European Commission logo

Discover more with our Mobile App!

Explore the EPALE App for exclusive insights and community connections. Enjoy an enhanced experience.
Access the App Stay on the website
Zaloguj Utwórz konto
Można wpisać wiele słów, odzielając je przecinkami.

EPALE - Elektroniczna platforma na rzecz uczenia się dorosłych w Europie

Blog

Osoby o niskich kwalifikacjach? Naprawdę?

Koordynator tematyczny EPALE David Mallows dzieli się przemyśleniami dotyczącymi używania terminu "osoba o niskich kwalifikacjach".

Niektóre umiejętności są bardziej cenione niż inne

Mocną stroną inicjatywy Komisji Europejskiej zatytułowanej Ścieżki podnoszenia kwalifikacji (Upskilling Pathways) jest przyznanie, że dla wielu osób dorosłych uzyskanie kwalifikacji zawodowych na poziomie EQF Level 3 or 4 (link is external) jest odległą perspektywą i wymagałoby znaczących inwestycji w rozwój ich umiejętności czytania, pisania oraz kompetencji matematycznych i cyfrowych. Na zorganizowanej niedawno w Brukseli Adult Skills Conference zgodnie podkreślano znaczenie stworzenia przez państwa członkowskie UE efektywnych polityk w zakresie umiejętności podstawowych, które umożliwią dostęp wszystkich członków społeczeństwa do Ścieżek podnoszenia kwalifikacji.  

Niemniej jednak, pomimo pozytywnych, włączających przekazów ze strony wielu prelegentów konferencji, byłem zawiedziony tym, że termin „osoba o niskich kwalifikacjach” był używany przez wiele osób do opisania grupy docelowej polityk Komisji w zakresie umiejętności osób dorosłych. Rzeczywiście OECD (link is external) i Cedefop (link is external) wydają się do tego terminu bardzo przywiązane. Problemem jest jednak to, że określenie „osoba o niskich kwalifikacjach” jest nieprawidłowe. Zazwyczaj jest ono oparte na dwóch źródłach danych: efekty edukacji i/lub wystandaryzowane oceny umiejętności pisania, czytania i liczenia i w związku z tym, uwzględnia tylko bardzo mały zestaw umiejętności.

W projekcie ELINET stworzone zostały wytyczne dla decydentów odnośnie używania terminologii dotyczącej uczących się dorosłych. W opracowaniu stwierdzono, że o żadnym dorosłym nie można powiedzieć, że nie ma umiejętności, lecz w retoryce politycznej niektóre umiejętności (zazwyczaj te, które są łatwo mierzalne) są bardziej cenione od innych.

Osoby, do których się odnosimy mogą znać kilka języków; być ekspertami w zakresie rolnictwa, astronomii czy sportu; mogą mieć pracę, stworzyć rodzinę, zarządzać budżetem, uczestniczyć w życiu obywatelskim, co obejmuje również głosowanie, związki zawodowe, mieszkalnictwo oraz związki wyznaniowe. Jeśli ktoś nie umie prowadzić samochodu, za obraźliwe uznałby nazwanie go „osobą o niskich kwalifikacjach”, tak więc jednakowo obraźliwe jest określanie w ten sposób kogoś z powodu jego ograniczeń w zakresie umiejętności czytania i pisania. 

Jak wynika z powyższego cytatu, termin “osoba o niskich kwalifikacjach” jest nie tylko nieprawidłowy, lecz również obraźliwy i wskazuje na brak znajomości życia osób dorosłych. 

Brak ‘wykształcenia’ nie oznacza braku wartościowej wiedzy

Podczas konferencji w Brukseli, po jednej z prezentacji, w trakcie której bez wyjaśnienia znaczenia użyto terminu „osoba o niskich kwalifikacjach”, uznany edukator osób dorosłych Portugalczyk Alberto Melo opowiedział uczestnikom anegdotę, w której zakwestionował użycie tego terminu. Mówił, że pracując z wiejskimi społecznościami w latach 70-tych i 80-tych wielokrotnie słyszał od ludzi, że są ignorantami, ponieważ nie mieli ‘wykształcenia’ i nie posiadali wartościowej wiedzy. Alberto szybko jednak zauważył, że wiele osób posiadało przydatnych im w życiu umiejętności, których jemu brakowało. Umieli wybudować i naprawiać swoje domy, uprawiać zboże i hodować zwierzęta oraz wytwarzać pożywienie; byli zorganizowani we wspólnotach i posiadali ustalony sposób zarządzania swoimi ziemiami i plonami. Jeszcze w trakcie konferencji poprosiłem Alberto, aby ponownie opowiedział tę historię:

