 which defines four pillars or types of learning: 183 Osler, 2010, pp. 1-2. 184 Appiah, 2008, pp. 185 Appiah, 2008, p. 85. 186 Osler & Starkey, 2003, pp. 243-252. 187 Ibid. 188 Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Losito, Agrusti, 2016, pp. 15-38. 189 Delors, 1996, pp. 86-97. 52 - the cognitive (Learning to know), - socio-emotional (Learning to be) and - behavioural (Learning to do) which aim at establishing a holistic transformative process on individual as well as societal level. The three domains focus on the individual civic identity while the last dimension concerns - the civic connectedness, the community (Learning to life together). The OXFAM curriculum addresses cognitive as knowledge and understanding, socio- emotional and behavioural in the categories of skills, values and attitudes which resembles the ICCS affective-behavioural domain. OXFAM published guidelines and concrete school curriculum schemes for diverse ages, giving examples for contributions that subjects can make, drafts and case studies for cross-curricular, whole-school and even extra-curricular approaches.190 It states that “The scope of Education for Global Citizenship is wider than a single scheme of work or subject. It is more than simply the international scale in Citizenship, or teaching about a distant locality in Geography. It is relevant to all areas of the curriculum, all abilities and all age ranges.”191 In their publications the fundamental shift towards inclusive, participatory teaching and learning is targeted by focusing on critical thinking, communication, cooperation, conflict resolution skills, increasing motivation, self-esteem, empathy, confidence and achievements across school.192 Motivation and responsibility are crucial features for the last step: taking action as a global citizen. Being aware and knowing about issue is not necessarily followed by concrete critically reflected intentions and actions. This needs to be a long-lasting deep rooted ethical and moral development due to positive and intrinsic values enabling citizens to transcend and reflect on self-interests and effectively handle ambiguity.193 190 OXFAM, 2015, pp. 8-21. 191 OXFAM, 2005, p. 2. 192 OXFAM, 2005, pp. 1-2; OXFAM, 2015, p. 8. 193 Fricke, Gathercole, Skinner, 2011, p. 3. 53 In recent research, surveys and conferences across Europe the UK194, the Netherlands195, Slovenia, Romania, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Malta196, discussed global citizenship and global education as topics in formal and non-formal national education highlighting its actuality and prominent role in contemporary educational debate in Europe. The European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are main organisations researching, monitoring and assessing approaches and implementation of education in European member states and internationally. One of the major remaining issues of citizenship education generally, is the difficulty for assessment and evaluation of citizenship education due to the paradigm shift emphasising transferable skills, values, attitudes and behaviour complementing knowledge. This difficulty is also addressed by the DEEEP project of the European Development NGO confederation CONCORD197 which sets out to go a step further to initiate a framework to monitor and facilitate GCE implementation and indicators for assessment. Jakobsen and Crosier198 discuss this urge to ‘evidence-based policy making’. They make some interesting points referring to aspects like the pressure to perform well in national or Pisa tests based on knowledge leading to neglecting less- measurable factors. This might have a negative impact on the progress of active teaching methods and the support and implementation of the more open-ended GCE concept . 4. Germany – Case study Having established the links of shifting roles of nation states for their citizens in terms of rights, duties, a sense of belonging, active democratic participation and the influence on individual and collective identity, this chapter is going to focus on the case of 194 Marshall, 2009; 2011; Ibrahim, 2005; Moir, 2015; DfES, 2005. 195 Veuglers, 2011; Hogeling, 2015. 196 Suša, Vodopivec, 2011. 197 Fricke, Gathercole, Skinner, 2015, pp. 8-11. 198 Jakobsen & Crosier, 2016, n.d. 54 German citizenship or rather ‘political education’. First of all, the socio-political context is examined defining German national identity, its citizenship concept and regulations as well as social and educational trends as focal points of contemporary education policies and national challenges. Due to Germanys special history – the Second World War and the internal division afterwards - issues of political culture and identity constitute an interesting case for citizenship education in Europe. The German educational focus undertakes quite a few changes since 2000 towards progressive and transformative approaches in the areas of sustainability and development translated into national curricular while transferrable skills, values and attitudes remained on a quite basic level. Further issues that are going to be discussed are objectives, strategies and measures planned for the post-2015 agenda and the implementation of GCE aspects in the new national action plan that is going to be launched in 2017. The focus is again on the relation of notions of national, European and global perspectives, identity construction in the ongoing debate. 4.1 The historical and socio-political context of citizenship education in Germany Democracy and citizenship are ongoing struggles. Both are concepts and processes that need permanent attention and maintenance. In Germany, the first democracy emerged with the Weimar Republic at the end of the First World War in 1919 following the late establishment of the first German nation-state under Bismarck in 1871. Citizenship education followed this development introducing Staatsbürgerkunde or civic studies in schools.199 In the short period of the democratic Weimar Republic citizenship education emerged adding civic skills and values to the moral and work-focused curriculum. With the national socialists coming into power in 1933, civic education shifted into a propaganda tool until the end of the Second World War. In 1949, German constitution was adopted establishing federalism as a general principle which puts education under the authority of the 16 federal states. The division in the Communist East Germany and the democratic West in the post-1945 decades constitutes another era of significantly 199 Faas & Street, 2011, pp. 469-470; Preuss, 2003, p. 43. 55 different approaches concerning participation, (un)questioned loyalty, citizen competencies and empowerment. The Western German Republic (re)build structures increasingly allowing participative and critical citizenship education revising the former ideal of unlimited state authority. Lange200 argues that with the help of education democracy shifted from a solely form of governance to a way of life. [T]he analysis of the idea of citizenship requires the use of at least three different expressions: Staatsbürgerschaft, Staatsangehörigkeit and Volksangehörigkeit. These three terms express different elements of a status which, at least in the Anglo-American tradition, is covered by the word citizenship […] The German triad […] invokes the concepts of the ‘state’ and of the ‘people’ (Staat and Volk) and combines them with the term ‘membership’ (Zugehörigkeit, Angehörigkeit), thus suggesting an affiliation of passive inclusion between the individual and the society rather than of active participation. Hence, when the German concept of citizenship is under scrutiny one should keep in mind that certain aspects of citizenship, which are incorporated in a single concept in other countries, may be disjoined in the German case and associated with separate terms and perhaps even different conceptions.201 Unlike other European countries, nation- and statehood also emerged late compared to other European nations constituting a polity and a non-congruent cultural and ethnic German nation. Due to these difference, Preuss202 argues that the link of German national identity (social and cultural-based) and citizenship (polity) were rather separated. Being a German citizen, a member of the state, having the German nationality (Staatsangehörigkeit) therefore does not equal being a member of the folk which means of German ethnic origin (Volksangehörigkeit).203 The complexity leads to a number of consequences for the citizens concerning contradicting and confusing images and feelings towards ‘Germanness’, vast literature and public debate discussing patriotism, nationalism, German identity and at the same time high insecurity and avoidance. Reasons mentioned evolve for instance around the issues of immigration, an 200 Lange, 2008, p. 89. 201 Preuss, 2003, p. 38. 202 Ibid., p. 37. 203 Ibid., p. 50; Habermas, 1996, pp. 22-26. 56 ageing population, its Nazi past and also heterogeneous confessional composition.204 The tensions and questions surrounding citizenship concept become also visible in legal terms concerning Germanys special laws on nationality resulting in the Optionspflicht excluding dual citizenship or dual nationalities. This special legislation obliges young people born in Germany turning 21 to opt for one single nationality, either the German one which is since 2000 legally acquired by birth to children of non-German parents or to the parents nationality. A further provision allows naturalisation only after eight years of legal residence.205 Foroutan206 links the partial change to the rethinking of the ‘ius sanguinis’ as a right through descent or ‘blood-and-soil’ which is based on the idea of a homogeneous German Leitkultur (dominant culture) to ’ius soli’ based on birth and territory. However, taking the demographic reality into account, this small step came more than late and still does not appropriately reflect Germany’s self-evident status of a country of immigration with an intercultural and diverse population. Already in 2001, one-fifth of the population had a so called ‘migration background’ with or without migration experiences and even every third child under 6 years. With a total of 82 Million inhabitants that sums up to approximately 16 Million with a migrations background, yet interestingly just 5% of those live in the Eastern German federal states where xenophobia and anti-immigration stance are proportionally high.207 The diverse population opposes the negative BBC poll results concerning anti-immigration sentiments. The concrete influences and correlation however are harder to establish and will be further addressed under 4.2.2. Miller-Idriss208 who referring to Habermas connects the German national identity with characterising constitutional and democratic components and economic success rather than common notions of national identity or pride. In her observations of school teachers in three Berlin vocational schools 1999-2004, she established two ways of addressing national identity outside the curricular in informal conversations with 204 Karnitschnig, 2015, nd.; Preuss, 2003, pp. 52-53. 205 Federal Foreign Office, 2013, nd. 206 Foroutan, 2013, p.9. 207 Ibid., pp. 2-3. 208 Miller-Idriss, p. 21 57 students: dismantling ethnicity as blood-based community and pride as legitimate features for belonging. There was a trend to discourage national components as valid forms of group identity. On the other hand, she thematises the students impressions of being restricted or even under social pressure not to address topics like nationality, immigration, national pride and belonging in class or generally. Furthermore students mentioned the feeling of being treated differently in these matters than other countries.209 These are practical examples of critical thoughts and impressions concerning German identity which demands for cautious consideration but also options for changes and alternative approaches of addressing national or new collective identity. Struggles like that might be a warning hint pointing to weaknesses, shortcomings and lacking methods within the educational system and teacher preparation to address such sensitive issues. Before discussing ways and approaches of citizenship identity construction through education in Germany, the alternative European dimension that has been emerging and influencing Germanys citizens is going to be addressed. Preuss210 Faas & Street211 argue that particularly the struggles of German identity and the absence of a German nation-state imminently increases the openness towards European ideals and European citizenship as a solid and wide promoted supranational alternative. He sees a positive embracing momentum of these multiple political identities, loyalties and commitments. Germany has been one of the founding members of the EU, recent events and political decisions on European level showed its leading or often hegemonic- labelled role and the determination to promote and facilitate the Unions functionality against backlashes such as the financial crisis, anti-European policy referenda in France, the Netherlands and Ireland and recently the Brexit.212 209 Miller-Idriss, pp. 19-24. 210 Preuss, 2003, pp. 52-53. 211 Faas & Street, 2011, pp. 472. 212 Ischinger, 2015, nd.; Keating, 2009, p. 135; Werbowski, 2013, nd. 58 The inclusion of the European dimension into German structures and policy is also mirrored in education. The National Dossier of the Secretariat of the Standing Conference of Ministers on Education and Cultural Affairs in Germany from 2013-2014 for instance gives an overview of the German education system providing a chapter on the European perspective which focuses on ET 2020, the strategies and measures promoted and mentions the importance for the European cooperation and mutual understanding. Taking the gap and openness of Germans to the European perspective for identity construction as a fact, it constitutes perfectly fertile soil for the complementary global dimension in terms of global education and citizenship. To establish global citizenship as a way of life like democracy, it needs to be embedded in structural and methodological terms into the education system. The next chapter follows this assumption analysing current developments. There is no literal translation for citizenship education in Germany, it’s equivalent is called Politische Bildung (Political education) and as global citizenship education amended to Politische Bildung für die Weltgesellschaft (Political education for the world society). The aim of political education to enable political acting or behaviour is controversially discussed in political didactics in Germany. How far does citizenship and active citizenship actually go? What are necessary characteristics and to what scope are people free to choose taking or not taking action? Lange213 argues that citizenship education in Germany is just one component of political education which aims at equipping the learner with self-determination skills, autonomy and socio-political literacy but is independent from systematic political changes and does not necessarily lead to political actions. Within the broader field of political education exist three different models of types of citizenship based on their level of active engagement in society which to varying degrees found access into the school curricula of the Federal states. The debate considers among other features democracy theory (representative or participative) as well as pragmatic (time, frame, content-limited) aspects. Another 213 Lange, 2008, pp. 91-92. 59 crucial argument is the Beutelsbacher Konsens (Beutelsbacher consensus), three general principles from 1976 established the backbone of formal political education until today: 1. Prohibition of overpowering and overwhelming/ indoctrination to undermine independent opinion or judgement formation, 2. Controversies from politics and science need to be presented controversial in class, 3. The pupil needs to be enabled to analyse a political situation and his own position and interests.214 The ideal of freedom to choose from a range of political opinions, independent judgement development based on controversial debate were set as framework for formal political education in schools.215 Following Lange’s argument, citizenship education needs to enable balancing, judging and forming of opinions which is the base for other forms of education and societal interaction and functioning. Citizenship education in German schools is unlike several other countries in Europe not taught as a separate subject in either primary, secondary or upper secondary school but throughout the whole compulsory school time (6-18 or even 19 years) integrated in several learning areas or subjects. Due to federalism, the 16 Federal states apply their own regulations, focus, length, depth and approach. Whereas in most central, northern and southern countries, elements of citizenship education are included in cross-curricular themes, key competences or learning content areas, it is a general objective of education in Germany. However, it is already part of lessons in the general curriculum in primary schools and integrated in classes such as ‘politics’, ‘political science/economics’, ‘social sciences’, ‘social studies’, ’societal studies’ or ‘community studies’, ’historical-social world studies’ and ‘civic education’ in secondary school curriculum. 214 Wehling, 1970, pp. 179-180. 215 Pohl, 2015, nd. 60 The specific themes (knowledge and understanding), objective and skills as components of the general approach in national curricular are separately assessed by a European comparative analysis of Eurydice. Within the knowledge category national and European identity as well as the European and international dimensions of history, culture, literature, main economic, social, political issues, functioning of institutions and perspectives/ relations are addressed in primary, secondary and upper secondary school education. However, in comparison to other European countries, it is mostly taught in secondary education. In terms of social, civic, communication and intercultural skills which are almost all taught at all levels, while the latter is not included into primary education.216 These results present the German education system in terms of citizenship education as generally well-equipped offering a European and international orientation. Whereas the ‘European dimension’ as such has been mentioned in education policy papers and reports of the Kultusministerkonferenz (Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany, KMK) 217 the research on the European and global dimension in German education is rather limited. The KMK plays a crucial role as the oldest consortium of ministers in coordinating and developing joint objectives and interests of the 16 states concerning schooling and education, particularly higher education, cultural affairs and research.218 Within Germany two distinct trends need to be distinguished that complicate the research on the European dimension. First of all, the education in Europe and then the education about and for Europe. The first perspective is well researched leading mostly to information provided by the KMK on the German education system while the second perspectives provides less clear information. Furthermore, European education in Germany needs to be subdivided in education about the EU and the approaches following European education guidelines such as lifelong learning and the competence- 216 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012, pp. 27-33. 217 KMK, nd. 218 KMK, nd. 61 orientation. Schauwienold-Rieger219 for instance addressed this gap in 2013 dividing the second approach into two categories which are complemented by the rather neglected additional dimension of education about Europe: - Education for Europe and European integration from a realistic and idealistic perspective and - the transfer and implementation of expanded competences and identities to prepare the European population for cultural, administrational, political and economic changes. To analyse the European dimension including the two categories in the German school education system, she introduces a new concept which she calls ‘Europaorientiertes Lehren und Lernen/EULLE’ (‘Europe-oriented teaching and learning’). Besides her comprehensive new concept, the analysis of the European dimension and implementation of European education programmes in Germany proof rather difficult tending to become a Sisyphus enterprise which this thesis cannot provide. 220 The focus on global, sustainable and development education was until recently compared to the European dimension an even more left out field within formal education in Germany. Ohlmeier and Brunold221 argue that the combination of sustainability and development education to global learning provided the ground for technical debate and institutionalisation of global perspectives. With the UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) 2005-2014 development and environmental education were included in the political education agenda for schools in Germany to expand and adjust the focus. The promoted skills in sustainable development education also aim at enabling opinion building, understanding and assessing skills which paired with knowledge of sustainable development should improve and increase practical implementation. Like other European active citizenship initiatives and guidelines, sustainable development follows values of economic efficiency linked with social aspects and environmental friendly solutions. However, 219 Schauwienold-Rieger, 2012, p. 26. 220 Ibid., pp. 26-29. 221 Ohlmeier & Brunold, 2015, pp. 162-163. 