thoughts on the democratization of education in europe

Thoughts on the democratization of education in Europe

Ingrid Eide

Democratization and education

'Democratic' is one of those terms by which modern society likes to be characterized. I t signals that within national borders a membership is defined, certain rights are extended, participation is demanded, and it is granted that the individual thereby will have some impact on his own life and on society around him.

Democracy is considered an achievement by society, and to produce it, a systematic effort is required. Once established, it is not automatically reproduced: to maintain a democracy a never-ending process of democratization must be organized. For a variety of reasons education has become a significant element in this process. The state of affairs in education is a target for democratic action, a mechanism by which democracy is achieved, and a criterion by which it is judged.

Democratization of education can perhaps be described as having a horizontal and a vertical dimension. Along the horizontal plane we would classify all efforts to secure access to educational institutions for increasing numbers of individuals for an increasing number of years

I n g r i d E i d e (Norway). Sociologist at the University of Oslo. Her research and publications have been on the sociology of education, international relations, peace research and research policy. Former Deputy Minister of Education and Member of Parliament. Participant in OECD evaluations of educational policy and planning.

and purposes. Along the vertical plane a different set of phenomena would be considered: how educational institutions actually interact with other aspects of life, learning and pro- duction, and more particularly, how educational institutions themselves operate. Throughout the twentieth century democratic states have concentrated on opening up and expanding educational institutions so as to provide access for all.

Along with this process individuals and society have increased their dependence on the educational system, mainly, but not only, for learning purposes. The result of this opening up and expansion of education, identified here as horizontal democratization, is that about a quarter of the population in our societies is engaged in the educational sector. The significance of a sector of this magnitude is evident. Questions abound concerning, on the one hand, the functions, cost and contributions of educational institutions, and, on the other, their compatibility with prevalent goals in society. In modern democracies some of these functions will be intended and even planned, costs will be publicly maintained, contributions or results empirically checked, and goals, when conflict- hag, will be politically debated. These activities imply a deeper concern for what was referred to as vertical democratization of education.

One basic assumption of this article is that during the next two decades more attention ought to, and will be, devoted to vertical rather than horizontal democratization of education.

ProsOects, Vol. XII , No. z, x082

80 Ingrld Eide

The challenge will be to act along either dimension in ways that also promote progress along the other.

All democracies can set up lists of rights enjoyed by their members. The right to education is everywhere on that list. And so fundamental is this right, both from the point of view of the individual and of society, that the right to receive an education is at the same time a duty to accept it: education up to a certain level is compulsory. Everywhere the number of obligatory years of schooling has expanded from being just the amount of time required to develop certain basic skills to a fixed minimum number of years during which most individuals are supposed to have acquired the set of skills necessary for a sufficiently active, loyal and happy life as a member of that particular society. The increasing amount of knowledge available, of communication and participation, and the increasing complexity of society produces a corresponding demand for and on education: it must expand its content, adjust to and prepare for constant change and new expansions. And at the same time it must confirm its responsibility to teach successfully that which was and is considered fundamental, whether referred to as the three Rs or a set of moral values.

There are clear parallels between democratic government as a manifestation of democratic ideals and education as a democratized sector. In political democratization, suffrage was institutionalized, and gradually expanded until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it had become universal. The fact that this process was gradual highlighted mechanisms by means of which suffrage was, formally and informally, restricted. Age, sex, property, ability to pay taxes, fixed habitation, health and literacy are classes of criteria that have been applied in order to determine whether an individual could be granted the right to vote. Citizenship or membership was and is a pre-condition for suffrage, whatever other criteria an individual satisfies.

Universal education like universal suffrage has become one of the hallmarks of democracy.

But education, unlike suffrage, has divisions that are compulsory and others that are open. The latter depends on a decision by the individual to seek admission, and an evaluation of criteria of admission that the individual appli- cant has to meet. And in this process selection takes place limiting or reducing actual admission by the very same standards previously used to limit suffrage. In short, a young male, born of economically successful parents who themselves have an above-average education, centrally located, will accumulate the highest number of years of education, and in general succeed in educational institutions. A young female, whose parents are neither well educated nor particularly successful economically, located in what the centre defines as the periphery, will find herself at the other extreme in terms of educational accumulation and success.

These patterns are being systematically fought against by all the means available to modern democracy: law, finance and information.

Mechanisms of democratizating education

The right to education should be both equal and equalizing. Making education compulsory was one way of securing this, but it is hard to believe that it was ever considered as sufficiently successful in this respect. Throughout the history of education there has been a constant search for new methods and new strategies whereby individual and collective achievements could be improved. Most probably it is the very fact that education was made compulsory that also triggered this need for innovation: it was and is impossible to overlook or escape from failure. Non-learning is registered, mis- behaviour observed, absence is noted--and all must be redressed.

Beyond the compulsory level, democratization of education has been launched on the assumption that individuals will grasp educational opportunities if they are offered on realistic conditions, that is, ff formal and informal barriers surrounding educational insti-

Thoughts on the democratization of education in Europe 81

tutions are adequately removed or overcome. But new sets of incentives and disincentives seem to operate in the modern world leading to new questions on how far and in what sense democratization of education will be successful beyond the compulsory level, where individual choice enters the stage and determines the success and failure os educational policies.

Compulsory education has ensured that no- body is left completely behind in this process of equalization. But beyond the compulsory level, differentiation begins once more, and it is a well- established fact that educational institutions provide the rationale for a new differentiation, new inequalities, which are more compatible with modern economies than with the ideals of modern democracies. Some democracies have been particularly active in their attempts to counteract this trend, and although they have never entirely succeeded, correlations between family background and educational career are being reduced, according to the most recent statistics. It has taken longer than expected; moreover, educational statistics are difficult to come by and to interpret. Variables are few, the time lag considerable and adequate analysis is rare. Conceptual disagreement and confusion do nothing to simplify the issue.

Groups who previously were almost outcasts of the educational system--the handicapped, migrants and minorities~are admitted to and, in varying degrees, truly integrated in it. When failure rather than success results, the reaction is no longer automatically to carry on the same as before, but increasingly new ways are sought, ways that perhaps bypass the dominant culture in an effort to establish meaningful communication across a cultural gap. This may imply that education uses a new language: a dialect or a minority language. It may imply that non- handicapped, rather than the handicapped, need to adjust in a class where a handicapped child is admitted. It may mean that buildings have to be physically altered ill order to accommodate new groups. It may mean that holidays have to be reconsidered to comply with the religious rituals of minorities. Content is changed to enable it to be more compatible.

The challenge to educational institutions is already both formidable and fundamental. The situation can be somewhat simplistically described as a transition from an educational system committed to creating a sufficient degree of homogeneity and conformity before special- ization and differentiation was permitted and confirmed to an educational system that more actively tolerates and even encourages cultural pluralism. Issues characteristic of educational policy debates in the United States in the I95osmand settled by a Supreme Court decision in I954--have reappeared in Europe: integration, segregation and equality. Here, these issues are not yet settled, and as issues they are intertwined with other concerns: the relationship between majority and minority culture, the need for conformity and the fear of domination.

In order to achieve the ideal of democratizing education, many structures have been devised: universal, compulsory and free education; geographically accessible educational institutions; one, and only one, school for all children of school age within a given district; cross-district intake of students to reduce social segregation in the school-age population; comprehensive schools; postponement of differentiation; changed criteria of admission; elimin- ation of blind alleys in the system of educational institutions permitting individualized combinations and increased mobility within and between educational institutions; adult education; active encouragement of specific groups to continue school beyond the compulsory level; subsidies and scholarships; individualized educational programmes; changes in teaching methods, content, materials and organization; external and internal democratic control; developing educational institutions to meet demand; expanding educational institutions to accommodate all applicants.

The structures can be meaningfully placed along a dimension going from modest to more extreme. What is defined as more or less modest or extreme, however, will probably depend more on popular acceptance and other circum- stances in the community or nation concerned

82 Ingrid Eide

than on the characteristics of the structure p~~ 36.

The structures can also be placed into two categories, representing steps referred to as horizontal and vertical democratization respect- ively. The latter category of structure---or of steps taken--has sometimes been required because the horizontal move was considered insufficient to obtain the desired degree of democratization. This should remind future educational reformers that combinations of structures rather than 'one step at a time' strategies are normally required in this field. Democratization of education is neither easy nor automatically arrived at. The financial cost is formidable, representing a great problem to potentially stagnant economies; in fact, financial constraints will probably in the years to come seriously challenge the ability to maintain and the will to expand democratization of education in Europe. Less costly structures would find many buyers on the political market.

Most structures can be identified as major reforms in the history of education in Europe, and remind one of the political struggle ac- companying many of them. Some fundamental questions tend to circulate in these debates over educational reforms and democratization: is the reform democratic because of its intentions and consequences, in its degree of acceptance by the general public, in its acceptance by members of educational communities or by those outside supposed to benefit from the reform? Or is it democratic because of the innovative work behind it, and the decision-making structure that brought it to the fore? However these questions are raised, they are not irrelevant, and will not disappear from the forum of education before the year 2ooo.

That formally equal access to education is not enough to ensure real access is a fact that has been understood for some time. And the differential use of available resources indicates how difficult it is, even in educational institutions, to break the impact of socio-economic background and sex roles. Increasingly, positive discrimination, including regulation of intake, seems to have gained acceptance, but at the

same time it has caused widespread discussion of fundamental issues.

Recently, the insistence that sex segregation in educational institutions is necessary in order to secure freedom of educational choice and development for women has again come to the fore. This idea will hardly obtain sufficient support for a number of reasons; first, it is not only women who are victims of traditional sex stereotyping, and while segregation is intended to provide a basis for more equality it may actually strengthen present sex roles, particularly for men; secondly, whatever freedom and independence women obtain in isolation, relatively speaking, will tend to be broken down when the artificial segregation is ended; finally, the idea will be seen as reactionary.

Most probably, women will in the years to come be more actively encouraged than before to develop their talents independently of the traditional division of labour between the sexes. Not to explore and exploit this reservoir will be considered wasteful by a society increasingly dependent on specialized knowledge and research. Among women, new cleavages will be created, contrary to the ideals of equality pro- claimed by modern feminism.

Women face special problems. Increasing with their level of education, sex roles within and outside the school community influence women's choice and achievement.

Concern for the demographic balance of society, however, will increase the tolerance for interrupted educational careers due to ma- ternity, child-rearing and family roles in general. Leaves of absence and facilitated re-entry will be institutionalized in ways that represent a fundamental challenge to, if not a fundamental break with, traditional division of labour between the sexes in family life and in education, and relative to the labour market.

In general, the numbers of women who obtain an education and hold positions in fields previously totally dominated by men will increase. This may provide examples to encourage other women to break down similar barriers. Democratization, in the sense of a more equal

Thoughts on the democratization of education in Europe 8 3

intake, may result, even if it is not the driving force or the dominant motive.

For the labour force, and particularly indus- trial labour, present-day changes in society seem no less fundamental than they are for the majority of women. Methods of learning have changed alongside changes in technology, pro- duction, organization and ideology. Democratic society has taken over the basic responsibility for the entire range of occupational training, but nowhere as yet is there a fully developed set of institutional solutions to carry out this task. The solutions sought will probably involve new combinations of formal and informal, individual and group training, and use both schools and work-places as arenas. But until solutions are found, there remain large groups of young people trapped in a situation of uncertainty, competing for still scarce opportunities to obtain an education and learn an occupation, either at school or at work. They are threatened with unemployment and the stigma of being social outcasts.

So far democratization of education has not been successfully extended to all youth and a major effort is needed. Current technological and economic changes do not simplify this task. It is frequently argued that democratization of education means mass education, and that mass education threatens academic standards if it is not accompanied by some kind of segregation within or between schools.

Schools and authorities have argued that academic standards are not the only measures to be used when evaluating the educational system. Equally important is the ability to function adequately in society, made up of people who are different in many ways. By integrating all individuals into one school, whether elemen- tary or comprehensive secondary schools, social learning would improve. But it has also been argued that academic standards are not, or need not be, threatened. Schools have been given more resources to cope with the situation of a more varied student population, and still maintain academic standards. Longer hours, better trained teachers, teaching assistants, smaller classes, teaching equipment, individu-

alized teaching materials, grouping, individual- ization: a whole range of initiatives have been suggested and launched so as to allow schools to apply the resources necessary to make integration policies succeed. Great care has to be taken that these resources are not in fact applied in ways that could open up a back door for segregation. Group teaching easily develops into a within-class segregation if groups are formed on the basis of educational achievement or if students with handicaps are consistently given separate attention.

According to sceptics, the integrated classroom slows down academic progress, but on the other side stands the argument that a successfully integrated classroom provides a more productive learning atmosphere. With students from different backgrounds, with different abilities and potentials and varying ambitions--and some have special handicaps--teaching and learning have to be more varied, taking into account the wider range of experiences and challenges represented in the class or school. Students may actually learn to solve different kinds of problems involved in the learning process of fellow students. I f students are al- lowed to help each other and to co-operate, academic achievement may gain momentum by being socially supported in the students' culture.

The entire question of academic standards is difficult to settle. What is the content of academic achievement? In what form will it manifest itself? Do we have reliable, com- parative statistics? How do we evaluate the distribution of achievement or academic standards reached by the population? And with the recent changes in information flows and the use of time in modern society, what actually is the role of the school in determining academic standards?

Mass education has increasingly come to characterize all levels of the educational system. For higher education this experience has been almost revolutionary. Although expansion was planned, it appeared overwhelming when it came. The new situation demanded drastic changes so that in many places it was virtually

8 4 Ingrid Eide

impossible both to maintain all activities hith- erto engaged in, and adjust physically, organ- izationally and educationally. Universities were openly politicized by these adjustments, and time and energy were obviously diverted from more traditional academic pursuits. University government in most places was democratized in the process. Probably the years to come will prove that the freer, less formal atmosphere created will also be more innovative and conducive to academic achievement, particularly the research aspect of it.

One by-product that these changes brought about is an increased interest in the sociology of education, and in the study of education in general. When economic constraints prevent the launching of new, courageous reforms, and perhaps threaten those in operation, one can expect a call for research to evaluate reforms, suggest improved use of resources, or ration- alize withdrawal. I f democratization is to continue, it probably will need both advocacy and innovation, particularly innovation within the institutions concerned and among their members. Education more than any other area appears to be a victim of self-fulfilling prophecies. One wonders whether the new generations of teachers and learners, parents and pupils, participants and researchers, politicians and bu- reaucrats believe in and work for democratization of education.

Equality and the contexts of learning

The very concept of equality in education has undergone a series of changes. The dassical question is of course: who are the equals, who do they include? Equality has never, in actual fact, included everybody: some have been judged as unable to learn or able to learn only under very specialized conditions. Hence a certain amount of segregation according to ability has been applied. Segregation has also been practised as a result of historical tradition and class interests: where private or separate schools existed, they were frequently main-

tained and modified only by efforts to make them somewhat less exclusive: scholarships or free transport facilitated the entry of members from other social classes. In most democracies, a variety of separate, private or semi-private schools exist parallel to the normal school system designed to serve everybody.

The equals are, in principle, composed of all members of society in a certain age-group. The most recent and very dramatic change taking place is that age is played down: everybody, irrespective of age, is encouraged to seek more education, and the combined slogan and field of adult education has been administrated and met with imagination. Two clear trends can be seen.

First, school age as a concept is being revised. Society takes care of younger children in school- like institutions, sometimes called pre-school or kindergartens. Society likewise encourages children to spend more time at school than the minimum required by the law, and adults, whatever their age and previous school experience, are encouraged to re-engage in educational pursuits, and new contexts for learning are created to this end. While the inclusion of new age-groups can be seen as movement along the horizontal dimension of democratization, it has dear effects on the vertical dimension as well.

Secondly, with new intake very much younger or very much older than those previously en- countered at school, there is of necessity a search for new approaches to education to take into account the points of view of the small child and the adult. In both cases established teaching methods, selection of content and other aspects of learning and schooling have to be revalued and revised.

Already new learning contexts are being created or rediscovered, with the traditional school, though dominant, as only one of many possible forms. In the history of education in Europe over the years, clear demarcations were established between the various areas of human activity: home, school, work and other specific roles. The fact that learning takes place in all areas, and that they are actually interdependent and interact, has been frequently overlooked. With an increase of the very young and adults


entering education, it seems that both the de- marcation lines between, and the divisions of labour among, areas are deliberately being blurred.

By establishing a variety of new learning contexts another basic characteristic of our societies is attacked: the dearly drawn lines between leisure, work and rest. All over Europe schools have been organized to be both a prep- aration fox" work, and for the young the func- tional equivalent of work. By going to school, children learn that part of the day is spent performing a required set of activities outside the home. Adapting to the rhythm of the day, week and year as defined by society at large means acquiring basic social skills. But the possibility that education can be obtained else- where, at other times and in other ways than at school, reduces the significance of classifying time as leisure, work and rest in connection with educational pursuits. Modern teaching devices can also play a significant role here. Communication with, or without, educational content can be received while at work or at rest, and of course communication conveying leisure symbols, like music, can attempt to soften the working day, even at school. In addition, adult education mostly takes place as a leisure-time activity: systematically pursued by the individual, it is clearly both similar to, and relevant for, work, though not defined as such.

Educational purpose and motivation

In European societies, education used to be a scarce value of strategic importance to the individual as well as society. By democratic action an effort was made to distribute education more evenly throughout the population. Society in- vested large sums in the education of its members, and young people and their families deferred the benefit of receiving an additional contribution to the household finances, by send- hag young members of the family to school rather than to work.

In Europe at present, with nearly 30 million unemployed, work may seem scarcer than educational opporumities for young people. The ethos of 'deferred gratification' may take on a different meaning in this situation: education is deferred, while young people start a career in the labour market, directly, without delay, so as not to be left out. The fact that work, leisure and rest are no longer clearly separated in time, place and function makes the choice between labour market and education for the individual concerned less dramatic than before.

The large numbers of people said to be relatively well educated and still jobless may also become a disincentive to seek education for those less strongly motivated. And finally, the fact that many young people enter educational institutions as a second choice, having failed in their first choice, which was to get a job, may be a disincentive to serious work within institutions.

There is no reason to expect a uniform set of reactions to the new situation in the labour market. Some young people will definitely in- vest in more education with a view to improving their employment chances. The education sought will be geared to a specific range of jobs, and the perceived probability of future success will influence the motivation for educational achievement. Others will calculate that the labour market is so uncertain that their education might just as well be geared to their own private interests and abilities, whether relevant to work or not. National policy, finances permitting, will probably attempt to satisfy a wide range of educational adjustments to the labour market and mass unemployment. Among these attempts some will strongly emphasize the intrinsic values of education and self-realization as a democratic right.

It may not be conditions in the labour market per se that most strongly attract young people to paid rather than unpaid work, but free education. The life-style of modern society is characterized by instant consumption rather than deferred gratification. The market for young consumers has shown remarkable growth. Shifts are rapid, items varied, from cheap rec- ords to costly cars, and marketing methods are

86 Ingrid Eide

aggressive as well as sophisticated. Young people may experience a variety of forces that compete for their attention, time and money. This cultural atmosphere is not conducive to long- term and concentrated effort demanded by most educational institutions. It is easier for young people from better-off families to withstand some of this pressure.

In many countries there is concern over young people's consumption patterns. New class differences are evinced within the school community by means of clothes, other symbols and 'style', and counteract efforts by the school to maintain an ethos of social equality among pupils or students. A new discussion over school uniform, once rejected because it was considered antidemocratic, may be expected, as those concerned seek more manifest methods of emphasizing equality among the younger members of the school community. This time, it is affluence rather than poverty that triggers the debate, but the values at stake are the same: schools should not, if truly democratized, dif- ferentiate students by criteria which are irrelevant to school performance.

No doubt, some of the smaller nations in Europe particularly will consider educational institutions as bastions in a fight against com- mercialized, homogenized mass culture, globally marketed.

Why this concern for democratizing education?

Why does this interest in democratization of education exist in most societies around the world?

Society must have continuity. It must be viable, which means productive, economical and well organized. It must be both cohesive and inclusive, and in the event of failure instability threatens the very foundations of society.

Educational planning, old and new, has always been an arena for politics, particularly in democracies. The reasons are obvious. Edu- cation affects all and integrates the individual into the collective in a number of ways. It is one

of the major vehicles of distribution and redis- tribution in society, and the heated debates over whether it produces, reproduces or corrects inequality bears witness to the crucial role attributed to education. Universal education is the most efficient mobilization of talent ever invented by society, and clearly geared to de- velopmental models.

Clearly, mass education is a means of main- taining order. Even the undesired phenomenon of disorganized classes at school seem preferable to disorganized, or destructively organized, crowds in the streets. Education, as a market, is more easily manipulated by public decisions than other markets, but also in educational institutions, the structure is too subtle to be fully manipulable by outside decision. This seems to be true right down to the individual level. Learning is, basically, a voluntary process; one might say it is intrinsically democratic.

