Education for Global Citizenship Towards the New European Education Area

Abstract

Over the last decades, many European educational systems have been reviewing the citizenship education model that they have been developing, trying to deepen the meaning of democratic citizenship practice today or the social demand inspired by the creation of adequate conditions for its exercise. Thus, it is challenging for educational systems to face education for global citizenship, and international organizations have been promoting the development of citizenship education and conducting research in this field. New research and educational practices are expected for global citizenship, and their meaning in our European societies is a point of reference for the study of the different policies that national and supranational institutions promote in this matter. The Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education from 2010 and its counterpart framework from UNESCO in 2015 have actively promoted the idea of citizenship education on a global scale through its Global Citizenship Education Model. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) conducted a series of reports on social and civic competencies to investigate the extent to which young people are prepared to assume their role as citizens, which recently has been reviewed by Schulz et al. Based on its main findings and the latest survey by the European EACEA/Eurydice from 2023 that covers 15 member countries of the Eurydice Network, this paper presents a cross-national study of the global citizenship education (GCE) between European Countries that updates recent national information and research developments in this field. Based on the analyzed data and the criteria established by UNESCO, the comparative study allows us to determine the dimensions and trends in global citizenship education in order to address its implications within the European education area.

1. Introduction

The proposal for education and development for citizenship at a global level was raised by UNESCO (1974) in the last century, with the aim of solving the problems of inequality and injustice at a global level based on international cooperation to achieve measures that would benefit the overall population. In addition, it highlights the importance of training students to be a means of social transformation and to guide education with a greater emphasis on “equipping people from an early age and throughout their lives, with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors that are needed to be informed, committed and supportive citizens” (UNESCO 2016, p. 12). In fact, this organization declares that only with a global vision, taking into account local nuances, will it be possible to challenge the challenges that arise. Although, despite having circulated transnationally, the concept of global citizenship constitutes a significant variability in its connotation.

In this way, Global Citizenship Education (hereinafter GCE) has become a hot, as well as controversial, topic in political and academic discourse, especially since the UN’s Global Education First initiative (United Nations 2012). Furthermore, its introduction in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and, in particular, its explicit mention in its target 4.7 has had an additional impact on the political agenda to encourage European countries to integrate this subject in schools. In this sense, both (United Nations 2012) and (UNESCO 2015) UNESCO identify crucial factors that contribute to the successful implementation of GCE, namely: (1) being integrated into policies with broad acceptance by stakeholders; (2) be part of a sustainable and long-term action; and (3) provide pre- and continuing in-service teacher education.

Prior to the approval of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda of the United Nations (UN), some European nations (O’Connor and Faas 2011) began to add curricular content aimed at developing a global orientation among students who were often grouped under the heading of GCE (Davies et al. 2008). Global education, along with other relevant disciplines similar to those mentioned above by UNESCO (e.g., education for sustainable development, human rights education, etc.), are considered the “global dimensions of Citizenship Education”. These dimensions are characterized by pedagogical approaches based on social justice, human rights, and sustainable development. It is further suggested that teaching and learning about global issues focus on “supporting learning and encouraging reflection with the active participation of students and educators”, promoting diversity and respect for others, and encouraging students to “make their decisions in their own context in relation to the global context” (O’Loughlin and Wegimont 2003, p. 149). The GCE itself takes many different forms. Furthermore, the lack of an agreed definition for the term GCE generates widespread criticism and debate. Therefore, references to the contested definition should be used to contextualize the results of research on it (Goren and Yemini 2017).

In this sense, Goyal et al. (2023) argue that educational institutions, as transformative organizations, can strongly contribute to building a more resilient, sustainable, and fair world by shaping the ethical, responsible, and sustainable conscience of future generations, raising public awareness about the consequences and repercussions of unsustainable actions, and addressing the current sustainability challenge facing society. As a result, in recent decades, higher education institutions have increasingly shown support and dedication to addressing sustainability challenges and GCE within the university curriculum (Bosio 2021). Furthermore, these institutions are indispensable environments for the dissemination of sustainability and GCE principles by refocusing their education, research, social outreach, and community outreach activities (De Jesus Lopes et al. 2024).

Globalization and multiculturalism are phenomena increasingly rooted in our societies that have generated changing social scenarios under different unprecedented demands. These new realities promote emerging social practices that should be the object of analysis and reflection in order to understand their implications for the social and cultural development of today’s societies. We are witnessing a new social framework in which people as a group are increasingly taking on the challenge of being actors in their own lives, showing their commitment to building a more just and sustainable world through participation. Motivated by this purpose, there is an awareness of valuing social and cultural achievement as a support for building a shared social project that is appropriate to the existing reality and demands.

In this context, the concept of global citizenship is reviewed, trying to deepen the meaning of the practice of citizenship in our days or the social demand. Inspired by the creation of adequate conditions for its exercise, an issue that educational systems are challenged to face in education as a path towards a greater deepening and extension of democratic citizenship. It is further suggested that teaching and learning about global issues should focus on “supporting learning and fostering reflection with the active participation of learners and educators”, promoting diversity and respect for others, and encouraging learners to “make their decisions in their own context in relation to the global context” (O’Loughlin and Wegimont 2003, p. 149).

Over the last few years, many European educational systems have been reviewing their own models of citizenship education in order to go beyond analyzing their practices and ways of claiming citizenship to find answers to the characteristics and challenges of the 21st century.

Prior to the adoption of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda, some European nations (O’Connor and Faas 2011) began to add curricular content aimed at developing a global orientation among students often grouped under the heading of Global Citizenship Education (Davies et al. 2008). Global education, together with other relevant disciplines similar to those mentioned above by UNESCO (e.g., education for sustainable development, human rights education, etc.), are considered the “global dimensions of Citizenship Education”, which seems to be characterized by pedagogical approaches based on social justice, human rights, and sustainable development (UNESCO 2022a).

In this initial period of SDGs, (Goren and Yemini 2017) identify that the inclusion of content associated with GCE was often described as a direct response by education systems to the nature of the modern, globalized workforce or to societal changes brought about by broader global processes, such as immigration. GCE itself takes many different forms. They further state that the lack of an agreed definition for the term generates widespread criticism and debate. Therefore, references to the contested definition of GCE should be used to contextualize the results of research on it (Goren and Yemini 2017).

Thus, GCE has become a hot, as well as controversial, topic in political and academic discourse, especially since the UN’s Global Education First initiative (UNESCO 2015). Moreover, its introduction to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and, in particular, its explicit mention in goal 4.7 has had an additional impact on the political agenda to encourage European countries to integrate this subject in schools.

In this regard, both UN (UNESCO 2015) and UNESCO (2014a) identify crucial factors that contribute to the successful implementation of GCE, namely (1) being embedded in policies with broad stakeholder buy-in, (2) being part of sustainable and long-term action, and (3) providing pre-service and in-service continuing teacher education.

