Jennifer Harris1
The Role and Function of Regional Development Education Centres
INTRODUCTION
The 2002 Maastricht Declaration charges the signatories to increase their
commitment to development education (DE)2 and Irish Aid’s 2006 White Paper
reinforces this by placing a high priority on the provision of development education,
making the pledge that everyone in the Irish educational system will be aware of their
responsibilities as members of the global system (Irish Aid, 2006, p.107). The aim of
this paper is to determine how Development Education Centres (DECs) can best
contribute to making that goal a reality for all members of Irish society. We present
the findings of our research on DECs throughout Europe in order to establish what
constitutes an ideal model for organisations working with common purposes and
aims. We examined existing and defunct networks and other supports of DECs to
determine how best to make Irish Aid’s comprehensive development education vision
a reality. The lessons of these networks offer the best chance to extend the reach of
Irish DECs and devise a model of best practice. The research indicates that DECs
should be used as information and resource supports for the formal and non-formal
sectors. DECs can best achieve this by further entrenching their positions as an onthe-ground development education resource to teachers and community workers and
by becoming active on-line service providers to any others interested in accessing DE.
HISTORY OF IRISH DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION CENTRES
Ireland has long been fortunate to have a vibrant DE sector that enjoys wide public
support. Most authors point to the strong humanitarian streak that exists within the
public consciousness as its root. During one of its most vital periods, the Network of
Grassroots Development Education (NODE) was formed. NODE was launched in the
mid-nineties with a two-part remit and appears to be the first attempt to impose an
organisational structure on Irish DECs. It formed, first, to support returning
development workers and to actively campaign to raise the profile of development
1
Waterford One World Centre. The author would like to acknowledge Susan Gallwey of the Waterford
One World Centre for her research and editorial assistance.
2
The debate over nomenclature is set aside for the purposes of this article. It is assumed that
development education and global education can be used interchangeably. Many European countries
use global education, the Irish sector uses the term development education.
1
issues. NODE asserted that a network of regional centres would benefit individual
members and the development education sector as a whole. In their founding
documents, NODE cites benefits to centres such as improving effectiveness, reducing
isolation, avoiding duplication, building capacity and enhancing credibility.
Furthermore, a well-organised network of regional centres would help raise the profile
of development education issues at the national level (Purcell and Byrne, 1999, p. 4).
In its initial phase, NODE successfully managed to bring together a sizeable
(approximately a dozen) number of groups with a wide range of activities. This may
be attributable to a remarkably high level of initial interest and commitment from its
members. Centres and individuals gave generously of their time and resources in an
atmosphere of mutual support. In the report from the 1998 Network Conference,
NODE Chairperson Barbara Gill claimed that the network was about “coming
together to share and exchange ideas, both broad and specific; taking ownership
through collective decision making and looking at ways to improve and develop.”
(NODE, 1998, p.2) And while NODE itself was short-lived, it appears that it was
successful in those endeavours and that it left that imprint on the remaining Centres.
We see this in the continued efforts of DECs and other DE providers to maintain even
an informal network and their efforts to share and establish best practice.
The geographic spread of centres (with three in Leinster, four in Munster, three in
Connaught and two in Ulster) was reflected in NODE’s choice of venues for meetings
and conferences. This demonstrates that NODE was truly a national and inclusive
network. Once established, NODE began to take on additional roles. In 1998, the
Network undertook a funding research project which aimed to build a “joint strategy
to address problems of economic security” (Gill, 1998, p. 3). Joint funding ventures
could be seen as a ‘natural progression’ for NODE as a network and certainly would
increase member organisations effectiveness by avoiding duplicative funding efforts.
Some interviewees expressed general support for joint ventures, as they could lead to
greater economic viability for Centres. On the other hand, some pointed to potential
difficulties that might arise, such as “problems in relation to coordination and
management of such projects” and the “added responsibility and work load which
joint projects could mean” (Gill, 1998, 21). Additionally, Centres were (and remain)
concerned about issues of individual focus and autonomy.
2
The tension that Gill noted in 1998 between the desire to expand services for
members and the practical difficulties in providing these services was to become more
pronounced in the following years. At the 2000 Conference and AGM, which was
held in Carlingford, Co. Louth, some members expressed disappointment in that their
expectations for NODE had not been realised, particularly in the area of building of
strategic alliances with other development education groups. Additionally, there
seems to have been the feeling that NODE was placing too many demands upon
already under-staffed centres: “The Network depends on the centres for motivation,
direction and sustainability, while, on the other hand, many of the centres see the
Network as extra work, which they have difficulty responding to.” As a result, more
work was being done centrally by Network staff and management and Centres were
beginning to feel left out. (NODE, 2000, p.10)
The report on the 2000 AGM notes with concern the “unrealistic expectations” that
both the Network and the Centres have of each other. Furthermore, the report pointed
to the “perception that the Dublin office holds all the power, while the reality seems to
be that the office is incapacitated by the lack of involvement by members. This lack
of involvement would appear to be based on the fact that the centres have no clear
policy or strategy to guide their working relationship with the Network” (NODE,
2000, p.11). Unfortunately, these concerns went unresolved and ultimately contributed
to the demise of NODE. Since that point, the majority of DECs that had been
operating within Ireland have ceased to exist and with only three remaining (located
in Kerry, Galway and Waterford), the financial and managerial demands of a formal
network appear untenable. Instead, DECs are thought best to function within the
larger development umbrella groups, of which there are two.
Dochas, the larger of the two, serves as a platform for agencies that promote the
development agenda and has an active Development Education Working Group which
sees policy recommendations and advocacy as the primary focus of its efforts. Dochas
also represents Ireland on the larger European development stage. Dochas targets
more select, established groups with membership being reserved for organisations
with limited company status.
This means that many small, community based
organisations with funding constraints are excluded from participation. Dochas does
3
however see its role as “promoting effective and creative development education
initiatives” and providing active support for development education networking
activities (Dochas website, 2007). While this is clearly an important role, Dochas
does not actually initiate activities with regard to DECs, instead focusing on the
promotion of development education to both Irish and European political actors.
Thus, DECs must look elsewhere for the means by which to broaden their local and
regional impact.
The Irish Development Education Association (IDEA) formed in the wake of the 2002
Kenny-O’Malley report (roughly corresponding to the dissolution of NODE) which
examined the state of development education in Ireland. The report looked at the DE
sector and provides an important statistical analysis. Kenny & O’Malley found that:
(D)evelopment education has only a tenuous link with mainstream
education at primary, second and third level. Though some activists are
knocking at the door of formal education, and while recognising that progress is
ongoing, there is little evidence of recognition of development education as
being an integral part of integrated education (Kenny & O’Mally, 2002, p.38).
Since the publication of the report, Irish Aid has increased its own efforts to ensure
that development education actually does penetrate the formal education curriculum.
Irish Aid’s efforts focus primarily on teacher training and developing coherence
between the development education agenda and the national curriculum. The DICE
Project at primary level and the Ubuntu network at second-level have created sound
structures for a development education input into initial and in-service teacher
training. It is not yet known if these efforts have rectified the situation as KennyO’Malley reported it and an obvious area of further study would be to establish the
extent to which teachers implement the DE methods that they received during their
pre-service training.
Further, the report noted that groups that provide the needed and necessary supports
for those in formal education were “being under-utilised in the absence of a policy
that places development education within the continuum of integrated and ‘whole of
life’ education” (Kenny & O’Malley, 2002, p.38). Irish Aid includes in their plans the
support and cooperation with DECs and other NGOs and recognises the important
role that they play in the provision of DE.
4
The report also cites a lack of a coherent and coordinated national approach to
development education as one of the major contributing factors to the problems within
the DE sector. The newly released Strategic Plan from Irish Aid’s Development
Education Unit recognises these concerns and pursues a direction that includes the
support and promotion of DE practitioners in all sectors and the inclusion of a DE
dimension in the national curriculum. The efforts to include DE in that curriculum
must extend beyond including DE-type methodologies however. As the Kenny Report
notes, there is a difference between methodologies and content, and the presence of
the methodology does not guarantee that development content is also provided or that
those particular teaching tools must be used in order to guarantee that DE is taking
place (Kenny & O’Malley, 2002, p.38).
IDEA itself was formally launched in September 2004 and thus is a relatively young
and unproven organisation. IDEA currently has 32 members and serves as a forum
for organisations that include DE in any part of their remit and there are plans for the
formation of a DEC working group as part of its overall structure. It is too soon to
assess whether or not the existence of this working group will address the problems
identified in the sector as outlined by the Kenny report (and the earlier and more
critical McCollum Report)3. IDEA does have a more inclusive membership structure
but there is still the question of whether smaller, community based organisations see
the value in joining a national network and what they should expect from such
membership. It is in this context as regional DE actors that we see an expanded role
for Irish DECs.
Recent attempts to form an independent DEC network (DECNET) have met with
uncertainty from funders who feel that adding an additional layer of organisational
structure would serve no functional purpose. Whether this is an accurate appraisal is
unclear but what is clear is that in order for existing DECs to serve as regional DE
hubs, there will need to be additional support, both financial and in terms of the
3
The Ann McCollum Report, One World Centres: An Evaluation of their Role and Function in the
Wider Context, was published in 1998 and thus is considered too dated for the purposes of this paper.
The report itself makes three important and still relevant recommendations: DECs need to raise their
profile and be clearer about their role; DECs should established long-term strategic programmes rather
than be funding driven; and DECs need to broaden their reach to include more local and regional
actors.
5
outreach work that the DECs are able to provide.
Even if the current climate
precludes the establishment of a formal network, the lessons of other networks do
provide insight as to how best maximise the effectiveness of DECs.
THE EUROPEAN DEC LANDSCAPE
A literature review identified five countries that have an active development education
structure. These were studied in order to determine what factors contribute to a
successful model for DECs and their support systems. The Netherlands, the United
Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Finland all have established development education
structures and all have active DECs that act autonomously and participate in formal
development education networks.4
An examination of these DE structures indicate that the factors that are integral to a
successful model include NGO networking and support, NGO activity in both the
formal and non-formal realms, ministerial cooperation, presence within the formal
curriculum, public support for development assistance, and a financial commitment
on the part of the government. Each country studied demonstrates differing levels of
success within these six areas but all at least recognize the importance of achieving
success in all of the identified areas and make efforts to that end.
For example, the London based Development Education Association (DEA)
is able to fund five regional DECs that serve as hubs for development education
across England, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all possessing their own
networks that work in conjunction with the DEA (Bourn, 2006, p.3). And for those
DECs that work at local or regional levels, the DEA is able to provide support for
capacity building and accessing funding. The DEA in the year studied ran two
national seminars and four regional workshops aimed at assisting members secure
funding. Additionally, the DEA publishes The Development Education Journal which
highlights funding opportunities, member projects and serves as a communication
forum (Bourn, 2006, p.11). While the DEA is a development organisation network,
there exists an active DEC substructure that effectively serves as its own network.
4
The choice of these five countries is not meant as an indication that they are the only countries with
successful DE models.
6
In the Netherlands, the National Committee for International Cooperation and
Sustainable Development (NCDO), the national support structure for DE is able to
provide support to 16 regional DECs which are known for the quality of the teaching
materials that they produce and for their active participation in the educational
system. As in the case of the DEA, DECs function as a network within the larger DE
support structure. (Helmich in McDonnell, 2003, p.159)
In most of the countries surveyed, the responsibility for funding DE lies primarily
within the Department of Education or there exists close cooperation between the
Department of Education and the Ministry responsible for funding DE (usually
Foreign Affairs). Irish DE is funded through Irish Aid, which lies within the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. This disjunct lies at the heart of one of the criticisms levelled by
the Kenny Report which claims that the relegation of DE to outside the Department of
Education and Science ensures that “those involved in development education will
remain tinkering at the edges of ‘real’ education.” (Kenny-O’Malley, 2002, p.38)
There does not appear to be any intention on the part of the Irish government to move
responsibility for DE to the Department of Education and Science thus the hope
would be for close cooperation between the two departments. Research done on
teacher attitudes reveal a high degree of theoretical commitment to DE but a desire to
have responsibility for it lie within the Department of Education and Science
(McDonnell, 2003, p.129). Teacher education programmes have started to include DE
methodology within their pre-service training but there is still a lack of development
content and thus remains a need for resources that enable teachers to link DE content
to their pedagogical training.
All countries surveyed either had DE as part of their formal curriculum or had made
the commitment to do so. Finland has had DE as part of their formal curriculum since
the 1970s and both Norway and the Netherlands explicitly include DE within the
formal curriculum at all levels. And all countries had also made a strong commitment
to supporting DE in the non-formal sector through commitments made to maintain a
strong and vibrant NGO sector.
Public support for overseas development assistance (ODA) and development issues
also play a crucial role in the success of the DE sector. Ireland, the Netherlands and
7
Norway stand out in terms of public support for the development agenda (Ireland at
95%, the Netherlands at 90% and Norway at 88% respectively)(McDonnell, 2003,
p.17) and DE is seen as a critical component in keeping that support high. DEC and
other NGO activity plays an important role in this positive circle. The more informed
a public is, the more likely they are to support ODA and DE expenditures, and the
more that is spent, the more informed people become. Attitudinal research done by
Ida McDonnell at the OECD reveals that NGOs do a better job of promoting
development cooperation than does the State (McDonnell, 2003, p.82).
Finally, there is the issue of the financial commitment on the part of the governments.
There is a wide variation in the monies spent on DE activities and awareness raising
and based on percentage expenditures of ODA, the Netherlands spend the most at
1.95, Norway spends 1.67, Ireland holds the middle ground at 0.68, Finland spends
0.23 and the UK spends the lowest at 0.165 (McDonnell, 2003, p.76). And assessing
funding levels as straight per capita expenditures, the Netherlands and Norway still
remain in the top four (McDonnell, 2003, p.77). That being said, it should be noted
that the United Nations has called for at least 2% of a countries ODA budget be
dedicated to development education and awareness raising, so even the best of the
countries still fall behind the recommended spending limits.
So while all DE
practitioners agree that funding is too low, what is important about these countries is
that the spending commitment is consistent, thus even when ODA falls, DE/awareness
raising expenditures remain relatively constant.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on lessons learned from both the Irish and
wider European experiences. We believe that DECs will remain an important and
vital component of the broader DE sector in Ireland and the recommendations are
meant to ensure that we maximise the value of Centres by utilising them in the most
productive and efficient fashion.
DECs should be the link between the theoretical methodologies that teachers receive
during their training and the practical application of DE in the classroom. As noted
earlier, teachers, despite their exposure to DE during their pre-service, still feel ill5
All figures are based on 2001 expenditures and are reported in U.S. dollars
8
equipped to incorporate DE in the classroom. Research undertaken by Rousseau
(2006) on behalf of the DICE Project, suggests that teachers feel ill-equipped for
tackling global issues in a changing cultural environment. DECs, with their trained
staff, are well placed to provide this important support, especially during the inaugural
phases of DE activity. The UK funding agency recognises the importance of such a
link and provides the active “encouragement of strategic partnerships between nongovernmental development agencies and the statutory education sector...” (DEA,
2004, p.6) and follows through with additional funding to pursue these relationships.
We hope to encourage DECs to direct their efforts toward the teachers who appear to
be one of the least targeted by the DE sector in Ireland (Dochas, 2003, p.5).
DECs should be a DE resource provider to teachers and community workers. Again,
teachers indicate that they would do more DE if they only had the resources and
support. Rousseau noted that “the majority of study participants reported a lack of
appropriate pedagogical materials and resources” (Rousseau, 2006, p.16).
DECs
should actively promote their own resources and move toward providing up-to-date
on-line teaching and learning materials, including activities that reflect both DE
content and methodologies, and lesson plans that connect back to the curriculum. The
on-line component of this is particularly important given the small number of
remaining DECs, as Stephen McCloskey points out, “most DECs and development
organisations are located in large towns and cities which create obvious problems for
learners outside urban areas…” (McCloskey, 2005, p.10).
