Spania Si Minorita

ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Intercultural Relations

30 (2006) 261–279
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Ethnic minorities and the Spanish and Catalan

educational systems: From exclusion to
intercultural education
Jordi Garreta Bochaca
Departament de Geografia i Sociologia, Facultat de Ciències de l’Educació, Complex de la Caparrella s/n,
Universitat de Lleida, Lleida 25192, Spain
Abstract
Since the 1990s, cultural diversity in Spanish classrooms has increased notably with the arrival of
immigrant origin students. This fact, together with the European Union discourses about
consideration for cultural differences, have contributed to the appearance in Spain, and particularly
in Catalonia, of an intercultural discourse. This article analyses the evolution of educational policies
up to the current dominant discourse (from exclusion to incorporation in the school and the
classroom, passing through segregationist actions) emphasising the difficulty nowadays of putting
this into everyday practice, among other things for the lack of references and the absence of
resources. This is done through the analysis of different official documents, as well as recouping
different pieces of research on this question by both the author and others.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumen
La diversidad cultural en las aulas españolas se ha incrementado notablemente a partir de los años
noventa por la llegada de alumnado de origen inmigrante y este hecho, junto con los discursos de
toma en consideración de las diferencias culturales que ha realizado la Unión Europea, han
contribuido a la aparición en España, y particularmente en Cataluña, del discurso intercultural. Este
artı́culo analiza la evolución realizada hasta llegar al discurso dominante actual (de la exclusión a la
incorporación en la escuela y en las aulas, pasando por actuaciones segregacionistas), eso sı́,
enfatizando en la dificultad existente hoy en dı́a de traducir el mismo a la práctica cotidiana, entre
otras cosas por la falta de referentes y por la ausencia de recursos. Todo ello se realizará a partir del
Tel.: +34 973 702098; fax: +34 973 703119.

