EPALE - Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe

European policies and the national policies of Belgium, France and Luxembourg focus on access to training by persons who are less qualified and alienated from the work place.  The teams of EPALE (Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe) and EAAL (European Agenda for Adult Learning) from these three countries have therefore decided to organize jointly a conference to broach the issue of the role played by adult training in social inclusion. This event will provide a prime opportunity for the different stakeholders in this matter to meet.

How is social exclusion to be defined?  What sociological reality does it cover at European level? What national adult training mechanisms are put in place in the three countries? How is Europe addressing this challenge?

Three inclusive training mechanisms in Belgium, France and Luxembourg

Jean Vanderspelden

More than 200 people responded to the joint invitation from the EPALE[1]/AEFA of the three French-speaking countries to share benchmarks and enhance good practices concerning the impact of adult training on inclusion, in particular for the most vulnerable segments of society who are alienated from the work place. Prior to the introduction of the conference (partially reversed), Eric Mangez, a sociologist at the Catholic University of Louvain, underscored the different acceleration effects on our society that are greatly disrupting inclusion processes. They are constantly generating complexity, and therefore uncertainty, which European citizens, especially those less skilled, assume with mixed reactions by weakening their integration “capacity” or by making our society paradoxically increasingly more selective.

Michèle Minne, senior attaché of the Alpha Unit at the Ministry of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, went straight to the heart of the matter by presenting, first the main lines of action relating to a Belgian call for proposals:  “I take my place in society” [2], then the main lessons drawn from this experiment conducted by the ESF. The target public consisted of young adults aged 16 to 25, either NEET in Wallonia, or in initial exclusion in Brussels. In the ten projects selected, three lines of training and support were worked into a co-construction rationale with the learners:  refresher training, digital skills and citizenship. At issue in each action was to remobilize people with often collective, non-formal activities rooted in their territory, concerning self-esteem and renewed confidence. Michèle Minne zoomed in on two actions:  the first pertained to the discovery and appropriation of their environment through a search and critical use of local data, with individual coaching; the second with women from migrant backgrounds in Molenbeek, to facilitate integration in existing activities in this municipality through culture, sport and IT.

As director of the “Grande École du Numérique” Samia Ghozlane [3] presented the rationale of this initiative launched in France in 2015. Contrary to its name, the “GEN” is not a school, but a national network. This network has a label and a financial start-up  impetus to encourage and help organizations to give rather vulnerable young people an opportunity to undergo training in the various computer coding techniques. With the help of the Programme d’Investissement d’Avenir (PIA) [Investment Programme for the Future], this initiative was launched on a paradoxical double observation: Not only does France lack skills in the booming digital sector, but nearly 120,000 young people leave the school system every year with no qualification! Various conditions have been set for obtaining this label:  the free training, 50% unskilled workforce, 30% women, priority neighbourhoods, etc.  At the end of 2017, more than 400 actions under the “GEN” label trained more than 11,400 people with a placement rate of around 74%. The Economic Interest Grouping (meeting of public, joint and private partners) which manages this major operation, endeavours to bolster innovative operations by working more on social assistance (health, housing, mobility, etc.). 

Raymond Cecotto, director of the Association des Parents d’Enfants Mentalement Handicapés (APEMH) [Association of Parents with Mentally Handicapped Children], based in Luxembourg, expanded the range of training actions for inclusion by explaining the integration of mentally handicapped or deficient persons.  This association is run essentially by parents, relatives, and helpers. It is supported by the public authorities of Luxembourg. It positions itself as a “Skills and Recognition Centre” to help professionals and volunteers take better account of the needs, wishes but also expertise of adults with disabilities. It is a new form of advice and support, where the roles can be reversed  in part to charter new paths based on what persons with disabilities want: I want to go and live in town, I want to prepare my retirement, I want to live with my body and my sexuality, I want to share my knowledge, etc. This is based on a participatory approach, where training professionals have to coordinate and enhance the collective, self-training efforts, while taking into account the specific characteristics and expectations of the groups concerned. All these local actions (FORCA, ENABLE, INCOUBA and others) are provided with methodological advice and guidance with the support of an Erasmus+ programme to facilitate interactions between peers so as to consolidate these innovative actions.

