European Junior Parliament
This page details the various European Junior Parliament activities that took place during the different mobilities. The documents include the teachers that attended the parliament sessions as well as student reactions and their self-reflections of what they have learned and what they may change in their own behaviours going forward.
European Junior Parliament
Macedo de Cavaleiros, Portugal 13 March, 2019
LTTA Meeting C7
EJP – Nationalism vs Patriotism
Present:
B Toro (Spain coordinator) Chair person
M de Las Mercedes Pérez (Spain)
M Krstić (Croatia coordinator)
H Knežević (Croatia)
P Saggu (England coordinator)
K Pulsford (England)
M Perälä (Finland coordinator)
N Kallunki (Finland)
M Landi (Italy coordinator)
R Giorgianni (Italy)
E Łuczak (Poland coordinator)
M Łysakowska (Poland)
C Vila-Franca (Portugal coordinator)
P Cristina Alípio – (Portugal)
PS organised the groups, explained the procedure and, with help of colleagues, prepared the statements.
KP assisted with the technology aspects of the activity.
Teachers acted as observers, took videos of proceedings and supported their students with any language if required.
We agreed to go back to the original format of the EJP but had more groups and the students were not asked to defend any particular position, only to express and justify their viewpoints.
Format of the EJP task explained to the students.
Students divided into 4 smaller groups and asked to discuss and make notes on the statements presented to them:
Nationalism & Patriotism:
Define Nationalism / Patriotism.
Is your country more Patriotic or Nationalistic? What are the symbols of Patriotism and Nationalism in your country? Explain.
When is it acceptable to show nationalism? Explain.
Can nationalism ever match the ideals of democracy? Explain.
Notes and comments made by students during the debate:
’In Spain … more nationalistic because regions that have their own language feel more nationalistic, the case of Catalonia … Patriotism is not well seen because any symbol of that reminds people of the facist civil war and Francoism.’
’We don’t think so because democracy comes from the interests of society and everyone has his own ideas. We vote according to our will and political decisions …’
’Nationalism is common in Facist and socialist countries. In a democracy the countries support each other whilst nationalism puts the other countries down … Nationalism doesn’t match the democracy ideals’
’Nationalism is never acceptable because it’s right to have to be respectful towards other countries.’
’Patriotism – it’s the feeling of love, devotion and respect for your homeland. It’s about supporting our country in all ways without being against other countries and cultures, without degrading them.’
’Nationalism matches the ideals of democracy but it shouldn’t.
For example:
Brexit = Racism / nationalism, people voted to separate the country from the others … ’
*See also the video clips posted on the websites to accompany this debate.
Total: F = 15 M = 7 = 22
Evaluation of EJP activity: (Please state male or female)
1. Do you understand the terms Nationalism and Patriotism more clearly now than before the activity?
(Not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 (yes, very clearly)
1 1 9 4
4 3
2. Do you think debates such as the one you have taken part in today are healthy and thought provoking / necessary for a democracy?
(Not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 (yes, a lot)
2 13
1 2 4
3. Has taking part on this issue of patriotism and nationalism changed your initial view?
(Not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 (yes, a lot)
5 4 4 5
2 2 2 1
4. Copy & complete the following sentences:
Taking part in this activity has made me….
Feel…
Think....
Realise that I should…
You might want to use terms such as: tolerant or intolerant / flexible / open-minded / have or have not changed opinion / understanding.
Comments taken from students’ evaluation forms:
’Taking part in this activity has made me more interested in politics’
’Realise that I should talk more about this topic to make people realise the consequences of nationalism’
’realise that I should read a little bit more about my country, but it didn’t change my opinion at all’
’feel patriotic, realise that I should support more my country’
’’feel more positive, realise that my idea isn’t always right, …. That I should listen to other people’s ideas’
’feel more tolerant about other countries..’
’feel like I’m part of a democracy..’
’feel more open-minded, think about the future, realise that I should be more patriotic’
’taking part in theis activity has made me feel more open-minded because with this debate we have a more clear idea of what is nationalism and patriotism.’
’Realise that I should learn more about the political situatin of my country and think more about the future … be more open-minded about the action of others.’
’think that people should be more tolerant and open-minded and less naionalistic.’
’feel better because now I know these concepts better, that they are usually confused but now for me they aren’t.’
’taking part in this activity has made me know better the theme…’
Realise that I should be more tolerant..’
’realise that I should do more for my country and think about my future.’
’Feel more open-minded and tolerant since we get to hear different points of view.’
’realise that nationalism is not okay’
’feel bad that people are still very nationalistic, think that the world should change and accept everybody, realise that I should learn more about history and why some people have some opinions.’
’feel more informed and prepared to answer about this topic. It also made me feel intolerant to pure nationalism, but at the same time, flexible to small demonstrations in some cases. Think that there are many differences between patriotism and nationalism. It really changed my ideas about nationalism because they are mean….. I should pay more attention to the news ….. that I keep my ideals without putting someone else down.’
’feel more sure on which one I support ….. think that it’s really important to talk about these things/subjects … realise that I should think twice what I am going to say/do in the future so I don’t hurt anyone.’
’I should … listen to more viewpoints on such important topics and issues such as patriotism, nationalism and democracy.’
’feel more comfortable to talk about these terms, informed and open-minded … we have to respect and understand different points of view and that our ideas aren’t always right/better..’
European Junior Parliament
Kiiminki, Oulu, Finland 17th January 2019
EJP - Active citizen: Media Monitoring & Human Rights
In Attendance:
P Saggu (PS) - (English Coordinator)
M Perala (MP) - (Finnish Coordinator)
A Kallioski (AK) (Finland)
M I Davi (ID) - (Italian Coordinator)
B T Velasco (BTV) - (Spanish Coordinator)
P G García (PGG) (Spain)
M Krstić (MK) - (Croatian Coordinator)
D Končar (DK) (Croatia)
E Luczak (EL) - (Polish Coordinator)
J Muraszewska (JM) (Poland)
C Vila-Franca (CVF) - (Portuguese Coordinator)
P C Alipio (PCA) (Portugal)
K O’Connor (KO) (England)
The Finnish team decided that as it is not in their tradition to defend what they don’t believe in, they would trial a slightly different format to the EJP.
Instead of two teams, they organized 6 small groups of 4 made up of the 2 hosts with their corresponding 2 guests.
“The rationale behind keeping the discussion in four-student-strong teams was to encourage the more timid students to use their English in a small group. Many students are reluctant to take the floor in a big group and even in ordinary classes we tend these days to keep the students' oral presentations confined like this. “
This was certainly successful insofar as more of the students had to report back the discussions to the whole group.
Process:
The Finnish coordinator, Maxx Përala, led the activity.
“Instructions:
Form the following groups:
Croatia Ivona Milena
Croatia Marin Anni
England Alexandra Anni
England Georgia Elina
Italia Carlotta Sofia
Italia Claudio Tommi
Poland Agnieszka Reetta
Poland Krystian Aleksi
Portugal Raquel Jenni Rosa
Portugal Pedro Sylvia
Spain Francisco Karita Emilia
Spain Manuel Riku
YOUR TASKS:
1. Name concrete things that a person can do in their lives to promote human rights. Name at least three ways.
2. If you were to organize a campaign for human rights, which three rights would you choose and why? Give grounds. What kind of campaign would it be?
“You’ve got 10 minutes to discuss this. When reporting back to the main group, each member has to contribute.”
More of the students were seen to be actively involved in their discussions (see evidence of photos and video clips) because of the smaller groups. The teachers walked among the groups to listen and to assist them with vocabulary/ language as and if required.
Unfortunately, there was no written evaluation of the activity to find out what the students thought of the new format.
However, their views as expressed during the discussions and, later, when presenting these to the rest of the group, were captured on the video clips taken by the teachers.
European Junior Parliament
Osijek, Croatia 18th April, 2018
LTTA Meeting C5
EJP – Being Human – or is it?