E-mail address: jgarreta@geosoc.udl.es.
0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.11.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS
262 J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279
análisis de diferentes documentos oficiales, ası́ como de recuperar diferentes investigaciones ajenas y
propias realizadas sobre esta cuestión.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ethnic minorities; Immigrants; Gypsies; Spanish and Catalan educational system; Compensation;
Intercultural education; Sociology of education
Palabras clave: Minorı́as étnicas; Inmigrantes; Gitanos; Sistema educativo español y catalán; Compensación;
Educación intercultural; Sociologı́a de la educación
1. Introduction
Cultural diversity is not a new phenomenon inside the walls of the school, but it has
undergone changes in the way it is viewed. It has gone1 from models that postulated that
integration into a society should be through assimilation into the dominant group of the
culturally different, to more modern discourses about recognition and valuing, to a greater
or lesser extent, of the ‘‘other cultures’’ by society and in schools.
The evolution observed in other societies does not differ greatly from the Spanish case,
although the rhythm and the timing do not coincide. Although it is true that there is still a
long way to go before Spain, and, specifically Catalonia, one of its Autonomous
Communities (regions),2 can be referred to as a society where intercultural education has
been implanted, it is also true that the discourses are leading in this direction. However,
nowadays, it can be affirmed that assimilation, integration, through positive discrimina-
tion with compensatory programmes and, partially, cultural pluralism (which, as well as
transmitting the dominant culture, takes the minority cultures and languages into
consideration, although maintaining distances) do appear to have been put into practice.3
Nevertheless, this is still not true as far as multicultural education for everyone is
concerned (extension of the anterior focus to the minority and majority students) or
intercultural education, which would implicitly contain the idea of interaction between,
and the enrichment of, all members of society. At this level, we must refer more to
discourses than to actual practice.
Julio Carabaña, in an 1993 article that had important repercussions, considered that
among the multicultural ‘‘problems’’ in education in Spain (i.e., those that have interested
teachers and researchers), the oldest is probably the difference in academic performance
between social groups. This led to compensatory programmes that were applied to ethnic
minorities. Other important ‘‘problems’’ are bilingualism in specific Autonomous
Communities with their own languages (Catalonia is one of these), as well as the arrival
of immigrants and their concentration in certain zones and schools, and the presence of
1
In some places, but in others this evolution has not occurred or has followed other directions.
2
The administrative division into 17 Autonomous Communities has caused diversification in relation to the
theme of this study. This has meant that since this structure was created, the research carried out has been partial,
that is, centred on some of these Communities. The complexity of a comparative study has restricted any step
forward in this sense, as does the youth of the sample under consideration for the cultural differences (however, it
must be mentioned that our research team has produced a project to analyse the work done comparatively and
lines for the future).
3
With respect to these focuses, see, among others, Tarrow (1990).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 263
indigenous minorities in the country. In the case of Spain, the gypsies fall into this latter
context.
In Spain, among what are nowadays usually denominated ‘‘ethnic’’ minorities, the
gypsies are the group with the most resistant ethnic identity. It has been often stated that
something had to be done to integrate them, which in most cases meant ‘‘assimilating
them’’ into society and the school. Moreover, given that the arrival of a large number of
foreign immigrants is relatively recent, the first actions that we find were aimed especially
towards the gypsies. For Mariano Fernández Enguita (1996), historically, three stages can
be differentiated in relation to attention to diversity. In a first stage, they were simply
excluded from the schools, as they were from other institutional and social spheres. In a
second stage, there was a switch from exclusion to segregation given that despite their
name, the so-called bridge-schools became a form of segregated non-transitory schooling.
The third step was the incorporation of these children into the ordinary classroom with the
backing of compensatory education programmes. As shown below, in the mid-1990s,
compensatory programmes coincided with intercultural discourses, but little practice.
Simultaneously, the above-mentioned evolution coexisted with the transformation from a
centralised educational system, emanating from Madrid, to a decentralised model where
the autonomous communities took on a very important role (some more than others) in
questions of education. This, for example, has led to different ways of understanding and
working on cultural diversity. A brief resume of each of this evolution is presented below
and given the diversity of perspectives and action that there is and the little research done,
we shall base our research on the autonomous community of Catalonia.
2. Exclusion, segregation and insertion
2.1. Exclusion and segregation
In Spain, in contrast with other countries, since the Real Pragmática of Medina del
Campo (1499), the aim was to make gypsies abandon all distinguishing traits and pass
unnoticed, and exclusion only appeared as an alternative solution for those who refused to
meld into their surroundings. Later, there was a change to imprisonment for those who
resisted. As Liégeois (1987) states, in most states, the policy of exclusion lost strength
during the 19th century, generally up to 1950, when gypsy affairs came to be viewed within
general surveillance and control measures. From 1945 on (still very soon after the Nazi
genocide) confinement was replaced with inclusion for humanitarian considerations and
for the management of an ever more technocratic society.
During most of the Franco period (1939–1975), at an educational level, it could be said
that more than conscious exclusion, gypsies went through a period of non-compulsory
schooling. Up to a point, it can be said that they attended school when they, and their
families, wanted. Moreover, this was in function of the steps taken in the process of
acculturation into the ‘‘payo4’’ world, totally or partially renouncing their personal and
group identity (Fernández Enguita, 1996). This idea is endorsed by Teresa San Román
(1984), who states that the appearance and relative increase in training and education
among the above-mentioned group means higher acculturation, while illiteracy is a sign of
ethnic isolation.
4
In Spain the word payo is used by gypsies to indentify non-gypsies.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2.2. Insertion and compensation
Spanish society in the 1960s and 1970s, the last period of Franco’s regime, was
characterised by economic development and social change. A consequence of this was the
great migratory movement from the rural zones to the cities, with effects for both. At an
educational level, the panorama could be defined as one of important deficiencies,
overcrowding and high dropout rates, and children from marginal minority sectors
deprived of schooling. It is in this context that the compensatory educational policy
appeared in the text of the General Law of Education in 1970, which was aimed to make
the educational system function on a fairer basis. This programme was conceived to
compensate for the deficiencies in the education system (Grañeras et al., 1997). As Calero
and Bonal (1999) affirm, the legacy of Franco’s regime in education was a profoundly
unequal education system. It was polarised between a private school that took pupils from
the better-off classes, and a public school very low in quality and quantity, obsolete in
teaching contents and the training of teaching staff, authoritarian in the taking of decisions
within the institutions and the concept of pedagogic interaction, etc.
Of course, there was still segregationist practice disguised under legal texts that, in
theory, aimed for insertion. In 1978, with the Union of the Democratic Centre (UCD) in
government, an agreement was signed between the National Secretariat of Gypsy
Apostolate, dependent on the Catholic Church, and the Ministry of Education and Science
which created the Bridge Schools. This covenant lasted until 1986, when it was finally
decided to enrol gypsy children in ordinary centres, although, as Mariano Fernández
Enguita (1996) states, there are still exceptional cases of Bridge Schools. The aim of these
was to facilitate the access of gypsies to school through centres located near their homes,
dedicated specifically to them and adaptable to their circumstances. For example, in the
1981–1982 school year, there were 182 Bridge Schools in Spain, 11 in Barcelona and
another, without specifying, in Hospitalet (Secretariado Nacional Gitano, 1982). The work
carried out by the National Gypsy Secretariat in 1982 showed that the educational
problematic of the gypsy school population was related to the consequences of their
exclusion. This took the form of precocious work, lack of social habits, discrimination in
schooling, lack of school places, pedagogical imbalance, disadvantage in the educational
system and discordance between home and school) and thus an intervention like the Bridge
Schools was justified. In fact, it was affirmed as follows:
The creation of special schools is not a result of discrimination, but rather that the
aim is to incorporate gypsy infants into the common school, and those schools carry
this name, as they are aimed at preparing the gypsies children to enter into the
general schools; it is a transitory stage (p. 16).
This positive appraisal of these ‘‘special’’ classes also occurred in other contexts. The
above-mentioned Liégeois (1987) affirmed that reality imposed itself and the best in the
short term was not to eliminate these classes, given that the ordinary schools offered
neither the pedagogic quality, respect for the culture, nor the indispensable flexibility in
timetables and discipline.
Thus, despite the segregation, the perpetuation of the situation and the fact that the
targets were not reached, the result was not totally negative given that it also served to
enrol those who would otherwise never have gone to school. It also gave rise to the
appearance of a small sector of teachers concerned about the question (Fernández Enguita,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1996). Finally, the National Gypsy Secretariat itself, despite having a favourable opinion
about the work of these also partook of the idea of eliminating them and incorporating
gypsy children into ordinary schools especially as the presence of the gypsy children in
these former was being perpetuated.
Simultaneously, as stated, one of the first actions that arose, after overcoming, to a great
extent, the previous policies of exclusion and segregation and thus backing incorporation
into the ordinary classroom, was the creation of the compensatory education programme.
To understand this programme and its development in Spain, it is necessary to turn to
educational sociology and, specifically, to the study of social inequalities in education that
began in the 1950s in Great Britain and was the centre of attention for more than two
decades. The notion of equality of opportunity arose at the same time that compensatory
education was considered one of the most important strategies of educational policy.
Naturally, it evolved over time with the appearance of new research, especially British and
American. Examples of the latter are the Coleman (1966) report, the study by Jenks et al.
(1972) and the rise of theories that questioned the possibility that education could produce
changes in society (the ‘‘new educational sociology’’, Bourdieu and Passeron’s theory of
reproduction, etc.), etc. Each of these represented a step forward or backwards for these
policies and, in any case, a qualitative change in the way of understanding compensation
and its practice (Grañeras et al., 1997). In the Spanish case, as presented below, the
development of these programmes happened later than in other Western countries and
evolved very differently.
In Spain, although the legal framework is the 1970 General Education Law,
compensatory education appeared in 1983 (Royal Decree 27 April 1983, BOE 11 May)
with the creation of a specific programme to benefit the geographic zones or population
groups whose special characteristics required preferential educational attention (Centro de
Investigación y Documentación Educativa, 1992, 2000). The main objectives and functions
of that programme were the creation of a school support service, incentives for teaching
staff assigned to less attractive areas, organisation of professional training courses for
14–15 years old not enrolled in schools, eradication of illiteracy, creation of grants or help
for studies, etc. The programme did not envisage the disappearance if inequalities as an
immediate target, but rather the development of an equal opportunities policy that would
gradually lead to educational results not being determined by such variables as living in
rural areas or belonging to disfavoured social classes. Samper, Garreta, and Llevot (2001),
in general lines, the Spanish project, promoted by J.Ma. Maravall, the minister in Felipe
González’s first socialist government,5 was directly inspired by the experience of Labour’s
‘‘Educational Priority Areas’’. The Compensatory Education Programme developed the
right of the pupils to receive help to compensate for possible family type deficiencies
(recognised in the Constitutional Law of the Statute for Schools, LOECE,6 repealed by the
Constitutional Law regulating the Right to Education, LODE7). However, its fundaments
did not refer to ethnic origin or cultural diversity as factors of inequality in the educational
system. Rather it mentioned the ‘‘compensatory and integrational’’ projection of
educational policy in relation to those disfavoured by their ‘‘economic capacity, social
5
It must be mentioned that J.Ma. Maravall had done a doctorate in sociology under the guidance of the
prestigious Oxford professor A.H. Halsey (see, among others, Halsey, 1977).
6
Constitutional Law of 19 July 1980.
7
Constitutional Law 8/1985 of 3 July.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
level or place of residence’’. The programme did, however, include ‘‘cultural minorities’’ as
a specific area of action orientated to the enrolment of the infant population, the
regularisation of attendance at class and the avoidance of early dropping out (Terrén,
2001).
In the 1983–84 course, it was applied statewide and its function was to deal with the
needs of those pupils who were at risk of social exclusion. In Catalonia,8 it was first applied
in mainly gypsy La Perona neighbourhood in Barcelona before being expanded to other
areas. The programme came into being with a provisional nature, but in reality, it became
consolidated. From 1986 to 1987 on, it was extended to students of Moroccan origin in El
Raval in Barcelona, and since then, the number of teachers, the presence of pupils from
other cultures, and its geographical distribution, have continued increasing, reaching all
over Catalonia (Crespo, 1997). This was so until the end of 2003 when it disappeared
merged with other Services of the Generalitat de Catalonia (the Catalan Autonomous
Government).
For its part, the 1990 Constitutional Law of General Ordering of the Educational
System, LOGSE,9 underlined as targets of the educational system, among others, respect
for cultures and education in co-operation and the solidarity. For Eduardo Terrén (2001),
it was the first Spanish educational law affecting all the country (like the Law of Quality
referred to below) that mentions the need to fight ethnic-cultural and sexual discrimination
and, in line with the directives of the Council of Europe, opened the door for the
implantation of intercultural education programmes.10 It should be emphasised that, in
contrast to the 1970 LGE, that set out an educational system with parallel compensatory
action, the LOGSE is intended to build an education system that also compensates for
inequalities without parallel action (Grañeras et al., 1997).
At the end of 1990, the agreement was signed with the Departament d’Ensenyament11 of
the Generalitat to take over the Compensatory Education programme in Catalonia. This
programme was then centred on providing help for the full integration of children with
problems of social exclusion. In practice, these pupils are mainly from the gypsy ethnic
group and immigrant origin, specifically from the so-called Third World. This programme
was gradually modified, influenced by the teaching demands, as well as the intercultural
discourse that appeared in a confused way at the beginning, and especially, at the end of
the 1990s. An example of this confusion is the work of the Laboratory of Intercultural
Studies at the University of Granada (Garcı́a, Barragán, Granados, & Garcı́a–Cano, 2002)
8
Autonomous Community this study is centred on given that it is where the intercultural discourse and the
interest in dealing with cultural diversity is most highly developed. Among other things, this is a result of it being
one of the Autonomous Communities with its own language and which has been characterised by the vindication
of its different culture and identity.
9
Constitutional Law 1/1990 of 3 October.
10
With respect to the discourse by the Council of Europe, consult; Conseil de l’Europe (1983, 1989).
11
The name of the department in the autonomous administration in Catalonia that looks after all formal
education, except universities. It should be borne in mind that from the 1978 Constitution and the 1979 Statute of
Autonomy, Catalonia has full control of education. That means that it has evolved from a centralised system to
one that is decentralised in which the various autonomous governments have the power to manage at an
educational level. This is, however, always within a common legal framework, which defines the minimums,
leaving the regional governments with room for manoeuvre. Moreover, in the Catalan case, the fact of having its
own language (as also happens in the Basque Country and Galicia but not in the other autonomous communities)
has meant that the teaching language is Catalan (to develop this aspect and that of autonomous education, which
we do not have space to deal with here, consult: www.gencat.es).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
who show how the little conceptual clarity, the lack of knowledge about diversity in the
classroom in statistical terms, among other questions, led to important doses of
speculation in the discourse. The authors analysed the X Congreso Nacional de Pedagogıá
held at the beginning of 1992 under the theme ‘‘Intercultural Education in the Perspective
of the United Europe’’. They draw attention to the little research carried out, the lack of
theoretical reference points, the vagueness or simplicity of the proposals made, although
‘‘with good intentions’’, the corporate interest in taking over a theme that they ‘‘had
always’’ worked on, etc.
Recently a new step was taken at the legislative level in Spain, namely the approval in
Parliament (31 October 2002) of the Project for the Constitutional Law of Quality in
Education. Without going into excessive detail, given that the specific details still remain to
be decided despite the time that has elapsed and waiting still to see how these evolve with
the new government, this Popular Party law includes significant support for opportunities
for quality for everyone as one of its axis (the third). This axis would specify, for example,
