1

School of Pluralism. Identities and Differences in the Public Sphere of School

Valeria Fabretti

Aracne 2011

Abstract

Much attention has been arising lately towards ethical and democratic oriented practices and contents of

education, as a key area of schooling in western societies. Such interest is essentially a product of concerns

or even social alarmism regarding youth and adolescent conditions originating from the existence of weak

socializing and educational capacities on behalf of school’s merely instructive role in the past decades.

However, the reintroduction of values discussions alongside the aspect of pure academics in school

education can contribute to farsighted policies aimed at addressing crucial social, cultural and political

issues regarding the future of society and democracy in the European geo-political area. One of the core

aspects which must be taken into account is the difficulty encountered by the school system in offering an

interpretation of universal-ism, laicism and neutrality, being that as a result of historical matters it is

generally inadequate to account for the pluralism which currently pervades our society.

On both a political and educational level, the public sphere finds itself dealing with the recognition of

cultural, ethnical and religious differences. The trend of endorsing “single culture” schemes, and thus the

negation of diversity, has stimulated the development of opposite educational formulas based on the

concept of “freedom of choice”. The idea of a neutral education as best condition for the development of

young generations is therefore subject to criticism as the multiple family and com-munity contexts to which

they are subject require a variety of institutional forms and models of education.

The international sociological, philosophical, political and pedagogical debate concerning issues raised by

this type of requirements provides a significant contribution to the revision of models and principles

concerning school education in pluralistic and democratic societies.

From a strictly educational-sociological perspective, without however forgetting interdisciplinary

relationships, the text analyses the debate on school pluralism concluding that the establishment of bold

ethical educational practices, along with the universalistic tradition and its core values, should focus on stu-

dent’s identity differences as source of richness in pursuing common goals. In this direction the book

identifies pluralistic state schools, or government schools, as fertile soil for the development of cultural and

ethical schemes taking advantage of the heterogeneity currently available in this kind of schools. The

need to think over the neutrality and secularism of state schools, as practices open to cooperation amongst

internal and external actors or logics, must, however, be underlined.

2

“School of Pluralism” suggests a path built on review and analysis of the main theoretical contributions on

this theme, together with the acknowledgement of the European situation and the description of local

educational policies.

Chapter I, Pluralism, education and school choice, introduces the reader to the educational implications of

a scenario based on pluralist societies where identity differences are calling for the revision of public

spaces (Par. 1.1). At both a political-juridical and educational level, the existence of pluralism must be dealt

with by balancing the unitary and universalistic concept of public sovereignty with the recognition of

individual or social groups in which identity difference is assumed to be a basic right. In the field of

education, the issue is expressed in terms of the querelle between pluralism of vs pluralism in schools.

This debate implies important issues regarding not only political management and governance of the

educational system but also its contents in guiding education in pluralistic societies.

On one hand, the idea of a common school, together with the principles of modern schooling connected

to the task of building up national identities is subject to criticism. Pluralism is rather assumed as a principle

in the organization of the education system in all types of schools (“pluralism of institutions”).

In this institutional framework teaching programs, as well as the cultural and value contents of schooling,

are expressed according to homogeneous educational projects shaped by a specific culture, philosophy or

religious creed which may be shared by teachers, students and their families. On the other hand, the

defendants of a common school and its neutrality perceive a risk in the differentiation of education

institutions: an excessive fragmentation of offers available may have consequences in terms of social legacy

and individuality, suffocated by the paternalistic alliance between families and schools and by conformity

rooted in particular cultures and traditions.

As verifiable from the sociological, political and philosophical debate developed in recent years around this

controversy, a substantial conflict arises between the parents’ and communities’ right to educate young

people according to their beliefs, recognized through a denominational school offer, and the institutional

task of moulding autonomous individuals and citizens of democratic states assigned to universalistic state-

run schools.

This dualism, though not belonging exclusively to the present time, has acquired particular importance

within scientific productions and the public opinion nurtured by the media and is therefore closely

connected to the increasing social, cultural, ethnic and religious heterogeneity reshaping western societies.

Before proposing a study of the issue’s implications for school education, Chapter I provides an account of

how European education policies have faced the requests for pluralisation of school systems in recent

decades (Par. 1.2).

3

The majority of models seem to be the result of an attempt to balance a diversified educational offer

implying choices made by students, families and communities according to different considerations of

school with State regulation powers aimed at “containing” fragmentation resulting from excessive “identity

combinations” in school proposals. Both recognition of various cultures and traditions present in societies

and the possible risks that such action may imply for social cohesion are taken into account.

It has been noticed that this last aspect nowadays is making its way in contexts such as Netherlands and

Belgium, despite the fact that the first approach has generally been selected. The political solutions applied

in Europe and their durability in reference to social and environmental changes is threatened by tensions,

especially due to increasing multiculturalism and multi-religiousness of western countries, not to mention

the different relationship between state, religion and democracy. Pre-sent trends seem to demonstrate the

increasing importance of State selection in consenting different groups and especially religious

communities to enter and/or remain in the sphere of public education. This is to be recorded as a signal

that education policies and systems cannot be self-referring and must, on the contrary, be read through

exogenous explanations.

It is true for both policies and scientific approaches that school choice implies confrontation on the

perception of plural-ism in education. There is open debate on the selection of which kind of school and

consequently what quality of education can ensure both the student’s personal and democratic growth

and elements of independence, identity and citizenship.

Several features of the “Pluralism of institutions” approach are far from concerning the idea that school

choice is the result of strategic-instrumental rational choices made by “clients” of the “educational market”

and the concept of education as “private property”, both aspects of neo-liberalist logics. School choice is,

on the contrary, based on an expressive quality as it is linked to the satisfaction of identity confirmation

needs which imply the predominance of values in the construction of individual and collective judgement

and action. The last paragraph of Chapter I (Par. 1.3) considers such position by reasoning about school

choice being “normatively oriented”. Such reasoning derives from sociology of education and the political-

philosophical and pedagogic areas concerning scholastics and is put in relation with the prevailing criticisms

of pluralisation of education supply and demand. The pros and cons refer to two different levels: a) the

collective level concerning school targets of common interest and their significance for social life through

citizenship education; b) the individual level referring to protection of an individual’s evolution and

autonomy in relation to social choices and particularistic cultural models.

Chapter II, School education and individual qualities, from autonomy to citizenship, furtherly points out the

idea of a non-neutral or “community of values” school and other approaches opposing this concept. It

considers how such views recall different interpretations of Self building process through educational

4

experiences. The attention is now focused on the dynamics of identity building characterizing adolescence

and youth.

Here we especially refer to the educational experience that takes place during high school years.

The first paragraph (Par. 2.1) analyses some aspects that sociological tradition has concerned whilst dealing

with educational ideals. In addition, some features of the relationship between education, Self and

individual ethical qualities are pointed out. As the “classics” of sociology and the development of sociology

of education suggest, transmission of definite normative contents which are part of educational projects of

social interest cannot be achieved if the individual dimension is not included. In fact, education, as such, is a

space and an opportunity for the development of the individual and his/her ethics and autonomous

actions. Moreover, according to the assumed perspective, the embedding of the element of subjectivity –

ac-counting for individual interests and the participation of individuals in the dynamics of educational

events – is a resource capable to rebuild school sociality itself, representing an answer to the school

system’s collective interest objective.

When examining the complex conditions in which the process of Self building is carried on, the educational

process is seen as the area where a subject can find cultural “elements” to de-fine him/herself by meeting

needs for identification and social definition (locative identity function) and the need for individuality and

differences (individuation function), as well as the need of connection, integration and mastering of the

various definitions of him/herself in relation to the various contexts he/she will experience. It is actually

believed that the various functions of Self building should be seen as elements complementary to the

social milieu that an individual experiences; such functions can evolve by starting from the

multidimensional character of the educational experience. In general terms, educational dynamics

represents the ground on which Self defines and man-ages the unavoidable coexistence of heteronymous

forces (condition, belonging, tradition) and inner forces (autonomy, authenticity, etc). The individual can

thus work out an original “synthesis” on the basis of his/her own relational background and return what

he/she has learned as added value.

Thinking about education means thinking about the individual in both the present time and in ideal tension,

in his/her “consistency” as well as in his/her ethic dimension. In fact, the practice of reflexivity made

realizable by education and by culturally “objectifying” the subjective experiences of reality, re-quires

resorting to judgment and choice of behavioral criteria in relation to the outside environment.

This description suggests to group together basic elements of the educational process, in light of being

aspects that the two different views on school education and its neutrality described in Chapter I tend to

separate. In the case of favoring denominational schools, emphasis is placed on continuity and consistency

between the normative and symbolic universes that permeate the context of a student’s belonging, as well

as the cultural and value contents offered by schools. When a neutral and universalistic view on schooling is

preferred instead, the relationship between such elements is often in discordance or potentially in contrast.

5

The partiality of these two views is shown in the Chapter II by “measuring them” on the two “axes” of

relation between education and Self: the role of relationships with diversity in identity building (Par. 2.1)

and the making of so called “civic qualities” in the perspective of multiculturalism and of multi-

membership levels and “loyalties” that characterize current sce-narios (Par. 2.3).

With regard to the first point, traces of “extreme” opposing tendencies that prevail in identity studies have

been detected in the two paths. The first one tending to maximization of distinctive features as function of

specific social and cultural grouping; the second one tending to point out the predominance of partial

and temporary identification aspects.

According to the authoress, when the identification process is taken to extremes, it may be accompanied

by scarceness of those symbolic tools that a subject should dispose of in order to build up a Self capable of

taking part in various aspects of “social games”. From this point of view, in the case of a non- neutral or

“community of values” school, there are limits connected to a radical interpretation of both the inner

homogeneity of school population, through selection of teachers and students, and of the cultural

continuity and consistency amongst school, family and community. If the interactionist, phenomenological

and communicative sociological view on education is accepted, as in this text, we must consider diversity –

with reference to the characteristics of the actors and to the knowledge they transmit – a basic ingredient

for any educational “recipe” aimed at effectively supporting a subject in his building process. With regard

to this, educational opportunities are greater in a more heterogeneous school milieu, both in terms of

cultural vocation and inner composition (school mix).

On the other side, emphasizing the contradiction of positions in relation to the identity building process

without offering the necessary criteria for a correct choice, can compromise the capacity of choosing and

judging (phronesis). This essentially leads to a decomposition of the category of identity itself, which, in the

first case, is assumed to be a strong feature and basic factor of individual and collective specificities. It

would thus become a mere contingency, a temporary outcome of social interaction. According to the

experiences of youth, particularly exposed to social complexity, all this would modify the perception of

relativism inherent to any cultural feature typical of late modernity into forms of absolute disorientation

regarding the essential points of reference concerning individual and social life (plurinomia).

While conceiving a vision of identity according to the image of a multiple Self and due to the multiplicity of

the relational spheres that concern youth nowadays, the book suggest that the educational experience

should be seen as a path along which one’s identity can be read and re-read by evaluating the continuous

missed or successful contaminations which lie behind relationships. If education in its multidimensionality

aims at supporting the critical reasoning of an autonomous individual, it can’t avoid favoring the

comprehension of history, traditions and contributions which define the differences between one and

another’s way of life. It is precisely in light of the need for individuation that education should seriously

consider the social dimension of students identity, known as locative, determined by the main conditions,

6

stories and belonging around which they define themselves in relation to primary environments, family and

communitarian milieu.

By shifting the issue from an individual to a citizenship perspective (Par. 2.3), each of the two trends

concerning school models also give a specific interpretation of the educational process. Such trends

emphasize two different outcomes of school educational experiences in terms of civic and individual ethics.

By simplifying the question through functional, evolutionary and unitary paths which have been figured out

in triangulation and mutual strengthening of school-family-community, a sense of caring about, of

responsibility and dedication to-wards the community dimension and the concrete alter could be built up.

The development of individual directions, in the more abstract terms of knowledge and values mainly

related to the is-sue of rights and justice, would require support on behalf of an educational experience

based on heterogeneity and open to comparison, negotiation and reasoning.

Nevertheless, considering the present conditions of social differentiation and multiculturalism, an

educational path based on citizenship should consider the various types and levels of “loyalty” involving

individuals and groups by placing them ac-cording to geometric models that do not require any order of

magnitude nor generate conflicts. In other terms, citizenship education must be thought as a path where

knowledge and experiences related to a multiplicity of levels, from the most concrete to the most abstract,

are experienced in light of more vast educative goals: learning to place one’s own tradition in a pluralistic

and interdependent environment.

Shifting from this theoretical frame to the organization of institutional environments and specific contents

or practices can’t be taken for granted. The analysis suggests how, given its inner structure, a school which

is pervaded by multiple identities and belongings, as public schools generally are, seems to offer more

opportunities to put into practice the educational aspects of subjectivity. Mixed schools, in fact, provide a

learning environment that meets both the need for identification and integration of individuals, offering an

expanded cultural and relational space within which students can experience these needs and a diversity of

increasingly complex levels. However, the ability of this type of school to exploit such opportunities

depends on two basic conditions: first of all recognizing the real significance of diversity in relation to

subjects – the students – in a constant “tension” between anchorages and transformations; in second

place, the ability to transform this recognition in the construction of educational purposes and

experiences, exploitable by all students.

It is a question of figuring out potentials and spaces in order to revise existing models of state school.

Chapter III, Neutrality and identities in government schools. Looking for balances, follows the same

perspective suggesting the revision of educational neutrality in government schools in order to affect

governance models as well as the curricular offer of such institutions.

7

Referring to the essential criticism towards the idea of common school coming from supporters of “free

choice”, the authoress points out how government school have drifted towards the devaluation of

diversity. More precisely, such differences are devalued when the school suggests the assumption of one

single idea of “Good” referred to a specific nationality, culture and religion. Otherwise, as the current

scenario suggests, the “evaporation” of diversity may result from the exclusion of values not present in the

current scholastic space and from the elimination of ethics and values from the educational system. This

drift is most likely due to the institutions’ difficulty in recognizing the more and more different systems of

significances connected to the personal sphere of students and in accounting for them through their

translation in educational practices in terms of egalitarism and universalism. It is the lack of these

translations which should effectively be held responsible for the “need for pluralism” which demands for

significant diversification among school institutions on the basis of “strongly” denominational offers.

As previously pointed out, due to the type of connection involving subjectivity and educational experience,

the authoress suggests a model of school where its contents are continuously compared with other

experiences through which students define their own processes of social identification outside of the class-

rooms. In fact, schools must also consider the private spheres where students build up relations,

significances and ethics which concur in making up their social and moral experiences.

In other words, in contrast with the “anesthetization” of identity expression and the promotion a “single

culture”, and also in opposition to the idea of “protecting” diversities in ad hoc contexts, it may be

suggested that schools willing to recover their proper educational function might develop a sort of

“comprehensive pluralism” open to a variety of “conversing reasons” or an “identities open neutrality”.

With these expressions we refer to the basic condition in which differences are, at the same time,

recognized in their specificity and related to a higher-order level of equality. In the school case, these

dynamics should also result in a further step: the use of diversity in drawing out education opportunities in

favor of exploring and practicing a multifaceted idea of identity and citizenship in balance between

autonomy and identity rooting.

Chapter III analyses the possible translations of the suggested guidelines especially on two points: school

governance at an institutional level and the relation amongst internal and external actors (Par. 3.2); the

acknowledgement of religious identities in school contexts in terms of relation to the various

communities, and of the role assigned to religious contents within the educational offer (Par. 3.3).

As for the first point, it has been noticed that the suggested approach involves the idea of a cooperative

and complementary rather than alternative, competitive and isolating relation amongst educational

authorities: teachers, families and communities. According to the authoress, the process of figuring out

relational forms may involve concepts and tools about school governance that have been produced within

the sociological thought of the last decades. The shift from models of school institutions controlled by the

government’s central administration to patterns that define a more diversified and flexible relation

8

between school and territory that has taken place in most western countries is thus illustrated. In

particular, the “net” or “partnership” organization model, widely suggested as the most suit-able one to

assure the decentralized control of educational systems as well as the development of deliberative policy

arenas, has been considered in light of democratic governance of educational institutions to interpret a

vision of school as an “almost communitarian” model. This vision aims at restoring both a mediating

position between the various actors and stakeholders to teachers and a more cultural rather than strategic

democratic leadership capable of spreading itself throughout the organization to headmasters. Also, the

relationship with external actors refers to the use of social capital, embracing a more pragmatic and less

globalizing vision of the school as “community of values”. Forms of collaborative relationship with the most

significant local realities should be aimed at operating school systems currently centrally directed, achieving

common goals otherwise difficult to gain through collective resources rather than drawing sharp symbolic

boundaries of school’s cultural identity.

Closely related to such interpretation is that a path towards thematizing the participative dimension within

government schools should be the perspective of a learning community. In fact, this aspect accounts for the

participatory development of knowledge and negotiated sharing as basis for the foundation of a school

community.

The Chapter also points out the growing attention of European policies towards participation of students,

families and communities particularly starting from the nineties, in a process of implementing school

autonomy on one side and rectifying the fragmentation caused by decentralization and marketization

policies of the educational systems on the other. Nevertheless, through a short description of European

realities, the authoress points out how the situation is still highly heterogeneous whilst domestic policies

are generally careful with regard to an open-ing process in the field of school managing. In the meantime,

in terms of educational contents, some interesting solutions have been defined on the basis of an

egalitarian perspective reflecting the tendency to emphasize families’ opinions in the educational role (such

as in the United Kingdom and Norway). Representation of the various actors involved, civil society included,

in the composition of school control organisms (such as the Czech Republic), or organization of the

governance at several levels by assigning different tasks to the various councils related to school and to

their members (such as Portugal and the Belgian Flemish Community) have also been attempted. Finally,

the last paragraph (Par. 3.3) points out the specific case of religious differences; a thick aspect of the

identitarian dimension that school must consider. This question has been dealt with by referring to those

approaches that have recently enforced contents related to both cultural and normative aspects of

religions within the educational offer in secular schools. In parallel with international literature on this

topic, the section examines concrete solutions adopted by European school systems, mostly based on the

mono/pluri confessionalism – education into religion(s) – underlining the guidelines recommended by

international organisms (UNESCO, Council of Europe, OCSE). These guidelines, increasingly enforced since

9

the emblematic turning point of September 11 2001th, have been more and more concerned with a plural

and secular teaching of know-ledge related to different religions and their cultural matrixes (education

about religions). Although it allows for the various local aspects of religious plurality to be respected, the

authoress point out some of this formula’s limits. Such limits concern the approach specifically based on

cultural issues, which emphasizes the objective aspects of religions rather than subjective experiences,

entrusting teachers rather than educators from religious communities with the task of contents. In fact,

such aspects, besides requiring the attentive training of teachers, result in a weak exposure of students to

religious cultures and values as it is not able to emphasize the different rationalities adopted within the

communities as well as their members’ individual biographies, investments or life choices. The authoress

explores the path of enforcing the idea of “religious speech” and actors in the public sphere of school

through the formula education from religion(s), parallely meeting the secular character of this institution.

The proposed concept relates to “post-secularism” framework and to the Habermasian logic of

“complementary learning”. Extending this educational thought not only to religious contents but also to

what students may learn about them-selves and others through these studies, the school system could by

all means follow a logic through which different mentalities, traditions and prospects may shift from

matters of cognitive character and seriously consider the reciprocal contribution with regard to

controversial aspects of public life. With regard to the relationship between schools and religious

communities, the education from religions approach may resort to the “democratic” and “net”

governance models previously mentioned which could contribute the creation of institutional spaces based

on mutual contribution.

Chapter IV, The Italian Case and the experience of the “Tavolo Interreligioso (Interreligious Table)”, is

focused on the Italian context, until now considered within the European scenario. The authoress outlines

how Italian educational policies deal with diversity: from ‘classical’ diversity connected to social origins to

individual diversity without forgetting diversity of cultural, ethnic and religious kind (Par. 4.1). It has been

pointed out that the features of the Italian case, because of its historical characteristic relation between

State and Civil Society and its educational system, are more related to “pluralism in school” rather than

embracing a “pluralism of schools” system.

The difficulties of the Italian school system in dealing with the various type of students diversity may

represent a chance to test the “re-thinking” over educational neutrality. Starting from the nineties,

especially ethnic and religious differences have required efforts on behalf of Italian schools which have

occasion-ally approached this issue with vitality in spite of the rigidity of our system.

Chapter IV underlines the possible solutions offered by Italian policies, suggesting an example: the “Tavolo

Interreligioso” (“IT”) established in 1998 by Assessorato alle politiche educative of the City of Rome in

accordance with the six main religious Communities of Rome and carried on for a period of ten years (1990-

10

2008). Such project, involving many Secondary and High School students in Rome through a process of

acknowledgment and in depth analysis of various religious identities, represents, according to the book, an

attempt to set the basis for identity recognition in an institutional environment as well as redefining the

concepts of neutrality and laicité according to a post-secular vision. In particular, this experience is

presented distinguishing between two levels it relates to.

The first level concerns the political philosophy behind the project and the institutional solution that has

been gradually de-fined through interrelation amongst the actors involved (Par. 4.2). The authoress

underlines the great vitality of local institutions, in spite of the central bureaucratic apparatus’ inertia, in

approaching multicultural conflicts connected to the claim for public acknowledgement of religious identity

by imagining and carrying out initiatives such as the IT. A significant translation of secularism in terms of

open and cooperative process is also clear, rather than a set of values – assumed as neutral – imposed

from above and often incompatible with the various religious confessions worldview. In particular, within

the IT, equal dignity of cultural systems and beliefs which mark the various communities played a

fundamental role in shifting from the classic approach of school public space, favoring the objective of a

common education. In the meantime, the effective role of institutional regulation has been underlined as

the founding condition of the process itself, as well as its position with regard to shared educational

targets. Based on knowledge diffusion about different traditions, thus accepting a culturalist idea of

religious education (education about religions), the IT mainly aimed to decrease stereotypes, to promote

respect for diversity and allow for cultural and identity “contamination” connected to the experience of

plurality.

At the meantime, IT offers a significant variation in patterns of religious education spread around Europe.

The idea of self-representation by religious communities of their own traditions and beliefs is, in fact, a

radical alternative to the educational function of trained teachers or to the intervention of “experts”.

The authoress believes this choice has been a conceptual challenge, even before its implementation, of

fundamental importance in the framework of complementary learning and post-secular education.

However, according to the authoress, this solution has en-countered some limits. In the first place,

collaboration amongst IT actors has almost exclusively regarded the field of inter-scholastic education and

socialization rather than the area of negotiated participation and regulation of local educational policies. In

this respect, it should be recognized that the IT represents a courageous attempt of interreligious inclusion

within a multicultural framework concerning educational institutions, especially secondary schools, as

contexts of widening perspectives despite strategic caution which has prevented the school policies and

governance to be modified. The authoress also underlines the difficulties in terms of organization and

relation methods of promoting family social capital through parents’ commitment around scholastic

environments. This last aspect should have been considered instead a basic feature in rebuild-ing a

common space around the education actors.

11

The second level on which the IT may be considered regards the translation of the project into concrete

education practices (Par. 4.3). A second phase of research included interviews with the representatives of

the six communities involved in the schools and the direct observation of meetings regarding the

educational approach held with them and groups of students of three High Schools in Rome, underlining

contents, dynamics and atmosphere of such meetings.

The Chapter points out that in the classrooms the communities have shown a certain freedom concerning

different styles in interpreting and presenting their own identity and characteristics. Besides from referring

to cultural-historical, ritual-doctrinal and political-civic aspects of the proposed tradition, the reporters

have introduced their own specificity by resorting to two opposite approaches: the first one aimed at

underlining the lack of relation, or even open conflict, of their own traditions in relation to what is assumed

to be well known and familiar to the students; the second one aimed instead at uprooting the introduced

diversity by defining features capable to foster a sense of community and similarity. The “reduction of

distance” in order to make the process of acknowledgement easier appears a less common, yet

occasionally vital strategy if the communities believe they must engage themselves in opposition to

stereotypes, as is the case for Islam and Hebraism. Nevertheless, in light of the answers provided by

students within the classrooms, the authoress suggests that the approaches based exclusively on

similarities or differences are inadequate to satisfy their cognitive demand. Some activities with students

have appeared realizable if both approaches are used complementarily, for instance considering

comparisons amongst different identities within conditions of similarity: the idea of belonging to a common

social or generational context, etc. According to the authoress, this aspect marks the necessity of providing

sup-port to students regarding both the dynamics of identification and those of individualization they act

in the research of identity by comparison with others.

Furtherly, from the study of IT practices in the classrooms is evident that some topics related to the

concrete dimension of ethics and citizenship in various religions stimulate more inter-est on behalf of

students enhancing acceptance of diversity through the learning process. The importance of witnessing

activity on behalf of community members with regard to their path in life is a highlight in the description of

these cases. Witnessing leads to reviewing relations between education about and from religions, as it

underlines the importance of the subjective aspect in the dynamics of deconstruction and reconstruction of

significance associated to religious identities at an individual and collective level. When acting as

“witnesses”, the representatives could play, within the classrooms, a particularly effective role as “reliable”

source of diversity expression; a role which accounts for a multiplicity of personal identity features in

contrast with rigidly structured cognitive expectations about different social belongings that the student

have acquired. The authoress defines the witness dimension as the opportunity to put into practice the

personalization of contents, placing within reach the normative level through the aspect of the individual

12

moral responsibility which emerges from each one’s stories, actions and choices. This “door” to alternative

values can’t be exploited if there is a lack of a parallel transmission to students of critical and interpretative

tools for a deep, thoughtful approach within education to listening. Furtherly, in the cases observed, there

has been a lack of opportunity for the students to put forth their own subjectivity and biographies,

resulting in the spaces potentially open by an activity of education from religions to be restricted.

Urging students to confront themselves through aspects of communication and dialogical participation is

the specific topic of further considerations. Although subordinated to the cognitive vocation of the project,

dialogue has actually been included among IT practices in classrooms, starting from the acknowledgement

of the connection between the exchange of ideas and the education to tolerance and respect for diversity.

In this respect, some difficulties appear caused by the strong influence of context factors such as the

preparation of students to the dialogue activity. On the other hand, the efforts of members from

the various communities in communicating to students as well as at keeping a steady level of exchange as

the conversations evolve is a difficult task. More in general, for the possible effectiveness of this type of

interventions, the authoress recalls the importance of the culture organization of schools and its

“restrictions” or “system constraints”, in their Goffmanian sense, being the basic condition for realizing

social order and an inter-subjective mental world. The habitus and well-established rituals depending on

the types of school are well known in literature, and their endurance to change determined by the

introduction of unconventional practices is evident. It is however clear that in view of collaborative

governance, the support capabilities of school actors is vital in translating external initiatives and “logics” in

forms and methods appropriate to each school con-text, to the profile of students and to the particularity

of their educative demand.