Civic Education
Compatibility of structures In comparison to the German field of non-formal civic edu - cation, the US field could be considered a decentralized “Wild Wild West”. With no national youth policy, the policy and practice is vastly different across regional, state and local levels. Compared to the robust public funding and publicly-funded institutions in Germany, funding in the
on the US side was less clear. By virtue of including “civ- ic educators” in the project title, we unintentionally gave the impression the project was intended for teachers. Adding “non-formal” or “out-of-school” to the description did little to clarify, so we ultimately amended to a gener- al description of “professionals working toward the civic development of young people (ages 14-29)”. Although this may seem a small hiccup in our recruitment process or an
U.S. more typically relies on private foundations and individual donors. Whereas in Germany we see myriad layers of networks organiz- ing the field, efforts to build a networked professional field in the U.S. are still in progress. Another key difference that has arisen often in the scope of the TECE project, is the focus on formal education as a ven- ue for civic learning in the US, with far less focus on
obscure detail, it points to the relevance of identifying compatible partners amid disparate structures. Ultimately, our selected group of US-American Fel- lows includes a diversity of professionals working at universities as professors and in community engage- ment offices, national NGOs that train teachers and produce resourc- es, and locally-focused non-profit organizations working on communi-
non-formal learning settings. “Civic education” is largely deemed a responsibility of schools, a legacy of the U.S.’ Founding Fathers ideas about public education. Certainly, the principles of non-formal education play out in other forms, such as “popular education” and even within for- mal education contexts, but the term non-formal is not used and the clear separation of formal, non-formal, and informal sectors is less evident, with many civic-focused NGOs working in partnership with formal education. Civic learning opportunities that occur outside of formal edu- cation settings often take on more action-oriented forms, such as “youth organizing”, “youth participatory action research”, and “service learning”. These structural differences in the field itself give us space for inspiration and re-imagination, but they also create complications in developing exchange experiences. With TECE, we set out to provide an opportunity specifical - ly for non-formal civic educators – a group with limited access to transatlantic exchange opportunities compared with formal teachers. In the German context, we had a clear idea of who this group would encompass and how to communicate that in the call for applicants. Identify- ing appropriate counterparts and communicating that
ty organizing and education. Despite the different work settings, formats, topics, and even target groups, there is clear common ground. Working across these structural contexts can actually benefit us by looking beyond our bubbles, but understanding these differences is a precon - dition. Finding a common language In any multi-lingual international exchange, communica- tion is a central factor. All the more so when the lingua franca is one of the party’s mother tongue, producing a power imbalance. Finding a common language, however, goes beyond this purely dialect-oriented interpretation. Unlike in the European arena of International Youth Work, a common, transatlantic working language around who we are as professionals and the work we do in the youth work and civic learning field has yet to be developed. To engage in topics at a deep level requires that par- ticipants clarify and grapple with and, when necessary, develop new vocabulary. Simply learning vocabulary and definitions is not enough to transcend the thought pat - terns and preconceptions that exist based on what our
10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs