Learning Cities for Inclusion: the PIE Experience

Inclusion has been a core objective of learning cities from the inception of this concept. Much of this interest has focussed on ways in which lifelong learning policies can combat exclusion and provide opportunities for all to  participate actively in society and enhance their well-being. The PASCAL International Exchanges (PIE [1]) provides insights into policies to progress inclusion objectives through city stimulus papers. At the same time, the PIE papers demonstrate vividly the extent and nature of problems to be addressed in a world of exponential change where some groups are winners and many are losers. In this context, this paper provides an overview of some of the insights and lessons that may be  derived from the PIE experience over four years, and poses the question of finding new ways in which learning city strategies can contribute to inclusion objectives.

The PIE  concept was developed in 2010 to provide for online exchanges of information and experience, relevant to the learning city concept, between cities around the world. The program operated between 2011 and 2013 with twenty two cities involved. All stimulus papers may be read on the PIE web site [1]. (http://pie.paswcalobservatory.org [2]) .

Some issues

PIE stimulus papers noted a number of major issues confronting cities around the world. A number of these related to the impact of urbanisation with large scale migration from rural areas causing social dislocation and exclusion for many. Papers on African cities (Dar es Salaam, Kampala, Gaborone, and Addis Ababa) in particular emphasised these issues, but echoes of these issues may also be found in the Hong Kong and Beijing stimulus papers. Related issues were found with migration across national boundaries with the Hume Global learning Village a typical case of a community struggling to handle issues raised by large numbers of migrants and refugees.

While these issues were important in many PIE stimulus papers, other important issues such as exclusion resulting from poverty and insufficient education in rural areas were not taken up because of the focus of PIE on learning cities. However, exclusion in rural areas is now being addressed under the new PASCAL Networks program with one of the five Networks focussed on Connecting Urban and Rural Learning Initiatives.

Some strategies in response

A broad spectrum of strategies directed at progressing inclusion may be noted in the PIE stimulus papers. However, for the purpose of this paper we have focussed on the following six approaches.

1. Involving all in the strategic development of the city.
2. Widening participation in lifelong learning as a basis for inclusion.
3. Integrating development at the local, district, and city levels.
4. Enhancing a sense of place and belonging.
5. Strengthening the work of cultural institutions.
6. Adopting a strategic approach.

Comment follows on some examples of each of these approaches. While I have selected several examples of each approach, this does not necessarily mean that other cases might not be found among the PIE stimulus papers.

1. Involving all in the strategic development of the city - Sydney, Hume Global Learning Village

Involving the whole city in planning for the strategic development of the city can contribute much to inclusion objectives. The approach adopted by the city of Sydney provides a good example of this approach.

Sydney City Council divided the city into ten Urban Villages for planning and development purposes. Local Action Plans (LAPs) were developed for each Urban Village in consultation with the community. Forums were conducted with a wide turn out of residents. Local Action Plans then contributed to the overall strategic plan Sustainable Sydney 2030.

The Urban Village model adopted by Sydney has much in common with the Hume Global Learning Village in Melbourne where lifelong learning policies were added to the urban village concept to drive empowerment and inclusion objectives.

2. Widening participation in lifelong learning as a basis for inclusion - Cork, Limerick, Vancouver, Hume Global Learning Village

Cork and Limerick provide examples where an annual Lifelong Learning Festival has been used as a strategy to widen participation in lifelong learning. In the case of Cork participation in the Festival grew over ten years from 65 events in 2004 to about 500 activities in 2013 over a week.

This growth of participation in the annual Lifelong Learning Festival has contributed much to building a learning culture in Cork with a capacity for enterprise. This was seen in the initiatives Cork took to promote the EcCoWell approach to holistic and integrated learning city development. The co-ordinators of the Cork and Limerick Festivals in  an article in the Irish Journal of Adult and Community Education posed the question whether these Lifelong Learning Festivals can be seen as pathways to sustainable learning cities ( Kearns, Lane, Neylon, & Osborne, 2013).

Vancouver provides another example of a city seeking to promote inclusive engagement in lifelong learning through a number of projects. These include harnessing curiosity and popular culture in innovative projects.

The Hume Global Learning Village provides a further example of a community providing lifelong learning in a range of ways with the library role important in several learning hubs built to provide for learning in various forms and contexts. Inclusion has been central to development of the Hume GLV over ten years with considerable attention given to raising aspirations as a basis for inclusion.

3. Integrating development at the local, district, and city levels - Shanghai, Beijing

The Chinese cities in PIE, Shanghai and Beijing, provide good examples of ways in which development has been co-ordinated at three levels : the city, district, and local  area. This approach enables large cities of the size of Shanghai and Beijing to implement sustainable learning city projects.

While city authorities in Beijing and Shanghai have a key role in establishing a policy framework for lifelong learning, these cities are divided into a number of administrative districts which have an important role in progressing education, learning, and building community. Shanghai, for example, is divided into eighteen districts and counties. District administrations are important in the task of translating city-level policy objectives into actions to advance education, learning, and community. Inclusion objectives are then progressed at the local level including individual streets, through a number of providers and special events such as the Shanghai Week of Lifelong Learning, Cultural Festivals, and Book Fair and Reading events.

There have been similar developments in Beijing where administrative districts are also important in translating general objectives to action at a local level. Good practice is rewarded with three districts ( Xiching, Haidian, and Chaoyang honoured with the title of Model District in Community Education by the Ministry of Education.) Best practice is also recognised at a local level in organisations and streets.

4. Enhancing a sense of belonging - New York, Taipei

The PIE stimulus papers show a number of ways in which a sense of belonging is pivotal. While these include community building in a number of ways, physical planning and place making also make a contribution.

Community building may be seen in eco-community projects in Taipei, and in the role of devices such as community gardens. New York, the home of the Project on Public Spaces, is often seen as a City of Neighbourhoods, while initiatives such as the New York Streets Renaissance and the innovative urban parks (such as the High line and the new Brooklyn Bridge Park) enhance the sense of place in various neighbourhoods and contribute to building a sense of belonging in a community. Initiatives such as the Historic Districts legislation enhance neighbourhood heritage in a number of districts, and so contribute to a sense of belonging in places worth preserving.

5. Strengthening the work of cultural institutions in social change - Glasgow, PASCAL Ostersund Conference

A theme that emerged in the 2010 PASCAL Ostersund Conference and in the Glasgow stimulus paper involved strengthening the role of cultural institutions as an agent of social change. However, this important theme was not developed in the PIE exchanges, and it remains for the Harnessing Cultural Policy Network to examine the implications of this subject for facilitating inclusion in learning cities for the future.

The Glasgow stimulus paper took up the theme discussed by Mark O’Neill at the Ostersund Conference in exploring the social justice role of museums. This role includes challenging prejudice and intolerance in promoting social justice. Success factors identified included the importance of partnership in advancing social justice objectives.

6. Adopting a strategic approach - Hume Global Learning Village, Shanghai, Kaunas

One of the main lessons emerging from the PIE experience is the need for a strategic approach which integrates short-term objectives with a long-term vision. The Hume Global Learning Village provides a good example of a strate3gic approach with development in three-year action plans linked to a long-term vision for Hume set out in Learning Together 2030 and to be achieved through a number of steps set out in the three-year action plans.

The action plans include a number of initiatives, decided after consultation with the community, to progress inclusion objectives. These include strengthening learning in the early childhood years, facilitating pathways to employment, enhancing the technology role, and generally taking action to build a culture of learning.

Building a long-term vision to facilitate strategic development may also be seen in Shanghai and Beijing. In the case of Shanghai, a number of phases in building a learning society have been identified. This vision includes strengthening the role of civil society to complement and support the roles of government and market, and to building “a socialist harmonious society”.

Kaunas provides another example of a city that has adopted a strategic approach to its development as a learning city. Following a conference in 2001 on The Learning City – A Vision of Kaunas’s Future, Kaunas made efforts to progress key aspects of this vision, including strengthening formal and non-formal education. A broad approach to building an innovative community of sustainable life and development has been adopted. Kaunas is now participating in the Entrepreneurial Learning City Network to explore ways to further develop this concept of the future of Kaunas.

Inclusion in Learning Cities for the Future

The examples of good practice in a number of cities around the world that were documented in the PIE exchanges provide insights into ways in which learning cities can promote lifelong learning and promote inclusion.

It is to be hoped that the new Learning Cities 2020 Networks program will build on these foundations. While the Inclusion Network will have the main role in this further development, each of the other Networks is relevant and can contribute to this process.

The paper by Norman Longworth titled Social Inclusion in a Learning City provides a base for initial steps beyond the situation reached in the PIE exchanges. I hope that each Network will respond to this paper from the perspective of the subject area of their Network, perhaps with a focus on the questions at the end of the paper.

The PIE exchanges demonstrate that the two critical steps in fostering inclusion in learning cities involve providing education and learning opportunities for all throughout life, and building community at all levels. Successful learning city strategies can advance both objectives.

Promoting inclusion in a universal learning society is a key aspiration and objective for learning cities for the future. A good deal is now known about successful strategies. The challenge is now to bring these insights together as a framework for Learning Cities for the Future which provide opportunities for all to continue learning throughout life and contribute to building an inclusive learning society.

This will require connecting up the dimensions discussed in this paper in a process of redefining community as a broad ecology in the sustainable 21^st century learning city.

This need is well put by Leo Hollis in his book on Cities are Good for You:

Community may be many things: a shared space, a way of behaving, as well as people; yet the process of belonging is more than any one of these things alone. It is an ecology that combines place, people, and the way they interact.

References

All PIE stimulus papers cited in this paper may be read on the PIE website [1]. These papers are listed below.

Ezane Amdework (2013), Stimulus Paper on Addis Ababa

Dayong Yuan (2012), Towards the Learning City of Beijing Policy and Strategy

Tina Neylon (2011), Cork Stimulus Paper

Abel Ishumi & Mpoki Mwaikokesya (2011), Dar es Salaam Stimulus Paper

Chadzimulu Molebatsi (2012), Gaborone Stimulus Paper

Janice Lane (2011), Glasgow Stimulus Paper

Rupert Maclean & Ada Lai (2011), Hong Kong Stimulus Paper

Peter Kearns (2011), Hume Global Learning Village

Joseph Oonyu & Josephine Esaete (2012), Kampala City Stimulus Paper

Palmira Juceviciene ( 2011), Kaunas Stimulus Paper

Yvonne Lane (2012), Limerick Stimulus Paper

Peter Kearns (2013), New York : a City of Neighbourhoods

Jiongyun Lee (2013), Seoul Stimulus Paper

Jian Huang (2012), Shanghai Stimulus Paper

Stacey Huget (2011), Vancouver Stimulus Paper

Other references

Leo Hollis (2013), Cities are good for you, Bloomsbury, London

Peter Kearns, Yvonne Lane, Tina Neylon, & Michael Osborne, The Learning festival :  pathway to sustainable Learning Cities? The Irish Journal of Adult and Community Education, Adult Learner 2013