Educational inequalities, institutional discrimination and new policies of school change

Author(s):

Mechtild Gomolla

Conference:

ECER 2008

Network:

7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

07 SES 05B, Schools Outcome

Paper Session

Time:

2008-09-11

08:30-10:00

Room:

B1 113

Chair:

Yvonne Leeman

Contribution

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. Conventional structures and processes of schooling, however, are taken into consideration at best vicariously. The challenges of linguistic, ethnic, socio-cultural and religious diversity in education are widely misconceived as added and special tasks. But in many education systems large-scale surveys of achievement raise serious questions concerning the institutional barriers for children from immigrant families and socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Especially evidence from qualitative studies in the tradition of theories of institutional discrimination provide a deeper understanding of the often hidden mechanisms of the reproduction of ethnic inequality at the different levels of schooling. They illuminate 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 daily practices contribute to these processes. These data indicate that a broader provision for linguistic and socio-cultural diversity is necessary. The paper discusses findings of an international comparative study carried out by the author which investigated initiatives that systematically attempt to integrate equity targets and linguistic and socio-cultural differences into mainstream policies of school improvement. 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. Using theories of institutional discrimination and organizational action as an analytical framework 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?

Method

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.

Expected Outcomes

The strategies examined in this paper demonstrate that the quest for quality and effec-tiveness 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, partici-pative competences or their general attitudes. However, this kind of selective compensatory arrangement and the enrichment of curricula through projects on intercultural learn-ing 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 sys-tems 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. 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 re-quires 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. 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 op-portunities for these issues to become an evaluative criterion in the quality of other ele-ments of reforms (such as aspects of the market-model).

References

Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA.: Addison-Wesley. Barber, M. (1999). The Big Picture: The National Achievement Agenda and Minority Eth-nic 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 interna-tionalen 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 Ap-proach. 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.: Wax-mann- Verlag. Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich (1997). TaV. Teilautonome Volksschulen. Ent-wicklungsrahmen. Zürich: Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich. European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) (2002). General policy rec-ommendation 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). Lon-don: 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 ge-gen 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.uni-muenster.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 eth-nischer 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 Diskriminie-rung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Jäger, M. & Kaufmann, H. (Eds.) (2002). Leben unter Vorbehalt. Institutioneller Rassis-mus 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), Wissen-schaftszentrum 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: kultu-relle 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 Chancen-gleichheit. 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 For-schung zur Qualitätssicherung. Im Auftrag der Bildungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich. Zü-rich: 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. Insti-tute of Education, Universityy of London. Schofield, J. (2006). Migrationshintergrund, Minderheitenzugehörigkeit und Bildungser-folg. 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 geschlecht-licher 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.

Author Information

Mechtild Gomolla

University of Muenster

Institute of Education

Muenster

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.