Arguably a goal for education is to prepare the next generation for civic work; to contribute to constructing and sustaining the economic and social infrastructures of individual communities, individual countries, Europe, and collectively, the global-village. Key to education is the knowledge that is chosen to be imparted to learners, and the knowledge that the learners engage with accessing, using and transforming. Different ideologies underpin different forms of knowledge. The education process is political and engages with issues of power. The issues of power are significant and over time different countries may or may not have experienced shifts in the balance of power in terms of dominant, and sub-dominant ideologies that underpin their policies (Ball, 2006). Pressure may be exerted on one hand with educational policy aiming to gain a country’s infrastructure competitive advantage in the economic global arena. On the other hand the same educational policy may promote an ethic of care by recognising absolute poverty, low income communities, and economic exploitation. Educational policy may aim to develop high energy consuming, and polluting technologies, whilst at the same time promote ecological and agronomical practices for sustainable living. The paper aims to further understanding of how the English ‘Every Child Matters’ (ECM) policy agenda, the US ‘No Child Left Behind’ (NCLB), and two nations who have drawn upon English educational policy to inform their own policies; Russia with the ‘Russian Education – 2020: A Model of Education for an Economy based on Knowledge’ [(2008) Moscow, (in Russian)] (RE), and Pakistani ‘The National Education Policy 1998-2010’ (NEP) engage with these issues. Comparing International research in this way is important because new insights generated may, if shared contribute to improved policy and practice within a globalised world. To deliver on this aim the paper addresses four key research questions. First, what similarities and differences are there in the development of the English ECM, US NCLB, the Russian RE, and the Pakistani NEP education policies within particular economic and social contexts? Second, what similarities and differences are there for these four nations’ education policies in addressing barriers to economic and social inequalities, and sustainable living? Third, what similarities and differences are there for these four nations’ education policies with regard to developing citizens to approach and engage with civic work? Finally, how can the findings be theorised to reveal possible generic principles to contribute to improving policy and practice within the global-village?

Qualitative methodologies are deployed. Documentary analysis is used. Data is also collected using four semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of one agent from each of the four nations. These agents have been selected because they are key to understanding the development of education policy within their own country's economic and social contexts. The paper will explain how the respondents' characteristics are comparable across the four geographical regions, to demonstrate the rigour and trustworthiness of the research. The interviews are to be transcribed and analysed using narrative analysis. Respondent validation will be important for the research and those interviewed will be invited to validate the transcript of their interview. The research is to be carried out within the four nations’ ethical frameworks, including the ESRC ethical framework. These will be cross referenced, and the respondents will be assured of anonymity, confidentiality and the right to withdraw at any time.

The paper teases out similarities and differences between all four nations' educational policies as described and understood by the agents key to understanding the development of education policies in their contexts (Shah, 2004). Similarities and differences in how these respondents describe and understand the contradictions in ideologies underpinning these educational policies are revealed. Ways in which judgements about how an educational community in receipt of educational policies might interpret them are presented. How the respondents describe the ways in which the policies prepare citizens for civic work is made public. It is intended this research will underpin a larger research project that seeks to compare how educational leaders describe and understand the implementation of educational policy for social-justice and sustainable living in the four nations. An overarching goal of the project is to identify generic principles that may contribute to improving policy and practice to build brighter futures for all.