|
Global Strategic Planning Meeting
for Human Rights Education and Training Among Regional Centers August 2001 - Durban, South Africa | other working sessions |
| | who | outcomes | other documents |
| Case Studies | ||
Human Rights Education Training
of Trainers
review of
U.S. Training of Trainers for Human Rights Education
Institute in 2000
Report to Global HRE Alliance Centers
Draft June 2002
by Margaret Manderfeld
Human Rights Center
University of Minnesota, USA
Although news reports refer to human rights every day, "human rights literacy" is not widespread in the United States. Students of law and international relations or political science may study human rights in a university setting, but most people receive no education, formally or informally, about human rights. Even human rights activists usually acquire their knowledge and skills by self-teaching and direct experience.
When United States citizens say, "I’ve got my rights," they usually think of those civil and political rights defined in the U.S. Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, and the right to a fair trial. Few, however, realize that social, economic, and cultural rights such as health care, housing, or a living wage, are also human rights guaranteed in the UDHR.
Human rights are often viewed as a problem other countries have rather than an issue the United States needs to deal with. The media and politicians foster this view. Many citizens feel that their country is far superior to many countries in the world regarding human rights. The majority of citizens, while acknowledging that there are problems in the country, would not label these problems as human rights violations. This is a challenge faced by human rights educators in the country.
The United States has a varied record with regard to signing the United Nations conventions. Many factors contribute to this including indifferent Presidents, hostile members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and lack of information by most citizens. (See Appendix – Major Human Rights Instruments) Though the United States is one of only two countries who have failed to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the majority of citizens have no knowledge of this.
1.1 History of Human Rights Education
Human Rights Education has evolved within the last 10 years in the United States. In 1992, the Human Rights Center at the University of Minnesota initiated the largest implementation model of mass training of volunteers in the United States. This program – Partners in Human Rights Education – trained community volunteers, lawyers and law students to teach human rights at the primary and secondary levels. The volunteers were partnered with teachers and would go into classrooms once or many times throughout the school year. Most of the volunteers and teachers knew little or nothing about human rights prior to the training. (See Appendix -- History of Human Rights Education by Nancy Flowers)
The Human Rights Center also encourages residents of the Upper Midwest, including students, teachers, lawyers, other professionals, community leaders, and potential community leaders, to undertake opportunities for practical experience related to international human rights. The center has been awarding fellowships for this purpose since 1989. Participants are expected to return with a deeper commitment to a lifetime of work in human rights as professionals, community leaders and activists, teachers, and volunteers. In addition, the center has several internships available for those interested in working at the center.
The University of Minnesota Human Rights Center was inaugurated December 10, 1988, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principal focus of the Human Rights Center is to help train effective human rights professionals and volunteers. The Center fosters study, applied research, curriculum development, practical training, documentation, dissemination, and outreach on many aspects of international human rights. [1] The term "international human rights" describes those civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights guaranteed by the International Bill of Human Rights and other international instruments. The Center has received generous support from the Otto Bremer Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Mansfield Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, the John Merck Fund, the Laura Musser Fund, and other donors.
The Human Rights Center assists human rights advocates, monitors, students, and educators through five primary programs:
The Human Rights Center gives 50 to 60 trainings per year. The co-directors, David Weissbrodt and Kristi Rudelius-Palmer often facilitate these trainings. Volunteers trained by the center give countless more trainings.
You may contact the center the following ways:
Human Rights Center
University of Minnesota
Mondale
Hall, N-120
229-19th
Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Email: humanrts@umn.edu
Phone:
612-626-0041
1-888-HREDUC8
Fax: 612-626-7592
Professor
David Weissbrodt, Co-Director
tel:
612-625-5027
e-mail:
weiss001@tc.umn.edu
Kristi
Rudelius-Palmer, Co-Director
tel:
612-626-7794
e-mail:
krp@tc.umn.edu
3. General Description of the Training
The Human Rights Resource Center, in collaboration with the Stanley Foundation, is host to an annual U.S. Training-of-Trainers for Human Rights Education Institute. Upon completion of the Institute, the 25 participants selected for this advanced human rights training workshop are expected to conduct human rights training in their home communities. In addition, each participant is part of the national training corps of the Human Rights Resource Center.
The first Training of Trainers (TOT) was held in August 2000, a second annual training was held in 2001. The selection of participants for the third TOT will begin soon. (See Appendix --Applications for TOT 2000 and Draft Application for 2002)
This evaluation will focus on the 2000 TOT. The agenda for that first TOT is attached. (See Appendix – TOT 2000 schedule)
At the outset, the facilitators, not trainers, made clear that they were participants/learners.
The facilitators were Nancy Flowers, Antonio Medrano, Ellen Moore, Kristi Rudelius-Palmer and David Shiman. Their bios were included with the participant bios. (See Appendix – Participant Bios)
Subject experts were also brought in for brief presentations in combination with active learning activities.
Participants are self-selected to the extent that most must apply to be considered although both the Human Rights Center and the Stanley Foundation have suggested people for the training who were then included. The participants’ experience with human rights ranged from little or no knowledge to a law professor who taught human rights at the graduate level. The participants’ backgrounds varied in regard to: economic status, education, orientation, age, race, culture, gender and nationality. All were educators, trainers, community volunteers or activists. (See Appendix – Participant Bios)
As part of this evaluation, feedback was sought from 2000 TOT participants. Everyone who responded still felt that they had gained skills or knowledge through the TOT. All felt that TOTs should be continued. Most commented on how much they learned from their fellow participants. All had used materials or methodologies from the TOT in their subsequent trainings. Several expressed the desire to be more closely connected with other human rights educators. This remains a continuing challenge despite the human rights educators’ listserve.
The concept of human rights used is holistic in that human rights are regarded as inherent, universal and indivisible. All rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural are regarded as interrelated. Human rights encompasses historical reference points from religious, societal and governmental documents as well as the International Bill of Human Rights rising from the United Nations documents. But human rights are NOT derived from legal relations rather all human beings are born free and equal and their rights are inalienable.
Human rights are the foundation and set up the principals for social justice work. Social justice is a response to injustice. When a specific right is not realized by a population or group then one needs education and advocacy to counter the injustice.
Several models of human rights education underlie the training. There are different movements of education incorporated into the training including: peace education, multi-cultural education, citizenship education, and democracy education. Human rights are the intersection for all education models used. Human rights provide the principles for all models even if the model does not use the human rights language.
The training emphasizes information-sharing and skill-building. An assumption is made that all learners come with some awareness so awareness building is not emphasized but probably occurs organically as learners with different experiences share their stories. Likewise, it is assumed that attitude development is already present for the learners. Advocacy is not a focus of the training.
Paulo Freire’s work infuses many aspects of the training. Human rights are approached with the perspective that each oppression is tied to another. Social justice is not approached from the “do-gooder” angle but rather that everyone’s pain intersects and we all need to be working for justice for all.
The theories of learning employed are also varied. There is Kolbes and Cohlberg’s moral development; Paulo Freire’s justice and social movement; the cognitive theory; and the truth and reconciliation theory which is a new theory recognizing the whole. During the training the theory of learning was not articulated.
Learning by doing is the focus. Information is provided and the learner must process and interpret and then produce a learner tool which can be used in their home community. Learners are encouraged to use themselves and other participants as resources. The training uses an interactive approach rather than a top-down lecture approach to teaching. The learners participate in both the teaching and the development of the agenda as the training progresses. This approach challenges the learners because people may not be used to this and don’t always want it. One question here is whether the learner wants to accept responsibility for their acquisition of knowledge and skills. Insecurities can come to the surface. For the training to be successful the learners must trust this approach.
