Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

This chapter discusses global education within the context of globalization. The premise of the paper is that globalization remains a unifying and destabilizing global force that continues to shape and reshape values, ideologies, theologies, processes, policies, individuals, and cultures in the twenty-first century. At the dawn of the new century, the global community realized that it faced daunting challenges to overcome problems of global terrorism, global diseases, globalization, immigration, environmental degradation, and global economy (Kirkwood 1995; Merryfield 2001; Zajda 2010a, b).

In this extended discussion, I will focus on the following questions: To what extent can globalization and global education foster global security and peace, environmental safety, social justice, and transformative leadership? To what extent can globalization and global education contribute to a transformative civil global society? To what extent does religion play a role in global education? If the overarching goals of global education are (1) to prepare young individuals to become national and global citizens, (2) to provide global knowledge, skills, and disposition needed to transform the world, (3) to preserve and sustain global cultural values, global teacher educators and classroom teachers should, therefore, provide the appropriate pedagogy to attain these goals. Many global educators have called for global education to be universally taught in schools (Gutek 2006; Kirkwood 1995; Merryfield 2001; Zajda 2010a, b) in order to achieve these goals.

In Rethinking Global Education in the Twenty-first Century (2010), I argued that the field of global education in the United States should rethink and reconceptualize the field in order to respond to current global realities and to the exigencies of globalization and concluded that global education holds the delicate balance between world security and peace and socioeconomic development.

2 Context

Global education began as a social movement in the United States in the early 1900s. By 1918, when World War I ended, there was a need to establish international schools to deal with problems caused by the war. Similarly, by the end of World War 11 in 1945, the world had recorded unprecedented lost of lives and property. In 1948, United Nations was formed to promote world peace, security, and economic development. There was a need around the world to educate for global security and peace. Also, in 1948, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was established, and the Declaration of Human Rights was made. In 1960, the Cold War emerged. This was the war between two super powers: the United States and USSR. The war ended in 1990, giving rise to a new global economic order and a new globalization. The collapse of the Cold War led to the conceptualization of global education for national and global citizenship education in American public schools (Kirkwood 1995; Merryfield 2001; Zajda and Daun 2009; Zajda 2010a, b).

In the twentieth century, global educators were faced with issues and problems emanating from the two great wars, as discussed earlier. Conflicts during this era shaped the behaviors and attitudes of leaders around the world and the human character and values of the twentieth century. There are three broad categories of conflicts: religious conflict, ethnic conflict, and conflicts that arose out of historical animosity between individuals and groups. A case in point is the ideological conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union over liberalism, communism, fascism, capitalism, and democracy. During this conflict in 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1. In the 1960s, there was another conflict in the United States, which had global consequences – the struggle for civil rights, human rights, and social justice. This conflict influenced freedom fighters around the world, particularly in Asia and Africa to demand rule, freedom, and independence. Many found solace in the struggle and the courage to demand freedom and justice from the colonial oppressors (Zajda and Daun 2009).

In the 1970s, and throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, global events of such as the oil glut, the IMF/World Bank structural adjustments policies in the developing world, integration of national economies, globalization, environmental disasters, and natural calamities, such as tsunami, post-September 11, 2001, and the 2008 global financial crisis, have made global education as an academic discipline/curriculum to be taught in American schools and schools around the world. International and supranational educational agencies such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), World Bank, UNESCO, United Nations Intercultural Children Education Fund (UNICEF), the European Union (EU), and other agencies continue to promote global education-related programs (Kirkwood 1995; Merryfield 2001; Zajda and Daun 2009).