DECs should continue their informal networking activities and sharing of best
practice, and should in turn be supported in their efforts to do so. The experiences of
NODE indicate that already overstretched Centres should find ways to avoid
duplication thus streamlining DEC activity.
DECs should strive to become issue based rather than funding driven, which in turn
would help Centres develop long-term education strategies for both the formal and
non-formal sectors. Security of funding would go far in making that goal a reality.
Research done by Cathy Farnsworth demonstrates that the funding based approach is
negatively impacting the relationship of DECs with smaller community groups
because of the short-term nature of projects (Farnsworth, 1997, p.10).
9
DECs should broaden their reach in order to become regional hubs along the lines of
the UK and Netherlands models. It is through this outreach that we ensure that small
volunteer and community groups, and any nascent DECs are supported and
encouraged in their efforts. This is in-line with the Dochas recommendation that Irish
Aid support the creation of additional DECs at key regional locations throughout
Ireland (Dochas, 2006, p.2).
Finally, DECs must become more active in their public relations endeavours. DE is
important and the general population should be aware of that. McCollum noted that
“low awareness of the very existence of Centres is a critical problem which needs to
be addressed” (McCollum, 1998, p.25). Some progress may have been made in this
area over the last nine years, but low visibility continues to be a weakness of DECs.
Knowledge of development issues leads to increased support for ODA and ultimately
greater assistance to those in need. And exposure to development education
methodologies leads to a population with higher and more critical thinking skills,
which in turn makes us a stronger and better society.
10
REFERENCES
Bourn, Douglas (2006) Development Education Association Annual Report:
Promoting Change through Education. DEA, London.
Development Education Association (2004) Development Education at the Heart of
Learning. DEA, London.
Dochas (2003)
Development Education Survey Findings. Dochas, Dublin.
www.dochas.ie/documents/DevEd_Survey.pdf
Dochas (2006) Dochas Submission to Irish Aid on Development Education. Dochas,
Dublin. www.dochas.ie/documents/DEU_submission_2006.pdf
Farnsworth, Cathy (1997) Development Education in the Community. DEA, London.
Gill, Barbara (1998) NODE Funding Research Project: Final Report. NODE, Dublin.
Irish Aid (2006) White Paper on Irish Aid. Irish Aid, Dublin.
Kenny, Michael and Siobhan O’Malley (2002) Development Education in Ireland:
Challenges and Opportunities for the Future. Dochas, Dublin.
McCloskey, Stephen (2005) ‘Development Education in Northern Ireland: Assessing
the Past and Charting the Future’, Policy and Practice, Autumn 2005, No.1.
McCollum, Ann (1998) One World Centres: An Evaluation of their Role and Function
in the Wider Context. National Committee for Development Education, Dublin.
McDonnell, Ida et al. (2006) Public Opinion and the Fight Against Poverty. OECD,
Paris.
NODE (2000) Minutes and Reports of NODE Networking Conference and 3 rd AGM.
NODE, Dublin.
NODE (1998) Report on the Network Conferencing. NODE, Dublin.
Nygaard, Arnfinn (2002) ‘Development Education in Norway’, The Development
Education Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, June 2002.
O’Loughlin, Eddie and Liam Wegimont (2003) Global Education in Europe to 2015:
Strategy, Policies and Perspectives. North-South Centre of the Council of Europe,
Lisbon.
O’Loughlin, Eddie and Liam Wegimont (2004) Global Education in Finland. NorthSouth Centre of the Council of Europe, Lisbon.
Purcell, M and J. Byrne (1999) NODE Evaluation Report. NODE, Dublin.
Rousseau, A (2006) Global Education: Teachers Views. DICE, Dublin.
Author Information
11
Jennifer Harris is a Project Officer at the Waterford One World Centre located in
Waterford, Ireland. Previously, Ms. Harris was assistant to Dr. Jeffrey Sachs at the
Harvard Institute of International Development and for many years was a Secondary
School Teacher. Ms. Harris works primarily on development education projects that
target adults in the non-formal sector.
12