Putting these three inclusive training mechanisms in Belgium, France and Luxembourg in perspective led to the identification of three common lines of action:  Turn away from the diploma rationale to approach and support learners differently, propose a joint construction of the personalized path, and finally rely on mutual assistance and on the informal and collective dimensions. We also observe a possible and partial role reversal between learners and teachers.

All these projects include digital skills, one of the eight key skills of the European frame of reference. The announced disappearance of many jobs with the automation waves brought about by the digitization of various sectors, raises the question of the conditions of inclusion in our society. This inclusion will not (necessarily) be achieved through stable employment. A learner could become the only stable job option.

What is Europe doing for social inclusion?

Géraldine Marquet

The second roundtable of the European conference held in Brussels on 25 October was entitled “What is Europe doing for training and social inclusion?”

Alexia Samule – Policy assistance for the “Adult Skills” team, European Commission (UPs, European Pillar of Social Rights) -, Maude Sire – Head of the focal point for promotion of the Erasmus+ Agency France / Education and Training, AEFA-EPALE-, Babsy Poos– Member of the management authority of the ESF Luxembourg, Jacqueline Pacaud – Head of Erasmus+ sector, education, vocational training, adult skills and education, European Commission  convened to take stock of the European tools for the promotion of social inclusion through training.

Excerpts from their contributions are provided below:

Alexia Samuel started by going over the challenges that Europe faces today: 1 out of 4 or 5 citizens is at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2017, while there are many uncertainties including globalization, the threat to certain jobs, the liberalization of public services, climate change, etc.  Training and social inclusion are correlated areas – research shows that skills improvement is connected to a better standard of living, better employability, but also better health and better democratic participation… 70 million people in Europe who are unskilled, i.e. they do not have an upper secondary school leaver’s certificate, participate less in training than the others.

The reasons include the financial obstacle for a third of them, and a lack of support from the employer or public services. This has to be addressed by all stakeholders in the sector: there are structural training challenges in terms of lack of coordination… Another challenge (underestimated according to Alexia Samuel) is that 80% of unskilled persons do not attend training because of a lack of motivation, itself due to the fact that they are not necessarily aware of the benefits that such training can bring.  There is also a wide variety of training systems in the Member States, with financing in the countries that reflects the different situations. Finally, the challenges include structural sector programmes (in particular lack of coordination, fragmented service, quality assurance that is difficult to implement at times, etc.). The European Commission is aware that “adult training plays a key role for social inclusion, that a lot remains to be done.  Our role is to try and provide a coordinated response to those challenges.”

She underscored that this is not a new issue for Europe and for the European Commission: with the Treaty of Rome, then the political emphasis on lifelong education and training, in particular with the Copenhagen process, the European adult agenda with its renewed priorities in 2015, the Riga process, etc. social inclusion is at the heart of the policy frameworks for adult education and vocational training. There is also the initiative of 2017, the European pillar of social rights, the prime principle of which is the “right to education, training and lifelong learning.”

A new skills strategy for Europe was adopted in 2016 to address the challenge of skills in Europe in a coordinated manner. Upskilling Pathways in particular recommends to the Member States to provide unskilled citizens with training and requalification opportunities: the path comprises three steps (skill assessment, training, accreditation and recognition) and is aimed at reinforcing basic reading, writing, arithmetic and digital skills. ''The added value of this initiative,” she underscores, “is to provide a coherent path between these three steps for the individuals and that the stakeholders understand each other in terms of training and financial engineering, in a spirit of partnership, so that the learner can develop in a relatively coherent and simple manner through the training and qualification mechanisms.”

And afterwards? Alexia Samuel pointed out that it is “clear that the most vulnerable, least qualified adults will remain at the centre of the training efforts.” On the financing side, “the idea is to note that Europe is already investing a great deal in skills and in the human dimension, particularly, through Erasmus+, the ESF” … “an investment that Europe has made, continues to make and will continue to make in human beings.”

Maude SIRE went over some figures first:  In “30 years i.e. from 1987 to 2017, 9 million people have gone through projects, through mobility schemes, under Erasmus and the previous programmes.”  “And Erasmus+,” she added, is “more Erasmus for all;”  young people (students, young people in vocational training, etc.),  all those she calls “pedagogues” in the broad meaning of the term:  trainers, educators, teachers;  thanks to Erasmus+, various stakeholders, communities, education stakeholders, etc.  can all work together also.”

The budget for Erasmus+ for all of Europe under the current programme (2014-2020) will reach ca. €15 billion for the period.  Two sectors are dedicated to adults: vocational training and adult education,  “with nearly 30% of the Erasmus budget allocated to these two sectors.”

What does Erasmus+ finance?  The “mobility” of young people and “pedagogues,” whether for training, an internship, exchange programmes, etc. (“Key action 1”); cooperation projects between the different education stakeholders (“Key action 2”), irrespective of the scale of the project and the diversity of these projects, ''which allows for nearly every type of structure to be able to engage in European cooperation schemes,” Maude Sire underscores.  There is also a system of support for the Member States in the education field – the European agenda for adult training and education is part of it.  Finally, a certain number of tools are also made available to education and training stakeholders, among which EPALE, a tool for exchange of resources and contacts for adult education and training stakeholders.

The two imperative dimensions in applying for ERASMUS+ financing, according to Maude Sire, are partners in Europe, and the educational dimension – whether formal, informal or non-formal education and training.

She added that in “99% of the cases, such financing does not require co-financing.. and most of such financing is flat rate: a part of all the funds of the project is made available in the first three months, and the rest is provided at the time of the final report,” which is also a “security framework,” particularly from the smaller structures.

Maud Sire concludes:  “Make projects!”

Babsy Poos indicated that for the European Social Fund, which was set up with the Treaty of Rome, the social dimension is at the heart of the considerations.  Social inclusion and adult training are two of the main activities of the ESF for the period 2014-2020. She went over the four priorities of the ESF:  “promoting sustainable employment; promoting inclusion; investing in education and training; enhancing institutional capacities.” The activities and target groups are widely varied. For social inclusion, the ESF regulation provides that at least 20% of the budget in every country should be allocated to social inclusion, and for the post-2020 period, the European Commission has proposed 25%.

She set forth two principles enshrined in the ESF regulation: “partnership,” a partnership between the European Commission and the national and regional authorities to set priorities every 7 years for each Member State and for each programme…” and “co-financing”  -- there is always a national part and a European part, which may vary from country to country.

The labour market is undergoing profound changes, she underscored, so “it is absolutely vital to invest in digital and other new skills.”…. “And the ESF is really a very interesting instrument to be able to support projects in this sense, because the ESF pays particular attention to the innovative aspect… This is moreover a means to make cooperation schemes transnational.”

In conclusion, Babsy Poos gave the example, in video, of “one of our projects, which has been going on since 2015: the Fit4Coding... a project in cooperation with our employment Agency, ADEM:  coding courses, to confer qualifications on jobseekers so that they can find work in new digital jobs.”

Jacqueline Pacaud pointed out first of all that “an entire political process has been put in place so as to get Member States to cooperate, and there are programmes… The main programme for education is Erasmus+, but there are also other programmes, other tools, which finance training, such as the ESF.” The European programmes very often run for 7 years… the current  Erasmus+ programme is valid for the period 2014-2020.” What will happen afterwards?'

The European Commission has adopted a proposal for the period 2021-2027. This proposal is currently being debated in the European Parliament and in the Council. Jacqueline Pacaud indicated that she could “already give (us) some information.” … “in the conditional, because obviously everything is submitted  for a final decision by the Parliament and the Council.”

''The budget of the new programme which will a priori be called Erasmus, will go from €15 billion to €30 billon over a period of 7 years for the 28 Member States and always for the education and training sectors.” … “ The word inclusion appears as of the very first articles of this legal base as proposed by the European Commission…. This means that inclusion is an effective part of the major objectives of the next period.”... “ More money obviously means  more actions, more financing,, more mobility, etc. There will also be more money for cooperation projects.”

Jacqueline Pacaud pointed out that already today, the guide of the Erasmus+ programme, shows clearly that social  inclusion is part of the objectives in “strategic partners.” Two examples of financed projects are cited:  “En movement” [In motion] and 'L'Encyclopédie des migrants'' [Encyclopaedia of Migrants].

She added that the Erasmus+ programme also entails calls for specific projects; accordingly, a specific call for projects on “social inclusion” was launched in 2018. It comprised 31 projects which were selected thanks to a budget of €14 million specifically for this theme for all sectors combined.

Things will be even better in future, Jacqueline Pacaud, ''thanks to an increased budget and clear objectives, but also because of a simpler, more inclusive  “modus operandi” so that “everybody can participate including small organizations.” 

