|
|
"The Toolkit" - Practice, Progess and Value |
|
Contents Page |
Foreword by the Secretary of State |
Introduction and Summary |
What is a Learning City? |
The Learning City |
Taking the First Steps |
The Structure of this Guide |
The Three Strands of Development |
Strand One: Partnership |
Strand Two: Participation |
Strand Three: Performance |
Useful Publications
Strand Two: ParticipationLevel 2: Towards a Shared Understanding Consultation only begins the process of learning from the public. Having begun to unlock the doors to communication, the task is to listen to the voice of the communities, involving them in a dialogue about the needs of the learning community. There will be different understandings of those needs. The challenge is to reach some shared understanding and agreement about priorities. The task of professionals is to enable this process of involving the public in the community in which they are to live and work. Learning needs to take place between communities and between professionals and the public if action and cultures are to be transformed. For those accustomed to relying on professional expertise to make decisions, the need to respond to the demands of communities can bring surprises. For those operating within communities there is the need to learn and recognise the constraints and competing priorities which affect the ability to achieve goals. Action planning may involve some change and compromise on both sides. Where funding is placed in the hands of communities, rather than experts, this may be an uncomfortable process. Ideas for Action Local needs and priorities should be the focus of dialogue but the limitations of meeting such needs should be examined. Local actors may have solutions not considered by "experts". Communities should be involved in the drawing up of action plans and should be encouraged to identify SMART targets. Communities should be consulted about how best to approach the individuals living within areas and consult them about plans. Dedicating resources to the process of community consultation can enable better involvement. Making it possible for those with responsibilities to attend meetings (e.g. for carers by appropriate timing or paying allowances) is an example of how small sums can make a difference. People do not always have to be consulted about what they want through the place where they live. Where more general issues are at stake, consultation can take place through the workplace or through places where people spend their leisure. In these situations informal discussion is, perhaps, more likely to occur. Experts and professionals have a vital role in helping communities to make informed decisions. It is important that they are helped to communicate in jargon-free and accessible ways. They explain should situations and alternatives before advising or recommending particular courses of action.
|
|
Strategies for Involving the Communities
"Issue Forums" enhance the quality of public judgement. It is not that the public are not informed about an issue, but that they have not deliberated upon it. The issues can focus on matters of local concern - the environment, energy, jobs, education etc. The forums can be based on schools or colleges, libraries or other civic organisations. The forum can be led by a convenor or moderator, who makes sure that:
"Consensus-Building" is an approach developed by Environmental Resolve, an undertaking developed by the Environmental Council. Consensus-building uses what are in effect mediation groups. It challenges the adversarial approach embedded in the system of planning inquiries.
From, John Stewart, "Further Innovation in Democratic Practice", The University of Birmingham, 1996 |
|
Pitfalls and Perils
Having action plans which do not have specific and attainable goals or where all goals are long-term is to be avoided. Interest can be maintained and feelings of success generated by achievement of short-term objectives. It is important that communities do not feel that they are being bludgeoned by agencies and projects. Those working in specific areas should try to have a coherent approach to initiatives rather than a plethora of different groups, projects and sets of workers. Essential A willingness to allow the voices of those within the community to be heard and acted upon and to give real decision-making to communities in at least some areas of activity. Measuring Progress at Level Two Have action plans been drawn up which reflect the expressed views of the communities concerned? Have those involved in consultation been asked about the best means for informing and asking the opinion of others living within their community? Have resources been put aside for funding the consultation process to give a voice to those who might normally be unable to take part? Has sufficient trust been established for the community to decide on the use of resources? Have systems been considered to review and evaluate activities on a regular basis? Has there been a growth in grass roots organisations and voluntary associations? Facts and Figures Using baselines developed in Level One, it is possible to log changes in attitudes and, perhaps, participation in formal learning activities. In terms of measuring community involvement, numbers of community-based organisations, numbers of people attending public meetings and consultations, and numbers responding to surveys may give useful indications. This may also be an appropriate time to begin to measure numbers of projects initiated by communities.
|
|
Examples in Action
Few of the learning cities in Britain have progressed very far with consultation within communities, although many are engaged with trying to increase participation in education from areas where take-up is low. Liverpool and Birmingham, however, are developing major initiatives. In Liverpool where there has been a substantial injection of European funding in areas of extreme disadvantage, there is a substantial experience of working in regeneration partnerships. This is reflected in communities which may not term themselves "learning communities" but which are learning to work with new forms of participation. In Liverpool twelve or thirteen partnerships set up under Objective One funding have substantial sums of money to use for regeneration. In one example a large forum, attracting 90 - 100 people from the local community, advises a board comprising business, education and voluntary sector representatives on local priorities. Substantial funding of over £5 million is involved and the forum has held together at a time when difficult decisions, for example about closing primary schools have had to be implemented. Among the concerns expressed by communities have been access to jobs and training, transport, community security and a need for locally based shopping facilities. As the partnership has developed, conflicts have emerged and been resolved. One example is between employment opportunities and housing priorities. Resolution has involved different parties within the community reaching a compromise. Those working in such partnership stress the value of patience in working through ideas with community interests. In Birmingham the City Council introduced a policy initiative called "Local Initiative Local Action" (LILA) in 1996. It is designed to create forums within each ward of the city to enable community participation in local decision-making. £50,000 has been allocated to each forum to facilitate the process of participation. The strategy of decentralisation and devolution of decision-making is perceived as being directly related to the programme of regeneration in the city. A similar initiative in Norwich, known as "Community Power" has recently obtained SRB4 funding of over £1m specifically for empowering deprived communities through learning in five key wards.
|
 Back |
 Home |
 Next |