62 while some skills, values and knowledge aspects, particularly the transferable competences which are going to be assessed in the next chapter, overlap with GCE the focus on the environment, energy, climate protection, biodiversity prevails. Yet, the focus of every Federal state was chosen individually and so was the inclusion in curricular or extracurricular activities, the development of programmes, initiatives, guidelines, networks, trainings etc..222 4.2 The post-2015 agenda: BNE (Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung) and GCE as part of citizenship education in Germany GCE and its implementation in Germany draws on the earlier decade of ESD (2005- 2014) during the MDGs period. ESD in Germany is literally translated into Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE) which did not change with the post-2015 agenda and the introduction of the SDGs. GCE as part of the SDG 4.7 as well as the UN General Secretary’s Education First Initiative launched in 2012 to support the ending EFA and MDGs objectives was included in the post-2015 agenda and therewith BNE. In Germany the title with the emphasis on development education and development policy is kept while the focus of the new decade was specified including more dimensions of global development and education. The Federal government, through its Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of Education and Research - BMBF) financially equipped and put the German Commission for UNESCO (DUK) as intermediary agency in charge of coordinating strategies for implementation. The DUK is the link between the Federal government, the parliament, the Federal- states, civil society and international community in term of BNE implementation as well as general foreign cultural and educational issues.223 The ESD decade in Germany established an institutional framework based on a multi-stakeholder approach including politics, the government, science, business, 222 KMK/DUK, 2007, nd. 223 German Commission for UNESCO, 2011, pp. 52-53. 63 NGOS, the media and actors from educational practice. The post-2015 agenda builds on these established structures such as the National Steering Committee which was appointed by the Executive Board of DUK with members from all mentioned involved stakeholder parties. This National Committee meets twice a year cooperating closely with politics and science for effective and inclusive implementation. It established a Round Table with key experts and practitioner from the field of ESD changing members on a biennial basis and consulting once a year to network, discuss and set objectives. The Round Table again split up into smaller Working Groups for the educational sectors mostly remained its shape for the new decade:224  Early-Childhood Education  Education  Initial and Continuing Vocational Education and Training  Higher Education  (Extracurricular Learning and Continuing Education) Municipalities  Informal Learning (and non-formal learning/ youth) These Working Groups consist of Round Tables members and further experts, additional partner networks have been established while the Working Groups for other areas of expertise are not mentioned anymore. For the paper, the focus will remain on School Education and the approaches taken and planned to specify skills, values and attitudes that are fostered within BNE as well as notions on national, European and global dimension influencing identity construction in Germany.225 In the course of the first BNE period, two main documents with the objective of implementing BNE in school curricular have been published by the KMK as cooperation projects in 2007. The first document is the Orientation Framework for Global Development published in 2007 in collaboration with the Bundesministerium für 224 Changes for the post-2015 agenda marked in italics. 225 German Commission for UNESCO, 2011, pp. 52-54. 64 wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, BMZ). The second crucial initiative for the new focus is the KMK and DUK’s guideline for Education for Sustainable Development in Schools. In 2015 the version was expanded condensing both results under the new broader Lernbereich Globale Entwicklung (Learning Domain Global Development) as measure for structural implementation of BNE in schools.226 To enhance this cross-content understanding, the new orientation framework includes additional subjects like sports, arts, mathematics, natural sciences, history, German, new foreign languages as well as new guidelines for the so far lacking upper- secondary education. Furthermore, the whole school approach and teacher training became important aspects of the enhanced practice- and reality relatedness. Comprehensive school approaches and responsibility of schools, teacher and extra- curricular activities are repeatedly emphasized based on the lesson of the former decade and the new focal point. Due to the federal structure, the Federal government and the Federal-states both apply top-down as well as bottom-up approaches. Accordingly, Asbrand227 argues for the necessity to include teacher into the whole process since they are the executing force and used to re-contextualisation and adaption of recommendations according to the context and day-to-day concepts. Political education for instance is one of the non-edited chapters which might be due its already transferrable, competence-based and general objective character.228 Besides the themes, the competences also follow this general applicability as comprehensive cross-curricular approach. The competence focus of BNE is based on the BLK-programme “21” and the “Transfer 21” programme. The BLK (State-Federal States Commission for Educational Planning and Research Promotion) applied three overarching approaches for its programme activities exploring interdisciplinary knowledge, new forms of participative 226 Siege & Schreiber, 2015, pp. 227 Asbrand, 2009, p. 16. 228 Siege & Schreiber, 2015, pp. 8-18. 65 learning and innovative structures. de Haan229 argues that from the beginning sustainability education has been competence-based with a focus on out-put rather than the traditional knowledge-based learning or rather teaching. He identifies this as Gestaltungskompetenz, a ‘shaping competence’ offering options for greater engagement with learning contents according to students individual interests and experiences and improving problem-solving, change-oriented skills. This competence was further developed into eight sub-competences resulting in diverse new education objectives for BNE implementation in Federal-states syllabi and curricular: - foresighted thinking and ambiguity tolerance, - interdisciplinary work, - interdisciplinary subject-related and problem-oriented learning, - cosmopolitan perception, transcultural understanding and cooperation, - participatory skills, - planning and implementation skills, - capacity for empathy, solidarity and compassion, - self-motivation and motivating others, - distanced reflection on individual and cultural models.230 These detailed eight skills resemble those defined in the OXFAM documents for global education in schools, the OECD and EU key competences and have just been slightly amended in the post-2015 agenda. The new orientation framework identifies 21 theme areas and 11 key competences as part of three areas ‘recognising’, ‘assessing’ and ‘acting’ for the Learning Domain Global Development which similar to the domains of Global Learning/Global Education or Sustainable Education are cross-subject areas, criteria-based compromises and formulated to remain flexible according to contexts. Concrete school topics and methods concerning one of the theme areas should develop taking criteria such as actuality, long-term political and societal relevance, connection to 229 de Haan, 2006, p. 22. 230 Ibid., pp. 22-24. 66 the living environment, enabling a change of perspective and self-organised learning along with the key competences from all three areas into account.231 According to a KMK preliminary report from 2012, BNE found to a differing degree access and implementation into the Federal-states’ educational schemes and curricular. Yet, the transfer was not always of structural nature which is the aim of the new orientation framework. A nation-wide action plan has not yet been published but the feedback of the Federal-states shows willingness and progress in terms of BNE incorporation in existing structures and projects as well as establishment of new often cross-department structures. The report identified the wish for a further structural and institutional continuation and stabilization, a linkage to education policy and central themes such as economy, lifestyle, consumption, nutrition, justice and competence- orientation. Yet, Asbrand232 sees a critical momentum in the structural implementation of global education contents. Global education which is traditionally taught as extra- curricular or through informal structures of state, church organisations and NGOs rather than in institutionalised frameworks has an innovative character which might be lost though implementation into school syllabi and didactics. However, research on methods and competences has long been neglected in the practice-oriented field of global education as well as political or citizenship education in Germany which is now finally addressed in the orientation framework and the draft of the national action plan for 2017.233 The evaluation of the feedback paints a general picture of increased cooperation within schools, with various educational stakeholders in Ministries, administration, businesses, NGOs and universities as well as networks within the Federal-states. Furthermore, BNE aspects have been included in teacher education and training. Regarding financial conditions for BNE there has been no significant increase due to the 231 Siege & Schreiber, 2015, pp. 87-103. 232 Asbrand, 2009, pp. 15-16. 233 Ibid.; Bildungsinitiative der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2002, nd.; BMBF, 2016, pp. 1-2. 67 general tendency to budget cuts while the personnel situation changed and improved.234 The Ministry for Education and Research in 2015 stated the great success of the BNE decade and Germany’s international pioneering role with a national network of 1.900 projects, 49 further measures and 21 certified local authorities which are the basis for identifying indicators as Best Practice models.235 The next chapter is going to analyse the implementation of BNE in two Federal- states and examine if the identified general competences of the three areas, paired with themes and the diverse criteria are applied in the existing and new projects and methods in schools. These indicators should guide BNE projects and at the same time being used to develop concrete monitoring, evaluation and assessment framework to guarantee credibility, accountability and quality of this competence-based global education. This is one of the main stated tasks to make the wide BNE area due to a set of indicators easier to grasp, manage, measure, accept and transfer into institutional structures of schools, universities and political frameworks.236 However, particularly skill- and competence-based education such as BNE raises the question of the efficiency and applicability of evaluation and assessment frameworks and if emotional and mental development such as empathy, openness to diversity and ambiguity tolerance necessarily can and need to be measured. Jakobsen and Crosier237 address this issue in an article referring to an OECD survey which proves that countries performing well in the Pisa test did apply less active, participatory activities and less time for practices such as group work. What is really important in education, good results in assessments or increasing participation, joy, responsibility and self-determination? The skill and competence focus as defined in BNE does not distinguish explicitly between national, European and global perspectives and identity-notions as in national and European citizenship concepts. Therefore, the following chapter is also an attempt to identity those factors and their possible transition or embeddedness in the national action plans, 234 Sekretariat der ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2012, pp. 3-5. 