Human beings are learners and organizers, and the organization of learning can show a variety of forms. Education for all is a means of equalizing learning opportunities. But learning habits and learning products are established long before the school takes over in the life of the individual. And it is perhaps this 'take-over' by the school that produces both learning and non-learning, both creativity and passivity, in schools. Today's criticism of schools from a democratic point of view has raised precisely this question: have schools and other educational institutions monopolized learning with the result that too many still take it for granted that school is the only place where learning takes place, that children and young people of school- age are the only ones who learn, and that teaching is for professional teachers alone? A new consciousness seems to be under way fo- cusing on the conditions of learning, reactivating households and parents, communities and places of work, emphasizing lifelong learning, and not only opportunities for lifelong education. It seems reasonable to consider this as a new wave of democratization, very different from previous horizontal democratization. This wave implies that more people should take on the teacher's role, and not only that of the learner;


it implies that schools should be opened up to use more local material. This may raise another debate about politicization of schools and by schools.

A regionalization of higher education has been launched in many countries. The central- ized location of higher education and research was considered an uneven distribution of resources, not only because it meant unequal access for potential students, but because large districts with their population, their productive and cultural life were deprived of the resources and the potential of institutions of higher learning. Access to educational and research institutions is another kind of access, a different kind of use, and perhaps a very indirect but still noticeable benefit. This new group of educational institutions are clearly expected to define themselves as actors within their regions, able to serve, reflect and influence local needs.

In the everyday social atmosphere of schools and classrooms it is not the rules of democracy, but rather the rules of the weakest link, that operate. According to democratic rules the majority determines. The rule of the link means that the weakest link is determinant. One inadequate teacher or one destructive and dis- ruptive student can ruin a class. To uphold the dignity of the individual frequently appears incompatible with securing the right to education for the majority of students.

This insight is a triviality for anyone familiar with schools, but what does it mean in terms of increasing the role of democracy, and improving the status and chances of democracy within schools and classes? Is this situation one of the reasons why authoritarian rule in connection with schools appears more common, more acceptable, and hence more difficult to change than in society at large?

The individual, group or social class frequently focuses on the right to decide the use of time, the form of space, and the content of work.

At schools, more often than not, all these el- ements are predetermined. It may be suggested that some of the problems experienced within

many schools represent a kind of chaotic, destructive and short-lived democratization: through disorder, control is gained over the use of time; through vandalism, space is affected; through not learning, students decide the content of their work. Although this notion of 'destructive democratization' does not imply that a sudden switch to more democratic internal control would dramatically change the situation, some schools have successfully invited even the very young to share with adults responsibility for organizing time, space and work.

The traditional, hierarchical organization of most schools, the cleavage between youth and adults, between learners and temporary teachers and more permanent members of the school community--the externally determined law and budget--all these factors are not easily rec- onciled with ideas of internal democratic control. But a variety of models have been tried, finding different answers to the eternal question of democratic organization. Whatever the form of democracy chosen, it is its content and purpose that determines its potential for success. All participants will be disillusioned ff they are invited to perform empty rituals. Participation must make a visible difference; it must provide a changed experience which is perceived as meaningful.

The continued interest in democratization of education must have many supports, both old and new. Horizontal democratization will represent a major effort. To be complete, it will have to be both fragmented and individuated. Modern information and communication technology will facilitate this development which both attacks and opens up new avenues for educational institutions and for learning.

More thought needs to be devoted to vertical democratization, to the social functions and the social functioning of educational organization. Democratization of education was intended to help lay the foundations for a democratic society. The opportunity to learn was also an experience of togetherness in learning, and interaction conducive to critical examination and organization of impressions, when educational institutions were at their best. A sense

88 Ingrid Eide

of individual growth was combined with the collective experience.

Democracy refers to relationships between individuals and between groups. It depends on people having learnt the rules as well as the roles of the game. I t depends on people having a sense of purpose in their own lives and for society. I t depends olt the ability of individuals, groups and institutions to work out non-violent solutions to the conflicts within and between nations. Will education assist us in this en- deavour?

thoughts on the democratization of education in europe

Documents