Signifying the Transition from Modern to Post-Modern Schooling... 31multi-centered way), as a metaphoric image of wealth. Usually, these strategies are typical of
the lower-middle class or the upper-middle class.
Furthermore, the domestic environment of a labour family is more likely to be
characterized by sparse space. In order then this sparse space to become as functional as
possible it must be characterised by strong classifications and framings (i.e. all the members
of the family must know at every time where to go, what to do and in what way). Any
deviation from this model could lead to a collapse of familial harmony. On the contrary the
domestic environment of an upper middle class family is characterized by ample space, thus
allowing its members to negotiate its uses and the rules for this without necessarily disrupting
their relationships.
Thus, it follows that the material culture of post-modern schooling seems to favour more
students coming from upper social class families. In other words the way this type of school
allows students from privileged classes to socialize, unlike with what is happening with
students from the disadvantaged classes, is very much aligned with the way these students are
initially socialized in their homes.
Apart from the aforementioned social implication one could identify two further
implications as far as educational policy is concerned. The first implication relates to the
internal contradiction between the predominance of performance models of assessment in
post modern schooling and the weak framing promoted by the relative coding of material
environment in this type. Specifically, weak framing of the material aspects of schooling
means less explicit control over students and thus creates an atmosphere that encourages the
latter to express more freely their inner self. It is exactly under these conditions that the
competence model which puts more emphasis on teachers‘ readings of signs of internal
development of students, regardless of whether this development is on a cognitive, affective
or social level could be more easily applied. On the contrary, strong framing and the
standardization of modern schooling would seem more compatible with the currently
dominant performance models of assessment and their emphasis on standardized and
objectified preferred texts as students‘ products.
Therefore, it can be concluded that a core educational process, that of evaluation seems to
function in opposition to the coding of school materiality during the two distinct phases
examined in this chapter.
A further internal conflict lies in the relationship between public financing of the
educational system and the cost of post-modern school buildings. While many existing school
buildings are obsolete reflecting the ideals of modern schooling, rising operating costs and
short supply of funds have made the mass construction of post modern school buildings
almost prohibitive. This is due to the fact that post-modern schooling with the surplus of
space it requires, as well as the requirements associated with it for local adaptation and
customization to the multiple needs of its users has a much higher construction cost. This
possibly explains why the transition in the material culture of schooling is much more evident
as rhetoric at the level of recommendations put forward by various policy bodies (e.g. OECD,
national authorities) than as tangible reality on the level of the majority of individual school
buildings (Dudek, 2000).
In this sense, it seems that post-modern schooling at the moment is a deep cultural trend
embracing many different aspects of education like curricula, modes of assessment, learning
materials as well as material culture of schools. The implications of this trend run deep and
can influence both teachers and learners on a consciousness level. Without this transformation