Education and Human Rights || Human Rights Education as an Integral Part of General Education

Human Rights Education as an Integral Part of General EducationAuthor(s): Sabine HornbergSource: International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift fürErziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l'Education, Vol. 48, No. 3/4, Education andHuman Rights (Jul., 2002), pp. 187-198Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3445360 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 22:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Review ofEducation / Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l'Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.175 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:04:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3445360?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF GENERAL EDUCATION

SABINE HORNBERG

Abstract - This article argues that human rights education should become an integral part of general education. The author discusses efforts to realise this aim within the German general educational system. She pays special attention to three areas. First, at the theoretical level, she examines how human rights education can be conceptu- alised within the context of general education and against the background of globalisation and multiculturalism. Second, she examines the political and administrative level, including questions of curriculum. Thirdly, she looks at the didactical aspect of human rights education. In conclusion she points out some of the implications for teacher training.

Zusammenfassung - In diesem Artikel wird argumentiert, dass die Menschenrechtser- ziehung Bestandteil der allgemeinen Erziehung werden sollte. Die Autorin diskutiert Bemiihungen um die Verwirklichung diese Ziels innerhalb des deutschen allgemeinen Bildungssystems. Besonderes Augenmerk richtet sie auf drei Gebiete. Zuerst unter- sucht sie auf theoretischer Ebene die Moglichkeit einer Konzeptionalisierung der Menschenrechtserziehung innerhalb des Kontextes allgemeiner Bildung und vor dem Hintergrund der Globalisierung und Multikultur. Zweitens befasst sie sich mit der politischen und administrativen Ebene einschlieBlich Fragen zum Curriculum. Zum dritten geht sie auf didaktische Aspekte der Menschenrechtserziehung ein. Als Schlussfolgerung deutet sie auf einige der Auswirkungen auf die Lehrerfortbildung hin.

Resume - L'auteure plaide pour que l'education aux droits humains fasse partie inte- grante de l'enseignement general. Elle analyse les efforts deployes dans ce sens par le systeme allemand d'enseignement g6neral et se penche en particulier sur trois domaines. Au niveau theorique, elle examine tout d'abord comment l'education aux droits humains peut etre conceptualisee dans le cadre de l'enseignement general et sur l'arriere-plan de la mondialisation et du multiculturalisme. Elle passe ensuite en revue le niveau politique et administratif comprenant des questions de programme, et se penche en dernier lieu sur l'aspect didactique de l'dducation aux droits humains. Elle signale pour conclure plusieurs implications pour la formation des enseignants.

Resumen - El presente articulo sostiene que la educacion para los derechos humanos debe llegar a formar parte de la educaci6n general. La autora discute los esfuerzos realizados en este sentido dentro del sistema aleman de educaci6n general, y pone especial atenci6n en tres dreas. Primero, a nivel te6rico, examina como se pueden formar conceptos de educaci6n para los derechos humanos dentro del contexto de la educaci6n general y en presencia de un trasfondo globalizado y multicultural. En segundo lugar, examina el nivel politico y administrativo, incluyendo planteamientos de currculo; y en tercer lugar, pone atenci6n en el aspecto didactico de la educaci6n para los derechos humanos. La autora oncluye su trabajo puntualizando algunas de las implicaciones que esto supone para la preparaci6n de los docentes.

International Review of Education - Internationale Zeitschrift fir Erziehungswissenschaft - Revue Internationale de l'Education 48(3-4): 187-198, 2002. ? 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.