At the outset, the facilitators made clear that they were participants/learners. The idea was not to have the facilitators clearly delineated but to be involved as participants. However, there is value in having facilitators who are not completely in the learning process. A question debated is whether the facilitators should be experts. The conclusion is that it is not necessary for the facilitator to be an expert in content.
The participants should have clearly expressed needs and goals. Ideally the participants become facilitators and train each other during the course of the training.
The training focuses more on social, political and cultural rights rather than civil and political. This focus derives from the lack of emphasis on these rights in the United States. The training seeks to challenge people’s myths around human rights and puts education, housing and health care on the table as rights. The training embraces arts as a methodology of the training, thus focusing additional attention on cultural rights. The rights of indigenous peoples and rights of self-determination are emphasized because of the lack of attention these receive in the United States.
The schedule for the 2000 TOT confirms the heavy emphasis on skill-building and information-sharing. The goals and outcomes echo this emphasis. (See Appendix – Goals and Outcomes) Each learner has three assignments for the training. (See Appendix – Participant Presentation Guidelines) Each participant must lead a small group discussion on a human rights issue in the United States. The participant is evaluated on eliciting participation, asking effective questions and encouraging a variety of opinions. Each participant must make a basic introduction to human rights as part of a small group. The participants are evaluated on speaking skills, accuracy of the information, suitability of the content to their audience and audience involvement. Finally the participants form teams based on their special human rights interest and prepare a 1-2 hour workshop on that topic. The workshops are evaluated on presentation skills, suitability of the content and methods and the potential for audience learning and involvement.
The participants were provided with guidelines to help them take an idea and bring it to effective fruition. For example the participants were given guidelines for speaking, steps in action planning and tasks in special interest groups. (See Appendix – Guidelines, Tasks and Steps) The content for their special interest presentations could come from themselves, human rights information available from the facilitators or information provides by other participants.
The participants are exposed to many different learning materials. They are explicitly encouraged to bring materials to share. The learning materials are not limited to written, visual or multi-media. For example, performance art is a learning material used also.
The participants receive human rights education books available through the Human Rights Center. These include:
These books are available for free online at the Human Rights Center website.
The learners at the 2000 TOT were given a draft of the Human Rights Education Handbook to review and comment on. This book has now been published as:
The information from the special issues presentations made by the learners is captured and made available to each of the learners so that they will have a starting point for future presentations on the same topic. (See Appendix – Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Indigenous Rights)
Material on many human rights activities is also provided to the learners. A sample of these follows:
(See Appendix)
The participants have indicated during follow-up that they have used many of the materials received during their training.
Evaluations took place throughout the training. Participants received evaluations in small groups on their individual presentations. Participants stayed in the same small group throughout the training. The participants received feedback, as part of a group, for their introduction to human rights presentation and their special interest workshop presentation.
Evaluation and feedback of the training began almost immediately when the participants shared their needs and expectations during the opening ceremony. This was important because the facilitators wanted to meet as many needs of the participants and still keep focus to the training. In actuality, feedback for the training began when the applications were read and expectations were noted by the selection committee and shared with the facilitators.
Participants were encouraged to volunteer to be an observer for a particular activity and record their impressions of the process. Feedback from the observer was shared the following morning during the opening. The observations for the entire training were recorded. (See Appendix -- Best Practices for Human Rights Learning: Meeting Minutes) At the end of each day participants came together in a circle and could share a comment or thought. There was also a journal were participants could record feedback. This is important for those who might not want to speak in front of the group. The closing ceremony included time for feedback from the participants and the facilitators.
The participants were asked to complete an evaluation with the following questions:
Has this TOT workshop:
1. Met its stated goals and outcomes?
2. Created a climate of openness and challenge?
3. Provided adequate opportunities for your participation.?
4. Helped you become more informed, skilled and/or confident as a workshop leader?
5. Failed to address some important human rights concerns?
6. Increased your understanding of human rights issues?
7. Created a sense of community with other educators and activists?
8. Made adequate logistic arrangements for: transportation, preliminary information, accommodation/meals, etc.?
Looking toward the future:
9. Do you recommend our conducting future TOT workshops for Human Rights Education? Please provide recommendations for how this training could be improved.
10. Do you intend to conduct local trainings and complete the bi-annual tracking evaluations to help us evaluate the effectiveness of this TOT?
The participants all felt the training should be offered again but some commented that there was not enough time for the material covered. The participants all felt that had acquired more skills as a workshop leader though some wanted more basic human rights information than they received.
The participants were also asked to complete a final evaluation with the following questions:
How has this training contributed to your global perspective/understanding?
What new learnings/topics might you explore as a result of this training?
The results were overwhelmingly positive for the first question. Further, almost all participants indicated that they obtained new knowledge, new skills or both from the workshop.
A mid-year progress report was sent to the participants with the following questions:
1. Have you explored new areas of learning or topics as a result of the TOT training?
2. Have you conducted local trainings in your community? How many?
3. What activities or anecdotes, drawn from the TOT, did you use in your trainings or presentations?
4. After conducting trainings and presentations, what if anything would have been useful to have learned or been exposed to at the TOT?
5. Has the Human Rights Education Handbook been of assistance to you in the preparation, planning and delivery of your presentations and trainings?
6. If you purchased additional resources from the Human Rights Center, did they prove useful in the preparation, planning and delivery of your presentations and trainings?
7. Do you have any suggestions for further improvement for the 2001 TOT?
8. How can the Human Rights Center be of further assistance?
With the mid-year progress report a training summary sheet was sent to the participants to record their trainings. A summary of the results of these questions was reported to The Stanley Foundation. (See Appendix -- March 20, 2001 Report to Stanley Foundation)
The facilitators reviewed all the evaluations and the Human Rights Center compiled summaries of them. The results were incorporated into planning for the 2001 TOT. Some of the feedback from the evaluations was also shared with the participants. (See Appendix -- September 1, 2000, follow-up to Participants)
Some of the feedback expressed frustration at too much information coming too quickly to the participants without enough time to digest it. Some believe that the future participants should come in with a basic understanding of human rights. My thoughts based on participation in 2000 and helping select the trainers for 2001 is slightly different. I believe that the participants should have demonstrated that they are a trainer to some degree – this would keep out subject matter experts who do not train. I also do not believe that trainers who will primarily work in a classroom setting at a university level should be selected for future trainings. These professionals have many other opportunities to gain skills to improve their teaching. I would prefer to select trainers who are in the field training in connection with a human rights issue. From my perspective, it is not important that they know about the international documents. It is these trainers, training in connection with human rights – whether they know it or not – who should be given the language of human rights and additional training skills.
One of the focuses of the 2000 TOT was how to form and nurture a human rights learning community. One important step toward this was the formation of a listserve for the participants. This has provided a way for the 2000 and 2001 trainees to communicate with the group as a whole. However, not everyone has equal access to technology to enable them to maintain this connection. Many participants chose to keep in contact with other participants and facilitators on an individual basis.
In responding to the questions posed by this evaluator a participant posed two additional methods to maintain connection among participants. He thought the Human Rights Center should experiment with a buddy system and share ideas on how to be good coach/support for each other. He also suggested on-line study groups on special topics?
There were some strong negative comments and resistance among some participants in the 2001 TOT. This evaluation was limited to the 2000 TOT to avoid skewing this report by some of the negativity. Nancy Flowers and Kristi Rudelius-Palmer will address the 2001 TOT separately.
Certain questions are very convoluted – particularly number seven. It would be helpful to break down question seven and give examples of the information you are seeking here.
I did not find the suggested number of pages per question helpful at all. If you are going to suggest a number of pages you must give specific information about how much space to devote to each part of the question.
12. Bias of the Evaluator
The evaluator, Margaret Manderfeld, was a participant/learner in the 2000 Training of Trainers. She also participated with the selection of the participants for the 2001 TOT.