Quality Education

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Education for Community Cohesion

  • Juana Figueroa VélezEmail author
  • Eduardo Rico Ardila
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69902-8_56-1


Education for community cohesion is the process of enabling every human being to acquire and develop the competencies needed to be part of a community that works as a harmonic and functional system capable of achieving the SDGs. Individuals in cohesive communities have resilient social relations, a positive emotional connectedness, shared values, a common vision, and a sense of belonging enriched by cultural, religious, social, political, economic, and biological diversity.

Related Concepts

  • Social integration: Despite the use of the term cohesion interchangeably with integration, they refer to different subjects. While integration refers to the conditions required to make cohesion possible, cohesion is the social consequence of integration.

  • Social cohesion: Social cohesion is widely used in the European community although its ideals and practices vary between states; three main approaches can be identified (Green et al. 2009). The first is based on the belief that solidarity must be followed by a common identity, culture, and civic virtues. The second focuses on values such as equality, fairness, collectivism, and solidarity and in the development of social movements. The third emphasizes values of freedom, rights, and responsibilities and focuses on limiting individualism and competition (Green et al. 2009). Social cohesion and community cohesion have in common certain characteristics. First, they can be intended as processes required to live together in harmony (Jenson 1998). Second, they both value diversity and difference for the development of relationships between diverse groups (Hulse and Stone 2007). Nonetheless, social cohesion refers exclusively to human beings, and community cohesion involves living populations including other than humans. Additionally, while social cohesion emphasizes economic processes, community cohesion underlines cultural processes (Holden 2013).

  • Community resilience: Community resilience refers to the abilities of a group of people to prepare for, withstand, and recover from adversity. The term emphasizes how community members behave after hazards and disasters, in ways that demonstrate altruism, innovation, and strength. The term is considered an acquired capacity to reduce potential harm through interventions before, during, and after an event (Bean 2014). Community cohesion is a condition that contributes to community resilience, but there are other conditions needed, for example, strong and sustainable public health care and emergency response systems (Bean 2014).

  • Multiculturalism: Multiculturalism refers to the challenges associated to cultural and religious diversity; its proponents reject the ideal of the “melting point” where people from minority groups can maintain their collective identities and practices without being overshadowed by dominant groups (Malpas and Davidson 2009). Multiculturalism is a phenomenon that can be seen as an obstacle or opportunity for community cohesion. An obstacle, when the diversity it encompasses accentuate conflicts and jeopardizes harmonic social interactions. An opportunity, when diversity is valued and cultural identity is valued in order to reunite for a social common good.

  • Global citizenship education (GCED): It refers to UNESCO’s response to human right violations, inequality, and poverty that threaten peace and sustainability in the increasingly interconnected world (UNESCO 2018a). Education for community cohesion is necessary to achieve the goals of GCED, because it prepares humans with the skills, attitudes, and values that will enable them to act locally toward a global common good.

  • Key competencies for community cohesion: It is the interplay of cognitive and non-cognitive components acquired through education processes that bear a wide focus, pooling different competency classes (e.g., domain-specific competencies), and point out the most relevant competency fields (Barth et al. 2007). These competencies have a common point; they enable individuals to participate in an active, reflective, and cooperative way to foster sustainable development (Haan 2006). These also enable students to recognize they are part of a society with shared values and to act in coherence with a common vision and sense of belonging enriched by diversity (LGA et al. 2002).


Origins of the Concept of Community Cohesion

The idea of educating for community cohesion arises from the understanding of the need of a synchrony between education and the set of goals established by the United Nations in the 2000 Assembly Forum (UNESCO 2000) even though at the time the concept community cohesion did not exist. The Millennium Goals, which later became the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), exposed the need for a global call for action that would promote prosperity while protecting the planet and ensuring the well-being of every human in the world (United Nations 2015). From this process, education is changing and can be adapted to provide the tools necessary to develop and achieve the SDG (UNESCO 2005–2014). In this context, education appears as a required process to form individuals that, within different communities, can act to consolidate communities that work as a harmonic and functional system capable of achieving the SDGs.

In terms of the concept of community cohesion, we can trace back the origin of the term to the UK. The term community cohesion was first introduced and coined by the Cantle and Denham reports (Cantle 2001; Denham 2001). The reports analyzed racial-driven disturbances and riots in ethnically diverse towns (i.e., Bradford, Burnley, and Oldham), identifying the key driver for this as lack of community cohesion (Cantle 2005). As part of the follow-up plan to address this issue, the UK government created the Community Cohesion Review Team (CCRT), which objective was to “identify good practice, key policy issues and new innovative thinking in the field of community cohesion” (Cantle 2005). The elements presented by the report exposed a profound separation and segregation in the society from the towns visited. This communities displayed a lack of contact and interaction among the various cultures which they comprised (Cantle 2005), and that could be linked to numerous changing elements from modern societies such as language, faith and beliefs, education, leisure, employment, housing, lifestyle, and social structure (Cantle 2005). Each of these elements had different values and characteristics not shared by all communities which conflicted among the different populations. Among the different subcommunities within each town, the various elements comprising their identity and their functionality were clearly different (Cantle 2005). These differences triggered changes in the mechanisms and types of interactions which were pointed as the drivers responsible for the disturbances that had taken place (Wetherell 2007). Since then, much of the UK policies were oriented toward developing and reinforcing the idea of community cohesion among the people, developing a new framework that rethought the elements of multiculturalism, in an attempt to highlight the most important elements of multicultural communities (Wetherell 2007; Thomas 2011). From this moment on, the discussion regarding community cohesion as a central element for public policies comprises two perspectives. The first embraces people that see community cohesion as a diminishment in maintaining a strong and functional ethnic diversity in countries (Thomas 2011). The second encompasses people that see the possibility of developing tools and mechanisms that allow ethnically diverse communities to work as a one, without stepping back in their own social background and dynamics (Thomas 2011).

To educate for community cohesion, different strategies can be adopted: firstly, institutional strategies that involve architecture design and school programs and policies and, secondly, pedagogic approaches that enhance the development of key competencies like systems thinking, cosmopolitan perception, transcultural understanding, and cooperation, among others.

Drivers for Community Cohesion

The need of education for community cohesion arises from several drivers that cause social conflict and therefore interfere with human’s ability to act as a functional unit able to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. These drivers are interconnected, and their interaction can accentuate their effect on community cohesion. The way drivers are approached determines whether they have a positive effect facilitating community cohesion or a negative effect while increasing the difficulty to achieve it (Pinilla, personal communication, April 4, 2018). The approach to the drivers that results in the lack of community cohesion is associated to historical and/or cultural processes that might be also related to our biological and ethological characteristics as a species. The lack of community cohesion is often attributed to diversity, while other factors and complex interactions might be contributing (Engel et al. 2013), for example, income inequalities, climate change, social networks, and technology, among others. Recent ongoing changes of contemporary society evidence the need to understand change. Later marriage, higher rates of divorce, new family structures, and demographic changes become relevant when the debate focuses on the interactions and relationships within society (Davies et al. 2012).
  • Identity diversity: identity refers to how a person defines themselves in relation to others. Diversity of identities is often seen as the problem in terms of communities working as a functional system (Pareckh 2007). Identities are determined by several factors including culture, religion, ethnicity, and race which are often highlighted as the main reasons of social tensions that jeopardize community cohesion. Community cohesion does not aim to deny ethnic, religious, and social identities toward the imposition of a nonnegotiable common identity (Thomas 2011). Instead, it seeks to accept and work to augment distinct communities with common experiences and identities through a negotiated process (Thomas 2011). Education for community cohesion needs to enhance social dynamics that avoid identity free zones while promoting people to identify with superordinate identities (e.g., the community in general, the nation). Avoiding identity free zones ensures that the mechanisms to create a sense of belonging are not suppressed. It is crucial to foster new senses of identity, reinforcing identity factors associated with positive community relations (Wetherell 2007).

  • Ideology diversity: it is intended at the individual level, as a set of intellectual beliefs of thinking that are determined by the beliefs of the society at large (Kim 2007). Ideology diversity can often be seen as a justification of social conflict, because it highlights the absence of a natural and legitimate hierarchy of ideologies encouraging people to pursue and impose their own ideology over the others. Studies evidenced that although “white” communities valued ideology diversity, they maintained a lack of support for policies aiming to bring ideology diversity to fruition (Merow et al. 2013; Smith and Mayorga-Gallo 2017).

