Globalization standards: A comparison of U.S. and non-U.S. social studies curricula

Abstract

As political and economic systems of the world become increasingly globalized, education systems in developed nations have established standardized curriculum. Meanwhile, opposing interpretations of globalization, neoliberalism and progressivism, have inspired the growth of different paradigmatic models for global education. Grounded in neoliberalism, the human capital model views education as a means for preparing a skilled workforce; derived from progressivism, the world systems model focuses on educating individuals for global citizenship and civic participation. The purpose of this document analysis is two-fold: (1) to examine the social studies content standards of the U.S. and other developed countries to determine how globalization is presented in state-mandated curricula, and (2) to evaluate whether the depiction of globalization in each set of standards reflects a human capital or world systems model. Our findings indicate that U.S. state content standards heavily emphasize the economics of globalization; non-U.S. standards present a more holistic picture of globalization. Consequently, U.S. standards are more aligned with a human capital model of education whereas non-U.S. standards reflect a world systems interpretation. These findings suggest that students in the U.S. are prepared differently than their counterparts in other developed countries, which has implications for international relations.

Human rights and global citizenship in social studies standards in the United States.

“…The third obstacle is the lack of centralised administrative support for HRE and GCE and the virtual absence of curricular mandate (Beltramo & Duncheon, 2013;Rapoport, 2015;Tibbitts, 2014). Classroom teachers, as curriculum gatekeepers, make curricular decisions based on multiple factors that include time, content, personal knowledge, and experience (Thornton, 1991).…”

“…State standards serve as a legal regulatory mechanism to control curricular content, and outline what students in individual states are expected to know and be able to do (Beltramo & Duncheon, 2013). Despite concern that standards can impact teachers' creativity through the enforcement of prescribed curricula, testing, and the notorious teacher accountability (Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006), state standards are universally regarded as content guides that outline and emphasise the most important concepts and facts that construct a knowledge base for a given course.…”

Challenging preservice teachers’ understandings of globalization: Critical knowledge for global citizenship education

“…Global processes have challenged and re-shaped the national narratives in textbooks although with greater impact in Europe than in the U.S. (Schissler & Soysal, 2005). In the U.S., the portrayal of globalization in textbooks emphasizes economic aspects from a human capital perspective (Beltramo & Duncheon, 2013). Further, state standards and textbooks lack a comprehensive treatment of the topic (Myers, 2010; Rapoport, 2009).…”

Spatial Citizenship Education: Civic Teachers’ Instructional Priorities and Approaches

“…To illustrate, recent studies have demonstrated that even when the concept of globalization is included in state standards, it is most often limited to economics at the global level (Beltramo & Duncheon, 2013), absent conceptions of spatial citizenship. In fact, only two states, Kentucky and Mississippi, even mentioned global citizenship in the standards (Beltramo & Duncheon, 2013). Content not prescribed in state content standards and/or visible on high stakes exams are often gleaned over or altogether ignored by teachers (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010).…”

“…The traditional, nation-centered citizenship approach dominates formal curriculum in the U.S. (Myers, 2006;Reimers, 2006) and in public education around the world (Rapoport, 2012). To illustrate, recent studies have demonstrated that even when the concept of globalization is included in state standards, it is most often limited to economics at the global level (Beltramo & Duncheon, 2013), absent conceptions of spatial citizenship. In fact, only two states, Kentucky and Mississippi, even mentioned global citizenship in the standards (Beltramo & Duncheon, 2013).…”