Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is part of the UN agenda and based on the idea that all people have civic responsibilities on a social, political, environmental, and economic scale to the world as a whole rather than just to their local communities or countries.

Discuss the need to make GCED a higher priority in schools.

Taking the article as a starting point, write a letter to the editor of The Guardian, commenting on the effects of a globalised culture on urban neighbourhoods.

Should Global Citizenship Education (GCED) be made a higher priority in schools?

In an increasingly interconnected world, the importance of Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is becoming ever more evident. As part of the United Nations’ agenda, GCED promotes the idea that individuals bear responsibilities not only to their local communities or nations but to the world at large. Given the complexity of today’s global challenges, I am of the opinion that it is essential that schools make GCED a higher priority in their curricula. One key reason for elevating the importance of GCED is the growing difficulty of understanding a world shaped by rapid and ongoing globalisation. Political conflicts, economic crises, environmental disasters, and pandemics no longer affect only one region—they ripple across continents. As the world becomes more interdependent, young people need the tools to make sense of global systems and their impacts. Moreover, citizenship involves both rights and responsibilities. GCED encourages students to engage actively in social, political, environmental, and economic processes. It helps them understand that their actions, such as how they consume resources, vote, or express opinions, have broader consequences. Educating future generations about their roles in a global society is essential if we hope to address issues like inequality, climate change, or global conflict collaboratively and effectively. Another urgent reason to promote GCED is to raise awareness of the social inequalities that globalisation creates. While some benefit from open markets and new technologies, others are left behind. GCED aims to make students aware of these disparities and to foster empathy and a desire for social justice. Furthermore, as challenges like global warming or pandemics increasingly disregard national borders, we must teach students that lasting solutions require international cooperation, not isolation. Equally important is the development of cross-cultural understanding and shared human values. GCED promotes analytical and evaluative skills that encourage critical thinking and tolerance. This “world-mindedness” prepares students not only to understand diverse perspectives but also to work towards inclusive solutions in an increasingly multicultural world. Some critics argue that GCED is too vague or impractical. Questions remain about whether a unified concept of global citizenship can exist, and which aspects—social, political, environmental, or economic—should be prioritized in teaching. Others point out that many of these topics are already covered in subjects such as geography, history, or ethics. Additionally, schools often face pressure to focus on job market-oriented skills or urgent local issues like healthcare or economic development. While these concerns are valid, they do not outweigh the broader necessity of preparing students for the realities of a globalised world. Rather than treating GCED as an optional add-on, schools should embed it more deeply into existing curricula. Far from being a distraction, it equips students with the understanding and responsibility needed to navigate both their local communities and the global landscape. In conclusion, Global Citizenship Education must become a higher priority in schools. As globalisation continues to shape every aspect of our lives, students need the knowledge, values, and critical skills to face complex global challenges with informed compassion and a cooperative spirit. Investing in GCED today is an investment in a more just, sustainable, and peaceful future.

To the Editor,

I am writing in response to Leslie Kern’s insightful article “It’s not all coffee shops and hipsters: what we get wrong about gentrification” (2022), which exposes the often-misunderstood consequences of gentrification, especially in the context of a globalised urban culture. As Kern rightly argues, the real culprits behind neighbourhood transformation are not artisanal cafés or overpriced breakfast grains, but the multinational real estate investors and policy-makers shaping our cities behind the scenes. The article raises important concerns about the multiple negative effects of gentrification, which can be viewed as one of the most visible urban symptoms of globalisation. Local businesses that once served working-class communities are pushed out by global chains. Rents and property prices rise dramatically, leading to the exclusion and displacement of longtime residents. The character of entire neighbourhoods changes rapidly, replacing vibrant, culturally rooted communities with homogenised spaces that evoke resentment and a sense of loss. What results is an aggravated socioeconomic divide and fragmentation of formerly cohesive communities. This is not merely a local issue. Globalised culture imposes a shared aesthetic across cities worldwide: hipster cafés, co-working spaces, and boutique gyms, while sidelining local traditions, dialects, and food cultures. As global brands dominate the urban landscape, cultural diversity is slowly eroded. Communities become increasingly dependent on international corporations not only as consumers but as employees caught in precarious jobs, or as tenants in buildings owned by anonymous corporate landlords. Local governments often lose the ability to control urban development, with decisions made by global players whose interests rarely align with those of the communities affected. Nonetheless, globalisation also brings opportunities. In some cases, gentrification has contributed to better infrastructure, increased public safety, and the renovation of decaying urban spaces. It can attract investment, introduce technological innovation, and facilitate cross-cultural exchange, potentially helping to break down stereotypes and promote more inclusive urban identities. Yet these benefits often come at a high cost and the burden is not evenly shared. To preserve the soul of our cities, we must question who profits from change and who is left behind. As Kern powerfully concludes, our focus must shift from symbolic protest against cafés to strategic resistance against the global forces of profit-driven urban development. Sincerely, Liv Smith