In many European national contexts, NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have taken a leading role in promoting Critical Global Citizenship Education (CGCE). Especially those involved in overseas development projects, these organizations have taken the lead in designing “Development Education” initiatives that understand raising public awareness about global inequalities as a crucial element in ameliorating them (Bourne, 2015). These initiatives are informed by experience in international cooperation and development. Nevertheless, this strong NGO leadership may run the risk of relegating teachers to a more passive role in their own schools and classrooms (DePalma, 2019).  

The negative repercussion is that classroom interventions are less likely to be sustainable, as they are often structured as short-term projects directed by external agents. Since a critical global perspective does not form part of the official curriculum of teacher training courses, teachers lack the knowledge, experience, and confidence to continue and extend the work done by NGO specialists in their own school contexts.  At the university level, teacher educators who specialize in specific teaching methods or social justice education (subject area specialists) remain largely untapped resources.  Few spaces in these initial teacher training programs allow these methodologies to be applied from a specifically CGCE perspective, although research has found a tendency to incorporate this perspective into existing approaches, such as service learning or peace education (Bourne, Hunt, and Bamber, 2017; Yemini, Tibbitts & Goren, 2018).   

In the project Mapping Critical Global Citizenship Education in Spanish Schools (MAPESS), funded by the EERA-Gene Global Education Award, we explored the potential of school-university-NGO partnerships for CGCE. We have chosen to focus in the primary level (year groups 1 to 6) because most CGCE practice that we have identified through our research to date has been at the secondary level. Nevertheless, as the first phase of obligatory schooling, these early years are especially important to awakening children’s awareness of global connections, and introducing a critical mindset towards our roles and responsibilities as citizens of the global north. Furthermore, the most recent Spanish education legislation, which came into force on the 19 of January, 2021, explicitly provides for the introduction of “Education for sustainable development and global citizenship” throughout “all compulsory education,” allowing people to “adopt informed decisions and take an active role - both locally and globally - in facing and solving problems common to all citizens of the world” (Statement of Motives, LOMLOE, 2020). 

Our research questions include: 

• What are the existing models of partnership between classroom teachers and NGO specializing in development education, that is, what role does each type of organization adopt in preparing, initiating, evaluating CGCE initiatives in Spanish primary schools? 

• How do subject area specialists (in mathematics, science, language, and social justice education) working in university-based teacher training institutions contribute to encouraging and supporting teachers’ CGCE practice? 

• How do these three types of practitioners (teachers, NGO staff, and university subject area specialists) envision better and more effective models for partnership? 

• What challenges (structural, legislative, or attitudinal) do these practitioners identify that currently limit the potential for productive collaboration? 

Our research has the overall goal of support teachers in seeking collaboration from external specialists (NGOs and subject area specialists), while at the same time maintaining a central role in the design of CGCE projects (Cruz-López, Digón-Regueiro, & Mendez-García, 2021). Teachers are best positioned to understand their own particular classroom contexts and adapt their lessons accordingly. Taking a more central role is likely to foster sustainability, so that teachers can repeat, extend, and share their work with colleagues without depending on external agents to take the initiative.

To achieve a broad understanding of how CGCE practice has been carried out in Spanish schools, we conducted extended semi-structured interviews via teleconference in each of Spain’s 17 Autonomous Communities – a total of 51. The data collection period extended from June 2021 to January 2022. Participants belonged to one of three established profiles: 1) representatives of development NGOs working with schools These participants were identified first, using snowball sampling, drawing upon contacts established through earlier research projects. We first confirmed participation of entities operating at the local (autonomous) level in as many cases as possible, and then contacted entities working in multiple regions, with the requirement that they managed specific projects in the selected territory. 2) subject areas specialists in mathematics, science, and language These participants were identified by first conducting a literature review of publications that approached these subject areas from a global and or social justice perspective. We targeted pedagogy specialists who were working at the university level, in teacher training institutions. We prioritized those specializing in the teaching of mathematics, science, and language. “Language” in Spain includes (Castilian) Spanish as well as co-official languages in some of the Autonomous Communities (these include Galicia, Catalonia, Navarra, Euskadi-Basque Country, Valencia, and the Balearic Islands). We also attempted to find a balance across these three pedagogical areas, as well as a gender balance. After identifying an individual meeting these criteria in as many territories as possible, we included university instructors specializing in critical pedagogy and social justice issues. 3) primary school teachers The vast majority of the teachers were identified through the interviews with NGO staff and university subject area specialists. In the case of autonomous communities for which no teacher meeting our criteria was nominated, or was able to participate, we located potential candidates by reviewing professional associations and the results of awards for relevant teaching practice. Using these sampling techniques, we were able to interview at least one representative of an NGO, one subject area specialist, and one primary classroom teacher meeting our specifications in each autonomous community. All interviews were conducted by a pair or researchers who also wrote notes to summarize key points and additional information. They were professionally transcribed and then coded by the research team using Atlas-ti software. Memos were created to track emerging themes and relations. Coding was also duplicated by paired coders (usually those who conducted the interview), to ensure trustworthiness.

We are still completing the data analysis, but based on fieldnotes, memos, and the analysis to date, we have identified several emerging themes. First of all, results confirm data from earlier research projects, which suggested that the majority of classroom practice is planned and initiated by NGOs. Many of the teachers we interview described themselves and colleagues who participate in the same of similar CGCE initiatives as interested and motivated, but not sufficiently prepared to take a leadership role. Subject area specialists were largely absent from these initiatives, based on both their own testimonies and that of other interviewees. They also were rarely able to describe spaces in their teacher training programs where a CGCE perspective was explicitly adopted. At the same time, these rare cases provided a source of information and inspiration for future directions. Factors identified as limiting more productive collaborations among these three types of practitioners included lack of teacher training, support, and resources; an institutional context where classroom teachers are not encouraged to foster collaborations beyond the school (or even within it); and curriculum guidelines that require teachers to “cover” a great deal of content with little room for incorporating the global citizenship focus stipulated in the most recent (2020) educational policy.

Bourn, D (2015) From Development Education to Global Learning: Changing Agendas and Priorities. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 20, Spring, pp. 18-36. Bourn, D., Hunt, F., Bamber, P. (2017) A review of education for sustainable development and global citizenship education in teacher education. (UNESCO GEM Background Paper). UNESCO: Paris, France Cruz-López, L., Digón-Regueiro, P., & Méndez-García, R. (2021) Social cartography as a participatory process for mapping experiences of Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship: an account of the design. International Journal of Research and Method in Education. Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1966621 DePalma, R. (2019). La educación para el desarrollo y la ciudadanía global. Una experiencia de investigación acción participativa. Barcelona: Graó. Digón-Regueiro, P., Méndez-García, R. M., DePalma, R.; Longueira Matos, S. (2017). A place for development education in the current Spanish and English curricula: Finding possibilities for practice. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 9(2), pp. 29-46. Yemini, M., Tibbitts, F., & Goren, H. (2018). Trends and caveats: Review of literature on global citizenship education in teacher training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2018.09.014