Conference on Education for an Open Society

Why was it held?

Questions were being raised by the OSI Board about the overall strategy, priorities, scope and impact of the Foundations’ work in education for school-age populations. Approaches and programs encompass both regional and national initiatives. Given this diversity, questions remained whether the network has a clear mission. What is and should be the range of our activities? Are we making progress? What is the role of education programs in building open society? What should we be doing differently?

What happened?

The conference was developed by the OSI Education Program Support Unit (EPSU) in Budapest in consultation with education staff of the local foundations and related OSI offices. The conference objectives were to help clarify the role of the foundations in education, build closer collaboration, and develop an exchange of ideas, practical models and tools for education programs.

Over the summer, background data were collected from the foundations on their country’s school systems and on their education program scope, spending and impact locally. These data were circulated to all conference participants.

The conference program provided for panel presentations and discussion, small group discussions and exercises, site visits, skills workshops and informal exchange.

Evaluation. A summary of the conference evaluation is attached. Participants gave the conference an overall rating of 4.09 on a 5-point scale, which translates to very good to excellent. Participants generally commented that the conference provided an opportunity to clarify and experience education for an open society. An overwhelming number of participants commented on the importance of being able to share information and experience with colleagues of the network. Participants identified as conference weaknesses the length and "density" of the conference program and the need for more time for discussion.

What did the conference tell us about the Foundations’ strategy and programs in education?

Group exercises involving all participants on the opening day revealed a remarkable degree of consensus on the foundations’ strengths, weaknesses and priorities in education--"the mission".

Our Strengths are that we are able and willing to support innovation and experimentation in education, we are flexible and adaptive, we have ready access to human and financial resources, and we are a network with vast potential for collaboration.

Our Weakness lies in :

• coordination, cooperation and communication--both within and outside the network
• not enough linking of program planning, monitoring and evaluation for professionalism in our work
• "open" involvement, e.g. some programs are overly focused on capital cities,
• small cliques of experts and intellectuals, or certain segments of the population

Common Priorities in Education. When asked whether there should be common priorities in education for the network, the general response was "Yes, but at the same time it is important to preserve flexibility for local initiative." Three main common priorities were identified.

Priority 1. Promoting and Modelling Open Society Education--Programs should stay focused on the mission of promoting open society. The "vision" of education in an open society defined by conference particiapants is one where a child is learning in an environment that:

• models an open, democratic society
• includes classmates of a variety of ethnic groups
• brings together learners of different abilities and special needs
• is child-centered
• is guided by teachers who are professional and believe in open society
• offers choices
• is colorful, interesting, and diverse in materials for learning
• promotes active learning, real-life problem-solving and innovation
• develops critical thinking and a respect for the views of others
• enstills a lifelong love for learning
• prepares a child for adult life in an open society
• involves parents and other members of the community
• may be inside or outside a classroom

The foundations’ "inputs" to building education for an open society must concentrate on what is sufficient to realize this vision. There is no one right way; the network’s education programs will and should--continue to be diverse. The child’s learning experience and the relationship between learner and teacher must be central. The role and involvement of parents and the broader community in educational change is also very important. New textbooks, computers and other material inputs alone are often not sufficent to realize the vision of education for an open society.

If a teacher does not work in an environment with other teachers and school leaders who model open society, s/he may not promote open society in the classroom. Many foundations and most regional programs are finding greatest success in basing programs at the school level--through supporting teachers, pilot sites, school-based teams, school and community links, networks of schools--and then enabling change to spread "bottom up and across" school communities, national education systems and even country borders.

Part of our impact as a foundation must be as a model of open society in the way we manage ourselves as individuals, teams, foundations and a network--in planning, deciding, implementing, sharing information, resolving conflict, and evaluating our programs. Helping develop and spread the skills necessary to manage in this way should be an important aspect of our work in education.

Priority 2. Building Partnerships--Foundations say that we can do better as a network to build many forms of partnerships for synergy:

• among education program coordinators within and across foundations
• among regional programs
• among regional and locally initiated programs
• with programs in other areas (higher education, media, law, civil society)
• with communities and among segments within communities
• with other donors
• with outside specialists
• with those who benefit from programs or those who can carry them out for and with us
• with ministries, pedagogic institutes, and universities

Priority 3. Achieving Sustainability--Priority should be given to efforts that can be spread and sustained beyond the foundations’ funding and management of implementation. The foundations can initiate, catalyze, mobilize and support initiatives, but they should not be expected to sustain an education program over the longer term. At the same time, innovative, experimental education programs must be given time to show results. Multi-year programs, carefully conceived and evaluated along the way, are appropriate insofar as they are leading to sustainable change.

