Suchergebnisse

Gleicher Zugang zu Bildung für alle: Das fordert die UN-Konvention über die Rechte behinderter Menschen, die 2009 verbindlich für Deutschland wird. Mit dem deutschen Sonderschulsystem, das fast alle Schüler mit besonderem Förderbedarf aufnimmt, ist Chancengleichheit nicht gewährleistet. 80 Prozent der Abgänger von Sonderschulen erhalten keinen qualifizierenden Abschluss. Beispiele aus dem In- und Ausland zeigen, dass inklusiver Unterricht erfolgversprechender ist.

In her pathbreaking book Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society, Elizabeth Guffey provides vital insights into decades of social and design processes that ultimately produced the most ubiquitous symbol of disability—and accessibility—worldwide: The International Symbol of Access (ISA). Building on existing scholarship from a range of disciplines coupled with original historical research, this book uncovers the origins and evolving (largely transatlantic) architectural and design discourse, and several moments of serendipity, that led to its creation. The ISA has since diffused to become part of the built environment in all corners of the world. Richly illustrated and charting at times vitriolic debates, protest activities, and artistic interventions up to the contemporary era, Guffey weaves together activist and aesthetic perspectives into a tapestry of social and design history relating to disability and accessibility. Structured in historical phases, the book's chapters progress across larger and shorter stretches over more than a century of wheelchair design, social and welfare policies and programs (mostly in the US, UK, and Scandinavia), architectural standards, and symbols relating to barriers and accessibility measures. Guffey engages the reader in what is necessarily a multidisciplinary, multilevel investigation, with unexpected twists and turns. On one level, the book focuses on the politics of highest office, with US Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower (who permanently or temporarily used wheelchairs) sketched against the backdrop of the lack of accessible government buildings in Washington, DC, and the social consensus then to hide impairment for fear of stigmatization (shifted marginally by disabled Veterans). On another level, welfare state provisions in the US, UK, and Scandinavia are discussed in light of progressive legislation and the persistent challenges of implementation. Finally, at ground level, the utmost significance of individuals devoted to universal design writ large becomes manifestly evident. Guffey recounts how, in US universities, inspirational figures such as Timothy Nugent (at Illinois), Ron Mace (at North Carolina State), and Viktor Papanek (at Purdue, CalArts, Kansas, etc.), campus planners, and students designed and constructed new worlds on the drawing board and poured in concrete. We follow design professionals, such as architect Selwyn Goldsmith in the UK, who was a strident arbiter of accessibility. Academic initiatives went hand-in-fist with advocacy activities in organizations and protest and artistic actions in the streets. Indeed, to raise general awareness of the ever-present attitudinal and structural barriers—institutionalized discrimination—that disabled people face daily and to secure disability rights, disability protests and cross-national organizing have repeatedly been necessary. The long and bumpy road to universal design extends into the future. Integral to this history of design development, revision, and critiques of various symbols of disability have been international events (world expositions, Olympics & Paralympics) and organizations (Rehabilitation International), artistic inspiration, design competitions, and guerilla art interventions. Tracing the convoluted process of designing what would become the ISA—fifty years ago now—leads to Susanne Koefoed, a Danish design student, and Karl Montan, leader of the Swedish Institute for the Handicapped, but also to international negotiations and chance. The on-going questioning of the official ISA, especially, its "misfit" nature as an amalgam of technical aid and person, emphasizes the shift from invisibility to ubiquity of disability via social change and political activism as well as cultural representations and the need for signs of identity. In the new century, newer initiatives in the US, such as Brendan Murphy's and the Accessible Icon Project (developed by Sara Hendren and Brian Glenney), have challenged the official ISA, revealing both persistence and change in understandings of disability and accessibility. When integrated into signage, the ISA designates accessible spaces and facilities. If the ISA has become present in public buildings and spaces everywhere, cultural notions of disability and access remain understudied across the social sciences, with especially the Global South remaining a blank page. Research is needed to chart the diverse local interpretations that mirror shifts from exclusion to inclusion of disabled people as the human rights revolution witnessed since the end of WWII continues, but also suffers backlash, even in the Global North. Paradoxically, this global icon refers simultaneously to disability, and its ameliorating factor, accessibility. Yet, the ambivalence and debate surrounding the ISA persist, as Guffey emphasizes especially in the later chapters, focusing on proposed alternatives to the existing ISA, codified as it is in law and conforming to the guidelines of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Until universal design (and the universalizing social policies likely needed to support it) succeeds in reducing the barriers in environments and in attitudes and in maximizing the usefulness of products and services during the design stage, identity formation processes are among the most positive aspects of the ISA. The icon's influence and implementation extend far beyond marking modifications to the built environment. Whether taken-for-granted, modified or critiqued, the current ISA has spread globally. It can now be found wherever people move in physical space, finding their way. The symbol testifies to the on-going shift from exclusion, along a slow and winding road, to social inclusion and full participation of disabled people. In sum, Guffey brings scholarship on the ISA to the next stage. It complements studies that chart the influence of disabled peoples' organizations and of international organizations as they facilitated remarkable shifts in disability paradigms. Yet institutionalized discrimination abounds, with the ISA marking that accessibility and universal design are far from achieved. If a few imprecisions tarnish the literature list, this historical work reconstructing a largely Western process cannot be faulted for not providing a complete global analysis of ISA implementation and adjustment. In that vein, with contributions from Guffey herself, the current exhibition "Viktor Papanek: The Politics of Design" (Kries, Klein & Clarke, 2018) indeed extends the discussion to the Global South and across further disciplines, rightfully embedding the dialogue about symbols of disability and enhancing access within broader contexts. Footnote: Kries, Matteo, Amelie Klein & Alison J. Clarke (eds.) (2018). Viktor Papanek: The Politics of Design. Weil am Rhein, Germany: Vitra Design Museum. ISBN: 978-3-945852-26-2. The exhibition is currently on view at Germany's Vitra Design Museum (20 September 2018–10 March 2019), then at Barcelona Design Museum (20 October 2019–2 February 2020).

By and large, we take our universities for granted. Indeed, the oldest have outlived political regimes of all kinds. This stimulating historical and comparative study exemplifies the importance of in-depth experience and engagement with the cultural and structural environments in which some of the world's greatest universities have over centuries incrementally developed and been embedded. This is crucial if we hope to understand the sources of their authority and myriad contributions to scientific knowledge and human flourishing. A neo-institutionalist scholar and multicultural citizen who fruitfully contributes to dialogues exploring core institutions in education and society on both sides of the Atlantic, Heinz-Dieter Meyer is uniquely placed to grapple with the complex processes of institutional learning and design that have made the German and American universities among the globally most productive. He also shows how they have influenced each other via the complex, yet crucial flows of inspired scholars and students carrying key idea(l)s with them for interpretation and application back home. The contributions of key actors, but also the outcomes of choices at critical junctures, such as the failure to establish a national state-funded university in the United States, take center stage in this engaging account of how the leaders of American universities adapted the German model, joining diverse concepts to design what has become the greatest uni-versity system in the world, yet one that remains nearly impossible to emulate due to the unique constellation of actors and institutional environment in which it developed. In eighteen chapters in four parts, The Design of the University: German, American, and "World Class" takes us from Göttingen and Berlin to Boston and to the world level as the scientific enterprise—and competition between scientists and the most crucial organizational form in which they conduct their experiments and make their arguments, the research university—becomes ever more global. Contributing to and inviting debate, Meyer's main argument is that the American university has suc-ceeded based upon an institutional design—or, perhaps, a non-design—that on multiple levels facil-itates self-government and the identification of a niche within an extraordinarily large and differen-tiated higher education system. This is not a full-fledged historiographic treatment of a subject fa-vored by academics (permanently searching for reputational gains) and policymakers (as they in-creasingly launch research funding programs and evaluation systems to foster competition). Rather than a full-fledged sociology of science, this book creatively sketches the trajectories of German and American university development, emphasizing affinities as well as crucial differences, to ulti-mately argue that in fact "Humboldt's most important ideas flourished in the American atmosphere of unrestricted institutional experimentation and vigorous self-government" (xiii). Interrogating what he calls the "design thinking" of eminent thinkers Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, among others, Meyer traces the challenging, complex, and contingent learning processes in the adaptation of the German research university model to the American context, eventually becoming the most differentiated and "world-class" higher education system in the world. Asking about the reasons for the American university's success, especially in comparison to the recent insti-tutional crisis of the German research university, albeit still extraordinarily productive, Meyer argues that this American meritocratic success story has institutional design (of self-government) at its heart. Enjoying the patronage of not one, but three major institutions—state, church, and market—the American university attained true autonomy and global preeminence through unparalleled wealth of patronage and an intricate system of checks and balances. In this line of argument, chart-ing the ascendancy from humble origins of what can hardly be called a system due its extraordinary diversity, Meyer concurs with David Labaree (2017), who's A Perfect Mess [1] is a highly-suitable com-panion piece grounded in the history of American higher education. Contemporary architects of higher education policy globally, driven by the fantasy of "world class" labels, Meyer warns, have completely underestimated the "institutional, social, and political prerequisites that excellence in research and teaching require" (p. 4). Meyer begins his treatise, appropriately, in Göttingen, the site of Georgia Augusta University, where many leaders of American higher education, first and foremost Boston Brahmin George Ticknor, learned by doing, ensconced in a cosmopolitan center of learning and intellectual enlightenment. The blueprint included professionalized scholarship, the unification of research and teaching in seminars and lectures, freedom to choose among academic offerings, a vast library of scientific knowledge, and academic standing based on perpetual production of cutting-edge research judged by peers (p. 19). Instead of Adam Smith's preferred instruments of competition, choice, and tuition-dependence, Wilhelm von Humboldt's "design revolution" proposed "three unities" whose powerful integration could surpass the utilitarian logic prevalent then and now: "teaching and research; scien-tific discovery and moral formation (Bildung); scholarly autonomy and scholarly community" (p. 40). The book's second part, on institutional learning, charts the institutional migration of the blueprint; the contested design options of Gymnasium, college, and graduate school (the latter ultimately the key to global preeminence); the lasting influence of Protestantism (here Meyer follows the arguments of Max Weber, Robert K. Merton, and Joseph Ben-David) and extraordinary educational philanthropy; the battle between those who would centralize, by establishing a national university, and those committed to local control; and finally the contrasting answers to the eternal question of vocational-ism—e.g., how should business be treated, as a sibling to medicine and law or as their distant cousin? The more education-enamored, democratically-inclined patrician elites of the American East Coast were, Meyer argues, radically different institution-builders than German scholars, French state nobility, or even Chinese mandarins: "No other class combined their respect for, and grand vision of, the civilizing role of learning with their economic resources and the realism needed to put their plans into practice" (p. 113). Building on philosophical and historical elaboration, the book's third part on achieving self-government discusses the six American moves leading to institutional innovation. At organizational level, the German chair and institute give way to departments and discipline, the university presi-dent is no longer figurehead but chief executive, and independent boards of trustees, not govern-ment officials, have ultimate authority. The implications for individuals and organizations of these "design shifts" cannot be overstated. Anyone seeking to understand American higher education, with its phenomenal vertical and horizontal differentiation and on-going academic drift ("a snake-like procession" as David Riesman, to whom the book is dedicated, calls it), and its self-organized autonomy—supported by many philanthropists without the limiting control of a few state bureau-crats—will find this analysis illuminating. Embedded in civil society, "vigorous self-government is the historic design contribution of the American university" (p. 209)—and an achievement that must be guarded in an era in which university autonomy is at risk. In concluding, Meyer's American opti-mistic and laudatory tone shifts back to Germanic critique and foreboding, identifying challenges and the contemporary struggles that threaten the unintentional masterpiece of institutional learning and diversity. Such justified hopes and fears must now give way to empirical studies of the extraor-dinary outputs in terms of scientific production and societal capabilities and well-being brought about by the continuous process of university Bildung—in Germany, the United States, and around the world. [1] David Labaree (2017), A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendancy of American Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Das Menschenrecht auf Inklusive Bildung als globale Norm – und als Thema der Bildungsforschung in Deutschland. Die hohe und gestiegene Bedeutung Inklusiver Bildung für Gesellschaften und Individuen wird global, national, regional und lokal von verschiedensten Akteur*innen hervorgehoben und medial sehr breit rezipiert—und zunehmend auch wissenschaftlich multidisziplinär diskutiert. Durch Initiativen wie "Education for All" (UNESCO, 2015), die Konvention über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderung der Vereinten Nationen (UN-BRK, seit 2006), welche inklusive Bildung als Menschenrecht verankert, oder die UN Millennium Development Goals (www.un.org/millenniumgoals) wird das Thema Inklusion verstärkt in Bildungspolitik und -praxis aufgegriffen. Innerhalb einer Dekade haben über 170 Länder die UN-BRK ratifiziert (United Nations, 2017). Artikel 24 definiert Inklusive Bildung als Menschenrecht: "Die Vertragsstaaten (sichern). den Zugang zu einem inklusiven, hochwertigen und unentgeltlichen Unterricht" (Art. 24, UN-BRK). Damit wird inklusive Bildung zur globalen Norm und zum einklagbaren Recht entlang des Lebenslaufs. In diesem Beitrag wird anhand ausgewählter Vergleiche aufgezeigt, wie sich die Expansion und Persistenz der schulischen Segregation anstatt der Ausweitung der Inklusion vollzieht. Dabei wurde ein langsamer Wandel statt Transformation dieser komplexen Bildungssysteme konstatiert. Im Ländervergleich wurden immer wieder markante Divergenzen festgestellt, wonach die unterschiedlichen "institutionellen Logiken" dieser Systeme sichtbar wurden. Abschließend lässt sich festhalten, dass die Förderquote wohl weiter steigen wird wegen größerem Bedarf (oder wahrgenommenen Förderbedarfs), erhöhter Standards und gesteigerter Rechenschaftspflicht als Teile der Governance von Bildung. Sonderpädagogische Förderung nimmt seit Jahrzehnten weltweit zu, oft in Sonderschulen oder -klassen. Es mag paradox erscheinen, dass gleichzeitig sowohl segregierende als auch inklusive Lernumwelten expandieren. Der Grund: Die Verflechtung und Wechselwirkungen zwischen sonderpädagogischen Fördersystemen, allgemeiner Bildung und anderen Institutionen sowie die Interessen der beteiligten Professionen verhindern die Transformation hin zur schulischen Inklusion für alle. Gleichzeitig schreitet dennoch auch in den Bildungssystemen, die hochgradig selektiv und segregiert sind, Inklusive Bildung voran. Vergleichende Forschung verdeutlicht vielfältige Grenzen, aber auch Facilitatoren der Inklusion auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen. Die Ratifizierung der UN-BRK in Deutschland hat die Notwendigkeit unterstrichen, die Bildungssysteme auf Länder- und lokaler Ebene umzubauen und den Wandel zu erforschen. Die UN-BRK stärkt Advokaten der Inklusiven Bildung nachhaltig. Auch aufgrund des Bil- dungsföderalismus wird die Implementierung weiterhin ein schrittweiser, pfadabhängiger Prozess und keine fundamentale Transformation sein. Gerade in föderalen Ländern wie Deutschland und den USA gibt es eine Persistenz einzelstaatlicher Disparitäten trotz (inter-)nationaler Ziele, Normen und völkerrechtlicher Verträge, die es weiter zu untersuchen und zu implementieren gilt. Die Chance, die solche Systeme bieten, ist die Kontrastierung der diversen Pfade hin zur Inklusiven Bildung und die Chance zur Politik der Vielfalt, die zu einer Schule für alle und zur Pädagogik der Vielfalt passt.