During the last decades, other international organizations have also been promoting the development of citizenship education and conducting research in this field. The Council of Europe, for example, has published the results of its second monitoring of the implementation of its Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, which was adopted by all European Union (EU) member states in May 2010 (Council of Europe 2010). In addition, the Council of Europe published a framework in 2016: Competences for democratic culture: living together as equals in culturally diverse societies (see below in the section on the conceptual framework for more information). Also, UNESCO has been actively promoting the idea of citizenship education on a global scale through its Global Citizenship Education Model (UNESCO 2015).

Finally, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) conducted a fourth survey on social and civic competencies (Schulz et al. 2018) to investigate the extent to which young people are prepared to assume their role as citizens that has recently been revised (Schulz et al. 2023). Equally, the latest European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice survey (European Commission et al. 2016) covers 15 member countries of the Eurydice Network. Based on its main findings, a brief comparative analysis is presented, which has been updated with information from each of the countries and recent research on the subject with the aim of addressing the development of GCE with an eye on the new European education area.

Therefore, new research and educational practices for global citizenship are expected. GCE’s meaning in our European societies is a point of reference for the study of the different policies promoted by national and supranational institutions in this area.

2. Contextual Perspective on the Development of Global Citizenship Education in Europe

In recent decades, the promotion of citizenship education at school has been a historical aim of European cooperation in the field of education. Social and civic competencies are among the eight key competencies identified since 2006 by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union as essential for citizens living in a knowledge-based society. Promoting equity, social cohesion, and active citizenship through school education where initial teacher training has also been one of the main objectives for the past decade in the context of the 2020 Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training (European Commission 2018).

Thus, while UNESCO launched the Global Education First Initiative (GEFI), the European Union called for a cross-sectoral European strategy for ‘development education, awareness raising, and active global citizenship’, recognizing as a top priority support for active global citizenship ‘during periods marked by austerity, crises and the rise of nationalist and populist movements’ (European Parliament 2021, p. 12).

The North-South Centre of the Council of Europe and the Global Education Network Europe (GENE) are two European institutions also committed to the development of this strategy. As cited on the North-South Centre’s website (North-South Centre 2019), all activities initiated by this institution aim at building “global citizenship based on human rights and citizens’ responsibilities”. GENE, which acts as a European network of ministries and agencies for global education, has produced several policy documents promoting the aims of UNESCO’s Global Campaign for Education.

In the European education policy context, the Maastricht Declaration on Global Education, which led to the development of a European policy framework on global education, is the main policy document that will be later critically examined. This specific document, signed at the Maastricht Congress in 2002 by the member states of the Council of Europe, encouraged a growing number of countries to introduce national policies, strategies, or frameworks on global education that promote GCE-relevant objectives. It was developed as a European response to the creation of a global partnership for poverty reduction, as outlined in the UN Millennium Development Goals and the international compromises in the Global Submit on Sustainable Development (Council of Europe 2002).

According to the Maastricht Declaration of 2002, there have been various international, regional, and national commitments to promote global education “as an education that supports people’s search for knowledge about the realities of their world and engages them in critical global democratic citizenship towards greater justice, sustainability, equity, and human rights for all” cited in (O’Loughlin and Wegimont 2003, pp. 147–50). Another strand presented in the same European document related to GCE is the emphasis on multiple citizenships (e.g., local, national, and global) and sustainable lifestyles. Therefore, it emphasized the need to increase public support for spending on development aid and cooperation programs, such that all citizens acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to ‘understand, participate and interact critically with our global society as empowered global citizens’ (O’Loughlin and Wegimont 2003, p. 148).

In this regard, Bourn (2022) argues that public support and understanding of global and development issues became essential in the European Commission because of the Union’s major expansion into countries that had never been aid donors and the consequent need to justify aid spending.

For the implementation of the Maastricht agreement, national ministries were requested to ensure the integration of GCE into education systems and to guarantee the full integration of relevant formal and non-formal teaching and learning practices into the curricula at all levels of education. Member States also committed to advancing efforts to define global education, ensuring the inclusion of a rich diversity of experiences and perspectives (Southern, minority, youth, and women’s perspectives) in all relevant efforts, which could be further supported by improving the networking of ideas and strategies among policymakers and practitioners.

Furthermore, the European Commission has been consistently using the term Development Education and Awareness Raising to describe its objectives and efforts in the field of Global Education, with an explicit link to EU development policy (Nygaard and Wegimont 2018). This was reflected in the document The European Consensus on Development: The Contribution of Development Education and Awareness Raising, which was developed in 2007 through a multi-stakeholder consensus process. However, when the European Parliament adopted a declaration in July 2012 with reference to this document, it also linked the term to active GCE, calling “on the Commission and the Council to develop a long-term cross-sectoral European strategy for development education, awareness raising, and active global citizenship” (Nygaard and Wegimont 2018, p. 13).

Following the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen, the Paris Declaration signed by EU Education Ministers and the European Commission called for action at European, national, regional, and local levels to strengthen the role of education in promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance, and non-discrimination (Ministers of Education of the EU Member States 2015). It also emphasized the need to strengthen social cohesion and help young people to become responsible, open, and active members of a diverse and inclusive European society.

The Declaration defines common aims for Member States and calls on the EU to ensure the exchange of ideas and good practice (European Commission 2015). Following up on the objectives of this Declaration has been a key priority for European cooperation in education and training. Actions at EU and Member State level focus on the four areas identified in the Declaration, underlining the importance of GCE, which are: (i) ensuring that children and young people acquire social, civic and intercultural competencies through the promotion of democratic values and fundamental rights, social inclusion and non-discrimination, as well as active citizenship; (ii) enhancing critical thinking and media literacy; (iii) promoting the education of disadvantaged children and young people; and (iv) promoting intercultural dialogue through all forms of learning in cooperation with other relevant policies and stakeholders (European Commission et al. 2016).

It is also interesting to note that since the Paris Conference (November 2016), some discussion seemed to be emerging in the European Commission on a renewed emphasis on the local/global axis of global learning. While the focus on the local/global axis was a central perspective for many development educators and global educators for decades, this renewed interest in the need to focus on the local alongside the global could open up possibilities for global learning in Europe in light of the political issues (Nygaard and Wegimont 2018).

In the context of citizenship education, on 7 July 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on citizens’ dialogues and participation in EU decision-making (European Parliament 2021). The resolution underlines the need for GCE in the European area, noting, in particular, a ‘growing need for European citizenship education classes in all Member States’. It also states the need to recognize ‘the work of civil society organizations in civic education’ and to promote a ‘holistic approach to citizenship education, including both formal and non-formal education and learning’.

The above-mentioned resolution refers to the 2015 Paris Declaration, highlighting ‘the need to enhance the European dimension of citizenship education to enable citizens’ participation and ability to act as informed citizens and to participate fully in civic and social life at both European and Member State level’ at the state level. In addition, it stresses the need to work with educational institutions and civic education organizations to ensure that active European citizenship is part of the curriculum across the EU.

