Ethnic and Cultural Diversity and Social Integration of the

Immigrants
School Management of the Identity from the Principle of Cultural Reciprocity

Antonio Bernal Guerrero, University of Seville, Spain

Abstract: The success of the social integration of the immigrants is a question basically of personal identity, not merely of
cultural identity. This implies adopting an open perspective respect of the management of the cultural identity in the
educational centres, lit by the principle of "reciprocity" among the different cultures. As consequence of the intercultural
meeting, in the frame of the new migratory flows, the construction of the personal identity is opened to the immense current
possibilities of new socializations. An intercultural pedagogy leaned on the personal meeting presents unequivocal
possibilities. But it will be necessary to keep on penetrating into the pedagogic requirements of a progressive attention to
the diversity with the populations of immigrated pupils. In this respect, some keys sign for the improvement of the educational
intercultural projects from the assumption of a perspective of educational change, of need to foment a new school culture.
Keywords: Cultural Diversity, Social Integration, Identity

Diversity and the Fostering of Humanity

EVIVING THE IDEAS of eminent
classical writers such as Socrates or Seneca,
Martha C. Nussbaum tells us that education
is only truly adequate for freedom if it
produces free citizens, that is, citizens who know
they are masters of their own minds1. To possess
personal thought and a personal voice is what confers
on a person true dignity, a dignity which is not that
which is attributed according to class and social
status. Free citizens, Nussbaum (2005, 315) insists:
When they ask themselves about their future
options, they will take conventions and traditions as
a starting-point, seeing them as a special kind of food
for the mind; however, they do not confuse
nourishment with strength of mind, which is thought
to produce the food. They know that they need to
make use of tradition to strengthen their thought, but
this beneficial use must imply a willingness to
criticise when appropriate. They do not value custom
only for its longevity, nor do they equate what has
lasted for a long time with what ought to be or what
is natural. Accordingly they wish to widen their
knowledge about other ways of life and peoples, both
with the objective of establishing a respectful communication about important matters, and also in order
to continue reflecting on their own opinions on what
is best. In this way, they hope to evolve from the

cultural narrowness in which we are all born towards

a truly universal citizenship.
Over and above considerations of race, sex, ethnic
origin, religion or social class, we can recognise the
benefit of an authentic education for citizens, as the
base and means of an active and living democracy.
Far from being a space of conflict of different
preferences without much argumented analysis, a
genuine democratic culture, reflexive and
deliberative, requires a mutual and plural
understanding, starting from rigorous selfexamination. That is to say, not only do we need
critical thought and deferential argument, but these
must also be pluralist, which requires an education
in the comprehension of the contributions and
traditions of these groups with which we interact.
The challenge for education is enormous, as
Nussbaum (2005, 321) affirms: It is relatively easy
to prepare an upper-class education for a
homogeneous elite. It is much more difficult to
prepare people of very different origins for a complex
universal citizenship. We know that the success of
a democratic culture, ultimately, does not reside
necessarily in achieving a forced consensus, but in
living together pacifically in disagreement.
At the present time, an education which is
beneficial for citizenship encounters a serious threat
in the form of the temptation, a very possible one,
to accept a reductionist view of progress, understood

This idea of liberal education was already proclaimed by Seneca, opposing it to the dominant idea in Rome at that time of an education
liberalis , in the sense of being directed towards the noblemen, who were born free, and who belonged to the wealthy classes. This
education initiated the lite in the traditions venerated by their society, endeavouring to achieve continuity and conformity, and at the same
time discouraging critical reflection.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE DIVERSITY, VOLUME 6, NUMBER 1, 2006
http://www.Diversity-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9532
Common Ground, Antonio Bernal Guerrero, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE DIVERSITY, VOLUME 6

