TALE is one of the long-term training courses in the European youth arena, organised by the Youth Partnership. The course supports European trainers in their professional development to competently design, implement and evaluate training activities.

One of the core features of TALE is its online learning platform LOFT, which was introduced to the world during an open loft day on December 1, 2009. This September, the talers are going full throttle with an entire «OPEN LOFT WEEK». Curious? Read on!

«Are you interested in e-learning? Are you interested in non formal learning? Are you interested in experiments combining those two? …and you are active in the field of non-formal education and European youth work? If so, then mark in your diary the “TALE’s Open LOFT Week” from 13-17 September 2010.»

So say the talers in their invitation. And with this teaser video, how can we resist? Our diaries are marked :)

The week will combine a variety of formats, time frames, engagement modalities and contents foci – see the programme below. The talers want their initiative to be understood not only “as a mere opportunity to visit LOFT but a chance to share, learn, reflect, debate and exchange altogether and at the same time.”

The programme of the Open Loft Week, also available as a pdf document.

Good luck to all talers, and see you in lofty heights between September 13 and 17, folks!

Attachments: invitation (pdf), programme (pdf), programme (updated), registration info

A concerted collective effort is currently underway to define non-formal education and non-formal learning.

It is exciting and informative, but at times, it almost seems like a catch-22…

Defining the meaning of words is essential to begin to understand the different contexts and connotations. Definitions, though, must be universal: they must apply to all aspects and meanings of the definiendum…

Definitions in European—let alone global—contexts can, therefore, not be normative (in the philosophical meaning of the word), but can only attempt to be descriptive and explanatory – while avoiding ambiguity through getting lost in details.

If definitions are understood as explanatory statements that capture the meaning, the use, the function and the essence of a term or a concept – how can definitions of non-formal education and learning be produced that hold true for so many heterogeneous contexts?

Defining NFE – Catch-22?
Photo by buriednexttoyou

One way or the other, it seems necessary and adequate to not cling to any of the established classes of definitions – such as, say, stipulative, or ostensive.

Most of the elements of definitions for non-formal education and non-formal learning variedly include several elements: some are more reportive (i.e. attempting to capture the essence of a concept as in use today), others are more stipulative (i.e. give a term a new or expanding meaning in a European or global context), and most are a combination of these two.

I am quite curious what definitions will be constructed from this collective undertaking of TALE and TOT and NONFORMALITY.

Join the fray if you like!

Instruments are designed at high speed – from self-assessment forms to personal development plans, from self-perception inventories to competence improvement maps – resulting in a cacophony of abbreviations that seems only a little shy of setting new records.

A rigorous evaluation of these instruments – looking at aims, scopes and approaches as well as usage, usefulness and impact – is as much missing as a painstaking analysis of underlying frameworks and tacit assumptions.

It is clear already, however, that the entire assortment of self-assessment instruments fails to respond to some key questions, among them:

• In the absence of quality standards, what do you measure yourself against?
• In the absence of external expertise for validation, how exactly should recognition and accreditation come about?

Even when leaving all political intentions and inconspicuous ambitions in relation to validation, recognition and accreditation aside, I have trouble finding value in any of these instruments for their most palpable purpose – self-assessment.

Take whichever you want – SAF, SPI, CIM, PDP – they all start from yourself as a trainer and educator. Not yourself as a trainer and educator in a particular project or context, but rather yourself as a trainer and educator in life. Through this inherent claim of being universally relevant and the resulting decontextualisation, the self-assessment process loses most of its value for me.

Let me pick three quandaries to exemplify and justify my defiance:

Firstly, this approach implies that there is a potentially agreeable set of competences for non-formal educators. It assumes that there is a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes that, once mastered, makes for a non-formal educator of tolerable, decent or outstanding quality.

Secondly, this approach implies that there is a universally acceptable scale along which any set of competences could and should be measured. It assumes that there is a common understanding of what it means to be moderately or exceptionally competent or incompetent in a specific area.

Thirdly, this approach implies that educators are generally aware of what specific competences entail before they have fully mastered them. It assumes that there is sufficient understanding of knowledge, skills and attitudes required to achieve basic or advanced levels of proficiency.

Research can prove what common sense and practical experience tell us: none of this is true, none of these assumptions hold, they crumble at first sight. And yet we continue to invent and re-invent self-assessment tools, defeated before we start by their envisaged universality…

How then, you ask, could a useful self-assessment instrument look like?

A very good question indeed :)

I will gladly take on the challenge to develop some ideas for alternative tools in the second part of this mini-series, but let’s first leave some time for your questions and ideas, your criticism and feedback. Fire away!

Their upcoming Conference “Vision not Division – Learning for all in the 21st Century,” jointly organised amongst others with Futurelab – Innovation in Education, focuses on

“the increasingly significant contribution that non-formal learning is likely to have to play in the future provision of education and learning in the 21st Century.”

The conference brings together seminal figures from the British sphere of non-formal learning – researchers, practitioners and policy makers alike.

In preparation and anticipation of the conference, their consultation planning group looked at recent definitions of non-formal learning to identify some common ground through characteristics of non-formal learning spanning across several definitions:

• a commitment to the ‘agency of the learner’
• purposeful and intentional learning but most often a voluntary commitment by the learner
• reliant on a set of values/beliefs about learning rather than an organizational setting
• learner-centred
• requiring a flexibility in learning styles, tending towards experiential and reflective
• provides for accreditation of learning if required by the learner
• takes place in a wide range of environments and settings covering a broad range of subjects and activities
• delivers an integral aspect of Life Long Learning

They also say that, in their view,

“non-formal learning occupies the space that separates formal and informal learning and permeates both these arenas, when utilised by skilled and expert practitioners.” [Source]

The definitions considered are well-known and widely referred to – including the European Commission’s Communication “Making a European Area of Lifeling Learning a Reality (2001),” the shared Commission & Council Working Paper “Pathways towards validation and recognition of education, training & learning in the youth field (2004)” and the Salto Report “Promoting recognition of youth work across Europe (2005).”

(Sidenote of interest: the people behind the definitions in these reports are no other than Lynne Chisholm and Peter Lauritzen. Andreas)

What do you think about this common ground?

Something missing, something wrong?

It was storming!

The seminar brought together 35 trainers and stakeholders in the Wannseeforum and provided – thanks to the support of SALTO, the National Agencies of Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, and the Youth Partnership – a great opportunity to critically review and explore the practice of training trainers.

We were neither short of ambitions – one of them to make a meaningful contribution to the development of a European strategy for training trainers – nor of questions to address, including these ones formulated by UNIQUE in the call for the gathering:

• What are the most essential skills of trainers?
• What are good methods to use in a To/fT?
• What is the role of the trainers vis-à-vis the participants?
• How do we deal with attitudes and/or values of trainers?
• What are our underlying educational theories and pedagogies?
• Do we make them explicit in the training?
• Shall we offer practice possibilities? If yes, how?
• What do we do with assessment? External, Self-assessment, by the team?

It was about time for such a seminar, I have to say. Already the chance to share own experiences and learn from others was worth every single minute; but the three days were rewarding and enriching for everyone much beyond this long-awaited and strongly-missed opportunity for exchange.

The political and institutional context give the seminar and its outcomes quite some attention – at a stakeholders meeting on training trainers in June 2007 in Budapest such an event was suggested and initiated (more on the meeting here and here), and the substantial support from three different agencies of the «Youth in Action» programme plus the SALTO Resource Centre on Training and the Youth Partnership (teamed up as so often, lately) show how much interest there is in further developing European-level strategies for training trainers.

