|
|
Tackling underachievement of learners from ethnic minorities:
A comparison of recent policies of school improvement
in Germany, England and Switzerland
Institute of Education
University of Muenster, Germany
Abstract
Over the past few decades, in many western countries with large
immigrant populations, inequalities in education relating to ethnic
background have increased. Interventions traditionally consist
of selective compensatory arrangements that focus on instruction
in the second language--especially in early stages of schooling--and
the treatment of issues of difference, equality and racism within
the curriculum. This article discusses recent educational policies
that attempt to systematically integrate aspects of linguistic
and cultural diversity and equity targets within broader policies
of school effectiveness and school improvement. The paper presents
the author's findings in an international comparative study of
school-improvement strategies that tackle ethnic inequalities
in education in Germany, Switzerland and England. Using theories
of institutional discrimination and organizational action, strengths
and weaknesses of these strategies in their specific political
context, particularly structural limitations for inclusiveness
resulting from market- and performance-oriented education reforms,
will be highlighted.
Introduction
Over the past few decades, in many western countries with large
immigrant populations, inequalities in education relating to
ethnic background have increased rather than diminished. Interventions
that address these inequalities traditionally consist of selective
compensatory arrangements that focus on instruction in the second
language--especially in early stages of schooling--and the treatment
of issues of difference, equality and racism within the curriculum.
International and national surveys of educational achievement,
such as the PISA studies, have generated widespread discussion
in Europe regarding the gap between the opportunities of children
and young adults with immigrant backgrounds and those of their
non-immigrant peers, with regards to accessing more highly qualified
educational paths (Deutsches PISA-Konsortium 2001, 2004; Bos,
Lankes, Schwippert, Valtin, & Walther, 2003). For this reason,
provisions for pupils from immigrant families have been reinforced
in several European countries. For example, in Germany strategies
include early assessment of language skills, extension of instruction
in German as a second language in preschool classes and primary
schools, preparatory classes for children with German as a second
language, flexible times for transition from preschool classes
to primary school and expansion of full-time schools (Beauftragte
der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und
Integration, 2005).
As in many other parts of Europe, the German system of education
has undergone extensive reforms to focus on policies of devolution
and choice, and the implementation of new systems of quality
management. However within this fundamental restructuring of
the organizational structures, funding, and contexts of public
schooling, equity-issues are scarcely considered.
These deficiencies in current educational reforms continue
the assimilatory tradition of previous decades (see Krüger-Potratz,
2005). Provisions to improve the performance of underachieving
ethnic groups are restricted to selective compensatory arrangements
that focus on the assessment of language skills and instruction
in the second language. Conventional structures and processes
of schooling, however, are not taken into consideration. Large-scale
surveys of achievement raise serious questions concerning the
institutional barriers for children from immigrant
families and socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Qualitative
studies, which illuminate the complex and often hidden mechanisms
of the reproduction of ethnic inequality at the different levels
of schooling, indicate that a broader provision for linguistic
and socio-cultural diversity is necessary (Gogolin & Neumann
1997; Gomolla & Radtke 2002; Weber 2003). Moreover, in education
systems where individual schools enjoy high levels of autonomy,
inequalities increase between the performances of different
social and ethnic groups. This is especially the case in Anglo-American
countries, where market- and performance-oriented reforms are
the most pervasive (see Whitty, Power, & Halpin, 1998; Slee
& Weiner, 1998; Radtke & Weiß, 2000; Gomolla,
2005).
This article discusses recent educational policies that attempt
to systematically integrate aspects of linguistic and cultural
diversity and equity targets within broader policies of school
effectiveness and school improvement. Specific interventions
observed in an international comparative study of school-improvement
strategies that tackle ethnic inequalities in education in Germany,
England, and Switzerland are presented. Each of these strategies
is analyzed in their specific political context using theories
of institutional discrimination and organizational action. In
particular, structural limitations for inclusiveness resulting
from market- and performance-oriented education reforms are
highlighted.
Immigration, education for immigrants and institutional
discrimination
The term "institutional discrimination" derives from
debates on institutional racism within the civil rights movement
in Northern America. The phrase "institutional racism"
was introduced by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton (1967)
to describe how white interests and attitudes saturate the key
institutions that shape American life. Especially in England,
the term has moved from the field of political activism and
academic debate into popular usage since the 1990s (Gillborn,
2002). In Germany, discussions on institutional racism –
although the term institutional discrimination is more
common – have only begun recently. Wider attention to
discrimination has resulted in particular from discussions regarding
the European Union's new anti-discrimination legislation and
the adoption of a national bill on equal treatment in 2006.
In addition, the recognition of ethnic inequalities in education
has ensued debates about institutional discrimination (Gomolla
2005; Gomolla & Radtke, 2002; Hormel & Scherr 2004;
Jäger & Kaufmann, 2002; Kristen, 2006; Schofield, 2006).
Unlike "racial" harassment, theoretically understood
as a result of individual or group prejudice (Allport, 1954),
institutional discrimination scrutinizes the organizational
structures and processes in the basic institutions of social
life as sources of discrimination, for example, education, health
system, social services, housing, police or the media (Feagin
& Feagin, 1986; Troyna & Williams, 1986). In a recent
report from England, institutional discrimination is defined
as a result of:
the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate
and professional service to people because of their colour,
culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes,
attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through
unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping
which disadvantage minority ethnic people. (Macpherson of Cluny,
1999, 6.3.4)
This quotation highlights the ways in which discrimination
pervades the normal course of life and professional culture
of institutions and those working in them. Because this kind
of discrimination is a part of the daily routine and the institutional
habitus, it is hardly recognized by individual professionals
or even by the persons it disadvantages. Thus, research on institutional
discrimination aims at describing and explaining the complex
and sometimes contradictory ways as to how social differences
are constructed and reconstructed in education practices and
particularly, how organizational structures, rules
and practices contribute to these processes. Furthermore, empirical
investigations of the processes that occur within schools can
draw from newer theories of organizational action. These theories,
such as behavioral decision-making theory and Neo-Institutionalism,
challenge the image of organizations as technical, rational
instruments that steer organizational activities in efficient
ways and are conveyed by scientific management (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1991; March 1990; Meyer & Rowan, 1977, 1978; Olsen,
1991). By focusing on the issues of how decisions are facilitated
or restricted by the organization's rationality and the micro-politics
of organizations, these theories offer a useful analytical framework
to analyze how unequal opportunities for different groups to
fulfill their educational potential are affected by the institutional
and organizational structures of schools and their environment
(Gomolla, 2005, 2005a, 2005b; Gomolla & Radtke, 2002). For
example, a German case study of the elementary school selection
processes highlighted how a broad spectrum of mechanisms of
discrimination affected the school career of children from immigrant
families, often in combination with socio-economic and gender
characteristics over the entire span of a school career (Gomolla
& Radtke, 2002). This is illustrated by the fact that in
secondary schools, children from immigrant families are overrepresented
in the lowest qualifying track. Ascriptions concerning bilingualism
and cultural background play a role in teacher expectations,
predictions of children's further development, recommendations
made to parents regarding students' further education, and practices
of assessment and allocation. The disadvantaging and exclusion
of children from immigrant families is the result of a complex
interplay between various forms of direct and indirect discrimination
embedded in the daily routines of schooling (Feagin & Feagin,
1986). For example, bilingual children deemed deficient in German
may be held back at school entry while later in elementary school
their older age marks them as potentially having special educational
needs. Though these mechanisms were often determined by organizational
necessities and restraints seen in single schools (e.g. sending
children for one more year to preschool due to a lack of resources
for instruction in the second language), they could also be
traced back to several sources: (1) the legislative and policy
context of the education system and other political fields,
especially immigration politics; (2) organizational structures
at the community and school level; (3) established practices
and routines in single organizations; and (4) a pedagogical
common sense that is steeped in deficit-oriented and ethnocentric
assumptions. From the perspective of institutional discrimination,
a transformation toward increased inclusiveness demands comprehensive
strategies of whole-school-change to tackle ethnic inequalities.
Such strategies must affect not only schools, but also their
wider institutional settings.
Raising quality and equality in education: Case studies
from three countries
An international comparative study carried out by the author
investigated initiatives that systematically attempt to integrate
equity targets and linguistic and socio-cultural differences
into mainstream policies of school improvement (Gomolla, 2005,
2005a). Three different strategies were studied: (1) In the
German Federal State North-Rhine Westphalia, Intercultural
Learning was introduced as a subject in the federal state
program for school development entitled, "Developing
school culture and institutional opening of schools"
(GÖS). (2) In England, initiatives to improve the performance
of ethnic minority pupils were embedded within the scope of
general school improvement across the country, and finally,
(3) In the Swiss Canton of Zurich, the school improvement program,
"Quality in multi-ethnic schools" (QUIMS) was
developed.
Based on theories of institutional discrimination, the study
focused on three overarching questions:
(1) How are strategies framed to deal with issues of diversity
and social justice within the broader scope of new systems of
quality management in education?
(2) What new opportunities do these strategies offer for the
development of inclusive schooling in ethnically diverse societies?
Do they allow for a better adaptation of the organizations to
heterogeneous preconditions and educational needs? Are they
used within schools as an organizational framework in which
to raise discrimination as a topic and to uncover and change
the mechanisms of discrimination?
(3) What new opportunities for institutionalizing ethnic and
social inequalities are provided by the broader policy context
of these initiatives, especially regarding current market and
performance-oriented reforms?
The comparison consisted of two main steps. First, each of
the three strategies was analyzed in isolation in its specific
political context. Second, a more general recapitulative comparison
was carried out on the basis of the three national studies. In
addition to the analysis of the political strategies by document
studies and expert-interviews, the author carried out case studies
in each country focusing on exemplary primary schools. The schools
were selected on the recommendations of educational experts in
each country because they were considered to be especially active
and successful in implementing these strategies. Data collection
took place in spring 1999 and autumn 2000. Data was collected
through classroom observations, document analysis, and interviews
with teachers at the schools as well as professionals in educational
administration and other organizations that supported school improvement
activities.
In the following sections, the core features of each program
will be presented. The varied scope of examined strategies will
be highlighted by some findings from the ethnographic school
studies.
Model 1: Intercultural learning as a focus of school development
in North-Rhine Westphalia
During the 1990s, reform of the German education system was
initiated with the introduction of school autonomy measures
and new systems of quality assurance at center stage. However,
equity issues have rarely been mentioned explicitly within the
scope of these mainstream reforms. School development schemes
focusing on the achievements of children from immigrant families
exist only as specialized programs. An example is the scheme
for "Intercultural Learning" within the Federal State
Program "Developing school culture and institutional
opening of schools" (GÖS) in North-Rhine Westphalia
(the largest state in Germany). Schools participate in the program
on a voluntary basis. In return, GÖS offers participating
schools assistance in further developing their educational expertise
and practice. Schools receive limited financial aid, consultations,
and networking help; they also benefit by sharing beneficial
experiences.
"Intercultural Learning" is one of five areas in
which the schools can propose projects. This topic subsumes
many differing aims: overcoming xenophobia and racial intolerance,
creating international meetings, supporting multilingualism
and cultural diversity. The scheme involves using teaching methods
that aim at more holistic learning experience, such as real-life
situations, learning by doing, and hands-on learning. The spectrum
of projects within the area of "Intercultural Learning"
includes exchange projects with schools in other parts of the
world to family-literacy-classes and co-operation with parents
and local communities. However, problems of ethnic inequalities
are not explicitly mentioned or dealt with.
The Intercultural Learning scheme can be characterized as an
enrichment of curricular and extra-curricular activities through
aspects of linguistic and cultural diversity. School change
as a result of these activities is restricted to situational
and problem-specific adaptations to specific local needs, which
concern only selective aspects of school life. Issues of discrimination
are only addressed on the surface.
The strengths and weaknesses of this approach were studied
in a primary school, that has been participating in the GÖS-program
since the end of the 1980s. This inner-city school is located
in a former industrial area, where there is a high rate of unemployment
and poverty as well as high ethnic diversity. For many years,
the head teacher engaged in strengthening relations with other
institutions, immigrant organizations and parents in the local
community. Most of these activities were developed as a contribution
to improve opportunities for children from immigrant families,
most of who come from a Turkish background.
Within the scope of the GÖS-program, projects were carried
out primarily in social studies, science, religion, sports and
remedial classes in the afternoon. The program did not substantially
influence German and mathematics lessons. Although a gradual
institutional change could be observed in many respects, for
example, in the wide range of leisure activities in the afternoon,
inter-religious initiatives, annual ceremonies and celebrations,
in the cooperation with individuals and organizations in their
respective suburbs, or the wide range of strategies to assist
cooperation with parents, attention to structural issues remained
unaddressed. The school atmosphere was positively affected by
a high commitment to include every child, however, students'
achievements and assessment practices for the transfer to specialized
or secondary schools were rarely mentioned with regard to questions
of inclusion and the development of non-discriminatory practices.
Model 2: Initiatives to tackle ethnic inequalities in education
in England
In England, starting with the Education Reform Act of 1988,
the education system was restructured radically. In addition
to increased local management of schools, a market model was
imposed in which schools were presented as providers that must
compete against other schools for students. The technology employed
to raise standards covered a wide range of interventions, including:
a new national curriculum with standardized tests; tracking
individual students based on national, local, and individual
targets; public league tables; school inspections; redefining
head teachers as corporate managers; new teacher assessments
up to performance-related payment, amongst other initiatives
based on the achievements of pupils. For almost an entire decade,
issues of diversity and equity were banished from the agenda.
Consequently, social segregation in schools, achievement gaps
between different socio-ethnic groups, and especially the quota
of black male juveniles expelled from school, grew rapidly (Gillborn
& Mirza, 2000). The 1997 elected (New) Labour government
continued their predecessors' quest for raising standards. However,
within the existing structures, new initiatives were also introduced
to tackle educational inequalities and social exclusion. Measures
encompassed explicit targets to improve achievement in English
and mathematics in primary schools; reduce class sizes for 5-
to 7-year-olds; create early excellence centers; introduce literacy
summer schools, out-of-school learning activities, and family
literacy schemes; and "Educational Actions Zones"
in areas of educational underperformance. In addition, a daily
lesson in literacy and numeracy was introduced, which was also
intended for imparting English as a second language (DfEE, 1997;
Barber, 1999).
In 1999, the concluding report of the inquiry into the murder
of the black college-student Stephen Lawrence in 1993, and the
failed subsequent investigation of the police, who refused to
acknowledge a racist background of the crime, provoked intensive
public debates across the nation on institutional racism as
a pervasive problem in British society (Macpherson of Cluny,
1999). The Race Relations (Amendment) Act of 2000 emphasized
the duties of public bodies and institutions to positively pursue
and achieve Race Equality outcomes. As a result, problems of
ethnic inequalities in education have been faced more explicitly
than in previous decades. Ethnic monitoring, which
is the process of collecting, storing and analyzing data regarding
people's ethnic backgrounds, was established at both the national
and local levels as a primary instrument in identifying problems
of educational inequalities and for placing specific interventions
and controlling their success.
Another important instrument was the newly introduced Ethnic
Minorities Achievement Grant (EMAG). EMAG distinguishes
itself from previous provisions for second language instruction
for immigrant children from former Commonwealth countries in
several ways: The use of EMAG was extended from providing second
language instruction in early stages of schooling to the improving
of the results for underachieving ethnic groups at all levels
of schooling. Now allocation of extra resources is based on
concrete targets to raise the achievements of particular underachieving
groups from Local Education Authorities (LEAs). Additionally,
the bulk of the resources (85%) is allocated directly to schools,
to enable them to respond more efficiently to local needs. For
example, teachers paid by EMAG not only work in the classroom,
but also play an active role in school improvement activities.
The EMAG is flanked by comprehensive systems of support and
control, such as providing schools with statistical data, best-practice
models, working schemes, materials, and raising issues of diversity
and equity within audits with experts from LEAs. A revision
of the National Curriculum with regard to issues of ethnic diversity
included the introduction of the new subject "Citizenship
Education".
The attempt of the British government to tackle the underachievement
of learners from ethnic minorities can essentially be described
as output-driven strategies aiming at improving the performance
of disadvantaged groups. An open exploration of structures,
activities, ways of thinking, and effects of individual and
organizational practices is not the primary concern of these
initiatives. Strengths and shortcomings of this approach were
studied in a primary school in South London, which has a high
proportion of refugees, asylum seekers, children receiving free
school meals, and children with special educational needs. The
teachers succeeded in combining obligatory instruments of school
improvement with a concern for individual needs and a clear
commitment to ensure a safe environment for all children and
positive social relations within the school community. For example
a general flexibility concerning disruptions in the classroom
was observed. Because many children from refugee and asylum-seeking
families had been traumatized by their war-time experiences
or their escape, newcomers were often temporarily grouped together
regardless of age, and their parents and siblings were welcomed
during lessons. Weekly family-literacy-lessons, which fulfilled
a variety of functions, were integral to successful integration.
Teachers of English as a Second Language were versed in the
careful assessment and tracking of individual students, and
in delivering effective language instruction within the classes
and in special groups. According to official school data these
activities contributed to good academic results, compared with
other schools with similar social preconditions.
The successful work of highly dedicated teachers cannot alter
the fact that the students in this school are doubly disadvantaged
– first as refugees, immigrants or asylum seekers, and
second because they attend school in one of poorest districts
of the country, where more pupils with special learning and
emotional needs share fewer resources than neighboring schools
in better-off districts. Although the school received limited
government support for bilingual children and children with
special educational needs, the resources were rigorously allocated
to the "most urgent cases". The emotionally supportive
school climate is of little help against the systematic disadvantages
experienced by large groups of learners with English as a second
language when taking the national tests. In spite of the commitment
to not discriminating against or excluding any child, some strategies
to meet targets for standardized testing were tolerated, despite
running the risk of marginalizing the most vulnerable children.
Ability grouping in higher classes as well as targeting special
children were regarded as necessary, not only for the benefit
of the students themselves but also to raise the overall achievements
of the school. Not least because of the high engagement in the
school, it was particularly disheartening for teachers, parents
and students to be placed at the bottom of school rankings.
Though questions of ethnic equality are considered to be an
important theme on the standards agenda, the potential of the
initiatives that address this need is undermined by determining
factors at the macro-level. These include the social segregation
and hierarchy of schools, the measurement of educational success
via the outcomes of externally-examined tests in core subjects,
the authoritarian top-down systems of school improvement and
the tough competition for high positions on the performance
tables. The bottom line is that under these strategies, segregation
and selection increase--particularly for the most disadvantaged
groups (Bhattacharyya, Ison, & Blair, 2003; Tikly, Osler,
& Hill, 2005).
Model 3: "Quality in multi-ethnic schools"(QUIMS)
in the Swiss Canton of Zürich
The school improvement project "Quality in multi-ethnic
schools"(QUIMS) in the Swiss Canton of Zürich began
in 1996 as an integral part of a general reform of the education
system of the state. Similar to the educational reforms in England
and in Germany, the extension of the local autonomy of schools
and the development and implementation of new systems of quality
management took center stage. As opposed to England, however,
mechanisms of market competition were not in the fore; rather,
the conservation of a state-based public school was emphasized
(ED Zürich, 1997). Against the background of growing numbers
of middle-class-families leaving inner city districts with ethnically
diverse populations, the government responded with the gradual
development of an area-wide model of quality assurance in multi-ethnic
schools--a powerful political message against social segregation
and for a common public primary school (see also Ochsner, Kenny,
Sieber, 2000).
QUIMS offers extra financial and professional help to schools
with 40% or more pupils from immigrant backgrounds. The money
must be used to develop special strategies according to local
needs. This project aims at raising the standard of education
in these schools so that they will also attract Swiss or middle
class parents and pupils. Secondly, the project strives to close
the gap between the achievements of different social groups.
A third goal is to improve students', parents' and teachers'
satisfaction with the school environment. The following fields
of school development are seen as the most important in improving
learning and social development for all children: (1)
effective teaching and learning, (2) instruction for bilingual
children in German as well as in their first languages, (3)
a general adaptation of practices of diagnosis and assessment
to the needs of linguistical and socio-cultural heterogeneity,
(4) participation and co-operation with parents, (5) cooperation
with other educational institutions and (6) an inclusive and
non-discriminatory school ethos. Participating schools can choose
one or two out of these modules for a school improvement project.
They receive well-structured schemas for school development
and additional support from the educational administration,
including advisory services, professional development, materials,
handbooks, local networks and evaluation.
In terms of the dynamics of school change, the quality-assurance-program
QUIMS was the most promising, allowing for both situational
and problem-specific adaptation to linguistic and cultural heterogeneity
as well as forms of organizational change, characterized as
organizational learning. The primary school visited for the
case study is located in an industrial city in the Canton of
Zürich, which also had a high proportion of children with
diverse linguistic backgrounds, mostly from the former states
of Yugoslavia, Turkey and Italy. In this school, the decision
to take part in QUIMS and the implementation of the program
was accompanied by an intensive phase of team building and the
setting-up of new work structures in the school for external
team supervision and other improvements. In this process, the
teachers gained the confidence that was needed in order to explore
their own practice and to develop a common mission statement
with regards to issues of diversity and equity. It allowed them
to explore their teaching experiences in linguistically and
socio-culturally diverse classrooms and to experiment with alternative
styles of teaching and forms of cooperation (e.g. team-teaching,
sitting in on classes, developing a feed-back orientated learning
culture amongst staff, etc.) Generally the program, which began
by dealing with teachers' concrete requirements and problems
in the classroom, simultaneously sensitized the teachers to
ethnic and social inequality and stereotyping. Though the participants
found it easier and more obvious to discuss the challenges of
linguistic and cultural diversity in the classroom, power structures
in the overall organization of schooling were also discussed
as causes of discrimination, for example the structural barriers
that could prevent a child from an immigrant background with
a good school performance from attending a secondary school
for higher achievers.
Compared with the initiatives to tackle ethnic inequalities
in England, the Swiss strategy offers some important advantages
for the development of inclusive schools, which also deal with
factors at the level of the education system. An auspicious
factor is the clear focus on the processes of teaching and learning,
instead of performance data. Linguistic and cultural diversity
is not incorporated additively into the core activities of the
school, but as an inducement for institutional transformation
in the main fields of practice. QUIMS attaches value to attractive
incentives and financial and professional support for participating
teachers and schools, as well as co-operation between schools
and the local administration in partnership. Non-existent league-tables
and the deliberate abdication of the right of parents to choose
the primary schools their children attend concede necessary
freedom to individual schools. Based on careful, open explorations
of their own practices, analysis of needs and professional on-site
consulting, they can develop their own strategies, to ablate
the institutional structures and practices that have proven
to be obstacles to learning and the development of particular
children or social groups.
Conclusion
The strategies examined in this paper demonstrate that the quest
for quality and effectiveness in the education system can be
compatible with a commitment to equality. They exemplify a broad
spectrum of strategies to improve the quality of teaching and
learning in linguistically and culturally diverse schools. The
varied scope of examined strategies results from different conceptualizations
as well as determining factors at the macro level of the education
system.
The investigated program in North-Rhine Westphalia may be particularly
effective in some schools in terms of supporting students' emotional
and social development, participative competences or their general
attitudes. However, this kind of selective compensatory arrangement
and the enrichment of curricula through projects on intercultural
learning obviously fall short in tackling educational inequalities.
Different to the German GÖS-program, ethnic diversity-based
school development in England and in Switzerland is conceptualized
as an integral element of mainstream systems of school improvement.
Drawing on current school efficacy and school improvement research,
these strategies emphasize the centrality of teaching and learning,
and of classroom processes in determining schools' academic
effectiveness. Additionally they stress processes of whole-school-change
(Coelho 1998; Blair & Bourne, 1998; Mächler, 2000;
Richardson & Wood, 2000; Rüesch, 1999; Sammons, 2002).
Besides the general advantages of such an approach, as described
above, the comparison of the British and the Swiss program indicates
that school improvement towards more inclusiveness requires
beyond adequate pedagogical concepts and instruments for organizational
change (e.g. professional support, evaluation systems), arrangements
in the broader system of education, which are conducive for
the realization of inclusive and non-discriminatory practices
in schools. In England, attempts to improve the quality of the
organizational practices also in terms of inclusiveness and
equality is undermined by highly selective school structures
in combination with a market environment for schools, league
tables and restrictive forms of school improvement. These preconditions
of school improvement at the macro-level open the field and
construct opportunities for discrimination to take root in educational
institutions in multiple new ways. These effects should be considered
more systematically in future research on school effectiveness,
school improvement and inclusion (see Slee & Weiner, 1998).
Enhancing the effectiveness of schools towards inclusiveness
cannot compensate the quest for more basic reforms of the education
system, in particular the cut-back of selective structures of
schooling. But the recognition of ethnic diversity and equity
as an integral part of mainstream reforms opens at least opportunities
for these issues to become an evaluative criterion in the quality
of other elements of reforms (such as aspects of the market-model).
Notes
[1]. Newer
documents from the European Union and the European Commission
forbid forms of direct and indirect discrimination (EU, 2000,
2000a; ECRI, 2002). Though the term "discrimination"
was avoided, this complex definition of discrimination was also
incorporated into the German "Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz",
which was adopted in August 2006 (Bundesministerium der Justiz,
2006).
[2]. See Rea &
Weiner (1998) for a critical discussion of new statistical methods,
such as "value-added", which are intended to be a
valid and equity-based critique of the use of both raw league
tables and misleading information about inner-city schools.
References
Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA.:
Addison-Wesley.
Barber, M. (1999). The Big Picture: The National
Achievement Agenda and Minority Ethnic Pupils. Multicultural Teaching,
17(3), 6-10,17.
Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration,
Flüchtlinge und Integration (2005). 6.Bericht über die
Lage der Ausländerinnen und Ausländer in Deutschland.
Berlin;
Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge
und Integration.
Bhattacharyya, G., Ison, L., Blair, M. (2003). Minority
Ethnic Attainment and Participation in Education and Training;
The Evidence. Department for Education and Skills, RTP01-03. London;
DfES.
Bhavnani, R. (2001). Rethinking Interventions in
Racism. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Blair, M. & Bourne, J. (1998). Making the difference:
Teaching and Learning Strategies in Successful Multi-ethnic Schools.
London: Department for Education and Skills (DFES).
Bos, W., Lankes, E.-M., Prenzel, M., Schwippert,
K., Valtin, R., Walther, G. (2003). Erste Ergebnisse aus IGLU.
Schülerleistungen am Ende der vierten Jahrgangsstufe im internationalen
Vergleich. Zusammenfassung ausgewählter Ergebnisse. Available
at: http://www.erzwiss.uni-hamburg.de/IGLU/home.htm
Bundesministerium der Justiz (2006). Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz
(2006). Available at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/BJNR189710006.html
Carmichael, S. & Hamilton, C. V. (1967). Black
Power. New York: Vintage Books.
Coelho, E. (1998). Teaching and Learning in Multicultural
Schools. An Integrated Approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Ltd.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE).
(1997). Excellence in schools. White Paper. Cm. 3681. London:
HMSO.
Deutsches PISA-Konsortium (2001). PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen
von Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich.
Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Deutsches PISA-Konsortium (2004). PISA 2003. Der
Bildungsstand der Jugendlichen in Deutschland – Ergebnisse
des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs. Münster et al.: Waxmann-
Verlag.
Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich (1997).
TaV. Teilautonome Volksschulen. Entwicklungsrahmen. Zürich:
Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich.
European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance
(ECRI) (2002). General policy recommendation No 7 on national
legislation to combat racism and racial discrimination. Available
at: http://www.coe.int/ecri
Europäische Union (EU) (2000). Richtlinie 2000/43/EG
DES RATES vom 29.06.2000 zur Anwendung des Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes
ohne Unterschied der Rasse oder der ethnischen Herkunft. Amtsblatt
der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, L 180/22, DE, 19.07.2000.
Europäische Union 2000 (EU) (2000). Richtlinie
2000/78/EG DES RATES vom 27.11.2000 zur Festlegung eines allgemeinen
Rahmens für die Verwirklichung der Gleichbehandlung in Beschäftigung
und Beruf. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, L 303/16,
DE, 02.12.2000). (2000a)
Feagin, J.R. & Feagin, C.B. (1986). Discrimination
American Style - Institutional Racism and Sexism. Malabar: R.E.
Krieger Publishing Company.
Gillborn, D. (2002). Education and institutional
discrimination. Based on an Inaugural Professorial Lecture delivered
at the Institute of Education, University of London on 13 March
2002. Institute of Education; University of London.
Gillborn, D. & Mirza, H. (2000). Educational
inequality. Mapping Race, Class and Gender. A synthesis of research
evidence. For Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). London:
OFSTED.
Gogolin, I. & Neumann, U. (eds) (1997). Großstadt-Grundschule.
Eine Fallstudie über sprachliche und kulturelle Pluralität
als Bedingung der Grundschularbeit. Münster et al.: Waxmann-Verlag.
Gomolla, M. (2005). Schulentwicklung in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft.
Strategien gegen institutionelle Diskriminierung in England, Deutschland
und in der Schweiz. Münster et al.: Waxmann-Verlag.
Gomolla, M. (2005a). Schulerfolg in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft:
Lokale Strategien - internationale Erfahrungen. iks - QuerFormat,
Heft 9; herausgegeben von M. Krüger-Potratz. Universität
Münster; Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Pädagogik. Available
at: http://www.unimuenster.de/InterkulturPaedagogik/Publikation/iks_querformat/...
Gomolla, M. (2005b). Institutionelle Diskriminierung
im Bildungs- und Erziehungssystem. In: Leiprecht, R. & Kerber,
A. (Eds.): Schule in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft. Schwalbach
& Ts.: Wochenschau-Verlag, pp 97-109.
Gomolla, M. & Radtke, F. O. (2002). Institutionelle
Diskriminierung. Die Herstellung ethnischer Differenz in der Schule.
Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Hormel, U. & Scherr, A. (2004). Bildung für
die Einwanderungsgesellschaft. Perspektiven der Auseinandersetzung
mit struktureller, institutioneller und interaktioneller Diskriminierung.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Jäger, M. & Kaufmann, H. (Eds.) (2002).
Leben unter Vorbehalt. Institutioneller Rassismus in Deutschland.
Duisburg; Duisburger Institut für Sprach- und Sozialforschung
(DISS).
Kristen, C. (2006). Ethnische Diskriminierung im
deutschen Schulsystem? Theoretische Überlegungen und empirische
Ergebnisse. Discussion Paper Nr. SP IV 20006-601. Berlin: Arbeitsstelle
Interkulturelle Konflikte und gesellschaftliche Integration (AKI),
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
Krüger-Potratz, M. (2005). Migration als Herausforderung
für die Bildungspolitik. In:
R. Leiprecht & A. Kerber (Eds) Schule in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft.
Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau-Verlag, pp 56-82.
Mächler, S. (Ed.) (2000). Schulerfolg: kein
Zufall. Ein Ideenbuch zur Schulentwicklung im multikulturellen
Umfeld. Zürich: Lehrmittelverlag des Kantons Zürich.
Macpherson of Cluny, W. Sir (1999). The Stephen
Lawrence Inquiry. Available at: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-00.htm
McGee Banks, C.A. (1993). Restructuring Schools
for Equity. What we have learned in two decades. In: Phi Delta
Kappan, 75 (1993), pp 42-44, 46-48.
March, J.G. (1990). Entscheidung und Organisation:
kritische und konstruktive Beiträge, Entwicklungen und Perspektiven.
Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized
Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. In: American
Journal of Sociology, 83/2, pp. 340-363.
Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (1978). The Structure
of Educational Organizations. In: M. W. Meyer, and Associates:
Environments and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., pp
78-109.
Olsen, J.P. (1991). Political Science and Organization
Theory. Parallel Agendas but Mutual Disregard. In: R. M. Czada,
& A. Windhoff-Héritier (Eds).Political Choice: institutions,
rules, and the limits of rationality. Frankfurt & M.: Campus
Verlag, pp. 87-119.
Ochsner, P. E., Kenny, U., Sieber, P. (Eds.) (2000).
Vom Störfall zum Normalfall: kulturelle Vielfalt in der Schule.
Chur; Zürich: Rüegger.
Powell, W.W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.) (1991). The New Institutionalism
in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Radtke, F.-O. & Weiß, M. (Eds.) (2000).
Schulautonomie, Wohlfahrtsstaat und Chancengleichheit. Ein Studienbuch.
Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Rea, J. & Weiner, G. (1998). Cultures of Blame
and Redemption – When Empowerment becomes Control: Paractitioners'
Views of the Effective schools Movement. In: R. Slee & G.
Weiner, & S. Tomlinson (Eds.). School Effectiveness for Whom?
Challenges to the School Effectiveness and School Improvement
Movements. London: Falmer Press, 21-32.
Reinhardt, K. (1992). Öffnung der Schule. Community
Education als Konzept für die Schule der Zukunft? Weinheim;
Basel: Beltz.
Richardson, R. & Wood, A. (2000). Inclusive
Schools, Inclusive Society. Race and identity on the agenda. Second
edition. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Rüesch, P. (1999). Gute Schulen im multikulturellen
Umfeld. Ergebnisse aus der Forschung zur Qualitätssicherung.
Im Auftrag der Bildungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich. Zürich:
Lehrmittelverlag des Kantons Zürich.
Sammons, P. (2002). Effective schools, improving
schools and inclusive schools. In: C. Campbell (Ed.). Developing
inclusive schooling. Perspectives, policies and practice. Institute
of Education, Universityy of London.
Schofield, J. (2006). Migrationshintergrund, Minderheitenzugehörigkeit
und Bildungserfolg. Forschungsergebnisse der pädagogischen
Entwicklungs- und Sozialpsychologie. AKI-Forschungsbilanz 5. Berlin:
Arbeitsstelle Interkulturelle Konflikte und gesellschaftliche
Integration (AKI) Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung
(WZB).
Slee, R. & Weiner, G. (with Tomlinson, S.) (Eds.)
(1998). School Effectiveness for Whom? Challenges to the School
Effectiveness and School Improvement Movements. London: Falmer
Press.
Tikly, L., Osler, A., Hill, J. (2005). The ethnic
minority achievement grant: a critical analysis. Journal of Education
Policy, 20( 3), 283-312.
Troyna, B. & Williams, J. (1986). Racism, Education
and the State. London et al.: Croom Helm.
Weber, M. (2003). Heterogenität im Schulalltag.
Konstruktion ethnischer und geschlechtlicher Unterschiede. Opladen:
Leske und Budrich.
Whitty, G., Power, S., Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution
and Choice in Education. The School, the State and the Market.
Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Copyright
© 2006 Current Issues In Comparative Education
Teachers College, Columbia University
All Rights Reserved
|
|
