This post discusses recent progress by the European Talent Centre towards a European Talent Network.
It is a curtain-raiser for an imminent conference on this topic and poses the critical questions I would like to see addressed at that event.
It should serve as a briefing document for prospective delegates and other interested parties, especially those who want to dig beneath the invariably positive publicity surrounding the initiative.
It continues the narrative strand of posts I have devoted to the Network, concentrating principally on developments since my last contribution in December 2012.
- An updated description of the Hungarian model for talent support and its increasingly complex infrastructure.
- The origins of the European Talent project and how its scope and objectives have changed since its inception.
- The project’s advocacy effort within the European Commission and its impact to date.
- Progress on the European Talent Map and promised annual European Talent Days and conferences.
- The current scope and effectiveness of the network, its support structures and funding.
- Key issues and obstacles that need to be addressed.
To improve readability I have divided the text into two sections of broadly equivalent length. Part One is dedicated largely to bullets one to three above, while Part Two deals with bullets three to six.
Previous posts in this series
If I am to do justice to this complex narrative, I must necessarily draw to some extent on material I have already published in earlier posts. I apologise for the repetition, which I have tried to keep to a minimum.
On re-reading those earlier posts and comparing them with this, it is clear that my overall assessment of the EU talent project has shifted markedly since 2010, becoming progressively more troubled and pessimistic.
This seems to me justified by an objective assessment of progress, based exclusively on evidence in the public domain – evidence that I have tried to draw together in these posts.
However, I feel obliged to disclose the influence of personal frustration at this slow progress, as well as an increasing sense of personal exclusion from proceedings – which seems completely at odds with the networking principles on which the project is founded.
I have done my best to control this subjective influence in the assessment below, confining myself as far as possible to an objective interpretation of the facts.
However I refer you to my earlier posts if you wish to understand how I reached this point.
- In June 2010 I wrote about Hungary’s Plans to Strengthen G&T Education Across the EU charting its relationship to earlier efforts to strengthen pan-European collaboration and canvassing support for the Hungarian initiative.
- In April 2011 I attended the inaugural conference in Budapest, publishing a report on the proceedings and an analysis of the Declaration produced, plus an assessment of the Hungarian approach to talent support as it then was and its potential scalability to Europe as a whole.
- In December 2012 I described the initial stages of EU lobbying, an ill-fated 2012 conference in Poland, the earliest activities of the European Talent Centre and the evolving relationship between the project and ECHA, the European Council for High Ability.
I will not otherwise comment on my personal involvement, other than to say that I do not expect to attend the upcoming Conference, judging that the cost of attending will not be exceeded by the benefits of doing so.
This post conveys more thoroughly and more accurately the points I would have wanted to make during the proceedings, were suitable opportunities provided to do so.
A brief demographic aside
It is important to provide some elementary information about Hungary’s demographics, to set in context the discussion below of its talent support model and the prospects for Europe-wide scalability.
Hungary is a medium-sized central European country with an area roughly one-third of the UK’s and broadly similar to South Korea or Portugal.
It has a population of around 9.88 million (2013) about a sixth of the size of the UK population and similar in size to Portugal’s or Sweden’s.
Hungary is the 16th most populous European country, accounting for about 1.4% of the total European population and about 2% of the total population of the European Union (EU).
It is divided into 7 regions and 19 counties, plus the capital, Budapest, which has a population of 1.7 million in its own right.
Almost 84% of the population are ethnic Hungarians but there is a Roma minority estimated (some say underestimated) at 3.1% of the population.
Approximately 4 million Hungarians are aged below 35 and approximately 3.5m are aged 5-34.
The GDP (purchasing power parity) is $19,497 (source: IMF), slightly over half the comparable UK figure.
The Hungarian Talent Support Model
The Hungarian model has grown bewilderingly complex and there is an array of material describing it, often in slightly different terms.
Some of the English language material is not well translated and there are gaps that can be filled only with recourse to documents in Hungarian (which I can only access through online translation tools).
Much of this documentation is devoted to publicising the model as an example of best practice, so it can be somewhat economical with the truth.
The basic framework is helpfully illustrated by this diagram, which appeared in a presentation dating from October 2012.
It shows how the overall Hungarian National Talent Programme (NTP) comprises a series of time-limited projects paid for by the EU Social Fund, but also a parallel set of activities supported by a National Talent Fund which is fed mainly by the Hungarian taxpayer.
The following sections begin by outlining the NTP, as described in a Parliamentary Resolution dating from 2008.
Secondly, they describe the supporting infrastructure for the NTP as it exists today.
Thirdly, they outline the key features of the time-limited projects: The Hungarian Genius Programme (HGP) (2009-13) and the Talent Bridges Programme (TBP) (2012-14).
Finally, they try to make sense of the incomplete and sometimes conflicting information about the funding allocated to different elements of the NTP.
Throughout this treatment my principal purpose is to show how the European Talent project fits into the overall Hungarian plan, as precursor to a closer analysis of the former in the second half of the post.
I also want to show how the direction of the NTP has shifted since its inception.
The National Talent Programme (NTP) (2008-2028)
The subsections below describe the NTP as envisaged in the original 2008 Parliamentary Resolution. This remains the most thorough exposition of the broader direction of travel that I could find.
The framework set out in the Resolution is built on ten general principles that I can best summarise as follows:
- Talent support covers the period from early childhood to age 35, so extends well beyond compulsory education.
- The NTP must preserve the traditions of existing successful talent support initiatives.
- Talent is complex and so requires a diversity of provision – standardised support is a false economy.
- There must be equality of access to talent support by geographical area, ethnic and socio-economic background.
- Continuity is necessary to support individual talents as they change and develop over time; special attention is required at key transition points.
- In early childhood one must provide opportunities for talent to emerge, but selection on the basis of commitment and motivation become increasingly significant and older participants increasingly self-select.
- Differentiated support is needed to support different levels of talent; there must be opportunities to progress and to step off the programme without loss of esteem.
- In return for talent support, the talented individual has a social responsibility to support talent development in others.
- Those engaged in talent support – here called talent coaches – need time and support.
- Wider social support for talent development is essential to success and sustainability.
Hence the Hungarians are focused on a system-wide effort to promote talent development that extends well beyond compulsory education, but only up to the age of 35. As noted above, if 0-4 year-olds are excluded, this represents an eligible population of about 3.5 million people.
The choice of this age 35 cut-off seems rather arbitrary. Having decided to push beyond compulsory education into adult provision, it is not clear why the principle of lifelong learning is then set aside – or exactly what happens when participants reach their 36th birthdays.
Otherwise the principles above seem laudable and broadly reflect one tradition of effective practice in the field.
The NTP’s goals are illustrated by this diagram
The elements in the lower half of the diagram can be expanded thus:
- Talent support traditions: support for existing provision; development of new provision to fill gaps; minimum standards and professional development for providers; applying models of best practice; co-operation with ethnic Hungarian programmes outside Hungary (‘cross border programmes’); and ‘systematic exploration and processing of the talent support experiences’ of EU and other countries which excel in this field.
- Integrated programmes: compiling and updating a map of the talent support opportunities available in Hungary as well as ‘cross border programmes’; action to support access to the talent map; a ‘detailed survey of the international talent support practice’; networking between providers with cooperation and collaboration managed through a set of talent support councils; monitoring of engagement to secure continuity and minimise drop-out.
- Social responsibility: promoting the self-organisation of talented youth; developing their innovation and management skills; securing counselling; piloting a ‘Talent Bonus – Talent Coin’ scheme to record in virtual units the monetary value of support received and provided, leading to consideration of a LETS-type scheme; support for ‘exceptionally talented youth’; improved social integration of talented youth and development of a talent-friendly society.
- Equal opportunities: providing targeted information about talent support opportunities; targeted programming for disadvantaged, Roma and disabled people and wider emphasis on integration; supporting the development of Roma talent coaches; and action to secure ‘the desirable gender distribution’.
- Enhanced recognition: improving financial support for talent coaches; reducing workload and providing counselling for coaches; improving recognition and celebrating the success of coaches and others engaged in talent support.
- Talent-friendly society: awareness-raising activity for parents, family and friends of talented youth; periodic talent days to mobilise support and ‘promote the local utilisation of talent’; promoting talent in the media, as well as international communication about the programme and ‘introduction in both the EU and other countries by exploiting the opportunities provided by Hungary’s EU Presidency in 2011’; ‘preparation for the foreign adaptation of the successful talent support initiatives’ and organisation of EU talent days.
Hence the goals incorporate a process of learning from European and other international experience, but also one of feeding back to the international community information about the Hungarian talent support effort and extending the model into other European countries.
There is an obvious tension in these goals between preserving the traditions of existing successful initiatives and imposing a framework with minimum standards and built-in quality criteria. This applies equally to the European project discussed below.
The reference to a LETS-type scheme is intriguing but I could trace nothing about its subsequent development.
In 2008 the infrastructure proposed to undertake the NTP comprised:
- A National Talent Co-ordination Board, chaired at Ministerial level, to oversee the programme and to allocate a National Talent Fund (see below).
- A National Talent Support Circle [I’m not sure whether this should be ‘Council’] consisting of individuals from Hungary and abroad who would promote talent support through professional opportunities, financial contribution or ‘social capital opportunities’.
- A National Talent Fund comprising a Government contribution and voluntary contributions from elsewhere. The former would include the proceeds of a 1% voluntary income tax levy (being one of the good causes towards which Hungarian taxpayers could direct this contribution). Additional financial support would come from ‘the talent support-related programmes of the New Hungary Development Plan’.
- A system of Talent Support Councils to co-ordinate activity at regional and local level.
- A national network of Talent Points – providers of talent support activity.
- A biennial review of the programme presented to Parliament, the first being in 2011.
Presumably there have been two of these biennial reviews to date. They would make interesting reading, but I could find no material in English that describes the outcomes.
The NTP Infrastructure Today
The supporting infrastructure as described today has grown considerably more complex and bureaucratic than the basic model above.
- The National Talent Co-ordination Board continues to oversee the programme as a whole. Its membership is set out here.
- The National Talent Support Council was established in 2006 and devised the NTP as set out above. Its functions are more substantial than originally described (assuming this is the ‘Circle’ mentioned in the Resolution), although it now seems to be devolving some of these. Until recently at least, the Council: oversaw the national database of talent support initiatives and monitored coverage, matching demand – via an electronic mailing list – with the supply of opportunities; initiated and promoted regional talent days; supported the network of talent points and promoted the development of new ones; invited tenders for niche programmes of various kinds; collected and analysed evidence of best practice and the research literature; and promoted international links paying ‘special attention to the reinforcement of the EU contacts’. The Council has a Chair and six Vice Presidents as well as a Secretary and Secretariat. It operates nine committees: Higher Education, Support for Socially Disadvantaged Gifted People, Innovations, Public Education, Foreign Relations, Public and Media Relations, Theory of Giftedness, Training and Education and Giftedness Network.
- The National Talent Point has only recently been identified as an entity in its own right, distinct from the National Council. Its role is to maintain the Talent Map and manage the underpinning database. Essentially it seems to have acquired the Council’s responsibilities for delivery, leaving the Council to concentrate on policy. It recently acquired a new website.
- The Association of Hungarian Talent Support Organizations (MATEHETZ) is also a new addition. Described as ‘a non-profit umbrella organization that legally represents its members and the National Talent Support Council’, it is funded by the National Council and through membership fees. The Articles of Association date from February 2010 and list 10 founding organisations. The Association provides ‘representation’ for the National Council’ (which I take to mean the membership). It manages the time-limited programmes (see below) as well asthe National Talent Point and the European Talent Centre.
- Talent Support Councils: Different numbers of these are reported. One source says 76; another 65, of which some 25% were newly-established through the programme. Their role seems broadly unchanged, involving local and regional co-ordination, support for professionals, assistance to develop new activities, helping match supply with demand and supporting the tracking of those with talent.
- Talent Point Network: there were over 1,000 talent points by the end of 2013. (Assuming 3.5 million potential participants, that is a talent point for every 3,500 people.) Talent points are providers of talent support services – whether identification, provision or counselling. They are operated by education providers, the church and a range of other organisations and may have a local, regional or national reach. They join the network voluntarily but are accredited. In 2011 there were reportedly 400 talent points and 200 related initiatives, so there has been strong growth over the past two years.
- Ambassadors of Talent: Another new addition, introduced by the National Talent Support Council in 2011. There is a separate Ambassador Electing Council which appoints three new ambassadors per year. The current list has thirteen entries and is markedly eclectic.
- Friends of Talent Club: described in 2011 as ‘a voluntary organisation that holds together those, who are able and willing to support talents voluntarily and serve the issue of talent support…Among them, there are mentors, counsellors and educators, who voluntarily help talented people develop in their professional life. The members of the club can be patrons and/or supporters. “Patrons” are those, who voluntarily support talents with a considerable amount of service. “Supporters” are those, who voluntarily support the movement of talent support with a lesser amount of voluntary work, by mobilizing their contacts or in any other way.’ This sounds similar to the originally envisioned ‘National Talent Support Circle’ [sic]. I could find little more about the activities of this branch of the structure.
- The European Talent Centre: The National Talent Point says that this:
‘…supports and coordinates European actions in the field of talent support in order to find gifted people and develop their talent in the interest of Europe as a whole and the member states.’
Altogether this is a substantial endeavour requiring large numbers of staff and volunteers and demanding a significant budgetary topslice.
I could find no reliable estimate of the ratio of the running cost to the direct investment in talent support, but there must be cause to question the overall efficiency of the system.
My hunch is that this level of bureaucracy must consume a significant proportion of the overall budget.
Clearly the Hungarian talent support network is a long, long way from being financially self-sustaining, if indeed it ever could be.
The Hungarian Genius Programme (HGP) (2009-13)
Launched in June 2009, the HGP had two principal phases lasting from 2009 to 2011 and from 2011 to 2013. The fundamental purpose was to establish the framework and infrastructure set out in the National Talent Plan.
This English language brochure was published in 2011. It explains that the initial focus is on adults who support talents, establishing a professional network and training experts, as well as creating the network and map of providers.
It mentions that training courses lasting 10 to 30 hours have been developed and accredited in over 80 subjects to:
‘…bring concepts and methods of gifted and talented education into the mainstream and reinforce the professional talent support work… These involve the exchange of experience and knowledge expansion training, as well as programs for those who deal with talented people in developing communities, and awareness-raising courses aimed at the families and environment of young pupils, on the educational, emotional and social needs of children showing special interest and aptitude in one or more subject(s). The aims of the courses are not only the exchange of information but to produce and develop the professional methodology required for teaching talents.’
The brochure also describes an extensive talent survey undertaken in 2010, the publication of several good practice studies and the development of a Talent Loan modeled on the Hungarian student loan scheme.
It lists a seven-strong strategic management group including an expert adviser, project manager, programme co-ordinator and a finance manager. There are also five operational teams, each led by a named manager, one of which focused on ‘international relations: collecting and disseminating international best practices; international networking’.
- 24,000 new talents were identified
- The Talent Map was drawn and the Talent Network created (including 867 talent points and 76 talent councils).
- 23,500 young people took part in ‘subsidised talent support programmes’
- 118 new ‘local educational talent programmes’ were established
- 25 professional development publications were written and made freely available
- 13,987 teachers (about 10% of the total in Hungary) took part in professional development.
Evidence in English of rigorous independent evaluation is, however, limited:
‘The efficiency of the Programme has been confirmed by public opinion polls (increased social acceptance of talent support) and impact assessments (training events: expansion of specialised knowledge and of the methodological tool kit).’
The Talent Bridges Project (TBP) (2012-2014)
TBP began in November 2012 and is scheduled to last until ‘mid-2014’.
The initially parallel TBP is mentioned in the 2011 brochure referenced above:
‘In the strategic plan of the Talent Bridges Program to begin in 2012, we have identified three key areas for action: bridging the gaps in the Talent Point network, encouraging talents in taking part in social responsibility issues and increasing media reach. In order to become sustainable, much attention should be payed [sic] to maintaining and expanding the support structure of this system, but the focus will significantly shift towards direct talent care work with the youth.’
Later on it says:
‘Within the framework of the Talent Bridges Program the main objectives are: to further improve the contact system between the different levels of talent support organisations; to develop talent peer communities based on the initiatives coming from young people themselves; to engage talents in taking an active role in social responsibility; to increase media reach in order to enhance the recognition and social support for both high achievers and talent support; and last, but not least, to arrange the preliminary steps of setting up an EU Institute of Talent Support in Budapest.’
A list of objectives published subsequently contains the following items:
- Creating a national talent registration and tracking system
- Developing programmes for 3,000 talented young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and with special educational needs
- Supporting the development of ‘outstanding talents’ in 500 young people
- Supporting 500 enrichment programmes
- Supporting ‘the peer age groups of talented young people’
- Introducing programmes to strengthen interaction between parents, teachers and talented youth benefiting 5,000 young people
- Introducing ‘a Talent Marketplace’ to support ‘the direct social utilisation of talent’ involving ‘150 controlled co-operations’
- Engaging 2,000 mentors in supporting talented young people and training 5,000 talent support facilitators and mentors
- Launching a communication campaign to reach 100,000 young people and
- ‘Realise European-Union-wide communication (in addition to the current 10, to involve 10 more EU Member States into the Hungarian initiatives, in co-operation with the European Talent Centre in Budapest established in the summer of 2012).’
Various sources describe how the TBP is carved up into a series of sub-projects. The 2013 Brochure ‘Towards a European Talent Support Network’ lists 14 of these, but none mention the European work.
However, what appears to be the bid for TBP (in Hungarian) calls the final sub-project ‘an EU Communications Programme’ (p29), which appears to involve:
- Raising international awareness of Hungary’s talent support activities
- Strengthening Hungary’s position in the EU talent network
- Providing a foreign exchange experience for talented young Hungarians
- Influencing policy makers.
Later on (p52) this document refers to an international campaign, undertaken with support from the European Talent Centre, targeting international organisations and the majority of EU states.
Work to be covered includes the preparation of promotional publications in foreign languages, the operation of a ‘multilingual online platform’, participation in international conferences (such as those of ECHA, the World Council, IRATDE and ICIE); and ‘establishing new professional collaborations with at least 10 new EU countries or international organisations’.
It is not a straightforward matter to reconcile the diverse and sometimes conflicting sources of information about the budgets allocated to the National Talent Fund, HGP and the TBP, but this is my best effort, with all figures converted into pounds sterling.
|NTF||x||£2.34m.or £4.1m||£2.34m.or £4.1m||£8.27m||tbc||tbc||tbc|
|Of which ETC||x||x||x||£80,000||£37,500||£21,350||£138,850|
|Of which EU comms||x||x||x||£182,000||£182,000|
Several sources say that the Talent Fund is set to increase in size over the period.
‘This fund has an annual 5 million EUR support from the national budget and an additional amount from tax donations of the citizens of a total sum of 1.5 million EUR in the first year doubled to 3 million EUR and 6 million EUR in the second and third years respectively.’ (Csermely 2012)
That would translate into a budget of £5.4m/£6.7m/£9.2m over the three years in question, but it is not quite clear which three years are included.
Even if we assume that the NTF budget remains the same in 2013 and 2014 as in 2012, the total investment over the period 2009-2014 amounts to approximately £60m.
That works out at about £17 per eligible Hungarian. Unfortunately I could find no reliable estimate of the total number of Hungarians that have benefited directly from the initiative to date.
On the basis of the figures I have seen, my guesstimate is that the total will be below 10% of the total eligible population – so under 350,000. But I must stress that there is no evidence to support this.
Whether or not the intention is to reach 100% of the population, or whether there is an in-built assumption that only a proportion of the population are amenable to talent development, is a moot point. I found occasional references to a 25% assumption, but it was never clear whether this was official policy.
Even if this applies, there is clearly a significant scalability challenge even within Hungary’s national programme.
It is also evident that the Hungarians have received some £18m from the European Social Fund over the past five years and have invested at least twice as much of their own money. That is a very significant budget indeed for a country of this size.
Hungary’s heavy reliance on EU funding is such that they will find it very difficult to sustain the current effort if that largesse disappears.
One imagines that they will be seeking continued support from EU sources over the period 2014-2020. But, equally, one would expect the EU to demand robust evidence that continued heavy dependency on EU funding will not be required.
And of course a budget of this size also begs questions about scalability to Europe in the conspicuous absence of a commensurate figure. There is zero prospect of equivalent funding being available to extend the model across Europe. The total bill would run into billions of pounds!
A ‘Hungarian-lite’ model would not be as expensive, but it would require a considerable budget.
However, it is clear from the table that the present level of expenditure on the European network has been tiny by comparison with the domestic investment – probably not much more than £100,000 per year.
Initially this came from the National Talent Fund budget but it seems as though the bulk is now provided through the ESF, until mid-2014 at least.
This shift seems to have removed a necessity for the European Talent Centre to receive its funding in biannual tranches through a perpetual retendering process.
For the sums expended from the NTF budget are apparently tied to periods of six months or less.