188

Pe3ioMe - B aaHHOi CTaTbe o6cy)KcaeTcas Bonpoc o TOM, 4TO o6yqeHHe npasaM qenOBeKa AonJKHO CTaTb HeoTbeMJneMoH macTbIO o6wero o6pa30BaHHa. ABTOP CTaTbH paccMaTptBaeT nOnblTKM peanjHOBaTb 3Ty

enib BHYTpH HeMeUKOH o6ULeo6pa3oBaTen.bHOH CHCTeMbi. OHa yneJieT oco6oe BHHMaHHe TpeM o6jacrTM. Bo-nepBblx, Ha TeopeTHqecKOM ypoBHe OHa Hccne^yyeT, KaKHM o6pa3oM o6yqeHHe npaBaM enioBeKa MOeKeT 6blTb

KOHUenTyaaJH3HpOBaHO B KOHTeKCTe o6mero o6pa3oBaHHUI Ha ()OHe rno6anH3auHH H nonHKynbTypanH3Ma. BO-BTOpblX, oHa paccMaTpHBaeT nonHTHUecKHH H aAMHHHCTpaTHBHbIH ypOBeHb, BKnJoq4aA BOnpOC o6

yqe6HoA nporpaMMe. B-TpeTbHx, OHa o6pamaeT BHHMaHHe Ha

AHaaKTHMeCKHe acnecrbi B o6y4eHHH npaBaM menoiBeKa. B 3aKm.rioeHHe, OHa TaloKe noMqepKHBaeT BaKHOCTb nlOaOTOBKH yqHTeJleH.

Human rights education: A challenge for general education in the process of globalisation

Each part of this article will begin with a thesis. The first is as that societal changes accompanying the process of globalisation, such as increasing commercialisation and consumerism, the growing impact of communication and information technologies, and the multiculturalisation of the Lebenswelten (Habermas 1976) of children and adolescents, are today today confronting general education with new demands. Thus, a modern concept of general education has to take into account these developments and incorporate such areas as "human rights education", "developmental education", i.e. teaching and learning about "one world/third world", "intercultural education" and "education for sustainable development". Furthermore, by incorporating these perspectives, it also has to tackle a critical point of these approaches, i.e. the tension between universalistic and relativistic concepts of culture.

Before unfolding the argument, some remarks on the context of human rights education might be helpful. This context can be summarised by the term "globalisation", affecting the differing Lebenswelten (ibid.) of all people. As has been shown by many different observers (e.g. Benhabib et al. 1994; Drechsel et al. 2000; Hall 1994: 44-88; Scheunpflug and Hirsch 2000; Walzer 1998: 114-136), globalisation forces us to question supposed certainties. Taking up this argument, Beck (1997: 36),' for example, asks:

What does tolerance mean? What is the content of human rights that is valid for all people, within the opposition of cultures? Who guarantees human rights in a postnationalistic world? (ibid.).

Children and adolescents of today are influenced by various manifestations of the process of globalisation. Indicators for this observation are, among others, the growing commercialisation of their Lebenswelten, the fashion,



189

music and toys favoured by children and adolescents - among which the Pokemon phenomenon is only one recent example. This process is supported by the global digital integration process via the new information and communication technologies and the World Wide Web as well as by the loss of

power and influence of the nation-states, which often still define themselves as ethnically homogeneous, despite their growing multiculturalisation caused by increased migration. For most children and adolescents, this implies growing up in multicultural societies (Rex 1990; Nestvogel 1991). Those con- cerned with the socialisation and education of the younger generations recog- nise that any adequate concept of general education must take these processes into account. Especially the representatives of post colonial studies (e.g., Chambers 1996), the advocates of what is termed "multicultural" and "anti- racist" education in English-speaking countries world-wide (e.g., Troyna and

Carrington 1990) and "intercultural education" in other parts of western Europe (e.g., Auernheimer 1990) have criticised a closely defined notion of general education. They do so by pointing to the fact that such a concept neglects the histories, experiences and views of those who are not European, white, male and in positions of power. Thus, all those who are excluded from this frame of reference, such as women, people of colour, descendants of people from colonial states, the mentally or physically handicapped, and those who lack "economic, social and cultural capital" in Bourdieu's sense (Bourdieu 1973), are now demanding the introduction of previously hidden stories and perspectives into general education. The aim behind this demand is not only actively to support multiculturalism, but also to promote equal opportunity and social justice, while taking as a starting point the different socio-economic, physical and cultural backgrounds of children and adolescents (e.g., Prengel 1995). What does this mean for general education today? To be able to tackle this question we have to take into account the present appearance of the general education system, i.e., of modem schools.

As has been outlined for example by Adick (1992), who draws on the world system approach as put forward by Wallerstein, schooling as such has become universal in that today there is a widely held expectation throughout the world that children will spend (or should spend) at least some time of their life in state-run schools.2 These schools have many features in common. They follow national curricula reflecting a global trend (Meyer et al. 1992), and thus tend to observe a core curriculum, consisting typically of mathematics, social science, the national language and at least one foreign language, history, physical education, arts and/or music. Usually trained teachers work in these schools, which are divided into age-homogeneous classes where possible. The traditional and still dominant teaching method is for the teacher to stand in front of the class and use the "talk and chalk" approach (ibid.: 101-143). This broad picture is accompanied by the following data on literacy world- wide: whereas children and adolescents in industrialised countries in 1995 were usually literate by the age of fifteen were, this was only valid for 56.8% of the people from sub-Saharan Africa, for 56.6% of the people in the Arabic



190

world and for 50.2% of the inhabitants of South Asia, to mention only some examples. In this context the most disadvantaged are girls and women, of whom in the so called developing countries only 61.7% were literate, as opposed to 98.7% in industrial countries (Lenhart 2000: 53). What these data reflect is that the human right to education is still a divided right - with those exercising it in the industrial regions of the world and those who need better access to it in the so called developing countries. Clearly therefore there is a need for active measures to extend the right to education to those who are at present denied it.

Having stated this, it is also necessary to ask: what should be the content of general education? This question is important in at least two respects. First, against the background of the global trends in general education and the societal changes caused by globalisation, we need to reconsider our understanding of general education. In this context I would argue that human rights education should be an integral part of general education for the following two reasons. Human rights education is, by its very nature, a topic which has the potential to help students transcend national, social, cultural and economic and other boundaries. It is a good vehicle to make them become aware of global interdependencies (for example regarding environmental matters or processes of migration) without neglecting their personal situation, but rather taking it as a starting point. Secondly, human rights education overlaps at many points with the approaches under consideration here, such as intercultural education, education for sustainable development, and so forth. In what follows, I will try to reinforce this argument by looking at the German context and the potentials for an inclusion of human rights education into general education.

In German-speaking countries the concept of general education, as it has been outlined by Klafki (1997: 115), is an approach widely referred to. This concept centres around the notion of "epoch-typical key problems" and the critical-constructive didactics, elaborated by the same author for many years. Following Klafki (1994), current "epoch-typical key problems" are:

1. war and peace; 2. the meaning and problematic nature of the principle of nationality versus

specific(s) of culture(s) and interculturality; 3. ecology; 4. growth of the world's population; 5. societal inequality; 6. steering information and communication media; 7. individual happiness, human responsibility and acknowledgement of the

other.

This approach to defining general education has been widely criticised by the advocates of intercultural education for being western-Eurocentric (e.g., Steiner-Khamsi 1996), first because it aims to continue the history of a pre- scribed general education, and secondly because of its content. In my view,



191

this critique is not convincing, as in fact all key problems could be used to adopt an intercultural perspective, i.e., to detect and practice different, multiple perspectives. The same is true for human rights education, which could also be put on the agenda under these key problems. Nonetheless, the critique of the advocates of intercultural education does point to a neuralgic point of the concept as such, of intercultural and human rights education: It is the con- tradiction between universalistic and relativistic concepts of culture, and the problem how to tackle it. At present there are no "easy answers" to this question, but one solution and first step would be to become aware of this problem, that is by recognising that there exist multiple perspectives to a chosen topic. I will return to this aspect after having sketched out selected recommendations in view of the educational initiatives under question here, launched within the German general education system.

