Search results

Imajući na umu da je Strategijom razvoja obrazovanja u Srbiji primećeno da u obrazovanju u Srbiji postoji "problem sa pravednošću" i da je kao jedan od ciljeva razvoja obrazovanja navedeno stvaranje "socijalno pravičnog društva", u ovom radu se preispituje u kojoj meri su donošenje Zakona o dualnom obrazovanju i javno insistiranje na ekspanziji ovog vida obrazovanja koraci usmereni ka smanjenju nejednakosti. Oslanjajući se na ideje različitih francuskih sociologa obrazovanja (Burdije, Budon, Bodlo i Estable), kroz rad se ispituje u kojoj meri dualno obrazovanje otvara prostor za izjednačavanje obrazovnih šansi i uspostavljanje pravičnijeg društva. Iz teorijskih uvida spomenutih autora koji se tiču povezanosti klasnih struktura sa obrazovnim šansama, može se zaključiti da svako "grananje" unutar obrazovnog sistema doprinosi većim nejednakostima, o čemu eksplicitno govori Rejmon Budon. Odlike dualnog obrazovanja podsećaju na "primarno zanatsko" obrazovanje o kojem govore Bodlo i Estable koji pokazuju da je ovakvo obrazovanje predviđeno za učenike iz neprivilegovanih društvenih slojeva kojima se kroz ovaj vid obrazovanja ograničava mogućnost vertikalne društvene pokretljivosti. Analizirajući različite interesne optike aktera, Burdije smatra da opšte obrazovanje, nasuprot obuci u firmi, radnicima daje određeni vid slobode, jer ih čini manje vezanim za jedno preduzeće. Školski sistem povezan sa industrijom, prema mišljenju ovog autora, oblikovan je interesima poslodavaca i suprotan je interesima radnika, jer čini društvo manje pravičnim umanjujući šanse za vertikalnu i horizontalnu društvenu pokretljivost. Na osnovu navedenog se može zaključiti da dualno obrazovanje ne doprinosi smanjenju društvenih nejednakosti, te da bi u cilju stvaranja pravičnijeg društva od ovakvih obrazovnih politika trebalo odustati. ; Bearing in mind that the Strategy for Education Development in Serbia perceives the existence of a "justice issue" in education in Serbia, and that one of the stated goals of education development is creating a "socially just society", this paper explores to which extent adopting the Law on Dual Education and public insistence on expansion of this mode of education are the steps towards reducing injustice. Relying on the ideas of different French sociologists of education (Bourdieu, Boudon, Baudelot and Establet), the paper examines to which extent dual education opens up the space for balancing educational opportunities and establishing a more just society. From theoretical insights of the aforementioned authors regarding the relation between class structures and educational opportunities, it can be concluded that any "branching" within an educational system contributes to greater inequalities, as explicitly asserted by Raymond Boudon. The characteristics of dual education correlate to the "primary professional" education mentioned by Baudelot and Establet, illustrating that such education is intended for students from underprivileged social strata, who have limited opportunities for vertical social mobility due to this kind of education. By analysing various interest optics of the actors, Bourdieu finds that general education, as opposed to company training, provides workers with a certain form of freedom because it makes them less attached to a single company. The school system associated with industry, in the opinion of this author, is shaped by the interests of employers and contrary to the interests of workers, as it makes society less fair by reducing the chances of vertical and horizontal social mobility. Based on the above, it can be concluded that dual education does not contribute to reducing social inequalities, and that in order to create a fairer society, such educational policies should be abandoned. ; Zbornik rezimea / 24. Međunarodna naučna konferencija "Pedagoška istraživanja i školska praksa ; Book of abstracts / 24th International Scientific Conference "Educational Research and School Practice"