Jacqueline Pacaud concludes:  “Go take a look at all the projects… They are available online… you will see what we are doing, above all with whom… and that will give you ideas of potential partnerships.”

WORKSHOP 1 – Is individualization of training an inclusive principle?

Reporting blog by Patrick Mayen

This blog reports the discussions and contributions of a workshop of the European conference “What role does adult training play in social inclusion?” which inquired into the individualization of training as regards inclusion based on the question:  “Is individualization “really” an inclusive principle?”

Workshop: Is the individualization of training an inclusive principle?

The issue was formulated as follows:  from access to training to the modular approach to pathways, up to monitoring and assessment, the individualization of training is a widely applied principle. This workshop is intended to examine the inclusive nature of individualization through three dimensions:  the digital method, the responsibility of the individual, and autonomy in access and the pathway.

The workshop was moderated by Hélène Paumier & François Lenne and proposed to the participants to work in subgroups on three topics of inquiry: digital technology, the responsibility of each person for his pathway, and autonomy and change. The participants relied on a reading grid and a text corpus. They had to make recommendations after a spell of collective work. A discussion ensued with the important witnesses from the recommendations of the group. The text corpus can be downloaded here.

We shall first go over the main points raised by the three groups about three different subthemes, and then deal with the main summary elements from the collective discussion.

Is individualization “really” an inclusive principle?

1.Digital technology and individualization

For some people, digital technology is not an end in itself, but is said to facilitate the individualization of pathways by enabling everyone to avail himself in an individualized manner. But this assertion is not shared by all.

Individualization with digital technology can make it possible to adapt the pathway to the person, to train remotely, and perhaps address a younger population. But that may exacerbate the state of isolation and stand in the way of interactions that create the dynamics that are needed for advice and support.

It would be preferable to assume that individualization can benefit from the diversity of methods, precisely so that everyone can find those which correspond optimally to his needs and references: the diversification of media, methods, and approaches which makes digital technology one of these possibilities and which in turn can contribute to such diversification. It is worth underscoring in this respect that digital technology does not exist in and of itself, but corresponds to a plethora of forms which should be studied more extensively as it relates to inclusion … or exclusion.

Digital technology entails the risk of exclusion or opportunity of inclusion. This means examining, case by case, mechanism by mechanism, in accordance with an attentive needs analysis, what digital technology and individualization can contribute, in order to choose the right resources and right mechanisms. Digital technology is not to be taken in and of itself, but in respect of the potential that it can provide, which then constitutes an effective resource for meeting the needs of people, particularly as regards individualization.  The question of advice and support arises in any event from the tool to taking charge, and from the appropriation of tools which is a prerequisite to the personalization of training. Such human advice and support should be provided in all mechanisms, in the financing of the advice and support function. This all leads to underscoring that autonomy and the capacity to learn autonomously constitute one of the stakes of individualization and the possibility of using digital technology in an individualized training pathway.

Younger people can be expected to be more sensitive to the need to devise a more personal and satisfying career project, and on the digital front, if there is a practical and intuitive experience with digital technology, there is not a more systematic use and more systematic capacities of digital technology. But this concerns all generations, as well as immediate case in point. A digital culture would means knowing and understanding how digital technology, algorithmic logic, etc. work. But what are the basic skills of digital technology in the light of the rapid development of that technology? There are also developments in professional digital skills.

Part of the public is not at all sensitized or capable of even the simplest gestures when it comes to technologies. It is therefore impossible even to search for training courses online. There is a need for intermediate human contact to be able to make choices. Otherwise, they cannot choose because they do not know what they have to choose from.

The exercise of the individual right, in an excessively individualistic and in particular digital version, would in the end risk making it impossible to exercise that right. That requires advice and support. For digital technology, it entails going from personal to professional use of instruments to find one’s way and get trained. The risk of individualization corresponds to turning the learner into a poorly informed consumer of training.  This would be the role of mediation provided by trainers and supervisors.

2.The responsibility of everyone for his pathway

When does an individual start feeling responsible for his pathway?

According to some, vulnerable segments of the population rarely feel ready to assume responsibility for their pathways. Moreover, one has to learn to be responsible.  People often do not have confidence, and have not always learnt to manage their pathway. This observation suggests that it is not easy to embark on an individualized training pathway if you are not ready. This raises the question as to who can intervene upstream in an individualized pathway to prepare and help build the capacities for individualized training. The question also arises as to the risks relating to the complexity and segmentation of pathways which lead to weariness and discouragement.

But if it a matter of learning to think and to manage one’s pathway, or rather, pathways of orientation and integration/inclusion, but also training, we will see that collective reflection and co-construction are efficient conditions for learning and for passing to the act. The group seems to be conducive to discussing, comparing, enriching and opening up possibilities.  If the individualization of the pathway is important, the collective sequences are just as important for thinking, for learning to think of the pathway, learning of doing so too in a group, thanks to the exchanges therein. People in training most often need to feel supported and the group can play that role. We also note that they have a feeling of and indeed show more involvement in these collective conditions.

Finally, individualization presupposes a reflection on space and time. It is necessary to take the time necessary to feel responsible, while the pressure on people to go fast is a constant feature of many mechanisms.

Another observation calls for thinking about collective space and time in pathways. People often feel lost in the process but also with regard to themselves. A question then arises: do we make as much progress by individualizing as with advice and support or with and in a group?

3. Autonomy for access and activity in an individualized pathway

One participant noted at the outset that it necessary to pay attention to the fact that people may have capacities, such as autonomy, whereas we (the professionals) are said to be autonomous and responsible. We should not think a priori what people are, nor paternalize and consider them to be incapable….

A distinction should be drawn between autonomy and independence.  You can be autonomous but dependent (self-determination, choice, but also need for help from someone to reach your objectives).  But what is autonomy? What are the limits of advice and support with regard to a person’s autonomy? They should not be defined a priori, but gauged from the interaction between the learner and the mentor. Everyone can ask for greater or lesser autonomy and advice and support, depending on the points in time of a pathway, and also what is at stake. What should be negotiated between the people and the mentors, but even more so with the institutions in order to provide them with the advice and support they need or ask for and which provides greater or lesser autonomy.

Advice and guidance must be personalized to help a person become more autonomous. The same applies for motivation which is not necessarily present at the outset. Yet motivation building is also a condition of taking more autonomous charge of one’s training.

This leads to another distinction between individualization of the training and individualization of an inclusion and integration pathway. In the latter case, individualization is more difficult and advice and support would be all the more necessary. We can also see that when people manage to make orientation and training choices, the motivation which ensues builds the conditions for more autonomous learning. Advice and support change status, since  it consists of providing help and resources to a request for help to get trained.

A general discussion underscores the importance of adult training, of not reproducing the school conditions which have manged to reduce the development of autonomy and responsibility, in particular as regards orientation. The criticism of the school is a call for solutions in adult training to insist on the need to learn how to be autonomous. Training adults entails making sure not to reproduce the same approaches that create the same problems. That is the challenge in adult training.

That said, is it possible to develop autonomy and responsibility through an individual pathway?

It is necessary to be attentive to ethics and to the terms used in particular in European texts – emancipation, taking charge of one’s life, etc.  It is very delicate to find one’s way through ambiguous terminology. For the sake of transparency concerning what is made available to people who could thus make their own choices, that would entail being trained in critical thinking. Upstream, it is education which should prepare everyone to use this type of tools…

There is an injunctive discourse on responsibility to the effect that it is necessary to be autonomous and responsible. If the person is concerned, interested or otherwise, if he enters in a constraining situation, it will change his commitment.

A current observation is that we do integration but not inclusion. For example, there is highly assisted and supervised vocational training, but it does not necessarily provide optimal preparation for inclusion in ordinary life.

Isn’t it utopian to wish and to claim that we can advise and support everyone individually?

The only answer is that we cannot broach the question of individualization without working on autonomy and digital technology and their relations and inter-relations.  One recommendation would be to work on these three points and in particular to give thought to advice and guidance.

Conclusions

The prime virtue of this workshop was to ask a question that is not often raised: Is individualization “really” an inclusive principle whereas the narratives, the procedures and training policies have for more than thirty years now not ceased to consider that individualization is always better for training and inclusion. In the same line of thinking, raising concurrently the question of digital technology and its possibilities for inclusion seems just as essential.

The participants in the workshop answered the question in several ways.

First of all, the participants validated the question or, put another way, they validated the fact that neither individualization nor digital technology are a priori answers or solutions to inclusion. Digital technology may even be one of the problems. What appears for that matter in this respect is that the most pressing need is not to learn or to be trained by digital technology, but to develop capacities to use digital tools, as well as to understand, so as not to be a passive user thereof. Participants underscored the degree to which all populations of all age categories are concerned, including the youngest who have a specific and limited use of such instruments.

As to individualization and digital technology as means, both should be considered on a case-by-case, device-by-device basis, in connection with the education, training and inclusion purposes at stake. We should moreover note that the workshop broached the individualization of inclusion pathways but also the individualization of training.

Furthermore, individualization, and even more so, individualization with digital technology, entail the risk of doing away with the recognized contributions of participation and interaction with others, particularly in groups. In a workshop devoted to individualization, the participants underscored that it would be paradoxical to individualize excessively for the public whereas here, in this workshop, groups and subgroups, meetings and discussions, working together in the same place, we constantly deploy the potential of group work. They therefore developed the indispensable benefits of the group, of the participation of everyone in the group in order to learn, to find and choose social and occupational integration paths as well as to make progress in inclusion.  The statements of the participants in the workshop can be summarized as follows: Isn’t being in a group and having to get integrated and to participate the first space of inclusion?

Discussions on autonomy and responsibility, but also on individualization once again, underscored the ambivalence of the political and European discourse first and foremost. What precisely is at issue? They also showed that these notions, which become objectives assigned to people in the programmes, are not very clearly defined, that the relations between autonomy, individualization and responsibility, for example, or with “digital technology” are not direct and are not always thought over.

Nevertheless, a trend, an individualized training, using the means and resources of digital instruments presupposes thoughtful and – it is worth underscoring – personalized engineering. Put another way, what degree of individualization, what type of learning and what advice and support for individualization are needed depending on the capacities, needs and preferences of a person at a given moment of that person’s pathway?

WORKSHOP 2 – Integration in a multilingual society

Reporting blog by Thierry Ardouin

The main objective of the workshop entitled “Integration in a multilingual society” was to present the mechanisms for language learning and basic instructions in three European French-speaking countries (Belgium, France and Luxembourg) so as to promote and facilitate access to the language for groups which are isolated from French.

The presentation of actions and mechanisms was also intended to show the diversity of learning contexts and situations. These presentations raised also the issue of language depending on whether the language to be learnt is a second language  in a multilingual territory or is a foreign or integration language other than one’s native or original language. The situation of the segments of the population concerned is consequently highly diverse and heterogenous.

The different dimensions and different levels were combined during the presentations: objectives, target groups, achievements, instructor stances, educational tools, etc., in a spirt of exchanging and sharing experiences.

Presentations and discussions

The presentations assumed several forms (talks, role playing, discussions) but were always enriching and friendly.

We will go over the presentations and where possible we provide the related documents or other information or websites.

Françoise Chotro, policy officer, linguistic integration coordinator, Adulty Training Department, Ministry of National Education, Childhood and Youth, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Mrs Chotro went over the situation in Luxembourg, where trilingualism has been the norm in education since 1912 with German, French and Luxembourgish, and the development of English since the 1960s.

Whereas French is the language used for legislation and administration, and is also the first vehicular language in Luxembourg, more than half of the people speak more than one language with their friends, and more than half speak another language at work. There is a real functional multilingualism, in other words.

Consequently, French was chosen to be taught to newcomers.

In Luxembourg, a set of actions have been deployed in integration mechanisms such as the Parcours d’Intégration Accompagné (PIA) [Accompanied Integration Pathway], put in place at the beginning of 2017; at the education level, with 5^th year classes on integration for newly arrived adults (aged 18 to 60), a preparatory class for newly arrived young adults who wish to study at the higher education level, and workshops with families.

This presentation was an opportunity to present these different aspects of the education policy in the Grand Duchy.

Inés Besbes and Kim Waldbillig,  trainers at the Ministry of National Education, Childhood and Youth of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, involved the participants in role-playing situations. In fact, in the workshops and language training sessions, situations with role present are used extensively, so that everyone was able to practice and live in a learning situation through such role playing.

For the trainers, given their experience and relying on the theoretical framework of active instruction, the easy game of discussions reduces apprehensions and allows for the trial and error approach that is needed for all learning. They were able to identify and present 6 (six) factors of success.

