Argentina: En Mendoza los alumnos primarios que repitan podrán ser abanderados

Sudamérica/ Argentina/ 28 Noviembre 2016/ Fuente: La Nación.

La Dirección General de Escuelas de la provincia cambió la reglamentación.

La Dirección General de Escuelas de Mendoza modificó el régimen de evaluación, promoción y acreditación en escuelas públicas y privadas del nivel primario de la provincia, en la reglamentación para la elección de abanderados y escoltas de las banderas nacional y provincial.

A partir de ahora, los docentes podrán acreditar y valorar el desarrollo escolar de un niño que haya recursado algún año, para que pueda acceder a la nómina de abanderados y escoltas.

La subsecretaria de Gestión Educativa, Mónica Coronado, explicó que hasta ahora sólo podían acceder a postularse para ser abanderados los alumnos que habían recursado algún año y que presentaran un informe realizado por un profesional de la salud sobre el mejoramiento de su salud física o mental.

La subsecretaria pidió contemplar «que son seres en desarrollo y formación y cualquier episodio puede afectar su trayectoria escolar alterando su desarrollo».

La normativa, establece que «en carácter de excepcional, podrán participar de la elección de abanderados y escoltas estudiantes que hayan recursado un año por razones de fuerza mayor debidamente acreditadas, cuando sus condiciones, valores y logros lo ameriten. Se ponderará en este caso el promedio de calificaciones obtenidas en la primera ocasión y el recursado».

Para ello, se seguirá un procedimiento determinado, que establece un «informe del docente de 6 grado sobre el desempeño y logros del estudiante»; «nota del director al supervisor en donde se solicita esta medida de excepción junto al informe realizado por el docente con las justificaciones correspondientes»; acuerdo del Consejo de Directores y del Supervisor seccional que refrende lo solicitado y labre el acta correspondiente», y «notificación de la decisión a la escuela y comunicación a la familia del estudiante mediante acta».

Fuente: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1959940-mendoza-alumnos-primarios-que-repitan-podran-ser-abanderados

Comparte este contenido:

Sudáfrica: Basic Education Rejects Allegations Relating to Needu

África/Sudáfrica/Noviembre de 2016/Fuente: All Africa

RESUMEN: El Departamento de Educación Básica rechaza alegatos ridículos de la Alianza Democrática relacionados con NEEDU.El Ministro de Educación Básica de la Alianza Democrática (DA), Sr. Gavin Davis, ha formulado las absurdas e infundadas afirmaciones de que la Ministra de Educación Básica, la Sra. Angie Motshekga, está intentando influir de manera inapropiada en la labor de la Unidad de Evaluación y Desarrollo de la Educación Nacional NEEDU) y restringir su independencia. Las acusaciones provienen de un correo electrónico interno filtrado por el CEO interino del NEEDU, el Dr. Sibusiso Sithole al equipo de NEEDU. El correo electrónico fue visto en completo aislamiento de todos los demás acontecimientos que habían tenido lugar en el proceso de NEEDU la realización de su negocio. El Director Ejecutivo de NEEDU, personalmente abordó las preocupaciones planteadas y aclaró las opiniones mal informadas que el Sr. Davies llegó a saltar a conclusiones sobre un tema que él sabe muy poco sobre.

Department of Basic Education rejects ridiculous Democratic Alliance allegations relating to NEEDU

The Democratic Alliance (DA) shadow minister of Basic Education, Mr. Gavin Davis, has made the absurd and unfounded claims that the Minister of Basic Education, Mrs. Angie Motshekga is attempting to inappropriately influence the work of National Education Evaluation and Development Unit (NEEDU) and curtail its independence.

The allegations stem from a leaked internal email by the Acting CEO of the NEEDU, Dr Sibusiso Sithole to the NEEDU team.

The email was viewed in complete isolation from all other developments that had taken place in the process of NEEDU conducting its business.

The NEEDU CEO, personally addressed the concerns raised and clarified the ill-informed opinions that Mr. Davies arrived at by jumping to conclusions on a topic he clearly knows very little about.

The Business Case and Business Plan for the Establishment of the Office of Standards and Compliance for Basic Education (OSCBE), is one of the NEEDU founding documents, which was developed in consultation with and guidance from the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and the National Treasury. This document provides as follows:

«The unit [NEEDU] will be required to report annually to the Minister of Basic Education.»

Similarly, in section 5 (3) the NEEDU Bill, provides that «The NEEDU is accountable to the Minister for the performance of its functions in terms of this Bill.»