exclusively as economic development. As soon as a

minimum level of development is reached, the
market becomes necessary. The market economy,
because of the new technologies of information and
communication, has given way to the globalisation
of the market. That being so, a market economy does
not necessarily imply a market society, that is, a
society that values only that which has a price in the
market, whatever its value in other ambits may be
(Sampedro, 2002). To accept a market economy does
not mean to commercialise all human life, but when
there is economic anxiety the danger of this occurring
increases exponentially. It is easy to understand that
the future will be different depending on what we
invert in today. Personal and political
impoverishment is the result of the abandonment of
the teaching of humanity which is what represents
all education for a properly-understood citizenship.
To be open to the world, to life, means to form
part of a society which is reflexive and also inclusive,
capable of admitting different cultures, collectives,
ideas. A complex world like ours urgently demands
the comprehension of our traditions within a world
which is highly diverse and interrelated. Hence, we
have to understand radical ethnic and religious
differences, we have to understand history itself,
which is ultimately our great history.
Throughout their lives, individuals develop
different structure of reality, structures of reality that
are very personal. Diversity is a basic condition for
life. In the differences between people is where the
richness of the human condition is found. The basis
of this condition is the recognition of the right to
have personal criteria. The differences between
convictions held by human beings arise from the
very condition of their nature. Diversity is no mere
accident; it is at the root of our condition.
It is not a question of simply tolerating diversity;
present-day education should embrace diversity with
the enthusiasm of the recognition of the basic
elements of our own condition. We have to want
diversity, enjoy diversity, if we want to act to
increase our possibilities instead of reducing them.
We have to give up old attitudes which offered one
route as the correct one, frequently in contrast to the
incorrect way. These obsolete dichotomies must give
way to the conscious consideration of contradictions
and diversities which can let us understand the
diversity of the alternatives offered by life, and which
can make us see the provisional, insecure and
ambiguous nature of our knowledge. New
pedagogical reasoning (Fernndez Enguita, 2001)
assumes the principle of uncertainty.
Considering it well, to construct identity in the
society of information means to move away from
the dominant ideals in each context, forming human
competence around the capacity of analysis. More

and more, society requires, to solve its multiple

complex problems, in addition to the search for the
greatest consensus possible between varied points
of view, the development of critical personalities,
open to discussion and dialogue, as a permanently
renewable procedure to endeavour to provide
answers to the interminable problems that exist in
our world.
A world which is endlessly multicoloured,
multilingual, multicultural. Any education that does
not go beyond the old monolingual and monocultural
discourse is condemned to the most abysmal failure
(Esteve, 2003). The problems of living together
which arise continually all over the globe will need
educational formulas capable of facilitating an
authentic meeting of cultures, of different collective
and individual points of view, but not only with
respect for diversity, but also with enjoyment.
We all need, in the different dimensions of our
personality, to continue learning throughout the
course of our lives, evolving and growing as people.
The construction of personal identity appears to us
more than ever as an incessant struggle, as a
permanent striving, as Ortega y Gasset would say,
which we should never give up if we do not wish to
be thingified, lose the competence that transforms
us into autonomous subjects, into free people, with
the capacity for self-determination, however limited
this may be in the end. We are all summoned to this
challenge, without any kind of distinction. To foster
humanity does not mean to discard commonsense,
cast aside the unquestionable value of our material
progress as a civilisation, but rather to value with
reasoning the prosaic questions of life, at the same
time this means extending our vital horizons,
ethically, aesthetically and politically, embracing a
certain poetic sense of existence, harbouring a hope
of building a better world together.

Attending Immigrants in School

Systems: Towards the Primacy of
Personal Identity
Human beings, like all living beings, depend to a
great extent on their environment. This environment
is not an objective world, a world which is out there,
but the world constructed by all of us. Today there
is a great distrust of all ideologies, of whatever sign
they may be, and their corresponding moral
corollaries. Our long history testifies to the huge
number of atrocities perpetrated in the name of
truth, of the truths of different ideologies.
Wilhelm Rotthaus (2004, 132) expresses it this way:
The possibility of submitting to a value which is
presumed supreme, the obedience to a supposed
divine mandate or the order of a leader, the
possibility of submitting to apparently natural rights
of national race or something of a similar nature,

