Content uploaded by Michael Silver
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Silver on Mar 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 01/09/2013
Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 04/15/2013
Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 04/20/2013
SPECIAL ISSUE
Social Pedagogy in the 21st Century
education policy analysis
archives
A peer-reviewed, independent,
open access, multilingual journal
Arizona State University
Volume 21 Number 35 April 30th, 2013 ISSN 1068-2341
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational
connections
Daniel Schugurensky
Michael Silver
Arizona State University
USA
Citation: Schugurensky, D. & Silver, M. (2013) Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and
transnational connections. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21 (35) Retrieved [date], from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1362 This article is part of EPAA/AAPE’s Special Issue on
Social Pedagogy in the 21st Century, Guest Co-Edited by Dr. Daniel Schugurensky and Michael
Silver.
Abstract: With over 150 years of history, social pedagogy is both an interdisciplinary scholarly field
of inquiry and a field of practice that is situated in the intersection of three areas of human activity:
education, social work and community development. Although social pedagogy has different
emphases and approaches depending on particular historical and geographical contexts, a common
theme is that it deals with the connections between educational and social dynamics, or put in a
different way, it is concerned with the educational dimension of social issues and the social
dimensions of educational issues. The first part of this paper analyzes the history of the field of
social pedagogy since its origins until today, with a focus on transnational flows between Europe and
the Americas. The second part of the paper discusses the main issues raised in this special issue of
EPAA, and extracts the main threads and connections among the different papers included in the
volume.
Keywords: social pedagogy; historical traditions; community education; transnational flows.
epaa aape
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 2
Pedagogía social: tradiciones históricas y conexiones transnacionales
Resumen: Con más de 150 años de historia, la pedagogía social es tanto un objeto de reflexión
académica e investigación interdisciplinaria como un campo de prácticas concretas que se localiza en
la intersección de tres áreas de actividad humana: educación, trabajo social y desarrollo comunitario.
Aunque en la pedagogía social se pueden identificar diferentes énfasis y perspectivas dependiendo de
contextos históricos y geográficos particulares, una temática común es que establece conexiones
entre dinámica educativas y sociales, o dicho de otra manera, se ocupa de la dimensión educativa de
los problemas sociales y de la dimensión social de las prácticas educativas. En la primera parte de
este trabajo analizamos la historia de la pedagogía social desde sus orígenes hasta nuestros días,
prestando especial atención a los flujos transnacionales entre Europa y algunos países de las
Américas. En la segunda parte del documento examinamos los principales temas tratados en este
número especial de la revista AAPE, extraemos los principales temas, y establecemos algunas
relaciones entre los diferentes contribuciones.
Palabras clave: pedagogía social; tradiciones históricas; educación comunitaria; conexiones
transnacionales.
Pedagogia social: conexões históricas e transnacionais
Resumo: Com mais de 150 anos de história, pedagogia social é tanto, um objeto de reflexão
acadêmica e de pesquisa interdisciplinar como um campo de praticas específicas localizado na
intersecção de três áreas da atividade humana: educação, assistência social e desenvolvimento
comunitário. Embora na pedagogia social e possível identificar diferentes perspectivas e ênfases
dependendo dos contextos históricos e geográficos, um tema comum é que ela estabelece conexões
entre a educação e as dinâmicas sociais, ou dito de outra forma, lida com a dimensão educativa dos
problemas sociais e da dimensão social das práticas educativas. Na primeira parte deste artigo,
analisamos a história da pedagogia social desde suas origens até o presente, prestando especial
atenção aos fluxos transnacionais entre a Europa e alguns países das Américas. Na segunda parte do
trabalho, examinar os principais temas abordados neste dossiê da revista AAPE, extraímos os
principais temas e estabelecer algumas relações entre as diferentes contribuições.
Palavras-chave: pedagogia social; tradições históricas; educação comunitária; conexões
transnacionais.
Introduction
In this paper we provide a brief account of the pre-history and the history of social
pedagogy, describe different traditions, discuss transnational flows of ideas and practices, and
introduce the main arguments of the ten articles that are included in this special issue of EPAA. To
the best of our knowledge, this volume of Education Policy Analysis Archives constitutes the first
special issue of a North American journal dedicated exclusively to social pedagogy. The volume
includes papers in English, Spanish and Portuguese from continental Europe, the UK, Scandinavia
and the Americas that deal with a variety of contexts and situations. With over 150 years of history,
social pedagogy is both an interdisciplinary academic field of inquiry and a field of practice that is
situated in the intersection of three areas of human activity: education, social work and community
development. Although social pedagogy has different emphases and approaches in different
historical and geographical contexts, a common theme is that it deals with the connections between
educational and social dynamics, or put in a different way, deals with the educational dimension of
social issues and the social dimensions of educational issues.
Like any other educational or social intervention, social pedagogy could be used to
reproduce societal inequalities and reinforce mechanisms of social control, but it could also be used
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational connections 3
to empower oppressed groups and contribute to social transformation. Without ignoring the former,
in these pages we would like to focus on those humanitarian traditions of social pedagogy that have
emancipatory and progressive goals. These traditions tend to work primarily with the most
marginalized members of society, have a holistic approach to learning, are oriented towards
community building, draw on the experience and knowledge of participants, connect the curriculum
to local problems, encourage a dialogical relationship between educators and learners, and
acknowledge that, in order to be effective in the long run, pedagogical interventions must be
accompanied by justice-oriented policies.
It is pertinent to note that the literature on social pedagogy also acknowledges the existence
of writers and practitioners who have not necessarily referred explicitly to social pedagogy in their
work but have made significant contributions to social pedagogy. Among the many examples (some
of them noted in the articles of this issue) are Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Robert Owen, Anton
Makarenko, John Dewey, Jane Addams, Myles Horton, Moses Coady, Grace Abbott, and Paulo
Freire. In different ways and in different degrees, they combined principles of social work,
community development and education. They also shared the humanitarian and empancipatory aims
of social pedagogy, as well as its confidence in the potential of community action to change society
for the better.