235 BMBF, 2015, p. 2. 236 Michelsen, Adomßent, Bormann, Burandt, Fischbach, 2011, pp. 7-8. 237 Jakobsen & Crosier, 2015, nd. 68 projects, initiatives and methods. Furthermore, it takes the federal states positions and interests into focus as an additional local-level layer and influence factor to universal values, skills, norms and attitudes. 4.3 Analysis of BNE implementation in two federal states: North Rhine Westphalia and Saxony The post-2015 agenda was launched last year with the next agenda congress happening in a few days, 12 July 2016, to set future objectives for the implementation of the period of Learning Domain Global Development until 2019. The federal states have raised the request to further efforts for structural implementation of the BNE domain, teacher training and networking. The new post-2015 focus therefore follows these guidelines while also emphasising the competence-based focus and transformative character of the GCE agenda. The federal states Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine Westphalia) and Sachsen (Saxony) have been exemplarily chosen to see how notions of sustainable development, global education, aspects of global citizenship education and linked competences through the BNE approach are implemented and converted into existing and new structures. The analysis will help to identify future objectives, chances and limitations for progressive BNE implementation as an overarching competence-based global education concept. These are issues dependent on the federal governments and federal states education policy, inclusive and participative approaches on these levels as local and national governance structures and power relations to respectively higher instances. Nordrhein-Westfalen was chosen as an example for a progressive education agenda with existing projects of whole-school approaches and Sachsen due its status as ‘new’ Eastern federal state as part of the former German Democratic Republic, low numbers of citizens with migration background and (increase in) racial and nationalistic motivated incidents. 69 4.3.1 North Rhine Westphalia The state North Rhine Westphalia (NRW) is a pioneer in Germany in terms of BNE implementation. It is also the exemplary state for the Eurydice comparative analysis of citizenship education in Europe. NRW’s education policy is based on the Article 1 of the Erstes Gesetz zur Ordnung des Schulwesens (First Law for the Order of the School System) stating: Young people must be educated in the spirit of humanity, democracy and freedom, with the aims of tolerance and respect for the convictions of others, and of responsibility for the preservation of the natural living environment. (…) Young people should be able and willing to prove successful in 238 serving the community, their family and profession, the people and the State. These values and educational goals are repeated and highlighted in Article 7 of the Landesverfassung as well as in § 2 Schulgesetz establishing a base for the political education as well as the BNE-strategy. In the field of political education NRW’s focus resembles the GCE agenda in terms of norm-orientation based on democracy and human rights. A historic-political focus is applied as whole school approach seeing schools as places of lived active democracy supported through pedagogics. Besides a political school culture or environment, specific subjects are the basis of political education. These aspects are implemented into education frameworks and curricular of NRW’s schools.239 The overlapping of BNE and political education as one of the included educational areas is highlighted besides the central themes of environment education, global learning and the promotion of economic-competence. The latter component is not particularly mentioned in the national BNE strategy but part of the European active citizenship and competence agenda. This illustrates the overlapping interests of the various stakeholder and initiatives. BNE is just another decade that is integrated into existing structures with certain new features complementing the education efforts with for instance social, ecological and societal consideration. It prepares learner to include these aspects in the development of economic 238 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2005, p. 12. 239 Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2016a, nd. 70 competence.240 The federal state government also refers to nation-wide programmes that support these efforts. However, NRW identified five priorities for taking action of the UNESCO programme until 2019 are: - political support, - comprehensive transformation of learning- and schooling environments, - competence development for teaching staff and multiplier, - encouragement and mobilisation of youth, - promotion and support for sustainability at local level.241 The BNE framework and these priorities in NRW are embedded and will further be integrated into 2.600 general education providing and vocational schools with ca. 2.6 Million students and 165.000 teachers in the school year 2014/2015. It can build on the already the 2010 launched ‘Longer Learning Together’ strategy to expand the primary school education and initiatives to foster inclusive school models. 242 NRW launched its action plan in 2006 as first state together with the federal city state Hamburg. The objectives followed the four sub-goals of the national action plan and in particular the school system in terms of ‘all-day schools’, extracurricular and environmental education, ‘early-childhood education’ as well as ‘adult-, family-, political education and occupational training’ and ‘higher education/innovation’.243 Another big step in their current and future BNE implementation, was the establishment of a BNE-agency to support the state-wide BNE education strategy across all educational areas in 2012 and the framework for quality education in 2014. This already paved the way for the structural post-2015 agenda and its recently published federal state strategy for the period 2016-2020. The strategy refers to the principles of the Gestaltungskompetenz and the Beutelsbacher consensus as the achievements of the former decade such as the 326 out of 1.900 certified projects, the high knowledge of the BNE decade and contents 240 Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2016b, nd. 241 Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, nd. 242 Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2016, pp. 21-22. 243 German Commission of UNESCO, 2011, p. 55. 71 among teachers and the since 2014 guiding campaign „Schule der Zukunft – Bildung für Nachhaltigkeit“ (School of the Future – Education for Sustainable Development).244 4.3.1.1 The School of the Future - Education for Sustainable Development Project The ‘School of the Future’ project was part of the 2014 education framework and uses experiences of two predecessor projects ‘Environmental School in Europe’ and the ’21 Agenda in Schools’. The project is located at the Natur- und Umweltschultzakademie NRW (Nature- and environment protection acamdemy - NUA). The former BNE mainly environmental focus is kept but expanded putting the environmental and educational Ministries in charge. In the period from 2012 to 2015 nearly 500 schools, 28 child care centres and 25 networks have been certified some of those applying a whole school approach. The new period 2015-2020 marks a new start and offers opportunities for more institutions to join. On the homepage, the school guidelines, principles and 12 sub-competences of the Gestaltungskompetenz are mentioned. The general principle working parallel to the Gestaltungskompetenz is defined as an interplay of social, ecological and economic aspects as a relation between human and nature. The economic component is aiming at establishing transparency for economic processes, interdependence, the diversity of included actors and the competence to identify and reflect one’s own role and responsibility as consumer. Furthermore, intercultural competence, peace-, media-, health education are complementary aspects of the process since BNE is recognised to be an important factor of political education. The school programme sees BNE as a staple bringing existing concept, subjects and questions into a new context functioning as orientation for all education areas for innovation and new participative learning experiences. The aim is to make global political reality, systemic and global connections and contradictions visible while dealing with questions such as the use of agricultural products as energy or nutrition source, the consequences for environment, world hunger and economy. This establishes 244 Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2016, pp. 21-31. 72 an understanding of school projects ideas and realities of world politics. The example of the German news broadcast ‘Tagesschau’ is given as a source for daily information that children see and BNE helps to understood, addressing for instance poverty, droughts, terrorism and refugees and offering tools for to act within this complexity dilemma and be part of the solution. Furthermore, topics are energy and resources conservation in day to day life, fair trade products, natural school gardens and play grounds, sustainable student companies, violence prevention, anti-racism projects, mediation strategies, healthy diet in the school canteen or local shops, external cooperation and school exchanges also outside Europe etc. to create awareness for the local networks, local- global interrelatedness and the importance for consequent and sustainable whole institutions approaches.245 Once chosen, the schools get support to develop their profile according to the concepts framework, further seminars and training in specific modules regarding the new BNE themes and also student academies to prepare five pupils and a teacher as multipliers for active involvement in these processes and thematic issues.246 The project approach addresses the sub-categories of the Gestaltungskompetenz as well as the various themes offered, active participation of teacher, students and parents, the locality and daily life links and further development through quality education and training, assessment and evaluation and network-building measures. It has been one of the certified projects on national level due to its comprehensive approach and meets the five identified UNESCO priorities. Notions of citizenship are expanded and political education seen as part of the new comprehensive focus in NRW. This transformation and the commitment to future progress and development of the federal state is very promising towards structural implementation of such school methods beyond good practice models. Some of the already participation schools are also part of other projects and nation-wide networks like 22 UNESCO schools, around 50 Fair-Trade-Schools, 59 schools which are part of the National Park-schools Eifel and other assistance projects 245 Natur- und Umweltschutz-Akademie NRW (NUA), nd. 246 Ibid. 73 focusing on finance competence, ‘Schools without Racism - School with courage’ etc..247 Identity building and education both become part of a broader picture where locality, regional and global perspectives and problematics are inseparable combined and related. The social reality of students in NRW due to this form of schools as part of their socialisation can succeed in creating a very different reality, awareness and responsibility for future generations following the GCE ideals and comprehensive goals for change. 4.3.2 Saxony The federal state Saxony has recently been in the focus of wide-spread media attention due to racist incidents in the last year and particularly during the peak of the so called ‘refugee crisis’. While it is accused to be one of the federal states struggling most with racism, misanthropic and violent incidents against migrants, refugees and refugee shelter and the rise of the right-wing populist Pegida organisation in its capital Dresden and the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the success and the efficiency of the political education shifted into public focus.248 The opinion on political education in Saxony is divided, on the one hand the comparative report of the democratic Konrad- Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS)249 shows the low number of school hours dedicated to political education in Saxony and Bavaria across the diverse subjects of the curriculum whereas on the other hand the blog of the press office of Ministry for Cultural Affairs paints a total different picture. The speaker Kelch250 emphasises the change of the syllabi model in 2014 regarding more inclusive participative learning, pluralism of democratic societies, social competences, value-orientation and highlights the neglecting of subject areas addressing aspects of political education in the KAS study. However, in a BMBF report from 2012, Saxony also scored the lowest concentration of projects per inhabitants and was the only federal state not participating at all in the 247 Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2016, pp. 28-29. 248 Spiegel Online, 2016; Taggesschau, 2016. 249 Kalina, 2014, pp. 47-49. 250 Kelch, 2016, nd. 74 predecessor BLK-programme ‘21’ and ‘Transfer 21’ from 1999-2004. This programme has been the most extensive programme for integration of BNE and particularly the Gestaltungskompetenz and its sub-competences in schools. The post-2015 agenda however expands its focus to informal and extracurricular activities.251 To achieve the comprehensive post-2015 agenda, Saxony established an online portal to connect ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ for BNE and global learning activities and projects. The offered information need to satisfy the requirements of the criteria. This is a really efficient approach in a business-like manner for promotion of education. Yet, it offers a clear structure and overview of educational offers, trainings, events, materials and information.252 Besides the changes made in 2014, the BNE strategy in Saxony is now oriented at seven criteria: - like all federal states in political education matters the Beutelsbacher consensus, - competence-orientation, - complexity and diversity, - connection of the objective dimensions of BNE (economic, social and ecological as well as local, national and global) - target group orientation (active and age-appropriate participation) - and methodological diversity. Political education in schools and particularly BNE can play a crucial role for prevention of racism through fostering education as a tool for inclusion, tolerance, diversity and dialogue emphasising the local-global linkage and social competences such as empathy, ambiguity tolerance, critical reflection, responsibilities etc.. The preventive power of education is controversially discussed and yet there is great hope that the comprehensive approach and perspective inherent in BNE may influence development of extremism and violence like political education generally, peace 251 Langner, 2016, nd.; Michelsen & Rode, 2012, p. 96. 252 Entwicklungspolitisches Netzwerk Sachsen e.V., nd. 75 education, human rights education etc..253 The BNE-actor map of Germany shows the concentration of actors in the Western part of the country. In the East are agglomerations in urban areas around Dresden, Leipzig (both Saxony), Berlin, Halle and Magdeburg.254 In Eastern Germany, the national identity thematic constitutes a particularly sensitive issues that can profit from the European focus and the post-2015 BNE agenda. Due to the Germany’s quite recent past as democratic Republic and the special history of Eastern Germany, study’s on right-wing extremism still consider ‘East’ and ‘West’ as distinct components. A study on published by the University Leipzig255 from 2014 for instance establishes higher support of an authoritarian dictatorship if it benefits the national interest in Eastern Germany compared to Western federal states. Furthermore, the hegemony of Germany in the dimension of ‘chauvinism’ is analysed showing that around 20% in Western and close to 30% in Eastern Germany agree with statements of the necessity of a stronger German nationality sense and a more forceful representation and execution of Germany’s interests and influence abroad. These opinions mirror the fear and insecurity concerning immigration and the sometime hegemonic and exclusionary position towards other countries. Still an average of around 10% agreed to statements constituting social Darwinism, a bit less renounced the horrors of the National Socialism regime resulting into construction of realities that result in grouping and exclusion of ‘the other’ in Germany.256 The BBC study additionally reflects this insecurity and indecisiveness concerning international-oriented issues which changed fundamentally from a positive attitude and openness in 2015 to reluctance in 2016.257 Fear of the unknown, ambiguity, uncertainty and unpredictability can have destructive impacts on societies particularly when misused by right-wing populism. Bauman258 identifies two reasons which might explain the re-emerging of nationalism in 253 UNESCO, 2016f, nd. 254 DUK, nd. 255 Decker, Kiess, Brähler, 2014. 256 Decker, Kiess, Brähler, 2014, pp. 31-37. 257 Grimley, 2016, nd. 258 Bauman, 2004, pp. 55-56. 76 times of eroding sovereignty of nation states. First as a protective mechanism against effects of globalisation which it fails to provide and secondly a rethinking of the relation between the nation and the state. These trends mirror another loss of consistency and crisis of identity. However, the process of ‘othering’ and construction of racist world views have certainly several other layers, influence factors and are more complex than that and yet, should be tackled through political education as preventive measures. The Beutelsbacher principles at the very minimum should guarantee the opportunity of a controversial debate for reflection of diverse points of views in class and the chance and capacity to reflect and judge independently. BNE does not attempt to replace these structure but adds new competences which uphold the functioning and facilitation of the principles in a changing school setting and external societal context. Pupils as citizens learn and practice democratic structures in a protected small-scale environment, can engage in decision-making processes and test and develop universal skills, values and attitudes that might enable a shift of still wide-spread traditional national-oriented citizenship education. While the German political education welcomes European notions, European identity, the citizenship concept and increased its BNE activities and self-determined learning strategies, the global perspective lacks in formal educational structures and trainings. The post-2015 BNE agenda will be defined in the new national action plan which is going to be published in 2017. The planned focus on implementing global learning and BNE themes and methods permanently into the German education system might increase the occurrence of global notions and a sense of global belonging and responsibility in the future. 5. Conclusion A permanent and unstoppable change shifted global order and shook the nation state primacy through emerging transnational multi-level governance structures and influential global state and non-state actors. The people affected by these global trends need new transferable skills, values and attitudes to effectively handle newly arising 77 tasks in a complex net of demands by socialising systems like the family, school, local community, wider society as well as the political and economic context. Influenced by for instance the enormous ICT progress of our globally interconnected knowledge- society, universal core competences need to acquired addressing new and traditional content areas through cognitive and affective-behavioural dimensions. Sustainability, human rights, development and global education entered the national curricular in Europe fostering a sense of social justice, tolerance, diversity, empathy, ambiguity, critical and reflexive thinking and develop senses of responsibilities for diverse groups of people. The new framework which is exemplarily analysed in the German education and school system focuses on national particularities while also introducing a European dimension in terms of knowledge about political structures, institutions, European law and citizenship rights as well as fostered lifelong learning, active, democratic and participative citizenship skills transferred through programmes and initiatives in the last two decades. However, knowledge as part of quality education remains an important factor for European citizenship education, more flexibility and adaptability was identified as a crucial components for economic growth and the maintenance of Europe’s competiveness on a global scale. Germany as an economically successful county, active and engaged in global governance structures and human rights affairs proofs to have decreasing internal openness, tolerance and sense of diversity. The results of the BBC poll and the Eurobarometer paint a picture of an opposing trend marked by a progressive European identity integration while the global identification reached a total low compared to earlier years and in terms of international standards. A majority of the citizens identify as nationals and Europeans but reveal insecurity and indecisiveness or even refusal of issues concerning heterogeneity and diversity such as intermarriages, immigration and welcoming refugees. National identity and citizenship constitute generally rather sensitive and exclusive constructs that do not reflect Germany’s demographic and immigration reality as well as its pioneering role in other fields such as environmental protection. 