  • Income inequalities: several studies evidence that income inequalities rather than ethnicity or diversity impede community cohesion (Becares et al. 2011; Letki 2008). Sometimes it is challenging to identify the main reasons for the lack of community cohesion because often economically deprived areas overlap with ethnic minorities. Income inequalities negatively influence social interactions necessary for accomplishing community cohesion by affecting levels of trust and civic engagement and increasing crime and violence. The latter phenomenon influences psychosocial processes that have an effect on social interactions, cultural norms, values, and behavior, undermining community cohesion (Constantin 2014).

  • Social networks and technology: when human relationships rely exclusively on online interactions, the emotional benefits of face-to-face interaction are missed, thereby affecting negatively social capital (Antoci et al. 2014). Krau et al. (1998) concluded that the increased use of the Internet is related to a diminishment in family interactions, a reduced social circle, and a rise in loneliness and depression. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that when the use of the Internet became more related to being connected to social networking sites, it entailed the engagement in social activities. In fact, the most recent studies (2007–2011) established that online networks supported the development of existing ties (Antoci et al. 2014). The biggest problem arises when ties are not present. In this scenario, social networks can intensify existing conflicts, for example, when social media is used to discuss topics that can cause controversy, such as political ideology, cultural beliefs, and religion. Conflicts arising from interactions in online networks are associated to the fact that virtual participation vanishes the individual responsibility toward the community, and it does not compromise the individual with its virtual statements. Social networks facilitate communication but not encounters, and this can compromise empathic and honest social interactions (Pinilla, personal communication, April 4, 2018).

  • Climate change: the prospect of human-induced climate change encourages drastic scenarios in terms of the many potential consequences for the physical environment which ultimately can lead to a large number of possible paths to conflict (Nordås and Gleditsch 2007). Climate change negative scenarios highlight the need for community resilience and cohesion, because they evidence the lack of cohesion between communities worldwide. It evidences the difficulty of human communities to act as one and mitigate the negative effects of climate change. Fast-occurring and changing processes that affect humanity’s environment test the structure and strength of the community to withstand external factors (community resilience). Desynchronized environmental policies regarding climate change evidence the lack of community cohesion from a global perspective (Giddens 2010). Climate change, differently from other drivers, affects humanity as a species.

Theoretical Framework

During the last recent years, measuring and monitoring the social integration within countries and among countries has increased significantly (Dewan 2009). This is a result for the increasing need to understand the behavior of societies. Community cohesion is a fundamental aspect of societies by which is possible to understand and predict its behavior. Setting the theoretical framework to understand community cohesion is fundamental since it allows the comparison with other proposed definitions of community cohesion (Dragolov et al. 2016). Thinking in community cohesion terms requires a framework for human-based communities that prevents possible misconception of the term and, more urgently, more efficient, synchronized, and stronger mechanisms among the educational community into achieving community cohesion. In light of this, the main aspects compose the framework to educate for community cohesion: the individual, interaction relationship, and community. These aspects provide a theoretical framework that is inclusive with previous definitions of social and community cohesion.
  • Individual: education for community cohesion requires to define and understand the idea of the individual as a unit within a system, a unit with specific characteristics that determine its role and position within the environment. There are different perspectives that question whether education should develop the idea of individual or focus on the idea of collectivism (Bertram 2012; Darwish and Huber 2003; Federico 2006; Triandis 2002). The problem with the discussion concerning which approach to adopt in a pedagogic process (i.e., regarding the concept of individual) is that it arises from the misconception of the individual as separated from other hierarchy levels (e.g., society, community). This approach places the concept of individual in a time-dependent perspective. Education for community cohesion is a process where the individual is able to recognize itself from the others and is capable of identifying their strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, it enables to understand that these characteristics are determined by a specific set of cultural aspects that are susceptible to change through time. This conception is instrumental, when educating for community cohesion, since it allows the individual to recognize that individuality is not a static condition. Potentially, different individuals, at some point, might share ideas, values, and qualities that they did not share before. Individuality comprises the understanding that each person, because of its cultural, political, and ideological background (Darwish and Huber 2003; Kim 2007), behaves as a specific and unique component within a community. Individuals potentially have the ability to change and become part of another community. This perspective does not mean that because of the changing nature of individuals, there are not stable and homogenous communities. In the contrary, it tends to generate a consciousness of the diversity of homogeneous communities worldwide.

