theoretical impulses and discussions

Cultural education institutions are opening up to participatory processes and want to include children and young people in their offerings and programs. This enables young people to participate effectively in cultural education as equal members of society and allows cultural education to implement the principle of cultural participation. However, there is often a lack of access to children and young people beyond short-term projects, or the participatory offerings reach target groups that are part of the regular audience and naturally participate in such offerings. That is why places and actors involved in child and youth work can be important partners in implementing child and youth participation in cultural education. Here, for example, formats of participation such as children's and youth forums, children's and youth parliaments, or participation as youth leaders in cultural offerings have become established. Cultural education takes place in child and youth welfare as cultural child and youth work in various locations and in a variety of forms, such as in youth centers (open doors, etc.), youth cultural centers, youth art schools, or in mobile youth work (cf. Sturzenhecker 2012: 743, Sinoplu 2021: 521f.).These places see themselves as important cultural spaces where they can engage in self-organized aesthetic and creative activities and learn about art in groups of peers with a strong connection to their everyday lives (cf. Josties 2016: 12).

A key quality criterion for child and youth participation is the time horizons of the children and young people. Participation takes time, but too often children and young people find that implementing their concerns takes too long. At the same time, there is always a certain amount of time pressure, so that the process takes a back seat in favor of a focus on results. The quality of child and youth participation also depends on the qualifications of the professionals, volunteers, and staff involved. Participation requires reflective, self-critical professionals who are constantly grappling with the issues of “power” and “adultism.” In a variety of situations, they try to relinquish their power to children and young people or use it in the interests of child and youth participation.

Consequently, a reflexive examination of social injustice, racism, and discrimination is equally essential. If cultural education aims to promote participation through the involvement of children and young people, it is important to expose discrimination and pursue a critical, power-sensitive, diversity-conscious attitude and an intersectional perspective (cf. Josties 2016: 15f. ; Mecheril 2015: 2013). Knowledge of child- and youth-friendly methods and formats is certainly necessary, but a power-critical attitude is the basis of child and youth participation. Ultimately, participation remains a constant process of reflection and revision—especially for the adults involved.

Joana Sinoplu 
Cultural Education Center NRW and Academy of Cultural Education of the Federal Government and the State of North Rhine-Westphalia

The KUMULUS project is a research initiative focusing on cultural and artistic education for young people in rural areas. It emerged as a collaborative project between the German Youth Institute and Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. The research aimed to explore the conditions and practices of cultural education by and for school aged youth in highly peripheral rural regions. Culture was understood not only in terms of institutionalized offerings and formats of so-called high culture, but explicitly also as social and popular culture. The model regions were Altmarkkreis Salzwedel and the district of Mecklenburgische Seenplatte.

The project started from the assumption that cultural education fosters or develops self-efficacy and self-confidence, goal orientation and perseverance, social skills, prioritization, creativity, cognitive-emotional development, as well as educational and participation opportunities.

The landscape of cultural offerings showed the following characteristics: the more rural and peripheral a region is, the fewer cultural opportunities exist; they occur less frequently and irregularly, and fewer are specifically aimed at young people. From the perspective of providers of cultural education, major challenges include the changed situation after COVID-19, the future development of offerings, and their funding.

Key areas of life for young people were identified as sports, school, nature and the environment, music, and engagement in clubs. Most young people engage in cultural activities such as painting/drawing, singing, or crafting/handicrafts. The majority of these activities are self-organized or simply take place during free time (89 percent). Clubs (15 percent), specialized schools (10 percent), such as dance schools, and private lessons (8 percent) provide additional structures but are much less common.

It was also found that certain cultural activities are disproportionately associated with specific social groups. For example, young people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to play a musical instrument, whereas those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to engage with electronic music or create and edit images/collages on the computer. Independent of socioeconomic status, singing and rapping are common activities.

Surveys further showed that satisfaction with available offerings varies, including by gender. Girls reported overall greater dissatisfaction with existing programs. Good-practice examples include mobile art workshops like “BitburgART” in the Eifel, where a bus brings a fully equipped workshop to local communities, and the “Klanggewölbe” in Delitzsch, an interactive museum that invites visitors to touch and experiment.

A critical point highlighted is that political funding strategies often take cities as a reference. Because additional cultural offerings for young people are not mandatory, they are frequently unavailable or insufficiently supported in rural areas. This exacerbates existing social inequalities, as participation often requires access to a car or parental transport, while public transport is rarely or never available.

Overall, the findings underscore that cultural participation for young people in rural areas is structurally disadvantaged, and targeted, low-threshold, mobility- and youth-oriented solutions are needed.

The full presentation can be found here.

• Multi-option structures should be established, ideally located within or in close proximity to schools.

• The perspectives of young people should be considered in an age-sensitive manner, as the interests of, for example, 15- and 17-year-olds can differ significantly.

• (Freely accessible) spaces should be provided where young people can independently decide on both usage and content; the same applies to learning and experimental spaces.

• Programs should be offered free of charge whenever possible, or at minimal cost.

• A mobility strategy should be planned and secured from the outset, as limited accessibility is one of the main barriers to participation. Public transport should be available outside of school hours as well.

• Digitalization can facilitate participation, so projects should be designed to include digital or hybrid formats whenever feasible.

The input was structured around three key themes: childhood today, access and participation, and a summary addressing the challenges for cultural education.

Childhood Today

Childhood was described as a largely protected phase of life, functioning as both a space of protection and an educational moratorium. This refers to the opportunity for children and young people to develop their own identities. The concept of an educational moratorium includes both educational and training phases. Childhood is also shaped by several structural patterns: institutionalized age hierarchies, decommodification, scholarization or pedagogization, and familialization. At the same time, childhoods are diverse due to differing social conditions, cultural backgrounds, gender, and regional contexts.

Within Germany, demographic trends show that the birth rate has declined. While it was 1.98 in 1940, it is now 1.38. The proportion of people without children has remained roughly 20 percent. Three main family forms can be distinguished: married couples, single-parent households, and cohabiting partnerships. Clear differences exist between eastern and western Germany. While 71 percent of children in western Germany live with married parents, the figure in eastern Germany is only 54 percent. Single-parent households and cohabiting partnerships are more prevalent in eastern Germany.

Children’s daily lives are shaped by daycare, school, and after-school care, as well as organized (often commercialized) leisure activities such as indoor playgrounds, amusement parks, music and arts programs, or sports. Children’s routines and leisure opportunities vary significantly depending on social background. Another defining aspect of childhood is digitalization and technological integration. For example, 40 percent of children aged four to thirteen own a smartphone, and 34 percent have a children’s audio device. Parents report rising expectations due to dual employment, increasing educational demands, and high demands regarding media guidance. Despite falling unemployment, child poverty has remained at a stable level since the 1990s. Migration and displacement also shape childhood, leading to the phenomenon of transnational childhoods. The diversity of childhoods exists in constant tension with the idea of childhood as an educational and expert-regulated phase, a field characterized by high expectations for educational trajectories and a “good childhood.” Early, school-based, extracurricular, and cultural education all play a significant role in defining what constitutes a good childhood.

Access and Participation

Limited participation in cultural education can be traced to several factors: economic resources, time constraints, mobility barriers (urban vs. rural), lack of understanding of or interest in cultural education, and tensions between social milieus, for example due to differences in habitus.

Summary – Challenges for Cultural Education?

1. Growing up in diverse societies means increasing ethnic, social, cultural, and gender diversity, alongside institutional, social, and spatial segregation.

2. This results in different and socially unequal childhoods, highlighting children whose experiences diverge from the normative expectations of a “good childhood.”

3. Cultural education holds a high value in the educational experience, but opportunities for participation are strongly shaped by families’ social circumstances and their local context.

The full presentation can be found here.

Language is a key to social and cultural participation.

At the intersection of cultural education and social work, artificial intelligence opens up new possibilities for learning support and for breaking down language barriers, for example through real-time interpreting or the simplification of documents. It can also support learning processes and facilitate access to education by providing access to counseling and cultural offerings. AI can also support cultural sensitivity, for example by pointing out linguistic and cultural nuances, but it cannot replace personal guidance.

The use of AI requires a critical and reflective attitude. In addition to opportunities, there are also clear limitations and risks: digital inequalities (digital divide), possible distortions and discrimination due to bias, data protection issues, and environmental aspects such as energy consumption. Studies also indicate that excessive outsourcing of cognitive processes to AI can lead to more superficial learning, poorer memory performance, and a loss of “ownership” over one's own texts (“cognitive debt”).

In practice, it means that AI should be used in a context-sensitive, ethically responsible, and targeted way. It is able to take over routine tasks and improve accessibility, but it should not replace learning-related thought processes and human expertise. AI can help promote linguistic literacy as a tool that supports greater participation, but it should not be used as a substitute for education, relationships, and critical thinking.