78 Yet, the first step for transformative education and pedagogy in school education has been made with the MDG and now the SDG-education agenda which was implemented as BNE in Germany. With the post-2015 period the structural implementation of global learning contents and methods into school curricular of the federal states are intended. The progress of good practices and the government’s commitment to incorporating BNE and its multiple perspectives, themes, competences and dimensions as cross- curricular and whole school approaches into federal states syllabi and schedules is promising. Indicator and schemes have been identified to encourage and improve evaluation and assessment of competence-based learning which seems to remain a necessity for scientific local, regional, national and international approval and proof of efficiency. The task is now to go from project into structure, promote the universal-oriented values of BNE and increase trainings for teachers and multipliers from all stakeholder domains. Furthermore, open structures need to be permanently established and expanded to enable participative development. Germany is just one example of European implementation of the MDG and post-2015 agenda and shows how static and slow education systems adapt. The realities of individual citizens, the communities they live and move within, influence their multiple individual and collective identities making a fundamental awareness and critical reflection of the societal, political and economic context and influences of global forces necessary. However, young people might inherently be and feel as European or global citizens since for instance in Germany one-fifth of the older generation and one-third of the children under 6 years have some kind of migration background while their daily life is also exposed to permanent flux and decisions. The societal setup needs to be reflected in the educational system with supportive measures, equipped teachers and increasingly social, critical, emotional and attitude-focused approaches. 79 Following the educational philosopher John Dewey’s famous quote from a century ago “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife” 259, the conclusion can only be that with every new generation education also has to be born anew - modified, evolving and adapting with the changing political and socio-economic realities of societies. 259 Dewey, 1980, p. 139. 80 6. References Andreotti, Vanessa (2006), Soft versus critical global citizenship education, In Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review, Vol. 3, pp. 40-51. Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2008), Education for Global Citizenship, In Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 107(1), pp. 83-99. ARD-aktuell/Tagesschau.de, Fremdenfeindliche Vorfälle in Sachsen: "Zutiefst beschämend", 22 Februar 2016, available at: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/clausnitz-bautzen-103.html, (consulted on 10 July 2016). Arendt, Hannah (1962), The Origins of Totalitarianism, The seventh printing, Cleveland: The World Publishing Company. Arneil, Barbara (2007), Global Citizenship and Empire, In Citizenship Studies, 11:3, pp. 301-328, DOI: 10.1080/13621020701381840. Asbrand, Barbara (2009), Schule verändern, Innovationen implementieren: Über Möglichkeiten mit dem Orientierungsrahmen „Globale Entwicklung“ das Globale Lernen in der Schule zu stärken, In Zeitschrift für Internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik 32 (1), 2009, pp. 15–21, available at: http://www.globaleslernen.de/de/orientierungsrahmen-globale- entwicklung-or/artikel-und-beitraege-zum-or, (consulted on 1 July 2016). Bauman, Zygmunt (1998), Globalization: The Human Consequences, Cambrige: Polity Press. Bauman, Zygmunt (2007), Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambrige: Polity Press. Bauman, Zygmunt, Haugaard, Mark (2008) Liquid modernity and power: A dialogue with Zygmunt Bauman, In Journal of Power, 1:2, pp. 111-130, DOI: 10.1080/17540290802227536. BBC World Service (2016), Global Citizenship A Growing Sentiment Among Citizens Of Emerging Economies: Global Poll, available at: http://www.globescan.com/news-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases- 2016/383-global-citizenship-a-growing-sentiment-among-citizens-of-emerging- economies-global-poll.html, (consulted on 10 May 2016). Beck, Ulrich (2002), The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies, In Theory, Culture & Society, 2002, Vol. 19(1–2), 2002, pp. 17–44, London: SAGE. 81 Bellamy, Richard (2008), Evaluating Union citizenship: belonging, rights and participation within the EU, In Citizenship Studies, 12:6, pp. 597-611, DOI: 10.1080/13621020802450676. Bezjak, Simona (2012), Globalising citizenship: The impact of global migration on concept formation. Dve domovini, številka 35, pp. 21-33, .URN:NBN:SI:doc- WQHZRHXJ available at: http://www.dlib.si, (consulted on 13 June 2016). Bildungsinitiative der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, „Bildung der Persönlichkeit“: Offensive für Politische Bildung in der Schule, June 2002, available at: http://www.lehrerverband.de/kaspb.htm, (consulted on 4 July 2016). Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2015), Umsetzung des Weltaktionsprogramms „Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung“ in Deutschland Vom Projekt zur Struktur – wie wir Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung stärker und breiter aufstellen, available at: https://www.bmbf.de/de/bildung-fuer-nachhaltige-entwicklung-535.html, (consulted on 6 July 2016). Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2016), Nationaler Aktionsplan Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE): Handlungsfelder, Beschluss der Nationalen Plattform BNE vom 19. April 2016, available at: https://www.bmbf.de/de/bildung-fuer-nachhaltige-entwicklung- 535.html, (consulted on 29 June 2016). Bottery, Mike (2003), The End of Citizenship? The Nation State, Threats to its Legitimacy, and Citizenship Education in the Twenty-first Century, In Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2003, pp. 101-122. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, pp. 391–407, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012P%2FTXT, (consulted on 26 March 2016). Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, C 326/47, In OJ C 326, 26 October 2012, pp. 47–390, available at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT, (consulted on 20 June 2016). Council of Europe, Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 11 May 2010 and explanatory memorandum, 2010, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. 82 Council of the European Union, Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’), 28 May 2009, 2009/C 119/02, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52009XG0528(01), (consulted on 23 June 2016). Council of the European Union, Report from the Education Council to the European Council "The concrete future objectives of education and training systems", 14 February 2001, 5680/01 EDUC 18, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/CS/TXT/?uri=uriserv:c11049, (consulted on 23 June 2016). Cresson, Edith (1998), Foreword by Edith Cresson: Learning for active citizenship: a significant challenge in building a Europe of knowledge, In European Commission, Education Youth Training (1998), Education and active citizenship in the European Union, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Crick, Bernard (2007), CITIZENSHIP: THE POLITICAL AND THE DEMOCRATIC, In British Journal of Educational Studies, 55:3, pp. 235-248, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00377.x Croucher, Sheila L. (ed.)(2004), Globalization and Belonging: The Politics of Identity in a Changing World, Maryland: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Dahrendorf, Ralf (1950), The Changing Quality of Citizenship, In van Steenbergen, Bart (ed.)(1994), The Condition of Citizenship, pp. 10-20, London: SAGE Publication Ltd. Davies, Ian, Evans, Mark, Reid, Alan (2005), Globalising Citizenship Education? A Critique of ‘Global Education’ and ‘Citizenship Education’, In British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2005, pp. 66-89. Davies, Lynn (2006), Global citizenship: abstraction or framework for action?, In Educational Review, 58:1, pp. 5-25, DOI: 10.1080/00131910500352523. Davies, Lynn (2008), Global Citizenship Education, Introduction: Definition and Debates, In Encyclopedia of Peace Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, available at: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/epe/entries.html, (consulted on 5 May 2016). Davies, Peter (2006), Educating citizens for changing economies, In Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38:1, pp. 15-30. Decker, Oliver, Johannes, Kiess, Brähler, Elmar (2014), Die stabilisierte Mitte 83 Rechtsextreme Einstellung in Deutschland 2014, Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, available at: https://www.kredo.uni-leipzig.de/die-mitte-studien/, (consulted on 10 June 2016). de Haan, Gerhard (2006), The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’‐based model for Education for Sustainable Development, In Environmental Education Research, 12:1, pp. 19-32, DOI: 10.1080/13504620500526362. Delors, Jacques (1996), Learning: The Treasure Within, Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, Paris: UNESCO Publishing. de Oliveira Andreotti, Vanessa (2011a), (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education, In Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9:3-4, pp. 381-397, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2011.605323. de Oliveira Andreotti, Vanessa (2011b), The political economy of global citizenship education, In Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9:3-4, pp. 307-310, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2011.602292. de Oliveira Andreotti, Vanessa, Pashby, Karen (2013), Digital Democracy and Global Citizenship Education: Mutually Compatible or Mutually Complicit?, In The Educational Forum, 77:4, pp. 422-437, DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2013.822043. Department for Education and Skills (2005), Developing the global dimension in the school curriculum, available at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/dev-global- dim.pdf, (consulted on 15 June 2016). Dewey, John (1980), The Middle Works, 1899-1924: Journal articles, essays and miscellany published in the 1916-1917 period, London and Amsterdam: SIU Press. Dobson, Andrew (2005), Globalisation, cosmopolitanism and the Environment, In International Relations, Vol.19, pp. 259-273. Dower, Nigel (2000), The Idea of Global Citizenship - A Sympathetic Assessment, In Global Society, 14:4, pp. 553-567, DOI: 10.1080/713669060. Dower, Nigel (2006), An Introduction to Global Citizenship, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Entwicklungspolitisches Netzwerk Sachsen e.V., Portal Bildung für nachhaltige 84 Entwicklung Sachsen, available at: http://bne-sachsen.de/, (consulted 1 July 2016). Erman, Eva, Follesdal, Andreas (2012), Multiple citizenship: normative ideals and institutional challenges, In Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 15:3, pp. 279-302. European Commission/EACA/Eurydice, Citizenship Education at School in Europe, May 2005, available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Publications, (consulted on 5 May 2016). European Commission/EACA/Eurydice, Citizenship Education in Europe, May 2012, available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Publications, (consulted on 25 April 2016). European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2010 WORK PROGRAMME, Cluster Key Competences – Curriculum Reform, Synthesis Report on Peer Learning Activities in 2007, 2008, Brussel: Commission européenne. European Commission, Education Training Youth, Education and active citizenship in the European Union, 1998, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission, EU citizenship, 7 June 2016, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/, (consulted on 15 June 2016). European Commission, Standard Eurobarometer 83/Spring 2015 “European Citizenship”, Report, European Union: TNS opinion & social, 2012, available at: ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/.../eb83_citizen_en.pdf, 13 June 2016. European Union, Living in the EU, 2016a, available at: http://europa.eu/about- eu/facts-figures/living/index_en.htm, (consulted on 14 June 2016). European Union, The founding principles of the Union, 2016b, available at: http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/objectives_en.htm, (consulted on 20 May 2016). Faas, Daniel, Street, Alex (2011), Schooling the new generation of German citizens: a comparison of citizenship curricula in Berlin and Baden-Württemberg, In Educational Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2011, pp. 469–479. 