Benchmarks for Tolerance Education Measures

The member organizations of the International Network for "Education for Tolerance, Human Rights and Democracy” have formed two working groups. While one working group concentrates primarily on practical issues relating to the education of democracy and tolerance, for example the development of new training methods, the other discusses theoretic-academic aspects of the network’s subject range. The working groups are supported by pedagogical and academic experts. STEPHANIE SCHELL-FAUCON is an expert in the academics working group. She is a researcher in the Pedagogical Department at the University of Cologne and a member of transfer e.V.. In her comment she discusses the issue of benchmarks for tolerance education measures.

Is it possible to measure the cost of intolerance in our societies and what is the prize of tolerance? How can we evaluate and measure the impact of the educational process of training programs? How can we develop a comprehensive approach concerning the pupils, the teachers, the parents, the community etc.? These were some of the questions that were thrown up in the framework of the first conference of the International Network "Education for Tolerance, Human Rights and Democracy” and which are presently occupying the minds of the academic working group.Normative codes of values

The demanding and complex nature of this project initially came to light at the first working meeting held in February 1999 during the extensive discussions on the normative codes of values which form the basis of the respective training possibilities. The network’s set of questions refer to numerous parameters ranging from issues of pragmatic relevance, the benchmarking of education processes in general, the particulars of the education of tolerance and human rights, to the optimal use of cooperation at international level. Even from the perspective of educational economics and evaluation theory, determining quality criteria which reflect the efficiency of tolerance education and which also justify the costs and expenditure is proving to be a difficult undertaking.

In numerous educational contexts or peace and reconciliation initiatives the question remains of how dynamic processes of this kind, which cannot produce any statistical output or product, can be assessed in a sensible way and optimized by means of formative evaluation.Collective tolerance cultures

Furthermore, the varying, country-specific context in which tolerance education is carried out plays a significant role in the framework of an international network. In addition to the development of individual skills, the predominant collective tolerance cultures in the respective countries are crucial factors that must be taken into consideration in order to ensure that democracy and tolerance are promoted efficiently. Therefore, the measurement of costs of intolerance for example, which was one of the first working group goals, can scarcely be realized at international level before the following questions are answered: Is there a comparable understanding of intolerance in different regions or cultures? What are the different perceptions of intolerance? What are the sources of intolerance in different regions of the world?

The network is currently devoting itself to precisely these questions. In my opinion, it is in comparative culture/country studies – which allow research methods and pragmatic education models to be put to the "intercultural” test – that the particular strengths and potential of the international tolerance network lie No quick-fire transfer

In this respect, it is worthwhile knowing the following: neither a quick-fire transfer of interesting problem-solving strategies from one country to another nor a simple comparison or linking of various national concepts are truly innovatory. International and comparative education science has shown that takeover and appropriation processes – in the sense of a straight transfer of concepts from one country to another, even in states with similar societal and political characteristics – seldom prove to be practical. In terms of the further identification of "best practice” in education for democracy and tolerance, we should therefore not lose sight too quickly of the contexts out of which cultures arise and of their importance. What is crucial is for existing, country-specific structures and approaches to be analyzed on the basis of proven problem-solving strategies by the members of the network and for these concepts to be further developed.

Cultural implications

It therefore seems of primary importance to me that the network, in designing a joint evaluation design and in graduating tolerance categories at different social levels, must bear in mind the cultural implications of the selected working methods. The proposal, currently under discussion, comes up with the idea of looking towards quality management models for approaches. The findings which are being uncovered from the application of this proposal, for example in transition countries, should be utilized, for this is ultimately one of the particular merits of international cooperation.

Index: Podium

Building Bridges
-Presentation of our Network

Portrait
The Adam Institute for Democracy and Peace

Education for Tolerance in Northern Ireland
by Seamus Dunn

Expert's Commentary
by Stephanie Schell-Faucon