Facts and figures, opportunities and challenges and the importance of a diversity-conscious, discrimination-critical attitude in working with children and families
In Germany, various developments in recent years and decades have contributed to the fact that society has become increasingly diverse or is consciously perceived as such. Globalisation, migration movements and socio-cultural changes, which have led to ethnic, linguistic and religious pluralisation in particular, have led to an increase in the diversity of society. Diversity or diversity social reality and must be taken into account in any areas. Over the decades, individuality has also gained in importance and the possibilities for shaping individual lives are becoming more diverse, so that life forms and communities, values, norms and orientations also reflect great diversity, while external constraints and conventions are becoming less important.
Against this backdrop, it is a societal task to meet diversity, especially in the field of labour market and education policy, with equal opportunities and to ensure equal participation. Even though terms such as diversity, heterogeneity or diversity have developed into positive terms in recent years (cf. Heinrich Böll Foundation 2012), diversity aspects are still far from being treated equally. Experiences of inequality and discrimination take place every day, and the educational opportunities of children in particular depend to a large extent on the resources available to them in their family environment.
This raises the following questions:
What is diversity and which characteristics need to be discussed socially in the context of inequality? What is the connection between diversity and power/privilege? Where are tensions and discrepancies between demands and laws on the one hand and (everyday) discrimination and inequalities on the other?
What does diversity mean in the context of early childhood and pedagogy? What is the significance of diversity-conscious and discrimination-critical thinking and acting for children growing up?
What are the challenges for educational professionals and for working with children and families?
What is diversity?
Reflection: What do you spontaneously think of when you think of diversity or variety? What images, people or characteristics do you have in your mind? What feelings do these trigger in you? In which moments or situations do you consciously perceive diversity?
When talking about diversity, this is usually linked and associated with different *cultures.[1]The term "diversity" is used to refer to a group of people, such as those who are different in terms of their language, skin tone or origin in connection with external characteristics that differ from the socially constructed and privileged "norm". This means that diversity cannot be defined in absolute terms, but only in relation to a characteristic or in relation to or with something that is perceived as "normal". When considering diversity, a wide variety of aspects can be important, which can be divided into different dimensions, because each person is not defined by external characteristics or by collective affiliations, but very different aspects make up the unique identity of each person.
At the centre of every human being is the Personality, i.e. the character and unique psychological traits of an individual (cf. Sielert et al 2009, p. 137), which influence behaviour patterns in any situation. This is also referred to as the core identity, which is considered relatively stable, but cannot be considered detached from external cultural and social norms and influences. As interior dimension or core dimensions of diversity are characteristics that are considered relatively unchangeable by the individual and are therefore also taken into account in corresponding equal treatment laws (cf. AGG). These include age, gender, sexual orientation, physical/psychological abilities (disability), ethnicity and skin colour, which are considered the six main characteristics of the inner dimension (cf. Benbrahim 2012, p.8). These characteristics decisively shape the life course and socialisation process and are significant for the self-image and the role and participation within a social context. The external dimension refers to areas that can change in the course of life, i.e. that individuals can lose or gain, improve or simply change, partly through conscious decisions, but partly also under the strong influence of characteristics of the inner dimension. These include, for example, income, marital status, language, education, place of residence/geographical location, habits, leisure behaviour, denomination/religion.[2] etc.
On the one hand, diversity describes differences that make each person unique and that are expressed in character traits, behaviour, competences, etc. On the other hand, diversity is mostly disregarded because it is primarily thought of in terms of collective groups. However, this individuality is usually disregarded because, on the other hand, diversity is primarily thought of in terms of collective groups, combined with sweeping attributions, expectations, prejudices and stereotypes. Because diversity is still not a social "normality" and equal fact, but some characteristics are linked to power and privilege and are taken for granted (being white, monolingual, etc.).[3], without *migration background, mother-father-child family, no disability, etc.), while deviations are marked as "different" and do not receive equal treatment. So not every difference is equally consequentialDiversity must therefore be considered and dealt with in connection with justice, equality and the questioning of patterns of normality. It is not social diversity itself that is the challenge, but the unequal valuation of differences that is the problem, which is why the following section looks at those differences that can have different effects on educational and life paths.
In addition to the real social changes that have increased attention to diversity, awareness of the discrimination against certain groups and the enormous inequality of opportunity (e.g. in the German education system) has also risen in recent years. This became visible, for example, through the results of the PISA performance comparison study, which made it clear that there is a close connection between family background and children's school performance or educational path (cf. Diehm 2020, p.13). Since then, different strategies, programmes and measures have been developed to compensate for inequalities already in early childhood.
However, before taking a closer look at the field of early childhood and the importance of diversity in children's upbringing, we will first briefly describe how diversity actually manifests itself in Germany with regard to selected characteristics.
After Germany has long denied being a country of immigration (cf. Heinrich Böll Foundation 2012) and has, for example, focused on migration (and in this context on Multilingualism) in the field of education only reacted as a temporary "phenomenon", pluralisation and "Germany as a country of immigration" should by now be recognised as a fact and is also regarded as a basic social situation in almost all education plans (cf. Sulzer 2013).
In 2018, around 25 per cent of the population in Germany, i.e. a total of around 20.8 million people, i.e. one in four of the 82 million inhabitants, had a *migration background (cf. StBA 2019). According to the definition, this refers to all those who immigrated to the Federal Republic of Germany after 1949, all foreigners born in Germany and those born in Germany as Germans with at least one immigrant parent or parent born as a foreigner. A person therefore has a *migration background if he or she or at least one parent does not have German citizenship by birth (cf. StBA 2019). Among children under the age of 10, the proportion is 40 per cent, i.e. almost twice as high, whereby a large proportion of the children have no direct migration experience, but were born in Germany and belong to the second or third "migration generation" (cf. Sulzer 2013).[4] The younger the age group, the higher the proportion of people with a *migration background, which is also reflected in child day care, where just under one third of children between the ages of three and school entry had a *migration background in 2018. Around two thirds of these children predominantly speak a family language other than German at home, which means that more than one in five children grow up multilingual in the KiTa (cf. Olszenka/Meiner-Teubner 2020). If one considers the families as a whole, about one third of them have a *migration background (cf. BMFSJ 2017).
Families have pluralised in many ways in recent decades. Even though the family form of married parents with children is still the most widespread (in 2015, there were eight million families with minor children in the household, of which the family form of married opposite-sex parents was the most common form of life with 5.5 million) (cf. BMFSFJ 2017a), the number has decreased, while the number of cohabiting couples and single parents, rainbow and patchwork families has increased. In addition, since October 2017, same-sex couples have also been able to enter into marriage with each other, which not only means a step towards equality, but should also make people aware that "family" is not to be thought of and defined as a predetermined constellation, but is lived out in the most diverse ways.
However, there are correlations between family and living arrangements and the socio-economic situation or the risk of poverty. In Germany, about one in five children is at risk of poverty, and 44 per cent of single-parent households are at risk of poverty (cf. BMFSFJ 2017), which means that their risk of poverty is about four times higher than that of couple families. Families with three or more children are also at risk, and the causes often lie in the parents' low or non-existent employment, dependence on transfer payments and generally precarious living situations. The very different living situations and resources of families also have an impact on the (educational) opportunities and participation possibilities of children, which is why day care for children has long since not only enabled parents to work, but can have enormous positive effects on the development, educational opportunities and well-being of children and can compensate for inequalities in opportunities.
