Education for Europe? Professionalization between effectiveness and autonomy

Abstract

This paper assumes that there has been a discourse shift in the understanding of internationalization from an idealistic view on overcoming national narrow-mindedness to an economic view of effectiveness and self-improvement, which also affects the discourse on Europeanization and building Europe by education. Against this background, the question of which consequences this discourse shift has for education and professionalization, is asked. In the end, two contradictions are pointed out as boundaries of professionalizing European education: the first lies in the opposed understanding of Europe and education for Europe; and the second in the replacement of politics by education (understood not only as bottom up control of political aims by education but also as a specific idea of humanity).

Talking about Europeanization

For a long time, the statement “I am European” has signalled an objection to the narrow-mindedness of national borders and a desire for Europeanization ¹ . It can therefore be understood as a willingness for peaceful cooperation and collaboration. Even though this idealistic aspiration is still current, the understanding of Europe as a European Union fosters a different kind of discourse ² , which focuses on economic power and neo-liberal ideas of effectiveness and self-improvement rather than international understanding. There has been a discourse shift as a result of the evolution of Europe as a global player. The meaning of “I am European” has shifted from a commitment to Europeanization to a measurement of the individual to economic standards (Bröckling, 2007).

European societies have to deal with the challenges of migration and inclusion. But that does not at all mean that the societies have united to one single European society in order to deal with these challenges. Indeed, when it comes to dealing with the challenges of migration, for example, European nations, especially those of the European Union (EU), insist on their national and traditional solutions. This indicates, in fact, how narrow the boundaries of European thinking are. The EU is, in effect, a monetary union rather than a union which emphasizes social justice (Habermas, 2011) or joint policies. This is exemplified by the Brexit vote (see the introduction of this volume) and the talk of a “refugee crisis” ³ . Europe is neither an experience of international understanding, nor does it offer a “welcoming culture” for everybody. The boundaries of a welcoming and understanding Europe lie in monetary and competitive orientations, which tend to limit acceptance. The welcoming and international-understanding side of Europeanization does not cancel the monetary/competitive side. These two sides actually exist in parallel.

As discussed in the introduction to this volume, there is a gap between governing and experiencing Europeanization. This also affects education. The discourse shift (see above) from internationalization to economization also influences the discussion of “Education for Europe” in terms of building Europe ‘by education’ and making European citizens ‘by education’. We can talk of a conflict between the sphere of experiencing Europe as a process of Europeanization and the sphere of governing Europe by the increase of international competition (for example, in international comparative studies, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)). Both spheres are represented in formal education and focused on within this paper. The effect of economization on both the education profession ⁴ and the potential boundaries of “Education for Europe” is emphasized. In order to understand this effect, it is necessary to introduce the sociological approach of Max Weber, who highlights value and instrumental rationality as a means to analyse professions in modern societies (section 2). Then the discourse shift on education in Europe from education to overcome narrow-mindedness, to education in terms of economization will be discussed (section 3). After describing how the discourse shift affects how the education profession(s) develop European citizenship (section 4), contradictions in the provision of “Education for Europe” are discussed (section 5).

The education profession(s) and the balance of instrumental and value rationality

Within the process of modernization, the national organization of education made sense because it alluded to the idea of creating subjects for the nations (Foucault, 1977). Education, therefore, could be viewed as part of the nation-building process. Modern institutions, which developed at the beginning of modernization, were meant to be available for all citizens. Within this understanding, education systems emerged as systems of mass education, which at the same time subjected individuals to government control (Foucault, 1977).

Max Weber (1922/1972) saw education as a way of creating modern citizens. At the same time, he stated that education is a way for the individual to become autonomous. Hence, education is beneficial for the state as well as for the development of the individual. Within this thinking, there is a differentiation between two rationalities: instrumental rationality and value rationality. The idea of these two rationalities is developed in Weber’s remarks on professions in modern societies (Weber, 1922/1972). Weber believed every instrumental aim within professions is controlled by the society’s values. Relating this to the education profession, it can be seen that although education helps to continue the social order in an instrumental way, it is limited by values such as the autonomy of the individual. This prevents education professionals from applying only an instrumental rationality with the reasoning that the ends justify the means. An example of this is the beating of disobedient children, which could be seen as an effective means to make them do what they are supposed to do. However, in many societies beating is seen to clash with accepted values and, as a consequence, prohibited in their education systems – even if it appears to be an effective instrument. Non-violent education conforms to a value which controls instrumental orientation to the effectiveness of education methods.

