(if you prefer not to receive this newsletter any more, send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org)
Berlin, 15 November 2005
A major event in the DARE calendar is approaching - our EYCE National Experiences, European Challenges conference, organised jointly with EAEA the European Association of the Education of Adults, the German Federal Agency on Civic Education (bpb) and the Austrian Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. The conference takes place 2nd-4th December 2005, in Berlin. Many of us will be in evidence, as speakers for our various countries, giving thematic input on important EDC and HRE issues, moderating working groups or providing training sessions. Others from the DARE network will be attending the conference and contributing with their views and experiences. This is all in keeping with one of the prime concerns expressed at our Tallinn meeting in August this year that we should develop a more public profile for the network.
This conference is an opportunity to become visible to a greater public, to the Council of Europe and the European Commission, to national and regional authorities - and to get in touch with other organisations involved in EDC and HRE, including experts in the field from a different institutional background. The Minister of Education and Culture of Brandenburg, heading the European Year from the German side, will open the conference. Margot Wallström, Vice-president of the EU Commission and Commissioner for Communication, will introduce the new European action plan on Democracy, Debate and Dialogue - the so-called Plan D which is intended to create a platform for dialogue between the EU institutions and Europes citizens.
The country workshops will provide an opportunity for participants from all European countries to verify whether the objectives of the European Year have been implemented at national level, what lessons have been learned and what remains to be done. The exchange of information is a necessary step so as to draw conclusions for educational policies at national and European level and so as to look for allies and coalitions.
Workshops on the basics of EDC and HRE such as participation, identity and values, on civic empowerment and community building, on social cohesion and global learning will facilitate discussion with practitioners and experts from both formal and non-formal education. Last but not least, the training sessions will offer methodological interactive learning and present our practice.
The conference will be connected with another recommendation from the Tallinn meeting. DARE members wanted more cooperation and more common projects. We therefore invited everyone to take part in a project fair on 1st December. The project fair has been organised by Chrissie Dell (Centre for Global Education) and Wim Taelman (VORMEN, Flemish Organisation for Human Rights Education). It will take place in the rooms of AdB, Mühlendamm 3 in Berlin from 6 10 p.m. The DARE members have already received detailed information from Katrin Wolf.
In this context I should like to draw your attention to a short report on a workshop of experts on quality assurance in education for democratic citizenship, which took place in Vienna in October 2005 and was been co-organised by our Austrian DARE member Servicestelle Menschenrechtsbildung. DARE was invited to contribute, which is important with a view to the development and implementation of a European Quality Framework which will have consequences for our field of education.
The board of DARE met in Berlin at the end of October in order to work out the draft for the next pre-proposal for Grundtvig 4. We took into consideration the outcomes of the debates in Tallinn and the recommendations of the membership. All DARE members except those in non-Socrates countries were invited to join as participating organisations. 22 members out of 31 eligible organisations accepted the invitation. This is a positive vote and an encouragement for the applicant. Two organisations of the new Grundtvig participating organisations are not members of DARE - but nonetheless they complete the range of different approaches to EDC and HRE and of countries represented:
Let me close this letter by informing another time on first events in 2006. The next general assembly will be on 27th April 2006; the gender seminar and training From Equal Rights to Equal Opportunities from 27th-29th April in Vilnius, Lithuania (arrival 26th, departure 30 th). Attention, please! This date may be changed and the seminar will take place the week before, from 20 th -22 nd April (arrival 19 th, departure 23 rd April).
For all members of working groups 1 and 2 we announce the next joint meeting for 2nd-3rd June (arrival 1st, departure 4 th). There will be only one meeting of the current working groups in 2006.
The evaluation meeting for the participating organisations of the current Grundtvig project will be from 4th-5th August (arrival 3rd, departure 6th August) at Sonnenberg in Germany.
Im looking forward to seeing you soon in Berlin!
The Citizenship Foundation is developing a new project, funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, aimed at bringing structure and coherence to citizenship education provision in secondary schools. Up to twelve schools nationally, in partnership with their local communities, will develop, trial and evaluate citizenship manifestos in conjunction with the Citizenship Manifestos Project Team - as a means to identify, inform and develop their citizenship practice. In addition to these core schools, a range of satellite schools will develop citizenship manifestos within their own communities.
What is a Citizenship Manifesto?
The citizenship manifesto is a concise public document that outlines a schools citizenship values and the opportunities for student participation and citizenship learning that occur in the taught curriculum, in the everyday processes and structures of school life and through its links with the wider community.
Developed through consultation with students, teachers, parents and community partners, a citizenship manifesto sets out student entitlement to citizenship and offers a guarantee of action which the school is willing to make to its stakeholders, rather like the manifestos of political parties. In addition, a citizenship manifesto develops the idea of community reciprocity, exploring what guarantees or promises might, in turn, be set out by stakeholders to the school.
Why are Citizenship Manifestos needed?
Developing citizenship manifestos
There are three stages involved in developing citizenship manifestos:
A citizenship manifesto is an active, working document. Practice is regularly revisited and the document redrafted where necessary.
The Citizenship Manifestos Project will be launched in January 2006 and will run, in the first instance, until March 2008.
For further information please contact the Citizenship Manifestos Project Manager:
Dr Emma-Jane Watchorn, Project Manager - Citizenship Manifestos, Citizenship Foundation; email@example.com
About thirty researchers, government officials, educational practitioners and NGOs from twelve European countries met in Vienna on 14-15 October 2005 to discuss todays challenges in school development, quality assurance and standards in Education for Democratic Citizenship. The conclusions of the Viennese workshop will be integrated into the European Conference EYCE 2005: National Experiences European Challenges (Berlin, 2-4 December 2005) (http://www.bpb.de/files/5O9NEA.pdf).
One of the conclusions of the Workshop was the need for practical tools for educational practitioners. The participants agreed that the Tool for Quality Assurance of Education for Democratic Citizenship in Schools, developed by the Council of Europe, UNESCO and the Centre for Educational Policy Studies (CEPS), is a useful framework for the debate, which needs to be further developed, translated and promoted.
The European Workshop on Quality Assurance in Education for Democratic Citizenship was organised jointly by:
Objectives / key issues of the workshop
Further Information: European Workshop, Vienna, 14-15 October 2005
4. More on the NEYCE Workshop on Quality Assurance
The European Workshop was organised by the Federal Agency for Civic Education in Germany, the Department for Citizenship Education and Environmental Education at the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture in Austria and the Service Centres for Citizenship Education and Human Rights Education in Austria. It was a follow-up of the first NECE conference at Santiago de Compostela in September 2004.
There were only a few colleagues dealing with non-formal education. Most of the experts are working in fields of formal education, such as schools inspectors, researchers for school development or quality assurance in formal education. There have been several efforts and attempts to look at formal and non-formal education separately. However, there was no strict distinction throughout the discussion. Above all, it is usually very difficult to explain the ideological and methodical differences between these fields of activity as understood in Germany, though I did make the effort to present the need for an open, participative approach to EDC and ways of quality assurance.
There was an in-depth discussion which generated a great deal of exchange and raised issues about language and definitions, for example, the differences between competence and skills or willingness and ability - as well as the concept of community. To a certain extent this tended to focus on the German experience but then returned to wider issues around quality assurance in terms of input, process and output. In these discussions, there were several voices favouring a self-evaluation approach to Quality Assurance, i.e. an open process in contrast to a more "controlling" system of quality assurance for which the outcome in terms of learning objectives is defined first and then tested.
In this context, a very useful and refreshing input came from Florian Wenzel from the Centre for Applied Policy Research (CAP) in Germany. He presented a project on Participatory Evaluation of Civic Education. Drawing upon the dimensions of civic education, he described how evaluation had been adapted to reflect a participatory approach. He identified this approach as a political demand in terms of EDC. He outlined six stages of methodological process from the integration of the stakeholders, including the recognition of current strengths and resources, developing common visions, designing goals and indicators, planning, running and evaluating projects to putting together an evaluation report which would be both appreciative and future-orientated in motivating for change. Nobody should claim a single cause connection between the reasons and the effects. Faced with the challenge of designing together our future, that would mean that the effects could readily be predicted or that a "preconceived ideal" should be reached. Despite that, the outcomes are not clear. However the process of defining quality should be a negotiation, in which very different perspectives come together.
Wenzels speech was followed by a thought-provoking discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of measuring quality quantitatively as opposed to qualitatively. His model of participative and qualitative evaluation was supported by colleagues - mostly from post-communist countries - suspicious of EDC being "standardised" in terms of numbers. Thus: "the quality of EDC is not like the quality of milk" or "you should not see school as a factory!"). Some of these opinions were quite near to those expressed by Scott Harrison from the UK, a Subject Specialist Adviser for Citizenship and HMI/Ofsted schools inspector, who spoke in detail on the historical background to the national curriculum and then outlined the procedures and criteria used to make evaluations. He explained the way in which citizenship was defined and inspected as a subject at school. He reported that the English inspection changed from a controlling authority from outside to an inspection which tests and advises schools once they have completed the process of self-evaluation. In this the system reflects to a fair extent the EDC criteria of the Council of Europe.
In the discussion, I pleaded for focussing on "indicators" much more than "standards", inter alia so as to take into account the variety of ideas as to "quality" in different countries (and, of course, because the terminology would be rejected by the non-formal education sector in Germany). As a follow-up to the Education for Democratic Citizenship Quality Assurance Tool for Schools we could go ahead with some workshops in different countries, in which on the assumptions of the "QA Tool" - indicators for the quality of EDC could be gathered and discussed. In this suggestion we agreed on common conclusions at the end of the conference.
Vedrana Spajic-Vrkas, our Croatian DARE member, traced the background of events leading to the production of the quality assurance tool and reminded participants of the CHANGE IN FOCUS FROM QUALITY CONTROL TO QUALITY ASSURANCE. She stressed the need for common ground and consensus in order to guide future practice at local, national, European and even global/international level. The introduction of EDC would act as a means of integrating educational change in Europe, requiring teacher training to think holistically and to reassure education in the service of the individual and society - with EDC as the key to lifelong learning. She was in agreement with me that the discussion should be linked with the political agenda and the development of research in the European Union, because its results will create norms for EDC relevant to both political decision-making and sourcing financial support.
Helle Becker, DARE
5. Regional Cooperation and Sustainability in EDC (Education for Democratic Citizenship) and HRE (Human Rights Education) (Fruska Gora - near Belgrade, SCG; October 28-30th, 2005)
I. Opening Session: Context, Design and Objectives of the Meeting
In his opening speech, MARINO OSTINI (State Secretariat for Education and Science, Switzerland) pointed out that his speech didnt open a conference but a working meeting - being part of the ongoing European Year of Citizenship through Education 2005 (EYCE). He summarised the history and background to the meeting by looking back at D@dalos activities in trying to strengthen regional EDC cooperation in South-East Europe (SEE) since 2001.
Ostini outlined the Council of Europe (CoE) EDC project as the major context of the work meeting - and informed the participants that just recently in Strasbourg it was agreed to continue the EDC project. After the first (1997-2000) and second phase (2001-2004), there will be a third phase from 2006 to 2009 including HRE and having teacher training as priority.
INGRID HALBRITTER (project director of D@dalos, Sarajevo, and director of Pharos eV, Stuttgart) continued the opening session by presenting basic information about the working meetings main purpose and design. The crucial question was how to make regional cooperation more systematic and efficient. D@dalos was glad to have the opportunity to invite sixty outstanding EDC actors from SEE and give them space and time to work in this direction.
Halbritter made clear that D@dalos expects the working meeting to elaborate a concrete catalogue of recommendations on how to strengthen EDC in SEE. These recommenda-tions will be signed by the participating organisations (and later on by other organi-sations as well) and widely distributed. To achieve this goal, the meetings design comprises three steps:
II. Step 1: International policy frameworks for EDC and HRE
Chair MONIKA MOTT (Kulturkontakt Vienna) introduced the panel as representatives of the most important organisations for EDC and HRE: UNESCO, UNHCHR and CoE. She stated that the key question for this session was how we could use the good concepts of these organisations and what they could do to support the work being done in the field of EDC and HRE in countless projects throughout SEE.
UNESCO / Framework 1
UN Decade Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014)
INGRID HALBRITTER, speaking for UNESCO, defined the difficult term sustainable development according to Lester Brown and the Brundtland Report (Our Common Future). As sustainability includes all aspects of human life and calls for a complete change of values and behaviour, the Decade is very closely linked to EDC. As good practice, she briefly outlined the Decades activities in Germany as coordinated by the German UNESCO Commission.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights / Framework 2
World Programme for Human Rights Education (WPHRE)
CAROLINE HARVEY (Office of the UNHCHR in Belgrade) presented an overview of the work of the UNHCHR (universal normative framework for human rights and the monitoring mechanisms for the seven human rights conventions) and dealt with the follow-up programme of the UN Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004), the WPHRE which started in 2005. In its first phase (2005-2007), primary and secondary schools are the main target group. Harvey defined HRE as everything that helps building a human rights culture and remarked that HRE and EDC are very similar concepts as to objectives, content and methods. She called for cooperation between the EDC coordinators in SEE and WPHRE.
Council of Europe / Framework 3
European Year of Citizenship through Education 2005 (EYCE)
EMIR ADZOVIC (CoE Sarajevo) presented the history and major achievements of CoEs EDC project, which started in 1997 and led to EYCE. He presented EYCEs main objectives, target groups and working methods as a direct framework for all EDC activities in 2005 and quoted as good practice some details about the EDC project in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
In the plenary discussion it was stated that there is a similar situation in all countries of SEE as a main precondition for efficient cooperation. The question arose how the very similar projects (UNs WPHRE and CoEs EDC project, especially COMPASS) could be linked.
MARIE LAFONTAINE-SCHWARZ (Graduate Institute for International Studies PSIO Geneva) presented preliminary results of a stocktaking research on EDC in Switzerland she has carried through since January 2005. Talking about the problems she faced during her research, she noted that the term EDC was far from being clearly defined and that there were huge problems with translating important terms. She also observed that, surprisingly, there was nearly no cooperation amongst the different regions in Switzerland and between the formal and informal education sectors.
III. Step 2: Good Practice from SEE
III.1. Levels and Pillars as Basic Structure
The second step to be taken on the way to elaborating recommendations for cooperation was to see whats going on in SEE. Four EDC projects were presented as good practice to stimulate discussion and further exchange of ideas, concepts and material in the plenary as well as in informal talks during the extensive coffee and lunch breaks. Opening the session, MARINO OSTINI introduced the following structure designed to assist in gathering information systematically and in thinking about cooperation and recommendations.
4 Pillars: Policy Formation and Dialogue, Research and Evaluation, Training and Development, Information and Documentation
3 Levels: Local, Regional, International
In order to allow output-orientated discussion as to how EDC and HRE in SEE can benefit from regional cooperation, D@dalos proposed a division in four areas:
Pillar 1: Policy Formation and Dialogue - this area encompasses all aspects of policy-making and cooperation amongst different stakeholders of a system:
Pillar 2: Research and Evaluation - this area comprises research and analysis aimed at maximizing efficiency and effectiveness of programmes:
Pillar 3: Training and Development - this area deals with the implementation level and comprises all actions aiming at building capacity and enhancing the skills, attitudes and values of youth, adults and those who train them in different educational contexts:
Pillar 4: Information and Documentation - this area deals with the provision and ex-change of information and resources from pillar 1 to 3, and comprises for instance:
III.2. Good Practice
Good practice / pillar 1 (policy formation and dialogue)
RAHELA DZIDIC presented a model of systemic implementation of civic education from Bosnia-Herzegovina, where Civitas carries through a huge civic education programme financed by the US government and involving actors on all levels.
Good practice / pillar 2 (research and evaluation)
Institute for Educational Sciences Bucharest
SIMONA VELEA discussed the results of several research projects and asked how these results could be used to improve educational programmes and practical work.
Good practice / pillar 3 (training and development)
Ministry of Education Montenegro
VIDOSAVA KASCELAN reported on the ongoing intensive education reform with new curricula and new institutions (Bureau for Education Services) in Montenegro, where EDC teacher training plays a prominent role. After this input several participants reported on examples from their countries.
Good practice / pillar 4 (information and documentation)
MARKUS HEINZER presented a new D@dalos project designed to coordinate EDC activities in SEE by building up an internet portal as central platform. The website will be launched in March 2006.
Plenary discussion revealed problems and obstacles in all four pillars to be discussed in the working groups - but also showed that there already are many projects and initiatives to draw from (I.M.PACT: www.impact-see.org, EDC Toolbox: http://www.intercultural.ro/edc/html/index.php, D@dalos EDC Market: www.dadalos.org/edc etc.).
IV. Step 3: Elaborating Recommendations
IV.1. Method Used in the Working Groups
For each pillar, a working group was established. In these four groups three steps had to be taken:
IV.2. Recommendations of the Working Groups
Working group 1 / pillar 1 (policy formation and dialogue)
Working group 2 / pillar 2 (research and evaluation)
Working group 3 / pillar 3 (training and development)
Working group 4 / pillar 4 (information and documentation)
We recommend the establishing of an Independent Regional Communication, Information and Documentation Centre for EDC and HRE.
6. EU funding for human rights education/education for democracy
a) Some funding opportunities
In a series of contributions in e-DARE I want to disseminate the knowledge and insights which I gained during a two-day training programme in Brussels, 'European Funding: development cooperation, human rights, external relations' organised by the NGO Information Diffusion Europe Associations (http://www.idseurope.org/en/index.en.htm). I attended this training on behalf of DARE.
Overview of budget lines: http://www.idseurope.org/en/budget2005en.pdf
A very practical overview of all EU funding opportunities: http://www.idseurope.org/en/Fundschart2005.htm. From there you can click to all relevant websites where you can find more information.
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/eidhr/index_en.htm): the EIDHR is a European Union programme that aims to promote and support human rights and democracy in third countries. Click on Whats new to see the most recent Calls for Proposals.
NGO Co-financing and decentralised Co-operation (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/ong_cd/index_en.htm): the "NGO Co-financing" unit - EUROPEAID / F2 - is in charge of the management of two budget lines, one of them could be interesting for European NGOs for HRE/EDC:
The budget line 21 02 03 (ex B7-6000) covers two types of financing:
The overall objective of this type of action is, first, to raise European public awareness of the problems in developing countries both as to development itself, and as to their relations with the industrialised world. Another objective is to mobilise public support in Europe for development, for strategies and policies for poverty reduction, and for actions benefiting the poorer sections of populations in developing countries. More info on the web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/ong_cd/ed_page_en.htm
Making Citizenship work (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/comcitizen_en.pdf)
Press release about this EU 2007-2013 programme: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/189&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
"European citizens must therefore be given the opportunity for direct, personal experience of what European citizenship and these values mean in practice be it through participation in dialogue with the institutions, through citizen and youth exchanges, or participation in cross-border projects. Fostering the mobility of citizens, artists, cultural and audio-visual works and events gives European citizens the possibility of encountering the common elements in their developing European identity, an identity which complements those national, regional, ethnic, religious that citizens already have".