85 Falk, Richard (2002), An Emergent Matrix of Citizenship: Complex, Uneven, and Fluid, In Dower, Nigel, Williams, John (ed.), Global Citizenship: A Critical Introduction, New York: Routledge. Faure, Edgar, Herrera, Felipe, Kaddoura, Abdul-Razzak, Lopes, Henri, Petrovsky, Arthur V., Rahnema, Majid, Ward, Frederick Champion (1972), Learning to be The world of education today and tomorrow, Paris: Unesco Paris. Federal Foreign Office, Law on Nationality, 20 December 2013, available at: http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/EinreiseUndAufenthalt/ Staatsangehoerigkeitsrecht_node.html (consulted on 02 July 2016). Forouta, Naika (2013), Identity and (Muslim) Integration in Germany, Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Fricke, H.-J., Gathercole, C., Skinner, A. (2015), Monitoring Education for Global Citizenship: A Contribution to Debate. Brussels: DEEEP. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the globalized world in the twenty-first century. New Delhi: Allen Lane. Furia, Peter A. (2005) Global citizenship, anyone? cosmopolitanism, privilege and public opinion, In Global Society, 19:4, pp. 331-359. Gardner-McTaggart, Alexander (2016) International elite, or global citizens? Equity, distinction and power: the International Baccalaureate and the rise of the South, In Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14:1, pp. 1-29, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2014.959475. German Commission for UNESCO (2011), UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005–2014: National Action Plan for Germany 2011, available at: http://www.bne-portal.de/de/node/576, (consulted on 29 June 2016). Gibson, Kay L., Rimmington, Glyn M., Landwehr-Brown, Marjorie (2008), Developing Global Awareness and Responsible World Citizenship With Global Learning, In Roeper Review, 30:1, 11-23, DOI: 10.1080/02783190701836270 Giddens, Anthony (1991), Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Global Citizens Initiative, The Country Global Citizenship Report, Card, 2014-2015, available at: http://www.countryreportcard.org/, (consulted on 28 June 2016). GlobeScan, Global Citizenship A Growing Sentiment Among Citizens Of Emerging 86 Economies: Global Poll, 27 April 2016, available at: http://www.globescan.com/news-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases- 2016/383-global-citizenship-a-growing-sentiment-among-citizens-of-emerging- economies-global-poll.html, (consulted on 20 June 2016). Goodwin, Matthew (2011), Right Response: Understanding and Countering Populist Extremism in Europe, A Chatham House Report, London: Chatham House. Grimley, Naomi, Identity 2016: 'Global citizenship' rising, poll suggests, 28 April 2016, available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-36139904, (consulted on 25 June 2016). Habermas, Jürgen (1972), Citizenship and national identity, In van Steenbergen, Bart (ed.)(1994), The Condition of Citizenship, pp. 20-36, London: SAGE Publication Ltd. Hazenberg, Haye, Mulieri, Alessandro (2013), Democracy and global governance: the case for a bottom-up and context-sensitive approach, In Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26:3, pp. 302-318, DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2013.771897. Heater, Derek (1999), What is citizenship? Cambridge: Polity Press. Hogeling, Lette (2015), Global Citizenship in primary and secondary education in the Netherlands: The opinions, attitudes and experiences of primary and secondary education teachers in relation to global citizenship, Amsterdam: NCDO, available at: http://www.ncdo.nl/global-citizenship, (consulted on 10 June 2016). Ibrahim, Tasneem (2005), Global citizenship education: mainstreaming the curriculum?, In Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 177–194. Ischinger, Wolfgang, What is Germany’s role within the EU?, 15 September 2015, available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/what-is-germanys-role- within-the-eu/, (consulted on 3 July 2016). Jarvis, Dr. Peter (nd.), Lifelong Learning, Active Citizenship, Social Capital and the Human Condition, available at: http://llw.acs.si/ac/09/cd/, (consulted on 24 May 2016). Jakobsen, Lars, Crosier, David, Focus on: Does good evidence make good education policy, 23 June 2016, available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Publications:Focu s_on:_Does_good_evidence_make_good_education_policy, (consulted on 24 June 2016). 87 Jenkins, Richard (2008), The Ambiguity of Europe, In European Societies, 10:2, pp. 153-176, DOI: 10.1080/14616690701835253. Johnson, Kent (2015), Behavioral Education in the 21st Century In Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35:1-2, pp. 135-150, DOI: 10.1080/01608061.2015.1036152. Johnson, Laura, Morris, Paul (2010), Towards a framework for critical citizenship education, In The Curriculum Journal, 21:1, pp. 77-96, DOI: 10.1080/09585170903560444. Joppke, Christian (2007), Transformation of Citizenship: Status, Rights, Identity, In Citizenship Studies, 11:1, pp. 37-48, DOI: 10.1080/13621020601099831. Kalina, Andreas (2014), Erfolgreich.Politisch.Bilden, Faktensammlung zum Stand der Politischen Bildung in Deutschland, Handreichung zur Politischen Bildung Band 4, 2., überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Sankt Augustin/ Berlin: Konrad- Adenauer-Stiftung e.V.. Karnitschnig, Matthew, Germany’s identity crisis: As refugees keep coming, Germans ask ‘Who are we?’, In POLITICO, 10 December 2015, available at: http://www.politico.eu/article/german-identity-threat-refugees-migration- merkel/, (consulted on 02 July 2016). Keating, Avril (2009a), Educating Europe's citizens: moving from national to post- national models of educating for European citizenship, In Citizenship Studies, 13:2, pp. 135-151, DOI: 10.1080/13621020902731140. Keating, Avril (2009b), Nationalizing the post‐national: reframing European citizenship for the civics curriculum in Ireland, In Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41:2, pp. 159-178, DOI: 10.1080/00220270802467475. Keating, Avril, Hinderliter Ortloff, Debora, Philippou, Stavroula (2009) Citizenship education curricula: the changes and challenges presented by global and European integration, In Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41:2, pp. 145-158, DOI: 10.1080/00220270802485063. Kelch, Manja, Studie mit Tücken zur politischen Bildung in Sachsen, 18 March 2016, available at: https://www.bildung.sachsen.de/blog/index.php/2016/03/18/studie- mit-tuecken-zur-politischen-bildung-in-sachsen/, (consulted on 8 July 2016). KMK, Information in English, available at: https://www.kmk.org/kmk/information-in- english.html, (consulted on 01 July 2016). 88 KMK/DUK (2007), Empfehlung der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK) und der Deutschen UNESCO-Kommission (DUK) vom 15.06.2007 zur „Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung in der Schule“, available at: https://www.kmk.org/themen/allgemeinbildende-schulen/weitere- unterrichtsinhalte/bildung-fuer-nachhaltige-entwicklung.html, (consulted on 30 June 2016). Kutay, Acrar (2013), Europeanisation of civil society through the sponsored European public, In Javnost – The Public, 19:1, pp. 19-38. Lagos, Taso G. (nd.), Global Citizenship – Towards a Definition, Center for Communication and Civic Engagement, available at: http://depts.washington.edu/gcp/pdf/, (consulted on 28 May 2016). Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen (ed.), Landesstrategie: Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung – Zukunft Lernen NRW (2016 – 2020), January 2016, available at: https://www.umwelt.nrw.de/ministerium- verwaltung/nachhaltiges-nrw/bildung-fuer-nachhaltige-entwicklung/, (consulted on 6 July 2016). Lange, Dirk (2008), Citizenship Education in Germany, pp. 89-95, Bonn: BPB. Langner, Tilman (ed.), Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE) in der Schule (BLK-Modellprogramme „21“ und „Transfer 21“), 30 January 2016, available at: http://www.umweltschulen.de/agenda/bildung-fuer-nachhaltige-entwicklung- in-der-schule.html, (consulted on 6 July 2016). Liebert, Ulrike (2007), The European Citizenship Paradox: Renegotiating Equality and Diversity in the New Europe, In Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 10:4, pp. 417-441, DOI: 10.1080/13698230701660154. Magnette, Paul (2003), European Governance and Civic Participation: Beyond Elitist Citizenship?, In Political Studies, 2003, Vol. 51, pp. 1–17, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Mannion, Greg, Biesta, Gert, Priestley, Mark, Ross, Hamish (2011), The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: genealogy and critique, In Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9:3-4, pp. 443-456, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2011.605327. Marshall, Harriet (2009), Educating the European citizen in the global age: engaging with the post‐national and identifying a research agenda, In Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41:2, pp. 247-267, DOI: 10.1080/00220270802642002. 89 Marshall, Harriet (2011), Instrumentalism, ideals and imaginaries: theorising the contested space of global citizenship education in schools, In Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9:3-4, pp. 411-426, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2011.605325 Marshall, T. H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class, In Pierson, Christopher, Castles, Francis G. (ed.)(1950), The Welfare State Reader, Second Edition, 2006, pp. 30- 39, Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press. McLeod, Hugh (2015), Christianity and nationalism in nineteenth century Europe, In International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 15:1, pp. 7-22, DOI:10.1080/1474225X.2015.1020009. McLaughlin, Barry (1992), Myths and Misconceptions about Second Language Learning: What Every Teacher Needs to Unlearn, In Educational Practice Report 5, pp. 2-18, Santa Cruz: The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Medel-Añonuevo, Carolyn, Mitchell, Gordon (ed.)