In line with these provisions, on 11 July 2016, the NEEDU met with the Minister. The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. First, to brief the Minister about the work of the Unit in the first five-year cycle of systemic evaluations (2012-2016), and, second, to present the plan for the Unit in the second five-year cycle (2017-2021).

«Following our briefing, the Minister asked the NEEDU to conduct deeper investigations on the areas that continue to cause concern in the system. This is what I called ‘the Minister’s directive’ in my communication to the NEEDU team. The Minister’s request or ‘directive,’ (the term that I used in my correspondence), is in line with section 6 (1) (h) in the NEEDU Bill and section 7(1) in the Regulations for the Establishment of the OSCBE, another NEEDU founding document. These clauses provide that ‘the functions of the NEEDU are to undertake any task consistent with this Bill at the request of the Minister,'» explains NEEDU CEO, Dr Sibusiso Sithole.

The NEEDU CEO admitted that as a team they have erred in judgment on several occasions over the past five years to the extent that they had to apologise to the Minister. «In my communication to the NEEDU team, when I was talking about the Minister having raised concerns about how ‘certain issues were handled in the past,’ I was referring to these errors in judgment, which are best known to the NEEDU team and the Ministry,» said Sithole.

He explained that when the Minister talked about the NEEDU being «the research/information hub of the department,» in his email, she was not talking about the NEEDU being part of the Department. She was in fact challenging NEEDU that, in conducting its own research, it must not be oblivious of research findings from the academia and the Department’s social partners. Engaging with research findings from these sources, and advising the Department about the implications of these findings on the work of the Department is part of NEEDU work as envisaged in The Business Case and Business Plan for the Establishment of the OSCBE. The following clause is quoted from this founding document to illustrate the point:

«The advisory reports of the unit [the NEEDU] will be uncompromisingly evidence-based, drawing only on the best available empirical data for its public declarations on the state of schools in South Africa.»

In line with the provisions of sections 6(1) (f) and 7(1) (a) in the NEEDU Bill and the Regulations for the Establishment of the OSCBE, respectively, in its national reports, NEEDU «makes proposals [to the education system] for remedying shortcomings in educational practice and eliminating barriers to quality education.»

In the NEEDU briefing to the Ministry, it indicated that over the past five years NEEDU had observed that some areas continued to cause concern in the system. They provided a list of these areas, and advised the Minister that they needed further in-depth investigation. From this list, NEEDU proposed that the Department should suggest which areas NEEDU could prioritise given that, due to financial constraints, NEEDU could not investigate all areas. «I was referring to these areas in my communique with the NEEDU team when I was talking about having ‘received a response to our submission from senior management about what they think we must prioritise in our work,'» said Sithole.

Having completed the first five-year evaluation cycle in July 2016, NEEDU needed to brief the Minister about its plan for the second five-year cycle (2017-2021). This is line with The Business Case and Business Plan for the Establishment of the OSCBE, which reads:

«Two factors must be present in the structure of OSCBE: independence from the DBE and the requirements to report to the Minister of Basic Education on the activities and outcomes of its work. These two factors are not in contention with each other, as the need for independence is related more to location, internal processes and a perceived separateness from the DBE whereas the need to report to the Minister is quite clear in terms of hierarchical accountability.»

Anticipating that, due to the Minister’s busy schedule, the meeting to brief her about the plan for the second five-year cycle would not take place as planned, the NEEDU had tentatively planned to do follow-up visits in schools that were evaluated in 2013 to establish how they were implementing NEEDU recommendations. «After briefing the Minister as NEEDU we felt it best to proceed with the commencement of the second five-year cycle plan. The reference to ‘suspending all school and district visits in mid-September to start planning for new work’ in my communication to the NEEDU team was about commencing with the second five-year cycle plan,» said Sithole.

The «close» relationship that the Minister was talking about is envisaged in all NEEDU founding documents. For example, The Business Case and Business Plan for the Establishment of the OSCBE, provides as follow:

«While OSCBE may have its own Advisory Council in terms of governance, it must be clearly established at the outset that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the unit achieves its objectives is with the Minister of Basic Education. It is essential that the Advisory Council and the CEO ensure that this relationship is nurtured.»

«Establishing OSCBE as a public entity outside government would not be ideal, since the kind of governing board required by a public entity outside of government will inhibit the direct relationship between the Head [of NEEDU], the NEEDU and the Minister required for the optimal functioning of OSCBE.»

Pursuant to the working relationship between the NEEDU and the Ministry of Basic Education envisaged in the NEEDU founding documents (quoted above), the Ministry cogently encouraged a relationship that would see the Department integrating the NEEDU findings and proposals in its work and using these findings to inform its planning. This is exactly the reason why NEEDU was established.

The Planning and Delivery Oversight Unit (PDOU), a branch within the Department of Basic Education, is tasked with the responsibility of monitoring and identifying gaps regarding how the system is working towards school improvement. To keep the NEEDU at «arms-length» from the Department, as envisaged in the NEEDU founding documents, it was prudent that one entry point through which NEEDU would engage with the Department should be identified. The PDOU was identified as that entry point. Thus, the two units (the NEEDU and the PDOU in the Department) would work collaboratively with NEEDU proposing approaches and strategies necessary for systemic change and PDOU, working with and through the provinces, addressing NEEDU findings. This is to ensure that NEEDU recommendations lead to notable impact in the system.

«It was never the Minister’s intention that NEEDU will be absorbed by the PDOU. It is for this reason that in my communique with NEEDU officials I said «NEEDU will work with [not under] the PDOU,» clarified Sithole.

The assertion by Mr. Davies that the Minister of Basic Education shelved the NEEDU Bill gazetted on 23 December 2011 in a bid to curb the independence of NEEDU is equally absurd.

Firstly the Minister did not shelve the NEEDU Bill. In 2012 the NEEDU Bill was gazetted for public comment. Comments from the public were received and changes were incorporated in the final draft.

In 2013, subsequent consultations with the National Treasury and the DPSA revealed that the then Minister of Public Service and Administration was of the view that institutions like NEEDU be established, not as statutory bodies, but as independent government components, under the generic title of Office of Standards and Compliance. It is within this understanding that the DPSA advised the NEEDU to abandon the Bill route in favour of establishing NEEDU as a «government component» called OSCBE.

The NEEDU Bill was then packaged into «Regulations for the establishment of OSCBE» verbatim, without any changes. In other words, the Regulations for the establishment of OSCBE are not different from the provisions of the final draft of the NEEDU Bill. In fact, the Regulations are nothing but euphemism for the already gazetted NEEDU Bill.

Following the decision by the DPSA to pursue a new legal pathway, plans are currently in progress to set NEEDU up as a government component, known as the Office of Standards and Compliance for Basic Education (OSCBE). The Minister would consult with the CEM on the Regulations, formulated in discussion with DPSA, DBE legal advisors and the State Law Advisor. Second, OSCBE would then be established by means of promulgation of the Regulations.

The Minister has in no way delayed the NEEDU report, delays in the report has absolutely nothing to do with her.

The 2014 NEEDU draft report was submitted to the Department of Basic Education for comments in December 2015. In terms of the NEEDU protocol, each site visited (including schools, districts, provinces and the national office) is given four to six weeks to comment on the NEEDU draft report before it is finalised. This practice, which was followed before the 2012 and 2013 NEEDU Reports were finalised, was also followed with regard to the 2014 Report.

NEEDU received inputs from the Department in February 2016. After considering these inputs carefully, there was a need for further analysis of data to provide evidence on the claims and conclusions that the report was making and to collect additional data to close the gaps that were identified in the report.

There are two main factors that caused the delay in the finalisation of the 2014 report according to NEEDU. First, owing to limited funds, further analysis of data had to be done in-house by two NEEDU staff members. While NEEDU has 25 professional staff members, 23 are field-workers (and are based in the provinces), and only two (at head office) are responsible for preparing the national reports, including the analysis of data and the collation of provincial reports into a national report. Secondly, the collection of additional data took longer than anticipated because the NEEDU team had to split into two groups. In the first semester of 2016, NEEDU had already planned to evaluate the quality of curriculum delivery in special schools. One team was therefore responsible for collecting data in special schools while another team was collecting additional data required to finalise the 2014 report. Data collection was completed in July 2016.

Informed by further analysis of data and additional data that was collected, the 2014 draft report is at the final stages of amendment and will be re-submitted to the Department by 30 November 2016 for final input. Thereafter, it will be submitted to the Minister for her consideration.

The Minister has never attempted to «capture» NEEDU, she sees NEEDU as an important and valuable entity whose research must be used by the Department to inform interventions in order to remedy any negative findings uncovered by the research conducted by the unit.

The following facts about the Minister’s commitment to an independent NEEDU speak for themselves:

In the initial stages when the Bill route was followed, the Minister approved the draft Bill. She then presented it at CEM and it was approved.

Following the decision by the DPSA to pursue a new legal pathway to establish NEEDU as an independent government components, and not as statutory body, the Minister:

In April 2014, wrote to the Ministers of Public Service and Administration and Finance requesting their written consent on the corporate form and funding requirements of the proposed government component so that OSCBE could be legally established in keeping with the requirements of the Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation No. 103 of 1994 as amended by Act 20 of 2007).

In April 2014, also approved that the relevant Government Notice containing Regulations for the establishment, governance and functions of the OSCBE be published once consent has been obtained from the Ministers of Finance and the Public Service and Administration.

Ministers Sisulu and Gordhan had not responded to the Minister’s request by the time they were deployed to other portfolios after the 2014 General Elections. With the change of political leadership in the Departments of Public Service and Administration and Finance, in July 2014, the Minister again wrote to the new Ministers of Public Service and Administration and Finance, requesting their support in the establishment of an independent NEEDU.

Following the Minister’s correspondence with the Ministers of Finance and the Public Service and Administration, in 2015, the Minister approved the Regulations for the establishment of OSCBE after they these Regulations were endorsed by the Chief State Law Advisor.

Since its inception in 2011 to date, the NEEDU has enjoyed full and unwavering support from the Ministry. Over the years, the Minister has given the NEEDU the space and leeway to do its work without any interference.

The Minister is currently considering the most suitable candidates to lead NEEDU as a permanent CEO and will appoint the best candidate in due course.

NEEDU continues to have an important role and function to facilitate school improvement through systemic evaluation. NEEDU would do this through the establishment of a countrywide credible, sustainable and holistic performance review system which focuses systemically on the state of teaching and learning in classrooms, and on the monitoring, administration and support functions at school, provincial and national levels.

Fuente: http://allafrica.com/stories/201611101047.html

Comparte este contenido:

Uganda: Bridge schools stay but ministry has some advice

África/Uganda/02 Octubre 2016/Fuente: TheObserver/Autor: YUDAYA NANGONZI & SIRAJE LUBWAMA

Resumen: El 17 de agosto, el Ministerio de Educación y Deportes ordenó que Puente Internacional Academias (BIA) cerrar sus escuelas antes del inicio del tercer periodo. Sin embargo, como Yudaya NANGONZI y el informe SIRAJE LUBWAMA, las escuelas han obtenido un alivio temporal de la alta corte. Las polémicas escuelas puente internacional ahora pueden abrir sus puertas para el tercer mandato después de Justicia Patricia Basaza emitió un fallo a su favor el jueves pasado. El Ministerio de Educación y Deportes había ordenado a las 63 escuelas a cerrar la tienda al final del segundo período por razones que no cumplan con las normas establecidas.

On August 17, the ministry of education and sports ordered that Bridge International Academies (BIA) close their schools ahead of the start of the third term. However, as YUDAYA NANGONZI and SIRAJE LUBWAMA report, the schools have obtained a temporary reprieve from the High court.

The controversial Bridge International schools can now open their doors for the third term after Justice Patricia Basaza made a ruling in their favour last Thursday. The ministry of education and sports had ordered the 63 schools to close shop at the end of the second term on grounds that they do not meet established standards.

Following the inspection of BIA facilities in various places, the ministry noted the poor infrastructure, hygiene and sanitation, which the inspectors said “put the life and safety of the school children in danger.”

The schools were also found to follow a curriculum that hasn’t been approved by the ministry. Acting on this information, minister of education Janet Museveni called for the suspension of the schools’ activities in Uganda until they meet the required standards.

Bridge International ran to court, seeking to block the ministry’s decision on September 2, a move that paid dividends last week. In her ruling on Thursday, Justice Basaza said:

“I’m allowing the schools to open as we resolve this issue of the wanted document. We must also allow the respondent (AG) a constitutional right to be heard. The applicant needs to file a rejoinder by September 30 and the case is adjourned to October 3.”

Earlier, the ministry had issued a statement targeting parents with children in Bridge International schools ahead of the new term, which starts today. In the statement dated September 21, assistant commissioner for primary education Dr Tonny Mukasa-Lusambu advised parents to take their children to the nearest public schools.

“I call upon all parents to take their children to the nearby government schools because, where Bridge [International] opened their schools, some of the government schools are just next door,” Dr Lusambu told The Observer.

“There is no need for alarm … government deploys teachers in these government schools and they are ready to attend to the children,” he added.

NEW TERM GUIDELINES

Commenting on the new term, Dr Mukasa-Lusambu called on head teachers and teaching staff to hit the ground running. Lusambu said schools should desist from the bad practice of making children who report on the first day to clean up the school premises.

“There is this habit of making children clean, slash and sweep the entire school yet their lessons are supposed to start at exactly 8am on the first day,” Dr Lusambu said.

“Even those who are at home also keep on waiting until the cleaning is done.”

The term, which ends on December 9, is the busiest in the schools calendar with national examinations to be held at all three levels – PLE, O-level and A-level. O-level exams are scheduled to start on October 17 and end on November 23, while P7 candidates will sit between November 2 and 3. A-level exams, on the other hand, start on November 14 and end on December 6.

