General education. Homogenised education for the globalized world?

Schwerpunkt
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Societies need to make sure that the next generation is ready and capable to take over in due time, be it in working life, culture, civil society, politics or families. Therefore, society at large and specifically state governments need to assist the efforts of families and local communities. Such provisions have been the basic premise for general educational theories for centuries, when education was often named Democratic and Comprehensive Bildung. At present, this premise needs re-conceptualization, because societies are moving dramatically towards opening up for interactions and relations with the widest possible area: the globe. Many societal challenges have effects across nations, calling for trans-national coordination, management and solutions,—for homogenized and standard based policy making. At the same time, inspiration from multiple sources produce conflicting visions and rival discourses about what the purposes of and the means for education should be.

In this paper we analyze and discuss two contemporary, fundamentally dissimilar discourses on education and their theoretical and societal roots. Our main method is discourse analysis. We argue for inclusion of a global world-view in national education. We shall be critical, however, to the technocratic turn and the homogenization of education per se and argue for a Democratic Bildung perspective in education for world citizenship.

Keywords

Democratic Bildung Discourses Globalization Global Citizenship Homogenization Outcomes 

Allgemeinbildung. Homogenisierte Erziehung für die globalisierte Welt?

Zusammenfassung

Gesellschaften haben dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass die nächste Generation darauf vorbereitet ist und sich auch dazu bereitfindet, zu angemessener Zeit Verantwortung zu übernehmen – sei es nun im Berufsleben oder in der Kultur, in Zivilgesellschaft, Politik oder Familie. Deshalb müssen die Gesellschaften insgesamt und die Regierungen im Besonderen das Bestreben von Familien und lokalen Gemeinschaften unterstützen, ihren Kindern die besten Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten zu verschaffen. Solche Fürsorgekonzepte sind für Jahrhunderte die elementare Voraussetzung für die erziehungswissenschaftliche Theoriebildung gewesen, immer dann, wenn Erziehung als demokratische oder allgemeine Bildung verstanden wurde. In der Gegenwart muss diese Voraussetzung aber neu konzeptualisiert werden, weil sich Gesellschaften dramatisch verändern, indem sie sich für gemeinschaftliche Handlungen und Beziehungen öffnen, die sich auf das denkbar größte Gebiet beziehen, auf den Globus. Viele gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen haben Effekte, die über (einzelne) Nationen hinweg wirken und deshalb transnationale Koordination, Management und Problemlösung verlangen – für eine homogenisierte und auf gemeinsamen Standards beruhende Politik. Gleichzeitig erzeugt die Inspiration aus unterschiedlichen Quellen konflikthafte Visionen und rivalisierende Diskurse über die Zielsetzung von Erziehung sowie die Wahl der dafür geeigneten Mittel.

In diesem Beitrag analysieren und diskutieren wir zwei fundamental verschiedene Diskurse über Erziehung und deren theoretische und gesellschaftliche Wurzeln. Unsere Hauptmethode ist die Diskursanalyse. Wir argumentieren dafür, eine globale Welt-Perspektive in die nationale oder regionale/lokale Erziehung einzubringen. Wir nehmen aber eine kritische Position bezüglich der technokratischen Umorientierung und der Homogenisierung per se ein und argumentieren für eine demokratische Bildungsperspektive im Rahmen einer Erziehung zum Weltbürger.

Schlüsselwörter

Diskurse Demokratische Bildung Output Globalisierung Homogenisierung Weltbürgerschaft 

