| Summary: | En la segunda mitad del siglo xx resulta interesante observar la confrontación creciente entre la educación general y la formación vocacional. En esta larga guerra, en la que el bachillerato tradicional se encuentra en regresión y la educación general amplía sus expectativas y presencia, permanece una cierta confusión. El curriculum está contaminado de modelos superiores (profesores, métodos, agentes) y en estas circunstancias ni la reflexión pedagógica, ni la acción política, han sido capaces, hasta ahora, de definir con éxito qué debe ser una educación básica de diez años para todos los ciudadanos. La definición de esta educación general es el mayor y más urgente problema del pensamiento educativo y de la administración pública.<br>At least from Comenius, the organisation of a public school system is being raised. Since then, the discusión about the aims, limits, levels and contents of education returns from time to time. With the intention of illuminating the main thesis of this paper, according with its title and fully aware of the possible bias of this choice, the author explores a theoreticalpractical way which he considers illustrative. From Comenius to Humboldt, Giner de los Ríos and Klafki, there is a powerful stream running through the history of education which attributes to education the aim of leading the person from didactics to matetics (matética), from the situation of being taught by somebody else to the capacity of learning by himself. This dichotomy sets the two essential levels in education: general education on the one hand and vocational training and professional practice on the other. General education ends when the person is able to learn, when he or she does not need to be taught and can decide his or her behaviour by him/herself. In practice, confusion has been brought by different historial influences, whether sociological, ideological, political or religious. Due to some of these influences, education of children and youth has go across shorter or longer, simpler or more complex ways, adapted to given social conditions and situations. Education for a countryman or a craftsman is different of education for a lawyer or a doctor. This so evident reason has also been the pretext for discriminating the students for reasons other than their own capacities.In the second half of the 20tJl century, it is interesting to watch the longlasting, indecisive battle between general education and vocational training. In this long war in which traditional baccalauréat has moved back and general education has extended, confusion remains. Curriculum is polluted by major patterns (subjects, methods, teachers) and under those circumstances neither pedagogical reflection nor political action have been able, until now, to define succesfully a basic education of ten years. The definition of this general education is the main and most urgent problem of educational thinking and public administration.
|
|---|