Acknowledging that some learning days in the term could be disrupted by the examinations, Lusambu asked teachers to stick to the curriculum.

“All subjects must be taught as indicated in the curriculum. Subjects like MDD, physical education and sports, art and entrepreneurship should not be ignored because they are all important in raising a holistic child,” Lusambu said.

Commenting on capitation grants, Lusambu expressed optimism that the schools will receive their grants on time now that the ministry of finance has restructured the payments in keeping with the school calendar.

He also encouraged parents to provide their children with all the necessary school requirements, including lunch.

Fuente de la noticia: http://www.observer.ug/education/46665-bridge-schools-stay-but-ministry-has-some-advice

Fuente de la imagen:http://www.observer.ug/images/BIA-led-lawyer-Isaac-Walukagga-BIA-director-legal-Anthony-Mugodo-BIA-legal-officer-Godwin-Matsiko-and-BIA-director-customer-experience-Dawn-Mulondo-chat-after-the-ruling.jpg

Comparte este contenido:

Sudáfrica: Higher Education Legislation Outdated – Dept

África/Sudáfrica/21 de Agosto de 2016/Fuente: All Africa

RESUMEN: Según el Departamento de la Educación Superior la legislación que regula la Educación Superior es obsoleta y necesita ser modificada,  «Ha habido muchas críticas en contra de la legislación vigente,» así lo afirmó el Director en Jefe del Departamento de Servicios Legislativos, Eben Boshof. Se le presentará un proyecto de ley al comité especial del Parlamento Europeo sobre la educación y la recreación, que modificaría la Ley de Educación Superior de 1997, en 14 áreas clave. Estos incluyen la incorporación de objetivos de la transformación, la inserción de nuevas definiciones y cambiar los ya existentes, tales como «institutos técnicos», y de prever nuevas instituciones, como centros de educación superior. El nuevo proyecto de ley ampliaría el poder del Ministro de la Educación Superior para determinar la política, en particular en relación con los objetivos de transformación. Se reconocería sólo tres tipos de instituciones – universidades, colegios universitarios y universidades de educación superior.  Son crecientes las instituciones que colaboran con las universidades más establecidas. Los colegios de educación superior están limitados en cuanto a su alcance, e incluyen escuelas de agricultura. política, lingüística. El  Presidente del comité, Lynette Zwane preguntó cómo el nuevo proyecto de ley afectaría a las políticas lingüísticas en diversas instituciones. BoshofT dijo que el ministro sólo tenía el poder de hacer política lingüística en el sentido amplio. «Las políticas lingüísticas de la institución permanecen en la institución específica, pero estarán sujetos a la política determinada por la Ley de idiomas.»  BoshofT dijo que el ministro sólo podía tomar decisiones después de recibir el asesoramiento del Consejo de Educación Superior (CHE).

Legislation regulating higher education is outdated and needs to be amended, the higher education department said on Wednesday.

«There’s been a lot of criticism against the current legislation,» the department’s chief director for legislative services Eben Boshoff said.

He was presenting a draft bill to Parliament’s select committee on education and recreation, which would amend the Higher Education Act of 1997 in 14 key areas.

These included incorporating transformation goals, inserting new definitions and changing existing ones, such as «technikons», and making provision for new institutions, such as higher education colleges.

The new bill would extend the higher education minister’s power to determine policy, in particular relating to transformation goals.

It would recognise only three types of institutions – universities, university colleges, and higher education colleges.

University colleges are growing institutions partnering with more established universities. Higher education colleges are limited in terms of scope, and include agricultural colleges.

Language policy, autonomy, transformation

Committee chair Lynette Zwane asked how the new bill would affect language policies at various institutions.

Boshoff said the minister only had the power to make language policy in the broad sense.

«The individual institution’s language policies will remain with the specific institution, but it will be subject to policy determined by the Languages Act.»

Another MP asked about accountability measures, as the bill would give far-reaching powers to the minister.

Boshoff said the minister could only make decisions after receiving advice from the Council on Higher Education (CHE), and would have to give reasons if he or she wanted to deviate from it.

The minister’s only real decision-making avenue was to initiate independent investigations.

Another question related to how the bill would address transformation. Boshoff said the bill only dealt with these issues by giving all those affected a framework within which to work.

He said transformation was a complex issue and it would need the CHE’s input.

Fuente: http://allafrica.com/stories/201608180233.html

Fuente de la imagen: http://www.destinyconnect.com/2016/08/18/higher-education-legislation-outdated-dept/

Comparte este contenido: