Page 213 of 393
1 211 212 213 214 215 393

A New American Revolution: Can We Break Out of Our Nation’s Culture of Cruelty?

By: Henry Giroux

Fighting back against the right’s politics of exclusion can be a path toward rebuilding American democracy

The health care reform bills proposed by Republicans in the House and Senate have generated heated discussions across a vast ideological and political spectrum. On the right, senators such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have endorsed a new level of cruelty — one that has a long history among the radical right — by arguing that the current Senate bill does not cut enough social services and provisions for the poor, children, the elderly and other vulnerable groups and needs to be even more friendly to corporate interests by providing massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Among right-wing pundits, the message is similar. For instance, Fox News commentator Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, in a discussion about the Senate bill, stated without apparent irony that rising public concerns over the suffering, misery and death that would result from this policy bordered on “hysteria” since “we are all going to die anyway.” Montgomery’s ignorance about the relationship between access to health care and lower mortality rates is about more than ignorance. It is about a culture of cruelty that is buttressed by a moral coma.

On the other side of the ideological and political divide, liberals such as Robert Reich have rightly stated that the bill is not only cruel and inhumane, it is essentially a tax reform bill for the 1 percent and a boondoggle that benefits the vampire-like insurance companies. Others, such as Laila Lalami of The Nation, have reasoned that what we are witnessing with such policies is another example of political contempt for the poorest and most vulnerable on the part of right-wing politicians and pundits. These arguments are only partly right and do not go far enough in their criticisms of the new political dynamics and mode of authoritarianism that have overtaken the United States. Put more bluntly, they suffer from limited political horizons.

What we do know about both the proposed Republican Party federal budget and health care policies, in whatever form, is that they will lay waste to crucial elements of the social contract while causing huge amounts of suffering and misery. For instance, the Senate bill will lead to massive reductions in Medicaid spending. Medicaid covers 20 percent of all Americans or 15 million people, along with 49 percent of all births, 60 percent of all children with disabilities and 64 percent of all nursing home residents, many of whom may be left homeless without this support.

Under this bill, 22 million people will lose their health insurance coverage, to accompany massive cuts proposed to food-stamp programs that benefit at least 43 million people. The Senate health care bill allows insurance companies to charge more money from the most vulnerable. It cuts maternity care and phases out coverage for emergency services. Moreover, as Lalami points out, “this bill includes nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts, about half of which will flow to those who make more than $1 million per year.” The latter figure is significant when measured against the fact that Medicaid would see a $772 billion cut in the next 10 years.

It gets worse. The Senate bill will drastically decrease social services and health care in rural America, and one clear consequence will be rising mortality rates. In addition, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, co-author of a recent article in the Annals of Internal Medicine, has estimated that if health insurance is taken away from 22 million people, “it raises … death rates by between 3 and 29 percent. And the math on that is that if you take health insurance away from 22 million people, about 29,000 of them will die every year, annually, as a result.”

Leftists and other progressives need a new language to understand the rise of authoritarianism in the United States and the inhumane and cruel policies it is producing. I want to argue that the discourse of single issues, whether aimed at regressive tax cuts, police violence or environmental destruction, is not enough. Nor is the traditional Marxist discourse of exploitation and accumulation by dispossession adequate for understanding the current historical conjuncture.

The problem is not merely one of exploitation but one of exclusion. This politics of exclusion, Slavoj Žižek argues, “is no longer about the old class division between workers and capitalists, but … about not allowing some people to participate in public life.” People are not simply prevented from participating in public life through tactics such as voter suppression. It is worse than that. Many groups now suffer from a crisis of agency and depoliticization because they are overburdened by the struggle to survive. Time is a disaster for them, especially in a society that suffers from what Dr. Stephen Grosz has called a “catastrophe of indifference.” The ghost of a savage capitalism haunts the health care debate and American politics in general.

What does health care, or justice itself, mean in a country dominated by corporations, the military and the ruling 1 percent? The health care crisis makes clear that the current problem of hyper-capitalism is not only about stealing resources or an intensification of the exploitation of labor, but also about a politics of exclusion and the propagation of forms of social and literal death, through what the late Zygmunt Bauman described as “the most conspicuous cases of social polarization, of deepening inequality, and of rising volumes of human poverty, misery and humiliation.”

A culture of myopia now propels single-issue analyses detached from broader issues. The current state of progressive politics has collapsed into ideological silos, and feeds “a deeper terror — of helplessness, to which uncertainty is but a contributing factor,” as Bauman puts it, which all too often is transformed into a depoliticizing cynicism or a misdirected anger fed by a Trump-like politics of rage and fear. The fear of disposability has created a new ecology of insecurity and despair that murders dreams, squelches any sense of an alternative future and depoliticizes people. Under such circumstances, the habits of oligarchy and authoritarianism become normalized.

Traditional liberal and progressive discourses about our current political quagmire are not wrong. They are simply incomplete, and they do not grasp a major shift that has taken place in the United States since the late 1970s. That shift is organized around what Bauman, Stanley Aronowitz, Saskia Sassen and Brad Evans have called a new kind of politics, one in which entire populations are considered disposable, refuse, excess and consigned to fend for themselves.

Evidence of such expulsions and social homelessness, whether referring to poor African-Americans, Mexican immigrants, Muslims or Syrian refugees, constitute a new and accelerated level of oppression under casino capitalism. Moreover, buttressed by a hyper-market-driven appeal to a radical individualism, a distrust of all social bonds, a survival-of-the-fittest ethic and a willingness to separate economic activity from social costs, neoliberal policies are now enacted in which public services are underfunded, bad schools become the norm, health care as a social provision is abandoned, child care is viewed as an individual responsibility and social assistance is viewed with disdain. Evil now appears not merely in the overt oppression of the state but as a widespread refusal on the part of many Americans to react to the suffering of others, which is all too often viewed as self-inflicted.

Under this new regime of massive cruelty and disappearance, the social state is hollowed out and the punishing state becomes the primary template or model for addressing social problems. Appeals to character as a way to explain the suffering and immiseration many people experience are now supplemented by the protocols of the security state and a culture of fear.