The political and administrative level

Thesis: Policies regarding the contents of the recommendations under question here, brought forward by international (e.g., UNESCO) and national (e.g. German Kultusministerkonferenz)3 agencies envisage their implementation as cross-curricular subjects. Hence, they demand to integrate them into general education.

The question of how to handle globalisation and multiculturalisation in general education has been on the agenda of UNESCO, the European Council and those working in the field of education for many decades. In 1960, for example, the German Commission for UNESCO brought forward a "Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co- operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" (Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission 1975: 5). In Germany, some recommendations of the Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) pertaining to the field of human rights education appeared within the last decades. Among these, the following are important:

- At the beginning of the 1980s the KMK introduced the "Recommendation for the Support of Human Rights Education in Schools" (KMK 1982), still valid today.

- As a reaction to the increasing multiculturalisation of German society and youth, and with the aim of furthering intercultural education as an inde- pendent discipline, the KMK in 1996 launched a recommendation on "Intercultural Education in Schools" (KMK 1998). This recommendation represents a new version of the recommendation of 1964 on the "Teaching of Children of Foreign Workers". With the new recommendation the KMK made a shift from the so-called Auslanderpadagogik4 to intercultural education.

- The recommendation "One World/Third World in Schools" (KMK 1998) by the KMK was spelled out for the last time in November 1998.



192

- Only recently the German Bundestag, following the Agenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, launched a recommendation to be adopted by the German

general education system on "Education for Sustainable Development" (Deutscher Bundestag 2000).5

What do these recommendations have in common and what are the differences between them? We will first turn to their legal status: recommendations, and this is important, are declarations of intent. Their purpose is to provide new impulses and a legitimate basis for the introduction of the envisaged topics in schools. In terms of their content, the recommendations in question here reflect several congruencies - their core demand is to enable all students to "understand the meaning of justice, solidarity and tolerance for an international understanding and the ability to keep peace" (KMK 1998, op. cit.). At different points of the recommendations cross-references to the other issues discussed here can be found; in view of the cultural heterogeneity of societies and forms of coping with it, the recommendation on "Europe in Schools", originating from 1990, is in several places referred to, but shall not be under

investigation here.6 When looking at the sheer extent of the texts, it is striking that the

"Recommendation for the Support of Human Rights Education in Schools" consists of only three pages in comparison to the "Recommendation on Intercultural Education" (ten pages) and the one on "One World/Third World" (twelve pages).7 This seemingly trivial fact is of importance as it points to the conclusion that there exists a pronounced discrepancy of knowledge about the different approaches under discussion here. This discrepancy is then, in view of human rights education, reflected by the lack of proposals for adequate teaching methods - in contrast, these appear quite elaborate for the other two areas. All topics, the KMK claims, are to be integrated in schools as cross- curricular themes, especially in historically and politically oriented subjects, in school-texts and teacher training courses.

The level of didactics

Thesis: Among the few didactic approaches for the adoption of the topics under consideration here, the predominant ones are those pointing to con-

gruencies to build on. Hence, their integration into general education is also

supported by the didactics to be applied. I will now turn to the concrete level of didactics, i.e., the choice of instruc-

tional content and teaching methods, by asking: Which didactic models exist at present? And what are their strengths and weaknesses? As the tertium

comparationis I will first refer to the model for the teaching of human rights education which was developed at the beginning of the 1990s by Weinbrenner and Fritzsche (1993) subsequent to an international comparison of textbooks used in schools. The aim of this comparative empirical study was to find out



193

if and how human rights education is taken up in texts used in schools world- wide. This research brought the following results (ibid.: 30):

- Human rights education proves to be more a matter of perspective rather than of specific teaching content. Hence, human rights education often "hides" behind other topics.

- When dealing with human rights, often an ethnocentric perspective is repro- duced.

- Human rights rhetoric, as found in the proclamations of politicians and also of historians, is predominant in the texts. By contrast, the critical treat- ment of its realisation (critical approach) and non-realisation (political approach) is far more often neglected.

One result of this comparison is the "Didactic Cube of Human Rights", Figure 1 (ibid.: 31). There the introduction of human rights education is envisaged on three levels: (1) international, regional and global rights; (2) social, economic and cultural rights; (3) individual and political rights.

The topics dealt with under this umbrella are to be taught by a critical reflection of empirical and factual evidence found and in view of actions undertaken to realise human rights. All respective themes and aspects should be tackled regarding past, present and future developments.

Secondly, I will turn to the didactics of intercultural education, as has been recently put forward by Reich et al. (2000). This publication reflects the state of the art of the present German discussion on didactical concepts from an

PAST PRESENT FUTURE

Figure 1. The Didactic Cube of Human Rights.



194

intercultural perspective for all secondary school subjects with the exception of chemistry. Central elements of this didactics are:

- the concept of culture and the cultural place of didactics; - the meaning of cultural identity and interculturality; - the discussion on cultural differences and ethnicity; - the consideration of societal developments and respective concepts of inter-

cultural education; - methods and teaching concepts; - aims and principles of intercultural didactics for different subjects.

In this publication the integration of human rights education is, in accordance with the propositions by the KMK, explicitly envisaged for the teaching of

history and political science. The analogies of the two didactic approaches introduced here can be sum-

marised as follows: In both cases, the claim is to apply multiple perspectives while dealing with the topics chosen. In this respect, the "Didactic Cube of Human Rights" proves to be a helpful, concrete framework. But what is left to the teachers and learners, in applying this frame, is to detect and reflect on the interplay of the proposed levels, i.e. to realise the envisaged multiple perspectives. This, on the other hand, proves to be a strength of the intercultural didactics, which is quite concrete in its propositions. But also here it is doubtful whether this proves practicable in the classroom, because a profound theoretical knowledge of the discourses behind the topics is necessary. One way out of this dilemma could be a pronounced concentration on the third level, i.e. by offering relatively well spelled-out teaching examples. That these are severely needed can be shown by a small sample of teaching material on human rights education used in secondary schools in Germany today. Four of these examples are introduced here in order to show if and how they take account of the actual discussion on human rights education.

Instructional material on human rights education used in German secondary schools

The texts selected on human rights education are currently used for lessons in historical, political, social and philosophical studies in comprehensive schools in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

First example

For the teaching of social studies to 11- to 14-year-old pupils a book with the title Team 3 was published in 1999 (Mattes). There, altogether 32 pages are devoted to human rights education under the heading: "The situation of human and fundamental rights. Why do human rights concern us?" The

chapter is introduced by asking whether the realisation of human rights should be left to politicians or whether and how pupils could further it (ibid.: 213).



195

The pupils are then asked to exchange their ideas and knowledge on this

question. Here, the didactics applied quite clearly refers to the levels envis-

aged by the Didactic Cube of Human Rights; the possibility to consider different temporal perspectives exists. Furthermore, the investigation of the following pages shows that intercultural themes are tackled as well, e.g., in view of the relation/tension between a universalistic and a relativistic perspective on culture. In this context, within a historical perspective, the critique on human rights by Asian and Islamic states is referred to. As a summary, it can be stated that this example reveals a predominantly positive approach to human rights education compared to the propositions of the Didactic Cube of Human Rights; a point of criticism is that the countries chosen to examine the situation of human rights are all non-European, a fact that would indicate some notion of European superiority in the area of human rights.

Second example

Within a text (Dannowski et al. 1993: 77-102) for the teaching of ethics, moral and norms as part of philosophy for 16- to 18-year-old students a comprehensive chapter entitled "The Taming of Power - Tolerance and Human Rights" can be found. Here also we relevant themes of intercultural education taken up, and the categories of the Didactic Cube of Human Rights are reflected by the teaching material offered and methods applied. In contrast to these positive examples are the following two.

Third andfourth examples

In two texts for 10- to 16-year-old students for the teaching of social studies (Cornelsen Verlag 1994; Ernst Klett Schulbuchverlag 1996) the topic of human

rights is explicitly taken up, but predominantly tackled within a historical perspective. In one text, the actual situation is referred to only in connection with Columbia; the other text exclusively reveals the present situation by taking a

European ethnocentric perspective. Hence, these two examples are neither in accordance with the principles of intercultural education nor with those of the Didactic Cube of Human Rights.

Summary and outlook

Thesis: National and international discourses on the integration of human

rights education into general education are only just beginning to develop. Hence, adequate concepts, teaching methods and instructional material are still rare.

Efforts have been undertaken by the advocates of human rights education to integrate it into schools' curricula and curricular content, and the texts

critically examined here reflect some positive attempts in this direction.



196

Unfortunately these are restricted to subjects devoted to historical, political and social aspects. However, even within this range of subjects the principle of cross-curricular teaching and learning is realised and could be one starting point for a didactics aiming to encourage multiple perspectives, as supported by the advocates of intercultural education. Further, the problematic relation between a universalistic and a relativistic concept of culture proves a central point of all educational topics investigated here as well as of any attempt to provide a framework for general education. Thus, for societies facing globalisation and multiculturalisation, it is especially this aspect which today con- fronts schools, teachers and learners with new demands. Having stated this, it can be concluded that the topics and didactics proposed need to be further elaborated and integrated into general education (cf. also Selby 2000). One way of working to achieve this aim is to further enhance the national and international discourses on the content of general education and to introduce the respective controversies and approaches discussed world-wide into teacher training courses.

Notes

1. This quotation from a German publication as well as those to come were translated into English by the author of this article.

2. Cf. the declaration "Education for All", originating from a conference with the same title held in Jomtien in 1990.

3. The German Kultusministerkonferenz is a federal institution responsible for the co- ordination of curricula and curricular content of German schools.

4. The term Auslanderpddagogik can roughly be translated as "Education of/for for- eigners". The concept dominated the German theoretical debate until the beginning of the 1980s; the subsequent practice of the Auslanderpadagogik can still be found in German schools today.

5. Even though this is not yet a recommendation by the KMK, it is introduced here, because of its relevance for human rights and general education.

6. For those interested in the relation between the European Dimension in Education and Intercultural Education, cf. Hornberg 1998.

7. Following the recommendation by the German Bundestag (2000) on "Education for Sustainable Development", at present a countrywide network of school initiatives to realise this aim is supported, also including didactical approaches. But it is yet too early to come to any conclusions in this respect.

References

Adick, C. 1992. Die Universalisierung der modernen Schule. Paderbor, Miinchen, Wien, Zurich.

Auernheimer, G. 1990. Einfihrung in die interkulturelle Erziehung. Darmstadt.

Beck, U. 1997. Was ist Globalisierung? Frankfurt am Main.

Benhabib, S., Butler, J., Cornell, D. and Fraser, N. 1993. Der Streit urn Differenz. Frankfurt am Main.



197

Bourdieu, P. 1973. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In: Brown. R. and Halsey, A. H., eds., Power and Ideology in Education. New York.

Chambers, I. 1996. Migration, Kultur und Identitdt. Tubingen.

Cornelsen Verlag (ed.): Menschen, Zeiten, Rdume. 1994. Arbeitsbuch fur Gesellschaftslehre, Bd. 2. Disseldorf.

Dannowski, H.-W., Pickerodt, I. and Wolf, J. (eds.). 1993. Sachwissen Ethik. Gottingen.

Deutscher Bundestag: Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses fiir Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenabschatzung (19. Ausschuss) zum Antrag der Abgeordneten Ursula Burchardt et al. 2000. Bildung fur eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Drucksache 14/3319. Berlin, 10. 05. 2000. Cf. also: http://www.blk21.de/ content.php3?docTag=blk.

Drechsel, P., Schmidt, B. and Golz, B. 2000. Kultur im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. Frankfurt am Main.

Deutsche UNESCO Kommission. 1975. Empfehlung zur "internationalen Erziehung". (Neufassung) Bonn.

Ernst Klett Schulbuchverlag Leipzig (ed.). 1996. Das IGL-Buch. Gesellschaftslehre an Gesamtschulen. Leipzig.

Habermas, J. 1976. Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt am Main.

Hall, S. 1994. Rassismus und kulturelle Identitat. Hamburg.

Hornberg, S. 1999. Europiische Gemeinschaft und multikulturelle Gesellschaft. Anspruch und Wirklichkeit europiischer Bildungspolitik und -praxis. Frankfurt am Main.

Mattes, W. (ed.). 1999. TEAM 3, Arbeitsbuch fiir den Politikunterricht. Paderborn.

Klafki, W. 1994. Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Zeitgemaiie Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik. 4. Durchgesehene Auflage, Basel.

Klafki, W.: Zukunftsfihiges Deutschland - zukunftsfahige Schule. Didaktische Uberlegungen. 1997. In: Landesinstitut fur Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, ed., Die Zukunft neu denken - die Gegenwart gestalten. Weinheim und Basel.

KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz) (ed.). 1980. Empfehlung der Kultusministerkonferenz zur Forderung der Menschenrechte in der Schule. Bonn.

KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz) (ed.). 1998. Beschlufi der Kultuministerkonferenz "Eine Welt/Dritte Welt in Unterricht und Schule". Bonn.

KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz) (ed.). 1998. Empfehlung "Interkulturelle Bildung und Erziehung in der Schule". Bonn.

Meyer, J.W., Kamens, D. H. and Benavot, A. 1992. School Knowldege for the Masses. World Models and National Primary Curricular Categories in the Twentieth Century. Washington and London.

Nestvogel, R. Sozialisation und Sozialisationsforschung in interkultureller Perspektive. 1991. In: Nestvogel, R., ed., Interkulturelles Lernen oder verdeckte Dominanz? Hinterfragung "unseres" Verhaltnisses zur "Dritten Welt". Frankfurt am Main.

Prengel, A. 1995. Padagogik der Vielfalt. Opladen.



198

Reich, H. H., Holzbrecher, A. and Roth, H. J. (eds.). 2000. Fachdidaktik interkulturell. Ein Handbuch. Opladen. Rex. J. 1990. The Political Sociology of a Multi-Cultural Society. Unpublished paper, Warwick.

Scheunpflug, A. and Hirsch, K. (eds.). 2000. Globalisierung als Herausforderung fur die Padagogik. Frankfurt am Main.

Selby, D. Global Education as Transformative Education. 2000. In: Zeitschrift fir interationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspadagogik. 23. Jg., H.3, 2000, 2-10.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. 1995. Thesenpapier zur Zweiten Arbeitstagung der AG auf Zeit "Interkulturelle Bildung". DGFE, 9./10. Juni 1995.

Troyna, B. and Carrington, B. 1990. Education, Racism and Reform. London and New York.

Walzer, M. 1998. Uber Toleranz. Von der Zivilisierung der Differenz. Hamburg. Weinbrenner, P. and Fritzsche, K.-P. 1993. Teaching Human Rights. Suggestions for Teaching Guidelines.

The author

Sabine Hornberg, Dr.phil., is Senior Lecturer in Comparative International Education at the Institute of Education, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany. Her fields of interest are intercultural education, education in Europe, international school development (international schools) and school research, and sociology of education. She has spent some time in Britain and Spain.

Contact address: Dr. Sabine Hornberg, Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft. Institut fur Padagogik, Ruhr-Universitit Bochum, D-44780 Bochum. E-mail: sabine.hornberg @ ruhr-uni-bochum.de



Documents

Education and Human Rights || Human Rights Education as an Integral Part of General Education