The principle that value rationality controls instrumental rationality also applies to business, political and medical professions. Consequently, ethics and morality govern progress in medicine and economy, as well as in politics and education (Meseth, 2013; Radtke, 2009). For this paper, the balance of instrumental and value rationality is examined using the example of modern schooling.

Current research on education, such as the work of John W. Meyer and David P. Baker, is based on Weber’s institutionalism. Meyer assumes that individuals, organizations and nations are each embedded in major social contexts and that they balance instrumental and value rationality. Therefore, the instrumental rational aim to produce people who are efficient is accompanied and controlled by the value of meritocracy ⁵ . This implies that heritage is no longer the only way to obtain social status and that education promises a possibility to overcome social stratification (Meyer, 2005).

Meyer et al. (2005) believe that meritocratic systems can be seen as a chance for global unification as they can overcome the boundaries of national subjection. The idea behind meritocracy is that social status can be detached from social categories such as gender, race and class – and nationality as well. Social selection based on achievement seems to diminish differences within and between nations. Meritocracy thus provides a rational basis of selection and avoids selection by (social) background. In order to implement these ideas globally and create “schooled societies”, Baker (2012) believes everybody should be included in the education system.

The discourse shift of education governed by an instrumental rationality

With neo-liberal ideals of comparison, competition and effectiveness, the discourse of education is now controlled by instrumental rationality. To give an example, I refer to an international comparative study of student achievement – the PISA assessment (e.g. Baumert et al., 2001). The aim of this assessment is neither international understanding nor the overcoming of social inequality. Analysis of students’ skills in single nations leads to competition – not just between students in a particular country but between nations. The focus of the test is on where the nations are ranked and this output-orientated economic logic supresses the educational aim of autonomy (Weber) and freedom (Meyer and Baker). Furthermore, it judges the students merely as achievers and contributors to their country’s benchmarking. The nature of the education systems and the competence of the students is governed by instrumental rationality, as is the students’ ability. This means the measurement of their competencies and the competitive framing, just as the comparison of their outcome, does not consider the moral questions (as an expression of value rationality) that control instrumental rational aims. The actual paradox of such international studies is that they basically contribute to national differentiation.

This discourse shift is not only an abstract phenomenon; it is reflected in a language of usage and efficiency, which we find in everyday school practice. Besides the dominance of the words “competencies” and “skills”, “assessment” and “efficiency”, we can observe that schools begin to teach to the test/assessment. This already has some tradition in Great Britain, where school inspections have taken place since 1992. The results (for example, from GCSE and ‘A’-Level exams) are presented in league tables and influence parents’ choice of school. As the choices are made mainly by middle-class parents, new forms of segregation take place.

The discourse shift causes a backlash on comparative research. International comparison in neo-liberal understanding neither means that there is a cultural comparison of learning conditions (Hummrich and Rademacher, 2012; Meyer, 1999) nor that institutional conditions that produce different achievement are examined (see Gomolla, 2005). Instead, reasons for students’ underperformance are either externalized by attributing causes to the families and their lack of interest in knowledge about formal education (Relikowski et al., 2012), or individualized, so that problems with standardized tests are seen as problems that particular students have.

At this point of the paper, the question arises as to what this discourse shift might mean to education professions, which are still a part of national and local education cultures.

The education profession in the context of internationalization and Europeanization

The preceding section showed that Europeanization brought with it a destabilization of traditional certainties of social and cultural belonging (see Crouch, 2004), because the modern value of education (autonomy) has been suppressed by the rule of economization. Europeanization therefore results in effectiveness and competitiveness and not in an increase of international understanding and autonomy, which had been hoped to arise from dismantling the narrow-mindedness of nation borders. This also implies that the education profession serves the discourse’s requirement for effectiveness. To shift from professional responsibility for the students’ education to the desire to do well in competitive assessment creates settings in which the educators themselves effectively become competitors to do the best for the school rankings. This ambivalence for the students’ well-being is tight-knit to the ambivalence of the education profession. Education systems have to implement the international requirements nationally and locally, because the economic logic of neo-liberalism with its discourse of effectiveness and self-improvement (Bröckling, 2007) is not able to counteract social uncertainties of cultural and social belonging. Thus, internationalization is embedded into an ambivalent structure and so is Europeanization. The process of Europeanization can be seen as both a process of internationalization and boundary setting. Education in professional contexts under these conditions is challenged to balance these ambivalences. This can be discussed by means of three major challenges that the education profession currently faces in Europe: internationalization; immigration; and inclusion.

Rethinking concepts of internationalization

The contribution of the education profession to Europeanization has to reflect the double-binding of internationalization and boundary setting, by limiting internationalization to the borders of Europe. Which concept of Europe do we talk of if we think that education contributes to Europeanization? Is it the EU as a bureaucratic unit or the idea of international understanding? Why do we talk of middle-ranged internationalization though? The education profession does not have to have an answer to all these questions, but should be aware of the ambivalences which are implicated. These ambivalences include: the closeness to other European countries and the distance to non-European countries; the differences and similarities of cultures, which might create different values and therefore different control mechanisms for the implementation of instrumental goals; and the connectedness to the process of globalization and the necessity to apply this process locally. The awareness of these ambivalences might enable the experience of Bildung by means of transforming the understanding of oneself and the world (Koller, 2011). Thus, the education profession is challenged by the reality that internationalization is not just an educational trip to another country for privileged people, but a possibility to understand one’s own boundaries of thinking and their connection to the locally/culturally ⁶ -framed values.

Dealing with migration

The so-called “refugee crisis” in 2015 and 2016 showed how fragile the boundaries of Europeanization are when international issues are involved. Europe was unified through the media’s representation of the influx of migrants ⁷ as a “crisis”. Hence, the experience of having a “refugee-crisis” in Europe has been seen rather as a problem than the reasons for migration (and the European influences on them). The unity fragmented, however, when it came to the demand of dealing with the “refugee-crisis” – also in the educational systems. The representation of the events in 2015 and 2016 as a crisis can be seen as an expression of how Europe deals with its migrants on the one hand and how it is able to unite under the impression of a “crisis” on the other hand. Many nations reverted to familiar concepts of national solutions. All over Europe, there are different methods of integration in schools – one which separates the migrants, who are put into special language courses (as in some parts of Germany) while they apply for asylum, and others which integrate them as soon as possible (as in Sweden, for example). The demand that students have to learn the language first seems unavoidable, and yet this demand exactly shows the value rationality of national boundaries within the process of Europeanization. This has two reasons. First, school and education are constructed in and bounded to concepts of nationality and second, mass education is built on the assumption that everybody speaks the same language, which is usually the national language of the country where the institution or education activity is set. Therefore, the competences of new arrivals are often underestimated (Niedrig and Seukwa, 2009). However, the education profession has to be aware that the talk of a “crisis” not only covers the national boundaries of integration and the boundaries of Europeanization, but also covers racism, because the idea of legitimate belonging is connected to questions of participation in educational settings.

The balance of value and instrumental rationality within the education profession has to measure the instrumental rationality of effective teaching in the national language the education system is sited in against the value rational aim to provide access to education regardless of the students’ background.

Conceptualizing inclusion

When speaking of education for everybody, the issue of inclusion has to be discussed. The United Nations (UN) convention of 2007 states that every child has the right to attend and be integrated in a standard school. This concept also has to be implemented in very segregated school systems such as in Germany, where we find four types of secondary schools (after grade/Year 4): Gymnasium (for high achievers); Realschule (for middle achievers); Hauptschule (for low achievers); and Sonderschule (which literally means ‘special school’, for children with special needs). Following the UN convention, schools have to provide concepts of inclusion. In Germany, inclusion is often reified as special needs education and other aspects of participation (class, race, and gender) are neglected (Budde and Hummrich, 2014). In other European countries, the challenges are different. In Great Britain, for example, we find a long tradition of welfare, which seems to be currently contradicted by the “Educational Reform Act”. This act tends to turn inclusive education into a managerial problem (Fritzsche, 2012). So, in England, inclusion is no longer a question of abolishing a particular type of special school, but the ambivalence of providing welfare, on the one hand, and dealing with inclusion in a bureaucratic manner, on the other.

On the whole, the challenges in dealing with inclusion and migration are similar. At the same time, the supranational demands need to be adapted to the national and local conditions. The manner of their adaptation is influenced by the specific local conditions. The challenge for the education profession in contributing to Europeanization is to reflect upon the conditions and become aware of the boundary settings which are associated with the specific ways of implementing inclusive concepts.

The three aforementioned challenges for the education profession within the context of globalization, internationalization and Europeanization result in supranational demands within classrooms (and other pedagogical situations). This is historically and culturally framed by specific value rationalities. But it is neither determined by the supranational goals, nor by the cultural background of education systems. Supranational demands have to be adapted to the single situation and reflect that the place where global, international and European experiences are made is the pedagogical situation itself. Therefore, professional handling of Europeanization has to reflect the interrelation of Europe to globalization, and the consciousness that education is just a top-down fulfilment of supranational demands. The education of education professionals has to enable reflection on the structure of teaching and make it possible to compare different structures and thereby become aware of the interrelatedness of one’s own position. Furthermore, the reflection on Europeanization in education settings gives the opportunity to distinguish between political demands (such as integration and inclusion) and effective teaching (and its risks of exclusion) (Hummrich, 2017).

“Education for Europe” – a conclusion

This paper has dealt with the discourse shift from internationalization as a means to overcome national narrow-mindedness, to an orientation towards effectiveness. It emphasized the meaning of this discourse shift for the education profession by discussing the effect of a reversion of instrumental and value rationality. One further issue needs to be discussed though, namely the entanglement of political aims and education. An example of this is the aim to build Europe by setting education as a central point and therefore establishing the term “Education for Europe” or “Building Europe by Education”. Clearly, Europe cannot be built without education. Just like the nations were built by introducing mass education (Foucault, 1977), an understanding of Europe needs education to achieve aims like internationalization and European unification. But within this connection of politics and education/pedagogy there are two contradictions.

Education to build Europe is connected with the discourse about Europe and European purposes. As shown in this paper the discourse has shifted. On the one hand, there is the idea of building a Europe to contribute to democratic freedom and on the other hand, or – as result of the discourse shift – there is the aim to build Europe as an efficient global player, which shifts democratic freedom to a freedom of choice (Foucault, 2000). With regards to the question of Europeanization, we find two different understandings of Europe. On the one hand, Europe is seen as a unit, which involves people as European citizens. Hence national differences should diminish in favour of the possibilities of participation, freedom and democratic education and this should overcome national or local narrow-mindedness. On the other hand, Europe is seen as the EU, which is defined by a monetary policy. Hence, competition without and above European boundaries, and the logic of effectiveness and self-improvement should dominate education. Education then serves an economic logic in an instrumental way. The processing of democracy is reversed by turning freedom as an educational aim into the freedom of choice and therefore individualizes social problems, which in turn causes inequality in education.

Education to build Europe is not only a political task; it is also a task to be fulfilled by education professional, as was indicated at the end of section 4. So, every demand, as highly aggregated as it may be (internationalization, integration, inclusion, etc.), arriving in the classroom poses its own specific demands on the educators. The political demands arrive in classrooms, and appear with their own specific demands. One further issue needs to be discussed though, namely the entanglement of political aims and education. Therefore, there is a gap between the political demand (integration of refugees) and the specific demand in pedagogical situations. A reverse misunderstanding would be that education practices replace politics. We find this attitude, for example, in different kinds of intercultural pedagogy (Hamburger, 2009) which are influenced by the assumption that the only way to integrate people into society is to create classroom situations that make the different backgrounds of the students visible ⁸ . Focusing on the fact that students come from different backgrounds could increase the feeling that they are strangers. The fact that they have similarities to other students could be neglected.

The education profession has to carefully reflect on these contradictions in its provision of “Education for Europe”. As the paper has highlighted, emphasizing effectiveness in education neglects values. And values are essential for the development of autonomy and freedom.