Strasbourg, 15 April 2002

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP

2001-2004

International seminar on EDC policies and regulatory frameworks, Strasbourg, 6-7 December 2001

Seminar Report by Karen O’Shea DGIV/EDU/CIT (2002) 6 rev.

2

1. INTRODUCTION 2. SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS 3. ANALYSIS APPENDIX I APPENDIX II APPENDIX III

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Aims and objectives

1.2 Participants and working methods

1.3 Report

3

2. SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS

2.1 Opening up to seminar

2.2 Overview of stocktaking review in South � East

Europe

2.3 Overview of All � European study

2.4 Overview of Common European Policy Reference

Framework

2.5 Working Group Reports from Day one

2.6 Introduction to Day Two

2.7 Working Group Reports from Day Two

2.8 Conclusion of Proceedings

5

3. ANALYSIS

3.1 The Practice of Policy in Member Countries

and Issues Arising

3.2 The Role of Central Government

3.3 The Conditions which support EDC Policy

3.4 Recommendations

24

4. APPENDIX 29

3

Appendix I : Seminar Programme

Appendix II: List of Participants

Appendix III: Presentation by Mr Ton Olgers, Netherlands

1. INTRODUCTION Following the EDC Final Conference in September 2000 and with the adoption, by the Ministers of Education at their 20th session in Cracow, in October 2000, of their resolution on the results and conclusions of the completed projects in 1997-2000, the Education for Democratic Citizenship Project (EDC) was considered complete. The experiences and recommendations of this phase of the project stimulated the development of a new phase of the EDC project which began in 2001. 1.1 Aims and Objectives Policy development was identified by the Education Committee Bureau as the first priority of the EDC activities of 2001-2004. In light of this, an international seminar focussing on EDC policies was held in Strasbourg in December 2001. The main aim of the seminar was to lay the foundations of and contribute to the policy development work of the Council of Europe for the period of 2001-2004. The programme for the seminar was prepared in cooperation with the experts� group on policy development1 and the core objectives were to

- offer the opportunity for an exchange of information between the different member countries;

- gather knowledge about different national and regional experiences and processes in the areas of EDC legislation, policy-making and implementation;

- identify legislative provisions, policy frameworks and regulations that are in favour of EDC;

- study the �compliance gap�, ie. how formal law and policies (top-down approach) interface with the social practices of those laws and policies (bottom-up approach) and how effectively formal texts are implemented;

- analyse the role legislation can play in introducing EDC in member countries; - investigate how legislation is used to secure people�s educational rights; - encourage member countries to develop and implement policy framework documents

for EDC. 1.2 Participants and Working Methods

1 See Appendix I for Seminar Programme

4

The participants were drawn from 42 countries and included representatives of Education Ministries, experts in Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC) and experts in educational policies2. In order to facilitate achieving the objectives outlined above, the seminar included plenary presentations, discussions and workshops. On the first day four working groups focussed on the same general topic, but received different inputs/case studies as a base for their discussions and on the second day three working groups focussed on three different areas. 1.3 Report This report has two key purposes. Firstly, to present the proceedings of the seminar by reporting on the various inputs and working groups and secondly, to reflect on some of the key issues raised with a view to identifying what is currently happening in member countries and to make some recommendations for the future.

2 See Appendix II for List of Participants

5

2. SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS 2.1 Opening of the Seminar The opening session was chaired by Mr Jose Manuel Pureza, (Portugal) Chairman of the EDC Steering Group. In his opening remarks Mr Pureza explained the importance of the seminar. He described it as one of the most important initiatives of this second project of EDC. According to Mr Pureza, the first project in EDC, carried out in 1997-2000 experimented with many strategies all of which were invaluable and it was reflection on these activities that gave rise to this current focus on policy development. He recognised that this seminar was timely as there was a growing tendency among member countries of the Council of Europe towards establishing EDC policies. The hope therefore for the seminar was that it could provide an opportunity to share and explore the main difference and similarities in relation to EDC policy in member countries. Mr Gabrielle Mazza, (Council of Europe) welcomed all participants on behalf of the Secretary General and the Secretariat as a whole. He outlined for those present, particularly those not familiar with the Council of Europe activities, the special role education has within the Council. According to Mr Mazza, this current phase of EDC work draws on an age-old ambition; the ambition to consider what the young citizen needs for the rest of its life. Mr Mazza traced the strong links between this project and Council of Europe activities from the 1980�s, particularly the project �Preparation for Life�. He suggested however, that the level of ambition in this project was higher as the political stakes were higher as the formation of policy was a crucial objective when seeking to institutionalise the concepts and practices core to EDC. Following Mr Mazza�s welcome, Ms Angela Garabagiu (Council of Europe) provided participants with an overview of the seminar. She outlined that the focus of day one would be on stock-taking. The day was concerned with gaining an overview of situation in member countries and identifying issues for consideration. This stocktaking activity would then be followed on day two by a more in-depth examination of policy design, implementation and practitioners viewpoints. Ms Michela Cecchini (Council of Europe) placed the seminar within an overall framework. She reminded participants of the legacy of the past work and the working definition of EDC that had been developed. She outlined that EDC can be viewed ‘as a variety of learning practices which are designed to enable people to act in a democratic way’. She stated that EDC focuses on participation and empowerment and is centred on rights and responsibilities and is continually seeking to contribute to social cohesion. As a concept EDC has a variety of elements. It seeks to target both the young and adult population, it has a political, civic, social and cultural dimension. It includes a holistic approach to knowledge, skills and attitudes and has specific learning strategies which implies new roles for teachers/trainers and demands a greater synergy between formal and non-formal education. It requires a democratic environment and needs to extend civil partnerships. Importantly in relation to this seminar, EDC has a number of policy requirements which are outlined in the Resolution adopted by the Council of Europe Ministers of Education at their 20th session Cracow.

6

Finally, Ms Cecchini reinforced the idea that this phase of EDC was structured around the importance of transferring the results of 1st phase into policies and practices. Therefore the activities to be carried out between 2001-2004 focus on:

• Educational policies and strategies • Networking and communication • Awareness raising and campaigning

In relation to policy work Ms Cecchini outlined three main objectives

• Developing the knowledge base. This seminar was a �kick-off� in relation to the exchange of information. Also under this strategy was the stock-taking research which was carried out in Southeast Europe and the wider All European Study.

• Standard Setting/Reference Tools. In relation to standard setting the Council of

Europe was in the process of producing a common reference on policy options in relation to EDC.

• Bi-lateral Assistance and Co-operation. The focus of these activities would be on

supporting the introduction of EDC policy in institutions, curricula and teacher training institutes.

2.2 Overview of Stock-taking Research in SE Europe Following Ms Cecchini�s remarks Mr Cameron Harrison (UK) and Mr Ilo Trajkovski (�the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia�) gave a short presentation on the Stock-taking Research carried out in SE Europe. Mr Harrsion outlined that the activity resulted in an overall report and nine country reports. The research was based on a research instrument developed collaboratively, and focused on three fundamental questions: ��What shape does policy take in each country? ��What shape do implementation measures take? ��What are the views of practitioners? The research was therefore interested in (i) policy intentions (ii) policy implementation (iii) the compliance gap between policy and practice. He highlighted that the research showed that there were no constitutional difficulties in designing and promoting EDC, the constitutional basis is sound and it was evident in the wide range of positive expressions of policy among the nine countries. Mr Cameron outlined that the three areas for consideration when researching education policy were curriculum, professional development of teachers and structural and organisational issues relating to education. These three areas do not exist in isolation and overlap considerably. The research highlighted that curriculum tended to be most developed � strong curricular statements containing statements of intention were readily accessible. On the other hand the research identified a serious lack of effective policy in relation to teacher training. While there was clearly good practice existent, state policy on teacher training was notable by its

7

absence. In relation to the structural organisation of schools/learning institutions there were a number of weaknesses here and these would require further attention. Mr Harrsion stated that accessing the stakeholders view was a valuable exercise and those interviewed shared a strong commitment to working in EDC and were often �strikingly patient working with government� Finally Mr Harrison briefly addressed the �compliance gap�. This he stated was the biggest single problem. The research undertaken pointed to the fact that implementation plans did not often exist. Mr Cameron concluded his remarks by noting the four recommendations arising from the research: 1) The first recommendation relates to the establishment of national working parties and

an organisation of a series of national seminars on the results of the stocktaking research;

2) The second recommendation relates to setting up quality assessment mechanisms and

the establishment of a �quality mark� for schools and other institutions that demonstrate best practice;

3) The third recommendation relates to the establishment of regional co-operative

initiatives on teacher training; 4) The fourth recommendation relates to the need for effective action on matters of

management and governance in education3. Mr Ilo Trajkovski (FYROM) congratulated the Council of Europe on making such a systematic study. Mr Trajkovski stressed that when examining EDC policy it was important to consider the context within which this policy was developed. Following a short presentation on the situation in his country and its history of policy development, Mr Trajkovski highlighted a number of internal factors which contributed to the situation but importantly also stressed the role of the international community. He highlighted the fact that the international community was at a particular time in Macedonia, much more supportive for civil society than of the government. This emphasis on civil society in his opinion paradoxically created a situation now where the government was trying to develop EDC policy with a lack of resources and expertise. The overemphasis on civil society had in his opinion contributed to creating a competency gap within the government and as education reform was becoming higher on the national agenda this gap needed to be addressed. 2.3 Overview of All-European Study Mr Cesar Bîrzea (Romania) introduced the research which was currently being undertaken on a pan-European basis. He stated that the SE Stock-taking Research had developed an innovative approach and that this study, was giving value to the methodology by using it on an all-European basis. Mr Bîrzea highlighted that official policies and declarations of intention, which were drawn up during the 90�s, were available and well documented. 3 For full text on recommendations, see Stock-Taking Research on Policies for Education for Democratic Citizenship in Southeat Europe, DGIV/EDU/CIT (2001) 45 Final

8

He outlined that while the methodology of this research did not include field trip studies, there was a large amount of data available through a range of other research activities undertaken, for example, by the Council of Europe Youth Directorate, the OCED and the EU (eg the Memorandum on Life-Long Learning). However, on a similar vein to Mr Cameron, Mr Bîrzea stated that the problem now was to put policy into practice and a key aim of the research was to examine the issue of compliance. 2.4 Overview of the Common European Policy Reference Framework Ms Lynne Chisholm (UK), outlined the overall purpose of the Common European Policy Reference Framework. She stated that while this was at a very early stage it would aim to help its projected readership to plan good quality policies, to help implement these successfully and evaluate the effectiveness of action taken. In stating that the readership would be �critically reflective policy writers and practitioners�, Ms Chisholm, said that the Framework would not be an implementation handbook for direct use by practitioners in the classroom but would rather be a document which would work at a intersection of practice and policy. It would provide structured way/routes for implementation EDC policy through providing a set of options which actors could choose and decide in their own context. She offered a definition of policy options as being �clusters of related practices� and suggested that the framework would look at policy inductively, that is what is happening on the ground, and that it would be conceptually informed but practically relevant. Underpinning the framework would be the core question: ‘How does educational change take place and how can legislation and public policy intervene positively in this process’. 2.5 Working Groups Following Ms Chisholm�s presentation participants attended one of four workshops which offered the first opportunity for the exchange of ideas and practices. As stated earlier, each workshop began with a presentation on a particular aspect of EDC policy. This was followed by an examination of three key questions: ��Are there EDC policies at the national level in the Council of Europe member states? If

yes, what kind of policy options are there? How are EDC policies designed? ��What does EDC policy work mean as regards implementation? What kinds of

instruments are used? How do the EDC policy-making processes evolve? ��What are the challenges for the development of sustainable EDC policies? The following reports were presented by Working Group Rapporteurs.

9

Working Group One: A Case Study: The Case of Ireland Presentation: Stephen Mc Carthy, Ireland Moderator: Milan Pol, Czech Republic Rapporteur: Rolf Mikkelsen, Norway The case study focussed on the development of citizenship education as a pilot-project through 3 years in the mid-90ies. The objective was to change emphasis in the EDC part of the curriculum from education about to education for participation, from an emphasis on duty, obligation and responsibility to an emphasis on engagement, challenge, opportunity and empowerment. A total number of 250 schools were involved in the pilot-project. The key elements of which was:

• In-service training. The teachers were trained to be trainers themselves. • To encourage teachers away from text-books • Attention to management • The political voice needing to be heard

Behind this development was vital the support of the EU and the partnership in Education, which included the involvement of business, trade unions, teacher unions and others. The project was not evaluated, but it was said that when entering a school you could sense if the emphasis was about or for practise of participation. A question was raised in relation to the reactions of the pupils. While there was as yet no evaluation, the impression is �that if the school supports it, the children love it�. There were several questions to the presentation � most of them addressing the problem with assessment in this new kind of school. Individual assessment traditionally is about knowledge and sometimes skills. The school emphasising modern civic education where values, attitudes, concepts and cooperation are highlighted it is almost impossible to assess in the ordinary way and therefore demands new approaches. These new forms of assessment could include assessing project reports, reflection on activity and learning, school assessment � does the school succeed in creating a democratic environment? Are there EDC policies at the national level in the Council of Europe member states? If yes, what kind of policy options are there? How are the EDC policies designed? All countries represented in the group confirmed EDC policies. All countries looked upon the curriculum as the example of the main policy document. A variety of countries put forward examples on different ways of using the curriculum as policy document and expressing EDC in them. In some countries citizenship-related subjects is the place where the policy and goals are expressed, in other countries they think more in cross-curricular ways. Following countries delivered examples: Serbia, Georgia, Austria, Netherlands, Holy See, Estonia, Scotland (UK), Poland, Czech Republic, Macedonia, Sweden, Ireland and Norway. In many of the countries there is curriculum development going on, and EDC-policies are changing and improving.

10

Two questions were repeated by many: Is the best policy to develop cross-curricula or subject-based citizenship education? and, how to draw teachers away from text-books as their main aid in the classroom? What does EDC policy work mean as regards implementation? What kinds of instruments are used? How do the EDC-policymaking processes evolve? Members of the group found the questions and the concept unclear. This started a discussion on the objective of the seminar, and the group discussions with views ranging from those who wanted discussions on the meaning of basic citizenship concepts to those who first of all wanted to listen to and discuss differences, similarities and experiences. There also was a suggestion that for the next meeting all counties would bring with them a short (one page) description on EDC policies and implementation for each country. This would give possibility for another starting point. Working Group Two: Case Study: The National EDC Programme in Portugal Presentation: José Manuel Pureza, Portugal Moderator: Hugh Starkey, UK Rapporteur: Anthony DeGiovanni, Malta Following a presentation by Portugal the group examined the key questions Are there EDC policies at the national level in the Council of Europe member states? Most representatives indicated that there is some kind of policy, but it was evident that there is a diversity of situations and models as a result of the various and diverse factors. Some are well formulated and have acquired a traditional status: e.g. (1) Sweden�s legislation of 1946 had put a democratic perspective of education. (2) U.K. with a recent well formulated curriculum, which has a lifelong perspective. The Portuguese experience is an epitome of this process of search, which is certainly not linear. Portugal reacted in various ways trying to come to grips with EDC concepts in the context of the political, social and educational setting and change. The peaceful resolution of 1974 brought about a multidimensional shift, which resulted in a period of experimentation followed by a period of stability crystallised in a formed curriculum content. In 1986 a new direction towards �democratic institutions� was put forward but failed because it was too academic. In 1989, the Personal and Social Development proposal was put forward but it also failed permanently because of lack of preparation in implementation. In 1990�s the ideology of the �cultural school� was put forward with strategies including non�formal school clubs, themes and schools as democratic sites. How are policies designed and what does EDC policy work mean as regards implementation? Since EDC policy has not been linear, it is not evident whether �policy� on national level preceded implementation or vice � versa, whether �local� experiments influenced �policy�.

11

Most participants referred to initiations rather than policies, or ad hoc policies or curriculum innovations rather than comprehensive policies. What kinds of instruments are used? How do the EDC policy-making processes evolve? In general, the countries reacted to the political or social changes, to the influence of multinational organisations, as well as influence from other countries, publications and the media. So innovations are very often introduced piecemeal and are adopted and perhaps adapted from other models. Sometimes they are simply adopted as in the case of Macedonia grade 7 and 8 textbook �we the people meet the citizen�, which is an American text. The position is different in each country varying from a concept paper in the Ukraine, an education law in Moldova, and a policy paper in Lithuania. What are the challenges for the development of sustainable EDC policies? The challenges to be faced included: 1) A delineation of a clean and comprehensive policy. 2) Meeting the compliance gap 3) The financial aspect. 4) The line allocation/ �competing for importance� aspect. 5) The democratisation of the structure. 6) Quality assurance and evaluation 7) Assessment and examinability 8) Putting EDC in a broader context than schools and school curricula. Working Group Three: Case Study: Norway, Social Dialogue, Alternatives to Policy Frameworks. Presentation: Brit Jakobsen, Norway Moderator: Audrey Osler, UK Rapporteur: Paul Mc Gill, Ireland Norway is a case study in two senses:

1. The school curriculum encourages democratic participation, even if it is not spelt out as a specific objective. For example, pupils begin studying social studies at the age of six and the curriculum emphasises values such as democratic ideals, international co-responsibility and participation in politics. Students aged 17 study civics in preparation for voting at the age of 18.

2. The process by which the curriculum was revised is a model of social dialogue in that it encouraged and achieved the participation of a wide range of groups, including pupils, parents, teachers, municipalities, the SAMI parliament and churches. This was done through an extensive �hearing� on the proposed curriculum changes, including internet comments This led to changes, including a strengthening of the democratic nature of the curriculum (Q1).

This model of social dialogue is well established in Norway. There are pupil or student councils for pupils above the age of 11, for example, with substantial rights to comment on the running of the school. At national level, the government could not draw up a law or

12

significant policy without consulting the social partners (Q1). This also means that those who are expected to implement the curriculum, particularly teachers, have some sense of ownership. �If people have a chance to influence a policy, they are more likely to implement it� (Q2). In this sense social dialogue has multiple benefits: improving the quality of decisions/policies/laws; giving people the experience of participation; giving them a greater sense of ownership of the decisions; and (consequently) making it easier to implement the policy than one that is simply handed down. On the down side there is no evidence that the Norwegian curriculum has either improved the participation of young people in politics or �improved� them as citizens. There is a view that they are more interested in what they can get for themselves. Discussion In French-speaking Belgium, individual development, education for a multi-cultural society and participation are key goals of education (Q1). But (Q2) it is hard to say what is happening in practice. Secondary schools have �participation councils� which bring together pupils, teachers, other workers and parents; these look at the general education planning of the school and help write the annual school report (Q1 and 2). An example of bottom-up success was given by Slovakia. Following the decision by the Ministry to remove civic education from the curriculum for grades 6 and 7, many teachers protested and the Ministry bowed to the pressure and restored it. The point was made that EDC is wider than schools. The EU Commission�s White Paper on Youth Policy was mentioned as important, as was the informal education children receive in the family, even before going to school, and from society generally (including peers). Most of the discussion on Q3 focussed on ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities: how can we ensure their participation and create an inclusive society. In the case of schools, how can we even ensure they receive an adequate education if they are in classes with large numbers of children speaking different languages. This touches on Q2 because there are laws guaranteeing equal treatment, as in Switzerland, but pupils are not equal in practice if they are from a linguistic minority because schools cannot cope with them. In the same country there is some resistance to giving citizenship to foreigners or allowing them to integrate. Examples were given of how countries have not come to terms with the changes brought about by minorities. In Andorra, the indigenous population represent only 35% of the population, so its 60 minorities are actually a majority. Luxembourg is likely to be the same within a few years if the total population rises through immigration, as expected, to more than 800,000. The problem is worse with migrant residents e.g. the Ukraine has a large Afgan minority, who say there is little point in sending their children to school because they are merely passing through to a more developed country and want their children to learn languages such as English. The issue was raised of whether the Norwegian model could be exported. Brit did not say that it could. Albania argued strongly against imposing ideas from the West on Eastern European

13

countries � �but democracy cannot be imported�. Eastern European countries must start from where they are, not where the Western countries are. The point was also made that the Council of Europe should not try to implement a curriculum for EDC across Europe. One model would not be helpful. Other points The idea was proposed of giving incentives for participation. One example given was that the University of Malaga in Spain is proposing to give academic credits to people who undertake voluntary service. ��Need to have more research on EDC and how it effects children. ��We should have more outside influence on schools, including outside people doing

training. ��How do we make the law on EDC sustainable (not answered)? ��How do we mainstream lifelong learning (not answered)? ��There is a lack of resources to put changes into effect, especially in small, poor counties

like Kosovo. Working Group Four: Case study: Croatia, policy frameworks and implementation Presentation: Vedrana Spajic-Vrkas, Croatia Moderator: Bernd Baumgartl, Austria Rapporteur: Vyacheslav Bashev, Russia There were 22 participants in the group work. Ms Spajic-Vrkas reported on the contexts of civic education development in Croatia. They are based on: ��The articles in the Constitution of Croatia; ��Four special laws about pre-school, primary and secondary education; ��The working government programme till 2004, which reflects the goals for education in

the sphere of democratic citizenship: democracy development, market economy, integration with the European union;

��The published strategy for the development of the system of education: up-to-date and effective reforming of curriculum, investments in education.

��More detailed information is submitted in the published version of SEE Stock-taking Research Country Report.

Ms Spajic-Vrkas conclusions: ��By analyzing the policy frameworks it is possible to conclude that there have been created

conditions and opportunities for the development of civic education in Croatia. ��Nevertheless the implementation of these conditions and opportunities created by the

policy in the area of EDC remains the main problems.

14

1. Group discussion:

Questions for discussion: 1. What is the role of NGO in the implementation of the policy? 2. What is the role of the Council of Europe in the process of filling the gap between

policy and implementation? 3. Who is responsible for the quality of education in the area of EDC? 4. How could those involved in the process of implementating the policy in the area of

EDC be motivated? Main viewpoints stated:

1. The gap between the political conditions and opportunities in the area of EDC and the implementation of these opportunities has happened due to the inadequacy of the institutional structure of the education system. The education system has been quite conservative.

2. The idea of a powerful government hinders the fulfillment of opportunities and realization of the conditions created by the policy as the teachers wait for the instructions from the government.

3. Market economy has confronted the democratic principles of the former socialist countries, as in the present time the chances for education are different for different people in such countries.

2.6 Introduction to Day Two At the opening of day two of the seminar a keynote address was delivered by Ton Olgers, Netherlands. His address, which drew on his own experience, focused on suggestions for policy design and implementation. According to Mr Olgers, policy development in EDC has gone in waves. The first wave after World War II was followed by another wave in 1960�s and a third after 1989. In this regard he suggested that EDC policy can be likened to an incremental process rather than a rational act. Mr Olgers spoke of five domains within civic education policy. The first was the macro political and societal level. The question here was how was government organised? Four interrelated areas, the school system, school climate, curriculum and content and pedagogy followed this macro level. Mr Olgers suggested that promoting EDC could be likened to selling and marketing a product rather than simply developing and implementing a programme. He asked participants to reflect on the nature of the product we are selling. ��What is the image of EDC for other actors? ��Was it an overly ambitious product, one that sought to transfer values or rather help

clarify values? ��Where was the place of knowledge in the equation? ��Was knowledge something we saw as a �dirty thing�, even though its place in our school

system and the organisation of education is well founded?

15

The series of questions prompted much discussion in the plenary, which followed particularly in relation to the question of values and knowledge. 2.7 Working Group Reports from Day Two The rest of the day was spent in working groups. Three parallel workshops were organised around the three key themes, policy design, policy implementation and practitioners’ viewpoint. Below are the reports from each of the three workshop rapporteurs. Working Group 1: EDC policy design: policy options and policy-making processes Presentation: Tünde Kovac Cerovic, Serbia, FRY Moderator: Thomas Henschel, Germany Rapporteur: Joëlle Dusseau, France The example of Serbia, which is presented as the introduction of the discussion, is totally significant of a general action and the specific difficulties that we can meet. �For citizenship education in Serbia, it is the year zero,� says Tuende Kovac Cerovic �since no EDC policy has ever been conceived or implemented before�. The Serbian Minister for Education has therefore decided to propose an education reform. He put in place six groups of experts (notably on democratisation, decentralisation and evaluation). Regarding curricula, which include EDC, they have been given to specialist groups, which drew them up. Then, different consultation processes took place (teachers, parents). Afterwards, a reflection was lead with local groups. This action, interesting since it is taking place, is totally significant of one of the methods of defining education policies. This can be found in a number of countries. The groups of experts, generally named by the Minister, define the programmes; the consultations follow; local authorities, local institutions and associations are asked to contribute, either in terms of financial help or as part of the implementation of EDC by teachers. A certain number of countries, including France, are following this type of model. A second policy elaboration approach can be more circular in nature following the example presented by Sweden. The main guidelines of the programme is defined at national level; on the basis of this programme, a town prepares a school project which is widely discussed at the grassroot level. A national agency for education oversees that the local school project is well conformed to national orientations, and gives the �quality label�. There may be variations, as the programmes are sometimes defined directly by the Minister or adopted by the legislator. The situation is, of course, very different according to democratic and educational traditions in European countries. An interesting proposal was made by one of the participants:

16

implementation by way of a �spiral�, starting from a local experiment which would diffuse to a much vaster group. The debate after this first long discussion concerning the elaboration of EDC programmes, dealt with a certain number of points.

- The definition of partners, which can be associated with the elaboration and implementation.

- The length of the consultation processes, which can dilute any reform. - The quality of consultation processes. The response by �yes� or �no� is insufficient

(even if the example of a consultation of teachers in France resulting in refusing a history - geography programme is interesting).

- This leads to the question of the guarantee of the democratic quality of decisions, at

whatever level they are taken.

- Teacher-training: it is important that all the teachers are trained in Human Rights, but the opinions differ on the question of a specific curriculum in the training of teachers in charge of EDC. Indeed, should they be specialised in EDC? Certain countries prefer this solution. Others chose an undifferentiated EDC for all teachers whatever their subject. Others finally (this is the case of France) object to a specific training but entrust essentially history teachers with EDC.

- The importance of the students expressions is recalled, but strong differences seem to

exist according to each country. Yet, all participants seem aware that the structures for the expression participation of students are decisive in the EDC processes.

Working Group 2: EDC policy implementation strategies. Legislation as a means for EDC policy implementation. Presentation: Mr Frederik Modigh, Sweden Moderator: Isak Froumin, Russia Rapporteur: Milika Dhamo, Albania

Questions: Which are the policy implementation processes (issues, implementation strategies, monitoring and quality assessment, gaps between policy intentions and implementation, obstacles to policy implementation, etc.) The existing legislation supporting EDC: what is �in force� (legislation, policy documents, action plans national programs to implement EDC policies). How is EDC integrated into curriculum teacher training provision of resources and education materials? As Jan Newton, UK, could not make it to the seminar because of the air workers strike, Mr Frederik Modigh gave a presentation of the Swedish case.

17

Presentation: The Swedish educational system is highly decentralised. A decentralisation act was passed 10 years ago. Schools and municipalities have total responsibility for the education development and decision-making. Strategies for policy development in Sweden have totally been related to the situation and the system nature. There is a national consent of the education stakeholders that education for democratic citizenship has to be addressed in a holistic way. This is realised through deliberate permeation of all school activity by the EDC spirit, through natural integration of the learning aims with health and citizenship education, through purposeful selection of EDC objectives throughout the schooling years. Though there is no specific subject on EDC, its aim is seen as being three-fold:

• developing a certain citizenship knowledge body, • developing a functioning democratic school infrastructure where students can

practice democratic skills ( students councils, etc.), • developing future perspectives on the ways to foster democracy (develop

value system, attitudes, etc.). While developing a policy system related to EDC Sweden has been faced with the problem of implementation. The dilemma of providing support or fostering local initiative has been resolved in favour of the last. The bottom up approach in developing implementation strategies made schools and municipalities feel ownership on schools, something considered very crucial in the country. Based on this approach, the following are some of the strategies used to implement EDC policies. Dialogue, as a strategy meant to open up the communication channels for the people to be heard. Dialogue is considered a permanent strategy in implementing educational policies in general in Sweden. Hearings of municipalities is a systematic practice all over Sweden. They have a certain frequency for all of them. The education governmental authorities have on their part a visiting agenda for all schools to identify their growth needs. The aim of the hearings is two-fold: the government listens to the municipality needs related to the education in general and EDC in particular, as well as for the schools to hear to the governmental issues and evaluation. The result of the regular hearing is the agreement of the partners, the compliance of the future action. The balance of the top down and the bottom up imposition is an addressed issue during the hearing and implementation process. Headmasters are the only intermediary level between the school community and the community on one side, and between the school community and the government on the other side. So their role is seen as very crucial. One of the problems that impede the process is the creation of the regular meeting place and setting time aside to realise fruitful dialogue and hearings. Part of the policy implementation is the evaluation and assessment of the process of EDC and its results. How to evaluate?, What to evaluate?, When to evaluate?, What to evaluate for?, have been some of the pondering questions in the last years. As a result of this a set of diagnostic tests was developed lately. It is in the piloting phase.

18

The process of the development of the battery of the tests involved wide discussion on many issues. Traditionally, students and schools are evaluated on basis of students marks and performance, on the quantity of knowledge students were getting. The new battery of tests aimed at defining what was happening in schools in terms of democratic growth of students� minds. It is not an fact finding endeavour, it is a procedural identification effort. Evaluation aimed at assessing school work and environment in promoting or hindering growth. It aimed not only at identifying what kind of practices were there in school, but also what kind of theories they were based on. The new evaluation procedures aimed at defining the new role of the education supervisors. What was going to be supervised in schools was not linked to the students cognitive knowledge, but also on the skills they were getting. Testing results are going to have a developmental function. For school educators, burn out is very close. Lack of professional continuous feedback and professional maintenance might compromise the implementation of EDC aims. The formal imposition of having activities and school boards organised might also end up in formalising the EDC aims. There were lots of sincere complements on the well structured presentation (much more structured and professionally laid down as I am presenting here), as well as for the unique bottom up successful implementation strategy of EDC policies in a country of social democracy. Questions and answers: Q: The diagnostic battery tests is designed for students or for schools. A: For schools though the students are tested. Q: How do you get a qualitative reference framework? A: The focus is on the qualitative indicators:

a) preconditions of EDC (resources�) b) processes going on at school (learning field, EDC and health education) c) results attained so far

Q: Good schools develop easier, they are learning organisations, How do you support schools that are not achieving that well? A: Democracy is taken for granted by some schools. They do not intentionally act on it. We are not yet there in designing support programs for them, but for sure that there is going to be done something to improve EDC in them. What is for sure going to happen is that the improvement issues is going to be discussed with the municipality and there will be no imperatives from either parts. School improvement and development is the responsibility of the municipality. Q: How does legislation encourage change? A: Change in Sweden does not come directly from changes of one or two sentences in legislation. It is the bottom up approach that makes the substantial change. Q: Who designs curriculum in Sweden? A: Government has nothing to do with the textbooks. We have adopted this attitude because we have seen that teachers remain slaves of the texts. We have allowed the teacher develop their own curriculum.

19

Q: What are some of the possible hidden obstacles? A: Decentralisation is a precondition for democracy, but governmental control is completely lost. Comments: SEE countries have developed a great legislative framework, but they are miles apart from it. They might need to develop local strategies of complying with their legislation. The accountability system has to be in place in case we intend to mark success towards EDC. Attainments should be measurable. Measuring is sometimes difficult, but it is indispensable. Precondition of success is the preliminary alignment of the inspector with the inspected. Observations: Things that got more stress in the discussion were: Which are the policy implementation processes:

• It is important where the policy decision is made and by whom. • Consensus among different players is important. • The liberators should be liberated (inspectors, trainers, headmasters, governmental

agents, etc.). • Dialogue as democracy fostering agent. • Public hearing of the municipality as related to education problems. • Continuous evaluation of the EDC process. • Reflective EDC agents, detached from the daily routine in order to look ahead. • Break through of the hymen of the traditional school and students evaluation. • Taking of the intentional actions towards improvement of the schools. • Staff (EDC teachers, teachers in general, headmasters, community civil servants,

etc.) continuous and careful maintenance. • Legislation providing support for EDC policy implementation. • Legislative self-contentment and formalism paralyse EDC.

The existing legislation supporting EDC: what is �in force� (legislation, policy documents, action plans national programs to implement EDC policies). It came out clearly in the discussion that in the member countries there is a clearly stated legislation that favours EDC. What varies is the degree of prioritising policies in support of the legislation. How is EDC integrated into curriculum, teacher training provision, resources and education materials? The experience of England was more directed towards the integration of EDC into teacher training. There are standards developed and strictly followed. Quality assurance is given high priority in England. Sweden�s experience of observing school as a site of citizenship was a unique experience. Sweden has recently designed a set of tests seeking to evaluate the school climate as a whole. Sweden has passed from evaluation of skills each student develops

20

into the evaluation of school as a societal fragment. Other countries are on the track of developing materials permeated by the philosophy of EDC. Working Group 3: The EDC practitioners’ point of view on policies Presentation: Jean-Claude Gonon, France, Study on Education for active European citizenship Moderator: Erick Mistrik (Slovakia) Rapporteur: Michel Bastien (Belgium)

1. Mr Mistrik defined the aims of the work and called out the objectives of the groupwork.

2. Mr Gonon presented different aspects of the enquiry �Active Citizenship Education�

directed by the European Teachers Association. He immediately drew up some methodology precautions.

• It concerns, in effect, an enquiry carried out in the framework of the E.U.

(94.8%, of responses came from EU member countries); • The enquiry is centred on education to citizenship in general and on education

to the European dimension (thus centred on the EU). • The number of responses received (263) is satisfactory for the association, but

very limited geographically and quantitatively. • One must take into account, in analysing the result, that several answers could

be given in a multiple-choice questionnaire, which explains totals exceeding 100%.

It is nevertheless interesting to take into account certain information.

• Who responded to the enquiry? 82% of active teachers of which 31% are at �collège� level (first secondary stage) and 10% at elementary level. They are teachers from a number of disciplines (21% teaching the national language), no teachers specifically in charge of EDC.

Concerning: • the status of Citizenship Education, 49% of colleagues specify that it is one of the

subjects of the programme. 35% make it a personal objective; • the necessity of this education, 61% of colleagues surveyed said that it is

indispensable and 29% say it is very useful. 85% still estimate that it is a democratic necessity, 43% say that it is socially urgent;

• who defines the objectives of this education, 41% of colleagues replied that it is the role of public authorities, 39% that of the teachers and 37% that of families;

• who should be in charge of this education, 75% say the school, 62% say the family; • what is the aim of this education, the answer �the acquisition of good habits of life in

society� came first, �the respect of the law� came in 5th position; • the evaluation of this type of education, 31% said the situation is satisfactory, 43%

say it could be improved and 26% say it is insufficient.

21

In summary, this enquiry shows that:

- Citizenship education is indispensable; - A democratic society cannot do without it; - School should play an essential role in the acquisition of the rules of social

life, in partnership with families; - European teachers have a common vision of democracy and the values to

transmit. The discussion in the morning dealt with the following points.

These notions of �a common vision� and the �common values to pass on� are straightaway put into question by the member countries of the Council of Europe. In the official texts there is a common terminology, which does not cover very different political, economic, cultural and social realities. We think that we share these common values (pluralism, autonomy, solidarity, democracy�) but we notice that at the level of political decision makers and teachers, there are very diversified understandings of these concepts. It is therefore important to clarify:

- Discussion themes - Concepts - Values - Educational practices,

so as to impose to educational systems, which are very diversified, concepts, values and practical pedagogies to be accepted and integrated in professional practices. A huge clarification task remains, in order to consolidate the conceptual structure of EDC. This structure is still too large, too vague. We can still escape from the necessity to integrate EDC in our education system; it can still be confiscated by a dominant political system. It is necessary to be stricter, more severe regarding the application of EDC by all the states concerned. This implies the necessity for professional teaching associations in charge of EDC, with the task to

- focus on EDC - discuss EDC - clarify concepts and practices - discuss with governments - become protagonists of EDC - become actors of EDC

The Council of Europe should favour the creation and the development of these professional associations. It is much more important for the countries in Eastern Europe where these associations have been eliminated. There is therefore a gap to fill. We must reinforce research institutes, ensure the training of trainers, heighten public awareness, and inform parents associations of the necessity of EDC. The role of the media is important, when they are independent from the government.

22

The discussion continued in the afternoon on the following themes. Where is EDC situated within the education systems? As soon as it is localised, it moves ahead like a computer virus. It is requested by all school actors, but in fact each abstain from teaching it, believing that their colleagues assume it. In order to avoid this stumbling block, it is suitable to structure the EDC in 3 stages:

- A transversal stage: all educators are responsible for it. - A subject stage: in all the disciplines, there is a citizenship dimension. But this

does not give EDC sufficient visibility. - A specific stage: create a specific discipline, visible in the school curriculum

and in the timetable. This raises the questions who will teach it, with what training, with what educational approaches?

It is clear that EDC is not an extension of a particular subject, such as history, or a course like others. It undoubtedly implies the acquisition of knowledge but it must be distinguished from traditional civic education, which transmits knowledge in a way that is detached from reality. This knowledge must be linked to the problems of society and citizens' own objectives. Consideration must therefore be given to such concepts as rights, duties, responsibility and civility, if we are to avoid the traps of moralise and prescribed behaviour. EDC cannot be reduced to education in civilities and duties. This calls for research and imagination. New levers have to be found as well as new ways of combining efforts and new working methods. One suggestion has been to organise special conferences for the designers of school textbooks. They must recognise the distinctive nature of EDC and produce textbooks that reflect EDC's particular spirit and working methods. Consideration should also be given to establishing university advanced studies to develop new guidelines and identify new practices and to organising research and round tables. The question has also been raised as to whether government policies on EDC are necessary. The answer has been unambiguous: yes, EDC must be based on government policies, particularly concerning EDC's objectives, syllabus content and initial and in-service training for teachers. However, although governments have a key role in regard to formal education, EDC also needs the support of NGOs with the requisite skills, which play a major part in informal and non-formal education. Co-operation between governments and NGOs therefore needs to be strengthened. A maximum number of bridges must be built between different types of education (formal, informal and non-formal), between governments and NGOs, between governments and international organisations, including the Council of Europe, and between schools, teachers' professional associations, parents' associations and associations of pupils and students. Once there is agreement on the need to strengthen the interaction between education systems, NGO practices, government policies and the policies of international institutions, there will have to be negotiations between government institutions and civil society. Such negotiations cannot be left to chance, they must be handled by professional negotiators in order to establish real partnerships and co-operation and go beyond current official thinking.

23

Although NGOs' skills are recognised and the need to co-operate with them generally accepted by the educational community, care still needs to be taken and certain ethical principles must be respected. Can we envisage pushing children into becoming involved in NGOs (assuming that they all function democratically)? This is why it would be interesting to draw up and circulate to young persons a textbook on the identity and operating methods of NGOs with EDC experience to enable each young person to make autonomous and responsible choices, in both formal and informal education, with a full understanding of what is involved. 2.8 Conclusion of Proceedings The closing session was chaired by Ms Brit Jacobsen, Norway, and included the reports from the working groups and a general discussion on the role of international governmental and non-governmental organisations in relation to EDC policy. Ms Cecchini formally thanked all the presenters, moderators, rapporteurs and participants for contributing to a successful seminar and concluded that the seminar clearly met many of its objectives. The range of information exchanged was significant. She highlighted that many participants shared practices, experiences, resources, and questions. The quality of the information shared was very high and this raised many issues and challenges for national governments, practitioners and the Council of Europe.

24

3. ANALYSIS This section of the report aims to offer a reflection on the results of the seminar. This will be done firstly, through identifying what is currently happening in member countries and secondly through identifying recommendations for EDC policy formulation and implementation. However, before proceeding a working definition of policy needs be formulated and the one offered below is based on the experiences shared at the seminar and is not intended to be a conclusive definition. Therefore for the purposes of this report EDC policy is understood as

those products and processes, which are developed collaboratively by all key actors, both state and non-state, which seek to achieve in practice, the development of teaching and learning practices which enable people to act in a democratic way.

A key purpose of the seminar was to exchange information on what is currently happening within member countries. The individual reports from the working groups highlight that EDC is becoming a more important facet of current educational policy and that the European landscape is changing. Also the seminar clearly demonstrated that policy in relation to EDC varies from country to country and therefore what is presented in this analysis needs to be viewed as a set of indicators rather than an extensive mapping. It is also important to note that the policy landscape of each country differs and that a variety of factors, both internal and external, have contributed to the current policy formulations. It is beyond the scope of this report to consider these factors in any depth. Finally before presenting some analysis on current practice in relation to EDC policy it is important to note that during the seminar there was a notable absence of discussion relating to adult or community education. In light of the commitment to a life-long learning perspective, this gap needs to be addressed at some future date. The analysis below therefore focuses on the main area of discussion and debate, namely the formal sector. 3.1 The practice of policy in member countries and issues arising In considering what is currently happening in member countries, this report will focus on three main policy ideas: ��Policy as product ��Policy as process ��Policy as practice Policy as product In considering the EDC policy in member states as it is currently expressed it would seem that there continues to be an emphasis on policy products, namely curriculum documents for the formal education sector. The examples of curriculum documents shared in relation to formal education confirmed the fact that individual member countries view the teaching and learning of EDC in different ways. There is variation between the provision of a subject

25

based explicit EDC programme and a more implicit version through whole school and cross-curricular activity. In relation to the development of these documents, many member countries were able to point to significant consultative processes and local experiments. This approach to the development of curricula is to be commended, and points to the fact that there is considerable expertise within member countries in relation to EDC curriculum development. However these curriculum documents do not exist in isolation and participants highlighted a number of related policies that require further examination, particularly, in relation to assessment and evaluation, teacher training and the creation of democratic processes within schools. Current practice within member countries highlights the fact that assessment and evaluation in EDC remains a challenge. Policy among member states varied and included a wide range of examples of forms of assessment. These forms of assessment and evaluation differed based on how EDC was formulated and delivered within the school. Representatives from member countries also highlighted the issue of assessment in relation to minority groups and questioned whether certain forms of assessment disadvantaged and excluded some groups. However, of particular note was the emerging evidence of a change of policy emphasis in some member countries from student assessment to whole school assessment. This shift in educational policy from student to the school marks a significant step away from educating about democratic citizenship towards educating for and in democratic citizenship. In relation to professional development, there was some evidence to show that programmes in pre-service and on-going professional development are less developed in member countries, than would ideally support the understanding of EDC promoted by the Council of Europe. The lack of adequate pre-service and in-service training courses discussed reflect the need for a stronger commitment on the part of government to provide for the education of teachers. The development of such programmes will require a more sustained effort by governments and will need to be developed in consultation with teachers and teacher training colleges. Participants viewed the school itself as one of the most important sites of citizenship education. As a result, policy in relation to the structure and organisation of school formed a central part of the debate. Institutionalising a commitment to EDC within the school was exemplified for many by the formation of student and school councils. Government policy in relation to student participation has been developed in many member countries and it would seem that this is an area that is becoming a significant focus of policy development. Policy as process In relation to policy as process, the seminar highlighted many examples of social dialogue and collaboration. This emphasis on consultation would appear to indicate that there is a growing awareness among many member countries that developing a policy on ‘policy formulation’ is vital. Many member countries are moving towards a strong partnership model, which seeks to involve a wide range of stakeholders e.g., teachers, parents, students, business sector, and the voluntary sector. The key underlining purpose of these policy processes is the development of a sense of ownership of the resulting policy. While these processes are to be commended, three areas of concern were highlighted. Firstly, many groups within society are better placed to respond to the consultation process than others. Often the lack of resources, both human and monetary can affect the participation

26

of some groups in the consultation process. In some cases organisations are being asked to participate in such a wide range of processes that the result is �consultation fatigue�. Secondly, the format for consultation, e.g. written submissions, may not be particularly suitable for many groups. Government policy needs to reflect a range of option for groups and in light of this, examples of �hearings� seemed particularly attractive to some groups. Thirdly, the question was raised as to the degree to which consensus building is possible and indeed appropriate. Where partnership policy formulation models are proposed, the degree of consensus might result in a �watering down� of EDC policy in order to satisfy the largest number of people. Policy as practice The issue of the gap between policy and practice remains one of the most important issues in member countries. For every �good news story� there was a question in relation to on-going compliance. The idea of compliance in this context is related to accordance between EDC policy actions and the underlying vision or aim of EDC. What is being looked for is highly ideal; it is a harmony between values and practice. It suggests a series of reflective questions, all of which require more in-depth study and debate: ��Are national educational policies in accord with the vision and values that underpin EDC? ��Are national governments and society in accord on this vision of EDC? ��Are schools in accord with national governments in relation to the practice of EDC? ��Are teachers in accord with their school policy on EDC? However, the examination of the compliance gap highlighted a number of issues in relation to policy. In relation to highlighting non-compliance, educational research and evaluation was seen as playing a crucial role. Unless adequate research is undertaken to see what is really happening on the ground, there is an over-reliance on anecdotal evidence which inhibits any form of consistent on-going monitoring. In relation to challenging the compliance gap, the role of professional bodies or the non-governmental sector was seen as crucial, for example civic teachers associations who rallied together and fought for the retention of EDC within schools. Embedded in this debate is the question of sanctioning non-compliance and rewarding positive action. The question of intervention is a debatable one, but it does seem clear that unless there is some consideration given to developing ways of addressing non-compliance, there will remain a high level of frustration. 3.2 The role of central government In light of the above the question needs to be asked as to what is the role of central government in EDC policy formulation? Where the emphasis is on the democratisation of the education system, central government is indeed quite limited in the role it can take, except for the fact that it can encourage local processes and support local initiatives. In more centralised countries the role of central government is crucial in the development of the products of the processes.

27

What was evident throughout the discussion was the fact that policies in many countries were in fact in a development stage, this was particularly true of many of the SE European countries. It could be argued therefore that the current state of development provides an opportunity for member countries to engage in on-going policy review and development. Obviously, creating frameworks for EDC provide a unique challenge to national education authorities. Representatives from many member states called for the introduction of clear and comprehensive policies on EDC. This call came particularly from participants who considered the ad hoc development of policy as being a major stumbling block to the sustainable development of EDC. Clear and comprehensive policies suggest the development of a framework, which includes a life-long perspective, and a clear understanding of EDC. They should also address the question of the compliance gap by considering issues in relation to evaluation and monitoring. While the call for clear and comprehensive policy on EDC is a necessary one and one which cannot be avoided, the question must be asked as to what are the conditions which support EDC policy development and implementation? 3.3 Conditions which support EDC policy While the internal conditions vary from country to country it would seem that there are a number of core conditions which an important for the development of sustainable policy. The first condition seems to be the place education has within the national agenda. Some countries present indicated how the place education has on the national agenda is crucial to the development of EDC policy. In countries where education is a low governmental priority and where educational reform is hampered by the lack of political will there seems to be a lack of real consideration of EDC. Also where there is a lack of expertise within the governmental structures in relation to EDC and policy formulation it is less likely that EDC will be placed on the national education agenda. A second condition relates to the development of civil society. In countries where the space for engagement in policy formulation is limited there seems to be little room for collaboration. Creating the conditions which can support the development of EDC policy therefore need to be concerned with issue relating to the development of civil society and the development of appropriate mechanisms to ensure that all stakeholders have access to a system of consultation. A third condition relates to the development of a strong link between theory and practice. The role of educational research and local experimentation in curriculum development are important conditions for the development of EDC policy. Such links require on-going funding of education institutes and a commitment on behalf of these institutions to work closely with practitioners. A fourth condition is in relation to the strength of professional bodies. Professional bodies can play a crucial role in the development and implementation of EDC policy. Such bodies can galvanise support for policy while at the same time also play a crucial role in challenging policy.

28

However, as was recognised throughout the seminar, EDC is a European and international issue and is affected by factors which lie outside the national arena. In relation to external conditions necessary for the formulation of EDC policy there is a need for continued support by international organisations for the development of national EDC strategies. Secondly, there is a need to develop sustainable relationships between countries within the Council of Europe. The sharing of international resources and ideas is crucial to the development of sustainable EDC policies. 3.4 Recommendations Recommendation to national authorities

1. It is recommended that as a first step, national authorities would hold a national forum on EDC policy. This forum should bring together representatives from ministries of education, educational research centres and practitioners. Such a forum could contribute not only the debate on the definition of EDC policy but also be a mechanism for involving a wide range of educational partners in the examination of national EDC policy and practice.

2. It is also recommended that national authorities would publish for public discussion a

document which outlines national EDC policy. Such a document would be an active step towards developing a clear and comprehensive policy.

Recommendation to Researchers and Practitioners

1. It is recommended that educational research institutes would make a commitment to moving beyond conceptual frameworks and research what is happening on the ground. Such research is needed in order to gain a more structured and in-depth analysis of the compliance gap and most importantly why this gap exists.

Recommendation to Council of Europe

1. It is recommended that the Council of Europe would consider holding a similar seminar in order to encourage the exchange of experiences in relation to EDC policy in relation adult and community education.

2. It is recommended that the Education Committee develop a pro-active strategy for the

dissemination of the Pan-European Study and Policy Framework Documents as a means of encouraging debate in and between member states.

29

APPENDIX I Seminar Programme

Part A. Seminar objectives and working methods

Introduction This is the first seminar organised by the Council of Europe on EDC policies. The main aim of the seminar is to lay the foundations of and contribute to policy development work in the period of 2001-2004. The programme for this seminar was prepared in cooperation with the experts� group on policy development4. The objectives of the seminar are to

- offer the opportunity for an exchange of information between the different member countries;

- gather knowledge about different national and regional experiences and processes in the areas of EDC legislation, policy-making and implementation;

- identify legislative provisions, policy frameworks and regulations that are in favour of EDC;

- study the �compliance gap�, ie. how formal law and policies (top-down approach) interface with the social practices of those laws and policies (bottom-up approach) and how effectively formal texts are implemented;

- analyse the role legislation can play in introducing EDC in member countries; - investigate how legislation is used to secure people�s educational rights; - encourage member countries to develop and implement policy framework documents

for EDC. Participants

- legal advisors/government officers from Education Ministries, Parliaments, etc.; - experts in EDC (EDC coordinators, civil society representatives); - experts in educational policies.

Working methods

- Plenary presentations - Plenary discussions - Workshops

o Day 1: four groups work on the same general topic, but receive different inputs/case studies as bases for their discussions

o Day 2: three groups work on three different issues - General report

4 Members of the experts� group on policy development : David Kerr (UK), Brit Jacobsen (Norway), Cesar Birzea (Romania), José Manuel Pureza (Portugal), Isak Froumin (Russia)

30

Part B. Seminar programme

Thursday, 6 December 2001 Focus of day 1: National policies on EDC in the Council of Europe member states

Chairperson: José Manuel Pureza, Portugal, Chairman of the EDC Steering Group

8.00 � 9.00 Registration 9.00 � 9.30 Welcoming of participants (Gabriele Mazza, Council of Europe)

Presentation of seminar objectives, programme and participants (Angela Garabagiu, Council of Europe).

9.30 � 11.00 Presentations and plenary discussions (Room 1)

1. Background information on EDC policy development work in the Council of Europe (Michela Cecchini, Council of Europe) (10 minutes)

2. Stocktaking research on EDC policies in Southeast Europe a) Emerging policy issues (Cameron Harrison, UK) (15 minutes) b) Illustrations on EDC policy development (Ilo Trajkovski, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) (15 minutes)

3. Current work on EDC policies a) The all-European study on EDC policies (Cesar Bîrzéa, Romania) (5 minutes) b) EDC policy options framework (Lynne Chisholm, UK) (5 minutes)

4. Discussion (40 minutes) 5. Presentation of Working Groups (Angela Garabagiu)

11.00 – 11.30 Coffee break 11.30 � 12.30 Scenarios for policy development (Working Groups)

Group 1: case study: the case of Ireland Presentation: Stephen McCarthy, IRL Moderator: Milan Pol, Czech Republic Rapporteur: Rolf Mikkelsen, Norway Group 2: case study: the national EDC programme in Portugal Presentation: José Manuel Pureza, Portugal Moderator: Hugh Starkey, UK Rapporteur: Anthony DeGiovanni, Malta

31

Group 3: case study: Norway, social dialogue, alternatives to policy frameworks Presentation: Brit Jakobsen, Norway Moderator: Audrey Osler, UK Rapporteur: Paul Mc Gill, Ireland Group 4: case study: Croatia, policy frameworks and implementation Presentation: Vedrana Spajic-Vrkas, Croatia Moderator: Bernd Baumgartl, Austria Rapporteur: Vyacheslav Bashev, Russia

12.30 – 14.00 Lunch 14.00 � 15.45 Continuation of working groups 15.45 – 16.15 Coffee break 16.15 � 17.30 Plenary presentation of results by the working groups� rapporteurs and

discussion Friday, 7 December 2001 Focus of day 2: Means for EDC policy implementation

Chairperson: Brit Jakobsen, Norway, Member of the EDC Steering Group

9.00 – 9.15 Summary of the previous day: Karen O’Shea, Ireland, General

Rapporteur 9.15 � 10.00 Keynote address and plenary discussion: Ton Olgers (Netherlands) 10.00 – 10.30 Coffee break 10.30 � 12.30 Working Groups Group 1: EDC policy design: policy options and policy-making

processes Presentation: Tünde Kovac Cerovic, Serbia, FRY Moderator: Thomas Henschel, Germany Rapporteur: Joëlle Dusseau, France Group 2: EDC policy implementation strategies. Legislation as a

means for EDC policy implementation. Presentation: Frederik Modigh, Sweden

Moderator: Isak Froumin, Russia Rapporteur: Milika Dhamo, Albania Group 3: The EDC practitioners� point of view on policies Presentation: Jean-Claude Gonon, France, Study on Education for active European citizenship

32

Moderator: Erick Mistrik, Slovakia Rapporteur: Michel Bastien, Belgium 12.30 – 14.00 Lunch 14.00 � 15.00 Continuation of working groups 15.15 � 16.00 Plenary presentation of results by working groups� rapporteurs and

discussion on conclusions and on suggested further developments 16:00 � 16:30 Coffee break 16.30 � 17.00 The role of international and non-governmental organisations in EDC

policy development 17:00 � 17:30 Summary of the seminar: Karen O’Shea, Ireland,

General Rapporteur Closing of the seminar

33

APPENDIX II LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

ALBANIA / ALBANIE Mr Astrit DAUTAJ, Instituti i Studimeve Pedagogjike, Rr. "Naim Frashëri", No.37, TIRANA Tel(office) +355 4 223 860 Fax: +355 42 56441 Tel(home) +355 4 243 558 E-mail: dautaj@albmail.com Working language: E Ms Milika DHAMO, University of Tirana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology and Education, TIRANA Tel: +355 42 342 24 Fax: + 355 42 234 20 E-mail : mdhamo@albmail.com Working language: E ANDORRA / ANDORRE Ms Maria Cinta PALLE ALIS, Principal de l�Ecole Andorrane d�Encamp, Escola Andorrana de Segona Ensenyang d�Encamp,, c/Princep Benlloch S/N, ENCAMP, ANDORRE Tel: +376 834563 Fax: +376 834 536 E-mail: ee20@andorra.ad Working language: F ARMENIA / ARMENIE Ms Anna SARGSYAN, Senior Expert, Foreign Relations Department, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Armenia, Khorenatsi 13, 375010 YEREVAN Tel/fax: +3741 58 04 03 E-mail: sana@freenet.am Working language: E/F AUSTRIA / AUTRICHE Mr Bernd BAUMGARTL PhD, Navreme Knowledge Development, Rechte Wienzeile 15/7, A-1040 WIEN, Austria Tel: +43 1 945 6558 Fax: +43 1 945 6558 Mobile: +43 6991 945 6558 E-mail: baumgartl@europe.com Internet: www.navreme-net Working language: E Ms Elisabeth MORAWEK, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Minoritenplatz 5, 1010 WIEN Tel: +431 53120 2540 Fax: +431 53120 2549 E-mail: elisabeth.morawek@bmbwk.gv.at Working language: E Ms Monika MOTT, Head of Education, KulturKontakt Austria, Spittelbergg. 3/M, 1070 VIENNA Tel: +43 1 523 876 560 Fax: +43 1 522916012 E-mail:monika.mott@kulturkontakt.or.at Working language: E

34

AZERBAIJAN / AZERBAÏDJAN Mr Natiq YUSIFOV, Vice Rector of Azerbaijan University of Languages, 60 R. Behboudov st. 370008 BAKU Tel +99412 40 35 02 Fax: +99412 41 58 63 Working language: E Ms Irada GUSEINOVA, Assistant Professor of Baku State University BELGIUM / BELGIQUE M Michel BASTIEN, Inspecteur de l�enseignement de la Communauté française, 3 rue de Virginal, B-7090 HENNUYERES Tel: +32 67 64 73 83 Fax: +32 67 64 67 18 E-mail: michel.bastien@skynet.be Working language: F BELARUS Ms Valentina YANUTIONOK, 1st secretary, European Co-operation Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lenin 19, 22000MINSK Tel: +375 17 222 27 37 Fax: +375 17 227 45 21 Working language: F BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA / BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE Ms Suada BULJUBASIC, Professor, Faculty of Political Science, University of Sarajevo, Trampina N° 6, 71000 SARAJEVO Tel: +387 33 204 488 Fax: +387 33 204 488 Working language: BULGARIA / BULGARIE Ms Daniela KOLAROVA, National EDC Coordinator, Ministry of Education Sofia University, St. Kl. Ohridski, Ljuben Karavelov, str 67 � SOFIA 1000 Tel: +359 88 66 23 01 Fax: +359 2 66 43 18 E-mail : daniela@bitex.com Working language: E Mr Trendafil MERETEV, Bulgarian Debate Association, 15 Konstantin Fotinov St., 4000 PLOVDIV, Bulgaria Tel: +359 32 62 32 24 Fax: +359 32 62 10 33 Mobile: +359 8895 4563 E-mail: debate@ngoedu.org Working language: E CROATIA / CROATIE Ms Nada JAKIR, Head of Department for Bilateral and Multilateral . Cooperation, Ministry of Education and Sport, Directorate for International Co-operation, Trg Hrvatskih Velikana 6, 10000 ZAGREB Tel: +3851 4569 005 or 4569 035 Fax: +3851 4610 478 E-mail: nada.jakir@mips.hr Working language: E

35

Ms Vedrana SPAJIC-VRKA�, Ph. D. (Professor, Educational Anthropology and Intercultural Education), University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Education, Ivana Luciceva 3, 10000 ZAGREB, Croatia Tel: + 385 1 61 20 167/46 49 656 Fax: +385 1 61 56 880 E-mail: vedrana.spajic-vrkas@zg.tel.hr Working language: E CYPRUS / CHYPRE Mr Chysostomos HADJIVASSILIOU, Ministry of Education and Culture, Kimonos and Thoukidides Corner, 1434 NICOSIA Tel: +357 2 800936 Fax: +357 2 800862 Working language: Mr Marios VASSILIOU, Ministry of Education and Culture, Kimonos and Thoukidides Corner, 1434 NICOSIA Tel: +357 2 800936 Fax: +357 2 800862 Working language: CZECH REPUBLIC / REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE Mr Milan POL, Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Dept of Education, A. Novaka 1 66088 BRNO Tel: +420 5 411 21350 Fax: +420 5 411 21 406 E-mail: pol@phil.muni.cz Working language: E Ms Pavla KATZOVA, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Karmelitska 7, 118 12 PRAHA 1 Tel: +420 2 57193 439 Fax: +420 2 57193 405 E-mail: katzova@msmt.cz Working language: E ESTONIA / ESTONIE Ms Anu TOOTS, Assistant Professor in Public Policy, Jallinn Pedagogical University, Narva Road 25, 10120 TALLINN Tel: +372 6409 457 Fax: +372 6410 450 E-mail: anuto@tpu.ee Working language: E FINLAND / FINLANDE Mr Heikki BLOM, Senior Advisor, National Board of Education, PO Box 380 (Hakaniemenkatu 2), FIN - 00531 HELSINKI Tel: +358 9 7747 7222 Fax: +358 9 7747 7823 E-mail: heikki.blom@oph.fi Working language: E

36

FRANCE Mme Joëlle DUSSEAU, Inspectrice générale d�histoire et géographie, Ministère Education nationale, 107 rue de Grenelle, 75007 PARIS Mobile: 06 82 06 92 74 Fax: +33 (0)1 55 55 13 73 E-mail: joelle.dusseau@education.gouv.fr Working language: F GEORGIA / GEORGIE Ms Rusudan GORGILADZE, Deputy Minister of Education, Ministry of Education of Georgia, 52 D. Uznadze St. TBILISI 380002 Tel: +995 32 95 8886 Fax: +995 32 770073/957010 Working language: E GERMANY / ALLEMAGNE Dr. Reinald DOEBEL, Lecturer, Institut für Soziologie der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität, Scharnhorst str. 121, D-48151 MÜNSTER Tel: +49 25179 848 33 Fax: +49 251 832 3193 E-mail: doebel@uni-muenster.de Working language: E Mr Karlheinz DÜRR, Head of Section Europe, Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg, Haus auf der Alb, Hannersteige 1, D-72574 BAD URACH Tel: +49 7125 152 147/sec.-143 Fax: +49 7125 152 100 E-mail: karlheinz.duerr@LPB.BWL.de Working language: E Dr Thomas R. HENSCHEL, Director, European School of Governance (EUSG), Wallstrasse 15/15a, D-10179 BERLIN Tel: +49 (030)726 169 0932 Fax: +49 (030) 726 19 240 E-mail: Henschel@eusg.de Working language: E Dr. Reinhild OTTE, , Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport, Postfach 10 34 42 D- 70029 STUTTGART Tel: +49 711 279 2683 Fax: +49 711 279 2944 E-mail: Reinhild.otte@km.kv.bwl.de Working language: E/F HOLY SEE / SAINT SIEGE Rev. Giglielmo MALIZIA, Universita pontificia Salesiana, Piazza Ateneo Salesiano 1, 00139 ROMA Tel: +39 06 87 290 349 Fax: +39 06 87 290 658 E-mail: malizia@ups.urbe.it Working language: F

37

HUNGARY / HUNGRIE Ms Katalin FALUS, Senior Researcher, National Institute for Public Education, Dorottya str. 8, H-1051 BUDAPEST Tel: +36-1-318-6531 E-mail: falusk@oki.hu Working language: E IRELAND / IRLANDE Mr Stephen McCARTHY, Educational Officer (Senior Cycle), National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (N.C.C.A), 24 Merrion Square, IRL-DUBLIN 2 Tel: +353 1 661 71 77/8 Fax: +353 1 661 71 80 E-mail: Stephen.McCarthy@ncca.ie McCarthys@edu.iolgov.ie Working language: E Mr Paul McGILL, An Teach Bán, Bunbeg, Co Donegal Tel: +353 75 31 569/32359 Fax: +353 (75) 32359 E-mail: pmcgill@iol.ie Working language: E Ms Karen O�SHEA, General Rapporteur, Human Rights Education Coordinator, CDVEC, Curriculum Development Unit Sundrive Road, IRL-DUBLIN 12 Tel: +353 1 4535 487 Fax: +353 1 45 37 659 E-mail: karen.oshea@cdu.cdvec.ie Working language: E ITALY / ITALIE M Antonio DE GASPERIS, Head of Office, Ministry of Education � D.G.R.I., viale Trastevere 76/A, 00153 ROMA Tel: +39 06 58493429/2229 mobile: 347 7581836 Fax: +39 06 58492371 E-mail: adegasperis@istruzione.it olgcult.div3@istruzione.it Working language: E Mr Bruno LOSITO, National Institute of the Evaluation of the Education System (CEDE), Villa Falconieri, I-00044 FRASCATI (Roma) Tel: +39 06 941 85 240 Fax: +39 06 941 85 215 E-mail: blosito@cede.it Working language: E/F LATVIA / LETTONIE Ms Sandra FALKA, Desk Officer Social Science, Ministry of Education and Science, 2 Valnu Street, RIGA LV 1050 Tel: +371 7 216500 Fax: +371 7 223801 E-mail: isec@izm.gov.lv Working language: E

38

LUXEMBOURG Professeur Jean-Paul HARPES, 1 rue Kahnt, L-1851 LUXEMBOURG Tel: +352 44 55 57 Fax: +352 45 74 01 E-mail: jean-paul.harpes@ci.educ.lu Working language: F MALTA / MALTE Mr Anthony DE GIOVANNI, Assistant Director of Education, International Relations Section, DSSIR, Education Division, Floriana CMR 02 /MALTA Tel: +356 212 32 140 and 235 212 598 2709 Fax: +356 212 32 140 E-mail: anthony.v.degiovanni@magnet.mt Working language: E MOLDOVA Ms Nadejda VELIŞCO, Ministry of Education, Piata Marii Adunari Nationale 1, MD 2033 CHISINAU Tel: +3732 23 24 43 Fax: +3732 23 34 74 Working language: E NETHERLANDS / PAYS BAS Mr A.A.J. OLGERS, University Teacher and Researcher for Theory and Didactics of Civic and Socio-Political Education Lambert Rimastraat 48 , NL 1106 ZTAMSTERDAM Tel: +31 20 696 8566 E-mail: aaj.olgers@scw.vu.nl Working language: E/F NORWAY / NORVEGE Ms Brit JAKOBSEN, Deputy Director General, Norwegian Board of Education, PO Box 2924, Tøyen, 0608 OSLO, Norway Tel: +47 23 301 202 Fax: +47 23 301 385 E-mail: bj@ls.no Working language: E Mr Rolf MIKKELSEN, Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1099 Blindern, 0316 OSLO Tel: +47 22 85 77 18 Fax: +47 22 85 48 71 E-mail: rolf.mikkelsen@ils.uio.no Working language: E POLAND / POLOGNE Ms Katarzyna ZAKROCZYMSKA, National In-Service Teacher Training Centre, Al. Ujazdowskie 28, 00-478 WARSAW Tel/Fax : +48 22 622 33 42 E-mail: zakr@codn.edu.pl Working language: E

39

PORTUGAL Mr José Manuel PUREZA, Coordinator of the EDC Portuguese Group, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade de Coimbra, Av. Dias da Silva, 165 P-3004 512 COIMBRA Rua Antonio José de Almaida, 153 R/C, P-3000 044 COIMBRA Tel: +351 239 790550 Fax: +351 239 403 511 E-mail: jmp@sonata.fe.uc.pt Working language: E ROMANIA / ROUMANIE Mr César BÎRZEA, Director, Institut de Sciences de l'Education, 37 rue Stirbei Voda, 70732 BUCHAREST Tel: +40 1 313 64 91 +40 1 315 84 53 Fax: +40 1 312 1447 E-mail: cesar.birzea@ise.ro Working language: E/F RUSSIAN FEDERATION / FEDERATION DE RUSSIE Mr Vyacheslav BASHEV, Experimental School �Univers�, Korneeva 50, 660001 KRASNOYARSK Tel: +7 3912 43 63 56 Fax: +7 3912 43 63 56 E-mail: bvv@univers.krasnoyarsk.su Working language: E Ms Tatiana Vladimirovna BOLOTINA, Director of the Russian Centre for Civic Education, Office 302, build 2, 8 Golovinskoe Shosse, 125212 MOSCOW Tel/fax: +7 095 452 05 13 E-mail : bolotina@rpc.redline.ru Working language: E Mr Isak FROUMIN, The World Bank, Moscow Office, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya ul. 3, 123242 MOSCOW Tel: +7 095 745 70 00; (562) 2014/3014; extension: 2031/3031 Fax: +7 095 254 83 68, 253-06 12 E-mail: ifroumin@worldbank.org Working language: E SLOVAKIA / REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE Mr Erich MISTRIK, Head of the Department, Faculty of Education, Comenius University, Ethics and Civics Education Department, Račianska 59, 813 34 BRATISLAVA Tel: +421 2 5557 2244 Fax: +421 2 5557 2244 E-mail: mistrik@fedu.uniba.sk Working language: E

40

SLOVENIA / SLOVENIE Mr Janez KREK, Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana � Kardeljeva Pl 16 1000 LJUBLJANA Tel: +386 41 45 99 43 & + 386 1 566 14 92 Fax: +386 1 566 14 93 E-mail: Janez.Krek@guest.arnes.si Working language: E SWEDEN / SUEDE Ms Gunilla ZACKARI, Deputy Assistant Under-Secretary, Ministry of Education and Science, 103 33 STOCKHOLM Tel: +46 8 405 1806 Fax: +46 8 405 1909 E-mail: gunilla.zackari@education.ministry.se Working language: E Mr Frederik MODIGH, Director of Education, National Agency for Education, 106 20 STOCKHOLM Tel: +46 8 723 79 86 Fax: +46 8 24 44 20 E-mail: fredrki.modigh@skolverket.se Working language: E SWITZERLAND / SUISSE M Marino OSTINI, Scientific Advisor, Federal Office for Education and Science, Hallwylstr. 4, CH-3001 BERNE Tel: +41 31 322 96 59 Fax: +41 31 322 78 54 E-mail: marino.ostini@bbw.admin.ch Working language: E/F M Charles HEIMBERG, Chemin de Surville 6, CH-1213 PETIT-LANCY Tel/fax: +41 (0)22 793 41 82 E-mail: heimbergch@freesurf.ch Working language: F “THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA” / « L’EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE » Ms Marija TA�EVA, Undersecretary for Higher Education, Ministry of Education and Science, Dimitrija Čupovski 9, 1000 SKOPJE Tel : +389 2 121110 Fax : +389 2 118 414 E-mail : taseva@ukim.edu.mk Working language: E Prof. Ilo TRAJKOVSKI, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy, Bul. Krste Misirkov, bb, MK-91000 SKOPJE Tel: +389 2 464 229 Fax: +389 2 11 81 43 E-mail: tilos@bistra.rek.ukim.edu.mk Working language: E

41

TURKEY / TURQUIE M Ziya YEDIYILDIZ, Attaché d�éducation, Consulat Général de Turquie à Strasbourg, 10 rue Auguste Lamey, F-67000 STRASBOURG Tel : +33 (0)3 88 52 97 09 Fax : +33 (0)3 8836 86 44 e-mail : ziya.yediyildiz@wanadoo.fr Working language: F UKRAINE Mr Grygory Grygorovych NAUMENKO, Deputy-State Secretary, Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, 10 Peremaggy Pr 10, 01135 KYIV Tel : +380 (44) 274 2096 Fax : +380 (44) 274 4933 E-mail : vvv@minosvit.niiit.kiev.ua Working language: E Ms Olena LOKSHYNA, Senior Scientific Worker, Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, 10 Peremogy Pr; 01135 KYIV Tel: +380 (44) 274 20 96 Fax: +380 (44) 274 4933 E-mail: vvv@minosvit.niiit.kiev.ua Working language: F Dr Irina TARANENKO, Doctor, Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, 10 Peremogy Pr; 01135 KYIV Tel: +380 (44) 216 2288 Fax: +380 (44) 216 2849/274 4933 E-mail: vvv@minosvit.niiit.kiev.ua Working language: E UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME UNI Ms Lynne CHISHOLM, University of Newcastle/Cedefop � Dept of Education, University of Newcastle,St. Thomas Street, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NE1 7RU Correspondence to be sent to: Sommerhalde 22, D-72213 ALTENSTEIG Tel: +49 7458 455253 +44 191 2228720 +30 31 490 113 Fax: +49 7458 455252 E-mail: Lynne.Chisholm@gmx.de DWRLAC@t-online.de lac@cedefop.eu.int Working language: E/F Mr Cameron HARRISON, Director, Harrison Leimon Associates, Woodfield House Priormuir, GB � ST ANDREWS KY16 8LP Tel/fax: +44 1344 47 80 67 mobile: +44 777 342 7195

E-mail: cameron@harrisonleimon.co.uk Working language: E Ms Pearl HARRISON, Woodfield House, Priormuir, GB � ST ANDREWS KY16 8LP Tel/fax: +44 1344 47 80 67 E-mail : pearl@harrisonleimon.co.uk Working language: E

42

Ms Jan NEWTON, Adviser on Citizenship, Department for Education and skills , Caxton House, 6-12 Tothill Street, GB � LONDON SW1H 9NA Tel : +44 (0)207 273 5265 Fax: +44 (0)207 273 5004 E-mail : jan.newton@dfes.gsi.gov.uk newjannewton@aol.com Working language: E Prof. Dr Audrey OSLER, Director, Centre for Citizenship Studies in Education, School of Education, University of Leicester, 21 University Road, GB � LEICESTER LE1 7RF Tel: +44 (0)116 252 3680/3688 Fax: +44 (0)116 252 3653 E-mail: A.H.Osler@le.ac.uk Working language: E Mr Hugh STARKEY, Tutor/Researcher, Centre for Citizenship Studies in Education, School of Education, University of Leicester, GB � LEICESTER LEI 7RF Tel/fax: +44 1908 694534 E-mail: H.W.starkey@le.ac.uk and hugh@ox-west.demon.co.uk Working language: E FEDERAL REPUBLIQUE OF YUGOSLAVIA / REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE DE YOUGOSLAVIE KOSOVO Prof. Dr. Michael DAXNER, Principal International Officer, UNMIK, Ministry of Education, Science and technology EXIMKOS Building, Nene Teresa Street, PRISTINA Tel : +381 38 504 604 ext 4618, 4624, 4518 E-mail : daxner@un.org and michaeldaxner@yahoo.com Working language: E/F MONTENEGRO Ms Oksana RAIČEVIĆ, Filozofski Fakultet, Danila Bojovića b.b., 81400 NIK�IĆ, Montenegro/FRY Tel: (mobile) +381 (0) 67 525 550 Fax: +381 83 247 109 E-mail : r-oksana@yahoo.com Working language: E SERBIA Ms Tünde Kovac CEROVIC, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Education and Sports Republic of Serbia, 22-26 Nemanjina str, 11000 BELGRADE Tel : +381 (11) 3616 293 Fax : +381 11 361 6270 E-mail : tkovacs@yubc.net Working language: E Mr Dragan POPADIC, Adviser to the Minister, Ministry of Education and Sports of Serbia, 22-26 Nemanjina str., 11000 BELGRADE Tel : +381 (11) 32 550 ext 153 063 8482 557 Fax : +381 63 84 82 557 E-mail : dpopadic@eunet.yu Working language: E

43

Mr Dusko RADOSAVLEVIC, Bulevar Mihaila Pupina 16, 21000 NOVI SAD Tel: +381 21 421 444 Fax: +381 21 422 496 E-mail: dsr@eunet.yu Working language: E NGOs / ONG M Jean-Claude GONON, Secrétaire Général européen, AEDE, 68 rue du Faubourg National, F-67000 STRASBOURG Tel: +33 (0)3 88 32 63 67 Fax: +33 (0)3 88 22 48 34 e-mail: aede.sgeurope@wanadoo.fr Working language: F M Jean-Marie HEYDT, Président, EURO-CEF (Comité Européen d�Actions Spécialisées pour l�Enfant et la Famille dans leur Milieu de Vie), 11 rue du Château, F-67120 KLOBSHEIM Tel: +33 (0)3 88 96 54 16 Fax: +33 (0)3 88 96 54 16 E-mail: jean.marie@wanadoo.fr Working language: F M Alain MOUCHOUX, Président, Regroupement ONG Education/Culture, 22 rue Corvisart, F-75013 PARIS Tel : +33 (0)1 45 35 13 13 Fax : +33 (0)1 45 35 47 47 E-mail : amouchoux@club-internet.fr Working language: F BETA – Bureau d’économie théorique et appliquée Mr. M�Hamed DIF � Pôle européen de gestion et d�économie (PEGE) � 61, avenue de la Forêt Noire F-67000 STRASBOURG Tel : +33 (0)3 88 22 33 47 E-mail : mdif@cournot-u-strasbg.fr CIVITAS INTERNATIONAL Mr Ruud VELDHUIS, Executive Committee Member, (Project Director), Instituut voor Publick en Politick, Prinsengracht 911-915, 1017 KD AMSTERDAM, The Netherlands Tel : +31 (20) 521-7676 Fax : +31 (20) 638-3118 E-mail : R.veldhuis@publiek-politiek.nl Working language: E/F EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE EDUCATION OF ADULTS Ms Ellinor HAASE, General Secretary, EAEA, 8 rue J. Stevens, B-1000 BRUSSELS Tel: +32 2 513 5205 Fax: +32 2 513 5734 E-mail: eaea-main@eaea.org and ellinor.haase@eaea.org Website: www.eaea.org Working language: F

44

EUROPEAN YOUTH FORUM Ms Laura GIL GONZÁLEZ, Bureau Member, European Youth Forum, C/Miguel Servet 5 esc. 1° 3° A, ZARAGOZA 50002/Spain Tel: +34 607 43 33 23 E-mail: _laura.gil@gmx.net Working language: E NORDIC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS Mr Sigrun RØSTAD, Senior Advisor, Nordic Council of Ministers, Store Strandstraded 18, DK-1255 COPENHAGEN K Tel: +45 339 60378 Fax: +45 339 33572 E-mail: SIR@NMR.DK Working language: E IBE-BIE Ms Geneviève EMOND, Consultant at International Bureau of Education, UNESCO, CP 199, CH-1211 GENEVE 20 Tel: +41 22 917 78 33 Fax: +41 22 917 78 01 E-mail: g.emond@ibe.unesco.org Working language: E/F SOROS FOUNDATION Ms Lucinia BAL, Information Officer, Open Society Institute, Institute for Educational Policy, Nador u. 11, H-1051 BUDAPEST Tel: +36 1 327 38 62 Fax: +36 1 327 38 64 E-mail: lbal@osi.hu Working language: E COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE Directorate General on Human Rights / Direction Général droits de l’homme Ms Sonai PARAYRE, Human Rights Law and Policy Division, Directorate General II, Council of Europe, F�67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 88 41 33 29 Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 93 e-mail: sonia.parayre@coe.int Working language: Directorate of School, Out-of-school, and Higher Education / Direction de l’Education et de l’Enseignement Supérieur Mr Gabriele MAZZA, Director of School, Out-of-School, and Higher Education, Directorate General IV, Council of Europe, F�67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 88 41 26 29 Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 06/88 E-mail: gabriele.mazza@coe.int Working language: E/F

45

Division on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education / Division de l’Education à la citoyenneté démocratique et aux droits de l’homme Ms Michela CECCHINI, Head of Division on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human rights Education, Directorate General IV, Council of Europe, F�67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 88 41 20 54 Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 06/88 E-mail: michela.cecchini@coe.int Working language: E/F Ms Eva BENOVA, Trainee, Directorate General IV, Council of Europe, F�67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 88 41 46 45 Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 06/88 E-mail: eva.benova@coe.int Working language: E Ms Heather COURANT, Assistant, Directorate General IV, Council of Europe, F�67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 88 41 35 29 Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 06/88 E-mail: heather.courant@coe.int Working language: E/F Ms Mechthilde FUHRER, Administrator, Directorate General IV, Council of Europe, F � 67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 90 21 49 98 Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 06/88 E-mail: mechthilde.fuhrer@coe.int Working language: E/F Ms Angela GARABAGIU, Administrator, Directorate General IV, Council of Europe, F � 67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 90 21 45 20 Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 06/88 E-mail: angela.garabagiu@coe.int Working language: E/F Ms Marguerite SIBERT, Assistant, Directorate General IV, Council of Europe, F�67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 88 41 35 32 Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 06/88 E-mail: marguerite.sibert@coe.int Working language: E/F Ms Karin VOLKNER, Administrator, Directorate General IV, Council of Europe, F�67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: +33 3 88 41 39 30 Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 06/88 E-mail: karin.volkner@coe.int Working language: E/F INTERPRETERS Mlle Laurence BREITHEL Mme Anne CHENAIS Mr Eoghan O'LOINGSIGH Mr William VALK

46

APPENDIX III

ESCAPING THE BOX OF PANDORA Presentation Paper by Mr Ton Olgers

For many experts and teachers in the field of Citizenship education the new focus of the Council of Europe�s project �Education for Democratic Citizenship� (EDC) towards policies on EDC in the different member states will be very welcome. After decades of lip service to EDC in almost every country without too much implementation measures, and after the same period of often isolated and lonely struggle for a better EDC life in each of the member states this new phase of the EDC project creates a new momentum by internationalising the experience in many countries and by creating the possibility of joining forces for the (further) establishment of a sound and healthy EDC in Europe. Today, having the honour to share my thoughts, worries and hopes with you, I will speak to you taking the role of on the one hand an outsider, as I was not involved in the coming about of the �EDC Policies� project, but at the same time as an insider, as I devoted all my professional life to Citizenship Education: as a teacher, as a curriculum developer in my own country as well as outside it, as a teacher educator and as a researcher. I�m telling you this only to explain that my head and heart are brimming over of thoughts and ideas when I read the project�s documents. I realize that I�m so anxious to see this project happen, that I might be full of warnings where in my opinion things could go wrong. So I hope that knowing my involvement you forgive me and trust that my critical stance and sometimes maybe provocative style are stemming from my strong desire that the project we are embarking on will be fruitful and have a lasting effect on EDC policies and practices. I will speak to you more from my experience than from my scientific knowledge, more as an EDC craftsman than as a scientist. I�ll divide my contribution into 7 parts, ending each part with a suggestion for EDC policy design or for policy implementation, and sometimes maybe also for the development of the intended Common Reference Framework. 1. Reading back through the project�s documents I get the impression that the recent change on EDC policy in England was a major impetus for the start of the CoE project. After decennia of cross curricular EDC with apparently disappointing results Bernard Crick�s committee - he is in fact one of Europe�s EDC nestors - resulted in a U-turn in EDC curriculum policy in England: a separate subject Citizenship Education was established. For once political good will and EDC expertise coincided. In the realization of the new subject one of the activities was to learn from foreign experiences on EDC policy. Especially this fruitful stocktaking of and learning from foreign EDC policies must have been one of the inspirations for the current CoE project. Conditions are however not always so favourably, politically spoken. When there exists political will in a country for an EDC policy, and when at the same time expertise is at hand it is possible to design and implement a policy. But when at state level there is no interest whatsoever, or at least not enough, it is difficult to have a policy. Or more precise to have an

47

official policy, meaning a state policy. In that case it would be more likely to develop a policy for some pressure group, maybe teachers, maybe experts or other civil groups. In a lot of countries it is however the case that educational policy in general, let alone EDC policy is very fragmented. That over time we can see periods of interest in EDC and periods of neglecting it or even opposing it. There is something rather optimistic in the EDC policies documents until now: develop a policy, implement it and there you are. I know that I�m exaggerating, but my feeling is that the optimism origins from the England case. And however badly we need that enthusiasm to keep us working, the EDC policy model should be made for all sorts of situations and countries. I could also put it in these terms: speaking in terms of policy development theory the underlying sentiments of the EDC policy documents remind of a �rational actor approach�. It presupposes a rational actor who oversees the problems, and has the power and means to implement and control the situation, e.g. a government with a pro EDC attitude, surrounded with well-informed experts. The question is therefore: for what actor do we develop a policy? Let�s just assume for the sake of argument that the actor in question is not the government or the educational authority but a teachers association, of what nature would then the policy be? This actor wouldn�t have the power to implement a policy, but would be dependent of the opinions and interaction of many other actors. It would be impossible to oversee the battlefield in an eagle�s view, it would be necessary to develop the policy in little steps, each time evaluating the results. And frankly speaking it is my belief that the same is even true for the optimistic case with a government with a pro EDC mind. Because how easy can things change with governments? Ch. E. Lindblom spent most of his lifetime to oppose the rational actor theory. He replaced it by what is called �incrementalism�. He contested that a comprehensive or synoptic view over public problems is possible, and replaced it by problem solving by simple political interaction. And he replaced the scientific knowledge behind the policy design by an incremental analysis executed in small steps. Rationality in his view is not the property of the political individual, but a quality of a political community. Suggestion 1 EDC policy should be developed rather with societal (civil) actors in mind, than with political or governmental actors. EDC policy should be incremental in nature. EDC policy takes place in a political-societal arena, it has to be gained in a long process. Sometimes it has more to do with marketing EDC than rationally planning it. It has very much the character of an ongoing debate/struggle. 2. In the policy process in each country all sorts of actors will be met. Some informed on EDC, most of them hardly or not. The success of the policy process is very much dependent on the object of the policy: EDC. With all the actors to be dealt with over the years an interaction will develop between the content and structure of EDC and the success of the policy. To put it otherwise: the success of the policy is very much dependent of the content and structure of EDC as appreciated by others. Reading through the EDC 1997-2000 project the great ambition and idealism radiates from many pages. Promoting cohesion, improving participation, affecting not only school curricula, but also adult education and in fact all, even spontaneous learning. To others, i.e.

48

outside the EDC community this may sound a little overwhelming or even threatening. Is bringing more cohesion or participation really the task of the EDC field, or rather of a political party? Or the government as a whole? Of course: an effective EDC would bring cohesion and foster participation. But thinking in terms of policy development one has to be modest and realize that many other societal institutions foster these goals. Maybe it is more a matter of tactics within your EDC policy as a matter of goal or mission setting: your policy might be more effective if it isn't to over ambitious. For further clarification of this matter I would like to introduce a classification in five policy domains for EDC, each denoting a different domain on which EDC policy can be implemented. � The society as a whole The first domain consists of the macro-political and macro-societal level. It comprises the relation of the state with its citizens (e.g. voting system, referenda), the political communication, the organization of the political system. The organization and working of the massmedia. The place, i.e. the influence and possibilities which is given to NGO's in a society. All these fields can be analysed from an EDC policy point of view. � The educational system The second domain consists of the educational policy in general, especially the external organization of the schools (in fact the school system) and other educational institutions. How much liberties do educational institution (e.g. schools) have, or how state dependent are they? Does the school system do justice to the rights of the citizens? What are the (hidden) values behind the school system. Does it reflect (to much) the inequality within the society? � The educational institution The third domain consists of the internal organization of the educational institutions. On the first place the schools, but also the organisations for adult and informal education. Here arise the questions from an EDC perspective towards the school climate: Are there enough possibilities for pupils rights? How �democratic� is the school? Is there a pupils parliament? Is the school and class climate open or authoritarian? Also questions about the school�s educational plan: Has the pupil reasonable control over her own learning process? Are there enough opportunities for interdisciplinary learning, for cooperation between pupils? Are there enough possibilities for out of school learning, for international contacts and exchange, for visits and studies of societal institutions, contacts with NGO's? How is the relation/integration of the outside school programs with the regular curricula? � The curriculum The fourth domain comprises the statutory curriculum and the selection of the main curriculum components: the subjects and their place on the timetable: which subjects can/must be kept? Which new subjects introduced? What professional education should teachers have? � The school subject The fifth domain consists of the selection and structuring of the subject matter and the didactics or didactical approaches of each subject. If EDC wants to play its game on all these fields, it has to pull a lot of strings, or to juggle with a lot of balls in the air. Too many, I would say. Policy for cohesion and participation would mainly be on the first domain, and it could be overzealous to have to many ambitions over there. Besides, claiming to foster cohesion and participation, and democratic functioning of society etc could easily create the impression that a monopoly is claimed on this field, or at least a special capacity, and would in the EDC policy process irritate others who think that they also are striving for a just and peaceful society.

49

Suggestion 2 EDC policy should keep the classification in five domains in mind. In fact playing on each domain requires a separate and fully-fledged policy. From a tactical point of view as well as from a point of view of manageability EDC policy should be modest in its claims, and concentrate more on the content of what it is aiming at than its effects. EDC policy should concentrate on the domains where there is expertise in the EDC field: education. The spearheads of the policy should be within domains 3, 4 and 5. 3. In the EDC 1997-2000 documents a somewhat awkward feeling or even contradiction can be felt around the relation or sometimes opposition between knowledge and values. Knowledge sometimes seems to have a bad connotation. At other places knowledge is used in a positive way. Because we have claimed EDC policy to be a long-term-debate/struggle-incremental-policy-process there will be an interaction between the presented content, or conceptual structure of EDC and the cooperation or opposition it gets from other players in the field. Therefore it is indispensable to have a conceptual structure which does justice to EDC essence, but at the same time creates the right image. To my feelings and experience production of knowledge by EDC is indispensable. First of all, more than was believed for a long time even simple knowledge creates chances for the dreams of EDC: effects on attitudes and opinions, and effects on behaviour. In a recent overview of research on the effects of civic knowledge for students in the USA Galston5 states: �surprisingly, recent research suggests important links between basic civic information and civic attributes we have reason to care about.�, � ... a wealth of evidence that political knowledge fosters citizens� �enlightened self-interest��, �Civic knowledge increases the consistency of views across issues and across time.� �...low-information citizens are much more likely to judge officials according to their perception of noncontextual personal character.�, � the more knowledge citizens have about civic matters, the less likely they are to fear new immigrants and their impact on our country.�, �...the more knowledge citizens have on political principles and institutions, the more likely they are to support core democratic principles, starting with tolerance.� These all are quoted results of research. Of course there might be a difference between American students and European pupils but a study of K. Wittebrood6 in the Netherlands into the effects of the paper and pencil examination subject �Maatschappijleer� (Societal Studies) also showed a considerable effect on attitudes: political and societal participation, inclination to vote, trust in political system. But apart from being effective in bringing about EDC goals, knowledge is also the issue around which a lot of educational affairs are organised. A subject with a core of knowledge has a higher status as a subject without it. It plays a role in the public�s and other parties� evaluation of the subject. And of course we don�t have to go back to the narrow �civics� variation of EDC. The term is used by Kerr, for one, to denote a narrow Citizenship Education where knowledge on constitutional bodies etc forms the core. And of course we have to take care that all the knowledge is useful and well-related towards other knowledge and with the experiences of pupils and of course societal and political reality. Not to mention

5 William A. Galston. Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education. In: Annual Review of Political Science. 2001. 4: 217-34 6 WITTEBROOD, K. A. 1995. Politieke socialisatie in Nederland. Amsterdam. Thesis Publishers.

50

that also the value system and skills have to be developed. But we should be less distrustful towards simple knowledge. Suggestion 3 EDC policy should get rid of some remains of a romantic, Robespierre-like, almost anti-intellectual conception of knowledge. Although this conception is only present at some places of the EDC documents, its still is rearing its head sometimes. This conception of knowledge gets in the way of an effective EDC policy. 4. A likewise problem seem to exist with values. Though nowhere explicitly stated sometimes the suggestion is created that values are transferred to the pupils: tolerance; justice; democracy. As if it seems that before the educational process pupils didn't foster these values and after the educational process they do. Education about values is a complicated process. The first difficulty is that values contradict each other in real life situations: democracy versus efficiency; tolerance in the neighbourhood versus security; social security versus economic growth; environment versus efficient production. The second difficulty is that most pupils do foster central human values, but that they are not yet fully aware of the values they use in daily life. Also what happens in the educational process is that present values are transferred to other, until then unknown situations. Most people share the same values, but differ in the organization of the values, or in their hierarchy for different situations. Pupils should be educated to recognize the value organisations of the most important actors and to compare these with their own value systems. At the same time they should be confronted with the contradictions in their value choices in different situations. In this way they build not new values but they build and expand their value system. The central word is not value transfer but value clarification. Suggestion 4 In EDC policy the distinction between value transfer and value clarification is of the utmost importance. For the prevalence of the neutral character of EDC, especially in the presentation of the EDC conceptual structure care has to be taken in putting to much emphasis on value transfer. Though the value base of EDC is always somewhat dependent of the prevailing political system, in general pupils� and public�s evaluation of EDC will improve when care is taken with value transfer and emphasis is rather put on value clarification. 5. In the EDC publication on teacher training courses Pandora�s box is put on the scene. An attempt to define �Human Rights Education� opens a Pandora�s box of alternative conceptions, is asserted there. But a Pandora�s box is also opened when it comes to define EDC. And this does not help its promotion. As long as Human Rights Education, Social and Political Education, Civics Education, Global Education, Personal and Social Education. Peace Education, Citizenship Education are not clarified and classified there will be problems with the image of EDC. The existence of so many approaches and/or subjects in to what for the main public seems to be the same field gives EDC a confusing and vague image. And of course educational circumstances and history differ much as to make it difficult to prescribe a certain educational organization or curriculum policy for the above mentioned principles and approaches. Some general guidelines can however be given which have been proofed being society independent.

51

In the first Citizenship Education is and should remain a cross curricular approach or pedagogical principle. It leads to a certain selection of content, a structuring of content and a certain didactical approach in almost all subjects. That means it is not a subject on its own and establishing a subject for Citizenship education brings with it the danger of introducing all kinds of citizenship elements into that subject, which according to their knowledge structure belong to history, geography, biology, economics etc. This means that the subject becomes broad and vague, unteachable and unlearn able. There is much international experimentation that proofs the existence of this danger. In the second place it is indispensable to have a separate subject devoted to especially the social sciences. Elsewhere I have coined the international name for such a subject Socio-Political Education. It is for instance � and rightly so � stated in the EDC Teacher Training Courses publication (p. 38) that �To reach these goals of Citizenship Education in a multicultural context some basic knowledge is required - how societies are organized, including, political, legal and financial systems - decision making in a democratic society - how relationship are established between individuals, groups and communities - how conflicts can be settled peacefully

- how power is distributed and exercised� -

To gather this �basic knowledge� a curriculum of two hours a week during a year and a professional in social sciences educated teacher seems to be the absolute minimum. Also the core knowledge systems proposed by Veldhuis and Audigier in the concerning EDC publication point - even stronger - in the same direction. Like it was said above that it is an impossible task to put all these knowledge together with the Citizenship knowledge from other subjects into one school subject, it is also impossible to put this same amount of knowledge in a cross curricular approach. That would make a curriculum policy design, let alone implementation sheer impossible and unmanageable. It is like trying to dance with an octopus, having as much tentacles as there are school subjects. But once a substantial part of the content and didactics is secured in a separate subject for the social sciences there remains more hope to be able to coordinate the content and didactics of the rest of the subjects in a cross curricular approach. The history of Citizenship education in e.g. England and the Netherlands have shown the deficit of a cross curricular approach only. Elsewhere I coined the social sciences subject Socio-Political Education, as to make it distinct from mere introductions into the social sciences, without much pedagogical claims. Socio-Political Education has as its guiding principle like all the other school subjects a Citizenship approach, and this makes a world of difference. On the third place content analysis of the other approaches like Peace education, Human Rights education, Global education shows that their content in general is narrower as Citizenship Education. They form separate building stones, and are more like chapters or approaches within Citizenship education. Introducing such an approach as a separate subjects brings always the danger of not educating the full and coherent content of Citizenship education. An exception forms Personal and Social Education. This is an established subject in at least Portugal, England and the Netherlands. Its focus is more on the individual behaviour and the behaviour in a small group, generally not the political and societal behaviour. This content

52

asks for quite different teacher qualifications. It remains to be seen whether or not it is better to integrate it into SPE or a separate subject Citizenship Education. Suggestion 5 EDC policy should make a choice for a separate subject Socio-political Education and at the same time a cross curricular approach. In the strategy of EDC policy presentation special attention should be made in a thorough, compact and very clear classification of the market for all the variations on the theme of Citizenship Education. Otherwise EDC policy won�t have the means to influence existing poor EDC structures and practices. EDC policy should escape the box of Pandora. 6. The advantage of a separate subject Citizenship Education or Socio-Political Education (SPE) is that there will be teachers in SPE. And by consequence there exists the possibility of a teacher association. The same is true for a Citizenship Education Association in situations where a broader (then SPE) content is treated. A teacher association is one of the most powerful instruments of EDC policy implementation. Unlike governmental policies it is usually a stable factor across time. When the tide is against EDC an association can defend the traditions and keep these alive. Also a teacher association provides an indispensable platform for debate and discussion on improving the content and didactics of EDC. It also is the institution which is able to identify needs for teacher training and continuing education. It serves as a mediator between the field and the political system. And it is the pre-eminent institution for permanent stocktaking and exchange of information with foreign teacher associations. Suggestion 6. EDC implementation should be focused on the establishment and the functioning of teacher associations in Citizenship Education, or Socio-Political Education. 7. In all societies there will always be groups who are suspicious of EDC. Fear of indoctrination in especially the western countries has or prevented or hindered the early introduction of forms of EDC. Several authors now have noticed that different conceptions of Citizenship vary by the political opinions of their designer. McLaughlin (1992, quoted by Kerr7) distinguishes between a minimal and a maximal interpretation, which can be easily recognised as a more liberal/conservative and a more social democratic/progressive approach. Also for instance Henk Dekker (1991) gives an overview of two levels: a representation democracy level and a participation democracy level. For each he gives views on democracy, participation etc. It seems only logical to extend these two positions to an extent where they comprise the whole political spectrum from extreme left to extreme right. Heater (1990)8 denotes five levels of political thought, which are used by him, as five stages on a continuum. They comprise: Participatory/democratic, Conservative/Elitist, Totalitarian/Manipulative, Nationalist/Integrative and World/Universalist. He claims it to be the left - right continuum.

3 David Kerr. The Challenges of Citizenship in the �so-called� Developed Countries. Paper presented at the SLO international conference. Enschede juni 2000.

8 Heater, D. Citizenship. The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education. Harlow 1990

53

The levels do indeed have a relation with a left - right division of political thought. In fact Citizenship Education conceptions can vary along the whole political left-right continuum. Now it becomes clear why Heater calls citizenship a Humpty-Dumpty word: he/she who has the actual power, may define the conception of citizenship. For EDC policy such a situation is in the end disastrous. It would mean that EDC would change with every political wind. Of course one can�t completely prevent that EDC becomes an object of the preferences of the people in power, but in a EDC policy there should at least be a solution in the conceptual structure of EDC to this problem. Suggestion 7 EDC policy should be, as EDC itself and as democracy itself, neutral but agitating. This means that EDC like democracy itself includes all options. Unlike the different political positions which have a strong preference for their own positions EDC should strive for the inclusion of all positions which are allowed under a democracy. It means that EDC has to lose her slight left-of-center preference, to leave it to the learner to make a choice in building a value system, but at the same time to challenge her to build such a system. This system includes opinions about citizens and citizenship and the EDC curriculum should be open enough as to be able to foster them all. Only in that case it will protect itself against the changeability of political colours in power. EDC policy has also to escape from the Humpty-Dumpty situation. Conclusion Developing an EDC policy is a long term process which demands careful analysis of the 'product'. It is very important to develop a communication strategy, which is narrowly connected with the essence of the product 'EDC'. EDC is very sensitive to shifts in political preferences, political hypes and trends. A stable policy demands a policy actor with patience and perseverance. At the same time EDC is on the long term an indispensable element for the stability of democratic societies. Sooner or later there is simply a historical necessity to implement it. Things will run their course, but there will be a price to pay. In Western Europe the first serious call for Citizenship education was directly after the second World War. But it would be much better to have thoughtful EDC policy design and implementation before disasters take place.