the principal of equality (that guarantees, according to the document, equality of
opportunity for quality) and the right of the pupil to receive help to compensate for family,
economic, social and cultural shortcomings that impede, or obstruct access to, and
permanence in, the education system. Moreover, it dedicates special attention (chapter VII,
first section) to foreign students and their specific educational needs. To this end, it will
promote the creation of learning programmes and specific classrooms with the intention of
favouring their integration, as well as adopting the necessary measures to assess their
parents about their rights, duties and opportunities. It is clear that we will need to be
watchful over coming years as to how this law is applied in the day to day in the classroom.
3. Towards intercultural education: analysis of the contradictions of the Catalan model
One of the motives for the development of the intercultural discourse in Spain, but
especially in Catalonia, the Autonomous Community we concentrate on, is the notable
increase in the number of pupils of immigrant origin in the classroom, especially in public
centres. Thus, for example, while in the 1991–1992 course these pupils made up 0.8% of
total pupil numbers in schools in Catalonia, in 1995–1996 this figure was 1.5%, and in
1998–1999, 1.8%. In 2000–2001 they represented 2.5% and in 2002–2003 this had risen to
4.7% (Departament d’Ensenyament, 2002; Secretaria per a la Immigració, 2003). The same
source provides the geographic origins of these pupils. The data from 2001 to 2002 shows
the following distribution. The 35.1% are from North Africa, 37.8% from Central and
South America, 8.3% from the European Union, 7.4% from non-EU European countries,
6.5% from Asia and Oceania, 4.1% from sub-Saharan Africa and 0.8% from North
America. Another interesting question is the effect of this ‘‘new’’ focus on the gypsies, an
ethnic minority with a long history in Spain. They are, for example, invisible at a statistical
level, in the sense that, in contrast to pupils of immigrant origin for whom statistics appear
every year, it is not known exactly how many of them there are, where they are or their
degree of academic success or failure.
It was in 1992 when the Department of Education, on defining the curriculum for
primary (Departament d’Ensenyament, 1992a) and compulsory secondary education
(Departament d’Ensenyament, 1992b), first referred to ‘‘interculturality’’. For the
Department, it is necessary that the innumerable decisions that are taken every day are
coherent with an educational project that tends towards an intercultural society, without
ARTICLE IN PRESS
defining this, and promote the capacity for interpersonal relations and social insertion and
action.
Thus, in 1993 Inter-departmental Plan for Immigration was approved. This would lead,
years later, to the concretion of the intercultural option. The document envisaged action by
the Department of Education, as well as other departments, in the field of interculturality,
specifically in the training of trainers. According to Salvador Carrasco (1999), sociologist
and then in the General Sub-department, the idea of the plan was to promote a general
policy for immigration, promoting full integration and facilitating access to existing
resources and programmes, adapting them to the necessities when needed. On another
hand, during the 1993–1994 and 1995–1996 courses, various guidelines and resolutions
from the Council of the European Union about the response to the problems of racism and
xenophobia were published.12 In his opinion, some of these would corroborate the line of
work taken. However, it was in 1996, with the publication of the ‘‘transversal axis on
intercultural education’’, when a clearer bid was made to advance towards this model. This
document (Departament d’Ensenyament, 1996) affirmed that education has to prepare the
new generations for life in Catalan society, an aim implying developing a set of attitudes
and aptitudes in all the pupils with respect to their own culture and cultural diversity in
society and the school. This was rooted in the community itself and openness, respect and
dialogue, tolerance and critical sense, coexistence and constructive resolution of conflicts,
empathy and affirmation of one’s own identity, etc. In this framework, the teaching staff
was invited to introduce these approaches into schools and not to see them as adding to the
teaching task a load that generates headaches and stress.
The document, the basis for the transversal axis to be followed in schools in Catalonia,
considers that it should not be a superficial educational practice, on the margin of the
ordinary curriculum, nor aimed solely at the culturally different minority pupils.
Intercultural education is intended to give all pupils the above-mentioned ‘‘cultural
competence’’ in each centre and classroom. Thus, the objectives of this conception of
intercultural education would be:
(1) cultivate positive intercultural attitudes (respect, value, tolerate, overcome prejudices);
(2) improve the personal, cultural and academic self-conception (look after one’s own
cultural identity, introduce different cultural elements);
(3) strengthen coexistence (discover resemblances, play and learn co-operatively, resolve
conflicts constructively); and
(4) improve the equality of opportunity for all pupils (maximise performance, adapt the
curriculum, manifest positive expectations).
If we follow Ouellet (1991),13 the position taken in this document by the Generalitat de
Catalunya would respond, to a great degree, to the model of ‘‘taking cultural differences
into consideration’’, that postulates that it is necessary to prepare the pupils to live in a
culturally diverse society. Thus, the principal objectives of this model coincide: strive for
the participation and implication of parents in the educational project, promote awareness
of cultural diversity, promote the implication of the teaching staff and give importance to
12
See Hansen (1998).
13
He would group the efforts for the promotion of intercultural education into three models: promotion of
cultural pluralism, taking cultural differences into consideration and combating racism.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
the mother tongue. If the discourse is analysed in greater depth, it must be pointed out that
some of these objectives for the priorities and specifications that appear in the document,
such as the reference to the mother tongues, although important, are given lower priority
than others. But it is also true that, although it is little, the Department of Education
carries out the programme of ‘‘Learning, for the immigrant pupils, of Arab language and
culture’’ that seeks to promote courses with the aim of conserving their identity and, to this
respect, make them feel accepted in Catalonia. This programme is carried out with the
school timetable and is voluntary for the families of these pupils. These courses will only be
run in some zones and it must be mentioned that they are not yet very well developed
(Secretaria per a la Immigració, 2001a, 2001b).
In Catalonia, these orientations to define intercultural education passes to the schools
the request for them, slowly, to adopt their Educational Project (PEC)14 and Curricular
Project (PCC)15 to its objectives (at first only a few of these to ensure that they would really
be put into practice and advance progressively). For Jordán, Castella, and Pinto (1998)
(the former played an important role in drawing up the document in the Department of
Education), the process of preparing an intercultural curriculum in the centres consists of
these three logical stages—the Centre Educational Project (CEP), the Centre Curricular
Project (CCP) and transfer to the areas of knowledge. To achieve this, some basic criteria
are provided to draw up the CEP in the line of inter-culturality. Among others, these
include proposing lines of action to eradicate prejudices, reflecting on the multicultural
society and what it represents; ensuring the participation of parents; giving priority to the
design of objectives in the field of inter-culturality and debating cultural proposals from
different areas.
To sum up, nowadays the Department of Education’s policy of intercultural education is
centred and defined in five wide fields of action. These are the reception of recently arrived
pupils in the school; support for school enrolment; training of teaching staff in
intercultural education; support for the teaching staff (didactic material); and the
promotion and participation in fields of debate about intercultural education (Castella,
2001; Secretaria per a la Immigració, 2001). It must be said that these actions are specially
designed for immigrant-origin pupils and would indirectly implicate gypsies given that they
are recognised as culturally different, although their incorporation in the school is believed
to be difficult (Garreta, 2003).
4. Catalonia and cultural diversity during the 1990s and beginning of the new century
During recent years, the studies carried out centre their interest, or part of it, on the
discourse, guidelines and intervention, that is, on the practice. These, not to be too
negative, could be said not always to be favourable to what the Generalitat of Catalunya
has been doing to respond to the recently so-highly valued cultural diversity. These works
have often been more critical of the interventions and guidelines, in that order, than with
14
For the Department of Education, the CEP is made up of the pedagogical and organisational principals and
the linguistic project.
15
The curricular project (PCC) is an eminently pedagogical document that is a basic instrument for defining the
approaches and options that respect the principals and the prescriptions of the curriculum, the structural
organisation of the educational system and diversity of characteristics of the pupils.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
the discourses, which, despite the criticisms they have and can receive, have been adapted
to the dominant intercultural current.
In 1992, Pascual analysed the response given by the Catalan administration to cultural
diversity confirming that the school system had maintained the official curriculum
practically intact, the only response being the reinforcing of schooling for those who arrive
half-way through a course or cycle. With respect to the centres, the admission of
immigrant-origin children is often perceived as a problem, especially when they arrive half-
schooled, have a lower level than the majority of the native children of their age and when
the school becomes, or is thought to be becoming, a ghetto-school. In third place, the
pedagogical practice of the teachers was limited to the curricular lines that the school
imposed and, in particular, to each centre’s educational plan. In each centre, the
educational offer was mono-cultural and uniform, whether there were minority pupils or
not.
For Bartolomé (1997), the approach by Pascual should be modified and take into
account the contribution of the Compensatory Education Programme, that has worked for
years; the various experiences, the result of the growing sensitivity to cultural differences;
the training courses on this theme and the support of various movements, associations and
institutions, international agreements and support, and the materials and resources
prepared for use by the teaching staff. We would also add the programme of training
trainers carried out by the Autonomous University of Barcelona and the Department of
Education (see Carrasco, Soto, & Tovı́as, 1997).
But it is also true that the Colectivo IOE (1996) concluded in its work that the dominant
tendency in the Spanish school,16 both at a practical and an ideological level, is an
assimilating posture. For the Colectivo IOE, a profound reappraisal is needed of the
conceptions the school institutions and the majority of its agents and implicate the
educators seriously in the proposal of intercultural education to abandon the assimilatory
approaches. Specifically, with reference to the teaching staff, it is believed necessary not to
polarise efforts on the attitudes of the teaching staff or the contents, but rather to work
simultaneously in both directions.
In 1998, Palaudàrias differentiated three levels of action and intervention carried out
with regard to the presence of the cultural diversity generated by foreign-origin pupils17:
discursive, normative and compensatory of inequalities. From the discursive point of view,
he considered that the Administration and the educational services had generated a
discourse in which the concepts of inter-culturality and intercultural education filled the
vacuum created by the non-existence of guidelines, strategies and school practices for
dealing with cultural diversity. However, Palaudàrias considered that understanding the
discourse was difficult given that it had to articulate the previous, essentially assimilatory,
practices, and the changes that supposed the transfer to the praxis of the intercultural
discourse. This meant, among other things, that the teaching staff had promoted few new
and really intercultural practices and guidelines and that when they had done so these fell
into the promotion in schools of action about ‘‘other cultures’’ without too much prior
reflection, often falling into the folkloric, which Banks (1986) called addition. At the
second level, the normative, the author considered that although no specific normative had
16
His work was centred on Moroccans in Catalonia and the Autonomous Community of Madrid, which has the
highest number of immigrant origin pupils.
17
In some occasions taking and adapting previous legislation and the practices.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
been generated, the existing one had been adapted, in some aspects, with the intention of
providing a legal framework for the recognition and defence of the educational rights of
the immigrants and their families. As far as the gypsies were concerned, being Spanish
citizens, specific legislation would be unnecessary. The third level, the compensation for
inequalities, was defined by the compensatory focus that it had taken on in Catalonia. This
policy, applied through the really compensatory Compensatory Education Programme,
and the linguistic Catalan Teaching Service, that aimed at integration, was not well
adapted to school practices. He considered that there was a policy to orientate the
schooling of the children of non-Community immigrants, but he found it to be seriously
damaged, having been applied for some time without obtaining the expected results, and
unable to face the challenges of a multi-cultural society. Years later, Palaudàrias (2002)
recognised that, more than the official programmes, some professionals have progressed
closer to intercultural action than the really compensatory education. However, he still
considers an effort in this direction necessary given that little has yet been done.
Another study that should be mentioned is the one that, from a comparative point of
view, specifically compared intercultural education in Switzerland and Spain, especially in
Catalonia, and which carried out by Akkari and Ferrer (2000). This work, after presenting
the statistics about students belonging to the cultural minorities, analysed the distribution
policy and the reception and support programmes for these pupils. It then affirmed that
the current theoretical and practical position with respect to intercultural education, both
in the schools, the public administration and society, is generally assimilatory. This,
according to their opinion, is closely related to the process of strengthening cultural
identity in Catalonia and the implicit belief that diversity, rather than enriching this
process, obstructs it. The dominant assimilatory and compensatory models in the
educational administration in Catalonia respond to the affirmation of the culture of the
host society. This situation is not seen as contradictory to the compensatory vision,
endorsed by the Administration,18 of the phenomena of intercultural education and, in
turn, signs are seen of an opening towards more advanced models. The Arab language and
culture classes would be indicators of this.
To sum up, the studies cited present a certain evolution during the 1990s but continue
indicating, more or less conclusively, that the educational practice is more assimilatory and
compensatory than really intercultural. We wished to verify this fact by carrying out an
extensive in-depth study into the situation of the attitudes and opposition, and
intercultural practice in schools in Catalonia (see Garreta & Llevot, 2003).19 This also
indicated that the dynamic of implanting intercultural education is slow (although we also
give it a certain leeway) and that until now, due to the lack of a general proposal or one
from a specific centre, the teaching staff have not received adequate orientation and
resources and nor are they obliged to define themselves on this question and thus act.
18
Inducing and disseminating this focus among the teaching professionals.
19
Our interest was to analyse the opinion and the attitudes of the teaching staff from the public, private and
grant-aided private primary and compulsory secondary education centres (pupils from 6 to 16 years old) in
Catalonia. For this, using the Department of Education census of teaching staff, the sample was calculated to give
an optimum degree of error. Thus the sample was 740 teaching staff from all over Catalonia, which, in the most
unfavourable case (p ¼ q ¼ 50%) and with 95.5% confidence, gives a degree of error of 73.6. The fieldwork was
done through personal interviews in the centres. A total of 211 schools scattered around all the districts of
Catalonia were visited.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Through our empirical study, we were able to establish the extent of training in this field
among teaching staff in compulsory education in Catalonia, and we consider it no more
than insufficient and poor, as do other authors. However, it is also true that this is owing to
the current situation, given that until a few years ago, the concern to maintain and respect
cultural diversity did not dominate. On the contrary, homogeneity was valued. Apart from
this, many teachers have other training priorities or preferences. Nevertheless, not all the
responsibility should be placed on the teaching staff. The educational administration and
the University Schools for Teachers, nowadays Faculties of Educational Sciences, also
have responsibility.20
Referring to initial training in cultural diversity, intercultural education, etc., which is
the responsibility of the university, 90% of the interviewees stated that they had none. This
lack of specific training is related to the age of the interviewee, as among the under 30s, this
response fell to 68%, indicating that there have been changes in teacher training
institutions and that they are gradually incorporating training options in this field.
As far as on-going training is concerned, the results show firstly an improvement in the
level, in comparison with initial training, although 64% have none. This percentage again
varies in function of age, but in this case in the opposite sense: the younger the teacher the
more they affirm not having done any (73%),21 against 57% for the over-50s. Among
those who state that they have done on-going training in cultural diversity, the most usual
is courses on diversity (17%),22 conflict resolution (8%), intercultural education (7.5%),
adaptation of the curriculum to cultural diversity (4%) and practical strategies for working
with it in the classroom (2%). The circumstances that the teaching staff find themselves in
condition the choice of on-going training, whether this is on general or more specific
themes. Thus, for example, as the presence of gypsy and immigrant-origin pupils increases,
so does the index of on-going training related to cultural diversity received by the teacher.
To give an overall vision, teachers were divided into three groups in function of their
training in the field of cultural diversity in the school. The differentiation was relatively
easy given that, on one hand, there were those without any kind of training and, on the
other, those that had done third cycle studies, i.e., those who had specialised. It appears
from this classification that 57.7% of the teaching staff have no training in this field, 40.3%
have a basic level (from the mentioned criteria, those that had done some training course
or courses; for example, with a duration of 10, 15 or 20 h). The remaining 2% were
considered to have specialised training (Graph 1).
Continuing with more data, which can be found in greater detail in Garreta and Llevot
(2003), the teaching staff in compulsory education in Catalonia believe that all, and we
repeat all, centres should have intercultural education as a reference. Based on these
results, it seems that the crystallisation of the aims of interculturality will not fail as a result
of opposition from the teaching staff. Evidently, however, there is a small minority who do
not believe that intercultural education must be a reference for all centres (2.5% are ‘‘little
in agreement’’ and 0.1% ‘‘not at all’’). The results obtained are presented graphically in
Graph 2.
20
For a basic explanation of what is done and who does it in initial and on-going training in Spain, consult:
Centro de Investigación y Documentación Educativa (2000).
21
It must be stated that age is a conditioning factor.
22
The courses mentioned (antiracist education, coexistence, Arab language, etc.) are so varied, that it was opted
to group everything that cannot be placed in the following categories under this label.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
40.3
57.5
Without training Basic Specialised
Graph 1. Level of training in the field of cultural diversity among teaching staff in compulsory education in
Catalonia.
0.9
2.5
0.1
38.5
58
A lot Enough Little Nothing Not respond
Graph 2. Level of training in the field of cultural diversity among teaching staff in compulsory education.
However, on the other hand, there are difficulties with putting the pedagogic aims into
practice in schools. To sum up, the proposition, ‘‘the discourse of intercultural education is
difficult to put into daily practice’’, is a warning. Although it is believed that it has to go in
a specific direction, how to put it on the road and how this discourse can become a reality
is not clearly seen (Graph 3).
The opinion that this is difficult is more common among those teachers who have no
training in the field of cultural diversity, intercultural education, etc., and less so for those
who the training received has given more confidence that it can be put into practice. It is
also true that, despite the training received, they are suspicious.
Another question that continues to indicate the existing situation is the answer to the
phrase ‘‘the increase in cultural diversity in the classroom represents adding to the load
that the teaching staff already have to bear’’.23 Again, the answers differ significantly
depending on whether it is from teaching staff trained in this field, who are less in
agreement, than those who have no training, with a higher level of agreement. Thus,
without much orientation, only that which some received in the initial and on-going
training, and which is not always the best possible, the day to day question is to see who
looks after these pupils, whether it is the teaching staff in the classroom or a specialist. This
also means falling back on elements of professional and personal baggage (from resources
23
Specifically, 42.5% would be ‘‘a lot’’, 43.5% ‘‘enough’’, 10% ‘‘little’’ and 3% ‘‘nothing’’, the others did not
respond.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
3.5 1
12.5
32.5
43.5
Alot Enough Little Nothing Not respond
Graph 3. Degree of agreement with: ‘‘The intercultural education discourse is difficult to put into daily practice’’.
from previous situations to notions of common sense, and here one finds action based both
on ethics, for example human rights, as well as the ethnocentric prejudices).
As mentioned, in Catalonia, the deployment and the concretion of the curriculum is a
process that requires a set of decisions based on the characteristics of each centre. These
are specified in the CEP, the CCP and in the programming of the cycle (Department of
Education, 1995). Thus the Departament d’Ensenyament (1996) gives a set of guidelines
for taking inter-culturality into consideration in the cited documents so that it impregnates
the day-to-day practice in the schools. However, it should be asked if these guidelines and
documents have had any effect on the centres. This is not only from the fact that there are
ethnic minority groups, but also for the multi-linguistic and multi-national composition of
the Spanish state, not to mention the cultural pluralism which is characteristic of advanced
societies. To what extent have the CEP, the CCP and the curricular areas taken into
account that we live in a multicultural society and adapted to this reality? These are some
of the questions posed and which we try to answer from the results obtained.
Concentrating on the CEP, we asked our interlocutors to tell us the degree to which they
believe that ‘‘common criteria for working on cultural diversity [have been] established’’.
The answers indicate that 15.5% of the teaching staff believe that it has been adapted ‘‘a
lot’’ and 35% ‘‘enough’’, while 32.5% consider it ‘‘little’’ or ‘‘not at all’’. As on other
occasions, this data can be differentiated to indicate who have adapted the PEC of their
centre more to the cultural diversity of society. This is in function of the presence of
immigrants, not gypsies. As an example of this, as the presence of foreigners in the centre
increases, so does the degree of adaptation of the CEP to cultural diversity, while in centres
without foreigners ‘‘little adaptation’’ occurs. Moreover, certain origins influence more
than others. Adaptation is higher among those centres with pupils of EU, sub-Saharan and
Maghreb origin (in that order) while it is significantly lower when the pupils are gypsies.
Following this logic, the PEC is more adapted in the centres where the teaching staff has
more training in cultural diversity. There is no doubt that training is linked to the
experience of cultural diversity in the school and the classroom, and that it awakens the
interest of the teaching staff beyond the ‘‘credential pressure’’.
A similar degree of adaptation appears in the CCPs, about which the interviewees were
asked if they believed ‘‘the CCP had adequately detailed the need to attend to cultural
diversity’’. This way, while in the previous project we were interested in knowing if
common criteria had been established, in this case, it was whether they had stated that
adequate attention was necessary. The answers given were mainly ‘‘little’’ (27.5%) and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
‘‘enough’’ (38.5%). Leaving aside the few who did not answer, 17% answered ‘‘a lot’’,
while 10% say ‘‘not at all’’. On this occasion, the points mentioned when referring to the
CEP also appear. As the number of foreigners in the centres increases, the CCP is
mentioned more often. This increase is more important when there are pupils of EU, sub-
Saharan and Maghreb origin (in this order), while the centres that have gypsy pupils are
the ones that make the fewest changes. Moreover, we continue noting that the responses
change in function of the training the teaching staff has in the field of cultural diversity,
and there is a direct relation between training and higher assertion of the need for adequate
attention. These results perpetuate our opinion that action is taken in specific contexts and
situations, but not in others, and this is not what the intercultural model advocates.
Naturally, it can always be added that more time is needed and that a start has been made
where the needs are more urgent.
With reference to the third of the steps necessary to draw up an intercultural curriculum,
specifying the way in which interculturalism can be worked on in the different curricular
areas, another trigger sentence allowed insight into the work done. In this occasion we
were interested in knowing if ‘‘how to work on interculturality in the different areas’’ had
been specified and the results showed that less progress has been made than in the previous
questions, which in turn, as mentioned above, we do not consider to be notable. The
answers were again concentrated in ‘‘little’’ (39%) and ‘‘enough’’ (35%). At the extremes,
12% say ‘‘nothing’’ and 9% that ‘‘a lot’’ has been done. As above, as the number of
foreigners in the centres rises, the affirmative responses increase while those schools that
have gypsy pupils continue to adapt to a lesser degree.
From the above, it is deduced in general terms that, when we refer to pedagogical and
organisational principals (CEP) and there curricular concretion (CCP), more has been
done the closer we go to the more concrete, that is to the extrapolation of the approach
devised to the areas of knowledge. Thus, for A. Jordán, E. Castella and C. Pinto, the
process of preparing an intercultural curriculum in the centre consists of three steps. It can
be said that the first two have been started and carried out in some centres. However, the
last, and most specific, level is not as far forward as it is more difficult and requires more
involvement (Table 1).
To continue getting closer to the practices we wished to know, as well as the previous
action done in the field of the centres, if the teaching staff had done anything in the
Table 1
Adaptation to diversity in educational centres
Establish common criteria Detail the need to attend to Specify how to work on
in the PEC for working on cultural diversity in the cultural diversity in the
cultural diversity PCC areas of knowledge
A lot 15.5 17 9
Enough 35 38.5 35
Little 32.5 27.5 39
None 9 10 12
No answer 8 7 5
Mean 2.6 2.7 2.4
Deviation 0.88 0.89 0.83
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Action to attend to the cultural diversity in the classroom in function of the presence of ethnic minorities
Action Total Classroom with ethnic Classroom without

minoritiesa ethnic minorities
None, there is no cultural diversity 41 27 58.5

None, it is not necessary to do 10.5 13.2 7
anything
Intercultural conferences 2.5 2.5 3
Informative sessions with the families 4 6.5 1
Specific curricular changes 14 19 7.5
Specific explanation about their culture 15 18 11.5
Explanation about the host society for 0.5 0.2 0.3
the minorities
Dedicate sessions to talking about 10.5 11 10
tolerance
Tutorials 5 6.5 3
Linguistic adaptation 3 4 2
Other 5.3 7.5 2.2
Don’t know/no answer 0.7 0.5 0.6
a
Understood as the presence of gypsy and/or from immigrant origin students.
classroom. This not only means if the teaching staff in the school as a whole are more or
less interested in this question, but rather whether the interviewee had done anything
personally and, in case of not having done anything, how they justify this decision. The
first point to emphasise is that over half (51.5%) of those interviewed had done nothing, an
omission justified because there was no diversity (41%) or because they did not believe it
was necessary to do anything (10.5%). The answers obtained still show that there is the
perception that these questions belong to the centres and classrooms where there is cultural
diversity and, apparently, teachers tend to consider that the rest of the students need not
prepare themselves to live in a culturally diverse society. It is curious and symptomatic to
see that 29% of the teaching staff who have more than 5% of foreign-origin students, or
27% of those who have gypsies, argue that it is not necessary to do anything, given that
‘‘there is no diversity in the class’’.
Among those who had done something to take the cultural diversity into consideration,
they mention that they have given specific explanations about the culture of some students
(15%), carried out specific curricular changes (14%), dedicated sessions to tolerance
(10.5%), organised tutorials (5%) and informative sessions for the parents of the gypsy or
immigrant origin students (4%), organised intercultural conferences (2.5%), adapted
linguistically (3%) and explained the host society to the minorities (0.5%). This being an
open question allows us to see the definition that is made of adaptation to cultural
diversity, often interpreted as an addition and not necessarily transversally (impregnating
all the subjects over the whole course24) (Table 2).
On their part, almost the only answer from those who had not adapted was that ‘‘it was
not necessary’’ (90%). The data, as well as indicating that there is a part of the teaching
24
Although we will not develop this further here, other more specific questions on this theme were asked in the
cited text by Garreta and Llevot (2003) and Garreta (2004).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
staff who believe it unnecessary to do anything in this field, also showed that this
perception is still higher in the classrooms without gypsy or immigrant-origin students.
Other answers mention that they believe that something should be done, or do not dare to
say that it is necessary, but... The justified ‘‘buts’’ range from there being ‘‘too much work
and time cannot be dedicated to it’’ (5%),25 to ‘‘it is not necessary to do it in my subject’’
(3%), ‘‘others have done it so I do not need to’’ (1%) and, in last place, those who ‘‘do not
know how to do it’’ (0.5%). It is curious that this last argument appears with so
infrequently when they have previously acknowledged not knowing how to work on the
theme. It is logical that a phrase that does not carry any blame for the interlocutor gathers
more answers in this sense than a spontaneous one where they must recognise their own
limitations.
5. Conclusions
As shown above, Spain, and in particular Catalonia, has taken steps towards
recognising the presence and valuing cultural diversity in the classroom. If initially, with
respect to the gypsies, the most common was a lack of concern about their schooling, this
evolved until reaching the inclusion of these students in the ordinary classroom, previously
passing through segregationist experiences. Spain has evolved in a short time from a
centralised educational system, where cultural diversity, focused on the gypsies, was
scorned, to a decentralised system of autonomous communities, much closer to a
multicultural pedagogic model, especially designed for immigrant origin pupils, and in
which the cultural pluralism of the state is accentuated. The 1980s and 1990s would be
years of school enrolment, with the support of the compensatory programmes, with the
aim of improving opportunities and facilitating the process of integration, equal to
assimilation for most of the authors cited. In the mid-1990s, the increase in the number of
immigrant-origin students and the guidelines from the Council of Europe, as well as the
internal dynamic followed by the Catalan Administration led to the commitment to
intercultural education. However, although it is true that some action has been carried out,
it seems (as the 1996 document implied) to be left excessively as a responsibility for the
teaching staff. Most teachers already feel overloaded with responsibilities (in line with the
well-known text by Hargreaves, 1996) and although pedagogic programme has been
accepted, most do not know how to put it into practice. Moreover, there is another great
problem in the implementation of the model. This is the fact that teachers who do not have
ethnic minorities in their centres and classrooms do not feel implicated and believe that it is
not up to them to prepare the new generations to live in a culturally diverse society. More
specifically, those who do act, do so depending on whether they are dealing with
immigrants or gypsies. We continue to see that it is the gypsies who still are mainly
forgotten continue in the rhetoric of interculturality that has been constructed, as well as in
the day-to-day practice by teachers.
It must be asked whether there is really a desire to put the intercultural model into
practice. This is another basic question that is being studied through interviews with
political and technical representatives from the administration. It appears very necessary
to make a clearer commitment to the development of the proposed model, which is nothing
25
The excuse, real or ficticious, of too much work is more prevalent among those teachers who have minorities
in their classroom (7%).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
more than coherent when it reflects a reclamation of a cultural difference, the Catalan, in a
wider context, Spain and Europe. Although it is also true that the existence of a pedagogic
rhetoric in itself, without resources, strategies for intervention, etc., can be very useful for
protecting a culture and identity that feels threatened by Spain and by the arrival of a large
number of immigrants. Thus, if its application is not reinforced, this would lead us to
conclude that interculturality as a mirage that hides a reality far removed from these
approaches. But, is this specific to the Spanish case or the Catalan case? Perhaps as
Catalonia perceives a threat from a double risk (the linguistic hegemony of Castilian over
Catalan and the erosion of Catalan culture and identity that the presence of foreign-origin
immigrants could represent) we could believe that, as in other divided societies or with the
ambiguity of ethnic domination given a double majority (see, among others, McAndrew,
2001; McAndrew & Gagnon, 2000; Garreta, Samper, & Llevot, 2003), there is resistance to
the real recognition of other cultures. But maybe not, and it is more likely the universal
phenomenum of the contradictions between legal texts, pedagogic orientations, curricular
designsy and the reality in the school. To sum up, it is a question of one the hidden
functions of the educational system to correct and adapt the great words that, at least in
theory, inspire the laws, orientations and designs of the specific practices in the classrooms
to the day-to-day reality.
References
Akkari, A., & Ferrer, F. (2000). La educación intercultural en España y Suiza: un enfoque comparativo. Revista
Española de Educación Comparada, 6, 285–316.
Banks, J. A. (1986). Race, ethnicity and shooling in the United States: Past, present and future. In J. A. Banks, &
J. Lynch (Eds.), Multicultural education in western societies (pp. 30–50). New York: Praeger.
Bartolomé, M. (1997). Minorı́as étnicas, inmigración y educación multicultural. El estado de la cuestión en
Cataluña. In M. Bartolomé (Ed.), Diagnóstico a la escuela multicultural (pp. 27–81). Barcelona: Cedecs.
Calero, J., & Bonal, X. (1999). Polı´tica educativa y gasto público en educación: aspectos teóricos y una aplicación al
caso español. Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.
Carabaña, J. (1993). A favor del individualismo y contra las ideologı́as multiculturalistas. Revista de Educación,
302, 61–82.
Carrasco, S. (1999). Formación de formadores y formadoras en el campo de la interculturalidad. Una experiencia
desde la Administración Educativa de Cataluña. Boletıń del Centro de Documentación de la Asociación de
Enseñantes con Gitanos, 16– 17, 47–58.
Carrasco, S., Soto, P., & Tovı́as, S. (1997). Un programa interdisciplinar. Cuadernos de Pedagogıá, 264, 44–47.
Castella, E., 2001. Les polı́tiques escolars adrec- ades a l’alumnat d’origen immigrant. Encuentro de Trabajo
Cataluña-Quebec 24, 25 and 26 April, Barcelona, unpublished.
Centro de Investigación y Documentación Educativa (1992). El sistema educativo español, Ministerio de
Educación y Ciencia, Madrid.
Centro de Investigación y Documentación Educativa (2000). El sistema educativo español, Ministerio de
Educación y Ciencia, Madrid.
Colectivo IOÉ (1996). La educación intercultural a prueba, Hijos de inmigrantes marroquıés en la escuela,
Laboratorio de Estudios Interculturales, Granada.
Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Office of Education.
Conseil de l’Europe (1983). L’éducation des enfants migrants. Recueil d’informations sur les opérations d’éducation
interculturelle en Europe, Conseil de la Coopération Culturelle, Strasbourg.
Conseil de l’Europe (1989). L’éducation interculturelle. Concept, contexte et programme, Conseil de la Coopération
Culturelle, Strasbourg.
Crespo, R. (1997). Inmigración y escuela. In Diputació de Barcelona (Ed.), II Informe sobre inmigración y trabajo
social (pp. 625–663). Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.
Departament d’Ensenyament. (1992a). Currıćulum. Educació primària. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Departament d’Ensenyament. (1992b). Educació secundària obligatória. Ordenació Curricular. Barcelona:

Generalitat de Catalunya.
Departament d’Ensenyament. (1996). Orientacions per al desplegament del currıćulum. Educació intercultural.
Departament d’Ensenyament. (2002). Dades de l’inici del curs 2002– 2003. Dossier de Premsa. Generalitat de
Catalunya, Barcelona, unpublished.
Fernández Enguita, M. (1996). Escuela y etnicidad. El caso del pueblo gitano, Laboratorio de Estudios
Interculturales, Granada.
Garcı́a, F. J., Barragán, C., Granados, A., & Garcı́a-Cano, M. (2002). Lo intercultural en las teorı́as y acciones
interculturales. Una década de interculturalidad en los discursos pedagógicos y prácticas educativas en el
Estado español. In F. Checa (Ed.), Las migraciones a debate. De las teorıás a las prácticas sociales (pp.
209–256). Barcelona: Icaria.
Garreta, J. (2003). La integración sociocultural de las minorıás étnicas (inmigrantes y gitanos). Barcelona:
Anthropos.
Garreta, J. (2004). El espejismo intercultural. La escuela de Cataluña ante la diversidad cultural. Revista de
Educación, 333, 463–480.
Garreta, J., & Llevot, N. (2003). El espejismo intercultural. La escuela de Cataluña ante la diversidad cultural,
Centro de Investigación y Documentación Educativa, Madrid.
Grañeras, M., Lamelas, R., Segalerva, A., Vázquez, E., Gordo, J. L., & Molinuevo, J. (1997). Catorce años de
investigación sobre desigualdades en la educación, Centro de Investigación y Documentación Educativa,
Madrid.
Halsey, A. H. (1977). Towards Meritocracy? The Case of Britain. In J. Karabel, & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and
ideology in education (pp. 173–186). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, P. (1998). Educación intercultural e inmigración en la Unió Europea: visiones, paradojas, exclusiones. In
X. Besalú, & J. M. Palaudàrias (Eds.), La educación intercultural en Europa (pp. 67–92). Barcelona: Pomares-
Corredor.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). Profesorado, cultura y postmodernidad: cambian los tiempos, cambia el profesorado.
Madrid: Morata.
Jenks, C. S., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of
the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
Jordán, A., Castella, E., & Pinto, C. (1998). Multiculturalisme i educació. Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de
Catalunya-Proa.
Liégeois, J. P. (1987). Gitanos e itinerantes, Asociación Nacional Presencia Gitana, Madrid.
Ouellet, F. (1991). L’éducation interculturelle. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Palaudàrias, J. M. (1998). Análisis de la polı́tica educativa en la escolarización de las minorı́as culturales en
Catalunya. In X. Besalú, G. Campani, & J. M. Palaudàrias (Eds.), La educación intercultural en Europa (pp.
171–180). Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.
Palaudàrias, J. M. (2002). Escola i immigració estrangera a Catalunya: la integració escolar. Papers. Revista de
Sociologia, 66, 199–213.
Pascual, J. (1992). La socialització dels fills de magrebins a Osona. In J. L. Alegret, & J. Botey (Eds.), Sobre
interculturalitat (pp. 139–146). Girona: Sergi.
Samper, L., Garreta, J., & Llevot, N. (2001). Les enjeux de la diversité culturelle dans l’école catalane (Espagne).
Revue des Sciences de l’Éducation de la Univesité de Montreal, 3, 543–568.
San Román, T. (1984). Gitanos de Madrid y Barcelona. Barcelona: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
Secretaria per a la Immigració. (2001a). Pla interdepartamental d’immigració 2001– 2004, Vol. 1. Barcelona:
Secretaria per a la Immigració. (2001b). Pla interdepartamental d’immigració 2001– 2004, Vol. 2. Barcelona:
Secretaria per a la Immigració. (2003). Debats d’immigració a Catalunya. Aportacions de la societat civil.
Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Secretariado Nacional Gitano (1982). La escuela ‘‘puente’’ para niños gitanos, Secretariado Nacional Gitano,
Madrid.
Tarrow, N. (1990). A tri-level model of intercultural education in two regions of Spain, Deutsches Institut für
Internationale Pèdagogische Forschung, Frankfurt.
Terrén, E. (2001). El contacto intercultural en la escuela. A Coruña: Servicio de Publicacións da Universidade da
Coruña.

Spania Si Minorita

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Spania Si Minorita

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

Ethnic minorities and the Spanish and Catalan

Tel.: +34 973 702098; fax: +34 973 703119.

2. Exclusion, segregation and insertion

2.1. Exclusion and segregation

2.2. Insertion and compensation

3. Towards intercultural education: analysis of the contradictions of the Catalan model

Without training Basic Specialised

A lot Enough Little Nothing Not respond

Alot Enough Little Nothing Not respond

Action Total Classroom with ethnic Classroom without

None, there is no cultural diversity 41 27 58.5

Departament d’Ensenyament. (1992b). Educació secundària obligatória. Ordenació Curricular. Barcelona:

Вам также может понравиться