Contemporary society and its schools are facing increasing specter of challenges that call for sustainable approach. Researchers of the economic field (Stiglitz 2012, Ostrom 2010, Picketty 2014, Rifkin 2000, 2007, 2013, 2015, Wallerstein 2013, Beck 2001, 2009, Bauman 2002, idr.),are persistently voicing the risks related to the market type of economy that aims predominantly for consumerism, individual gains and profits. One of the dominant new ideas is the formation of hybrid economies. Attempts to regulate economic practices, developing at the margins of market societies EU (EU 2016), are already indicating emerging possibilities of hybridity.

The concept therefore includes practices that follow profit and others that foster peer to peer production (P2P), which is one of the possible modulations of more widely used term of alternative economic practice. (Castells 2012). While the dominant rationality of inclusion of modern and postmodern societies was labor, increasing number of researchers argue that nowadays we are facing the reality of structural unemployment (ex Rifkin 2015, Castel 2003, Collins 2013). The numbers of those who are and will be excluded from the existing labor markets will continue to increase, especially in light of the technological advances and robotization of industry (Industry 4,0), as well as in other social fields (Ford 2009). Consequently economic and social inequalities are already reaching the limits of sustainability (Oxfam 2016, 2017, Mipex 2016, Judt 2011). Ideas such as universal basic income and universal access to culture, education, health services are becoming realistic practices attempting to tackle the problems of inequality (Castel and Haroche 2001, Van Parijs 2004, Offe 1986 in 2004), and soften the transitions to hybrid economies. The above mentioned is, at least from the financial crises in 2008 on, a productive platform for discussions regarding establishing and strengthening social networks and spaces for social and economic practices that search beyond the logic of profits and strengthen the rationalities of distribution, access and sharing. Such practices can already be found in Catalonia (Castells 2012), in Nordic countries (ex. NORDON 2015), and also in Slovenia (ex Time bank) (See also P2P). Combining different approaches from the social, environmental, economic spheres, we can find attempts to organize social spaces along the lines of different aspects of social solidarity (Durkheim 1997) and conceptualize the meaning of life beyond labor and profit (Skidelsky 2012, Schor 2010).

The above mentioned shifting rationalities of contemporary societies need to be reconsidered in relation to the possible shits in the role of education institutions (Sue 2011, Gaber, Tašner 2017). Special attention will be dedicated to the potentials of schools to accentuate its role as community centers in addition to the nowadays still prevalent role as points of knowledge, skills and value disseminators (Addams 1912). While briefly presenting classification of the possible approaches to the structuring of community centers, we present the first draft idea of possible models and research of schools as community centers in Slovenia. In case that they would be able, to establish themselves as such, they could present important element of future societies that are supposed to resist neoliberal marketization of publics sphere and to reach beyond the commoditized and wage labor societies and foster new and old practices of inclusion.

The research presented is twofold and ongoing. The authors are following the structuring of political, discursive and practical shifts in social and economic rationalities (Gaber, Kos, Tašner 2016) in relation to challenges for and in education, with the focus in Slovenia. In this part of our research project we are examining the most important systematic measures in the sphere of education and analysing relevant policy papers and other official documents as well as national strategies concerning the educational field. We are currently also collaborating in a national project with the aim of conceptualizing entrepreneurship education in line with social challenges for schools mentioned above. Using questioners we will try to look in to different entrepreneur-social commons practices in elementary schools that follow the rationalities of access, distribution and sharing and the possibilities of implementing the idea of schools as centers of local communities.

In our paper we will attempt to demonstrate the possibilities of Slovenia’s schools in softening the personal and group risk of contemporary societies. We will present preliminary results of research insights into the possibilities and expectation in relation to education for future generations by presenting the possible models that are being developed in Slovenia’s elementary schools as part of possibilities within contemporary attempts for entrepreneurship education (EntreComp) and Collaborative problem solving (PISA 2015).

Adams, J. (1912). Twenty Years at Hull-House with Autobiographical Notes. by Jane Addams (1860-1935). New York: The MacMillan Company, 1912 (c.1910) Bauman, Z. (2002). Tekoča moderna. Ljubljana: Cf. Beck, U. (2001). Družba tveganja na poti v neko drugo moderno. Ljubljana: Temeljna dela. Beck, U. (2009). Critical Theory of World Risk Society: A cosmopolitan Vision. V: Constellations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Let. 16, št. 1. Castel R., (2003). From manual workers to wage laborers: Transformation of the social question. London: Transaction Publisher. Castells, M. idr. (2012). Aftermath. The Cultures of the Economic Crises. Oxford: Oxford university press. Collins, R. (2013). Nič več dela za srednji razred: nič več zasilnih izhodov. V: Wallerstein, I. (2013). Ali ima kapitalizem prihodnost. Ljubljana: Cf. Durkheim, E. (1997). The division of labor in society. New York: The free press. EU (2016) Mnenje Evropskega odbora regij – Lokalna in regionalna razsežnost ekonomije delitve (2016/c 051/06). Bruselj: Uradni list EU. Ford, M. (2009): The lights in the Tunnel. USA: Acculant Publishing. Gaber, S., Kos, Ž., Tašner, V. (2016): Premene v družbi, spremembe v šoli. V: Štremfel, U. (ur.)(2016): Šolsko polje. Pravičnost, neoliberalizem in izobraževanje. Let. XXVII, št. 5-6. Gaber, S., Tašner, V. (2017). Prihodnost šole v družbah dela brez dela. Ljubljana : Pedagoška fakulteta. Judt, T. (2011). Deželi se slabo godi.Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Mipex (2016). http://www.mipex.eu/ NORDON (2015): Social entreprenuership and social innovation. Kopenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Offe, C. (1986): Delo kot ključna sociološka teorija? Teoriaj in praks 23 (12). Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states. Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American economic review 100. Oxfam report (2016, 2017). An economy for 1%. How privilige and powe in the economy driveextreme inequality and how can this be stipped. Oxford: Oxfam.) Picketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st Century. Harvard. PISA (2015): Collaborative problem solving, Vol. 5. P2P: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nbfcs.asp Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access. The new culture of Hypercapitalism where all off life is a paid-for experience. NY: Tharcher/Putnam. Rifkin, J. (2007). Konec dela. Zaton svetovne delavske sile in nastop posttržne dobe. Ljubljana: Krtina. Rifkin, J. (2015). The zero marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schor, J. (2010) Plentitude. Charlton North: Scribe Publications Pty. Ltd. Skidelsky, R. in E. (2012). How much is enough? The Love of Money, and the Case for the Good Life. London: Penguin books Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality. London: Penguin.