Present:
M Krstić (Croatia coordinator) Chair person
M Tojčić (Croatia)
P Saggu (England coordinator)
J Simmons (England)
B Toro (Spain coordinator)
F G García (Spain)
M Perälä (Finland coordinator)
N Kallunki (Finland)
M C Lento (Italy coordinator)
D Falcone (Italy)
E Łuczak (Poland coordinator)
J Ułasiuk (Poland)
C Vila-Franca (Portugal coordinator)
C Santos (Portugal)
- Activity led by Croatian teacher M Tojčić. Rest of partners as observers whilst P Saggu and J Simmons taking notes.
- Group divided into 2 and asked to reflect / contemplate on the 3 questions:
- Format of the EJP task explained to the students.
- Students shown the first statement for debate:
S1. A large number of people participate in humanitarian actions. What is the reason? Personal satisfaction? Public image? Avoid paying tax? True humanity?
They were given discussion time within their two groups.
*Some key points made / raised by the students:
S2. When we give to charity we create a culture of dependence and expectation.
S3. We should not give to charity because most of the money is used for administrative fees or is misappropriated – taken by others for personal / wrongful use).
S4. Too much food and other items are wasted in the richer countries when they could be used for / given to their own citizens who are in need.
S5. Many people leave the responsibility of helping others to the government and thus justify the fact that they would not support any NGO (give to charity).
Students deserving a special mention for their active and enthusiastic participation during the debate:
I Carrasco (Spain), T Hillen (UK)
*Evaluation of impact on students (22):
Q1. Will you be more prepared to vote in your country’s elections?
Yes = 20
No = 1
Abstained = 1
Q2. Would you take an active role in your country’s politics?
Yes = 17
No = 5
Q3. Would you like to see these types of debates as a regular feature in your own school?
Yes = 22
*Of the 22 students involved, ALL positive and keen to participate in the politics of their country with view to bring about change.
*Evaluation form:
The students were asked to complete any three of the following statements in their own words.
‘Taking part in this activity has made me …
Feel ...
Think ...
Realise that I should ...
Now I will … ‘
More aware of other peoples’ problems, more confident and full of ideas;
‘very informed’ about helping people;
Question why people help each other and realise that there is much more in charity organisations that we don’t really know about;
Know how things (are) in the world;
Realise that charity includes giving back to your own community;
Feel … (students’ own words used)
Very sad about some statements but also happy knowing that there are people like us who want to and will help others in need;
That although we are small .. in the world, we can help .. others by doing small actions;
That all of us should make helping people easier and of course make helping systems better,
I don’t do enough;
More brave to say my opinions;
Think ….
That there is a lot of bad things in the world but also … people who can change that;
That people are dependent on the money that volunteers give, however there are examples of people who are willing to help themselves;
I should be (a) helpful person …;
That it is not enough that only the citizens help the NGOs, the government would have to help the poor countries and homeless persons;
That there are too many poor people that need help …. (we) should help (others);
More about helping people and ‘notice’ everyone else better;
About the amount I give to those in need;
That a lot of young people have their own opinions on the topic of being human and helping other people;
More about how much food and other items I waste;
Realise that I should…
Be more active;
Make sure that the charity that I am going to help will be truthful and secure;
Participate in more volunteer charities;
Do more charity activities;
Do something more for people – even little things at school, for example;
Participate more in charit(able) actions;
Now I will ….
Be a better person ..;
See the NGO with (different) eyes – I see if we (people) can give them things that will be used to their purpose;
Think about helping people more often;
Help more people in need;
Give and help others more but to companies where I’m sure there that help is going;
European Junior Parliament
Murcia, Spain 3 – 9 February, 2018
LTTA Meeting C4 – Democracy is the best form of government
EJP – Is Democracy the best form of government?
- Activity led by Spanish teacher Jose Miguel Martinez Moreno. Rest of partners as observers whilst Polly Saggu taking notes.
- Group divided into 2 and asked to reflect / contemplate on the 3 questions:
What is a democracy?
Is democracy the best way of government?
What are the key components of democracy?
- Format of the EJP task explained to the students.
- Students shown the first statement for debate:
S1. The decision of the majority is always democratic.
