For every person reading this brief preview, probably another 18 overlooked it quickly, busy trying to survive here and now. This makes sense.

Even when it receives attention, it is often laden with rhetoric and emotion, discussed in tones of enthusiasm (we should do it, the students deserve it!) and vague stereotypes (we had a video call with a classroom in Peru last week, if that isn’t global, I don’t know what is).

In high-stakes assessment environments that prevail in many formal learning institutions, the focus is on standards and mastery of them. “Globalization” is an airy idea of “castles in the air” that is only thought about when one watches one of the “Shift Happens” videos on YouTube or daydreams on the way home after a challenging day in the classroom, where there is time to reflect honestly, alone, on the kind of education teachers can only dream of providing to students.

Now, after more than a decade in the 21st century, there is tremendous pressure to “globalize” education. Exactly what this means is not universally agreed upon.

Does Globalization influence Education?

In education, globalization is the natural macro consequence of a significant micro placement.

Globalizing a curriculum is not (initially) what it might appear to be. To globalize, start small, with yourself.

Now, after more than a decade in the 21st century, there is tremendous pressure for education to “globalize.” Exactly what this means is not universally agreed upon. In the major global markets, the business world globalized decades ago, expanding beyond national markets in search of more diverse audiences and greater profits.

And while the major players in the business world continue to experiment and find their way in markets whose culture and purchasing practices differ from the domestic ones, the field of education has been slow to follow their example.

This becomes even stranger because of the relationship between education and economic systems. If one of education’s objectives is to prepare a “workforce,” the more closely the educational system parallels the workforce, the less “waste” there might be. While industrialism, commercialism, religion, and technology extend beyond political and geographic borders, education laggingly falls behind.

The most surprising thing here may be the striking power of juxtaposition: those invested in education everywhere struggle for change, a significant and sustained movement in a new direction; yet, overall, education has progressed relatively little compared to related fields, including science, technology, entertainment, and business.

In education, there is a link somewhere, probably rooted in sentimentality and disconnection. The learning process has become so culturally removed from the communities it is designed to serve that families are no longer sure what quality education looks like, resulting in blind trust in an educational system that struggles to plan, measure, and remediate learning, while families remain on the sidelines, unsure of their role.

Defining Global Education

Globalization is less a singular initiative than the effect of a thousand initiatives, many of which are currently underdeveloped. In defining a “global curriculum,” one problem that must be confronted is the problem of perspective: do we all share the same definition of “global,” and do we understand the word “curriculum” on common ground?

In summary, let us agree that, in this context, “global” is a word that describes anything that is truly world-wide in its awareness, interdependence, and application. Immediately, the scale of any such effort should seem, at best, intimidating and, at worst, impossible with any degree of intimacy. Beyond the geological and atmospheric, few things can remain truly “global.” Global implies a scale that is not only ambitious and comprehensive but, by definition, genuinely inclusive. Things cannot be “partially global” any more than lights can be partially on.

So, if “global” is fully interdependent and inclusive, what about the curriculum part? For the purposes of this text, we will say that a curriculum is intentionally designed with content and learning experiences. It may be more or less planned and structured, created from a curriculum map into units, lessons, and activities, or much more open like “learning pathways,” each being a different style of curriculum. To be clear, learning standards such as the Common Core are not the curriculum, but ingredients with which one can create their own.

So, what does a “global curriculum” require and imply? And how do we get there from here?

The term “global” tends to carry corporate, marketing, and technological connotations, which is always dangerous. The ambition of business leaders, technology inventors, and scientists shows less respect for the practical than for the possible. While exciting in theory, it displays an arrogance that should serve as a warning for fields that have much more at stake than money or shareholders.