Promoting Learning Inclusion Through the Global Network of Learning Cities and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Abstract

This chapter seeks to understand how global policies of learning are translated into initiatives that promote learning inclusion in local communities and their institutions; these, in turn, lead to increased social belonging and amplification of voice in the (digital) age in which we live, along with health and well-being that are pivotal in supporting and experiencing life as enjoyable and life- enhancing across the lifespan. The case explored is that of UNESCO’s Global Network of Learning Cities and how this contributes to a number of SDGs: no. 4 on Quality Education and no. 3 on Good Health and Well-being and how they both can be usefully conceived as a shared platform for the other SDGs, such as SDG 11 on Sustainable Cities and Communities, with the goal of making human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

1 Introduction

It is customary to consider lifelong learning as a series of phases from early childhood, through mandatory schooling and, thereafter, various forms of adult learning generally characterised as formal (in a planned learning environment with a syllabus and resulting in some kind of assessment and certification), non-formal (takes place outside of a formal learning environment and is structured but does not result in any form of certification, assessment or qualification, such as an amateur choir) and informal learning which accompanies other activities (such as kicking a ball with friends in a street).¹

As part of the concern with education and learning, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are intimately connected with the desire for lifelong learning. SDG4 is clearly focused upon Quality Education to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.’ SDG3, focusing on Good Health and Well-being, is also concerned with embracing education as a way to ‘ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages’. Together, these two sustainable goals constitute a shared platform upon which many of the other SDG goals are enacted, such as SDG 11 on Sustainable Cities and Communities with the goal to ‘make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.’

In this chapter we are interested in the potential role played by one global initiative in promoting these SDGs and how our understanding of learning inclusion might be expanded to incorporate social belonging and voice in an age where digital affordances might seem to be, but are not always, ever-present, required or equitably shared. We will begin by introducing UNESCO’s Global Network of Learning Cities (GNLC) initiative. Thereafter, we will present four examples from the initiative. The examples illustrate some of the breadth and relevance of GNLC activities in relation to learning inclusion and the development of social belonging and voice.

In the last section of the chapter, we will seek to understand and evaluate the success and challenges of the initiative to date by introducing a theoretical framework. It should be noted that the Global Network of Learning Cities movement is progressive in its ambitions, moving participants from an understanding of the status quo of the existing situation to an acknowledgment and pursuit of what might be possible in a forward-looking, visionary sense i.e. the is of knowledge moving towards the ought of possible knowledge. In our view this lends itself to some concepts introduced by Habermas [1]. He is well-known for expressing the view that knowledge is not neutral, rather it can represent different interests and, in so doing, is value-laden to support these different interests. He proposed a simple typology of knowledge interests as technical (means-ends), cultural (acknowledging the different cultural understandings of participants) and emancipatory (empowering participants and their voices as a transformative force).

In our context, it could be assumed, without further analysis, that Learning Cities might simply further the mean-ends project imperative of goal-directed technical knowledge in the service of global (UNESCO) policy makers, without paying due attention to the cultural or emancipatory interests of the creators or users of this knowledge. With this in mind, it is important to take the time to consider examples of Global Network Learning City initiatives to see if this is the case. To decline the opportunity to do this would be tantamount to acting under the assumption that knowledge is value-free and indifferent to cultural considerations or the desire for emancipation from an existing state-of-affairs.

Culture is understood in the manner evoked by the famous Norwegian anthropologist Fredrik Barth [2] who talked of ethnic groups and boundaries as the infinite number of cultural markers we use to recognise and manage the boundaries of our social relationships. As an anthropologist, he included in the array of markers language, styles of clothing, tattoos, food as well as race, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, religion and so on. Simply put, in our context, culture is the signifiers or indicators of inclusion that weave together individuals and groups in social relationships [3].

Additionally, readers should note in what follows that SDG 11 talks of urban and community settings, and when talking of GNLC initiatives we are considering primarily urban communities and not the possible differences and similarities between urban, regional, rural and remote communities per se. We acknowledge that differences might exist, but in this chapter they are considered out of scope due to the number of words available and must be the topic of further investigation.

To underline the goal of this chapter, it is aligned with the ambition of much policy work and its accompanying documentation and evidence, to move beyond a simple confirmation of the is (confirming what exists) to what ought to be possible and actually achievable/achieved in a future directed, visionary sense.

2 UNESCO’s Global Network of Learning Cities (GNLC)—Goals and Ambitions

UNESCO’s Global Network of Learning Cities (GNLC)² was launched with the Beijing Declaration in 2013 and can be understood as an example of an initiative that attempts to bridge the digital divide by supporting and showcasing community-sourced learning opportunities across cities, many of which encompass a digital learning component (phrased immediately below in terms of extending ‘the use of modern learning technologies’) [4]. The fifth international conference on Learning Cities took place in 2021 and explicitly acknowledged this goal in the wake of COVID pandemic: namely, community provision enables individuals to overcome their own personal limitation in skills or access to digital platforms and to participate in lifelong learning. In September 2022 there were 294 members across 77 countries from all parts of the world.³

Global Learning Cities are defined in the Declaration as being characterised by:

• Inclusive learning in the education system;

• Re-vitalised learning in families and communities;

• Effective learning for and in the workplace;

• Extended the use of modern learning technologies;

• Enhanced quality and excellence in learning;

• A vibrant culture of learning throughout life.

The biennial International Conferences on Learning Cities (ICLC) have offered member cities the opportunity to showcase their progress on selected themes. Thus, the conference hosted by the city of Cork, Ireland (2017) focused upon green and healthy learning cities and learning neighbourhoods, the fourth ICLC hosted by the city of Medellín, Colombia [5] had as its main topic ‘inclusion—a principle for lifelong learning and sustainable Cities’ and the fifth ICLC hosted by the city of Yeonsu, Republic of Korea (2021) focused on building healthy and resilient cities through learning.

The cases presented in what follows are of interest not merely with respect to achieving the goals of inclusive learning, health and wellbeing and resilience in community settings, i.e. the identified SDGs at the beginning of the chapter and in the declaration. In addition, we are interested in the process by which they have worked to achieve this, in other words, the process by which learning inclusion has been taught, learnt and realised in the move towards these goals.

With this in mind, it is worth noting that the ongoing initiatives seek, at one and the same time, to acknowledge and transcend points raised in UNESCO reports, such as Reimagining our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education (2021) and with specific reference to lifelong learning the fourth Global Report on Adult Learning and Education: leave no one behind: participation, equity and inclusion.:

Deep and persistent inequalities still exist in adult learning (ALE) participation and key target groups are not being reached. (…) Globally, between and within countries, there remain deep and persistent inequalities in ALE participation, with many vulnerable groups excluded and seemingly off the radar of policy-makers. Migrants and refugees, older adults, adults with disabilities, those living in rural areas, and adults with low prior educational attainment are among the groups facing the greatest barriers to participation in ALE. ([6]: 8)

At this juncture it is important to note that lifelong learning is not simply lifelong along the life course, but life wide learning that includes spatial distribution and connection within and across urban communities [7, 8]. As we noted in the Introduction to this book, the imperative to be connected digitally has transformed and added a new dimension to education and to how we need to engage with the process of learning inclusion. Without seeking to discount the challenges in gaining digital access faced by different disadvantaged socio-economic and diverse cultural groups, we are thinking of the influence of what Siemens [9] has called connectivism.

When knowledge is distributed widely in different spatial networks, some conceptual (carried in our heads) and some external in books, on the internet or in different community activities across cities that have chosen to be part of the Global Network of Learning Cities, then Siemens’ [9] point is worthy of consideration:

The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe…Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today. A real challenge for any learning theory is to actuate known knowledge at the point of application. When knowledge, however, is needed, but not known, the ability to plug into sources to meet the requirements becomes a vital skill. As knowledge continues to grow and evolve, access to what is needed is more important than what the learner currently possesses.

In our context Siemens is suggesting that learning inclusion in community settings is about being able to connect different sources and networks of knowledge, residing in particular places and repositories, some of which are distributed across the internet. The community activity that is taking place can be seen as life long and life wide learning.

In an educational sense the very understanding and construct of ‘what is a teacher’ becomes multiple and distributed across the network of community activities in cities and showcased by the ongoing outputs of the Global Network of Learning Cities. The teachers are multiple since, through the diverse nature of activities, participants are able to learn from each other and at the same time take their turn teaching others. Some, of course, take on a more typical teaching role, as when activities are being set up and new participants need to receive some level of introduction and what might be called for want for better words onboarding or induction.

Another way of saying this is that the roles of the teacher and those assessing what has taken place change. With knowledge accumulated in the Global Network of Learning City activities, it is increasingly based upon connecting with the community-based networks, where the physically or virtually present teacher is now only one possible connection and source of teaching, along with judgement, valuation and assessment.

3 Four Examples of Learning Cities Initiatives—What Kind of Activities Do They Develop Together and on Their Own?

By what criteria have the four cases been selected? We are fully aware that any single example cannot represent the full detail and breadth of activities amongst GNLC’s. Our goal is different. With this caveat, we will consider two different methodologies for judging the success of cases and, consequently, our choice of case supports an exploratory methodological goal, rather than following preset criteria. If the methodologies are deemed successful in themselves, then it will be possible to refine them with additional GNLC examples or, alternatively, cases external to the GNLC. Overall, this will support a greater understanding of the challenges and successes when a global policy clearly founded upon SDGs is translated into initiatives that promote a) learning inclusion in local communities and their institutions and b) an increased experience of social belonging and voice, along with health and well-being in the (digital) age in which we live.

As we have noted earlier, we are interested not merely in goal achievement, but also in the process by which participants have worked together in community settings. Especially since within these settings relationships are created with institutions, individuals and policy makers and those implementing policies. This suggests the need to recall the triangle of relationships and interactions proposed in the opening to the book (Fig. 1 below). On Level 1, we have an overarching and transnational level where policies formulated and agreed trickle down to communities e.g. the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities. Level 2 contains institutional organisations, such as clubs and associations. Level 3 consists of the participants who are vulnerable adult minorities, their educators and associated professionals.

Fig. 1

The relationship between central concepts and themes in this book

In effect we are suggesting the opportunity to use the triangle as a model allocating relevant chapter content to each side of the triangle. This triangle is reproduced in its original form in figure 1 above. As this model is applied some adaptations are made: Level 1 is set to be the policy goals and aims of the GNLC as formulated in the 2013 Declaration; Level 2 becomes the community level where policies are enacted through associations and clubs and Level 3 is seen to represent the individual participants who take part in the communities of activity and interactions organised through the GNLC initiatives.

During the biannual conferences, cities agree on MOUs to collaborate and partner with other cities. The cities have a coordinating responsibility and are well-positioned as institutional entities to facilitate and deal with a large amount of non-formal education. Accordingly, they correspond to Level 1 in the figure above with its focus upon authorities with transnational relationships. In some cases, the cities have delegated responsibility to different community stakeholders and educational organisations who undertake the Learning City projects. The delegated bodies might be NGOs interested in education, private learning institutions, universities or colleges of Higher Education. This would correspond to Level 2 in the LIDA project. Those taking part at Level 3 includes, but is not limited to vulnerable groups and professionals who work with them.

The GNLC is coordinated by the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) and brings together (at the time of writing) 294 member cities across 77 countries, including big metropolitan cities and smaller urban areas. Each member city is represented by key civil and community stakeholders who work with local city administrations. Cities interested in applying for network membership must also be willing to adopt the network concept when submitting their membership application. As claimed by UNESCO UIL, one of the main goals is to enhance cooperation between the cities and strengthen lifelong learning opportunities for its citizens based on the United Nations [10] 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The network also agrees to provide guidance and support with training modules and capacity-building activities to further develop the local education agendas in view of the achievement of Goal 4 on quality education, Goal 3 on health and wellbeing and Goal 11 on sustainable cities and communities.

In recognition of promoting creativity and innovation in lifelong learning, UNESCO launched the Learning City Award in 2015. Cities that are members of the network are asked to submit applications to receive the award and they are evaluated based on a set of criteria such as the progress of their learning city plan and achievement of medium- and long-term objectives.

It might be contended that in the years after the adoption of SDGs [10], there remains an under-thematised and, to some extent, weak linkage and articulation of the relationship between the role of education as a means towards achieving the SDGs, especially given policy recommendations and advocacy work of the United Nations. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with its focus on leaving no one behind, provides a unique opportunity to build more inclusive, just and fair societies. Inclusion in education is rooted in the selection of the education framework for lifelong learning that is most suited to the particular cultural context. It seeks to secure the opportunities that can advance the right to education for all vulnerable and marginalized groups on the grounds of culture, gender, skills or socio-economic status.

One of the GNLC guiding documents, Learning Cities and the SDGs: A Guide to Action [11] has contributed to the study of education policy in particular at the local level. The implementation guide identifies links between the Key Features of Learning Cities and a limited number of targets from selected SDGs, while focusing on three thematic sections:

• (a) Green and healthy learning cities.

• (b) Equity and inclusion and,

• (c) Employment and entrepreneurship.

While this has led to some limitations on the comprehensiveness of the policy discussion, if combined with a complete set of linkages between lifelong learning education and all the 17 SDGs, including its in total 169 targets, it might still be turned into a useful operational tool for UN Member States and their participating cities and, in so doing, address the weak linkage and articulation of the relationship between education and achieving the SDGs.

Network members are invited to participate in the biennial international conference and, according to the theme of each event, best practices, challenges and progress to date are presented based on the local context and how this has been informed by policies in the particular nation. The fifth International Conference on Learning cities (ICLC) [12] was hosted by the city member Yeonsu in the Republic of Korea in October 2021. The representatives discussed the ways in which lifelong learning might contribute to building healthy and resilient cities. The topic was highly relevant due to the COVID 19 public health emergency and underlined the deep impact of the virus outbreak in terms of SDG 3’s focus upon the health, mental health and well-being of all the stakeholders involved in the learning process and, in particular, the learners. Previously, the fourth ICLC took place in the city of Medellín in Colombia in 2019 and discussed the topic of inclusion as a principle for lifelong learning and sustainable cities. The host city of the third ICLC, Cork, Ireland, offered the international community and city members of the network to draw inspiration from Cork’s Lifelong Learning Festival and Learning Neighbourhoods initiatives designed to create new learning opportunities for everyone and to celebrate learning. This ICLC inspired city leaders and representatives to build multi-dimensional learning cultures and increase awareness of promoting lifelong learning for all.

We will now present four case studies from city members of the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities (GNLC); namely the capital of Ireland: Dublin, the city of Medellin in Colombia, Jubail Industrial city in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the city of Wyndham, Australia.

3.1 Dublin, Ireland

Having joined the UNESCO GNLC in 2019 [13], Dublin showcased significant progress in building a strong learning culture. For Dublin, the key to success was collaboration and catalysing a smooth alignment between key players and stakeholders in the provision of all kinds of education. This has been a decisive factor in establishing lifelong learning as a key principle for development. The city was one of the recipients of the 2021 UNESCO Learning City Award [12] based on a set of initiatives successfully introduced and offered to its citizens (in 2016, County Dublin's population was just under 1.3 million).

Based on the Healthy Ireland Framework 2019–2025, the city launched The Healthy Dublin City Project which consisted of different thematic topics and campaigns. The Keep Well Campaign launched in 2020 is an example and the result of a collaboration between several local authorities as a well as several ministries such as the Ministries of Health, Social Protection and Community & Rural Development & the Islands [14].

The campaign was established to help improve the mental and physical well-being of people of all ages, including several specific groups within society, such as children on the autism spectrum, new mothers and people with disabilities. The initiative offered several suggestions on how to promote whole year resilience, de-stress and care for the mind and the body through digital means such as simple instructional videos and the Get Ireland Walking App which aimed to change the habits of the citizens by introducing a challenge for the users to walk at least 30 min per day. The Keep Well Campaign has also promoted learning and encouraged citizens to be creative and learn a new skill through different series of digital workshops and webinars on a range of topics such as design, arts and crafts.⁴

As being active and spending time outdoors during all seasons of the year is also significant for strengthening physical and mental health and wellbeing, several programmes have been launched such as gardening for biodiversity, walking groups and cycling.

The promotion of the right nutrition has also been one of the key campaigns of the city of Dublin, as it is vital for a good mental health and well-being. Information and tips have been offered to the citizens about how to cook healthy food, avoid wasting food and how to eat well on a budget. This campaign has been offered through different digital and non-digital platforms with a focus on the elderly population, families, students and children.

To reduce stress and help people manage their everyday mood, the city has also offered online counselling sessions for all including access to health and wellbeing online resources such as eBooks and eMagazines as well as libraries. Citizens suffering from anxiety and depression have also been given support via help phone lines.

