Report - Salto

52
Bridges for Recognition | Good Practice workshops - Overview and highlights
Some fears were expressed in the discussions in the workshops: The question “Where is the
fun?” summed up the concern that recognition was a step towards formalising the non-formal
sector. It seemed that in many of the examples given there was a balance to be achieved between
participation in a process of evidence gathering and self reflection and the demand or desire for
a recognisable outcome – the certificate to prove you were competent.
The instruments described in the workshops were many and varied; from paper based to
electronic; from self-assessed and peer assessed to assessment by a “jury” of youth workers. It
was interesting to see examples of recognition processes being adapted for different sectors and
in different countries – for example from arts and culture to international youth work and from
Finland to Slovenia.
An example of using a self perception inventory was given (in relation to recognition of youth
trainers), as a tool to establish base lines at the start of the learning experience. This would
enable learners to measure how far they had travelled during the experience. Other approaches
highlighted the need for multiple points of entry and the freedom to keep trying if the required
standard was not achieved at the first assessment. Some had no formal assessment but focussed
on collecting and presenting evidence in a way which highlighted the skills, knowledge and
attitudes of the individual; others had extensive lists of competencies arranged at different
“levels”, from which learners can choose the ones they wish to demonstrate.
As a communication tool at European level, a common language is needed for jargon and
terminology (see p.38). Some examples were given of certificates or equivalents being available
in more than one official language. Together these things will promote transferability from
sector to sector and country to country.
Another challenge, particularly in relation to meeting standards, is the question of who is
competent to say that one person meets the required standard and another is not. Who should sit
on the “jury” if there is one and are we allowed to say that one person is not a good youth worker
– particularly across national and cultural boundaries?