The seminar started with a landing evening, during which we could get our hands dirty on clay – and play! We all had a good laugh trying to simulate a situation most of us dread during real-life parties… The one nasty question, short and sharp:

«So, what is it that you do?»

I learned a few sweet ideas to respond: being a trainer is like a romantic dinner – it may look easy, but unless everything is perfectly prepared it falls apart easily. Or: being a trainer means you are getting paid for playing – to pick just two. Now I can finally stop claiming I am an accountant (which fully guarantees no further questions, let me tell ya…)!

The next day began with sharing some of the questions each of us had brought along. Here are some that caught my attention:

• Why is there such a huge barrier between formal and non-formal education?
• Is non-formal education misused to maintain inequality in the world?
• Is being a trainer on European level a passion or a profession?
• Is training one of the keys for development?
• What culture of training are we creating?
• If we train trainers – who trains us?
• When is training not needed?

We continued by exploring specificities of courses for training trainers – things we considered especially important, but which may well exist in other training situations and are by no means exclusive characteristics of trainer-trainings. Some of these specificities addressed the relations between participants and team – and the unusual and intense exposure of team members under scrutiny by the trainers-to-be. Others focused on contents or methodology, for example outlining the extraordinary depth in which issues are usually explored.

Considerable time was spent to identify controversial areas – high voltage issues we called them – and to attempt substantial clarification of the high voltage themes by formulating clear and concise questions, including:

• How do you design methodologies flexible enough to adapt to changing realities?
• How do we get better at supporting people in exploring learning?
• How can individual experiences be of more benefit to the group?
• What is personal development in a training context?
• How can you cope with power struggles in training?
• Are trainers ready for self-assessment?
• Do we need minimum competences?

It was decisively more complicated to identify possible methodological responses to these high voltage issues – some of them dilemmas, others controversies, and some even a catch-22. But we worked hard and came up with a wide range of ideas and proposals – from learning to competences, from self-assessment to personal development. I want to leave the presentation of these ideas to the seminar documentation, though, because I could – right now – only give you a partial overview that couldn’t do justice to the work of all 35 colleagues.

On the last day, we also spent some time exploring the roles of trainers and the competences of trainer-teams in training-trainers situations. We danced and sang and sculptured away about the different roles and their diverse understandings, which was quite fun but not conclusive – and I did not expect that; so while some people seemed to be slightly irritated about that, I was quite happy with the mixture of entertainment and provocation.

The discussion about team competences leaves me less convinced, though… I am almost as skeptical as our seminar-baby Hanna about what we produced there, and remain unsure about the results and how I would like to see them used (if at all). But the approach – to look at competences of an entire team rather than the competences of each individual team member on their own – is very useful, because it respects the common-sensical (and yet, somehow philosophical) notion that a team is much more than the sum of the competences of every individual member.

Ah, so much to think about!

So, great thanks to UNIQUE and Daca, Mark, and Peter!

On May 30 and 31, the Estonian National Agency of the Youth in Action Programme is hosting a networking seminar for people who bring non-formal education and the world wide web together (or are planning to do so) in Tallinn.

It is, we believe, an exciting opportunity to dream about and shape the online future of non-formal education… And we want to keep this invitation as open as possible!

Here is the application form – shorter and sweeter than most, it’s almost enjoyable! After only a few minutes you will be ready to return it to us… Not bad eh?

Here comes some more info…

The people – for who?

You have a website, a portal, a network, a photoblog, a journal, a vlog or any other form of internet-based expression on non-formal education? You are welcome to apply.

You are from a team, a group, a project, a non-governmental organisation, an institu-tion, something in between or even on your own? You are welcome to apply.

As long as you are doing something to bring non-formal education and the world wide web together – or are planning to do so – you really are most welcome at this seminar.

The context – why?

Non-formal education is an exciting way to learn: full of opportunities to be discovered – but not very well recognised at times. The internet is an exciting place to learn, too: full of different opportunities to be discovered – but also quite lonely and confusing at times. Imagine the power unfolding when the two come together!

This networking seminar wants to offer time and space to people, groups, teams, initiatives, projects, and organisations who bring together non-formal education and the world wide web. There is surely something we can learn from each other! And there might be something we could do together, too…

The timing – why now?

In recent weeks and months, more and more websites have emerged about and around non-formal education and learning. It seems to be the right time for bringing them together for an exchange of experience and some dreams about the future!

The aims – what for?

The networking seminar aims to offer space and time

• to get acquainted with different web-projects and -initiatives about or for (raising awareness on) non-formal education and learning,
• to discuss the role and potential of these projects and initatives for the recognition and valorisation of non-formal education and learning, and
• to explore needs, potentials and strategies for co-operation between such initiatives and projects in the future.

The people – who with and by who?

We hope to bring together a variety of different actors – people behind webportals or blogs, networks or vlogs – from projects, groups, individual initiatives, non-governmental organisations, and institutions.

We run mitteformaalne.ee and nonformality.org, and our own work has a strong focus in youth work and youth training based on intercultural learning and non-formal education, which is not meant to limit the seminar to that. But to be fair, you can expect the majority of participants to have a background in youth work – be that training, research, policy, community work or a mixture of these.

The seminar is hosted by the Estonian National Agency of the «Youth in Action» Programme of the European Union. While quite a few people invest some work for this seminar to happen, it is coordinated and will be facilitated by these three:

(Kristiina Pernits, Andreas Karsten, Marit Kannelmäe)

The time and place – where and when?

The seminar will take place in Tallinn, Estonia on May 30 and 31, 2008. You are expected to arrive on May 29 and to depart on June 1.

The conditions – which restrictions?

There are only three simple conditions:

• You are doing something with non-formal education and the internet,
• You are able and willing to work in English during the seminar,
• You have time to attend both working days fully.

The financial conditions – who pays?

We are covering board and lodging during your stay in Estonia, as long as you arrive not earlier than May 29 and don’t leave later than June 1. Anything beyond these dates is on your own budget.

Regarding your travel expenses, we kindly ask that you get in touch with your National Agency of the “Youth in Action” programme. They are aware of this seminar, and might be willing to cover your travel. This is subject to negotiation, of course, and you might be asked for a participation fee or to prepare a report on the seminar for the agency.

If you are not from one of the 31 programme countries of the “Youth in Action” pro-gramme, we hope that you will find some clever way of covering your travel expenses. Should you have trouble with that, and think you really should be at this seminar, get in touch by email.

The application – how does it work?

It’s quite simple, really, and pretty normal as well – we have thought of a couple of questions to help us choose from the applications and select a group with a constellation that reflects the variety of approaches and experiences that are around.

We will make the selection of participants at our preparatory meeting in the beginning of April, and let you know before April 15. Should you not be selected, please don’t misinterpret this as a quality judgement of your work – because it isn’t.

Ok, here are our questions – hope to see you soon!

The shortest and sweetest application form ever…

I grew up at a time and in a system when obeying rules blindly was a question of survival for some, of belief for others, and of conformity for most. The arrival of puberty and democracy quickly taught me that rules should always be questioned, including the reasoning and authority behind them.

After all, rules are based on opinions or the subjective interpretation of (a selection of currently known) facts. So I have learned to rely on myself rather than what others tell me – with my basic set of rules unnegotiably defined by human rights.

Doesn’t make too bad a citizen.