Neben Globalisierung und Digitalisierung haben Fragen der Meritokratie und (Aus-)Bildung einen festen Platz im öffentlichen, politischen und privaten Diskurs, denn wir leben in Europa zunehmend in Bildungsgesellschaften. Die Zeit, die wir in Bildungsorganisationen verbringen, wird immer länger, der absolvierte Fächerkanon wird immer breiter und die Bildungsabschlüsse, die wir erwerben, werden immer höher (vgl. Leemann et al. 2016). Zugleich steigen mit dem Übergang von der Industrie- zur modernen Dienstleistungsgesellschaft die Ansprüche an fachliche und soziale Kompetenzen auf dem Arbeitsmarkt (vgl. Mayer und Solga 2008). Mit dem Wandel der Wirtschaftsstrukturen hin zu wissensbasierten Tätigkeiten, der zunehmenden Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt, den demographischen Veränderungen und dem in diesem Zusammenhang befürchteten Fachkräftemangel stehen europäische Gesellschaften vor der Aufgabe ihre Bildungssysteme zu reformieren. Auf europäischer, nationaler wie auch regionaler und lokaler Ebenen versuchen Bildungspolitiker den Zugang zu Hochschul- und Berufsbildung und lebenslanges Lernen für immer mehr Mitglieder jeder Kohorte zu ermöglichen. Alle müssen sich mehr denn je um Bildungszertifikate bemühen, weil diese für erfolgreiche Berufskarrieren unabdingbar geworden sind. Zugleich gibt es in diesem Wettbewerb klare Gewinner und Verlierer, denn diejenigen ohne Zugang zu (Aus-)Bildung, vor allem ehemalige Sonderschüler und Hauptschüler, werden zunehmend marginalisiert (vgl. Pfahl 2011; Protsch 2014; Solga 2005). Bildung und die durch sie erworbenen und ausgewiesenen Fähigkeiten gelten in unserer Gesellschaft als Innovationspotenzial, als zentrale Voraussetzungen für wirtschaftlichen Erfolg, gesellschaftlichen Wohlstand sowie soziale und politische Teilhabe. Statt der sozialen Platzierung entlang zugeschriebener Merkmale der Herkunft (wie Schicht, Geschlecht, Rasse, Ethnie) soll die erworbene Leistung, signalisiert in Schulnoten, Bildungsabschlüssen, Qualifikationen sowie Bildungskarrieren insgesamt, den legitimen Zugang zu Positionen, insbesondere höheren sozialen Positionen bestimmen. Insofern ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass in europäischen Gesellschaften individuelle Bildungsbeteiligung und Bildungserfolg wesentliche Bestimmungsgrößen der Verteilung gesellschaftlicher Chancen und Risiken darstellen.

Global, national und lokal wird die hohe und gestiegene Bedeutung formaler Bildung für Gesellschaften und Individuen – und hier auch diejenigen mit besonderem Förderbedarf – hervorgehoben. Durch Initiativen wie "Education for All" (UNESCO 2015) sowie die UN-Konvention über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderung (UN-BRK, seit 2006), welche inklusive Bildung als Menschenrecht verankert, werden die Themen Inklusion und Sonderpädagogik zunehmend in Bildungspolitik und -praxis weltweit aufgegriffen. Trotz der unbestreitbaren Erfolge in den Bemühungen, allen Kindern den Zugang zu Bildung zu ermöglichen – und somit die schulische Exklusion zu reduzieren –, ist die vollständige schulische Inklusion aller Schülerinnen und Schüler weltweit eine Herausforderung geblieben. Selbst in den nordischen Ländern (Dänemark, Finnland, Island, Norwegen und Schweden), welche vergleichsweise fortgeschrittene inklusive Bildungssysteme etabliert haben, wird inklusive Bildung eher als Prozess und Ziel denn als erreichter Status betrachtet. Wie die Ausweitung des Zugangs zu formalisierter Bildung insgesamt, vollzieht sich der Übergang von Exklusion zu Inklusion im Hinblick auf die Förderorte graduell. In vielen Ländern wird sonderpädagogische Unterstützung in verschiedenen Organisationsformen angeboten, entlang eines Kontinuums von Segregation (Unterricht in unterschiedlichen Gebäuden), über Separation (Unterricht im selben Schulgebäude aber in unterschiedlichen Räumen) und Integration (teilweise gemeinsamer Unterricht) hin zu vollständiger Inklusion (umfassender gemeinsamer Unterricht). Die Überwindung organisationaler Exklusion – in vielen Teilen der Welt noch die alltägliche Realität für Kinder oder Jugendliche mit wahrgenommenen Beeinträchtigungen und Behinderungen – ist demnach nur der erste Schritt hin zur größtmöglichen Teilhabe an formal organisierten Lernmöglichkeiten.

Die hohe und gestiegene Bedeutung inklusiver Bildung für Gesellschaften und Individuen wird global, national, regional und lokal von verschiedensten Akteur*innen hervorgehoben und medial sehr breit rezipiert – und zunehmend auch wissenschaftlich multidisziplinär diskutiert. Inklusive schulische Bildung kann in den Merkmalen des Zugangs und der Anwesenheit, der Beteiligung und der Teilhabe (Qualität der Lernerfahrungen aus Sicht der Lernenden) sowie in Bezug auf die Lernleistung, respektive deren Zertifizierung bewertet werden. Aber inklusive Bildung als Menschenrecht zu verstehen geht weit über die Schulbildung hinaus. Die globale Norm des Menschenrechts auf inklusive Bildung wird zunehmend spezifischer, dennoch bedarf es der Forschung, der Interpretation und der Implementation, was gerade in föderalistisch gesteuerten Bildungssystemen mit räumlichen Disparitäten einhergeht. Inter- wie intranational werden vergleichende Analysen und Länderberichte immer wichtiger, um den Stand nicht nur der schulischen Inklusion, sondern der individuellen Verwirklichungschancen sowie der gesellschaftlichen Teilhabe von benachteiligten und behinderten Menschen zu messen. Die räumliche Vielfalt der Inklusiven Bildung und sonderpädagogische Fördersysteme verdeutlicht vielfältige Grenzen, aber auch Gelingensbedingungen der Inklusion.

Barriers to Inclusion provides a comparative and historical account of the rise of special and inclusive education over the twentieth century in the United States and Germany. This institutional analysis demonstrates how categorical boundaries, professional groups, social movements, and education and social policies shaped the schooling of children and youth with disabilities. It traces the evolution of special education classification and categories, explores growing special education organizations, and examines students' learning opportunities and educational attainments. Highlighting cross-national differences over time, the author also investigates demographic and geographic variability within the federal democracies, especially in segregation and inclusion rates of disabled and disadvantaged children. Germany's elaborate system of segregated special school types contrasts with diverse American special education classrooms mainly within regular schools. Joining historical case studies with empirical indicators, this book reveals persistent barriers to school integration as well as factors that facilitate inclusive education reform in both societies.

Die massive, globale Bildungsexpansion hat kein Land unberührt gelassen. Zudem wachsen stetig die Zahlen der als sonderpädagogisch förderbedürftig wahrgenommenen Kinder und Jugendlichen. Obwohl in vielen Ländern immer mehr dieser Schülerinnen und Schüler in Regelklassen unterrichtet werden, ist ihr Anteil in separaten Klassen oder Einrichtungen nicht rückläufig. Trotz vielfältiger Reformvorhaben auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen des Bildungssystems werden Schülerinnen und Schüler mit wahrgenommenem Förderbedarf weiterhin stigmatisiert und segregiert. Gleichzeitig wird Bildung zunehmend als Menschenrecht verstanden, das in dem Leitgedanken "Bildung für Alle" (Education for All) und der zumindest rhetorisch zur globalen Norm gewordenen "inclusive education" zum Ausdruck kommt. Diese spannungsreichen Entwicklungen variieren geographisch in verschiedenen Dimensionen und in mannigfacher Hinsicht erheblich. Die Thematik sonderpädagogischer Förderung – und damit auch inklusive Bildung – ist seit jeher von Ambivalenzen und Konflikten durchsetzt. Beide werden in den aktuellen weltweiten Debatten evident. Es wird eine Bandbreite an Förderorten bereitgestellt und nach Lösungen für die sich zunehmend stellende Frage nach der optimalen individuellen Förderung jede/r Schüler/in gesucht. Vor diesem Hintergrund bieten die vorgelegten Dissertationen zu Reformen zu inklusiveren Schulen in den USA von Magdalena Johnson und in Kanada von Andreas Köpfer den deutschsprachigen Leserinnen und Lesern wichtige Quellen für die wissenschaftliche und bildungspolitische Auseinandersetzung entlang von Ländern, die schon länger versuchen, die schulische Segregation zu reduzieren; oft mit Erfolg. Einerseits liefern beide Bücher ein tiefgreifendes Verständnis der oft verkürzt dargestellten Entwicklungen Nordamerikas im Bereich der inklusiven, schulischen Bildung. Andererseits berichten diese Studien über wesentliche Wandlungsprozesse in der sonderpädagogischen Förderung – vor allem auf Schulebene in bestimmten US-Bundesstaaten bzw. kanadischen Provinzen – in nationalen Kontexten, die oft pauschal als vorbildhaft gelten. Die beiden analysierten föderalen Bildungssysteme Nordamerikas bieten wertvolle Vergleichsmöglichkeiten. Dies insbesondere für die in Deutschland aufflammende Debatte nach Inkrafttreten der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention 2009 und im Zuge der (meist schleppenden) Umsetzung inklusiver Bildungsreformen.

Rezension von: Thomas Koinzer: Auf der Suche nach der demokratischen Schule, Amerikafahrer, Kulturtransfer und Schulreform in der Bildungsreformära der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 2011 (279 S.; ISBN 978-3-7815-1811-7; 32,00 EUR)

Among the youngest research universities in Europe, the University of Luxembourg (UL) is one of very few public universities to be established since the pan-European "Bologna process" began in 1998 amidst celebrations for the Sorbonne's 800th Anniversary. Founded in 2003, and growing rapidly, UL aims to become a full-fledged, internationally-recognized research university. Embedded in a small, hyper-diverse, multi-lingual, and (recently) very prosperous nation-state located in the heart of Western Europe, and well-positioned in significant regional and global networks, Luxembourg's "national" flagship university is thoroughly international. Recruiting scholars, staff, and students from over a hundred countries, the university could not advance without transnational mobility. Luxembourg, the home of a European Union (EU) capital city, simultaneously reflects European and international priorities. Devoted to internationality and interdisciplinarity, UL exemplifies contemporary worldwide trends in higher education.

Abstract: Educational expansion has reached the tertiary level; however, inclusive higher education remains an elusive goal despite the ratification, in more than a hundred countries, of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities since 2006. The Convention mandates inclusive education throughout the life course—and thus increased access to universities. To enhance accessibility requires us to remove barriers and defeat ableism. Analyzing contemporary trends in Europe and North America, universities' attempts to implement elements of the "Universal Design University" are compared here. Because universities serve as role models and provide community services, these organizations can and should implement universal design principles. Universities have myriad opportunities—and responsibilities—to enhance access to their programs. In embracing social and political paradigms of disability, in giving voice to diverse participants, and in implementing universal design principles, the university can engage and change public awareness and attitudes. Advancing the educational and social inclusion of persons with disabilities in higher education provides benefits far beyond the university campus.

Not only was 1981 the United Nations' International Year of Disabled Persons (IYDP), but the following period 1983-1992 was proclaimed the UN Decade of Disabled Persons, emphasizing the need for increased awareness of and commitment to address the living conditions of people with disabilities worldwide. The Year's key goal was to affirm and implement the principle "full participation and equality" contained in the UN General Assembly's 1975 Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. Disabled people should participate fully in communities, self-identify their needs, and share in their societies' socio-economic development. However, continued social and political action, advocacy, and awareness-raising is needed everywhere to more completely realize these goals.

Learning disability is so prevalent a concept that it has become difficult to imagine a world without it, especially given the centrality of schooling in contemporary society. However, the history of learning disability (LD) clearly shows that it need not have developed as it has. In fact, school systems in many countries know no such category. In America, the development of LD is inseparable from the dramatic expansion of compulsory schooling and intelligence testing since the beginning of the twentieth century. Begun as part of the military's attempts to measure recruits' intelligence during World War I, psychometric testing has since become routine in education, training, and employment. Hotly debated, these statistical and psychological approaches to measuring IQ redefined who was considered "normal" and "abnormal" – based on the normal distribution of intelligence along the Bell or Gauss curve. While "NORMALCY" is a common word, its derivation from mathematical methods of differentiating people by their characteristics (performance on tests, for example) is less well known. Early on, the EUGENICS movement abused IQ tests as arguments for the genetic "inferiority" or "superiority" of particular ability groups, classes or races. Despite repeated criticism of these tests' validity and reliability, they were used to justify policies that limited births and immigration, segregated people in asylums, and led to forcible sterilizations. Revised for widespread use in schools, psychometric tests promoted the development of school "tracking" systems that separate students into ability groups according to their scores.

Founded by Edgar F. Allen in 1922 in Elyria, Ohio as The International Society for Crippled Children, today Rehabilitation International (RI) is a global network promoting and implementing the rights, inclusion and rehabilitation of people with disabilities. From the beginning, the organization dedicated itself to assist disabled people, doing so by providing direct services, by disseminating information, and by influencing political decisionmaking. Uniquely, it has been a cross-disability, cross-disciplinary, and international organization from the start. Further, in its first decade as in its eighth, conceiving and publicizing bills of rights were a key feature of the organization's mission.