3 Globalization

Gutek’s (2006) defines globalization as “the systems or processes that promote worldwide involvement, relationships, adaptations, and connections between peoples of different countries, cultures and languages” (p. 100). Thomas Friedman (1999) wrote that globalization has a long history and tradition and that the period of globalization that preceded World War 1 was quite similar to the one we are currently living through today. He argued that the first era of globalization and global finance was greatly impacted by World War 1 (1914–1918) and the Great Depression in the United States (1929–1930). He concluded that a new globalization emerged after World War 11 (1945–1948) and the Cold War (1945–1989). This new globalization is different in terms of degree, intensity, and the speed with which it is tying together elements of globalization into a single globalized marketplace. But this homogeneity and nature of globalization is giving global educators a serious concern.

Zajda, on the other hand, redefines globalization as a new “dominant ideology of cultural (especially economic, political, social, technological and educational) convergence, which is characterised by increasing economic and political interdependence between nations, and which ultimately transforms the ethnocentric core of nation-state and national economy” (Zajda 2010a, b). He also argues that globalization may have an adverse negative effect on higher education sector and on education in general, while others continue to argue that the globalized world is fundamentally heterogeneous, unequal, and conflictive, rather than integrated and flawless programs (Kirkwood 1995; Merryfield 2001; Zajda and Daun 2009; Zajda 2010a, b).

The globalization process that started in the early 1990s had the following characteristics: (1) state economic planning and centralization no longer provided a viable alternate policy to the free market capitalist model and (2) market-driven capitalism as recognized in the United States and other technologically developed Western nations and Japan was closely associated with political democracy (Gutek 2006). Because international trade and the global economy are fueling changes in the world, global education can offer students the opportunity to make connections and interact with people different from them. Some of the interactions, for example, are seen in the area of economic globalization, where there is increasing personal, group, corporate greed, and wealth, on one hand, uncertainty and instability on the other. Globalization may have created both opportunities and challenges for both developed and developing countries; global educators should provide students the opportunity to critically evaluate information that are floating out there. Zajda (2010a, b) is concerned that the economic rationalism and neoconservative ideology that are gradually becoming the dominant ideologies in education may support the idea of seeing students as product and as goods and services to foster economic stability and growth and allowing the “business” model to be entrenched in education (Zajda 2014).

But globalization is having a firm footing in educational discourse around the world. The concept has found expression in nearly all areas of human interest. It encompasses different dimensions such as social, cultural, political, environmental, religious, educational, and economic. It is well documented that globalization has its roots in trade and in economics, but now it has both social and political consequences of international magnitude. One of the challenges of globalization and the global competitive market are the upsurge in the “knowledge-based economy,” and this is having profound differential effects in higher institutions around the world. This differentiation is greatly felt at higher institutions in the United States. For example, university administrators are now vehemently complaining that American secondary schools are not preparing students to be highly competitive in the global economy. As a result, policy makers are now discussing and debating how to realign the curriculum at the secondary and tertiary level to respond to the impact of globalization. How colleges of education and teacher educators respond to these challenges will determine how matured the field will become in the twenty-first century (Merryfield 2001).

Globalization has also created opportunities and challenges for teacher education in the United States. The biggest challenge for the teacher educators in the colleges of education is to see some of their programs housed in other colleges, particularly in the college of arts and sciences. This trend is now emerging across higher institutions in the United States. The resulting global interdependence and interconnectedness requires an understanding of the complex connections among individuals, groups, institutions, nations, and transnational communities. Teachers and students in the United States need to develop knowledge and skills to survive in the globalized world of the twenty-first century, a world characterized by globalization, terrorism, environmental degradation, and a strong belief in religious tenets. Global educators continue to argue that emphasis should be placed on developing students’ critical thinking and problem solving. They also argue that students need to develop and demonstrate collaborative, communicative, and creativity skills. Students are then expected to apply the knowledge and skills to real-life situations and make real-life connections both locally and globally.

Larry Ray, in his book Globalization and everyday Life, suggested that globalization has changed our social concept of self. He argued that globalization has changed the way we think about ourselves, our cultures, and how we imagine our futures.

