Estados Unidos

Page 165 of 393
1 … 163 164 165 166 167 … 393

OECD: Preparing Our Yuth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World

Documentos

Introduction: The importance of an international global competence assessment

Twenty-first century students live in an interconnected, diverse and rapidly changing world. Emerging economic, digital,  cultural, demographic and environmental forces are shaping young people’s lives around the planet, and increasing their intercultural encounters on a daily basis. This complex environment presents an opportunity and a challenge. Young people today must not only learn to participate in a more interconnected world but also appreciate and benefit from cultural differences. Developing a global and intercultural outlook is a process – a lifelong process – that education can shape (Barrett et al., 2014; Boix Mansilla and Jackson, 2011; Deardorff, 2009; UNESCO, 2013, 2014a, 2016).

What is global competence?

Global competence is a multidimensional capacity. Globally competent individuals can examine local, global and intercultural issues, understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views, interact successfully and respectfully with others, and take responsible action toward sustainability and collective well-being.

Can schools promote global competence?

Schools play a crucial role in helping young people to develop global competence. They can provide opportunities for young people t ocritically examine global developments that are significant to both the world at large and to their own lives. They can teach students how
to critically, effectively and responsibly use digital information and social media platforms. Schools can encourage intercultural sensitivity and respect by allowing students to engage in experiences that foster an appreciation for diverse peoples, languages and cultures (Bennett, 1993; Sinicrope, Norris and Watanabe, 2007). Schools are also uniquely positioned to enhance young people’s ability to understand their place in the community and the world, and improve their ability to make judgements and take action (Hanvey, 1975).

To download, click here:

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/Handbook-PISA-2018-Global-Competence.pdf

 

 

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

The Ghost of Fascism in the Age of Trump

Henry Giroux

By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout

In the age of Trump, history neither informs the present nor haunts it with repressed memories of the past. It simply disappears. Memory has been hijacked. This is especially troubling when the «mobilizing passions» of a fascist past now emerge in the unceasing stream of hate, bigotry, lies and militarism that are endlessly circulated and reproduced at the highest levels of government and in powerful conservative media, such as Fox News, Breitbart News, conservative talk radio stations and alt-right social media. Power, culture, politics, finance and everyday life now merge in ways that are unprecedented and pose a threat to democracies all over the world. This mix of old media and new digitally driven systems of production and consumption are not merely systems, but ecologies that produce, shape and sustain ideas, desires and modes of agency with unprecedented power and influence. Informal educational apparatuses, particularly the corporate-controlled media, appear increasingly to be on the side of tyranny. In fact, it would be difficult to overly stress the growing pedagogical importance of the old and new media and the power they now have on the political imaginations of countless Americans. This is particularly true of right-wing media empires, such as those owned by Rupert Murdoch, as well as powerful corporate entities such as Clearwater, which dominates the radio airwaves with its ownership of over 1,250 stations. In the sphere of television ownership and control, powerful corporate entities have emerged, such as Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns the largest number of TV stations in the United States. In addition, right-wing hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have an audience in the millions. Right-wing educational apparatuses shape much of what Americans watch and listen to, and appear to influence all of what Trump watches and hears. The impact of conservative media has had a dangerous effect on American culture and politics, and has played the most prominent role in channeling populist anger and electing Trump to the presidency. We are now witnessing the effects of this media machine. The first casualty of the Trump era is truth, the second is moral responsibility, the third is any vestige of justice, and the fourth is a massive increase in human misery and suffering for millions.

Instead of refusing to cooperate with evil, Americans increasingly find themselves in a society in which those in commanding positions of power and influence exhibit a tacit approval of the emerging authoritarian strains and acute social problems undermining democratic institutions and rules of law. As such, they remain silent and therefore, complicit in the face of such assaults on American democracy. Ideological extremism and a stark indifference to the lies and ruthless polices of the Trump administration have turned the Republican Party into a party of collaborators, not unlike the Vichy government that collaborated with the Nazis in the 1940s. Both groups bought into the script of ultra-nationalism, encouraged anti-Semitic mobs, embraced a militant masculinity, demonized racial and ethnic others, supported an unchecked militarism and fantasies of empire, and sanctioned state violence at home and abroad.

Words carry power and enable certain actions; they also establish the grounds for legitimating repressive policies and practices.

This is not to propose that those who support Trump are all Nazis in suits. On the contrary, it is meant to suggest a more updated danger in which people with power have turned their backs on the cautionary histories of the fascist and Nazi regimes, and in doing so, have willingly embraced authoritarian messages and tropes. Rather than Nazis in suits, we have a growing culture of social and historical amnesia that enables those who are responsible for the misery, anger and pain that has accompanied the long reign of casino capitalism to remain silent for their role and complicity in the comeback of fascism in the United States. This normalization of fascism can be seen in the way in which language that was once an object of critique in liberal democracies loses its negative connotation and becomes the opposite in the Trump administration. Politics, power and human suffering are now framed outside of the realm of historical memory. What is forgotten is that history teaches us something about the transformation and mobilization of language into an instrument of war and violence. As Richard J. Evans observes in his The Third Reich in Power:

Words that in a normal, civilized society had a negative connotation acquired the opposite sense under Nazism … so that ‘fanatical’, ‘brutal’, ‘ruthless’, ‘uncompromising’, ‘hard’ all became words of praise instead of disapproval… In the hands of the Nazi propaganda apparatus, the German language became strident, aggressive and militaristic. Commonplace matters were described in terms more suited to the battlefield. The language itself began to be mobilized for war.

Fantasies of absolute control, racial cleansing, unchecked militarism and class warfare are at the heart of much of the American imagination. This is a dystopian imagination marked by hollow words, an imagination pillaged of any substantive meaning, cleansed of compassion and used to legitimate the notion that alternative worlds are impossible to entertain. There is more at work here than shrinking political horizons. What we are witnessing is a closing of the political and a full-scale attack on moral outrage, thoughtful reasoning, collective resistance and radical imagination. Trump has normalized the unthinkable, legitimated the inexcusable and defended the indefensible.

Of course, Trump is only a symptom of the economic, political and ideological rot at the heart of casino capitalism, with its growing authoritarianism and social and political injustices that have been festering in the United States with great intensity since the late 1970s. It was at that point in US history when both political parties decided that matters of community, the public good, the general welfare and democracy itself were a threat to the fundamental beliefs of the financial elite and the institutions driving casino capitalism. As Ronald Reagan made clear, government was the problem. Consequently, it was framed as the enemy of freedom and purged for assuming any responsibility for a range of basic social needs. Individual responsibility took the place of the welfare state, compassion gave way to self-interest, manufacturing was replaced by the toxic power of financialization, and a rampaging inequality left the bottom half of the US population without jobs, a future of meaningful work or a life of dignity.

The call for political unity transforms quickly into the use of force and exclusionary violence to impose the authority of a tyrannical regime.

Trump has added a new swagger and unapologetic posture to this concoction of massive inequality, systemic racism, American exceptionalism and ultra-nationalism. He embodies a form of populist authoritarianism that not only rejects an egalitarian notion of citizenship, but embraces a nativism and fear of democracy that is at the heart of any fascist regime.

How else to explain a sitting president announcing to a crowd that Democratic Party congressional members who refused to clap for parts of his State of the Union address were «un-American» and «treasonous»? This charge is made all the more disturbing given that the White House promoted this speech as one that would emphasize «bipartisanship and national unity.» Words carry power and enable certain actions; they also establish the grounds for legitimating repressive policies and practices. Such threats are not a joking matter and cannot be dismissed as merely a slip of the tongue. When the president states publicly that his political opponents have committed a treasonous act — one that is punishable by death — because they refused to offer up sycophantic praise, the plague of fascism is not far away. His call for unity takes a dark turn under such circumstances and emulates a fascist past in which the call for political unity transforms quickly into the use of force and exclusionary violence to impose the authority of a tyrannical regime.

In Trump’s world, the authoritarian mindset has been resurrected, bent on exhibiting a contempt for the truth, ethics and alleged human weakness. For Trump, success amounts to acting with impunity, using government power to sell or to license his brand, hawking the allure of power and wealth, and finding pleasure in producing a culture of impunity, selfishness and state-sanctioned violence. Trump is a master of performance as a form of mass entertainment. This approach to politics echoes the merging of the spectacle with an ethical abandonment reminiscent of past fascist regimes. As Naomi Klein rightly argues in No Is Not Enough, Trump «approaches everything as a spectacle» and edits «reality to fit his narrative.»

As the bully-in-chief, he militarizes speech while producing a culture meant to embrace his brand of authoritarianism. This project is most evident in his speeches and policies, which pit white working- and middle-class males against people of color, men against women, and white nationalists against various ethnic, immigrant and religious groups. Trump is a master of theater and diversion, and the mainstream press furthers this attack on critical exchange by glossing over his massive assault on the planet and enactment of policies, such as the GOP tax cuts, which are willfully designed to redistribute wealth upward to his fellow super-rich billionaires. Trump’s alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels garners far more headlines than his deregulation of oil and gas industries and his dismantling of environment protections.

Economic pillage has reached new and extreme levels and is now accompanied by a ravaging culture of viciousness and massive levels of exploitation and human suffering. Trump has turned language into a weapon with his endless lies and support for white nationalism, nativism, racism and state violence. This is a language that legitimates ignorance while producing an active silence and complicity in the face of an emerging corporate fascist state.

Like most authoritarians, Trump demands loyalty and team membership from all those under his power, and he hates those elements of a democracy — such as the courts and the critical media — that dare to challenge him. Echoes of the past come to life in his call for giant military parades, enabling White House press secretary Sarah Sanders to call people who disagree with his policies «un-American,» and sanctioning his Department of Justice to issue a «chilling warning,» threatening to arrest and charge mayors with a federal crime who do not implement his anti-immigration policies and racist assaults on immigrants. What can be learned from past periods of tyranny is that the embrace of lawlessness is often followed by a climate of terror and repression that is the essence of fascism.

Whether Trump is a direct replica of the Nazi regime has little relevance compared to the serious challenges he poses.

In Trump’s world view, the call for limitless loyalty reflects more than an insufferable act of vanity and insecurity; it is a weaponized threat to those who dare to challenge Trump’s assumption that he is above the law and can have his way on matters of corruption, collusion and a possible obstruction of justice. Trump is an ominous threat to democracy and lives, as Masha Gessen observes, «surrounded by enemies, shadowed by danger, forever perched on the precipice.» Moreover, he has enormous support from his Vichy-like minions in Congress, among the ultra-rich bankers and hedge fund managers, and the corporate elite. His trillion-dollar tax cut has convinced corporate America he is their best ally. He has, in not too subtle ways, also convinced a wide range of far-right extremists extending from the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis to the deeply racist and fascist «alt-right» movement, that he shares their hatred of people of color, immigrants and Jews. Imaginary horrors inhabit this new corporate dystopian world and frighteningly resemble shades of a terrifying past that once led to unimaginable acts of genocide, concentration camps and a devastating world war. Nowhere is this vision more succinctly contained than in Trump’s first State of the Union Address and the response it garnered.

State of Disunion

An act of doublespeak preceded Donald Trump’s first State of the Union Address. Billed by the White House as a speech that would be «unifying» and marked by a tone of «bipartisanship,» the speech was actually steeped in divisiveness, fear, racism, warmongering, nativism and immigrant bashing. It once again displayed Trump’s contempt for democracy.

Claiming «all Americans deserve accountability and respect,» Trump nevertheless spent ample time in his speech equating undocumented immigrants with the criminal gang MS-13, regardless of the fact that undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than US citizens. (As Juan Cole points out, «Americans murdered 17,250 other Americans in 2016. Almost none of the perpetrators was an undocumented worker, contrary to the impression Trump gave.»)

For Trump, as with most demagogues, fear is the most valued currency of politics. In his speech, he suggested that the visa lottery system and «chain migration» — in which individuals can migrate through the sponsorship of their family — posed a threat to the US, presenting «risks we can just no longer afford.» In response to the Dreamers, he moved between allegedly supporting their bid for citizenship to suggesting they were part of a culture of criminality. At one point, he stated in a not-too-subtle expression of derision that «Americans are dreamers too.» This was a gesture to his white nationalist base. On Twitter, David Duke, the former head of the Ku Klux Klan, cheered over that remark. Trump had nothing to say about the challenges undocumented immigrants face, nor did he express any understanding of the fear and insecurity hanging over the heads of 800,000 Dreamers who could be deported.

Trump also indicated that he was not going to close Guantánamo, and once again argued that «terrorists should be treated like terrorists.» Given the history of torture associated with Guantánamo and the past crimes and abuses that took place under the mantle of the «war on terror,» Trump’s remarks should raise a red flag, not only because torture is a war crime, but also because the comment further accelerated the paranoia, nihilist passions and apocalyptic populism that feeds his base.

Fascism is hardly a relic of the past or a static political and ideological system.

Pointing to menacing enemies all around the world, Trump exhibited his love for all things war-like and militaristic, and his support for expanding the nuclear arsenal and the military budget. He also called on «the Congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers — and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.» Given his firing of James Comey, his threat to fire Jeff Sessions, and more recently his suggestion that he might fire Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein — all of whom allegedly displayed disloyalty by not dismantling the Russian investigation conducted by Special Council Mueller — Trump seems likely to make good on this promise to rid the federal workforce of those who disagree with him, allowing him to fill civil service jobs with friends, family members and sycophants. This is about more than Trump’s disdain for the separation of power, the independence of other government agencies, or his attack on potential whistleblowers; it is about amassing power and instilling fear in those he appoints to government positions if they dare act to hold power accountable. This is what happens when democracies turn into fascist states.

Trump is worse than almost anyone imagined, and while his critics across the ideological spectrum have begun to go after him, they rarely focus on how dangerous he is, hesitant to argue that he is not only the enemy of democracy, but symptomatic of the powerful political, economic and cultural forces shaping the new US fascism.

There are some critics who claim that Trump is simply a weak president whose ineptness is being countered by «a robust democratic culture and set of institutions,» and not much more than a passing moment in history. Others, such as Wendy Brown and Nancy Fraser, view him as an authoritarian expression of right-wing populism and an outgrowth of neoliberal politics and policies. While many historians, such as Timothy Snyder and Robert O. Paxton, analyze him in terms that echo some elements of a fascist past, some conservatives such as David Frum view him as a modern-day self-obsessed, emotionally needy demagogue whose assault on democracy needs to be taken seriously, and that whether or not he is a fascist is not as important as what he plans to do with his power. For Frum, there is a real danger that people will retreat into their private worlds, become cynical and enable a slide into a form of tyranny that would become difficult to defeat. Others, like Corey Robin, argue that we overstep a theoretical boundary when comparing Trump directly to Hitler. According to Robin, Trump bears no relationship to Hitler or the policies of the Third Reich. Robin not only dismisses the threat that Trump poses to the values and institutions of democracy, but plays down the growing threat of authoritarianism in the United States. For Robin, Trump has failed to institute many of his policies, and as such, is just a weak politician with little actual power. Not only does Robin focus too much on the person of Trump, but he is relatively silent about the forces that produced him and the danger these proto-fascist social formations now pose to those who are the objects of the administration’s racist, sexist and xenophobic taunts and policies.

The ghosts of fascism should terrify us, but most importantly, they should educate us and imbue us with a spirit of civic justice.

As Jeffrey C. Isaac observes, whether Trump is a direct replica of the Nazi regime has little relevance compared to the serious challenges he poses; for instance, to the DACA children and their families, the poor, undocumented immigrants and a range of other groups. Moreover, authoritarianism is looming in the air and can be seen in the number of oppressive and regressive policies already put into place by the Trump administration that will have a long-term effect on the United States. These include the $1.5 trillion giveaway in the new tax code, the expansion of the military-industrial complex, the elimination of Obamacare’s individual mandate, the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and a range of deregulations that will impact negatively on the environment for years to come. In addition, there is the threat of a nuclear war, the disappearance of health care for the most vulnerable, the attack on free speech and the media, and the rise of the punishing state and the increasing criminalization of social problems. As Richard J. Evans, the renowned British historian, observes, «Violence indeed was at the heart of the Nazi enterprise. Every democracy that perishes dies in a different way, because every democracy is situated in specific historical circumstances.»

US society has entered a dangerous stage in its history. After 40 years of neoliberalism and systemic racism, many Americans lack a critical language that offers a consistent narrative that enables them to understand gutted wages, lost pensions, widespread uncertainty and collapsing identities due to feeling disposable, the loss of meaningful work and a formative culture steeped in violence, cruelty and an obsession with greed. Moreover, since 9/11, Americans have been bombarded by a culture of fear and consumerism that both dampens their willingness to be critical agents and depoliticizes them. Everyone is now a suspect or a consumer, but hardly a critically engaged citizen. Others are depoliticized because of the ravages of debt, poverty and the daily struggle to survive — problems made all the worse by Trump’s tax and health policies. And while there is no perfect mirror, it has become all the more difficult for many people to recognize how the «crystalized elements» of totalitarianism have emerged in the shape of an American-style fascism. What has been forgotten by too many intellectuals, critics, educators and politicians is that fascism is hardly a relic of the past or a static political and ideological system.

Trump is not in possession of storm troopers, concentration camps or concocting plans for genocidal acts — at least, not at the moment. But that does not mean that fascism is a moment frozen in history and has no bearing on the present. As Hannah Arendt, Sheldon Wolin and others have taught us, totalitarian regimes come in many forms and their elements can come together in different configurations. Rather than dismiss the notion that the organizing principles and fluctuating elements of fascism are still with us, a more appropriate response to Trump’s rise to power is to raise questions about what elements of his government signal the emergence of a fascism suited to a contemporary and distinctively US political, economic and cultural landscape.

What seems indisputable is that under Trump, democracy has become the enemy of power, politics and finance. Adam Gopnik refutes the notion that Trumpism will simply fade away in the end, and argues that comparisons between the current historical moment and fascism are much needed. He writes:

Needless to say, the degradation of public discourse, the acceleration of grotesque lying, the legitimization of hatred and name-calling, are hard to imagine vanishing like the winter snows that Trump thinks climate change is supposed to prevent. The belief that somehow all these things will somehow just go away in a few years’ time does seem not merely unduly optimistic but crazily so. In any case, the trouble isn’t just what the Trumpists may yet do; it is what they are doing now. American history has already been altered by their actions — institutions emptied out, historical continuities destroyed, traditions of decency savaged — in ways that will not be easy to rehabilitate.

There is nothing new about the possibility of authoritarianism in a particularly distinctive guise coming to the US. Nor is there a shortage of works illuminating the horrors of fascism. Fiction writers ranging from George Orwell, Sinclair Lewis and Aldous Huxley to Margaret Atwood, Philip K. Dick and Philip Roth have sounded the alarm in often brilliant and insightful terms. Politicians such as Henry Wallace wrote about American fascism, as did a range of theorists, such as Umberto Eco, Arendt and Paxton, who tried to understand its emergence, attractions and effects. What they all had in common was an awareness of the changing nature of tyranny and how it could happen under a diverse set of historical, economic and social circumstances. They also seem to share Philip Roth’s insistence that we all have an obligation to recognize «the terror of the unforeseen» that hides in the shadows of censorship, makes power invisible and gains in strength in the absence of historical memory. A warning indeed.

Trump represents a distinctive and dangerous form of US-bred authoritarianism, but at the same time, he is the outcome of a past that needs to be remembered, analyzed and engaged for the lessons it can teach us about the present. Not only has Trump «normalized the unspeakable» and in some cases, the unthinkable, he has also forced us to ask questions we have never asked before about capitalism, power, politics, and yes, courage itself. In part, this means recovering a language for politics, civic life, the public good, citizenship and justice that has real substance. One challenge is to confront the horrors of capitalism and its transformation into a form of fascism under Trump. This cannot happen without a revolution in consciousness, one that makes education central to politics.

Moreover, as Fredric Jameson has suggested, such a revolution cannot take place by limiting our choices to a fixation on the «impossible present.» Nor can it take place by limiting ourselves to a language of critique and a narrow focus on individual issues. What is needed is also a language of hope and a comprehensive politics that draws from history and imagines a future that does not imitate the present. Under such circumstances, the language of critique and hope can be enlisted to create a broad-based and powerful social movement that both refuses to equate capitalism with democracy and moves toward creating a radical democracy. William Faulkner once remarked that we live with the ghosts of the past, or to be more precise: «The past is never dead. It’s not even past.»

However, we are not only living with the ghosts of a dark past; it is also true that the ghosts of history can be critically engaged and transformed into a democratic politics for the future. The Nazi regime is more than a frozen moment in history. It is a warning from the past and a window into the growing threat Trumpism poses to democracy. The ghosts of fascism should terrify us, but most importantly, they should educate us and imbue us with a spirit of civic justice and collective courage in the fight for a substantive and inclusive democracy. The stakes are too high to remain complacent, cynical or simply outraged. A crisis of memory, history, agency and justice has mushroomed and opened up the abyss of a fascist nightmare. Now is the time to talk back, embrace the radical imagination in private and public, and create united mass based coalitions in which the collective dream for a radical democracy becomes a reality. There is no other choice.

Source:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/43529-the-ghost-of-fascism-in-the-age-of-trump

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

México: Hijos de padres deportados de EEUU sufren dificultades educativas

Noticias

México/17 de Febrero de 2018/Autor; Alberto Elenes/Hispan TV

Continuar con la educación a sus hijos en alguna escuela de este país es una de las dificultades que deben de enfrentar los migrantes que son deportados de Estados Unidos a México. Por eso en el estado mexicano de Baja California instrumentan un programa incluyente.

El idioma y el nivel educativo resultan complicados para los hijos de migrantes deportados de Estados Unido. Desde hace dos décadas, las autoridades educativas en México trabajan en el tema migratorio, el propósito es evitar que se trunque la educación de los niños.

Las autoridades educativas realizan un examen diagnóstico que incluye país de nacimiento e idioma que domina para comunicarse con su familia, para leer y escribir. La finalidad es conocer a fondo el nivel en que se encuentran.

Del total de los estudiantes de origen extranjero en Baja California, el 98 % proviene de alguna parte de Estados Unidos; muchos de ellos hijos de padres migrantes, por eso es importante contar con programas incluyentes.

Fuente: https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/mexico/368598/dificultades-programas-educacion-migrantes-deportados-eeuu

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Reclaiming the Radical Critique of Education

Eva Maria Swidler

By Eva-Maria Swidler

The left has a long history of critiquing not just the content of schooling, but the very concepts and institutions foundational to formal education. Sometimes incompatible but sometimes complementary, radical arguments have marched along side by side over the centuries. Some claimed that the working classes deserved open access to elite education, others that what schools taught was actually nothing more than indoctrination in service to elites and that schools needed a total overhaul in content, while yet others argued that the concepts of school and teacher were in themselves tools for indoctrination and disempowerment and should be abolished. Sometimes one person would adopt more than one, even all, of the above views, depending on the situation or moment. Sometimes radicals just argued the principles among themselves. But there were loud voices for every one of these ideas, as well as many in between and beyond.

That glorious noise of radical discussion on education has been becoming more and more monophonic since the 1960s and 70s.

As the social services we could expect the state to provide vanished one by one in the wake of elimination of welfare as we know it, radicalism seems to have been in retreat, circling the wagons to protect liberal concepts, institutions and processes that were previously subject to sometimes withering critiques. Emma Goldman’s slogan «If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal» used to be found on T shirts and bumperstickers; now those who used to scoff at electoral politics pour their efforts into undoing gerrymandered districts or fighting voter ID laws. Net neutrality campaigns, defending such no-brainer basics as anti-monopolism and free speech, absorb activists who might otherwise have been paying attention to the Congressional January re-authorization of another 6 years of the government surveillance of Americans. Providing immigrants with housing and legal support has far too often displaced the analysis of and resistance to the foreign policy that brings immigrants to our shores.

Without challenging the importance of defending our shrinking services and rights, I believe that we should wonder and worry: are our larger visions at risk of being eclipsed or even bankrupted by the immediate daily, weekly or monthly struggles we are engaged in to defend the most minimal standards? What happens to our thoughts and our conversations when we are preoccupied defending the very institutions and systems that we recently categorized as bourgeois liberalism? Are we maintaining our deeper and more radical critiques, essential to offering real alternatives to capitalism?

Education is a case in point. The coverage of public schools in Baltimore left without heat during a recent cold snap was abundant in the mainstream press, but also in the independent and left media—as it should be. Articles about test scores gaps or about unequal school funding are easy to find as well. But it’s been a long time since we’ve seen anything like the paradigm-shifting conversations and proposals for education that flourished on the left several decades ago.

In the second half of the twentieth century, thanks to a combination of the G. I. Bill and the civil rights and women’s movements, the academic disciplines opened at least partially to working class students, to racial and ethnic minorities, and to women. Radical intellectuals grew up through the academic ranks, and in the 1960s turned their critical eyes to educational institutions and compulsory schooling. The mainstream view of education as an always-benign, universal good that simply needed to be made equally available to all was shattered.

The radical critique of education is longstanding; Thorstein Veblen and Sinclair Lewis wrote acidly on schooling at the start of the 20th century, but were preceded by Tolstoy in the 19th, William Blake’s plaintive poem «The Schoolboy» in 18th century, and on. Nevertheless, the second half of the last century provided a boom in radical critiques that is worth remembering and resurrecting.

Some historians were skeptical that publicly funded and compulsory schools were a benefit provided by a newly benign state interested in the welfare of its people, and instead connected the spread of compulsory education with projects of nation building, the need for willing military conscripts, and the rise of the universal franchise, or right to vote. As governments were forced by democratic movements to admit more and more of the populace into the electorate, they realized that they needed to train, inculcate, and tame the citizens that they would now allow to have a voice in elections. Mandatory attendance at government schools provided a handy tool to create a sense of national belonging and thereby legitimize the state, as well as offering a chance to instruct youngsters in government-friendly civics, American history, and Western Civ (a course initially invented in the wake of dismay at the ideological state of U.S. soldiers in World War 1).

Heterodox economists began to wonder how compulsory schooling interacted with the labor force, identifying the industrial discipline of public schools, right down to the factory-like bells that move children from one room to another, as preparing and sculpting children for the life of an obedient worker. They scrutinized the educational curriculum and concluded that schooling was aimed at producing skills that employers, rather than citizens, parents or students, wanted. They assessed what the educational trade calls «the custodial function of the schools», what we might call school-as-daycare, as an important means for the state to free up care-taking parents for incorporation into the capitalist workforce.

Social commentators discussed the ideological importance of a universally available educational structure. They remarked that if capitalist societies want to offer a viable meritocratic myth that class mobility is possible for all, through hard work and innate abilities, the existence of public schools is essential «proof» that there is a level playing field; with universal access to education, it can be claimed that the best and brightest of any group clearly do have the chance to rise to the top, if they are truly worthy. And when the vast majority of people land, as they inevitably do, in low social circumstances, public schools provide critical ideological validation; they are the foundation for the claim that everyone has had a fair shot at success and society is merely sorting citizens into the social classes they «deserve», as evidenced by their school performance. If class mobility proves to be minimal, the blame can then be conveniently laid at the feet of poor schools, not structures of power. Demonstrating the success of this strategy, endless battles over educational policy currently substitute for discussions of economic equality: poor kids end up in jobs that pay less than a living wage? Increase educational standards and re-write the core curriculum!

Cultural theorists framed institutional education as cultural imperialism, both within the U.S. and abroad. Here at home, pedagogues argued that community self-determination and self-sufficiency were undermined as the school system taught poor and working class pupils to disdain their own cultures and social networks, and to instead strive to talk, think, and live like their teachers. Overseas, a vigorous analysis of American foreign «aid» interpreted formerly unassailable ventures such as building schools as the forcible export of a colonizing culture, set on undermining the non-capitalist ways and knowledge in the global South. Iconoclasts like Ivan Illich even argued that teaching was inherently a «disabling profession», premised on sapping agency and initiative from the populace, and proposing alternate models based on self-sufficiency and mutual aid.

Progressives’ radical ideas about education weren’t just theoretical, they were practical and applied, too. Putting their intellectual ideas to work, teachers and educational theorists of the 60s and 70s with a wide range of leftist political views explored alternative pedagogies and educational structures as a necessary part and parcel of progressive politics in general, following in the footsteps of the anarchist Modern Schools, the workers’ colleges, and many other alternative institutions of the early 20th century. (For more, see chapter 84 of the fascinating 1924 book The Goslings: A Study of the American Schools by Upton Sinclair, digitized here..) They reckoned that if education as-it-was reflected and served the hierarchical social order, then they needed to teach differently if they wanted to create a new world. College professors asked students to create the course syllabi their classes would follow. Democratic schools built assemblies of staff, students, and parents which would set schools’ policies and make important decisions. Teachers eschewed lecturing, competition, and grades in favor of discussions and portfolios. Some of the most heterodox educational rebels opted out of school altogether, creating the homeschooling, unschooling, and deschooling movements.

But since the start of the retreat of the welfare state, radical critiques of education have waned. In fact, to confess nowadays that you are a radical whose children don’t go to school is to risk being called an elitist or a privatizer. Venture a remark that, as institutions of the government, public schools have as their raison d’etre the massification of the working classes, and you will be accused of supporting charter schools’ anti-union tactics. Note that universal pre-schools, touted as a people’s agenda, remove cultural reproduction from communities and hand over toddlers to curricula built by bourgeois bureaucrats, enforced by the economic conscription of poor parents out of the household and into the workforce, and you are branded a reactionary.

It seems that the radical vision for education has shrunken to advocating for better funding and equipment for a system whose inherent mission is to create compliant citizens and a docile workforce.

It’s more than time to resurrect the old, bolder set of radical questions and ideas. If the left abandons an open debate on the nature of institutional education, there will be very few people left discussing how our children fare at the hands of state indoctrination, or how cultural hegemony is built from a tender age.

Of course we need to be clear that the pursuit of a radical critique of institutionalized education is not implicitly lending support to school vouchers or to for-profit charters. Questioning schooling doesn’t mean that we are engaged in defunding public education systems, or that we are part of the attack on teachers’ unions. It means only exactly what it says: that we are pursuing a deep and critical examination of an essential reproductive institution of capitalism, because we are the only ones who will do it.

But let’s take heart. Resurrecting and revitalizing the radical challenge to schooling as we know it doesn’t have to be a negative proposition. Our forebears have provided us with plentiful alternative models and histories to draw on; in fact, many of these models continue and flourish today, uncelebrated by the mainstream left. We have free schools and democratic schools, including some which serve large proportions of poor children. We have organizations of African American homeschoolers and feminist unschoolers. India supports a vibrant alternative education movement linked with the concept of swaraj or self-rule, while Mexico’s indigenous people have a network of autonomous and self-directed «unitierras», described as places for «learning in small groups how to construct autonomous ways of life, socially just, environmentally sensible and economically feasible». We don’t need to reinvent the visionary alternative to institutionalized education, we just need to reconnect the socialist conversation with all those people who have been keeping that vision alive.

The left calls vigorously for universal, single payer health care, and yet also describes the deeply problematic nature of conventional medicine which that health insurance would give us access to. We campaign for regulated and subsidized prescription prices, yet simultaneously point out the extent to which pharmaceutical companies have created self-serving medical research that leads to the over-prescription of the very medicines we want subsidized. We push for free maternity clinics, while also attacking the patriarchal and racist shape of the obstetrical care those clinics provide. We have shown repeatedly that we are able to offer fundamental challenges to institutions, while still supporting the social access to basic services those institutions enable. Now we need to get past the idea that it is impossible to entertain and discuss a range of challenges to state-run and compulsory schooling while also fighting for free, equitable, universal access to humane and meaningful education for those who want or need it.

If we can’t, we’re giving up our children and our communities without a fight.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

RELATED STORIES

We Are All Students: The Meaning of «Free Education»

By Paddy O’Halloran, Truthout | Op-Ed

Keeping US Education Segregated Is a Highly Profitable Business for Some

By Mark Karlin, Truthout | Interview

Department of Education Rules That Texas Violated Rights of Disabled Students

By s.e. smith, Care2 | News Analysis
Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Entrevista: Bill y Melinda Gates combatirán la pobreza en Estados Unidos

Entrevistas

Por The Associated Press

Redirigirán su labor filantrópica porque les preocupa la visión del mundo de “Estados Unidos primero” que defiende Donald Trump.

Bill y Melinda Gates, los filántropos más importantes del mundo, están redirigiendo su labor en Estados Unidos para combatir lo que consideran sus resultados poco satisfactorios en las escuelas, la creciente desigualdad en el país y un presidente con el que están más en desacuerdo que con cualquier de sus predecesores.

En una entrevista con The Associated Press, la pareja dijo que les preocupa la visión del mundo de “Estados Unidos primero” que defiende Donald Trump. Se sabe que tienen diferencias con el presidente y con el Partido Republicano al que pertenece en cuestiones como la ayuda al exterior, los impuestos y las protecciones para jóvenes inmigrantes sin permiso de residencia.

Los Gates dijeron estar investigando los factores de la pobreza en Estados Unidos con las que no habían trabajado a nivel nacional, como el desempleo, la raza, la vivienda, la salud mental, el encarcelamiento y el abuso de sustancias.

“En Estados Unidos no estamos viendo la movilidad para salir de la pobreza que existía antes”, señaló Melinda Gates.

La Fundación Bill y Melinda Gatesestudia estos temas y aún no tiene planes de iniciativas concretas, aunque ha hecho trabajos relacionados en su estado natal, Washington, a una escala mucho menor. La institución financió el año pasado una beca para el Centro de Presupuesto y Prioridades Políticas para buscar medidas estatales y federales que puedan reducir la pobreza.

Ha pasado una década desde que el cofundador de Microsoft, que llegó a ser el hombre más rico del mundo, hizo la transición de gigante de la tecnología a filántropo. Dijo haber tenido dos reuniones con Trump, en las que hablaron de innovación en la educación, energía y salud, incluidas las vacunas, con las que Trump ha sido escéptico.

“En las dos ocasiones pude hablar sobre el milagro de las vacunas y en qué sentido son algo bueno”, señaló Bill Gates.

Melinda Gates, que dejó su empleo en Microsoft para criar a los tres hijos de la pareja antes de centrarse a tiempo completo en la fundación, ha asumido un papel público más destacado en los últimos meses. Criticó el comportamiento de Trump, afirmando que el presidente tiene una responsabilidad de ser un buen modelo de conducta cuando habla y tuitea, y que sus ataques verbales no tienen lugar en el discurso público.

“Solo hay que ir a Twitter para ver los comentarios desdeñosos que hace una y otra y otra vez sobre las mujeres y las minorías”, dijo Melinda Gates. “Simplemente no creo en eso. No es el mundo que yo veo”.

La estrategia de su fundación ha cambiado todo el mundo de la filantropía. Se les ha criticado por dar instrucciones sobre cómo debe gastarse el dinero y después esperar pruebas tangibles de que su inversión funciona.

En torno al 75% de los recursos de la organización se dedican a salud y desarrollo global. Bill Gates señaló que estaba especialmente orgulloso de sus esfuerzos por erradicar la polio y reducir la mortalidad infantil.

Sin embargo, admitió que no ha tenido tanto nivel de éxito en Estados Unidos con su estrategia de buscar la igualdad a través de reformas educativas. Las iniciativas educativas en Estados Unidos están en un distante segundo puesto en las prioridades en financiación del grupo, pero los 450 millones de dólares que dedica al año convierten a la Fundación en la principal financiadora de reformas escolares en el país.

Han sido grandes defensores de las escuelas concertadas y defendido la creación de sistemas de evaluación de los maestros, así como un modelo de escuelas más pequeñas. Estas reformas no cambiaron de forma drástica los resultados escolares, pero hicieron a los Gates muy impopulares en algunas comunidades.

Christopher Lubienski, experto en política educativa que estudia la filantropía, elogió la sinceridad de la pareja pero señaló que la estrategia general de su fundación implica que seguirá influyendo de forma sistemática en reformas educativas.

Lubienski, que dijo no haber solicitado ni recibido dinero de los Gates, también señaló que al centrarse en la pobreza, los Gates abordan el problema del que nadie habla cuando se trata de éxito escolar.

“Se trata de un problema mucho mayor, más caro de combatir y con más complicaciones políticas que simplemente cambiar la estructura de las escuelas”, dijo Lubienski.

La pareja dijo que tomará un rumbo menos prescriptivo en este campo financiando sus iniciativas a través de una red regional de escuelas, que dependerá más de educadores a nivel local. También pretenden respaldar el desarrollo de un nuevo currículo y escuelas concertadas para alumnos con necesidades especiales.

Fuente de la Entrevista:

https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/eeuu/nota/billymelindagatescombatiranlapobrezaenestadosunidos-2398321/

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Estados Unidos: Récord de graduados de secundaria en NYC, pero los hispanos siguen siendo los que más abandonan la escuela

Noticias

Estados Unidos / 11 de febrero de 2018 / Autor: Redacción / Fuente: Univisión

La tasa de deserción escolar en secundaria de estudiantes hispanos en 2017 fue de 10%, superior a la de otros grupos éticos como el de la raza negra que llegó a 9,9%.

El Departamento de Educación (DOE) informó que el número de estudiantes que completaron la secundaria en 2017 es el más alto registrado hasta el momento en las 1,800 escuelas de la ciudad.

El DOE indicó que el índice de graduados de secundaria fue de 74,3%, un aumento de 1,2% con respecto al 2016. Añadió el informe que la tasa de abandono de estas escuelas se ubicó en 7,8%, una disminución de 0,6 puntos.

En un comunicado, la canciller de Educación, Carmen Fariña, dijo que «los índices de graduación y deserción continúan mejorando de manera constante y demuestran que estamos en el camino correcto».

En cuando a los hispanos, el índice que graduados de secundaria (68,3%) es el más bajo en relación a los demás grupos éticos: La tasa de estudiantes de raza negra es de 70%; la de blancos, 83,2%; y la de asiáticos, 87,5%.

En comparación con los informes de los últimos cinco años, los estudiantes hispanos de secundaria son los que menos se gradúan y los que más alta deserción escolar tienen.

En el informe de 2017, lo hispanos también encabezan el índice de deserción en educación secundaria (10%). De cerca le siguen los de raza negra (9,9%) y en menor medida los blancos (4,4%) y los asiáticos (4%).

La administración del acalde Bill de Blasio manifestó que junto al departamento de Educación trabajarán para que en 2026 el 80% de los estudiantes se gradúen a tiempo y resaltó la importancia del programa de Diversidad en las Escuelas Públicas de la Ciudad de Nueva York.

Fuente de la Noticia:

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Henry Giroux: El neoliberalismo y el asedio a la educación superior

Marlon Javier López

Estados Unidos / 11 de febrero de 2018 / Autor: Marlon Javier López / Fuente: Rebelión

La actual etapa de capitalismo neoliberal se caracteriza por un constante ataque hacia la democracia, y consecuentemente hacia sus instituciones fundamentales.

Desde hace varias décadas Henry Giroux viene denunciando el auge y despliegue de lo que hoy podemos denominar el autoritarismo del siglo XXI. La consumación de un proceso originado a partir de la reestructuración total del poder por parte de las élites norteamericanas, cuyo eje central y estratégico es el ataque directo sobre las instituciones fundamentales para la democracia y el control pleno sobre ellas.

En parte, este proyecto surge como respuesta a la ola democratizadora que afectó significativamente a mediados del siglo pasado los Estados Unidos. La amenaza que supuso esta fuerza democratizadora al poder y privilegios de los grupos hegemónicos empresariales, les hizo tomas consciencia de la urgente necesidad de transformar la política en una cuestión privada, que debía tener lugar al margen de los ciudadanos. Este es uno de los principales rasgos del nuevo autoritarismo; la conformación de un tipo de estado fundido y dominado completamente por el minoritario grupo empresarial dominante que concibe a sus propios ciudadanos como enemigos y ve con urgencia la necesidad de despolitizarlos, convirtiéndolos en meros consumidores, mediante la imposición de una propaganda que hace concentrar la atención sobre las cosas más superficiales. Lo que Chomsky ha llamado una “filosofía de la futilidad” (Chomsky, 2004, p.203).

En buena medida uno de los principales blancos de ataques han sido las universidades, las cuales tienen una enorme importancia, en tanto dispositivos culturales, en la configuración de los deseos, las identidades, el accionar de los sujetos y la creación de imaginarios. Henry Giroux, uno de los más destacados críticos culturales y representante de la pedagogía radical norteamericana, pone el acento a lo largo de su vasta obra, sobre el peligro que acecha a las universidades, y a la educación pública en general. El curso de los acontecimientos no ha hecho hasta ahora más que confirmar sus “predicciones”.

La actual etapa de capitalismo neoliberal se caracteriza por un constante ataque hacia la democracia, y consecuentemente hacia sus instituciones fundamentales (Giroux, 2015a, p. 16). Las raíces de este ataque tienen que ver con el peligro que la democracia le representa al poder. Hay que hacer notar que en una democracia verdadera la opinión pública tiene peso e incide directamente sobre las decisiones del gobierno. Por esta razón a los poderosos nunca les ha gustado la democracia pues implica restarles poder y ponerlo en manos de la población mayoritaria.

Hoy en día el poder de las corporaciones alcanza niveles apenas imaginables hace algunas décadas. Esto no es más que la culminación de un proceso que inició aproximadamente en la década de los 60 la cual estuvo marcada por un enorme activismo social y expansión democrática. Ello movió a las élites estadounidenses a poner en marcha un ambicioso plan para contener lo que llamaron un “exceso de democracia” (Giroux, 2006, p. 18). Ante la ausencia de propuestas alternativas definitorias de los conceptos básicos constitutivos de un discurso progresista, fue tomando fuerza creciente un discurso público cuyo pilar era la ausencia de ciudadanía crítica y un patriotismo despojado de las notas emancipatorias propias de la democracia. En la práctica, este discurso ha derivado en una serie de agresiones militares externas y en la militarización interna de la sociedad norteamericana (Giroux, 2006, p. 15). Mediante la amnesia total respecto del importante papel que históricamente ha jugado la lucha popular en la historia de la democracia, ha tenido lugar una deconstrucción de la noción de ciudadanía y, con ello, la subordinación de las libertades individuales a la seguridad nacional y el orden interno. Bajo este esquema las universidades, la prensa independiente y los movimientos sociales se conciben como un peligroso desafío a la autoridad gubernamental (Giroux, 2006, p. 18). Es fácil entender la necesidad imperiosa sentida por los dueños de la sociedad estadounidense para lanzar la ofensiva en contra de las instituciones fundamentales encargadas de limitar el sufrimiento de los más débiles. La crisis que vive actualmente la educación superior debe verse enmarcada en esta crisis mayor de la democracia (Giroux, 2015a, p. 16).

Edgardo Lander ha señalado que el neoliberalismo es más que un modelo económico. Constituye un “extracto purificado” de tendencias con una larga historia en el pensamiento occidental. Esto vuelve relativamente fácil la imposición y conversión en sentido común de sus presupuestos (Lander, 2000, p. 12). En tanto último estadio de capitalismo depredador, “el neoliberalismo forma parte de un proyecto más amplio de restitución del poder de clase y consolidación de la veloz concentración del capital” (Giroux, 2016, p. 16). Ideológicamente el neoliberalismo concibe al lucro como la esencia de la democracia y al consumo como la única expresión de ciudadanía, mientras postula al mercado como la única vía de solución a todos los problemas. Como modo de gobierno promueve identidades y sujetos libres de cualquier tipo de regulación gubernamental bajo el axioma que identifica la libertad con el individualismo. Su ética es la de la supervivencia del más apto. Su proyecto político conlleva, entre otras medidas, la privatización de los servicios públicos, la venta de las funciones del Estado, la desregulación del trabajo y las finanzas, la eliminación del Estado benefactor y los sindicatos para finalmente convertir la sociedad en un enorme mercado. La consecuencia de esto es la imposición de una cultura de feroz competencia y la guerra abierta en contra de los valores públicos así como de las esferas que desafían las reglas y la ideología del capital, debilitando en la misma proporción las bases democráticas de la solidaridad, lo que termina por degradar y desgarrar cualquier colaboración o formas de obligación social (Giroux, 2016, pp. 16-17). Como una guerra librada por las élites políticas y financieras contra los pobres, las minorías de color, los migrantes, etc., califica Giroux, esta inhumana forma de vida que reproduce el neoliberalismo, en la cual los individuos son culpados exclusivamente por los problemas que sufren mientras viven en una situación de indefensión frente a las grandes estructuras de opresión (Giroux, 2015a, pp. 17-19).

Evidentemente todo esto desemboca en una crisis social que afecta la totalidad de la existencia humana. En este gris escenario de guerra total declarada por las corporaciones multinacionales en contra de los más débiles, considerados desechables por el sistema, las universidades sufren una ofensiva general de gran calado, y una serie de reformas que buscan transformarlas de defensoras de lo público y la democracia, en instrumentos de adiestramiento y producción ideológica al servicio de los neoliberales.

A medida que el Estado benefactor es destruido, la lógica de la privatización se impone infectando los más diversos aspectos de la sociedad. El espacio público es privatizado y comercializado, socavando la idea de ciudadanía y destruyendo todas las áreas que hacen de ella una fuerza con posibilidades de moldear una genuina democracia. Uno de los golpes más significativos, es el empecinado esfuerzo por destruir la educación crítica, anulando sus posibilidades para ejercer un rol en la construcción de ciudadanía comprometida y una democracia vigorosa.

El ataque a la educación superior se lleva a cabo en distintos niveles. Es palpable en los intentos por instaurar un modelo de educación corporativa, estandarizar la currícula poniéndola a tono con las necesidades empresariales, imponiendo una jerga de conceptos provenientes del lenguaje de los negocios como modelo de gobernanza y en los esfuerzos para debilitar a los académicos, poniéndolos en una situación de inseguridad que limite sus posibilidades. Ante la ausencia de perspectivas democráticas y la desfinanciación, las universidades son obligadas a abrir sus puertas a intereses privados cuya presión las obliga a imitar modelos corporativos en todas sus estructuras, reemplazando las expectativas de los estudiantes por esperanzas destruidas y deudas onerosas. De este modo las universidades son transformadas en lo que Henry Giroux llama “máquinas de desimaginar” (Giroux, 2016, p. 18).

Con la transformación del Estado social en un estado controlador, billones de dólares son reorientados en la construcción de cárceles y complejos militares, reduciendo el apoyo financiero a las universidades. Es la prueba de que cada vez más la sociedad ve como enemigos a perseguir a los jóvenes, sobre todo a los más pobres. No es casual que las cárceles estén con creciente frecuencia más llenas como tampoco lo es que gran parte del acoso policial por parte de una sociedad cada día más militarizada recaiga en las minorías y otros grupos poblacionales considerados como desechables. Las escuelas no escapan a esta militarización de la vida, que no es otra cosa sino una parte del correlato material del nuevo autoritarismo. Modeladas emulando a las prisiones, las escuelas cumplen ahora nada más la tarea de disciplinar en lugar de formar ciudadanos críticos comprometidos con la democracia. Esto es visible especialmente en las escuelas públicas donde es común que los jóvenes sean arrestados por cosas como violar un código de vestimenta o escribir en los pupitres (Giroux, 2015b, p. 104). Un aspecto de lo que Henry Giroux llama“Biopolítica de la militarización”, cuya influencia permea y corrompe los diversos aspectos de la vida universitaria (Giroux, 2008, p. 48). En los Estados Unidos es ya normal que el personal académico coordine con el Departamento de Defensa y otros organismos de inteligencia, para tratar diversos asuntos de tipo militar y económicos. La concepción del mundo jingoísta, gobernante en la política norteamericana, al dotar de recursos casi ilimitados al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional y desfinanciar sistemáticamente a las universidades, acaba por subordinar estas últimas al aparato de defensa militar norteamericano. Así por ejemplo, cuando no se dispone de suficiente dinero para la investigación, el pentágono llena el vacío con billones de dólares en subvenciones, becas, etc. (Giroux, 2008, p. 45).

La sociedad en su totalidad se ve amenazada ante este escenario, en el que la gran mayoría pierde pero en el que también hay una minoría que triunfa, ve incrementadas sus ganancias y con ello su poder político La concentración de la riqueza se traduce en concentración del poder. Especialmente debido al elevado coste de las elecciones, lo cual mete a los partidos políticos en los bolsillos de las grandes corporaciones. La élite que tira los hilos que mueven la sociedad, actúa con inescrupulosidad infinita, poniendo en marcha un modelo basado en el movimiento especulativo de colosales sumas de dinero “cuyo único valor es cada vez más la creación de valores” y que Henry Giroux denomina “capitalismo de casino” (Giroux, 2016, p. 22). El gran problema son los peligros que encierra para la gran mayoría de la población castigada por las recurrentes crisis que resultan de estas prácticas. Al mismo tiempo la élite se blinda con la seguridad de poder echar mano de los rescates que el estado controlado por ellos realiza, situándolos en una suerte de “palacios de cristal”. Es la lógica natural del carácter dual que dirige el funcionamiento de la economía neoliberal. Mientras se incrementan los impuestos a la población en general, se libera de ellos a las grandes fortunas, permitiéndoseles desarrollar esta política económica irresponsable con la seguridad de ser rescatados por el Estado en los momentos en que sus políticas los conduzcan a la crisis. Por tanto al mismo tiempo que se priva a los pobres de toda seguridad se blindan los intereses de las grandes corporaciones. Al mismo tiempo que se libera de toda responsabilidad social a las corporaciones, se obliga a los contribuyentes, es decir la población empobrecida, a cargar con los costes de las crisis y el desastre económico al que conduce el libertinaje de la economía.

Para el caso de la educación superior, la inequidad se hace evidente en el aumento de cuotas, como también en la transformación del personal académico en un ejército de fuerza de trabajo explotado y desamparado, bajo el modelo de lo que se podría llamar la “wallmarterización del trabajo” predominante a medida que avanza el neoliberalismo sobre el ámbito laboral en su conjunto (Giroux, 2016, p. 22). Por otro lado, los estudiantes son infantilizados en la lógica de la universidad corporativa que aborda la educación como una simple transacción comercial, imitando la cultura del negocio en la que ellos se vuelven meros consumidores o mercancías para ser engullidos y luego escupidos como potenciales buscadores de empleo por parte de aquellos para quienes la educación se ha transformado en una mera forma de entrenamiento. En este panorama, a los estudiantes se les enseña a ignorar el sufrimiento humano. Concentrados en su propio bienestar son educados en un vacío moral y político. El neoliberalismo convierte la educación en una forma de despolitización radical que aniquila la imaginación radical y la esperanza de construir un mundo mejor. La cultura de la atomización tiene el propósito de producir lo que se puede llamar “zombis políticos” (Giroux, 2015b, p. 105). La educación superior está bajo asedio, como lo están los docentes, estudiantes y sindicatos; ello significa que la propia democracia pende de un hilo (Giroux, 2016, p. 21).

1.Trabajos citados

Chomsky, N. (2004). Hegemonía o supervivencia. La estrategia imperialista de Estados Unidos .Barcelona: Ediciones B.S.A.

Giroux, H. (2006). La escuela y la lucha por la ciudadanía. Pedagogía critica de la época moderna.México: Siglo XXI editores.

Giroux, H. (2008). La Universidad secuestrada. El reto de confrontar a la Alianza Militar-Industrial-Académica. Caracas: Ministerio para la Educación superior.

Giroux, H. (2015a). Democracia, educación superior y el espectro del autoritarismo. Revista Entramados-Educación y Sociedad, año 2, 15-27.

Giroux, H.A. (2016). La educación superior y las políticas de ruptura. Revista Entramados- Educación y Sociedad, Año 3, No. 3, Febrero 2016 Pp. 15 – 26.

Giroux, H.A. (2013). Una pedagogía de la resistencia en la edad del capitalismo de casino. Con-Ciencia Social, n° 17, pp. 55-71.

Giroux, H.A. (2015b) Cambiando el guion: repensando la resistencia de la clase obrera. Revista internacional de Educación para la Justicia Social (RIEJ), 2015, n° 4(2), pp 100-107.

Lander, E. (2000). Ciencias sociales: saberes coloniales y eurocéntricos. En E. Lander (Coomp.), La colonialidad del saber. Eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales (págs. 11-40). Buenos Aires: CLACSO.

 Fuente del Artículo:

Henry Giroux: El neoliberalismo y el asedio a la educación superior

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »
Page 165 of 393
1 … 163 164 165 166 167 … 393