Actions in the field of youth, culture, the audio-visual sector, civic participation.
("Important: the civic participation programme which has just been launched will end with the current financial perspectives at the end of 2006, but in the light of the challenges outlined in this paper, it is clear that further action will be needed. However, it would be premature at this stage to outline specific proposals for a post-2006 programme. A legislative proposal will be tabled in early 2005 on the basis of an initial appraisal of the new programme and of the outcome of the European constitutional debate.")
More about EU funding opportunities: see next e-DARE
b) Evaluation grid used for many EU funding programmes
This evaluation grid is used for many EU funding programmes, especially those of development cooperation. The grid used contains 5 sections, which are subdivided in subsections. For each section/subsection a maximum score has been fixed. The maximum total score is 100.
1. Financial and operational capacity (20)
1.1 Do the applicant and partners have sufficient experience of project management? (5)
1.2 Do the applicant and partners have sufficient technical expertise?(notably knowledge of the issues to be addressed.) (5)
1.3 Do the applicant and partners have sufficient management capacity?
(including staff, equipment and ability to handle the budget for the action)? (5)
1.4 Does the applicant have stable and sufficient sources of finance? (5)
2. Relevance (25)
2.1 How relevant is the proposal to the objectives and one or more of the priorities of the call for proposals? Note: A score of 5 (very good) will only be allocated if the proposal specifically addresses at least one priority. (5)
2.2 How relevant to the particular needs and constraints of the target country/countries or region(s) is the proposal? (including avoidance of duplication and synergy with other EC initiatives.) (5)
2.3 How clearly defined and strategically chosen are those involved (intermediaries, final beneficiaries, target groups)? (5)
2.4 Have the needs of the target groups proposed and the final beneficiaries been clearly defined and does the proposal address them appropriately? (5)
2.5 Does the proposal contain specific elements of added value, such as innovative approaches, models for good practice, promotion of gender equality and equal opportunities, environmental protection? (5)
3. Methodology (30)
3.1 Are the activities proposed appropriate, practical, and consistent with the objectives and expected results? (5)
3.2 How coherent is the overall design of the action? (in particular, does it reflect the analysis of the problems involved, take into account external factors and anticipate an evaluation?) (5)
3.3 Is the partners' level of involvement and participation in the action satisfactory? Note: If there are no partners the score will be 1. (5)
3.4 Is the target groups' and final beneficiaries' level of involvement and participation in the action satisfactory? (5)
3.5 Is the action plan clear and feasible? (5)
3.6 Does the proposal contain objectively verifiable indicators for the outcome of the action? (5)
4. Sustainability (15)
4.1 Is the action likely to have a tangible impact on its target groups? (5)
4.2 Is the proposal likely to have multiplier effects? (including scope for replication and extension of the outcome of the action and dissemination of information.) (5)
4.3 Are the expected results of the proposed action sustainable:
- financially (how will the activities be financed after the EC funding ends?)
- institutionally (will structures allowing the activities to continue be in place at the end of the action? Will there be local ownership of the results of the action?)
- at policy level (where applicable) (what will be the structural impact of the action e.g. will it lead to improved legislation, codes of conduct, methods, etc?)? (5)
5. Budget and cost-effectiveness (10)
5.1 is the ratio between the estimated costs and the expected results satisfactory? (5)
5.2 Is the proposed expenditure necessary for the implementation of the action? (5)
||This newsletter is edited by the DARE project, 'Democracy and Human Rights Education in Adult Learning', which receives funding from the European Community (Socrates programme, Grundtvig action).|
Contributions for this newsletter can be sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org
DARE correspondence address (project and network):