In the discussion that followed “the game,” one participant, Mrs Anne Brisbois, Mission Coordinator, of the non-profit association RéseauCRéDAF - LIRE ET ECRIRE BRUXELLES ASBL spoke about the Apha-Jeux project that “Lire et Ecrire Bruxelles” [Read and Write Brussels] put in place under a partnership with Alpha operators and a game library.  An article which appeared in the Alpha newspaper, which presents the project and the links of structures that present the games used for French instruction, is contained in the appended file. You will see many tools used to teach French for integration and the development of language skills.

Dominique Rossi, Director of the Teaching League of the Federation of Upper Corsica, France, presented the ELLE project:  “Empowerment of Migrant Women through Literacy and Language Learning.”

 Devised with other European partners, this project is in line with the principles of public education.

Based on the main observation, “the aim of the ELLE project is to provide innovative learning methods so as to improve foreign language skills in unskilled women who are migrants, refugees or asylum seekers, to facilitate their integration and active participation in society.”

This project works with two complementary target groups: migrants and educators – trainers.

The project is based on three premises.

This presentation provided an opportunity to discuss the expected outcomes of the project but also more broadly the procedures and conditions of design and operation of such a project at European level.

Pauline Cousin, Social Economy/Employment officer, Brussels federation of socio-occupational integration organizations, Belgium, presented the skill validation support pathway.

The advice and support pathways are organized depending on the situations and needs of people. They can be “short’ or “long.” The pathways are implemented as close to the field as possible. Here once again, the degree of proficiency in French is a decisive factor in the orientation to trades.

Bo Soley,  educational manager, bf.langues, Bruxelles Formation, Belgium presented <u>.[1] This online test is intended for newcomers. It is available in 9 (nine) languages for French tests going from level A1 to B1 (Commun European Framework of Reference for Languages). An online tool, “Primtest,” is under construction.

In the end, there is the importance of language as a social vector

Ultimately, the situations are obviously very diverse, but they all show the importance and necessity of developing language skills and how language is vital for integration and inclusion. These things are known but the presentations made it possible to pool tools and approaches that can be used by the French-speaking community. This workshop was really an occasion for discussions and sharing of experiences and tools, and it was continued beyond the presentations.

WORKSHOP 3 -Individualized mechanisms for (re)integration thanks to reinforced cooperation between the different stakeholders of a territory

Reporting blog by Houot

The two facilitators, Michèle Mombeek and Veronique Halbart, policy offers at the Department of International Relations of the Ministry of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, invited the different guests to bear witness and to discuss questions of cooperation and collaboration on the territories, on the principle of a “reverse conference.”

The participants therefore relied on three key questions to discuss their thoughts in small groups, which were then shared with the participants in a roundtable.

The questions put forth were deliberately formulated in terms of obstacles or difficulties encountered in the field in order to stimulate a discussion on such practices as experienced by professionals.

Questions for discussion:

Question 1: What difficulties are encountered in charting an integration/reorientation pathway for individuals?

Question 2: What are the obstacles encountered by the partnerships?

Question 3: What are the pitfalls of too local an intervention?

There was enough food for thought, in other words, to stir the animated discussions which followed.

Very extensive exchanges, in the subgroups and the roundtable which followed, highlighted the following points:

Specific nature of the territories and stakeholders

The question of the legitimacy of professional stakeholders to intervene among the “target” groups came up again and again in the various discussions, because whereas the networks exist, they at times still lack concerted action and coordination. Although the will for greater flexibility is there, it at times runs up against the persistent rigidity of institutional orders.

It is often difficult in fact for the stakeholders to find their way through the different levels of governance that intervene on the programmes deployed for the most vulnerable segments of society. This at times leads to different interpretations of legislation depending on the territorial situations.  At issue in particular is to reach an agreement on what an individualized pathway is, because the reading thereof may prove very different depending on the sponsor and the operator.

The professionals also underscore the difficulty that is often encountered in working together on the same territory. The constraints are different depending on the organizations, and it is possible to be concurrently partners for some projects and competitors for others. Furthermore, cashflow problems arise at times for the project financing systems as do misunderstandings due to the linguistic particularities of the territories.

It is no simple matter either to access a global approach in one’s territory, to pool resources when the means are dispersed, to take a position in the face of community dynamics which can run deep, to avoid monopoly phenomena, etc.