Equality and diversity
As illustrated, diversity is a reality and people differ both individually and in terms of their group affiliations. This Diversity of all people, however, cannot exist without Equality be thought of, because what all people have in common, regardless of age, gender, origin, religion, etc. are the equal rights. Every child is born with the same rights to protection, participation and education, which is laid down in various laws and conventions (e.g. the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) and should thus be the basis of any approach to diversity. Human rights are the universal orientation against which diversity and the social status of different characteristics must be consistently reflected and adapted. Diversity characteristics still have a strong impact on people's living conditions, opportunities and possibilities of participation, individual diversity within groups is disregarded and it is not real differences but prejudices and attributions that determine the perception and handling of diversity. Thus the goal should be a "egalitarian difference" i.e. an equal approach to diversity, as Annedore Prengel (cf. Prengel 2010) demands with the concept of pedagogy of diversity. Diversity must not only be recognised and respected as equal, but can only lead to freedom through the relationship between equality (=equal rights) and diversity, which looks like all people being able to develop freely in their diversity on the basis of equal rights.
-----------------------------------------------
[1] Many terms that are used in everyday life in the context of diversity - for example *culture, *migration background, *nationality, *nation - are often linked to collective attributions, unreflective associations, prejudices and externalities and thus move away from the actual definition in everyday discourse. In the following, all these terms are preceded by a so-called *stumbling asterisk (cf. Ali-Tani 2019), which should have the effect that one "stumbles" over the terms and becomes more sensitive to language or reflects when, why and with what intention one uses these terms and whom one addresses with them. The term *culture specifically marked here is questionable because it is often equated with *national cultures. Such homogeneous constructions are not contemporary, because *culture encompasses norms, values, attitudes, traditions, language, beliefs, values and many other aspects that are central to people in the respective context and everyday life and that are formed in a dynamic and interactive process. Each family forms its own individual family culture and differences and similarities cannot be determined by origin or the like, but by lifestyles, value concepts, aesthetic preferences, etc. (cf. Sulzer 2013). (cf. Sulzer 2013).
[2] Religion as a diversity characteristic is an exception and can also be counted as part of the internal dimension, as it is not always freely chosen and there is a legal prohibition against discrimination.
[3] With regard to language competences as well as origin, one cannot speak of general devaluation or, on the other hand, privileges, but it is specific countries and specific languages that are perceived as deficient, so that, for example, English and French are seen as resources and valuable (foreign language) competences, while Turkish or Arabic are not equally recognised but are considered deficient and usually call for integration/adaptation efforts.
[4] In my opinion, the use of the term "migration background" should be viewed critically because in everyday language and in public discourse it is only focused on certain nations and external characteristics (hair/skin colour, language, names...) and stigmatises, generalises and devalues people regardless of their migration experience.
What makes it so difficult? Example: The "other" *culture
The globalisation and pluralisation of society already described leads to insecurities for many people: Differences can cause irritation, fears or even defensiveness. In addition, human thinking functions through categorisation, which enables quick orientation, assessment and the ability to act, which is a useful and natural reaction. However, this categorisation also happens - and mostly unconsciously - in every encounter with people: By assessing age, perceiving gender and other external characteristics, we quickly form an image of others, classify them and judge them. This is problematic insofar as the perception is mostly shaped by prejudices and stereotypical ideas, whereby people are not perceived as individuals with diverse affiliations, but are confronted with expectations and attributions that can be discriminatory. For example, in everyday practice, the so-called "*migration background" is mainly associated with external characteristics, combined with deficit attributions. Often, the attribution is sweepingly linked to a different *culture, whereby *culture is equated with *nationality. This does not do justice to the individual experiences of children and families within a social context, nor to the reality of a globalised world in which "cultural" delimited spaces are increasingly dissolving and the "inner" composition of nations cannot be considered homogeneous (cf. Kölsch-Bunzen et al 2015). Children in particular, who usually have no migration experience of their own, are often treated as representatives of a country of origin or of a "different" *culture, which does not do justice to their life and everyday world. In order to take up these aspects in practice, a diversity- and culture-sensitive attitude, oriented towards democracy and human rights and with a clear anti-discriminatory position, should be lived, based on a dynamic *cultural concept that perceives each individual family in its life situation and allows for diverse lived family cultures within a context. The "cultural" should be seen as an integral part of every practice, as it is always the specific way of life, expressed in traditions, languages, values, manners, norms and rules, which can have similarities and differences with each family's own.
What does diversity mean in children's upbringing and why is it so important to be aware of it?
Although all children have the right to education, participation and protection against discrimination, (educational) inequalities, e.g. based on ethnic origin, are laid early on. Children's educational success depends significantly on their social background and children from socio-economically disadvantaged and/or immigrant families are particularly disadvantaged and scientific studies repeatedly prove the importance of family background for children's educational opportunities (cf. BMFSFJ 2016). Children have a variety of identities, differ in family forms, gender, age, origin, language and the family cultures lived at home, and accordingly have experiences of similarities and differences from an early age. The day care centre (KiTa) has a special responsibility in this context, because early institutional care can improve educational opportunities and compensate for disadvantages. At the same time, however, the day care centre is also a socially shaped place where a certain everyday culture (educational ideas, rules, daily routines, etc.) is lived, to which the children in their diversity can connect in very different ways and where not all children see their family culture reflected. Children whose family cultures have a high degree of correspondence with the institutional culture can usually access educational opportunities much more easily, while children who find nothing or less familiar have a more difficult time. The family is a child's first frame of reference: What they experience there, how they talk to each other and deal with each other is familiar and taken for granted. In order for every child to be able to develop, to be self-confident, autonomous and competent in following their own path in life and education, and to develop into a self-confident personality, it is of enormous importance and a prerequisite that every child is not only recognised and valued as an individual, but that they are also experiences positive resonance in relation to its family culture. It is equally important not to reduce children to one aspect of their identity ("child with a disability", child with a *migration background", etc.), but to take into account both the diverse lifeworlds, and the Belongings in their entirety to perceive. At the same time, it is still necessary not to deny certain diversity characteristics, but to be attentive to discrimination in order to best protect and empower children from experiences of devaluation. Even if the kindergarten is a place where diversity is a matter of course, in a social context that sends implicit and explicit messages about the value of diversity at all levels, mere contact between children is not enough; targeted and active interventions on the part of adults are needed so that differences are met with respect and appreciation and the development of prejudice is prevented.
Reflection questions:
What is special about my own family culture? How did I grow up and become a child? What values, traditions and rituals were I taught? What ideas about the relationship between the generations and what role models have I been taught?
What do I know about the family life of the people and children I spend/work with?
Which behaviours irritate me in contact with other families? How do I evaluate and judge this and what does it say about my understanding of normality?
What does this mean for educational professionals?
Pedagogical professionals who spend a lot of time with children every day in the day care centre, for example, are important reference persons for them. The challenge that arises in everyday life and interactions with children is, despite the same procedures and institutional rules and guidelines, To do justice to all children in their diversityso that no child experiences disadvantages due to a feature of his or her personality. This task is an ongoing process and requires reflecting and flexibilising one's thinking and acting again and again and checking one's perception for prejudices and stereotypical expectations. Not only are the children and families diverse, but every professional brings their own family culture and with it a certain understanding of normality, which can lead to one-sided views and unfair treatment or limit children's development opportunities through attributions.
Moreover, early childhood education, especially in dealing with diversity, has a long tradition of deficit orientation and the notion of "normal" developmental trajectories. And in terms of support, encouragement and any form of additional resources, it is still the case that these are only guaranteed when supposed deficits are identified and diagnosed. Children are therefore usually taught what they cannot (yet) do instead of focusing on resources and strengths. Diversity-conscious action thus also means revising this dilemma and providing all children with a Diverse and individual development and education path as stipulated in the educational plans of the federal states (cf. e.g. MFKJKS NRW 2016), because hardly anything is more motivating and strengthening than the message: "You can do something, I have confidence in you and you are right the way you are!
Dealing professionally with diversity requires competences that relate in particular to the Work on one's own attitude and reflection on patterns of thought and action refer to. In addition to self-reflexivity, these include Ability to change perspective and the awareness that one's own perspective is not universal, but only one of many. Questioning one's own ideas of normality and becoming aware of one's own prejudices is not easy and can cause insecurities, fears, irritations, perhaps even resistance, because one's own privileges and power structures may also become visible. Diversity-sensitive action, however, only works through understanding and communication, with empathy and an orientation towards human and children's rights.
Cooperation with parents and families
In order to realise children's rights to education and participation, all relevant actors must work together, because equal opportunities cannot be created by educational professionals alone, but is a task for society as a whole and can be realised in particular through good cooperation with parents and families, combined with an appreciative approach to diversity (cf. BMFSFJ 2016). For even if public day care is of considerable importance for development, the first and most important place of education for children is the family. For the cooperation with families, parents or caregivers and pedagogical professionals must meet on an equal footing, because dealing with diversity on an equal footing and taking diversity into account is not context-dependent or person-related, but should represent the basis of any interaction between people and is also a concrete mandate of child day care facilities (cf. Prengel 2014). For this, first of all the concrete life situations and ways of life, i.e. the lived family culture must be perceived and taken into account, which also requires a consistent reflection of one's own presuppositions and attributions in order to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations. All parents and families bring a great diversity with them, differ in views, experiences and life situations, can be reached differently and, despite commonalities (e.g. a "*migration background"), have a very individual relationship to this and have been shaped very differently in the respective social context. The basis of any cooperation with families is trust, which can only be established if families are recognised and valued as equal partners and actors. Since all families have different ideas about education, different values, rules and traditions, it is important to bring these into the experience. The basis for this is an open process of dialogue and an attitude that allows for a change of perspective and is not biased by expectations and values from the outset. Every behaviour has a meaning from its own perspective, each family needs different means to be reached and to feel valued and respected. Knowledge and understanding of each family's unique life story is a prerequisite for communication without misunderstandings and instead of making assumptions, parents and caregivers need to share their own observations, perspectives and interpretations from their everyday lives. From such conversations, expansions of the possibilities for action on both sides can develop and the Gains from diversity can be experienced.
And no matter how different the families are: It is Not working against each other, but with each otherbecause the aim and the focus is always on the Welfare of the child. Against this background, different perspectives have to be negotiated and the path defined that, on the one hand, takes into account and values the family culture and, on the other hand, makes the child capable of acting in the current social context that prescribes certain norms, laws and rules.
Diversity does not mean that every behaviour and every point of view has to be tolerated and accepted, but has limits. Because there is a difference between absolute norms and conventional norms. Absolute norms are democratic values based on human and children's rights, which stipulate, for example, that no child may be physically or mentally abused. If views differ here, it is important to protect the child and take a clear position of responsibility for the child. It is different with conventional norms, such as eating rules and habits. Such norms are different in every family, must be accepted and recognised, and even if there are majorities and minorities, depending on the social context, this is not connected to any upgrading or devaluation, but should be experienced as equal enrichment.
In conclusion, the foundation of any form of diversity is always Common groundWe all have a family or people in general who are important to us, we have a body, an age, a name, we speak one or more languages, we have needs for belonging, recognition and well-being, and we all have the same rights to participation, education, protection from discrimination, etc. These commonalities look different for each of us and are lived out differently. Instead of positioning ourselves against each other and forming groups of privileged and excluded, we should always be aware that many features of our identity belong to us "by chance" through birth and that no one has the right to place themselves above others because of this. From their individual point of view, people always have the same motivation: to create a contented, healthy and happy life, and in this we should support each other instead of seeking our own enhancement in the devaluation of other ways of life.
Early childhood, the upbringing and education of children at home and in institutions such as daycare centres, must always be considered against the background of future society and subsequent generations: What values children experience, how they are taught and exemplify the view of diversity and how they internalise this in the microcosm of their individual world of experience, is how they will later shape the future in the societal macrocosm.
Sources and references:
AGG (General Equal Treatment Act)(2020): Publisher: Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, available online at: https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/ThemenUndForschung/Recht_und_gesetz/DasGesetz/dasGesetz_node.html.
Ali-Tani, C. (2019): Your culture, my culture, our culture? The search for the we (part 1). In: Verlag das netz (ed.): Betrifft KINDER; Issue 07-08-2019, pp. 6-10.
Benbrahim, K. (2012): Theoretical foundations of the concept of diversity. In: Benbrahim, K.(ed.) (2012): Diversity. Consciously perceiving and thinking about diversity, but how? Reader for multipliers in youth and educational work. Informations- und Dokumentationszentrum für Antirassismusarbeit (IDA) e.V., Düsseldorf, pp.6-8.
Blossfeld, H.P. (2013): Competence Development, Educational Decisions and Inequality of Opportunities in Preschool and School - New Results from Research on the Importance of Families in the Educational Process. In: Deißner, D.(ed.): Chancen bilden. Ways to a fairer education - an international exchange of experiences. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 37-57.
BMFSFJ (ed.) (2016): Equal Opportunities through Early Education. Good approaches and challenges in access to child day care. Available online at: https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/service/publikationen/gleiche-chancen-durch-fruehe-bildung/112556
BMFSFJ (ed.) (2017): Gelebte Vielfalt: Familien mit Migrationshintergrund in Deutschland. Available online at: https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/service/publikationen/gelebte-vielfalt--familien-mit-migrationshintergrund-in-deutschland/116882.
BMFSFJ (ed.) (2017a): Familienreport 2017. Leistungen, Wirkungen, Trends. Available online at: https://www.bmfsfj.de/familienreport-2017.
Diehm, I. (2020): Difference - the pedagogical challenge in school for all children. In: Skorsetz, N./Bonanati, M./Kucharz, D.(Eds.): Diversity and Social Inequality. Challenges to the Integrative Performance of Primary Schools. Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung Vol. 24, vxSpringer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 9-20.
Kölsch-Bunzen, N./Morys, R./Knoblauch, C. (2015): Kulturelle Vielfalt annehmen und gestalten. Eine Handreichung zur Umsetzung des Orientierungsplans für Kindertageseinrichtungen in Baden-Württemerg. Herder Verlag, Freiburg. MFKJKS NRW (ed.) (2016): Bildungsgrundsätze für Kinder von 0 bis 10 Jahren in Kindertagesbetreuung und Schulen im Primarbereich in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Herder Verlag, Freiburg.
Olszenka, N./Meiner-Teubner, C. (2020): From daycare to higher education: young people with a migration background in the German education system. Child day care. In: DJI Children and Youth Migration Report 2020. Data analysis on the situation of young people in Germany, pp.94-107.
Prengel, A. (2010): Inklusion in der Frühpädagogik. Educational theoretical, empirical and pedagogical foundations. Expertise for the project Weiterbildungsinitiative Früpädagogische Fachkräfte (WiFF), Munich.
Prengel, A. (2014): Inklusion in der Frühpädagogik. Educational theoretical, empirical and pedagogical foundations. An expertise of the Further Training Initiative for Early Childhood Educators (Weiterbildungsinitiative Frühpädagogische Fachkräfte, WiFF). DJI, Munich.
Sielert. U. et al (eds.) (2009): Competence Training "Pedagogy of Diversity". Fundamentals and practice materials on relations of difference, self-reflection and recognition. Juventa Verlag, Weinheim.
StBA -Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis) (2019): Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit- Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund - Ergebnisse des Mikrozensens 2018 - Fachserie 1 Reihe 2.2.
Sulzer, A. (2013): Cultural Heterogeneity in Kitas. Requirements for professionals. An expert report by the Further Training Initiative for Early Childhood Educators (WiFF). DJI (ed.), Munich.