Polityczne implikacje negatywnej terminologii

Użycie tego terminu jest nie tylko błędne i obraźliwe, ale może również prowadzić do stworzenia polityk dotyczących edukacji dorosłych, które nie są w stanie odpowiedzieć na wyzwania określone w opracowanym przez Komisję Europejską Programie na rzecz Umiejętności Osób Dorosłych (Adult Skills Agenda). Zarówno OECD, jak i Cedefop przyznają w swoich raportach, że termin „osoba o niskich kwalifikacjach” jest nadmiernym uproszczeniem i ukrywa złożoność życia i umiejętności osób dorosłych. Pomimo tego, termin ten jest wciąż używany w nagłówkach dokumentów politycznych dla określenia osób zagrożonych wykluczeniem społecznym lub wykluczonych z rynku pracy.

Wszyscy wiemy, że język jest ważny i może kształtować nasze postawy.

Charakteryzowanie tej grupy osób dorosłych poprzez to, czego nie umieją robić, a nie poprzez to, co umieją robić (podejście deficytowe), powoduje wystąpienie realnego zagrożenia, że inicjatywa Ścieżki podnoszenia kwalifikacji zaprojektowana przez kraje członkowskie przyczyni się raczej do alienacji, a nie do inspirowania osób dorosłych.

Teoria uczenia się dorosłych mówi, że osoby dorosłe zaangażują się w edukację tylko, jeśli uznają ją za istotną dla siebie i możliwą do wykorzystania. Skupianie się na tym, czego osoby dorosłe nie umieją robić może przyczynić się do stygmatyzowania osób o niskich umiejętnościach pisania, czytania, liczenia oraz niskim poziomie kompetencji cyfrowych i w rezultacie zmniejszą prawdopodobieństwo, że osoby te będą szukać i akceptować wsparcie w zakresie rozwijania tych umiejętności. Jeśli zaprojektujemy uczenie się dorosłych opierając się na określonym z góry, nieprawidłowym i obraźliwym rozumieniu terminu „osoba o niskich kwalifikacjach”, nie powinniśmy być zdziwieni, jeśli osoby te nie zechcą zaangażować się w uczenie się. Jeśli natomiast będziemy uważnie słuchać osób dorosłych i stworzymy programy oparte na ich zainteresowaniach i umiejętnościach, mamy szansę stworzyć wartościowe, angażujące i pomyślne Ścieżki podnoszenia kwalifikacji.  

David Mallows ma 30-letnie doświadczenie w obszarze edukacji dorosłych jako nauczyciel, trener nauczycieli, manager i badacz. W przeszłości pełnił  funkcję dyrektora ds. badań w National Research and Development Centre for adult literacy and numeracy (NRDC) w Instytucie Edukacji UCL w Londynie. Obecnie reprezentuje Europejską Sieć Umiejętności Podstawowych (ESBN) w EPALE jako koordynator tematyczny w obszarze Umiejętności życiowe.

Interesujesz się edukacją osób ze specjalnymi potrzebami? Zajmujesz się animacją społeczną?
A może koordynujesz działania wolontariuszy? 
Szukasz inspiracji, sprawdzonych metod i niestandardowych form?

Tutaj zebraliśmy dla Ciebie wszystkie artykuły na ten temat dostępne na polskim EPALE! 

          

<--break->

Interesujesz się walidacją lub zintegrowanym systemem kwalifikacji?
A może szukasz możliwości podniesienia swoich kwalifikacji?

Tutaj zebraliśmy dla Ciebie wszystkie artykuły na ten temat dostępne na polskim EPALE! 
Likeme (14)
Tagi
Umiejętności podstawowe
Strategie projekty i finansowanie na szczeblu europejskim

Komentarz

Colleagues,

Thanks for this fascinating conversation. It shows, I think, the value of EPALE as a platform for the exchange of ideas, and for the development of new ones.

I've been mulling over some of the issues raised, and here I offer a few thoughts of my own on use of language ('low skilled' etc) and on the 'deficit model'.

 

Careless use of shorthand terms can disrespect and alienate the people they refer to.
Quite agree. We should aim to speak with surgical precision and clarity.
I sometimes refer to 'adults who struggle with literacy/ numeracy / digital skills'.

