The Discussion Group was preceded by the main conference presentation on National Service and Service-Learning: Partnership for Education Reform, given by Dr. James C. Kielsmeier (see pages 27 to 29).

The Discussion Group on Service-Learning made several points:

1. Service-Learning is valid for all levels of education.
   
2. There is an issue about whether Service-Learning should be voluntary (with a `you are needed' emphasis) or mandatory (the `stick' rather than the `carrot' approach), with the consequent effect on motivation and commitment.
   
3. Service-Learning could be the focus of an intergenerational compact.
   
4. The challenges facing the introduction of Service-Learning include the traditional educational settings which still predominate.
   
5. There is the issue of all the different models of Service-Learning. If the richness of the diversity of models
   (each presumably tailored to meet valid needs) was not lost in the process, some standardization might make for easier comparison.
   
6. In planning Service-Learning programmes, it is important to define the scale, costs and the intended impact.
   
7. To facilitate the integration of Service-Learning, information on its concept, its practice, its needs and its benefits should be included in teacher training, curriculum development, academic research and monitoring, and in publicity/awareness-raising work with the target groups (students, parents, communities, educational institutions, governmental bodies, and the private and commercial organisations that might contribute to its success and benefit from the young people who come to them with an education enriched by it).

The Discussion Group was preceded by the main conference presentation on Monitoring and Evaluation of National Youth Service Programmes - the Case of the Citizen's Service Pilot Schemes in the UK, given by Luc Moens of Price Waterhouse, UK (see pages 31 to 33).

The Discussion Group made several points and a number of recommendations for follow-up action regarding Monitoring and Evaluation of NYS programmes. The points are as follows:

1. There is a strong need for further discussion of the content of research and evaluation ie what is `success' in an
NYS programme?

2. It needs to be clear what will be monitored during NYS programmes - to help facilitate feedback and evidence which might then contribute to evaluation. The resources required for this (time, finance, personnel) will need to be taken account of in developing NYS plans. It is also important to monitor service members after, as well as during, their service period.

3. As with all things, there is also politics involved in research and evaluation which needs to be taken account of. Who commissions and pays for the research? (appropriate mechanisms should also be employed to make evaluations cost-effective) What purposes will the results be put to? Who benefits?

4. The evaluation process needs to be rigorous and fair. The evaluators should be independent or other private agents. Countries (for example, IANYS members) might monitor each other's performance through exchange programmes. The evaluators and their methods should also be evaluated - who should do this?

5. The evaluation process should be continuous and should involve all the stakeholders.

6. Cultural differences must also be taken account of in trying to establish common parameters for a global research and evaluation agenda regarding NYS. What one culture values, another might not. The point was accepted that the research and evaluation agenda cannot be set entirely by northern and western cultural values.

7. There is a need for the Global Conference resolutions to be followed up and evaluated? Who does this?

Recommendations for further steps:

1. Establish a clearing-house for sharing methodologies and evaluation results around the world regarding NYS.
   
   
2. Establish a listserve discussion group that would facilitate the continued discussion around content of NYS research; a listserve would facilitate continued discussion among members of organizations interested in research, evaluation and monitoring issues.

The Discussion Group was preceded by the main conference presentation on National Youth Service: Emerging Issues in the 21^st Century, given by Donald J. Eberly - which included a section on NYS and Military Service (see page 26).
This Discussion Group outlined several different models of military service, each of which was in operation in at least one of the countries represented at this Conference:
1. Mandatory Conscription and Alternative Civilian Service eg Germany.
2. Mandatory Civilian Service and Voluntary Military Service eg Nigeria.
3. Mandatory Military Service with paramilitary missions eg Israel.
4. Military as a contractor/infrastructure for Civilian Service eg Ghana.

The Group also made the following points about NYS and Military Service:

1. There are two opposite poles:

(i) the military as the essence of patriotic commitment, and (ii) civilian service demanding a voluntary essence.

A country's choice between these two poles and the range of possible military/civilian combinations between them (as outlined in models 1 to 4 above) depends on several things, among them - the country's national objectives, the character of the military, and the relationship between the military and society.

2. Why do some civilian service programmes utilize aspects of military service, eg discipline and organization?
Reasons may include:

(i) the military is seen as central to the process of socializing youth (building self discipline, loyalty, bonding/trust, and providing a means of citizenship education);

(ii) the military is traditionally seen as having the best ability to command and mobilize resources.

However, some roles that may be necessary in providing service may not be suited to a compulsory military setting, for example - compassion and empathy roles should be voluntary. For a military service to cater for these roles, it would need to involve a combination of compulsion and choice.

3. Where civilian service is available alongside or instead of military service, there is the issue of whether the service placement should be a matter of choice or a compulsory assignment. This largely depends on the goals of the service, eg skill acquisition (focus on the individual) or sharing of talents (focus on society), and the definition of the goals themselves depends on many things (constitution, culture etc).