To this respect, special attention should be given to the ET 2020 working group on promoting common values and inclusive education. The working group was set up to discuss policy issues related to the 2015 Paris Declaration and the promotion of common values in light of the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018. The main focus of this working group includes, among others, promoting common values and intercultural competencies, including citizenship education. In September 2020, the European Commission published a communication on achieving the European education area by 2025, which began by stating that ‘education is the basis for personal fulfilment, employability, and active and responsible citizenship’ and referring to the role of the Erasmus+ program in education, including the promotion of citizenship (European Commission 2015).

Equally, in the current strategy for European cooperation in the field of education and training (2021–2030), the EU Member States have identified and established among their four common objectives that of ‘promoting equity, social cohesion, and active citizenship’ where the promotion of the latter constitutes one of the key competencies of the objectives of the European Education Area (European Commission 2017).

Furthermore, in the area of Social Inclusion of the European Union, many European policy initiatives—such as the EU Youth Strategy or the Council Recommendation on promoting common values, inclusive education, and the European dimension in education—call on Member States to promote competencies for intercultural awareness and to combat all forms of discrimination. In this regard, according to the YouthWiki comparative mapping on the ‘Existence of initiatives promoting intercultural awareness and combating discrimination (September 2021)’ in two-thirds of the surveyed countries in the EU, high-level authorities organize or support initiatives aimed at promoting intercultural awareness and combating discrimination among young people, both in formal and non-formal education. Initiatives in formal education include efforts to address these issues through curricular subjects, such as citizenship education or intercultural education, or to provide educational resources or training for teachers and other staff in educational institutions (EACEA/YouthWiki 2021).

Finally, in the European Declaration on Global Education to 2050 (Dublin Declaration) of November 2022, GCE was defined as:

“(…) An education that enables people to reflect critically on the world and their place in it; to open their eyes, hearts, and minds to the reality of the world at local and global levels. It enables people to understand, imagine, hope, and act for a world of social and climate justice, peace, solidarity, equity and equality, planetary sustainability, and international understanding. It involves respect for human rights and diversity, inclusion, and a dignified life for all, now and in the future. Global Education encompasses a wide range of educational offerings: formal, non-formal, and informal; throughout life.”

Within this last Declaration, European countries recognized the increased and improved whole-sector coordinated approaches in, inter alia, the formal education sectors within school curriculum reform, teacher education, student assessment, whole-school-approaches, school leadership and self-evaluation processes and school inspectorate training, early childhood education and care and in non-formal education across various sectors (GENE 2022, p. 3).

3. Comparative Study of Global Citizenship Education in European Countries

Global citizenship education plays a key role in promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It is strongly intertwined with lifelong learning and with developing the capacity to act for social justice and to participate fully in civic and social life.

In formal education, GCE aims to equip young people with knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values related to citizenship and to foster their participation in culturally diverse societies and changing contexts. It is an area of education characterized by a wide variety of curricular provisions across Europe, often as a consequence of socio-historical and political developments.

Non-formal and informal learning environments (with a wide range of organizations and movements) also play an important role in promoting GCE for different groups, from young people to adults (UNESCO 2016).

3.1. Research Aims and Comparative Methodology

Comparing education and training referring to different relevant aspects of the GCE, such as institutional frame conditions, teachers’ education, and curricula, allows cross-national analyses for further policy developments. In this case, the comparative methodology is used to find out how GCE is applied in thirteen European Union (EU) countries in order to determine how its main dimensions are developed in the GCE in the selected countries. To carry out his comparative study, both primary and secondary sources of information were used in the documentary analysis:

• Primary sources: UNESCO-UIS Database, EACEA/Eurydice, and SDG-Database; and the current legislation of the comparative units, which correspond to the different national curricula that are referenced in the next section of the article.
• Secondary sources: three previous cross-national studies were also included to triangulate different data sources, such as the reports from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (Schulz et al. 2018) and (Schulz et al. 2023) and the European Commission, EACEA, and Eurydice (EACEA/EURYDICE 2023).

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is a lifelong learning approach; it calls for ‘formal and informal methodologies, programmatic and extra-programmatic interventions, and classical and non-traditional participatory mechanisms’. GCE involves three basic conceptual dimensions (

Table 1. Basic conceptual dimensions of Global Citizenship Education. Source: own elaboration based on (UNESCO 2016).

Basic Conceptual Dimensions of Global Citizenship Education
Cognitive	Socio-Emotional	Conductual
Acquisition of knowledge, understanding, and critical thinking about global, regional, national, and local issues and the interrelationships and interdependence of different countries and population groups.	Sense of belonging to common humanity, sharing values and responsibilities, empathy, solidarity, and respect for differences and diversity.	Effective and responsible local, national, and global action for a more peaceful and sustainable world.

), which are common to the various definitions and interpretations of GCE. These dimensions include aspects of the three domains of learning on which they are based: cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral (UNESCO 2016).

Finally, a triangulation of the several data sources (contextual factors, legislation, and curricula of the different countries involved) is conducted in search of complementary aspects that allow the development of a comparative study on the basis of these dimensions.

3.2. Descriptive Analysis of GCE in National Education Guidelines in Europe

The following is a brief description of these aspects in some European countries from a historical perspective until the entry into force of the common framework that the 2030 Agenda establishes for them in this respect.

In Germany, the development of citizenship education began in 1945 when the National Socialist regime was overthrown. The end of the dictatorship represented a break from the political past but not a paradigm shift in the political thinking of the population; Germans, in general, had a very limited awareness of democratic processes and principles (Lange 2008).

In the 1960s, citizenship education was accepted as a separate discipline within school curricula. It gave vital impetus to the idea that democracy should be promoted not only as a form of government but also as a way of life. However, the 1970s brought different conceptions of citizenship education and gave rise to polarized ideologies. Experts were divided into two camps; one believed that the aim of citizenship education was to help citizens make rational judgements, and the other believed it was to teach citizens how to emancipate themselves from those who might try to seize power (Lange 2008).

In recent years, citizenship education has experienced a renaissance as ‘education for democracy’. The main aim is to form socio-political awareness to enable the learner to develop as much autonomy and political maturity as possible. It integrates various forms of formal, non-formal, and informal learning, but within the formal education system, it is structured differently in each of the 16 federal states (Kenner 2020).

It also reproduces the normative principles of living together in a democracy, where people can share an agreed value system and still share different views (Lange 2008), thus describing an inclusive process of maturity education that emanates from the subject and is based on basic democratic values such as freedom, equality, justice and solidarity (Kenner 2020).

In Austria, the concept of global learning defines an education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the world and awakens them to a world of greater justice, equity, and human rights for all. The way to integrate Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in primary schools is through a specific, well-established discipline, already pre-established in the national curriculum, called Intercultural Education (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016). The curricula of all schools form the basis for the concrete implementation of GCE in schools.

The GCE is integrated into the pedagogical principles established for all Austrian schools. These principles are as follows. (1) Global learning, which includes the treatment of global issues as an essential task of education. Students should be able to face global challenges actively and recognize the possibilities of their own participation and contribution to the global society. (2) Intercultural education should enable people to deal respectfully with diversity in a multicultural society, according to the decree published in 2017. (3) Citizenship education deals with the political issues of the present, their historical context, and the possibilities of influencing decisions.

Citizenship education aims to actively contribute to shaping society and to realizing or further developing democracy (EACEA/EURYDICE 2023). In Austria, there is also a platform called Bildung2030 for teachers that provides ready-made lesson plans for their pupils of all ages on how to introduce global citizenship in the classroom (Heugas 2023).

The concept of Global Development Education in Bulgaria is based on the mutual relations between politics and social relations; it aims to provoke a more active sensitivity towards the social structure, such as inequality and injustice in different parts of the world.

It is defined as an educational perspective originating from the fact that contemporary people live and interact in a more globalized world (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016). Currently, in Bulgaria, more attention is paid to ‘Global Education’ than to ‘Development Education’.

The main barriers that exist today in relation to GCE are the following: (a) it is not clear how to incorporate it into existing subject areas in school or how to realize the interdisciplinary approach; (b) there is little motivation for teachers to implement it; (c) there is a lack of coordination of efforts by different actors (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016). In Bulgaria, GCE is more widespread in big cities and less in rural areas—content is difficult to access because it is mostly in English. Education for democratic citizenship aims to teach pupils the most important issues for the formation of a common citizenship identity at the primary level and, in turn, to teach human rights and plurality of values (Sardoc 2008).

Teachers are often not prepared and lack methodologies. Teachers’ qualifications are considered inadequate, and they do not have sufficient methodological competencies (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016). In 2016, Ordinance 13 of 21 September on civic, health, environmental, and intercultural education, issued by the Ministry of Education and Science, sets out the nature and objectives of the requirements for learning outcomes in schools and provides institutional policies to support this type of education (EACEA/EURYDICE 2023).

During the educational reform that took place in Slovenia from 1996 to 1999, democratic citizenship education was introduced into the national curriculum as a compulsory subject in lower secondary education (Sardoc 2008).

At the beginning of 2020, the new subject, Active Citizenship, was approved and introduced in upper secondary schools (with specific adaptations for different types of schools) for the 2020/2021 school year. Although Active Citizenship is compulsory, it should be stressed that it is not an ‘ordinary’ subject but rather a form of educational work, such as study visits, non-formal group work, etc. (Banjac 2021).

In Spain, the concept of Education for Development and Global Citizenship encompasses a continuous process through the development of knowledge, attitudes, and values. The approach includes aspects related to knowledge, participation, and the exercise of civic rights and responsibilities (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016). It requires a long learning process that begins with establishing affective relationships, acquiring social habits, and learning techniques to develop critical thinking, which facilitates the assimilation of the values on which democratic society is based in order to form future responsible, participatory, and caring citizens.

School autonomy, decentralization, and the plurality of disciplines foreseen in the curriculum allow teachers and school heads to introduce GCE in different settings (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016). Due to governmental decentralization in Spain, regions or autonomous communities can play a crucial role in promoting GCE.

In Spain, the subject ‘Education for Citizenship and Human Rights’, promoted by the socialist governments, could introduce GCE topics in school, but this subject was cancelled in 2013 in the framework of the approval of the Law for the Improvement of Educational Quality (LOMCE) (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016).

Currently, the LOMLOE Law (2020) (LOMLOE 2020) states that education for sustainable development and global citizenship must be incorporated into the educational plans and programs of all compulsory education, incorporating the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that all people need to live a successful life, make informed decisions and take an active role at the local and global level in tackling and solving the problems common to all citizens.

Citizenship education in France started with a bill passed during the French Revolution. It was at the end of the 19th century that citizenship education really developed. However, after the Second World War, ‘civic instruction’ courses were eliminated; however, since the 1980s, citizenship education has become one of the main objectives of the French school system (Feron 2008).

In the last decade, citizenship education has undergone rapid changes in the process of adapting to a new social and cultural context, in particular due to the increasingly multicultural character of French society (Feron 2008). Thus, in 2007, citizenship projects were stopped by Prime Minister Sarkozy; since then, documents regulating citizenship education in schools have only been recommendatory (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016).

Today, citizenship education in France does not have a precise meaning and presents a complex structure of content (Feron 2008). The main objective is to educate pupils on universal and humanist values, freedom, and respect for human rights. It also demonstrates that, in a context of accepted diversity, national identity is not incompatible with European identity, which is both a heritage and a future under construction.

In primary education, the civic education program includes the teaching of morals, knowledge of the symbols of the French Republic, and, for the first time, the symbols of the European Union. The curriculum also includes the study of the basic rules organizing public life and democracy, as well as knowledge of the constitutional elements of the French nation, the European Union, and the French-speaking world.

In secondary education, human rights in Europe occupy a central place in the civic education curriculum, as well as a vision of education for global citizenship. The aim is to familiarize pupils with the common values of the countries that make up the European Union (democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms) through two reference documents: the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, and the Treaty on European Union (EACEA/EURYDICE 2023).

In Greece, whether in ancient or modern Greek politics, education has traditionally been noted for promoting issues related to democracy and citizenship; this is mainly developed through the subjects of history and civic education (Symeonidis 2015).

Global citizenship education is not yet conceptualized as a distinct field or educational approach in either curriculum due to the ‘lack of curricular history’. However, some elements of GCE can be clearly identified in both national curricula.

Recent education reforms have promoted a more international orientation in education policy, probably as a result of the global economic forces that have influenced the country in recent years, although still without sufficient evidence to prove this assumption. The latest curriculum guidelines recognize the implications of living in an interconnected world and raise the importance of multicultural education (Symeonidis 2015).

In Greece, global citizenship education enables pupils to act as informed, responsible and active citizens in continuously changing and highly demanding social environments; it aims to ‘help pupils to realize the roles, rights and responsibilities they have as citizens’ and to ‘enable pupils to handle and deal with complex social and moral problems, arising in their lives, related to their personal or wider environment’; help pupils develop respect for human rights, ‘appreciate’ the role of international organizations, recognize international cooperation as a precondition for economic and cultural development, become aware of global social problems and become involved in the protection of the natural environment.

There are also some barriers to the application of GCE in Greece, with a pattern of oscillating ethnocentrism and Europeanism limiting the promotion of Education for Global Citizenship in Greek schools. This indicates that references to global concerns are made in a tokenistic rather than meaningful way.