This thread would be a good place to develop more appropriate terminology to designate people who could benefit from Upskilling Pathways, and I look forward to reading suggestions.

 

The three 'basic' skills are not the totality of skills. The fact that a person lacks knowledge and competences in some of them does not mean that he or she has no knowledge or competences at all; public discourse should acknowledge this.
Absolutely. But for the first time, ever, we now have hard and reliable data about adults' actual skills in three areas. It shows fairly conclusively that millions of adults do not only lack qualifications (pace Andrew), they also lack important life skills. Public policy can legitimately (must?) make use of this data, even though it can only be a proxy for a fuller picture.

A 'deficit' approach may alienate learners.
Hmmm. Agree that using the language of deficit in contact with learners would not be respectful, or productive. But I don't actually think anyone in the field would do that.

But there seems to be an assumption that a 'deficit' approach is always a Bad Thing.
So far as I am aware, the literature around the 'deficit' approach in education focuses mostly on school education and on the ways in which children with 'special needs' or 'disabilities' are educated. By seeing them as 'deficient' compared with 'normal' children, teachers / policymakers may adopt strategies that hinder the full development of their potential. There is undoubtedly an issue there.

But is this the case with Upskilling Pathways?

Firstly, we know from PIAAC that there are millions of adults in Europe who struggle with important everyday tasks like calculating their bill at the supermarket checkout or correctly understanding the dosage instructions for a medicine or reading a bus timetable on the internet.

These are, (surely?) 'deficits': the inability to perform such tasks with confidence limits a person's ability to  be fully autonomous and might even be dangerous.

Furthermore, we know that literacies are essential bases for further learning. A person who doesn't (yet) have these bases is cut off from the possibility of developing her potential.

I therefore suggest that a case could be made that it is legitimate to use a 'deficit' model in the process of defining a group of individuals to whom society wants to offer the opportunity for getting specific remedial help.
It's remedial because it's trying to put right the (state's?) failings during the person's initial education. It's necessary to define a group because resources don't allow all 400 000 000 EU adults to benefit.

 

But selecting people for intervention based upon such 'deficits' (of the system) does not necessarily have to mean that the service cannot be provided in a humane and person-centred manner, valuing fully where they are now in their learning journey and where they might like to get to.

Indeed, as the Upskilling Pathways text shows, the aim is that every beneficiary should be able to have his or her skills assessed, precisely to show if he or she could benefit from any further support on their learning pathway. The novelty of Upskilling Pathways lies precisely in the fact that the skills assessment should be the basis for a tailored package of learning (and support and guidance and validation) to assist the individual to progress to wherever she or he wants to go. The learner is at the centre.

The term 'Upskilling Pathways' was chosen by Member States because it conveys the idea of (each of us) being on a pathway of learning – it doesn't say anything about your starting point but it does suggest forward movement.

 

I look forward to others' thoughts on this.

And I look forward to a 2017 in which more and more EPALE-rs getting involved in helping to design and promote Upskilling Pathways in their country or region! Happy Holidays!

 

P

Likeme (0)

Thanks for the interesting comment Paul - a couple of points below from me.

 …for the first time, ever, we now have hard and reliable data about adults' actual skills in three areas. It shows fairly conclusively that millions of adults do not only lack qualifications (pace Andrew), they also lack important life skills. 

1. PIAAC is not the first international survey of this type – we’ve known for many years that literacy and numeracy levels in European countries are (surprisingly) poor (and the problem solving element of PIAAC didn’t really tell us very much at all). I hope that policy makers will use the new data wisely - the story ot tells is not as simple as the OECD league tables might suggest. 2. I’m afraid that the picture of adults’ skills as described by PIAAC is not as simple as you make out – they may lack some important life skills, depending on the circumstances of their lives. If I do not need to use much literacy, then my poor literacy will not hold me back. Indeed, 30% of those scoring at or below Level 1 in numeracy scored at least Level 2 for literacy, Many of them are university graduates. Is numeracy not an important life skill? Why then are they not suffering for it? PIAAC and other large scale international assessments do provide interesting data, but they (necessarily) measure something that is not real. 

…there seems to be an assumption that a 'deficit' approach is always a Bad Thing.

That is my view certainly. I think that you are confusing a targeted approach (providing opportunities that are needed by particular populations) and the deficit approach (defining the target group by what they do not know). It isn't a deficit approach to simply say that millions of Europeans lack the literacy skills to complete a Level 3/4  qualification. There are many problems with the deficit approach, earlier I suggested that it can lead to education policy that alienates adults, it can also be internalised by those same adults, leading to demotivation.

I agree that the Upskilling Pathways is not necessarily a deficit model; its focus on initial assessment and tailored pathways have great potential to produce something that is learner-centred and effective.  To be successful Upskilling Pathways need to recognise that many adults will need to improve their basic skills before they are able to achieve higher level vocational qualifications. If this group of adults (and it is an incredibly diverse group) feel that they are being defined by their poor basic skills, they will be far less likely to engage. 

Likeme (0)

Good to see you on EPALE David and yes, I'm sure that's part of the problem. It's far more complicated than one policy initiative can solve, so the temptation is to simplify and that then misses so many things that could otherwise attract adults to improve their skills, by building on what they do know.

Likeme (0)

Dear David,

Thank you for being stubborn in drawing attention to the inappropriate use of terms, during and after the conference, it is not so easy to do it effectively when people are so engaged in certain contexts and looking things from a certain perpective. But this blog with the inspired reactions is a brilliant example on how to stir up attention for an important and looked over issue. It also gave me some thoughts regarding a phenomen I experience in a particular context: there is a growing concern and accelerating discussions on lack of digital competences in society. The public discourse is primarily led by journalists as well as people involved in creating and implementing policies on information and telecommunication developments and digitalisation, typically with background in technology and law and other related desciplines, but rearly in education. Often there is a reference in this discource to the enourmous masses of 'digital analphabets', those who lack digital competences, who described as one of the main bottlenecks of progress, also implying as a kind of big burden for the rest of the community and nearly putting the blame of them for "not making their homework as citizens". The word 'analphabet' has a very negative, disgraceful connotation in our society. I think it is very incorrect to return to this orthodox phrase of expressing insufficient lieracy in this new context, not only because it is not accurate (most of those people use some kind of digital device like traditional mobile phones), disrespectful towards individual (there could be thousands of reason why they dont master these skills), and not last because by being stigmatized by belonging to this group, this language does not really motivate many to do something about it but rather conserves a state. Moreover, this kind of language does not increase the energy and offer the angle for those being part in this discourse to contribute with new ideas how to combat this challenge, since it create a picture of a huge and massive problem of nearly helpless people.

So thank you for all your above considerations, I feel after this that it worth speaking about this kind of language in public, and many of the argument about literacy can be transfered to the sub-context of digital literacy.

Likeme (0)

Well done for opening this particular can of worms, David. It is v important and is perhaps partly a result of funding-bid-speak (here is a huge problem I can solve) being normalised. Doesn't value the self-taught/well read only the tested.  

Likeme (0)

You make some very helpful points Estera. There are no unique solutions for adults who need upskilling pathways. Everyone is different and so adult educators need to be given the flexibility to respond to and meet those needs. You say that countries should rely on their own traditions and experiences, but equally local communities should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean that there can't be sharing of knowledge and common standards etc. but one size really doesn't fit all.

 

Likeme (0)

Dear David, very much agree, we need to learn from each other. I am thinking  how else can I support your arguments for (liberal) adult learning besides from my heart. We have the BeLL projectresults, the project investigates the benefits of lifelong learning see the Manninen report from 2014. There are empirical findings about what wider benefits adult learning could bring about especially for learners with less formal education.  

Maninen concludes when he explains the model of benefits that ,since liberal AE courses are selected by learners themselves, the activating and directing elements (like curiosity, task value) are automatically present in the learning situation (see for example Manninen, 2014). Slow paced instruction, low expectancy levels and rarely used tests reduce anxiety, and small gradual achieve-ments lead into positive learning experiences, and therefore also in changes in learner self-image and in self-confidence. These in turn may lead into better sense of control of own life …'

And further on ,The ability of liberal AE to change educational experiences links BeLL results into the long tradition of participation research (cf. Cross 1981; Rubenson 1979; Cookson 1986).  Lower educated and less experienced adult learners depend more on prior schooling experiences, which therefore play a central role in their motivation (see Manninen 2003). New – positive – learning experiences at adulthood are therefore likely to change these images, and as de-scribed earlier, voluntary participation in liberal AE is more likely to generate these positive learning experiences.'

