HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Education systems, social integration <strong>and</strong> inequality Walo Hutmacher The fundamental issue <strong>of</strong> integration or <strong>of</strong> social cohesion is that <strong>of</strong> the social bond, in the sense in which Montesquieu already conceived it when he defined society, not as the sum <strong>of</strong> individuals, but as the union between them. When referring to more specifically education, the issue is in fact that <strong>of</strong> the social production <strong>of</strong> the bond; i.e. what constitutes the union <strong>and</strong> what holds people <strong>and</strong> societies together more <strong>of</strong> less peacefully, despite tensions <strong>and</strong> conflict between individuals <strong>and</strong> groups sharing widely unequal resources. With this in mind, it may be useful to take a rather broad view <strong>and</strong> to attempt to sketch the social <strong>and</strong> institutional context, the l<strong>and</strong>scape in which curricula are defined, <strong>and</strong> in which social integration is a constant challenge. Instead <strong>of</strong> building up a system <strong>of</strong> unfamiliar concepts, it might be useful to apply them practically to a reading <strong>of</strong> the history <strong>of</strong> schooling as a major integrative feature <strong>of</strong> Western society. By illustrating the possible usefulness <strong>of</strong> these concepts, it is important to recall how much our present owes to a historical heritage that we are not always aware <strong>of</strong>. I. GLOBALIZATION OF THE NATIONAL STATE MODEL AND OF THE SCHOOL Let us begin, however, by examining the present. What will probably characterize the second half <strong>of</strong> the twentieth century in future historical recollection is the extension to the entire planet <strong>of</strong> a form <strong>of</strong> organization <strong>and</strong> government <strong>of</strong> human society that gradually emerged <strong>and</strong> developed in Europe over the last 600 years (Elias, 1976). In the course <strong>of</strong> decolonization, the world has in fact been entirely divided up <strong>and</strong> structured into territory-based national societies. Each <strong>of</strong> these societies is governed by a sovereign State, which, within the boundaries <strong>of</strong> its territory, not only has the right to raise taxes <strong>and</strong> print money, but also detains the monopoly <strong>of</strong> legitimate physical violence, i.e. the exclusive right to raise an army, maintain a police force <strong>and</strong> dispense criminal justice. This overall model <strong>of</strong> public authority takes widely differing forms. In many cases, the precise geographical areas <strong>and</strong> populations over which sovereignty is exercised remain uncertain <strong>and</strong> in dispute. The State’s organization is not fully accomplished everywhere. It also varies greatly between more centralised <strong>and</strong> more federalist structures. 14 Nor can all countries be called democratic either. National societies are very unequal in terms <strong>of</strong> wealth, power <strong>and</strong> level <strong>of</strong> social <strong>and</strong> economic development, <strong>and</strong> their governments enjoy widely unequal levels <strong>of</strong> resources. But all these differences do not alter the basic premise that the nation-State has become the dominant form <strong>of</strong> organization <strong>of</strong> society throughout the species. The global spread <strong>of</strong> the national State model has raised a number <strong>of</strong> new frontiers <strong>and</strong> identities. And in everyday parlance as well as in political discourse the very concept <strong>of</strong> society is primarily associated with <strong>and</strong> circumscribed by national society. Everywhere people define society primarily as their national society, where they live <strong>and</strong> to which they feel a sense <strong>of</strong> belonging. They perceive other national societies as being different in many ways <strong>and</strong> possibly even as threatening. Yet, as this form <strong>of</strong> organization becomes universal, it is being rocked by the globalization <strong>of</strong> economic markets (goods, services, capital <strong>and</strong> labour), which has accelerated over the last fifteen years, under the impetus <strong>of</strong> new information <strong>and</strong> communication technologies abolishing time <strong>and</strong> distance on a world scale. Markets no longer know any frontiers: They are global, while political action <strong>and</strong> democracy remain enclosed within national borders. The two main pillars <strong>of</strong> the so-called free society—that is, a free market <strong>and</strong> democracy—thus do not share the same contours. Obviously, there would be much to say about the tensions, risks <strong>and</strong> opportunities that are related to this new situation, where the relevant spaces <strong>and</strong> horizons <strong>of</strong> politics <strong>and</strong> economy no longer coincide. This is particularly true <strong>of</strong> education <strong>and</strong> training systems. It must be underlined that, in many countries, the development towards global markets (including the information <strong>and</strong> communication media) represents a major challenge to the very credibility <strong>of</strong> national State policy <strong>and</strong> democracy in the eyes <strong>of</strong> the citizens. But the main purpose <strong>of</strong> this short introduction is simply to draw our attention to this global context <strong>and</strong> to introduce another dimension <strong>of</strong> the modern State. One <strong>of</strong> the very important <strong>and</strong> equally universal aspects <strong>of</strong> national States since the end <strong>of</strong> the nineteenth century lies indeed in the fact that, over <strong>and</strong> above their monopoly on physical violence, their authorities also enjoy significant prerogatives in the realm <strong>of</strong> what Bourdieu <strong>and</strong> Passeron (1970) have
- Page 1 and 2: CURRICULUM CHANGE AND SOCIAL INCLUS
- Page 3 and 4: Contents Foreword, by Cecilia Brasl
- Page 5 and 6: INTRODUCTION
- Page 7 and 8: empathy and coping with stress. The
- Page 9 and 10: content. From the perspective of de
- Page 11: assessment, peer assessment, co-ope
- Page 15 and 16: 3. The third option was to subject
- Page 17 and 18: and the formal hierarchy of the sch
- Page 19 and 20: standard language within a very plu
- Page 21 and 22: social recognition of students’ a
- Page 23 and 24: Organisation for Economic Co-operat
- Page 25 and 26: Reforming school curricula in Latin
- Page 27 and 28: On the whole, the centralized model
- Page 29 and 30: 4. Synthesis: curricular regulation
- Page 31 and 32: Finally, and concerning the process
- Page 33 and 34: V. THE PRESENT SITUATION. The inten
- Page 35 and 36: FIGURE 4. Argentina: levels of curr
- Page 37 and 38: The challenges of social inclusion
- Page 39 and 40: espondents were opposed and 14.3% w
- Page 41 and 42: Rights and values will clash in any
- Page 43 and 44: THE LITHUANIAN EXPERIENCE
- Page 45 and 46: • Ensure that access, equity and
- Page 47 and 48: Pending transition to the six-year
- Page 49 and 50: TABLE 3. Publication of textbooks (
- Page 51 and 52: VIII. NEW TEACHING MATERIALS The de
- Page 53 and 54: FIGURE 1. The dynamics of the pupil
- Page 55 and 56: FIGURE 3. Gender ratio at secondary
- Page 57 and 58: The integration of children with sp
- Page 59 and 60: 8. The phenomena of pupil selection
- Page 61 and 62: REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES FROM THE BALT
- Page 63 and 64:
II. PATTERNS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION AN
- Page 65 and 66:
Communicative skills, skills to cop
- Page 67 and 68:
References Egelund, N. 1999. De bl
- Page 69 and 70:
Developing civic education in Eston
- Page 71 and 72:
A non-governmental organization est
- Page 73 and 74:
were not prepared or ready to carry
- Page 75 and 76:
• Governing society; • The basi
- Page 77 and 78:
TABLE 3. Teachers of compulsory sch
- Page 79 and 80:
consequences for others, so that th
- Page 81 and 82:
The new curriculum (L97) consists o
- Page 83 and 84:
in cultural activities. The activit
- Page 85 and 86:
eflected at school: what we see tod
- Page 87 and 88:
2. Measures addressed to all those
- Page 89 and 90:
qualified representatives of the Ro
- Page 91 and 92:
ANNEX I: Agenda of the regional sem
- Page 93 and 94:
● Jankauskien˙e, Laima Ministry
- Page 95:
Visit the Journal Homepage at: www.