Social pedagogy: A brief historical account
The foundations of social pedagogy: 19th century precedents
Social pedagogy has a long tradition that can be traced back to 19th century Europe. The
literature on the topic tends to identify German educator Karl Mager (1810-1858) as the person who
coined the term ‘social pedagogy’ in 1844. However, some authors (e.g. Sinker and Braches-Chyrek
2009) argue that it was an older contemporary of Mager, namely the educational philosopher
Friedrich Diestersweg (1790-1866), who introduced the concept for the first time. Regardless of
who introduced the concept for the first time, both Mager and Diestersweg shared the belief that
education should have a social mission, and that such mission should go beyond the individual’s
acquisition of knowledge and focus on the acquisition of culture by society and on activities oriented
to benefit the community. Several of the ideas put forward by Mager and Diestersweg were
influenced by the educational principles of Swiss pedagogue Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-
1827). In the social pedagogy literature, Pestalozzi is usually recognized for two contributions. One
is his holistic approach to education that aimed at a balance between ‘head, heart and hands’. The
head refers to the role of education in stimulating intellectual curiosity and in developing cognitive
capacities. The heart is a metaphor that alludes to the emotional dimension and the moral
orientation of education, and refers to instilling a sense of direction, a moral compass that
recognizes the dignity of all human beings, the importance of love, compassion, and concern for the
less fortunate. In short, Pestalozzi’s approach integrated intellectual, moral and practical dimensions
of education (Heafford 1967; Soëtard 1994; Rosendal Jensen in this issue). Pestalozzi’s second
contribution to social pedagogy was his attempt to reconcile the tension between the individual and
social goals of education. This implies the development of educational principles and practices to
foster the autonomy, freedom and self-realization of learners, on the one hand, and the development
of responsible and engaged citizens who are concerned with the common good.
Pestalozzi, in turn, in turn was inspired by the some of the ideas of Swiss-French philosopher
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), the author of The Social Contract and Emile. Indeed, as Valerie
Petrie points out in this issue, in the DNA of social pedagogy it is possible to recognize the ideas of
several 18th Century enlightenment philosophers and visionaries. Alongside Rousseau, Petrie
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 4
mentions the ideas of Voltaire, Kant, Fichter, and Owen. The case of the utopian reformer Robert
Owen (1771-1858) is particularly relevant here, not only because he discussed the key role of
education in social change (as expressed, for instance, in his 1816 essay A New View of Society) but he
also because he attempted to put his ideas into practice in two continents, first in New Lanark
(Scotland) and later in New Harmony, Indiana (USA). In these communities, Owen promoted social
welfare and cooperation, integrated children’s education and adult learning activities in the same
buildings, and proposed an educational approach that foreshadowed some of the principles of social
pedagogy:
Where are these rational practices to be taught and acquired? Not within the
four walls of a bare building, in which formality predominates … but in the
nursery, playground, fields, gardens, workshops, manufactures, museums and
class-rooms…The facts collected from all these sources will be concentrated,
explained, discussed, made obvious to all, and shown in their direct application
to practice in all the business of life (Owen,1842).
In Owen’s proposals we can observe a holistic approach to education that is guided by a social
project. Interestingly, Owen’s educational approach was partly inspired by Pestalozzi. Another
contemporary of Owen who tried to put philosophical principles into practice was the humanist
thinker Nikolaj Grundtvig (1783-1872), the founder of the folk schools in Denmark. Guided by the
concepts of ‘living word’ and ‘school for life’, Grundtvig’s educational work focused on the poorer
members of society, and the folk schools emphasized individual enlightenment and cooperative
work (Fleming 1998). The curriculum of the folk schools promoted personal development through a
broad variety of topics that went well beyond vocational training, provided a high degree of
pedagogical freedom for teachers and students, and did not have final exams. In the folk schools,
teachers and students lived and worked together, learned from each other, and shared the running of
the school. Moreover, they connected their activities to cooperative agriculture, community
associations and the like (Lindeman 1929; Lawson 1994). As we will see below, the ideas of
Grundtvig and the inspiration of the folk schools would eventually cross the ocean in the early 20th
century and influence the North American adult education movement through the work of
progressive educators like Joseph Hart, Edward Lindeman, Royce Pitkin and Myles Horton.
Social pedagogy in the 20th century
As a field, the social pedagogy emerged in the early 20th century. There is a consensus in the
literature on the topic that the founding father of social pedagogy was the German philosopher and
educator Paul Natorp (1854-1924), who in 1899 published the book Sozialpädagogik: Theorie der
Willensbildung auf der Grundlage der Gemeinschaft (Social Pedagogy: The theory of educating the human
will into a community asset). Natorp argued that all pedagogy should be social, and that educators
should always consider the interaction between educational processes and societal processes. For
this reason, he observed, the field of social pedagogy should be concerned both with the social
aspects of education and with the educational aspects of social life (Natorp 1904:94). As
Wildermeersch suggests in this issue, Natorp reacted against the individualizing psychological and
educational approaches prevalent at that time.
In the development of these ideas, he was influenced by German philosopher Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804) and by his contemporary German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies’ (1855-1936).
Kant called for an ethical community based on mutual trust. Tönnies, at the age of 32, published an
influential book titled Community and Civil Society (1887), in which he discussed the tensions
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational connections 5
between Gesellshaft (large society) and Gemeinshaft (small community), and argued that while the
former is characterized by individualism, the latter is guided by solidarity. As suggested by the
subtitle of his book, Natorp believed that the model of Gemeinshaft had more potential to build a
world of universal happiness in which people would achieve their true humanity (Hämaläinen 2012;
Stephens 2013). At that moment, social pedagogy would no longer be needed. Natorp believed that
social pedagogy could make a contribution to the larger project of democracy and his overall
approach, based on the mobilization of the labor movement, was progressive and emancipatory.
After WWI (1914-1918), in the context of the democratic reforms of the Weimar Republic,
social pedagogy took an impetus thanks to the influential work of another German philosopher and
educator: Herman Nohl (1879-1960). Through the combination of theoretical and practical
elements, Nohl played a key role during the 1920s in developing the basis for social pedagogy as an
autonomous discipline and as a movement. With Nohl, social pedagogy took a more critical stance,
interpreting reality from a hermeneutical perspective and developing a more structural analysis of the
causes that produce social inequalities and human suffering. Nohl argued that the departure point of
theory development in social pedagogy is a concrete reality, that social pedagogy should help to
integrate all the youth initiatives, programs and efforts, and that the main purpose of social pedagogy
is to foster the overall wellbeing of participants. To pursue this purpose effectively, social
pedagogues should undertake specific social pedagogical actions but also contribute to the
transformation of the social conditions that affect the welfare of participants.
For Nohl, the specific social pedagogical interventions should focus on social help, which he
conceptualized as a holistic educative process based on love, awareness, and human dignity. Nohl’s
approach was holistic because he contended that social help should be considered as educative
actions that take into account the particular historical, cultural, personal and social contexts of a
given situation. Nohl also helped helped to design a university training program for social
pedagogues. Given Nohl’s perspective, it is not surprising that, as a discipline, social pedagogy
became more closely associated to social work and sociology than to psychology. Moreover, at that
time social pedagogy was also associated with work with homeless children and orphans. The locus
of social pedagogical interventions was situated in the ‘third milieu’ outside the family and the
school. Hence, in those years social pedagogy had a particular focus on the protection of vulnerable
children and youth, and was understood as the theory and practice of child and youth services (Nohl
1974; Hämäläinen 2003; Cousée and Verschelden 2011). Later on, it would take a lifelong
perspective and would cover all ages, but the identification with children and youth has been so
strong that even in a recent book, Kornbeck and Rosendal Jensen (2011) felt necessary to clarify in
the title of their introductory piece that social pedagogy is “not only for infants, orphans and young
people”.
Despite the humanitarian and democratic intentions of its founders, in the 1930s and 1940s
social pedagogy was misappropriated by the Nazis, who adapted its community building and service
elements to the education of the Hitlerian youth. It would take several decades for social pedagogy
to disassociate itself from that dark and painful episode of its history (see Lorenz 1994; Sunker &
Otto 1997; Smith 2009; Rosendal Jensen in this issue). After the Second World War, and particularly
during the 1960s and 1970s, a new generation of progressive social pedagogues revisited Noll’s
ideas. Among them were German educators Klaus Mollenhauer (1928-1998) and Hans Thiersch
(1935-), who were influenced by the Frankfurt School and whose approach drew on critical
hermeneutics and critical theory. Mollenhauer and Thiersch continued Nohl’s enterprise of shaping
social pedagogy as an autonomous discipline, but now with a stronger emphasis on social criticism
and social emancipation through flexible and experimental non-formal education programs. In those
years, the theory of social pedagogy moved away from philosophy and anthropology and moved
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 6
towards critical sociology (Hämäläinen 2003). During the 20th century, social pedagogy was adopted
in a variety of European countries such as Belgium, Holland, Hungary, Slovenia, Sweden and
Denmark. Interestingly, in Denmark social pedagogy had problems establishing itself as an academic
discipline but it was successful in becoming a legally recognized profession (Whinter-Jensen 2011).
In many other countries it was possible to identify educational interventions that were generally
aligned with the principles and practices of social pedagogy, but usually under different names (e.g.
non-formal education, social work, community development, socio-cultural animation, andragogy,
non-formal education, and so on). We will explore this situation in the next section, with a particular
focus on transnational flows between Europe and the Americas.
International ebbs and flows
At the dawn of the 20th century, while Natorp was refining his ideas in Germany, a young
Russian educator named Anton Makarenko (1888-1939) was developing an educational philosophy
that focused on democracy and cooperation. In his first year of teaching, a young Makarenko has
already made efforts to establish regular school-community relations and to undertake
teaching/learning activities beyond the school walls. A few years later, he called for more interaction
among different educational institutions such as families, schools, clubs, workers’ cooperatives,
public agencies and local community organizations. He also believed that education should be a
lifelong process. In the 1920s, during the first decade of the Soviet revolution, he organized self-
sufficient colonies for homeless children and juvenile delinquents (many of them orphans). As part
of his a holistic approach that integrated mental, moral and physical education, Makarenko
combined the school curriculum with productive labor in the farms. Unlike common practice at that
time, Makarenko rejected the use of physical punishment, and established a system of self-
governance in the colonies. Through this work, Makarenko achieved impressive results, integrating
into society many marginalized children and youth. Although he contended that education must
foster both individual development and community building, Makarenko believed, like Natorp that
individual interests should be subordinated to the needs of the community and the common good.
As Rosendal Jensen suggests in his article of this issue of EPAA, Makarenko’s insights and
accomplishments on group dynamics in youth work could be considered an important contribution
to the field of social pedagogy (see also Eriksson & Markström 2003).
Also in the first decades of the 20th century, some North American educators came in
contact with some progressive European educational philosophies and practices, even if they were
not called ’social pedagogy’. As noted in the first section of this article, people like Joseph Hart,
Edward Lindeman, Royce Pitkin, and Myles Horton were particularly interested in the ideas of
Grundtvig and in the working of the Danish Folk Schools. Hart visited Denmark, and was
impressed by the Folk Schools for acting as community learning centers that activated the collective
intelligence of the people to address community issues, for promoting self-governance through
citizen community councils, and for applying the scientific method to solve social problems (Hart
1926).
Around the same time, Eduard Lindeman, arguably the most important North American
adult educator of the first half of the 20th century, also visited Denmark, and he was inspired and
influenced by the Folk Schools. As in the English workers’ education movement, Lindeman saw in
the folk school movement a real example of social and educational interventions with high potential
not only for individual growth but also to promote community wellbeing and social change
(Lindeman 1926; Stubblefield 1988). As he proclaimed in his influential The Meaning of Adult
Education, “adult education will become an agency of progress if its short-term goal of self-
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational connections 7
improvement can be made compatible with a long-term, experimental but resolute policy of
changing the social order” (Lindeman 1926). Some years later, in The Sociology of Adult Education, he
would make a statement that nicely summarizes the essence of social pedagogy: “every social action
group should at the same time be an adult education group, and I go even as far as to believe that all
successful adult education groups sooner or later become social action groups (Lindeman 1945).
In the late-twenties, Royce “Tim” Pitkin, a graduate student at Columbia University (New
York), learned about the Danish Folk Schools through a book authored by Edgar W. Knight, an
education professor at the University of North Carolina who had spent some time doing research in
Denmark and devoted parts of the book (titled Among the Danes) to analyze the effectiveness of the
folk schools. Pitkin, who was studying with John Dewey, was particularly interested in connecting
educational institutions to the community (a central theme in social pedagogy) and in adapting the
Danish model to residential adult education. With these goals in mind, in 1938 Pitkin founded
Goddard College, the first college to offer residential programs for single parents receiving public
assistance, and one of the first to include adult learning in its charter. Goddard College soon became
a progressive and innovative institution, and today it combines undergraduate programs with
nontraditional graduate programs and adult residential programs (Knight 1927; Benson & Adams
1987; Stubblefield n/d).
Also in the late twenties, a young student from Tennessee named Myles Horton was in New
York searching for an educational model that could be appropriate to the realities of the Deep
South. While studying at the Union Theological Seminary, Horton visited labor colleges and
settlement houses, and other innovative educational initiatives of that time. By 1930, he attended the
School of Sociology of the University of Chicago, and there he became familiarized with the work of
Jane Addams at Hull House (see Köngeter & Schroeer in this issue). The next year, a Danish
Lutheran Minister named Aage Moller suggested the folk schools as a model for his educational
project. Excited about this prospect, Horton began to study Danish culture and language to better
understand the potential of folk schools for developing an educational project where participants
become agents of social change (Adams and Horton 1975). An avid reader, he became acquainted
with the Danish folk schools through Lindeman’s The Meaning of Adult Education and Hart’s Light from
the North, both published in 1926. The next step for Horton was to travel to Denmark to learn first
hand about the folk schools. He went to Denmark in 1931, and became impressed by the flexibility
of the curriculum, the cordial and friendly teacher-student interactions, and the use of culture as a
vehicle for learning. Horton returned to the USA in early 1932, and in November of that year
founded the Highlander Center, which became a paradigmatic example of popular education in
North America and that today still conceives itself as a catalyst for grassroots organizing and social
movement building.
When talking about Pitkin we briefly mentioned John Dewey (1859-1952), who taught at the
University of Chicago and Columbia University, and is considered one of the most influential
educational thinkers of the 20th century. Again, without necessarily using the concept of ‘social
pedagogy’ as such, Dewey shared several of its principles. For instance, he believed in the
importance of social learning, which values the experience of learning while participating in a
community, and in the role of education to help people to apply their associative intelligence to
address issues of concern, and to foster societal democratization and social change. Some of the
ideas of Dewey travelled to South America through Anisio Teixeira (1900-1971), a Brazilian
intellectual and prolific writer who studied at Columbia’s Teacher College with Dewey in 1928-1929.
Inspired by the tenets of progressive education, pragmatism and humanism, Teixeira introduced
Dewey’s ideas to an entire generation of Brazilians through his translation of Democracy and Education
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 8
in 1936, and even tried to implement some of those ideas in the public education system (Geribello
1977; Gadotti 2001).
It was precisely via Anisio Teixeira that a young educator called Paulo Freire learned about
Dewey’s contributions. In his doctoral thesis, which was based on his experiences in a university
extension program, Freire made references to the work of John Dewey. At that time, Freire also
became acquainted with the work of Anton Makarenko (briefly discussed above), especially with his
texts on authority, obedience and freedom (De Castro & Ghiggi 2009). Years later, the ideas of
Paulo Freire would travel to North America and Europe, particularly after the publication of Pedagogy
of the Oppressed in 1970. Freire (1970) emphasized ideas that were central to social pedagogy,
including the importance of group work, dialogue, reflective action, consciousness raising, local
knowledge and community building in the project of humanization, emancipation and social
transformation (Schugurensky 2011). For this reason, it is not surprising that Freire is considered a
significant figure in the field of social pedagogy, even if he didn’t use this term. For a more detailed
discussion of Freire’s contribution to social pedagogy, see Stephens 2013, and the contributions of
Wildermeersch, Rosendal Jensen, Turlau and Machado to this issue of EPAA.
We could include many other examples of transnational flows of social pedagogical ideas
between Europe and the Americas. For instance, we could talk about inter-oceanic influences in
social work and in the new settlement movement, but this is a topic that Köngeter and Schroeer
cover in depth in their article of this issue. If we had space, we could also discuss the university
extension of work carried out by Moses Coady and his team in Nova Scotia (Canada), which
brilliantly combined adult education and cooperativism, and ignited the Antigonish Movement. This
work, like the work of Freire, Dewey, Horton, Addams and others, were premised on the same basic
assumption of social pedagogy, that is, that education can make an important contribution to
changing social circumstances (Hämäläinen 2003:71).
In any case, we have raised these few examples in this section to illustrate three main points.
The first is that on numerous occasions, scholars and practitioners in youth and adult education,
community development, social work and related areas have espoused social pedagogical principles,
values and methods in their theories and practices without necessarily using the term ‘social
pedagogy’. The second point is that, although social pedagogy was officially born in Germany and
took off in a few European countries in the early 20th century, it is possible to identify social
pedagogical ideas and practices in many countries around the world, even if the term is seldom used
in those countries. For these reasons, the literature on social pedagogy often acknowledges these
contributions to the field. The last point is that social pedagogical ideas have been flowing back and
forth during the 20th century in formal ways, but also in many informal ways that are difficult to
capture by researchers.
The 21st century
The main themes and concerns of 20th century social pedagogy are still present in the 21st
century. Among them are a holistic approach to learning that considers the whole person, an
integrated approach that considers the interplay of individual and social dynamics, an
interdisciplinary approach that brings together different theoretical and professional fields, and an
overall interest in addressing social problems –and fostering social change- through educational and
social interventions. The focus on humanization, democratization and social justice remains, as well
as the emphasis on the most excluded and marginalized populations. At the same time, with the
intensification of communication technologies and the spread of the internet, the classic concept of
community of Tonnies’ era (geographical communities, often small villages) is changing, and
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational connections 9
becomes more complex and fluid. For instance, there are social pedagogues today working with
diasporic communities that often include online communities.
Also, although in the past some social pedagogy practices have focused on children and
youth, other practices on adults, and others on seniors, the present consensus is towards an
integrated and encompassing approach. Indeed, today social pedagogy has a lifelong perspective, and
therefore includes all age groups. Likewise, although in the past many social pedagogy interventions
were guided by a deficit orientation, today we can observe a shift towards a developmental
orientation that recognizes and values the experiences and knowledge of participants and the assets
of the community, and attempts to better understand dynamics of resilience in adverse contexts (see
Martins & Barros Araujo in this issue).
In the 21st century we also notice the incorporation of themes that were not sufficiently
attended in the past, like environmental issues, the arts, or GLBQT rights. Moreover, with the
detrimental effects of neoliberal policies becoming more evident, there is an interest to examine the
impact of government policies on people’s well being, and the potential of social pedagogical efforts
to change those policies (see articles by Rodriguez Fernandez and by Counsell and Boody in this
issue). There is also growing interest for understanding the connections between social pedagogy
and social movements, like the disability movement or the landless movement (see articles by
Eriksson and by Turlau in this issue).
In the early 21st century, we are observing a revival of social pedagogy, and a growing interest
for it in the United Kingdom, in Spain and Portugal, in North America, and in Latin America. We
are also observing the publication of books on social pedagogy in English language (something very
infrequent in the 20th century) and the creation of undergraduate and graduate programs on social
pedagogy in many different contexts. For instance, to provide just one example close to home, the
Arizona State University has a Masters program in social pedagogy that is located in the School of
Social Transformation, and the University of London has a Masters program in social pedagogy
hosted by the Institute of Education (see Pat Petrie’s article in this issue). Moreover, today there are
several national and international associations of social pedagogy that bring together academics and
practitioners. Among them are the Sociedad Iberoamericana de Pedagogía Social (SIPS) and the
Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA). Some conversations are taking place about the
organization of a world congress of social pedagogy that could bring together the different
associations.
Social pedagogy: ten international perspectives
Among the common tensions encountered within the field of social pedagogy is an
argument over the academic and professional ambiguities that prevent us from delimiting its nature,
form, and scope. In his contribution to this special issue, Exploring different perspectives of Social Pedagogy:
towards a complex and integrated approach, Xavier Ucar of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and
President of Iberoamerican Society of Social Pedagogy, points to six “misunderstandings” that have
undermined formation of a coherent conception of social pedagogy as an occupation, a space for
scholarship, and an educational practice. He discusses these misunderstanding in relation to six
areas: cognitive, political, scientificity, action, normativeness, and social.
Ucar’s analysis of these six misunderstandings offers explanation of just why social pedagogy
remains so difficult to define. However, he also finds that, despite this vagueness compared to other
social science fields, the “complexity of social pedagogy fits well with the inherent complexity of the
social.” In this context, he asserts that the dynamic and unpredictable nature of socio-cultural
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 10
relationships presents opportunities within pedagogical practices that “open the door to the
creativity of agents and to the constant search for new paths, new questions and new answers.”
Given the contextual variations of social pedagogy throughout the world, both locational
and temporal, it is not surprising that several writers for this special issue have taken the opportunity
to emphasize just how difficult it is to quantify the field’s characteristics. In his contribution, Social
pedagogy in the modern, Niels Rosendal Jensen from Aarhus University in Denmark shares his views on
the infinitely wide-ranging approaches to the practices of social pedagogy and also the changing
socio-historical developments the field has experienced over time. In addition, he explicates the
connection between the field’s ambiguity and its internal struggle to present itself (unambiguously)
as a mature science.
The tension caused by social pedagogy’s often conflicting representation leads Rosendal
Jensen to conclude that the field’s practitioners must learn to be comfortable presenting a “Janus
face” among the academic and professional communities that govern their conduct. That is, social
pedagogues must be at once willing to accept strictures intended to regulate behavior while
managing the inevitable unpredictability of socially and culturally constructed human relationships.
In order to accomplish this rather daunting task, Rosendal Jensen envisions a cohered professional
community committed the following six principles:
• An empirical justification of knowledge about the research subject, including definitions
of key disciplinary concepts (theoretical development and empirical based research).
• A further clarification of social pedagogy’s function determination.
• The development of customized research tools.
• An evaluation of the organizational structures as well as the professional forms of
organization of work.
• An evaluation of current professional intervention practices.
• The formulation of new concepts of and to use for practice at both intervention and
organizational levels.
While adherence to a formal set of tasks or ideals may seem constrictive, Rosendal Jensen
concludes that this type of normalization can exist in harmony with “a relational environment” in
which “institutional practices are not a foregone conclusion, but rather a (re)production of social
practices.” In short, he argues that social pedagogy can establish legitimacy as a self-regulated
professional endeavor without losing the ability to adapt to dynamic social realities.
This special issue also includes a personal narrative from Belgium tracing more than four
decades of scholarly activity within the field of social pedagogy. In Transitions in a life-world: Looking
backward and forward after forty-five years of social pedagogical research and teaching in Leuven, the University of
Leuven’s Daniel Wildemeersch reflects on what has come to recognize over the course of his career
as four distinct stages of evolution in pedagogic theory and practice. They are identified as an initial
pioneering phase, a crisis and recovery phase, a multiplicity phase, and finally, a phase of
reinvention.
The pioneering phase, arising out of a climate of increasing radicalization in the post-
war, welfare-state economy of Europe, coalesced around a central theory of andragogy that
“combined practices of adult education, community work, social work and personnel work.” As the
social pedagogy program at Leuven (and other locales) matured, the initial enthusiasm that fostered
its growth began to wane as the economic viability of modern welfare states came into question.
When conditions improved in the latter half of the nineteen-eighties, research and training priorities
of many schools shifted from a holistic andragogic approach in adult education to an emphasis more
narrowly placed on workforce development. This suggests that a split in the philosophical direction
of social pedagogy programs at the university level – between proponents of “work related
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational connections 11
education” and educationalists with more liberal socio-cultural agendas – could primarily be imputed
to the epistemological orientations of the scholars leading school departments.
The comprehensive view with which Wildemeersch approaches his experience allows us to
consider how social pedagogy shapes and, in turn, is shaped by ever changing social relations. At
Leuven, it seems the direction of research and training in social pedagogy has returned to its project-
oriented roots in an effort to address rapid changes in socio-cultural realities (resulting from
accelerated technology, globalization and professionalization). Its reinvention in theory and practice
has resulted in various outcomes, both positive and negative. Reflecting on these changes (looking
“forward and backward”), this paper’s conclusion explores various implications of societal
transformation for scholarship and practice in social pedagogy.
Though it is widely acknowledged social pedagogy has a firm foothold in many European
countries, its foundation and advancement in the United Kingdom (UK) is less secure. Offering a
historical overview of social pedagogy’s road toward recognition in Britain, Pat Petrie of the Institute
of Education, University of London suggests a host of reasons why. Her paper, Social Pedagogy in the
UK: Gaining a firm foothold?, highlights how British approaches to policy, practice, and academic
(theoretical) aspects of the field have traditionally been set apart from continental developments.
Not only has the UK traditionally suffered from a certain amount of geo-political insularity, but also,
until quite recently little effort has been made to articulate a definition of social pedagogy in English.
Petrie notes that, academically and professionally, practitioners of social pedagogy in the UK
have not pursued the link between the theory and practice of educating youth (so prevalent in
countries such as Germany and Holland). Therefore, “the opportunity to introduce social pedagogy
across the children's workforce has not been taken up and there has been no move, as yet, by central
government or its agencies to develop social pedagogy either as an occupation or as a profession.”
This fundamental difference in the way social pedagogues in Britain reflect on (or ignore) the
complex relationships between the “social” and the “pedagogic” ultimately leads Petrie to argue that
such a connection – considered specifically in a UK context – is necessary to build sustainable
interest to support the field in Britain.
In this special issue, by which we are presented with articles from both of the Americas and
a number of reflections that focus on the field in the U.K. and Europe, it is clear that social
pedagogy’s reach is no longer limited to its place of origin in continental Europe. In their article,
Variations of Social Pedagogy – Explorations of the Transnational Settlement Movement, authors Stefan
Köngeter and Wolfgang Schroeer, from the Institute for Social Pedagogy and Organization Studies
at Germany’s University of Hildesheim, offer a specific example of how the proliferation of social
pedagogic practice has occurred transnationally. Their work examines the development of the
settlement movement in separate national contexts – in the UK, Germany, the United States, and
Canada. Citing key texts from the settlement movements within these countries, the authors
illuminate the evolution of disparate (but related) variants of socio-pedagogical thinking.
Köngeter and Schroeer argue that the establishment of social pedagogy in thought
and deed is not essentially determined by the individual nation state in which it develops, but by a
common “trilateral socio-pedagogical constellation” primarily concerned with the “diagnosis of
social conditions, the pedagogical organization of social relations, and the expansion of normatively
defined agency.” This conception is posited in stark relief to canonical texts that have taken a
diachronic/historical approach, which often prevents us from recognizing the place-to-place overlap
of ideas and actions found in seemingly unrelated social movements. By the authors’ argument,
prevailing social conditions and “translation of knowledge and concepts” play a much larger role
than locale in the occurrences of varied socio-pedagogical phenomena.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 12
While several of the authors in this special issue discuss the formal recognition of social
pedagogy in the professional and academic spheres (and the lack of it), Rebecca Tarlau, from the
University of California, Berkeley, presents us with an example of 21st century “social(ist)” education
that once resided outside authoritatively sanctioned social institutions, but now encroaches on them.
Through the intertwined lenses of three critical theorists (Antonio Gramsci; Paolo Freire; and Paul
Willis), The Social(ist) Pedagogies of the MST: Towards New Relations of Production in the Brazilian Countryside,
examines the intentional pedagogical activities of a Latin American popular education effort known
as the Brazilian Landless Workers’ Movement’s (MST, or movimento dos sem-terra).
Tarlau argues that MST socialist strategies, which call on its members to control the
economic means of production and develop community-based socio-cultural identities through
educational practice, have the potential to disrupt the hegemonic social relations inherent in modern
capitalist states (though by no means inevitably). She presents evidence of ways in which the MST
uses an emancipatory approach to education (Freire) to help residents of poor, rural communities
wage a “war of position” (Gramsci) in resistance to the forces of cultural and social reproduction
(Willis). Through exploration of notes from her own field work, analysis of MST documents, and
reflection on social(ist) pedagogues who argue freedom requires opposition, Tarlau argues this
particular brand of social pedagogy represents “a concrete attempt to interrupt social reproduction”
with the potential to allow MST children to form “a collective ideology against forms of
oppression.”
In the article Policies against social exclusion and their relationship to Social Pedagogy: Guaranteed
Minimum Income programs and Basic Income, Juan Ramón Rodriguez Fernandez from the Consejería de
Bienestar Social de Asturias (Spain) argues that in the practice of social pedagogy it is possible to
find an ambivalence between the maintenance and legitimation of an unequal social order, on one
hand, and the struggle for social emancipation and the collective creation of a more egalitarian and
just society, on the other. In the context of Welfare States, Rodriguez pays particular attention to the
relations between social pedagogy and policies aimed at addressing social exclusion such as basic
income programs. He argues that Guaranteed Minimum Income programs should not be considered
as charity, but as part of a broader strategy to equalize opportunities in society and promote social
change. Rodriguez argues that the dominant educational discourse is based on the notion of
employability. This discourse assumes that education is the main responsible of high unemployment
rates because it does not properly train human resources for the needs of the economy. A related
assumption is that social exclusion is the outcome of the educational and personal deficits of
individuals. He contends that the pedagogical consequence of this understanding is the widespread
adoption of competence-based approaches, which are functional to the needs of the market.
In this pedagogical model, the roles of educators and students are clearly delimited: the
teacher is the active subject who transmits knowledge, and the student is a passive receptor of that
knowledge. This is, in essence, the banking model of education that Freire and others criticized
many decades ago. The only difference is that now learners are also seen as entrepreneurial subjects
who are solely responsible for their economic success of failure. In this context, Rodriguez calls for
a critical and progressive social pedagogy that is part of a broader strategy for social change that
includes social policies such as a guaranteed minimum income. In this strategy, notes Rodriguez,
social pedagogy can play a positive role through its commitment to the cause of the most
marginalized and oppressed members of society, its counter-hegemonic approach to the
understanding of social and educational dynamics, its promotion of a more genuine democracy
based on justice and participation, and its pedagogical practices that foster dialogue, collective
construction of knowledge, cooperation, and social transformation.
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational connections 13
Approaching social pedagogy with an eye toward an American education program, Shelly
Counsell and Robert Boody, from the University of Northern Iowa, have contributed a manuscript
titled, Social Pedagogy and Liberal Egalitarian Compensatory Programs: The Case of Head Start. In it, they
make the case that Head Start, an early childhood program for low income families established
during Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society movement of the 1960s, has largely failed in its goal of
raising the educational performance the nation’s poor students (and its larger goal of eradicating
poverty altogether) because it was founded on a Liberal Egalitarian lifeworld view laden with
“deficit/disadvantage assumptions.” Tracing the history of the program, its philosophical
underpinnings, and tensions, the authors cite evidence showing Head Start’s educational impact has
been uneven at best – perhaps as a result of further segregating and colonizing already marginalized
children. They further suggest any compensatory program that segregates participants based on
socioeconomic status is destined to fail in achieving its goals.
However, the authors also note that Head Start has yielded benefits that are harder to
measure. These include proliferation of comprehensive health and nutritional services for young
children and their families and increases in parental involvement and empowerment. They suggest
“student achievement and development as well as social justice are best achieved through individual
empowerment and full participation as valued community members within integrated educational
activities and settings.” Counsell and Boody further maintain that Head start would be more
effective if it were to become a universal early childhood program, abandoning the Meritocratic
Utilitarian orientation that has undermined its success. In making this argument, they leave open the
opportunity for social pedagogues, with strong commitments to educational empowerment,
community development, and holistic services (social, cultural and economic), to take on the task of
reinventing Head Start in order to deliver more successful outcomes for low-income children
Whether confronting issues of economic status, ethnicity, gender, intellectuality or any
number of factors influencing the living circumstances of a person or persons within a society,
social pedagogy is, in essence, anthropological. Its focus is indissolubly linked to matters of
socio-cultural situation and station. In Dialectics instead of dichotomy: Perspectives on the twin ambitions
of the disability movement, Lisbeth Eriksson, from Sweden’s Linköping University, presents us with
reminder of how social pedagogy has evolved in order to grapple with an unending range of
human conditions. Relative to the field of disability studies, her consideration of the historically
dichotomic theoretical conceptions of redistribution and recognition, often approached through
social traditions of collective community and mobilization, bring to light tensions raised by
questions of ‘able-ness.’
Eriksson uses “a kind of method triangulation or method pluralism” to make meaning of her
personal contacts with organizations and members of the disability movement and to reflect on her
own participatory actions and interpretations of disability policy. In so doing, she suggests that there
is space for bridging the gap between group differentiation based on a particular characteristic (in
this case mobility impairment) in order to support that group’s particular interests and (figurative)
erasure of those differences in order to promote equality within a society. This opportunity,
however, depends on developing a dialog between active members of the movement and the host of
societal actors with whom they regularly interact. In such a scenario, practitioners of social
pedagogy will be called upon to attend to the task of calling into question dominant notions of
“normal.”
In the article Social Pedagogy and resiliency: Possible dialogues, Margareth Martins and Flavia
Monteiro de Barros Araujo, from the Universidade Federal Fluminense, explore the contributions of
studies on resilience to the field of social pedagogy. Their analysis is the result of research conducted
with urban working children, their teachers, and their schools. The research took place in the
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 14
municipality of Duque de Caxias, located in the metropolitan area of the State of Rio de Janeiro.
Martins and Barros Araujo worked with children living in situations of social risk. Through life
stories and conversations around the daily experiences of the children, the authors explored the
conceptions of school held by these children. With a focus on the analysis of resilience, Martins and
Barros Araujo discuss the implications of their findings to a Freirean-inspired social pedagogy that
emphasizes autonomy and hope.
Closing thoughts
What does the wide range of topics addressed in this collection of papers tell us about social
pedagogy in the 21st Century? Firstly, it indicates that the field now reaches well beyond its place of
origin. Developments that surface in one nation or region will bear significant consequences for
others. As a result, social pedagogy is likely to be bound by a global network of thought and practice
well into the future. Yet, despite this transnational relevance, consideration of local contextual
elements such as politics and policies, economics, and cultural dynamics will continue to play an
important role in how pedagogues engage with those they educate. Secondly, the wide scope of
subject matter reminds us that education in the social realm has come to be regarded as more than a
professional activity, a subject of research, or a philosophical predisposition. Instead, social
pedagogy is a phenomenon intertwined with nearly every facet of social experience, which, in turn,
has become essentially a product of those experiences in aggregate.
The contributors to this special issue have presented both reflective and visionary
perspectives of social pedagogy while providing ample evidence to support their varied claims.
Their arguments have been offered to advance new understandings of the field in the context of an
increasingly connected and rapidly shifting global society. Some help us understand how social
pedagogy can be deployed in the interest of social justice and emancipatory practice. Others allow
us to consider the opportunities and potentialities that lay open in front us. We hope that these
works will help readers gain insight into their own thinking about social pedagogy, unlocking the
spirits of inquiry and creativity so often characteristic in its design and application. If in any way this
special issue can help broaden (what is sometimes regarded as) an insular academic community, then
we have accomplished our goals. We hope our readers will provide us with their reactions and share
in our passion for this important area of study.
References
Adams, P., & Horton, M. (1975). Unearthing seeds of fire: The idea of Highlander. John F. Blair Publisher.
Baumann, Z. (2001). Community: Seeking safety in an insecure world. Themes for the 21st Century. Cambridge:
Polity.
Benson, A.G. & Adams, F. (1987). To know for real: Royce S. Pitkin and Goddard College. First Edition.
Adamant, VT: Adamant Press.
De Castro Pitano, S., & Ghiggi, G. (2010). Autoridade e liberdade na práxis educativa: Paulo Freire
eo conceito de autonomia. Saberes: Revista interdisciplinar de Filosofia e Educação, 2(3).
Dekleva, B. (1996). Supervision for developmental projects: Its understanding, practical
implementation and future needs. Horizons of Psychology, (5) 2, pp.75-86.
Cousée, F. & Verschelden, G. (2011). Social-cultural education in Flanders: a social pedagogical
history. In Jacob Kornbeck and Niels Rosendal Jensen, (Eds.), Social pedagogy for the entire
lifespan. Bremen: Verlag.
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational connections 15
Eriksson, L. & Markström, A-M. (2003). Interpreting the concept of social pedagogy, in Gustavsson,
A., Hermansson, H-E.,Hämäläïnen, J. (Eds.), Perspectives and Theory in Social Pedagogy.
Göteborg: Daidalos, pp. 9-23.
Fleming, J. A. "Understanding residential learning: The power of detachment and continuity." Adult
Education Quarterly (48)4 (1998): 260-271.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. NY: Continuum
Gadotti, M. (2001). Um Legado de Esperança. Sao Paulo: Cortez.
Geribello, W. (1977). Anisio Teixeira. Análise e sistematização de sua obra. Sao Paulo: Atlas.
Hämaläinen, J. (2003). The concept of social pedagogy in the field of social work. Journal of Social
Work 3(1), 69-80.
Hart, J. K. (1926). Light from the north: The Danish folk high schools: their meanings for America. New York:
Henry Holt.
Heafford (1967). Pestalozzi: His thought and its relevance today. London: Methuen.
Jones, H. D. (1992). The training of social pedagogues in the European Community after 1992. In
Soisson, R. (Ed.), Policymaking, research and staff training in residential care [Collection of papers of
FICE Congress], pp.153-159.
Knight, E. W. (1927). Among the Danes. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina press.
Kobolt, A. (2005). An evaluation of training in social pedagogy in Slovenia. The Journal of Child and
Youth Care, 20, 83-92.
Kobolt, A. (1997). Theoretical foundation of social pedagogical interventions (part 2). Socialna
pedagogika., 1(2), 2-25.
Kornbeck, J. & Rosendal Jensen, N. (2011). Introduction. Social pedagogy: not only for children,
orphans and youth. In Jacob Kornbeck and Niels Rosendal Jensen, (Eds.) Social pedagogy for
the entire lifespan. Bremen: Verlag.
Lawson, M. (1994) ‘Nikolay Grundtvig’ in Z. Morsy (ed.) Thinkers on Education 2 (Prospects). Paris:
UNESCO.
Lindeman, E. C. (1926). The meaning of adult education. New York: New Republic.
Lindeman, E. C. (1945). The sociology of adult education. Education Sociology, 19, 4-13.
Lorenz, W. (1994) Social Work in a Changing Europe, London: Routledge.
Natorp, P. (1899) Sozialpädagogik. Theorie der Willensbildung auf der Grundlage der Gemeinschaft. Stuttgart:
Frommann [1922 edn].
Nohl, H. (1974). Antropología pedagógica. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Owen, R. (1842). Book of the New Moral World, 3rd Part.
Schugurensky, D. (2011). Paulo Freire. NY: Continuum.
Seibel, F., & Lorenz, W. (1996). Social professions for a social Europe. In Erasmus — Evaluation
Conference 5(7), 39-50. Koblenz. Germany.
Smith, M. K. (2009) 'Social pedagogy' in the encyclopaedia of informal education, retrieved from
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-socped.htm.
Soëtard, M. (1994). Johan Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-1827). Perspectivas–Revista Trimestral de Educação
Comparada. Paris.
Stephens, P. (2013). Social pedagogy: Heart and Head. Verlag: Bremen.
Sunker, H. and Otto, H-U. (Eds.) (1997) Education and Fascism. Political identity and social education in
Nazi Germany, London: Taylor and Francis.
Stubblefield, H. W. (n/d). The Danish Folk High School and its Reception in the United States:
1870s-1930s. Roger Hiemstra’s Web Page for Adult Education. Retrieved March 7, 2013 from
http://www-distance.syr.edu/stubblefield.html.
Stubblefield, H. W. (1988). Towards a history of adult education in America. London: Croom Helm
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 16
Whinter-Jensen, T. (2011). Educational borrowing. A model and the genesis of Danish social
pedagogy. In Jacob Kornbeck and Niels Rosendal Jensen, (Eds.) Social pedagogy for the entire
lifespan. Bremen: Verlag, pp. 52-65.
About the Authors and Editors of the Special Issue
Daniel Schugurensky
Arizona State University
Email: dschugur@asu.edu
Daniel Schugurensky is a full professor at Arizona State University, where he has a joint
appointment in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Social Transformation. He is the
Head of the Area of Justice and Social Inquiry, and the coordinator of the Masters program in
social and cultural pedagogy. He has written extensively on youth and adult education,
community development and participatory democracy. Among his recent authored and co-
edited books are Ruptures, continuities and re-learning: The political participation of Latin Americans in
Canada (Transformative Learning Centre, University of Toronto, 2006), Four in Ten: Spanish-
Speaking Youth and Early School Leaving in Toronto (LARED, 2009), Learning citizenship by practicing
democracy: international initiatives and perspectives (Cambridge Scholarly Press, 2010), Paulo Freire
(Continuum, 2011), and Volunteer work, informal learning and social action (Sense 2013).
Michael Silver
Arizona State University
Email: Michael.Silver@asu.edu
Michael Silver is a Research Fellow at the National Center on Education and the Economy and the
Center for the Future of Arizona. As a Doctoral Student in Educational Policy and Evaluation, his
research focuses on policies affecting educational equity and issues of social justice - particularly
those related to historically vulnerable, minority populations.
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational connections 17
SPECIAL ISSUE
Social Pedagogy in the 21st Century
education policy analysis archives
Volume 21 Number April 30h, 2013 ISSN 1068-2341
Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to
the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for
non-commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made
in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the
author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School
of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de
Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO
Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil),
SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China).
Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to
Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu
Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and
Twitter feed @epaa_aape.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 18
education policy analysis archives
editorial board
Editor Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Associate Editors: David R. Garcia (Arizona State University), Stephen Lawton (Arizona State University)
Rick Mintrop, (University of California, Berkeley) Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University)
Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder
Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
Gary Anderson New York University
Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison
Samuel R. Lucas University of California, Berkeley
Angela Arzubiaga Arizona State University
Maria Martinez-Coslo University of Texas, Arlington
David C. Berliner Arizona State University
William Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder
Robert Bickel Marshall University
Tristan McCowan Institute of Education, London
Henry Braun Boston College
Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley
Eric Camburn University of Wisconsin, Madison
Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder
Wendy C. Chi* University of Colorado, Boulder
Julianne Moss University of Melbourne
Casey Cobb University of Connecticut
Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio
Arnold Danzig Arizona State University
Noga O'Connor University of Iowa
Antonia Darder University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
João Paraskveva University of Massachusetts,
Dartmouth
Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University
Laurence Parker University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
Chad d'Entremont Strategies for Children
Susan L. Robertson Bristol University
John Diamond Harvard University
John Rogers University of California, Los Angeles
Tara Donahue Learning Point Associates
A. G. Rud Purdue University
Sherman Dorn University of South Florida
Felicia C. Sanders The Pennsylvania State University
Christopher Joseph Frey Bowling Green State
University
Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley
Melissa Lynn Freeman* Adams State College
Kimberly Scott Arizona State University
Amy Garrett Dikkers University of Minnesota
Dorothy Shipps Baruch College/CUNY
Gene V Glass Arizona State University
Maria Teresa Tatto Michigan State University
Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz
Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut
Harvey Goldstein Bristol University
Cally Waite Social Science Research Council
Jacob P. K. Gross Indiana University
John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado
Springs
Eric M. Haas WestEd
Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder
Kimberly Joy Howard* University of Southern
California
Ed Wiley University of Colorado, Boulder
Aimee Howley Ohio University
Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University
Craig Howley Ohio University
John Willinsky Stanford University
Steve Klees University of Maryland
Kyo Yamashiro University of California, Los Angeles
Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo
* Members of the New Scholars Board
Social pedagogy: Historical traditions and transnational connections 19
archivos analíticos de políticas educativas
consejo editorial
Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Editores. Asociados Alejandro Canales (UNAM) y Jesús Romero Morante (Universidad de Cantabria)
Armando Alcántara Santuario Instituto de
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación,
UNAM México
Fanni Muñoz Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú
Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile
Imanol Ordorika Instituto de Investigaciones
Economicas – UNAM, México
Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez Universidad de Murcia, España
Maria Cristina Parra Sandoval Universidad de Zulia,
Venezuela
Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España
Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España
Jose Joaquin Brunner Universidad Diego Portales,
Chile
Monica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín,
Argentina
Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la
Evaluación de la Educación, México
Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia
María Caridad García Universidad Católica del Norte,
Chile
Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España
Raimundo Cuesta Fernández IES Fray Luis de León,
España
Daniel Schugurensky Universidad de Toronto-Ontario
Institute of Studies in Education, Canadá
Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad
Iberoamericana, México
Orlando Pulido Chaves Universidad Pedagógica
Nacional, Colombia
Inés Dussel FLACSO, Argentina
José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de
Colombia
Rafael Feito Alonso Universidad Complutense de
Madrid, España
Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de
Tamaulipas, México
Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana,
México
Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre
la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM México
Verónica García Martínez Universidad Juárez
Autónoma de Tabasco, México
José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo,
España
Francisco F. García Pérez Universidad de Sevilla,
España
Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad
Iberoamericana, México
Edna Luna Serrano Universidad Autónoma de Baja
California, México
Aida Terrón Bañuelos Universidad de Oviedo, España
Alma Maldonado Departamento de Investigaciones
Educativas, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios
Avanzados, México
Jurjo Torres Santomé Universidad de la Coruña,
España
Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación,
UNAM México
Antoni Verger Planells University of Amsterdam,
Holanda
José Felipe Martínez Fernández University of
California Los Angeles, USA
Mario Yapu Universidad Para la Investigación
Estratégica, Bolivia
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 21 No. 35 SPECIAL ISSUE 20
arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas
conselho editorial
Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Editores Associados: Rosa Maria Bueno Fisher e Luis A. Gandin
(Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul)
Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais, Brasil
Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta
Grossa, Brasil
Paulo Carrano Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil
Luciano Mendes de Faria Filho Universidade Federal
de Minas Gerais, Brasil
Alicia Maria Catalano de Bonamino Pontificia
Universidade Católica-Rio, Brasil
Lia Raquel Moreira Oliveira Universidade do Minho,
Portugal
Fabiana de Amorim Marcello Universidade Luterana
do Brasil, Canoas, Brasil
Belmira Oliveira Bueno Universidade de São Paulo,
Brasil
Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina, Brasil
António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona, Portugal
Gaudêncio Frigotto Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Pia L. Wong California State University Sacramento,
U.S.A
Alfredo M Gomes Universidade Federal de
Pernambuco, Brasil
Sandra Regina Sales Universidade Federal Rural do Rio
de Janeiro, Brasil
Petronilha Beatriz Gonçalves e Silva Universidade
Federal de São Carlos, Brasil
Elba Siqueira Sá Barreto Fundação Carlos Chagas,
Brasil
Nadja Herman Pontificia Universidade Católica –Rio
Grande do Sul, Brasil
Manuela Terrasêca Universidade do Porto, Portugal
José Machado Pais Instituto de Ciências Sociais da
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
Robert Verhine Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil
Wenceslao Machado de Oliveira Jr. Universidade
Estadual de Campinas, Brasil
Antônio A. S. Zuin Universidade Federal de São Carlos,
Brasil
Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 01/09/2013
Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 04/15/2013
Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 04/20/2013
