September 2005 - Association Comenius

association to become better known by
outsiders. Not because we have to have
many new partner institutes; that is not
our policy. We want to remain a small,
clearly arranged association, which
ensures member’s interests are attended
to, mainly through mutual personal
contact. Then why do we want to
become better known? That question, I
think, is hard to answer.
Being better able to apply for funding
once people are familiar with the
association would warrant an answer,
but have we tried those funds? We still
have not applied for a Comenius 2.1,
and although we have been
philosophising about cooperation for an
Erasmus Mundus, a lot of work still has
to be done before that happens. Many of
our partner institutes have succeeded at
acquiring money to fund their Intensive
Programmes and Erasmus Mobility.
However, the applications are not
submitted on behalf of the association,
but instead on behalf of the institutes
themselves. If we were to add a short
explanation of the activities of our
association to every application
submitted, we would automatically
generate more
familiarity.
I cannot really think of many other
reasons to increase familiarity with the
association, because it is not flatter our
egos and to show others how important
we think we are, is it? Perhaps I do not
see this the right way at all. Would it not
be a good idea to ask ourselves
thoroughly why we want to achieve
more familiarity and with whom?
It appears sensible to me to include the
Journal of the Comenius Association in
this as a means of public relations.
Through the years its style, but
especially its content have changed
dramatically. To whom do we want to
send it every year in order to make
clearer what inspires our organisation?
G r owth of the Association
It may seem inconsistent of me to start
writing about growth right after I have
mentioned that we want to remain a
relatively small association with a clear
arrangement. However, we have been
discussing expansion, be it on a small
scale. There is a candidate member from
Middle-Europe, the institute from
Timisoara in Rumania, about which we
are very pleased. There is another
candidate member from France, the
18 | Cormenius Journal
IUFM Créteil, site de Melun, which is a
welcome enrichment of our association,
especially after we have unfortunately
lost the small, but enthusiastic Centres
de Formation Pédagogiques. And we
really hope to finally be able to include
Germany in the form of the
Pädagogische Hochschule from
Schwäbisch-Gmünd.
The international coordinators of these
institutes have attended the conference
in Klingenthal last spring. Institutes
from Rome and Clermont-Ferrand have
expressed interest in becoming
acquainted with the Comenius
Association as well. When all these
candidates join our organisation, we
would have five more institute members
at once, which is an expansion of nearly
25%.
So should we try to slow down growth?
Aside from the aforementioned wish to
remain small, there is one aspect that I
think is important when we consider
whether or not further expansion of our
association is advisable. I will elaborate
this idea.
The process of European unification is at
a crisis. The dissension became clear
when France and the Netherlands
rejected the Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe. Conflicting
interests about subsidies for agriculture
and about higher contribution because of
new members; fear of Turkey joining
and of the European Union meddling
with more things every day. These
problems seem insolvable.
Do education facilities have a
responsibility in this regard? In my
opinion they do, especially teacher
training institutes. We can contribute
towards letting our students look at
European integration in an unprejudiced
way. With “unprejudiced” I do not mean
an uncritical view of every plan that is
served up by Brussels, but rather an
attitude that displays respect for opinions
of others, empathy with others, and
receptiveness towards other cultures.
Through that differences can be
overcome. It is our students’ duty to
propagate that open-minded attitude to
their pupils, the future of our society.
Like Jeanine Bardonnet, former
principal of the École Normale in Paris-
Batignolle, said: “ L’ E u rope doit être une
E u rope de l’Éducation si l’on veut qu’elle ait
des perspectives d’avenir. ” In the Journal of
the Comenius Association of 1995 it is
described as follows:
“ L’association Coménius veut développer la
dimension interc u l t u relle dans la formation
des futurs enseignants en Europe à travers les
domaines relationnel, pédagogique et
m é t h o d o l o g i q u e . ”
We will have to look critically at the
expansion of our association.
Particularly considering whether or not
new institutes can contribute towards
fortifying the intercultural goals of our
association.
Intercultural. It is about differences as
well as similarities
When, long ago, we developed the first
short exchanges and Intensive
Programmes, there was a lot of good
will, but in practice everything was not
so easy. Students created lessons to teach
at foreign institutes that were often
superficial and focused mainly on
cultural differences. To explain this I
include a quote by Michel Solonnel in
the article “Les enjeux et les composantes
pédagogiques d’un projet d’éducation à la
citoyenneté euro p é e n n e ”
“Il faut .. signaler un écueil auquel se heurt e
la plupart des activités pédagogiques visant à
c o n n a î t re les autres cultures. Sous prétexte de
susciter l’intérêt et l’implication des élèves,
les enseignants s’appuient sur une démarc h e
comparative. Les activités les plus fréquentes
consistent à étudier la façon dont cert a i n s
aspects de la vie quotidienne sont réglés dans
d ’ a u t res pays européens en prenant comme
r é f é rence et comme point de comparaison son
p ro p re mode de vie. Les thèmes les plus
prisées concernent la nourr i t u re, les loisirs, les
habitations, les principaux monuments et les
lieux symboliques de chacun des pays
concernés. Le travail mené dans ce cadre
aboutit la plupart du temps à mettre l’accent
sur les principales différences qui peuvent être
ainsi mises en lumière. Cette manière de faire
pose problème, car la focalisation sur les
d i f f é rences s’accompagne quoique s’en
défendent les enseignants, de jugements de
valeurs plus ou moins conscients et implicites.
De la perception des différences, on passe de
façon insensible et sans vraiment s’en re n d re
compte à une hiérarchisation des traits
c u l t u rels qui débouche parfois sur des
attitudes de rejet ou d’adhésion sans nuance.
La différence est la plupart du temps perçue,
soit comme une étrangeté ou même une
menace – auquel cas elle suscite une réaction
de défense ou d’agressivité; soit comme un
mirage ou une réalité idalisée – auquel cas
elle entraîne une admiration béate et une
disparition de l’esprit critique. C’est là, en