ANTONIO BERNAL GUERRERO

provides an authorisation to commit all kinds of

cruel and horrible acts. This is evidenced by
thousands of years of experience. In a too complacent
way it is forgotten that objective observations and
truthful suppositions are human inventions, but,
if they survive long enough, at a later date they will
also very probably end up being the object of abuse.
To appeal to objectivity means accepting the
illusion that the subject could perceive a situation
without participating in it, and this is why it has been
said that objectivity is impossible (Maturana and
Varela, 1990), and under the guise of objectivity
individual responsibility is diluted. No ideology, or
any explicative model of the world or of certain facts
of the world, has absolute validity. The moral rules
or norms derived from these models or ideologies
have often led to intolerance and rejection, and they
always carry with them these insidious threats.
Perhaps it has never been so evident as now the need
for an ethical orientation in human beings, as a basic
support of their identity, which would accentuate the
internal control in individuals, that would emphasise
those criteria and fundamental attitudes that direct
action, over and above a moral orientation,
synthesized in a compendium of rules and norms, of
precepts and admonitions which, imposed on the
subjects from outside, pass judgement on what is
good and bad, on what is true and false2.
The ethical orientation we refer to as the objective
and the means of the fostering of humanity involves
assuming unlimited uncertainty, and also implies
giving up the assumption that there exists objective
information which can unmistakeably orientate
action, situated in a metalevel of rules and norms, in
the level of ethics properly speaking, as a model of
internal control of action on the part of the subject3.
Socratic logical competences become indispensable
in order to go beyond the limits of the most
immediate sympathies, to think about humanity in
wider and more flexible terms than those dictated by
the ideological perspective of loyalty to the group.
It is very probable that the essence of the conflict
between groups emerges from the resignation of
personal identity, of individual thought and
expression, in exchange for the group identity. By
virtue of a collective identification, a serious risk is
being taken of abandoning personal individuality;
when we lose our humanity because of this collective
2

identification it may occur that we do not recognise

the humanity of those who are not in our group4.
One of the risks of exchanging personal identity for
group identity is one called self-transcendent
identity, which signifies the exchange of freedom
of thought and action for the submission to the group,
which demands uniformity of beliefs and conformity
of behaviour. The immediate benefit bestowed by
this self-transcendent identity is security. In fact,
by appealing to the instinct of belonging, the group
offers an easy identification, and the individual
instantly finds the necessary consideration and
affection in the group5. For this reason, most people,
if asked about their identity, will probably reply in
terms of collective identification (that they belong
to a profession, a religion, a country, a political party,
a certain society or association). The full
realisation, however, of a human being, of each
human being, consists precisely in being able to find
his identity as a unique being, an identity not lost or
blurred in any kind of self-transcending identity.
Being oneself, one is also part of humanity, this way
we recognise the identity of others and we can be
singularly recognised at the same time. To accept
the full significance of our personal identity is the
challenge that we all face. If the enemy of humanity
is precisely dehumanisation, the absence of the
recognition of humanity in others, the solution should
be the restoration of humanity, the revitalisation of
the recognition of humanity in others.
The success of the social integration of immigrants
is primordially a question of personal identity, not
merely of cultural identity. We aim for a school in
which each subject is accepted as a person, whose
humanity is recognised. The school institution would
be thus an ambit where each person can count on
adequate esteem, with the recognition due to his own
singularity, to his condition of a unique and
unrepeatable human being. Pedagogic attention to
the integration of immigrants, therefore, must move
towards an adequate advancement of those processes
which aid in the construction of the personal identity
of each subject. As a consequence of this
international convergence, in the framework of the
new migratory tides, the construction of personal
identity opens up to the infinite resocialising
possibilities of the global village.

As Heinz von Foerster (1996) has shown, this ethical orientation corresponds to a cybernetics of second order, in which the observer
is considered part of what is observed, and he observes himself as one of the agents that act in the field of his interpersonal relationships
by which, consequently, he can only formulate how he himself should think and act. On the other hand, morality belongs to a cybernetics
of first order, that is, it presupposes an observer who considers something which is objective, from outside, he observes reality, the world,
and, from his supposed independence, he says to the rest how they have to think and act.
3
Ethical action, in any event, needs some kind of foundation. This orientation can be inferred from the study of the very conditions of our
existence, as Rotthaus (2004) points out. Of course, theorisations on the problem admit of different propositions, but all share the idea that
the development of differentiated social abilities has constituted the determining step in our evolution as human beings. Without social
interaction, we cannot conceive of ourselves as individuals, as unique subjects.
4
As Simone de Beavioir said, when a group affirms itself as unique, it puts the other against it.
5
The group makes the individual feel loved and even needed. And who does not want to feel loved and needed?.

10

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE DIVERSITY, VOLUME 6

To regard diversity positively means to accept

fully and animatedly the complexity of the human
condition itself. It is not a question of simply falling
back on a dichotomy: assimilation or pluralism,
inclusion or exclusion. Rather, everything flows in
complex cross-currents of ambivalence of identity,
where origins and projects coexist, where pasts and
desires for the future exist together as in a labyrinth.
Independently of the order in which we establish our
loyalties6 (national, supranational, local, and to
different groups), without doubt, to enjoy diversity
is to be sure of the recognition of the value of human
life wherever it appears, in the same way as we
perceive ourselves as human beings linked by
common capacities and problems to people who are
different and distant from ourselves. In any event,
of course, it seems very limited for people to
orientate their humanity only in political terms (it
becomes extremely easy to forget subjects when we
are fiercely debating political questions), an
orientation which usually ends in a staunch defence
of a group identity, of certain collective identities,
which usually act in the end in the manner of
tyrannical totalities, imposing themselves at any hint
of individual conscience. If we are to foster humanity
we need an open education, permanently open to
personal (re)construction, to changes in the
trajectories of subjects who see themselves as
protagonists of their own lives, anonymous
personages of the living history of humanity. To
foster humanity is to affirm energetically that while
there is life there is hope, and confidence in the
advent of a fairer and a better world, where the
universal recognition of humanity would be the fruit
of the success of the humanisation of education and
of a humanised education.
Personal identity, as a mainstay of the integration
of immigrant students, implies taking an open
attitude with respect to the treatment of cultural
identity in the centres if education. The principle of
reciprocity seems to emerge vigorously between the
different cultures that of the country of origin and
that of the receiving country if an authentic cultural
integration is truly sought. In this sense, of course,
we need an effort of dialogue and analysis, on the
part of all, to be able to restructure the new cultural
codes for all the population. The search for these
new codes does not imply an unlimited tolerance
towards all the elements of the different cultures (by
which we would end up insisting indefinitely on the
differences, on what separates more than what unites.
The construction of the collective or common identity
in the curriculum poses a problem of the selection
6

of cultural codes, principally of an ethical and

anthropological order. The person as permanent
referent of this search is indispensable, the person is
everything and an objective in himself, and needs
freedom; all those cultural elements that oppress the
person should be suppressed. Culture is at his service.
Evidently, personal identity is not constructed by
sociocultural abstraction. The individual evolves in
society, in determinate cultural spaces. And certain
models of cultural identification, among other
features, gradually make up the personality of the
human being; but cultural identity per se completely
defines nobody. Our identity is constructed in
permanent and dynamic interaction with the
environment, by means of possible identifications
that can be made in that environment, naturally
subjected to changing processes, permanently open
to degrees of inevitable uncertainties, constituting
in this way a singular and unique process, without
exact or absolute referents in the past or the future.
In this sense, an intercultural pedagogy based on
the personal encounter seems very interesting
(Jordn, Mnguez and Ortega, 2002). But we would
have to investigate further the pedagogical demands
of a progressive attention to diversity with immigrant
pupils, and with each pupil in particular. An
education of quality demands attention to the learning
needs of the different school populations and of all
the pupils without exception. A favourable
acceptance of them is necessary but not sufficient.
Each student must attain that knowledge, those
competences, which will guarantee for him not only
what is fundamental for the exercise of his rights and
responsibilities as a citizen, but also to be able to live
a life which is productive and personally satisfying.
And in order to attain these educational goals,
situations of normality should be reached as soon as
possible, both in the modalities of the daily grouping
of students and in the proposals of different planned
learning activities (Daz-Aguado, 1999). Recent investigation in education for diversity has
demonstrated the limitations of taking too long in
the labelling or classification of the students
according to certain differences in learning, observed
generally, as could be the case of the populations of
immigrant students7. The strategies of the attention
to diversity should represent a vigorous boost
towards a real correspondence, in practice, between
the learning needs of each subject and those
educational services offered to him to reach equality
of results (Aguado, 1999). With the immigrant
students, as with other groups of students who could
receive some kind of initial classification, the

For ancient Greek stoicism, the main loyalty of a citizen is the loyalty towards the human beings of all the world, the rest of his loyalties
being secondary. This ideal of citizenship has been later modified by different options that allow changes in the order of loyalties, but
without losing the unconditional message of the value of humanity in all men.
7
Truly, educating in diversity constitutes a global challenge for present-day school systems (Wang, 1995).

ANTONIO BERNAL GUERRERO

question must be urgently asked how planned

learning is reflected in present school practice; how
the information we have on the learning
characteristics of each student in particular is
integrated; what kind of links there are between the
models of government and organisation with the
realisation of differential educational projects; or
what changes are needed for the institutionalisation
of an education which is really adapted to the
diversity of pupils in the school centres.
In the levels of obligatory secondary education,
we could say that the equality of educational results
(basic competences) constitute a civil right.
Obviously, it is a question of equity, of social justice,
that directly calls our attention to the demands of an
education of quality for all (Gonzlez Fontao, 2001),
for all people with their multiple differences and
dissimilitudes, including those who have more or
less possibilities in learning and those who present
special difficulties, for various reasons, as occurs
with the populations of immigrants. This signifies a
challenge for the education system, which will have
to be restructured in depth (Menor, 2001). In this
sense, certain questions must be asked: what changes
must be made by the schools and the education
systems? What procedures would facilitate the
practical structuring of the educational projects with
the different educational services available? What is
the most effective way of connecting the educational
services with the social services (so important for
certain specific needs, as occurs with the immigrant
students)? How to mobilise and make better use of
the resources of the community for educational
practice? What educative policies must be put
forward to dynamize in a positive way all the sectors
and services involved?

Treatment of Identities in the School

from a Positive View of Diversity
It is evident that the problem has no easy solution.
However, if anything has been demonstrated by the
accumulated experience of recent years, it is that
fundamental changes have to be made in curricular
proposals, in the organisation of the schools and in
the activity of the educational agents, in particular
the teachers (Lpez, 2002).

will be able to see the world as a place where many

kinds of citizens exist and where we all have the
possibility of learning to act as world citizens. This
means that the curriculum will have to set in motion
an education that is reflexive and critical, that permits
the constant self-examination of our selves and our
traditions and customs, in the way of Socrates. At
the same time, together with the need to belong to
determined groups or collectives that we all have,
there is a need, now more urgent from the point of
view of attention to human diversity; the need to
internationalise education, to foster in ourselves the
feeling of belonging to our species, to our radical
human identity (Juregui, 2001), sensing that we are
linked to the rest of human beings by bonds of
recognition and reciprocal preoccupation. But it is
not only a question of an adequate reflection, basing
our thought on factual knowledge. To understand
the world from anothers point of view is
fundamental for any thoughtful judgement; in this
sense it is a question of discovering the meanings of
the discourses of others using narrative imagination,
that is, the ability to think what it would be like to
be in another persons place, and to understand the
emotions, wishes an yearnings that someone like that
could feel (Nussbaum, 2005)
To prepare oneself as a citizen means to learn a
series of facts and to master techniques of reasoning,
but it also means to learn to be a person capable of
imagining and loving. Apart from this, the curriculum
must foster the ability to think globally, to consider
the complex contexts that constitute reality (Morin,
2001) There is no justification for the old cultural
division into two ambits which, in one way or
another, prevail in the school curriculum: humanities
versus science. This division of culture does not
benefit at all the genesis of a new, genuinely
humanistic, perspective. There is a pressing need to
encourage thought of complexity, to foster the
development of the ability to globalise and
contextualise knowledge. Such an aptitude would
not only situate a phenomenon within a determined
context, but would also help in the comprehension
of how this phenomenon is related to its context, and
this, in its turn, to other contexts. This implies the
recognition of unity in diversity and vice versa.

New organisational culture

New curricular proposals

To pay special attention to diversity in the school

curriculum is simply a way of understanding the new
requirements of the condition of citizen, of his duties
and rights. This means contributing to the
construction of persons, who can act as citizens of a
complex and interrelated world, and not only as
citizens of certain regions or local groups. By means
of a curriculum that attends to human diversity, we

It is necessary to construct a culture of

collaboration in schools, which requires the creation
in the school of a framework of reference from which
we can dialogue and make decisions, developing a
systematic reflexive practice, on the improvement
of education. Intercultural educational action
demands of us, that we overcome the inertia of the
established schools culture, the traditional culture,
so resistant to change, especially if this change

11

12

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE DIVERSITY, VOLUME 6

involves important difficulties. A new organisational

culture and a new teaching culture should overcome
old resistences and immobilisms in students and
teachers (Bonal, Rambla and Rovira, 2000). If this
is not done, it is difficult to plan any project with a
minimum guarantee of success. The reculturisation
of school centres should contribute improvement in
the educative attention towards the populations of
immigrants as a whole and also individually. In other
words, the necessary balance should be found
between the collective dimension of the social
integration of immigrants and the complex personal
character that for each immigrant implies a process
of integration and of evolution as a person.
Intercultural educative action is very much related
to what has been called emergent implementation
(Snyder, Bolin and Zumwalt, 1992). That is, the
emphasis is placed more on how the curriculum is
put into practice and experienced by teachers and
students, instead of being centred on how it is
adapted by the teachers. The improvement of the
intercultural educative projects presents problems of
theory and of practice. That is to say, on one hand,
we will have to think about values, objectives and
content, and on the other, about processes and
conditions which could facilitate the effective
applicability of the projects.
The projects carried out in schools would perhaps
need a double reference: one, what is learnt from the
practice, and secondly, expert counsel which could
come from outside (specialists, university teachers)
It is important that school centres adopt common
criteria in their curricular projects, in the endeavour
to achieve an adaptable, solid and profound
elaboration of their final educational objectives. It
is not a question of making up an extensive list of
objectives, which are frequently disperse, superficial
and bureaucratised but rather establishing only a few
objectives, which could define more precisely what
the school pursues as an educational institution as a
whole. Projects should consider, both theoretically
and in practice, both morally and with commitment,
the integration of immigrant students as a
fundamental element for the involvement of all.
International educative projects should be
undertaken from the perspective of the community,
not strictly of the school. This implies a notable
increase in complexity (because the number of
participants increases), but it also opens new
educational
possibilities,
the
educational
responsibility being extended beyond the immigrant
students to the community itself and not exclusively
to the schools and their professionals. It would be
useful if the educational centre systematised, as well
as they could, a Plan of reception of immigrant
students and their families. We must not forget that
for these families the school constitutes a touchstone

of the culture of the receiving country, probably the

most important referent. The greater number of
people that can collaborate in the implementation of
this Plan, the greater number of possibilities it will
have. Community and quality are here intimately
tied together. We only need to think, as an example,
of the incidence of work expectations of the families
and in the self-esteem and personal stability of the
immigrant students.

Teachers as agents of educative change

Each teacher, as a bearer of values (respect,

deference, sympathy) for the persons of all his
students, in spite of cultural differences, carries out
an indispensable labour in any cultural educative
project. The moral commitment of each teacher is
fundamental. But attention to all the students requires
the combined action of all the teachers, especially
in the implementation of the curriculum. To
introduce future improvements means we must
analyse what is being done, why, and how, and what
this implies for the students: what kind of learning
they are doing, what social and personal relationships
are being fostered, how their knowledge and their
citizenship is being formed. In fact, immigrant
students need teaching-learning strategies that will
conform, in the best possible way, to their particular
characteristics, with the aim of reducing the cultural
differences that hinder their integration and of
endeavouring to definitively link curricular processes
and content to their authentic reality.
We have to observe the results of the students
learning. If we do not consider these results we will
not be able to relate what is learnt with what is
taught. The analysis of the learning environment of
each student is a way of being able to help them to
learn better. A particular focus of interest could be
the models of communication used. The styles of
communication to be used with immigrant pupils
call for an assurance of the capacity of
comprehension of different cultural elements.
Consequently, working in small groups or work
teams (Antnez, 1999) would be a good way of
focusing projects and, in any case, this would always
represent a valid alternative to the hypothetical
impossibility of the implication of all the teachers in
them.
As Ortega y Gasset said, civilisation is, above all,
the will to live in a community. If the school can
create a good atmosphere of living together in all its
activities, not only the academic ones, this would be
an interesting way of bringing people together and
integrating them. This would need adequate planning.
In the warmth of human relationships everything
seems to flow more smoothly. The possibilities of a
pedagogy which uses games for this purpose have

ANTONIO BERNAL GUERRERO

already been demonstrated in different intercultural

educative projects.

References
AGUADO, M T. (Dir.) (1999): Diversidad cultural e igualdad escolar: Un modelo para el diagnstico y desarrollo de
actuaciones educativas en contextos escolares multiculturales. Madrid: M.E.C.
ANTNEZ, S. (1999): El trabajo en equipo de los profesores y profesoras: factor de calidad, necesidad y problema. El
papel de los directivos escolares. Educar, (24): 89-110.
BESAL, X. (2002): Diversidad cultural y educacin. Madrid: Sntesis.
BONAL, X., RAMBLA, X. y ROVIRA, M. (2000): Una anlisi sociolgica de latenci a la diversitat. Temps deducaci,
(24): 427-443.
DAZ-AGUADO, MJ. (1999): Igualdad y diversidad: De la educacin compensatoria a la educacin intercultural. Psicologa
Educativa, 5 (2): 115-140.
ESTEVE, J.M. (2003): La tercera revolucin educativa. La educacin en la sociedad del conocimiento. Barcelona, Paids.
FERNNDEZ ENGUITA, M. (2001): Educar en tiempos inciertos. Madrid, Morata.
FOERSTER, H. von (1996): Las semillas de la ciberntica. Obras escogidas. Barcelona, Gedisa.
GONZLEZ FONTAO, M P. (2001): La cultura de la diversidad en educacin. Innovacin Educativa, (11): 51-59.
JUREGUI, J.A. (2001): La identidad humana. Barcelona, Martnez Roca.
JORDN, J.A., MNGUEZ, R. y ORTEGA, P. (2002): Inmigracin: Una respuesta desde la pedagoga intercultural. En
GERVILLA, E. (Coord.): Globalizacin, inmigracin y educacin. XXI SITE. Granada: Diputacin de Granada,
Ayuntamiento de Granada, Junta de Andaluca y Universidad de Granada, 93-134.
LPEZ, M C. (2002): Diversidad socio-cultural y formacin de profesores. Bilbao: Mensajero.
MATURANA, H. y VARELA, F. (1990): El rbol del conocimiento. Madrid, Debate.
MENOR, M. (2001): El sistema educativo, su incidencia en la construccin de una sociedad para todos. Documentacin
Social, (124): 129-153.
MORIN, E. (2001): La mente bien ordenada. Barcelona, Seix Barral.
NUSSBAUM, M.C. (2005): El cultivo de la humanidad. Una defensa clsica de la reforma en la educacin liberal. Barcelona,
Paids.
ROTTHAUS, W. (2004): Para qu educar? Esbozo de una educacin sistmica en un mundo cambiado. Barcelona, Herder.
SALMERN, F. (1998): Diversidad cultural y tolerancia. Mxico: Paids.
SAMPEDRO, J.L. (2002): El mercado y la globalizacin. Barcelona, Destino.
SNYDER, J., BOLIN, F. y ZUMWALT, K. (1992): Curriculum implementation. En JACKSON, Ph. (ed.): Handbook of
research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan, 543-569.
WANG, M.C. (1995): Atencin a la diversidad del alumnado. Madrid: Narcea.

About the Author

Dr. Antonio Bernal Guerrero
Licentiate and Doctor in Sciences of the Education (with Extraordinary Prize). Professor of Theory of Education
in the University of Seville. It has published diverse books and numerous articles in magazines. Nowadays, his
lines of investigation centre principally on the foundations of education centred on the person, on the design
and evaluation of programs of personal development and on the analysis of theory curricular and of some of
his more specific elements.

13