  • Interaction-Relationship: every natural or social system has its own set of specific rules that govern the interactions within the system. Unlike most natural systems, identifying, naming, and generalizing the rules of a social system are more difficult due to the complexity of social interactions that go beyond the species survival. With this in mind, it is necessary to recognize and identify the levels of organization of the relations among humans, which allow the multicultural nature of society.

    Different levels of organization in social processes comprise interactions and relationships. The former are behaviors between two or more individuals within a community (Hinde 1976), and the latter are the series of interactions between two individuals through time (Hinde 1976). Educating for community cohesion requires to identify and analyze the relationships that are perpetuated through time and that contribute or not to community cohesion. Within this framework, it is possible to enhance the development of key competencies that strengthen specific positive relationships regardless of each community characteristics.

  • Community: identifying what encompasses a community and therefore the system from which an individual is part off provides the most general framework to work on education for community cohesion. In this sense, more than the limits and boundaries of a specific community, the aim while educating for community cohesion has to be in terms of the “when” of a specific community. This means that the characterization of communities is not constant and it is dependent on specific factors, which change through time. Based on this characterization of community, it is possible to recognize different obstacles affecting each community and, therefore, how the individual can act and behave. Obstacles can be identified at the local level and at the global level. Understanding communities at a global level implies acknowledging that humans as species can be conceived as a unit of a bigger community which includes other species. Considering the species as a unit and its changing condition through time evidences that interactions and relations between species are also dynamic. Additionally, acknowledging species as units of a system allows to recognize the interdependence between humans and other components of the community. This later provides the scenario for humanity to think and develop the necessary tools for human’s sustainability. Many approaches have been used to account for the sustainable development such as the Human Development Index (HDI), the Human Poverty Index (HPI), the Gender-Related Development Index (GDI), and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) (Dewan 2009). All of these indexes show the increasing need to quantify the rate at which humans are [1] developing. The problem rests, when it is evident that none of them considers humanity as part of a bigger community. This limitation can be overthrown by thinking of a community as a diverse and time-changing frame capable of including different species.

Educational Strategies for Community Cohesion

Institutional Strategies to Educate for Community Cohesion: Educational institutions, especially schools, have a valuable potential to contribute toward education for community cohesion: firstly, consider the design and architecture of the educational settings; secondly, take into account the diversification of uses of the school as a site to strengthen community engagement; and, thirdly, implement programs or policies to reinforce and improve social interactions in the local context.
  • Educational institutions and classrooms architecture: the place and time where learning processes take place have an enormous influence in the ability to overcome educational challenges to achieve community cohesion. For example, the design of schools could consider the need to educate for community cohesion. The traditional spatial conception of schools that consist of endless corridors and four-wall classrooms must evolve in order to promote the interaction of the school community with their local context (people and environment) and to facilitate cross-classroom collaboration (Jarraud 2010). School design must consider the inclusion of learning spaces that promote the interaction between different members of the learning community (e.g., learner-learner and learner-teacher) (Rudd et al. 2006). Additionally, diversity of learning spaces enable the acquisition of different sort of knowledge and skills (Rudd et al. 2006).

  • Educational institutions as resources to educate for community cohesion: educational institutions, particularly schools, have a crucial role to help people to learn about difference. However, schools can be segregated as well. Many young people never experience cultural or social difference at their school and emerge into a multicultural world without the cultural skills to break down barriers between communities (Cantle 2017). Communities are also segregated, because usually their spatial distribution within urban and rural settings is correlated with socioeconomic characteristics. An approach to support community cohesion in this case is school linking (Cantle 2017). In this approach, partner schools are comprised of children from different backgrounds that would otherwise have no chance of meeting each other (Cantle 2017). Additionally, schools can become a resource and a site within the neighborhood for community engagement. For example, schools can be used as the space to implement educational programs aiming at reinforcing the link between families, the school, and the community (Engel et al. 2013).

  • Educational institutions, programs, and policies: educational initiatives to promote community cohesion vary depending on the scale at which they operate. Holden (2013) distinguishes between macrolevel strategies and microlevel strategies. The first refers to educational institutions operating in an inclusive and cohesive manner, recognizing the importance of cohesion and integrating to the curriculum issues such as equality, diversity, and integration. The second includes strategies to promote cross-cultural mixing by recruiting students and staff from different backgrounds and by having teachers able to teach about the importance of integration and social unity. Other initiatives identified by Holden (2013) include the design and implementation of school twinning projects, cultural awareness events, and citizenship education and vocational programs. In countries facing profound income inequalities, initiatives such as school networks aiming to involve students in the conservation of urban ecosystems have a valuable potential to promote collaborative work between public and private schools helping to address the current gap between social classes (Red de colegios Cerros de Bogotá 2016).

Educational orientations to educate for community cohesion: there are different pedagogical approaches that facilitate education for community cohesion. Despite their specificity, they all enhance the development of key skills, values, and attitudes to strengthen community cohesion. Additionally, they all promote the students exposure to live settings and their understanding of being part of complex systems which components are interdependent.
  • Ecojustice education: it is based on the recognition that being a human means to be part of a vast and complex system of life and that human beings depend on the education about different interrelated elements: first, to learn how to protect the systems of life (Martusewics and Edmunson 2005) to avoid drastic scenarios (e.g., climate change) that unstabilize communities; second, to learn the identification and analysis of domination patterns that unjustly catalogue certain groups of humans and/or the natural world as inferior and though promote social conflict; third, to encourage students to identify the causes and remediate the effects of social and ecological violence in their local contexts; and, finally, the acknowledgment of the interdependence of the interactions between humans and abiotic factors or with other species, which rely in the intergenerational practices and relationships among different cultures (Bowers 1997, 2001).

  • Place-based education: it focuses on the interactions of natural and human communities by involving students and people from the community in projects in the local environment. By getting students involved in their own communities and solving real problems, learning becomes relevant (Martusewics et al. 2015). This approach reconnects education with the well-being of the community and facilitates the development of skills and dispositions that children and youth need to regenerate and sustain communities (Gruenewald and Smith 2008). By involving students in real-life situations, place-based education emphasizes the importance of social participation. Actually Holden (2013: 251) evidences its importance: “social participation as a vehicle for the acquisition of knowledge and skills, the most relevant of which is situational learning – a model that extols the value of student participation in live settings.”

  • Education for sustainable development: it seeks to empower people to change the way they think and act based on sustainable development. It promotes students’ development of skills, values, and attitudes needed to become responsible actors who resolve challenges, respect cultural diversity, and contribute to create a more sustainable world (UNESCO 2018b). Competencies needed to achieve sustainability are those that lead to more sustainable lifestyles (Varga et al. 2007), and this refers to human interactions with natural resource and its actions to guarantee their and others’ well-being. The spontaneous individuals’ motivations and skills to seek other humans or species’ well-being necessarily contribute both to community cohesion and to sustainable development. For this reason, many key competencies in ESD have also a crucial role in education for community cohesion.

  • Holistic education: it emerges from the need to overcome educational focus on developing students’ physical, behavioral, and intellectual capacities for economic and material benefits. It seeks to surpass this need by emphasizing the need of enhancing students’ social, emotional, psychological, moral, creative, aesthetic, and spiritual natures and capacities (Darken 2009). By valuing the emotional, social, and spiritual nature of students, holistic education seeks the development of the full potential of each individual by honoring their unique talents and capacities (Darken 2009). Holistic perspective focuses on the potential of the individual within overlapping contexts of family, community, society, humanity, and the natural world (Miller 1991). This approach can contribute in education for community cohesion, because firstly it values the individuals’ identities considering all the human dimensions without trying to homogenize students based on a determined desired human “model.” In this sense, it avoids human conflict arising from the difficulty to accept and comprehend humans’ differences and diversity. Secondly, it promotes the development of humans’ dimensions such as the social, emotional, and spiritual which are crucial for the development of values that contribute to community cohesion (e.g., empathy, solidarity, and compassion, among others).

Education for community cohesion must consider that individuals’ motivations to have harmonic interactions with other members of the community vary depending on the sociocultural local context. In some contexts, the motivation is mainly driven by values such as empathy and compassion, while in other circumstances as regards the understanding that we are all part of the same system and what affects the other will necessarily have a consequence on me. The consideration of key competencies, values, and attitudes for community cohesion can guarantee that regardless the specific characteristics of the local contexts, there is a common framework shared by educators to achieve the harmonic and dynamic functioning of communities.

Some key competencies associated to education for sustainable development have also the potential to strengthen community cohesion. In fact, as mentioned before community cohesion and sustainable development are intimately related. Acquiring competencies is a more complex process than learning. The later process refers to acquiring knowledge, while competence acquisition involves cognitive and non-cognitive elements that go beyond knowledge acquisition (Weinert 2001). This implies, firstly, the development of higher stages of consciousness regarding the individual and the community that evidences increased cognitive complexity and, secondly, the acquisition of non-cognitive components that involve learning of values and its interiorization. This last process implies that the learners must be able to recognize their values system and understand its adequacy to reality (Barth et al. 2007). In the context of education for community cohesion, the acquisition of non-cognitive components and the interiorization of values have an enormous importance. They have a strong influence in the individual’s ability to change societal living and to act fostering community cohesion. Finally, competence acquisition implies the student awareness of its existence and agency (Pinilla, personal communication, April 4, 2018).

Some key competencies associated to education for community cohesion are as follows:
  • Systems thinking: refers to the ability to understand the way living systems and human societies function (Kunsch et al. 2007). It enables to analyze complex systems across different domains (i.e., society, environment, economy) and across different spatial and temporal scales (Wiek et al. 2011). Once the individuals are aware of the complex interdependence of the components of living and social systems that compose communities, they are aware of the relevance of acting to reinforce community cohesion. Systems thinking might also contribute to understand the legitimacy and relevance of difference to achieve the common well-being.

  • Cosmopolitan perception, transcultural understanding, and cooperation: refers to the capacity to expand the perception of the context, inviting to transcend the horizons of individual’s perceptions and judgments while striving for a global view. Cosmopolitan perception, transcultural understanding, and cooperation imply the development of the curiosity and interest regarding other regions of the world and the desire to learn from them (Haan 2006). This competency enhances the individuals’ capacity to recognize identity diversity and to value it. It enables to understand that despite cultural, ideological, or biological differences, we all share the same need and motivation to live as a harmonic and functional unit.

  • Capacity for empathy, compassion, and solidarity: refers to the ability to engage in situations that call for justice and require competence in transcultural communication, cooperation, as well as empathy. This competency enables individuals to act and communicate with a spirit of global solidarity. It encourages to work together, to find solutions to shared problems, and to find ways to achieve more justice (Haan 2006). Situations that evidence unbalance such as injustice, privileged and disadvantaged, and poor and rich trigger social conflicts that jeopardize community cohesion. The acquisition of capacity for empathy, compassion, and solidarity can counteract the action of “social difference” as a driver accentuating the lack of community cohesion.

  • Distanced reflection on individual and cultural models: refers to individual’s ability to recognize and critically analyze their own interests and desires, and to understand these is culturally determined. This competence determines the individual ability to take a position in the debate about global justice while approaching cultural models in a detached and objective manner. Distanced reflection on individual and cultural models enables individuals to recognize its cultural identity, recognize and reflect other cultural models, and to have the critical thinking skills to act seeking for global justice, for which community cohesion is required (Haan 2006).

  • Leadership: this competency implies the need to overcome the misconception that leaders are individuals provided with unique capacities. Leaders should not be conceived as individuals that must be followed by others because they have extraordinary skills that people usually do not have. In the context of education, every individual is a potential leader, and educational institutions must be able to transcend the individualistic conception of leadership to a shift into a communitarian approach. This will enable individuals to recognize themselves in a positive way among others and to understand that leaders develop among other potential leaders (Silva, personal communication, March 5, 2018). To enable all the students to develop leadership competencies, educators could:
    • Be able to be life accompanying for the students, not only of their cognitive processes (Silva, personal communication, March 5, 2018).

    • Be able to provide safe spaces that promote the participation of all the students not only the students with better academic performance (Silva, personal communication, March 5, 2018).

    • Be able to expose students to solidary reparation situations, not individualistic.

    • Be able to provide high control and support and guarantee the balance between the two (Silva, personal communication, March 5, 2018).

    • Be able to enhance the acquisition of values such as empathy and compassion (Silva, personal communication, March 5, 2018).

    • Be able to promote the development of cooperation skills (Silva, personal communication, March 5, 2018).


  1. Antoci A, Sabatini F, Sodini M (2014) Bowling alone but tweeting together: the evolution of human interaction in the social networking era. Qual Quant 48:1911–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 8(4):416–430.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bean H (2014) Community resilience. In: Thompson TL (ed) Encyclopedia of health communication. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/10.4135/9781483346427.n90. Accessed 9 Mar 2018
  4. Becares L, Stafford M, Laurence J, Nazaroo J (2011) Composition, concentration and deprivation exploring their association with social cohesion among different ethnic groups in the UK. Urban Stud 48:2771–2787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertram CS (2012) Individualism in education reform. Master’s Theses and Doctoral Dissertations, 430. http://commons.emich.edu/theses/430. Accessed 8 Apr 2018
  6. Bowers CA (1997) The culture of denial: why the environmental movement needs a strategy for reforming universities and public schools. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowers CA (2001) Educating for eco-justice and community. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantle T (2001) Community cohesion: a report of the Independent Review Team, Home Office, Building a safe, just and tolerant society. http://tedcantle.co.uk/pdf/communitycohesion%20cantlereport.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2018
  9. Cantle T (2005) Community cohesion: a new framework for race relations. Palgrave Macmillan, ChippenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cantle T (2017) In a world of hate, fear and ‘alternative facts’, education really does matter. http://tedcantle.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/113-Cantle-2017-In-a-world-of-hate-education-really-does-matter-Open-Democracy.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2018
  11. Constantin I (2014) The effects of income inequality. Leadership between power temptation and efficiency 20:92–102Google Scholar
  12. Darken RH (2009) Holistic education. In: Provenzo Jr EF, Provenzo AB (eds) Encyclopedia of the social and cultural foundations of education.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963992.n195 Accessed 11 Apr 2018
  13. Darwish AFE, Huber GL (2003) Individualism vs collectivism in different cultures: a cross-cultural study. Intercult Educ 14(1):47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies I, Sundaram V, Hampden-Thompson G et al (2012) Creating citizenship communities. JSSE 11:107–118.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137368867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Haan G (2006) The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’ – based model for education for sustainable development. Environ Educ Res 12(1):19–32Google Scholar
  16. Denham J (2001) Building cohesive communities: a report of the ministerial group on public order and community cohesion. Home Office, London. Building a safe, just and tolerant society. http://www.tedcantle.co.uk/publications/005%20Building%20Cohesive%20Communities%20%28The%20Denham%20Report%29%202001.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2018
  17. Dewan H (2009) Re-defining sustainable human development to integrate sustainability and human development goals. Int J Environ Cult Econ Soc Sustain 5:147–162Google Scholar
  18. Dragolov G, Ignácz ZS, Lorenz J, et al (2016) Social cohesion in the western world. What holds societies together: insights from the social cohesion radarGoogle Scholar
  19. Engel LC, Kington A, Mleczko A (2013) The influence of education on community cohesion: adaptation of policy to practice. J Educ Res 106(5):408–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Federico CM (2006) Race, education, and individualism revisited. J Polit 68(3):600–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giddens A (2010) The politics of climate change. Sociol Rev 58:156–162.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2009.01896.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Green A, Janmaat JG, Han C (2009) Regimes of social cohesion. Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies, London. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/10486/1/Z.-Regimes-of-Social-Cohesion.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2018
  23. Gruenewald D, Smith G (2008) Place-based education in the global age: local diversity. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinde RA (1976) Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man 11(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holden A (2013) Community cohesion in post-16 education: principles and practice. Educ Res 55(3):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hulse K, Stone W (2007) Social cohesion, social capital and social exclusion. Policy Stud 28(2):109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jarraud F (2010) Une salle de classe doit-elle avoir quatre murs? http://www.cafepedagogique.net/lexpresso/Pages/2010/12/1512_Fielding.aspx. Accessed 11 Apr 2018