In addition, there is also the view that ‘teachers are often afraid to teach about broader conceptions of citizenship because they themselves have little idea what it is about’. For example, teachers do not feel prepared to teach about controversial topics, such as war and conflict, because they are concerned about the possible negative impact on pupils.

Some teachers feel that they have to be careful when talking about topics such as racism or homophobia because pupils may start to fight or laugh at each other or even feel offended in some way (Symeonidis 2015). Greece, in the last two years, has set up skills labs to train children to be more aware of the environment and digitalization’ (Heugas 2023).

In Italy, citizenship education is provided through intercultural education, which is seen as the way through which students become aware of global issues and construct their own identities. Global citizenship education emphasizes civic values as fundamental principles of democracy and is taught in primary schools through a specific national curriculum, which is compulsory in primary schools (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016).

The national curriculum guidelines for primary and secondary education, created by a group of experts commissioned by the Italian Ministry of Education, contain the general recommendations for the development of school curricula for pupils aged 3–14; these guidelines do not contain any explicit reference to GCE, although the importance of new citizenship open to global challenges and diversity is emphasized. However, in February 2018, the strategy for global citizenship education was approved through the National Council for Cooperation and Development, which is the result of inter-sectoral and multi-level cooperation between national and local institutions, universities, and civil society organizations (Damiani 2018).

In Ireland, the concept of Education for Development aims to deepen understanding of global poverty and to encourage people to act for a more equal world. Although there is no explicit reference to global citizenship in school, this knowledge and these skills are easily transmitted through other teaching subjects (citizenship, development, or intercultural education).

School autonomy, decentralization, and the plurality of disciplines in the curriculum allow teachers and school leaders to introduce GCE at different levels and entry points. It can generate support for government and civil society efforts to promote a development agenda and can spur action at the community and individual levels (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016).

The 2016–2019 Education Action Plan aimed to promote Ireland as the best education and training system in Europe over the next decade through the development of five objectives where the objective of building stronger bridges between education and the wider community is linked to the strengthening of the GCE (EACEA/EURYDICE 2023).

In the Czech Republic, the introduction of GCE in primary school is related to the transition from communism to democracy and its impact on the education system. Its aim is to accept responsibility for creating a world in which all people can live in dignity (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016).

Global Development Education in the Czech Republic is defined as an ongoing educational process that supports people in understanding the differences and similarities between the lives of people in developing and developed countries, thus promoting public awareness of the economic, social, political, environmental, and cultural processes that influence them. It develops skills and supports the adoption of values and beliefs that increase people’s willingness and ability to participate actively in solving local and global problems. However, for primary school teachers, global issues are often perceived as unnecessary; pre-service training, with few exceptions, is absent (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016).

Today, the key competencies to be achieved during compulsory education represent a summary of the knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes, and values important for the personal development and usefulness of every member of society. In basic education, citizenship is considered a key competency, along with learning, problem-solving, communication, and social and personal competencies. In the Czech education system, there are different areas of educational development; the educational area ‘People and Society’ consists of history and citizenship education (EACEA/EURYDICE 2023).

In Portugal, citizenship education is a multifaceted concept that structures all curricular development. It is a pillar in the construction of a school of citizens based on the birth of a new paradigm—lifelong learning. It is an educational process that promotes social, cultural, political, and economic interrelationships between North and South and also promotes values and attitudes of solidarity and justice, which should characterize responsible global citizenship (Salema 2008).

It was in 1974 when the Carnation Revolution put an end to Portugal’s dictatorship and colonial regime, restoring basic rights and freedoms for citizens and establishing a democracy. However, European clubs have played a key role since 1986, as they are often involved in partnerships, twinning, EU and European programs, and jointly carrying out extracurricular activities to promote citizenship from a European perspective (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016).

In 2001, Decree-Law No 6/2001 introduced three new compulsory non-subject-based curricular areas: Project Area, Accompanied Study, and Civic Education. Decree-Law No 74/2004, concerning the secondary education curriculum, prescribes the cross-curricular nature of citizenship education, which should be incorporated into or complement curricular activities in all areas of secondary education (Salema 2008).

Citizenship education in Portugal, therefore, aims at the integral formation of people through awareness and understanding of the causes of the following: development problems and local and global inequalities in an interdependent context; intercultural experiences; commitment to collective action based on justice, equity, and solidarity; promotion of the right and duty of all people to participate and contribute to full and sustainable development (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2016).

In September 2017, the government launched the National Strategy for Citizenship Education, consolidating this new citizenship and development curriculum component at all levels of education and compulsory schooling, respecting the principles, values, and areas of competencies stipulated in the graduate profile for students leaving compulsory education. In relation to the ‘Citizenship and Development’ curricular component, this strategy proposes that students learn through plural and responsible participation in the construction of citizenship and fairer and more inclusive societies within the framework of democracy, respect for diversity, and the protection of human rights (EACEA/EURYDICE 2023).

To support the work of schools, the Directorate General for Education published a series of reference frameworks for citizenship education, such as the European Dimension of Education, Development Education (including the section on ‘Global Citizenship’ and the sub-section on ‘Cultural Diversity and Worldviews’) (EACEA/EURYDICE 2023).

Over time, the Netherlands has developed a broad concept of global citizenship. It focuses on participation and adds a global dimension that includes the principle of mutual dependency in the world; it also encompasses multiple issues: environment, sustainability, internationalization, human and children’s rights, diversity, etc. In recent years, global citizenship has received increasing attention in political debates and by Dutch society (NDCO 2012).

Citizenship education is a compulsory subject by law, but many schools do not know how to teach it. In the perception of Dutch teachers, global citizenship or related topics are ‘too difficult for students’, and lack of time to include global citizenship in the curriculum development of classes is also an obstacle (UNESCO 2022b).

Furthermore, some students think that ‘schoolteachers do not have enough relevant knowledge to teach content related to global citizenship’; to conclude, many principals consider that global citizenship is already covered in the regular curriculum (NDCO 2012). In 2021, the Senate passed a new law on citizenship education in primary and secondary education. The aim of the legislation is for all schools to teach pupils the basic values of democracy and the rule of law. According to this law, children should learn the basic values of a country governed by democracy and the rule of law: freedom, equality, and solidarity (EACEA/EURYDICE 2023).

The notion of citizenship is a fundamental part of the Swedish school system, expressed in the curriculum as ‘the core values/value base of the Swedish school system’ that should permeate all activities in both primary and secondary education. Although citizenship in Swedish education is not conceptualized as a distinct school subject, it is included as part of different school subjects, such as civics (Symeonidis 2015).

The Swedish education system has integrated the global dimension of citizenship as a cross-cutting theme that permeates different subjects and incorporates topics such as human rights, sustainable development, international organizations, and global social problems. Swedish students consider the global aspect to be part of their everyday lives. The main aim is to develop students’ ability to analyze local, national, and global social problems from different perspectives, helping students to become familiar with human rights, democratic processes, and ways of working (Symeonidis 2015).