What should we do more of, less of or differently?

Possible basis for evaluation and decision-making--The common priorities identified at the conference could serve as a basis for decision-making at every level of the network on whether to continue, expand, phase out or introduce a specific education program. We could also evaluate the success of education programs on criteria stemming from these priorities.

Collaboration--We need to learn from and build upon each others’ work. We should avoid "reinventing the wheel" in our programs. Withi some relatively low-cost investments in collaboration within and outside the network, the foundations could achieve a high value-added in their impact in education.

Balance and pace in programs--Education programs need to ensure that the development, production, purchasing and introduction of relatively expensive physical inputs to the classroom are well-balanced with support for the human dimension of educational change--teacher training, team-building, school and institutional development, and community involvement. In many cases, the network may not need to spend so much money so quickly to achieve real, lasting change toward the vision of education for an open society.

Improved equity and access--We need to ensure there is equity of learning opportunity and broad access to the benefits of our education programs. This means involving people of ethnic minorities, various income and educational levels, rural as well as urban areas in the development and implementation of programs.

Modelling open society management--We need to work harder on modelling open society in our daily jobs. This requires questioning some fundamental beliefs and behaviors, acquiring new knowledge and tools through training, encouraging and rewarding transparency and openness in approaches to organizing ourselves and enlisting the efforts of others.

What do conference outcomes imply for the role of the OSI Education Program Support Unit (EPSU)?

Throughout the week, participants made suggestions for follow-up collaboration and specified areas in which greater support is needed from regional programs and support offices. A ranking of these priorities for collaboration was compiled as part of the conference evaluation. Some needs can be addressed by the initiatives of local foundations themselves or by the evolution and planned expansion of NY-based regional education programs. Complementary EPSU support will focus on:

In-depth courses or workshops--Foundations want to meet more often about education but generally do not see need for another such broad conference. EPSU will follow up with shorter, more in-depth workshops in areas where foundations feel a strong need and wish to exchange their experience. Topics already suggested are civics and human rights education, school effectiveness and networks for school improvement, and teacher education and training. EPSU will continue to poll the foundations on priority topics and what should be included in the workshops. Local foundations will be asked to help develop the programs. A total of three events of about three days each are envisaged for 1996.

Access to education resources/reference materials--Many foundations are developing or supporting professional information centers on education or otherwise feel the need for more professional materials on education from a variety of regions and countries to support their work. Requests fall into several categories--sample textbooks, studies on education, documents on education standards and curriculum frameworks, information on teacher associations and other networks. In cooperation with NY Office staff, who are well-placed to collect resources in the US and Canada, EPSU will assemble basic "resource packages" that can be provided to each foundation. EPSU will continue to consult the foundations on which types of materials they need. CEU Press has offered help in identifying and ordering materials.

Professional development for education program management --Conference participants were enthusiastic about sessions and workshops held on the practical aspects of their jobs. They asked for more such professional development opportunities, in, for example, strategic planning and evaluation. EPSU will make a point of incorporating similar opportunities into the topical workshops described above and will consider other possibilities for training and support to foundations on a network or regional level, or with individual foundations. EPSU staff are already travelling frequently to assist foundations in evaluating programs, team-building, forming donor partnerships and developing strategies for future work. EPSU will seek to involve exemplary education program managers from the local foundations in these activities as consultants, trainers and facilitators.

Information exchange within the network to facilitate collaboration--EPSU is following up many requests made at the conference and at the earlier Minsk meeting of NIS "Transformation" countries to help improve sharing of information about education programs. Some practical steps:

• the 1996 education program proposals of each foundation will be collected and circulated among the foundations’ education network (Foundations currently receive almost no documentation on most other foundations’ education programs.)
• an E-Mail newsletter for education program staff (One has already been started for Transformation countries and will be incorporated into this broader initiative.)
• compiling and sharing of information on education specialists (trainers, subject matter specialists, other consultants) used by the local foundations
• compiling and sharing of lists of new textbooks (especially Russian) developed by foundations
• donor information and referrals--EPSU staff and the European Action Council in Amsterdam are available to help identify donor contacts. Information on successful donor partnerships by the foundations will be featured in the education newsletter
• assistance to networks of innovative schools in various countries to facilitate comunication with each other and involvement in international networks for school improvement.

EPSU/OSI Budapest/October 20, l995