Do Chinese secondary schools develop global citizens?

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the nature of global citizenship education in Chinese secondary schools by investigating what kind of global citizens these institutions try to develop in the twenty-first century. Drawing on qualitative data from six high schools in China, the study reveals a distinctive Chinese perspective shaping the understanding of global citizenship. Educators purposefully harmonise the attributes of global citizens with cultural and traditional values inherent to the Chinese context, actively seeking common ground while adhering to national government policies. The research underscores a deliberate effort to connect global citizenship with the necessity of adapting to international competition and China’s role in world leadership. Furthermore, notable variations emerge among schools in their conceptualisations of developing global citizens, reflecting diverse expectations aligned with the different strata of students within China’s highly centralised education system. This exploration provides insights into the nuanced nature of global citizenship education in Chinese secondary schools.

KEYWORDS:

• Global citizenship
• global citizenship education
• citizenship education
• secondary school
• China

Introduction

Recent attention to global citizenship is closely related to the influence of globalisation and increasing global challenges. Globalisation has made the world become increasingly interconnected and interdependent, with accelerating communication and breaking of boundaries, challenging the actuality of nation-state citizenship. Concurrently, as a result of COVID-19 and political responses to COVID and declining globalisation, growing nationalism has been evident in many countries where states have prioritised self-interest and nationalism over international cooperation and common experiences of humankind (Su & Shen, 2021).

In the face of changes and challenges at the macro level, education aims to respond by educating people who can adapt to the era and change the status quo. Global citizenship education (GCE) has become a mainstream discourse in education in Western society and is spreading across the world. It endeavours to equip future generations with the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to thrive in a globalised society and to solve global problems to make a better world (Davies, 2006; Morais & Ogden, 2010; Print et al., 2015; UNESCO, 2013).

In academia, increasing theoretical and empirical studies have arisen attempting to uncover the landscape of GCE. Discourse on global citizenship is typically contested from its construct validity to diverse definitions and typologies (Pashby et al., 2020). Multiple studies emphasise the significance of considering context in understanding GCE. Given the diverse interpretations of GCE and its roots in national citizenship education, it becomes crucial to consider different reference models of citizenship (Miedema & Bertram-Troost, 2015; Sears, 2018). Initiated and promoted by international organisations and Western countries, most of the models and typologies of global citizenship and GCE are developed by Western-oriented scholars and educators. The dominant articulation and understanding of GCE is based on Western philosophic notions and democratic contexts (Dill, 2013; Goren & Yemini, 2017). There is a lack of knowledge regarding perspectives from the Global South, including their epistemologies and underlying philosophies. It is necessary to investigate how these concepts are understood in non-Western settings, to generate empirical findings and allow readers to assess the applicability of these findings to their respective contexts (Patel, 2022).

This study focuses on the Chinese context and explores how Chinese secondary schools understand the concept of GCE, if they attempt to develop global citizens, and how the Chinese Government’s central policies and Chinese cultural notions may influence the contextualisation and engagement of GCE within a highly controlled education system.

Chinese education is something of a paradox. While the central government and education authorities have pushed local nationalism and traditional roots via Confucianism, Chinese students are increasingly studying overseas or in international schools within China. Influenced by international education and increasing job competition within China’s domestic marketplace, there is a clear rise in the perspectives to be more ‘international’ for increased employment possibilities. This has produced a sense of educational dualism/dichotomy between national citizenship and global citizenship. This paper examines the nature of global citizenship education in Chinese secondary schools by investigating what kind of global citizens Chinese secondary schools are trying to develop in the twenty-first century. Given the profound impact of COVID over the past few years the same question could be meaningfully posed in any country.

What is global citizenship?

Scholars have developed frameworks outlining the essential components of global citizenship. Schattle (2009), for example, argues that the most readily converged thinking of global citizenship within the contemporary global citizenship discourse relates to ideas of awareness, responsibility and participation. Similarly, the influential article by Westheimer and Kahne (2004) defined ‘good citizens’ as individuals who are personally responsible, participatory and social-justice oriented. The three visions are perceived as hierarchical: the ‘personally responsible citizen’ performs basic responsible actions in his or her community; the ‘participatory citizen’ and later the ‘social-justice oriented citizen’ engages more actively and critically with sufficient knowledge and skills in civic and social life at local, national and global levels.

Biesta and Lawy (2006) advocate perceiving citizenship as a form of ‘practice’. More recently, Westheimer (2020) emphasises the role of civic educational practices, especially in schools, in achieving citizenship goals. He emphasises that personal responsibility alone, focusing on obedience, volunteering and kindness, falls short of those goals. Cultivating effective citizens, he contends, additionally requires critical thinking, questioning the world and engaging with diverse perspectives.

This approach can be equally applied to global citizens. Being a global citizen fundamentally entails taking responsibility for oneself and the nearby community as part of a global context. More importantly, global citizens need to take an active role in the global community with the necessary knowledge and abilities to engage actively. In Andreotti’s (2006, p. 28) categorisation, the ‘critical global citizen’ views responsibility as a dynamic process of learning with others and each person accepts accountability. In contrast, the ‘soft global citizen’ regards responsibility for others as being imposed.

Oxley and Morris (2013) contributed significantly to the discourse through a comprehensive typology categorising two general types of global citizenship: cosmopolitan and advocacy. The cosmopolitan type represents mainstream models of global citizenship, often framed within universal principles such as human rights, and includes four concepts: political; moral; economic; and cultural global citizenship. In contrast, advocacy types refer to more critical approaches and tend to involve a strong degree of advocacy from a particular perspective, including social, critical, environmental and spiritual global citizenship. This typology provides a useful tool to identify the foci of certain concepts of global citizenship and to categorise global citizenship definitions in empirical studies.

From an educational perspective, Dill (2013) poses the importance of recognising the tension in education for global citizenship from two perspectives: global consciousness and global competence. ‘Global consciousness’ indicates an awareness of other perspectives, a sense of being part of human community and a ‘moral conscience’ (p. 4) to act for the common good, while ‘global competence’ emphasises the practical knowledge and skills needed to succeed in global economics and global marketplaces. Similarly, Pais and Costa (2020) identify the two conflicting discourses within existing GCE practices: the critical democracy highlighting the importance of ethical values, social responsibility and active citizenry versus a neoliberal discourse favouring a market rationale, focused on self-investment and enhanced profits.

In his model learning to become a citizen Print (2009, 2012) places political and civic learning into two key categories of factors, namely school factors and non-school factors, as a means of highlighting the significance of school learning for citizenship. While non-school factors include the uncontrollable influences of family, media, peers and community, the school factors provide the greatest potential for controlled and planned learning and engagement in citizenship (Print, 2009, 2012). This study focuses on the possibility of gaining global citizenship in school settings.

Global citizenship education and the Chinese context

China has been playing an increasingly influential role in the world in relation to economics and politics, as well as cultural, educational and environmental affairs, particularly since its reform and opening up in the 1980s. In the present context of the rise of nationalism, it may be argued that China displays a strong position towards advocating the unity of humanity and proactively enhancing its engagement with global society. This is evident in the state’s policy of the Belt and Road Initiative along with President Xi’s proposal and ambition to build a ‘community of shared future for humankind’.

In education, China’s national policy aims to ‘gear education to the needs of modernisation, of the world and of the future’ (Ministry of Education, 2010, p. 6), articulates the objective of cultivating students’ global awareness and competence and encourages schools to expand their overseas communications and develop a culture of global vision. It emphasises the development of civic awareness, sense of freedom and equality, understanding of fairness and social justice and, ultimately, cultivation of qualified citizens for the modern socialist society (National Outline for Medium and Long-Term Education Reform and Development [2010–2020]).

Following this policy initiative, there is evidence of an integration of GCE-related elements in local governments’ educational policies. For example, the Beijing 13th Five-Year Plan for Education Reform and Development (2016–2020) guides educational reform towards fulfilling Beijing city’s orientation strategy as the ‘Four Centres’ of China: political, cultural, international-communication and science and technology innovation centres. To enhance Beijing’s position as an ‘international-communication centre’, the plan stresses the importance of learning from Western education models regarding quality education and well-rounded personal development. The aim is to strengthen international understanding and enhance cross-cultural communication abilities. Elements of these policies are clearly GCE-related, if tangentially.

Additionally, with the rise of the Chinese middle class and the opening to the world, including in the field of education, Chinese students are studying abroad more frequently and at younger ages. A growing number of students preparing for higher education overseas are opting to attend international schools during their secondary years or to pursue international curricula within certain government schools within China. In 2019, the number of Chinese students studying abroad exceeded one million, constituting a substantial one-quarter of all international students globally (Centre for China and Globalisation CCG, 2020). Moreover, by 2019 there were a total of 1168 international schools located within mainland China, making it the country with the highest number of English language international schools worldwide. This figure surpassed India, which held the second position, by 180 schools (Centre for China and Globalisation CCG, 2020).

These shifts in policies and the evolving educational landscape have not only expanded opportunities for international education, but have also created a fertile ground for the implementation of global citizenship education principles within Chinese schools. Meanwhile, within apparent contradiction, the Chinese government has promoted national citizenship education and Confucianism through moral education, and most recently patriotism, across the school years. The national education policy states the necessity to strengthen patriotism, build national identity and appreciate Chinese traditional values for secondary-school students. How the national moral education system and interventions interact with the objective of developing global perspectives in the increasingly interconnected world is worthy of investigating in the school settings in China.

Literature on GCE in the Chinese context

Compared with other contexts such as Europe there are remarkably few publications on GCE in China. The existing literature on GCE based in mainland China is predominantly theoretical, centring around the relationship between national and global identities (Y. Li, 2009), traditional Confucian perspectives (Choo, 2020; Xu, 2020) and concepts of GCE drawing insights from international literature (Zhou, 2019).

In the realm of education, thematic areas related to GCE include the international understanding of education, multicultural education and perspectives on GCE in connection with politics and policies, such as the concept of ‘a community of shared future for humankind’ (Jiang, 2017; Q. Li, 2023; Song, 2018). Notably absent from these discussions are considerations of justice, inequality, human rights and related topics. Scholars with backgrounds in civic education and moral education occasionally incorporate the dimension of civic participation into their analyses (Ban & Tan, 2015). An international systematic review of empirical GCE studies by Goren and Yemini (2017) found that the Chinese mode of GCE provides skills rather than dispositions and often ignores core concepts such as human rights and global responsibility.

Available empirical studies regarding GCE in the Chinese context mainly concentrate on the perceptions of relevant stakeholders such as principals, teachers and students regarding the multidimensional citizenship framework and related subjects as well as the nature of students’ civic virtues or civic consciousness (Du, 2015; Law, 2013; Liu, 2011; Pan, 2011). Studies generally found Chinese students were conscious of multiple identities but showed a weak sense of citizenship at a global level and exhibited few corresponding practices. This limitation is attributed by scholars to the curriculum designs that prioritise maintaining national identity over promoting global perspectives (Pan, 2011). Empirical studies also identified a complex relationship between GCE in national contexts and subsequent challenges to the implementation of GCE in national education systems (Hong, 2020; Wang, 2023).

In general, there is a scarcity of empirical studies on GCE in Chinese schools, and insights from Western studies may be limited due to contextual differences. Hence, one important purpose of this study is to surface issues and lay a groundwork for empirical studies on GCE in China, particularly at the school level.

The study

This study investigated Chinese secondary schools’ intentions and practices to develop global citizens, specifically what attributes of global citizens were identified for, and promoted in, students in three different types of high schools in China.

Methodology

This study employed a multiple-case-study design that engaged six high schools in Beijing and Shanghai, China. The schools selected were of three different types – model government schools, ordinary government schools and non-government international schools – which reflected the nature of general high-school education in China. Model high schools, approved by the national or provincial government, were characterised by pioneering educational and pedagogical reforms, high academic performance, effective school management, abundant staff resources, and a strong focus on moral education and unique school cultures. The second category comprised ordinary high schools, representing the majority of standard high schools in China. Both types received government funding and collectively constitute 80.3% of all secondary schools in China (data from MOE, 2020). The third category comprised non-government, privately run schools, distinct for not relying solely on government funding. In recent years, their numbers had surged, especially those backed by locally thriving enterprises. Many of these schools adopted an international curriculum, despite primarily admitting students from mainland China.

Two schools of each type were chosen in each city as case-study schools (named School A to F). This followed the replication strategy of sampling and aimed to generate similar results at the same point in time and cover a relatively wide range of schools to enhance external validity (Yin, 2013). Table 1 provides an overview of the case study schools and participants.

Table 1. Overview of case study schools and participants

School type	Schools	City	Curriculum year 10–12	Participants
Model government	School A	Beijing	National	Vice principal: 1 Teachers of Thought and Politics: 2 (one leads student activities)
	School B	Shanghai	National	Vice principal: 1 Teachers of Thought and Politics: 3 (one leads student activities)
Ordinary government	School C	Beijing	National	Principal: 1 Teachers of Thought and Politics: 2 Head of student department: 1
	School D	Shanghai	National	Principal: 1 Teachers of Thought and Politics: 2 (one also the director of curriculum management)
Non-government international	School E	Beijing	IBDP	Vice principal: 1 Teacher of History: 1 Teacher of Chinese Language: 1 (also the head of student activities) Teacher of Theory of Knowledge and Philosophy: 1
	School F	Shanghai	IBDP	Principal: 1 Teacher of Political Studies: 1 Teacher of Chinese Language: 1 Dean of High School Department: 1

Students attending the four government schools in Beijing and Shanghai generally came from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Given that Chinese compulsory education spans nine years (from year 1 to 9), admission to high schools (government) is determined through entrance exams. The two model government schools (School A and School B), being selective, necessitated high scores in the entrance exam for admission. While the tuition fees for model schools are similar to those of ordinary schools, all based on government school standards, there has been a growing cost associated with gaining admission to these model schools. This includes both visible expenses, such as fees for various training sessions and competitions during middle schools, and invisible factors, such as the type of middle school the student attends, which can influence their competitiveness in gaining entry to model high schools. The choice of middle schools is often tied to the location of residence and housing. Consequently, the two model government schools, in reality, imposed higher economic requirements on families, and students were primarily from medium-high socioeconomic backgrounds.

Ordinary School C attracted students with average to high academic performance and served as a secondary choice for students who failed to secure spots in top-ranking model schools. As a result, the students at ordinary School C were considered among the ‘second best’ in terms of academic scores. The school was situated in the inner city of Beijing, with the neighbourhood comprising both local Beijing citizens settled for generations and more recent arrivals earning relatively high salaries (as per the local government website). In contrast, School D is in an area characterised by a relatively dense and mobile population in Shanghai, with more complex socioeconomic backgrounds. The admission score to School D is lower compared to other schools in its district.

In comparison, the two international schools (School E and School F) were selective private institutions that admitted students from across the country. Their fees were considerably higher than those of government schools, and their student bodies mainly consisted of Chinese students from affluent and middle-class families in major cities and affluent provinces. For instance, out of the 2000 students in School E, 70% were Beijing citizens and the remaining 30% came from other affluent cities. Similar to government schools, both School E and F used high-school entrance examination scores as a key criterion for admission, but they also imposed rigorous requirements for English language proficiency in alignment with the chosen International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum.

In terms of the curriculum, the four government schools followed the national curriculum while the two international schools implemented the IB curriculum for high-school years. Additionally, given that the practice of GCE at this stage was not systematic in many schools, the multiple-case-study design was intended to identify as many GCE-related practices as possible to make the findings more meaningful.

In each school, data were collected from documents including school policies, statements of school ethos and interviews with one to two school leaders and two to three subject teachers. It is important to note that school policies and leadership significantly influence the implementation of curriculum and the establishment of school cultures, due to an authoritarian culture prevalent in Chinese schools. In China’s centralised education system, influential policies from national and local to school levels play a pivotal role in guiding the direction for educational practitioners to follow. Thus, including an examination of policies and school leadership was essential for understanding the whole context and direction/intentions of ideas related to global citizenship within schools. The participating teachers were teaching mandatory subjects called ‘Thought and Politics’ in government schools and social studies areas in international schools. The interviews with the participants were semi-structured and focused on asking questions about their conceptions of global citizenship, what kind of attributes were needed for being a global citizen, and whether their students would be global citizens in the future. The interview data were first collected at school sites using Mandarin and audiotaped with consent of the participants. The data were then transcribed for analysis, and the quotes used translated into English by the researcher. Multiple sources of data were analysed to create a thick description of the case-study schools’ interpretations on developing global citizens. The data were analysed by the thematic analysis approach with inductive and deductive coding of the content. The coding process applied Miles et al.’s (2014) three concurrent flows of data analysis components: data condensation; data display; and conclusion drawing or verification. Themes were extracted and displayed using traditional matrices and networks.

A limitation of this paper is that it only considers subject teachers in government schools who teach Thought and Politics, potentially overlooking the potential for GCE in other subjects such as English language, history and geography. This may result in a narrow perspective from teachers. One explanation for this limitation is that, although GCE can be integrated across disciplines, it is not yet common or well developed. The paper positions itself within the realm of citizenship education, particularly in the Chinese context of moral and citizenship education, and therefore focuses primarily on the most relevant subject in this context: Thought and Politics.

Findings

Intentions in school policies and school leaders

While explicit statements labelled as ‘global citizenship’ were rare in school policies, various elements related to GCE were integrated into the school ethos statements and experience. These elements subtly conveyed a wide range of GCE themes from three dimensions. Table 2 shows the GCE-related ideas in school policies and school leaders’ conceptions.

Table 2. GCE-related ideas in school policies and school leaders’ conceptions

Schools	Global awareness	Global competence	Global engagement
School A and School B	International perspective (SA, SB) Pay attention to the status quo and prospects of human development (SA) Cross-cultural awareness (SA, SB) Respect others’ personalities, perspectives and religious beliefs (SA)	Broad knowledge and wide varieties of skills for the future society (SA, SB) Skills to explore and identify the commonalities and differences of Chinese and foreign cultures (SA) Contribute to the world’s science and technology (SB)	Take environmental protection action and follow green lifestyles (SA)
School C and School D	Broad vision and international perspective (SC, SD) Critical thinking (SC) Independent personality (SC) Be responsible for oneself, for others, for work, for family, for society, for the nation and for the environment (SC, SD) Respect life (SC)	Appreciate different cultures (SC, SD) Skills to adapt in society (SC, SD) Cooperation skills (SD) Financial skills (SD) Scientific and innovative spirit and skills (SD)	Good behaviours towards being responsible for oneself, the family, the community, the ecological environment and the nation
School E and School F	International perspective (SE, SF) Develop students who are caring, cultivated and thoughtful (SE) Cross-cultural awareness (SE, SF) Social responsibility (SE, SF) Social justice (SE, SF)	Self-learning ability, independent thinking skills (SE) Cooperation skills and leadership (SF) Independent ability (SF) Bilingual ability (SE, SF)	N/A

Table 2 reveals that the primary focus of the two model schools (schools A and B) was predominantly centred around the dimensions of global competence and global awareness. Specifically, the institutions placed significant emphasis on fostering a moral understanding of humanity, exploring cultural perspectives of diverse world cultures and groups, and developing the competencies essential for students to function on the global stage successfully. The dimension of engagement, however, received comparatively less attention, with exceptions related to involvement in environmental protection and sustainable development, which was treated in policies more from a superficial and moral standpoint than from adopting a global or critical perspective.

Furthermore, although the policies of the two model schools included GCE-related elements, GCE was not identified as being of high priority. The main efforts for developing GCE attributes were structured under the existing moral education framework. The principal of School A emphasised: ‘We won’t make GCE an independent goal of education, but we can integrate it within the moral education system and the whole-school environment.’ The principal believed that students could gain a sense of global citizenship through a well-designed school environment.

It is noteworthy that in the model schools, GCE-related concepts were predominantly evident in the discourses of selective programmes, such as School A’s international exchange programmes and School B’s within-school college catering to the most academically gifted students in each grade. The educational aim of the college was ‘to cultivate outstanding innovative talents that can take the responsibilities of the development of China and the world’ and to develop students with ‘a sound Chinese culture foundation and bilingual ability, global perspectives and innovative spirit, the ability to obtain and deal with information in the Internet era, and analytical and problem-solving skills’. These programmes offered enhanced learning opportunities, including independent projects with university academics. Participants frequently referred to international communication activities as the most direct means of cultivating students’ global perspectives, while these programmes did not ensure the participation of all students in the schools.

Compared with the model schools’ lofty educational objectives, the two ordinary schools used milder language with a more individualistic focus. School C articulated its aspirations to cultivate ‘broad visions’, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘independent personality’ as educational objectives. Critical thinking was explained as the ability to view things from multiple perspectives, while independent personality stressed being a modern citizen with independent thinking. These elements indicated a more general understanding of the values and skills associated with global citizenship. Both schools emphasised cultivating the sense of responsibility for family, community, the nation and the surrounding environment.

Moreover, unlike schools A and B, whose explicit objective was to shape future leaders through a focus on elite education, schools C and D prioritised personal development. The educational ethos of School C articulated: ‘Based on individuality, guide the students to find a sense of accomplishment and happiness in life and protect human dignity.’ School D advocated for stratified education, intending to ‘provide differentiated guidance to students in accordance with their aptitude and promoting personal development based on their talents and possibilities’. The ordinary schools placed a great emphasis on individual-level learning.

The educational objectives and curriculum of the two international schools (schools E and F) were explicitly designed for the cultivation of global citizens, distinguishing them from government schools. Both institutions utilised the term ‘global citizen’ in their school missions, for example, ‘With a motherland heart, be a global citizen’ (School E), and ‘cultivate enthusiastic and responsible global citizens for the 21st century’ (School F).

International schools differed in that they operated beyond the confines of the national education system and, to some extent, traditional moral education structures. Both international schools adhered to the core values of the international curriculum (IBDP) they implemented. Consequently, their approach to moral and character education exhibited a more Westernized orientation in contrast to government schools. Their interpretation of global citizenship closely aligned with Western pervasive discourse, emphasising global vision, social justice and human rights.

Simultaneously, the international schools endeavoured to cultivate global citizens with ‘Chinese roots’, emphasising Chinese traditional culture and core values while promoting global perspectives. For example, School E prioritised the development of a ‘motherland heart’, including China’s national spirit, national belongings and values, for local Chinese students. As the principal explained, the school’s focal point of ‘Chinese roots’ was Chinese traditional culture. Similarly, School F defined cultural roots as the foundation of global citizenship. With a mission of ‘passing on traditions of Chinese culture’, School F aimed for students to ‘gain a deep understanding and appreciation of Chinese culture, including literature, history, philosophy and art’.

In addition to traditional cultures, both international schools implicitly emphasised national identity and recognition of the socialist system, aligning to national policy. The education of socialist values was underscored in lower grades, as explained by the principal of School E: ‘In the lower grades, we integrate socialist core values into the curriculum. This is required by the Ministry of Education, while the upper grades offer courses and activities mainly related to Chinese traditional culture and values.’

The teachers’ conceptions of developing global citizens

Given the importance of teachers’ transformation of school policies and central curricula, the alignment between teachers’ conceptions of global citizenship and those outlined in school policies were clearly evident. The teachers’ understanding included all three dimensions – global awareness, global competence and global engagement – although there was a notable emphasis on the former two. Table 3 illustrates the teachers’ understanding of attributes of global citizens from three dimensions.

Table 3. Teachers’ conceptions on attributes of global citizens in terms of three dimensions.

GCE dimensions	Themes
Global awareness	(i) consciousness of diversity; (ii) consciousness of responsibility; (iii) consciousness of ‘community of shared future for humankind’ (in vivo code); (iv) recognition of multiple identities; (v) recognition of universal values; and (vi) respect for human rights
Global competence	cross-cultural communication skills; critical thinking skills; problem-solving; creative thinking; cooperation; financial literacy
Global engagement	Practice in non-governmental organisations (NGOs); a higher objective

Themes that emerged from the interviews closely corresponded with the GCE attributes outlined in international literature, while also reflecting certain distinct Chinese characteristics. Within the awareness dimension, all the teachers consistently emphasised the consciousness of diversity as a paramount attribute of a global citizen. The participants emphasised two elements embodied in the consciousness of diversity: (1) being open-minded and willing to know others and; (2) delving into a deeper level of respect and appreciation for diversity and varying perspectives. One teacher from School A stated:

When you are overseas and hear different opinions, for example, sensitive topics regarding political and ideological opinions about China, the proper reaction is not to argue fiercely with them. You should understand how their backgrounds may cause their confusions or misunderstandings about China … If compromises could not be made, that’s fine. It just shows that we hold different ideas. (T1-SA)

A sense of responsibility was recognised at all six schools as a core value of GCE. Participants expressed a notion of assuming various layers of responsibilities as responsible citizens, including obligations to both nation and global communities. China’s development and increasing influence on the world stage were seen as important motivation for embracing global responsibilities. A subject teacher argued:

Our country is shouldering international responsibilities. As a nation, China not only considers itself but also considers its international responsibility. Therefore, as a citizen of China, fulfilling obligations to the world is just as important as fulfilling duties to our country. (T3-SB)

A subject teacher from School F (T1-SF) added that students receiving elite education in international schools should bear a greater responsibility for the world rather than focusing solely on personal goals.

The recurring theme of a sense of a ‘community of shared future for mankind’ emerged as a prominent ‘vivo code’, mentioned by three-quarters of the interviewed participants. This phrase, introduced by Chinese President Xi at the United Nations conference in 2017, held dual implications according to the teachers: at a personal level, it referred to individual development and career planning in a global context, while at a global level, it underscored a sense of cooperation to defeat and solve world problems. A subject teacher elaborated on this concept:

Students should apply their personal goals and their worldview from a broader level. They should break regional limits and involve the sense of ‘community of shared future for mankind’. No matter whether it is trading, education, studying abroad, personal development, career planning, all things should be planned in a global perspective. Especially in recent years as China’s international status rises, students have more chances in personal development in the world. They should have a global vision, a holistic view of the world. (T2-SA)

The majority of participants in the study acknowledged the multidimensional model of citizenship within the Chinese educational context. They demonstrated an awareness of possessing multiple identities in today’s interconnected world. While discussing global citizenship, teachers emphasised an emotional connection to humanity to justify its rationality, aiming to prevent conflicts with national citizenship. However, they also asserted the importance of prioritising national identity and interests within a sequence of identities. For instance, T1-SA said: ‘Only when you meet the needs of the country can you talk about the rights and obligations of being a global citizen.’ T3-SB believed that if there were a conflict between national and global identities, one must respect his or her duties and obligations as a national citizen and safeguard the country’s interests.

Some participants touched upon the themes of universal values and human rights, although not all. They mentioned universal values like kindness, justice, adherence to rules and integrity, viewing them as shared principles across all countries and races. They underscored the significance of respecting and protecting human rights as integral to global citizenship. In doing so, the teachers leaned towards a moral and ethical perspective, seeking to highlight empathy towards human beings. Few educators acknowledged the nuances and potential ambiguity associated with these concepts, often perceived as rooted in Western ideologies. They cautioned against the political manipulation of these notions, recognising the need for sensitivity in their application.

From a competence perspective, cross-cultural communication skills, critical-thinking skills, problem-solving skills and cooperation skills emerged as major themes in the interviews with the participants in the case-study schools. Teachers valued knowledge highly. Although they placed emphasis on developing attitudes and dispositions, they contended that a broad knowledge base was required. Among the competences, cross-cultural communication skill, particularly language skills, was most frequently cited by the teachers. Furthermore, over half of the educators expressed the need for specific courses in the schools focusing on international manners and customs in communication.

In the government schools, the term ‘critical thinking’ was not commonly employed; instead, many participants described similar concepts using a more Chinese discourse, such as the term ‘scientific spirit’. This concept was defined as ‘the ability to think rationally and critically, form their own positions and not be easily influenced by others’ (T1-SB). In international schools, critical thinking emerged as the most prominent skill for global citizens. The teachers interpreted it as the ability to perceive multiple possibilities and make independent and rational judgements.

Compared with the awareness and competence dimensions, there was less data in the engagement dimension of GCE during participant interviews. Most teachers regarded global action as active involvement in voluntary activities with NGOs. The participants often referred to engagement as a higher educational objective for global citizenship that posed greater challenges to achieve, compared with knowledge and skills development. However, a few political-studies teachers regarded that participation on a community or local level in political issues could cultivate students’ sense of participating at a wider scope.

Cross-school analysis

Cross-school analysis revealed distinct attitudes towards developing global citizens among different types of educational institutions. Generally, model government schools exhibited a positive and active engagement with GC topics, demonstrating a genuine willingness to share opinions. Their conceptions of global citizenship aligned with the national curriculum and policy framework, preferring a comprehensive integration of GC principles into the educational ethos. In addition to adhering to institutional guidelines, participants in the model government schools yielded more personal opinions, showing a multifaceted understanding of global citizenship.

On the other hand, ordinary government schools appeared less enthusiastic about the apparently lofty idea of developing global citizens. The ordinary schools preferred to focus more on developing qualified and active national citizens capable of adapting to competition. The principal of School D argued:

My school is just an ordinary high school. Students from our school find it hard to get admitted to top universities. I often tell my students that there is indeed tough competition and they may not surpass at the moment. But I assure them things can change … . In the future, when companies hire, academic performance and the school you graduated from are just hardware. What matters is the visible face-to-face capability … . Competing solely based on scores is not a winning strategy, and it’s not necessary … It’s better to participate in more activities and focus on the overall development of your qualities. (p-SD)

In non-government international schools, a distinct willingness to discuss global citizenship was evident. These schools exhibited a strong connection between global citizenship principles and their institutional missions, including the IB curriculum, emphasising global citizenship as a core value. For them, the definition of a global citizen closely mirrored the one outlined by the IB curriculum, highlighting a shared commitment to nurturing individuals with a broad and interconnected worldview. Meanwhile, a pronounced emphasis on incorporating Chinese cultural roots emerged, showcasing an approach that integrated global perspectives with local cultural identities. This deliberate balance reflected the schools’ consciousness of the importance of maintaining cultural roots when preparing students for active participation in the global community.

Discussion

The scarcity of empirical research on global citizenship education at the school level within the unique Chinese context underscores the significance of this study. One of its primary objectives is to bring forth the problems and issues surrounding GCE, shedding light on crucial areas for future research in China. Drawing upon the conceptual framework established for this study, the findings predominantly present two key perspectives on GCE issues in the Chinese context.

Firstly, the study highlights the existence of two contrasting perspectives of global citizenship within Chinese secondary schools: one prioritises economic success in the global marketplace, and the other emphasises shared values and solidarity, representing neoliberal and humanistic global citizenship, respectively (Bosio, 2022). Secondly, the research identifies a noteworthy variation in the interpretation of GCE across different types of schools. This discrepancy reflects the diverse expectations associated with various strata of students within China’s highly centralised education system.

Neoliberal global citizenship

Many schools interpreted global citizenship as a set of competencies essential for functioning and excelling in cross-national contexts. These competencies often included bi/multilingual skills, cross-cultural communication ability, critical thinking, problem-solving and cooperation skills. This is particularly evident in many teachers’ responses that connected global citizenship to the competitiveness in the global marketplace. This corresponds with previous studies that assert GCE in the Chinese context is viewed as recognition of the need for global knowledge and skills to compete in the global age (Goren & Yemini, 2017; Law, 2013).

Additionally, this study mirrors an economic dimension within the framework of Chinese national development goals. Aligned with the national policy of advancing technology and fostering economic growth by nurturing international talents, the schools actively responded to this overarching goal. For example, School B was dedicated to cultivating innovative talents in science and technology to take China to the world in a new era. This suggests a kind of strong cosmopolitan nationalism in the schools’ approaches to GCE, navigating global processes, but also taking account of nationalistic tendencies (Maxwell et al., 2020). Nevertheless, a neoliberal approach to GCE (Gaudelli, 2009; Schattle, 2008), which tends to be economically oriented, was evident in the schools, whether from an individual or national standpoint.

Humanistic global citizenship

The case-study schools also interpreted global citizenship with a tendency towards a humanistic concept, emphasising awareness of diversity, a sense of responsibility, multiple identities, universal values and human rights. This understanding leans more towards a moral and personal framework rather than a political or legal perspective, aligning with Oxley and Morris’ (2013) moral global citizenship model and Bosio’s (2022) classification of humanistic global citizenship.

This humanistic approach of GCE is mostly expressed in declarations of universal human rights, such as in UN conventions. However, one arguable point within the approach is the extent to which a global ethic supersedes more local or particular moral obligations (e.g. to one’s family, culture or fellow national citizens) (Oxley & Morris, 2013). In the Chinese context, the teachers tended to define global citizenship from a ‘new cosmopolitan’ perspective with communitarian ideas, diverging from the ‘strong cosmopolitans’ who argue against special obligations like patriotism (Waks, 2008). The participants in the study acknowledged various layers of responsibilities as responsible citizens, including obligations to both the nation and the global community. As Papastephanou claimed, ‘particularity is not the opposite of universality, as is usually theorised, but rather a subset of it’. In this light, patriotism as a moral ‘particularity’ can easily coexist alongside a global ethic (Papastephanou, 2008, in Oxley & Morris, 2013, p. 308).

The communitarian ideas of GCE in this study stem from attempts to identify commonalities between GCE and traditional Chinese values, employing a Confucian lens for ethical reasoning. For example, the participants valued the consciousness of responsibility as core to global citizenship, which indicates a Confucian concept that the self is formed through its interdependent relationship with others (Choo, 2020). The responsibility to pursue the flourishing of self, family, local and national community is rooted in Confucian societies (Choo, 2020). The idea of responsibility is expanded to a global scope in the participants’ conception of global citizenship. From this perspective, there is no conflict to be responsible for the national and global community.

Pais and Costa (2020) have argued the existence of compatibility between the critical democratic goals and the neoliberal market agenda for GCE, asserting that the production of neoliberal subjects tends to overwhelm the other more putatively progressive goals. While this assertion is primarily based on Western case studies (Hameed et al., 2023; Pais & Costa, 2020), the Chinese context presents a unique scenario where both neoliberal and humanistic approaches to GCE coexist. The coexistence is shaped by the intertwined influence of market-driven globalisation and deeply rooted collectivist values. Importantly, both of these forces are predominantly executed under a national agenda. Future research should further explore the interplay of various drivers on GCE within a specific Chinese context to gain a deeper understanding of these dynamics.

Categorisations of the schools’ understanding of developing global citizens

The three types of schools differ slightly in the intentions of what kind of global citizens they try to develop. The government schools did not explicitly prioritise the cultivation of ‘global citizens’. However, they tended to focus on the broader concept of moral education that shared many contents with GCE, particularly in terms of the competence and awareness dimensions. Comparatively, international schools demonstrated developing ‘global citizens’ in their school missions while they also showcased a certain kind of GCE with Chinese features. This variation reflects the intertwined political and economic forces between the nation’s centralised education system and the diversified needs of the growing middle class in China.

Model schools: international talents for the nation

Model government schools tended to position global citizenship as a necessary quality in developing outstanding talent and future leaders for the nation. GCE-related elements were intricately connected to the development of national successors, emphasising individuals capable of making substantial contributions to society. An enhanced national identity was stressed in this process, with the collective well-being of the community, which reflects a communitarian idea of GCE (Waks, 2008). This also echoes Goren and Yemini’s (2017) argument that China and some other Asian countries view GCE as a response to economic and political changes in the new century and focus on serving national interests.