They were given discussion time within their two groups.
*Some key points made / raised by the students:
“Although the issue could be biased and people can be influenced by politicians and their campaigns, the actual vote and results are still democratic.”
“Education is the key to change and better decisions.”
“Trust and honesty are very important…”
“Is having a choice between 2 evils a good choice? You only end up choosing between the lesser of the two evils…”
S2. The government that we elect always chooses the best policy for us and should be trusted.
“The government helps people, they love their country and set up programmes to help their people.”
“There are bad people in every walk of life”
“To bring in better people, we should change the way of voting / electing representatives: it should be based on previous actions / track record.”
“There is corruption everywhere and the politicians only think about what is best for themselves and their families, not the public.”
“People vote for what they think they will benefit e.g. increased child benefit, and so are manipulated to vote for particular parties …”
“ people have their own mind and should use their critical thinking skills…”
“Democracy is not about finding the perfect answer / solution - it’s not black or white, but shades of grey. We have to be willing to compromise.”
S3. Individuals can legitimately disobey the law in a democracy”
“If everyone disobeyed the law, it would lead to disorder…”
“..to change the law, sometimes you need to disobey it.”
“.. Breaking the law doesn’t necessarily mean being violent.”
“We should bring about change through vote”.
“Main thing about democracy is that it’s power of the people.”
- Q: How do we elect good politicians who don’t exploit the system?
“Greek democracy was the best!”
“Disagree - Greek democracy didn’t allow women to vote.”
FINLAND student: Possibility of our school being closed down, can’t do anything.
THIS IS A REAL ISSUE FOR 2 OF THE STUDENTS IN OUR PROJECT. Their attitude is one of resignation - but can the democratic ideals be used to help them fight their cause?
“Go to the media, stand up to the government, we have the right to educate ourselves…”
“..need to raise awareness…”
“Democracy is better than an autocracy.”
Poland: the communist ideal was good economically but not politically.”
“Democracy is like God: it is perfect. We can’t be like God, but we can be like saints.”
Other statements discussed too.
Students deserving a special mention for their active and enthusiastic participation during the debate:
Sofia (Italy), Adrian (Spain), Patryk (England), Ana (Spain), Kamila (Poland), Ivana (Croatia) and Fabio (Italy).
*Evaluation of impact on students (22):
Q1. Will you be more prepared to vote in your country’s elections?
Yes = 20
No = 1
Abstained = 1
Q2. Would you take an active role in your country’s politics?
Yes = 17
No = 5
Q3. Would you like to see these types of debates as a regular feature in your own school?
Yes = 22
*Of the 22 students involved, ALL positive and keen to participate in the politics of their country with view to bring about change.
*Evaluation form:
The students were asked to complete the following statements in their own words.
‘Taking part in this activity has made me …
Feel ...
Think ...
Realise that I should ...
Now I will … ‘
Feel … (students’ own words used)
more prepared to the real world;
nervous, important, comprehensive;
I am very happy I have been able to see the opinion of different people that have different types of lifes;
more interested in democracy and politics;
more informed about the politic of different countries;
very good about the way I have form my arguments, it has given me confidence;
more involved in politics and I liked hearing other people’s opinions on the subjects;
more comfortable with political topics, I have more knowledge about it;
more educated, I got to know many points of view of people of my age;
that the young people knows more about politics than what I thought. Now I feel that Europe will be better in some years;
sometimes lost and disagree;
Think ….
Everyone has the right to have a voice and show their thoughts;
That the new generation have really good ideas;
How difficult it is to build a democratic country but how we should definitely go for it;
Think what I can do for the society as an active citizen;
That having the opportunity to express my thoughts is a form of democracy that I’d like to have in my country;
Realise that I should…
Pay more attention to the news;
Vote when I can, work for a united Europe;
Think more politically;
Now I will ….
Spend more time to see what my political system is like;
Learn more about democracy
Try to find ideas for better government and share them with other people;
Be more active in politics
European Junior Parliament
Messina, Sicily – Italy, 7 – 13 October 2017
LTTA Meeting C3 - Human Rights
European Junior Parliament started at 12:10
Statements debated:
Men and women have different roles and different rights.
Human Rights do not apply to murderers and those who wage war.
No rights are abused at my school.
Freedom of speech should be guaranteed only as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else’s feelings.
As they haven’t been born yet, future generations have no rights.
The government will help those whose Human Rights are abused.
Just a few interesting points from the debate:
17/20 students on the panel have seen somebody being bullied at school.
12/20 have been bullied themselves.
‘Teachers can also bully students’.
Interesting views shared;
‘Before changing our school, we should change people’s minds’
‘Some teachers don’t help’.
‘There isn’t just physical bullying - it is also mental but teachers don’t do enough.’
‘Parents teach values to children.’
Solutions suggested by the students:
Teachers need to communicate more with students
The bullying should be made to stop the first time it is reported. No excuses should be accepted.
European Junior Parliament
Szczecin, Poland 14 – 20 March, 2017
LTTA Meeting C2 – Migrant vs Native
EJP – Migrant vs Native
- Activity led by Polish teacher Agnieszka with support from Polly (England). EMBRACE team acted as judges / observers.
- Group divided into 2 so that one student from each country represented on either side of the argument.
- Students informed whether they would be arguing for or against the statements.
- Students must base their arguments on facts, not just opinions.
- Format of the EJP task explained to the students.
- Students shown the statement for debate one by one:
Statements for debate:
1. Migrants contribute/enrich the culture and cuisine of host country Or Migrants dilute the culture of host country.
Migrants are a drain on the health care system especially as they make no contribution towards it.
Migration is a result of hundreds of years of colonization by others (European countries).
Migrants have the rights to be treated humanely.
Migrants take our jobs or migrants do the jobs the natives refuse.
We should look after our own poor and needy natives before helping
Foreigners.
Students were confident and performed beyond the expectations of their teachers.
*Evaluation form:
The students were asked to complete the following statements in their own words.
‘Taking part in this activity has made me …
Feel ...
Think ...
Realise that ….
I should ...
Now I will … ‘
Feel …
Confident about myself and the project itself as we all took part in this experience in a good and polite way;
Empathy for migrants
Think ….
..they (migrants) need help. I understand the issue better;
.. that I now have more knowledge about the topics due to my peers so I can create a valid argument with supporting evidence;
that migration has both advantages and drawbacks and it’s important to analyse both to create your own opinion;
balance is important to maintain peace
Understand ….
All good and bad about migrant issue;
Realise that …
Migration issue is discussed in every part of the world;
Native (people) have to be more open-minded to someone or something that is stranger to them, like immigrants are;
We’re all the same but with different points of view .. .we have to share them to make a new ‘cosmopolitan world’;
I can be a migrant too so I have to behave good towards others and help them;
Not everyone is a terrorist;
Now I will ….
Help migrant people when the opportunity arises;
Be more hospitable because migrants are people in need;
Become a politician
I should …
Improve my English as sometimes I wasn’t able to express myself correctly …..
Try to help those in need but also to not forget about my own nationality, culture and language;
Participate more, talking in these debates,
European Junior Parliament
Birmingham, England, 5 – 9 November 2016
LTTA Meeting C1: - Example of a Pupil Parliament
Archbishop Ilsley arranged their regularly held Pupil Parliament to demonstrate how it could serve as a template for the EMBRACE project’s European Junior Parliament. Apart from the Erasmus teachers and students, the Heads of House, some senior teachers and the Chair of Governors for the school were in attendance too. The meeting was conducted in its normal manner i.e. the students from yr7 – 13 voiced their concerns about school e.g. crowding in the corridors at lesson changes, and the Head teacher and Head of House offered to look into the matters and/or asked for suggestions as possible solutions.
The Erasmus teachers observed the proceedings and asked pertinent questions to clarify their misgivings. There were still some doubts among several of the EMBRACE team about the success of the European Junior Parliament since the debates would be conducted in English – an MFL for 6 partners. Would the students have the necessary vocabulary and structures to express their views with confidence?
The first European Junior Parliament to be held in Poland would be a telling point.