Likeme (0)

It seems that the answer to this question is straigtforward, or not. I am very happy that the discussion on the terminology (and not only that) has started alongside the new EU policy document Upskilling Pathways. The term 'low skilled' has not been translated into Slovenian language, instead the Slovenian version reads as 'poti izpopolnevanja: nove priložnosti za odrasle'  (my translation would be 'pathways for improving / perfecting (not saying what): new opportunities for adults'.  First impression is positive, no negative connotation for adult learners. So we have a problem that ‘we do not name’.  Do we have a problem at all? Is the problem perfidiously ‘masked’ this way?

I work in the area of adult literacy in Slovenia for more than 20 years, during this time we used different terms trying to understand the educational needs of different groups of adults with low levels of education. Nowadays we are more confused than ever. What do we mean with literacy, functional literacy, numeracy, basic skills, key competences? When terms are translated into Slovene we are even more apart. Are these empty concepts or we think we know what is the essence of each? One of the terms that is still persistent especially in the media is functional (il)literacy. Even if you strictly talk about (basic) skills, the term used in the newspaper article will be still 'functional literacy'.  It is the term that is fully booked only for adults in Slovenia. It seems adults do not need to think and feel, they only need to ‘function’ preferably in the labour market.

I was also coordinating two international surveys on adult literacy in Slovenia IALS and PIAAC. Both surveys revealed that there are rather large numbers of adults in Slovenia who lack the skills that were assessed. Knowing the bones and flash of the two surveys I couldn't agree more with what was said that only a narrow set of skills was assessed, those which can be measured in an international context and in a comparative way. But I would also argue that PIAAC methodology is one of the most rigorous and comprehensive assessment methodologies up to now.

However, a few days ago the PISA results were revealed in Slovenia.  Slovenian youngsters did much better this time above OECD and EU average. One of the frequent questions nowadays in Slovenia is how can we explain the fact that adult skills have not improved much in 18 years (between 1998 and 2016), on the other hand the skills of youth improved  considerably in much less than a decade. My question is can you imagine that Slovenia would not participate either of the adult literacy assessment?  I am sure that there would be no terminology and no policy in the area of adult (basic) skills, because the problem would not exist.  

Recently Michael W Apple known for his work on theory of curriculum commented the PISA results in Slovenia. Surprisingly, he did not applaud as expected to Slovenian achievements of youth in math and science. He said that if that is all we expect from school than pupils are only machines for production of knowledge. PISA results (and similar assessments) contribute to collective loss of memory.  Contrary, school has to raise citizens, critical thinkers and readers… In some countries only achievements matter, weak students are not given appropriate help. He also said that Slovenia is one of rare countries where also poor can study (this is still true for children and youth, but only to a certain extend for adults), and in which knowledge is not owned by those who are rich, corporations and banks.

I agree with many other things that he said, and in a way he reinforced what I think, that there are no unique solutions for adults who need upskilling pathways. Countries have to understand the educational needs of adults in-depth and more than ever rely on their own traditions and experiences. When you do not have any data it is very difficult convince policy makers that there is a problem. But sometimes is more difficult to explain that one solution does not fit all, shortcuts when models are transferred from one country to another do not necessarily work in different cultural context.

Likeme (0)

I agree, David.  I noticed the language issue too at the Adult Skills Conference.  This is a complex issue and I am no linguistic/philosophy expert (not at all) but I also sense that sometimes the language (unintentionally) reinforces the sense that the 'problem' exists 'over there' as belonging to 'others'.   

Empirically, what people often  'lack' is formal qualifications. I've used the term 'low educational attainment' (in preference even to 'low educational achievement') to try to reflect this.  But maybe even that is suspect...

 

Likeme (0)

Dear David, dear Andrew,

I also want to thank to thank you for opening this discussion. It has been two years now that I use every opportunity to highlight the inadequacy of the term 'low-skilled' especially in the policy field of validation of competences. Particularly there it seems cynical, since it is precisely the skills of people with low levels of formal qualification, that are to be recognized and given value on the labour market and in the formal education system.

I am still looking for a better (and preferably shorter) term but until then, I usually describe this particular target group of education policy as 'people with low levels for formal qualification'. If anyone has a shorter but equally adequate and easy to understand label, I would be happy to hear it.