The problems of globalization in developing nations can also offer teachers and students the opportunity to analyze global issues and problems comparatively. The idea that the world has not only become an interdependent and interconnected global village but also a stage for increasingly hostile and violent place where political and economic mismanagement and perpetual conflicts should be critically examined and analyzed. Global teacher educators understand that teachers and students must be active participants in addressing and resolving global issues and problems. Zajda (2010a, b) concludes that there is “sufficient evidence to suggest that globalization and the forces of globalization have contributed to a new dimension of socio-economic stratification, which will have implications for equity of educational opportunities in decades to come” (Zajda 2010a, b, p. 7).

4 Global Education

Global education is the learning about the interplay of political, ecological, cultural, and economic systems in the world stage. Global education is a component part of international education, a distinct field of educational research. In the United States, global education or the internationalization of K-12 education is offered as a curriculum to students in K-12, and this is done primarily through the social studies program. At the collegiate level, it takes the form of global studies or international or intercultural studies. Gutek (2006) makes this distinction when he classified all the related disciplines with global undertone, such as comparative education, foreign policy studies, regional or area studies, international development and development education, peace education, and environmental education. These are academic fields related to international education.

Anderson (1990) argued that global teacher educators should prepare secondary social studies teachers to teach about issues and problems of the world, such as foreign policy, maintenance of national security, control of warfare, reduction of poverty, promotion of human rights, and preservation of environment. Furthermore, Anderson argued that global educators at the secondary level should focus on expanding and improving the study of world history, world geography, world economics, world politics, or world ecology. Others seek to expand students’ understanding of cultural diversity through the cross-cultural study of literature, art, music, dance, religion, and social customs. Many others seek to expand and improve the study of foreign languages, including the rarely studied languages that are of growing importance to the United States, such as Japanese, Chinese, Russian, and Arabic.

Still, many other global educators devote their energies to improving instruction about the other regions of the world such as Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Still others focus on improving education about world problems such as the maintenance of national security, the control of warfare, the reduction of world poverty, the promotion of human rights, and the preservation of ecological well-being. Some seek to place the study of American society and its history in a world context so as to highlight the ways in which American cities, states, and the nation as a century issues and problems; global educators began to think global education for the new century. This was evidenced in national, regional, and international presentations at conferences on global and international education worldwide.

This UNESCO declaration has become the guiding framework for defining global education. For example, in 2002, the UN stated in the Maastricht Global Education Declaration that “global education is education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the globalised world” and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all.

One of the overarching goals of global education, therefore, is to prepare learners for responsible national and global citizenship. Developing students’ global perspectives and cross-cultural sensitivity and understanding are the means that global educators use to achieve their goals. Global teacher educators have developed programs geared toward improving teachers’ and learners ‘global thinking and global consciousness’ by developing global awareness programs through the expansion of social studies curriculum with more content on Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East. Others have infused the voices of others in the curriculum (Kirkwood 1995; Merryfield 2001).

The vision of UNESCO and of the pioneers of the global education movement in the United States and elsewhere is to see a world that is safer politically, militarily, economically, and ecologically. Some of the central objectives of global education include preparing and developing learners to (a) understand multiple perspectives; (b) demonstrate knowledge of different cultural understanding (beliefs, values, perspectives, practices, and products); (c) understand similarities and differences in peoples, cultures, and nations; (d) demonstrate knowledge of global dynamics, issues, problems, trends, and systems; (f) demonstrate the capacity to think, reflect, write, and articulate issues, problems, and ideas from historical, philosophical, sociological, and psychological in a comparative context; and (g) develop and demonstrate the ability to make decision and apply knowledge of global education to solve problems in the global community. Global education then becomes a process that seeks to prepare learners to live in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world where the study of and interactions with humans and others in that ecological system will secure the Planet Earth (Abdullahi 2004, 2010a, b; Zajda 2010a, b).

Finally, the recent social revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Jordan, and Syria in early 2011 have created opportunities for global educators to reclaim the field and reconceptualize the vision, mission, and goals of global education for the twenty-first century. By doing so, global education will be helping students to understand their role in transforming the world and thus contributing to the global civil society.

5 Global Pedagogy

Global pedagogy deals with the teaching and learning about global issues and problems to primary and secondary students. Global andragogy deals with the teaching of adults (adult education) about the world in a formal setting. Global education as a transformative learning process requires an understanding of the role of global pedagogy. To transform learners, global education should be an opportunity to move learners the “culture of individualism to a culture of partnership based on dialogue and cooperation.” Gutek (2006) believes that “there is a need to provide knowledge about globalization as a process and analysis of how it affects people in a multi-dimensional way” (pg. 111). He continues that education for globalization is both conceptual and applied, which involves the infusion of knowledge about the meaning, processes, and implications of globalization for society, and the economy into the curriculum (pg. 111). The conceptual, theoretical and practical solutions to global issues and problems involve the use of appropriate instructional strategies. The impact of global issues and problems also has implications on the social, economic, political, environmental institutions, and systems.

Global pedagogy is enhanced by technology. Technological advances have either removed or lowered many barriers allowing individuals, nation states, multinational corporations, institutions, and systems to be homogenized. The realities of global interdependence require deeper understanding of increasing and diverse global connections among world societies and regions. Young learners around the world are now heavily engaged with technological devices, and they are already learning to deal with complexities of the world through their interactions and experiences with the Internet and with computer games and simulations. Understanding the effects of globalization and how to solve issues and problems caused by globalization, for example, can pose serious challenge to teachers interested in teaching about the world. Understanding requires students to create, consider, propose, test, question, criticize, and verify. When students are able to apply these skills in a global context, they are indeed fostering global understanding.

Research in global education continues to support the view that young people around the world, particularly American youths, continue to lag behind in global knowledge, skills, and disposition (Abdullahi 2010a, b). Other research studies point to secondary students’ inadequate use of essential skills to deal with complex issues and problems caused by globalization such as global terrorism and environmental degradation. Therefore, many global teacher educators have concluded that the global education issues concerning foreign investment, security, peace, and environmental education will remain insignificant in American public schools, and in schools around the world, until the field of global education is fully reconceptualized to support literacy. As Abdullahi (2010a, b) argued in Rethinking Global Education in the 21st Century, “a new framework must seriously consider how to develop a pedagogy that will be integrative and link language, religion, politics, economics, and legal systems to one universal mode transmitting learning and knowledge to future generations without seriously undermining national sovereignty and national identity” (pg. 24).

This will also provide students the opportunity to apply the skills in a global context furthering their ability to be effective national and global citizens. Teachers would emphasize understanding multiple perspectives, cross-cultural sensitivity. They would emphasize the understanding of different people and their cultures including understanding their beliefs and values systems. Teachers would emphasize developing students’ capacity to think, write, reflect, and articulate issues and problems from a national, international, and comparative perspective. Finally, teachers would emphasize developing students’ critical thinking, communication, and technological skills in order to effectively solve national, regional, and global problems (Abdullahi 2004; Zajda 2005, 2010a).

If indeed the goals of global education are to prepare students to develop global perspectives, then serious efforts are needed to introduce the concept of global pedagogy and globalization in schools. Global education prepares students to act responsibly and contribute productively in the national and global community; it develops in students the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for effective national and world citizenships (Abdullahi 2004; Zajda 2005, 2010a, b). Again, in Rethinking Global Education in the 21st Century, for example, Abdullahi (2010a, b) argued that global educators in the United States now have to come to the realization that many students at the secondary level are not developing the social and cognitive skills, and the global perspectives needed to live cooperatively, collaboratively in a multicultural and pluralistic environment, not the knowledge to compete effectively in the new global economy.

6 Global Education in American Schools

The introduction of global education in the American schools in the United States began with the publication of the Foreign Policy Association’s report entitled An Examination of Objectives and Priorities in International Education in U.S. Secondary Schools in 1968. The publication paved the way for the conceptualization, design, and implementation of global education programs in teacher education and public schools. As a result, global teacher educators, such as Lee Anderson, Charlotte Anderson, John Goodlad, Robert Hanvey, and James Becker conceptualized, designed, and implemented global education programs for teacher education in the early 1970s. Their work was a response to changes in the world caused by political and economic forces. They believe that information and knowledge about the world should inform our collective minds, so that young people everywhere can better understand themselves and their role in the world relative to other people, cultures, and nations. Their ultimate goal is to see students become active participants in changing their communities and the world. They also believe that global education can be the mechanism for social and political change at the school level.

The integration of global education into the American schools has been slow and difficult. Tucker and Evans (1996) wrote that during the mid-1980s, some global education programs came under attack from every corner, including the Center for Teaching International Relations (CTIR), University of Denver. As a consequence, many colleges of education and school districts across the nation failed to endorse or promote global education. Even lessons learned from World War II and the end of the Cold War were not enough to sway people in the direction of promoting and developing global perspectives in American schools. There was the perception by the radical right wing that “global education is un-American and has a secular humanistic plot” (Tucker and Evans 1996, pg. 193).

Two global education programs – the Iowa Global Education Association (IGEA) program, which grew out of the model United Nations program in the early 1970s, and the Chadwick Alger’s “Columbus and the World, the World in Columbus” – were designed to supplement the teaching of citizenship education program. Citizenship education was the core organizing theme of social studies education in American schools at the elementary level. The pilot programs subsequently became the models for other global education programs.

7 Task Force for Global Education in America

In 1977, Ernest Boyer, United States Commissioner of Education, established a Task Force on Global Education to examine the national need for global perspectives in education. One of the findings was that there is a need for developing global perspectives in American schools. In the 1980s, another Task Force of the United States Governors Association, chaired by former Governor of Arkansas and former president, William J. Clinton, was formed. One of the conclusions of the task force was that international education is as important as economic prosperity, national security, and world stability. The Task Force made seven recommendations:

  1. 1.

    International education must become a part of the basic education of all our students.

  2. 2.

    More of our students must gain proficiency in foreign languages.

  3. 3.

    Teachers must know more about international issues.

  4. 4.

    Schools and teachers need to know about the wealth of resources and materials, other than textbooks, that are available for international education.

  5. 5.

    All graduates of our colleges and universities must be knowledgeable about the broader world and conversant in another language.

  6. 6.

    Business and community support of international education should be increased.

  7. 7.

    The business community must have access to international education, particularly information about exports, trade regulations, and overseas cultures (America in Transition 1989).

As result of the declaration, colleges of education and school districts across the nation began to encourage the teaching of global education. Many global educators developed courses and applied for various types of state and federal grants. In 1981, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), the leading professional organization for social studies educators, issued policy position statements that urged schools to become effective agents of citizenship education for a global age. In 1982, the NCSS defined global education as “the efforts to cultivate in young people a perspective of the world, which emphasizes the interconnections among cultures, species, and the planet” (pg. 1). The NCSS recommended that social studies curricula should emphasize:

  1. 1.

    Globalization of the human experience

  2. 2.

    Individuals, non-state groups, such as multinational corporations, churches, and scientific organizations, as well as local governments and national leaders

  3. 3.

    People and the environment

  4. 4.

    Linkages between past and present social, political, economic, and ecological realities and alternative futures

  5. 5.

    All people making choices in the ways in which they participate in world affairs

Since the 1981 NCSS declaration, past presidents have urged social studies global educators to promote and advance the teaching of global education in colleges of education and American schools. For example, in 1983, NCSS President, Carole Hahn, challenged social studies educators to prepare students to be both national citizens and citizens of the global society. In 1992, NCSS President, Charlotte Anderson, urged social studies educators to help students understand and address global issues. She stressed that students need to learn from and work collaboratively with individuals representing diverse cultures, religions, and lifestyles in a spirit of mutual respect and open dialogue.

In the 1990s, national professional organizations such as the national Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education and the American Association of Colleges for teacher education issued position statements supporting global education in schools. Many state departments of education also issued mandates to school districts to support and endorse the teaching of global perspectives in elementary and secondary schools. Wisconsin was one of the first state departments of education to promote international education. Other state department beginning with those in Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Florida follow suit. National and state agencies were immediately formed to design curriculum frameworks for global education. For example, in 1982, the Florida Department of Education accepted the Florida State of Board of Education, a framework for developing global education programs at the local level. In the 2000s, the national trend to promote global education waned as state governments and school districts face economic and financial challenges.

8 Global Education in the Classroom

The global education classroom offers the platform for meaningful discussion of global issues and problems. The internet and other social global networks offer opportunity for continuing dialogue. The questions posed in the beginning of this discussion – To what extent can globalization and global education foster global understanding, peace and security, environmental safety, social justice, and transformative leadership and can globalization and global education contribute to a transformative civil global society? – will be addressed in this section of the paper. If globalization, global terrorism, environmental degradation, human rights, and social injustice pose serious threats to humanity and to a global civil society, all learners, young and adults, must learn how to make a contribution. There are five important areas in global education: (1) human rights and social justice education, (2) environmental sustainable education, (3) global security and peace, (4) global economy and globalization, and (5) global transformative leadership and service.

8.1 Human Rights and Social Justice

One of the expectations of global education is seeing learners apply knowledge and skills to new situations in order to contribute to creating a more equitable and just national and global society. The idea that social justice supports the fair and equitable treatment of all people and protects the blatant discrimination by people on other people should be articulated in all classrooms around the world. Global education, social justice, and human rights education have the potential to transform individuals, especially youths, to be reflective and critical global citizens (Zajda 2005, 2010a; Rizvi 2009).

Fazal Rizvi (2009) posed some interesting questions for global educators: To what extent has globalization made it more difficult to realize the goals of social justice in education? In a world increasingly characterized by global interconnectivity and interdependence, how are the various forms of injustice changing, both within and across nation states? How should education be structured as an instrument for promoting global justice?

These questions are at the heart of the questions I posed earlier in the paper. If we attempt to answer Rizvi’s questions, we will foster global peace and security, and ultimately transform the individual and the global society. The rights of the individuals will be subsumed in the process and governments will secure those rights. This is to suggest that there is an inextricable connection between globalization, human rights, and social justice.

8.2 Environmental Sustainability

Environmental education, Education for Sustainability or Sustainable Education, and Education for Sustainable Future have elements of global education. Global education is interdisciplinary, integrative, and holistic. To effectively engage in learning about global or environmental education, global teacher educators must prepare students to think and act holistically. Globally minded learners eventually become steward of the earth and protectors of natural resources. They take responsibility for creating awareness to improve the quality of life for others, locally and globally. Citizenship, service, and leadership are important traits and values if we aspire to preserve and sustain the future. Understanding the effects of globalization on the environment becomes essential for students to know how aggregate actions affect change beyond our own communities and the world. In America, for example, this important message has not been heeded by the policy makers, as students in K-12 education are given the opportunity or expose to environmental education and global education as curriculum. On the other hand, higher education is closing the gap as focus now shifts to preparing students to be global citizens equipped to sustain the future. The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development has been very active in promoting global environmental awareness and sensitivity (Zajda 2005, 2010a).

8.3 Global Security and Peace

The global security and peace agenda has a normative and qualitative component. This requires students at the secondary level around the world to examine, critique, reflect, and evaluate in order to engage one another in a meaningful discussion and debate about global security and peace. As it is today, the educational processes, students’ interactions, and experiences are limiting and prescribed in many learning institutions. Global security and peace are impacted directly or indirectly by globalization, global terrorism, and environmental degradation (Abdullahi 2010a, b; Zajda 2005, 2010a). Students everywhere should acquire knowledge and skills such as negotiation and conflict resolution skills, problem solving, and communication skills in order to effectively engage in policy level discussion to effect changes at the local, national and global levels (Abdullahi 2010a, b).

8.4 Global Economy and Globalization

Since 2008, the global economy has been impacted by variable fluctuations of all sorts of financial miscalculations by financial experts. This misrepresentation is causing uncertainty and instability in various markets around the world. Globalization, the integration of the global systems, is being affected as well. We have discussed above the connections to education and the unifying and destabilizing effects on the all aspects of humanity and on cultural and religious values, ideologies, educational structures, processes, and policies. Global education will offer students the opportunities to explore the connections and the implications.

8.5 Global Transformative Leadership

Global transformative leadership is an emerging concept in global education in the United States and around the world. Individuals such Nelson Mandela, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Barrack Obama have shown traits and qualities of transformative leadership worthy of emulation by students in global education programs. Effective global leadership can foster global understanding, peace, and security. Leaders with good understanding of the causes of global terrorism, environmental degradation, human rights, and social injustice can contribute significantly to minimizing the effects of these problems around the world. The global education curriculum has a transformative component that exposes students to various forms of leadership style with an emphasis on transformative leadership (Abdullahi 2010a, b).

8.6 Religion and Global Education

The religious imperatives in global education are sensitive and controversial. Although global educators see and accept the role of religion in molding and shaping society, they seldom agree on the appropriate pedagogy in primary and secondary schools; after all, religion does not belong in schools. At the higher institutional level, religious studies allow students to explore all the religions within the content of religious fundamentalism and the benefit to global community. I will not venture deep into this terrain. But I will conclude by adding that if indeed we aspire to make the world safer ecologically, politically/militarily, and economically, there is room to also develop students’ spiritual and religious appetites.

9 Conclusion

The reemergence of religious fundamentalism or extremism, corporate greed, human rights, environmental degradation, and social injustice around the world, and particularly the most recent social and political upheavals and revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Jordan, and Syria, is now having transcendental and transformational effects beyond national boundaries. The global education agenda for the twenty-first century should include all the voices in struggle to contribute to a new world order.

Globalization may indeed be reshaping the world in the twenty-first century, but the work to make the world safer is humanistic, normative, and qualitative. Global education will provide the opportunity for meaningful discourse and policy direction around the world. Students should learn new ways of analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating, and judging the behaviors of actors and agents of nation states, big business corporations, and educational institutions. Globalization, with its implications for education, particularly for the practice of global pedagogies, must be seriously explored by everyone. In this sense, I agree that global education needs a renaissance around the world. To fight for the sustainability and survival of the world is a collective endeavor. My students at FIU are aware of this challenge. The global education community must be aware too. There is a need to come up with appropriate ideology, instructional strategies, and policies for global education. After all, the universal expectation and hope is to work collectively and cooperatively to make the world safer politically, militarily, economically, and environmentally today and in the future.

I have argued elsewhere that in the United States today, the discussion on the issues and problems facing the planet revolves around global economic recession, global competition, globalization as agent of change, and the impact of technology and globalization on students’ academic performance. The truth is that schools in United States are still not preparing students to adequately compete on leveled playing fields with the rest of the world in the new global economy. I have also argued that global educators should introduce global transformational pedagogy in American schools, as technology and globalization are empowering some and hindering others. This allows those better educated, highly skilled, highly competent, and knowledgeable of world’s issues and problems to be more marketable locally, regionally, and globally. This may be the biggest threat to the global education movement in the United States and a bigger threat to global security. Other threats include the neoconservative ideology and religious extremism and the lack of rigor in engaging students in the global transformational process.