Institutional immunization against knowledge

Printable version of the article  
Send this article by mail  

The heterogeneity of interests reported to us by CSU-politicians, and the consequent maintaining of the existing educational possibilities in Bavaria with only the added option of integrative schooling, could be conveniently combined in the CSU´s decision-making process with the second crucial knowledge element we identified: the present institutional situation, as we already mentioned above. It is evident that a system of separated schools for healthy children on the one hand and all kinds of special needs schools on the other, which have developed and specialized for decades, has consequently spawned far-reaching differentiated structures of which the variate equipments and building-styles of schools, the budgeting terms, the education and further training of regular and special-needs teachers, the guide-lines for the supporting medical services or the specialized syllabi are only a few which evolved over time. A substantial modification in these structures, like the shift to general integrative or inclusive schooling recommended by scientific experts and disabled peoples´ associations, would definitely lead to foreseeable and unforeseeable frictions during the reconstruction period of the education sector.

In the course of one hearing, an expert demanded the passage be deleted which defined that schools have to integrate children only “within the limits of their possibilities”, and said that the government should be responsible to create these “possibilities”. A CSU-politician answered to this: “[..] You say the phrase `within the limits of their possibilities´ should be deleted completely. I am no jurist, but I could imagine that this would create a legal entitlement [to integration] although the school is not ready, yet” (ANHÖRUNG 69.Bl (04.07.2002),14 WP, 10).

Put differently, it would create the obligation for politics to make the schools “ready”, with all pending financial, constructional and personal needs and costs. This practically negated the possibility to introduce total integration, as the next to quotes by CSU-politicians illustrate: “[..] that was an ongoing struggle from 2001 until 2003: what can really be done in Bavaria? It was always out of the question to completely abolish the special needs school system, because such a fast transformation probably wouldn´t have worked, from a practical point of view alone” (I1: 28-31).

"The problem is that there are institutions with long traditions, a long history, which of course have developed an excellence, often educate very well, but which also have developed their singularities, sometimes financial needs, interests - this is a problem. For example, an institution with a day-care centre, if they suddenly lose all their day-care children, because they don´t spend the afternoons in the institution anymore, then this might imply their financial ruin” (I20: 806-812).

NASSEHI A., VON DER HAGEN-DEMSZKY A. & MAYR K. (2009), The Amendment of the Bavarian Education Law in 2003: A Long Way towards Inclusion, Report, 15.

Read document

  • ANHÖRUNG 69.Bl (04.07.2002),14 WP, 10.

© 2011 Knowandpol Designed and Powered by platanas