And doesn’t active and democratic citizenship need citizens capable of critical thinking? People who are able to look behind facades, analyse nebulous motifs, locate hidden interests, and see beyond the obvious. People who appreciate that every rule was made in a specific context, with a specific aim – and may meanwhile very well be outdated, pointless or harmful.

Consequently, in our work we aim to empower young people and youth professionals to think critically – hoping to get a simple yet powerful message across.

More often than not, rules are made to be broken.

But the kind of critical thinking we hope to instill in people seems to be harder and harder to get out and get to. I wonder why?

«Critical thinking is important, because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, explain, and restructure our thinking, decreasing thereby the risk of acting on, or thinking with, a false premise.» (Source)

Take the example of simulation exercises in training. Usually, I design them in a way that the rules and restrictions are irritating and invite to be challenged. What makes each simulation unique and interesting is to see how different people challenge the rules and overcome the restrictions.

In recent years, the rules had to be harder and restrictions more tight to provoke people to break them. In recent months, I have experienced twice that people did not break any rule at all – and rather lived through the exercise, bored or frustrated, irritated or confused.

Now, I am the first one to admit that this very simulation is crap. In fact, it is. But nonetheless I wonder whether people are changing – changing away from self-confident critical reflection…

Rules are not used for guidance any more – they are obeyed. Blindly.

Tell me I’m wrong.

Isn’t that absurd?

The learner-centredness of web 2.0 technology and the learner-centredness of non-formal education seem like such a perfect match.

And yet, we are to be found at the back of the digital revolution. Sitting there, not even really watching.

Here are ten reasons why youth professionals should be blogging:

UNDERSTANDING. Young people are leading the way in which technology is changing our world. Last year, I worked with 20 Europeans – all younger than 25 – who went on a trip to explore the new EU member states Romania and Bulgaria. They reported live from their journeys – magically with tools most of us still exclusively use for typing reports and making phone calls.

Your own blog will not only help you to begin to understand why all that stuff has become so normal to young people. Blogging yourself is the only way to discover the educational potential – and challenges – of blogging. And all the rest…

VELOCITY. When you hit the magic button [publish], your thoughts will be online. There is no editing, no waiting for weeks for some layouter to be finished, no authorisation procedure before the printing – eh, no printing! It’s instantaneous: the moment you want it to be published, it will be published. No fears of being outdated when others can finally read you!

INFORMALITY. On a blog, you can write what comes to mind. There are no requirements or demands on form, structure, contents, arguments, or the logical flow… You decide what gets out there, you set the standards. And with the informality of your style, you make it much easier for people to respond to your thinking – because it doesn’t require colleagues to come up with a fancy answer, they can just fire away with comments on your blog. No humming thousands of songs before reading a response in the next magazine :o)

VARIETY. You are one of the Unspeakables? You don’t like writing? Or you simply prefer photography or radio spots or short videos as a means of expression? This is your lucky time! There are many cool photoblogs and videoblogs and podcastblogs around already, and the scenes of youth work, youth policy, youth training and youth research would all largely benefit from the variety you bring in. Hell, there are even moblogs, and it doesn’t stop there – endless opportunities!

SPONTANEITY. Modern technology allows you to blog quickly, if you want. There is Twitter for being extremely short – you can just sign up for it, and twitter away – or Tumblr, if you prefer a lightweight blogging application. Wordpress takes a little longer to set up, but you can do pretty much anything you want with the beautiful beast.

NETWORKING. Through your blog, through sharing your thoughts and giving colleagues the opportunity to discuss and engage with your ideas, you can build up a network that is less dependent on physical meetings, which happen very rarely and are often overloaded with too many things already anyway. Little time is left for professional consideration of fundamental issues that are core to our work – a blog might be the place for you to have such a dialogue.

LEARNING. As a blogger, you don’t write yourself all the time. You also read a lot and get exposed to the views, ideas and experiences of other professionals in the field. Over time, a network can develop and the power and wisdom of crowds has time and space to develop its full potential. As a professional on learning, blogging will help you to become a learning professional.

ORGANISATION. A blog can help to organise your own resources. How many links, documents, papers, researches, resolutions, reports, sessions, documentations, and pictures do you have? Thousands. Admittedly, my own blog is not the best example for a well organised resource section (it will come, one day, it will come), but one can still dream…

SHARING. By making your stuff available to colleagues (and anyone who is interested, really), you make a visible contribution to the quality of the field. Others will happily follow your example and gladly join in to share their own resources, too.

After a while, you might get an extremely powerful, decentralised and distributed network of quality resources at all our fingertips. And the best thing of all: since nobody owns it but the community, nobody can shut it down. If one blog disappears, there will still be many others. We create a community of practice – all by ourselves :)

VISIBILITY. Blogging about our work not only makes problems more transparent or provides innovation through collective exchange and dialogue, it also – plainly and simply – gives the work we do with and for young people a medium, a voice, a platform. Such visibility and accessibility is badly needed – and we know it. We have known it for a long time. And complained about it for a long time, too. Shouldn’t we do something about it ourselves, then?

Are you prepared to share what you are doing –
and make that sharing a part of what you are doing?

All cartoons once more by the spectacular Hugh MacLeod of gapingvoid.

There are a lot of
pools in this world.

When I look at the different trainers’ pools I am swimming in, I feel alternately like an amoeba, a piraña, an octopus, or a fool – depending on my mood. In all of them I feel like a fish that doesn’t quite belong there.

This got me to thinking about my pool dreams:
If I were in charge and could decide, what would I do?

My first thought goes to breaking down barriers. The current pools are very specific, and most of them are too small for all the fish. And it is very difficult to jump from one pool to the next; the small club of fish are mostly self-referential. Some of the owners should get together and co-operate!

My second thought goes to transparency. Every time pool owners are looking for some fish for a special assignment, it gets foggy inside the pool – like all octopi are loosing their ink at the same time. When the water clears up, a few fish are gone. Some return, others you never see again. What happens to them, I wonder…

My third thought goes to learning. Every fish is swimming around like they always did. It seems repetitive, and can get quite boring after some time. Learning new ways of swimming would be fun!

My fourth thought goes to renewal. Whenever there is a new fish, most of the oldies simply ignore them. Sometimes there are bitter arguments because a crazy greenhorn is trying to swim in the waters of the wise, old fish. Over the years, I have seen many sad fish, and some even injured. Shouldn’t we be a little nicer?

My fifth thought goes to democracy. Our pool owners tell us we are swimming in a democracy. Funnily enough, this seems to be true only inside our small waters: someone else decides how much food there is for us, and who is allowed to eat. Some of us are kept hungry for too long; and I am wondering whether the perspective from up and out there isn’t slightly distorted. Don’t we see better what’s going on inside the depths of our own waters?

My sixth thought goes to quality. Some fish are jumping when someone can be seen outside of the water, but snooze away the rest of the time. Some others invent crazy ways of flipping around that make a lot of waves for no good. Very few try to eat and grow so much that they can outshadow the smaller buddies. Some others work away quietly but are hardly ever noticed. I think every fish should get the chance to show what they are doing, why they are doing it, how good that has been and what it has given our community of fish. Should calm down the waters for the better!

My seventh thought goes to freshness. I think our pool needs some connection to the world out there. Some canals we can all use to go elsewhere and bring back new experiences, together with some fresh water. It gets muddy quickly, otherwise.

My eigth thought goes to mentoring. Why do all fish need to learn everything by themselves? Why is there no scheme in which more experienced fish can support, observe, guide, mentor less experienced fellas?

My ninth thought goes to self-management. I really have enough of being administered by someone out there. Not only is it blurry out there and difficult for us to see what’s going on, it also seems to take so fishy long! Why don’t we elect a couple of crazy and clever fish to manage our own business?

My tenth thought goes to creativity. I would love to see a gathering of all fish every six months for trying out all sorts of flippy ways of swimming, jumping, and diving. A safe pool to test the waters, so to speak :)

Well, I am off to watch «Find Nemo» and eat some sushi…

What are your wet dreams?

» An attempt to develop project characteristics

Some words of caution

European Citizenship is a term cherished by many and is being used in a wide range of contexts – to an extent that it probably qualifies as one of the discursive impossibilities of our times.

Much is done with, for and about European Citizenship. Youth work is only one part of the larger picture (arguably an important one), and so is community work in non-formal education contexts. At European level, they come together in a number of settings, some of which are institutionalised and others provided by civil society. The «Youth in Action» programme of the European Union certainly is a key scheme in support of non-formal youth work on European Citizenship, and is the reference framework for this text.

Back in 1998, the EU partnered with the Council of Europe to run a series of pilot courses and modules on European Citizenship. It is from this experience that we try to highlight some basic characteristics of non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship.

Obviously, much more could be said on such projects than we can say on these pages. We had to make choices, and warmly invite you to challenge our preferences. Other selections could be made, and we are not only open to discuss alternatives but also encourage you to explore these in practice.

We know that no generalisation we can make will ever apply perfectly: the richness of youth work is elaborate beyond imagining. Yet, the discourse on recognition and valorisation of non-formal learning and youth work remains a political priority and continues with or without practitioners. Hence we better start discussing characteristics of youth work within the community of practitioners and contribute our own experiences from reality, before others define criteria for our work on our behalf without our voice being heard.

You are currently reading a contribution of Frankly Speaking to the many discourses and discussions on quality, recognition and validation of non-formal education and learning.

If you prefer to read a paper version, please download the pdf-version [500 kb].

The starting point

The European Union youth programme «Youth in Action» has just entered its third generation and spans over 7 years from 2007 to 2013.

Under its Priority 1 «European Citizenship» it brings together four spheres or fields in a specific constellation, namely youth work, non-formal education, intercultural learning, and European citizenship. All of these four areas can evidently stand on their own and in themselves are huge and diverse themes to explore.

In other words: When we speak of basic characteristics of non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship, we only mean projects combining all four areas in their approach – not to discredit any other kind of youth work or non-formal education, but rather to remain in the realm of the «Youth in Action» programme. That said, we believe our thinking and the suggested model deriving from our thoughts could easily be applied to other contexts and constellations, but this is for the future.

On importance, relevance and antagonism

We believe that in a non-formal youth work project on European Citizenship, none of the four spheres is more important than the others and that the fields of youth work, non-formal education, intercultural learning, and European citizenship are related to one another (and indeed, to a certain extent also overlapping) and therefore are not in antagonistic competition but rather complementary. We have chosen to visualise this by means of a wheel (or ring or circle):

This graphic and the underlying assumption both imply that only when all four aspects are considered equally and brought together successfully, can a project be considered a non-formal youth work project on European Citizenship – in this particular framework.

Again, this is not a set of quality criteria suggesting that any other youth work, non-formal activity, or community work on European Citizenship is not high-quality. It merely is a set of characteristics operationalising the principles and foundations of the «Youth in Action» programme and its first priority.

Most importantly we want to underline and acknowledge that there are too many situations in which people are trapped in realities so restrictive, so despairing, that applying our ideal-case scenario does not arise at all.

That our model excludes youth work under such desperate circumstances, does not de-value the courageous work done there – on the contrary, it simply shows the limits of this particular approach (some of which we look at in more detail later).

On principles and values

It is often suggested that non-formal youth work on European Citizenship is based on a shared belief in common principles and values – in fact, that non-formal education and youth work as a whole are based on such commonalities. We argue that this, if you so want, collective philosophy does indeed exist and can best be described by the notions of human rights (as the main foundational principle of the Council of Europe), democracy (as the voluntarily chosen form of government in respect of human rights within and beyond the European Union) and peace (as the main initial motivation for the co-operation in Europe since 1945).

Clearly, all three notions are associated with different histories and carry diverse connotations in particular contexts. But while, to take but one example, the value of a singular human right might be under scrutiny, the principle of human rights as both a system of belief and a set of legal instruments is not questioned fundamentally – and therefore can be considered an essential element of what could be called the collective philosophy (or the common principles and values) of non-formal youth work on European Citizenship.

Hence, the wheel looks now like this, exemplifying that human rights, democracy and peace are not only the principles of our work, but also inform its implementation and practice and are, at the same time, also aim of our work in the sense that all three notions need constant renewal and reaffirmation, to which non-formal youth work on European Citizenship contributes:

On European Citizenship

In a nutshell, we consider European Citizenship a notion based on shared values (which we argued before can be subsumed under human rights, democracy and peace); disassociated from belonging to a particular territory and connected with voluntarily chosen belongings to value-based communities of practice; a complementary rather than an exclusive identity; an ongoing process of re-negotiating power structures and relations (rights and responsibilities, theories and practices) among and between citizens themselves as well as citizens and institutions; an active role of citizens in their different communities across social, cultural, economic and political domains; locally rooted practice and collective work in progress.

In our context (in particular Priority 1 of the «Youth in Action» programme), European Citizenship is not only part of the practice we look at; it also is an aim. The projects we consider here aim at actively and collaboratively constructing and developing European Citizenship through non-formal youth work.

Thus, to begin with, the wheel should be adjusted accordingly to reflect this double meaning (see the graphic on the right).

From our understanding of European Citizenship as a conceptual notion (see our specific paper on European Citizenship), five basic characteristics can be drawn. On that basis, non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship should (in no specific order of priority):

• be collective (encourage and work with European communities of practice),
• be inclusive (take up and take in diverse forms of active, democratic citizenship),
• be holistic (address values and beliefs as well as attitudes, knowledge and skills),
• be multi-dimensional (include several dimensions of identity, belonging, practice),
• be power-conscious (locate interactions with larger frameworks of power).

Evidently, more characteristics could be thought of, significantly that non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship should lead to action and transformation – how could youth work projects otherwise construct European Citizenship at the same time as exploring European Citizenship?

Some of these characteristics (also this specific one) we do take up in other areas, and we usually have done so by informed choice (for example, not only youth work on European Citizenship, but all youth work should be transformative). As we have emphasized before, the areas and the characteristics are related and therefore necessarily intersect.

On non-formal education

The working paper «Pathways towards validation and recognition of education, training and learning in the youth field», a joint discussion document by the European Commission’s Youth Unit and the Council of Europe’s Youth Department commissioned in early 2004, states that:

“Principles in the field of non-formal and informal learning in youth activities are manifold:

• the voluntary and often self-organised character of learning, the intrinsic motivation of participants;
• the close link to young people’s aspirations and interests, the participative and learner-centred approach;
• the open character and structure, the transparency and flexibility of the underlying curricular construction;
• the evaluation of success and failure in a collective process and without judgement on individual success or failure, the ‘right to make mistakes’;
• a supportive learning environment;
• a preparation and staging of activities with a professional attitude, regardless of whether the activity is run by professional or voluntary youth workers and trainers;
• the sharing of results with the interested public and a planned follow-up.”

Pathways towards validation and recognition of education, training and learning in the youth field. Working paper by the Youth Unit of the Directorate ‘Youth, Civil Society, Communication’ in the Directorate General ‘Education and Culture’ of the European Commission and the Youth Department of the Directorate ‘Youth and Sport’ in the Directorate General ‘Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport’ of the Council of Europe. Strasbourg and Brussels, February 2004: p. 6.

We suggest to derive five characteristics from this and argue that non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship should be (in no specific order of priority):

• be accessible (make results available, have a planned follow-up, valorise outcome),
• be learner-centred (based on participants’ needs and co-constructed with them),
• be evaluated (assessed in a collective process without judgement on individuals),
• be voluntary (based on the intrinsic motivation and self-responsibility of learners),
• be experiential (based on collective and individual experiences of people).

On youth work

In a discussion paper written in May 2006, Peter Lauritzen described youth work like this:

“The main objective of youth work is to provide opportunities for young people to shape their own futures.

Youth work is a summary expression for activities with and for young people of a social, cultural, educational or political nature. Increasingly, youth work activities also include sports and services for young people. Youth work belongs to the domain of ‘out-of-school’ education, most commonly referred to as either non-formal or informal learning.

The general aims of youth work are the integration and inclusion of young people in society. It may also aim towards the personal and social emancipation of young people from dependency and exploitation.

Youth Work belongs both to the social welfare and to the educational systems. In some countries it is regulated by law and administered by state civil servants, in particular at local level. However, there exists an important relation between these professional and voluntary workers, which is at times antagonistic, and at others, cooperative.

The definition of youth work is diverse. While it is recognised, promoted and financed by public authorities in many European countries, it has only a marginal status in others where it remains of an entirely voluntary nature. What is considered in one country to be the work of traditional ‘youth workers’ – be it professionals or volunteers – may be carried out by consultants in another, or by neighbourhoods and families in yet another country or, indeed, not at all in many places.

Today, the difficulty within state systems to adequately ensure global access to education and the labour market, means that youth work increasingly deals with unemployment, educational failure, marginalisation and social exclusion.

Increasingly, youth work overlaps with the area of social services previously undertaken by the Welfare State. It, therefore, includes work on aspects such as education, employment, assistance and guidance, housing, mobility, criminal justice and health, as well as the more traditional areas of participation, youth politics, cultural activities, scouting, leisure and sports.

Youth work often seeks to reach out to particular groups of young people such as disadvantaged youth in socially deprived neighbourhoods, or immigrant youth including refugees and asylum seekers. Youth work may at times be organised around a particular religious tradition.”

On the basis of that description, we suggest the following set of five characteristics for non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship, which should (in no specific order of priority):

• be contextualised (rooted in local, authentic situations, communities and needs),
• be transformative (improving life situations of people, leading to action and change),
• be participatory (with progressive involvement and empowerment of young people),
• be informed (by relating to current discourses and research on issues related to the project),
• be informing (providing information and feedback to policy, practice and research).

On intercultural learning

In a 2005 discussion paper on culture and intercultural learning, Gavan Titley argues that

“[while] intercultural learning has become a key work area in European youth training during the last fifteen years, [...] approaches that have been consolidated and widely reproduced during this period are no longer adequate to the realities in which young people live and practice youth work.”

The paper “contends that widely-utilised notions of culture, and the methodologies that propagate them, are both analytically and politically inadequate,” and puts forward a number of recommendations for educational practice.

Based on the considerations discussed there and elsewhere, we suggest that non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship should (in no specific order of priority):

• be plastic (exploring cultural realities and conceptual understandings of culture),
• be political (conscious of contesting discourses on culture and their political relevance),
• be contingent (aware of the contexts and purposes of intercultural dialogue processes),
• be sensitive (to culture as a ubiquitous, de-politicised concept in need of re-calibration),
• be complex (explore identity and connectivity beyond culture, individuals and Europe).

On open questions

This is a first version of the «Wheel of European Citizenship». Clearly, the jury is still out on whether the approach developed here is relevant and useful at all: discussions with trainers will validate our experiences against a wider spectrum; training courses will show whether the model holds up in dialogue with practitioners. Beyond these foreseeable fora for exchange we invite everyone to share their thoughts, concerns, questions and critiques with us. Two questions, to get you started:

1) Have we captured the essence of non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship?

2) If you are inclined to follow our approach of characterising projects descriptively by using adjectives: what about features like being concrete, diverse, relevant, empowering, interactive, critical, reflexive – to name but a few…?

The Wheel of European Citizenship

Bringing the different parts of the wheel together gives you this overview of non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship, which should combine:

and in doing so, have the following characteristics (in no specific order of priority):

The final «Wheel of European Citizenship» is bringing the different thoughts and characteristics together in one coherent, visual model:

Conclusion
C O N C L U S I O N

This article contends that non-formal youth work in the framework of the «Youth in Action» programme actively constructs European Citizenship for, with and through value-based European communities of practice by facilitating intercultural learning and dialogue through projects based on the principles of youth work and non-formal education.

For each of the four spheres (youth work, non-formal education, intercultural learning, and European citizenship) we present five basic project characteristics (some of which are as intersecting and interrelated as the four themes necessarily are) and hence put forward a set of twenty features for non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship, visualised as the «Wheel of European Citizenship».

We suggest that the wheel may well be used as a tool for project planning and, potentially, project management as well as an indicative instrument for the valorisation of project results.

But the model presented here also has clear limitations: Firstly, characteristics are descriptive and not measurable; they are neither quality criteria nor project indicators. It will require substantial effort to develop our approach further before it can become a meaningful tool for the recognition and validation of non-formal learning. Secondly, there is an entire range of other youth and community work out there that the model disregards; though we believe it would be possible with manageable effort to adapt the wheel accordingly.

Our thoughts and proposals are mainly based on the extensive experiences from a range of activities on European Citizenship run by the Council of Europe and the European Commission in partnership between 1998 and 2006. Clearly, there is more relevant experience available, and – being aware of this – we warmly invite you to share your comments and considerations on what we have developed here.

Note on the context of this paper

This text was put together by Andreas Karsten inspired by discussions with Paola Bortini, Florian Cescon, Rui Gomes, Erzsebet Kovacs and Tatiana State in the framework of the development of a new network training course on European Citizenship for the «Youth in Action» programme. Please consider it as what it is: a working document and the personal opinion of the author.

The graphics contained in this document are all self-made by the author specifically for this text and can be used unchanged, given that the source is quoted.

Sources and resources
Sources and resources

All documentations, reports and evaluations in relation to pilot courses and training modules on European Citizenship between 1998 and 2006, and in addition:

Brocke, Hartmut and Karsten, Andreas (eds) (2007): Towards a common culture of co-operation between civil society and local authorities. Human Rights Education and youth participation. Centre Francais de Berlin, Berlin.

Castells, Manuel (1997): The Power of Identity. Blackwell, London.

Chisholm, Lynne and Hoskins, Bryony (2005): Trading up. Potential and performance in non-formal learning. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Colley, Helen et al (2003): Informality and formality in learning. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London.

Cummings, Andrew (2003): Youth work’s contribution to non-formal education. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

DG EAC (2007): Youth in Action Programme 2007-2013. Users Guide. European Commission, Brussels.

Erle, Jacob (2005): Multilayered Democracy and European Citizenship. International Academy for Education and Democracy, Copenhagen.

Freire, Paulo (1972): Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Freire, Paulo and Shor, Ira (1987): A Pedagogy for Liberation. Dialogues on transforming education. Greenwood Press, Westport.

Holder, Sharon and Titley, Gavan (2004): Resituating culture – seminar reflections. In Coyote Vol 8 2004. Council of Europe and European Commission, Strasbourg and Brussels.

Jeffs, Tony and Smith, Mark (2005): Informal education: conversation, democracy and learning. Educational Heretics Press, Nottingham.

Karsten, Andreas (2007): 12 characteristics of successful co-operation projects. In: Brocke and Karsten (ibid).

Karsten, Andreas (2003): Better youth workers? Better citizens? The impact of the pilot courses on European Citizenship. Partnership, Strasbourg.

Karsten, Andreas (2000): Staying alive: the non-formal education domain in Europe. European Youth Forum, Brussels.

Kovacs, Erzsebet (2007): European Citizenship. Unpublished working document.

Küntzel, Bastian and Karsten, Andreas (2007): Forum on Intercultural Dialogue. Discussion paper based on the Forum. INGO Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Lauritzen, Peter (2006): Defining youth work. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Lauritzen, Peter (2006): The role of research. Podcast, Youth Debate and Nonformality.

Lauritzen, Peter et al (2004): Pathways towards validation and recognition of education, training and learning in the youth field. Working paper. Council of Europe, Strasbourg and European Union, Brussels.

Martinelli, Silvio and Taylor, Mark (eds) (2000): Intercultural Learning T-Kit. Council of Europe and European Commission, Strasbourg and Brussels.

Merry, Peter (ed) (2003): Under construction. European Citizenship T-Kit. Council of Europe and European Commission, Strasbourg and Brussels.

Otten, Hendrik (2006): Quality on European youth work and youth policy. Conference conclusions. Bonn, 2006.

Otten, Hendrik (ed) (2004): Interkulturelles Lernen in Theorie und Praxis. Ein Handbuch für Jugendarbeit und Weiterbildung. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.

Otten, Hendrik and Lauritzen, Peter (eds) (2004): Jugendarbeit und Jugendpolitik in Europa. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.

Rogers, Alan (2003): Inside youth work. YMCA College, London.

Sahlberg, Pali (1999): Bridges for learning: conceptualising non-formal education. European Youth Forum, Brussels.

Smith, Linda and McNeil, Bethia (2004): Success factors in informal learning. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London.

Smith, Mark J. (2001): Culture. Reinventing the Social Sciences. Open University Press, Buckingham.

Titley, Gavan (2005): Plastic, Political and Contingent. Culture and Intercultural Learning in DYS activities. Discussion document based on the evaluation of the LTTC Intercultural Learning and recent research activities. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Titley, Gavan (ed) (2004): Resituating Culture. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Tucket, Allan (2004): Recognising and recording progress and achievement in non-accredited learning. Learning and Skills Development Agency, London.

Welsch, Wolfgang (1999): Transculturality: the puzzling forms of cultures today. In: Featherstone and Lash (eds): Space of Culture. Sage, London.

Part of the «talking-point» article previously known as the address is a dialogue which I have encountered too many times in too many situations; I could immediately sympathise…

Here it is, slightly adjusted for our context:

People constantly ask me: «But what do you teach?»

I would reply that I did not actually teach but that I organised educational activities for people.

«What kind of activities?» they would ask.

«Things like a series of meetings, seminars and training courses on European Citizenship or Human Rights,» I would reply.

«Oh, you teach philosophy,» they would say.

A lot of my work has to do with capacity building in the world of NGOs: Programmes on recruiting and managing volunteers, organising workplaces, running meetings, speaking effectively, campaigning, funding and managing projects. I remember persons looking in horror at me and saying: «You don’t actually teach them to do that, do you?»

And when I started to train trainers and educators and people asked me what I did, I would reply: «I am training trainers and educators.»

«Oh,» they would say, «and what do you teach?»

«I train on youth and adult education.»

«No, I meant, what is your subject?»

«Well, I educate educators.»

«Yes, but you must have a subject like history, or maths, or science, or English literature?»

«I teach people about the processes of learning and organising learning.»

«Yes, of course you do,» they would say, «but what do you teach?»

Head over to infed to read the whole article which, admittedly, goes much beyond this dialogue to look at adult education and the role of adult educators.

It is an interesting read!

The context of the project may sound very specific, but the outcome is a brilliant resource for any person facilitating processes of exchange, dialogue and discussion anywhere in the world!

The study was commissioned by the German Technical Cooperation Organisation (GTZ) in support to the HIV/AIDS Programme of the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

You may wonder what the work of Mandela’s foundation against AIDS has to do with dialogue. Well, promoting dialogue has been and remains one of the prime goals of the foundation’s HIV programme.

“Maintaining public interest in HIV and AIDS has proven to be a key to beginning to challenge individuals and organisations on an increasing and significant scale to help those who are affected and infected.”

It is in the framework of this thinking that an excellent toolkit on dialogue was produced which introduces itself by quoting the author of Sophie’s World and Norwegian intellectual, Jostein Gaarder:

“An answer is always the part of the road that is behind you. Only questions point to the future.”

The introduction continues to set the ground for the publication by observing that our modern world loves answers and quick solutions to problems, which we love to pass on to others through writing, teaching and lecturing. The authors continue to state, and I could not agree more, that this approach — while being useful in some situations — is problematic when addressing the challenges of our time – social and human, economic and political.

Why is that so?

Pioneers of Change and the GTZ have two reasons to give to the answer-craving audience:

Firstly, we live in a world of increasing complexity, where answers have a short life-span and problems are characterised by three types of complexity: dynamic complexity, social complexity and generative complexity.

Secondly, people seem to have an inherent desire to solve their own problems, which is why universal, formulaic responses imposed from the outside often fail — producing even more simplistic “solutions”.

So, dialogue is the ultimate solution then?!

Well, not so quickly! Let’s have a closer look at the two reasons and see where this takes us.

The idea of threefold complexity stems from Adam Kahane and his book «Solving tough problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities» about which Nelson Mandela said:

“This breakthrough book addresses the central challenge of our time: finding a way to work together to solve the problems we have created.”

In his book Kahane typifies complexity and in doing so differentiates between

• dynamic complexity, meaning that cause and effect are distant in space and time and suggesting that a systemic approach is needed to address this type of complexity and underlying problems,
• social complexity, meaning that there is no singular truth or ownership of an issue but rather many different and usually conflicting opinions and assumptions about the problem in question, suggesting that a participative approach is required to deal with this kind of complexity,
• generative complexity, meaning the problematic situation is constantly and unpredictably changing and therefore old solutions to previous problems are not working any longer, suggesting that a creative approach is necessary to cope with this form of complexity.

In other words, Kahane claims that today’s problems can only be solved by processes which are holistic, democratic and imaginative.

And how could you better combine these approaches than through shared experience and exchange? How could you better stimulate new ideas and utilise the wisdom of crowds than through genuine dialogue?

So here it is then, the spirit in which this handbook critically explores different tools and methods to engage in processes of authentic dialogue. Excitingly, the authors have not just described a couple of tools. They have done much more in looking at the stories behind the approaches and asking where they come from to put each approach into a context.

It is because of this contextualisation and historicisation that the book can also provide unique space for constructive and critical reflection by showing limits or pointing out weaknesses of the approaches described. At the same time, the publication gives hints on how to creatively combine different methods and strategies to best respond to the situation at hand.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the publication’s approach and my point. You all know very well the circle as a method of engaging in dialogue with groups of up to 30 people or so. Well, the book has something important to say on the circle:

“For many who are not used to the circle, the slowness of the conversation and thinking can be frustrating… It’s worth noting that social science research has actually been done to show that the first person to speak can have a large influence on what is said and the direction the conversation takes. The circle seems particularly prone to this dynamic. This can be useful, but it can also be problematic.”

To cut a long story short: In doing these things it is so much better than most toolboxes out there. Actually, by doing these things it is much better than most toolboxes out there.

So what exactly are you waiting for?
Right click, save as, print and read!

And obviously: try out and explore in practice, and if you have something to say
please do give feedback to the authors – it will surely be appreciated…

∞

“Le Portfolio européen pour travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse vise à augmenter la reconnaissance de l’éducation non formelle et du travail de la jeunesse!”

S’il échoue, personne ne pourra prétendre qu’il n’était pas suffisamment ambitieux…

Mais répondons tout d’abord à quelques questions de base, telles que : qu’est-ce que le Portfolio, pourquoi a-t-il été conçu, qui l’a conçu, pour qui a-t-il été conçu, que peut-on en faire, que se passe-t-il en ce moment et comment pouvez-vous vous impliquer?

Le Portfolio est un outil qui permet à ses utilisateurs d’évaluer et décrire leurs compétences sur la base d’un ensemble de standards de qualité européens.

Du moins c’est ce que le Conseil de l’Europe décrit sur son site web, bien que vous ne trouverez nulle part la mention de standards de qualité dans le Portfolio…

Le Portfolio se veut être un instrument, un outil, un livre d’actuellement 52 pages qui tend à aider des travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse opérant dans le contexte de l’éducation non formelle à élaborer un ensemble de standards de qualité européens et à:

• identifier, évaluer et enregistrer leurs compétences
• décrire leurs compétences à d’autres personnes, et
• à se fixer leurs propres objectifs d’apprentissage de développement.

C’est pour ces raisons que le Portfolio a été conçu – dans un contexte politique qui de plus en plus soutient et reconnaît l’éducation non formelle, requérant dans un même temps une approche plus structurée et plus transparente en ce qui concerne la garantie et les contrôles de qualité.

Dans le contexte du Conseil de l’Europe, cet historique politique a été exprimé par le Comité des ministres à travers sa recommandation N° 2003 (8) au sujet de la promotion et la reconnaissance de l’éducation/de l’apprentissage non formel des jeunes, dans laquelle il indique:

“Le Comité des ministres, (…) convaincu que l’apprentissage non-formel peut contribuer à garantir le savoir et les capacités dont les jeunes ont besoin afin de réussir au sein de nos sociétés contemporaines (…), recommande que les gouvernements des Etats membres (…) soutiennent la création et l’utilisation d’un Portfolio européen en tant qu’outil descriptif visant à consigner les expériences, les capacités et les savoirs (résultats d’apprentissage) acquis à travers l’éducation/l’apprentissage non formel (…)”

Basé sur cette décision politique substantielle et constitutive prise à un niveau élevé, le Conseil de l’Europe a invité un groupe d’experts à examiner la « praticabilité » de produire un tel instrument pour tous les jeunes. Après avoir apprécié les options envisagées, le group en est arrivé à la conclusion qu’il serait plus efficace dans un premier temps de se concentrer sur des travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse. Ceci a conduit à la formation d’un nouveau groupe qui a alors défini les objectifs plus détaillés du Portfolio:

Le groupe a réalisé une analyse fonctionnelle de ce que les travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse devraient être et devraient faire, ce qui a permit d’élaborer un cadre de compétences que des individus sont invités à a) utiliser en tant qu’outil d’auto-évaluation, et puis b) demander un feed-back de leur pairs et collègues.

Le Portfolio est destiné à être utilisé par les travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse. Le groupe d’experts entends par animateurs de jeunesse des jeunes adultes assumant une responsabilité dans une organisation de jeunesse, réseau ou autre structure de jeunesse essentiellement sur une base volontaire. Les travailleurs de jeunesse assument le même type de responsabilités, mais essentiellement sur une base professionnelle.

Dès lors, que trouvent ces travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse dans le Portfolio – ainsi que tout être humain intéressé, en fait ? Laissez-moi vous montrer un autre graphique qui illustre le contenu:

Plusieurs personnes ont été consultées durant le développement du Portfolio, permettant l’apport d’un large éventail d’expertise et de perspectives que le groupe d’experts (petit afin d’être plus opérationnel) ne pourrait fournir. Si ceci a mené à quelque chose d’utile et pratique ou non reste à voir dans la pratique.

Ce explique pourquoi, essentiellement, une phase test a été mise en place jusqu’en juillet 2006. Durant cette période vous tous – si vous êtes un travailleur ou un animateur de jeunesse tel que décrit plus haut – êtes chaleureusement invité à utiliser le Portfolio – en complétant les tableaux de compétences, obtenant un feed-back d’autres personnes élaborant un plan futur – et surtout, prenant le temps de fournir un feed-back pertinent au groupe d’experts. Ce qu’ils recherchent sont des personnes qui ont vraiment une volonté d’UTILISER le Portfolio – ils ont déjà eu assez de feed-back de personnes qui l’ont juste lu!

Les objectifs sont-ils appropriés? Sont-ils appropriés au niveau européen seulement ou applicables dans des contextes locaux? Le Portfolio satisfait-il une demande pratique – ou est-il simplement un outil politique? Les praticiens sont-ils motivés à l’utiliser? Le contexte est-il compréhensible? Le contenu est-il accessible? Le cadre de compétences est-il assez et générique, et spécifique afin d’être universel mais précis? L’investissement du temps et de la réflexion est-il adéquat? Les pairs peuvent-ils comprendre votre auto-évaluation? Le cadre de travail pour leur feed-back est-il utile? Qu’est-ce qui devrait être changé d’une façon générale au sujet du Portfolio, ainsi que par rapport aux parties spécifiques de son contenu?

Celles-ci sont certaines des questions auxquelles le groupe d’experts cherche des réponses. Afin d’en donner certaines basées sur votre expérience lors de l’utilisation du Portfolio, vous êtes joyeusement invité à employer le formulaire d’évaluation supplémentaire –développé dans ce but- que vous trouvez ici en format pdf ou ici en format doc – selon votre préférence.

Évidemment, tous les commentaire et pensées que vous avez peuvent également être partagés ici sur « Nonformality » en tant que commentaire à cet article, qui sera transmis.

D’une manière ou d’une autre: mille merci!

Liens et documents relatifs

Le Portfolio (pdf, 7.5 MB)

Le Formulaire d’évaluation (pdf)
Le Formulaire d’évaluation (doc)

Le site Web du Portfolio (www.coe.int/youthportfolio)

Note:

Évidemment, vous trouverez également d’autres documents sur ce site Web du Conseil de l’Europe, où ils sont librement disponibles pour le téléchargement. Il est contre nos normes éthiques, en tant que bloggers de marcher sur les plates-bandes des autres sans qu’ils le sachent, raison pour laquelle nous vous offrons le téléchargement directement de notre emplacement.

Indépendamment de cela, la propriété de et le crédit du Portfolio appartiennent seulement à la Direction de la Jeunesse et des Sports du Conseil de l’Europe – qui a une longue tradition de partage de sa connaissance avec une plus large communauté, tradition que nous accueillons, honorons et respectons.

Written by Andreas Karsten (andreas@nonformality.org) with assistance from Mark Taylor, consultant for the portfolio (brazavil.training@yahoo.com).

Many thanks to Gisèle Evrard for the translation!

“The European Portfolio for Youth Workers and Youth Leaders aims to increase the recognition of non-formal education and youth work.”

If the Portfolio fails, nobody will be able to claim it wasn’t ambitious enough I’d say…

But let’s answer some basic questions first, such as: what is the portfolio, why was it designed, who designed it, for whom was it designed, what can be done with it, what’s happening right now and how can you get involved?

The portfolio is a tool to enable its users to assess and describe their competences on the basis of a core set of European quality standards.

At least that’s what the Council of Europe describe it as on their website, although you won’t find mention of quality standards in the portfolio itself…

The portfolio understands itself as an instrument, a tool, a book of presently 52 pages which wants to help youth workers and youth leaders working in non-formal learning environments to

• identify, assess and record their competences,
• describe their competences to others, and to
• set their own learning and development goals.

This is what the portfolio has been designed for — against a political backdrop which increasingly supports and recognises non-formal education and, at the same time, calls for a more structured and transparent approach towards quality assurance and quality control.

In the context of the Council of Europe, this political background was expressed by the Committee of Ministers in its recommendation N° 2003 (8) on the promotion and the recognition of non-formal education / learning of young people, where it says:

“The Committee of Ministers, (…) convinced that non-formal learning can contribute to secure all the knowledge and capacities which young people need to succeed in contemporary societies (…), recommends that the governments of member states (…) support the creation and use of a European portfolio as a description tool aiming to record experiences, skills and knowledge (learning outcomes) acquired through non-formal education/learning (…)”

Based on this high-level substantial and constitutive political decision, the Council of Europe invited an expert group to look at the feasibility of producing such an instrument for all young people. After looking at the options, they came to the conclusion that it would be more effective as a first step to concentrate on youth workers and leaders. This led to a new group being formed which defined then the more detailed aims of the portfolio:

The group performed a functional analysis of what youth workers and leaders should be and do and from this drew up a framework of competences which individuals are invited to a) use as a self-assessment tool and then b) to gain feedback from their peers and colleagues.

The portfolio is intended for the use of youth leaders and youth workers. The expert group understands youth leaders as young adults holding a responsibility in a youth organisation, network or any other youth structure, mainly on a voluntary basis. Youth workers are, then, holding the same kind of responsibility mainly on a professional basis.

So what do these youth leaders and youth workers find inside the portfolio — and any other interested human being as a matter of fact? Let me show you another graphic to illustrate the contents:

Quite a few people were consulted during the development of the portfolio, bringing in expertise and perspectives from a wider range than the (small to be operational) expert group could provide. Whether or not this has led to something useful and practical, remains to be seen in practice.

Which is why, essentially, a test phase has been put in place which runs until July 2006. During this time you all — whether or not you are a youth leader or youth worker in the understanding described above — are warmly invited to have a go at using the portfolio — completing the competence tables, getting feedback from others and making a plan for the future — and, most importantly, take the time to provide some qualified feedback to the expert group. What they are looking for are people who really have a go at USING the portfolio – they have enough feedback from those who have just read it!

Are the aims relevant? Are they relevant for European level only or applicable in local contexts? Is the portfolio meeting any demand from practice – or is it just a political tool? Is motivation out there amongst practitioners to use it? Is the context understandable? Are the contents approachable? Is the competence framework both generic and specific enough to be universal but precise? Is the investment of time and thought adequate? Are peers able to understand your self-assessment? Is the framework for their feedback useful? What should be changed about the portfolio, both in general terms and in relation to specific parts of its contents?

These are but some of the questions for which the expert group is seeking answers. To give some based on your experience of using the portfolio, you are happily invited to use the extra-for-this-purpose-developed evaluation form which you find here either in pdf-format or here in doc-format — as you wish. Just send the form by email to youthportfolio@coe.int.

Obviously, any comments and thoughts you have can also come in here on Nonformality as a comment to this article which will be passed on.

Either way: Thanks a million!

Related links and documents

The Portfolio (pdf, 4 MB)

Evaluation Form (pdf)
Evaluation Form (doc)

COE Youth Portfolio Website (www.coe.int/youthportfolio)

Note:

Obviously, you will also find all the documents at this website of the Council of Europe, where they are freely available for download. It is against our ethical standards as bloggers to steal bandwidth from other people without them knowing it, which is why we offer you the download directly from our site.

Independent of that, ownership of and credit for the Portfolio belong solely to the Youth and Sport Directorate of the Council of Europe — which has a long tradition in sharing its knowledge with the wider community, a tradition we honour, respect and welcome.

Written by Andreas Karsten (andreas@nonformality.org) with assistance from Mark Taylor, consultant for the portfolio (brazavil.training@yahoo.com).

Common sense, experience and research all show the same: If the budget is fixed, and the deadline as well, the scope of the project must be negotiable. If the scope isn’t flexible and neither is the deadline, the available budget has to be. If neither budget nor scope are negotiable, the deadline has to be bend.

Something has to give. Try getting all three, and in the end every stakeholder will be disappointed and annoyed. It is like trying to square the circle.

Yet, there seems to be a growing number of exceptions. I have the very personal and subjective feeling that more and more of my projects have to be quick, fast and cheap — all at the same time.

Just a few examples:

• In educational activities, paid days for preparation decrease. Preparation at home has mutated into an unknown concept. At the same time, you are expected to be much better prepared than a couple of years ago — working later than midnight, excuse me?!
• Co-ordination and administration of activities are increasingly outsourced, but funds for administrational expenses are cut down or cut out. At the same time, communication problems are not allowed. Cultural differences — what’s that?!
• The length of educational activities is cut, sometimes by half. The aims and objectives are not. Five days have to be enough, after all. When after such a course not much happens — what do you mean the time was too short?!
• The number of days paid for publications, documentations, evaluations are permanently cut. Yet, you are expected to do everything at least twice as good as the person who has done a similar project last time — with twice the payment.

Based on these (rather frustrating) experiences, if you think positive and apply the pick-two-trilemma to educational work, it could probably be someting like:

If the budget is fixed, and the expected quality is not negotiable, the number of participants will have to be smaller. If the participants are fixed and the quality as well, you better come with a flexible budget. If neither your budget nor the number of participants is negotiable, I would suggest you lower your quality standards.

Yet, we are all increasingly faced with situations in which partners try to grab all three things at once. Strikingly enough, this is often the case when the (perceived) power relations are highly unequal and unbalanced.

We are being pushed around.

For how long?

It begins with the preparation and the documents produced for that purpose. It continues with team meetings which are much more lax and relaxed. It goes on with the delivery of sessions. It affects the documentation. And it has a great impact on the quality of the meeting, its outcome, its visibility, its efficiency.

Don’t get me wrong — this is not a flame-post! I am constantly doing this myself — ignoring professional standards of educational work based on the (unreflected and untrue) assumption that everything will work out just fine because we have done this for so long. It is a phenomenon I have observed over many years and discussed with many friends and colleagues and which is, it seems, a fact.

In addition, meetings often do not even attempt to consider the most basic kind of knowledge management, understood as

…”techniques used for the systematic collection, transfer, security and management of information within organisations, along with systems designed to help make best use of that knowledge; in particular tools and techniques designed to preserve the availability of information held by key individuals and facilitate decision making and reducing risk.”

Source: Wikipedia

Accessed on March 18, 2006

And I have no idea why.

But I do know what it feels like: Re-living life from gastrulation onwards.

So my question remains and goes out to you:

Why do we — people trained at facilitating conversations that matter — converse our knowledge in our own meetings?