340
Int. J. Pluralism and Economics Education, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2016
Basic economic education for the least
qualified – identification, analysis and
assessment of needs
Tim Engartner* and Balasundaram Krisanthan
Goethe University Frankfurt a. M.,
Faculty of Social Sciences,
Didactics of Social Sciences,
Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6,
60323 Frankfurt a. M., Germany
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
*Corresponding author
Abstract: Ever since Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, economic education has
been regarded in certain quarters as an integral component of human
enculturation and socialisation. In a society as economised as ours, meanwhile,
economic expertise has finally become indispensable, whether for investing
money, running a household or evaluating economic reforms. Regardless of the
encroaching economisation of our lifeworld, however, (basic) economic
education should not only transport financially exploitable information, but also
pave the way for the acquisition of social and participatory skills. There is a
special dual role for employment (besides its obvious primary purpose of
earning a living): on the one hand as the hook for related educational programs,
on the other as the point of reference for their content. In the following, the
need for basic economic education in relation to the economic domain is
analysed, central topics that must be addressed are named and the elementary
coordinates of basic economic education for the target group of the least
qualified are identified. The article disposes a heuristic function and should
hopefully, in connection with the employment-situation approach as described
here, stimulate further scientific debates.
Keywords: economic education; basic education; economic knowledge;
economisation; social and participatory skills; employment biography;
employment-situation; life-situation; learning process; low qualified; least
qualified.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Engartner, T.
and Krisanthan, B. (2016) ‘Basic economic education for the least
qualified – identification, analysis and assessment of needs’, Int. J. Pluralism
and Economics Education, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.340–359.
Biographical notes: Tim Engartner is a Professor for Didactics of Social
Sciences, Director of the Academy for Education Research and Teacher
Education as well as member of the Board of Directors of the Goethe Graduate
Academy (GRADE) at Goethe University Frankfurt a. M. He was awarded the
annual 1822-Prize for Excellent Teaching at Goethe University (2014), the
Günter Reimann Prize for Science (2009), the Research Prize from
Gregor-Louisoder-Foundation (2008) and the German Student Research Prize
from Körber-Foundation (2006). In 2015, he was Visiting Scholar at Columbia
University. He has published in the fields of empirical and normative basics of
Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Basic economic education for the least qualified
341
economic and political education, student attitudes and behaviour, education
policy as well as the transformation of the state. His recent book deals are on
privatisation policy in various sectors, among them the educational system.
Balasundaram Krisanthan is doctoral candidate and Research Assistant at the
Professorship for Didactics of Social Sciences at Goethe University Frankfurt
a. M. He studied social sciences, mathematics and special needs education in
Cologne and Oslo. After having graduated from the University of Cologne with
grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Science and the German
Academic Exchange Service, he worked at the local Centre for Modern Indian
Studies before he took on his present position. Moreover, he is Managing
Director of the German Federation of Political Education for the State of Hesse
and one of the directors in the GRADE Centre Education at Goethe University.
His main research interests include international comparative research, with a
special focus on pre-vocational education in India, empirical and normative
basics of economic and political education as well as student attitudes and
behaviour.
1
Introduction
In view of the increasing economisation of the life there is growing recognition that
“economic knowledge and the ability to operate autonomously in changing economic
environments are an essential precondition for participation in society” [Deutscher
Lehrerverband, (2000), p.1].1 This observation is based on the assumption that a basic
knowledge of economics is essential for dealing with the complexity of modern society
(whose labels range from the work, industrial and science society through consumer,
media and leisure society to the fun, risk or therapy society).
In an era where central functions of society, in particular the education, health and
pension systems, are being reordered to comply with economic principles, a sober
assessment of knowledge deficits in these areas will inevitably have consequences for the
curricula of basic and advanced teaching; all the more so where the significance of
personal financial planning has exploded as prescription charges have been increased, the
treatments covered by statutory health insurance pruned back, and the Bismarckian social
insurance architecture abandoned with the introduction of new capital-backed pension
arrangements (in Germany the Riester and Rürup plans). The rising challenges emerging
from the broad field of economics mean that a sensible attitude to money, appropriate
consumer behaviour and household budgeting in line with income have become crucial
aspects of everyday life. And over the same period the importance of fundamental
economic knowledge for political discourse has grown. Questions such as whether to
raise or cut unemployment benefits, reduce the commuter tax break, reassign the
education budget or bail out bankrupt banks always involve political concepts whose
understanding presupposes basic knowledge of economics.
In light of growing individual demands and current research on basic economic
education, research desiderata in the fields of “objectives and limitations of basic
economic education”, ‘target groups’, as well as ‘providers and programs’ [Weber
et al., (2013), p.12] can be identified. Three research workshops have been established to
address these fields of investigation (for more see Remmele et al., 2013; Ambos and
Greubel, 2012; Pfeiffer et al., 2012). The crucial merit of this joint research project lies in
342
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
defining a core of basic economic education, according to which “economically
characterised life situations requiring deciding, judging and taking action within the
context of a social market economy in a democratic society” [Weber et al., (2013), p.13]
are central characteristics. Proceeding from the observation that the vocational or
pre-vocational learning context is the starting point but in no respect the finishing post of
basic economic education, the following contribution identifies the group of the least
qualified as one of the main target groups requiring basic economic education, analyses
the need for basic education in relation to the economic domain and names central topics
that basic economic education must address.
2
Who needs basic economic education?
Knowledge deficits affecting economic matters can be identified in all strata of society,
from those who leave school with no qualifications through to university graduates,
young or old, poor and rich alike. The most recent youth study by the Association of
German Banks reveals that almost 40% of Germans between the ages of 14 and 24 have
deficient economic knowledge (BdB, 2015). Previous studies demonstrated that half of
the respondents have no idea what inflation is (BdB, 2009, 2012), while comparisons
with countries like the USA, the UK or South Korea show that the level of economic
knowledge in Germany is below average (Dubs et al., 1998; Lüdecke and Scesney,
1999).
Given that inadequate economic knowledge manifests itself to an especially fatal
effect in educationally disadvantaged milieus, it is a welcome development that the target
group of the least qualified has shifted to the centre of education policy (and economics
teaching interest), after in the past tending to be almost completely neglected in the
analysis of education needs, in the discussion of the out-of-school education system and
in the design of teaching methods and curricula. This group represents about 23% of the
total population in Germany [Maas, (2008), p.14 f.], where 16.5% of all employees who
are subject to social insurance contribution possess no vocational qualification [Klein and
Schöpper-Grabe, (2015), p.16], 63% of all simple jobs are done by people with formal
qualification and the unemployment rate for those without vocational qualifications is
20% (2013), the case for concern (extending far and beyond the pedagogical debate) is
incontrovertible (Hausner et al., 2015). The least qualified as a group is characterised by
low-level or absent educational certificates and unstable career pathways and are, as the
label implies, generally forced to pursue a vocation in the lowest qualification segment
and/or to live from (supplementary) transfer benefits. Negative memories of school also
engender scepticism towards educational institutions.
Even though measured in terms of the number of higher education degrees, the
second half of the twentieth century was a time of educational expansion, educational
opportunities in the milieu of the low qualified remain suboptimal. Across Germany 7.5%
of each year finishes school without any qualifications (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2011).2
The group of the least qualified is, especially in terms of the younger age cohorts,
predominantly located in the precarious and hedonistic milieus.3 The precarious
milieu first identified by the 2010 SINUS survey originates in large part from the
consumer materialists milieu previously identified at the same position in the basic
orientation/social status coordinate system (for more see SINUS, 2010).
Basic economic education for the least qualified
343
Interrupted or terminated school and vocational education is a characteristic of the
precarious and hedonistic milieus. This is significant for designing programs in the field
of basic (economic) education because negative memories of school can consolidate
barriers to learning. Feelings of inferiority are exacerbated by a feeling of excessive and
repressive pressure to conform and potentiated by a double distance to the school system:
The distanced relationship between student and content is joined at early stage by
distance between student and teacher. Teachers and students are characterised by an
ambivalent relationship to education. While they know that education is a vital
underlying factor for success in life they show little motivation to invest time and money
in basic or advanced measures. Educational events are attended at best if they promise
‘edutainment’ (for more see Bremer, 2007).
These (admittedly partly stereotypical) characteristics of (potential) target groups
need to be taken into account when designing a basic economic education model for the
least qualified. As with other categories of learners, education will only produce success
if relevant barriers, potentials and deficits are identified and turned into the starting point
of the learning process.
3
Characteristics and development perspectives for basic economic
education
The concept of ‘basic economic education’ (‘ökonomische Grundbildung’) still remains
inadequately defined, so that to this day there is a lack of clear understanding of ‘what
skills, abilities, knowledge and competences’ it subsumes [Klein and Stanik, (2009), p.2].
The term has found its way into policy documents for secondary education in the states of
North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate (Ministerium für Bildung, Frauen und
Jugend Rheinland-Pfalz, 2006; Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes
Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2004).
In this discussion basic economic education is dedicated to the three guiding
principles laid out by the German Society for Economic Education (DeGöB, 2004, 2006,
2009): maturity, competence and responsibility. According to this approach, the objective
of economics teaching is for the individual to pursue his or her economic and social
interests maturely, judge competently and act responsibly [Albers, (1988), p.7]. Here,
building on the Kantian ideal, we understand maturity as the individual’s capacity and
willingness to leave behind economic immaturity and enter a process of self-determined
decision-making. The concept of competence covers the willingness, as reflected and
expressed in practical activity, to meet the challenges we find ourselves faced with as
investors, consumers and taxpayers. Finally, people should, on the basis of a proper
analysis of the context, take responsibility for themselves and those they are answerable
for, whether in the private or professional context. Responsibility in economic processes
is especially about taking into consideration justified but often diverging interests of
others and participating in shaping society in awareness of responsibilities [Retzmann
et al., (2010), p.13].
What this triad expresses is that we are interested not merely in systematic coverage
of the subject of ‘the economy’, but also in its structure and – as must be borne in mind as
we proceed – in taking a domain-specific perspective, because the subjects of academic
consideration in economics are also those of other social sciences (for more see Engartner
344
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
and Krisanthan, 2014). Thomas Retzmann explains how economic education is
determined not through the subject of ‘the economy’ but through the adopting of the
economic perspective, whereby the often demanded multi-perspectivity is, he says, not
excluded, but emerges from the perspectivity of the different social sciences [Retzmann,
(2008), p.83]. This observation stems from the assumption that the economic sciences as
the decisive reference discipline for economic education are defined not via the subject,
but via the specific economic point of view. The question of the goals for which
(economic) basic education should strive has different answers, although these turn out
not to be contradictory, exhibiting at most different accents. There is agreement that
economics didactics acquires a bridging function between the discipline itself and the
teaching thereof. Its heart is characterised not by economic theory and method but by
their translation into educationally relevant categories. This is why a normative
realignment is needed towards “personality development, acquisition of scientific and
cultural traditions, tackling practical everyday challenges and active participation in the
life of society” [Weber, (2008), p.53]. Economic (basic) education must orientate on the
life situation of its recipients, explore the structure and functioning principles of the
economic order and acknowledge “the theory and method of economic knowledge as the
domain-specific essence of economic education” [Loerwald, (2007), p.30].
The following educational categories extracted from the categorial approach
according to Kruber (for more see Kruber, 2000) should accordingly find their way into a
concept of basic economic education:
•
people are driven by needs, but scarcity of resources (skills, goods, environment,
wealth, time, etc.) subjects them to restrictions that force them to act economically
•
economic activity is in most cases determined by purpose and goal (rationality
principle), but according to research in experimental economics is also shaped by
fairness, reciprocity and trust
•
economic actors make their decisions under conditions of uncertainty where
imperfect information limits their possibilities of prediction
•
economic activity occurs in a close interrelationship with geographical conditions,
political contexts, psychological laws and fundamental social values
•
action in economically shaped situations typically seeks to compensate conflicting
interests in an institutionally regulated system designed for competition.
Most of the mentioned principles are also relevant for economic literacy in general as
well as for basic economic education as described here. But considering the target group
of the least qualified this means that they mainly differ in matters of the level of
abstraction. With respect to economic literacy in general these principles are therefore
supposed to be far more elaborated.
The life-situation approach which was founded by Dietmar Ochs and Bodo
Steinmann in the 1970s is especially suited for basic economic education, associated as it
is with the intention to empower individuals to cope with economically shaped situations
in life such as career choice, consumer decisions, saving or buying insurance (see
Section 4) (for more see Steinmann, 1997). Life situations are usually characterised by
Basic economic education for the least qualified
•
inter-personal interactions
•
decision-making systems (democracy, laws, market)
•
norms and traditions
•
organisational forms (states, businesses, households).
345
Semantically the basic education concept exhibits an unmistakable reference to the
classical education theories in which education is defined as a process with the objective
of strength-building, self-development and self-realisation in interaction with the world
[Pöggeler, (2004), pp.212 ff.]. As the discussion of new literacy studies reveals (Barton
and Hamilton, 2012), it must be assumed that a definition of basic education – in
whatever guise – must be tied (in terms of the question of who is basically educated and
who is not) to different life spheres, institutions and social practices. If (economic) basic
education is placed in the context of life-long learning and thus classified as being subject
to a steady transformation process, there can by definition be no context-free or timeless
concept for it. All the same, a consistent concept of basic economic education needs a
starting point and framework that can be described as theoretically grounded, empirically
proven and socially accepted.
Until very recently learning goals relating to basic education have been formulated,
explicated and discussed exclusively in terms of the civilisational skills of reading,
writing and elementary arithmetic. There is broad agreement that basic education should
always empower the individual to shape their own life within society autonomously and
responsibly. Here, the principle of self-responsibility is regarded as the essential moment
of an increasingly individualised society. If one assumes that learning processes,
especially for the least qualified, must be designed and structured such that the learned
must be experienced and the experienced reflected, the crux is to link agentive action (in
the practice of work) to reflexive action (in learning accompanying work). If the learning
goals of basic economic education are to extend beyond conveying work and vocational
skills, theory and practice must not proceed unconnectedly, “because economic thinking
as purely formal education without reference to the field of action would be devoid of
content and economic action without economic reflection would be ‘blind’” [Retzmann,
(2011), p.18].
Whether or not one shares this assessment there can be no question that “the speed of
ageing of teaching content (speed of obsolescence) correlates positively with its closeness
to practice and negatively with its level of abstraction” [Mertens, (1998), p.38]. In other
words, the more closely what is learned is tied to practice the quicker it becomes
obsolete. According to the complementarity theory espoused by Hans-Carl Jongebloed,
knowledge and experience (like recognition and action) nevertheless form a unity whose
symbiotic power is not to be underestimated (Figure 1).
Although this dualism of knowledge and experience originally related to the
systematics of the dual system (apprenticeship in a company combined with classes at
school), it can also be applied to the foundations of basic economic education. This
symbiosis fulfilling the requirements of basic education is outlined in greater detail in the
following analysis of the employment situation which focuses on the life situation’s roles
as ‘existential commuters’, ‘normal workers’ and ‘secure workers’ (Figure 2).
346
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
Figure 1
Dualism of knowledge and experience in the context of basic economic education
Source: based on Jongebloed (2004, p.31)
4
Implications of the employment-situation approach
It follows from our diagnosis of the target groups for basic economic education that
concepts tailored for the least qualified must be much more differentiated than those for
mainstream general and vocational school system, because
1
the group of those in need of basic education is just as heterogeneous as their
subjective perspectives
2
the learning processes largely belong to the field of non-formal learning, which lends
special importance to experience-related access to learners.
4.1 Multi-perspectivity of teaching content
If the heterogeneity of recipients is placed front and centre in the design of education
opportunities, the classical models of subject and identity development in adolescence
must be observed. “The models of subject constitution associated with the ‘do it yourself
biography’, ‘patchwork identity’, ‘risk identity’, ‘life-long process’ (with pro- and
reactive strategies) and ‘shaper of self-change across the lifespan’ show that the
experience of the coherence of one’s own action and the formation of an identity of one’s
own are no longer so unambiguous” [Zeuner, (2006), p.305].
Against this background economic (basic) education models must be scrutinised in
relation to the following features:
1
Does the model convey skills that the individual can use to find their way in the
world? (orientation)
2
Is the content portrayed controversially and multi-perspectivally? (pluralism)
346
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
Figure 1
Dualism of knowledge and experience in the context of basic economic education
Source: based on Jongebloed (2004, p.31)
4
Implications of the employment-situation approach
It follows from our diagnosis of the target groups for basic economic education that
concepts tailored for the least qualified must be much more differentiated than those for
mainstream general and vocational school system, because
1
the group of those in need of basic education is just as heterogeneous as their
subjective perspectives
2
the learning processes largely belong to the field of non-formal learning, which lends
special importance to experience-related access to learners.
4.1 Multi-perspectivity of teaching content
If the heterogeneity of recipients is placed front and centre in the design of education
opportunities, the classical models of subject and identity development in adolescence
must be observed. “The models of subject constitution associated with the ‘do it yourself
biography’, ‘patchwork identity’, ‘risk identity’, ‘life-long process’ (with pro- and
reactive strategies) and ‘shaper of self-change across the lifespan’ show that the
experience of the coherence of one’s own action and the formation of an identity of one’s
own are no longer so unambiguous” [Zeuner, (2006), p.305].
Against this background economic (basic) education models must be scrutinised in
relation to the following features:
1
Does the model convey skills that the individual can use to find their way in the
world? (orientation)
2
Is the content portrayed controversially and multi-perspectivally? (pluralism)
348
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
integration in the world of work and career spurs the motivation of those who tend to be
slow or unwilling to learn. This basic motivational structure creates the necessity for
place of work and place of learning to be networked together where possible (including
in the communication of opportunities).
Topics for basic economic education can best be derived via the employmentsituation approach introduced here, which should be understood as a subset of the
similarly constructed life-situation approaches and the predominant teaching methods.
That does not mean – and this is worth emphasising – that we take into consideration
exclusively those areas of economic (basic) education that allow the knowledge to be
related to vocational activities or labour-market training measures [Hedtke, (2010),
pp.69–81]. Rather, these should be exploited as points of contact to systematically open
up selected fields (see Section 5).
With respect to (economic) basic education the teaching interest derives from the
question of what content, methods and thought patterns from the sphere of economics can
be drawn on in order to rouse fundamental capabilities for a self-determined life in social
responsibility [Albers, 1988; Seeber and Krämer, 2007; Steinmann, (2008), p.209, ff]. In
order to take account of the extremely heterogeneous learning needs of the least qualified,
basic economic education must analyse the employment situations, the requirement
profiles and the learning processes with an eye to the relevant (inter-)dependencies
(Figure 2).
Figure 2
Relating basic education concepts to employment situations (see online version
for colours)
With respect to the (potential) paid employment situations that represent the starting
point not the conclusion of basic economic education, the acceleration of work processes,
the ‘compression of work’ and increasing mobility requirements need to be taken into
consideration as characteristics of the rapidly changing world of work. The group
Basic economic education for the least qualified
349
described by Georg Vobruba as ‘existential commuters’, to which low qualified workers
disproportionately belong because of temporary contracts, part-time work and
involuntary self-employment, must be differentiated from normal workers and secure
employees [quoted from Lotter, (2009), p.43].
4.3 No reduction to ‘life skills’
In order for (economic) basic education not to be (mis)interpreted as the conception of
‘life skills’ (see for example UNICEF, 2012), but valued as preparation for structurally
related life situations, the relevant concepts must take into account central characteristics
of the modern world of work. If learning processes are aligned on the separation of
‘algorithms’ – in other words, on the discontinuity of work processes, on the maintenance
of employability and on situation-transcending competences – then they will match up to
the subjective and objective needs of the least qualified. Here it must be emphasised that
the core skill of analysing action situations economically must make a point of including
future life situations because in a rapidly changing world responses based on welltrodden algorithms can cover only one aspect of the spectrum of action (not least because
the life-long pursuit of a single profession in a single institution has become rare or at
least rarer).
Another difficulty is that people with fundamental educational deficits have to
organise their own learning like almost all other adults, which is why skills for coping
with life, embedded in the social contexts of the biography, should be shifted to the
centre of teaching and learning concepts. Ultimately, basic economic education models
for the least qualified must exhibit relevance to and ways out of their precarious situation
in life, because low educational qualifications result disproportionately in discontinuous
employment histories and often lead to marginal employment or even unemployment.
If one remembers that the correlation between social background and educational
success is more conspicuous in Germany than in many other OECD states (Müller and
Ehmke, 2013; OECD, 2013),4 (economic) basic education oriented on the needs of the
least qualified should also make it clear that the state acts not as ‘provider of happiness’
but at most in the subsidiary role of ‘facilitator’. Regardless of our political assessment of
the usefulness of changes in social security systems, this learning goal must be raised in
order to counteract employment-related fatalism among the least qualified (Engartner and
Retzmann, 2010). That requires adult education that is designed for inclusion and exhibits
a social perspective on the still neglected relationship between education and social
inequality (Merten, 2006).
5
A model for basic economic education
When formulating requirements or concepts for basic economic education we must
focused on the fields elaborated in the scope of the basic education debate and the current
discussion of standards for economic education in the normal school system (Birke and
Seeber, 2011; DeGöB, 2004, 2006, 2009; Retzmann et. al., 2010; Seeber et al., 2012).
Without being able to go into detail here, we would point out that competence-based
domain-specific standards, as recommended for the mainstream school system by the
Klieme report commissioned by the German conference of state education ministers
350
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
(Köller, 2009), are not an option for basic economic education as discussed here, because
they are far too elaborated. Although competences are tied to the individuals who possess
them and not to specific situations, nonetheless a model for basic economic education
must also be compatible with respect to the intensifying basic education debate (see
Section 2).
Assuming that the growing complexity of economic and social conditions is
producing a steadily longer list of economic themes (exhibiting interfaces with the
neighbouring disciplines of politics and sociology), the concept for basic economic
education presented here is based on a broad approach. Two learning goals or categories
are afforded special importance: firstly, orientation in the sense of the ‘meta-competence’
identified by Negt (2011, p.207), and secondly (inter-) dependency awareness as the
understanding of interrelationships and dependencies (in this case of a political, business
management and macro-economic nature). We integrate the political dimension into the
foundations of the basic economic education model because matters such as reducing
unemployment, (de)regulating world trade, and restructuring social security systems
cannot be evaluated politically without fundamental economic knowledge. Economically
inspired decisions such as raising the value added tax, cutting the commuter tax
deduction or implementing bank rescue plans all provoke political debates.
The proposed topics of basic economic education have a heuristic function and need
to be refined in further scientific discourse. Drawing on the employment-situation
approach and cross-fertilised with the bottom three levels of Bloom’s taxonomy of
educational objectives they represent a starting point for formulating a model of basic
economic education (Figure 3).5
Figure 3
Five areas for basic economic education (see online version for colours)
5.1 Employment
The area of employment forms the first pillar of the model of basic economic education.
For one thing it creates the decisive reference point for teaching and learning models in
Basic economic education for the least qualified
351
basic education (both for the economically active and for those passing through labourmarket training programs); for another, work occupies central functions in a ‘work
society’. Work serves to earn a living and to structure the day, represents the basis of
social inclusion and social participation and encourages justified hopes of social
advancement. Only economically assertive citizens possess the capacity to locate
themselves in the play of economic forces, assess their ‘labour market value’ and shape
their career biography in accord with their own desired objectives. Fundamental
knowledge of the functioning of the labour market should also be conveyed to the least
qualified to allow them to participate confidently in production and service-related
planning and development processes and assert their interests (and if necessary those of
their colleagues too).
In order to shape the basic education model to fit the target group, the rapid pace of
change in the world of work must be taken into account, especially the flexibilisation of
the labour market and the subjectivisation of work. At almost every institutional level
workers are expected to adapt immediately without hesitation to new situations: “The
competent, mobile and flexible are promoted, the immobile, fearful and narrow-minded
get left behind” [Bude, (2008), p.31]. For that reason too, the concrete process of shaping
content must ensure that the definition of work is not reduced to paid employment
because that would exclude or devalue the reproductive work disproportionately pursued
in the milieu of the least qualified.
5.2 Consumption
In order to survive as a consumer in a market economy, knowledge about goods and
services is indispensable. Moreover, the disproportionate (over-)indebtedness of less
educated milieus is ample proof that sensible spending of earned or transfer income must
be understood as a constitutive feature of basic economic education.
Despite the segmentation of consumption opportunities between different income
groups, we can identify certain fundamental trends that transcend income-specific
patterns of consumption. In the age of the internet economy customers are increasingly
expected to complete part of the work of ‘production’, transforming the consumer in
certain branches into a ‘prosumer’. More than ever consumers perform tasks that used to
be the responsibility of corporations be it processing their bank transactions, booking
their holidays, buying train and airline tickets or selecting a phone tariff. This
‘do-it-yourself’ trend has shaped the image of the working customer and noticeably
increased the demands placed on consumers, especially where dealing with money is
concerned.
At the same time basic economic education should counteract a trend that amounts to
an increasing confusion of the act of purchase with the act of consumption:
“Consumers buy more and more books they never get round to reading; they
buy shoes and clothes they almost never wear; they buy keyboards, tennis
racquets and telescopes they never use; they buy technical devices that are so
complex that they need months or years to understand their full functionality. If
the shops were open on Sundays [as they are in Great Britain for example] the
day would be sacrificed not to real consumption but to the act of purchasing.
Instead of consuming what we have bought we would go shopping again, and
when you are shopping you are not consuming.” (Rosa, 2009)
352
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
With respect to the concept of ‘consumer sovereignty’ we must remind ourselves that
consumers are often not in command of their preferences but manipulated by advertising,
driven by habit, confused by having too little information or bewildered by having too
much. To that extent we must concur with John Kenneth Galbraith, who criticised the
idea of consumer sovereignty as a control ideal because the influence of producer
interests on consumer preferences is disguised:
“As a society becomes increasingly affluent, wants are increasingly created by
the process by which they are satisfied” [Galbraith, (2001), p.36]; “I argue here
that a determining factor in production – perhaps the determining factor – is, in
fact, not consumer choice but, in substantial measure, producer manipulation of
consumer response.” (ibid., p.31)
5.3 Old-age pensions
Developments such as increasing prescription charges, cuts in the treatments covered by
statutory health insurance and the erosion of the Bismarckian social insurance
architecture with the introduction of capital-backed pension arrangements (the Riester
and Rürup plans) have massively increased the importance of personal financial planning,
especially for the period after retirement. This applies all the more given that the reforms
associated with the names of Walter Riester and Bert Rürup in 2000/01 and 2005 are in
all likelihood only the first steps in switching pension provision completely from
pay-as-you-go to fully fund.
The recent restructuring of the continental European welfare state in Germany has
meant pension freezes, tightening of entitlement conditions (such as increasing the
statutory retirement age to 67) and shortening of entitlement periods (for example for
unemployment benefit) and will leave workers, especially in the low-wage sector to
which the least qualified disproportionately belong, facing great challenges.
The differentiation of biographical models leaves many of the least qualified fretting
about their (employment) future; a worry that is shared by many ‘secure’ employees in
view of the acceleration of the pace of work, increasing productivity demands and the
(career) mobility demanded by the labour market. In an age in which the working poor
(self-employed, under-employed, temporary and casual) are rapidly growing in number,
the question of how pension provision can be organised in a context of discontinuous
career pathways is of decisive importance. Workers employed in temporary, casual and
agency arrangements have to weigh up very carefully whether they can join private
pension schemes or whether such a step is inadvisable where private savings would be
eaten up in case of unemployment. It follows from these politically initiated reforms of
the welfare state that the least qualified in particular must be given the opportunity to
learn about the specifics of company and private pension systems, which makes financial
general education – already widely known in Anglo-American societies as financial
literacy – imperative.6
5.4 Insurance
Alongside pension provision and the use of income for consumption purposes, insuring
against financial risks is an important aspect. Although numerous life risks are still
largely covered by state social insurance systems (despite deep cuts), demand for
additional individual insurance is large. As insurance buyers we are confronted by a
Basic economic education for the least qualified
353
multitude of different vendors and products. In order to conclude the right health, life,
vehicle, invalidity, liability, fire and contents insurance we must (be able to) describe,
order and prioritise the risks of everyday life. To do that we need to be able to analyse the
coverage, period, premiums and costs of the insurance offers and compare them one with
another.
In order to put together an insurance package tailored to individual needs and
eventualities the relevant existence-threatening factors must be examined in terms of the
life phase concept, in order to categorise life risks into ‘bearable’, ‘existence-threatening’
and ‘existence-destroying’. The life phase concept assumes that for all the individuality
of private insurance needs there are important commonalities that stem from the specific
circumstances of any given life phase.
In order to bridge the gulf between the ‘full coverage mentality’ and excessive
risk-taking, measures for adequate risk assessment need to be conveyed. Hans-Jürgen
Schlösser correctly points out that the risks of daily life must be neither trivialised nor
ignored, and names another central problem: “The trivialisation of risk contrasts with
[…] the ‘overinsurance’ that can be brought about by aggressive advertising and
marketing” [Schlösser et al., (2011), p.25]. In particular at the individual and family
level, strategies of risk minimisation through responsible behaviour should be encouraged
because premature death, unexpected illness, grave liability and other ‘claims’ can
unexpectedly endanger the economic existence of a private household.
5.5 Political education
Even in a supposedly ‘depoliticised’ age in which the political process rarely takes place
in public spaces (in the sense of the Greek agora or the Roman forum of historical
political debate), our democracy nonetheless still depends on its many defenders. And the
least qualified can only exert influence on the economy and society if they get involved
in workplace decision-making processes and participate in the community, including the
possibility of filling functions or positions.
In order to uphold the coexistence of a democratic societal system and a democratic
economic system (at least if it comes to employee participation) the less qualified
especially should therefore function as economic democrats by exerting influence and
even perhaps filling posts or functions. The concept of economic democracy – coined in
1928 by Fritz Naphtali and refined in the mid-1970s by Fritz Vilmar – distinguishes three
different levels of influence for workers:
1
the macro level of social and ecological tax and investment policy
2
the meso level of democratic control of and participation in company policy
3
the micro level of participatory influence on work processes by works councils and
shop stewards.
In order to counteract their passivity vis-à-vis participation, basic economic education
must also guide the least qualified in this direction, given that they – as outlined
above – are in large part politically disinterested. Thorsten Hippe cites ‘co-determination
capacity’ as a central moment of societal judgement and points to the necessity to convey
influence-relevant knowledge “that not only describes, analytically interprets and
retrospectively explains the genesis of the institutions that exist today, but especially goes
354
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
on to allow learners a confrontation with the forward-looking question of how particular
institutions and social structures in a social subfield impact on the extent and distribution
of quality of life and how the institutions of society should therefore be configured”
[Hippe, (2010), p.60].
6
Coordinates for development potential
Even if there is a core understanding of basic economic education the discussion about
what skills, abilities, competences and knowledge it embraces needs to be continued
particularly with a strategic focus on the different target groups’ initial situations and
needs. Along the educational guiding principles maturity, competence and responsibility
laid out by the German Society for Economic Education and the life situation approach as
well as the categorial approach we elaborated the employment-situation concept which
primarily focuses the target group of the least qualified.
The described framework for a basic education concept for the economic domain may
be quantitatively restricted and limited in its formulation. Nonetheless, we can draw some
fundamental conclusions about related development potential. Models are most likely to
succeed if they are connected to the practice of work: docked onto regular work processes
(such as workplace training in-house) or vocational training programs and differentiated
according to the personal needs of learners. In order for basic economic education to
unfold its desired effect the (opportunity) costs of learning must be kept low and its
benefit to the learner must be prima facie visible and obvious. This requirement for basic
economic education processes fits almost seamlessly into the pragmatic understanding of
education in the precarious and hedonistic milieu: first and foremost education should be
worthwhile vocationally and allow social advancement.
When designing economic (basic) education models; the outlined milieu-specific
relevance structures must therefore be taken into account more precisely than hitherto.
For example, the least qualified participate much more rarely in in-house training
programs than their better qualified colleagues. Statistics from the Institut für
Arbeitsmarkt und Berufsforschung show that unskilled and semi-skilled workers have a
training participation rate between 5% and 6%, compared to about 30% of qualified
white-collar staff [Bellmann and Leber, (2003), p.15 f.]. Contradicting earlier adult
education myths, training therefore currently has no compensatory effect, but instead
amplifies social differences according to the Matthew effect (accumulated advantage).
Despite well-meaning appeals for a national education initiative, a new ‘educational
proletariat’ is emerging in Germany (Korfkamp, 2008). The rapid proliferation of
technological innovations and the rising importance of qualifications in the labour market
have greatly increased the significance of preservation of employability.
The research workshop mentioned above indicates that a high objective pressure to
take action with regards to basic economic education exists “for up to two thirds of the
adult population […], which is, however, recognised or subjectively noticed by only a
small proportion of 10% of persons concerned” [Weber et al., (2013), p.27]. Due to the
social stigmatisation of financial and monetary topics, as well as precarious
socioeconomic living conditions, consulting and supportive programs aimed at the target
group of the low and least qualified are very rarely used (ibid.). If the substantive and
institutional deficits in (economic) basic education are not to be regarded as endemic
deficiencies, but to be rectified with constructive concepts, the employability approach
Basic economic education for the least qualified
355
must be joined by a complementary empowerment strategy whose yardstick is increasing
autonomy, self-determination, confidence and self-esteem. This means that learners are
not only empowered to shape their vocational context through “deliberate and confident,
flexible, rational, critically reflected and responsible action” [Pätzold, (2006), p.73], but
at the same time to develop an awareness of the identity-shaping effect of education. In
short: If the significance of (economic) basic education for the least qualified (with often
discontinuous career pathways) is to transcend the realm of knowledge for financial gain,
we need clearly defined approaches and topics that foster social and participatory skills.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments
and constructive suggestions.
References
Albers, H-J. (1988) ‘Ökonomische Bildung und Allgemeinbildung’, in Bundesfachgruppe für
ökonomische Bildung (Eds.): Ökonomische Bildung – Aufgabe für die Zukunft, pp.1–15,
Verlag Thomas Hobein, Bergisch Gladbach.
Ambos, I. and Greubel, S. (2012) ‘Ökonomische Grundbildung für Erwachsene.Themenfeld
„Akteurs – und Angebotsanalyse’, Abschlussbericht [online] http://www.die-bonn.de/doks/
2012-oekonomische-grundbildung-akteurs-und-angebotsanalyse-01.pdf (accesssed 20 April
2016).
Anderson, L.W. (Ed.) (2006) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Allyn & Bacon, New York.
Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (2012) Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community,
Routledge, London.
Becker, B. and Reimer, D. (Eds.) (2010) Vom Kindergarten bis zur Hochschule.Die Generierung
von ethnischen und sozialen Disparitäten in der Bildungsbiographie, VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Bellmann, L. and Leber, U. (2003) ‘Betriebliche Weiterbildung – Denn wer hat, dem wird
gegeben’, IAB-Materialien, No. 1, pp.15–16.
Bertau, M-C. (2000) ‘Grundbildung – Bildung für Arbeit’, in Tröster, R. (Ed.): Spannungsfeld
Grundbildung, pp.28–38, Bertelsmann, Bielefeld.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (2011) Immer noch zu viele Jugendliche ohne Hauptschulabschluss: Aktuelle
Daten zeigen keine Verbesserungen, press release of 25 February, Gütersloh [online]
http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/presse-startpunkt/presse/pressemitteilungen/
pressemitteilung/pid/immer-noch-zu-viele-jugendliche-ohne-hauptschulabschluss/
(accessed 26 August 2016).
Birke, F. and Seeber, G. (2011) ‘Kompetenzerwartungen an den Konsumenten in der
Marktwirtschaft’, in Retzmann, T. (Ed.): Finanzielle Bildung in der Schule.Mündige
Verbraucher durch ökonomische Bildung, pp.171–184, Wochenschau Verlag, Schwalbach/Ts.
Bloom, B.S. (1976) Taxonomie von Lernzielen im kognitiven Bereich, 5th ed., Beltz,
Weinheim/Basel.
Bremer, H. (2007) Soziale Milieus, Habitus und Lernen: Zur sozialen Selektivität des
Bildungswesens am Beispiel der Weiterbildung, Juventa-Verlag, Weinheim/Munich.
Bude, H. (2008) Die Ausgeschlossenen: Das Ende vom Traum einer gerechten Gesellschaft,
Hanser Verlag, Munich.
356
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
Bundesverband deutscher Banken (BdB) (2009) Wirtschaftsverständnis und Finanzkultur:
Jugendstudie 2009, Berlin.
Bundesverband deutscher Banken (BdB) (2012) Wirtschaftsverständnis und Finanzkultur:
Jugendstudie 2012, Berlin.
Bundesverband deutscher Banken (BdB) (2015) Wirtschaftsverständnis, Finanzkultur,
Digitalisierung: Jugendstudie 2015, Berlin.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für ökonomische Bildung (DeGöB) (2004) Kompetenzen der ökonomischen
Bildung für allgemein bildende Schulen und Bildungsstandards für den mittleren
Schulabschluss [online] http://degoeb.de/uploads/degoeb/04_DEGOEB_Sekundarstufe-I.pdf
(accessed 8 June 2015).
Deutsche Gesellschaft für ökonomische Bildung (DeGöB) (2006) Kompetenzen der ökonomischen
Bildung für allgemein bildende Schulen und Bildungsstandards für den Grundschulabschluss
[online] http://degoeb.de/uploads/degoeb/06_DEGOEB_Grundschule.pdf (accessed 8 June
2015).
Deutsche Gesellschaft für ökonomische Bildung (DeGöB) (2009) Kompetenzen der ökonomischen
Bildung für allgemein bildende Schulen und Bildungsstandards für den Abschluss der
gymnasialen Oberstufe [online] http://degoeb.de/uploads/degoeb/09_DEGOEB_Abitur.pdf
(accessed 8 June 2015).
Deutscher Lehrerverband (2000) Memorandum: Ökonomische Grundbildung ist Teil der
Allgemeinbildung [online] http://www.lehrerverband.de/memoekon.html (accessed 8 June
2015).
Dubs, R., Beck, K. and Krumm, V. (1998) Wirtschaftskundlicher Bildungstest, Hogrefe Verlag,
Göttingen.
Engartner, T. and Krisanthan, B. (2014) ‘Ökonomische Bildung in Zeiten der Ökonomisierung –
oder: Welchen Anforderungen muss sozio-ökonomische Bildung genügen?’, in Fischer, A.
and Zurstrassen, B. (Eds.): Sozioökonomische Bildung, pp.155–176, Bundeszentrale für
politische Bildung, Bonn.
Engartner, T. and Retzmann, T. (2010) ‘Das Portal „ich-will-lernen.de’: Ein Beitrag zur
(ökonomischen) Alphabetisierung’, Unterricht Wirtschaft, Vol. 11, No. 43, pp.51–54.
Galbraith, J.K. (2001) ‘The myth of consumer sovereignty’, in Galbraith, J.K. (Ed.): The Essential
Galbraith, pp.31–39, Mariner Books, New York.
Geißler, K.A. (1988) ‘Schlüsselqualifikationen – Ein Schlüssel auch zum Abschließen’,
Report.Zeitschrift für Weiterbildungsforschung, Vol. 11, No. 22, pp.89–91.
Hansen, W.L. (1977) ‘The state of economic literacy’, in Wentworth, D.R., Hansen W.L. and
Hawke, S.H. (Eds.): Perspectives in Economic Education: A Report on Conference
Proceedings, Social Science Education Consortium, pp.233–255.
Harris, J. (2001) The Learning Paradox, Macmillan Canada, Oxford.
Hausner, K.H., Söhnlein, D., Weber, B. and Weber, E. (2015) ‘Qualifikation und Arbeitsmarkt.
Bessere Chancen mit mehr Bildung’, IAB-Kurzbericht, No. 11, pp.1–8.
Hedtke, R. (2010) Konzepte ökonomischer Bildung, Wochenschau-Verlag, Schwalbach/Ts.
Hippe, T. (2010) Wie ist sozialwissenschaftliche Bildung möglich? Gesellschaftliche
Schlüsselprobleme als integrativer Gegenstand der ökonomischen und politischen Bildung,
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Jongebloed, H-C. (2004) ‘Komplementarität’ als Prinzip beruflicher Bildung – oder: Warum der
‘Lernfeldansatz’ weder dem Grunde nach funktionieren noch seine eigenen Ziele erreichen
kann: Kritik und Konstruktion, Teil II: Konstruktion durch Komplementarität [online]
http://www.uni-kiel.de/paedagogik/jongebloed/publikationen/jon-gebloed/Jongebloed%20%
282004%29%20Komplementaritaet_TeilII.pdf (accessed 9 June 2011).
Klein, H.E. and Schöpper-Grabe, S. (2015) ‘Arbeitsplatzorientierte Grundbildung für
Geringqualifizierte
Ergebnisse
einer
IW-Unternehmensbefragung’,
IW-Trends,
Vierteljahresschrift zur empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp.115–133.
Basic economic education for the least qualified
357
Klein, R. and Stanik, T. (2009) ‘Was ist Grundbildung? Ansichten aus Wirtschaft und Arbeit und
pädagogische Reflexion’, in Klein, R. (Ed.): Bestandsaufnahmen zur Rolle von
Grundbildung/Alphabetisierung in und für Wirtschaft und Arbeit.GiWA-Online (2) [online]
http://bbb-dortmund.de/jobbb2/Klein_Stanik.pdf (accessed 9 June 2011).
Köller, O. (2009) ‘Von Kompetenzbereichsmodellen zu Kompetenzstufenmodellen und ihrer
Validierung’, in Theuerkauf, W.E., Meschenmoser, H., Meier, B. and Zöllner, H. (Eds.):
Qualität Technischer Bildung: Zur Entwicklung von Kompetenzmodellen und
Kompetenzdiagnostik, pp.38–55, Machmit-Verlag, Berlin.
Korfkamp, J. (2008) ‘Gleiches Recht für alle: Erwachsenenalphabetisierung an der Schnittstelle
von Bildung und sozialer Sicherheit’, Weiterbildung.Zeitschrift für Grundlagen, Praxis und
Theorie, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.9–11.
Kruber, K-P. (2000) ‘Kategoriale Wirtschaftsdidaktik – der Zugang zur ökonomischen Bildung’,
Gegenwartskunde, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp.285–295.
Krüger, H-H., Rabe-Kleberg.U., Kramer, R-T. and Budde, J. (Eds.) (2010) Bildungsungleichheit
revisited.Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit vom Kindergarten bis zur Hochschule, VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Loerwald, D. (2007) ‘Ökonomische Bildung für bildungsferne Milieus’, Aus Politik und
Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 55, Nos. 32/33, pp.27–33.
Lotter, W. (2009) ‘An die Arbeit’, Brand Eins, Vol. 10, No. 9, pp.40–49.
Lüdecke, S. and Scesney, C. (1999) ‘Ökonomische Bildung im internationalen Vergleich’,
Wirtschaft und Erziehung, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp.130–139.
Maas, E. (2008) Bildungskarrieren von Geringqualifizierten, Deutsches Institut für
Erwachsenenbildung, Bonn.
Maaz, K., Neumann, M. and Baumert, J. (Eds.) (2014) ‘Herkunft und Bildungserfolg von der
frühen Kindheit bis ins Erwachsenenalter. Forschungsstand und Interventionsmöglichkeiten
aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive [special issue]’, Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft,
Vol. 17, No. 24, pp.1–7.
Merten, R. (2006) ‘Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit – Sozialpädagogische Perspektiven auf ein
unterbelichtetes Verhältnis’, in Fatke, R. and Merkens, H. (Eds.): Bildung über die Lebenszeit,
pp.57–67, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Mertens, G. (1998) Umwelten: Eine humanökologische Pädagogik, Schöningh,
Paderborn/Munich/Vienna/Zurich.
Ministerium für Bildung, Frauen und Jugend Rheinland-Pfalz (2006) Ökonomische Bildung am
Gymnasium, Mainz.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2004)
Rahmenvorgaben für die Ökonomische Bildung in der Sekundarstufe I, Düsseldorf.
Müller, K. and Ehmke, T. (2013) ‘Soziale Herkunft als Bedingung der Kompetenzentwicklung’, in
Prenzel, M., Sälzer, C., Klieme, E. and Köller, O. (Eds.): PISA 2012.Fortschritte und
Herausforderungen in Deutschland, Waxmann, Münster, pp.245–274.
Negt, O. (2011) Der politische Mensch: Demokratie als Lebensform, 2nd ed., Steidl Verlag,
Göttingen.
OECD (2013) PISA 2012 Results: Excellence Through Equity: Giving Every Student the Chance to
Succeed, Vol. II, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2014) PISA 2012 Results: Students and Money: Financial Literacy Skills for the 21st
Century, Vol. VI, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Pätzold, G. (2006) ‘Berufliche Handlungskompetenz’, in Kaiser, F-J. and Pätzold, G. (Eds.):
Wörterbuch Berufs-und Wirtschaftspädagogik, pp.72–74, Klinkhardt, Bad Heilbrunn/
Hamburg.
Pfeiffer, I., Heimer, A., Münch, C., Henkel, M. and Schulze, K. (2012) Abschlussbericht
Forschungswerkstatt Ökonomische Grundbildung. Los 1: Zielgruppenanalyse [online]
http://www.
prognos.com/uploads/tx_atwpubdb/120131_Prognos_Bericht_Oekonomische_
Grundbildung_fuer_Erwachsene_Los_1_lang.pdf (accessed 20 April 2016).
358
T. Engartner and B. Krisanthan
Pöggeler, F. (2004) ‘Vom Wandel des Verhältnisses von Allgemeinbildung und Berufsbildung in
Deutschland’, in Lechner, E. and Pöggeler, F. (Eds.), Allgemeinbildung und
Berufsbildung.Konkurrenz und Kongruenz der Konzepte im Europa des 20.Jahrhunderts,
pp.209–223, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt a.M.
Remmele, B., Seeber, G., Speer, S. and Stoller, F. (2013) ‘Ansprüche und Grenzen von
ökonomischer Grundbildung’, in Weber, B., van Eik, I. and Maier, P. (Eds.): Ökonomische
Grundbildung für Erwachsene.Ansprüche und Grenzen, Zielgruppen, Akteure und
Angebote – Ergebnisse einer Forschungswerkstatt, pp.41–52, W. Bertelsmann Verlag,
Bielefeld.
Retzmann, T. (2008) ‘Von der Wirtschaftskunde zur ökonomischen Bildung’, in Kaminski, H. and
Krol, G-J. (Eds.): Ökonomische Bildung: legitimiert, etabliert, zukunftsfähig, pp.71–90,
Klinkhardt, Bad Heilbrunn.
Retzmann, T. (2011) ‘Kompetenzen und Standards in der ökonomischen Bildung’, Aus Politik und
Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 59, No. 12, pp.15–21.
Retzmann, T., Seeber, G., Remmele, B. and Jongebloed, H-C. (2010) Ökonomische Bildung an
allgemein bildenden Schulen, Gutachten im Auftrag vom Gemeinschaftsausschuss der
Deutschen Gewerblichen Wirtschaft, Essen/Lahr/Landau/Kiel [online] https://bankenverband.
de/media/files/Oekonomische_Bildung_an_allgemeinbildenden_Schulen.pdf (accessed
26 August 2016).
Rosa, H. (2009) ‘Ohne Bremse an die Wand’, Die Zeit, 25 June, Vol. 53, No. 27, p.48.
Schlösser, H-J., Neubauer, M. and Tzanova, P. (2011) ‘Finanzielle Bildung’, Aus Politik und
Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 59, No. 12, pp.21–27.
Seeber, G. and Krämer, J. (2007) ‘Zur Modellierung ökonomischer Kompetenzen vor dem
Hintergrund eines fragwürdigen Domänenbegriffs – das Beispiel Nachhaltige Entwicklung’, in
Fischer, A. and Seeber, G. (Eds.): Nachhaltigkeit und ökonomische Bildung, pp.47–66¸Verlag
Thomas Hobein, Bergisch Gladbach.
Seeber, G., Retzmann T., Remmele, B. and Jongebloed, H-C. (2012) Bildungsstandards der
ökonomischen Allgemeinbildung.Kompetenzmodell, Aufgaben, Handlungsempfehlungen,
Wochenschau Verlag, Schwalbach/Ts.
SINUS (2010) Die Sinus-Milieus in Deutschland 2010 [online] http://www.sinus-institut.de/
uploads/tx_mppress/Modellwechsel_2010_neue_Charts.pdf (accessed 12 June 2011).
Steinmann, B. (1997) ‘Das Konzept Qualifizierung für Lebenssituationen im Rahmen der
ökonomischen Bildung heute’, in Kruber, K-P. (Ed.): Konzeptionelle Ansätze ökonomischer
Bildung, pp.1–22, Verlag Thomas Hobein, Bergisch Gladbach.
Steinmann, B. (2008) ‘Lebenssituationsorientierte ökonomische Bildung’, in Hedtke, R. and
Weber, B. (Eds.), Wörterbuch Ökonomische Bildung, pp.209–212¸Wochenschau Verlag,
Schwalbach/Ts.
UNICEF (2012) Global Evaluation of Life Skills Education Programmes, UNICEF, New York.
Weber, B. (2008) ‘Aufgaben der Wirtschaftsdidaktik’, in Hedtke, R. and Weber, B. (Eds.):
Wörterbuch Ökonomische Bildung, pp.53–56, Wochenschau Verlag, Schwalbach/Ts..
Weber, B., van Eik, I. and Maier, P. (2013) ‘Ökonomische Grundbildung für Erwachsene –
Bedeutung, Forschungsstand, Desiderate’, in Weber, B., van Eik, I. and Maier, P. (Eds.):
Ökonomische Grundbildung für Erwachsene.Ansprüche und Grenzen, Zielgruppen, Akteure
und Angebote – Ergebnisse einer Forschungswerkstatt, pp.9–40, W. Bertelsmann Verlag,
Bielefeld.
Wenzel, H. (2010) ‘Chancengleichheit in der Schule – eine nicht abgegoltene Forderung’, in
Krüger, H-H., Rabe-Kleberg, U., Kramer, R-T. and Budde, J. (Eds.): Bildungsungleichheit
revisited.Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit vom Kindergarten bis zur Hochschule, pp.57–67,
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Zeuner, C. (2006) ‘Erwachsenenbildung zwischen Inklusion und Exklusion’, in Fatke, R. and
Merkens, H. (Eds.): Bildung über die Lebenszeit, pp.303–314, VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Basic economic education for the least qualified
359
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
Apart from John Kenneth Galbraith, below, all quotes are translated from the cited German
source texts.
Regional differences are observed. The proportion of school-leavers without any qualification
ranges from 5.7% in Baden-Württemberg to 14.1% in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. At
the local authority level the differences are even more striking: from just 1.3% in Landkreis
Würzburg to up to 25% in the town of Wismar (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2011).
The following discussion cannot and does not seek to supply a comprehensive analysis of
social structure, and is consequently based exclusively on the Sinus Sociovision data
published in 2010, which can be assumed to be broadly consensual.
Although this correlation became weaker from PISA 2000 to PISA 2012 it should not be
neglected in the analysis of the education situation in Germany (see for example Müller and
Ehmke, 2013). There are different attempts to explain this correlation. For instance, one of the
main results of PISA 2000 was that this relationship is essentially determined by the type of
school affiliation in the tripartite school system, which leads to a close co-variation between
the social composition of the pupils of a school and their middle level of performance
[Wenzel, (2010), p.61]. For further data, analysis and explanations see for example Maaz et al.
(2014), OECD (2013), Becker and Reimer (2010) or Krüger et al. (2010).
The taxonomy proposed by Bloom (1976) can be regarded as consensual with respect to basic
education concepts, even though the identified levels are restricted to the cognitive dimension.
Whereas these can be derived from the literature that appeared in response to Bloom’s
taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson, 2006), the five topics serve as an initial outline
of the domains of economic basic education.
See for example OECD (2014) to gain a more profound insight into the concept of financial
literary.