3.2 Medellin, Colombia

Medellin is a model city, where inclusive policies are implemented and support the communities to be more engaged and active in the daily life. The city administration has devoted a large amount of its budget to social investments with a specific focus on vulnerable youth at risk in the population [15]. The city has suffered in the past from violence and drug trafficking. However, a drastic transformation has taken place through actions to align with the universal call of the United Nations Programme to incorporate 70% of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [16]. These actions focus on quality and inclusive education, gender equality as well as health and wellbeing and a safe environment for all. An example follows of the city policies.

•

University EAFIT (2020)

The Waiving Youth Project, portraying some of the youth participants in Image 1 (The Juventudes Tejadoras project of the Medillín Youth Secretariat), was launched by the city of Medellin in July 2020 to support the psychology and wellbeing of vulnerable youth as part of the Medellin Future Development Plan 2020–2023. The project aimed to support youth and adolescents (14–28 years old) through training and capacity development on interpersonal emotional, cognitive and behavioural skills, both online and face-to-face, at individual and group or family level. All courses were offered via several learning management platforms such as Coursera, Edx, Udemy, Unimooc and Domestika. The training included courses ranging from pregnancy prevention to suicide prevention for both men and women and tips on dealing with emotional pain and depression [5].

One of the stories that has been highlighted is the one by Kathrine, 23 years old, who resides in Comuna 9, one of the 16 Communes of the city of Medellin. Living in inadequate housing, with no basic infrastructure, Kathrine had developed a physical and emotional fear of rain. Thanks to counselling and psychological support she received she managed to overcome her fears, get to know new people and was able to create her own life project related to her choice of career.

4 Jubail Industrial City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

In 2020, Jubail was the first city in Saudi Arabia to join the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities. A year later in 2021, Jubail was among the recipients of the UNESCO Learning City Awards [17,18,19,20,21]. Under the authority of the Royal Commission of Jubail, the department responsible for health and well-being had launched a series of campaigns on health education such as healthy nutrition and eating habits, health awareness during Ramadan, children and elderly health awareness of the effects of the Covid 19 virus.

One of the most important commitments of the country has been in the area of health with the goal of covering at least 80% of the population, including offering inclusive health services to those living in rural areas. In line with the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia’s National Transformation Program (NTP) 2020 [22] and Saudi Vision 2030 (2016), the Ministry of Health, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, has launched the Healthy Schools Program with the intention of improving the health of school aged students and contributing to the work of the Kingdom in implementing policies and procedures recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The aim of the programme has also been to inform the parents of children, teachers and other staff that schools are increasingly able to look after and strengthen the health of students. School students represent more than 15% of the total population in the country. The Healthy Schools Program is structured around the following components: health awareness, nutrition, exercise and physical activities, school health and medical support, sanitation, hygiene, access to clean water at school and the mental health of students supported by specialists such as psychologists. In addition to these, the programme aims to build a friendly and comfortable environment for the students when at school to enable them to be more active and engaged in the learning process. Based on the Healthy Schools Programme Manual, the executive leadership team of each school may promote partnerships and cooperation with a range of civil society organizations and the private sector to help students develop multiple skills related to health education and to be aware of certain kinds of diseases and how to deal with them, such as diabetes. [23].

4.1 Wyndham, Australia

Several Sustainable Development Goals refer to disability and, more specifically, the following goals clearly indicate the target group:

• 1. Goal 4 on inclusive and equitable quality education and promotion of life-long learning opportunities for all.

• 2. Goal 8 on promoting sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

• 3. Goal 10 on reducing inequalities and strengthening socio economic and political inclusion.

• 4. Goal 11 on making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe and sustainable.

• 5. Goal 17 on promoting partnerships and collaboration

On a national level in Australia, around 1 in 6 (18%) or about 4.4 million people possess an identifiable disability, also known as a disability prevalence.⁵ 89% of school-age (5–18 years) children with disability attend school and several challenges exist with regards to engaging learners [24]. The city of Wyndham in Australia is a member of the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities and one of the 2021 UNESCO Learning City Award awardees (UNESCO, 2021).

Wyndham’s Learning Community Strategy (2018–2023) reflects the strong commitments of the city to ensure quality and inclusive education for all by providing learning opportunities and promoting partnerships and collaboration with several local stakeholders [25]. Inclusion and equity are main pillars of the specific strategy and for this purpose in 2020 a special Learning Group was relaunched (WLG2) with the aim of supporting people with disabilities aged 15–30.

The city demonstrates how inclusion can be mainstreamed across several sectors, while covering multiple SDGs targets and groups [26]. Through this initiative Wyndham City Council, in collaboration with local higher education institutions, disability action groups and several learning providers, is improving all kinds of structures and systems related to the formal and non-formal lifelong and life wide education of disabled population. This further promotes their integration into the society.

5 Beacons of Learning Inclusion Promoting Social Belonging and Voice in the Digital Age?

In this section we seek to understand and evaluate the success and challenges of the Global Network of Learning Cities initiative in two contrasting ways. The first is against indicators and rubrics we have ourselves identified in the GNLC’s own declaration and the work of its policy makers. This approach is familiar to assessment specialists with its focus upon rubrics and performance against them. Secondly, inspired by Habermas [1], we introduce a theoretical typology using concepts that are external to the GNLC.

What both these approaches share is an interest in not only how an activity and associated knowledge and skills are learnt, but also how the learning entails learning to include others (with an emphasis on ‘learning how’ to include). This offers participants a sense of social belonging and voice, where digital means (i.e. media) may or may not be involved.

5.1 Indicators and Rubrics

In seeking to measure the success of GNLC we looked for evidence of topics, indicators and rubrics that we might craft by seeking inspiration from the six defining characteristics in its own 2013 Beijing Declaration. Following this approach, the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities lists six characteristics of learning cities in United Nations [10]. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The first three identify types of learning (inclusive, re-vitalised or effective); each is allocated respectively to one of the following places (education system, families and communities or, lastly, the workplace). It is notable in our context that inclusive learning will occur across all of the places and is not found only in the education system. The same applies to re-vitalised learning that does not exist solely in families and communities, and effective learning that is not only of relevance in the workplace. If we did not seek to capture a more flexible set of learning types across different contexts, the result would be in our view a somewhat rigid and limited understanding of impact and practices.

The last three characteristics of learning cities identified in UNESCO’s Beijing Declaration suggest additional performance rubrics and indicators:

• Extending the use of modern learning technologies. In the terminology of this current book this refers to the use of digital learning resources and the skills and knowledge required by professionals, target groups and those creating them;

• Enhancing learning quality and excellence. This suggests to us that not every form of quality is acceptable, but one that strives towards excellence and provides indicators of progress and improvement;

• Creating lifelong learning and a culture for this. This is a central goal in our book, namely, to develop an understanding of knowledge and practice and how it is able to create a sustainable and inclusive culture of learning over the life course. Rubrics and indicators point towards cultures that are empowering and sustainable over time with some level of organisational structure, either formal or informal, that are capable of handing over to new members of the culture, able to recalibrate or plan for contextual changes, and at the same time, involve considering the voice of participants and offer a valued sense of social belonging.

In sum, the topics, indicators and rubrics we are proposing for our purpose draw upon the GNLC initiative and can be additionally combined with SDG 3’s goal of health and wellbeing and SDG 11’s goal of safe, resilient and sustainable. The resultant indicators and rubrics we arrive at are the following:

• Learning inclusion (SDG 4) in the adult learning system, families, communities and the workplace. There may also be some evidence of re-vitalised or inclusive effective learning;

• Using and creating digital learning resources (SDG 4) for disadvantaged adult minorities (refugees, migrants and others who might be disadvantaged socially, economically, culturally, physically, politically, by age or gender);

• Learning that increases the learning quality (SDG 4) of participants in the direction of excellence;

• Creating inclusive cultures of learning that are safe and sustainable (SDG 11) across the life course, empower the voice of all participants and result in a valued sense of social belonging;

• Promoting health and wellbeing experiences for all participants (SDG 3).

Table 1 below considers the four examples in terms of the rubrics and indicators proposed above as a measure of success:

Table 1 The four examples in terms of rubrics of success

Evaluation against the rubric:

Green = highly valued.

Orange = less highly valued.

In considering the table above, the reader might grade the four initiatives differently when the rubrics and cases are used. Without seeking to disagree, the point in the exercise above has as much been about a proof of concept to see if the five rubrics were able to ‘notice and value’ [27] different aspects of learning inclusion, health and wellbeing and sustainability as identified by the GNLC, and inspired by, and with reference to, SDGs 3, 4 and 11. All the initiatives are process driven in the sense of setting up structures to build and deliver the learning experiences for participants. Of interest is the way learning excellence appears to be traded off against a greater valuing of learning inclusion in different arenas. Secondly, some, but not all, of the initiatives above draw upon the importance of digital resources. Thirdly, a key focus in the initiatives considered above is health and wellbeing and how it seems to accompany in approximate equal weight the desire for inclusion and the learning of inclusion. This might lead us to conclude that no learning inclusion is possible if it does not at the same time seek and achieve the health and wellbeing of all participants.

5.2 A Theoretical Measure of Success Drawing Upon Different Knowledge Interests: Means-Ends, Culture and Emancipation

As noted earlier, the set of rubrics in the sub-section immediately above (5.1) are inspired by goals already stated within the declaration of the GNLC’s initiative. Another framework to measure the relative success of the initiative might usefully complement and/or contrast this set of rubrics by introducing theories, understood as constructs, sourced outside of the founding declaration of 2013. We have in mind drawing upon the inspiration offered by the work of Habermas [1] that speaks to the importance of understanding the processes and structures that exist in experiences of learning inclusion, health and wellbeing and sustainability [28].

Simply put, knowledge is not neutral. It always represents different interests and, in so doing, is value-laden to support these different interests. We propose that a simple typology of knowledge interests might usefully offer a framework against which the success of GNLCs can be measured: technical (means-ends), cultural (acknowledging the different cultural understandings of participants) and emancipatory (empowering participants and their voices as a transformative force). It is to be noted at the outset that the indicator and rubric framework introduced in the sub-section above (5.1) did not consider the particular knowledge interests that might be contained or supported by each of the indicators and rubrics. A second point of note is that Table 2 below does not seek to grade the means-ends, cultures and emancipation in terms of highly valued or less highly valued. As such the table is more descriptive than performative in the sense of making clear assessments or evaluative judgements.

Table 2 Different knowledge interests in GNLC initiatives

The Habermas-inspired approach speaks of the relationship between knowledge types that scaffold and support actions of a different character. Respectively, the actions are goal-directed (means to ends), supporting cultures of those involved and/or bringing about change in an emancipatory fashion. Integral to these different types of knowledge are different experiences. By this we mean the first mentioned is the experience of delivering a specific action and the means required; the second concerns the building and maintenance of different cultures supporting a shared sense of acting together, and lastly, the experience of transforming the existing state of affairs.

6 Do We Measure What We Value or Only Value What We Can Measure?

This chapter has explored how UNESCO’s Global Network of Learning Cities policies have been translated into initiatives built upon SDGs (3, 4 and 11) and the manner in which they promote learning inclusion in local communities and their institutions. We selected four examples from across the world to illustrate the range of activities involved. However, the chapter had additional ambitions: namely, to develop and trial two methodologies to assess and evaluate the relative success of the initiatives.

With this in mind, we proposed two approaches a) using indicators and rubrics and b) identifying different knowledge interests. With respect to the former, it is important to note that developing and using rubrics can discipline and control participants in the sense that it involves making a choice about what is to be a rubric and the parameters for the indicators for each rubric. In assessment terminology, it is about what is noticed as important [27]. With respect to the latter, a different approach is taken, where identifying different kinds of knowledge and their function in supporting different kinds of action is of interest and considered a measure of success.

In both cases, we are defining what is in and out of scope for measuring success of the GNLC initiatives and the extent to which they have achieved learning inclusion, belonging and voice. Put differently, we are proposing two different ways of identifying what is of value. In the introduction to this book, we suggested that this involves asking the simple and yet clarifying question: do we measure what we value, or merely value what we can measure?

Our conclusion would be that it is not the case that the rubric and indicator approach is more successful at valuing what we value than the knowledge interest approach, or the reverse. Instead, both are different arguably equally valuable approaches that offering us insights into understanding the success of GNLC initiatives. Moreover, nearly all of the chapters in this edited collection are marked by the manner in which the authors consider, more or less explicitly, the measurement challenges faced in evaluating different activities seeking to promote the learning of inclusion, along with the enhancement of voice and belonging. It is our hope that this chapter can be usefully read alongside other chapters in this book and, in so doing, provide useful insights into understanding the relative success of the approaches and activities discussed in these chapters and what they choose to notice as salient and by what perspectives and accompanying theoretically informed concepts.