(2003), Citizenship, Democracy and Lifelong Learning, Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education. Michelsen, Gerd, Adomßent, Maik, Bormann, Inka, Burandt, Simon, Fischbach, Robert (2011), Indikatoren der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung – Ein Werkstattbericht, Bad Homburg: VAS-Verlag. Michelsen, Gerd, Rode, Horst (2012), Die Verbreitung einer wegweisenden Idee: Der Beitrag der UN-Dekade für die Diffusion von Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, In Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Referat für Bildungsforschung, Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung - Beiträge der Bildungsforschung, Bonn, Berlin: BMBF. Miller-Idriss, Cynthia (2006), Dismantling the Nation, Debunking Pride: Discourse and Practice in German Civics Classrooms, In Sliwka, Anne, Diedrich, Martina, Hofer, Manfred (ed.), Citizenship Education: Theory – Discourse – Practice, pp. 19-27, Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH. Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Demokratie gestalten, 2016a, available at: https://www.schulministerium.nrw.de/docs/Schulsystem/Unterricht/Demokratie- gestalten/index.html, (consulted on 5 July 2016). Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, 2016b, available at: https://www.schulministerium.nrw.de/docs/Schulsystem/Unterricht/BNE/index. html, (consulted on 5 July 2016). 90 Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Ökologisch, ökonomisch und sozial – im globalen Kontext, available at: https://www.umwelt.nrw.de/ministerium-verwaltung/nachhaltiges-nrw/bildung- fuer-nachhaltige-entwicklung/, (consulted on 7 July 2016). Mitchell, Richard C., Moore, Shannon A. (ed.)(2012), Introduction: Politics, Participation and Power Relations: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Critical Citizenship, In Mitchell, Richard C., Moore, Shannon A. (ed.), Politics, Participation and Power Relations: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Critical Citizenship in the Classroom and Community, pp. 1-9, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Moir, James (2015), Global Citizenship Education: A Sociological Critique, In Proceedings of MAC-ETL 2015 in Prague: Multidisciplinary Academic Conference on Education, Teaching and Learning in Prague 2015, pp. 1-8, EBESCO. Muetzelfeldt, Michael, Smith, Gary (2002), Civil Society and Global Governance: The Possibilities for Global Citizenship, In Citizenship Studies, 6:1, pp. 55-75, DOI: 10.1080/13621020220118759. Murray, Stuart (2009), Post-Christendom, Post-Constantinian, Post-Christian … Does the Label Matter?, In International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 9:3, pp. 195-208, DOI: 10.1080/14742250903161482. Natur- und Umweltschutz-Akademie NRW (NUA), BNE in der Bildungspraxis, available at: http://www.schule-der-zukunft.nrw.de/bne/, (consulted on 6 July 2016). Official Journal of the European Union, L 394/10, RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC), 30.12.2006. Ohlmeier, Bernhard, Brunold, Andreas (2015), Die politische Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung und ihre europäische Dimension, In Monika Oberle (ed.), Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln: Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung heute, Wiesbaden: Springer VS. O’Loughlin, Eddie, Wegimont, Liam (2003), Global Education in Europe to 2015; Strategy, policies, and perspectives, Outcomes and Papers of the Europe-wide Global Education Congress Maastricht, The Netherlands 15th-17th November 2002, Lisbon: North-South Centre of the Council of Europe. 91 Open Forum for CSO Development Efficiency (2011), The Siem Reap CSO Conensus on the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness, June 28–30, 2011. Osborn, Derek, Cutter, Amy, Ullah, Farooq (2015), Universal Sustainable Development Goals: Understanding the Transformational Challenge for Developed Countries, Report of a Study by Stakeholder Forum, May 2015, Stakeholder Forum. Osler, Audrey (2011), Teacher interpretations of citizenship education: national identity, cosmopolitan ideals, and political realities, In Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43:1, pp. 1-24, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2010.503245. Osler, Audrey, Starkey, Hugh (2003) Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: Theoretical debates and young people's experiences, In Educational Review, 55:3, pp. 243-254, DOI: 10.1080/0013191032000118901. OXFAM (2015), Education for Global Citizenship – A guide for schools, Oxford: Oxfam Education and Youth, Oxfam House. OXFAM (2016), Policy and Research, available at: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research (consulted on 25 May 2016). Oxler, Laura, Morris, Paul (2013), Global Citizenship: A Typology for distinguishing its multiple conception, In British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 61, No. 3, September 2013, pp. 301–325. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008), 21st Century Skills, Education & Competitiveness: A Resource And Policy Guide, Tucson. Pashby, Karen (2011), Cultivating global citizen: planting new seeds or pruning the perennials? Looking for the citizen-subject in global citizenship education theory, Globalisation, In Societies and Education, 9:3-4, pp. 427-442, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2011.605326. Pashby, Karen (2015) Conflations, possibilities, and foreclosures: Global citizenship education in a multicultural context, In Curriculum Inquiry, 45:4, pp. 345-366, DOI: 10.1080/03626784.2015.1064304. Pohl, Kerstin, Politisch Handeln: Ziel und Inhalt der politischen Bildung?, 19 March 2015, available at: http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/kultur/politische- bildung/193189/politisch-handeln?p=all, (consulted on 4 July 2016). Preuss, Ulrich K. (2003), Citizenship and the German Nation, In Citizenship Studies, 7:1, pp. 37-56, DOI: 10.1080/1362102032000048693. 92 Ross, Alistair (2007), Multiple Identities and Education for Active Citizenship, In British Journal of Educational Studies, 55:3, pp. 286-303, DOI: 10.1111/ j.1467- 8527.2007.00380.x. Scalise, Gemma (2015) The Narrative Construction of European Identity. Meanings of Europe ‘from below’, In European Societies, 17:4, pp. 593-614, DOI: 10.1080/14616696.2015.1072227. Schattle, Hans (2005), Communicating Global Citizenship: Multiple Discourses Beyond the Academy, In Citizenship Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 119–133, May 2005. Schauwienold-Rieger, Sabine (2012), Bildung im Zusammenwachsenden Europa: Kompetenzorientierung und Innovation für Europaorientiertes sowie Bilinguales Lehren und Lernen in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Scholte, Jan Aart (2007), Civil Society and the Legitimation of Global Governance, In Journal of Civil Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 305–326, December 2007. Schulz, Wolfram, Ainley, John, Fraillon, Julian, Kerr, David, Losito, Bruno (2010), Initial Findings from the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study, Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Schulz, Wolfram, Ainley, John, Fraillon, Julian, Losito, Bruno, Agrusti, Gabriella (2016), IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 Assessment Framework, Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Sekretariat der ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Zur Situation und zu Perspektiven der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, Bericht der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 13.12.2012, pp. 3-5. Siege, Hannes, Schreiber, Jörg-Robert (2015), Orientierungsrahmen für den Lernbereich Globale Entwicklung: im Rahmen einer Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, 2. (aktualisierte und erweiterte) Auflage, Juni 2015, Ein Beitrag zum Weltaktionsprogramm „Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung“, available at: https://www.kmk.org/themen/allgemeinbildende-schulen/weitere- unterrichtsinhalte/bildung-fuer-nachhaltige-entwicklung.html, (consulted at 28 June 2016). Slocum-Bradley, Nikki R. (2010), Identity Construction in Europe: A Discursive 93 Approach, In Identity, 10:1, pp. 50-68, DOI: 10.1080/15283481003676234. Smith, Anthony (1991), National Identity, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoğlu, Bertilotti, Teresa, Mannitz, Sabine (2005), Projects of I dentity in French and German History and Civics Textbooks, In Schissler, Hanna, Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoğlu (ed.), The Nation, Europe, and the World: Textbooks and Curricula in Transition, pp. 13-35, New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books. Spiegel Online, Fremdenfeindliche Übergriffe: Polizeichef erwartet mehr Gewalt gegen Flüchtlinge in Sachsen, 3 March 2016, available at: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/sachsen-polizeichef-bernd-merbitz- erwartet-mehr-gewalt-gegen-fluechtlinge-a-1080501.html, (consulted on 10 July 2016). Stein, Sharon (2015), Mapping Global Citizenship, In Journal of College and Character, 16:4, pp. 242-252, DOI: 10.1080/2194587X.2015.1091361. Subotic, Jelena (2013), Remembrance, Public Narratives, and Obstacles to Justice in the Western Balkans, In Studies in Social Justice, Volume 7, Issue 2, 265-283, 2013. Suša, Rene, Vodopicev, Barbara (2011), Report: National Identity in the Context of Global Citizenship, Central and South Eastern Europe and the EU Mediterranean Countries, Ljubljana: SLOGA – Slovenian NGDO Platform for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid. UNESCO (2016a), Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. UNESCO (2016b), Global Citizenship Education: UNESCO’s Approach, available at: http://en.unesco.org/gced/approach#measurement, (consulted on 9 July 2016). UNESCO (2016c), Statistics on Youth, available at: http://blog.euromonitor.com/2012/02/special-report-the-worlds-youngest- populations-.html, (consulted on 25 June 2016). UNESCO (2016d), Global Education First Initiative, available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/global-education-first-initiative-gefi/, (consulted on 10 May 2016). UNESCO (2016e), Can education prevent violent extremism?, available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/gefi/stories-events/recent-stories/2016/can- education-prevent-violent-extremism/, (consulted on 5 July 2016). 94 Veuglers, Wiel (2011), Theory and Practice of Citizenship Education. The Case of Policy, Science and Education in the Netherlands, In Revista de Educación, número extraordinario 2011, pp. 209-224. Warleigh, Alex (1998), Frozen: Citizenship and European unification, In Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 1:4, pp. 113-151, DOI: 10.1080/13698239808403261. Weiler, J. H. H. (1999), To be a European citizen: Eros and civilization, In Weiler, J.H.H., The Constitution for Europe: ‘Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?’ and Other Essays on European Integration, pp. 324–357, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Werbowski, Michael, Germany’s dominant role in the European Union, 14 March 2013, available at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/germanys-dominant-role-in- the-european-union/5326785, (consulted on 3 July 2016). Yunker, James A. (2004), Effective global governance without effective global government: A contemporary, In World Futures, 60:7, pp. 503-533, DOI: 10.1080/02604020390218571. Zweifel, Thomas D. (2002), ...Who is without sin cast the first stone: the EU's democratic deficit in comparison, In Journal of European Public Policy, 9:5, pp. 812-840, DOI: 10.1080/13501760210162375. 95