Each scientific explanation, as per the author's view, is strived and required to have the most possible systematic character, and to enable the explained problem to be comprehended in the widest theoric-systhematic frame. Having analysed the methodological problem of comparative studies in education from the point of view of the mentioned studies, the author determined that the approaches to comparative study of education and schooling were not to be uniformed ones from the simple reason they had been grown out from different philosophic and theoric fundament. From the wider point of view, comparisons enable the comprehension of the phenomenon of education and schooling, their dialectics of manifestation, and their importance for human and society development. Methodologically taken, comparativistics of education and schooling is enriched with new techniques and methods. The comparison overcomes the meaning of one method (comparative method). Different orientations and different methodological procedures in comparative study of education and schooling were being appeared. Bearing in mind the complexity of comparative pedagogy problems, the author indicated the relevant methodological problems from which the historic dimension of comparative pedagogy progress was being visible. The author made the analysis of methodological problem of comparative research in education through several phases having considered basic characteristic of research, understanding of method system of comparative pedagogy, problems of contradiction of comparative research, its presence etc. From the point of view of the indicated problem, it is essential to state the consciousness on the methodological foundation of comparative researches of education and schooling is being broadened, which leads to the research of phenomenon of education at more qualitative level.

U savremenim društvima se smatra da visoko obrazovanje ima značajnu ulogu za ekonomski razvoj tako što obezbeđuje kvalifikovanu radnu snagu, ekonomsku konkurentnost, produktivnost, političku stabilnost i stvaranje demokratskog društva. Predmet rada je da se predstave i kritički ispitaju sociološka stanovišta koja pripadaju funkcionalističkoj i institucionalističkoj paradigmi koje na različite načine tumače značaj obrazovanja za razvoj društva. Prvi cilj je da se predstavi na koji način autori koji pripadaju ovim teorijskim pravcima opisuju ulogu obrazovanja u ekonomskom i političkom razvoju. Drugi cilj je da se ispita na koji način isti autori tumače značaj visokog obrazovanja za pojedince: za zaposlenje, napredovanje i životne šanse. Funkcionalistička paradigma smatra da je visoko obrazovanje neophodno za tehnološki, ekonomski i društveni napredak, jer priprema pojedince za rad u odgovarajućem segmentu kapitalističke ekonomije i povezana je sa shvatanjem progresa i pojmova: modernist, profesionalizacija i racionalizacija. Institucionalistička perspektiva takođe pokazuje da je obrazovni sistem strukturalno povezan sa nastankom moderne privrede i nacionalne države, da ima alokativnu funkciju i da na taj način utiče na životne šanse pojedinaca. Za razliku od funkcionalističke, institicionalistička perspektiva naglašava ideološku i legitimacijsku stranu ovih procesa i značaj pridaje političkim faktorima u odnosu na ekonomske faktore. Preispitivanjem i suočavanjem različitih teorijskih polazišta ukazuje se na kompleksan odnos obrazovanja i šireg društva. Stoga je potrebno kontinuirano ispitivati suprotstavljena stanovišta koja ovoj temi prilaze na različite načine. Jedino celovito i kritičko teorijsko promatranje ovih procesa može imati značajne implikacije za kreiranje obrazovnih politika, kao i sveobuhvatnijih reformi društva. ; In modern societies, higher education is considered to be playing a significant role in economic development by providing skilled labor, economic competitiveness, productivity, political stability and building a democratic society. The subject of this paper is to present and critically review sociological standpoints belonging to functionalist and institutionalist paradigm which interpret the importance of education for development of a society in a different way. The first objective is to present how authors belonging to these theoretical concepts describe the role of education in economic and political development. The second objective is to examine how these authors interpret the importance of higher education for individuals: for their employment, promotion and life chances. The functionalist paradigm holds that higher education is necessary for technological, economic and social progress, as it prepares individuals for work in the relevant segment of capitalist economy and is linked to understanding of progress and concepts of modernity, professionalization and rationalization. The institutionalist perspective also shows that education system is structurally linked to emergence of modern economy and the nation-state, that it has an allocative function and thus affects the life chances of individuals. Unlike the functionalist, the institutionalist perspective emphasizes the ideology and legitimacy of these processes and attaches importance to political rather than economic factors. By reviewing and confronting different theoretical starting points, a complex relationship between education and wider society is revealed. It is therefore necessary to continually examine the opposing viewpoints that approach this topic in a different way. Only a comprehensive and critical theoretical observation of these processes can have significant implications for creating educational policies and far-reaching societal reforms. ; Zbornik rezimea / 24. Međunarodna naučna konferencija "Pedagoška istraživanja i školska praksa ; Book of abstracts / 24th International Scientific Conference "Educational Research and School Practice"

In his main oeuvre from the field of political philosophy ('Basic Traits of the Philosophy of Right'), Hegel wished to reconcile civil society with state. Civil society is for Hegel the way of abstract notion of property concretization. Subjective form of property is evolutioning into objective relationships among title holders. It is in the state where the will is set free from its particular interests and is becoming free in the widest sense of the word. Since civil society is established as per marketing principles, it is subject to inequalities. Since inequalities bear destructive effect on the life in community, civic particularism may be overcome only in institutional way. That institution is the state as the 'seriousness of the spirit', and the essence of civil society. Civil society is a liberal one, and the state is based on liberal principles. For Hegel, contrary to Hobbes and Locke, liberal society is not a social contract among individuals who possessed some natural rights (property), but reciproque and equal agreement among citizens and states which wish to recognize themselves mutually. It is not an own interest, but searching for rational recognition. The same as citizens, states also wish to reconcile themselves mutually, what in the situation in Kosovo and Metohia alike gets the original form.

In this paper, we consider the relationship between the entrepreneurial state and the crisis (caused by economic and non-economic reasons and vice versa). Thus, it is about the interactive attitude of the entrepreneurial state in resolving the crisis and the impact of the crisis on the further development of new economic competencies and competencies of the state in the economy. The entrepreneurial state is seen as an entrepreneur and one of the most important economic actors, which accepts long-term investment risks, bearing in mind the broader picture and the common good. The development of new technologies and new technology companies in the United States and other developed countries has been possible, thanks to the investment of the American entrepreneurial state and its agencies. We start from the assumption that the American crisis, in 2008. caused by high debts, the private sector, not the US public debt, which today is enormously high and skyrocketing. At the heart of this consideration is the thesis that the classical economic theory of non-interference of the state in economic life, which stands aside in the recent era of the development of global capitalism, does not hold water. On the contrary, it turns out that government risky investment in the long run is the basis of a modern economy in which the private sector can develop only on the premises of this huge investment in the development of modern new technologies. Most innovation today and research institutes in the United States are due to the investments of the American state. The paper discusses the impact of the crisis on the understanding of the entrepreneurial state and its role in innovation, the role of new technologies and innovations in economic growth, entrepreneurial state and risks, entrepreneurial state and knowledge economy, entrepreneurial state in "pushing" versus "pulling" the green industrial revolution and the cost of investment, innovation, and development of the American entrepreneurial state. ; U ovom radu razmatramo odnos preduzetničke države i krize (izazvane ekonomskim i neekonomskim razlozima i vice versa). Dakle, riječ je o interaktivnom odnosu preduzetničke države u rješavanju krize i uticaju krize na dalji razvoj novih ekonomskih ingerencija i nadležnosti države u ekonomiji. Preduzetnička država se posmatra kao preduzetnik i jedan od važnijih ekonomskih aktera, koji prihvata rizike ulaganja na dugi rok, imajući na umu širu sliku i opšte dobro. Razvoj novih tehnologija i novih tehnoloških kompanija u SAD i drugim razvijenim zemljama bio je moguć zahvaljujući investiranju američke preduzetničke države i njenih agencija. Polazimo od pretpostavke da su američku krizu 2008. godine izazvali visoki dugovi privatnog sektora, a ne javni dug SAD, koji je danas enormno visok i vrtoglavo raste. U osnovi ovog razmatranja stoji teza da klasična ekonomska teorija o nemiješanju države u privredni život, koja stoji po strani u najnovije doba razvoja globalnog kapitalizma, ne drži vodu. Naprotiv, pokazuje se da je državno rizično investiranje na dugi rok u osnovi savremene ekonomije u kome privatni sektor može da se razvija samo na premisama tog golemog ulaganja u razvoj modernih novih tehnologija. Većina inovacija danas i istraživačkih instituta u SAD duguje ulaganjima američke države. U radu razmatramo uticaj krize na shvatanje preduzetničke države i njene uloge u inovacijama, ulogu novih tehnologija i inovacija u privrednom rastu, preduzetničku državu i rizike, preduzetničku državu i ekonomiju znanja, preduzetničku državu u "guranju" nasuprot "podbadanju" zelene industrijske revolucije, koristi i cijene investiranja, inovacije i razvoj američke preduzetničke države.