Unzeitgemäße Sozialpädagogik. Erwägungen auf dem Weg zur Rephilosophierung einer Einzelwissenschaft unter Bezug auf Nietzsche

Der in letzter Zeit zelebrierte Erfolg der Sozialpädagogik ist der kritischen Reflexion aus rephilosophierter Perspektive bedürftig. Sie hat hinzuweisen auf das Erkenntnisinteresse, dem Wissenschaften, wenn sie denn Wissenschaften sein wollen, allererst nachzufolgen haben: nämlich der von staatlichen Gratifikationen absehenden Wahrheitssuche. Hier nun kann eine Rückbesinnung gerade auf den nützlich sein, der Sozialpädagogen, insoweit er sich der Rechtfertigung helfenden Handelns nicht zur Verfügung stellen läßt, von jeher unbequem war: nämlich auf Nietzsche. Dieser ist für die Sozialpädagogik aber nicht nur von Belang, weil er ihr altruistisches Selbstmißverständnis zu kritisieren erlaubt, sondern auch, weil er diese Disziplin auf eine Gegenstandskonzeption hinzuweisen hilft, die der Verkürzung des sozialpädagogischen Geschäfts auf bloße Problemlösungstechnologien entgegenwirken kann. (DIPF/Orig.)

Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome

The report on the findings of extensive empirical research on equality of educational opportunities carried out in the US on a very large sample of public schools by Coleman and his colleagues has had a major impact on education policy and has given rise to a large amount of research and various interpretations. However, as some interpreters have highlighted, even more important than the findings of the survey themselves has been Coleman’s redefinition of equality of opportunity, abandoning the then prevailing conception of equality of educational opportunities as equality of starting points and replacing it with the concept of equality of educational opportunities as equality of educational outcomes. The question is, therefore, whether equality of outcomes really is one of the two types of equality of opportunity. The purpose of the present article is to show that equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes are two different types of equality. If they are different, the interpretation that Coleman has redefined the concept of “equality of educational opportunity” turns out to be incorrect. (DIPF/Orig.)

Equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness

The present paper examines some of the tensions, problems and challenges associated with claims for equality of opportunity (the fairness argument). The introductory part identifies three separate forms of justification for public education, including the argument associated with equality of opportunity. Part II examines in detail two questions that reveal part of the anatomy of equality of opportunity: (1) what an opportunity is, and (2) when individuals’ opportunities are equal. This is followed by a presentation of the two basic principles of equality of opportunity: (1) the principle of non-discrimination, and (2) the “levelling the playing field” principle. The next part takes up the multiculturalist hypothesis advanced by minority groups for the accommodation and recognition of cultural diversity. This is followed by the identification of a set of claims comprising the “fairness argument”. The last section focuses on the “currency problem” associated with cultural diversity as a form of “unfair disadvantage”. Part V examines two of the major shortcomings associated with the multicultural conception of equality of opportunity, while the concluding part discusses some of the questions that must be answered by any conception of equal opportunities. (DIPF/Orig.)