The Swedish compulsory education curriculum emphasizes a form of moral and environmental cosmopolitan global citizenship, with some aspects of economic cosmopolitanism. Swedish education systems have integrated the global dimension of citizenship as a cross-cutting theme that permeates different subjects and incorporates topics such as human rights, sustainable development, especially in secondary education, international organizations, and global social problems.

In addition, Swedish education curricula have integrated a global citizenship perspective to overcome the limitations of national citizenship in a globalized world and to recognize changing patterns of identity. Although teachers seemed willing to broaden their students’ worldviews, they were reluctant to critically address different views on poverty or inequality, and the theoretical understanding of GCE must be supported by practice (Symeonidis 2015).

4. Results and Discussion

The concept of citizenship has evolved over time, and yet it varies from country to country, depending on differences in political and historical contexts, among other factors. There are also different approaches to the concept of global citizenship, such as the extent to which it applies and complements traditional citizenship, defined in terms of the nation-state. Global citizenship (UNESCO 2014b) refers to a sense of belonging to a wider community and a common humanity. It emphasizes political, economic, social, and cultural interdependence and interconnections between local, national, and global levels.

In this section, the interpretation of the previous national description is followed by the juxtaposition and comparison of the GCE dimensions. Based on the analyzed data and the criteria established by UNESCO as outlined above, the comparative study allows us to determine which of the three GCE dimensions are developed in the selected countries.

Table 2. Juxtaposition of GCE dimensions based on the European countries.

	Cognitive	Socio-Emotional	Conductual
Germany	Based on the principle that democracy is not only a form of government but a way of life. It integrates various forms of learning.	The aim is to form socio-political awareness, such that pupils can develop their critical spirit and critical thinking. It reproduces the principles of democratic coexistence, where people can share a consensual system of values.	It underpins a process of education for maturity that emanates from the individual and is based on basic democratic values such as freedom, equality, justice, and solidarity.
Austria	The concept defines an eye-opening education to the realities of the world and to achieving greater justice, equity, and human rights for all.	It empowers people to deal respectfully with diversity in a multicultural society.	It seeks to enable students to recognize the possibilities of their own participation and to contribute as part of the global society.
Bulgaria	The concept is based on the mutual relations between politics and social relations.	It aims to generate a more active sensitivity to inequality and injustice. It incorporates a global perspective.
Slovenia	It wants to teach students concepts centered on human rights and plurality of values.	It aims to strengthen a common citizenship identity.	The teaching–learning processes of active citizenship are worked on from a practical point of view.
Spain	Knowledge development and critical thinking.	Development of attitudes and values of participation and the exercise of civic rights and responsibilities.	It aims to assimilate democratic values and take an active role in solving common problems for all citizens.
France	It aims to actively educate society and citizens to become engaged.	Strengthening civic values and fundamental principles of democracy. Strengthening a vision of a global humanity.	It aims to empower individual and collective contributions to build a just, caring, and sustainable world.
Greece	CBE is not specifically defined in the curriculum. It is incorporated within the two existing curricula.	It has a more international orientation in education policy, Develops students’ critical thinking and respect for human rights. It provides a global vision and a great appreciation for the role of international organizations.	It empowers students to become informed, responsible, and active citizens in continuously changing and highly demanding social environments.
Netherlands	Conceptually, it incorporates multiple themes such as environment, sustainability, internationalization, human and children’s rights, and diversity.	It includes a global vision that incorporates the principle of mutual dependence in the world.	The focus of ECM in the Netherlands is on active participation.
Italy	Develops knowledge, attitudes, and skills.	Generation of values and awareness of global issues and in the construction of their own identity.	It instills the construction of a new participatory citizenship open to global challenges and diversity.
Ireland	Develops knowledge and attitudes.	It aims to generate a more active sensitivity to poverty, inequality, and injustice.	It aims to empower individuals to build a fair and caring society.
Portugal	GCSE structures the whole curriculum development based on lifelong learning. It has a cross-curricular character, complementing curricular activities in all teaching areas.	It promotes values and attitudes of solidarity and justice that should characterize responsible global citizenship.	It is seen as an educational process that promotes social, cultural, political, and economic interrelationships between North and South.
Czech Republic	It is defined as an ongoing educational process of developing aptitudes, skills, abilities, and knowledge.	It promotes the development of values.	They aim to increase people’s capacity to actively participate in solving local and global problems.
Sweden	The curriculum is developed by incorporating concepts such as human rights, sustainable development, international organizations, and global social issues.	The main objective is to develop students’ ability to analyze problems and internalize values and principles (human rights, sustainable development, environment). Broad and global vision.	It is instilled to address global social problems in a critical and participatory way.

provides the core information to achieve the aim of this work, as it gathers all the references to the teaching and learning of GCE that were founded in the national curricula:

From the juxtaposition of the dimensions of GCE in the studied countries, we can observe in Table 2 that the same dimensions are present in all countries, although they are shown in different ways. On one side, the cognitive dimension in formal education is linked to the curriculum and, in non-formal and informal education, to the concrete experiences that allow students to incorporate concepts and develop skills and aptitudes. On the other side, the socio-emotional dimension is, in all cases, linked to the internalization of values and moral principles that promote awareness of diverse realities through empathy, solidarity, etc. The behavioral dimension is based on the participatory and responsible action of pupils as citizens in the face of the existing reality.

Furthermore, we can identify that there is a double tendency with respect to the initial approach to GCE, which stems from the historical reality experienced by each country. While countries with consolidated democratic history evidence a first approach to the concept of GCE that is more open, with a more global outlook, countries that historically experienced communist regimes initially developed a concept of GCE focused on reaffirming a patriotic national identity that underpins the principles of a democratic society.

Global citizenship education is now receiving widespread support and is compulsory at all stages of general education in the vast majority of European countries, although not necessarily in all grades, and its place in the curriculum varies from country to country (European Commission 2018).

Furthermore, in relation to the learning goals from a comparative point of view based on the studies presented by ICCS 2016 and ICCS 2022, it can be seen that most countries have maintained the main learning content over time. Countries that have modified their contents have made adjustments according to changes in legislation or approach, such as Spain, Italy, Slovenia, and Latvia, with different approaches coexisting in the studied countries, GCE can be taught as a stand-alone subject or as a cross-cutting subject in the curriculum.

Based on the data collected in the methodological framework, on the one hand, we have compared the GCE curricula in several European countries using the categories established in the theoretical framework (UNESCO 2016). On the other hand, the studied structural and institutional factors that establish the framework within which GCE is taught and learned in the European Education Area are also triangulated for the purpose of this study. Therefore, indicators concerning the GCE competence and its developments, as well as teacher preparation for its teaching, are being compared between the studied countries.

From the available data of the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) for the European countries in the current target 4.7 in the 2030 Agenda, according to (UNESCO-UIS 2024), the percentage of lower secondary school pupils showing an adequate understanding of issues related to global citizenship and sustainability is mostly female, as can be seen in the following

Table 3. Percentage of lower secondary school pupils showing an adequate understanding of global citizenship and sustainability issues, as well as the incorporation of GCE into teachers’ training (UNESCO-UIS 2024).

Country	Year (2016)	Female (2016)	Male (2016)	GCE into Teachers Training (2020)
Albany	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	0.68
Austria	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	0.70
Belgium	49.00	54.00	45.00	0.80
Bulgaria	55.00	64.00	47.00	0.73
Croatia	69.00	76.00	63.00	0.55
Cyprus	46.00 *	51.00 *	41.00 *	0.95
Czechia	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	0.55
Denmark	57.00	64.00	51.00	0.77
Estonia	54.00	62.00	45.00	0.95
Germany	57.00	62.00	51.00	0.95
France	55.00 *	57.00 *	53.00 *	1.00
Finland	65.00	76.00	56.00	0.85
Hungary	42.00 *	37.00 *	47.00 *	0.93
Italy	62.00	69.00	56.00	0.80
Ireland	29.00	N.A.	N.A.	0.85
Latvia	41.00	48.00	33.00	0.95
Lithuania	54.00	60.00	47.00	0.90
Malta	50.00	60.00	41.00	0.90
Norway	64.00	72.00	57.00	N.A.
Netherlands	42.00	47.00	38.00	N.A.
Poland	75.00 *	78.00 *	71.00 *	0.90
Slovenia	60.00	69.00	52.00	0.85
Spain	60.00 *	64.00 *	56.00 *	0.95
Sweden	68.00	76.00	60.00	N.A.

Notes: * Year 2021; N.A.: Not available. Source: UNESCO-UIS, SDG-Database (2024) (UNESCO-UIS 2024). The indicator to measure the extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development are mainstreamed in teacher education is sourced from the country reports on the implementation of the UNESCO 1974 Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Cooperation, and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (UNESCO-UIS 2024). When it comes to the percentage of students in lower secondary school who show adequate understanding of issues relating to global citizenship and sustainability, UIS estimates this data point based on ICCS/PISA QUALIFIER (UNESCO-UIS 2024).

. With regard to these indicators, comparative information from secondary sources such as the recent 2022 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement study also records a significant mean difference of just over two points on the scale between female and male students, with female students expressing more support for GCE than male students. According to this report, with respect to teaching and learning processes, students in Italy, France, the Czech Republic, and Sweden are expected to be formally assessed in relation to learning outcomes in civic citizenship education, with education systems providing formal ratings of such outcomes at the end of terms or school years in France, Italy, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden; although in no country, except Italy, are schools expected to inform students’ families about the aims and approaches of civic and citizenship education (Schulz et al. 2023).

The indicator to measure the extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development are mainstreamed in teacher education considers GCE to be incorporated if (i) and (ii) are explicitly mentioned in the relevant documents related to initial training, and that is expected to be applied by the competent authorities. The closer the value is to 1000, the higher the level of incorporation of GCE to fulfil this target. When data for this indicator are compared, a great disparity is found for the European region where France, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, or Spain show a very high level of completion in contrast to Albany, Czechia, or Croatia, which are halfway to achieving this goal. Hence, teacher training in this regard and the incorporation of these approaches into the study plans in these three countries have achieved the lowest degree of incorporation compared to the rest of the countries. The available data from this sample of countries also confirm the strong commitment of European countries to GCE, given that the vast majority of them have implemented it in their teachers’ training with a notable scope above 0.7 points out of 1. Nevertheless, information is not available for some European countries, such as Portugal, concerning goal 4.7. or some values for the 4.7.1 or 4.7.4 indicators, as can be observed in Table 3, which poses a challenge for the monitoring and comparability of these key aspects in the GCE.

In this regard, in 2022, the UNESCO Global Teacher Survey (UNESCO 2022b) revealed that one in four teachers do not feel prepared to teach topics related to sustainable development or global citizenship and peace. Furthermore, only 20% of teachers have resources on how to teach GCE, and more than 40% of teachers consider the lack of relevant tools to be the biggest obstacle to this teaching. While the survey shows that more than 90% of teachers believe that it is important to teach GCE, it was also relevantly concluded that teachers’ awareness of the importance and urgency of GCE does not necessarily imply that they teach these topics. Similarly, regarding student assessment, the same survey revealed that the main challenges faced by teachers in this regard are the lack of assessment tools or guidelines (more than 35%) and the fact that national assessments exclude interdisciplinary subjects (around 30%) (UNESCO 2022b).

The study by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, ICCS in 2022 (Schulz et al. 2023) also reflects the level of autonomy that schools have over the planning and development of citizenship education, indicated by the following factors: the choice of textbooks and teaching materials; establishing learning assessment procedures; planning the curriculum; determining the content of in-service teacher education; organizing extracurricular activities; building partnerships with other organizations and institutions; participating in joint projects with other schools both nationally and internationally. It is clear from this study that, in general, schools have more autonomy in organizing extracurricular activities (reported by 90% of school heads) than in planning the curriculum itself.

In general, civic and citizenship education is overwhelmingly taught by teachers of subjects related to human/social sciences (e.g., history, geography, law, or economics). Moreover, preparation for civic and citizenship education in countries where it is compulsory tends to be compulsory for teachers of human/social sciences and, in most education systems, for teachers of language and literature, teachers of religion/ethics, and teachers of ‘other’ subjects. To a lesser extent, it is compulsory for mathematics and science teachers and specialist teachers. In most education systems, teachers of humanities and social sciences are expected to receive in-service training or professional development in this area of learning. In almost half of the countries, specialist teachers were expected to have this preparation, and, in some systems, it was also compulsory for the group of teachers of other subjects (Schulz et al. 2023).

In terms of student perception, globally oriented citizenship behaviors were considered more important, with significant differences across countries and almost four scale points on average, among students with higher levels of civic knowledge compared to other students with lower levels of civic knowledge (Tarozzi and Inguaggiato 2018, p. 170). The three main intended objectives of civic and citizenship education are linked to the cognitive dimension: firstly, fostering students’ critical and independent thinking (58%), followed by fostering knowledge of citizens’ rights and responsibilities (46%) and fostering respect for the environment (36%) (Schulz et al. 2023).