Meanwhile, the association of a ‘global citizen identity’ and GCE initiatives primarily with top students may be viewed through a meritocratic lens with Chinese characteristics (Liu, 2016). GCE-related content was most frequently mentioned in the school’s elite education programmes, such as international exchange programmes or talent programmes, typically involving the top-performing students. Given that the two model schools in the study were already very selective and equipped with good teaching resources and teachers, there is an implication that GCE is conceptualised for building human capital for national interests within the context of China’s state-orchestrated modernisation. Considering the implicit socioeconomic prerequisites for families to get into these schools, this approach may inadvertently reinforce existing social inequalities. Students coming from backgrounds with superior access to educational resources may more easily obtain the access to ‘global citizenship’.

Diverging from the conclusions made by Goren and Yemini (2017), that GCE in Asia-Pacific regions including China often overlook the development of dispositions such as human rights and global responsibility, this study found that the two model schools had relatively strong intentions to instil a sense of global responsibility and humanity. Part of the reasons are attributed to China’s recent national policy reforms, fostering increased openness to the global market and world culture. As the state endeavours to participate more on the world stage and develop its role as a responsible and constructive country, the expectation for high-school students, particularly for those in high-performing schools, extends beyond academic achievements to encompass a broader sense of responsibility for the world. This perspective echoes with the communitarian ideas of global citizenship categorised as moral global citizenship by Oxley and Morris (2013).

Ordinary schools: responsible national citizens with some global awareness

Compared with model schools, the ordinary schools were more inclined to develop responsible national citizens. Responsibility education was a significant component of their moral education. Their ethos proposed to cultivate good citizens, that is, to be responsible for self, others, work, family, the nation and society. However, this remained at the national level and rarely raised to a global scope, except regarding the environment and sustainable development. While they acknowledged the changing global landscape and encourage a broader vision to adapt to interconnected societies, global citizenship was presented as a supplementary role within the educational paradigm.

Moreover, ordinary schools were more tolerant of individualised development and to some extent advocated more on differentiated education based on individual characteristics. The institutions tended to make students find their own speciality and satisfy their own lives even amidst the intense competition prevalent in China. School leaders in both ordinary schools emphasised the importance of developing soft skills to ensure a prosperous life, coupled with the ability to shoulder responsibilities for oneself and one’s family.

Under this circumstance, the notion of a global citizenship objective was considered as overly idealistic for ordinary schools and deemed as merely an embellishment, or ‘icing on the cake’, for their students. Being a global citizen was rather a loftier goal in terms of both capability and morality, surpassing the immediate educational objectives of these schools.

Non-government international schools: global citizens with a ‘motherland heart’

Non-government international schools’ definition of global citizen showed an obvious Western flavour. The schools aimed to develop students to be competitive on a global stage, developing multi-cultural perspectives, and making decisions for both personal development and for the sake of humanity based on a global vision. These qualities mostly derived from international curricula and echo with international organisations such as the OECD. Meanwhile, the international schools integrated the core values of Chinese traditional culture into their GC learning. They emphasised a strong connection to their national and cultural roots, referred to as having a ‘Chinese heart’. Thus, GCE is a ‘global education + moral’ form in the international schools’ approach (Davies, 2006). The moral part primarily includes Chinese traditional cultural values and national spirit rather than the contemporary socialist values, compared with the government schools.

The study also reveals the dilemma of elite education within the international schools. One of the reasons for the prosperity of international schools is the growing Chinese middle class’s demand for better ‘quality’ education. Parents realise the competitiveness of the domestic education system and the drawbacks of the knowledge-oriented and examination-oriented study mode, and thus choose to invest in international modes of education (Gardner McTaggart, 2016). In the present study, the international schools considered acceptance rates into the world’s top universities as a key measure of success, reflecting a clear economic global citizenship intention focused on human capital development (Oxley & Morris, 2013). As Dill (2013) argues, elite education often leads to a contradiction between competence and consciousness, and private-school students face the challenges their elite status presents for understanding differences and traditional culture. As a supplement, the two schools intentionally added Chinese traditional culture education and patriotic education, cultivating students capable of adjusting to Western education modes and customs, yet at the same time maintaining Chinese cultural values and national identity.

Conclusion

Chinese schools’ understanding of global citizenship exhibits distinct Chinese characteristics. The schools aim to cultivate global citizens who demonstrate a sense of responsibility towards humanity, embrace diversity and plurality, and possess a global perspective. Educators consciously align the attributes of global citizens with cultural and traditional values within the Chinese context, trying to identify common ground, in order to reflect national government policies. There is also a clear intention to link global citizenship with the imperative of adapting to international competition and Chinese world leadership.

Moreover, disparities exist among schools in their conceptions of the type of global citizens they aim to nurture, reflecting diverse expectations corresponding to various strata of students within China’s highly centralised education system. Being a global citizen is considered a formidable educational benchmark, demanding exceptional student capabilities and aptitudes. To some extent, global citizenship education is viewed as a privilege, perhaps a lofty ideal, which may lead to a detachment from its role as a means to enhance the overall relevance of education and to promote human flourishing and well-being.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).