23 SES 05 D, Local Education Policy
Parallel Paper Session
In the course of social modernization and transition to democracy, the school systems of most Western nations have converged towards an integrated model of comprehensive schools. Germany, in contrast, long retained its traditional tripartite school system which tracks students into hierarchically structured and spatially segregated school types. After only four years of joint schooling students are referred to distinct educational tracks – the academic track (Gymnasium), the upper vocational track (Realschule) or the lower vocational track (Hauptschule). By entitling their respective graduates to enter either university or different forms of vocational education the tracking system structures educational and occupational trajectories and thus plays an important role in the (re-) production of Germany’s social structure.
The tripartite school structure has been subject to intense political conflict for many decades. It has been repeatedly challenged for being incompatible with equality norms and the economic needs of modern democratic societies. The issue of structural reform has thus been brought to the political agenda in regular intervals, but long failed to gain the critical political and social support needed to move forward.
After decades of structural stability, an episode of structural change ensued in the course of the German Reunification in the early 90s: The Federal States of the former GDR adopted the basic logic of the tracking system, but not the West German tripartite model. Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia, for example, introduced two-tiered models consisting of an academic and a combined vocational track. More recently, an episode of structural change has ensued among West German States. A number of states (e.g. Hamburg, Berlin, Bremen, Saarland) are currently implementing reforms that amount to the adoption of a two-tiered model consisting of an academic and an integrated track. After decades of a polarized controversy and failed reform attempts the need for structural change is now widely acknowledged and either of the two-tiered models outlined above is diffusing.
Why and how could the social, political, and legal obstacles for structural reform be overcome? What are the driving forces of these reforms? Do the structural reforms in the East German States in the 90s and the more recent reforms in the West German States share the same set of causes and underlying conditions? In order to answer these questions, the paper analyzes in depth the reform processes in two federal states over an extended time period: Saxony, which introduced the hierarchical two-tiered system in 1991 and Hamburg, which introduced a horizontal two-tiered model in 2010.
The study combines a policy analysis approach with concepts of historical institutionalism (Pierson 2000; Thelen 1999) and policy learning. These theoretical perspectives are integrated in the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier 1998; Sabatier/Jenkins-Smith 1993). The resulting analytical framework enables us to examine causal factors at both the macro and micro level. We consider a variety of social and institutional variables as well as actor-centered variables such as the problem perceptions and political beliefs of the actors involved. In doing so, we identify the crucial factors involved in producing the reform outcomes of interest.
Pierson, Paul, 2000: Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics, in: American Political Science Review 92/2, 251-267. Sabatier, Paul A., 1998: The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe, in: Journal for European Public Policy 5/1, 98-130. Sabatier, Paul A./Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., (eds.), 1993: Policy Change and Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, Co. Thelen, Kathleen, 1999: Historical Institutionalism in comparative politics, in: Annual Review of Political Science 2/1, 369-404.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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.