  28. Jenson J (1998) Mapping social cohesion: the state of Canadian research. Renouf Publishing, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim YY (2007) Ideology, identity, and intercultural communication: an analysis of differing academic conceptions of cultural identity. J Intercult Commun Res 36(3):237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krau R, Patterson M, Lundmark V, Kiesler S, Mukopadhyay T, Scherlis W (1998) Internet paradox. A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? Am Psychol 53(9):1017–1031Google Scholar
  31. Kunsch PL, Theys M, Brans JP (2007) The importance of systems thinking in ethical and sustainable decision-making. Central European Journal of Operations Research 15(3):253–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Letki N (2008) Does diversity Erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods. Polit Stud 56(1):99–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Local Government Association (LGA) (2002) Guidance on community cohesion. LGA Publications, London. http://www.tedcantle.co.uk/publications/006. Accessed 14 Apr 2018
  34. Malpas J, Davidson D (2009) Multiculturalism. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2012 edn. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/davidson/. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
  35. Martusewics RA, Edmunson J (2005) Social foundations as pedagogies of responsibility and eco-ethical commitment. In: Butin DW (ed) Teaching social foundations of education: contexts, theories, and issues. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 71–92Google Scholar
  36. Martusewics RA, Edmunson J, Lupinacci J (eds) (2015) EcoJustice education towards diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities. Routledge, New York, p 15Google Scholar
  37. Merow C, Smith MJ, J a S (2013) A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography (Cop) 36:1058–1069.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller R (1991) New directions in education. Selections from holistic education review. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Nordås R, Gleditsch NP (2007) Climate change and conflict. Polit Geogr 26:627–638.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pareckh B (2007) Reasoned identities: the distance between meaning and understanding. In: Wetherell M, Lafleche M, Berkeley R (eds) Identity, ethnic diversity and community cohesion. Sage Publications, Los Angeles/London/New Dehli, pp 130–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pinilla J (2018). Personal interview in personGoogle Scholar
  42. Red de colegios Cerros de Bogotá (2016) Bogotá. http://www.redcerros.org. Accessed 25 July 2016
  43. Rudd T, Gifford C, Morrison J, Facer K (2006) What if… Re-imagining learning spaces. Futurelab 1–60Google Scholar
  44. Silva E (2018). Personal interview in personGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith CW, Mayorga-Gallo S (2017) The new principle-policy gap: how diversity ideology subverts diversity initiatives. Sociol Perspect 60:889–911.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417719693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas P (2011) Community cohesion in practice. In: Thomas P (ed) Youth, multiculturalism and community cohesion. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, pp 92–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Triandis HC (2002) Individualism – collectivism and personality. J Pers 69(6):907–924Google Scholar
  48. UNESCO (2000) United Nations: the millennium development goals. http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/pdf/List%20of%20MDGs%20English.pdf. Accessed 8 Mar 2018
  49. UNESCO. (2005–2014) United Nations decade of education for sustainable development (2004–2015): international implementation scheme, 2006. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  50. UNESCO (2018a) Global citizenship education. https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced. Accessed 1 May 2018
  51. UNESCO (2018b) Education for sustainable development. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-development. Accessed 3 Mar 2018
  52. United Nations (2015) United Nations: the sustainable development goals. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet_Web_En.pdf. Accessed 8 Mar 2018
  53. Varga A, Kószó MF, Mayer M, Sleurs W (2007) Developing teacher competences for education for sustainable development through reflection: the environment and school initiatives approach. J Educ Teach 33:241–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470701259564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinert F (2001) Concept of competence: a conceptual clarification. In: Rychen D, Salganik L (eds) Defining and selecting key competencies. Hogrefe and Huber, Seattle, pp 45–66Google Scholar
  55. Wetherell M (2007) Community cohesion and identity dynamics: dilemmas and challenges. In: Wetherell M, Laflèche M, Berkeley R (eds) Identity, ethnic diversity and community cohesion. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  56. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6: 203–218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colegio Gimnasio FemeninoBogotáColombia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Rudi Pretorius
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa