Barry Hake draws out key elements, based on his seminar paper, that can be used as development bases for the working groups at this seminar. The first working group focuses on the European level. Themes in this working group are for example emerging labour markets, developing competencies in a global economy, the experiences of students in other countries and mobility programmes and policies.
The second working group deals with questions and themes on the national level. It’s about issues such as social inclusion and exclusion, the probability of a massive inflow of new EU-citizens at the labour market, the role of higher education as integration instrument, refugee programs and the strategies in the HERN-countries.
The third working group, on the regional level, has to deal with, for example, the different approach to EU-membership in the UK-parliaments, the contribution of higher education to regional development, the active co-operation of universities with other organisations (profit and non-profit) and the disappearance of the societal aims of the university during the past two decades.
The first theme in Glastra’s presentation is ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. Nine percent of the Dutch inhabitancy belongs officially to an ethnic minority; seven percent are other foreigners. In the largest cities 40 to 50 percent of the inhabitancy is of non-Dutch origin. In his second theme, Glastra focuses on citizenship policies in historical perspective. In short: the policies went from multicultural via forced integration to assimilative, and the focus till the 1990s was on labour skills, in the 1990s on language acquisition, and since this century also on acceptance of Dutch norms and values. The third theme is institutional arrangements and policies. Citizenship is not defined in law, but it entails competencies to live a social live, integrated in society. Newcomers (over 18 years and staying longer than one year) have to follow a citizenship course. The main goal of this course is: integration through participation in the labour market and education. It consists of three aspects: Dutch as a Second Language, Social Orientation and Vocational Orientation. The final test is a language test, and three outcomes are possible: General Social Self Management, Educational Self Management and Professional Self Management. After this, Glastra focuses on the problems, results and effects of this course, which are: Drop-out rates are high, there are waiting lists for older newcomers, there is a minimal transfer to the labour market, and a lack of tailor-made programs so that there are no good programs for highly educated newcomers nor the illiterate ones.
In the overall assessment of policies Glastra blames the ambivalent ideological roots, a combination of liberal and social-democratic ideas, for the partial failure of the program. Also did the government trust too much on the so-called gate-keepers (job agencies and employers). Thereby is the definition of citizenship very poor: it refers to language skills only, and it does not provide newcomers with political or civil rights. The citizenship course, according to Glastra, is a symbolic and rhetorical measure. In his part about the role of higher education in this process, Glastra states that there’s no place in the programs for highly educated newcomers. Among refugees are high levels of education and unemployment. Prior learning is not recognised.
(Possible) new developments are: the participation of universities in citizenship programs for highly educated newcomers, initiatives in expertise centres of ethnic minorities, an increase in higher education participation of ethnic minorities and the emergence of networks and forums on citizenship and higher education by ethnic minorities.
Questions. In response to questions from Maria Slowey about language acquisition and the possibility to explore the development of multiple identities, Glastra states the importance of combining language and society learning. He also mentions the difficult times for national citizenship, and says that people form their own communities.
Katus tries to explain citizenship with the adult civic education’s aim: the good citizen. Important question is: who decides what ‘good’ is? Katus focuses on competencies and learning from a neorepublican approach and distinguishes three elements of neorepublican citizenship: political equality, plurality and action. After this, he continues with reflections on active citizenship, based on Van Gunsteren, and the civil society. Active citizenship is described as follows: "active, or vital, citizens organise plurality in such a way that a ‘community of fate’ becomes, or is, a ‘republic’" (Van Gunsteren, 1998). Obstacles to active citizenship are: social exclusion, consumerism, passivity and lack of competencies. The civil society is a social space other than government or market; it consists of voluntary associations (NGOs); it is not dominated by a political party ideology, church or an infallible leader. Characteristics of this civil society are: interdependent with democracy, schools of citizenship, spaces of social learning. cognitive praxis and cradle of new political actors. After a short notion on European enlargement, Katus describes the challenges for higher education, which are: accountability with regard to the education for citizenship, and the creation of learning environments where students can acquire knowledge as well as skills and develop the democratic attitude that enables them to organise plurality.
In his presentation, Field gives a summary of his paper. He starts with mentioning the pressures on higher education. These are: globalising tendencies within the economy, the reduction of the state’s role in provision of welfare, demographic trends (ageing of the population), the rise of the knowledge economy, and post-modern ways of thinking (scepticism about value of knowledge and science) The features of change, according to Field, are: the massification of higher education and partial diversification of the student population, a feminisation of the student population, the reduction of higher education as a special life phase, a loss of status for the academic workforce in western Europe, a semantic shift from university to higher education system, institutional change and the involvement of new actors, and the emergence of a competitive higher education market in Europe.
The second part of Field’s presentation is about citizenship. T.H. Marshall defined citizenship as "a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which he status is endowed" (Marshall, 1992, 18). He distinguishes three citizenship domains: the juridical, the political and the social. Important features of Marshall’s theory on citizenship are: the apparent primacy of civil rights, the broadening from citizenship over time (from market to state), the very specific analytic context and the focus on the social dimension of citizenship. Field mentions two areas were changes have rendered Marshall'’ account dated: the impact of globalising tendencies in the economy, and the decline of class affiliations. After this, Field raises the topic of active citizenship. The nature of active citizenship has changed dramatically in recent decades, partially expressed in the falling participating rates in elections and the declining of national voluntary organisations. On the other hand, smaller, special interest groups are growing. In Field’s view these groups represent amore individualistic and instrumental form of active citizenship, with few if any connections to a wider political community such as the member state.
Field’s third topic is enlargement. In this part, he tries to connect enlargement to citizenship and higher education. EU-citizenship is based on national citizenship and gives the following rights: the right to move freely and to stay in the territory of the member states; the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in local and European Parliament elections in the Member State of residence; entitlement to protection, in a non-EU country in which a citizen’s own Member State is not represented, by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any other Member State; the right to petition the European Parliament and to apply to the European Ombudsman. There’s also a wider conception of European citizenship, in which the creation of a Europe for the citizens stands central.
In the last part of his presentation, Field connects the foregoing reflections with the situation of higher education. In disseminating knowledge widely in society, universities make an enormous contribution to democratic citizenship, claims Gerard Delanty. Field describes four other ways in which higher education and active citizenship can be connected. First, Independent research on societal important issues can be an enormous contribution to an informed citizenry. Second, through teaching and research, HE institutions can create critical citizens, instead of just informed citizens. Third, universities are large corporate actors within their own communities. Fourth, higher education faces the challenge of radically post-modern theories of knowledge.
Field finishes with stating that: "creating active citizens through higher education in a wider Europe is a demanding task. It is also eminently achievable".
Questions. Barry Hake reacts on the role of HE institutions as a large corporate actor, and stated that universities are often big employers and can play a crucial role in regional development. John Field responds by saying that universities should be examples of best practise in their appearance as employers. According to him, they are not.
In her presentation ‘Citizenship and Higher Education in Latvia’ Jakobsone presents an overview of citizenship issues in her country. She makes an distinction between citizens, non-citizens and "new" citizens, and issues involved. She also sums up educational needs for citizens and non-citizens and the influence of higher education on popular enlightenment and the development of active citizenship. Jakobsone states that the present main problem is the quality of education in the Latvian universities. Universities should, according to her, become the main resource centres in the education system, approaching international experience, democratisation of society and demands of the labour market. Increase of the role of universities in non-formal adult education could be real inducement for initiation in them.
Novacek discusses some citizenship and higher education related topics, in the context of the Czech situation. The changes in society have their consequences for students, who are confronted with opportunities and threads, and they have to deal with them. Novacek stresses that he’s very proud on the younger Czech generation, that dealt very well with the political and societal changes in the last decades. Younger Czechs have a good language knowledge and the mobility of students to other countries is increasing. Although many students are interested in studying in the UK, Germany is the country were most of the students go, followed by France, the UK, Austria, Belgium and Spain.
In her presentation Zuzeviciute describes the concept of citizenship and the implementation of citizenship policies from a Lithuanian point of view. Policy documents on higher education identify several levels were citizenship should be considered. In order to reach these higher education objectives, the following measures will be taken:
1) Increase the accessibility to HE for Lithuanian citizens, representatives of national minorities and people from EU and other countries. 2) Monitor and meet the demand of labour market, provide students with the educational services, which enhance their change to compete nationally and internationally. 3) Foster the idea of lifelong learning and provide opportunities for lifelong learning.
After an historical overview, ending with the current third republic and the forthcoming EU-membership, Frankowicz discusses the role of higher education in citizenship and European enlargement issues in Poland. He does so by pointing out the facilities on different levels, which are for example the participation in TEMPUS and SOCRATES/LEONARDO projects on a European level. On a regional level, Frankowicz mentions institution building projects, regional projects, interregional co-operation, and co-operation projects in which higher education institutions work together with external stakeholders.
a) European level: mobility programmes, cross-border mobility, employability competencies, European labour markets – rapporteur: Ilze Buligina
Buligina first focuses on existing European mobility programs, and stresses the importance of intergovernmental, -university and –faculty co-operations. Although EU-programs are in place, only one percents of the students participate in such programs; staff mobility is even lower. The main obstacles are money, language barriers, passive attitudes, lack of full implementation of ECTS, lack of social skills, lack of flexibility for different target groups and the so-called brain drain. Positive aspects are the development of self confidence of students, changing paradigms of learning, cultural and social experience, praxis abroad, life experience, making new friends, and opening up new opportunities.
b) National level: social inclusion of minorities, e.g. migrant, ethnic, linguistic and cultural minorities – rapporteur: Mats Hanson
This working group focused on access to higher education policies from universities and countries. They noticed that the traditional institutions are bypassed by other institutions, like self-organised networks of knowledge or corporate universities, like Erickson University in Sweden. Members of this group are interested in the result of courses at different institutions. It’s about the recognition of diploma’s and accreditation by the government. In this area, they suggest possible future developments, like new ways of examination (portfolio) and a focus on competencies instead of formal qualifications. Labour market plays an important role here.
c) Regional level: active citizenship, regional and local communities, competencies to participate in civil society – rapporteur: Nikolay Popov
According to the members of this working group, it is much easier to speak about a European or a national level, than it is to speak about the regional level. It is an ambiguous term in many ways. The group consisted of five nationalities (UK, Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania); each country defines ‘regional’ differently. The group members shared a lot of experiences and examples and decided to continue their discussion by e-mail, because in the short time at this seminar, they were not able to get conclusions out of the conversations.
Slowey distinguishes five interrelated, distinct dimensions:
Challenges can be to give direction to ways in which different political and societal ambitions and interests can be more debatable, with regard to consequences and responsibilities.
What kind of balance should universities have between civil society, labour market and adult education?
What matters about the regional level in a time of increased mobility and individualisation? What is the use of our networks? Proximity access to tacit knowledge, network knowledge.