ÍNDICE / TABLE OF CONTENTSEuropean Commission, this programme, Transatlantic Educators Dialogue, usually known as T.E.D. enables participants to share their views on many a controversial

ÍNDICE / TABLE OF CONTENTS

IRINA GOLUBEVA AND MARIE-FRANCE MAILHOS Foreword ……................................................................................................................................................5 IRIS WEBER & RICHARD KÖTTER The EU “Live” in Civic Education: To Experience and Understand the European Union In-Situ: A Model for and Experiences from Political Excursions and Thematic Seminars to and in Brussels............................................................................................................................................7 FABRICE FRESSE & LUCINDA MORGAN L’interculturalisation des parcours professionnels comme processus d’incarnation de l'education interculturelle. L’exemple du transatlantic educators dialogue ....................................................................33 BERNARD HUGONNIER Education et démocratie ............................................................................................................................. 39 MARIE-FRANCE MAILHOS Developper des competences civiques : un jeu de piste dans les champs disciplinaires .............................45 ANATOLII LIFEROV & LYDIA KOSTIKOVA Russian Higher Education Meeting Challenges of 21st Century Labour Market ...........................................51 NELLY GUET Comment développer les nouvelles compétences devenues indispensables au 21ème siècle ..................59

International Journal for 21st Century Education, vol. 4, Special Issue ‘Challenges of 21st Century Education in Europe’, 2017 (pp 5-6)

SPECIAL ISSUE: ‘CHALLENGES OF 21ST CENTURY EDUCATION IN EUROPE’

GUEST EDITORS’ NOTE

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Nowadays, civic education is gaining a new perspective. In today’s world, which is full of conflicts, people should develop a sense of responsibility at local and global levels, and become active citizens of their country, continent and the planet as a whole. Still there are plenty of unresolved questions in theory and practice of education.

As it was rightly pointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, education is central to democratic societies. Educators should develop students’ critical thinking skills, promote civic engagement, and demonstrate how democracy should function in bottom-up mode.

The primary aim of the education for democratic citizenship is “by equipping learners with knowledge, skills and understanding and developing their attitudes and behaviour, to empower them to exercise and defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, to value diversity and to play an active part in democratic life, with a view to the promotion and protection of democracy and the rule of law" (CoE, 2010).

The world of academia should help schools to become such places where the younger generation is prepared to become active citizens, who respect diversity and human rights. Schools should become spaces for democratic experimentation, including new practices of education for intercultural citizenship in the digital age (see as an excellent source Byram et al, 2016). This book describes a set of projects that combine language and citizenship education and demonstrate how the introduction of subject matter and principles from citizenship education into foreign language education makes language education meaningful by taking it beyond its instrumental function and at the same time extending citizenship education beyond a focus on the national.

But introduction of citizenship education can be explored not only in the field of foreign language education, it can be an integral part of various school subjects. See for example the developments of the ELICIT-Plus project (http://www.elicitplus.eu) and its predecessor ELICIT project (www.elicit.eu).

To raise the effectiveness of civic education, it is crucial to combine joint efforts of civil society, public authorities, the media, teachers, students and their families.

This Special Themed Issue of the International Journal for 21st Century Education focuses on the topics related to Challenges of 21st Century Education in Europe, European Citizenship, Migration and Multilingualism. More generally, we are addressing issues related to the major challenges of

Irina Golubeva & Marie-France Mailhos

6 International Journal for 21st Century Education, vol. 4, Special Issue, 2017, 5-6. ISSN:2444-3921

21st Century Education in Europe, viewed from different theoretical perspectives and from different geographical viewpoints.

Our first article, written in cooperation by Iris Weber and Richard Kötter is already an exercise in intercultural understanding, as the two authors are based in and are working in two different EU countries: Belgium and the UK, though are both German. After providing an extensive survey of the whys and wherefores of what is commonly referred to as “a democratic deficit”, they give a very detailed and informed description of how knowledge and competences can be fostered by shared experiences of EU politics in situ.

Then with Fabrice Fresse and Lucinda Morgan we cross the Atlantic and discover a virtual platform which develops intercultural dialogue in a highly innovative approach. Funded by the European Commission, this programme, Transatlantic Educators Dialogue, usually known as T.E.D. enables participants to share their views on many a controversial topic, thus building the conditions for better intercultural understanding and inclusive educational practices.

Based on various recent international studies, Bernard Hugonnier’s paper focuses on the organic connection between education and democracy: democracy cannot survive without educated citizens. Being able to understand the media and their hidden messages, being able to develop one’s own judgement and critical thinking are only two of the several competences that modern education must nourish for the sake of Democracy.

In her article, Marie-france Mailhos gives a few examples of how the competences of the responsible citizen can be developed in various subject-matters of the curriculum. Citizenship education is definitely not the reserved domain of political science! The last two articles focus on changes in today’s educational systems to adapt to 21st century requirements. How to prepare our youngsters to face a globalized environment laced with economic competition and the threat of climate warming? Our Russian colleagues, Anatolli Liferoy and Lydia Kostikova study the case of Russian higher education whereas our French colleague, Nelly Guet insists on the need for more autonomy at the level of school management.

Guest Editors, Irina Golubeva & Marie-France Mailhos

References

Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Han, H. & Wagner, M. (2016). From Principles to Practice in Education for Intercultural Citizenship. Bristol: Multilingual Matter.

CoE (2010). Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/9svXXs.

ELICIT project. (European Literacy and Citizenship Education), http://www.elicitizen.eu. Project Reference: 510624-LLP-1-2010-1-FR-COMENIUS-CMP. [All resources are available in 10 languages at http://www.aede-france.org/ELICIT-Project.html].

ELICIT-Plus project.http://www.elicitplus.eu. Project Reference: 2014-1-FR01-KA200-002362 Results are available at: https://goo.gl/waC57a.


THE EU “LIVE” IN CIVIC EDUCATION: TO EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTAND THE EUROPEAN UNION IN-SITU: A MODEL FOR AND EXPERIENCES FROM POLITICAL

EXCURSIONS AND THEMATIC SEMINARS TO AND IN BRUSSELS

IRIS WEBER1 & RICHARD KÖTTER2

Odisee University College (Brussels, Belgium) / Northumbria University (United Kingdom)

ABSTRACT

Political Excursions to Brussels on EU matters can be a very effective and important methods and format of civic education. Based on experience from practice, this can be the case in particular if they are conceived of, organised and implemented as in-situ seminars, which has been practised in over 40 seminars since 2004. The format we advocate and demonstrate here, with an early qualitative evaluation based on the literature and contrast to other practices and models, is one of an exemplary (by policy field), multi-perspective (different key institutions, players, actors and preferable nationalities on inputting participants or at least experts) approach which is conducted in-situ. This is, however, resource and planning intensive, and requires quite a high degree of experience and expertise, and is not a model which can be taken to a mass-produced regular repeat delivery. The learning and engagement of voluntary participants in non-formal education, in addition to (though at times in partnership with) formal education institutions - such as secondary schools or universities – is very significant and has been shown and evaluated to be of a high level of quality with significant nation-wide appeal in Germany and of staying power in the market for civic education. We also reflect on how this approach may be a basis for genuinely trans-national non-formal civic education in Europe on EU matters.

Key words: civic education on European Union, in-situ seminars, political excursion, triangulation, multi-perspective approach, thematic and institutional depth.

Introduction

Much or most of the time, both formal and non-formal civic education takes the form of instruction in the class room, lecture theatre and / or textbooks or literature where students are meant to absorb receptively, passively, and from a distance. We are proposing here a model, developed and tested over a range of seminars in the past few years in situ in Brussels, that offers an intensive contrast to the above scenario to conduct European Union (institutions and policy-) focussed civic education in the form of a political study excursion. We do so, however, in some marked contrast to other models of political study excursion which are currently practiced in the main, are described in available literature, and are on the market in the main.

1 Department of Commerce and Business, Odisee University College, Warmorsberg 26, B-1000 Brussels (Belgium). E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 8ST (United Kingdom). E-mail: [email protected]

Iris Weber & Richard Kötter

8 International Journal for 21st Century Education, vol. 4, Special Issue, 2017, 7-32.

1. The benefits of political study excursions

With a political study excursion to the European Union institutions directly, this offers the chance for direct impressions and engagement, and thus learning access to what has been described as a dry, cumbersome, complex and seemingly non-transparent topic (Bickerton, 2016; Stratenschulte, 2015a; Goll, 2015; Oberle, 2015a; Detjen, 2004; Weißeno, 2004; Windwehr & Windwehr, 2011). Instead of an overall and systematic treatment from a distance, civic educations participants come into direct contact with representatives of central European Union institutions and thus European policy makers). For both civic education and higher education, it has been argued that place matters, and that localising pedagogies are important in the context of community engagement.

There has also been a growing approach of role plays and simulations in civic education, including on European themes at all educational levels and increasingly also thematically-focussed (Hartmann & Weber, 2013; Gretchen & Van Dyke, 2014; Dierßen & Rappenglück, 2015; Raiser & Warkalla, 2015; Van Dyke, DeClair & Loedel, 2000; Müller, 2004; Rappenglück, 2008; Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg, 2015). Muno & Prinz (2015) have done so with a focus on regulations in the policy-making process simultaneously with university students, and Brunazzo & Settembri (2015) by simulating the European Council’s negotiations on the European’s Citizenship Initiative innovation of the Lisbon Treaty for university students. Zeff (2003) did so by developing an in-class simulation with separate sessions covering different issues to model negotiations in the European Council to teach the complex processes of policy making and negotiations in the EU where institutional procedures are difficult to understand and where intergovernmental and supranational issues often conflict. Jones & Bursens (2014) present an encouraging constructivist-learning framework evaluation of a large-scale transatlantic EuroSim simulation of EU policy making.

At school level, for instance, the Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg offers ‘Political Days’ as an addition to the normal curriculum in class for all higher school forms to promote an engagement with political issues and to provide some impulses for civic and political engagement, as well as to extend methodological competences and social learning. This offers opportunities for group work and to learn from experts on a particular chosen topic. In the school year 2016-7 role plays and actions days on topical themes such as democracy, EU and Europe, refugee politics, globalisation, sustainability and communal politics are offered, with special playful formats for primary schools. A particular focus in this school year is elections, with special formats for the German Federal election in 2017, as well as a Europe-week on the EU and Europe at the beginning of May 2017 around the Europe Day on the 9th May. Europe-political role plays / simulations are also offered (https://www.lpb-bw.de/politische_tage.html).

The European Youth Parliament (EYP), in autumn 2016 to guest in Menden in southern Westphalia with support of the business community there, is also a commendable platform initiative to promote political debate and inter-cultural exchange of young people in Europe with 40 participating countries. The EYP is reaching more than 22,000 pupils by entirely voluntary work by pupils and students. The annual session simulated the work of the European parliament over seven days in committees and workshops with ca. 150 participants (Industrie und Handelskammer Südwestfalen, 2016).

Furthermore, there is some emphasis placed in political science, International Relations and European Studies with regard to innovative teaching styles and blended learning, which does incorporate simulations to an extent but also active learning, problem-based learning, distance

The EU “LIVE” in Civic Education: To Experience and Understand the European Union In-Situ

International Journal for 21st Century Education, vol. 4, Special Issue, 2017, 7-32. 9

learning and social media (e.g. Baroncelli, Farmeti, Horga & Vanhoonacker, 2014; Timus, Cebotari & Hosein, 2016; Guasti, Muno & Nieman, 2015). Student mobility within Europe through exchange programmes for students and other learners, such as Erasmus (old style for higher education) and now Erasmus + (now incorporating previous programmes for further and vocation education such as Comenius and Leonardo can be assessed as a civic experience (Mitchell, 2012). The very competitive EU internship process at the EU institutions for graduate students who have completed a university degree in the EU or an official candidate country for accession is also worth pointing out here (European Union, 2017). For non-European students, there are some EU study tours and internship programs, such as those organized with Canadian universities (Laval & Berlin, 2014).

2. Short overview of developments in EU-focused civic education

We are considerably short of a European education space, which we can perhaps imagine for the future to a degree (Lawn, 2002).

2.1. The landscape of EU civic education

Elken (2015) discusses the new EU instruments for Education with vertical, horizontal and internal tensions in the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) introduced in 2008, but assesses it as an overall success in terms of “widening EU capacity for joint coordination through an informal widening of the subsidiarity principle and opportunities for diffusing EU preferences” (2015, p. 70). Elken concludes from her “analysis of the horizontal coordination processes” that whilst there is still some fragmentation in terms of coordinating the EQF across relevant sectors emerging coordination can nonetheless be identified in some areas, with internal tensions related to the nature of the instrument covering all levels and types of education. Elken argues that though internal tensions remain “the EQF has facilitated the development of a new arena for discussing policy coordination (EQFAG) that can, in the long run, reduce these tensions, ” and sees the EQF overall, despite uneven impact so far and implementation proceeding with various speed as “a successful case of a particular Commission policy preference that has been gaining widespread acceptance across Europe in an area where coordination previously had been met with resistance.” (2015, p. 70)

A recent report for the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (European Parliament, 2016) on ‘Learning EU at school’ argues that whilst a majority of Member States have integrated an EU dimension into their curriculum this is uneven and fragmented, too general and not progressive enough and with a lack of consistency and complementarity with other subject taught and in those that have done so. More could be done, for instance, with regard to curricula, teacher training, textbooks and teaching methods. This is argued to make it difficult for learners to build a comprehensive picture of the EU. “Given its impact on citizens’ everyday life, the EU should be more visible in teaching materials, at all levels and in all forms of education” [and] special attention should be paid to the vocational education and training sector. The report argues that teacher training, both initial and in-service training, needs to “systematically prepare educators to teach about the EU and the values on which it is founded, both in theory and in practice. Textbooks should guarantee a broader coverage of EU-related topics and at the same time be better adapted to the particular age groups, taking into account students’ interests. Teaching methods used in the classroom should give students responsibility for their own learning, use interactive methods and external stimuli and examples of how the EU is relevant to students’ every-day lives.” (European Parliament, 2016, p. 14). The report also recommends that “Member States recognize and facilitate the role played by social partners and civil society organizations in bridging the gap between the



EU and its citizens.” (European Parliament, 2016: 15). According to a study called ‘Learning Europe at school’, prepared by private consultancy ICF GHK for DG Education and Culture, it is primarily institutions and associations outside of higher education that are involved in delivering teacher education on EU issues (European Parliament, 2016: 5; ICF-GHK, 2013). Ross (2008) has produced serious work on both trainee teachers but also adolescents and children in terms of teaching and learning citizenship education within Europe, and education for citizenship, democracy and identity within the context of Europe). A recent training pack for teachers across Europe, “Living with Controversy”, to assist in preparing for teaching controversial issues through citizenship education and other curriculum areas developed by a range of European partners under the lead of the Citizenship Foundation as part of a joint Council of Europe and European Commission “Human Rights and Democracy in Action Pilot Projects Scheme is a useful up-to-date pedagogic resource (Kerr & Huddleston, 2016).

2.2. A public sphere deficit of the EU?

As for the media in EU Members States, and an alleged communication or public sphere deficit of the EU, Koopmans and Erbe (2004) developed a systematic approach to the Europeanization of public spheres, distinguishing “three forms of Europeanized political communication: supranational, vertical and horizontal”, proposing that “the spatial reach and boundaries of public communication can be determined by investigating communicative flows and assessing the relative density of public communication within and between different geopolitical spaces.” (2004: 97). Koopmans and Erbe (2004) applied this model to data on political claim making in seven issue fields in German print media in the year 2000, finding that the degree and forms of Europeanization of political communication vary considerably among policy fields. They argued that “these differences are strongly linked to the extent and type (supranational or intergovernmental) of competencies of the EU in these fields. Contrary to the hypothesis of a public sphere deficit, the German mass media seem to quite accurately reflect the Europeanization of policy making, at least in those policy fields where a clear-cut transfer of competencies to the supranational EU level has taken place.” (2004, p. 97). There will be major differences in the mainstream, quality media (so-called broadsheets, daily or weekly or monthly magazines), print online or TV, and the popular or populist press (so-called tabloid) in this regard, however. Lauristin (2007) explores the potential and current limits of a European public sphere and through and in which to socially imagine a new Europe.

2.3. A democratic deficit of the EU?

Much has been written, including in academic circles, on the issue of a ‘democratic deficit’ as one of the main challenges for the European Union, including such as the paradoxical situation of an increasingly powerful European Parliament (EP) with receding voting participation in EP elections since 1979, with 2014 being the lowest on record so far (despite the experiment of having named lead candidates campaigning for the major European political families) with 42.54% across the EU on average (Euractiv, 2014). The perceived gap between citizens and the European level of governance has also been highlighted in several national referenda concerning EU matters (not least the June 2014 Brexit one in the UK; but also the rejection of EU membership in the Faroe Islands in 1973 and Greenland in 1985; Denmark’s two referenda held before the treaty of Maastricht passed, the first in 1992 with approval of the treaty of Maastricht denied by a slim margin of 50,7%, subsequent to which Denmark negotiated and received opt-outs from portions of the treaty: Economic and Monetary Union, Union Citizenship, Justice and Home Affairs and Common Defense; the required referendum on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon in the Republic of



Ireland which rejected the treaty a first time round in 2008; the referenda on introducing the Euro single currency since 2002, covering now 19 of the currently 28 EU Member States, with referenda turning out against accession to the Euro in Denmark (which has an opt-out on this in 2000) and Sweden (which formally does not have such an opt-out in 2003); the referenda on the EU constitution in several Member States in 2005 (overwhelming in favour in Spain, clearly against in France; strongly against in The Netherlands, and clearly in favour in Luxembourg, whilst planned but not held in a number of further Member States; the Republic of Ireland ratification of the Lisbon Treaty through a referendum due to the Irish constitution which was clearly rejected in 2008, only to be strongly approved in 2009 in another referendum after the European Council and the Irish government released the “Irish Guarantees stating that the other Member States would not use the possibility in the Lisbon Treaty to diminish the number of permanent EU Commissioners in favour of a rotating system with fewer commissioners and not threaten Ireland’s military neutrality and rules on abortion; the Danish European Union opt-out referendum of 2015 concerning on converting the opt-out from participation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs area into an opt-in: the possibility for the Danes to decide on a case by case basis; the 2015 Greek bailout referendum; and lastly the Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement referendum of 2016). Coupled with an economic crisis since 1996, arguably ongoing in much of the EU, this has arguably resulted in – or at least reflected - an upsurge of Euroscepticism (Leconte, 2010) in southern Europe (Verney, 2013), northern Europe (Rebhan 2016), western Europe and also now Eastern Europe perhaps (FitzGibbon, Leruth & Startin, 2016). This is reflected in major gains for Eurosceptic parties (both on the right – France, Greece, UK, Germany, Austria - and the left – Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany) in the 2014 European Parliament elections.

Pérez (2013) argues, contrary to some of the other literature on the European public sphere and the apparent communication deficit where oftentimes the focus is on media coverage of EU affairs or the communication strategies of supranational and national institutions and political actors, that the problem is not one of a deficient media coverage of EU affairs or poor communication, but rather one of cultural and structural limitations, which cannot be solved by press releases, twitter accounts and increased media coverage. He contends that the issue, including within the EU, is the transformation of the public sphere where public and private merge, media are commercialized and democracy is dominated by interest group representation instead of citizen participation. Coupled with an argued mostly absent identification between those who govern and those who are governed at perhaps national and argued European demos level on the one hand (Kies & Nanz, 2013), and a tendency towards consensus, corporatism and technocratic arrangements, on the other hand, this is said to prevent the EU from becoming truly democratic in his argument. Pérez (2013) illustrates his arguments with a substantial body of empirical data, based on the analysis of newspaper articles, interviews and ‘observation sessions’, with the empirical work focused on two regions, the mostly pro-European Galicia and largely Eurosceptic Yorkshire (as born out in the Brexit referendum of June 2016).

Del Río Villar (2014) presents a more hopeful, perhaps not fully utopian, scenario of a supranational EU democracy as both project and process where to restore public credibility in politics, representative democracy has to lead the way but must be complemented by participatory democracy in the sense of the participation of civil society in the EU. To achieve this, she stresses the interaction between European citizens and the European institutions, education as a key element of active citizenship, solidarity, participation, and communication. Cooperation between state actors and non-state actors is widespread and has probably existed for a long time, though currently demands for the integration of non-state actors, especially citizens and civil society, into governance processes



can be heard from many politicians, academics, and international organizations. Geißel & Joas (2013) offer a nuanced assessment of the impetus so far in terms of limited innovations in Europe to established ways of decision making in terms of participatory democratic innovations with many national and sub-national governments having followed this route and having implemented various kinds of participatory innovations, i.e. the inclusion of citizens directly into processes of political will-formation and decision making. European, small-scale, deliberative procedures that emphasize discursive decision making - in contrast to the aggregative modus of direct democracy - are mostly adopted in experiments and small scale units (Breser, 2016), with both benefits and disadvantages that those different democratic innovations can result in.

As for institution, Leston-Bandeira (2014) argues that “The European Parliament is a prime example of an institution where the need to strengthen the link with citizens became a key priority, in particular following the Lisbon Treaty's reinforcement of the parliament's powers and visibility”, and argues that “political will was key to move forward the public engagement agenda, and that new media has become a core element of this strategy.” (2014, p. 415).

As Stratenschulte (2015a) makes clear, and we agree, it is not the task of Europe / EU focused civic and political education to convince people that European / EU integration is a “good thing” or working or operating smoothly, rather participants in civic education need to be enabled to ask meaningful questions and critically process information and insights from political sources and process, and use this as springboard for their own political democratic participation and activities.

2.2. Empirical studies of EU civic education

Keating (2009, 2014) has explored the extent to which citizenship education could be moving from national to post-national models of educating for European citizenship. Wallace, Datler & Spanning (2005) present results from a study of a total of 3890 18 to 24 year olds in 10 European regions with factors analyzed that make young people interested in European integration and likely to vote in European elections, showing that “aspects of 'activation' such as political efficacy, discussions of social and political issues and interest in a range of social and political issues influence both attitudes. In addition, emotional attachment to Europe proved to be another important factor. 'Activation' is influenced - apart from socio-demographic variables - by citizenship education, which varies considerably between countries in kind and extent. (2005, p. 6).

Oberle (2012a, 2012b) undertook an empirical study presented focusing on the political knowledge of German pupils in secondary and grammar schools, looking at both their objective and subjective (perceived, self-evaluated) knowledge with regard to the EU. The potential influence of various predicators on both types of knowledge were determined and analysed, such as gender, cultural capital, migration background, school grade, news consumption, class climate and attitudes towards the EU. Oberle (2015) discusses the relevance of EU-related political competencies for young people as well as different dimensions of these competencies, introduces different approaches, problems of conveying the EU at school along possibilities of meeting these difficulties. She presents results of two quantitative studies on the effects of everyday EU civics lessons as well as short EU simulation games on EU-related political competencies of secondary school pupils. Oberle & Forstmann (2013, 2014, 2015a, 2015b) have systematically continuing education of civics teachers for teaching the European Union across Germany, as the European Union has by now has become a compulsory content of civics classes in secondary schools throughout Germany. According to Oberle & Forstmann (2015b),



“for teachers, however, teaching this topic is connected with manifold difficulties, for example, due to the complexity and dynamics of European integration, the (perceived) distance of European Union politics, and popular prejudices. European Union content and didactics are not always included in teacher training; moreover, civics is often taught by teachers who have not been trained in this subject” (2015b, p. 56).

Oberle & Forstmann (2015c, 2015d) have explored the effect of qualified teaching in politics and economics at secondary school level on EU-relevant competencies of pupils. Oberle & Forstmann (2015e) have also explored the attitudes towards the EU in connection with expectations of and demands on politics of pupils. Oberle & Leunig (2016a, 2016b, forthcoming a, forthcoming b) have furthermore explored the effect of political role plays on attitudes and motivation towards as well as knowledge of the EU of pupils.

Dejaghere & Quintelier (2008) surveyed more than 6000 Belgian secondary school students regarding their sense of European citizenship, and show that „a genuine identification with Europe — one that is not purely based on a positive evaluation of the EU from a utilitarian point of view — is related to higher levels of tolerance towards ethnic minorities, Muslims and immigrants.“ (2008, p. 339).

2.3. Gaps and suggested ways forward

In the run up to the vigorously contested Referendum on Membership of the European Union in the United Kingdom in June 2016, Waller offered advice on developing inquiry questions for teachers to stimulate discussion in the classroom (Waller, 2016). The European Parliament UK Office offered 10 free one-day politically neutral conferences to help educators gain a critical understanding of the issues and practical ideas for teaching the EU with confidence. These conferences were organized during 2016 by Active Citizens FE (ACFE), working in collaboration with the Association of Citizenship Teaching (ACT: http://teachingcitizenship.org.uk/events).

In addition to formal civic education (Osler, Rathenow & Starkey, 1995), non-formal civic education (Georgi, 2008) and lifelong learning (Holford, Saar & Ure, 2013; Lima & Guimarães, 2011) – in the context of some formal education (school) or higher education engagement with this and some (including new) media representations of EU policy-making – is argued to play a significant and perhaps leading role, at least for now and if one does not specialize in this in higher education studies. One important aspect is citizenship education with the hard-to-reach learners (Kakos, Müller-Hofstede & Ross, 2016), which does tend to present an issue with civic education on EU issues also. Initiatives such as the START foundation in Germany for the promotion, via stipends for two years, for pupils which have only recently migrated to Germany to assist in the development of their educational biographies are to be applauded, but again are for motivated pupils only.

A well-designed “crash course” on European parliamentary elections with schools / adolescents with some role play and debate formats and input from external expert and representative politicians such as Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) or candidates can help in the endeavour (Weber, 2014; Stratenschulte, 2014a; Stratenschulte, 2014b; Stratenschulte, 2015b; Rappenglück, 2014). On occasion, special didactic conferences are organised for both secondary pupils with a short methodological introduction and a range of selected texts that can be useful across different school subjects, in addition to a diplomat explaining matters further, such as the presentation event of the European Academy of Berlin on “Europe in Flux: Great Britain and the European Union” prior to the referendum on the membership in the EU in the United Kingdom



(Europäische Akademie Berlin, 2016). More generally, didactic material for teachers of secondary pupils may be updated (even when only prepared some months before this) as major milestones occur (such as the Brexit referendum outcome) (e.g. Europäische Akademie Berlin, 2017).

What is missing, according to Bade (2016), is a yet any kind of focus or training with regard to Europe / the EU for heads and deputy-heads of schools (rather than teachers), as explored in the ELICITplus project. According to interview results, European learning of school leadership does occur via Comenius exchange and Erasmus + participation but more bi-laterally or in groupings than in the frame of a common European education space (as envisioned in the Lisbon Treaty, but of course not even yet necessarily the case at federally structured countries in the EU at national level, e.g. Germany). Bade (2016) points to the foundational role of concepts such as humanism, central to a schools focused publication of a European authors’ collective (Maison de l’Europe, 2012), which are advocated in a special chapter as shared European values which should not only be brought closer to pupils but should also be the basis for ethics-based leadership of schools (and where the second appendix provides a national overview of didactic materials and sources). Schleicher (2012) does see potential for schools generally to become more European, but notes the underestimated influence of both education systems and schools themselves. The EU school project day of 2016 in Germany for instance, encouraged by Chancellor Merkel, for the school subjects of social studies and politics, is a good example of how EU issues in the school can be furthered in an engaging way. This saw ministers of the Federal government, parliamentarians of the various parliaments (federal and state level), federal and state civil servants, and academics visit schools across Germany, with predatory material at three different levels (extra materials necessary, technical assistance necessary, and advanced) provided by the European Academy of Berlin (Baumann, 2016). The recommendation is that teachers and the school plan well ahead, and selected the range of formats they are interested in, including parliamentary work simulations and media work, where the advanced formats needs several days of intensive preparation as well as a full day on the actual EU school day. If done well this goes a considerable distance, but does not replace the value of in-situ insights, in this case on the working of the EU and her core institutions.

Of course, excursions to national parliaments or ministries can provide insights into EU matters for civic education, and so can visits of politicians, civil servants and experts to schools – but it does not provide an international and contextualized insight. We therefore now turn to previous literature on political excursions and to EU institutions in particular.

3. Political excursions to the EU

In excursions/field study visits a variety of methods can be deployed, which can assist a variety of learning paths (Roder, 2004). In civic / political education, excursions/field study visits follow as explorations the didactic principle of ‘real contact’ and ‘experiential orientation’, clearness, vividness and clarity, as well as the interest-, problem- and participant orientation Detjen (1999). The participants obtain the opportunity for concrete, as well as emotional and even sensory experiences of political realities and their representations.

Due to both time constraints and for organizational reasons, as well as potentially the positionality of the design team as well as the inputting experts and since all ‘realities’ are contested and multiple in nature, only a slice of reality can be obtained (Detjen, 2007, p. 63). Roder (2004) argues that “multi-disciplinary' field trips to Brussels to accompany undergraduate courses on European political and economic integration are of exceptional academic value … [and that] study



trips are a resource that should be more commonly utilized as they are highly beneficial to student learning outcomes.” (2004, p. 43).

This article presents and advocates a concept of a political excursion to the EU institutions which is guided by three central overall learning objectives or aims: (a) The participants shall learn about the central EU institutions / actors, their structures, competences and modes of working in a close-up way; (b) they shall critically illuminate and discuss the EU decision-making processes, the diverging and competing positions, conflicts and role of central actors and institutions through the exemplary selection of a concrete EU policy field; and (c) finally they shall realise (first) contact zones and inspirations for their own (Europe-/EU) political civic engagement and activities (for the future). In this sense, this approach can in one form be related to Detjen, Maasing, Richter & Weißeno’s (2012) model of political competencies (subject knowledge, political judgement capability, political action capability, political orientation and motivation). The projects and resources of the Council of Europe are very useful in this context also, but not our focus in this article, though there are clear lines of connection in civic education around democracy, human rights and minority rights and diversity (Georgi, 2008).

Therefore, in this article we review the concept and practice of political excursions to EU institutions, and explain and assess the merits and disadvantages of our own model and practice of civic education in-situ seminars on EU institutions and contextualized policy making themes and topics. The ideas, evaluations and assessments advanced here are based on experiences and reflections on over 40 such in-situ seminars held since 2004 in Brussels (Weber 2015a) or Strasbourg [which we will cover separately, with a cross-over link to the Council of Europe, in a separate article], on EU institutions and policy fields, with a different design and pedagogic logic to the other political excursions to EU institutions on the market on policy themes such as asylum, migration, environmental, climate change/protection (Weber, 2015b), energy, youth unemployment, financial / debt crisis, trade, development, human rights (both externally facing and within the EU), security and defense, EU expansion, Brexit or Counter-terrorism. A number of those seminars have been in partnerships with secondary schools, the START foundation, universities but most are publicly advertised on a first-come-first-served basis.

The feedback of the participants – anonymously by questionnaires, as well as verbally at the end review of each in-situ seminar, as well as – at times participating teachers or seminar team colleagues (who are also trained civic educators or on occasion higher education lecturers), as well as reviewers and quality auditors at or on occasion send by the German Federal Civic Education Agency to observe one of such in-situ seminars are very important for evaluations and assessments advanced here, added to by comments from EU institution representatives as well as other civic educators where an exchange and dialogue has occurred.

Official organizer of these EU policy field themed in-situ seminars (political excursions to) in Brussels is the Verein zur Förderung politischen Handelns e. V. or Association for the Advancement of Political Action (v.f.h.; see http://www.vfh-online.de), which is a small charitable, polity party independent and licensed civic education organisation, which organises and conducts (in partnership, if appropriate and desired) civic education seminars, trainings, workshops (including on first voter education prior to elections) across Germany and in Brussels and Strasbourg. The stated aim of the v.f.h. / Association for the Advancement of Political Action is to motivate and enable especially young(er) people to democratic political participation through civic education.



These EU policy field themed in situ seminars (political excursions to) in Brussels can be publicly advertised (on the v.f.h. website and via a range of dissemination (e-lists) or requested by a group or partner organization with a specific or flexible policy field thematic remit for such a group or partner only. To be eligible for German Federal Civic Education co-funding the group size must not be below 10 persons, which can be secondary school pupils, further or higher education students or of a more mixed background.

4. Towards a new model: Exploring and experiencing the EU in-situ through a specific policy field

One problem in communicating and teaching EU issues is the high complexity of the institutional and political dynamics (Detjen, 2004). Therefore, the question poses itself: Should we, in the approach of political excursions, aim to get an insight through an overall generic and thus by nature and implication more shallow and schematic, or should we instead go for a particular theme / policy domain / issue to achieve more depth and concrete learning experience? Normally, the providers of political excursions to the EU opt and decide between the “floodlight” and “pointed illumination” for the rather or mostly very generic approach. For instance, in the morning you might have a session on ‘Europe’s role in the world’ with a representative of the Council of the European Union, followed by a lunchtime session on ‘Does the EU have a democracy deficit?’ at the European Parliament, and in the afternoon a session of ‘How does the EU function?’ with the European Commission (see for instance the programme of a Europe centre: http://europa-zentrum.de/images/novprogrbr%C3%BC.pdf).

This approach harbours the danger that the learners can only scratch of skim the different political themes present in the EU at the surface, and that their insights and comprehension will remain superficial or shallow. At first sight, different interests concerning content can be considered and reflected in the approach. However, it is hardly possible to piece the different parts of the EU puzzle together to arrive at an overview that promotes real insights and understanding of a deeper nature.

Contrasting to this, the approach practised and advocated here by the present authors follows the concept of ‘exemplary learning’. In order to make the access to the phenomenon easier and enable a deeper interaction with the phenomenon, in our approach the “cosmos EU” is broken down to a policy field, or even better a controversial question or issue. This way, two main objectives can be achieved: Firstly, the participants obtain a concrete and vivid impression as to how the EU works, which roles the different core institutions and actors play and how they influence the policy shaping and making via a selected policy field, so as to promote a more founded understanding of the EU’s political system. Secondly, the learners can deepen their knowledge and understanding of a concrete and controversially discussed EU policy field: What are the aims and characteristics of this EU policy field? Which proposals are debated and discussed? What are the central bones of contention? Which positions and which interest shape and dominate the discussion? In view of the enormous spectrum of EU policy making and political activities, there are many possible choices and options for thematic fields.

The degree of controversy and the topicality of the theme / topic should receive attention here alongside the (presumed) interests of the civic education participants and the competences of the seminar team with regard to the chose policy field (in addition to experience with civic education approaches). If there is a pre-existing group of participants (rather than an openly advertised in-



situ seminar), it is advisable to agree the thematic focus with the learners. One could, for instance, make proposals about suitable potential topics out of which one could select one (or vice versa).

5. To experience the EU from multiple perspectives

The second element of the approach and concept presented here is the aimed for multi-perspective design, and more specifically in terms of institutional, (party) political grouping as well – if possible – nationality perspective (both in terms of the inputting experts as well as ideally the participants themselves.

5.1 An audit of mainstream EU-focused civic education excursions

The ‘reality check’ of Europe / EU-focused civic education shows that certainly not all political excursions to the EU nor advice guides for it cover all the core institutions of the EU (Hodson & Peterson, 2017; McCormick, 2017; Green European Foundation, 2015), such as the Council of the EU (Wessels, 2016), the EU Commission (Nugent & Rhinard, 2015) and the European Parliament (Dialer, Maurer & Richter, 2015; Corbett, Jacobs & Shackleton, 2017).

For instance, Kaminski, Eggert & Koch (2005) refer to and characterises the Council of the European Union, but it does not get included in the advice and recommendations as to how to design and plan a visit by school groups in Brussels for the purposes of EU-focused civic education. But even if this is covered, or for instance the Permanent Representation of the Federal Republic of Germany (or perhaps at times the lobbying or interest representation of a German Federal state) is included in the programme (which is not the same as the Council of the EU in terms of the conceptual didactic design due to its different, pan-Member State role), then other important actors of the policy-making, especially non-governmental interest groups - both business and civil society – (Dionigi, 2016; Classen, 2014; Dialer, 2014; Dinan & Wesselius, 2010; Klüver, 2013; Geiger, 2012; De Cock, 2011; Witte, 2012) are not included in the programme design.

In most cases, participants of such a civic education excursion of the European Parliament only get an insight via and through one MEP (sometimes for funding issues their own, which has some advantages in terms of connecting back to their own locality) and thus only one political grouping in the EP and one political party (back in, say, Germany). For German EU civic education excursions / visits, the “German lens” is overall pretty dominant, since most or even all of the experts which are met by the civic education group are German by nationality (often times, for language reasons), even if they represent and are employed by different European institutions and organisations. The ‘EU of diversity’ is thus only very indirectly or perhaps even hardly made accessible and included in the design of such a political excursion to the EU institutions.

5.3. Our alternative model: a high level of multi-perspective in reality-near way

Therefore, and in contrast to the above, we advocate – and practice – a model which deliberately aims at a high level of multi-perspective, so as to enable the participants to better understand the functions and ways of working of the EU and the different actors – including in the contextual (lobbying and advocacy) web around it – in a vivid and accessible and reality-near way, as well as to enable the participants to experience and sense the diversity which is one of the key characteristics and mode of the EU. The following dimensions should be included in any programme of an in situ seminar on the EU:



• the EU core institutions: visits to and talks from/discussions with the so-called power-triangle of the EU, that is the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, as the central formal players in the EU policy-making / co-legislation process should certainly be all included.

In terms of policy-fields, the EU Commission and the Council of the EU Secretariat are organised into different General Directorates (DGs) – roughly equivalent to ministries / departments at the national level. The European Parliament, for purposes of co-legislation and scrutiny, is organised into standing committees (in the current legislative period of the 8th EP, lasting until the 2019 elections), some of which have (several) important sub-committees, as well as EP delegations to third countries or also inter-parliamentary delegation to third country democratic parliaments. The EP also has a Secretariat, with some key support and also research functions.

Tailored to the selected / requested thematic policy focus of the in situ seminar, talks and discussions with officials of the corresponding DGs of the EU Commission and the Council of the EU and elected politicians (MEPs) which are members (better than substitute members) of the respective EP committees / (and key sub-committees) should be organised. Some specialised Parliamentary Assistants of MEPs with a thematic focus may also add value to the programme.

Moreover, it is highly desirable that the group does meet more than one MEP, if at all possible from different political groupings in the EP (political parties in their respective home countries) and also different EU Member States. With more than 750 MEPs drawn from (currently) 28 countries (post Brexit 27 with accordingly a lower number of MEPs), which are for the time being organised into eight political groupings in the EP (and a number of non-attached MEPs also), the choice is sufficiently large in principle. The pool of interesting MEPs for a specific in-situ seminar on a specific theme narrows down, when the requests for meeting with the seminar group is concentrated on the policy area active MEPs, especially relevant full (sub-)committee members or so-called rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, who are working on a particular dossier (proposal for legislation) or own initiative report by the EP) for the EP (sub)committee overall or the respective political groupings taking an interest in a dossier in a (sub)committee.

If for logistical reasons the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU cannot be visited (limited room availabilities), an alternative is the Permanent Representation of one of the Member States to the EU (say, of the Federal Republic of Germany), in order to gain an insight into the work of the Council of the EU as the institution where the interest representation of the EU Member States and a co-legislator of the EU in any chosen policy field.

In the case of external and foreign policy of the EU, the European External Action Service (EEAS), which is overseen by both the European Commission and the Council of the European Union in a personal union of an office, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign and External Affairs who is also a Member of the Cabinet of EU Commissioners, should be included.

• Non-Governmental interest groups: The visits of the core EU institutions are complemented by visits to and discussions with policy field relevant interest group representations.

The number, variety and scope of non-governmental organisations, associations, industry federations or agencies, which are seeking to influence EU policy-making is huge (see for instance the currently voluntary (Moessing, 2017) – Transparency Register jointly operated by the European



Commission and the European Parliament, with well over 11 thousand registrants, including institutions, by the end of March 2017:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do; see also Lobby Control, 2012; a current overview of German economic and political interest representations to the EU can for instance be found on the website of the Germany’s Permanent Representation to the EU: http://www.bruessel-eu.diplo.de/Vertretung/bruessel__eu/de/05-Dt-Interessenvertretungen/_C3_9Cbersicht_20Deutscher_20Interessenvertretungen.html

It is important overall to recognise their formal and informal role and modus operandi to understand advocacy, lobbying and (attempted and realised) their influences on EU policy-making, some of which is of course expressly asked for, desired and important in the process from an early stage down to the implementation (Shotton & Nixon, 2016; Dialer, 2014; Schendelen, 2013). Of course, as important, including for EU policy-making, is lobbying in the respective EU Member States (Bitoni & Harris, 2017).

Depending on the topic of the in-situ seminar, participant group interest emphasis and the make-up of the group in question (especially if organised for it in a tailored way, rather than publicly advertised), one can add to the programme visits to and talks with further institutions and organisations such as the European Economic and Social Committee (which understands itself as “a bridge between the EU and organised civil society”), the European Committee of the Regions (“the European Union's assembly of local and regional representatives that provides sub-national authorities with a direct voice within the EU's institutional framework”), the liaison offices of, for instance, the German Federal States, political foundations (either of national political parties or of party families in Europe) and so-called EU-think tanks (which do applied and conceptual research on EU policy matters, from a European or also a national perspective; see for instance http://www.eu.thinktankdirectory.org/).

5.4. Interactive, triangulated learning in situ

The central aim of these visits and talks / discussions is to provide the learners the opportunity in a real interaction to explore the co-legislating institutions of the EU, as well as influencing non-governmental organisations (both business and civil society), in order to shed some light on their ways of working, their scope for shaping EU policy-making as well as some of their fundamental but also more detailed – in a particular chose policy-field – in a personal interaction, so as to ultimately engage the participants with EU policy debates and competing discourses from different institutional, political and if possible also differing national perspectives. Furthermore, it is attempted to provide the participants with a direct, even sensuous, view into the EU mechanisms and operations by visiting the EU representatives at their places of work. The impressions of assembly or meeting rooms with speaker microphones, personal or country name sign on tables, translator cabins, long corridors with many offices or the busy (at times hectic) atmosphere in the foyer of the European Parliament also contribute to the “experience EU”.

6. To Experience the EU through an in-situ seminar

Hundreds of thousands of visitor groups travel to Brussels every year, to gain an impression of the EU. Looking at the programmes of these study tours, one is struck how they are often characterised by a mix of Europe-focused civic education, historical and cultural further education as well as social (group interaction) and touristic elements (for an exemplary one, see Bunjes,



2009, p. 55). We do not want to query the pedagogic value of such provisions in principle. However, the model and approach for a political excursion to the EU presented in this article is designed in contrast to the study tours in the sense of visitation tourism “à l‘européen“ (see Detjen, 2004, p. 201, for a critique of this practice), and is rather conceived as an in-situ seminar.

6.1. A learning phase approach

Accordingly, the visits and discussions with the institutional representatives are embedded in learning phases, which orient themselves in relationship with classic (civic education) seminar work, within which the participants deal with the focus EU cognitively and with the help of various methods, during which the upcoming discussions with representatives are actively prepared, but also review and critically reflect on the insights from and impressions of the talks and discussions so far as collectively a group, with some moderation from the seminar team if needed and helpful. Depending on the phase of the seminar, the participants are there actively, receptively and interactively engaged.

A fundamental challenge with designing of political excursions to the EU is that the group if often times quite diverse, especially if the in-situ seminars are publicly advertised. This is with regard to the motivation of the group (although in most cases it should be a voluntary participation, in substance and not just – as with some school groups – officially, but also the prior knowledge of the concrete policy field which is the thematic focus in question, as well as of the EU in general. One part of the group may be motivated by rather general curiosity, whereas another part is intrigued and excited about a particular thematic policy field, for instance since they are (or intend to become) politically or professionally active in this area or because they want to research into the field further (for instance, for a university assignment, dissertation or thesis). Accordingly, the pre-knowledge and familiarity with the policy theme as well as the expectations for what a successful in-situ seminar in their eyes would be like in terms of content may differ (quite markedly).

6.2. Introductory phase: EU system and EU policy field

At the very beginning of the here characterised in situ seminar concept and design, participants are introduced to the core basic knowledge about both the EU system and the selected theme / policy field. This can be stretched over two days, with varying civic education methods. It can be of advantage to prepare core and illustrative material prior to the in-situ seminar, and make this available to the participants prior to it, for instance through relevant internet links before and after registration (on the seminar website) and also a reader which can be send out electronically in advance.

By utilising a variety of methods and learning modes, for instance the “EU institutions puzzle”, “EU time line”, “EU quiz”, work on selected texts –and other tasks and discussions in small groups (see for instance Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg & Centrum für Angewandte Politikforschung, 2009), the functioning of the EU system and the role of the different EU actors, both EU institutions and interest representation groups, can be clarified and made more cognitively present (again) for the participants.

In addition, the group is being familiarised with the EU policy field chosen as the themed focus of the in-situ seminar, as well as being prepared for the various talks with the representatives of institutions by developing or consolidating a basic comprehension of the concrete EU policy field. They (begin to) develop an understanding of why the EU is active in this policy field at all (background, aims and motivation, and policy domains). What does EU actually mean in this policy



field (institutional framework, central actors, and their role / policy and action capabilities and opportunities)? What are the topical conflict issues (including over to what extent or degree, or form, any EU policy or legislation should be developed [at all]?

The participants furthermore lean about and become (more) familiar with key (technical) terms which are relevant for understanding the debate. The central aim if the unit is to develop and secure the foundation (knowledge) for being able to follow the (often quite complex and at times quite technical) talks and discussion contributions/answers of the expert informants the groups has an interaction with, but also to put them into context and be able to critically evaluate them (political sensitivity and judgement) and moreover to be able to ask informed (including critical) questions (both concerning knowledge as well as opinions) actively in a dialogue (political participation towards action skills).

6.3. Preparation of the meetings and discussions with the EU experts: developing a group question bank

Next follows the preparation phase for the meetings with experts, so that participants can work on what they would like and need to know from and ask the various meeting partners in a focused and conscious way. The development of a question bank or catalogue enables the learners to constrict a shared core questions guide which enables the group collectively to conduct a semi-structured interview in the Questions & Answer part of the meetings with the various EU and associated institutions / organisations. From experience, it has been established that it is advisable and productive to distinguish between foundational questions, which are regarded as central and so should be asked of all core experts in discussions for purposes of triangulation, and specific, institution or individual expert tailored questions, and to collect those separately for the question bank.

As developing ‘expert interviewers’ the participants can consult each other (as well as the seminar leaders, but only after having done the peer process first) regarding questioning techniques and interview strategies. By motivating and supporting the learners to prepare themselves collectively in a focused way for the expert interviews and to have those sessions with external speakers as interactive as possible, the danger of having a passive encounter or reception of the external speakers can be significantly reduced. It can also activate more participants – hopefully nearly everyone – to be actively engaged in these sessions with external speakers, rather than only having select (more extrovert or more special issue interested) participants being vocal and perhaps too dominant in the dialogue whilst many other would remain silent in those sessions. The distance between the participants and the political institutions respectively actors they are visiting and exploring can thus be minimised, but also a critical and reflective stance can be encouraged. From experience and feedback on behalf of both the external EU institutions or related organisations’ speakers / experts during and also after those sessions, they appreciate and value interested, topic and issues-prepared and question-rich groups, and often then devote more time, if possible, to those encounters than was originally agreed. Furthermore, the question catalogue/guide which the participants prepared collectively also serves as (one important) basis for the analysis of the encounters and talks by discussions with the institutional experts or actors.

6.4. Analysis and evaluation of the EU expert meetings

During the analysis and evaluation sessions after the visits to and talks by and discussions with institutions and their representatives and actors the participants/learners are encouraged to



exchange, discuss and debate the insights and impressions from these visits, collectively and critically in a reflective manner.

This phase, which occurs regularly in our seminar concept, can for instance be used to explore in which particular outlook and frame on ‘reality’ (or construction thereof) the respective representatives or actors within an institution or organisation adopt, deploy or portray to (this group of) outsiders who are studying them and their conceptions of the EU world and policy making and underlying principles, philosophies or motives. This can extend to looking at and evaluating their posture and communication behaviour (and strategy), and how this may have a bearing on the (framing or delivery or clarity) of their messages (as intended perhaps, or at least as received or perceived. The contrasting with the question bank developed by the participants and, if congruent with those actually asked (if not already answered in the input talks), to what extent they were answered (in substance, if perhaps not as expected) is useful, as is the consideration of which new questions arose for the learners group, including for subsequent information and discussion meetings with experts / actors or further discussion within the group itself.

6.5. Overall seminar evaluation and outlook for afterwards

On the one hand, the final overall seminar discussions and evaluations are intended and serve to provide sufficient fertile space to facilitate and enable a collective reflection on and evaluation of all visits and discussions with experts and actors – as well as discussions and processes within the seminar group itself. But on the other hand, and at least as if not more importantly, it is aimed at promoting the formation of (informed) political opinions (further).

To this purpose, the participants/learners are given the opportunity to discuss selective issues and questions further, for instance those that were imbued with particular controversy during the in-situ seminar or to (start to) develop their own thoughts and propositions on how a particular policy field of the EU should be handled or indeed of the EU itself.

The thematic focus and the methods of this phase are oriented on the preceding seminar flow and the issues interest focus of the participants/learners.

For instance, one option is that the participants are given the task of developing proposals for a reform or initiative of the EU, and to present and discuss this. Or they get the opportunity to take issues with and develop and declare their reasoned/motivated position to particular/specific scenarios or proposals that are being discussed in the political arena (e.g. by policy-makers and lobbyists)

It seems obvious that this concluding phase is also especially – though by no means the only in the course of the seminar – an opportune platform to sign-post the various political participation channels and opportunities in the EU consciously and in view of the influence of insights and impressions gained in the seminar on a specific domain of the EU policy-making and the EU governance overall. Those opportunities for political involvement in the shaping of EU policy making range from participation in the elections for the European parliament, in European citizenship initiatives (since April 2012), contact to MEPs, online consultations on proposed and developing EU legislation as made possible (also for individuals) by the European Commission since 2001, online blogs, and the writing of letters to the editor, or articles for, the (local) press to influence opinion formation and much more.



The engagement with the opportunities for becoming involved with EU policy-making as active citizens is motivated by the three core aims of civic education: to facilitate the development of knowledge attainment, to support the capacity for critical evaluation and opinion formation, and to promote participation in political processes (Breser, 2016; Georgi, 2008; Detjen, Massing, Richter & Weißeno, 2012).

6.6. Political Excursions to the EU in Brussels – additional program elements

It is advisable, depending on organisational and time budget for the in-situ seminar, as well as the composition and interests of the learner group, to include additional program content.

6.6.1. Visit to / Observation of a relevant committee meeting of the European Parliament

To experience the EU from close up, we recommend to integrate the observation of a committee meeting session of the European Parliament (or on rare occasions, the full assembly), which has a thematic connection to the tailored policy-field orientation of the in-situ seminar. This way, the participants gain an atmospheric impression of the work of the European Parliament / MEPs, by listening in and seeing – parts of – the debate in the semi-circular EP session meeting room with the interpreters’ cabins, but also the chairing of the session and debating MEPs (as well as, depending on the session, a representative of the European Commission or the Council of the EU Presidency) in action with their own eyes. The rules of committee work, and the agenda for the committee meeting, should be explained to the participants beforehand, so that they can follow and make sense of the proceedings better.

6.6.2. “Member of the European Parliament for one day” - group role play in the Parlamentarium of the European Parliament (EP)

A further additional element that is enriching in its learning approach is the simulation group role play “MEP for a day” which last for about 2 hours, designed in an interactive manner by the Parlamentarium, the visitor centre of the EP (Pearson, 2013). The participants take on the role of an MEP, and experience in a lively and reality-near way the EP policy / legislative process from the EP’s side. The learners are divided up into four fictive political groupings, which nonetheless reflect the political realities in the European Parliament, and negotiate over and decide on two legislative proposals (Directives) of the European Commission, for which they have to find an agreement within the EP itself (joint position) and with the Council of the European Union (representing the governments of the Member States). As MEPs they meet in their respective political groupings, in two policy-field Committees of the EP as well as in the Plenary of the EP. They also hold press conferences, and communicate via info stations with a multitude and variety of interest representatives (lobbyists). This playful experiential insight into EP parliamentary work can aid the understanding of the learners additionally. Talks by and discussions with real MEPs, as well as the reflection and debrief round at the end of the seminar day enable a “reality check” to critically reflect on the role play simulation experience. Of course, this does not replace a more sustained insight into the organisation of everyday political life in an MEPs office (Busby, 2013), though meeting an MEP’s (experienced) assistant (who often do the policy thematic preparatory or even background co-ordination work) can also be useful in this regard for the learners.

There may also be, and this usually requires additional registration beforehand, an opportunity to visit / partake in public events of EU think tanks or political foundations that include expert



contributions or panel discussion with EU representatives - including MEPs and / or experts on EU policy-making on relevant themes to the focus of the in-situ seminar organised.

6.6.3. City Guided Tour: Brussels as a political-historical city

It is enriching to also include the medium of a political-historical guided city tour to convey to the participants a deeper perspective of Brussels as the “capital of Europe”, as well as to provide an initial insight into Belgium’s (and hence Europe’s) lively past and present, as represented in Brussels’s cityscape. The traces of Flemish, Habsburg (Austrian and Spanish), French, monarchist-dynastic and revolutionary and more recently democratic history can be sketched (Arblaster, 2012), as well as Belgium’s colonial past herself with regard to the Congo (Hochschild, 1999). For a more contemporary perspective (Humes, 2014) the changing construction and face of the Belgian Federal state and the complex system of devolved regions (such as the Brussels metropolitan one) and the language communities in Belgium (for Brussels especially the Flemish and Francophone ones) can be introduced, with the tensions – in particular financial – between the Flemish and Walloon regions (Brans & De Winter, 2013; Deschouver, 2012). Thus, this addition to the core programme is an insightful bonus to the EU dominated core programme of the in-situ seminar.

To Experience the EU in situ: a concluding reflection

Educational political excursions to Brussels can be a very important and successful method of creating a civic education learning and engagement platform regarding the EU. From our experience, their true potential and effect can be realised especially if they are designed and implemented as an in-situ seminar - in the format which is presented by us in the above form – that is, with the design and practice principles of exemplary (through one selected policy field), multi-perspective insights and as a seminar which uses the access to the key relevant institutions and select surrounding influencing players as a locational educational asset.

It is necessary to emphasise, though, that the concept we have presented above is not only very stimulating and supportive with regards to the key tenets and aims of civic education, but also demanding for all concerned.

The planning and execution of such an in-situ seminar is very labour and time intensive and requires some experience (which can be learned with shadowing, team training and experience, however). It is not an off-the-shelf, easily routinised and streamlined format that can be replicated without much efforts in an efficient way as some providers may think it should be for economies of replication. Such in-situ seminars require a planning time frame of a minimum of 6 months between the determination of the date and the theme until the actual seminar, and in principle require a high degree of experience and expertise. It is in the very nature and philosophy of the approach and concept we presented above that no in-situ seminar is the same. Rather, each in-situ seminar should be tailored: title and theme are freshly decided on, the supporting material for the thematic introduction must be continuously sourced and adapted, the speakers of the core EU institutions are rarely the same, and the detailed programme content is constantly changing.

Also, we should emphasise the intensity of the in-situ seminar. In addition to the formal criteria for a minimum number of formal hours of educational activity in the programme in order to receive public subsidy, the design logic - for content and didactic reasons – mandates a multi-perspective dimension of triangulating the insight between several core EU institutions, 3 at the minimum as explained above, as well as the necessary phases of preparation and reflection post-meetings.



This means that time during the in-situ seminar is a critical resource, which must be carefully harnessed but also invested in (resulting in long days, with early starts). From the participant’s side, it is often commented on that there is not a lot of “down time” between programme points – though lunch and dinner can and is being used informally by participants for group processes) and for recreation. These in-situ seminars therefore are presented with the challenge of meeting the central didactic aims despite a (normally) quite tight time frame of 4 days, without being seen / experienced by participants as too compressed or demanding.

In terms of cooperation with civic education providers and pre-organised groups (schools, universities etc.) one must also take into account that – in Germany at least – only those seminars can be assisted with public subsidies where the participation is formally voluntary and cross-class / courses and where it is not part of the formal education timetable of those institutions for those learners.

To conclude, it can be stated from experience that the success of each and every in-situ EU seminar is conditional on the seminar team as well as the participants / learners themselves. The seminar team which plans and implements the seminar should be in possession of the requisite organisational, subject and methodological competencies. The participants / learners should be interested in the content, motivated and willing participation in an engaged manner. Last not least, EU institution representative and external experts which not only competent in their domain and field, but also sufficiently open and prepared for discussion and debate. Clear and informative arrangements beforehand – planned by the seminar team with communications with the speakers so that the topics are more clearly defined and that the general characteristics of the group and the expected modus operandi is known to them – but also the participants (including by a detailed seminar programme a predatory tailored material) – are positive factors for the overall success in preparing a platform for a civic education / political excursion to the EU in the presented format, in which deeper and more lasting learning processes can be initiated.

What we are presenting here is an additional approach and offer, not as a replacing alternative to more commonplace didactic methods in EU-focused civic education. This addition, however, can substantially contribute to make EU policy making more comprehensive to learners in its multi-dimensional nature, complexity, currency and relevance. Especially if planned and conducted as outlined above, this can promote three core objectives of civic education: to extend knowledge, to develop judgement formation and to encourage participation.

To close with the words of one participant: “Before the seminar the EU was a white sheet of paper for me, which did not really interest me. Through this seminar, the picture became much clearer for me. The EU has moved closer to me. And it has become much more apparent to me how important the EU is – because the EU [Europe} is our future.” (Participant feedback, Brussels, December 2013). Regardless of quite what the future of the EU is going to be or what our preferences may be (Dinan, Nugent & Paterson, 2017; Nugent, 2017; Guérot, 2016; Ryner & Cafruny, 2016; Olsen & McCormick, 2016; Ranacher, Staudigl & Frischhut, 2015; McCormick, 2017), it should be of interest to all of us.

References

Arblaster, P. (2012). A History of the Low Countries (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.



Bade, C. (2016). Schulleitung und Europa – europäische Schulleitungen!? Eine Spurensuche. Europäische Erziehung, 1, 25-27.

Baroncelli, S., Farneti, R., Horga, I. & Vanhoonacker, S. (Eds.) (2014). Teaching and learning the European Union. Cham: Springer.

Baumann, M. (2016). Der EU-Schulprojekttag 2016. Ein Erfolg für Europa. Unterrichtsmaterialien zur Vorbereitung des Schulprojekttags am 2. Mai 2016. Berlin: Europäische Akademie Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.eab-berlin.eu/wp-content/uploads/EAB_EU_Schulprojekttag_2016.pdf

Bickerton, C. (2016). The European Union: A Citizen’s Guide. London: Pelican.

Bitoni, A. & Harris, P. (Eds.) (2017). Lobbying in Europe: Public Affairs and the Lobbying Industry in 28 Countries. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Brans, M. & De Winter, L. (2013). The Politics of Belgium. Abingdon: Routledge.

Breser, B. (2016). Politik von oben herab? Möglichkeiten demokratischer Beteiligungen in der Europaischen Union. In K. Uray-Preininger & D. Koeck (Eds.), Mitmischem im Landhaus – Begleitheft, (pp. 21-23). Graz: Verein Beteiligung. Landtag Steiermark.

Brunazzo, M. & Settembri, P. (2015). Teaching the European Union: a Simulation of the Council’s Negotiations. European Political Science, 14(1), 1-14.

Bunjes, N. (2009). Europa vor Ort erleben: Studienfahrten nach Brüssel und Krakau. Deutschland & Europa. Jugend und Europa, 57, 54–57. Retrieved from http://www.deutschlandundeuropa.de/57_09/jugend_eu.pdf

Busby, A. (2013). “Normal Parliament”: Exploring the Organisation of Everyday Political Life in an MEP’s Office. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(1), 94-115.

Classen, A. (2014). Interessenvertretung in der Europäischen Union. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Corbett, R., Jacobs, F. & Shackleton, M. (2017). The European Parliament (9th ed.). London: John Harper.

Deschouver, K. (2012). The Politics of Belgium. Governing a Divided Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Del Río Villar, S. (2014). Europe: Project and Process. Brussels: P.I.E.

De Cock, C. (2011). iLobby.eu: Survival Guide to EU Lobbying, Including the Use of Social Media. Delft: Eburon Publishers.

Dejaghere, Y. & Quintelier, E. (2008). Does European Citizenship Increase Tolerance in Young People? European Union Politics, 9(3), 339-362.

Detjen, J. (2004). „Europäische Unübersichtlichkeiten“. Wie soll die politische Bildung mit der Kompliziertheit und Intransparenz der Europäischen Union umgehen? In G. Weißeno (Ed.), Europa verstehen lernen (pp. 126–143). Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

Detjen, J. (2007). Erkundung. In D. Lange (Ed.) Methoden politischer Bildung. Handbuch für den sozialwissenschaftlichen Unterricht, (pp. 63-69). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.



Detjen, J., Massing, P., Richter, D. & Weißeno, G. (2012). Politikkompetenz – ein Modell. Wiesbaden: VS.

Dialer, D. (Ed.) (2014). Lobbying in der Europäischen Union. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Dialer, D., Maurer, A. & Richter, M. (2015). Handbuch zum Europäischen Parlament. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Dierßen, B. & Rappenglück, S. (2015). Europabezogene Planspiele und ihre Wirkung. In M. Oberle (Ed.), Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln. Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung (pp. 223-234). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Dinan, W. & Wesselius, E. (2010). Brussels – A Lobbying Paradise? In H. Burley, W. Dinan, K. Haar, O. Hoedeman & E. Wesselius (Eds.) Bursting the Brussels Bubble, (pp. 23–32). Brussels: Alter EU.

Dinan, D., Nugent, N. & Paterson, W.E. (Eds.) (2017). The European Union in Crisis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dionigi, M. K. (2016). Lobbying the European Parliament: The Battle for Influence. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Elken, M. (2015). New EU Instruments for Education: Vertical, Horizontal and Internal Tensions in the European Qualifications Framework. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 11(1), 69-83.

Euractiv (2014, August 11). It’s official: Last EU election had lowest-ever turnout. Retrieved on March, 25th, 2017.

Europäische Akademie Berlin / Lebert, S. & Stratenschulte, E. D. (2016). Europa im Wandel – Das Referendum in Großbritannien und seine Konsequenzen für Europa. Berlin: eab. Retrieved from http://www.eab-berlin.eu/wp-content/uploads/Unterrichtseinheit-BREXIT-1.pdf

Europäische Akademie Berlin / Lebert, S. & Stratenschulte, E. D. (2017). Europa im Wandel. Berlin: eab.

European Parliament (2016). Report on Learning at school (2015/2138(INI). Strasbourg: European Parliament.

FitzGibbon, J., Leruth, B. & Startin, N. (Eds.) (2016). Euroscepticism as a Transnational and Pan-European Phenomenon. Abingdon: Routledge.

Geiger, A. (2012). EU Lobbying Handbook. Brüssel: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Geißel, B. & Joas, M. (Eds.) (2013). Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

Georgi, V. (Ed.) (2008). The making of citizens in Europe. Berlin: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

Goll, T. (2015). Besondere Schwierigkeiten bei der Vermittlung der EU in der Politischen Bildung? In M. Oberle (Ed.) Politisches Wissen über die Europäische Union, (pp. 179-192). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.



Green European Foundation (2015). Europe for beginners. Revised and extended. Brussels: GEF/Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament.

Gretchen, J. & Van Dyke, J. (2014). Educating for EU Citizenship through active Learning. In Baroncelli, S., Farneti, R., Horga, I. & Vanhoonacker, S. (Eds.) Teaching and Learning the European Union, (pp. 39-53). Cham: Springer.

Guasti, P., Muno, W. & Nieman, A. (2015). Introduction – Simulations as a Multidisciplinary Resource. From Teaching and Learning Tool to Research Instrument. European Political Science, 14(3), 205-217.

Guérot, U. (2016). Warum Europa eine Republik werden muss! Berlin: Dietz.

Hartmann, J. & Weber, I. (2013). Planspiel EU-Emissionshandel – zur Praxis außerschulischer politischer Bildungsprojekte an Schulen. In I. Juchler (Ed.), Projekte in der schulischen und außerschulischen politischen Bildung, (pp. 136-151). Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

Hochschild, A. (1999). King Leopold’s Ghost. New York: Houghton Miffin.

Hodson, D. & Peterson, J. (Eds.) (2017). The Institutions of the European Union. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holford, J., Saar, E. & Ure, O.B. (Eds.) (2013). Lifelong learning in Europe: National Patterns and Challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Humes, S. (2014). Belgium: Long United, Long Divided. London: Hurst & Co.

ICF–GHK (2013). Learning Europe at School. Final report - DG EAC. Brussels.

IHK Südwestfalen (2016). Europäisches Jugendparlament: Sommerforum in Menden. Südwestfälische Wirtschaft, September, 22-23.

Jones, R. & Bursens, P. (2014). Assessing EU Simulations: Evidence from the Transatlantic EuroSim. In Baroncelli, S., Farneti, R., Horga, I. & Vanhoonacker, S. (Eds.) Teaching and Learning the European Union, (pp. 157-185). Cham: Springer.

Kakos, M., Müller-Hofstede, C. & Ross, A. (2016). Beyond Us versus Them. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung.

Kaminski, H., Eggert, K. & Koch, M. (2005). Exkursion nach Brüssel zu den Institutionen der Europäischen Union. Handelsblatt macht Schule, Düsseldorf.

Keating, A. (2009). Educating Europe’s Citizens: Moving from national to post-national models of educating for European citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 13(2), 135-151.

Keating, A. (2014). Education for Citizenship in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kerr, D. & Huddlestone, T. (2016). ‘Living with Controversy’: Teaching Controversial Issues through EDC/HRE. A New Training Pack for Teachers across Europe. Teaching Citizenship, 43, 14-17.

Kies, R. & Nanz, P. (Eds.) (2013). Is Europe Listening to Us? Aldershot: Ashgate.

Klüver, H. (2013). Lobbying in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.



Koopmans, R. & Erbe, J. (2004). Towards a European public sphere? Vertical and horizontal dimensions of Europeanized political communication. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2(17), 97-118.

Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.) (2015). Planspiele. Festung Europa? Asyl- und Flüchtlingspolitik in der EU (2nd ed.).

Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg & Centrum für angewandte Politikforschung (Eds.) (2009). „Europa sind wir!“. Methoden für die europapolitische Jugendbildung, 2. Stuttgart: LpW-BW.

Lauristin, M. (2007). The European Public Sphere and the Social Imaginary of the 'New Europe'. European Journal of Communication, 22(4), 397–412.

Laval, E. M. & Berlin, A. (2014). Thinking Europe: A Canadian Academic Immersion inside the European Institutions – EU Study Tour and Internship Programme. In Baroncelli, S., Farneti, R., Horga, I, & Vanhoonacker, S. (Eds.) Teaching and Learning the European Union, (pp. 73-86). Cham: Springer.

Lawn, M. (2002). Borderless Education: Imagining a European Education Space in a Time of Brands and Networks. In A. Novoa & A. Lawn (Eds.), Fabricating Europe, (pp. 173-184). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Leconte, C. (2010). Understanding Euroscepticism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Leston-Bandeira, C. (2014). The Pursuit of Legitimacy as a Key Driver for Public Engagement: The European Parliament Case. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(2), 415-436.

Lima, L. C. & Guimarães, P. (2011). European Strategies in Lifelong Learning. A Critical Introduction. Opladen: Budrich.

LobbyControl (2012). Das EU-Viertel. Lobbyplanet Brüssel (3rd Ed.). Köln: LobbyControl.

Maison de l’Europe (2012). Europabildung für Alle. Grundlagen zum Verständnis des europäischen Einigungsprozesses. Retrieved from http://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2012/5736/pdf/Bade_et_al_2012_Grundlagen_zum_Verstaendnis_des_europaeischen_Einigungsprozesses_D_A.pdf.

McCormick, J. (2017). Understanding the European Union. (7th Ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Mitchell, K. (2012). Student mobility and European Identity: Erasmus Study as civic experience? Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8(4), 490-518.

Moessing, L. (2017). Lobbying Uncovered? Lobbying Registration in the European Union and the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.

Müller, H. (2004). Konferenzsimulation zur europäischen Umweltpolitik. Fallgruben im handlungsorientierten Unterricht. In G. Weiβeno (Ed.), Europa verstehen lernen. Eine Aufgabe des Politikunterrichts (pp. 236-251). Schwalbach/Ts: Wochenschau.

Muno, W. & Prinz, L. (2015). Teaching and learning with EU simulations: Evaluating Model European Union. Journal of Contemporary Research, 11(4), 370-387.



Nugent, N. (2017). The Government and Politics of the European Union (8th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Nugent, N. & Rhinard, M. (2015). The European Commission. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Oberle, M. (2012a). Politisches Wissen über die Europäische Union. Subjektive und objektive Politikkenntnisse von Jugendlichen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Oberle, M. (2012b). Pupils’ political knowledge regarding the European Union. Citizenship, Social and Economic Education, 11(2), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.2304/csee.2012.11.2.89.

Oberle, M. (Ed.) (2015a). Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln. Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Oberle, M. (2015b). Learning about the European Union at school - theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 7(2), 26-44.

Oberle, M. & Forstmann, J. (2013). Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln - ein Jean Monnet Projekt zur Fortbildung von Politiklehrer/innen. Europäische Erziehung, 43(2), 25-34.

Oberle, M. & Forstmann, J. (2014). Planspiele zur Vermittlung der Europäischen Union? Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie. Politisches Lernen, 3/4, 19-24.

Oberle, M. & Forstmann, J. (2015a). Lehrerfortbildungen zur politischen EU-Bildung - eine empirische Begleitstudie. In M. Oberle (Ed.), Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln. Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung heute (pp. 193-209). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Oberle, M. & Forstmann, J. (2015b). Continuing education of civics teachers for teaching the European Union - Results of the Jean Monnet project PEB. Journal for Citizenship, Social and Economic Education, 14(1), 56-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047173415583588

Oberle, M. & Forstmann, J. (2015c). Effekte des Fachunterrichts `Politik und Wirtschaft` auf EU-bezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern. In G. Weißeno & C. Schelle (Eds.) Empirische Forschung in gesellschaftswissenschaftlichen Fachdidaktiken. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven, (pp. 67-82). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Oberle, M. & Forstmann, J. (2015d). Förderung EU-bezogener Kompetenzen bei Schüler/innen - zum Einfluss des politischen Fachunterrichts. In M. Oberle (Ed.), Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln. Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung heute (pp. 81-98). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Oberle, M. & Forstmann, J. (2015e). Einstellungen zur Europäischen Union im Zusammenhang mit Ansprüchen an Politik bei Schüler/innen. In A. Petrik (Ed.), Formate fachdidaktischer Forschung in der politischen Bildung (pp. 89-99). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau.

Oberle, M. & Leunig, J. (2016a). Planspiele im Politikunterricht - nur etwas für politisch interessierte Schüler/innen? In T. Goll, M. Oberle & S. Rappenglück (Eds.), Herausforderung Migration: Perspektiven der politischen Bildung (pp. 125-133). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau.

Oberle, M. Leunig, J. (2016b) Simulation games on the European Union in civics: Effects on secondary pupils’ political competence, Citizenship, 15(3), 227-243.



Oberle, M. & Leunig, J. (forthcoming a). Wirkungen politischer Planspiele auf Einstellungen, Motivationen und Kenntnisse von Schüler/innen zur Europäischen Union. In B. Ziegler (Ed.), Politische Bildung in der Demokratie. Zürich: Rüegger.

Oberle, M. & Leunig, J. (forthcoming b). EU-Planspiele im Politikunterricht - Effekte auf politische Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern. In D. Dechant, A. Petrik & S. Rappenglück (Eds.), Handbuch: Planspiele in der politischen Bildung. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

Olsen, J. & McCormick, J. (2016). The European Union: Politics and Policies. Westview Press.

Osler, A., Rathenow, H. F. & Starkey, H. (1995). Teaching for citizenship in Europe. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.

Pearson, C. (2013). EUtopia? The European Union and the Parlamentarium in Brussels, City, 17(5), 636–653.

Pérez, F. S. (2013). Political Communication in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rappenglück, S. (2008). Europabezogene Planspiele. In Jugend für Europa (Ed.) Europa vermitteln – Handbuch zur europabezogenen Jugendbildung, (pp. 79-83). Bonn: Jugend für Europa – Deutsche Agentur Jugend in Aktion.

Rappenglück, S. (2014). Europabezogenes Lernen. In W. Sander (Ed.) Handbuch politische Bildung, (pp. 392–400) (4th ed.). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau.

Raiser, S. & Warkalla, B. (2015). Auf das Lernziel kommt es an - Planspiele in der europapolitischen Bildungsarbeit. In M. Oberle (Ed.), Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln. Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung heute (pp. 235-248). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Rebhan, C. (2016). North-Atlantic Euroscepticism. Torshavn: Faroe University Press.

Richardson, J. (2015). European Union. Power and Policy-making. Abingdon: Routledge.

Roder, K. (2004). Teaching European studies: field trips to Brussels - an underutilised resource. European Political Science, 13(1), 43–52. Retrieved from http://10.1057/eps.2013.33

Ross, A. (2008). A European Education: Citizenship, identities and young people. Stoke on Trent: Trentham.

Ryner, M. & Cafruny, A.W. (2016). The European Union and Global Capitalism: Origins, Development, Crisis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Timus, N., Cebotari, V. & Hosein, A. (2016). Innovating Teaching and Learning of European Studies: Mapping Existing Provisions and Pathways. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 12(2), 654- 668.

Schendelen, van R. (2013). The Art of Lobbying the EU: More Machiavelli in Brussels. Amsterdam: University Press.

Schleicher, K. (2012). Wie europäisch kann die Schule werden? Unterschätzte System- und Schuleinflüsse. In K. Schleicher & P. J. Weber (Eds.), Europa in den Schulen (pp. 432-477). Münster: Waxmann.



Shotton, P. A. & Nixon, P. G. (Eds.) (2016). Lobbying the European Union: Changing Minds, Changing Times. Abingdon: Routledge.

Stratenschulte, E. D. (2014a). Europa. Fakten und Zusammenhänge. Berlin: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

Stratenschulte, E. D. (2014b). Wählen ist einfach. Die Europawahl in leichter Sprache. Berlin: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung / SoVD-Jugend. Retrieved from https://www.sovd.de/fileadmin/downloads/wahlhilfe/pdf/broschuere_wahlhilfe_europawahl.pdf

Stratenschulte, E. D. (2015a). (Neue) Ansätze in der europapolitischen Bildung. In M. Oberle (Ed.), Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln. Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung (pp. 213-222). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Stratenschulte, E. D. (2015b). Wer hat die Macht in Europa? Themenblätter im Unterricht, 106. Berlin: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Retrieved from http://www.eab-berlin.eu/wp-content/uploads/Wer_hat_die_Macht_in_Europa.pdf.

Van Dyke, G., DeClair, E. & Loedel, P. (2000). Stimulating Simulations: Making the European Union a Classroom Reality. International Study Perspectives, 1(2), 145-159.

Verney, S. (Ed.) (2013). Euroscepticism in Southern Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.

Wallace, C., Datler, G. & Spanning, R. (2005). Young people and European citizenship. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.

Waller, C. (2016). The UK EU Referendum: In, Out, shaking it all about!! Teaching Citizenship, 43, 30-32.

Weber, I. (2014). „Crashkurs“ Europawahlen 2014. Methodische Anregungen aus der außerschulischen politischen Jugendbildung. Europäische Erziehung, 1-40, 20-26.

Weber, I. (2015a). Die Europäische Union „vor Ort“ erleben – Politische Exkursionen nach Brüssel. In M. Oberle (Ed.), Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln. Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung heute (pp. 249-261). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Weber, I. (2015b). Politische Exkursionen nach Brüssel — EU-Klimapolitik “hautnah” erleben. Politisches Lernen, 1-2, 31-33.

Weißeno, G. (2004). Konturen einer europazentrierten Politikdidaktik – Europapolitische Zusammenhänge verstehen lernen. In G. Weißeno (Ed.) Europa verstehen lernen. Eine Aufgabe des Politikunterrichts, (pp. 108-125). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau.

Wessels, W. (2016). The European Council. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Windwehr, J. & Windwehr, A. (2011). Das Demokratiedefizit der Europäischen Union im Unterricht. In J. Varwick (Ed.), Krise und Zukunft der EU, Politische Bildung, 1, 110-130.

Zeff, E. E. (2003). Negotiating in the European Council: a model European Union format for individual classes, International Studies Perspectives, 4(3), 265-274.

Fecha de recepción: 18/07/2016 Fecha de aceptación: 15/12/2017


L’INTERCULTURALISATION DES PARCOURS PROFESSIONNELS COMME PROCESSUS D’INCARNATION DE L'EDUCATION INTERCULTURELLE. L’EXEMPLE DU

TRANSATLANTIC EDUCATORS DIALOGUE

(INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION MATERIALIZED IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION: THE EXAMPLE OF THE TRANSATLANTIC EDUCATORS DIALOGUE)

FABRICE FRESSE 1 & LUCINDA MORGAN2 Visiting International Faculty, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, North Carolina /

European Union Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ABSTRACT

Spearheaded by the European Union Center of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and financed by the European Commission through the allocation of the Get to Know Europe (G.T.K.E.) grant, the Transatlantic Educators Dialogue (T.E.D) promotes educational and public diplomacy as well as transatlantic cooperation as means to explore challenges facing our educational systems in a context of international assessments, growing mobility and tensions across the globe. Intercultural in its core and conception, T.E.D. is an innovative online program for educational experts in the European Union and in the United States of America to come together for a shared examination of a variety of transversal topics, such as immigration, religion in education, active teaching methods and issues related to identity and difference. This article is based on the premise that one of the ways to develop intercultural education and global skills is to invest in the development of inclusive and intercultural networks of educational expertise.

Key words: Transatlantic Educators Dialogue, online programme, identity and differences, international assessments.

Contexte mondial : tensions, inégalités, défis et interculturel

L'entrée dans le vingt-et-unième siècle a été marquée par la publication de nombreux rapports issus d’organisations supranationales ayant pour objet d'établir une cartographie mondiale de la santé des systèmes éducatifs nationaux et de la jeunesse dans le monde.

En 2001, l'Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques réalise une première étude comparative, analytique et prospective des résultats du cycle d'évaluation PISA auprès d'élèves âgés de 15 ans dans les pays membres. Cette étude révèle que certains facteurs

1 Visting International Faculty. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte (USA). E-mail: [email protected]. 2 European Union Center, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Champaign (USA). E-mail: [email protected].

Fabrice Fresse & Lucinda Morgan


ont un impact significatif sur les performances des élèves : le statut socio-économique des parents, leur niveau de formation, la structure familiale, leur lieu de naissance ou la langue qu’ils parlent. (OCDE, 2001, pp. 148-172) Les écarts de performances tendent à se creuser entre les élèves allochtones issus de familles monoparentales et dont les mères n’ont pas achevé leurs études de deuxième cycle et les élèves autochtones dont les parents sont issus de milieux aisés et dont le niveau d’étude est élevé. 14 années plus tard, l’OCDE publie une étude ciblée sur les élèves immigrés et l’école dans laquelle les enseignants expriment un besoin de formation pour mieux appréhender la diversité dans leur classe (OCDE, 2015, p. 72). Trois années auparavant, L’OCDE recense 20% d’élèves décrocheurs en fin de scolarité obligatoire et un élève sur cinq ne maîtrisant pas les compétences de bases pour s’intégrer dans la société (OCDE, 2012, p. 11).

En 2015, l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé estime à 200000 le nombre d’homicides parmi les jeunes âgés de 10 à 20 ans (Kieselbach et Butchart, 2015). Trois ans plus tôt, le taux de suicide parmi les jeunes adultes âgés de 15 à 29 ans est la deuxième cause de mortalité après les accidents de la route (World Heath Organisation, 2016). En 2016, l’UNESCO établit que chaque année 246 millions d’enfants sont victimes de violences en milieu scolaire.

Pour tenter de permettre à la jeunesse de mieux vivre dans le monde, les organisations internationales conçoivent des cadres déclinés en objectifs qui permettent aux états-nations de prendre conscience de l’importance de ces enjeux éducatifs, sanitaires et économiques et de concevoir localement des dispositifs efficaces pour relever les défis que notre monde se doit de relever. En septembre 2015, les 193 états membres des Nations Unies adoptent 17 Objectifs de Développement Durable à atteindre avant 2030. En charge de la coordination internationale de l’ODD 4, à savoir Assurer une éducation inclusive et équitable de qualité et promouvoir des possibilités d’apprentissage tout au long de la vie pour tous, l’UNESCO aide à la mise en œuvre de l’Agenda Mondial pour l'Éducation au niveau national, régional et mondial. En 2014, la commission Européenne lance le programme Horizon 2020, programme de recherche et développement ayant pour but notamment de répondre aux grands défis sociétaux.

L’agenda 2030 des Nations Unies, le Conseil de l’Europe, et les derniers textes de l’OCDE mettent l’accent sur l’importance de l’interculturel dans la recherche et l’éducation. Dès 1977 déjà, l’UNESCO pense l’éducation interculturelle comme moyen de favoriser l’intégration des minorités et de prendre en compte la diversité. « L’éducation interculturelle s’intègre à une politique interculturelle globale d'interaction entre l’éducatif, le social, l’économique et le politique.»

1. Présentation du Transatlantic Educators Dialogue (TED) En 1990, la Déclaration Transatlantique marque le début de la formalisation de la coopération

entre les Etats-Unis et la communauté européenne et ses états-membres, en encourageant le développement des projets communs pour renforcer la solidarité transatlantique, notamment dans les domaines universitaire et éducatif. Cinq ans plus tard, suite au sommet de Madrid, pour répondre aux nouveaux défis de la fin du vingtième siècle, les Etats-Unis et l’Union Européenne et ses états-membres signent un plan d’action commun : le Nouvel Agenda Transatlantique. Le point numéro quatre, S’Unir pour Jeter des Ponts sur l’Atlantique, met en relief notamment le renforcement des liens entre les acteurs de l'éducation, pour développer la coopération universitaire, facilite les mobilités étudiantes, et soutenir la formation professionnelle :

Le premier accord Etats-Unis - Union européenne concernant la coopération dans le domaine de l'enseignement supérieur et la formation professionnelle vient d'entrer en vigueur. Il permettra la

L’interculturalisation des parcours professionnels comme processus d’incarnation de l'education interculturelle


création de consortiums d'universités et d'autres institutions de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique, qui s'attaqueront en commun à des projets novateurs et passionnants. L'Agenda transatlantique dans le domaine de l'éducation, aussi vaste qu'ambitieux, visera notamment : - à associer davantage les universités américaines au programme TEMPUS de réforme de l'enseignement supérieur dans les pays d'Europe centrale et orientale, en Russie, en Ukraine, dans les NEI et en Mongolie ; - à favoriser l'étude des systèmes de gouvernement, de l'histoire, des langues et des cultures des communautés européennes et américaines ; - à promouvoir la reconnaissance mutuelle des études et des diplômes universitaires ; - à accroître la participation du privé aux échanges éducatifs ; - à étudier l'utilisation des nouvelles technologies afin de relier entre eux les établissements d'enseignement et de formation américains et européens.3

Dans le sillon et comme illustration dès cette relation entre l’Union Européenne et les Etats-Unis, le projet Transatlantic Educators Dialogue est un projet qui existe depuis 2009. Il est financé par la subvention Getting to Know Europe, accordée par la Commission Européenne pour promouvoir la diplomatie publique et la coopération universitaire – dans le cadre du règlement instituant un instrument de partenariat entre l’Union Européenne et un autre pays.

TED est une initiative de l’European Union Center of the University of Illinois à Urbana Champaign, créé en 1998 avec le soutien de la Commission Européenne. Reconnu Centre d’Excellence de l’Union Européenne de 2011 à 2015, puis Centre d’Excellence Jean Monnet de 2015 à 2018 par l’Union Européenne, l’European Union Center of the University of Chicago Illinois faire la promotion de la recherche universitaire sur L’Union Européenne et a été reconnu comme centre de ressource national. Il a pour ambition de faire émerger la nouvelle génération d’experts sur l’union européenne et la relation transatlantique. Il est ouvert aux enseignants du premier et second degré, aux entrepreneurs, aux responsables politiques, aux journalistes et aux étudiants qui s’intéressent à mieux comprendre l’Union Européenne et la relation transatlantique.

Permettant à des experts européens et américains de croiser les regards sur les défis de nos systèmes éducatifs par le prisme de thématiques transversales, TED offre l’opportunité aux participants sélectionnés d’ouvrir un espace inclusif de négociation, d’intercompréhension et de coopération transatlantique sur des orientations nationales, transnationales et internationales.

Le processus de sélection des participants, qui se déroule chaque année de fin novembre à mi-janvier, permet aux candidats de prendre connaissance des attentes, des enjeux et du déroulement de TED. Un calendrier en ligne sur le site permet aux experts sélectionnés de prendre connaissance des thématiques travaillées :

Table 1. Calendrier des thématiques traitées

Session 1 January 31 Orientation Session & Syllabus

Session 2 February 7 Introductions and Planning

Session 3 February 14 Impressions of the Other and Cultural Awareness

3 European Union - United States Mission (1990) "Transatlantic Declaration of 1990. Web. 01 Dec. 2016. https://useu.usmission.gov/1990transatlantic_declaration.html.



Session 4 February 21 EU and US Educational Systems / Infrastructure

Session 5 February 28 Approaches to Teaching

Session 6 March 6 Youth Culture

Session 7 March 13 Immigration in Europe and in the Classroom

Session 8 March 20 Student and Parental Involvement in Education

Session 9 April 3 Building Safe Spaces: Inclusion & Approaches to Violence/Bullying

Session 10 April 10 Religious Education and Homeschooling

Session 11 April 17 Opportunities for International Collaboration

Session 12 April 24 Technology in the Classroom

Session 13 May 1 Reflection Session/Final Session/The Future of Education

Lors de la première session, les thèmes de travail, et les intervenants sont présentés. Les participants constituent des groupes de travail en fonction de leurs travaux de recherche, de leurs expériences ou de leur domaine de spécialisation. Avant chaque session, les membres de chaque groupe construisent ensemble une présentation en utilisant des outils de collaboration dématérialisés.

Chaque dimanche, de dix-huit heures à dix-neuf heures trente, heure de Paris, de fin janvier à début mai, les experts de chaque groupe présentent aux autres membres leur synthèse lors de sessions synchronisées de quatre-vingt-dix minutes sur la plateforme BlackBoard Collaborate. Les sessions sont enregistrées et les supports de présentation sont accessibles sur Moodle.

A l’issue du programme, chaque participant reçoit un certificat, le cas échéant des crédits pour la formation continue (CEC), des crédits de développement professionnel (PDH).

Qui peut candidater à TED?

- Les enseignants expérimentés : enseignement au niveau du primaire, du secondaire, ou universitaire, - Les enseignants chercheurs, - Les experts nationaux et internationaux, - Les cadres de l’éducation, - Les étudiants en sciences de l’éducation ou en sciences politiques

Les échanges se font en langue anglaise ; il est donc préférable que les candidats aient un niveau C1 en anglais. (Présentation vidéo de TED lors de la Global Education Conference 2017, 17 minutes, en anglais)

2. TED : La formation interculturelle, comme condition à l’éducation interculturelle Puisqu’il intègre des participants aux profils professionnels et aux origines différentes, le

programme est donc de facto interculturel. Il est interculturel puisqu’il met en lien des experts de l'Éducation provenant de cultures différentes, professionnellement et géographiquement. Inclusif, il est également interdisciplinaire puisqu’il fait intervenir des professionnels qui ont des parcours

L’interculturalisation des parcours professionnels comme processus d’incarnation de l'education interculturelle


universitaires et professionnels différents. Cette richesse résultant de la diversité des parcours permet de convoquer des connaissances académiques et des compétences professionnelles différentes et de les percevoir comme des facettes des enjeux kaléidoscopiques de l’Education et de la jeunesse.

Ouvert dans un premier temps aux étudiants des universités d’Urbana Champaign, de Sheffield, de Grenade et de Stockholm, le programme s’est ouvert aux acteurs de la société civile et aux enseignants chercheurs d’autres universités. Conçu comme un programme de diplomatie éducative, TED permet à des experts nationaux d’explorer et d’examiner d’autres cultures tout en pensant celle dont ils proviennent. L’exploration d’enjeux transversaux aux différents systèmes éducatifs permet un double mouvement de manière synchronique : un mouvement centrifuge vers soi, et un mouvement centripète vers l’autre. En effet, l’exploration des enjeux aux différents systèmes éducatifs n’est possible que si les participants ont une connaissance et une expérience précise de la culture dont ils deviennent des ambassadeurs et qu’ils donnent du sens à l’expression de la pluralité culturelle des autres participants qui dans un même temps leur permet de dépasser les malentendus tout en construisant des présentations conjointes leur permettant de penser une thématique dans sa complexité.

TED ouvre par ailleurs un espace sécurisé d’expression pour les participants puisque leur parole n’est contrôlée ni par leurs pairs ni par leur supérieur hiérarchique. Ils décident de s’inscrire au programme sans contrainte institutionnelle ou hiérarchique et leur participation a du sens puisqu’elle participe à l’enrichissement des échanges grâce à leur point de vue personnel, local, national et pour les participants européens supranational.

La participation au programme constitue néanmoins une prise de risque, puisqu’il induit un décentrement, une prise de distance des habitus, un effort d’adaptation et de compréhension des logiques différentes pour tenter de résoudre des problèmes qui se posent au monde éducatif et de mutualiser les informations, les bases de données et de mettre en commun les bonnes pratiques. Pour penser l’éducation interculturelle et faire comprendre aux élèves et étudiants l’importance du respect, de la compréhension des différentes cultures et de l’acceptation des peuples, TED postule que les experts de l’éducation se doivent d’aller au-delà de leur espace professionnel qui très souvent est homogène, de décloisonner les disciplines et de donner du sens à l’étrangeté de l’autre. Ils se doivent donc eux-mêmes de reconnaître le bien fondé des arguments de l’autre, de déconstruire les stéréotypes, de prévenir les conflits et de travailler avec des personnes issues de cultures différentes, parlant parfois des langues différentes, sans se couper de ses propres racines.

Les temps d’échanges entre les participants permettent « la reconnaissance effective d’une transnationalité, d’une personnalité interculturelle, sur le plan historico-philosophique et sur le plan individuel local. » (Dittmar, 2012, pp. 91-112). Ils sont en effet des temps de dialogue ouvert qui permettent d’intégrer des différentes modalités d’organisation sociale, politique, économique, et religieuse comme des possibilités d’investigation dans le champ de la connaissance et dans la construction de savoirs. Ils sont aussi l’opportunité d’ouvrir et de consolider des partenariats, de continuer les échanges et d’engager des projets d’études ou d’action qui dépassent le cadre du programme lui-même.

Au cours des années, certains participants ont pour des raisons personnelles ou professionnelles déménagé dans d’autres pays et ont continué à participer au programme. Leur identité devenue plastique, ils redécouvrent « les vertus d’un environnement de travail diversifié où la créativité et l’innovation se trouvent stimulées par l’émulation qui procède non pas de la



complétion, mais de l’ouverture, du partage et de l’échange des savoirs. » (François Rivière, VII). Non seulement ces participants sont parfois « hybride culturellement » car ils sont la synthèse de fragments d’origine diverse, mais ils s’engagent dans un processus de « créolisation » ou deux cultures distinctes finissent par être synthétisées dans un même corps. (Eriksen, p. 23)

L’utilisation des nouvelles technologies permet d’élargir le champ des interactions et d’ouvrir des possibilités de coopération entre élèves, enseignants du premier et second degré, enseignants chercheurs ou doctorants et TED est l’un des instruments permettant de « démanteler des barrières, » d’abattre des murs, de lutter contre l’exclusion et la marginalisation, et de donner du sens à la reconnaissance réciproque et au dialogue interculturel.

Références

Dittmar, N. (2012). Des enjeux philosophiques de l'interculturel. Alterstice, 2 (2), 91-102.

Eriksen, T. H. (2007). Globalization: The Key Concepts. Oxford: Berg, 2007. http://hyllanderiksen.net/Globalization.html/. Accès le 30 novembre 2016.

European Union - United States Mission (1990). Transatlantic Declaration of 1990. https://useu.usmission.gov/1990transatlantic_declaration.html/.

European Commission (1995). Press Release - le nouvel agenda transatlantique. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-95-163_fr.htm/.

Kieselbach, B. & Alexander Butchart (2015). Preventing Youth Violence: An Overview of the Evidence. WHO. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/181008/ 1/9789241509251_eng.pdf?ua=1&ua=1&ua=1/.

OCDE (2001). Connaissances Et Compétences : Des Atouts Pour La Vie | OECD READ Edition. OECD Library. https://goo.gl/4KXa9H.

OCDE (2012). Equity and Quality in Education - Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf.

OCDE (2015). Connaissances et Compétences : Des Atouts Pour La Vie | OECD READ Edition. OECD Library. https://goo.gl/pof46n.

Rivière, F., Kutukdjian, G. B. & Corbett, J. (2010). Investir Dans La Diversité Culturelle Et Le Dialogue Interculturel Rapport Mondial De L'UNESCO. Paris : Éditions UNESCO, Organisation Des Nations Unies Pour L'éducation, La Science Et La Culture. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001878/187827f.pdf/.

UNESCO (1978). Conference Intergouvernementale Sur L'éducation Relative A L'environnement, Tbilissi (URSS), 14-26 Octobre 1977: Rapport Final. Paris : UNESCO. https://goo.gl/o1aiGm.

UNESCO (2015). La Violence Basée Sur Le Genre En Milieu Scolaire Est Un Obstacle Majeur Au Droit à L'éducation. Education for All Global Monitoring Report: Policy Paper 17. Paris: UNESCO. https://goo.gl/yEvtxz.



EDUCATION ET DÉMOCRACIE

(EDUCATION AND DEMOCRACY)

BERNARD HUGONNIER1 Institut Catholique de Paris

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article s’adresse à trois questions : quelle est la relation précise entre démocratie et éducation dans les temps présents ? Que nous apprennent les résultats de la dernière enquête internationale PISA sur la situation de la démocratie dans les pays les plus avancés (soit l’Occident) ? Enfin, que nous révèlent les récents résultats des élections aux Etats-Unis, de nouveau, sur la situation de la démocratie mais aussi sur les besoins en termes d’éducation ? L’analyse montre que, dans un temps où les économies sont mondialisées, et à l’ère de l’économie de la connaissance et du numérique, il faut repenser le rôle que doit jouer l’éducation vis-à-vis de la démocratie. L’analyse montre aussi qu’il y a un risque de recul de la démocratie dans les pays occidentaux dû à l’augmentation du nombre de jeunes ayant une très faible éducation et à une diminution de ceux en ayant une excellente (c’est-à-dire l’élite). Enfin, le papier établit que face à une montée du nationalisme et d’un certain totalitarisme (notamment aux Etats-Unis), élever le niveau d’éducation de la population est certainement la meilleure réponse à apporter.

Mots clés : Éducation à la citoyenneté, démocratie, autonomie et esprit critique.

ABSTRACT

This article addresses three questions: what is the precise relationship between democracy and education in the present times? What do we learn from the results of the latest international PISA survey on the state of democracy in the most advanced countries (the West)? Finally, what do the recent results of the elections in the United States reveal about the situation of democracy but also the needs in terms of education? The analysis shows that, at a time when economies are globalized and in the era of the knowledge and digital economy, it is necessary to rethink the role that education must play in relation to democracy. The analysis also shows that there is a risk of a decline in democracy in Western countries due to an increase in the number of young people with very low education and a decrease in those with an excellent education (i.e. the elite). Finally, the paper states that, in the face of rising nationalism and totalitarianism (particularly in the United States), raising the level of education of the population is certainly the best answer to be given. Key words: Citizenship education, democracy, autonomous and critical thinking.

1 Paris Catholic University, Education Faculty: 3 rue de l’Abbaye, 75006 - Paris, France. [email protected]

Bernard Hugonnier


1. Education et démocratie La démocratie n’est pas, loin s’en faut, le régime politique qui prévaut unilatéralement dans le

monde (voir tableau ci-dessous). Pourtant, personne de nos jours ne remet en cause le fait que la démocratie soit le meilleur de tous les régimes politiques pour garantir l’avancée et la protection de la liberté.

Table 1. Répartition des régimes démocratiques dans le monde

Régimes Nombre de pays Pourcentage de pays dans le monde

Pourcentage de la population dans le

monde Démocratie complète 25 15 11,3 Démocratie partielle 53 31,7 37,1 Démocratie hybride 37 22,2 14,0 Régime autoritaire 52 31,1 37,6 Total 167 100 100

Source : http://www.actualitix.com/democraties-dans-le-monde.html (données de 2012)

Dans tous les pays, historiquement, la démocratie a progressé lorsque le niveau général de l’éducation de la population a fait de même et inversement. C’est ce qui a permis à la population, comme le notait Condorcet, de faire davantage confiance à sa raison plutôt qu’à ceux qui détiennent les rênes du pouvoir, et de faire ainsi reculer l’obscurantisme. De fait, il faut des hommes éduqués pour participer à la délibération commune et voter ; de même qu’il faut des hommes éduqués pour assumer les responsabilités du pouvoir.

Dans cet article, nous allons nous adresser en conséquence à trois questions : en premier lieu, quelle est la relation précise entre démocratie et éducation dans les temps présents ? En second, que nous apprennent les résultats de la dernière enquête internationale PISA sur la situation de la démocratie dans les pays les plus avancés (soit l’Occident) ? Enfin, que nous révèlent les récents résultats des élections aux Etats-Unis, de nouveau, sur la situation de la démocratie mais aussi sur les besoins en termes d’éducation ?

2. Relation entre démocratie et éducation Plus un peuple est éclairé par la vérité, plus il est libre et plus les chances de chacun de réussir

sont égales, plus la démocratie avance. L’éducation est donc indispensable car sans elle la vérité ne peut s’affirmer, les hommes restant ignorants ne sont pas libres et l’égalité des chances ne peut prévaloir. Ainsi, plus la connaissance, la liberté et la justice cheminent, grâce à l’éducation, plus les démocraties progressent.

Les grands auteurs de la philosophie politique (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau et Kant) ont conceptualisé l’idée d’un contrat social que la société civile aurait signé avec l’État naissant et dont les termes auraient été une perte pour chacun de liberté - qui prévalait à l’état de nature faite de violences, de guerres, et d’injustices - contre la sécurité, la paix et la justice offertes par l’État qui aurait le monopole de la violence. Dans ce contrat, cependant, l’éducation n’était pas présente. Pourtant, en contrepoint de la police et de la justice, l’éducation, comme on l’a vu, facilite le développement de la liberté. Par ailleurs l’éducation, à travers l’égalité des chances, conduit à une plus haute justice sociale, ce que les corps judiciaires n’autorisent pas vraiment. Enfin seule, l’éducation permet de se rapprocher de la vérité dont sont tant épris les peuples. Ainsi, tout

Education et démocracie


naturellement, un « second » contrat social devrait aujourd’hui être développé pour inclure l’éducation et des réflexions devraient être menées pour le conceptualiser en reprenant la problématique des philosophes contractualistes.

Mais si la démocratie est indispensable au développement de l’éducation, une éducation démocratique l’est elle-même pour le déploiement de la démocratie. Cela suppose que prévalent entre tous les citoyens une égalité d’accès à l’éducation, une égalité de qualité d’offre éducative et une égalité des chances. Or, comme l’a analysé Marcel Gauchet, tel n’est pas le cas en France. Et cela à un tel point que, selon lui, il existe un antagonisme entre la dynamique démocratique et la transmission des connaissances. En France, le niveau d’éducation est tout juste moyen et baisse avec le temps, ce qui entrave le développement de la vérité et de la liberté; selon les enquêtes PISA de l’OCDE, la taille de l’élite régresse et celle des laissés-pour-compte s’accroit ce qui risque de conduire à terme à un certain despotisme, donc à moins de liberté. Dans le même temps, les inégalités scolaires sont les plus fortes de l’OCDE et augmentent, ce qui signifie une baisse de la justice éducative et une augmentation des inégalités sociales. La démocratie risque donc de régresser en France. Si les pathologies de la démocratie dans les domaines politiques, économiques et sociaux ont été bien étudiées (voir, par exemple, Raymond Aron et Cynthia Fleury), il est temps d’étudier de plus près les pathologies de l’éducation pour faire avancer la démocratie.

Par ailleurs, la démocratie ne peut se développer sans une forte éducation à la démocratie. Quels sont les valeurs et les principes fondateurs de la démocratie que l’on doit enseigner? Liberté et égalité (l’isonomie) viennent évidemment en tout premier lieu car même si les hommes ne naissent pas tous égaux et libres, c’est le propre des institutions démocratiques de les rendre tels. Mais on peut citer ensuite la tolérance puisque l’Histoire a montré que c’est toujours grâce elle que l’isonomie a progressé. Autre question d’importance, quel type de citoyens les systèmes éducatifs doivent-ils former? Par exemple, on peut distinguer, suivant en cela Denis Meuret, deux modèles : celui de l’américain John Dewey, philosophe, qui cherche à construire une école adaptée à une société démocratique, une école libre, apte à se transformer rapidement, un laboratoire de citoyenneté favorisant l’action sociale et politique, formant des hommes libres. Et celui du français Emile Durkheim, sociologue, qui cherche à construire une école suivant une forme sociale idéale, donc plus rigide, formant des citoyens modèles pour servir une République modèle, favorisant l’intégration politique et sociale. Ces paradigmes sont-ils encore pertinents ? A l’ère de la mondialisation, de l’économie de la connaissance et du numérique, ne faut-il pas en penser d’autres ? Suivant quels critères et quelles valeurs ? Pour quelle démocratie ? Enfin, pour survivre, la démocratie n’a-t-elle pas besoin de citoyens disposant d’un fort esprit critique et de grandes capacités d’analyse, de discernement et de jugement pour ne pas être trop influencés par les diverses idéologies et démagogies et pour savoir développer leur propre interprétation du monde et de la société ?

D’autre part, à l’ère de la mondialisation, la démocratie ne peut plus guère être enfermée dans un seul territoire ; c’est le cas notamment en Europe. Il faut donc apprendre aux jeunes de tous les pays européens ce que sont les valeurs et les principes que défend l’Union Européenne, leur expliquer comment les institutions de l’U.E. sont elles-mêmes démocratiquement instituées et pourquoi appartenir à cette union renforce et protège la démocratie des pays participants.

Enfin, on ne peut que s’interroger, au vu du tableau ci-dessus, sur le nombre encore important de régimes autoritaires et en conséquence sur le niveau d’éducation des populations de ces pays. Il est en effet très vraisemblable que, dans la plupart d’entre eux, les populations sont à dessein

Bernard Hugonnier


sous-éduquées afin que la population accorde la plus grande importance aux dires du ou des gouvernants et que la moindre aspiration vers de plus grandes libertés soit restreinte au maximum.

3. PISA et la démocratie en Occident Selon l’OCDE (2016), les pays de l’OCDE ont continué à investir dans l’éducation et pourtant

cela ne s’est traduit que rarement par des améliorations sensibles des performances des élèves. En effet, de 2012 à 2015, les élèves, qui ont vu leurs performances augmenter, étaient ceux des pays en développement. Dans les pays de l’OCDE, les performances ont eu tendance à stagner ou à régresser, avec quelques exceptions comme au Chili, au Danemark, en Espagne, en Israël, en Norvège, en Pologne et au Portugal. Ceci résulte du fait que, dans les pays occidentaux, le pourcentage moyen d’élèves en grande difficulté, qui sont souvent issus des classes défavorisées, ne diminue pas, au contraire. Ce pourcentage s’élevait à 17,7 % en sciences en 2012. Il est désormais de 21,3%, soit une augmentation de 20%. Dans le même temps, le pourcentage moyen d’élèves très performants, soit l’élite, a diminué, passant de 8,4% à 7,7 %, une baisse en trois ans de 8,3%. Le premier phénomène pose un problème social crucial évident; le second un problème économique d’importance, les deux phénomènes réunis un problème politique majeur.

Avec la hausse des jeunes en grande difficulté, il s’ensuit, selon l’OCDE, que dans les pays développés, les élèves issus de classes défavorisées ont aujourd’hui 2,8 fois plus de probabilités que les élèves de classes favorisées de ne pas atteindre le niveau minimum de performances en sciences. Il y a donc de grands risques pour eux de quitter le système éducatif sans aucun diplôme, ce qui va entraver durablement leurs chances de succès non seulement dans leur vie professionnelle, mais aussi sociale et personnelle. De plus, les jeunes issus de l‘immigration ont en moyenne des performances inférieures à celles des autres élèves, même dans le cas où ils sont de deuxième génération et qu’ils ont donc fait la totalité de leur scolarité dans le même pays. Ceci pointe l’intégration scolaire insuffisante de ces jeunes, ce qui aggrave la situation sociale et dilue le lien social entre les communautés. L’OCDE explique en partie cet écart de performances par la ségrégation résidentielle. En effet, une fois pris en compte le statut socio-économique des élèves, cet écart de performances s’amenuise ou même disparaît, ce qui montre qu’il est davantage expliqué par le déterminisme social que par de moindres capacités des élèves. Il faut donc développer rapidement une école plus équitable et plus inclusive en lui en donnant réellement et durablement les moyens.

Avec la baisse du pourcentage d’élèves très performants, c’est à terme une baisse du pourcentage d’élèves qui vont rejoindre les filières scientifiques et techniques. Ceci ne peut qu’avoir un impact sur la recherche, le développement et l’innovation en général, et, partant, sur la compétitivité des entreprises et des économies. Il convient donc de redonner de l’ambition à l’éducation et d’apporter un souffle nouveau à l’enseignement des matières scientifiques.

Enfin, la simultanéité des deux phénomènes laisse craindre un impact politique négatif : la baisse du pourcentage d’élèves très performants peut mener à terme à une réduction de l’élite des pays, de sorte que les pouvoirs de toutes sortes seront détenus dans un nombre de mains plus limité. Rien n’est pire pour la démocratie. De même, il est inquiétant pour la démocratie que le nombre de personnes à même de bien maîtriser leur destin s’amenuise (avec l’augmentation du pourcentage de jeunes qui, à 15 ans, rencontrent de grandes difficultés à l’école, ce qui laisse présager qu’il en sera de même plus tard). Cela fait craindre une dérive inquiétante vers un certain despotisme. La défiance actuelle à l’égard des élites s’expliquerait-il par cela ? On sait les démocraties fragiles car quelques pathologies les guettent. L’éducation est la meilleure arme de

Education et démocracie


construction et de protection de la démocratie. Les contre-performances mises en avant par PISA montrent que l’éducation doit faire l’objet de mesures visant à améliorer rapidement son efficacité.

4. Les élections aux Etats-Unis et l’éducation A de maints égards, le 45ème président des Etats-Unis inquiète, que ce soit en ce qui concerne

sa politique internationale, ses projets économiques, fiscaux et financiers, ses intentions en matière d’immigration ou encore ses propos sur les femmes. Mais il nous inquiète aussi car, sans qu’on veuille vraiment le reconnaître, on craint avec lui la montée d’un certain totalitarisme. Ce dernier a été longuement examiné par Hannah Arendt dans « Les origines du totalitarisme ». Il est peut-être utile d’analyser à cette lumière la situation américaine actuelle.

Un des premiers éléments, qui caractérise le totalitarisme, c’est la montée d’un mouvement de masses constituées pour l’essentiel d’individus rarement membres d’un parti, souvent socialement isolés et qui se sentent soit spoliés, soit défavorisés, soit encore déclassés ou déconsidérés dans la société actuelle. Ils font certes très souvent partie des classes populaires, mais on trouve également des individus au sein de l’élite qui se considèrent aussi comme des laissés-pour-compte du système. Tous sont contre ‘l’establishment’, raillent les politiciens, se moquent de la respectabilité des chefs et n’ont rien à perdre si le système explose. Cette sorte d’alliance entre les masses et une partie de l’élite est le second facteur important qui caractérise la montée du totalitarisme.

Le troisième facteur est évidemment l’arrivée opportune d’un leader qui stigmatise la classe politique, remet en cause l’ensemble de ses objectifs, casse les codes moraux, impose de nouvelles postures, se moque des gens établis y compris dans son propre parti, et concentre sa vindicte sur une partie de la population. Cette attitude a un effet dynamiseur sur les masses qui voient l’arrivée de ce leader comme l’opportunité d’une « revanche » et qui, en conséquence, adhérent totalement à tout ce qu’il dit et fait, même si, et peut-être surtout, lorsque c’est excessif. Le leader est ainsi paré d’une aura d’infaillibilité, un des faits saillants du leader totalitaire qui en arrive à énoncer, sans sourciller, des contre-vérités devant des millions de téléspectateurs. Autre propriété du totalitarisme, sur la base d’une science que lui seul connaît, ses sources statistiques étant invérifiables (de sorte que ce qu’il dit relève de la propagande), le leader promet pour l’avenir un nouveau paradis ; selon le leader, l’avenir sera toujours plus radieux aussi bien pour le pays, qui deviendra à nouveau le plus fort et le plus dynamique du monde, que pour les masses. Ces promesses sont basées évidemment sur une idéologie comme tout totalitarisme ; avec le 45ème président des Etats-Unis, c’est celle du « deal » : à savoir que « nous américains nous imposerons la loi du plus fort, c’est-à-dire la nôtre ».

La réponse à apporter est à travers l’éducation. Non pas pour tenter de démontrer à ceux qui suivent le leader charismatique qu’ils se trompent et font fausse route – cette approche est d’emblée condamnée tel étant l’aveuglement des masses – mais pour travailler à une longue et patiente œuvre visant à élever le niveau d’éducation de ces populations afin qu’elles puissent, à terme, développer leur discernement, s’élever dans la société et y trouver un emploi de meilleure qualité et mieux rémunéré. C’est certes une œuvre de longue haleine mais c’est une œuvre indispensable pour l’avenir de ce pays.

Bernard Hugonnier


Conclusion

L’éducation est le ciment de la démocratie. Sans elle, il n’y a ni progrès social, ni classe moyenne qui s’élève, ni recherches, ni innovations. Sans elle, il n’y a pas non plus de culture qui enrichit les hommes et leur vie en créant des liens entre eux et le bonheur de construire ensemble le bien commun, en dû respect des droits de chacun. Education et démocratie sont ainsi indispensables pour le progrès de l’homme et de la société.

Références

Arendt, H. (1972). Le système totalitaire. Paris : Le Seuil.

Aron, R. (1997). Introduction à la philosophie politique. Paris : Le Livre de poche.

Fleury, C. (2009). Les pathologies des démocraties. Paris : Le Livre de Poche, Biblio-Essais.

Condorcet, N. de (1791). Cinq mémoires sur l’instruction publique. Retrieved from http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/condorcet/cinq_memoires_instruction/Cinq_memoires_instr_pub.pdf.

Dewey, J. (1990). Démocratie et éducation. Paris : Armand Colin.

Gauchet, M. (2002). La démocratie contre elle-même. Paris : Gallimard.

Hobbes, T. (2000). Le Léviathan. Paris : Le Livre de poche.

Kant, E. (1993). Fondements de la physique des mœurs. Paris : Le Livre de poche.

Locke, J. (1993). Traité du gouvernement civil. Paris : Flammarion.

Meuret, D. (2007). Gouverner l’école: une comparaison France – Etats-Unis. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.

OCDE/PISA (2016). Résultats du PISA 2015, OCDE. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus-FR.pdf.

Rousseau, J.-J. (2011). Le contrat social. Paris : Le Livre de Poche.



DEVELOPPER DES COMPETENCES CIVIQUES : UN JEU DE PISTE DANS LES CHAMPS DISCIPLINAIRES

(DEVELOPING CIVIC COMPETENCES: A TREASURE HUNT THROUGHOUT THE CURRICULUM)

MARIE-FRANCE MAILHOS1

AEDE-France

Abstract

In this article, we will show how the development of the civic competences called forth by European Citizenship, can be achieved at school through all the various subject-matters of the curriculum and does not belong exclusively to ‘civic education’. Because subject-matters are not identified in the same way across the Member States, we have chosen to regroup them under generic headings: ‘scientific’, ‘linguistic and cultural’, ‘artistic’ and ‘conceptual’.

This paper is not an attempt at showing that some sections of the curriculum are better adapted than others to the development of an autonomous critical mind; it is a rambling quest across the curriculum to bring to light the wonderful opportunities for opening the minds of our students and for honing their judgement, whatever subject we may teach.

Key words: Citizenship education, critical thinking, debating skills, cultural and intercultural understanding.

Résumé

Dans cet article, nous allons montrer comment le développement, à l’école, des compétences civiques nécessaires à l’épanouissement d’une citoyenneté européenne n’est pas le domaine exclusif d’une discipline, comme par exemple l’éducation civique, mais peut être réalisé dans n’importe quel champ disciplinaire. Dans les pays européens, les disciplines scolaires sont souvent définies différemment. C’est pourquoi, par souci de lisibilité transeuropéenne, nous avons choisi de regrouper nos réflexions autour de 4 grands domaines disciplinaires : approches scientifique, linguistique et culturelle, artistique et conceptuelle.

Nous n’avons nullement l’intention de montrer que certains domaines disciplinaires sont plus efficaces que d’autres quand il s’agit de développer une pensée autonome et critique ; nous voulons tout simplement effectuer un parcours parmi les savoirs scolaires pour mettre en lumière les magnifiques opportunités pour ouvrir les esprits de nos élèves et affiner leur jugement, quelle que soit la discipline enseignée.

Mots clés : Education du citoyen, pensée autonome et critique, compétences délibératives, compréhension culturelle et interculturelle.

1 E-mail: [email protected]

Marie-France Mailhos


1. Les disciplines scientifiques Elles permettent de développer un certain mode d’approche du monde. La démarche

scientifique repose sur l’observation du réel, accompagnée d’un questionnement pour dépasser les apparences de surface ; la formulation d’hypothèses, l’expérimentation contrôlée, la confrontation des interprétations; et, au final, le respect de conditions rigoureuses pour la validation des conclusions.

L’éducation scientifique des jeunes leur donne des outils pour aborder le réel avec curiosité et lucidité. L’exigence de rigueur qu’elle suppose devrait leur permettre de ne pas se laisser prendre par les discours à la mode, les déclarations hâtives, caricaturales et stéréotypées diffusées par certains médias et par les réseaux sociaux. Entrainés à remettre en question l’évidence et à comparer les solutions proposées en fonction de critères scientifiques, les citoyens devraient être mieux armés pour effectuer des choix, pour les justifier et pour agir en conséquence.

Bien sûr, les disciplines scientifiques apportent aussi des savoirs, indispensables à toute réflexion sur le monde moderne : la biogénétique, les recherches sur les énergies renouvelables, les nanotechnologies et les procédés de plus en plus subtils de traçage et de marquage. Mais beaucoup plus encore que les savoirs sur l’état actuel des connaissances dans ces domaines, il est important que les jeunes aient développé suffisamment leur capacité de questionnement et d’investigation pour aller eux-mêmes à la recherche de nouvelles données, une fois qu’ils auront quitté le système scolaire, et qu’ils sachent les évaluer avec toute la rigueur des protocoles scientifiques.

Pour illustrer ce propos, prenons l’exemple d’activités mises en œuvre dans les modules européens : les débats sur les énergies renouvelables et les choix énergétiques des différents pays représentés ainsi que la question de la mise en place d’une politique européenne sur cette question. Chaque participant a dû, préalablement au débat, faire des recherches sur la situation dans son propre pays et étudier quelques publications présentant des points de vue opposés ; puis, répartis en 6 groupes de 2 ou 3, représentant des entités variées : consommateurs ordinaires, ingénieurs civils et militaires, fournisseurs d’électricité, groupes écologiques, élus locaux, députés européens, ils ont préparé leur argumentation. Le but n’était pas d’arriver à une conclusion sommaire et catégorique, mais bien de mettre en évidence la complexité du problème et la nécessité d’une démarche reposant sur l’éducation de chacun, la mutualisation des solutions et l’obligation d’une vision européenne inscrite dans un contexte mondial plus ou moins stable.

Dans le domaine de l’énergie comme dans les autres domaines, les élèves d’aujourd’hui, adultes de demain, devront être capables de suivre les évolutions des sciences et des technosciences qui affectent le fonctionnement des sociétés, afin de discerner ce qui apporte des améliorations de ce qui peut devenir une menace pour l’intégrité de l’humain. Pour ce faire, il sera aussi nécessaire qu’ils aient acquis des compétences dans le domaine de la recherche et du traitement de l’information : tout document, toute publication doit pouvoir être soigneusement identifié.

Developper des competences civiques : un jeu de piste dans les champs disciplinaires


2. Les disciplines linguistiques et culturelles Dans les disciplines linguistiques, nous englobons non seulement les langues étrangères, mais

également la langue maternelle et la langue de scolarisation. En quoi ces enseignements peuvent-ils contribuer à l’éducation du futur citoyen européen ? A cette question, on peut apporter plusieurs types de réponses, tant les champs d’application en sont riches et multiples : accéder au patrimoine commun de la connaissance ; comprendre la langue des voisins européens et découvrir leurs cultures; apprendre à décoder, à décrypter les messages et les textes; apprendre les techniques de la négociation, de l’argumentation et du débat; être capable de reconnaitre l’utilisation sincère du langage et sa perversion…

Accéder au patrimoine commun de la connaissance : savoir lire et entendre une ou plusieurs langues est le moyen d’accéder en toute autonomie au trésor mondial des savoirs. Il conviendrait de développer ces capacités dans un minimum de 3 langues appartenant à des ‘familles linguistiques’ différentes, de façon à bénéficier d’un accès direct à un nombre assez varié de documents originaux, par-delà les subtilités de traduction et, surtout, en dépit de certaines restrictions ou censures plus ou moins avouées ici ou là. A partir de ces 3 langues-racines, un travail sur les familles de langues permet de donner des clés pour la compréhension des langues voisines et désamorce la peur de l’inconnu, en développant la confiance dans la capacité de chacun à surmonter les obstacles linguistiques. Les enseignants de toutes disciplines ne devraient pas hésiter à utiliser dans leurs cours, de temps en temps, des documents en ‘version originale’, adaptés, bien sûr, à ce que les élèves sont en mesure d’appréhender, pour les familiariser avec cet exercice d’exploration du sens.

Comprendre la langue des autres pays européens et découvrir leurs cultures. Apprentissage de quelques langues : au moins deux en plus de la langue de scolarisation dans la majorité des pays de l’union. Cet apprentissage approfondi donnera l’occasion de faire réfléchir les élèves sur les liens intimes entre langues et cultures et stimulera leur curiosité pour appliquer cette réflexion dans d’autres lieux et d’autres temps.

À ces langues ‘naturelles’, nous ajouterons évidemment le langage informatique et les techniques de recherche sur Internet, qui nécessitent aussi une éducation dès la formation initiale.

Apprendre à décoder, à décrypter les messages et les textes. L’analyse linguistique, structurée par les théories de la linguistique énonciative interactive et de la pragmatique fournit des outils utiles : qui parle ? À qui ? Dans quel contexte ? Avec quelles intentions ? Comment accéder à l’implicite ? Toutes ces questions doivent être posées dès que l’on se trouve face à un ‘texte’, qu’il soit oral, écrit ou iconographique, publié sur papier ou sur internet, ‘posté’ sur Facebook, Twitter ou toute autre plateforme. Sans vouloir faire de tous les enseignants des spécialistes de linguistique, il est nécessaire de leur apporter un certain nombre de repères qui leur permettront d’aider leurs élèves à décoder les messages.

Il faut mettre en évidence le fait qu’aucun ‘texte’ ou ‘artefact’ n’est jamais, comme on le prétend quelque fois, ‘objectif’. La notion d’objectivité est un leurre qu’il faut dénoncer le plus rapidement possible. Tout message, quel qu’il soit, est forcément ancré dans une subjectivité. Il a toujours été produit par quelqu’un, dans certaines circonstances, avec une certaine intention. Ce qui est vital, c’est d’être capable d’identifier toutes les références de l’ancrage énonciatif. Une fois ces références mises à jour, alors le texte peut être étudié, analysé et entendu, par rapport à la perspective dans laquelle il fut produit. C’est la seule manière de se prémunir contre la perversion du langage et le mensonge institutionnel, si bien illustrés par Orwell dans 1984; mensonge



institutionnel d’autant plus perfide et dangereux aujourd’hui qu’il peut être véhiculé, en mots et en images, à travers le monde entier sur les réseaux sociaux. Il est intéressant de signaler ici le travail réalisé par le Conseil de l’Europe pour aider à démasquer les discours de haine et à y apporter remède : No Hate Speech Campaign => http://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/

Développer les compétences de communication et d’interaction ; apprendre les techniques de la négociation, de l’argumentation et de la délibération. Il existe de nombreuses méthodes dans ce domaine ; nous avons, dans nos stages ELICIT-PLUS, beaucoup utilisé les techniques proposées par E. de Bono. Les cours de langues se prêtent particulièrement bien à cet entraînement, puisque les thèmes abordés et la nature des documents utilisés sont d’une infinie variété et, en général, laissés au libre choix des enseignants : en effet, dans les programmes officiels, seuls les éléments purement linguistiques font l’objet d’instructions ministérielles, les objets culturels choisis pour effectuer ces apprentissages n’étant pas codifiés. Le ‘cours’ de langue est le lieu idéal où l’on peut aborder des questions sous des perspectives inhabituelles, étrangères ; où l’on peut faire découvrir et apprécier le point de vue du voisin.

3. Les disciplines artistiques Elles affinent la perceptivité et la capacité à interpréter le monde ; elles donnent accès à un

langage intime et universel à la fois et c’est précisément cette alchimie qui permet, mieux que toutes autres, le métissage interculturel. Qu’il s’agisse de musique, de cinéma, de danse, de poésie, de peinture ou d’architecture, l’expression artistique donne à voir ou à entendre une représentation transcendée de l’homme dans le monde. Les psychanalystes utilisent d’ailleurs souvent ce type de médium pour accéder à l’indicible de l’humain. La créativité et l’imagination suggèrent souvent des solutions inattendues aux problèmes.

Un minimum de connaissances d’histoire des arts, des différentes ‘écoles’ qui ont façonné l’expression artistique en Europe est nécessaire aux enseignants de toutes disciplines pour mieux comprendre leur environnement et aider les élèves à découvrir leur héritage et à y contribuer ; voir Loyer (2017) et les multiples facettes de la culture européenne. Pour les enseignants de disciplines artistiques, l’étude contextualisée du patrimoine européen et des créations actuelles doit fournir l’occasion de mettre en évidence des points de vue singuliers à partir desquels il est possible de comprendre une histoire commune et des valeurs partagées.

L’architecture n’étant pas une discipline scolaire, où trouvera-t-elle sa place dans le programme des élèves ? Dans le cours de langues, bien sûr, mais aussi en géographie, ‘aménagement de l’espace urbain’, en histoire ou en sciences économiques et sociales. Une première question aurait pour objectif de faire apparaître la valeur symbolique de l’architecture institutionnelle. On peut ensuite faire apparaitre, à travers l’étude de cartes postales de paysages urbains, la similitude des préoccupations et des enjeux, par-delà les différentes manières d’envisager la vie quotidienne aux quatre coins de l’Europe.

Une photo de terrain vague peut être à l’origine d’un débat : simuler une réunion de conseil municipal visant une décision concernant l’utilisation future d’un terrain vague, en plein centre-ville, suite à la démolition d’un vieux quartier. Il ne s’agit pas ici à proprement parler d’une décision à dimension européenne, mais bien de pratiquer le ‘consensus procédural minimum’ dans un groupe multinational et multiculturel dont parle Davidson (1996), chaque participant apportant à la discussion son expérience locale nourrie de son histoire et de ses convictions. Plus importante encore que la discussion elle-même est le retour réflexif sur le fonctionnement du groupe, les

Developper des competences civiques : un jeu de piste dans les champs disciplinaires


modalités de prise de parole, les obstacles et les éléments facilitateurs : un exercice de prise de conscience du développement de compétences délibératives et de stratégies de prise de décision, centrales à l’éducation du futur citoyen européen qui va découvrir ainsi la diversité des pratiques sociales. C’est ainsi que les expériences vécues dans le cadre du ‘Parlement européen des Jeunes’ et du dispositif ‘EUROSCOLA’ sont particulièrement fructueuses.

4. Les disciplines conceptuelles : histoire, éducation civique, politique, sociale, religieuse et philosophique Nous entendons ici les disciplines qui abordent les systèmes conceptuels théoriques, c'est-à-

dire ceux qui sont construits entièrement par l’esprit humain, prenant appui sur des objets concrets. Ces systèmes intellectuels ont un impact fort sur les fonctionnements collectifs et sur les attitudes individuelles ; il s’agit du système des institutions, des organisations sociétales, des croyances religieuses, des courants philosophiques. Dans les parcours scolaires des pays de l’union, ces domaines sont abordés dans des disciplines variées que chacun pourra identifier.

C’est principalement dans le champ de ces disciplines que les enseignants vont pouvoir faire découvrir à leurs élèves l’évolution de l’idée de démocratie, que ce soit dans les cours d’histoire, d’études politiques et juridiques, en éducation civique, en cours d’éducation au fait religieux, ou en philosophie.

Les grands courants de pensée qui ont traversé l’Europe depuis l’antiquité et qui ont façonné notre paysage intellectuel ne s’arrêtent jamais aux frontières d’un état et l’histoire, au sens le plus large du terme, doit rendre compte de ces vastes mouvements et des cocktails variés qu’ils ont produits en rencontrant les spécificités locales.

Pourquoi placer l’histoire ici ? En raison des biais idéologiques qui déforment la vérité des faits. Au pire, on trouve le négationnisme et le révisionnisme. Au mieux, dans les programmes scolaires, l’histoire est présentée sous un angle national. On peut s’amuser à comparer comment est traitée la période napoléonienne dans les manuels scolaires des États Membres : de la Pologne à Malte, en passant par la Suède et l’Espagne, les récits sont en effet, contrastés. Il serait donc tout à fait éclairant, pour l’éducation du futur citoyen européen, de susciter sa curiosité et de l’aider à découvrir comment les différentes perspectives nationales colorent différemment les faits historiques. Les histoires nationales ne peuvent pas se comprendre si l’on reste à l’intérieur des frontières ; il faut prendre de la distance et se regarder d’ailleurs, se regarder autrement. A ce propos, il faut citer la publication du conseil de l’Europe : Crossroads of European Histories (2006) qui présente des points de vue variés sur cinq moments clés de l’histoire de l’Europe: 1848, 1912-13, 1919, 1945 et 1989. Dans chacun de ces chapitres, un panel d’historiens de différents pays européens expose les points de vue nationaux sur le même évènement. Cette volonté de ‘multiperspective’, adoptée par le conseil de l’Europe dès 1990, constitue une avancée particulièrement significative dans la construction des « points de convergence » indispensables au « vivre ensemble » des citoyens européens. De même, les romans, ou les films, qui présentent des points de vue spécifiques, en contrepoint ou en miroir, peuvent apporter des éclairages originaux qui enrichissent notre compréhension. Dans un récent stage ELICIT-PLUS (Strasbourg, novembre 2016), nous avons fait travailler les groupes d’enseignants européens sur notre atelier « People on the Move ; A History of Europe ». L’une des activités visait à retrouver comment est traitée la question des migrations dans les manuels scolaires des différents pays représentés : étude quantitative et qualitative dont le résultat se passe de commentaires.



Conclusion

Pour construire une conscience civique du citoyen européen, il faut trouver les « biens communs » qui permettent d’élaborer le cadre politique dans lequel cette citoyenneté pourra s’exprimer et imprimer sa volonté de «revitaliser la démocratie» (Davidson, 1996). Pour trouver les indispensables «biens communs», il faut apprendre aux futurs citoyens à « se rendre attentifs» aux «points d’entrecroisement», qui «ne restent eux-mêmes des carrefours vifs que si chacun apporte ses convictions, mais aussi les sources à partir desquelles il les alimente.» (Ricœur, 1995).

Apprendre aux jeunes enseignants à identifier les « sources de leurs convictions », les valeurs sous-jacentes de tous les actes éducatifs et pédagogiques de leurs pratiques professionnelles quotidiennes; c’est en général un axe fort des curriculum, dans les instituts de formation d’enseignants. Pour que cette réflexion atteigne une dimension européenne, il est important de permettre aux enseignants de se rencontrer et de comparer leurs pratiques et les principes qui les sous-tendent, en travaillant ensemble sur des objets professionnels.

Références

Angel, B. & Lafitte J. (1999). L’Europe, petite histoire d’une grande idée. Paris: Gallimard, coll. Découvertes.

Berthoud, A.C. (1996). Paroles à propos, approche énonciative et interactive du topic. Paris: Ophrys.

Davidson, A. (1996). Rethinking Human Rights, The Citizen who does not Belong: Multiculturalism, Citizenship and Democracy. Annandale: The Federation Press.

De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. London: Penguin Books

Dudley J., Robinson, J. & Taylor, A. (1999). Educating for an Inclusive Democracy: Critical Citizenship Literacy. Discourse: Studies in the cultural Politics of Education, 20(3), Carfax Publishing.pp. 427-441. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630990200306

Loyer, E. (2017). Une brève histoire culturelle de l’Europe. Paris: Flammarion.

Stanley, D. (2006). A Reflection on the Function of Culture in Building Citizenship Capacity, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Stradling, R. (ed.) (2006). Crossroads of European Histories. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.


International Journal for 21st Century Education, vol. 4, Special Issue ‘Challenges of 21st Century Education in Europe’, 2017 (pp. 51-58)

RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION MEETING CHALLENGES OF 21ST CENTURY LABOUR MARKET

ANATOLII LIFEROV1, LYDIA KOSTIKOVA2

Russian Academy of Education / Ryazan State University named for S.A. Yesenin

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to review and compare ideas about the changes taking place in the process of Russian higher education modernization. The methods used are theoretical and empirical (an analysis and synthesis of literature, interviewing, observation and analysis of the educational process at a University). As a result of the research it is shown that the modernization is complicated by such factors as insufficient financing, poor infrastructure, psychological inability of the professorial staff to comply with the demands of a modernizing society, bureaucracy, and lack of university-business cooperation. The development of Russian corporate education may bring about considerable changes in the sphere of professional training and retraining. It may trigger off a change in the role of traditional institutes of professional development. Classical universities are no longer the only suppliers of the labour force. In the contemporary labour market, they compete with corporate educational institutions. It is concluded that traditional educational institutions and corporate educational institutions will be able to collaborate effectively in post-industrial Russia. Traditional universities should record, systematize and transmit universal cultural norms and values. They should preserve cultural heritage preventing it from disappearing. The improvement of university-business cooperation promotes government-business partnership, which is well illustrated by the Skolkovo Innovation Center.

Key words: higher education, corporate education, labour market, traditional education.

Introduction

The gap between the quality of graduate education and the demands of a modernizing society is one of the causes of an education crisis both in Russia and in the world. The majority of traditional institutions of higher learning in Russia have always provided subject-centered curricula, which do not, in the views of many people in government and industry contribute to securing an adequate supply of qualified professionals required by the labour market.

Educators, politicians, philosophers, sociologists, and employers are now joining their efforts to mitigate the effects of the crisis of professional education. Negative appraisals of the present

1Economic and Social Geography and Tourism Department, Natural Sciences and Turism Faculty, Ryazan State University named for S.A. Yesenin. Address: Svobody, 46 str. Ryazan, Russia, 390000. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Foreign Languages Department, History and Foreign Relations Faculty, Ryazan State University named for S.A. Yesenin; Address: Svobody, 46 str. Ryazan, Russia, 390000. E-mail: [email protected]

Anatolii Liferov & Lydia Kostikova


situation coupled with versatile ideas for overcoming the crisis demonstrate the necessity of reforming professional education.

As a result, university graduates often find themselves in a position when they feel on the one hand the lack of skill, qualifications, and experience results in their inability to cope successfully with their professional tasks and on the other hand the burden of theoretical knowledge prevents them from moral and intellectual calmness. Furthermore, 75% of university graduates feel insecure because of their uncertain employment prospects (Smirnova, 2011, p. 46). In short, university-business cooperation, which is aimed at boosting students’ future employment prospects, remains an inchoate phenomenon.

The methods of research are both theoretical and empirical. Theoretical - an analysis of educational literature (monographs and articles of Russian researchers) on the problem, official documents and periodicals; empirical - interview with the members of the Russian Academy of Education, personal observation and analysis of the education process at modern universities in Russia and at Ryazan State University named for S.A. Yesenin in particular.

1. Graduate skills and employability One indicator of this lack of cooperation is disagreement about the levels of skills with which

students leave universities. There is a considerable gap between employers’ assessment of their new employees’ professional skills and university assessment of their graduate students’ professional qualities. Universities tend to overestimate graduates’ readiness for practical work since they either have a vague idea of real labour market needs or are unwilling to restructure the existing education system. They do not fully realize that there shouldn’t be any gap between education, work, and life.

The results obtained in a study conducted by an analytical center Expert and an independent rating agency Rate indicate that, according to higher educational institutions, employability skills include appropriate professional knowledge, information technology skills, knowledge of a foreign language (Podsypanina, 2007, p. 175). The study shows that higher educational institutions’ views on the employability of their graduates are rather optimistic. Meanwhile employers’ perceptions of the skills, knowledge and characteristics which help new graduates to be employable are different. Employers expect their new employees to have critical thinking and problem-solving capacity, ability to generate ideas, team working skills, and leadership qualities alongside appropriate professional knowledge, information technology skills, knowledge of a foreign language (Podsypanina, ibid.). However, the post-industrial man needs other skills and abilities such as the faculty of imagination, which enables one to create and explore a new reality; reflective thinking, which refers to the processes of analyzing, articulating, and transforming experience; abilities of learning, relearning, and self-instruction; creative abilities; communication skills; moral abilities including self-awareness and value determination. In short, results of numerous studies suggest that higher educational institutions have not yet accepted the need of considering prospective employers as a factor determining graduates’ employability.

If the state used to be the only employer, nowadays there are many companies of varying size and type of activity which are financially sound and willing to spend on recruitment activities and thus will determine the content and the orientation of professional training. It should be noted that universities as well as the majority of employers view the labor market through the prism of large corporations, although they employ less than half of working-age Russians.

Russian Higher Education Meeting Challenges of 21st Century Labour Market


2. Perceptions of the significance of science and education

On the other hand, some young people’s desires do not meet labor market demands. Young people give priority to legal and managerial education while the labor market is characterized by excess supply of specialists of this kind. At the same time in 2010 the labor market experienced shortage of 50,000 teachers, and 40,000 medical doctors whilst 40-50% of vacancies of engineers, technologists, agriculture specialists remained unfilled (Wolfson, 2013, p. 114).

This well illustrates a wide gap between researchers’ understanding of education and other people’s expectations. This gap is characteristic of modern Russia. The results of a sociological study conducted by the National Center for Research and Science Statistics of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and the Russian Academy of Sciences, demonstrated that Russians tend to underestimate the role of education and science. Random sampling of more than 2400 people showed that 2/3 of Russians believed abiding by the law to be the key to economic development, 44% of informants highlighted the importance of political stability and only 14% of respondents noted the importance of education and science (Pavlenko, 2008, p. 108).

Another gap between employers and universities is the question of certification. The almost unlimited liberalization of non-governmental educational institutions and their obvious impotence in the late 1990s made employers distrust diplomas obtained in the late 1990s – early 2000s. Employers believe that in the 1980s graduates were better qualified, and it is difficult to contradict them, since the number of institutions that were accredited to issue diplomas of higher education is almost limitless. Nowadays in Russia there are three thousand education filial branches per every thousand university. On the average, there are eleven filial branches per every humanitarian university and three-four affiliates per every technical university. Among them there are some pseudo-universities, the so called “diploma factories” which work under the names of brand universities. It should be noted, however, that recently the number of non-governmental universities that produce competitive graduates has increased.

2. Lack of interaction of Higher Education and Employers The main reason for the gap between employers’ and universities’ views on requirements for

graduates is weak interaction between education and business. Research conducted monitoring education economics showed that in the mid-2000s the number of companies that had no cooperation with educational institutions grew (the number of vocational schools and academic secondary schools grew from 59% in 2004 to 67% in 2006, the number of higher educational institutions grew from 51% to 70%) (‘Obrazovaniye i obshchestvo,” 2007, p. 40). This tendency can be accounted for by the critical situation Russian education experienced during that period. Since then the situation has been improving.

As for supply and demand in the labor market, specialists single out three main sectors of the Russian economy which differ in the degree of companies’ involvement with education. The first sector includes traditional branches of the economy (industry, construction, transportation), which seek collaboration with educational institutions of various levels. The second sector comprises innovative branches and is very much interested in collaboration with educational institutions. The third sector (commerce, public services) doesn’t actively cooperate with institutions of professional education, but requires high-skill labor.



Since the number of certified specialists in various fields is growing, the role of the third sector of the labor market will gradually become more prominent, since in recent years, economic activity has shifted from industry to service. The service sector provides university graduates with more favorable employment opportunities than the industrial sector. Thus, higher education promotes middle class formation, which is a significant component of social stability. The demand for novice specialists is gradually changing. In 2007, the majority of university graduates were employed by large-scale Russian enterprises and mixed companies. At the end of the 2000s, university graduates were mainly recruited by small-scale and medium-sized companies.

Today’s labor market demands graduates of engineering, construction, and transport universities. Modern employers are keen to hire trainable employees and seem more and more willing to invest in training new staff. By the end of the 2000s many Russian companies had opened their own training centers, professional training courses, corporate universities, academies, and so forth to ensure continuity of professional education.

3. Preparing for the ‘knowledge economy’ The knowledge economy, which has become the main trend in social development in the 21st

century, demands personalized learning, increasing personal responsibility and initiative of learners, universal skills development, holistic approach to pedagogical process.

It should be noted that the business community does not always set universities well-defined tasks. Russian companies, unlike western enterprises, which value professionalism above all, do not give top priority to the professionalism of their employees. This may be because in Russia professions are not treated as privileged social clusters the representatives of which possess expert knowledge, have social status and social trust, and perform unique tasks. Western sociologists maintain that professions and professionalism are characterized by structural and institutional invariability. In Russia professions and professionalism are treated through the prism of applied knowledge and practical or physical abilities.

The effective solution to quantitative and structural problems of graduate education is undermined by a continuous degradation of the engineering industry, the instrument-making industry, and other industries which are supposed to promote the innovative development of a country. In advanced countries, such industries provide 30-50% of total industrial production, while in Russia they provide less than 20%. As Grinberg (2010, p. 221) puts it “there is no demand for innovations in the internal market and industries that can transform innovative ideas into innovative products disappear”. Education aimed at the conservation of the image of Russia as a supplier of raw materials deprives university graduates of competitive advantages.

All these factors undermine the system of professional education and retraining and only broaden the gap between education and the labor market. The problem is especially obvious since professional knowledge rapidly outdates as a result of the increasing social dynamics, the constantly changing industrial and transport technologies, the significant economic changes. Every new generation of workers has to adapt to technological changes four or five times during their working years. In his work Intellectual Capital. The New Wealth of Organizations Stewart (1999: 400) says that in order to prosper in non-material economy organizations and people should master new working methods that differ from former skills as much as birds differ from stone. The formation of the innovative economy in Russia is hindered by the lack of rational methods of transferring scientific and engineering discoveries from the sphere of knowledge generation to the sphere of



production. It is important that modern universities prepare specialists who value innovation and are able to compete in the contemporary labor market and to promote the results of their work.

4. The potential for change The absence of a systematically organized labor market and the indefiniteness of labor market

perspectives hinder the effective reorganization of Russian universities. Quite often higher educational institutions are reorganized without due regard to real economic and social changes. It should be acknowledged that not all organizational decisions implemented in Russian universities (constantly changing educational standards and curricula, changing conditions of licensing and accreditation, the launching of the Bologna process without due regard to Russian university traditions) are sound. Speaking about such decisions Wolfson (2013, p. 35) refers to them as “the pestilence of reforms”. The representatives of universities believe that higher education modernization is largely impeded by the constantly growing supervision performed by petty bureaucrats. The specially designed organization bears a menacing name of Rosobrnadzor (Federal Education and Science Supervision Service), which better suits a penitentiary. Russian academic liberties can be lost before they have even evolved. There are almost no organizations that can search for and implement Russian innovation experience of higher education reorganization.

Universities are asked to develop numerous curricula and prepare various reports. It is especially detrimental since the majority of these innovation experiments are implemented not at a regional level as an experiment but at the federal level as a must. However, these innovation experiments are often curtailed for want of improvement. The educational potential of many Russian universities is not enough to introduce revolutionary changes. Specialists maintain that there is an urgent need to overcome the long-term underinvestment of higher education, the disintegration of scientific schools, the aging of teaching staff, the moral and physical depreciation of laboratory equipment, funds and so forth (Senashchenko, 2013, p. 12).

Nevertheless, Russian universities are looking for better ways of becoming competitive. They are interested in training socially mature specialists who have creative thinking and are willing to learn continuously. Universities are forming specialized departments, research laboratories, design laboratories, research parks, technology platforms, students’ business clubs, business incubators, innovative companies, etc. The interested ministries, first and foremost the Ministry of Economic Development, are implementing new models of stimulating university-business collaboration.

In accordance with the requirements of state educational standards, universities are recommended to employ practicing specialists at a level not less than 5% of teaching staff. Businesses, social organizations and universities actively participate in examining curricula, state educational standards, research and innovation projects. However, the collaboration of companies and universities has only just begun and is still of an experimental character. Each system functions separately and doesn’t fully cooperate with the other. Businesses cannot assure systematic collaboration with universities and are busy chaotically filling their personnel gaps. As for the system of higher education it is self-sufficient and independent [temporarily!] of business.

Examining the situation in Irkutsk region oblast, Vinokurov and Bratishchenko (2009) come to the conclusion that “the percentage of employers who strive to be and actually are engaged in active cooperation with institutions of higher learning is not very high. The other the representatives of the labor market “either do not want to spend their time on that kind of cooperation, considering



it not that useful and confining themselves to providing information about existing job vacancies, or else they are not prepared to do so for various reasons (a difficult economic position, a small organization, and so on)” (2009, p. 35). In these conditions, it is premature and incorrect to rate universities and to assess universities’ activity on the basis of graduate labor market outcomes.

Education reforms bring about gradual teaching staff changes. Leading positions are being taken by those who employ different methods (often different from traditional academic ones) to mobilize funding support, to involve students, to work on their individual brand. Students and teachers are devoting a significant amount of their time to creating and presenting an image necessary for successful participation in contests, grant acquisitions, stipends for education abroad, consultation services and so forth. A successful teacher is the one who can produce new knowledge and can sell it.

Russian universities are also adopting new education technologies. Many traditional natural-scientific, medical, engineering professions join social sciences to form integrated education programs. In the nearest future faculties and departments may become irrelevant and outdated and probably will be replaced by dynamic interdisciplinary programs which will employ replaceable professorial staff in accordance with their current needs.

However, to mask the obvious fall in the importance of fundamental science and to retain their expert functions, universities will preserve some traditional departments and some commercially unprofitable professorial staff. But it will be only partial measures. Under the influence of market factors universities will assimilate into the mainstream economy and will manufacture knowledge. The conflict between university traditions and new economic challenges will be resolved in favor of market neo-practicalities.

Today’s employers are not very much interested in their employees’ erudition and culture level. Knowledge and skills that guarantee commercial gains are the decisive factor. Thus, in modern universities traditionally educated people may seem amateurish. The major part of professorial staff, especially people of older generations are painfully undergoing this transformation. The low remuneration of professorial work prevents young and talented researchers from joining university faculty. The social prestige of university professors has considerably lowered, which has resulted in various employee problems. The solution to these problems is an important task of education reformation.

It is obvious that faculty members of older age (50-60 years old) are not inferior to those of a younger generation in research and education outcomes, even though officials try to persuade us otherwise. The majority of senior faculty members support the idea of university modernization. New faculty development requires reasonable combination of different age groups.

5. Alternative solutions Russian enterprises could not afford to wait for the restructuring of traditional academic

education. In the last 20-25 years, Russian enterprises have established various corporate training facilities, such as training courses, workshops, retraining courses, business schools, corporate universities, corporate academies and so forth. Some of them, for instance, business schools are affiliated with classical universities. Others, corporate universities, for example, are developed by large-scale Russian companies (Gasprom, Severstal, Ingosstrakh, Sukhoi, Rusal, VympelCom, Lukoil and so forth) and are aimed at educating employees and at solving strategic tasks. The



purpose of corporate universities is to provide company-related business education for employees in order to meet companies’ business strategies.

Russian companies do not only consume educational services but also provide them. Corporate education, which is less rigid than traditional academic education, can better adapt to the changing labor market and thus can be an important asset in overcoming educational crisis. Corporate education, being one of the modern forms of education incorporation, does not only solve companies’ technical and technological tasks but improves employees’ knowledge of management innovations. Traditional universities are unable to satisfy the rapidly changing requirements of the labor market, and since Russia does not have a rich experience of university commercialization, corporate educational facilities are an important asset in satisfying both present and future needs of the rapidly changing labor market.

The level of business education in particular is closely associated with the state of a country’s economy and civil society’s development. When the level of economy’s development is high and social institutions perform their function stably, educational institutions are capable of providing high-quality academic services. It explains why the geography of business education repeats the geography of highly-developed economies. Business education has reached its highest development in Northern America, Western Europe, Southeast Asia.

The development of Russian corporate education may bring about considerable changes in the sphere of professional training and retraining. It may trigger off a change in the role of traditional institutes of professional development. In the conditions of rapidly changing knowledge and growing industrial diversification corporate educational institutions get considerable advantages. Unlike traditional institutions, which use unified curricula of professional development, corporate universities create programs specifically for a certain organization, which is know-how.

At the same time, corporate educational structures are not opposed to traditional university education. We believe that traditional educational institutions and corporate educational institutions will be able to collaborate effectively in postindustrial Russia. Traditional universities should record, systematize and transmit universal cultural norms and values. They should preserve cultural heritage preventing it from disappearing. Corporate educational institutions should try to find the balance between cultural knowledge and practical knowledge acquired through professional activities. They should be aimed at solving present and prospective tasks. We hope that in the nearest future traditional and corporate educational institutions will be able to form a successful and effective collaboration.

6. Future trends Russian leaders understand the importance of studying foreign experience of personnel training

and in adjusting it to the reality of Russian life. They are interested in commercialization of university innovations. In 2010, the Government of the Russian Federation approved the act “On measures of attraction of leading scientists to Russian educational institutions of higher professional education” and allocated about 12 billion rubles from the federal budget (allocation period being 2010-2012). One of the collaborative international research centers will be Skolkovo Business School, which promotes a new model of education. One third of students’ time is devoted to lectures and seminars and two thirds to real projects, which students perform in groups of 5 or 7 in Russian and foreign (American, Chinese, Indian, etc.) companies. Skolkovo will host the largest international collaborative network of innovation commercialization.



Skolkovo Business School also allows the testing of mixed partnership in the sphere of university education. Among the founders of the school there are eighteen Russian and foreign companies and individuals. The teaching cost per student in Skolkovo Business School will be 10 times higher than in average Russian universities. It is believed that at the first phase of the project implementation there will be about 80% of foreign teachers with a vast experience in business consulting. Skolkovo Innovation Center will become a reference point for Russian modernization, a hotbed for a new generation of employees able to implement innovation in business.

The creation of the system of education which will adequately meet the requirements of modern society is a complex, long-term and money-consuming process. Suffice to say that by the beginning of the 21st century there was not a single country that had managed to create all the necessary conditions for lifelong education of the majority of its citizens.

REFERENCES

Grinberg, R. S. (2010). Obshemirovye innovatsionnye protsessy i imperativy modernizatsii rossiiskoi ekonomiki. In Yu.V. Yakovtsa, V.N. Remygi (Eds.) IV Tsivilizatsionny forum “Perspectivy razvitia I strategia partnerstva tsivilizatsii. Shankhai 12-14 sentiabria 2010 goda. Sbornik dokladov uchastnikov foruma, (pp. 168-175). Moscow: Delo Publ.

Krasilnikova, M. D. & Bondarenko, N. V. (2009). Professional’naia podgotovka personala: kadrovye strategii rabotodatelei.” Voprosy obrazovania, 4, 218-233.

Pavlenko, Yu. G. (2008). Nauka i nauchnyi potentsial kak istochnik znanii: organizatsia i upravlenie NIOKR. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravlenia, 11, 106-120.

Podsypanina, T. D. (2007). X Mezhdunarodnaia konferentcia Rossiiskoi assotsiatsii biznes-obrazovania. Transformatsia obrazovania v sovremennom mire: prichiny, problemy i novye vozmozhnosti. Rossiiskii zhurnal menedzhmenta. 5(1), 173-178.

Ponomarev, A. & Remorenko, I. (2010). Novye instrumenty vzaimodeistvia vuzov i biznesa. Ucheny sovet, 9, 4-6.

Rossiiskoe obrazovanie: tendentsii i vyzovy. (2009). Sbornik statei i analiticheskikh dokladov. Moscow: Delo Publ.

Senashchenko, V. S. (2013). O perekhode vysshei shkoly na novye obrazovatel’nye programmy. Alma mater, 8, 6-13.

Smirnova, E. O. (2011). Dinamika trudoustroistva vypusknikov vuzov. Sluzhba kadrov i personal, 2, 44-48.

Srewart, T. A. (1999) Intellectual'nyi capital – novyi istochnik bogatstva organizatsii. Novaia industrialnaia volna na zapade: Moscow: Antotlogia.

Vinokurov, M. A. & Bratishchenko, D. V. (2011). Cooperation between Employers and Institutions of Higher Learning. Russian Education and Society, 52(2), 29-35. DOI 10.2753/RES1060-9393531202

Wolfson, B. L. (2013). Obrazovanie v postindustrial’nom mire: krizis i reformy: Monografia. Moskva: MPSU.


International Journal for 21st Century Education, vol. 4, Special Issue ‘Challenges of 21st Century Education in Europe’, 2017 (pp. 59-64)

COMMENT DÉVELOPPER LES NOUVELLES COMPÉTENCES DEVENUES INDISPENSABLES AU 21ÈME SIÈCLE

(HOW TO DEVELOP THE NEW SKILLS THAT BECAME CRUCIAL IN THE 21ST CENTURY)

NELLY GUET1

Alert Education

RÉSUMÉ

J’ai publié un livre en 2014 « Virage européen ou mirage républicain ? Quel avenir voulons-nous? » dans lequel je présente ces propositions en détail. Elles ont été présentées lors de rencontres internationals TEE (Veszprem, en juillet 2014), Convention ICP (International Confederation of Principals) à Helsinki en Juillet 2015, Symposium sur l’Education à Zug en Août 2015, 4 Conférences annuelles du Centre National de Formation Chinois des chefs d’établissement (2013 – 2016).

Mots clés: Shared leadership, school autonomy, self-evaluation

ABSTRACT

I published a book in 2014 entitled Shift to Europe or stay by the Republican illusion? What future do we want?, in which I presented my European proposals in detail. It was presented at international meetings: TEE International Conference (Veszprém, June 27th 2014), ICP Convention (International Confederation of Principals) in Helsinki in July 2015, Symposium on Education in Zug in August 2015, and at the 4th Annual Conference of the National Training Center of Secondary School Principals (2013-2016).

Key words: Shared leadership, school autonomy, self-evaluation

1. Mes propositions pour agir Mes propositions pour rendre le système éducatif français performant émanent de mon

expérience de chef d’établissement pendant 22 ans (3 collèges, 3 lycées, 2 écoles maternelles et primaires, en France et à l’étranger) mais surtout de mon expérience au sein d’associations de chefs d’établissements scolaires depuis 1998 (Bureau Exécutif d’ESHA Europe (33 pays) de 2004 à 2007, d’ESHA France de 1998 à 2007, de l’AEDE-France depuis 2007, Membre du Conseil de ICP (International Confederation of Principals) de 2004 à 2015. Je travaille également en coopération avec l'Association Européenne des Parents (EPA) depuis 2000.

Actuellement, je participe aux travaux de la « EU STEM Coalition », Coalition de l’Union Européenne en faveur des STEM (Science, Technologie, Ingénierie, Mathématiques) et collabore 1 Alert Education: http://www.alerteducation.eu/. [email protected]

Nelly Guet


à un projet sur l’entrepreneuriat au féminin à l’EIT (Institut Européen de l’Innovation et de la Technologie). Depuis 2012, je participe également aux travaux de l’OCDE sur l’éducation financière.

Il est inutile de tenter de modifier les programmes, les méthodes pédagogiques, l’évaluation, la formation des enseignants, sans commencer par reconnaître aux établissements des responsabilités nouvelles. C’est au pouvoir local qu’il revient de transformer l’école, aux équipes de direction et aux enseignants, réunissant autour d’eux tous les partenaires concernés : les parents, les partenaires du monde économique et professionnel, ceux du milieu médical, scientifique, culturel et sportif. C’est au pouvoir local, ainsi constitué qu’il revient de disposer de la marge de manœuvre permettant de mettre en place une organisation capable de faire réussir tous les élèves. Essayons de comprendre pourquoi :

Figure 1. Schéma organisationnel (Source: http://eminent2004.eun.org/presentations/vandieten.ppt)

Le fonctionnement qui devrait appartenir au passé mais perdure dans certains pays, dont la France est basée sur le triptyque « professeur/élève/discipline » qui permet le cloisonnement des responsabilités entre les collectivités de rattachement et le pouvoir central.

Le nouveau modèle de l’école du 21ème siècle, qu’il faut mettre en place, se fonde sur la relation « Elève / Organisation apprenante (programmes, personnels et environnement) / Ressources (livres, outils électroniques, autres élèves, tuteurs, tests...) » et modifie en profondeur le rôle joué par l’Etat, la Région, le département, la commune dans les domaines de la formation initiale mais aussi de la formation professionnelle et de la formation continue tout au long de la vie.

Les maîtres mots de cette transformation peuvent se résumer ainsi :

Ø Une architecture scolaire adaptée aux nouveaux modes de fonctionnement : des petites unités de 500 à 600 élèves facilitant les activités de coaching, permettant au professeur d’être entouré de plusieurs assistants ainsi que de partenaires extérieurs. Il faut ainsi prévoir des « open space » et des petites salles de travail attenantes. Ø Un développement des potentiels, en interne, par une redistribution des tâches au sein des établissements, facilitée par les environnements numériques de travail.

Professeur Elève

Discipline

Ressources Elève

Organisation Apprenante

Comment développer les nouvelles compétences devenues indispensables au 21ème siècle


Ø Des partenariats inter - établissements permettant une collaboration plus efficace entre les établissements scolaires : ainsi, comme en Finlande, un élève de collège (secondaire inférieur) jugé apte, pourra suivre, dans une discipline donnée, les cours du lycée (secondaire supérieur) voisin, de même un lycéen reconnu apte, certains cours de l’Université voisine. Ø Une mise en réseau (networking), des établissements scolaires non seulement avec les Universités, mais aussi avec des Fondations apportant un appui aux établissements grâce aux chefs d’entreprises de la région, proposant des séminaires de management pour les personnels d’encadrement et les enseignants – devenant de véritables chefs de projets. Ø Le développement des activités liées à la santé et à l’aide sociale. Ø La nécessité de rendre compte aux parents et aux élèves.

2. Comment procéder ?

Selon une enquête publiée en 2008 par l’OCDE, concernant 22 pays, l’efficacité des établissements scolaires dépend pour une large part de la relation entretenue avec les autorités scolaires régionales.

Une seule instance régionale, accordant aux chefs d’établissement des responsabilités élargies, établissant des relations « horizontales » avec l’ensemble des partenaires, permettra le dialogue sur les objectifs, les moyens, les critères d’évaluation, avec le souci d’améliorer l’utilisation des ressources existantes, notamment par la gestion des personnels et par l’extension des pouvoirs des conseils d’administration des établissements scolaires. C’est ainsi que l’on mettra un terme au simulacre de démocratie à l’école.

Une organisation bâtie non pas sur les programmes, mais en faveur d’une pédagogie axée sur des thèmes d’études et des projets, doit voir le jour. Les parents d’élèves tentés par le retour au passé doivent admettre que « leurs enfants sont nés à une autre époque et qu’ils n’ont pas le droit de les confiner dans leur propre manière d’apprendre », un proverbe à retenir.

3. Pourquoi est-il urgent d’agir ? Lorsqu' Andreas Schleicher, au début des années 2000, a osé émettre des critiques sur le

système éducatif de l'Allemagne, les milieux éducatifs les ont contestées. Mais peu à peu, les gouvernements des 16 Länder, en concurrence les uns avec les autres, ont opéré de grandes transformations, notamment en accordant une plus grande autonomie aux établissements scolaires. Dans certains pays dont la France, le système scolaire est trop focalisé sur la fabrication de l'élite. Le monde moderne récompense non le savoir, mais la capacité d'utiliser le savoir. Esprit critique, résolution de problèmes, imagination, créativité, capacité de partager sont les compétences qui permettront aux jeunes de s'en sortir. Ceux qui réussissent scolairement peinent souvent à trouver un travail, car ils ignorent les évolutions de l'économie et de la société.

D'après l'association Think Young, la situation actuelle en Europe est alarmante en raison de la distorsion entre les besoins du marché de l'emploi et les compétences des candidats à l'emploi. Si 74% des responsables éducatifs estiment que les élèves au sortir de leur formation disposent des compétences indispensables pour les emplois offerts au XXIe siècle, seuls 38% des élèves et 35% des entreprises sont de cet avis.

Nelly Guet


La demande en ce qui concerne les professions scientifiques et technologiques devrait croître de 13% entre 2015 et 2025 ainsi que celle des professions associées de 7%. Deux millions d'emplois ne sont pas pourvus en Europe, notamment par manque de compétences dans ces domaines. Est-il besoin de rappeler les résultats de l’enquête PISA sur les compétences de base en sciences des jeunes Européens ?

4. Que doit-on enseigner ? et comment ? D’aucuns - journalistes, hommes et femmes politiques prônent, par souci de clientélisme, le

« retour aux fondamentaux ». Or ces nouvelles compétences technologiques, entrepreneuriales, économiques, financières, mais aussi personnelles et sociales, devenues indispensables sont à acquérir sur le terrain et à l'école. Entreprises et écoles doivent "co-élaborer" les formations, bien au-delà de celles concernant l’apprentissage car c'est à tous les jeunes qu'il faut proposer l'excellence et la mobilité, afin de rebâtir l’Europe !

Ce que les entreprises et les écoles ont en commun, c’est la nécessité de développer l’implication personnelle de chacun, son épanouissement professionnel, l’innovation due aux nouvelles technologies... Les compétences attendues au XXIe siècle ont très peu en commun avec des rythmes de travail imposés, laissant peu éclore l’initiative personnelle, l’engagement de la personne, sa capacité à mener à bien un projet dans un temps qui lui est propre.

L'OCDE exhorte chaque pays à développer une stratégie nationale pour l'éducation financière. Compte tenu des résultats obtenus par les élèves aux épreuves PISA de 2012, le Ministre français de l’Education a décidé de retirer les élèves français du panel pour les épreuves de 2015. La stratégie à mettre en oeuvre doit prévoir des aspects ludiques, prendre en compte la réalité environnante et offrir à tous des perspectives d’avenir.

L’économie numérique est déjà devenue un facteur clé de la croissance économique de tous les pays. En 2013, le secteur de l'information et de la communication a été responsable de 22 % de tous les nouveaux emplois des pays de l'OCDE.

Les travaux de l'EIT (Institut Européen de l'Innovation et de la Technologie) basé à Budapest, réunissant 28 États membres (bientôt 27), 5 communautés de connaissance et innovation - appelées Kics - (Climat, Énergies nouvelles, Santé, Digital, Matières premières), fonctionnant comme un incubateur de start-ups à l'échelle européenne, permettent de constater combien il faut accélérer le rythme des créations d'entreprises, développer l'entrepreneuriat au féminin, mais aussi, en tout premier lieu, transformer les systèmes éducatifs qui fonctionnent à l'ancienne !

Il est urgent d'organiser dès l'école primaire, ce que plusieurs pays européens ont déjà expérimenté depuis plus de 10 ans, par exemple avec " Jet-Net" aux Pays-Bas http://www.jet-net.nl/english, des pratiques à l'école, associant l'entreprise au quotidien, permettant aux élèves de développer des compétences scientifiques et technologiques https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBnwQ-vgdmI, mais aussi d'apprendre à entreprendre, à prendre des risques, à coopérer, à s'exprimer dans plusieurs langues, à anticiper leur avenir, et aussi à comprendre le fonctionnement d'une entreprise puis de l’économie nationale, voire mondiale.

C’est l’objectif que s’est fixé la "Coalition de l'Union européenne en faveur des STEM" (Science, Technologie, Ingénierie, Mathématiques) qui vise à faciliter, dans les pays membres de l'UE, l'émergence de stratégies nationales basées sur une coopération, désignée par le terme de "triple

Comment développer les nouvelles compétences devenues indispensables au 21ème siècle


hélice", entre les entreprises, le gouvernement et les établissements scolaires. Présenté le 25 avril 2016 par la ministre de l'Éducation et le Premier ministre des Pays-Bas à la Foire de Hanovre, ce projet a eu un grand retentissement, car ces compétences sont devenues, pour l'industrie 4.0, la priorité de tous les pays.

5. Comment transformer l’école ? C’est dans le cadre d’ateliers basés sur l’expérimentation scientifique, privilégiant la démarche

d’investigation et de recherche, de l’école primaire à la classe terminale, dans le cadre d’ateliers consacrés à l’éducation économique, financière, entrepreneuriale, incluant des travaux pratiques tels que la création d’entreprise, dans le cadre de projets européens les formant aux compétences interculturelles, que les élèves questionnent leurs propres valeurs et celles de leurs familles. C’est dans cette confrontation d’idées, liée à des situations réelles et non abstraites, que chaque élève peut aussi comprendre les convictions religieuses de l’autre ou son athéisme, qu’il peut éprouver le sentiment du « vivre ensemble » et accepter la diversité, sans être tenté de la combattre, sans la connaître.

Ce que l’on a coutume d’appeler « citoyenneté européenne » est constitué, de valeurs qui ne peuvent être transmises que si elles sont vécues. Les comportements de tolérance et de respect qui sont attendus ne viendront que si les élèves ont un vécu en commun. Ce n’est pas en niant les différences mais en les assumant que l’on fera vivre, en tout premier lieu, la démocratie à l’école, première étape, vers une citoyenneté européenne.

L’école a pour but de donner aux élèves « le pouvoir d’agir » d’abord sur leur vie, puis sur celle de la société quand ils seront adultes. Elle doit donc les rendre autonomes, capables de faire des choix, de prendre des responsabilités, de découvrir leurs propres motivations, leur potentiel et leur force de caractère :

1. En permettant aux parents, aux enseignants, aux élèves, d’évaluer le fonctionnement de leur école (notamment grâce au « profil d’auto-évaluation» Self-Evaluation in European Schools: A Story of Change 1).

2. En instaurant un « leadership partagé » dans chaque établissement scolaire, ce qui diminue d’autant le rôle de la hiérarchie verticale, devenue partiellement inutile.

3. En recrutant les enseignants, sur la base de nouvelles compétences devenues indispensables, non encore exigées dans certains systèmes éducatifs.

4. En organisant leur formation initiale et continue à partir des compétences-clé, reconnues par les pays européens, leur permettant de travailler avec la société et au sein de la société.

5. En impliquant de manière continue les partenaires que sont, entre autres, les entreprises.

Si nous voulons nous engager pour davantage de démocratie et d'équité à l'école, si nous voulons préparer nos jeunes à apprendre tout au long de leur vie, leur éviter la violence, le chômage, le manque d'intérêt pour l'école, l'anxiété quant à l'avenir, le manque de confiance en soi, alors nous devons adopter ces mesures dans les plus brefs délais, afin de changer la culture et la gouvernance de chaque école. L'avenir de l’Europe en dépend.

Nelly Guet


Certains pays européens en sont encore à légiférer à partir du centre. Ce temps est révolu et la Chine où j'ai été invitée à 4 reprises par le Ministère de l'Éducation chinois à présenter ces initiatives européennes, l’a compris !

Références

Guet, N. (2014). Virage européen ou mirage républicain ? Quel avenir voulons-nous? Retrieved from https://www.createspace.com/.

Jakobsen, L., MacBeath, J., Meuret, D. & Schratz, M. (2000) Self-Evaluation in European Schools: A Story of Change. Oxford: Routledge.

SLASH 21 - a new model of schooling or Secondary education redesigned – Schooling in transition. Retrieved from http://eminent2004.eun.org/presentations/vandieten.ppt


Documents

ÍNDICE / TABLE OF CONTENTSEuropean Commission, this programme, Transatlantic Educators Dialogue, usually known as T.E.D. enables participants to share their views on many a controversial