Best wishes and a Happy New Year,

Martin

Likeme (0)

Thank you very much for this important blog, David! Good that you remind us to the usefull terminology document produced within ELINET (/en/resource-centre/content/guiding-principles-use-terminology-adult-literacy-rationale).

As in Norway, in The Netherlands we don't use a term like 'low skilled persons' I think. At policy level you can hear the term 'people with low basic skills', which is not too bad I think.

With respect to terminology we have another problem that might be related a little bit. Out of the blue, since approximately one year, the term literacy ('geletterdheid') is often used for all basic skills, making it unclear what we are measuring or what we aim to do. People with numeracy difficulties suddenly might have literacy problems instead…

The Dutch term 'geletterdheid', includes 'letter' which means 'grafeem' (written character). Therefore, it is confusing to use this term for other skills, especially for the target group themselves, for teaches, etc.

The term ‘Low literacy’ (Laaggeletterdheid) is a well know term with a neutral or even positive connotation, even for the target group; this might have influence on this proces aiming to reach as many learners as possible.

What about other countries?

Likeme (0)

Dear David,

Thanks for the blog.

I'm going to be a little controversial. Political correctness is useful and meaningful unless the discussion continues on the use of language. After Wittgenstein and the use of language, time and time again, we end up discussing the terminology of things and it seldom stems from academics. Of course, it's great to have coherent 'un-hurtful' terms especially those that are used by policy makers. The real issue, in this case, having accessible training to people who would like to learn new skills or improve them is lost in translation. And that, in my humble opinion, shouldn't be so. 

 

 

Likeme (0)

Dear Mahira,

Thank you for your comment. I think you are right that sometimes political correctness can go too far and that we spend too much time considering the packaging rather than the present. However, in this case I think that the use of this term by policy organisations reveals something about their lack of understanding of those adults who want and need 'accessible training to people who would like to learn new skills or improve them'. That lack of understanding can lead to well intentioned, but ineffective policy making the job of motivating and supporting adults to enage in learning far more difficult.

David

Likeme (0)

Hi Mahira,

The problem with the use of the phrase 'low-skilled population' to describe people who want to develop their literacy or numeracy skills is that it is inaccurate and therefore misleading. 'Low-skilled' suggests that these people have 'low skills' in everything or anything. If we want to talk about people struggling with literacy or numeracy then we need to use the terms literacy or numeracy. We need to be specific about the skills or practices that need developing by using appropriate terms. We need to use precise terminology if we want to communicate clearly. We should also, in my opinion, be respectful of others and our use of language is a big part of this.

 

Likeme (0)

Thanks for this, David, a very well expressed piece on a common problem. We still suffer from this issue over here in the UK. I was at a reception in the House of Lords a few weeks ago, for a new reading scheme for prisons developed by two charities. ALL the (quite famous) main speakers talked about the problem of 'illiteracy' of prisoners. There was little I could do at such a function to challenge this terminology, but I am sure the number orf 'illiterate' prisoners in UK prisons is vanishingly small! Many have poor English and maths skills, but in my view that is a different thing.....

Likeme (0)

Gracias David. Excelente!

Con mi experiencia como alfabetizadora durante 40 años, comparto tu opinión y la de Alberto.

He aprendido tanto de las personas que les enseñé a leer y escribir y, en los últimos años, en tecnologias!

Me han enseñado tanto! No sé quién aprendió más!

Creo que ha sido un intercambio de saberes, de conocimientos.

 

Likeme (0)

This is an important blog and a key message. We must fight to stop the use of this innaccurate, misleading and offensive term 'the low-skilled population.' In years to come we will hang our heads with shame that we allowed our brothers and sisters to be referred to in this way. Additionally, the use of this term in documents like this means that a proportion of those doing academic research in adult literacies will distance themselves from this kind of policy work - and so we (as the wider community concerned with adult literacy development) will lose the support of those who could really help move us forward. Thanks again David.

Likeme (0)

Thank you very much, David! This is a timely, precise and provoking input. Finding a better alternative to "low-skilled" will be a greater challenge in some languages than in others. In Norwegian we use "lav utdannede", which refers to education without the annoying connotations of "impolitenes" that "low-educated" has in English or in my native Spanish...

We do need to continue raising the awareness of all involved about the fact that the target group for our upskilling efforts is not a tabula rasa... Well done!

Maybe we can ask Alberto Melo to write a blog as well? I'd like to know more about his work, which I suspect was foundational for Novas Oportunidades.

 

Likeme (0)