Yet, given these difficulties and risks, opinion was unanimous that it is necessary to dare to change and proceed to do so: to trust the stakeholders of the territories and the beneficiaries.

Work together:  yes, but how?

Drawing on one another’s experience, many lines of action were invoked by the participants and the speakers to proceed towards an individualization of the pathways of the beneficiaries in a shared territorial framework.

Work on a common culture

The world of education and the world of business are therefore often two camps that ignore each other and thus rely on assumptions concerning the groups most isolated from employment, which should be discussed.

This issue was broached by Laure Lemaire in particular: working on the integration of women in the industrial world entailed for instance working directly with trainers and industrialists who were not used to working with women.

Many other initiatives were also cited:  We can thus work to define what is a “good internship” with companies, organize roundtables, meetings between operators, etc. – in short, tried and tested experiences cited by the speakers.

Identify common interests

A case in point is identifying the prospects and opportunities that opened up simultaneously on a territory for an occupational branch and by aided employment mechanisms.

Circulate information, appreciate and capitalize on what is being done, and pool resources.

Proceed step by step

The speakers insisted extensively on this point:  proceed stage by stage, step by step, taking account of one another’s decision-making pace.  See innovation as a process of slow dissemination, a process that is “spreading.”

Work together yes but with whom? 

Find the “right persons”

It is an idea that often came up in the discussions.  The right person in a territorial deployment project is the one who “can open doors,” be convincing by the objectives of the project and capable of being committed thereto. In brief, “those who know how to wager on the margins,” explains Tony Roupin, by reference to the charter of commitment signed by the mayors of his territory (See blog: power to act:  a testimonial by Tony Roupin) – those who are capable of opening doors and of communicating on the actions in the territories, Laure-Marie Planchon adds.

Combine forces on the same objectives and complementary skills

The key is the person you have in front of you, Laure Marie Planchon explains.  You have to find stakeholders who share the same objectives and have complementary skills:  “people are both the strength and weakness of partnerships”

It is necessary for training and employment operators to work together in cooperation with the social operators on training, says Sophie Linsmeau, who organizes meetings and roundtables regularly for trade unions, companies, integration stakeholders, etc.

Dare to open new doors

All speakers agree that embarking on a rationale of “project territories” means going beyond the usual notions of calls for projects:  taking the step from expertise to innovation, developing the “power to act.”

Find the empirical and at times counter-intuitive keys to solve the problems that arise for the concrete implementation of projects, e.g. implementing non-mixed training schemes to develop mixed jobs.

Work with and for the beneficiaries

Go beyond clichés

Analyse the issue of the “motivation” of beneficiaries differently; take needs into account; conduct the needs analysis with and for them.

See cooperation between the public and private sector differently.

The key, according to the speakers from the “Tramplins du Coeur,” lies in advice and support for employers and beneficiaries:  It is necessary to listen and above all to believe in the capacities of the beneficiaries.

Co-construct objectives and mechanisms

Speakers and participants were emphatic:  it is necessary to build the mechanisms together with the persons concerned, and conduct the final assessment with representatives of the beneficiaries.  That too is a “100% inclusion project.” It is necessary to chart a “seamless pathway” [7](DGEFP, France).

This is also the point of departure of a process initiated in Luxembourg by Anne-flore Made Mbe: in order to find out, understand and take into account the actual situations in the territory, for instance the use of languages of communication in that territory, are indispensable for her to devise a training system for the parents of pupils.

Take into account the issues of mobility on the territory, such as the provision of public transport free of charge, for example.

With what tools?

Meetings

All the speakers stated in their way that “we must get together” “that is what creates a bond,” which makes it possible to develop a common language, which will create “trust” – a term often heard during the discussions.

Platforms

Platforms  are needed to provide stakeholders of the territories with information in real time so that they can capitalize on the attainments of previous experiences:  “do not start from scratch every time.”

Create an opportunity to experiment:  leave ordinary law behind for a moment, change the way of checking the results.

Many lines of action were therefore cited to work concretely on the social and occupational inclusion of the most vulnerable segments of the population, together with many initiatives that deserve being shared with regard to this daunting challenge:  how to address today the needs of people who are said to be the most “isolated” from social and occupational qualifications and who moreover tend to shy away from traditional integration mechanisms; put another way endeavour to enable them to participate in social and economic life on the territories.