References

  1. Ball, S. J. (2004). Education for sale! The commodification of everything? (king’s annual education lecture). London: University of London, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education INC. New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, S., & Junemann, C. (2015). Pearson and PALF: the mutating giant. Brussels: Education International.Google Scholar
  4. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: towards an Understandung of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culturea and Society, 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Beane, J. A., & Apple, M. W. (1999). The case for democratic schools. In M. W. Apple & J. A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools, lessons from chalk face. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research and critique. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Biesta, G. (2003). Demokrati - ett problem för utbildning eller ett uttbildningsproblem? [Democracy—a problem for education or an educational problem?]. Utbildning & Democracy, 12(1), 59–80.Google Scholar
  9. Biesta, G. J. J. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Blossing, U., Imsen, G., & Moos, L. (Eds.) (2013). The nordic education model: ‘a school for all’ encounters neo-liberal policy. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Consolidation Act No. 730 of June 21, 2000, Ministry of Education (Act on Folkeskole 1993).Google Scholar
  12. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  13. Desrosières, A. (2000). L’histoire de la statistique comme genre: style d’écriture et usasge sociaux. Genéses, 39, 121–137.Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dewey, J. (1937). Democracy and educational administration. In J. Ratner (Ed.), Education today. New York: G.P. Putman’s sons.Google Scholar
  16. Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: a pragmatis proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Parliament (2017). Fact sheet on the European Union. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_3.1.1.html. Accessed: 10 Jan. 2018.Google Scholar
  18. Fedotova, O. (2014). Modern Education in the Framework of Affirmative and Non-affirmative Approaches. Procedia – Sociual and Behavioural Science, 2015(180), 55–60.Google Scholar
  19. Furman, G. C., & Starrat, R. J. (2002). Leadership for democratic community. In S. J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge (pp. 105–133). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gunter, H. M., & Mills, C. (2017). Consultants and consultancy: the case of education. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. (1996a). Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Habermas, J. (1996b). Euroskepticism, market Europe or a Europe of (world) citixens? In C. Cronin & M. Pensky (Eds.), Time of transitions. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hellesnes, J. (1976). Socialisering og teknokrati [Socialization and Technocraty]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  24. Henry, M., Lindgard, B., Rizvi, F., & Raylor, S. (2001). The OECD, Globalisation and Education Policy. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  25. Honneth, A. (1992). Integrity and disrespect: principles of a conception of morality based on the theory of recognition. Political Theory, 20(2), 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hopman, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, E. (2015). EU in crisis? Blame the single market, not Schengen and the euro. Politics and strategy. The survival editors’ Blog. https://www.iiss.org/en/politics%20and%20strategy/blogsections/2015-932e/december-1bda/europe-in-crisis-blame-the-single-market-not-schengen-and-the-euro-eec7. Accessed: 10 Jan. 2018.Google Scholar
  29. Kavanagh, T. (2011). The problem with the EU: a Leftist critique. https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/eu-left/. Accessed: 10 Jan. 2018.Google Scholar
  30. Kemp, P. (2011). Citizen of the world. The cosmopolitan ideal for the twenty-first century. New York: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  31. Klafki, W. (2001). Dannelsesteori og didaktik - nye studier [Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik, 1996][New Studies on Bildungs-theory and Didactics]. Århus: Klim.Google Scholar
  32. Klafki, W. (2007). Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. [New Studies on Bildungs-theory and Didactics] (6th edition). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  33. Labaree, D. (2014). Let’s measure what no one teaches: PISA, NCLB, and the shrinking aims of education. Teachers college record. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17533. Accessed: 10 Jan. 2018.Google Scholar
  34. Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2007). New forms of European governance in the education sector? A preliminary analysis of the open method of coordination. European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education—governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lawn, M., & Lingard, B. (2002). Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: the role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 290–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lorenzer, A. (1975). Materialistisk socialisationsteori [Material theory of socialization]. København: Rhodos.Google Scholar
  38. Louis, K. S. (2003). Democratic schools, democratic communities. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2(2), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin, H.-P., & Schumann, H. (1997). Globaliseringsfælden. Angrebet på demokrati og velstand [Die Globalisieringsfalle. Der Angriff auf Demokraite und Wohlstand]. Copenhagen: Borgen.Google Scholar
  40. Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behens, W. (1972) The limits to growth. New York, Universe booksGoogle Scholar
  41. Moos, L. (2003). Educational leadership: leading for/as ‘Dannelse’? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moos, L. (2006). What Kinds of Democracy in Education are Facilitated by Supra- and Transnational Agencies? European Educational Research Journal, 5(3&4), 160–168.Google Scholar
  43. Moos, L. (2009). Hard and soft governance: the journey from transnational agencies to school leadership. European Educational Research Journal,, 8(3), 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moos, L. (2011a). Governance of educational systems—conteztualizing and conceptualising influence. In F. Dietrich, M. Heinrich, & N. Thieme (Eds.), Neue Steuerung - alte Ungleichheiten? (pp. 23–34). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  45. Moos, L. (2011b). Sustaining leadership through self-renewing communication. In L. Moos, O. Johansson, & C. Day (Eds.), How school principals sustain success over time (pp. 127–150). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moos, L. (2013a). Pædagogisk ledelse i en læringsmålstyret skole? [Pedagogical leadership in a Outcomes-governed School?]. København: Hans Reitzlers Forlag.Google Scholar
  47. Moos, L. (2013b). School leadership in a contradictory world. Revista de Investigacion Educativa, 31(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moos, L. (2014). Leadership for creativity. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(2), 178–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moos, L. (2017). Neo-liberal governance leads education and educational leadership astray. In M. Uljens & R. Ylimaki (Eds.), Beyond leadership, curriculum and didaktik (vol. Educational governance research). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., & Paulsen, J. M. (2015). Directions for our investigation of the chain of governancd and the agents. In L. Moos, E. Nihlfors, & J. M. Paulsen (Eds.), Nordic superintendents: agent in a broken chain (Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Nelson, L. (1970). Gesammelte Schriften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  52. Normand, R. (2016). The changing epistemic governance of European education. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nóvoa, A. (2013). Numbers do not replace thinking. European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. v. Oettingen, A. (2001). Det pædagogiske paradoks [The Educational Paradoxe]. Aarhus: Klim.Google Scholar
  55. OECD (1995) = Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1995). Governance in Transition. Public management Reforms in OECD Countries. https://books.google.dk/books/about/Governance_in_Transition.html?id=TACcD2r0wDYC&redir_esc=y. Accessed: 10. Jan. 2018.Google Scholar
  56. OECD (1998) = Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1998). Education Catalogue. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  57. OECD (2011) = Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Society at a glance 2011: OECD social indicators. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/soc_glance-2011-en/08/01/index.html;jsessionid=2a7fa4dh4ws3k.x-oecd-live-01?itemId=/content/chapter/soc_glance-2011-26-en&_cs. Accessed: 10 Jan. 2018.Google Scholar
  58. OECD (2017a) = Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017a). Migration. http://www.oecd.org/migration/. Accessed: 10. Jan. 2018.Google Scholar
  59. OECD (2017b) = Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017b). PISA, Programme for International Student Assessment. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/. Accessed: 10. Jan. 2018.Google Scholar
  60. Pitman, A. (2008). Capacity-Building in South-East Asian Universities: International Challenges. Paper presented at the Korean Education Research Association, Seoul.Google Scholar
  61. Pedersen, O. K. (2011). Konkurrencestaten. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  62. Posner, E. (2014). The Case against human Rights. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights. Accessed: 12. Nov. 2016.Google Scholar
  63. Schuller, T. (2006). Reviewing OECD’s educational research reviews. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tillmann, K.-J., & Baumert, J. (Eds.) (2016). Empirische Bildungsforschung. Der kritische Blick and die Antwort of die Kritiker (Zeitschrift für Etziehungswissenschaft: Sonderheft 31). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  65. Uljens, M., & Ylimaki, R. (2015). Towards a discursive and non-affirmative framework for curriculum studies, Didaktik and educational leadership. NordSTEP, 1, 30–43.Google Scholar
  66. Verger, A., Lubienski, C., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). The emergende and structuring of the global education industry. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World year book of education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilkoszewski, H., & Sundby, E. (2014). Steering from the centre: new modes of governance in multi-level education systems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Woods, P. A. (2005). Democratic leadership in education. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  70. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future—Brundtland report.Google Scholar
  71. World Trade Organization (2017). Education services. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/education_e/education_e.htm. Accessed: 10. Jan. 2018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Danish School of EducationAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Faculty of Social and Behavioural SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations