Scottish secondary schools and their links with developing countries: study

2. Literature Review

To better understand the impact school partnerships and educational exchanges to developing countries can have on both Scottish schools and partner schools, the next sections will give a brief review of the relevant academic literature. This will not only include research on school links and school trips, but also literature on the wider context of volunteer tourism. Volunteer tourism is defined as: “volunteer[ing] in an organized way to undertake holidays that might involve aiding or alleviating the material poverty of some groups in society, the restoration of certain environments, or research into aspects of society or environment”, with the rationale to create encounters that foster mutual understanding and respect (Wearing in Wearing & McGehee 2013 p.121). The rationale of volunteer tourism is similar to the aim of global citizenship, and school partnerships are often set up with the aim to promote good global citizenship. The goal of volunteer tourism – to create mutual understanding – has received critique both in popular media and academic literature, as it is not always reached, and difficulties occur when analysing the (power) relationships created between volunteers, tourist organisations and host communities. Similar dynamics may play a role in school partnerships, as they strife to reach the same aim of mutual understanding while also encountering difficulties in reaching equitable relationships. Moreover, schools also organise visits, which can include volunteer experiences as well. Therefore, the first section of this literature review will explore research on the dynamics of volunteer tourism, the difficulties of reaching mutual learning and potential negative impacts volunteering can have. This insight is then linked to research on global learning and school partnerships, showing similar dynamics and potential negative impacts that have to be considered. The chapter concludes with an overview of recommendations from the literature when considering school links and school visits.

2.1 Volunteer Tourism

Volunteer tourism, or voluntourism, became popular in the 1990s and 2000s as a new type of tourism that focused on global citizenship in travel. It was expected that this form of tourism, that included volunteering on development projects, would counter the negative effects of the “acculturation effect of mainstream tourism”, where the culture of the tourist has a dominating and diminishing effect over the culture of the host country to the host countries’ detriment (Lyons et al 2012). This potentially mitigating impact of volunteer tourism on host countries and the promotion of good global citizenship was emphasized at a policy level and of interest to early researchers in the field of sustainable tourism. In this initial phase there was a specific focus on the motivation of volunteers, to better understand their choices and desires (Guttentag 2009). Wearing and McGehee (2013) give a comprehensive overview of this research on volunteer motivations and show that motivations include a variety of reasons: from cultural immersion; to making a difference; seeking camaraderie; experiencing something new; meeting host country’s citizens and learn from and living in another country. No matter the motivation for going, when returning home, volunteer tourism seemed to make an impact on the participant and they made changes in their purchasing behaviour or got more involved in social movements. The most observed impact was seen on the development of ‘self’, with greater personal reflection and civic awareness (Wearing and McGehee 2013). Research also showed the benefits volunteer tourism could bring to education, the health system, historical restoration and ecological conservation in the host country (Wearing and McGehee 2013).

However, these initial research findings have been countered by a more critical look at the volunteer tourism industry and researchers like Guttentag (2009) have pointed out that there are some very serious potential negative effects that need consideration. For example, Guttentag has found that

• By focusing on the motivation and desires of the volunteers, the needs and desires of local hosts can become neglected, resulting in a lack of local involvement. This was particularly the case when volunteer tourist organisations are private companies in search of profit but was also the case for some NGO programmes.
• There is a risk of volunteer tourist organisations assuming an ‘expert’ role and acting on their own opinions of what is best for the host region and local communities.
• Volunteers are often unskilled and can therefore hinder project progress or deliver unsatisfactory work. Even skilled volunteers have been observed to have negative impact on progress, as local hosts shift their focus to make time to manage preparations and guidance.
• By having a volunteer come into a community and work for free, it can decrease the employment opportunities for locals.

Even though one important benefit is quoted as personal growth and reflection, researchers have warned that in some case volunteer tourism could actually reinforce stereotypes and rationalise poverty (Palacios 2010, Andreotti 2014). This last point is unpacked in more detail by Simpson (2004), who researched the promotional material of gap year volunteer tourism organisations. She found that this material used homogenous descriptions of cultures and promoted a simplistic understanding of development. For these organisations development was portrayed as something that can be ‘done’ (by non-skilled volunteers) and resides outside of local stakeholder communities (Simpson 2004). According to Simpson’s analysis of these organisations, there was very little evidence of strategic project planning with local groups and no critical questions about volunteers’ impacts and what impact would be most appropriate were asked. She states that “the dominant ideology is that doing something is better than doing nothing, and therefore, that doing anything, is reasonable” (Simpson 2004, p. 685). Simpson (2004) point out that these ideas of development are criticized and not support by the international development literature and community, but that volunteer tourism organisation seem to be behind on these critiques.

Simpson’s research not only showed that tourism organisations can promote stereotypical views of cultures, but that the participants themselves also reproduced some uncritical views on development. When talking about poverty the participants Simpson interviewed used a discourse of ‘luck’ to explain poverty (Simpson 2004). This narrative of being ‘lucky’ not to encounter poverty explains the material differences between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ “through a fatalistic faith in the ‘luck of the draw’, rather than in structures and systems in which we all participate, and which are ultimately, open to change” (Simpson 2004, p.689). Moreover, when relating experiences of poverty, participants drew on a ‘poor-but-happy’ narrative that trivialised and romanticised poverty and does not ask questions about the reasons and structures that reinforce poverty (Simpson 2004). Simpson (2004) therefore argues that voluntourism needs to include a ‘pedagogy of social justice’ to recognise the existence of inequality, societies’ role in this and to seek social change. We will see that the need to promote critical awareness of social justice and inequality is also repeated in research evaluating school partnership programmes.

In the last decade, following Simpson’s research, more critique on the practice of volunteer tourism has been voiced, and some volunteer tourism organisations are now actively engaged in thinking about their ideas of and impact on development. However, from a first glance at some UK volunteer tourism organisations the promotional language and imagery can still be rather stereotypical, depicting the volunteer as the one that will “change lives”. Moreover, other research has pointed out that it remains important to consider potential negative impacts of volunteering. Lyons et al (2012) for example specifically looked at the commodification of volunteer tourism, and suggested that as volunteer tourism becomes entangled with neoliberalist models of mass tourism it loses its ability to deliver on global citizenship. This impact is for example shown in the increased emphasis on skill development and career enhancement, where the volunteer will increasingly ask themselves how volunteering can be ‘useful’ to further their own career or studies. This focus on self-development, Lyons et al (2012) argue, can make volunteers lose focus on reflecting on one’s own culture, which is vital to becoming a good global citizenship.

Commodification will also mean that the cost of volunteer tourism makes that it is not accessible to everyone, and this creates a specific power relation which “involves the ‘better off’ providing aid in the some way to the ‘worse off’; a situation that creates an unequal relationship whereby the giver might appear superior to the receiver” (Lyons et al 2012 p. 371). Palacios (2010) adds that while in recent years questions have been asked whether volunteers have the right skills for the job and whether their help is effective, the question that should be asked is whether their help has any relevance at all. For Palacios (2010) voluntourism should focus on the cross-cultural learning and building of tolerance and global awareness, instead of effective development aid. He noticed, similar to Simpson, that programmes tell volunteers they will have a “positive impact” or help the community which raises expectations of both the volunteer and the host community, that often are not met. Palacios (2010) states that short-term volunteer projects should therefore limit their focus to intercultural learning, making room for cross-cultural contacts, informal encounters and reflection.

The literature has assessed volunteer tourism on both its positive and negative impacts, but there is very little known on the experiences of host communities. Academics’ point out that there is a lack of research focusing on host countries, and call for “the utilization of structured, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, transnational, and mixed method approaches to examine volunteer tourism in a more systematic and logical way” (Wearing and McGehee 2013 p. 122). Zahra and McGehee (2013, p.24) moreover reflect that the literature is rather dialectic, making an argument that volunteer tourism is either “panacea or pariah” rather than offering tangible insights across the scale. Their study provided empirical data on the influence volunteer tourism has on social capital in host communities in the Philippines (Zara and McGehee 2013). Local people reported a positive influence on building trust and cooperation in their community after being inspired by the volunteers to help others and invest time and communal working in maintaining their (build) environment (Zara and McGehee 2013). Another positive effect was that some community members felt increased pride and engagement with their own culture, because of volunteer interest and also felt more confident and empowered to let their voice be heard.

However, some participants did not necessarily trust the volunteers, feared that they would be told what to do or were disappointed when volunteers did not keep in contact. Moreover, financially it might not always be beneficial for community members to have volunteers staying, as they went on to buy cake they would normally not buy or give gifts they would normally sell, as an expression of thanks. This study shows that there can be diverse and multiple effects of volunteer tourism projects on the host community, where for some it might be beneficial, others can experience negative impacts. As Guttentag (2009) pointed out, every community is different and while some recommendations will work in one community, they will be ineffective in others. What should be clear though is that the voices, desires and needs of local hosts should be heard and local communities have to be involved in programmes taking place in their regions (Guttentag 2009).

In summary the literature suggests that volunteer tourism offers the possibility for volunteers to increase their understanding of different cultures and reflect on their own practices. For the hosts it can offer opportunities to build confidence and active participation in the community. However, to fulfil these opportunities volunteer tourism organisation have to be aware of the power relations at play, resist commodification, have a genuine focus on reflexivity, as well as always consult and involve the host communities during every stages of the programme. Volunteer tourism organisation then need to communicate these realities and good practises to their volunteers. These are also key issues when addressing school links to developing countries, as similar dependencies and unintentional impacts can occur and reflexivity is needed to develop global citizenship education.

2.2 Global Citizenship, International Educational Trips and School Partnerships

Where volunteer tourism mainly focuses on ‘gap year’ and university students, the idea of developing global citizenship is also embedded in present day primary and secondary education. It recognises that young people are growing up in an ever-interconnected world and schools should therefore, through global learning, encouraged learners to “think deeply and critically about what is equitable and just, and what will minimise harm to our planet. Exploring Global Citizenship themes helps learners grow more confident in standing up for their beliefs, and more skilled in evaluating the ethics and impact of their decisions” (Scotdec 2019). In the Scottish context, this is part of the Learning for Sustainability (LfS) approach that brings together global citizenship, sustainable development and outdoor learning, with the explicit aim to “enable[s] learners, educators, schools and their wider communities to build a socially-just, sustainable and equitable society” (Education Scotland 2019a).

One way to bring global citizenship to the classroom is establishing links or partnerships with schools and/or communities in other countries. This can for example be with European countries through Erasmus+ exchange programmes but can also be directed to developing countries. MacKenzie et al (2016) studied school partnership arrangements made through the Scotland-Malawi partnership, where the aim of the partnership was to develop skills in both countries, based on principles of equality and reciprocity. It encouraged schools to organise shared educational projects, as well as reciprocal visits or support the partner school with learning materials, clothes or the building of classrooms (MacKenzie et al 2016). Another activity that can be part of a partnership is a teacher exchange, where teachers visit another countries to increase their own understanding of global issues and take these experiences back to their school. This professional development is a particular focus of the British Council’s Connecting Classrooms programme.

For developing mutual understanding and sharing projects, partnerships can be an important component in participants development as global citizens. However, to engage in global citizenship learning it is not necessary to work with a partner school, and not all partnerships necessarily establish global citizenship (Andreotti 2014). As with volunteer tourism, educational trips and school partnerships which work with communities in different cultural, economic, political and social context, need to be aware and take into account inequalities, power imbalances and stereotypes for both host and home nations.

2.2.1 Evidence of Global Learning

Evaluations of school partnerships have shown some positive influence on the development of good global citizenship as partnerships can help in motivating schools to incorporate global learning into their teaching programme (Bentall et al 2014). Bourn (2014) evaluated school links and concluded that students showed an “increase understanding, raising standards of learning and engagement with the everyday life of the school” (p.26). This is similar to the outcome of Sizmur et al (2011) who looked at the impact of the Global School Partnership programme from the Department of International Development (DfID), where teachers reported positive impact on pupils understanding of and respect for people from developing countries; on knowledge of global issues; on attitudes towards inter-cultural differences and on awareness of pupils’ impact on the world. In another evaluation on school partnerships Bourn and Cara (2013) made a similar observation of achieved learning, although they wondered about the level of depth of this learning: “there is evidence of increased understanding of global and development issues, the quality of teaching and learning appears to have improved, and materials produced were valued. However, the evidence does not tell us a great deal about depth of learning and understanding within schools.” (Bourn and Cara 2013, p.52). Sizmur et al (2011) conclude that the highest benefit was seen in schools that had global learning fully embedded across the school and it was seen as a school priority. Moreover, the teachers in these schools had received professional development training on global learning and focused their teaching on global citizenship, sustainable development, interdependence and conflict resolution (Sizmur et al 2011). When it came to partnership building with another school, the activities that was seen as most beneficial was the communication with partner school pupils, to exchange ideas, make friends and learning about each other’s culture (Edge and Khamsi 2012).

Although there have been several impact and evaluation reports of different school partnership programmes, unfortunately these reports do not always make a distinction between the different activities undertaken i.e. teacher training and exchanges, student trips, fundraising, or educational projects and it is therefore difficult to conclude what causes changes in global learning. However, as we will explore in the following sections, pupil visits and being involved in charitable funding are activities that are often criticised when evaluating impact.

2.2.2 Critical Literacy

To achieve the critical reflection and understanding of power, social justice and poverty that global citizenship wants to promote, in-depth learning about these issues is needed. Andreotti (2014) points out that in schools often a form of ‘soft’ global citizenship education is given. This form of global citizenship constructs poverty as “a lack of resources, services and markets and of education”, however, to understand social justice, pupils will need to reflect on poverty as a “lack of control over the production of resources” (Andreotti 2014, p. 5). To become a good global citizen, pupils and teachers will need to have a critical literacy, that promotes a view of global problems as issues of justice and unequal power relations (Andreotti 2014). The basis for caring about these issues should be a responsibility towards each other and a willingness to learn together, instead of feeling you have a responsibility for the other and need to teach them, which is often promoted in a more ‘soft’ approach to global citizenship (Andreotti 2014). For Andreotti this means pupils in western countries need to focus on analysing their own position and participate in changing structures, assumptions, attitudes, identities and power relations, instead of focusing on ‘helping’ by donating time and resources to partner countries. This is a similar conclusion as Simpson (2004) and her call to create a “critical pedagogy”.

To reach a more critical reflection the contribution of teachers is important. Bentall et al (2014) show that teachers who took part in a school partnership, especially if they travelled to the partner country, used their experience to inform their teaching. They concluded it enhanced teachers’ commitment to global learning as “… their first-hand experience of a developing country, particularly through the partnerships, gave them a strong desire to involve their learners in understanding and making a difference to those communities the colleges were associated with” (Bentall et al 2014, p. 631). These first-hand experiences gained by teachers also motivated their students, as they felt it gave their teaching more credibility and authority (Bentall et al 2014), and allow them to learn from real-world examples (Bourn 2014). Overall, Bourn (2014) concluded that developing partnerships can give teachers the opportunity to reflect on their own assumptions, views and values, which would enable them to encourage reflective practice in their students. However, as Andreotti (2014) stressed, this is not always necessarily the case and critical reflection – especially on power relations – is not present in pre- and post-trip discussions.

The concept of global learning draws strongly on ideas of experiential learning, where teachers and learners will go through cycles of experience and reflection. Reflection should therefore be part of any visit and pre- and post-trip discussions can increase global learning (McGladdery and Lubbe 2017). This is similar to literature on voluntourism pointing out that volunteer organisations should have a continued involvement in the volunteers journey, even after they are back home, and use the concept of “transformative learning” to improve what volunteers take out of the experience (Wearing and McGehee 2013). These reflective sessions were included in Wilson’s (2019) case studies, where pupils taking part in a trip would be involved in 18 months of preparation, which included critical reflections on global issues. However, an interesting finding was when students were fundraising for the trip and writing about their activities in a blog they focused on charitable giving and donor-recipient relations (Wilson 2019). Wilson concludes that part of these partnership relations include a ‘performance’ of stereotypes, to fulfil expectations from audiences at home, from donors, but also expectations that were very much embedded in the students themselves. While the students were able to reflect on stereotypes and power relations in pre-trip sessions, when talking about their own experiences they emphasised a stereotypical image of “poor African” in need of “help”.

That some “development” narratives can be very persistent was also shown by Fizzell and Epprecht (2014) in a study on Canadian secondary school visits to developing countries. Their study shows that secondary pupils would explain poverty in terms of the ‘lotto logic’ described by Simpson (2014). The pupils explained being in or out of poverty as a matter of luck and not a matter of social structures, history and power relations. Fizzell and Epprecht (2014) conclude that there is a vagueness in global learning concepts which results in them not being linked to a critical pedagogy. They therefore suggest that it is not only important for teachers to gain first-hand experience of global issues, but that they also need to develop baseline understanding of the concepts related to development (Fizzell and Epprecht 2014).

The academic literature points to the danger of reinforcing notions of dependency and paternalism, as well as evoking pity and sympathy rather than empathy, which lack the critical reflection on power imbalance. Bourn (2014) for example indicates that research on linking schools in western countries with projects in developing countries raised concerns among researchers about “the extent to which links encouraged a more critical view of development and questions assumptions about schools and communities in Africa and South Asia.” (p.12). After evaluating a school linking programme, Bourn and Cara (2013) concluded that a lot of UK schools saw the partnership more as a donor-recipient relationship, rather than one of mutual learning. They warn that partnerships that focus on charitable actions or fundraising, more than global learning, might actually reinforce stereotypes. This corresponds with observations made by Simpson (2004) and Guttentag (2009) who pointed out that volunteer tourism can reinforce stereotypes and trivialise or rationalise poverty. This is further reinforced by Wilson (2019) who showed that in partnerships where university students and secondary school pupils visited Malawi, the visiting students often acknowledged inaccuracies in stereotypes. However, these students were still uncritical of the donor-recipient relation and, as Wilson argues, failed to critique the “modernisation-as-development discourse” that promotes the European students as active agents and their African counterparts as passive recipients (Wilson 2019).

Wilson’s case studies are particularly interesting as they focus on Scottish programmes, linked to the Scotland-Malawi Partnership (SMP). The SMP holds a strong view on establishing partnerships that are focused on global learning (rather than fundraising or charitable action) and that those partnership should include mutual learning. They acknowledge that there is a danger of seeing the partner as “the needy other” and the Scottish school as the one who is able to “make the world better” (McKenzie et al 2016, p.130). In their guidance for schools they therefore warn that the partnership should not just consist of providing material aids and funds and that the impact of aid should always be carefully assessed (Mackenzie et al 2016). The programmes Wilson (2019) researched all acknowledge this need for mutual learning and reciprocity, however, in practice the activities show a more muddled picture. One of the organisations providing secondary school trips, for example stated that they were “not into traditional activities” like painting schools, yet on one of the trips they had arranged pupils did just that (Wilson 2019). This idea that students will “help” a community can be problematic and some programmes and volunteers adopted practices and roles similar to professional aid agencies, without the extensive knowledge and training for handling these practices. Wilson has observed situations where this led to student volunteers “being placed in positions of considerable authority, in a country they did not know” (Wilson 2019, p. 164). The individuals were “expected to perform as a development worker, offering advice and insights into areas that they had very little understanding” (Wilson 2019, p.165). This highly problematic focus on development aid is similar to Palacios (2010) warning on volunteer tourism and his call to step away from a development aid focus and instead look at intercultural exchange and learning.

To establish a partnership that focused on mutual learning, as well as establishing a critical literacy of global issues requires long-term school wide investment. Unfortunately, evaluating UK school linking programmes, Blum et al (2017) showed maintaining the partnership beyond the initial support and grants from the British Council or other funders was often difficult. Usually the initial links started through personal connections, which in some cases matured through accessing additional funds such as the Connecting Classroom programme (Bourn 2014) but ended after the school failed to find further funding. Some partnerships have gained support from local authorities, organisations, charities and/or private companies, but the danger is that this support will focus the partnership more on sponsoring and fundraising for the partner school and enlarges the risk of increasing stereotypes and power imbalances and undermining the partner countries agency (Blum et al 2017).

2.2.3 Research on the Partner Countries

As with the research on voluntourism, there is little work done on understanding the impact of school partnerships on the partner community in developing countries. Leonard’s PhD thesis (2014) is one of the exceptions. In this study Leonard showed that the collaboration had a positive impact on the partner school and its teachers’ pedagogy. Moreover, pupils in the partner schools also saw the impact from the exchange, firstly through physical changes: buildings, books, equipment and other educational materials were provided through fundraising, but also through learning about issues such as social justice and human rights as part of the shared educational projects pupils were engaged in. Bourn and Cara (2013) point to the positive impact a partnership can have on both home and host teachers’ knowledge of different teaching methods. However, they also make clear that schools will have to acknowledge that agendas and needs between the two partners will be different and almost always will lead to a partnership that has a mix of educational and development projects (Bourn and Cara 2013). Wilson (2019) makes a similar point in his research, where the teachers in the Malawian partner schools stressed their need to gain access to more resources. This was opposed to the emphasis the UK organisations and schools put on educational and shared learning. Wilson concludes that while focusing on the latter might challenge stereotypes and what he called “conceptual marginalisation” it can ignore the “material marginalisation” that does exist and ignore the situation on the ground where material needs are often at the forefront. However, addressing this inequality has to be done with care. Wilson (2019) shows in his research that partnerships and school visits can be seen as a resource that organisations and schools have to bid for, rather than a long-term source of mutual exchange and educational improvement. Moreover, to access these resources, the partner schools and local host organisations would ‘perform’ a very stereotypical narrative of poverty, for example showing the visiting students an orphanage in expectation that this would secure funding (Wilson 2019). Again, these activities are in danger of promoting instead of challenge stereotypes and exacerbating power imbalance as one school lack resources, while the other arguably has the ability to provide them. What this research shows is that it is important to make sure all voices, needs and goals are carefully considered in partnerships and partner communities are involved in the discussions.

Overall the studies have shown that partnerships have the ability to enhance pupils’ global citizenship, but this highly dependent on how programmes are designed and delivered. The main critique of current school links is that is does not always promote critical thinking on issues such as social justice, power imbalances and equality. To tackle this, teacher development is an important element, as well as the way school links are set up. When establishing a partnership, schools should invest time in discussing the needs and expectations of both parties as well as the learning outcomes that each wants to achieve. Deciding to include a school visit should include further examination of what such a visit would achieve and the risks it carries for partner institutions and communities. Questions remain on the impact of these activities on partner schools in developing countries such as, how much power do they have in the relationship and how are the agendas set?

2.3 Recommendations for Partnerships and School Trips

To achieve global learning, promoting critical literacy or “a pedagogy of social justice” (Simpson 2004), the academic literature advocates a range of approaches for the home (in this case the Scottish) school; the partner (the developing country’s) school; and in some cases both:

• Strongly embed the partnership in the host school’s curriculum and priorities (Bourn 2014; Sizmur et al 2011)
• Make sure a partnership includes communication and exchanges of ideas between both schools’ pupils, to create global learning opportunities (Edge and Khamsi 2012)
• Provide professional development training that helps home teachers develop a theoretical understanding of notions related to development (Fizzell and Epprecht 2014) and an understanding on issues of social justice, inequality and power imbalance (Andreotti 2014)
• When teacher-exchanges are set up they should ensure that a teacher’s personal learning in both schools is translated to all teachers in the school (Bourn 2014)
• Experiential learning (e.g. through visits) can be an important part of global learning. To have a transformative impact, learners should go through a cycle of experience and reflection. This can be achieved by including pre- and post- trip discussions (McGladdery and Lubbe 2017), which should address assumptions and stereotypes (Andreotti 2014)

To prevent power imbalance and allow for reciprocity the academic literature proposes:

• Involved home organisations, schools and teachers should engage themselves with the field of international development and its critical reflections. They should distance themselves from a language of development aid but instead be firmly placed in the language and thinking of global learning (Simpson 2004; Palacios 2010; Wilson 2019). It is important that home teachers planning a visit, or volunteer organisations supporting home schools, are engaged with the debates within international development literature (Simpson 2004) and organise a visit that focuses on critical global citizenship and education aspects and not on development aid (Palacios 2010; Andreotti 2014)
• Establish learning partnerships, rather than link through fundraising. This needs leadership and resources in both home and partner institutions to establish a long-term partnership (Blum et al 2017). Short term or ad hoc links should be avoided and linking agreements should be formalised (Leonard 2014)
• The home school, teachers and organisations involved should ensure that ideas and actions are discussed with the partner school, who should be engaged in all stages from planning, assessing impact to deciding on future activities (Mackenzie et al 2016; Guttentag 2009). The partner school should be able to set their own “school linking agenda” (Leonard 2014)
• Even though the focus lies on global learning, home schools should be aware of the material inequality and resource need of partner schools, and engage in open discussions on what expectations both schools have in addressing these (Wilson 2019; Bourn and Cara 2013)
• Volunteer activities that replace employment opportunities in local partner communities should not form any part of the exchange. This should be discussed with host communities (Guttentag 2009).
• When planning an overseas visits and thinking through the range of activities that all pupils will be involved in, careful assessment is required in terms of the potential stereotypes promoted, the power imbalances involved and if critical global citizenship is reached (Fizzell and Epprecht 2014; Wilson 2019; Andreotti 2014). Partner schools need to be equal partners in these discussions and plans.

In general, the literature is most critical about fundraising and volunteering activities. This poses the question whether school visits are the best way to promote global citizenship? Do the positives, such as personal development and engagement, outweigh possible negatives, such as reinforcement of stereotypes and power imbalances? The main question as a school to engage with is: ‘What do I want to achieve with my school partnership?’ - if the answer is global learning, fundraising activities and pupil visits might not always be the best choice.

Other factors associated with volunteering and school visits are less reflected upon in the literature: the costs to parents and communities that are asked to help with the fundraising; but also the impacts to the environment, such as the carbon footprint of flying.

Lastly, with very little known on the impacts on, and motivations of, partner schools the question remains whether the promotion of global learning through partnerships is a dominantly Western approach to expanding young people’s education? Do host schools in partner countries share the same idea of global citizenship education? If not, what does this mean for establishing viable and sustainable partnerships that meet the needs of both parties? Are partnerships for example mainly established through Scottish schools looking for a school to partner with, or are schools in developing countries (actively) looking for partnerships themselves, and if so, are some schools more equipped to do so than others?