Similarly, the ICCS 2022 report (Schulz et al. 2023, p. 170) asked students to rate their perception of the importance of what constitutes good citizenship behavior; the item set was modified from the previous cycles in 2009 and 2016 and included four new items asking about performance related to global citizenship issues, namely:

• Items related to conventional citizenship were: ‘Vote in all national elections’ (78%); ‘Join a political party’ (33%); ‘Follow political issues in the newspaper, radio, television or Internet’ (67%); and ‘Participate in political debates’ (40%).
• Items related to citizenship linked to social movements were: ‘Participate in peaceful protests against laws considered unjust’ (58%); ‘Participate in activities for the benefit of people in the local community’ (76%); ‘Participate in activities to promote human rights’ (81%); and ‘Participate in activities to protect the environment’ (84%).
• Items related to global citizenship were: ‘Showing interest in different cultures and languages’ (72%); ‘making personal lifestyle changes to be more environmentally friendly’ (80%); ‘supporting initiatives that promote equal opportunities for all people in the world’ (81%); and ‘helping people in less developed countries’ (83%).

The resulting scales have satisfactory average reliability in all countries. All four items related to the importance of global citizenship score high levels of support (measured as percentages of students rating the behaviors as very or fairly important): Four out of five students (83%) felt that helping people in less developed countries, supporting initiatives that promote equal opportunities for all people around the world (81%) and making personal lifestyle changes to be more environmentally friendly (80%) were important for good citizenship, while almost three quarters (72%) felt that showing interest in different cultures and languages was quite important. Scores on the scale of the importance of global citizenship among pupils ranged from 47 in the Netherlands to 53 in Italy (Schulz et al. 2023, p. 182). Similarly, the percentages of teachers rating the importance of global citizenship were higher than those of pupils: around nine out of ten teachers rated the importance of global citizenship higher than those of pupils (Schulz et al. 2023, p. 229): around nine out of ten teachers considered showing interest in different cultures and languages (mean percentage 89%), making personal lifestyle changes to be more environmentally friendly (92%), supporting initiatives that promote equal opportunities for all people around the world (93%) and helping people in less developed countries (96%) to be important for good citizenship.

Finally, GCE is considered more important among students with higher levels of civic knowledge compared to other students with lower levels of civic knowledge, with significant differences across countries and almost four points differences on average. This difference was largest in Cyprus and Malta. There was also a significant average difference of just over two points between female and male students, with female students expressing more support than male students. This positive association with the female gender was significant in 17 countries (Schulz et al. 2023, p. 278).

5. Conclusions and Foresight

Throughout this text, we have dealt with the reality of global citizenship education in European countries that have been developing a broader path in their education systems in order to put into practice the global discourse on the exercise of this goal, which has also become a key competence for the European education area. However, the diversity of interpretations and approaches in EU countries shows that national identity in the shaping of democratic exercise and its imprint on the way of conceiving education for citizenship and its connection with the global facet result in the shaping of a wide spectrum in terms of institutionalizing goal 4.7 in the curriculum. A specific analysis of the tensions between nation-building efforts to inculcate global citizenships and the government’s leading ideologies in each country could further complement this study.

This study has made it possible to identify limitations and prospects for research in this area, firstly because of the lack of data that would allow for the supranational perspective to be completed (specifically, here, the EU and some of its member states). Secondly, there is a need for case studies that would allow an in-depth and detailed analysis of the application of these policies and their practices in order to enable subsequent rigorous comparative studies to be carried out. The main limitation of the study is that there is a lack of research on GCE in the European Education Area and systematic monitoring of information on the subject, which could allow us to identify the trends and challenges to achieve the 4.7. goal in the European framework.

As regards the main conclusion of this study, we can point out that of the conceptual dimensions of global citizenship education identified by (UNESCO 2016)—cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral—all the countries studied work on them in different ways and in different depths. The cognitive dimension is linked, in all cases, to the acquisition of knowledge and the development of critical thinking in students, where the curriculum and the development of specific GCE actions in both formal and non-formal and informal education are key. Moreover, the development of the socio-emotional dimension is generated from an attitude based on a varied understanding of the multiple levels of existing identities and the possibility of building a ‘collective identity’ that transcends cultural, religious, ethnic, or other differences. Finally, the behavioral dimension encourages the active and responsible participation of all individuals in society, transcending personal and local problems, to contribute to a collective action that seeks a sustainable and harmonious global world.

Likewise, based on the reality of the countries analyzed, we can infer that there is a trend in countries emerging from communist regimes linked to the development of the concept of GCE, which focuses initially on reaffirming a patriotic national identity that underpins democratic principles. However, GCE is not, and should not be, a promotion of the citizenship models of a particular country or region (Boni et al. 2020). Global is the equivalent perception of a common understanding of the concept based on what unites humanity. It is worth noting that this is not a trivial issue, as it has direct implications for the processes of subjectification of children, which in some ways are reflected in the research results in the gender differences in both the competencies developed and the attitudes acquired. Moreover, research at the national and international levels supports the adequacy of the critical GCE approach to promote teacher training as an agent of social change and as a promoter of global social justice (Andreotti 2006; Mayor Zaragoza 2015; Pashby and Sund 2019; Boni et al. 2020; Bourn 2022). This requires introducing changes in their initial training, directing the contents towards issues that address the systemic inequalities of our societies, the value of diversity, and the challenges of the current environmental crisis, as well as seeking participatory methodologies that allow mobilizing learning at the level cognitive, emotional, social and behavioral (UNESCO 2019). Previous research shows that since the United Nations proposal condenses the current challenges we face as humanity for a sustainable, prosperous future focused on caring for people and the planet, the general framework drawn by the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda is a favorable scenario to introduce changes in training initial university education of professionals in general and future teachers in particular, (Calvo and Castro 2021). This study confirms the strong commitment of European countries to GCE, given that the vast majority of them have implemented it in their curriculum and teachers’ training. Nevertheless, there is a broader need to strengthen the integration of GCE through curriculum innovation to introduce original ideas or practices that are new and different from those in the prescribed curriculum (Alvero 2023; Buchanan et al. 2018; Gough 2013). Focused on social and educational co-responsibility in both students and university teachers, various training activities connected to education for global citizenship and sustainable development can be implemented in coherence to guarantee the right to education in accordance with the GCE (Ancheta-Arrabal and Cercos-Chamorro 2024).

To take up UNESCO’s proposal of education as a global common good towards a European Education Area, contemplating the current situation of globalized and interconnected humanity, implies a worldview of education as an end in itself, without the need to appeal to other external ends and underlying utilitarianisms, but taking into account the socio-cultural dynamism and transformative potential of education, with the aim of fostering cooperation between different international perspectives. Hence, minimum requirements can be established to guarantee quality education for all, with minimum values that describe this humanistic orientation of education (Ancheta-Arrabal 2023). Education as a common good must be understood as a community good that is built by everyone, such that we all can enjoy it and which enables people to form themselves as autonomous, fair, and responsible subjects (Lehtomäki et al. 2018) acting as global educators (Ellis 2016). Hence, GCE is assumed from the right to education itself, beyond being established as a laudable objective of global agendas, to enable the active participation of the European younger generations in making decisions for their future today in the most immediate present but hyper-connected with humanity.