The European Talent Centre website currently bears the legend:
‘Operation of the European Talent Centre – Budapest between 15th December 2012 and 30th June 2013 is realised with the support of Grant Scheme No. NTP-EUT-M-12 announced by the Institute for Educational Research and Development and the Human Resources Support Manager on commission of the Ministry of Human Resources “To support international experience exchange serving the objectives of the National Talent Programme, and to promote the operation and strategic further development of the European Talent Centre – Budapest”.’
But when I wrote my 2012 review it said:
‘The operation of the European Talent Centre — Budapest is supported from 1 July 2012 through 30 November 2012 by the grant of the National Talent Fund. The grant is realised under Grant Scheme No. NTP-EU-M-12 announced by the Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development and the SándorWekerle Fund Manager of the Ministry of Administration and Justice on commission of the Ministry of Human Resources, from the Training Fund Segment of the Labour Market Fund.’
A press release confirmed the funding for this period as HUF 30m.
Presumably it will now need to be amended to reflect the arrival of £21.3K under Grant Scheme No. NTP-EU-M-13 – and possibly to reflect income from the ESF-supported TBP too.
Origins of the European Talent Project: Evolution to December 2012
Hungary identified talent support as a focus during its EU Presidency, in the first half of 2011, citing four objectives:
- A talent support conference scheduled for April 2011
- A first European Talent Day to coincide with the conference, initially ‘a Hungarian state initiative…expanding it into a public initiative by 2014’.
- Talent support to feature in EU strategies and documents, as well as a Non-Legislative Act (NLA). It is not specified whether this should be a regulation, decision, recommendation or opinion. (Under EU legislation the two latter categories have no binding force.)
- An OMCexpert group on talent support – ie an international group run under the aegis of the Commission.
The Budapest Declaration
The Conference duly took place, producing a Budapest Declaration on Talent Support in which conference participants:
- ‘Call the European Commission and the European Parliament to make every effort to officially declare the 25th of March the European Day of the Talented and Gifted.’
- ‘Stress the importance of…benefits and best practices appearing in documents of the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament.’
- ‘Propose to establish a European Talent Resource and Support Centre in Budapest’ to ‘coordinate joint European actions in the field’.
- ‘Agree to invite stakeholders from every country of the European Union to convene annually to discuss the developments and current questions in talent support. Upon the invitation of the Government of Poland the next conference will take place in Warsaw.’
The possibility of siting a European Centre anywhere other than Budapest was not seriously debated.
Evolution of a Written Declaration to the EU
Following the Conference an outline Draft Resolution of the European Parliament was circulated for comment.
This proposed that:
‘A Europe-wide talent support network should be formed and supported with an on-line and physical presence to support information-sharing, partnership and collaborations. This network should be open for co-operation with all European talent support efforts, use the expertise and networking experiences of existing multinational bodies such as the European Council of High Ability and support both national and multinational efforts to help talents not duplicating existing efforts but providing an added European value.’
Moreover, ‘A European Talent Support Centre should be established…in Budapest’. This:
‘…should have an Advisory Board having the representatives of interested EU member states, all-European talent support-related institutions as well as key figures of European talent support.’
The Centre’s functions are five-fold:
‘Using the minimum bureaucracy and maximising its use of online solutions the European Talent Support Centre should:
- facilitate the development and dissemination of best curricular and extra-curricular talent support practices;
- coordinate the trans-national cooperation of Talent Points forming an EU Talent Point network;
- help the spread of the know-how of successful organization of Talent Days;
- organize annual EU talent support conferences in different EU member states overseeing the progress of cooperation in European talent support;
- provide a continuously updated easy Internet access for all the above information.’
Note the references on the one hand to an inclusive approach, a substantial advisory group (though without the status of an EU-hosted OMC expert group) and a facilitating/co-ordinating role, but also – on the other hand – the direct organisation of annual EU-wide conferences and provision of a sophisticated supporting online environment.
MEPs were lined up to submit the Resolution in Autumn 2011 but, for whatever reason, this did not happen.
Instead a new draft Written Declaration was circulated in January 2012. This called on:
- ‘Member States to consider measures helping curricular and extracurricular forms of talent support including the training of educational professionals to recognize and help talent;
- The Commission to consider talent support as a priority of future European strategies, such as the European Research Area and the European Social Fund;
- Member States and the Commission to support the development of a Europe-wide talent support network, formed by talent support communities, Talent Points and European Talent Centres facilitating cooperation, development and dissemination of best talent support practices;
- Member States and the Commission to celebrate the European Day of the Talented and Gifted.’
The focus has shifted from the Budapest-centric network to EU-led activity amongst member states collectively. Indeed, no specific role for Hungary is mentioned.
There is a new emphasis on professional development and – critically – a reference to ‘European talent centres’. All mention of NLAs and OMC expert groups has disappeared.
There followed an unexplained 11-month delay before a Final Written Declaration was submitted by four MEPs in November 2012.
The 2012 Written Declaration
There are some subtle adjustments in the final version of WD 0034/2012. The second bullet point has become:
- ‘The Commission to consider talent support as part of ‘non-formal learning’ and a priority in future European strategies, such as the strategies guiding the European Research Area and the European Social Fund’.
While the third now says:
- ‘Member States and the Commission to support the development of a Europe-wide talent support network bringing together talent support communities, Talent Points and European Talent Centres in order to facilitate cooperation and the development and dissemination of the best talent support practices.’
And the fourth is revised to:
- ‘Member States and the Commission to celebrate the European Day of Highly Able People.’
The introduction of a phrase that distinguishes between education and talent support is curious.
CEDEFOP – which operates a European Inventory on Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning – defines the latter as:
‘…learning resulting from daily work-related, family or leisure activities. It is not organised or structured (in terms of objectives, time or learning support). Informal learning is in most cases unintentional from the learner’s perspective. It typically does not lead to certification.’
One assumes that a distinction is being attempted between learning organised by a school or other formal education setting and that which takes place elsewhere – presumably because EU member states are so fiercely protective of their independence when it comes to compulsory education.
But surely talent support encompasses formal and informal learning alike?
Moreover, the adoption of this terminology appears to rule out any provision that is ‘organised or structured’, excluding huge swathes of activity (including much of that featured in the Hungarian programme). Surely this cannot have been intentional.
Such a distinction is increasingly anachronistic, especially in the case of gifted learners, who might be expected to access their learning from a far richer blend of sources than simply in-school classroom teaching.
Their schools are no longer the sole providers of gifted education, but facilitators and co-ordinators of diverse learning streams.
The ‘gifted and talented’ terminology has also disappeared, presumably on the grounds that it would risk frightening the EU horses.
Both of these adjustments seem to have been a temporary aberration. One wonders who exactly they were designed to accommodate and whether they were really necessary.
Establishment and early activity of the EU Talent Centre in Budapest
The Budapest centre was initially scheduled to launch in February 2012, but funding issues delayed this, first until May and then the end of June.
The press release marking the launch described the long-term goal of the Centre as:
‘…to contribute on the basis of the success of the Hungarian co-operation model to organising the European talent support actors into an open and flexible network overarching the countries of Europe.’
Its mission is to:
‘…offer the organisations and individuals active in an isolated, latent form or in a minor network a framework structure and an opportunity to work together to achieve the following:
- to provide talent support an emphasis commensurate with its importance in every European country
- to reduce talent loss to the minimum in Europe,
- to give talent support a priority role in the transformation of the sector of education; to provide talented young persons access to the most adequate forms of education in every Member State,
- to make Europe attractive for the talented youth,
- to create talent-friendly societies in every European country.’
The text continues:
‘It is particularly important that network hubs setting targets similar to those of the European Talent Centre in Budapest should proliferate in the longer term.
The first six months represent the first phase of the work: we shall lay the bases [sic] for establishing the European Talent Support Network. The expected key result is to set up a team of voluntary experts from all over Europe who will contribute to that work and help draw the European talent map.’
But what exactly are these so-called network hubs? We had to wait some time for an explanation.
There was relatively little material on the website at this stage and this was also slow to change.
My December 2012 post summarised progress thus:
‘The Talent Map includes only a handful of links, none in the UK.
The page of useful links is extensive but basically just a very long list, hard to navigate and not very user-friendly. Conversely, ‘best practices’ contains only three resources, all of them produced in house.
The whole design is rather complex and cluttered, several of the pages are too text-heavy and occasionally the English leaves something to be desired.’
Here ends the first part of this post. Part Twoexplains the subsequent development of the ‘network hubs’ concept, charts the continuation of the advocacy effort and reviews progress in delivering the services for which the Budapest Centre is responsible.
It concludes with an overall assessment of the initiative highlighting some of its key weaknesses.