The ethical imagination and moral evaluation are viewed by the new authoritarians in power as objects of contempt, making it easier for the Trump administration to accelerate the dynamics and reach of the punishing state. Everyday behaviors such as jaywalking, panhandling, “walking while black” or violating a dress code in school are increasingly criminalized. Schools have become feeders into the criminal-prison-industrial complex for many young people, especially youth of color. State terrorism rains down with greater intensity on immigrants and minorities of color, religion and class. The official state message is to catch, punish and imprison excess populations — to treat them as criminals rather than lives to be saved.

The “carceral state” and a culture of fear have become the foundational elements that drive the new politics of authoritarianism and disposability. What the new health bill proposal makes clear is that the net of expulsions is widening under what could be called an accelerated politics of disposability. In the absence of a social contract and a massive shift in wealth and power to the upper 1 percent, vast elements of the population are now subject to a kind of zombie politics in which the status of the living dead is conferred upon them.

One important example is the massive indifference, if not cruelty, exhibited by the Trump administration to the opioid crisis that is ravaging more and more communities throughout the United States. The New York Times has reported that more than 59,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2016, the largest year-over-year increase ever recorded. The Senate health care proposal cuts funds for programs meant to address this epidemic. The end result is that more people will die and more will be forced to live as if they were the walking dead.

A politics of disposability thrives on distractions — the perpetual game show of American politics — as well as what might be called a politics of disappearance. That is, a politics enforced daily in the mainstream media, which functions as a “disimagination machine,” and renders invisible deindustrialized communities, decaying schools, neighborhoods that resemble slums in the developing world, millions of incarcerated people of color and elderly people locked in understaffed nursing homes.

We live in an age that Brad Evans and I have called an age of multiple expulsions, suggesting that once something is expelled it becomes invisible. In the current age of disposability, the systemic edges of authoritarianism have moved to the center of politics, just as politics is now an extension of state violence. Moreover, in the age of disposability, what was once considered extreme and unfortunate has now become normalized, whether we are talking about policies that actually kill people or that strip away the humanity and dignity of millions.

Disposability is not new in American history, but its more extreme predatory formations are back in new forms. Moreover, what is unique about the contemporary politics of disposability is how it has become official policy, normalized in the discourse of the market, democracy, freedom and a right-wing contempt for human life, if not the planet itself. The moral and social sanctions for greed and avarice that emerged during the Reagan presidency now proliferate unapologetically, if not with glee.

Cruelty is now hardened into a new language in which the unimaginable has become domesticated and “lives with a weight and a sense of importance unmatched in modern times,” in the words of Peter Bacon Hales. With the rise of the new authoritarianism dressed up in the language of freedom and choice, the state no longer feels obligated to provide a safety net or any measures to prevent human suffering, hardship and death.

Freedom in this limited ideological sense generally means freedom from government interference, which translates into a call for lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of the marketplace. This right-wing reduction of freedom to a limited notion of personal liberty is perfectly suited to mobilizing a notion of personal injury largely based on the fear of others. What it does not do is expand the notion of fear from the personal to the social, thus ignoring a broader notion: Freedom from want, misery and poverty. This is a damaged notion of freedom divorced from social and economic rights.

Democratically minded citizens and social movements must return to the crucial issue of addressing how class, power, exclusion, austerity, racism and inequality are part of a more comprehensive politics of disposability in America, one that makes possible what Robert Jay Lifton once called a “death-saturated age.” This suggests the need for a new political language capable of analyzing how this new dystopian politics of exclusion is buttressed by the values of a harsh form of casino capitalism that both legitimates and contributes to the suffering and hardships experienced daily by the traditional working and middle classes, and also by a wide range of groups now considered redundant — young people, poor people of color, immigrants, refugees, religious minorities, the elderly and others.

We are not simply talking about a politics that removes the protective shell of the state from daily life, but a new form of politics that creates a window on our current authoritarian dystopia. The discourse and politics of disposability offers new challenges in addressing and challenging the underlying causes of poverty, class domination, environmental destruction and a resurgent racism — not as a call for reform but as a project of radical reconstruction aimed at the creation of a new political and economic social order.

Such a politics would take seriously what it means to struggle pedagogically and politically over both ideas and material relations of power, making clear that in the current historical moment the battleground of ideas is as crucial as the battle over resources, institutions and power. What is crucial to remember is that casino capitalism or global neoliberalism has created, in Naomi Klein’s terms, “armies of locked out people whose services are no longer needed, whose lifestyles are written off as ‘backward,’ whose basic needs are unmet.”

This more expansive level of global repression and intensification of state violence negates and exposes the compromising discourse of liberalism, while reproducing new levels of systemic violence. Effective struggle against such repression would combine a democratically energized cultural politics of resistance and hope with a politics aimed at offering all workers a living wage and all citizens a guaranteed standard of living, a politics dedicated to providing decent education, housing and health care to all residents of the United States. The discourse of disposability points to another register of expulsion — one with a more progressive valence. In this case, it means refusing to equate capitalism with democracy and struggling to create a mass movement that embraces a radical democratic future.

Source:

A New American Revolution: Can We Break Out of Our Nation’s Culture of Cruelty?

Comparte este contenido:

No Education Crisis Wasted: Billionaires Seek to Make Education in Africa Profitable

Africa/July 18, 2017/By Maria Hengeveld/http://www.alternet.org

Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are betting big on an effort to turn African education into a for-profit venture. But investigations show that children and their teachers are getting a raw deal.

The dream is wonderful: provide a good education to millions of children growing up in poverty. That’s why Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, the World Bank and the Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs are pouring millions into a company that aims to turn that dream into reality. Investigations show, however, that both the children and their teachers get a raw deal.

Shannon May is clearly emotional when she walks onto the stage in early February 2017. The founder and strategist behind the world’s largest chain of kindergarten and primary schools is about to speak to a room full of women. She will talk about education, motherhood and the reasons why she founded her company, Bridge International Academies, with her husband Jay Kimmelman in 2008.

May and Kimmelman are in Nairobi, the city they live in and where Bridge has its headquarters. About 70 percent of the more than 100,000 pupils attending Bridge schools live in Kenya and around 6,000 staff work and live there. It was also the company’s base for expanding into Uganda, Liberia, Nigeria and India.

In her speech, May tells the story of the founding of Bridge: “I was speaking with mothers and with fathers, about their struggles… two things came up across hundreds of conversions I had… the first was health… the other thing was education.”

This made May think about her own childhood: if she hadn’t had good teachers, she would never have been admitted to Harvard and she would probably never have worked at Morgan Stanley. She would certainly never have come up with the idea of ​​setting up Bridge, the “edu-business model” that aims to provide affordable, high-quality education to millions of children from families who have to live on less than US$2 a day. When the couple founded Bridge in 2008, their dream was to emancipate these children.

The exact number of children involved is unclear.  Sometimes her husband talks about 700 million children, at other times it’s around 700 million families.  According to the World Bank, 767 million people worldwide currently live below the poverty line of 1.90 dollars a day. Whatever the exact figures are, they are high and education opportunities fall short of what is needed. There are not enough good state schools and private schools are often too expensive. May and her husband have spotted a gap in the market: education needs to be better than what state schools offer, and provided at only 30 percent of what the state currently spends per student.

May, close to tears, continues her speech in Nairobi: “Bridge is different because it exists for only one reason, it’s so that every child, not just the rich kids, not just the kids in the cities, not just the kids who have mothers and fathers who can look after them and teach them at home but every kid no matter what else is going on in their lives can go to a great school.” She is even more positive in an interview: “We fight for social justice, to create opportunities.”

And for profit. According to her husband, the “global education crisis”  is worth about US$51 billion a year. In 2013, Kimmelman explained in a presentation how, for less than US$5 in tuition fees per pupil per month, Bridge could grow “into a billion-dollar company” and “radically change the world.” Earlier he and May promised that they could do this for US$4 per month per pupil.

Big dreams and even bigger promises. However, my research and research done by others shows:

  • that their quality claims have not been supported by any independent research;
  • that the education provided turns out to be more expensive than promised;
  • that underpaid teachers have to recruit additional pupils;
  • that they have dismissed criticism from non-governmental organizations and trade unions;
  • that critics are silenced;
  • that a PR offensive has been launched in order to continue selling the education services provided.

Furthermore, €1.4 million of Dutch taxpayers’ money has been poured into the company. Dutch support was provided because Lilianne Ploumen of the country’s Labor Party, currently caretaker Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, believes that Bridge uses an “innovative and cost-effective education model, which is able to keep tuition costs per child down.”

How do you improve education, make it cheaper and also make it profitable? May and Kimmelman have come up with an “innovative pedagogical approach.” The possibility of setting up a few thousand standardized schools within a few years is to be the first innovation. The profit made from each school may be low, but once half a million pupils are recruited — the number of enrollments that Bridge needs to break even — business really takes off. The plan is to reach two million pupils by 2018 and 10 million by 2025.

This rapid growth would be made possible by using Bridge’s second innovative method, namely its very own approach to the role of teachers and their salary scale. May believes that “qualities such as kindness” are more important than diplomas and this allows for significant savings. In Kenya, where the starting salary for qualified teachers is around US$116 dollars a month, Bridge teachers usually earn less than US$100 a month. However, as Kimmelman explains in a presentation, teachers can earn bonuses by recruiting new students themselves. Marketing is a core task for both teachers and school principals.

A third innovative aspect, explains May, is the smart use of technology. It works like this: a team of “master teachers” designs digital “master lessons” that are so detailed that all a teacher needs to do is read them from a special Bridge tablet (know as the Nook).

Leaning how to use the Nook is therefore a key component of the crash course that Bridge teachers must complete. Over three to four weeks, they learn how to download new lesson material, how to present it, and how to record daily scores and progress made with the lessons.

This last skill is crucial, says May. It allows Bridge to see “hundreds of thousands of assessment scores” every day and to find out “what works and what doesn’t.” The “extremely robust data” can then be used to “continuously improve the teaching material.”

Setting up schools from scratch, paying teachers and developing and maintaining technology all cost money.

“One of our challenges when we were first pitching Bridge to investors was getting them to… see people living in poverty not just as beneficiaries but as customers,” May explains in a 2015 World Economic Forum video. It must have been a convincing argument because May and Kimmelman have attracted more than US$100 million in support since Bridge was set up in 2008. Supporters range from venture capitalists, like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, to development agencies such as the World Bank.

My request for information under the Dutch Freedom of Information Act revealed that the Dutch government, too, invested nearly €1.4 million in Bridge between 2015 and 2016 via contributions to the Novastar East Africa Fund. Minister Ploumen says that this “indirect support complements the weak public education systems in these countries.”

Support is not only provided through funding. In 2015, the World Economic Forum named May “One of Fifteen Women Who Changed the World.” That very same year, the President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim lauded the Bridge business model as one for the future. And a few months ago, Bridge won the Global Shared Value Award, a prestigious prize awarded to companies that have a social mission.

It has made May and Kimmelman extremely self-confident. We have “definitively proven that it is possible to provide high-quality education […] and in doing so solve an increasingly urgent crisis for families, communities and countries,” May wrote in February of this year. Kimmelman even believes that international research shows that Bridge “students already perform better than others in six months.”

If that would be true, why have they still not reached those millions of pupils? Anton (a former academy manager with Bridge, who did not want his real name published) is familiar with the darker side of Bridge’s “innovative pedagogical approach.” Anton was fired after a year in the post when a quality assurance manager and a regional manager made an unannounced visit to his school and discovered three pupils attending in contravention of school fees policy.

The children were registered with Bridge, but were no longer allowed to attend classes because their parents had fallen behind with the payment of tuition fees. Anton knew that he was supposed to turn pupils away if their parents had not paid. He had already had his salary docked once and was at risk of losing his job if he continued to allow those pupils to attend.

Apparently, the children had returned because their parents were not at home and they didn’t feel safe outside. So, their class teacher had allowed them back into the classroom without getting Anton’s permission. But the visiting quality assurance and regional managers did not agree that this was a good enough reason and Anton was told to clear his desk.

On reflection, Anton says he is relieved that he is no longer working for Bridge. He was under too much pressure to attract new pupils and the “rigid payment system” put him in uncomfortable waters with parents. Every month, about half of the parents couldn’t pay their fees on time, and would get upset with Anton when their children were, again, sent home from school. These tensions made it even more difficult to attract new customers and to persuade existing customers to bring in new ones.

“We promised them heaven” says another former academy manager. John (name changed) says it was the only option, “otherwise, you lost your job.” He worked at Bridge for two and a half years before he handed in his resignation. The low salary and the heavy work load (60 hours a week, according to John) were contributing factors. His pangs of conscience were the deciding factor: he felt that he was “constantly deceiving parents.”

It wasn’t because Bridge had directly instructed him to “only mention the basic price to new customers and avoid mentioning additional costs, such as exam fees and uniforms.” But since his salary was partly calculated on his success rates, he often told half truths.

If parents weren’t happy with the strict payment arrangements and threatened to transfer their children to a school with more flexible system, John would think up an argument in an attempt to keep them, telling them for example “that there would soon be a sponsor for them who would pay the tuition fees on their behalf.”

How representative are these reports from these two former academy managers? Juul (name changed) can tell us more. Juul, a researcher, was part of a team that in early 2016 completed nearly four hundred interviews with Bridge parents (128), pupils (65), teachers (21) and academy managers. The research was carried out on behalf of Education International, an international trade union for teachers, which is not a competitor of Bridge.

The academy managers and teachers who were interviewed expressed the same frustrations as Anton and John. They described the marketing work as annoying, demoralizing and underpaid. The Nook script was considered to be restrictive and almost half of those interviewed said that they did not use the Nook as intended or sent “meaningless data” to the headquarters.

“You hear such sad stories,” said Juul. “Some parents took out loans to pay the tuition fees and were evicted from their homes because they were unable to make payments on time.”

Bridge, however, doesn’t agree with the research. In a statement, the company called the report nonsense. It claims:

  • Bridge internal data shows that 64 percent of Bridge teachers enjoy teaching in Bridge classes;
  • 100 percent of them would like to grow with the company; and
  • 96 percent of teachers appreciate the community engagements responsibilities assigned to them.

According to May, the study is therefore proof of the witch hunt that Education International started against her company. The organization had already published a similarly critical report on Bridge in Uganda. May continues to believe in her dream: “Changing the status quo is inherently a challenge to entrenched interests and existing models.”

But those “entrenched interests” aren’t finished with Bridge yet. Angelo Gavrielatos led the Education International research project. He shows me a short film in which Kenyans from various national educational institutions and former Bridge staff criticize the company’s infrastructure, facilities and teaching materials. For example, a former staff manager says that “people are being misled” with promises about an “excellent lesson package.”

A package, it should be noted, that has never been approved by the Kenyan authorities. A leaked letter from the Ministry of Education reveals that a Kenyan inspection had deemed Bridge’s teaching material “largely irrelevant to Kenyan teaching objectives” and that the teaching methods don’t allow teachers enough room to tend to pupils with special needs.

Education International is not the only organization to criticize Bridge. At the start of 2015, 116 non-governmental organizations sent a letter to World Bank President Jim Yong Kim. They stated that there was no evidence at all that Bridge had succeeded in delivering better results than competing state schools and criticized Kim for blindly accepting Bridge’s unverifiable “internal data.”

What’s more, Bridge is by no means as affordable as the company claims. In Kenya, the cost per student is between US$9 and US$13 a month once exam fees, uniforms, books and administration costs are included. The situation is similar in Uganda, the organizations write.

According to Bridge, the organizations’ calculations are entirely wrong. However, when asked, the company does not deny that, in practice, tuition fees are higher than the promised fees of US$4-6. May, meanwhile, continues to insist that Bridge’s prices are reasonable. Because, she writes, by sending their children to Bridge, parents have “determined for themselves that Bridge is affordable” and that they feel that the tuition fees charged by Bridge “are an appropriate rate.”

However, voices within the United Nations have also started to speak out against the Bridge model. When it was announced at the start of March 2016 that Liberia was considering outsourcing its entire primary school system to Bridge, the Special Rapporteur on the right to education stated that “public schools, their teachers, and the concept of education as a public good, are under attack.”

Questions are also being raised by the Ugandan government. Following an inspection, the Ministry of Education found that Bridge schools “showed poor hygiene and sanitation which puts the life and safety of the schoolchildren in danger” and decided that the company had to close 63 schools. May puts this setback down to troublemakers who have “sold lies to the Ugandan government.” Lies that “unfortunately the government has taken seriously.”

It’s Kenya where May’s dream really begins to turn into a nightmare. In August 2016, the Ministry of Education sent the company an ultimatum. Bridge was given 90 days to adapt the curriculum to Kenyan guidelines and ensure that at least half of the teachers had a diploma. If they didn’t meet those requirements, Bridge was at risk of having to close down all of its schools.

But Bridge won’t be beaten. It is trying to silence Kenyan critics, as shown in two leaked letters. One was addressed to the head of the national teachers’ union, the other addressed to the director of a national school association. The first was sent by Bridge’s law firm, the second by Bridge’s in-house lawyer. In both letters, the recipients are threatened with a defamation lawsuit if they continue to speak out against Bridge and portray it as a company that “is only interested in profit.”

Steps have also been taken in Liberia to counter negative reports. Anderson Miamen from the Liberian Coalition for Transparency and Accountability in Education described the situation to me in an e-mail. When he wanted to interview Bridge teachers at the start of this year as part of an assessment study, he discovered that they had apparently been “warned against speaking to visitors or researchers. Especially not about their welfare or that of the children.”

Bridge has also launched a PR offensive. The company opened a London communications office earlier this year and has advertised several vacancies for PR professionals who should have good contacts with the media in order to “promote and protect” Bridge’s reputation.

Since then “Bridge’s success” has been widely praised on Twitter. For example, “A survey shows that 87 percent of the Bridge parents believe that Bridge teachers are well trained and that their teaching method is the best.” There is no link to the survey, only photos of smiling pupils in Bridge uniforms. The new PR manager, Ben Rudd, did not want to send me the survey either. He did, however, send promotional material that refers to the same internal data and mysterious studies. He also offered to arrange a “high-level quote.”

And the data that May earlier described as “robust?” They are up for sale. At least, that’s what a leaked Bridge presentation, meant for investors, from 2016 suggests. In this presentation, Bridge outlined new profit-making opportunities, including the sale of customer information to lenders and insurance companies, and increased profit margins on school lunches and student uniforms.

What has happened to May and Kimmelman’s dream? Opposition from governments, non-governmental organizations and trade unions seems to have slowed down Bridge’s growth considerably. It also looks like the company is not going to reach its planned target of two million pupils by 2018. The company wrote me that it currently has just over 100,000 pupils.

Not all of Bridge’s innovations are bad, of course. Absenteeism among teachers appears to be lower at Bridge schools than at state schools. Juul says that other schools could also take Bridge’s electronic payment methods as an example as a way to tackle corruption.

As for the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its investment of €1.4 million, spokesperson Herman van Gelderen informed me by e-mail that compliance with quality standards and affordability are part of “our involvement and dialogue with Bridge. The findings in the article serve as a basis for discussing these issues with Bridge.” The same applies to the teachers’ workload and remuneration.

Van Gelderen points out that the quality of the education provided is better than at state schools. To back up his argument he refers to a national test  in 2015 and 2016 on which Bridge students apparently scored slightly higher than the national average. But even if Bridge performs better than state schools, it still doesn’t tell us anything about the quality of the education provided by Bridge. Because — and May also admits this herself in an article — the poorest and, therefore, often weaker students, who bring the average exam scores down, mainly go to state schools. Moreover, Bridge is a private school and can therefore also influence scores by not accepting weaker pupils or by unnecessarily making them repeat a year. In Education International’s report, teachers admit that this kind of selection occurs.

High-quality education cannot simply be provided using a universal script, and meaningful learning outcomes cannot be summed up in self-assessed evaluations. Especially not if they are part of a business model that does not tolerate transparency or independent evaluations, and where profit incentives, branding bluff and promotional spiel are rewarded more than honest, critical reflection.

* This is a translation of an article originally published in the Dutch news magazine De Correspondent.

Maria Hengeveld writes about feminism, inequality, multinational corporations and economic justice, sometimes in Dutch.

Source:

http://www.alternet.org/no-education-crisis-wasted

Comparte este contenido:

EEUU: Illinois budget gives temporary fix for public universities

EEUU/ July 18, 2017/Source: http://www.heraldonline.com

A new Illinois budget will give public universities funding for the 2017-18 school year.

This is the first time in two years that the state’s 12 public universities will receive funding, the Chicago Tribune (http://trib.in/2v60l95 ) reported.

In 2015, universities received more than $1.2 billion from the state’s spending plan. But the budget impasse prompted campus shutdowns, layoffs and program cuts.

The Illinois Board of Higher Education said the new budget will provide universities with about $1.1 billion for the 2017-18 academic year, a 10 percent decline from 2015.

University leaders caution that while it’s a relief to have one year’s funding, the budget doesn’t fully resolve the schools’ financial issues.

«You don’t get one year’s funding and have people say, ‘Oh, Illinois is totally fixed now,’ » said Rachel Lindsey, interim president of Chicago State University.»I don’t think it would be in our best interest to think of ourselves as out of the woods just yet.»

Universities went almost an entire year without funding from the state for the 2015-16 year.

Since then, schools such as the University of Illinois that’s in debt for $467 million in its operations are now trying to recover.

«We are still advocating for the restoration for the (fiscal year) 2016 budget,» UI President Tim Killeen said. «Obviously the chances of that happening are diminishing over time.»

For Southern Illinois University in Carbondale finances became so dire that school’s administration lent the campus funds from its Edwardsville site to keep it running.

President Randy Dunn said intra-system borrowing is no longer needed but Carbondale needs to continue with its plan to cut $19 million, which officials said includes eliminating dozens of staff and faculty. Despite receiving funds for the 2017-18 school year from the state, Carbondale is still in $37.8 million debt for 2017.

Source:
Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/news/business/article161768078.html#storylink=cpy
Comparte este contenido:

La polarización política se toma las escuelas en Estados Unidos

Estados Unidos/17 junio 2017/Fuente: Semana

¿Donald Trump es un fascista?”. Esta pregunta, formulada por un profesor a sus estudiantes de décimo grado en la Escuela Superior de Saratoga Springs, en Nueva York, despertó una airada reacción de algunos padres de familia. Un grupo de madres, haciéndose llamar las “Conservative Chicks” (que se traduce como ‘Las chicas conservadoras’), incluso salieron en la televisión nacional denunciando a la institución de fomentar el “sesgo político”. El caso reflejó la división de la sociedad tras la victoria de Donald Trump: ya ni siquiera las escuelas se salvan de la terrible polarización política en Estados Unidos.

De acuerdo con las “Conservative Chicks”, el profesor mostró un par de caricaturas en las que comparó a Donald Trump con Hitler y Mussolini y habló de la “obsesión con la seguridad nacional” y “sexismo rampante”, dos enunciados con los que se tiende a identificar al presidente en los medios de su país.

Voceros de la escuela pública explicaron que el fin de la lección era plantear la discusión a los estudiantes sobre si Trump era o no fascista. Michael Piccirillo, el encargado de las escuelas distritales de Nueva York, dijo al columnista conservador Todd Barnes que “las caricaturas se mostraron como ejemplo para introducir el debate de por qué algunos medios dicen que el gobierno muestra signos tempranos de fascismo”.

La defensa del funcionario solo enfureció más a los padres de familia que vieron en la propuesta del profesor un sesgo liberal. “Tanto estudiantes como padres tienen que lidiar diariamente con el adoctrinamiento político liberal que está sucediendo en nuestro sistema educativo”, alertó Julie Tellstone, representante del grupo de las ‘Chicas conservadoras’ en el canal informativo Fox News.

Este es solo uno de los casos que evidencia cómo la polarización política se ha trasladado a los colegios en este país.

Un caso similar se presentó en junio de 2017 en la Escuela Superior de Wall Township, New Jersey, donde una profesora eliminó con Photoshop los mensajes pro Trump de la foto del anuario de dos alumnos.

También en una escuela de Staten Island, la profesora Adria Zawatsky dejó una tarea en donde había que completar las siguientes oraciones: “El presidente Trump habla en una manera muy ____ y prepotente, insultando a muchas personas”, “Él tiene que ser más ____ para que los estadounidenses lo respeten y admiren”. Las respuestas correctas eran “arrogante” y “humilde”. Naturalmente, la tarea sacó ampollas entre los padres.

“No creo que estuviera expresando mi punto de vista político” dijo la profesora Zawatsky. “Mi referencia al presidente era sobre su personalidad más que sus capacidades de gobernar. Los medios de comunicación hacen lo mismo. Esto se considera libertad de expresión y siento que tengo el mismo derecho que ellos”, agregó.

En general, la polarización en la sociedad estadounidense es bastante acentuada. Según el Southern Poverty Law Center, hubo 1.400 incidentes de sesgo político en los primeros tres meses después de las elecciones presidenciales del año pasado. Las denuncias realizadas de parte y parte han señalado con especial énfasis a medios, gremios, organismos gubernamentales y, prácticamente, cada sector de la vida pública.

Esta situación traslada a las instituciones educativas no son la excepción ha suscitado el debate sobre si este tipo de discusiones son aptas para el aula de clase. ¿Hasta qué punto las lecciones en los colegios son análisis políticos y no proselitismo?.

Salones de clase, el campo de batalla
El año pasado, una asamblea estudiantil en Oregon terminó convirtiéndose en un evento político después de que varios alumnos empezaron a corear: “¡Construyan el muro! ¡construyan el muro!”. En otro salón en California, un estudiante le espetó a un compañero de raza negra: “Ahora que Trump ganó, tendrás que volver a África donde perteneces”. En Dallas, un estudiante de sexto grado le dijo a un compañero judío que “un millón de sus vidas valen menos que 30.000 emails borrados”, refiriéndose a la controversia de los correos electrónicos de Hillary Clinton.

En junio, un reportaje elaborado por BuzzFeed encontró que varios estudiantes están usando el discurso de campaña de Trump para ofender a sus compañeros. Hay al menos 54 casos registrados en los últimos ocho meses. “En mis 21 años en el sector educación nunca había visto algo así”, le confesó Brent Emmons, rector de la Escuela Media Hood River a este medio digital estadounidense. Muchos estudiantes alegan que “si el presidente lo puede decir, ¿por qué no yo?”

Algunos profesores también han declarado ser acosados por sus propios colegas por sus creencias políticas. “Me llamaban nazi”, dijo una profesora partidaria de Donald Trump a la estación radial WNYC.

Encontrar el punto medio
Para Andrew Jones, subdirector del Colegio Reach Free en Reino Unido, es bueno que los estudiantes piensen por sí mismos y expresen sus opiniones. Sin embargo, es importante mantener un diálogo armónico. “Una buena técnica es asegurar un debate balanceado es ejercer de abogado del diablo y explicar puntos de vista alternativos (así no coincidan necesariamente con los tuyos)”, sugiere en una columna en el diario londinense The Guardian.

En cuanto a los debates políticos en las clases, la línea puede ser muy delgada a veces, pero, para Jonathan Zimmerman, profesor de la Universidad de Pensilvania y autor del libro ‘El caso de la contención: enseñar asuntos controversiales en las escuelas’, el punto es que los maestros tienen que propiciar el debate.

“Los profesores son sujetos políticos también, y hay momentos cuando está bien que revelen su opinión. Pero tienen que dejar claro que sus estudiantes no tienen por qué compartir sus opiniones. Si no, ya no son educadores; son propagandistas”, escribió en una columna de opinión publicada por el diario neoyorquino Daily News.

“Los maestros deberían poder preguntarle a sus estudiantes si Trump es un fascista”, argumenta Zimmerman, “pues como análisis académico es una pregunta válida que incentiva la discusión y la reflexión política en los estudiantes”. El problema según el experto es que “muchos padres no creen que los maestros sabrán diferenciar entre instruir y adoctrinar”, y agrega que casos como los de la profesora Zawatsky, donde evidentemente no había una intención analítica, le hacen un flaco favor a los educadores que sí quieren plantear un debate en las aulas.

Para el escritor, el profesor de Saratoga Springs “reflejó los más altos valores de la democracia, que requiere que los ciudadanos que poseen el conocimiento debatan cuestiones difíciles”. Pero, con el nivel de polarización social que está alcanzando la política estadounidense, esto es cada vez más complicado.

Fuente: http://www.semana.com/educacion/articulo/trumpismo-o-sesgo-liberal-el-conflicto-politico-en-los-colegios/532425

Comparte este contenido:

Por qué enseñar a discutir ayuda a los niños a mejorar en la escuela

Por:

Un estudio realizado en 78 escuelas inglesas determinó que enseñar a los chicos a discutir tiene claras repercusiones en el aprendizaje escolar. Se observó un aumento de sus capacidades cognitivas en materias como inglés, matemáticas y ciencias.

Es muy común escuchar en discusiones entre padres e hijos la frase «no me discutas que soy tu padre». Esta frase debería ser desterrada ya que estudios científicos confirmaron que la discusión es uno de los ejes fundamentales para el desarrollo cognitivo de los más pequeños de la familia.

La investigación fue impulsada por la Universidad Sheffield Hallam y se realizó en 78 escuelas británicas. En el caso de 2.493 alumnos de entre 9 y 10 años, que recibieron una intervención escolar focalizada en aprender a razonar, discutir y argumentar, se observó un importante progreso en materias como matemática, inglés y ciencias. En solo dos meses, los avances de este primer grupo fueron mayores en comparación con los alumnos que no recibieron esta técnica de aprendizaje escolar.

La investigación analizó durante dos meses a 2.493 alumnos de entre 9 y 10 años que demostraron un importante progreso en el aprendizaje en inglés y ciencias (iStock)

La investigación analizó durante dos meses a 2.493 alumnos de entre 9 y 10 años que demostraron un importante progreso en el aprendizaje en inglés y ciencias (iStock)

«Los resultados arrojados por este estudio sugieren que este tipo de enfoque puede mejorar el pensamiento global de los niños y las habilidades de aprendizaje en lugar de fomentar su conocimiento cognitivo en un tema en particular», aseguró en su estudio Kevan Collins, director ejecutivo de la Fundación de Dotación Educativa (EEF).

Los maestros fueron capacitados para poder aplicar esta técnica que tiene como objetivo maximizar el poder de diálogo en el aula para aumentar el compromiso de los alumnos, el aprendizaje y logros personales. El programa utiliza material en video y papel, así como una tutoría en la escuela para apoyar la planificación, la enseñanza y la evaluación de los profesores en diferentes materias escolares.

El programa utiliza material de video e impresión, así como tutoría en la escuela para apoyar la planificación (iStock)

El programa utiliza material de video e impresión, así como tutoría en la escuela para apoyar la planificación (iStock)

«Hacer que los niños piensen y hablen sobre su propio aprendizaje de manera más explícita puede ser una de las herramientas más efectivas para mejorar los resultados académicos. Pero puede ser difícil poner esto en práctica en el aula. Aunque no hay estrategia o truco simple, el informe de evaluación de hoy sobre la enseñanza dialógica da a los directores de escuelas primarias y a los profesores pruebas prácticas sobre un enfoque que parece ser eficaz en diferentes materias», detalló Collins.

El programa desarrolla lo que se conoce como «rutinas de pensamientos» que ayudan a los alumnos a analizar y razonar sobre la temática a trabajar. Se trata de impulsar una pregunta inspiradora que invite a la discusión grupal; estas simples técnicas, si se practican de manera frecuente en el aula, se naturalizan y los sujetos podrán aplicarlas a la totalidad de sus mundos cognitivos.

 El programa desarrolla lo que se conoce como “rutinas de pensamientos” que ayudan a los alumnos a pensar y razonar sobre la temática a trabajar (iStock)
El programa desarrolla lo que se conoce como “rutinas de pensamientos” que ayudan a los alumnos a pensar y razonar sobre la temática a trabajar (iStock)

Pero este modelo educacional ya fue expuesto hace años por uno de los más significativos pedagogos, Paulo Freire, quien aseguraba que el conocimiento no se transmite, sino que se «construye», y que el acto educativo no consiste en una transmisión de conocimientos, sino que es el goce de la construcción de un mundo común entre alumno y docente.

Su teoría ya se ha impulsado en varios países del mundo y evidencia su rotundo éxito en materia de conocimiento y desarrollo intelectual. La coparticipación de los más chicos tanto en las aulas como en el hogar es la puerta para que puedan comprender la fuerza transformadora de su interior.

Está técnica de aprendizaje ya fue desarrollada por el pedagogo Paulo Freire, quien aseguró que la clave del conocimiento es la construcción y no la transmisión (iStock)

Está técnica de aprendizaje ya fue desarrollada por el pedagogo Paulo Freire, quien aseguró que la clave del conocimiento es la construcción y no la transmisión (iStock)

Como lo señaló Freire: «La cultura no es atributo exclusivo de la burguesía. Los llamados ‘ignorantes’ son hombres y mujeres cultos a los que se les ha negado el derecho de expresarse y por ello son sometidos a vivir en una ‘cultura del silencio’«.

Fuente: http://www.infobae.com/tendencias/2017/07/14/por-que-ensenar-a-discutir-ayuda-a-los-ninos-a-mejorar-en-la-escuela/

Comparte este contenido:

Los maestros están más sanos cuando aprenden, además de enseñar

Por: Tendencias 21

Un estudio halla una fuerte correlación entre el aprendizaje, el desarrollo personal y la salud.

Diversos estudios estudios han indicado que existe un vínculo entre el aprendizaje y la salud. Por ejemplo, en 2010, un estudio de la Universidad de California en Irvine (EEUU) reveló que el aprendizaje potencia la salud del cerebro.

Ahora, una nueva investigación, realizada por científicos de la Universidad West y de la Universidad Linnaeus -ambas en Suecia- ha revelado que el aprendizaje puede tener un efecto más general en la salud. Concretamente, en la salud de los maestros de escuela.

El estudio fue realizado con una muestra aleatoria de 229 profesores de 20 escuelas de la provincia sueca de Västra Götaland. Todos ellos respondieron a un cuestionario, que incluyó mediciones sobre su salud, su capacitación y su trabajo, con aprendizaje integrado. Los datos resultantes mostraron una correlación estadística altamente significativa entre dichas mediciones.

Más concretamente, mostraron que, para tener un buen estado de salud, los maestros no necesitan solo enseñar, sino también deben aprender y desarrollarse, informa la Universidad Linnaeus en un comunicado difundido por AlphaGalileo.

Aumentar la fluidez

Un estado pleno de aprendizaje se caracterizaría por una ‘sensación de fluidez’. Esta ha sido descrita por los investigadores como el «estado de inmersión completa en una actividad», de  manera totalmente efectiva y que, al mismo tiempo, produzca «un enorme disfrute».

En el presente estudio, se probó la relación entre una medida de ese «estado de fluidez» y la salud de los maestros. Se constató así la existencia de una fuerte correlación entre ambos factores.

Según Yvonne Lagrosen, investigadora de la Universidad West y coautora del análisis, la correlación podría tener su origen en que la ‘sensación de fluidez’ hace que la carga de trabajo se perciba como más leve.

En otras palabras, que si los maestros disfrutan de su trabajo hasta el punto de quedar completamente absorbidos por él, tendrán más posibilidades de que su labor influya positivamente en su salud.

A pesar de que los investigadores reconocen que su estudio  solo ha sido llevado a cabo en escuelas -por lo que, dicen, las posibilidades de generalizar sus resultados a otros sectores son inciertas-, señalan los resultados obtenidos indican que, para estar sanos, es bueno aprender y desarrollarse constantemente, tanto en la profesión como en la vida.

En términos generales, la salud es uno de los aspectos más importantes de la vida. La mayoría de la gente define su calidad de vida en términos de independencia, seguridad, armonía, relaciones humanas y una buena salud. Sin embargo, a menudo, los factores laborales tienen un impacto negativo en la salud de los trabajadores. Se ha calculado que la mayoría de los trabajadores europeos experimentan al menos un problema de salud al año relacionado con su trabajo.

Referencia bibliográfica:

Stefan Lagrosen, Yvonne Lagrose. Work integrated learning for employee health in school. International Journal of Quality and Service Science (2014). DOI: 10.1108/IJQSS-09-2012-0015.

Fuente: http://www.tendencias21.net/Los-maestros-estan-mas-sanos-cuando-aprenden-ademas-de-ensenar_a39831.html
Comparte este contenido:

Afecta a ‘dreamers’ aumento de colegiaturas en universidades de EU

Estados Unidos/17 de Julio de 2017/La Jornada

l aumento de colegiaturas entre 30 y hasta 50 por ciento en universidades de Estados Unidos es un nuevo desafío al que se enfrentan los dreamers en la administración de Donald Trump, pese a estar protegidos por el programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA, por sus siglas en inglés).

La coordinadora de Agenda Migrante, Eunice Rendón, informó a Notimex que algunas universidades de Texas y en otros estados de la Unión Americana han decidido arbitrariamente que estos jóvenes paguen una colegiatura mayor a la que normalmente se les solicitaba.

“Una de las ventajas que tenían los dreamers era contar con cuotas similares a los de un estudiante norteamericano que son mucho más flexibles, sin embargo hoy les están incrementado la colegiatura como a cualquier extranjero que desea estudiar en los Estados Unidos, lo que afecta a la comunidad de estudiantes mexicanos y por supuesto de otras nacionalidades”, comentó en entrevista.

De tal suerte que esta política, que viene aparejada con las acciones racistas de la administración Trump, “incrementa entre 30 y 50 por ciento los costos para ir a la universidad, además tienen que pagar el DACA, situación que los pone aún más vulnerables”.

Rendón Cárdenas se reunió el fin de semana en la Universidad de Seattle, Washington, con un grupo de dreamers mexicanos, quienes solicitaron becas y apoyos del gobierno mexicano para poder continuar sus estudios, luego del incremento a las cuotas universitarias.

Recordó que el evento tiene gran importancia porque en esta ciudad se detuvo hace algunos meses al dreamer mexicano Daniel Ramírez Medina, de 23 años de edad, quien sigue su proceso en libertad para determinar que sucederá con su caso.

“En Seattle está Daniel, que es uno de los dreamers detenido durante tres meses y cuya detención nos muestra la fragilidad del estatus DACA, porque no había ninguna razón para detenerlo”, recordó.

Detalló que el Servicio de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés) de Seattle nunca comprobó que era integrante de bandas criminales de esa nación. “Lo único que tenía era un tatuaje que decía I love You BC y sin ninguna prueba contundente, se le incriminó y se le quitó el DACA. Actualmente se encuentra en proceso legal”, expuso.

La también extitular del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (IME) indicó que los jóvenes binacionales son el puente más importante entre ambas naciones y que su empoderamiento, inserción y vinculación es fundamental para cambiar la visión y la situación de México y los connacionales en Estados Unidos.

“El caso de Daniel es muy simbólico que nos permite vislumbrar cuáles son las dificultades a las que se enfrentan los DACA con un presidente como Trump”, anotó Eunice Rendón.

Durante el encuentro, los jóvenes mencionaron los retos y cambios que ven con las políticas migratorias del presidente de ese país y pusieron sobre la mesa algunas propuestas para fortalecer el papel de México en la Unión Americana a través de las juventudes binacionales.

“La gran ventaja de los DACA binacionales es que podían insertarse a través de la educación en la Unión Americana y eso les daba más posibilidades y perspectivas de poder salir adelante en Estados Unidos, pero con estas medidas, solo van a terminar más discriminados y mal pagados”, acotó.

El foro se realizó en alianza con el Instituto Mexicano de la Juventud (Imjuve), órgano desconcertado de la Secretaría de Desarrollo Social (Sedesol), y con miembros del Consejo Binacional de Dreamers: Uniting Dreams, encabezado por Paul Quiñones.

La exdirectora general de Coordinación Intersecretarial de la Subsecretaría de Prevención y Participación Ciudadana de la Secretaría de Gobernación (Segob) informó que en el encuentro se alcanzaron varios acuerdos.

Entre ellos, difundir e informar de esta situación a través de organizaciones, medios, escuelas, universidades e iglesias, que están cercanas a la comunidad para fortalecer los vínculos de confianza.

En el tema educativo es importante contar con apoyos tanto en Estados Unidos como en México en materia informativa, becas, revalidación y continuidad de estudios”, aprobaron los participantes.

En términos de revalidación, acordaron continuar las reuniones con autoridades del Instituto Mexicano de la Juventud (Imjuve), las secretarías de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE) y de Educación Pública (SEP), para poder llevar a cabo el proceso de revalidación de estudios desde Estados Unidos, con miras a contar con un documento como alternativa educativa ante un eventual regreso a México.

Además, fortalecer campañas masivas de comunicación y sensibilización en México sobre quiénes son los migrantes y su valor positivo para el país.

En temas laborales y de certificación y empleabilidad, determinaron compartir información de las empresas y plataformas comprometidas con los connacionales para su inclusión económica, además de considerar en las estrategias de reinserción la diversidad de perfiles, habilidades y contextos para lograr trajes a la medida.

Finalmente, convinieron en fortalecer programas para impulsar proyectos biculturales de voluntariado, al tiempo de aprender cultura e historia mexicana con becas y alojamiento en México para generar integración e identidad.

Fuente: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2017/07/12/afecta-a-dreamers-aumento-de-colegiaturas-en-universidades-de-eu

Comparte este contenido:
Page 213 of 393
1 211 212 213 214 215 393