Ability does not grow in isolation. It is more like a seed responding to soil, climate and season than a fixed label attached at birth. Social norms, technological change and economic demand act as shifting weather patterns, altering which traits flourish and which remain dormant. When certain abilities appear to “bloom late,” it is often not because they were absent, but because the ecosystem had not yet provided the light in which they could be seen. A serious economic understanding of gifted education (specialized teaching for students who are intellectually talented) must therefore hold two ideas at once: Some forms of talent require early cultivation to reach their full height, while others reveal their value only when the landscape evolves.

The true challenge is not choosing between planting early or waiting for later growth. It is designing an educational ecosystem rich enough to sustain both the fast-sprouting and the slow-maturing, ensuring that no season of development is mistaken for the whole story of potential.

Karnes and institutional flexibility

The life and work of Professor Emeritus offer a practical illustration of what it means to design institutions that recognize both early potential and evolving talent. Through the establishment of the Frances A. Karnes for Gifted Studies at the University of Southern Mississippi, Karnes did not merely advocate for gifted children — she helped build a statewide infrastructure that treated talent development as a public responsibility rather than a private accident.

Her role in shaping Mississippi’s Gifted Education Act is especially instructive. By mandating identification in grades two–six, requiring service hours, ensuring teacher licensure and funding instructional positions, the legislation institutionalized early investment in mathematically and intellectually precocious students. In economic terms, this reduced the probability of underinvestment in highly cumulative domains. It recognized that in fields such as mathematics and physics, delay can permanently narrow opportunity.

Yet Karnes’s philosophy was never confined to early selection alone. She rejected the myth that gifted students “get it on their own,” but she also rejected rigid notions of ability tied to age, seat time or arbitrary promotion standards. Her emphasis on appropriate instructional level rather than chronological age reflects precisely the flexibility required in a portfolio model of talent development. Institutional structure, in her view, should adapt to the learner, not the reverse.

Moreover, her commitment to teacher training reveals another dimension often missing in theoretical debates: Talent development depends on intermediary human capital. Identification without educator expertise yields little return. By building educator development programs and research-based practices, Karnes strengthened the complementary investments necessary for sustained growth — precisely the dynamic complementarities emphasized in .

In this sense, Karnes’s legacy exemplifies the integration of the two principles outlined above. Early identification was not an end in itself, but part of a broader institutional ecosystem designed to keep opportunity open, raise the returns to later development and prevent systemic misallocation of ability. Her work demonstrates that the question is not whether societies should invest early, but whether they are willing to build adaptive systems capable of recognizing that ability — like the economy itself — evolves over time.

Karnes’s institutional philosophy illustrates a broader economic insight: Ability is not a fixed signal revealed once, but a trajectory shaped by investment, timing and opportunity. Theoretical work in human capital economics helps formalize this intuition.

The role of changing societal demand

One reason ability may appear to “bloom late” is that society’s demand for particular skills changes.

Economic history provides many examples. Entire categories of talent — software engineering, data science, digital design, AI research — were either nonexistent or peripheral only a few decades ago. Individuals whose comparative advantage lay in these areas could not demonstrate their potential early because the relevant domains did not yet exist at scale.

Endogenous growth theory helps explain this phenomenon. In former Chief Economist of the World Bank Paul Romer’s , the value of ideas depends on their applicability within the production structure of the economy.

As technology evolves, so too does the shadow price of different abilities. Talent that once appeared marginal can become central. From this perspective, late-blooming ability is not an anomaly; it is a predictable outcome of structural change.

In mathematics, physics and certain areas of engineering, early exposure and sustained challenge are often critical. These domains are highly cumulative; later learning depends heavily on mastery of earlier concepts. Lubinski and Benbow’s longitudinal on mathematically precocious youth demonstrates that early mathematical ability predicts later contributions to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, including patents and publications

In such fields, failure to challenge early can permanently foreclose later opportunities. Here, early gifted education plays a uniquely powerful role.

By contrast, fields such as entrepreneurship, leadership, policy design and even some scientific domains rely heavily on integrative thinking, judgment and contextual reasoning — capacities that often mature later. American psychologist and distinguished Professor Emeritus Dean Simonton’s on creativity shows that peak creative output varies widely across disciplines and individuals, with many innovators producing their most influential work well into midlife. Similarly, research on entrepreneurship that successful founders are often older, benefiting from accumulated experience, networks and domain knowledge rather than early technical brilliance alone

These findings underscore a central point: Early gifted education is essential in some domains.

 AI, late bloomers and the expansion — and stratification — of opportunity

In the age of AI, where algorithms increasingly generate optimal solutions at remarkable speed, the meaning of “Gifted Talent” is quietly shifting. In the past, exceptional memory, calculation skills or technical precision were seen as rare forms of intelligence. Today, however, these capabilities can often be replicated — or even surpassed — by machines. What remains uniquely human is not merely the ability to solve problems, but the ability to ask original questions, sense hidden patterns and imagine possibilities beyond existing data. Gifted individuals may therefore matter not because they outperform AI in efficiency, but because they introduce perspectives that algorithms cannot easily anticipate.

Technological progress has always reshaped how society values human abilities. The typewriter, for example, allowed anyone to produce neat and legible text regardless of handwriting skill. In a similar way, AI now “standardizes” analytical tasks, making high-level outputs accessible to a broader population. As technical barriers fall, the traits that stand out most are intuition, creativity and the courage to challenge established assumptions. Gifted Talent, in this sense, is less about superior processing power and more about cognitive flexibility — the capacity to connect distant ideas and redefine the problem itself.

Rather than competing with AI, gifted individuals may play a complementary role. As machines handle optimization and pattern recognition, human value shifts toward ethical judgment, interdisciplinary thinking and visionary insight. The question is not whether gifted students are necessary, but how their abilities evolve in a world shaped by intelligent tools.

In an era of algorithmic precision, Gifted Talent may represent the expanding frontier of human originality — the space where imagination, ambiguity and intuition continue to guide innovation beyond what optimization alone can achieve.

Premature closure or portfolio development

Educational systems are most effective when they function not as sorting machines, but as environments for sustained cultivation. Different forms of talent grow at different speeds. Some abilities develop rapidly and benefit from immediate acceleration. Others deepen gradually, gaining clarity and strength as experience, maturity and context evolve. The objective is not to identify once and finalize, but to design conditions under which talent can continue to expand.

Early identification can be valuable, particularly in cumulative fields where foundational skills compound over time. But the true strength of a gifted system lies in its capacity to support growth beyond initial signals. Talent is not a single moment of recognition; it is a trajectory. Systems that allow individuals to re-engage, redirect and accelerate at multiple stages create more opportunities for high-level development.

In periods of rapid technological and economic change, flexibility becomes an asset. The domains that will define the next generation of innovation may not yet be fully visible. Educational structures that remain open to evolving strengths increase the likelihood that emerging forms of excellence will be recognized and cultivated. Rather than narrowing pathways early, forward-looking institutions build layered opportunities that enable talent to compound over time.

A developmental portfolio approach, therefore, strengthens gifted education. Intensive early challenge in highly cumulative disciplines remains essential. At the same time, broad intellectual enrichment expands exposure, adaptive pathways enable renewed acceleration and lifelong learning systems allow new expertise to crystallize. Such an approach does not merely avoid lost potential — it actively maximizes the probability that exceptional ability, whenever it becomes visible, can grow into sustained contribution.

Structural constraints 

An example of the ways that current educational systems limit opportunities for gifted students comes in the format of the assignment of for credits toward high school graduation. Because this system is primarily based on spending a specified amount of time in a particular course, most high school experiences are detrimental to advanced students, who must either languish in a course for much longer than they need to.

On the other hand, if they are allowed to move more quickly, the accelerated courses they take receive fewer Carnegie units, meaning that the students must complete twice as many courses to obtain the same number of hours toward their graduation. Without proper training in working with gifted students and recognizing their needs, educators cannot appreciate the extent of the devaluation gifted students experience at the hands of educators.

Case illustration

One example of these concepts that comes from the Karnes Center focuses on a young man who attended the Summer Program for Academically Talented Youth (AT Program) in the early 2000s. The AT Program, as it was then known, was a forerunner of dual-credit programs currently prevalent in most high schools today and provided an intensive academic immersion experience over the course of three weeks. One of the most popular courses was advanced mathematics. On the first day of the course, students were tested to see which mathematics skills had already been mastered and which skills they were ready to learn.  

At that time, the young man in question tested in a way that indicated his readiness to begin Algebra I. Most students who took the course finished one high school math credit during the three-week period. This young man, however, when given the opportunity to explore mathematical concepts at his own pace, flew through not only Algebra I, but also Algebra II and Geometry in the three-week time frame. When his transcripts were presented to his high school, they were reluctant to acknowledge the credits he had earned. The path toward graduation at his school required that students take one math course in each of the four years of high school, and because they did not have an appropriate number of even more advanced courses for him to take during his junior and senior years in high school, they wanted to force him to stay in the lower-level courses that he had already mastered. 

Misalignment across educational levels

This is not uncommon and is not limited to high schools. Even students who attend accelerated high schools must advocate for their placement in higher-level college courses as freshmen, rather than, say, taking an introductory course in biology for nonmajors when they have already taken courses such as Human Infectious Diseases or Microbiology at their advanced high school. It is extremely important to advocate for appropriate alignment agreements between secondary and tertiary schooling entities if gifted students are to be appropriately recognized without penalty for transferring more than the appropriate number of credits into the university program.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Timing Talent: Early Investment, Late Bloomers and the Economics of Gifted Education appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Shock therapy: the “startup university”

Friedman begins by recounting the moment his university abruptly dismissed roughly 30% of its staff. Administrators locked the campus, summoned faculty into brief meetings and informed them of their termination. He watched colleagues emerge from five-minute sessions in tears, before going in himself and returning to finish his lecture.

The episode reflects what Friedman calls a “startup type of management mentality.” Universities, he argues, are increasingly run by professional managers rather than educators — leaders trained to optimize processes, pivot quickly and prioritize efficiency. In this model, institutions once conceived as public goods begin to resemble corporations, guided by short-term metrics and quarterly logic rather than long-term intellectual commitments.

Campani presses him on whether management theory has colonized academia. Friedman agrees. A broader neoliberal framework, he explains, has seeped into universities, nonprofits and public administration. Executive boards operate with the mindset of CEOs, treating education as a system to be streamlined. The result is speed over deliberation, flexibility over stability and performance indicators over intellectual mission.

From classroom to TikTok

After Friedman’s dismissal, a student proposed making a TikTok video. Within days, one clip reached 40 million views. What began as a protest became a new pedagogical experiment.

Anthropology, he notes, is traditionally slow. Classroom learning unfolds over semesters; intellectual transformation takes years. Social media operates in flashes. Yet Friedman sees value in these brief interventions. He does not aim to replicate the seminar room, but to create of recognition.

If a 30-second clip helps viewers grasp two ideas — that others experience the world differently, and that we share common ground despite those differences — then it succeeds. “If I can provide more questions than answers,” he says, “I always feel I’m being an effective educator.”

Contrary to his expectations, he finds online exchanges often earnest and constructive. He has not had to block anyone. Social media becomes for him a form of participant observation — anthropology conducted in a digital field site.

The humanities under pressure

Campani raises a familiar critique: Disciplines like anthropology are impractical and ill-suited to the job market. Friedman defends liberal arts education as preparation for a lifetime of adaptability. Its strength lies in breadth — the ability to connect politics and economics, history and culture, rather than remaining confined within hyper-specialized silos.

He traces the rise of academic specialization from the late 19th century onward. Over time, disciplines fractured into increasingly narrow domains. Scholars often write for a few hundred peers worldwide. Promotion systems reward peer-reviewed output over teaching or public engagement. This emphasis, he says, “detracts from anthropology itself,” narrowing its impact.

Department closures across the United Kingdom and the Netherlands illustrate the consequences. Programs are gutted; students find their degrees destabilized midstream. Even tenure, once designed to protect intellectual independence, no longer guarantees security. Friedman himself was tenured when dismissed. Becoming a public intellectual now carries risk, particularly in political climates where universities fear losing funding.

The fight for relevance

Friedman distinguishes between academic anthropology, applied anthropology and what he calls public anthropology. The first seeks to understand what it means to be human. The second applies anthropological tools to specific problems, sometimes in corporate or governmental contexts. Public anthropology, by contrast, aims to insert anthropological perspectives into public debate.

Why, he asks, are anthropologists absent from conversations on immigration, climate crisis or geopolitics? Why are these debates ceded to politicians and economists alone? A discipline that examines culture, power and meaning should have a visible voice in news media, schools and even popular platforms.

The stakes are existential. If anthropology fails to demonstrate relevance beyond conferences and journals, its future dims. Friedman acknowledges cyclical crises in the field’s history but believes this moment demands greater outward engagement.

A slower future?

Campani and Friedman end the conversation on a note of cautious optimism. Friedman senses that many young people are questioning perpetual growth and transactional logic. They seek meaning, reflection and a slower pace of life.

Universities, he argues, should embody that slowness, and be places where long-term thinking survives in a culture obsessed with immediacy. The destruction of knowledge infrastructures, from department closures to shrinking archives, threatens not only academic careers but society’s capacity to remember and reflect.

The task ahead is modest but vital: generate recognition, spark curiosity and cultivate better questions. In a profit-driven global system that rewards speed and efficiency, the humanities may endure precisely by insisting on depth, context and the complexity of being human.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO Talks: Public Anthropology in the Age of Startup Universities and Profit-Driven Education appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has set the ambitious goal of increasing the GER from 26.3% in 2018 to by 2035. Achieving this target will require an unprecedented expansion of India’s education system. For the international community, this is not just India’s challenge; it is a global opportunity. Western higher education systems can benefit by partnering with India in ways that are mutually transformative.

A growing demand fueled by aspirations

India has over school-going children, representing the largest cohort of future learners anywhere in the world. Yet, only one in four students makes it to higher education. This narrowing of the pyramid is not due to a lack of interest, but due to limited capacity in India and the consequent lack of opportunities. As family incomes rise and aspirations expand, more Indian parents are willing to invest in education on a global scale.

The numbers are telling. In 2022, over Indian students went abroad for higher studies, a big jump compared to 450,000 in 2017 and 260,000 in 2020. Furthermore, India surpassed China as the top source of international students in the US in 2022. Indian families are projected to spend nearly annually on foreign education in 2025. These numbers underscore both the pressure on India’s system and the enormous opportunities for international institutions.

This outflow is no longer confined to the urban elite. Families in Tier I and Tier II — this is a classification of urban areas on the basis of factors like the size of the population and economic development — are increasingly investing in overseas education. For international universities grappling with declining enrollments at home, India offers an unrivaled opportunity to service a huge demand for higher education. India not only offers sheer numbers to these institutions but also the opportunity to offer diverse disciplines, interdisciplinary training and innovation-led learning experiences.

Partnership models for a sustainable future

Expanding India’s system to meet a 50% GER by 2035 will require doubling the number of students in higher education. No country has attempted such a massive in such a short time. Partnerships with international institutions will be critical to meeting this challenge. Given the long-term nature of higher education, these partnerships cannot be transactional. Both international and Indian institutions must work together to build sustainable ecosystems that serve both India and the global community.

One such pathway is the pioneered by Birla Institute of Technology & Science (BITS) Pilani and other forward-looking institutions. In this model, students complete the first two years of their undergraduate studies in India and their next two at a partner university abroad. 

“This model gives students international exposure while being more affordable than a foreign degree.. It also gives them both an academic grounding in India and a global exposure. Even international universities benefit. The 2+2 model reduces the cost of student recruitment for these universities as well as gives them a steady flow of well-trained Indian students.

Joint PhD run by both Indian and Western institutions represent another area of promise. Training PhDs is resource-intensive, often requiring significant investments in infrastructure and faculty time. Through joint PhD programs, Western institutions can share costs with their Indian partners and leverage expertise across geographies. Students can benefit from access to world-class labs abroad while working on problems relevant to India. For global universities, such collaborations create bridges to fast-growing research ecosystems and open up avenues for innovation-led partnerships.

These models also address a deeper challenge: creating financial sustainability in higher education. Undergraduate tuition can subsidize doctoral training when designed carefully. By linking undergraduate pathways with doctoral opportunities, universities can build systems where costs are distributed, risks are shared and outcomes are amplified. Industry in both partner countries will also find value in these collaborations, since the research projects can be aligned with their innovation pipelines. 

In joint PhD programs, faculty members from two universities engage in guiding the same student, thereby creating deeper academic linkages. With shared supervision, access to dual infrastructure and sponsorships that are jointly supported, the financial burden on individual institutions or students is often significantly reduced. Joint programs are not only viable for India; they can serve as a global template for sustainable higher education PhD student financing.

Scaling research and innovation through global coalitions

India’s researcher density remains among the lowest in the world. With fewer than per million people, India lags far behind advanced economies. The US has more than 4,000 researchers per million, Germany over 5,000 and South Korea above 7,000. This disparity explains why India’s contribution to high-impact research is still modest relative to its population size and economic potential. Bridging this gap requires building a robust research culture and scaling the pipeline of trained scientists.

International collaborations are the most effective way to accelerate this process. Joint research centers, co-funded PhD programs and collaborative grants can pool resources and expand impact. Undergraduate programs linked to international research pathways in top institutions such as Cambridge, MIT and Caltech have ensured a regular supply of motivated students entering doctoral training. From experience, we know this integration works. In fact, it creates a virtuous cycle where education and research feed into one another, sustaining long-term growth.

Global universities also stand to gain. Many Western institutions face declining domestic enrollments, financial pressures and rising costs of research. Partnering with India provides access to a vast talent pool, opportunities for cost-effective collaboration and entry into one of the world’s most dynamic markets. For India, these partnerships help build the critical mass of researchers required to compete globally in areas such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, climate science and health technologies.

India as a global anchor for higher education

India’s higher education system is poised for a historic transformation. The aspirations of its young population, the willingness of families to invest and the urgency of scaling the system create both challenges and opportunities. For international institutions, the message is clear: engaging with India is no longer optional; it is essential. The models of collaboration Indians are developing, including my institution, BITS Pilani — 2+2 undergraduate programs, joint PhDs and shared research initiatives — are not only solutions to India’s problems but also global innovations in higher education.

If India succeeds in reaching a GER of 50% by 2035, it will add tens of millions of students to its higher education system. This will be the largest expansion of higher education in human history. No single country can achieve this alone. It will require a coalition of global partners who see education not only as a national priority but as a shared global mission. Investing in India’s educational growth means investing in the future of global knowledge itself.

[Members of 51�Թ�’s Young Editors Program collectively edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post India’s Higher Education: A Global Opportunity in the Making appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The move to drop the tests can actually be to a time before the pandemic, but it was accelerated by students being to travel to testing sites during the lockdowns. Further, the mass racial justice of the summer of 2020, prompted by the killing of George Floyd, pressured elites into embracing ideas rooted in equity.

Many the spurning of tests as the right direction for institutions that have ensured the maintenance of white supremacist patriarchy since their inception. But as elite universities such as , and recently reneged on the promise of leveling the playing field by returning to test requirements, are those celebrations premature?

Standardized testing is racially discriminatory

Research has confirmed and that requiring students to take the SAT or ACT weeds out women, people of color and other marginalized groups. As a physics and astronomy undergraduate at the University of Texas at Austin, I participated in efforts in the early 1990s to address how such tests undermine women’s entry into STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). I was a perfect example: a straight-A student whose academic record had only one stain — a mediocre SAT score which severely narrowed my college options.

As Robert Schaeffer, director of public education at FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing, one of the leading advocacy groups against required SAT and ACT testing, The 19th, “Despite the fact that young women get lower scores on the test than young men, they earn higher grades when matched for identical courses in college than the boys.”

Black and Latino students routinely on the SAT’s math section compared to whites and Asians. This is not evidence of a racial difference in educational ability and intelligence. Scientists that there is none. Rather, it is evidence of racial bias in the test.

There is a similar bias based on class. Wealthier students routinely do on the test than low-income students. This is no surprise, given the built on test preparation, helping students navigate the notoriously tricky test in exchange for of dollars. The fact that SAT scores are used to determine many a student’s for scholarships further entrenches class bias.

Indeed, because of the SAT’s racial and class bias, the Los Angeles Times in 2019 that officials at the University of California were convinced “that performance on the SAT and ACT was so strongly influenced by family income, parents’ education and race that using them for high-stakes admissions decisions was simply wrong.”

Standardized testing is regrettably back, but not everywhere

By 2021, in response to a lawsuit brought by the Compton Unified School District, the entire University of California system tests as requirements for admissions. The move seemed to herald a new era in higher education, and indeed, data from the few years that this experiment has been in place in opening up higher education to historically excluded communities.

But, as advocates of racial, gender and economic justice painstakingly chipped away at the exclusivity of higher education, conservatives predictably pushed back. A wave of right-wing attacks in recent years has at affirmative action admissions policies, the of Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion campus .

It was only a matter of time before elite institutions such as Harvard, Yale and Caltech backslid on their commitment to equity by reverting back to SAT requirements. Opinions of elite commentators such as The New York Times education editor David Leonhardt helped validate this decision. Leonhardt , “Standardized tests have become especially unpopular among political progressives, and university campuses are dominated by progressives.”

He highlighted a 2023 by an organization called Opportunity Insights to justify reinstating test requirements. The paper concluded that “SAT/ACT scores and academic ratings are highly predictive of post-college success.” It was precisely the ammunition elite institutions were waiting for. Harvard specifically the paper in its reversal on testing.

But, according to Schaeffer, the conclusions that Opportunity Insights comes to are flawed. He The New York Times, “[W]hen you eliminate the role of wealth, test scores are not better than high school G.P.A.” In a responding to Leonhardt and Opportunity Insights, FairTest accused researchers of omitting student demographics such as “family income, parental education, and race/ethnicity.” They found that when accounting for these critical demographic markers, the SAT fails to predict academic merit and that students’ grade point averages (GPA) in high school are better markers.

Aside from GPA, public school educators have backed the idea of “” as a better alternative to the SAT. Such assessments measure the totality of students’ expertise, achievements and ideas. They are, by design, complex and varied — just as human beings are — and are based on interaction and collaboration — just as society functions in real life.

The SAT is largely a multiple-choice test. It is an individualistic assessment designed for an individualist mindset and is therefore an exceedingly narrow measure of a person. Aside from its essay section, each question has only one correct answer embedded in an array of wrong answers. There is no room for complex thinking and ideas. to FairTest, “Using the SAT as the gatekeeper for higher education turns out to test one thing above all else: existing station in life.”

Standardized tests, and the idea that universities may revert back to using them, are a source of undue on students and their families. Thankfully, of universities and colleges remain test-free or test-optional

Ultimately, only a tiny sliver of the nation’s students will be able to attend the institutions that steadfastly cling to elitist practices. If anything, the decision by some to insist on outdated racist, sexist and classist standards is a further indication of how irrelevant they are to modern American society.

[, a project of the Independent Media Institute, produced this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Zombie Tests: Is the SAT Back From the Dead? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

I am proud to have had the opportunity to study at an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). At the age of 16, I was completely transformed by this intellectually challenging and life-building experience. Afterward, I built a successful career in the US for over forty years. I have now returned home and begun making a contribution to improve our country’s Human Development Index by contributing to many worthy causes. These include helping to improve primary healthcare, education and equipping Indians with skills to build careers. With some colleagues, I have set up a platform that helps how these program interventions can have measurable outcomes. Mirroring the United States, I ask if we can adopt affordable technology and most importantly, sustainable funds for our projects. In order for our country to get a seat at the UN Permanent Security Council or a Seat at the G7 (+1), we cannot have living on less than $ 2/day. We cannot have 35% of our children under 5 years stunted. We cannot have a Global Hunger Index ranking of . And we cannot have of adolescent women suffering from anemia.

I heard your speech at the India Today Annual Conclave in Delhi. It reminded me of when I heard your speech at the 54th Convocation of IIT Kanpur on December 28, 2022. Hearing your intervention back then made me nostalgic for my experience at IIT. But I was surprised at some of your statements. You said that no general development took place in India during the first 25 years after independence. You claimed that our country made no effort to rebuild itself after 200 years of being pillaged by Britain. I am sure the young graduating students must have believed what you said about our country. I am concerned about how your words may affect their perspectives. I give you the benefit of the doubt since this seems to be an error on the part of your speechwriters. If you could hand over this letter to them, as a guideline for your next speech, I would be grateful. After all, one cannot erase history.

I was even more shocked when I heard your speech at the Conclave. You said that whilst your government has done more for India’s development in its eight years of governance than in the entire 75 years since independence, you enumerated the first 75 days of 2023. The highlights were winning an Oscar and the Women’s Under-19 World Cup in cricket. In fact, you made me wonder if we perhaps had gained independence in 2014 and you were the lone freedom fighter. Very few leaders in the last 100 years have single-handedly taken the credit for the success of their country on a global platform except for a few who should not be named. This to me seems like a questionable and audacious move.

Here are some stellar examples of the solid foundation laid down by our visionary leaders:

1. The of the famous dam Bhakra Nangal began in 1948 and finished in 1964. The dam’s irrigation provided the backbone of the Green Revolution which allowed our country to have surplus food grains. The Food Corporation of India was established on January 10, 1964.

2. Five IITs (one in every region of the country: Kharagpur, Bombay, Madras, Kanpur, and Delhi) were started from 1950 till 1964. There are now 23 IITs that produce engineers who work at the world’s leading corporations and academic research institutions. 

3. Three were started in the first 25 years, providing post-graduate studies in business administration. They operated on par with Harvard Business School and University of California, Berkeley. There are now 20 IIMs that provide senior leaders to the world’s largest corporations.

4. Many prestigious national laboratories for fundamental scientific research were started during the infancy of the republic, like the National Chemical Laboratory, the Indian Institute of Science, the Central Salt and Marine Chemical Research Institute Jamnagar and the Physical Research Laboratory.

5. Atomic research started with the establishment of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center under the Atomic Energy Commission. Thus, we became self-reliant in atomic energy.

6. Crucial research laboratories like the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Armament Research and Development Establishment, Akron Rubber Development Laboratory and the like were started with a vision to make our country self-reliant in defense.

7. Many companies and organizations of strategic importance were started. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bharat Electronics, Central Electronics Limited, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Indian Telephone Industries Limited and many more were established in the first 25 years of independence.

8. The Indian Space Research Program was launched and the Indian Space Research Organisation was established during this period. This has paid rich dividends to our country! We are now not only Aatmanibhar (self-reliant) in all our space missions, but we also provide this service to other nations.

9. The Indian Council for Medical Research was established in 1948. Many research and medical institutes set up under the Council in various areas of health sprouted across the country during the first 25 years. India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi was set up in 1956.

Sir, the list goes on and on. Our democracy invested its energy, blood, sweat and toil in the first 25 years to lay the foundation of this country. All this was done in spite of being raped by our colonial rulers. Poverty (75%), illiteracy (72%), lack of primary health care, a short life expectancy (27 years), epidemics and natural disasters leading to famine of the Indian people and continue to the present. Hats off to the vision of our freedom fighters and leaders of our young country who made great strides despite the odds. As Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said, as the clock struck 12:00 midnight on August 15, 1947: “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.”

I don’t know what to make of it. All I know is, without exception, everyone seems to be afraid, afraid of the outcome of the upcoming elections. Emotions are everywhere. What will happen to our lives if you retain power? When you do not respect the truth of India’s history, you really make a mockery of our intelligence.

As Indian citizens, let us recall the opening sentence of our constitution: “We the people.” India is the world’s largest functioning democracy. Our leaders should know this, and we will remind them of it collectively, lest they forget.

Prime Minister, I must speak my mind. To call it what it is. Even if I am labeled unpatriotic or an anti-national, I say this with confidence: I am really, truly proud to be Indian!

[ edited the piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post An Open Letter From an IIT Graduate to Narendra Modi appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Why we need to change the focus of education from productivity to personal growth

The current productivity of developed societies is more than an greater than it was prior to industrialization, far beyond what is needed to provide a comfortable life to its members. Productivity has only to increase as technology improves. Today, automation and AI are rapidly rendering most human contributions to their own survival , to the point that humans will soon no longer need to be productive anymore.

Because of this, the central objective of the education system no longer needs to be increasing productivity. Instead, we need to provide an environment in which each individual can explore their own interests and strengths. The problem is that the current educational system is still defined by the original productivity-oriented paradigm.

Despite living in hyper-productive and wealthy societies, outdated educational systems are impeding certain sections within these wealthy societies from improving their well-being to the fullest potential the developed societies can achieve. Schools in economically advanced countries continue to use the factory model of education. This model was developed over a hundred years ago for the needs of a society that was significantly less productive than it is today. This model stifles much of the personal growth potential of young people in order to assimilate them into a homogeneous, efficient, productivity-oriented society.

To remove the educational barriers to personal growth, it is necessary to create a new educational paradigm, one that empowers and motivates individuals to explore their potential at every stage of life. Describing how to accomplish this transformation of the educational model is a complex and lengthy task beyond the scope of this article. However, it is possible to explore what the goal of the new education model should be.

How to make the educational model transition

The new educational paradigm should provide the right environment to transform the powerful curiosity-driven cognitive and sensory explorations that are innate in young children into interest-driven ones in adults. Some argue that one should maintain curiosity throughout their life. But neurologically, this is not an option. Let me try to explain why this is the case by clarifying the difference between curiosity and interest.

is an involuntary “state of increased arousal response promoted by a stimulus high in uncertainty and lacking in information.” Once “curiosity has been aroused, the organism engages in a process of exploration to reduce the state of arousal.” Curiosity is also triggered by uncertainty and is only maintained only until the uncertainty is resolved.

In contrast, leads to a voluntary, continuous engagement in the search for information in order to increase knowledge. Interest is also generated voluntarily and can be sustained even after the initial uncertainty has been resolved by engaging and re-engaging with relevant content over time. In summary, curiosity is dominated by a short-term effort to close a knowledge gap, whereas interest is a medium- to long-term “ state in which individuals are engaged in learning more about a subject in general.”

Curiosity-driven exploration is essential for young children to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to become independent individuals, and involves taking energy-intensive cognitive and physical risks. Once the individual has acquired the knowledge and skills necessary to survive, curiosity gradually reduces, most often in the late teens. Thus, to facilitate continued personal growth into adulthood, it is necessary to replace productivity-driven learning with interest-driven exploration that allows individuals to test their potential and lead more meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Therefore, in order to go beyond survival and achieve personal growth throughout adulthood, it is critical that the educational system nurture students’ interest in cognitive and sensory exploration, even as innate curiosity wanes. Because of the scarcity of resources, a century or two ago, people could only strive to survive. Today’s hyper-productive societies offer the vast majority of people unprecedented opportunities that go far beyond mere survival. 

In older times, the standardized curriculum of the factory model provided the knowledge and skills necessary for society to progress. Today, it unnecessarily inhibits personal growth throughout adult life. It is imperative that developed societies recognize the need to replace this outdated model with one that prepares the youth to explore the vast opportunities that hyper-productivity offers humanity. The education system should be fundamentally revamped to become the starting point from where innate curiosity-driven exploration is transformed into long-term interest-driven learning. This will not only benefit the individual, but society as a whole.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why We Need to Educate for Personal Growth, Not Productivity appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Oh, and there’s also a first American edition of E.M. Forster’s novel Howards End. On the flyleaf, she inscribed this note: “Stolen by Suzanne Gordon.” As the bookplate on the cover’s interior indicates, it was indeed stolen from (or at least never returned to) The Free Library of Philadelphia. When did this bit of larceny occur? It would certainly have been after she married my dad in 1949, when she acquired his surname Gordon, so probably sometime in the 1950s. The good news is that the Philadelphia library still has several copies of Forster’s book on its shelves today, along with audiobooks and film DVDs of the work.

The bad news is that it’s among the books on the American Library Association’s list of most frequently banned classics.

Of course, the all-American penchant for banning books didn’t begin in the Trump era. Just ask almost anyone who the Red Scare days of the 1950s (not to speak of the first Red Scare of 1917–1920). But the last few years have seen a remarkable of attempts to keep certain books off the shelves of public and school libraries. The American Library Association an almost fourfold increase in the number of banning attempts between 2003 (458) and 2022 (1,269), most of that increase coming between 2020 and 2022. That this new passion for book banning coincides with the rise of Donald J. Trump, MAGA Republicanism and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s failed “anti-woke” presidential campaign is no accident.

The most benign Institution

Name any public institution — the US military, say, or a county welfare office – and it’s bound to have its negative aspects. Maybe you appreciate that the military is one of the racially integrated bodies in the country. At the same time, perhaps you’re distressed by its recent to US universities as a locus for the development of A.I.-powered autonomous lethal weaponry. Perhaps you appreciate that your county welfare office helps people get access to benefits they’re entitled to, like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits or health insurance. At the same time, you may not admire the mental and emotional the welfare system places on people working to secure those benefits, or the racial animus and disrespect they may encounter in the process.

I’d like to argue that there is, however, one institution that’s almost entirely benign: the public library. As I wish one could say about our medical system, it does no harm (though many right-wingers disagree with me, as we shall see).

What could be more wonderful than a place that allows people to read books, magazines and newspapers for free? That encourages children to read? That, these days, offers free access to that essential source of information, entertainment and human connection, the Internet? It’s even a place where people who have nowhere to live — or who are regularly kicked out of their homeless shelters during daylight hours — can stay dry and warm. And where they, too, can read whatever they choose and, without spending a cent use a bathroom with dignity — no small thing.

Free public libraries first appeared in this country in the late 1700s or early 1800s, depending on how you parse the institution’s defining characteristics. It’s generally , however, that the first dedicated, municipally funded public library in the world opened in 1833 in Peterborough, New Hampshire. A century earlier, Benjamin Franklin had the Philadelphia Library Company, a private, subscription-based outfit funded by members who paid annual dues.

While members of such libraries would indeed pay annual dues or even buy shares in them, libraries — some operated by publishing companies, others as stand-alone profit-making businesses — charged the public rent on individual volumes. At a time when books were very expensive, circulating libraries made them available to people who couldn’t afford to own the ones they wanted to read. Such libraries were especially attractive to female readers, the main audience for the expanding universe of fiction in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Private-public partnerships

I’m lucky to live less than a block from a branch library located in a classical-style two-story stone building. With almost floor-to-ceiling, deep-set windows, thick walls and a hushed interior, the Mission branch of the San Francisco Public Library is an island of peace in the choppy waters of my vibrant neighborhood. In many ways, the Mission is contested territory. Here, the children and grandchildren of Latin American immigrants compete for cultural and commercial space with a new group of migrants — the tech workers who love the Mission District for its edginess, but whose comparatively high earnings are pushing up rents for older residents and, in the process, sanding off some of those edges.

Still, the library serves us all without fail. It has children’s story hours, a bank of Internet-connected computers and shelves and shelves of books, including a substantial selection of titles in Spanish. Many mornings, I see snaking lines of tiny kids waiting for the library to open so they can listen to stories and exchange last week’s books for a new selection.

Public branch libraries as we know them might never have existed if it weren’t for the munificence of a single obscenely rich private donor. Like more than 2,500 others built worldwide, my branch is a library. It was constructed in 1916 with funds provided by the Scottish-American robber baron and steel magnate Andrew Carnegie.

Like every community seeking Carnegie money, San Francisco had to satisfy his specific requirements. It had to demonstrate the need for a public library. It also had to guarantee that it would provide an appropriate building site, salaries for a professional staff, operating funds once it was open, and services for free, as well as (perhaps most importantly) use public money (in addition to any private donations) to support the library. Carnegie believed that communities would only value and maintain their libraries if they were collectively supported by taxpayers. He also thought that libraries belonged in local neighborhoods where potential readers would have easy access to them, so early on he stopped funding the main libraries in cities in favor of neighborhood branches.

Almost 1,700 of these, along with about 100 university libraries, were built in the United States with his money between 1886 and 1929. Carnegie also funded them around the world from Canada and Great Britain to Mauritius, Fiji and New Zealand, among other places. In the Jim Crow South, Carnegie did nothing to oppose racial segregation but did at least apply the same approach and standards to the construction of libraries in black neighborhoods of segregated cities as in white ones.

In an age when today’s robber barons are investing their money in fantasies of personal survival, whether through or riding out climate change in luxurious in New Zealand or , it’s hard not to have a certain nostalgia for Carnegie’s brand of largesse. I don’t know whether Peter Thiel’s New Zealand “apocalypse insurance” will still be there a century from now, but my library is already more than 100 years old and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were still offering whatever the equivalent of books might be, assuming no ultimate apocalypse had occurred, 100 years from now.

Threatening the benign institution

You might think that an apparently harmless public good like a library would have no enemies. But in the age of Trump and his movement to Make America Grotesque Again, there turn out to be many. Some are “” outfits like the not-even-a-little-bit-ironically named for Liberty. M4L, as they abbreviate their name, was founded in 2021 in Florida, originally to challenge Covid-era mask mandates in public schools. They’ve since expanded their definition of “liberty” to include pursuing the creation of public school libraries that are free of any mention of the existence of LGBTQ people, gender variations, sex or racism. In effect, the freedom they are seeking is liberation from the real world.

You won’t be surprised to learn that M4L’s members have Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s 2022 and 2023 “Don’t Say Gay” laws, which outlaw any discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools, while making it extremely easy for parents or other citizens to demand the removal of books they find objectionable from school libraries

Other states have since passed copycat laws. In Tennessee, a school district MAUS, the bestselling Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, from its curriculum, thanks to eight now-forbidden words and a drawing of a naked mouse. (In doing so, it also the book back onto national bestseller lists.)

One Florida school district chose to play it especially safe, not limiting itself to removing commonly banned books like Push by Sapphire, the 1970s anti-drug classic Go Ask Alice and Ann Frank’s Diary of a Young Girl. , “Also on the list are ‘Merriam-Webster’s Elementary Dictionary,’ ‘The Bible Book,’ ‘The World Book Encyclopedia of People and Places,’ ‘Guinness Book of World Records, 2000,’ ‘Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus for Students,’ and ‘The American Heritage Children’s Dictionary.’” I guess the book banners don’t want to risk kids encountering any words they disapprove of in a dictionary.

Contemporary book-banning efforts extend beyond school libraries, where reasonable people might differ (a little!) about what books should be available to children, to public libraries, where book banners seek to keep even adults from reading whatever we choose. EveryLibrary, an anti-censorship organization, keeps a running total of active “legislation of concern” in state legislatures that relates to controlling libraries and librarians. They maintain a continually updated of such bills. (The number of active ones changed just as I was exploring their online list.) At time of writing, EveryLibrary highlights 93 pieces of legislation moving through legislatures in 24 states as varied as Idaho and Rhode Island.

In 2024, they are focusing on a number of key issues, including “bills that would criminalize libraries, education and museums (and/or the employees therein) by removing long-standing defense from prosecution exemptions under obscenity laws and/or expose librarians to civil penalties.” In addition to protecting libraries and their employees from criminal prosecution for stocking the “wrong” books, they are focusing on potential legislation that could restrict the freedom of libraries to develop their collections as they wish, as well as bills that would defund or close public libraries altogether. Sadly, as those 93 active bills indicate, in all too many states, libraries are desperately under attack.

Legislation pending in Oklahoma offers an interesting example of the kinds of bills moving through statehouses around the country. The proposed “ to Marxism and Defense of Oklahoma Children Act of 2024,” unlike some bills in other states, is not concerned with excising specific offerings from Oklahoma’s library shelves. Rather, it focuses on a key organization, the American Library Association (ALA), which, since 1876, has existed to promote and support librarians. One of the ALA’s most important activities is the accreditation of library schools, where future librarians study their craft.

Oklahoma’s “Opposition to Marxism Act” would outlaw all cooperation with the ALA, including a previously existing requirement that public librarians have degrees from ALA-accredited library schools. In this context, “opposing Marxism” means opposing the main professional organization for librarians and its Oklahoma affiliate. I imagine this has something to do with the ALA’s for “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion,” which any MAGA adherent will assure you is just another code word for Marxism.

Like mother, like daughter?

I’ve loved libraries since I was a small child. I used to regularly ride my bike to our local branch and return home with a basketful of books. With my mother’s permission to borrow books from the adult section, I had the run of the place. She brooked no censorship in my reading life (although I do remember her forbidding me to see the movie West Side Story because she thought it would be too sad for me).

I seem to have inherited my mother’s regrettable tendency to hold onto library books past their due dates. Or at least I blame her for that terrifying evening when I was perhaps 10 years old and heard the doorbell ringing. My mother called me downstairs to greet the two people on our doorstep. They were probably college kids but, to me at the time, seemed all too grown-up. They were there on a mission: to reclaim seven overdue library books. Fortunately, I knew where in my messy bedroom each one could be found and was able to round them up in a few minutes.

These days, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of my overdue books reclaimed that night wouldn’t even be found on library shelves in some states. (After all, I do remember that my mother introduced me to E.M. Forster when I was still pretty young.)

The tendency to hold onto books past their due date has, alas, continued to this day. Just this morning I received an email reminding me that I needed to return one that was squirreled away in my backpack. So, off I trundled to my neighborhood library, silently thanking Andrew Carnegie and the good people of San Francisco that I still have a library to go to and promising myself not to let any MAGA-minded fools take it away.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Introducing MAGA’s War on the Truth — and Libraries appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Boys struggle in Afghanistan’s new educational environment

The Taliban have received international criticism for preventing women and girls from attending secondary schools and universities. Still, their severe on boys’ education in Afghanistan have received less attention. Due to the Taliban’s harsh educational , which have resulted in the exodus of qualified teachers and regressive curriculum modifications, boys are too. There is a greater fear of going to school, a decline in attendance and a loss of optimism for the future. Consequently, the Taliban run the risk of producing a lost generation.

Since assuming power, the Taliban’s impact on boys’ education in Afghanistan is detailed in the Human Rights Watch entitled “Schools are Failing Boys Too.” The report highlights regressive curriculum changes, an uptick in corporal punishment, and the dismissal of female teachers, posing a threat to Afghan boys’ education. While global attention has focused on the Taliban’s bans on girls’ and women’s secondary and higher education, the substantial harm inflicted on the male education system has garnered less notice. The report’s author contends that the Taliban’s actions seriously undermine both boys’ and girls’ education in Afghanistan, potentially leaving behind a lost generation without a quality education and the nation’s educational foundation.

Between June and August 2022 and March and April 2023, Human Rights Watch remotely five parents and 22 boys in grades 8 through 12 across the provinces of Kabul, Balkh, Herat, Farah, Parwan, Bamiyan, Nangarhar and Daikundi. The Taliban, in a sweeping move, dismissed all female teachers from boys’ schools. This action left many boys with instructors or no professors at all. Boys now a surge in physical punishment, including public beatings for minor infractions like owning a cell phone or getting a haircut. The Taliban’s removal of subjects like athletics, English, the arts and civics has led to a decline in educational quality.

Worsening economic and humanitarian challenges in Afghanistan are forcing boys to and aid their families. In a landscape with mental health care, boys experience rising anxiety, and other mental health issues. Though the Taliban hasn’t explicitly barred boys from school beyond the 6th grade, their actions still the education of all children. Afghanistan’s of international law, specifically the right to education for all children, is evident. The Taliban’s systemic discrimination against women and girls adversely affects boys, reinforcing negative gender stereotypes and intensifying financial pressure to support their families.

Women and girls’ right to education from an Islamic perspective

The Taliban have made education worse for all children. Still, their exclusion of women and girls from post-primary education is particularly abhorrent.

In Islam, women’s education is as a fundamental and sacred right, aligned with key principles in the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted by the Islamic Council of Europe on September 19, 1981, this declaration upholds the sanctity of various rights, including life, property, religion and the intellect. Rooted in the Holy Quran and international human rights law, these cardinal rights, particularly the right to education, are essential to the deen (faith). The Quran emphasizes the significance of intellect (al-aql) as a divine endowment, allowing individuals to make moral decisions and strive for harmony (Q 17:70, 95:4, 2:30–34, 33:72). Reason serves as the basis for distinguishing right from wrong. For girls, education is not only integral to their faith but also pivotal in expanding knowledge, fostering critical thinking, and molding them into exemplary Muslims and community members. It empowers women and girls to harness the blessings bestowed upon them by Allah.

Education is a divine for both genders. The Quran and Hadith leave no doubt that women, like men, must pursue knowledge. With over 800 references to ilm (knowledge) and its derivatives, the Holy Quran underscores its value. Allah commands both men and women to seek knowledge and punishes ignorance. “Read” (iqra) is how the very first revelation to Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) begins: “Read in the name of your Lord, who formed humanity from a blood clot (Q 96:1–5) A basic of Quranic interpretation is that when a commandment is revealed, the feminine gender is likewise encompassed by it, regardless of whether the masculine version of the word is employed. Ignoring this principle undermines fundamental Islamic for women, including prayer, fasting, pilgrimage and almsgiving. The Hadith and Sunnah affirm the obligation for men and women to pursue higher education. By keeping women and girls from going to school, you are stopping them from carrying out Allah’s sacred mandate and interfering with their eternity.

The Taliban’s educational policies violate international law

The Taliban not only defy the laws of Allah, but they also violate the laws of man by denying education to their citizens. The Taliban regime must not overlook its international obligations under international human rights law and customary international law. Afghanistan became a party to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 2003. According to this convention, countries must eradicate stereotypes about gender roles from all levels of education and society.

Corporal punishment in schools also children’s rights, causing dehumanization, needless suffering and detriment to their growth, academic performance, and mental health. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child every child’s right to an education in a violence-free environment, and international law prohibits all forms of corporal punishment. Afghanistan, having adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1994, is committed to ensuring children’s rights to safety, education, and protection from violence.

There are relatively few policy options to deal with the Taliban’s stringent restrictions or prompt behavioral change. The group has shown resistance to international pressure. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and Muslim-majority countries have the Taliban to lift their bans, but no tangible changes have occurred, and the likelihood of increased OIC involvement remains uncertain.

International sanctions, thus far, have yielded no apparent results. Afghanistan’s dire situation struggles to garner attention amidst the international focus on issues in Ukraine and Gaza. It’s crucial for the global community to persist in highlighting the Taliban’s mistreatment of oppressed Afghan women and girls.

If the international community is not more forceful, options for Afghanistani children are indeed slim. For example, while offers a secure option for studying at home, millions of Afghan women and girls in remote areas lack internet access.

Governments concerned about the matter must exert pressure on the Taliban to lift their discriminatory ban on women’s and girls’ education and cease depriving boys of a safe and high-quality learning environment. The Taliban cannot flout Quranic directives on the right to education while adhering to an un-Islamic and regressive interpretation. Concrete steps, such as rehiring all female teachers, aligning the curriculum with international human rights law standards, and prohibiting corporal punishment, are indispensable.

The repercussions of the Taliban’s assault on the educational system are palpable now and will cast a long shadow over Afghanistan’s future. The urgent need for an international response to Afghanistan’s education crisis demands both swiftness and effectiveness.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Afghanistan’s Children Need a Change to the Taliban’s Educational Policies appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Unfortunately, one million children in Lebanon are deprived of a quality education today in addition to incomplete school terms in each of the past four years.

Lebanon’s economic crisis is an entirely caused by corruption. The World Bank has referred to Lebanon’s economic crisis as the worst the world has seen since the mid-19th century. The depreciation of the Lebanese Lira has understandably seen public school teachers go on strike for higher salaries, which amount to around $90 per month.

The pain felt by teachers is evident in a recent Centre for Lebanese Policy Studies survey, which findings that 73% of Lebanese teachers plan on leaving the education sector and three out of four plan on leaving Lebanon altogether.

However, even before the depreciation of the Lebanese Lira and the strikes, there were still issues getting teachers into classrooms. For example, teacher absenteeism was a widespread , and even the average work week under normal circumstances less time dedicated to classroom instruction — 10 to 15 hours — than the international benchmark, which is 20 hours.

Lebanon needs a vision for its education sector

Lebanon has been without a president for over a year, and the current prime minister and cabinet are only caretakers. Lebanon’s lack of government means it is unable to tackle meaningful reforms in education.

In a of Lebanese parents with students enrolled in public schools, 43% noted that schools lacked multipurpose rooms and 30% reported that schools lacked laboratories. This reflects a need for greater government spending on school infrastructure.

There are straightforward reforms that can make education more cost-effective and support better learning for students. For example, the adoption of solar energy could lower operating costs. Right now, electricity can sometimes cost up to of a school’s budget.

out of ten children in Lebanon also face high acute food insecurity, and so the provision of food and water at school also has great potential to improve the quality of learning.

Support from the international community is needed

The biggest challenge for Lebanon’s public sector is getting both teachers and students back to school. The biggest obstacle is the funding mechanism, given that teachers’ current salaries cannot even cover the cost of their commute to work. For this reason, a donors’ conference should assemble to coordinate both financial assistance to the education sector and to identify reforms to improve the sector. It could include both states and non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and diaspora groups.

Western countries should also understand the significance of private schools to Lebanon’s education sector. The of Lebanese students — 60% — are enrolled in private schools, and while Lebanon is home to some very elite private institutions, many private schools provide a quality education to disadvantaged students across the country with tuitions of only $150–$300. 

While many private schools have religious affiliations, they are committed to respecting Lebanon’s religious diversity and do not proselytize students from different backgrounds. For example, many Catholic schools educate predominantly Muslim student bodies who are exempt from the religious instruction offered by those institutions. The private sector has to be seen as a partner for the international community.

This should be treated as a priority for Lebanon and the region

Lebanon is faced with the prospect of a “lost generation.” Where will the one million youth go who do not have an education today?

The future of Lebanon cannot be held hostage to the country’s political elite, and the international community should not condition additional support for the country’s youth to political reform. Lebanon’s youth are victims of a failed system, and they are owed access to a quality education.

The Lebanese government and international community must prioritize the plight of Lebanon’s youth. A “lost generation” of over one million young people would have disastrous consequences for Lebanon and the wider region for years to come.

This article excerpts findings and recommendations from the recently released policy “How to Prevent Lebanon from Experiencing a ‘Lost Generation,’” published by the American Task Force on Lebanon.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Lebanon’s Youth Are Deprived of Hope in Education appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Scores of misconceptions surround the nine-century-old university. Sometimes, these misconceptions are merely about appearances — for example, photographs capturing the city’s architectural grandeur abound, to the exclusion of sleek modern buildings. Other misconceptions have to do with matters of real substance, such as the admissions process.

The things you don’t need to worry about

I have been an interviewer for the English course over the years, and I know firsthand that prospective applicants and teachers alike can fall prey to misinformation about the interview. Recently, I went on to create a few short, accessible videos about better and worse ways to prepare for the Oxford interview. In one of them, I spoke about four things that students should not be focusing on as they prepare.

The video received a lot of attention and, naturally, sparked a series of questions. Since social media platforms favor brevity over detail, I will take the space here to expand on these much-discussed pointers: 

1. You don’t need to dress formally.

“What’s wrong with dressing formally?” followers chimed in the comments section of my video. The answer is, nothing. The point of the matter is that there is no expectation that the interviewee should do so, even though this runs against common belief. You might feel that formal dress puts you in a more professional or academic mindset, and in that case, you should follow that instinct. But it is not a requirement, and it should not come as a surprise if an interviewer shows up in a hoodie, either.

2. You don’t need to prepare for questions like, “Why Oxford?” or, “Why this college?”

The interviews are an important part of the admissions process because they help academics appreciate applicants’ enthusiasm and aptitude for a particular subject. Interviewers have no interest in the reasons behind your choice of Oxford University as one of your five university choices. Further, interviewers are often not aware of which Oxford college you put down as first choice on your Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) form, or if you submitted an open application. This makes preparing for such questions entirely superfluous; they will never come up. However, tutors do pay a lot of attention to why a candidate wants to study a particular subject, and in a way, this is the entire point of the Oxford interview.

3. You don’t need to research tutors’ academic interests.

There is nothing wrong with reading up. However, it is unlikely that looking into a tutor’s specific interests will help your interview performance. Firstly, it is impossible to predict who exactly will be conducting your interview. Tutors are often on research leave, and candidates may sit up to five different interviews, each made up of a new interviewing panel. Additionally, the interview materials are agreed upon in advance by tutors working in different areas. Therefore, the problem, piece of work, artifact or dataset that will form part of the interview discussion could be drawn from any area or period.

4. You don’t need a final question.

At the end of an interview, the panel will inquire whether you have any questions for them. This is not part of the assessment, but a gesture of reciprocity. The final question is extended to the interviewee as a reminder that the interview is an academic discussion, not a one-sided interrogation. But you should only take the opportunity if you have a genuine question that you cannot easily answer online. In all other cases, not having a question to ask is perfectly acceptable.

Why did I choose to focus on these four points? During my access work with schools in the West Midlands, I learned that a lack of information could put students at risk of wasting a significant amount of time and energy on things that are not part of the interview assessment. This takes time away from the things that matter.

The things you should focus on

So, what are the things that matter? I made this the topic of a different video.

Here are some tips on how to prepare.

1. Practice expressing your thoughts out loud.

Interviewers are trying to understand how a student thinks, so it is best to avoid being silent.

2. Take advantage of digital resources.

You can find Oxford-produced mock interviews on Youtube. One way to practice is to pause a video and practice responding out loud. Then, you unpause and listen to the answer of the mock interviewee. Notice a difference? Do some research on the topic and take notes.

3. Remember that it is ok to change your mind during the interview.

Interviewers may provide you with new information that could change the way you see a topic. Flexibility of thought is essential. The interview is an exercise in working through a question or problem with an expert in the field, not an inquisition during which students are expected to offer up facts and perfect, preconceived responses.

4. Carefully reread your own personal statement.

Interviewers may use your personal statement to form incisive questions about your prior engagement with the subject you are applying for. So, make sure that you are prepared to discuss anything you have mentioned there. Remember, however, that these questions will be academic. Any non-academic questions asked at the beginning of an interview are merely ice-breakers and do not form part of the assessment.

5. Remember that your interviewer is a person, too.

Tutors at Oxford are people who spend their time teaching and researching a subject. Their prime concern is that students thrive in their courses and enjoy their time at Oxford. This is the only thing they are looking for during the interview.

Remember that the interview is only one part of the admissions process. It is always evaluated alongside other admissions data. My best advice to all those preparing for the interview, now or in the future, is this: Think critically and in-depth about your chosen field of study and engage with it as much as you can outside school.

Finally, try to enjoy the interview itself — it is a unique opportunity to talk about something you are passionate about with experts who share the same passion.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post All You Need to Know About the Oxford Interview appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The best data we have reflects the reality of this increased risk: , , and threats are all on the rise. With the mass normalization of hateful, extreme and conspiratorial views through the political system—at the time of writing, there are active anti-LGBTQ Bills in the US—these trends will not improve on their own.

Schools are in a unique position to help young people build up resilience against radicalization. Not only do they have regular access to students, but, for reasons I will lay out below, many already implement programs that indirectly develop resiliency skills through social and emotional learning (SEL). To illustrate this, we need a working understanding of extremist mindsets.

Why do youth hold radical beliefs?

In recent years, radicalization research has made significant strides in understanding what differentiates extremists from non-extremists. Key to this has been what are called “structures of thinking.” Structures of thinking relate to , rather than simply what one thinks: the ways we process and organize information.

Extremist beliefs have been linked with lower levels of , such as a tendency to see the world in terms of black-and-white, and of , which is one’s ability to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. Extremist beliefs have also been linked with an inability to update views following and a preference for intuitive (and emotionally reactive) thinking rather than .

While it is unclear whether these factors are direct causes of extremism, the important point is that extremists—irrespective of ideology—tend to possess specific structures of thinking alongside the beliefs themselves. Developing and maintaining healthy habits of thinking presents a direct way to build resiliency against extreme ideological messaging. 

A potential solution: learning techniques

It will come as no surprise for those familiar with SEL that it has the potential for developing positive structures of thinking. The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) five focal competencies of SEL: self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. 

Each of these factors addresses the ways in which people think. By developing social awareness and relationship skills, it is easier to identify and validate different points of view, and by extension to reconcile them—i.e. to achieve integrative complexity. Integrative complexity, as mentioned above, reduces the propensity to hold radical beliefs. 

SEL works, and it is supported by years of data. In one study, for example, schools saw both short and long-term decreases in and after two years of SEL implementation.

Social and emotional learning techniques can shed light on mental habits that encourage extreme thinking. These techniques limit school violence by enabling students to protect their own minds against violent impulses. We can take the same techniques which schools have been using to counter bullying and apply them to ideological extremism as well.

There are significant reasons to prefer SEL over other counter-radicalization proposals. Instead of developing new and untested programs, we can take advantage of something we already know how to use. SEL is already in schools, it already works, and teachers are already trained to implement it.

Moreover, schools are much better set up for prevention than counter-terrorism programs run by law enforcement. Law enforcement has shown itself poor at identifying problem youth, using profiling techniques that have proved not only ineffective but discriminatory, thereby of radicalization.

Perhaps most importantly, developing positive structures of thinking builds long-term resiliency through tools that can apply to any radical ideology, not just the ones which law enforcement may be especially concerned about at any given time.

Bridging the gap

The case that building SEL competencies can mitigate risks of youth radicalization is strong. However, there are valid concerns about how equipped we are to harness this potential.

First, teachers will need new training to identify different types of online extremist rhetoric so that they have relevant examples to instruct on. Training teachers themselves in SEL will also be key. Teachers need to lead by example to reinforce these positive structures of thinking daily.

Second, SEL programs need to explicitly address online literacy. Since the Internet is where the majority of ideological messaging takes place, students need to know how to apply SEL competencies there. Social psychologists are developing that could be helpful online.

Can We Build Social Trust in an Online World?

Third, we need new data on what kinds of SEL best build resiliency against radicalization. While these are likely similar to the ones that have proven effective in violence prevention, there will be differences. Radicalization and education researchers who traditionally do not work closely need to come together to learn from each other.

All the above steps will require significant effort. However, as I hope to have demonstrated, the increased risk of youth radicalization and the repercussions this could have make it more than worth it. If we hope to challenge youth radicalization, we will need innovative change. But we are not running blind: SEL curriculums provide a welcome toolbox to build resilience competencies en masse.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How to Combat Youth Radicalization Using Learning Psychology appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The New York Times has its own concerns with education. It is now yanking the alarm cord on a crisis that has remained under the radar for too long. NYT’s education reporter, Sarah Mervosh reports that, like a tsunami, this new is “sweeping” everything in its path. “A revolt over how children are taught to read, steadily building for years, is now sweeping school board meetings and statehouses around the country.”

We learn that the movement has a name, and one that we should take very seriously. “The movement, under the banner of ‘the science of reading,’ is targeting the education establishment: school districts, literacy gurus, publishers and colleges of education, which critics say have failed to embrace the cognitive science of how children learn to read.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Science of reading:

Principally in the United States, the name of a realm of human knowledge invented to allow researchers and campaigners to lobby for the adoption of specific methods they believe can be formalized to the point of standardization, the implicit ideal applied to everything in US education.

Contextual note

Mervosh provides no definition of the science. The remark cited above about what she refers to as “the movement” specifies not what it consists of, but who it is “targeting.” We should take this as a clear indication that the social phenomenon she is describing should be thought of as closer to a marketing operation than an area of intellectual inquiry. In other words, it doesn’t appear to be what we would traditionally categorize as a “science.” But in an age when people, and the media in particular, swear by the “science of marketing,” why shouldn’t we welcome a science of reading? So long as the traditional scientific community doesn’t rise in revolt against what Mervosh has describes as a “revolt,” it’s probably best to let ride the issue of whether the movement is a science or a sales campaign.

The closest the article gets to leaving the impression of its being a science appears in a sentence that alludes to a body of research, an activity we do generally associate with science. Here is how Mervosh explains, not so much the science itself as the need it addresses: “Research shows that most children need systematic, sound-it-out instruction — known as phonics — as well as other direct support, like building vocabulary and expanding students’ knowledge of the world.”

That sounds reasonable, but what does it mean in terms of educational practice? The article tells us, fatalistically, that: “Many children are not being correctly taught,” as if we should be surprised or even revolted. It also tells us triumphally, that after drawing “support across economic, racial and political lines” mobilizing a diversity of “champions,” success is nigh. “Together,” we learn, “they are getting results.”

In other words, the home team –  let’s call them the “Scientists” – appear to be winning. At one point, Mervosh even reports the score. “Nearly 60 percent of third graders are now proficient in decoding words, up from about 30 percent at the beginning of the school year, progress Mr. Palazzo [the principal of a low-income school] hopes will translate to state tests this spring.”

The problem with the article is that by the time we get to this and a few other anecdotal instances of failure or success, we still don’t know anything about the science itself – its fundamental principles, its strategic orientation  – and even less about how it works. For example, the case of Mr Palazzo begins with a bit of history. “His school had been using a reading program by the influential educators, Irene C. Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell, whose work has been questioned by science of reading advocates.” Fountas and Pinnell then seem to be on the bad team, since they have been critique by the “scientists.”

But we then learn that they too claim to be scientists. “Dr. Fountas and Dr. Pinnell pointed to research supporting their program and said ‘countless schools’ had achieved positive results.” “Countless” means that it was a rout. There’s no reason even to report the exact score.

In the following paragraph we learn that Palazzo’s school “used grants, donations and Covid relief money to buy a new phonics curriculum. The school also recently added 40 minutes of targeted, small-group phonics at the end of every day.” We can only deduce that Fountas and Pinnell were guilty of neglecting phonics and that their neglect prevents us from considering whatever they did – it is never described – as scientific.

Much later in the article – after more than 50 paragraphs – we receive a serious warning. “There is also the danger of overemphasizing phonics.” We still have no idea, despite the cascade of paragraphs, of what phonics is and how it works other than the idea that when it is employed, language is voiced out loud. Now, after being told it is the secret to scientific success, we must be careful not to overemphasize it.

Historical note

The New York Times has historically cultivated its own particular type of “serious journalism” designed according to the dictates of US culture, where “big is better,” “size matters” and quantity can always serve as a substitute for quality. Throughout its history, NYT has produced numerous examples of solid, impactful and sometimes game-changing journalism that, in the best cases, has had the power to mold Americans’ perception of issues and events. The tradition continues, but a parallel tradition that relies on an accumulation of data to mask a dearth of insight has grown up alongside it.

The hallmarks of any of the great NYT articles of the past have been the engagement of the reporter present on the terrain as events play out and sufficiently immersed in the topic to produce a convincing thoroughness of treatment. The great articles are always lengthy in order to justify the claim of being comprehensive. The author expects the reader to leave with the impression that the journalist has left out nothing essential to understanding the issues.

Unfortunately, when the substance is lacking, the clever strategy designed to create the illusion of thoroughness risks producing an impression of chaotic confusion. The accumulation of factoids and random remarks produces an effect of dancing around an issue about which the journalist has no clear idea. This inevitably leaves an impression of overload and unnecessary complexity. Tolerant readers may blame themselves for not having the capacity to understand the subtle reasoning of the journalist and the multiple experts cited. But a closer examination reveals that, in these boilerplate “in depth” articles, the cumulative effect serves to hide not just the lack of an insightful message but also the journalist’s capacity to produce any.

Despite its length, this article that claims to address the serious issue of literacy never defines the nature of the problem that provoked the “revolt” it describes.  Nor does it point even vaguely in the direction of solution. Paragraph after paragraph, it presents random observations and dissociated judgments. The consistent lack of any kind of logical or stylistic transition between paragraphs is endemic. It appears to be NYT’s way of saying we’re not leaving anything out, even if we have no idea how all these things connect.

This failure of journalistic strategy may, in the end, be a deliberate game of smoke and mirrors. The method now routinely infects an increasing number of  NYT articles. In my analysis of articles related to Russiagate, Havana Syndrome and other purely political themes, I have regularly noted how NYT journalists often forget — but more likely hide — what any true investigator would signal as the basis of an original insight or an undiscovered truth. In the most cynical cases, the journalist will conveniently “bury” the most salient element in the story inside a trailing paragraph lost somewhere in a string of unconnected observations.

It is legitimate to wonder why the Gray Lady continues with this practice. The simple answer is that… it works! Readers expect it. It stands as a sign of the paper’s seriousness. Which leaves us with one more question to ask: What does this say about a society that considers such journalistic practices normal?

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.

Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Reading the New York Times’ Confused Reading of Reading appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Generation Z or Gen Z, defined as those born between the years of 1997-2012, are increasingly involved in their respective countries’ national politics, especially in the US where hot topic issues such as abortion rights are at the forefront of current political discourse. While domestic politics have caught their attention, this generation is not  as engaged in foreign policy and global politics. Much of this stems from the fact that there is little to no comprehensive education surrounding international affairs in public schools. In the US, where the Common Core curriculum is used, there are no specific for international relations courses at the K12 level.

Furthermore, Common Core standards can vary from state to state. Some students may receive a more comprehensive education about global affairs. Oftentimes, global politics or international relations courses aren’t even offered for students to take to fulfill the social studies requirements necessary to graduate high school. The option to take such courses is typically offered to students involved in specialized programs like the International Baccalaureate or Advanced Placement programs. This also leads to a lack of equal opportunity, as many of these programs are offered at schools in higher-income neighborhoods. Additionally, to even complete these programs and those similar to it, students have to pay hundreds of dollars for materials and final exams, therefore leaving those who cannot afford it, behind.

Why education now needs to include foreign policy and international affairs

As the rate of globalization and social media/internet use rise in conjunction, young people are best positioned to connect with the global community. Gen Z is more tech-savvy by nature, having been the first generation to  grow up with technology. This means they have an advantage, and a more natural desire to leverage social media and the internet for the benefit of progress and change.

Young people are also usually the ones who spearhead social, political, and cultural movements and uprisings; evident throughout history. For example, the Arab Spring, Romanian Revolution, anti-war movement(s), and the Tiananmen Square Protests were all either initiated or largely carried out by young people. Even today, the recent revolutionary protests in   prove that the youth  typically always play a large role in political and social movements.

Looking at patterns from the past to better understand the future is an aged concept; it’s one of the main reasons we study history. However, as our world becomes more interconnected by the day, the need to be aware of what is taking place on the global stage is becoming increasingly crucial. For a generation that has ‘seen’ the world like no other, and is naturally exposed to political discourse, public opinions and tragedies, not giving them a comprehensive background in its functioning is foolish. For example, knowledge of tactics and weapons used by the Russian government in Syria could have benefitted global understanding of the aggression in Ukraine. It could also alert us to potential strategies they may use, if studied closely. 

Obviously, the first step to becoming civically engaged is being educated, reiterating my original point, the youth needs to be clued into global affairs in their formative years. Beyond education, young people also need to start being actively included in discussions surrounding global affairs. We have ideas, solutions, and the passion to get things done. Broadly speaking, young people always have untapped potential, and it’s important for us to have a seat at the table.

[Aashnaa Shah edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post High Time for Gen Z to Become More Worldly appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Attention, in the most basic sense, is a creature’s informational-management strategy. We use our attention to determine what matters, where it is, and whether I can trust it? Vertebrate attentional systems evolved over hundreds of millions of years to let a body use and trust its senses. The brain’s hardware learned to squeeze meaning from scenes like the savannah, scenes containing multiple tiny, faint cues. To a sensory system, faint statistical outliers are eye-candy, attractive,like sugar, precisely because they are rare.  Attention works properly only in a world of sticks, stones, sky, people, fauna and flora, and not much else. Man-made things distract and mis-direct human attention even without meaning to.  And now they mean to and are built to do so, automatically and at scale. 

At the finest level, tiny pixels use microsecond tuning to draw our eyes toward interesting things which aren’t there.  Video games anticipate our anticipation in order to dose us with dopamine. Social media synthesizes the illusion of friendship. Search engines synthesize illusions of meaning. Smartphones rule from our pockets.  Smartphones are the grandest intruders, allowing multinational corporations skilled at using science to design what we will see, believe, and love.

They have successfully commandeered and monetized the growing brains of children and are inflicting widespread damage, according to a powerful new book by the psychologist who saw this coming thirty years ago.  Decades ago Dr. Susan Linn was a child psychologist (and puppeteer!) who appeared on the famous US childrens’ show Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.   Seeing firsthand the damage done to kids by marketing and monetized play, she founded the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (now Fairplay). It is among the few child-advocacy groups accepting to follow neuroscientific principles, and not accepting corporate money. Now Linn is a professor of psychology at Harvard. 

The best possible book on the topic

With that background Professor Linn is the best possible person to write this book.  And she has produced the best possible book.  While her sentences are often professorial (of course!), there are plenty of cute anecdotes, appearances of charming children, wry observations, and tales of comically misguided products, like the video game advertised to make going to sleep exciting (p. 104).  For a relentless point-by-point compendium of why moneyed interests must be kept away from children’s play, Who’s Raising the Kids still provides a remarkably funny, easy read.  While it employs US examples for a US audience, her reasoning applies outside the US as well, and will probably be easier to act on in those other places.  This book is for the world. 

Most thoughtful people already know that commercial influences are bad for kids, so they don’t need to read this book.  They don’t need its ruthlessly clear thinking and comprehensive, evidence-laden summary of fifty years of scientific study, because their parenting instincts are already fine.  Besides, pondering such depressing content is a grim reward for reading what one already knows.  On the other hand, some responsible officials hoping to make their case may demand even more powerful evidence., Some might even hold out for the formulation of undisputed natural laws to provide them with the clout to successfully rearrange budgets. I’ll give them such laws at the end, since that’s my professional specialty. As a general rule, many parents already have the evidence. They don’t need even the best book imaginable to tell them about the obstacles to raising functional children provided by a market-saturated world. 

Facebook Wants to Read Your Brain

READ MORE

On the other hand, if you are in a position to influence children or guide their experiences—as a superintendent, teacher, nanny, app designer, marketer—you must read this book.  Your ignorance would be a moral hazard when other people’s children are entrusted to your care. And when you finish digesting its contents, to double your investment. Mail your well-thumbed copy to your favorite venture-capitalist or corporate executive, since they need wisdom even more than you do. Ignorance is no excuse when truth is so important, and easily available.

Professor Linn’s barrage of evidence is overwhelming: the wasteful excess of crinkly packaging around toys, kids falling in love with characters from ads, apps designed to spy on kids. Her list of all the easy ways there are to make money from kids’ innocence goes on and on.  Like taking candy from a baby.

After this book, there should be no dispute that markets threaten children’s sanity. Only Self-serving industry will of course gripe about how impractical solutions are to protect the status quo.  Those gripes are true as far as they go, because the only sustainable solution is a tough sell in a pro-capital society. It implies neutralizing market forces present in domains affecting kids. So, in a word, this book is about changing everything.

This book is so good, the best possible review need only use Professor Linn’s own words. Which I will do. No reviewer could add anything more than praise to this magnificent work, except perhaps a commonsense explanation of how this crisis has been mounting for thirty thousand years, and what society must do to save future generations.  

Who’s Raising the Kids, Compressed

Herewith the titles and a few representative lines from each of the thirteen chapters of Who’s Raising the Kids by Prof. Susan Linn (To each quote I append in italics a dense comment using the technical language of trust-formation, to simplify a unification at the end).

Chapter 1: What Children Need and Why Corporations Can’t Provide It

 “The more a toy or app drives the form and content of children’s play and the more the characters or the toys kids play with are linked to popular media properties and franchises, the less children get to exercise curiosity, initiative, creativity, flexible problem-solving, and imagination.” (p. 19)

Comment: Children’s innate learning algorithms need autonomy and real life detail as inputs.  Standardization, broadcast, and synthetic attractiveness undermine those algorithms by restricting freedom and damaging data, and thereby undermine learning and trust.

Chapter 2: Who Wins the Games Tech Plays?

 “Technologies are problematic when they optimize profits at the expense of the health and wellbeing of individuals and the larger society. Yet no independent review of the potential harms and benefits is required before they go to market.” (p. 35)

Humans evolved to capture attention from each other in real life, and to defend ourselves from it. Now cheap and tireless machines capture our attention all the time, everywhere. They are inhumanly designed to dodge our defenses. Accumulated micro-distractions and micro-deceptions erode everyone’s trust and mental function. Yet regulators cannot agree either about how to limit the overall damage, nor even about how to measure it in the first place.

Chapter 3: And the Brand Plays On

 “When commercial values dominate children’s environment, kids are in danger of losing out on exposure to some of the best human values, such as altruism, generosity, nonconformity, and critical thinking.” (p. 69)

Our brains evolved to associate meaningful phrases with actual human values (e.g. Motherhood, God, Country).  When a child’s mind instead locks onto a slogan optimized for attractiveness by a focus group, the child fixates on something slippery which can never teach it trust.

Chapter 4: Browse! Click! Buy! Repeat!

 “When corporate executives talk about reducing friction, some of what they mean has to do with reducing external barriers to buying, but it also means reducing or eliminating our intra-psychic friction—the cognitive and emotional brakes that enable us to set limits on consumption. For that reason, kids are not just fair game for advertisers—they are essential targets.  Their immature capacities for judgment and impulse control render them especially susceptible to marketing messages.” (p. 81)

The younger a child is, the more innocent its brain, apt to believe the propositions it is exposed to, the longer damage to learning will last.  For a child to waste crucial brain-cells learning bad habits and things which are not true is a tragedy, while for a marketer those represent long-term investments.

Our Alexanders are not Jesuses, nor Mohammeds

READ MORE

Chapter 5: How Rewarding are Rewards?

 “In nurturing environments where there are opportunities to explore the world on their own terms, young children are intrinsically motivated to learn, to gain competence, to strive for autonomy, and to satisfy their curiosity.” (p. 107)

Natural environments (unlike synthesized ones) can be instinctually explored in continuous space and time, exactly what a brain evolved to do. Only interaction with unbiased, natural statistics allows a brain’s zooming algorithm to converge on trustworthy solutions. Alternative statistical profiles, such as artificially “intermittent rewards,” undermine that algorithm by over-stimulating dopamine release.

Chapter 6: The Nagging Power of Pester Power

“Except for the fact that children and families are being harmed, there’s something darkly comic about living in a commercialized culture that thrives on business models dependent on encouraging obnoxious behavior in children. No sane parent would welcome people into their home whose every interaction with children is designed to instill in kids such intense desires that they nag incessantly to get them fulfilled.  Yet that’s exactly the goal of all advertising to children.” (p. 123)

Messages and interactions optimized to produce revenue from children must of course somehow free that money from the family coffers. But using children to communicate a sales pitch inserts family conflict and undermines trust.

Chapter 7: Divisive Devices

 “Whether with reluctance or open arms, we have invited into our homes powerful, seductive entities designed to generate profits by monopolizing our attention. And they don’t give a damn about our family relations or our children’s wellbeing.” (p. 131)

“Like all other nervous systems, ours evolved to forage, not produce. Humankind uniquely produces things that captivate our senses, and now they do” more than ever. (, p. 2334)

Chapter 8: Bias for Sale

 “A society’s material culture simultaneously reflects and influences the values, norms, preferences, and taboos of that society. Stories and toys represent a significant component of the material culture belonging to childhood, and they profoundly influence how children make sense of the world around them, including how they view and experience themselves and others.” (p. 154)

Stories and toys sell better when optimized for pre-existing concepts and stereotypes. Oversimplified ones sell best of all. But when it comes to social values, pre-existing means backwards-looking, and simplified means caricatured. Backwards-looking caricatures describe regressive attitudes like racism, sexism, and mercenary individualism. Those are already built into mass-produced communication, but kids absorb them fastest.

Chapter 9: “Branded Learning”

“Because [corporate-sponsored teaching materials] are often slickly produced, require no up-front cash outlay, and can bypass school boards and be sent directly to teachers, they may appear to be a godsend to cash-strapped schools.” (p. 169)

Corporations have money and underfunded schools have young eyeballs, so an inevitable market-driven (but corrupt) transaction lets corporations disguise their advertising as educational material, offered to schools for free. But there is no such thing as free information. In this case kids and society pay the price.

Chapter 10: “Big Tech Goes to School”

“The value of quality, teacher-driven instruction is well supported by research. There is no credible research supporting industry claims that online, personalized learning programs improve academic outcomes. Test scores do not rise. Dropout rates do not fall. Graduation rates do not improve.” (p. 185)

Human brains evolved to learn from physical objects and physical people in real life.  Pixels and frames on screens are so chopped up, they only carry one millionth of the detail young brains need to trust their eyes, as long-established laws of neuroscience prove. So screen-based inputs of any kind not only don’t help reading and writing, they cause actual harm to seeing itself. 

Monetizing Children’s Brains Means the End of Our Species

READ MORE

Chapter 11: Is That Hope?

 “In the United States, two types of laws would help to stop tech companies from exploiting children.  A national privacy protection law, which we do not have, and adequate laws protecting the rights of children, which we also do not have.” (p. 199)

As long as US law more successfully protects growing capital than growing brains, capital will damage children.

Chapter 12:  Resistance Parenting: Suggestions for Keeping Big Tech and Big Business at Bay

“Six principles of child development to help adults make decisions about introducing tech to young children:

1. Young children live and learn in the context of social relationships.

2.Young children use their whole bodies and all their senses to learn about the world.

3. Young children learn best and benefit most from direct, first hand experience in the world of actual relationships and objects.

4. Young children are active learners who learn by inventing ideas.

5. Young children build inner resilience and coping skills through play.

6. Young children make sense of the world through play.”

(p. 210)

All humans, young children especially, evolved for interaction in the three-dimensional real world, which is our native sensory interface. Synthesized inputs, or even real inputs selected for impact, provide fake data and thus undermine real learning. 

Chapter 13:  Making a Difference for Everybody’s Kids

 “I am for a world where children are universally valued for who they are, not for what they or their parents can buy. Where family and community values no longer compete with commercial values for precedence in children’s lives. Where kids have lots of “in the real world” time with their friends and with the adults who love and care for them. Where their friendships can flourish without interference from, and monetization by, tech and media companies.”&�Բ�����; (p. 239)

The environments in which brains grow and learn best are the natural, socially supportive ones for which they evolved.  Because all experience is training data for a growing mind, commercial interference damages learning in often irrecoverable ways.  Monetizing children’s brains means the end of our species. 

Facebook Rebrands Itself After a Fictional Dystopia

READ MORE

The Battle for the next generation’s sanity

This point summarizes Professor Linn’s book. The sensory and social needs of growing children are actively opposed by the needs of capital. Widespread and growing monetization technologies are already eating the brains of our young.  Legally. And sometimes the young even like it.

Attention is easy to harvest because humans offer it so freely. But that doesn’t make the ethics of attention-harvesting different from those of organ-harvesting. Both attack vital biological systems, and thus share a dysfunctional dynamic which, above a very low threshold, ensures that revenue can only derive from inflicting  harm.  As targets, children provide the easiest profit and suffer the longest-term damage.

In recent years bosses and hiring managers worldwide have privately lamented the latest generations’ poor social skills, low attention span and diminished motivation, to say nothing of their defective team spirit, absence of critical thinking and decline in physical endurance. Young people now don’t simply work as well as earlier generations. Studies confirm these mass deficiencies, which happen to be the same problems this book reveals.  Thus, the decision made decades ago, under US President Reagan, to expand the dissemination of kids’ ads has now exploded into what one should expect: sad, damaged, dysfunctional adults everywhere.  The economy is already hurting from how it abused human brains twenty years ago, long before today’s far more invasive technologies took hold.

Although Linn doesn’t stress this point, the class of guilty parties is obviously not limited to large corporations. .Tiny startups and lone influencers can also do damage as they desperately flail about to attract  revenue and attention. The problems Linn points to are deep systemic ones: How can society neutralize a wide class of market mechanisms which have been optimized for hundreds of years to produce revenue by any available means, including means that  have a damaging effect on  children? Is it reasonable to think we can stop capital from doing what it’s best at? Legislation—like the Five Rights bill in the UK and COPPA2 and KOSA in the US—is a start. But it’s not enough.

As of now, the biggest companies in the world have promised their shareholders money produced by  strip-mining the brain-cells of future generations. Can that be stopped? Seen from the coldly mathematical of information flow through space and time, the problem is even worse than what Professor Linn describes. And the possible solutions will inevitably be more profound.

It Started with Cave Art and Loincloths

Allow me a parable. A long long time ago, in Paleo Paradise, people were only exposed to each other and Nature, and paid attention accordingly.  But human interests are fickle, so to manage them somebody, let’s say a proto-administrator, invented figurines and cave art for people to look at, and loincloths to keep them from looking away. Ever since then, humans have seen less and less of each other and the natural world our sensory instincts evolved for, and more of man-made things which exploit those instincts. In fact as a species we’re proud of those creations. We call them art.  When they make money, we call them entertainment or advertising.

The takeaway message is that attention has long been for sale, but it’s never been so cheap. The ancients had salesmen, but not rack-mounted computers serving a million times the harassing sales pitch for the price of a human salesman and with no qualms about the quality of the message.  A few decades ago new active technologies—radio, television, video, cable, internet—let machines represent live talking people. Recently, the ability of The Machines — designed to micro-monitor, micro-monetize, and micro-prod — increased hundreds-fold thanks to the omnipresence of mobile devices. As a result, machines now capture attention far too efficiently for human sanity and safety.  The open security holes of our nervous systems have been utterly hacked. Human communication is corrupt in every medium but the air we breathe.

Roughly, a species whose intimate, subtle social communications evolved through a million years of live campfire singing, dancing, and group hugs has in a couple generations become thoroughly immersed in ever-more-mesmerizing panoplie of blinking things, whose primary purpose is to capture attention and induce belief.  And those things work. The bandwidth and authenticity of human interaction has been dropping steadily since cave-times. Now humans know less and less how to feel, to move, to see, or to connect with one another in more than caricatured ways. The mechanism at the core of the problem is recordable communication. Things like texts, tweets, likes and videos are not even empty calories in terms of biological signals. They provide no calories at all. Our nervous systems are failing from informational starvation, and trust — the essential cement of human society — is dying by the year.

If you worry about Platform Capitalism and the Rise of the Machines, then think about this:  robot-toys, robo-calls and robo-therapists pretend to be our friends, but secretly they obey their spreadsheet overlords.  

The Science of Rebuilding Trust

READ MORE

Grand Projects

Humanity has solved problems this hard before, or almost as hard.  Water-pipes made of lead, exploding boilers, crashing trains and cars, toxic food, fake accounting, risky drugs, filthy restaurants, the list goes on and on of tricks we’ve learned to keep the things we make from killing us. As a general rule, when society realizes that saving or making money here creates danger over there, it makes laws and sets up snap inspections. Think financial enforcement, or health inspectors who check that restaurant dishwashers use water that’s hot enough.

Killing bacteria by turning up a thermostat is straightforward.  Killing the influence of money in communication is far harder, since at present capital owns the major channels and doesn’t want to part with them.  In that light, here are some angles for regulators to use in protecting children from toxic commercial interactions:

Disclaimers don’t work; double-blind does.  Any self-respecting judge, I hope, would laugh out of the room the legal fiction that a printed disclaimer will insulate the unconscious against manipulation. The unconscious doesn’t work that way. Learning requires autonomy, so all manipulation harms it.  Fortunately manipulation can be measured objectively, as advertisers do, using randomized testing (“A/B testing”).  As long as regulators can look over the shoulder of marketers measuring ad impacts, honesty has a chance.

Disgorgement discourages damage.  Ill-gotten data, like ill-gotten money, should poison the well. If for example algorithms are trained on kids’ private profiles, or on racist historical data, not only should the data be purged, algorithms and workflow trained on it should be wiped clean.  As an incentive principle, the ease by which technology violates trust must be balanced by draconian consequences when it crosses that line.

Transparency brings balance.   Trust only works when everyone has the same high-quality information.  So private claims about ad “eyeballs” or behavioral impact — the kind of claims companies use to get money from investors and advertisers — must be equally available to the public and to regulators, because those claims are proportional to the public harm being done.

Health Not Test Results.  Until kids again become happy, energetic, social, curious, and motivated, they should get more music, art, live games, and physical activity, and less of everything else, especially technology.  Written tests of academic performance mean nothing compared to live 3-D tests of nervous system function.

This month, the US Senate is considering two laws which would help the situation enormously: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0), and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).  The Senators who vote should read this book.
In fact, Who’s Raising the Kids should be required reading everywhere, especially in countries (like France) with strong protections for public health. But also in countries (like India and Pakistan) whose advertisers seem proud of teaching kids to nag and pester parents (p. 117).  When well-paid grownups brazenly brag about wrecking kids’ relationships, children are doomed.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Capital Eats Its Young appeared first on 51�Թ�.

I have been thinking about this subject matter for some time now and could not help noticing that there are as many International Financial Institutions/Regional Development Banks/Funds as there are SDG’s! That is as inefficient as it is unsustainable.

COVID-19 has to a large degree pushed back the realization of these global goals and slowed down whatever dynamic previously existed. It’s time to get the machine going again and full throttle this time. The long and the short of it is that all the development partners must urgently reconsider deploying their current approach towards the delivery of their development finance work aimed at the recipient countries. This is the only way we can cover the lost ground and hope to achieve the SDGs by 2030. 

The UN must exercise its leadership

The first idea that comes to mind is for the United Nations (UN) to step in and encourage the International Financial Institutions, the Regional Development Banks and Funds to refocus their future country partnership frameworks, strategies and programming priorities. They must move away from the present overstretched exposure and instead zoom in on just a couple of SDG’s. That  means that each IFI/MDB/Regional Bank/Fund should be thinking about taking the lead in targeting at least two key SDGs while studiously avoiding overlap from the others. At the same time it means pulling back and placing less emphasis on the remaining SDGs. This would be a vast improvement over the current muddle in which each International Financial Institution Bank and Funds tries to target all the SDGs at once.

For example, the World Bank Group could take the lead in SDG1 & SDG10. At the same time the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) would focus on SDG2 & SDG15 and so on. These are just examples. But if this is done, each developing country in the world will have a diverse (and a more specialized) set of institutions, banks and funds addressing all its 17 SDGs. This contrasts with the current ineffective way in which everyone is trying to do too much at once and then wondering why nothing is successful! 

Of course, each country will still have the obligation to continue to address all its applicable SDGs. But the International Financial Institutions, Regional Development Banks and Funds need not be distracted by attempting to attain all the development goals of the same country at the same time. When each development institution focuses on what it does best, it has a much better chance of supporting the developing countries in their quest to catch up on what is missing or lagging behind concerning their SDGs.

Is Sustainable Finance More Hype Than Hope?

READ MORE

Moreover, it would become paramount for all the International Financial Institutions, Regional Development Banks and Funds to meet regularly, preferably every quarter until 2030, which has been designated as the final year set to reach the global goals. This should become the most urgent global development agenda item today. It would be the ideal means of reaffirming the message of seriousness in the pursuit of these goals. We absolutely must redouble all our efforts in the fight against poverty since development partners and developing countries need to be continuously involved in a dialogue permitting them to discuss among themselves and report on progress. More crucially they must decide on the redistribution of the SDGs among themselves, in other words, which partner will be leading, and which one will be supporting which goal.

This in my opinion is a much more efficient way of allocation of scarce resources. It takes into consideration the spirit of the “Paris Declaration” by instilling amongst all the development partners and countries the ‘H.O.R.M.A.’ principles: H=harmonization, O= Ownership, R= Results, M=Mutual-accountability, and A=Alignment.” That is the best way of putting back on the agenda of development cooperation the question of “who is jointly-responsible for which country’s development program and results”.

An SOS call

The above proposal is a “Save Our Ship/Souls” call. It is required since there seems to be no other way today to reach these global targets by 2030 other than seriously rethinking, refocusing and redefining our current process in “delivering development.” This is also an open call for International Financial Institutions, Regional Development Banks and Funds to refrain from their current “keeping up with the Joneses” routine, which has led to many replicating and duplicating each other’s work, with the added effect that they become stretched so thin they accomplish little or nothing at all. As one famous Arabic saying goes, these global goals end up looking a bit like “blood spilt among the tribes” as no single International Financial Institution, Regional Development Bank or Fund can be explicitly held responsible for the realization of any single goal.

How the G7 and UN Can Make Multilateralism Sustainable

READ MORE

In summary, each development partner would focus on its comparative advantages and what it can deliver best rather than trying to address all the 17 goals or 169 targets under the SDGs. This should also move the current dialogue from being an internal ‘beauty contest’ to an external “global plan for action.” And since the developing countries will always be in the driving seat, the institutions, banks and funds must continue to facilitate this process and shoulder more responsibility with regard to the decaying human condition.

On a final note, we have a UN Security Council that seeks to prevent the killings of innocent people by preventing wars or conflicts. We now urgently need more than ever a similar but Socio-Economic Council within the UN with the teeth to prevent the death of millions of humans who die every day as a result of abject poverty, hunger, and spreading diseases due to the misallocation of scarce natural and human resources. This might be the last chance for the UN system to make a real impact and a difference to unite for peace and development.

I do hope and pray that the SDG’s will be achieved by 2030, but for this to happen, we must all act together and NOW, and embrace with utmost care the delivery of development cooperation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post When Sustainable Development Goalkeepers Fail To Make A Stop appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A Descent into the ‘Win At All Costs’ Dark Side

Well before the 21^st century, a steady-state tradition had built up in democracies whereby freedom of speech was often passionate, but nevertheless generally respectful, even when opponents evoked vehement disagreement. Such popular periodicals as Private Eye, Le Canard Enchainé and Charlie Hebdo continue the tradition of satirically speaking truth to power, as do many newspapers, while academics continue to expound their theories and opinions in a variety of academic channels, and sometimes in the popular press. While often controversial, vigorous, and even barbed – and whether impartial or partisan, measured or polemical – the essence of this tradition has been the principle of engaging, debating, analyzing, weighing, informing, and coexisting.  This is all in the public interest, so as to develop and promulgate the most powerful arguments rather than the arguments of the most powerful.

This social contract of normative behavior started to break down noticeably towards the end of the first decade of this century, coinciding with the rise of social media. It has degenerated to such an extent that by now this civil standard is regarded by a significant minority as a contemptible relic that must be abandoned. Increasingly, respect for opposing world-views and opinions has been jettisoned in favor of a shrill determination to crush anyone whose ideas challenge one’s own preconceptions. 

The arguments of the most overbearing and ‘shouty’ now swamp the most powerful arguments with their disproportionate noise and impact. In essence, it is a bullying and bellicose ‘win at all costs’ approach, which might have been taken out of an imaginary ‘Megalomanic Dictator’s Guide to Advancement and Self-Preservation’. According to Ukrainian academic, Anton Shekhovtsov, the claim that Putin is a real – and arguably fascist – is a case in point. Individuals and groups at all levels in society may display remarkably similar characteristics to Putin’s ruthless determination to dominate others with little or no concern about the resulting harm. As Ignazio Silone’s 1930s semi-autobiographies Fontamara and The Seed Beneath the Snow chronicling survival in a fascist society reveal, ‘fascism’ – both in the popular sense of overbearing nastiness and as a political ideology – is characterized in daily life by such mundane personality flaws as envy, greed, vanity, resentment,  inadequacy, entitlement, sociopathy, criminality etc.

The following cases exemplify the new intolerance, including the much abused ‘weaponisation’ of the terms ‘fascist’ and ‘anti-fascist’ by countervailing interests.

Case A: Extreme Commentators and Agitators

The extreme statements by Donald Trump during his 2016-2020 US presidency are infamous. was an avid user of his Twitter social media account and had few qualms about issuing personal rants in undiplomatic – and certainly un-presidential – language against a wide range of individuals and groups that he decried. These included senior US politicians, government officials, judges, war heroes, foreign politicians and heads of state, as well as journalists, film stars, sportspersons, and celebrities, but also Mexicans, Muslims, Iranians, disabled persons, refugees and many other objects of his disdain. 

In Trump’s narcissistic world-view, there is a dichotomy between winners/predators like himself and losers/victims who deserve all their problems and suffering and who, moreover, may be dismissed as unpatriotic, “socialist” (i.e. crypto-communist) agitators. To him, a loser is anyone lacking his personality and world-view or daring to challenge or criticize his ideas or policies, even constructively. Such Trumpian abuses have been widely discussed, for example by Roger Paxman, Kevern Verney, and Alan Waring in and Denis Fischbacher-Smith, Clive Smallman, Antony Vass, and Alan Waring in . As Smallman noted, such “toxic leadership is not ‘luck of the draw’”.

Trump’s combative style has helped to polarize political debate in the US and encourage partisan non-cooperation between the Republican (GOP) and Democratic parties. This has continued into the subsequent Biden administration. Moreover, Trump’s attitude and conduct (most notoriously his ‘dog-whistle’ priming of a radical-right mob to the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021) gave a further green light to an expanding group of radical-right GOP Congress members. 

A growing caucus of such – including Andy Biggs, , Ted Cruz, , , Ron Johnson, Ron Paul, and –has done so, to the extent that the GOP is no longer seen as a ‘one-nation’ conservative party. Instead, it has become a populist radical-right (and potentially far-right) party in which mainstream Republican politicians are increasingly intimidated and marginalized by their more outspokenly extreme colleagues. The of Kinzinger and Cheney are especially instructive here.

Trump (an outspoken of Putin and his aggressive nationalism, with a notable ambivalence towards his Ukraine invasion) and his GOP allies have been joined in their intolerant statements by a bandwagon of like-minded fringe political commentators and agitators. They have been adept at using their media spaces to vilify naysayers and stridently promulgate radical-right opinions – even extreme ones – as well as absurd conspiracy theories (such as ). Among these are , and, at News, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham.

Until recently, the gigantic and belligerent radical-right megaphone system in the US has not been mirrored by anything similar on the radical left.

Case B: Cancel Culture in Higher Education

In recent years, there has been a trend for some university students to demand that their lecturers must not include any content that these students may find objectionable, and that university authorities should ban lecturers or speakers whose intellectual views they may not like . Students taking part in such have become known derisively as . In some instances, protests have turned .

Student cancel culture runs counter to the primary purpose of university education, which traditionally aimed at developing constructively critical analysis rather than prejudicial rejection. Indeed, intellectual challenge and discomfort is a necessary part of university education as a means of developing understanding and sharpening evaluative skills. 

In considering how to shape academic freedom, especially in the digital age, we have seen undue pressure applied to individual academics who have published opinion pieces causing offense to some readers. Noting that an opinion is typically a subjective and biased view of an issue –even when given by an acknowledged expert, since no one’s world-view is value-free or experience-free– researcher Jaime da Silva : “Pressure-induced retractions of opinions not only stifle academic debate, they also send the message that opinions need to be moderated and standardized to meet a publishing market that is being increasingly driven by legal parameters, political correctness, as well as business and commercial values rather than academic ones.” Yangyang Cheng writing for The Atlantic also concomitant business, commercial and, occasionally, political pressures. Da Silva continued, noting that “the way things are said, tone, and the sensitivity of those that might be affected are given greater weight than the message itself. By cherry-picking parts of the message that detractors or critics might disagree with, the original message may be drowned out by the noise of the objectors.” The requirement for universities to show proper integrity and firmness against such pressures has never been more urgent.

Case C: Counter-Extremist ‘Cancelled’ for Not Being Anti-Fascist Enough

A stout rejection of fascism could be assumed to be a sine qua non for any member of a body comprising doctoral and post-doctoral fellows dedicated to the analysis of the radical right and countering any associated extremism. Indeed, one such body that for years had been proud of such credentials was what I shall call the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Research Group (hereafter RWARG), a pseudonym used here to save any possible embarrassment. All members were required to contribute non-peer reviewed opinion pieces regularly to the RWARG’s flagship online blog. One such member, Dr. Smith (another pseudonym), had been doing so for some years without controversy when unexpectedly his latest article received a blitz of vituperative reaction online from some fellow members.

Their ire had been provoked, it seems, by his observation that whereas most attention was deservedly focused on the radical right, and the latter’s propensity for the use of threats and even violence to achieve their aims, some radical-left supporters were also now advocating similar tactics against the far right. Although he referenced some specific US examples of violent actions, and articles implying, if not specifically advocating, violence from so-called ‘Antifa’ groups, the RWARG’s online blog editorial policy did not require opinion-piece authors to meet the standards of a double-blind peer reviewed academic paper in order to justify every statement. After all, as da Silva observed, an expressed opinion is typically “a subjective and biased view of an issue”, and blog articles are intended to provoke thought rather than necessarily to inform impartially or, indeed, comprehensively. Moreover, this example validates da Silva’s observation that “the sensitivity of those that might be affected [is] given greater weight than the message itself.”

The thrust of Dr. Smith’s piece was thus to challenge the notion that it is ever acceptable to use or advocate violence as a political policy, strategy or tactic, and cited the well-worn heuristic that ‘violence begets violence’. He was debunking the sophistry that it is morally acceptable for anti-fascists (of any hue) to resort to violent tactics, whether reactive or pre-emptive, against radical-right extremists simply because the latter may have a violent predisposition.

The hysterical reaction to Dr. Smith’s piece was orchestrated by a cabal of members and like-minded academics who went on the offensive first by circulating a strident denunciation of the author,signed by over twenty individuals and demanding a radical reorganization “to prevent far-right members from joining and subverting the organization”. After each signatory’s name, the designation “anti-fascist” was added, presumably for the avoidance of doubt. 

The cabal then hastily organized an online fellows’ conference in order to discuss Dr. Smith and his article, as well as to present demands for an overhaul of the RWARG’s editorial policy and a radical reform of the Group. Their apparent objective was to (a) prevent any further opinion pieces criticizing anti-fascist aggression, (b) prevent anyone gaining membership whose views did not fully meet the cabal’s concepts of fascism and anti-fascism, and (c) expel any member who transgressed the cabal’s new criteria. Partisan censorship of articles that offended the cabal had now become a high risk.

To this author – an attendee of the online meeting – the exercise resembled a Stalinist show trial. Apparently, Dr. Smith was neither invited to attend nor informed that he was, in effect, ‘on trial’. Not only was his offending article canceled but so too was his membership.

A further circular from the cabal continued the professional and character assassination of Dr. Smith. However, it also vilified Professor Jones (another pseudonym), the co-founding Director of RWARG, accusing him of complicity in Dr. Smith’s ‘crime’ for defending the rights of members to hold different viewpoints, as well as attacking his personality and character. Unsurprisingly, the Director and a number of members resigned. This cabal thus achieved a successful insurgent coup led by self-righteous and self-validating ‘anti-fascist’ zealots. Although continuing to proclaim its ‘broad church’ membership, the new RWARG would only be tolerating those closely allied to the new illiberal orthodoxy. Those with a liberal or centrist abhorrence of fascism would not be welcome since, like Dr. Smith and Prof. Jones, they would no longer be considered anti-fascist enough.

For the new RWARG elite, ‘fascist’ is primarily an all-embracing term for anyone in the radical-right spectrum outside and to the right of mainstream conservatism, whether or not a true, revolutionary, fascist as traditionally defined. However, their use of the term now apparently also encompasses liberals, centrists and mainstream conservatives. To them, a ‘fascist’ is anyone who is not 100% ‘anti-fascist’ by their standards i.e. not as anti-fascist as the RWARG cabal claims to be. Such widespread overuse and misuse of the ‘fascist’ and ‘anti-fascist’ labels has devalued them to near junk status, whether used by academics-turned-frustrated-anti-fascist-warriors or by audacious hegemons such as using fascist tactics against his enemies while accusing them of being the real fascists. 

Conclusion

Politics and the media share with academia an overriding responsibility to identify and promulgate the most powerful arguments, not those of the most overbearing and ruthless. Nor should counter-extremism be hijacked either by zealots or by those more interested in their self-promotion, intellectual vanity, or performative feelings of superiority. Regrettably, this standard is being increasingly ignored by those who should know better.

Politicization and ruthless pursuit of intolerant ideology are replacing civil dialogue, precluding any engagement with or understanding of other world-views. Audiences are subjected to unsolicited rants and intimidating toxic messaging, while individuals singled out as ideological enemies are treated to aggressive ‘wilding’. Subversive ‘freedom of speech’ defenses are thereby exposed as little more than an excuse by zealots to obliterate other people’s freedom of expression.The ugly tactics of some extreme politicians, activists, commentators and ‘snowflake’ students, as well as some self-styled anti-extremists, all reveal an essential illiberalism and a corrupted spirit. The relentless outpouring of vile invective against anyone expressing a contrary opinion is indicative of a deep-seated paranoia and possibly some level of personality disorder. While there is no magic antidote to all this wickedness, sociologist and democracy activist Moshe ben Asher as an essential starting point the radical revitalization of democracy (especially in the US) through popular assemblies. Moreover, there is a desperate need for greater humanity and mindfulness in our dealings with others, friends and adversaries alike.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Thought Crimes: the Shameful Undemocratic Wilding of Contrary Opinion appeared first on 51�Թ�.

 I have lived much of my life in sight of the magnificent spire that is the centerpiece of the college. 

My father told me he had met a man who sat on the cross which is at the very top of the steeple. He enquired how the man had managed this miraculous feat.  The man paused for dramatic effect and then revealed that he had been present when the steeple was being built and the cross was lying on the ground, waiting to be erected. So he sat down on it, so that he would have this tall story to tell for the rest of his life!

Any time I looked at the steeple I thought of my father’s story, but I have to admit I did not give a lot of thought to what was going on in the shadow of this magnificent steeple within the walls of the college.

Professor Michael Mullaney and Father Tom Surlis will give you an outline of their plans for the college. I hope the discussion today among people of many diverse backgrounds and generations can enrich the plans Michael and Tom have.

I would like to say why the work here is so important.

We need priests and religious.

We also need an educated Catholic laity capable of spreading the message of Faith confidently.

The Education of Priests Remains Vital

First, let me say something about the core task of this seminary: the formation of priests. What did Vatican II say  in 1965 about the role of priests? It said their “primary duty is the proclamation of the gospel of God to all,” and, in the words of St Mark’s Gospel, to “go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

But Vatican II also referred to Catholics as those who “understand or believe little of what they practice” and added that the preaching of the word is needed for the “very administration of the sacraments.” If that was an uphill task in 1965, it is even more so today. Families are going through the motions rather than trying  to understand what Baptism and First Holy Communion for their children are really about.

Vatican II put the Eucharist at the center of everything the Church does. It said, “The Eucharistic Action is the very heartbeat of the congregation of the faithful, over which the priest presides.” The mystery of the Eucharist is central to everything, and that is what makes the education of priests so important, because without priests there can be no Mass. In the words of Vatican II, “priests fulfill their chief duty in the mystery of the Eucharistic Sacrifice”

Building Communities at the Parish Level is Key as in the Early Church

Vatican II also observed: “The office of the pastor is not confined to the care of the faithful as individuals, but is also properly extended to the formation of a genuine Christian Community.”

I think Irish priests do the first of those tasks very well. But, unlike churches in the US,  I fear they do the second task, the formation of genuine Christian communities in their parishes,  less well. Our churches are not even physically designed to encourage people to meet easily after Mass, and to make contacts that help form a “genuine Christian Community”, based and centered on the Eucharist as per the wishes of Vatican II. This is an essential first step towards the involvement of lay people in the work of the Church. Practicing Catholics are a minority in Ireland, and they need to support one another .

The Increasing Responsibilities of Lay Catholics and the Synod

In 1965, Vatican II said that priests should “confidently entrust to the laity duties in the service of the church, allowing them freedom and room for action.” This will be put to the test, 57 years later,  by Irish participation in Synod.

How many sermons have been preached in Irish parishes, explaining what the Synod is about, explaining its opportunities and , of course its limitations? I do not feel that job has really been done adequately in every parish, although I am sure it has been done very well in some.

Moving on from the formation of priests, let me say something about the formation of lay people who will play an increasing role in the Church. As I see it, this college can play a vital part in the moral, spiritual and intellectual life of the Irish people.

Filling a Void in Thinking in Ireland

The college could ask questions that go beyond the temporal and material concerns that occupy most of our waking hours in modern Ireland. It could help people to be comfortable considering deeper questions about life.

For instance, what happens when we die? Is this life all there is? Can we communicate with God? Does he hear us? What constitutes a good life? Does it have meaning beyond doing no harm, and causing as little pain as possible to others and to ourselves? What are the obligations we have to other human beings, to human lives born and soon to be born? How do we best cope with suffering and setbacks in our lives? How do we keep them in proportion in our minds?

Not everyone will answer some of these questions in the same way. Many will never even ask themselves these questions at all, claiming to be agnostic. I take the view that this type of agnosticism is a form of laziness.  It is not to be confused with the residue of doubt that all of us have after we consider these questions, questions to which there is no simple empirical answer.

But if, as a society, we avoid questions like these, we are, in a sense, not living our lives to the full. This college will enable people, lay as well as religious, to become comfortable discussing profound questions, thus helping them to live their lives to the fullest, with all of life’s complications.

There is no doubt Ireland is a very different country now to the one into which I was born in 1947.  There is immensely more material wealth now than then. There is less deference now than then. There is less of an obsession with respectability, an obsession that was the cause of many abuses in which society implicated the Church and vice versa.

We have lived through rapid change, a change in what people regard as more or less important. In other words, we have lived through a change in values. Laity and priests can respond to this change either by taking refuge in a past that never really existed, or, alternatively, by just chugging along optimistically and ignoring unpalatable trends, hoping that it will all  turn out alright in the end.

In a recent address to priests, The Pope took a very different view.  He said we should instead “cast out into the deep” as per the words of St Luke’s Gospel, trusting in our God-given discernment to find the right path. Helping a new generation of Irish people, lay and religious, to find the right path, to learn from mistakes, and to correct their course when necessary will be the task this college will undertake through the priests and laity it educates.

The Limitations of Individualism

In 21^st century Ireland, there is a much stronger emphasis than before, on the rights of each individual. These rights are growing in range and scope, and are being litigated through politics and the courts. But the emphasis is heavily on rights, and on the individuals who are to enjoy those rights, rather than on the community as a whole, on shared responsibilities, or on the common good.

Social media has also facilitated the pursuit of celebrity, a desire for personal recognition.  This is sometimes accompanied by a desire not to be judged oneself, but to be free to judge others harshly, hastily, and anonymously. “Taking offense” can become a weapon in our culture wars. Feelings can be elevated, above thought, and above careful objective reflection.

The banal truth is that for every right, there must always be a concomitant responsibility. On whose shoulders does the responsibility rest? On the state and the taxpayer, on the family, on the local community or on the courts? Finding a formula to answer such questions was one of the goals of Catholic Social Thinking, which will no doubt be part of the academic activity in this college in the years ahead.

The best antidote to the problems of excessive individualism is a well developed values system. By this I mean a way of evaluating what is more important, and what is less important — without dismissing anything as unimportant. That requires judgment, and we must not be afraid to judge.

It is important to remember that Catholic Social thinking is social. It is about society, rather than just about the individual, and not just about the individual’s desire for self esteem and recognition. Our Church has always emphasized the importance of community, community among believers and community with wider society.

The fact that Ireland has a strong spirit of organized volunteerism still today is due, in no small measure, to the heritage of voluntary organizations formed by, and around, the  Catholic Church. That heritage must be preserved and enhanced. I have no doubt Maynooth, through its programs of part and full time education for lay people will contribute greatly to this.

The college will be continuing, as I said before, its vital core responsibility of educating the priests and the religious laity of the future.  As I have said, It will be preparing priests to do their work in a very different world to the one that priests ordained in the 1960’s faced.

There will be radically fewer priests, fewer people going to Mass, and a much more crowded and unsympathetic communications space through which the Church can communicate its message. As far as Catholicism is concerned, Ireland has become a mission territory.

New Skill Sets for Priests

In the past, the priest could do much of the work himself. In the future, he will have to work increasingly through lay people, most of them unpaid.  The skill set of a priest of the 2030s will center on motivating others to do the work, rather than doing it all himself.

Motivating and sustaining volunteers is a skilled and demanding job, in which the priests and the religious laity of the future must become expert practitioners. The priest of the future will have to share power, while at the same time, ensuring that the essential doctrines of the church are accurately conveyed.

Indeed, education in the doctrines of the church will become more and more important . This is because we live in a world in which people of faith want to be listened to but also crave clear answers.  There is a real tension between the desire to be heard, and the desire to be led. And it is a tension that will be expressed in the Synod. Faith and reason must sit together in the Synod.

In the past, we may have become used to having clear answers provided for us by church teaching. For some of us, controversy between leading church figures is troubling, even upsetting. We want a clear line we can follow, not a cacophony. That is a feature of politics too, and the church can learn from politics. Parties with too many competing messages do not do well in elections.

And yet we know, from daily life as well as from Scripture, that some situations are hard to fit within a single line of thinking. We need an educated and tolerant laity, educated and tolerant priests, who are willing, as the Pope said, to “cast out into the deep” and have confidence in themselves.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Education of Priests and the Future of the Catholic Church in Ireland appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Exposition

The characters were few. But the characters were memorable. First and foremost, there was me: a woman and recently turned 60 and traveling by air. Second, the dratted QR code. How laughable that QR should stand for ‘quick response’ – but that’s a bit of foreshadowing. Third, the waiter in the lounge. Fourth, my savior.

The time was morning, around 8am. The place was Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. Specifically, an airport lounge. Not the Air Canada one, but the one for the rest of the airlines, the children of lesser gods.

The Front Story

The plot was short. The plot was simple. On a lengthy trip begun very early in the morning, I was transiting through Toronto and I went to the airport lounge to get some breakfast and I sat down at a table and I looked around for the menu. No menus were visible. But there was a sticker on the table with a QR code. So I pulled out my cellphone and I turned on the camera and I tried to scan the code. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The code and my camera blissfully ignored each other. I looked at my phone’s camera setting but couldn’t figure it out. I was reminded of Ernest’s reflection; “ little we know of what there is to know.”

But I was not going to let such a small thing stop me from getting food. As Ernie counseled, “ is no time to think of what you do not have. Think of what you can do with what there is.”&�Բ�����; So I walked up to a waiter and I politely explained that my camera was not recognizing the QR code and I asked if I could please have a hardcopy menu. The waiter told me they had no hardcopy menus. Then I asked if he could just tell me what they had on offer and I could give him my order. He said he could not and I would have to scan the QR code to find out. I explained again that my camera was not picking up the QR code. To which he replied the equivalent of “Too bad” and left. Fortunately, a fellow traveler who had overheard our exchange stepped in and saved me. “ is a thing that comes in many forms and who can recognize her?” … or rather him. First, he took my phone and tried to scan the QR code … to no avail. Second, he rapidly flipped through various screens and then resigning, mused aloud that perhaps my phone was old. He said the word as though it was something bad, something distasteful, something to be got rid of. Lastly, using his phone, he ordered breakfast for me. Battle over, bruised, humbled, and thankful, I ate.

The Back Story

My story had a happy ending, but why did there even have to be a story?

I realize that QR codes can be very useful for businesses in providing a lot of information about a product or service to customers while using very little space. I see that QR codes have become ubiquitous – such as in restaurants, the travel industry, and advertising. Ironically, even many services specifically targeted for the elderly have QR codes. QR codes are now often used to offer information on a variety of health issues – such as how to care for a fracture, the dosage of medication to take, and post-operative care. I also understand that, over the course of covid, businesses have resorted even more to QR codes to offer touchless services and to make up for staff shortages.

But what happens to people who don’t have a smartphone or don’t have a smartphone advanced enough to pick up QR codes or don’t know how to scan a QR code? Does it mean they don’t get to eat? Does it mean they can’t avail of services they’re entitled to? Does it mean they are ostracized from participating in society?

My story was a non-event – a non-serious situation in which I had other easily available options. I could simply have stepped outside the lounge and found a Tim Hortons to satisfy my breakfast needs. But what happens when the needs are more essential and there are no options? Like the in China who could not use the subway because he could not access his own health QR code. In New Zealand, during a covid outbreak, who could not scan the QR code of their bus could not be easily traced later. Even showing the proof of vaccination QR code on their phone when traveling or going to a restaurant can be difficult and stressful for the elderly.

The Epilogue

I wonder if in our unreserved rush into automation and an information society, we are leaving some people behind. A 2021 noted that 14% of Americans in general find QR codes hard to use. Amongst the elderly, this number rises to nearly 20%, with 18% never having heard of QR codes. Currently, the are about 55 million in the US (about 16% of the total country population), 7 million in Canada (over 18%), 100 million in Europe (nearly 20%), 35 million in Japan (over 28%), and over 700 million globally. And the percentage in this age group – along with their – is expected to only increase in the near future.

The presence of QR codes should not negate the need to present information in other forms. Just because a restaurant has a QR code does not mean it can do away with all hardcopy menus. I get that in the time of covid people want to avoid touching and retouching menus. Then why not also put up the menu on a screen or board? Or have sufficient staff who can take a moment to tell you what’s available. Making QR codes the only way customers or clients can access information may actually reduce accessibility for the technically challenged who weren’t born with a phone in their hands as well as the economically challenged who may not have the latest smartphone or even a smartphone at all. And yes, possibly also the ‘age challenged.’ Papa may well have been referring to QR codes when he pondered, “ if you keep on learning or if there is only a certain amount each man […or woman] can understand.”

Hemingway may have taken an earlier and  easier way out when he ended his life with his own hands at the age of 61. Perhaps he understood only too well the challenges that lay ahead when he sort-of said: “The kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”

(This article was edited by Senior Editor Francesca Julia Zucchelli.)

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Old Woman and the QR Code appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The theoretical foundations were pioneered by philosophers and psychologists, with major contributions from Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. They produced a philosophy of education generally referred to as “constructivism.” Its fundamental premise is that knowledge is holistic, meaning it is constructed non-linearly through the accumulation of varied and interconnected learning experiences. It opposes the standard linear approach practiced everywhere that breaks the process of learning down into the mechanical presentation and assimilation of formally defined facts, rules and principles.

sums up the major principles that underlie Finland’s vision for educational efficacy.

• Cooperation trumps competition.
• Teaching is a profession respected in the community.
• Research on learning trumps political reasoning.
• Experimentation and diversity of teaching styles are encouraged.
• Playtime is a valuable and necessary part of the learning experience.
• Homework is banned to avoid distorting the emergence of knowledge.
• High-quality pre-school focuses on the preconditions for active, cooperative learning.

Finland is of course a small country of 5.5 million people on the northern edge of Europe. Recently, reformers in many nations have made desultory attempts at applying Finland’s success story to their own educational environments. The quest has been elusive, for a number of cultural and political reasons. One American commentator, for example, that “Finland’s educational system was driven by a culture that supports a strong social contract,” something absent in US culture. An even stronger argument is that the educational systems of other nations, with much larger populations, are so entrenched politically and economically that reforming them is a challenge beyond the capacity of their governments.

reports an initiative in India with the potential to presage a massive cultural revolution. “Schools offering activity-based learning over textbook-based education,” the article affirms, “are emerging across India.” The article describes a process that represents “a sharp break from the doctrinaire approach that has long dominated Indian education.”

How is it then that India, with the largest student in the world (an estimated 315 million), appears to be moving towards adopting the Finnish philosophy? 

How Do People Learn?

READ MORE

European education was once organized around the humanistic principle of “the liberal arts.” With the advent of the industrial revolution that transformed European and ultimately the global economy, education moved its focus to the concept of mechanically acquired, compartmentalized knowledge definitively breaking with the more holistic notion of learning conceived as the mastery of multiple arts. 

In 1835, Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, an Englishman intent on establishing order in his nation’s colony in South Asia, began his campaign to the idea of education in India in a way that would be consistent with the goals of the colony’s new masters. England’s imperial industrial economy had evolved into a tool of global domination. It was time for “civilization” to displace India’s culturally-rooted of “gurus and their shishyas” who “lived together helping each other in day-to-day life.”&�Բ�����;

Over the past two centuries, Indians have learned to accept and replicate an alien education system built by the British. The recent embrace of Finnish educational philosophy may signal a revolution for education but, paradoxically, also a return to at least the spirit of ancient Indian traditions.

All revolutions encounter resistance. Al Jazeera quotes Pia Jormanainen, a founder of the Finnish school now collaborating with the Indians: “We’ve had schools ask us to craft the syllabus for their teachers. That’s fundamentally against our approach.” Bad habits are always difficult to change. 

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Syllabus:

A body of formalized knowledge presented as the sum of all useful information, specifically designed to impose a restricted view of the world consistent with the goals of a ruling elite

Contextual note

Collaboration as opposed to competition plays out even at the level of the composition of teaching staff for the Indian schools adopting the Finnish approach. “At Finland International School, every class will have two trained teachers — one Finnish, the other Indian — and an assistant. The aim is “to deliver the best of the Finnish model in an Indian context.”

The article emphasizes the obvious fact that, for the moment, the adoption and experimentation of Finnish principles of education is limited to private schools. This has led to concern “that Indian private schools — mostly catering to children from privileged backgrounds — will not be able to ensure equal access to quality education and teaching, a foundational principle of Finland’s public school-based model.” But institutions such as the Jain Heritage School and Nordic High International have not only adopted and successfully applied the Finnish approach, they have been investing in the teacher training required to make the system work and spread. An Indian company, Finland Education Hub provides this definition of its: “to create meaningful improvement in India’s school education system by embedding the best educational practices from Finland.”&�Բ�����;

The real question is whether a significant portion of the population, with no access to expensive private schools, can eventually benefit from the effort now being made. “The education minister of Kerala, arguably home to India’s best government-run schools,” Al Jazeera reports, “announced earlier this month that the state would partner with Finland on teacher training, curriculum reforms and classroom technology.” The population of Kerala is 35 million, seven times larger than Finland’s.

India’s educational needs are massive. Successful educational methods will be the key to India’s future geopolitical positioning, notably with regard to China. Kerala’s experimentation could provide a model for other states in India. The fact that many of the principles of Finnish education resonate with pre-colonial traditions of India provides some hope that India may finally break free from some of the remaining constraints imposed by a stultifying British administrative system that aimed at competitive domination and focused on stifling both personal and collective creativity as well as all forms of spontaneous collaboration (which the British tended to identify with “mutiny” and “revolt”).

Historical note

In 1835, as a member of Parliament, Lord Macaulay, after a visit to India, set himself the task of restructuring Indian education to bring it up to modern civilized standards. In his famous “Minute” he clearly his vision of the role of education as restructured by the British. “We must do our best,” he encouraged Parliament, “to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, words and intellect.”

19^th century India inherited a caste system that established rigid hierarchies within Indian society. Macaulay believed that, under the British Empire, India, like England, deserved a class system. The British colonists tended to be respectful of collaborating local elites, routinely mobilizing their authority for their own economic and military ends. Macaulay was proposing the creation of a class of cultural go-betweens, who would populate an administration destined to govern the mass of laborers producing wealth for the empire. This educated elite would have the benefit of understanding the culture of the illiterate masses but personally identify with the superior European culture that sought to educate them and reward them for their docility.

Most reasonable people today would critique this as an unhealthy, inhuman approach to both education and government. But it represented the deepest logic of an economic empire. Nearly 200 years later, it has left deep traces in Indian society, whose wealthier classes even today identify strongly with Western models of education, despite the fact that education in the West has become crassly commercial and superficial.

One might critique the fascination with the Finnish model as just another case of India’s sense of inferiority that pushes it to seek solutions spawned in Europe. But in many ways this is just the opposite. The Finns have no interest in creating an empire, even a merely educational empire. Finland has produced a model of education that boldly contradicts the dominant philosophy and practices of the industrial West. One Finnish professor quoted in Al Jazeera’s article “worries that the commercialisation of his country’s schooling approach ‘can hurt the image of Finnish education.’” They appear to resemble Geoffrey Chaucer’s “Clerk of Oxenford” in the Canterbury Tales, about whom we learn that “gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche” (“gladly would he learn and gladly teach”). Learning can after all be fun rather than painful.

The Finnish constructivist approach to education, at its core, has many things in common with the oldest traditions in India. It is holistic and draws its energy from human contact and the spirit of seeking to understand rather than being forcefully taught what others consider it convenient to know. In the West, education has become dominated by the rule of managerial efficiency explicitly promulgated by institutions such as the Gates Foundation that had a powerful influence over US education policy under the presidency of Barack Obama. Its goal, widely accepted by the political elite in the US,  is standardized knowledge, standardized testing and homogenized but deeply competitive culture. It is a form of education designed to turn successful students into useful and malleable actors in the capitalist economy. It is Macaulay’s system for India perfected thanks to the discovery and elaboration of the rules of scientific management.

The Gates Foundation Repeats Its Mistakes

READ MORE

The remaining question for India is a difficult one for a nation with a huge percentage of the population living in poverty. Can it afford to make the investment in something that truly bridges the best in both Indian and Western culture and may provide the ultimate key to general prosperity?

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post India Looks to Finland for an Effective Educational Model appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Despite the disruption to education as we know it, there is something positive to have emerged from the chaos: the cancelation of exams, sending a wave of relief to children and their parents. The only disappointed ones are some parents who feel robbed of the glory their kids bring by acing exams.

It’s Time to Make India’s Education Good Enough for All

READ MORE

It may have been inconceivable in pre-coronavirus times to think of an exam-free education system, but we are now faced with the possibility of exploring it. Just imagine how much unnecessary stress it would save children, parents and teachers. It would also free up time for students to pursue personal interests and hobbies and expand their knowledge beyond the classroom.

The Issue With Exams

The focus on time in the classroom to prepare for exams has led to a crisis in education. There are four key problems to address.

First, it is high time that examinations are recognized as the biggest scam in education. This is not in reference to mass or buying of certificates in countries like India. We should be questioning the very raison-d’être of testing in the current education system. Why do we need exams? A teacher should be the best judge of a student’s level of understanding. An evaluation, if at all, should be built on assignments and participation instead of one based on written or oral tests.

Once upon a time, a man called Albert Einstein on how a student‘s overall performance is a far better indicator of their achievements. “The teachers’ impression of a student derived during the school years, together with the usual numerous papers from assignments — which every student has to complete — are a succinctly complete and better basis on which to judge the student than any carefully executed examination,” he said.

Second, if we are truly interested in children succeeding in school, then education must be rich in content and relevance and accomplished through quality instructional time. Unfortunately, as the use of testing has become the norm to evaluate students, classroom time is dedicated to helping kids prepare for exams. This can often result in the narrowing of the curriculum as teachers are focused on topics that are part of the test. As a result, children are not taught other valuable information to broaden their knowledge.

Third, the current testing regime does nothing to address social and economic inequality; it only reinforces it. Children from low-income backgrounds who require further support are less likely to have access to additional resources at home. This includes a lack of support from parents who may be working more than one job, limited access to the internet or the financial inability to hire a private tutor. Exam pressure only exacerbates inequality and sets deprived children up to fail.

Fourth, exams represent a cruel process of elimination. Why should any child be eliminated from their right of getting an education just because they don’t achieve the highest grades? If the purpose of education is learning, then the task of a teacher is to ensure that all students learn, irrespective of the time and effort it might require. The fact is that exams lead to competition, which kills the spirit of learning. This system prioritizes individual achievement over collaborative learning, thus defeating the very premise of education with its focus on cooperation over competition.

The Examination Factory

Establishing an environment where each person is simultaneously a teacher and a student presents an opportunity to continually learn, not only from each other, but also from every situation. This would mean that interaction with everyone you meet, such as a shopkeeper, gardener, farmer or musician, can transform into a mutually enriching learning experience to develop skills that go beyond the classroom

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

The damage being done by a culture of education built around examinations can be seen on both the surface and subliminal levels. On the surface, it divides children into achievers and underachievers from a young age. At the subliminal level, its effects can be traumatizing for children, resulting in a complete erosion of self-confidence for some and brutalization of personality for others. 

Since the model of modern education finds its roots in the Industrial Revolution, it tends to treat individuals as products and educational institutions as brands — and together they dictate the existing job market. It is hardly unusual that education itself has become a market for the affluent. Institutions, especially coaching centers that at times don on the dual responsibility of coaching as well as “educating,” have become mechanical factories that are expected to produce a definite quality of product — in this case, a student with high exam scores so that schools can reach their targets. Commercialization has led to mechanization, which has a harmful effect on human intellect and emotions. 

The pandemic has forced us to pause and rethink the way we have shaped our concept of education. Can we really educate children in overpopulated classes? With an inadvertent byproduct of COVID-19 being social distancing, it has paved the way for fewer students per classroom. This should, hopefully, result in a more empowering teacher-student relationship and put the brakes on the mechanized version of teaching we see today.

This model would be in sync with the one pioneered by ancient , a “residential school where pupils live near their guru or teacher.” Such a system would need more qualified and dedicated teachers. But if this model will save us from the COVID crisis, then perhaps it can also tackle the crisis in modern-day education.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post COVID Has Forced Us to Rethink Education and Exams appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The British Radical Right’s Connection to the Past

READ MORE

Historian and broadcaster David Olusoga with force against the idea that decolonizing was simply about banning white authors, as the report suggested. True, deep decolonization of the curriculum is about representing the experiences of all people within the subjects offered and giving expression to those often rendered voiceless by traditional histories. But what place does this have in the study and history of the radical right in Britain?

Diverse Sources

Though many of the groups we study, especially those of the far and extreme right, are small and ultimately have very little impact on Britain as a whole, we should not underplay the harm that these organiztaions and their activity often inflict on the communities they target. This can be through the creation of a culture that is permissive of violence, as was argued by the made by Searchlight — an archive of materials documenting the activity of fascist and racist organizations — to the Macpherson Inquiry, or indeed in a more targeted fashion against those they felt in conflict with, as I’ve about previously. 

The actions of these groups, and the material they produce, not only speak to events in our broader sociopolitical history in Britain but also to the specific experiences of those groups targeted by the far right, such as the Jewish and black communities. While including these community experiences is an important first step, to truly answer David Olusoga’s call to give a voice to those previously marginalized, decolonization must also include the use of sources from both the radical right and its targets.

Of course, we must also be careful not to reduce community experiences to simply the opposition and hatred directed toward them. But we also must not ignore those experiences. Studying the radical right and the use of its material is one way we can engage with that.

Recently, at the University of Northampton, the team has been undertaking a funded exploration of how material related to radical activity can be used to not just teach our own undergraduates but to engage the wider public with this history. This culminated in a one-day workshop in December last year that brought together academics, archivists, librarians, digital resource providers and others to help explore best practices from a range of perspectives. A best practice guide will soon be made available based on the findings.

Not only did the workshop underline the importance of studying radical movements and their materials in terms of broader student engagement and attainment, but it also demonstrated the possibility to engage people from broader and more diverse backgrounds with history as a discipline. Examining the actions of the extreme right gives an opportunity to examine the responses from communities and activists, whose voices are often ignored or minimized due to their lack of scholarly standing.

These responses and the material, however, can be problematic given the circumstances of their creation. It is important that this material is used in a sensitive way, with the affected communities engaged in its curation.

Building the Next Generation

This engagement with the community can also have great benefits in the classroom. As the Runnymede Trust in 2015, although black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) students make up around a quarter of all school-age children, they only represent 8.7% of those studying historical or philosophical subjects at an undergraduate level. This means there are few trainee teachers specializing in history who come from a BAME background.

One of the solutions proposed by Runnymede for the secondary curriculum is a better approach to teaching the history of migration in Britain and the impacts of colonialism. Part of this history is the reaction against migration and decolonization, driven by the radical right, and teaching it at the undergraduate level will help prepare the next generation of teachers to tackle these curriculum changes. 

More than that, however, it makes the history curriculum more attractive to BAME students when they see their experiences taught and valued as part of British history. A more diverse classroom, representing greater experiences, helps stimulate discussion and, in turn, peer learning. undertaken at Northampton has shown that engagement increased when material from the radical right was used in the courses. Engagement increases attainment and can also be a step to tackling the recognized in British universities between white British and other ethnic groups.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

In telling the stories of how the radical-right narrative against migration took hold and how it was opposed by anti-fascist movements and by community responses, the study of the radical right has an important part to play in decolonizing the curriculum. Through engagement with primary sources that reflect these experiences, we can deliver deep decolonization that allows for thoughtful conversation and impactful learning experiences.

We can help provide the opportunity for related subjects to recruit more diverse student populations and, in doing so, be part of generational change. As more diverse students go into teaching history, as well as into archive and heritage roles, they will be able to make the decisions on how history is preserved and presented.

If the decolonization of the curriculum were indeed a shallow and tokenistic effort that simply seeks to ban white authors as the Sewell Report seems to suggest, it would indeed have been at the very least a wasted opportunity, if not actively harmful. However, that is not what decolonizing the curriculum is. In studying the radical right, we have an opportunity to not only engage people with difficult histories but to do so using innovative sources and to engage outside of academia. That is an opportunity we must take.

 *[51�Թ� is a  partner of the .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Should the Study of Extremism Be Part of the Curriculum? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Is the Havana Syndrome a Psychogenic Illusion?

READ MORE

While all responsible citizens adhered to the ideal, a much smaller number of people reflected on the means to achieve it, the pedagogues. According to the natural laws of democracy, the minority who cared was consistently overruled by the vast majority of those who had no time or inclination to encourage, fund and implement the required means to realize the ideal. Instead, education has for at least the past century focused on defining curricula increasingly focused on orientating the economic behavior of the young. This meant creating and implementing procedures and teaching methods designed less to instill knowledge than to judge learners on their capacity to conform to artificially defined societal norms.

In recent times, knowledge itself was removed from its pedestal and made entirely tributary to vocational skills. The value of knowledge has been reduced to its utility for earning a living. Once young people have an idea of how they are likely to earn their livelihood, they can concentrate on mastering the technical knowledge associated with the type of work they will be doing, whether it’s accounting, coding or bicycle repair.

On the whole, culture has become economic, pragmatic and individualized. Living, interacting with society, thinking and voting — acts tending toward the development and refinement of cultural depth — became secondary, if not irrelevant. The message to the rising generations became: Focus on the knowledge required for your work and dedicate the rest of your time to video games and social media… or whatever.

Young people acquired a view of the world outside of their immediate assignments and tasks as precisely that: whatever. �մǻ岹��’s educators, most of whom think of themselves as promoters of knowledge even though the system they work within has decided otherwise, feel helpless and confused as they seek ways to incite their students toward behavior that at least looks civilized.

Long regarded as the key to acquiring knowledge, the ability of our educational systems to deal constructively with language has disappeared, provoking a pervasive crisis. Last week, The Guardian on the measures some schools in the UK have begun adopting to respond to the crisis. One “London secondary school is trying to stop its pupils from using ‘basically’ at the beginning of sentences and deploying phrases such as ‘oh my days’ in a crackdown on ‘fillers’ and ‘slang’ in the classroom.” In the name of helping pupils express themselves “clearly and accurately,” it has produced lists of banned words and expressions.

The Guardian cites an educator who opposes banning words justified the list’s existence on the grounds that developing “reading and speaking skills is a central part of what drives our school to help our students learn effectively and fulfil their potential in academic and non-academic ways.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Fulfill potential:

Stay out of serious trouble by disappearing into the crowd

Contextual Note

Unlike the politically correct (PC) phenomenon, which seeks to shame or cancel people who use forbidden words, the lists of banned expressions have been devised to “help students understand the importance of expressing themselves clearly and accurately, not least through written language in examinations.” The purpose of study and acquisition of knowledge is, after all, not to acquire a culture but to pass an exam. 

Helping students to express themselves clearly and accurately sounds like a reasonable goal, but believing that banning specific language to achieve is a dangerous pedagogical fallacy. It instills the Manichean notion that some things are, by definition, wholesome and pure and others, evil.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Interestingly, the debate about banning words reveals a series of pedagogical fallacies on both sides. Critiquing the reflex of the ban, The Guardian resorts to a different fallacy: the appeal to authority. It cites writers (Lily Anderson, Richard Ford), singers (the British rapper Stormzy) and sports celebrities (Dutch footballer Jeremie Frimpong) who have used words in the list. This suggests words that “have been widely used in books and music” are legitimate because they are associated with creativity. This principle is as simplistic as the act of banning. Worse, it comforts the idea that if successful people have used a word, it must always be appropriate.

The article then offers a third fallacy based on the idea of multicultural respect. It warns against “dismissing students’ home or own use of language” because it “may have negative effects on identity and confidence.” This phenomenon is real and has a long, painful history in the UK, where the educated elite routinely shamed regional dialects and accents as inferior. But seeking to avoid offending individual students rather than addressing the fundamental issue may aggravate the problem. An honest educational policy can help learners understand that linguistic diversity serves a positive purpose in all societies. But so long as the implicit goal of education remains social and cultural standardization, this will never be done.

The fourth fallacy in the article is the idea — intended to correct the third — that diversity is, by definition, good and deserves being uncritically encouraged. “We should celebrate the different ways language is being used and concentrate on the content of what is being said,” according to one enthusiastic linguist. Celebrating diversity without seeking to understand its components encourages chaos and confusion. Before celebrating, it is important to recognize distinctions of register, rhetorical function and style. A linguist cited by The Guardian comes closer to the underlying truth: “It shouldn’t be about good or bad language, it should be about appropriate language for the context.”

But today, in every subject matter, standardized education shies away from exploring context. If it didn’t, it would no longer be standardized.

Historical Note

Defending the notion of diversity, one linguist notes that “it would be a shame if it becomes a case of if you want to be successful, this is the way you have to speak.” That is a valid moral point, but denying this feature of every human society could be called the fallacy of idealism. Education can do its part, but society must also accept its own evolution.

Despite all the pedagogical fallacies, the problem is naggingly real and should be addressed. Language is not, as some educators appear to believe, a code to be learned and respected. It is a system of intentions. Real language consists of an infinitely wide range of ideational and rhetorical resources that produce meaning in complex ways. Just think about the meaning of the word “meaning.” It toggles between our idea of a dictionary definition and the subjective expression of intention. In one case we may say: Check the dictionary for the meaning. In another, we can object: I don’t get your meaning.

In the pre-industrial world, European education focused on the “.” Learners studied language from three angles: grammar, rhetoric and logic. Grammar, through the study of Latin, included everything related to the structure of language. Rhetoric (the “art of persuasion”) focused on intention. Logic produced a perspective pointing language toward science. The scientific revolution as well as the wealth of great literature from the 15^th to the 17^th century were the fruit of this orientation.

We can bring rhetoric and logic back into linguistic education, even in this era of algorithmic despotism. Recently, a team I was leading designed, for pedagogical purposes, a sophisticated authoring system based on the non-linear logic at the core of video games. The software we produced invites learners in a classroom to create language anchored in context and focused on the shifting intentions of conversational logic. The students become the creators. Their task is to produce language that makes sense of the context. In the course of this creative work, vocabulary, style, grammar and rhetoric all appear in patterns they, playing the dual role of creator and critic, can understand. The teacher oversees the process and guides the students in their production.

What do they produce? An actual functioning video game. More than a deep learning experience, it is also an artistic achievement.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Education’s Struggle to Make Sense of Language appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In India, I disliked school and grew to hate exams. My time in the UK transformed my school experience. I loved my classes and going to school. When I returned to India, I decided not to go to school. Instead, I studied at home and curiously missed not having to write exams at the end of the year.

360° Context: The State of the Indian Republic

READ MORE

I can speak about the Indian schooling system with confidence. My experience has been corroborated by others. The Indian schooling system seems to have common problems across the country and needs major reform. I stayed in London only briefly and do not know as much about British schooling. Some experiences may be unique to the particular school I attended.

My Indian Experience

When I went to school in India, I studied diligently and my teachers liked me. I participated in many extracurricular activities such as dance and art that I tremendously enjoyed. On the whole, however, I did not like school and was unhappy.

One of the reasons for my unhappiness was my school’s rigid dress code. Every day, I was supposed to turn up wearing an impeccable uniform. My hair had to be shiny, well-oiled and held together by a black hair tie. Every morning, teachers would scrutinize uniforms before class. They expected students to follow the school dress code diligently. We were warned of the dire consequences if we violated the code. For example, they threatened to paint the nails of boys who grew them long.

Ironically, teachers imposed these rules most strictly on those too young to dress themselves. The 6-year-olds who came to school were terrified of being publicly humiliated and punished for something outside their control. I found this system of punishment archaic and problematic. To me, the rules my school obsessed about did not seem relevant. I felt the school was trying to fault students for the smallest of details.

Another reason why I did not enjoy school was the poor behavior of certain teachers. They mocked some students by giving them humiliating names. These teachers also casually swore at us if we erred. Although I was never a target of this, I found such behavior disconcerting. 

My physical education teacher often behaved this way. He gave us demeaning names, swore at us and imposed severe punishments, such as running around the playground and performing squats. This teacher also hit children who frustrated him. Because of this teacher, I did not like the physical education classes and stayed away from sports. My mother and I lodged a complaint against him but nothing came out of it. The school principal claimed to be against the teacher’s methods. However, she did nothing. To this day, the teacher remains unchanged. 

I have vivid memories of the vice principal too. On one occasion, she interrupted class to announce a new rule: No student would speak any language other than English at school. She told us menacingly that, if students broke this rule, they would be fined. Immediately after making this announcement, the vice principal started conversing with the class teacher in Gujarati. The fact that the class teacher taught us English exaggerated the irony of the situation. The vice principal was also infamous for being rude and condescending not only toward students, but also their parents and even grandparents.

Insults, threats and hypocrisy made school unpleasant. I eagerly looked forward to afternoons when I could leave school and return home. At night, I felt anxious because I feared the morning when I would have to get ready and leave for school. Often, I missed school by claiming to be unwell.

I must point out that my school enjoyed a great reputation. It is deemed to be one of the best in Ahmedabad. Schools in my city and in much of India are run according to the same norms. My friends in other schools had similar experiences. Changing schools seemed futile. After going away to the UK and experiencing British schooling for a year, I came to realize exactly why I had disliked school in India. The problem was much bigger and systemic than the occasional rude teacher.

My British Experience

I moved to the United Kingdom because my father chose to do a degree there. When we moved, the school year had already begun. Few schools were admitting students. We went to different schools to see if they would admit my elder sister and me. My sister visited two or three schools before finding a place in one. I was unexpectedly admitted into the first school we stepped into. The school administrator told me that I would start the next day.

This news came as a surprise to me. A bigger shock awaited when the administrator revealed that my teacher was to be a “he.” In India, I had found male teachers to be the most aggressive, insensitive and rude. I feared this would be the case in the UK as well. I was already anxious about going to school in a new continent. Knowing that my new teacher would be male added to that anxiety.

On my first day at school, I arrived late. My mother and I lost our way in a new city. To my surprise, the teacher was waiting for us. He was friendly and kind. Within minutes of meeting him, I calmed down. I was ashamed of the preconception I had formed of him. My teacher had turned out to be very different. He asked three classmates who had volunteered to be my “buddies” to show me around. They broke the ice and I felt welcomed on the first day at school.

I found my British school to be completely different from my Indian one. Teacher–student interactions were more friendly, open and informal. Students called teachers by their first names. This was rare even for UK schools and took some getting used to. 

In India, schools are hierarchical. Teachers are patronizing even when they are polite. Students are almost always belittled. They have to address their teachers as “sir” and “madam” as a sign of respect. However, teachers rarely reciprocate the respect, which I have always believed to be unfair. Students are the most important people in any education system, deserving of respect in return.

In the UK, I liked addressing my teacher by his first name. In my view, this formed a closer connection and an amiable learning atmosphere. My British teacher often sat down with us and shared what was planned for us academically. We could ask questions freely and he would respond to them diligently. He had high expectations from us and made us think. In the UK, I realized that schools could maintain discipline without condescension. The teacher–student relationship can be one of mutual respect.

In India, schools obsess about discipline. Students have to comply with a laundry list of rules and are punished even for minor violations. Corporal punishment is now rare in urban areas but still occurs. Some parents even support this form of punishment. They believe in the archaic dictum, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

The discipline enforced in Indian schools seems to have surprisingly little impact. When they leave school, the people of India are hardly rule-conforming; in fact, they are rebellious. This is most evidently seen on the roads of India where drivers blatantly ignore traffic rules. Painting zebra-crossings, for example, is wasteful. The drivers of India have unanimously decided to ignore them, despite being instructed otherwise when obtaining their licenses.

In the UK, my school did have rules and imposed them. However, they were fewer, less controlling and more sensible than those in India. The teachers were authoritative when necessary but never authoritarian. 

In India, even when teachers acted in our best interest, they did so in an intimidating manner. One teacher once asked us if we had social media accounts. Those who raised their hands were told there would be “legal action” against them because no one under 18 was supposed to have social media accounts. The teacher was trying to protect us from online dangers, but the aggressive approach did not inspire trust. It was in the UK that I discovered the dangers of cybercrime when we were taught about it at school. Our Indian school could have done the same instead of threatening students. Schools in India choose to scare children out of problems where they could reason with them instead.

In India, I hated school and lied about being sick to stay at home. In contrast, I loved school in the UK. For the first time, I wanted to go to school even when I was ill.

Contrasting Approaches to Learning

In India, textbooks were treated like the Bible and teachers followed them completely. Once they taught a chapter, we had to answer questions at the end of it. Most of the time, the teacher would simply dictate the answer to us and all we had to do was write down what they said. Older students had the liberty to write down answers on their own, but there was little need for originality. Copying down relevant sections of the chapter could fully answer most, if not all, questions. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Questions were invariably formulaic as well. For example, this question was posed at the end of chapter six of the class eight geography textbook of the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT): “The world population has grown very rapidly. Why?” Teachers expected students to pull out an excerpt from the chapter verbatim. This was deemed to be the correct answer: “The main reason for this growth was that with better food supplies and medicine, deaths were reducing, while the number of births remained fairly high.” The five other questions that followed had to be answered similarly by quoting relevant lines from chapter six.

To answer questions, teachers told us to put brackets around appropriate sentences in chapters and write down the respective question numbers next to them. Once we had matched questions with answers, we simply had to copy both of them down in our notebook. This process of answering questions was tedious and almost pointless. Preparing for exams was similarly mind-numbing. All we had to do was memorize what we had written in our notebook and reproduce the answers during the exams.

Only creative writing offered an escape from the monotony. Even here the topics teachers gave out for essays and stories were again mostly formulaic. Books were available that had essays and stories on these topics. All that most students did was memorize from them and present the material as their own. The “writing” in “creative writing” was anything but creative.

In India, school involved little learning. I did not make inferences, analyze topics or interpret things originally. We were not encouraged to think critically and express our opinions. I realized that the Indian education system does not foster critical thinking or creativity.

In the UK, school was rich in learning. We were divided into sets with different teachers depending on our level of understanding of the subject. We began every class by writing down the learning intention in our notebooks. 

I remember my math classes well. Sometimes, we played mathematical games. We had to use formal methods and the language of mathematics to explain our strategies, making us vocalize our way of thinking. 

I enjoyed my English classes as well. In class, we were supposed to make inferences about the theme of the text and explain our reasoning. I also learned to structure arguments in the point, evidence and explanation format, popularly known as PEE. I learned not only to write but also to edit my writing. Teachers would mark our work and students would do a “response to marking” exercise. This meant students could improve their work iteratively.

In the UK, answers would ask for a contribution by the student, which resulted in a collaboration. The experience was individualized. We also discussed things in detail during class, which meant we heard many points of view. We learned how to justify our opinions instead of merely asserting and how to challenge an idea or defend it. We made our case and debated issues. Listening to opposing arguments expanded our mental horizons.

The books we used in Britain were a world apart from textbooks in India. For instance, “” is a reference book from the UK. It has an extract from Chinua Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart” and then poses the following question: “The writer presents the reader with a strongly negative view of Unoka. He is clearly a flawed character with very few redeeming qualities.’ How far do you agree with this statement? You should include: your own perceptions of Unoka; the techniques the writer has used to influence your perceptions; evidence from the text to support your ideas.”

Such questions demand original thinking and make the students express their own thoughts. These questions also make students more rigorous in their thinking as they have to read the text carefully and engage deeply with the author. Opinions and assertions are not enough. Students have to construct arguments based on logic and facts. During my time in the UK, I had to learn how to analyze, understand implications and form judgments. I got an excellent education.

Contrasting Attitudes Toward Examinations

In India, success in examinations is the holy grail. People believe that examinations are accurate measures of capability, but they fail to recognize how problematic they are. Examinations reward rote learning. Little more than a sharp memory and handling time pressure is needed to guarantee a good result. Indians do not realize that some of the most original thinkers have struggled in tests. Nobel laureate in physics was “very slow” and “didn’t necessarily do very well” in his tests.

Students in India take a lot of examinations and are under enormous pressure to perform well in them. So, the purpose of studying is mostly to do well in exams and not to learn. When I was in India, examinations were the main incentive to study. Schools prepare students for the end-of-year tests, succeeding in which is painted to be the goal of the academic year.

In the UK, we had examinations too. In Year 6, students take the Standard Assessment Tests (SATs). These are similar to nationwide board exams in India, but there is less pressure in Britain compared to India. In India, students taking board exams are expected to give up all extra-curricular activities. For many months, they are supposed to focus only on their studies.  The SATs were different. Teachers prepared us for them and we took mock tests, but there was no syllabus given and no memorization was needed. Coming from India, I asked my teacher for a syllabus but was told there was none. The atmosphere before the SATs was strangely calm and, for most of the year, school was normal.

I understand that this comparison of the UK and India might be unfair. India is a poorer country with a much larger population and there are only a few good schools and colleges. As a result, competition for places is intense. Therefore, Indians care deeply about examinations as they are a gateway to success. This nurtures a culture in which Indians obsess about examinations even when they do not really matter, such as those taken in lower grades. The system is examination-centric, not student-centric.

My Return to India

When my father’s stint in the UK ended, we returned to India. I had no intention of rejoining my much-hated old school. I enrolled in another school but quickly realized that it was worse than my previous one. After only a day at the new school, I rejoined the old school.

On the very first day at the old school, I found myself comparing it to my time in the UK. I found the school greatly problematic and it made me deeply unhappy. As a result, I did not attend school for three weeks and had to summon a lot of courage to return.  To make matters worse, I had returned in the middle of the academic year and needed to catch up.

Few teachers were supportive. In fact, most teachers demanded an impossible feat. They wanted me to write up everything that had been done over six months in my notebooks while simultaneously keeping up with their teaching. I tried to find the superhuman strength necessary for this task and wrote persistently to catch up. This caused exhaustion and I started missing school. This only added to the burden because I had to catch up with the days I missed. 

By the time the annual examinations approached, I was almost worn out. We were to be tested on everything taught throughout the year, but the extra writing was hindering my exam preparation. My parents requested my teachers to exempt me from the extra writing assignments. I did not make the request because that would have been deemed rude. 

In any case, I had no interest in taking the annual examination. In the UK, I had learned much of what the school was teaching and testing. I was putting in so much effort in copying out what I had missed, but I was learning nothing. I concluded that a school that taught me nothing was pointless, so I decided not to return until the new academic year began when I would be learning something new.

My parents opposed my decision. According to them, one could not skip ahead. They had followed the norm their entire lives and had turned out just fine. They did not want me jeopardizing my future. They also did not believe that I already knew what was being taught. On their insistence, I reversed my decision of not going to school and took the year-end examinations. My results were splendid but the experience of taking the examinations was horrible. On the day the results were announced, I broke school rules, dressed boldly and showed up in my colorful clothes instead of the school uniform. I was making a statement on what I had decided would be my last day in school.

My decision not to go to school worried my parents. To add to their worries, I did not study at all for four months. I spent this time playing games, creating art and enjoying myself. School had made me angry and I loathed the idea of taking tests. So, I took a break. My father was worried about me not studying and repeatedly requested me to restart and not fall behind my peers. I dismissed his concern.

My Homeschooling Experience

After four months, I started getting bored. Around this time, I was asked a math question. To my surprise, I could not answer it. I realized my four months of inactivity had taken a toll. The idea of intellectually falling behind my ex-peers shocked me, which motivated me to start studying again. I began with a mathematics textbook that my parents had bought for me and was able to finish the entire year’s syllabus in two months. I was amazed at my achievement and it made me realize that I did not need school. Teaching myself was much more fun, so I decided to become a homeschooler. 

My decision worried my parents. They had thought me not attending school was just a phase. In India, homeschooling is rare and rather stigmatized. Most people associate it with students who cannot keep up with their studies or are extremely uncomfortable in social settings. My parents had similar impressions. 

But my parents’ apprehensions did not affect me. I am competitive. I do not like my peers knowing more than I do whether they are from India or the UK. So, I started studying both the Indian and the British curricula. I asked my parents to order textbooks from both India and Britain. By the time these textbooks arrived, I had lost a few weeks of the academic year already shortened by the four months of inactivity. 

My challenge was to complete two curricula in less time than what students in the UK or India spent to cover one curriculum. The task was daunting, but my doubts were not enough to supersede my ambition. I started by making a plan. 

I wrote down all the subjects I planned to study, along with my learning goals for the year. I then planned out every single day for the next two months. I had never planned my studies before. Inevitably, I overestimated and underestimated the time I would take to study some topics and there were days I struggled to meet my goals. However, I disliked falling short and would work harder on such days to achieve my objectives. I did my utmost to keep to my schedule.

The line between studying and not studying became blurred at home. There were no school hours and I would sometimes study till late in the evening. My self-imposed deadlines were helpful as they made me avoid succumbing to laziness. Making a schedule for myself made me appreciate the work of teachers behind the scenes. Structuring student schedules is no easy task. Eventually, I learned to set better deadlines and began to understand how much time I would need to spend on various topics. 

Although doing two curricula simultaneously put me under pressure, it allowed me to learn more. I discovered that some topics were introduced to students in the UK but not in India and vice-versa in the same academic year. Some of the topics that overlapped were explained better in the UK curriculum, while others in the Indian one. This deepened my understanding.

Homeschooling required great self-discipline. I had to plan my studies for the year and then adhere to that plan in an environment not dedicated to studying. Distraction came easily. At one point, I began cutting corners because there was no one to stop me. I missed many targets and gave myself a written warning, a practice common in Indian schools. Fortunately, this worked. I learned to avoid laziness and largely stuck to my deadlines.

Homeschooling has given me more choice and made me more creative. I began learning French, an Indian classical dance named Kathak and to play the drums. 

There are downsides to homeschooling. I have felt lonely. I missed chatting with my fellow students and general social interaction. To counter this isolation, I started reading aloud. I often read in different rhythms and accents, imagining and emulating different teachers teaching me the subjects. I have increased my extracurricular activities; most of my evenings are booked.

Initially, I was secretive about being a homeschooler. Only my close family knew about it. I told my friends and old classmates I had changed schools. I told new acquaintances I was still in my old school. I did so to avoid the influx of questions and presumptions that would inevitably follow the revelation. 

Completing a year of homeschooling filled me with a level of pride and a sense of accomplishment that I had not experienced before. Academically, I had covered two curricula in a short span of time. I had experimented with different learning methods and discovered which ones most suited me. I had become more adventurous and willing to venture into new areas like linguistics. I had studied for myself and not for passing exams. This was a euphoric feeling. 

Examinations, National Policy and the Future

When I was homeschooling, almost everyone suggested I take some sort of exam. It seemed to me that this suggestion came from a lack of faith in my desire, discipline and capability to learn on my own. Therefore, I would not comply. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

However, once I finished both curricula, I lacked a sense of completion. Strangely and surprisingly, I wanted to mark the end of the academic year with examinations. Perhaps the Indian education system had indeed left its mark on me. So, I asked my parents to set me examinations on both sets of curricula. They were reluctant to play the role of examiners, but I insisted. 

As novice examiners, my parents made errors in choosing the questions and setting time limits. Yet the examinations were rigorous and I fared well in them. Studying for these exams and sitting for them was satisfying because I had chosen to do so, unlike those taken in school. Moreover, taking the exams had been a mere afterthought, not the purpose of the learning I had done throughout the year.   

My problems with the Indian education system arose from its arbitrariness, focus on rote learning and lack of critical thinking. To my satisfaction, India’s acknowledges these shortcomings and calls for “greater critical thinking.” It goes on to say that the “overall thrust of curriculum and pedagogy reform … will be to move the education system towards real understanding … and away from the culture of rote learning as is largely present today.”&�Բ�����;

Change begins with an admission of the need for it. India has admitted it has a big problem. Hopefully, it will now start taking steps to resolve it.

I do not know if I will continue with homeschooling. I may end up choosing the easier option. When teachers handle the planning and responsibility for conducting studies, life is simpler. Going to school would take a huge burden off my shoulders. I am also curious to see if India’s new policy will change anything. Regardless of what I do going forward, I am proud to declare that I homeschooled and, because of it, I changed for the better.

*[Note: The author wrote this article at the age of 13. She is now 14.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post An Indian Journey From School to Homeschooling appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Understanding Racism in All Its Forms

READ MORE

This demonization of an academic theory is supported by virulent media discourses. says that the teachers’ unions support CRT and will push it on your schools at a cost of $127,600. takes it further, suggesting that CRT is going to set up “a dictatorship of the anti-racists.” On Twitter, opponents compare CRT to and the far-right conspiracy of .

Undoing Racism

So what is critical race theory? Is it a radical anti-racist Marxist program bent on overturning power structures for an amount equivalent to what Tucker Carlson in a week? Scholars say CRT is in fact a from critical legal studies emphasizing not the social construction of race but the reality of racism, in particular racism’s deep roots in American history and its perpetuation in legal and social structures. Kimberlé Crenshaw, who coined the term, emphasizes that it is an ongoing scholarly practice of .

Is it being taught in your schools? Nobody is teaching CRT to kindergarteners. Critical race theory has become part of , one of many frameworks influencing researchers and instuctors who want a framework for understanding, and undoing, racism in education. Some link CRT in schools to launched by The New York Times that seeks to center black history and slavery in the story of America’s founding.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

So why does your uncle who spends too much time on the internet think this is a ? The over CRT is the brainchild of Chris Rufo, who began using the term to refer to a catch-all, nefarious force behind all kinds of social change, from Joe Biden’s weak liberalism to Black Lives Matter. Conservatives link CRT to trans rights and communism, the compares it to Marxist critical theory. The Trump administration launched a counter to The 1619 Project, the, to elevate whiteness and fight “critical race theorists” and “anti-American historical revisionism.”

Moral panics one idea, process, identity or group as evil, a threat to public order, values and morality, but they align institutional power with popular discourses to enforce the social positions and identities behind them. As of July, 22 states have proposed against teaching critical race theory and five have signed them into law. These bills ban teaching CRT, which they insist makes white students uncomfortable and introduces “divisive concepts.” For the right, the vision of US history is one that teaches color-blind unity and pride in being American. Of course, it also that the KKK was OK.

Anti-Anti-Racist Panic

This is far from the first moral panic over education. Historian Adam Laats the fight against CRT to the fight against the evolution of teaching. This first moral panic led to widespread distrust in public schools. More recent moral panics also led to divestment in social institutions. In the 1980s, a panic about satanic kindergartens in the US led to the reinforcement of dominant gender and racial power structures, but also to the withdrawal of and early childhood education.

Panics over sex education, from to , called for defunding these programs, shrinking already limited school budgets while increasing conservative opposition to public education. In the UK, the Conservative Party wants to ban teaching white privilege because it hurts working-class boys — while at the same time dismantling the .

What will the effects of this anti-anti-racist panic be? Will they curb the freedom of teachers to share the truths of history or push them to teach a still more nationalist version of the American story? Will history classes explicitly celebrate white masculinity, full of heroic founders fulfilling a holy promise for freedom and capital? Or might it also serve as another push to demonize public schools, painting them not as (unequally funded) shared democratic institutions but as anti-American indoctrination centers?

Even if the bills do not reshape education standards, the dramatic language around CRT and white genocide continues the longstanding push to defund and privatize public schools. As education scholar notes, the right’s education reform has long linked neoliberal privatization with neoconservative curriculums, something that continues with the opposition to CRT.

Breitbart Utah’s Say No to Indoctrination Act that will “keep taxpayer dollars from funding discriminatory practices and divisive worldviews,” linking cost and curriculum. It is not a coincidence that conservative media mention the price of anti-racist interventions and the dog whistle of “taxpayer dollars.” Fighting CRT might mean bills to change curriculum standards, but it could equally mean a push to cut funding for public schools reframed as cutting funding for CRT — as Senate candidate J.D. Vance on Twitter — or a call for greater support for private, religious and home education.

Both increased nationalism and privatization of education were for the right. Donald Trump’s 2020 education platform’s was to teach American exceptionalism; his second was to have school choice. With this panic over critical race theory, far-right drama serves to reinforce the more banal nationalism of capital and conservatism. Painting schools as cultural-Marxist madrassas makes it a lot easier to stop paying for them.

*[51�Թ� is a  partner of the .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Critical Race Theory: A Dictatorship of the Woke? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

India’s Health-Care System Is in Shambles

READ MORE

This issue is of particular significance in India, where the pandemic has steeply, and perhaps irreversibly, increased education inequality. Over 1.5 million schools have , 6 million children of basic education. The government has been preoccupied with issues such as the pandemic, the migrant crisis, the farmer protests and state elections. It has failed to focus on education.

Exacerbated Negatives

Even as capitalist a country as the United States provides its populace with free public schooling. In contrast, a supposedly socialist India is unable to educate its children. India, currently in its youth-bulge phase, has citizens under the age of 25. The education of these young people can and should be India’s catalyst for economic, social and political growth. 

The socioeconomic benefits of education outweigh its costs. For example, the pervasiveness of among girls with no education is 30.8% versus 2.4% for girls who have received higher education. Bearing in mind the fact that more than one out of four Indian child brides become teenage mothers, providing girls with education could help solve the problem of child marriage, which would subsequently combat teenage pregnancy and high infant mortality rates. Education could also reduce the rampancy of child labor while also reducing rates of preventable diseases. 

Unfortunately, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 () and India’s new education have no provision for dealing with the current crisis. Its Constitution declares India to be a “sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.” Many politicians claim to be socialists. Yet the pandemic has proven that socialism is merely an empty slogan in India. Health and education are highly privatized. Citizens have to pay for basic treatments and for half-decent schools.

The education system had many issues long before COVID-19 made matters worse. The pandemic has only exacerbated the negatives. The RTE had noble intentions but mixed results. India needs a modern education system that expands both the minds of the young and the arc of their opportunities. The pandemic has been terrible for students, but it provides a great opportunity for reform. It remains to be seen if the government will grasp the opportunity.

Legislating Education

Under the current legislation, both the central government in Delhi and the state governments individually can pass laws concerning education. Generally, schools are administered by the state departments of education, while the central government dictates overall guidelines and policy. The Ministry of Human Resource Development oversees the education and literacy of the entire country, conducted in three types of schools: private unaided, private aided, and government-funded and government-run public schools. According to data from the Indian Education Ministry, 75% of all schools are , responsible for the education of 65% of all school students, or 113 million, across 20 states.  

According to Oxfam India, 80% of students in have received no education since the pandemic began. Furthermore, despite the government broadcasting certain classes on television, many students have been unable to access them because they lack basic infrastructure at home. Over 200 million Indians a television, phone or radio. Additionally, this method of teaching and learning is not interactive, with students finding it difficult to grasp the material.

While poor government schools remain closed, private schools have adapted to virtual learning. However, only 23% of all Indian households have . This figure drops to only 4% among the . Rural areas in particular are struggling with the fallout from the pandemic such as the migrant crisis and rampant unemployment, so education ranks low on local governments’ priority lists.

To make matters worse, the closing of schools in early 2020 translated to the effective cancellation of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme that 116 million schoolchildren with hot meals. The central government has drafted guidelines for states and union territories to supply cooked meals or food-security allowances to schoolchildren. However, it is clear that various municipalities have failed to implement these guidelines. For instance, took 44.6 million tons of grains from the central government in 2019 to feed schoolchildren; in 2020, this figure dropped to zero. Children are not only missing out on education but also on nutrients. This is reversing years of progress that India had made in combating malnutrition. It is well known that malnutrition hinders intellectual development and can lead to performance, disease and even death. Children in poor families now face an increased risk of malnutrition as the gap between them and their more prosperous counterparts increases by the day.

But even children from more affluent families are struggling to cope with online learning. are on the rise. In India, board examinations — the final set of tests for students graduating from high school — have been canceled. This has left millions of students worrying about their future. 

Misguided Provisions

One of the key problems with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act is that it is poorly drafted. It is unclear and repetitive. According to the District Information System of Education, as of 2016, only 13% of all Indian schools achieved with RTE norms. As a national act, the RTE establishes certain parameters, procedures and standards for both private and public schools to follow. It places a primary emphasis on the idea of education for all by dictating that every child between the ages of six and 14 must be eligible to receive free education. However, Indian children are still struggling to obtain the education promised to them.

The most adversely affected are the children living in who make up 73% of Indian youth. About 90% of the facilities in these districts are that struggle with untrained teachers and poor infrastructure, failing to meet the standards set by the RTE. Schools that do not follow these standards are forced to shut down. In many cases, these schools are the only option available.

According to the published by Centre for Civil Society in India, between April 2015 to March 2018, 2,469 schools were closed in 14 states due to RTE non-compliance, while 4,482 were threatened with closure and a further 13,546 were served closure notices. In line with Luis Miranda’s for Forbes India, if we assume an average of 200 students per institution in Punjab, the closure of 1,170 schools there as of August 2015 amounted to 234,000 students being unable to attend a school of their choice or to receive an education at all in just one state.

For several states, data on the extent of school closures remain . As of 2016, in public schools was only 1% higher for elementary schools and 2% higher for secondary schools compared to 2000. Data from 2016 that enrolment decreased in states such as Madhya Pradesh, Assam and West Bengal.

The RTE has misguided provisions that may be well-meaning but are highly damaging. The act mandates a 25% quota to be reserved at the entry-level of educational institutions for students from economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. The law states that the central government must reimburse schools for the costs incurred due to the quota by either paying schools’ per-child expenses or the fees charged, whichever is lower.

However, this provision has been implemented unevenly. In , Madhya Pradesh filled 88.2% of the 25% quota and Rajasthan filled 69.3%, while states like Uttar Pradesh managed only 3.62% and Andhra Pradesh just 0.21%. Furthermore, corruption under the quota provision is also rampant. Parents often issue fraudulent to qualify under the quota, and schools do not oppose bribery as they favor students from affluent families. When wealthy private schools try to integrate economically weaker students, existing students often withdraw their admission due to a broad physical, infrastructural and cultural chasm between the classes. In India, there is still a stigma around studying with someone from a vastly differing economic background. 

Adding Insult to Injury

There is another problem with the quota system for economically underprivileged children. The central government is supposed to reimburse state governments who fund schools for filling their quota. Unfortunately, there is no methodology for this. The central government decides on an ad hoc basis what any state is supposed to get. For example, in India’s most populous state of , expenditure per child per year is 3,064 rupees, or approximately $41. However, the central government gives this state of 236 million people only 450 rupees, or around $6, for every poor child. Naturally, schools have little incentive to fill their quota for economically underprivileged children, meaning that a mere 3.62% of the seats are filled. 

More significantly, the RTE has failed to address the fundamental issue of the lack of quality in Indian education. According to the 2018 “,” 55% of fifth graders in public schools could not read a second-grade textbook. The quality of teachers tends to be poor. Their pedagogies are almost invariably outdated. Teachers often lack motivation and training. In 2015-16, 512,000 teachers — or one in six — in elementary government schools were .

One nationwide survey revealed a teacher of 23.6% in rural areas. In states like Uttar Pradesh, teachers are hired by paying . Often, they are barely literate. When teachers are qualified, they often run private coaching businesses instead of teaching in the schools. 

To add insult to injury, untrained teachers use curricula that have little relevance to the lives of poor schoolchildren. They champion rote-based learning and, more often than not, destroy creativity. Many schools lack proper buildings, decent roofs and proper toilet facilities, especially for girls. Blackboards, basic learning aids and even chalk can run short. In 2018-19, only 28% of all government schools had and only 12% had an . Despite the government campaigning for a digital India, it has done little to provide computers and internet connectivity to schools across the country.

Time for Reform

As of 2020, India just 3.1% of its GDP on education. Importantly, every national policy since 1968 has recommended a figure of 6%. Other developing countries such as and spend 6.5% and 6.3% respectively. The government of India could start with emulating its BRICS counterparts in increasing the amount it spends on rearing the next generation.

Even the little amount India spends on education often does not reach schoolchildren, the intended beneficiaries of the system. Like all aspects of Indian life, corruption causes much harm to the most vulnerable of the country’s citizens. The upper and middle classes almost invariably send their children to private schools, as do officials in charge of drafting India’s education policy. It is only the children of the poor who end up in government education, with parents having little knowledge or influence to demand either accountability or quality.

Officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) preside over all ministries in India from finance and industry to culture and education. These IAS officers have little if any experience in education. These officers often spend their time trying to get postings to departments with more power and greater opportunities for corruption. They have little incentive to reform the broken system either at the level of the state or national government. Politicians see little gain from focusing on education either. They are always too busy with the next election.

India’s citizens have to demand better use of their taxpayer money. The best use of that money in the long term is investment in education, not only in as funding but also good policymaking. Politicians must entrust this policy to educationists, not IAS officers. In the past, India’s great institutions were set up by the likes of Rabindranath Tagore, Madan Mohan Malaviya and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, not faceless bureaucrats.

India needs educational reform now more than ever. The pandemic has been devastating for hundreds of millions of students. If the government fails to act now, India will become an even more unequal and divided nation than it is today. Without high-quality mass education, the country will never have the skill or the knowledge base to be a truly dynamic economy. India’s government schools need to be good enough for the children of top politicians, not just for its poor downtrodden masses. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post It’s Time to Make India’s Education Good Enough for All appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As a child, I experienced the difficulties of dyslexia firsthand. Growing up, I often felt dumb, lacked confidence and had low self-esteem. I couldn’t read until much later than my classmates, albeit slowly, and continue to have difficulties with math. When paying bills, for example, I still say each number out loud, highlight each digit and review it several times before I hit send on my laptop.

To this day, I still have stomach aches weekday mornings Monday through Friday, but not Saturday or Sunday. This was caused by the anxiety I felt waiting for the school bus and knowing that when I arrived at school, I would not be able to complete tasks, somehow embarrass myself and feel stupid.

Stop Treating Teachers as Cheap Labor

READ MORE

Before the Christmas vacation in first grade, I recall being very excited hearing bells ringing in the hallway. Our teacher told us it was Santa’s elves putting candy in our boots. We all darted out of the classroom into the hallway. I was shocked to find sticks in my boots. Was I a bad kid? My teacher, not being familiar with dyslexia, probably thought I was lazy.

Needless to say, I failed first grade. However, I was fortunate to repeat it at a nearby school that had an excellent special education teacher. Her instruction, along with support from my family and friends, helped me cope, build much-needed confidence and self-esteem. My father repeatedly told me that I could achieve anything I wanted if I was willing to work hard. He also told me that if it took me twice as long as other students to complete my homework or study for tests, that’s what I had to do.

Other dyslexics are not as fortunate as I was and don’t have the educational assistance, emotional support or encouragement I received as a child. Consequently, it’s estimated — and is no surprise — that dyslexics include over 30% of , 50% of all adolescents involved in rehabilitation and nearly half of all those in the United States.

The brains of dyslexics are wired differently. On the upside, dyslexics think outside the box in a non-linear way, in pictures, not words. Research indicates dyslexics are highly creative, insightful and intuitive, and are able to identify complex patterns much more easily than the average person. I credit this characteristic, which I identify as big-picture thinking, for my ability to connect the dots in seemingly unrelated economic trends and other factors.

In the United States, it’s that dyslexics, who may as much as 10% to 20% of the population, comprise approximately 35% of entrepreneurs, 40% of all self-made millionaires, and 50% of rocket scientists at NASA. Dyslexia is so common at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it’s called “the MIT disease.” Interestingly, years ago, the American Astronomical Society noted that astrophysicists with dyslexia at times outperformed their non-dyslexic colleagues in identifying the distinctive characteristics of black holes.

Many of the world’s most famous and successful people are dyslexics. This reportedly includes Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Leonardo DaVinci, Bill Gates, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, and Charles Schwab. Their genius didn’t occur in spite of dyslexia but, more likely, because of it.

In addition to its advantages, dyslexics also often learn to cope with difficulties and deal with failure, which is part of any successful process. I suspect many of my early achievements were motivated by my need to prove I wasn’t a failure.

The advantages of dyslexia are extensive, but they often remain untapped if dyslexic students don’t have access to quality special education services. Although mandated by US federal law, students don’t always get an adequate individualized education plan or the help they need.

According to Annual Performance Reports from the US Department of Education, the cost of schooling a child receiving a special education can be more than twice the average. Since poorer school districts are not as well financed as wealthier ones, and teachers are not always sufficiently trained, many children with dyslexia fall through the cracks, as the numbers above make obvious. This needs to change.

Just as important, the advantages of dyslexia will not be obtained if the child has a negative attitude or a poor opinion of themselves. I’m reminded of the wise words from Henry Ford: “Whether you think you can, or think you can’t … you’re right.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can Dyslexia Be an Asset? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

US schools have suffered from a continued loss of teachers. Every year, 8% of public school teachers leave the profession entirely and another 8% of them move between schools, to Learning Policy Institute. Teachers leaving their jobs is detrimental to staff quality at schools and, ultimately, to the academic performance of students.

But why is there a high turnover rate at public schools? According to a by Geoffrey D. Borman and N. Maritza Dowling, teachers often quit due to dissatisfaction with policies that affect how they do their jobs, low salaries and working conditions.

Will We Wake Up to the Big Tech Distraction Crisis?

READ MORE

In 2001, the US Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which on “individual student achievement and overall school performance.” Since then, test-based accountability reform has tried to hold teachers responsible for the performance of students in exams. Under pressure to achieve proficiency benchmarks, teachers have reported experiencing burnout and test stress, leading to many quitting their jobs. In low-performing urban schools, where students tend to score lower grades, the teacher turnover rate is higher than in suburban institutions.

Low salaries, which often fail to match the cost of living in urban areas, exacerbate the problem. In Singapore, where the turnover is six times lower than in the United States, teacher salaries were 30% higher than the national wage average, as of 2019. In the US, this figure stood at 17%.

As a result, many low-paid teachers in the United States do part-time to make ends meet. Taking on heavy school duties and a second or even third job can lead to fatigue. A tired and distracted teacher is less likely to deliver quality lessons. They may not have extra time to assist underperforming students or communicate well with parents. Such working conditions result in an inequitable distribution of teacher quality. In turn, the achievements of students who require additional assistance in their learning are affected.

The CAN Approach

The high turnover rate needs tackling. To do so, an approach that focuses on compensation, appraisal and networking (CAN) would lead to more teachers staying in the profession.

First, when teachers with marketable skills are unhappy about low salaries that do not fairly compensate for their job stress, it is natural for them to quit. The simple way to fix this is to raise teacher salaries. It is not hard to understand that teachers who are paid a meager amount and are forced to bear test performance responsibilities have intentions to resign.

It is ironic that federal and state governments call for high-quality education but are unwilling to invest in hiring high-quality teachers. The argument against doing so is that there is a lack of available funding. Yet this is not the case. The money is available but has been misplaced. As of 2017, school districts an average of $10,000 to $26,500 to fill vacancies left by each departing teacher. If this cash is instead invested in providing better salaries, teachers would think twice about leaving in the first place. If a tap is dripping, it is wiser to fix the problem rather than let more water go down the drain.

Second, standardized testing only partially examines the knowledge students obtain at school. Test scores are highly volatile and can be affected by a student’s socioeconomic background, English proficiency and even mood on exam days. Using the one-time performance of students is not a suitable way of measuring the quality of teaching. Holding teachers accountable for various factors that could influence grades is unfair.

A more comprehensive appraisal system for teachers is the order of the day. The current model that focuses on test scores needs to be replaced by one that also looks at other important goals. Aside from grades, education helps to equip students with social-emotional learning skills. It is essential for children to understand their own emotions, cope with negative ones and develop empathy with their teacher’s assistance. These life skills are often not tested or even measured, but they make a huge difference in a student’s future. Such an approach would better reflect the effectiveness of teaching.

Third, newly-qualified teachers have the highest turnover rate. Mentoring programs, especially those that match both experienced and novice teachers in the same subject field, are particularly important. Such programs provide networking opportunities to help new teachers integrate into school culture and acclimate to teaching protocols.

Teachers matter for a child’s education. Children spend a considerable amount of time in schools during their formative years. Teaching quality not only affects a student’s academic achievements but also heavily influences their life outcomes. It is time to stop treating teachers as high-quality cheap labor. High-quality labor is not cheap, and cheap labor is not high quality.

*[Updated on June 6, 2021, at 17:00 GMT.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Stop Treating Teachers as Cheap Labor appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This new role, nevertheless, depended on him being one of the richest men on earth. He now wanted to be seen as the most virtuous wealthy man on earth, the one who only thought about what his money and wisdom might produce for other people. After shamefully neglecting philanthropy for the first 20 years of his professional rise to the top, Gates suddenly embraced it. You could say he took possession of it, just as, when he was still CEO of Microsoft, he would sometimes take possession of companies with competing products to drive them out of the market.

Thinking about what he could do for others and giving them the means to meet their needs or achieve their ambitions clearly wasn’t enough. Gates would not be a passive philanthropist. His contribution would consist of telling people what they must do and how they must do it. Although to some, such as or the Daily Devil’s Dictionary itself, it has been evident for some time, acute observers are just beginning to understand the extent of the damage produced by Gates’ commitment to spending billions of dollars for our collective health, education and welfare.

Bill Gates and the Zero-Sum Vaccination Game

READ MORE

In yesterday’s column, we cited Alexander Zaitchik’s detective work in his New Republic with the title “How Bill Gates Impeded Global Access to Covid Vaccines.” Gates would probably argue that without the prospect of earning untold billions in the future thanks to their control of intellectual property rights, the incentive consisting of being paid generously to develop a global solution in the interest of humankind would simply fail to motivate the pharmaceutical giants who control the marketplace of critical drugs and vaccines.

Gates his hand at education and failed miserably. His role in defining the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 vaccine program produced a fiasco that could have been avoided. Gates is now focusing on agriculture, becoming, as a member of the Sioux nation, Nick Estes, , the “largest private owner of farmland in the US.” Gates is now particularly active in India’s agriculture, which is currently undergoing a major crisis. 

In all these cases, Gates steps in with cash and convinces others, especially public authorities, to support his projects with government funding that will be used to fulfil his, rather than the public’s, agenda. He runs his experiments, always designed as top-down management ventures. He then watches them fail and walks away, presumably a wiser man. Worse, the public only remembers that he put up the cash, not that he played Dr. Frankenstein or the sorcerer’s apprentice. The devastation he creates remains. In the best cases, the damage is local. In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, it has been global.

Dr. Joseph Mercola on The Defender, a website dedicated to “Children’s health defense,” the Indian scientist and ecological warrior, Vandana Shiva (a 51�Թ� contributor) concerning Gates’ foray into Indian agriculture. In his summary of Shiva’s points, Mercola cites this one: “Through his company, Gates Ag One, Gates is pushing for one type of agriculture for the whole world, organized top, down. This includes digital farming, in which farmers are surveilled and mined for their agricultural data, which is then repackaged and sold back to them.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Digital farming:

The transformation of an essential human activity aimed at feeding humans into a profitable activity aimed primarily at feeding the bank accounts of shareholders in agribusiness monopolies.

Contextual Note

Shiva and Mercola advocate for an intelligent, ecologically sound return to the human culture of farming. This implies more than following the mechanical rules of industrial processes. Like all cultures, it is a bottom-up creation that grows from human experience. It includes not only the respect for natural techniques and processes but also the maintenance and development of traditional relationships that imply human rather than purely technological control of farming.

Without denying science — Shiva has a PhD in quantum physics — she understands the very real cost of dehumanizing agriculture. India’s Green Revolution permitted a rational leap forward after the disorder of colonial rule, but it also set the stage for a disastrous transformation of the environment, which, if pursued, will transform India’s breadbasket into a desert.  

Should we listen to Shiva rather than Gates on the relationship between science and farming? After all, she is the scientist; Gates is an industrial promoter. Shiva justifiably exclaims: “My god, what kind of stage has the world reached that absolute nonsense can pass the science?” Historians may end up calling that stage in our economic and cultural history the “financialization of everything.”

Shiva seeks to counter the crushing weight of corporate power and monetary might in a hyper-industrialized, artificially intelligent economy that reduces human activity to the management of mechanized assets. The corporate powerhouses and sainted post-industrial gurus like Bill Gates definitely have data on their side. They live and breathe data. Data is literally their wealth and the only thing they seriously believe in. To prove that their policies are right, whether while manipulating the media or giving a TED Talk, it is data that they cite, not human accomplishment.

Their monetary wealth now focuses on monopolizing data and codifying it as intellectual property, which in turn inevitably extends their existing wealth. Data is, after all, an asset with low overheads and infinite capacity for duplication. That is the unique, nasty secret to the historical success of Microsoft. Bill Gates and the corporate world of which he has become the emblem represent the concentrated wealth with the power to influence governments and dictate policy.

Historical Note

Mercola compares Gates to John D. Rockefeller. Though he doesn’t mention their names, he remembers the maestros who founded the art of : Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays. Those two men were called in to successfully transform Rockefeller’s public image from a grasping, evil robber baron to that of a munificent benefactor of humanity. Lee and Bernays did more than save Rockefeller’s tattered reputation. They inserted the meaning that was missing from the myth of capitalist acquisitiveness. Capitalism is not just about producing goods that become available to the mass of consumers. Thanks to philanthropy, it’s also a system designed to encourage a new type of virtuous behavior.

Rockefeller’s, JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie’s capitalism developed unhindered through the late 19^th century until a few political actors — two of them named Roosevelt — looked for largely imperfect but nevertheless reasonably effective ways of reining them in. That was a period in which manufacturing sat at the core of the economy, set the tone for the management of prosperity and produced the wealth that spread through the growing consumer economy.

At that point in capitalist culture, through most of the 20^th century, what counted tended to be tangibly material. In recent decades, financial games have overtaken all other forms of economic thinking. Bankers, industrialists and politicians depend on it for its so-called “productivity” — producing profits out of thin air. There may still be a tenuous link with the real economy since financialization seeks to establish and control monopolistic production and distribution. But the logic behind the production no longer has anything to do with human needs and even less with human culture.

Bill Gates is not alone, but more than any other public figure he has successfully positioned himself as the man who knows what everyone else needs and has the money to write the rules of the game on a global scale. Does this make him the new Satan? In one sense, Gates is simply the product of his times. Better than the visionary inventors — Steve Jobs or Elon Musk — Gates has always known how to appeal to the idea of pragmatic seriousness. MS-DOS, not Macintosh, conquered the world of business in the 1980s. But it has become increasingly obvious that thanks to his money, the world has become a poorer place.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is Bill Gates a Danger to Humanity? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Traditional media companies profile their readership and pitch their offering to their target market’s preferences. This often becomes its central activity. Reporting the news and informing the public becomes secondary to using news reporting to validate a worldview that may not be explicitly declared. Some media outlets reveal their bias, while others masquerade it and claim to be objective. The Daily Devil’s Dictionary has frequently highlighted the bias of newspapers like The New York Times that claim to be objective but consistently impose their worldview. In contrast, The Economist, founded in 1843, has, throughout its history, prominently put its liberal — and now neoliberal — worldview on . 

Zambia Is The Economist’s Damsel in Distress

READ MORE

Many of The Economist’s articles are designed to influence both public opinion and public policy. One that appeared at the end of last week the practice, advertising its worldview. It could be labeled “liberal technological optimism.” The title of the article sets the tone: “The new era of innovation — Why a dawn of technological optimism is breaking.” The byline indicates the author: Admin. In other words, this is a direct expression of the journal’s worldview.

The article begins by citing what it assesses as the trend of pessimism that has dominated the economy over the past decade. The text quickly focuses on the optimism announced in the title. And this isn’t just any optimism, but an extreme form of joyous optimism that reflects a Whiggish neoliberal worldview. The “dawn” cliché makes it clear that it is all about the hope of emerging from a dark, ominous night into the cheer of a bright morning with the promise of technological bliss. Central to the rhetoric is the idea of a break with the past, which takes form in sentences such as this one: “Eventually, synthetic biology, artificial intelligence and robotics could upend how almost everything is done.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Upend:

As used by most people: knock over, impede progress, halt a person’s or an object’s stability.

As used by The Economist: to move forward, to embody progress.

Contextual Note

In recent decades, the notion of “disruptive innovation” has been elevated to the status of the of modern capitalism. Formerly, disruption had a purely negative connotation as a factor of risk. Now it has become the obligatory goal of dynamic entrepreneurs. Upending was something to be avoided. Now it is actively pursued as the key to success. Let “synthetic biology, artificial intelligence and robotics” do their worst as they disrupt the habits and lifestyles of human beings, The Economist seems to be saying the more upending they entrepreneurs manage to do, the more their profits will grow.

In the neoliberal scheme of things, high profit margins resulting from the automatic monopoly of disruptive innovation will put more money in the hands of those who know how to use it — the entrepreneurs. Once they have settled the conditions for mooring their yachts in Monte Carlo, they may have time to think about creating new jobs, the one thing non-entrepreneurial humans continue to need and crave.

For ordinary people, the new jobs may mean working alongside armies of artificially intelligent robots, though in what capacity nobody seems to know. In all likelihood, disruptive thinkers will eventually have to imagine a whole new set of “” to replace the ones that have been upended. The language throughout the article radiates an astonishingly buoyant worldview at a moment of history in which humanity is struggling to survive the effects of an aggressive pandemic, to say nothing of the collapse of the planet’s biosphere, itself attributable to the unbridled assault of disruptive technology over the past 200 years.

What The Economist wants us to believe is that the next round of disruption will be a positive one, mitigating the effects of the previous round that produced, alongside fabulous financial prosperity, a series of increasingly dire negative consequences.

The article’s onslaught of rhetoric begins with the development of the cliché present in the title telling us that “a dawn of technological optimism is breaking.” The authors scatter an impressive series of positively resonating ideas through the body of the text: “speed,” “prominent breakthroughs,” “investment boom,” “new era of progress,” “optimists,” “giddily predict,” “advances,” “new era of innovation,” “lift living standards,” “new technologies to flourish,” “transformative potential,” “science continues to empower medicine,” “bend biology to their will,” “impressive progress,” “green investments,” “investors’ enthusiasm,” “easing the constraints,” “boost long-term growth,” “a fresh wave of innovation” and “economic dynamism.”

The optimism sometimes takes a surprising twist. The authors forecast that in the race for technological disruption, “competition between America and China could spur further bold steps.” Political commentators in the US increasingly see conflict with China. Politicians are pressured to get tough on China. John Mearsheimer on the necessity of hegemonic domination by the US. Why? Because liberal capitalism must conquer, not cooperate. But in the rosy world foreseen by The Economist, friendship will take the day.

Historical Note

We at the Daily Devil’s Dictionary believe the world would be a better place if schools offered courses on how to decipher the media. That is unlikely to happen any time soon because today’s schools are institutions that function along the same lines as the media. They have been saddled with the task of disseminating an official worldview designed to support the political and economic system that supports them. 

Official worldviews always begin with a particular reading of history. Some well-known examples show how nations design their history, the shared narrative of the past, to mold an attitude about the future. In the US, the narrative of the war that led to the founding of the nation established the cultural idea of the moral validity associated with declaring independence, establishing individual rights and justifying rebellion against unjust authority. Recent events in Washington, DC, demonstrate how that instilled belief, when assimilated uncritically, can lead to acts aiming at upending both society and government.

In France, the ideas associated with the French Revolution, a traumatically upending event, spawned a different type of belief in individual rights. For the French, it must be expressed collectively through organized actions of protest on any issue. US individualism, founded on the frontier ideal of self-reliance, easily turns protestation into vigilante justice by the mob. In France, protests take the form of strikes and citizen movements.

The British retain the memory of multiple historical invasions of their island by Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and more recent attempts by Napoleon and Hitler. The British people have always found ways of resisting. This habit led enough of them to see the European Union as an invader to vote for Brexit.

The Italian Renaissance blossomed in the brilliant courts and local governments of its multiple city-states. Although Italy was unified in 1870, its citizens have never fully felt they belonged to a modern nation-state. The one serious but ultimately futile attempt was Mussolini’s fascism, which represented the opposite extreme of autonomous city-states.

The article in The Economist contains some examples of its reading of economic history. At the core of its argument is this reminder: “In the history of capitalism rapid technological advance has been the norm.” While asserting neoliberal “truths,” like that “Governments need to make sure that regulation and lobbying do not slow down disruption,” it grudgingly acknowledges that government plays a role in technological innovation. Still, the focus remains on what private companies do, even though it is common knowledge that most consumer technology originated in taxpayer-funded military research. 

Here is how The Economist defines the relationship: “Although the private sector will ultimately determine which innovations succeed or fail, governments also have an important role to play. They should shoulder the risks in more ‘moonshot’ projects.” The people assume the risks and the corporations skim off the profit. This is neoliberal ideology in a nutshell.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Welcome to The Economist’s Technological Idealism appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Global climate change is finally being recognized as the single most severe threat to humanity and the planet. This century is also on track to become the era of natural disasters, unique in the history of humanity, with tropical storms, floods, droughts, heatwaves and wildfires rising exponentially in number. Pandemics, global warming and natural disasters are but three of the many large-scale crises at play, posing problems that are particularly challenging for policymaking at various levels.

A New Social Contract Amid a Crisis

READ MORE

The 21^st century is expected to produce even more and ever greater challenges for the global community. Biodiversity loss, water scarcity and desertification, food insecurity, refugee crises, failing states and more will affect many societies in intricate, complex ways. Termed “” by the United Nations and various other institutions in an effort to generate data, knowledge and advice to decision-makers, the pressing problem centers around how we go about solving them.

Complexity, Uncertainty, Ambiguity

Phenomena like climate change, pandemics or the creeping collapse of democratic governance and the rule of law can be resolved neither by any individual country, let alone by populist and nationalist politics that defy multilateralism, nor by conventional policy design. Humanity will have to find a way to come together and develop novel and innovative concepts of governance of global public goods and commons, and of global crises, under 21^st-century conditions.

These are conditions of wickedness, , , occurrence at a planetary scale. Humanity and planet Earth, with all its living species, form a huge symbiosis, a socio-ecological system, much as depicted in James Cameron’s 2009 movie “Avatar.” There is no pristine natural space left untouched by human influence and no human remains untouched by at least one of the many disturbance regimes, such as climate change or the current pandemic, that are haunting us.

In our previous op-eds, we advocated that in the face of these mega crises, new or renewed social contracts are key and that social learning will provide for the vehicle to get us there. We argued that scientists play an important role if they become engaged citizens of their societies and that the self-serving politics of delusional populists and autocrats — whose global mushrooming coincides with the exponential rise of global crises — are to be replaced.

Future narratives that are necessary to guide collective action in the 21^st century must be principled and must be about resilience and, sometimes, resistance, often through adaptive or transformative approaches and processes, as well as through education, learning, enlightenment, empowerment and responsible citizenship. Such narratives have to be global and universal, mirroring the scale and globality of the crises that are so daunting today.

The truth is simple: Solutions have to fit the scale and magnitude of the problems, as the pandemic has shown. Humanity must now overcome the comfort zones and confines of tribalism, nationalism and self-interest, or it will perish. In the face of a perfect storm of global mega crises, we must transcend the ideological concept of self-interest driven nation-states, of hegemony and of balance-of-power ideologies that date back from the 17^th century but still drive much of our modern world. The 21^st century poses brutal challenges to humanity but bears the potential for an evolutionary leap forward, toward true global citizenship and a global social contract.

Transforming Globalization

In less than a year, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the very tenets of 50 years of globalization: the tyranny of international trade regimes, return on investment-oriented global supply chain management, carbon-intense industrial production, the brutal transnational labor market and related migration schemes and global air travel. The notoriously short-lived international capital flow and foreign direct investment came to a halt for a moment — something the 2007-09 financial crisis failed to achieve — and are now being questioned by unlikely sources.

Even die-hard Chicago School economists have started to explore the circular economy (better late than never). It appears that the pandemic and its fallout are a drastic eye-opener that forces us to realize, finally, that much of the “progress” that globalization has brought about is borrowed, if not stolen, from future generations, non-human species, ecosystems and the planet, divided as we are by equators of rich and poor, of winners and losers, of “developed’ and “underdeveloped.” It is simply not sustainable.

COVID-19, climate change and many of the other “Grand Challenges” are of course correlated with the so-called Third Industrial Revolution and 50 years of neoliberal globalization and Wall Street finance capitalism. One does not have to be a socialist to understand this simple truth. Indeed, there is hope that the current global public health crisis will lead to a general reckoning, including of people in power, and that there will not be a mere continuation of business as usual after the pandemic.

Globalization and capitalism have to be transformed, enlightened, guided by mutuality and governed by wisdom and foresight based on the revitalized ideas of the global common good, of global citizenship and of a new global social contract. Think “Avatar.”

*[This article was submitted on behalf of the authors by the Hamad bin Khalifa University Communications Directorate. The views expressed are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the university’s official stance.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will the Pandemic Revitalize Ideas of the Global Common Good? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A New Social Contract Amid a Crisis

READ MORE

In an age in which, even without a pandemic, learning has been increasingly filtered through the impersonal medium of technology, the authors are also absolutely correct to insist on the social dimension of learning.

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Social learning:

Any learning that produces a result.

Synonyms: Broadening horizons, deepening understanding, respecting context, encouraging critical thinking, systemically coherent ideation.

Antonyms: Schooling, indoctrination, certification, asocial learning.

Contextual Note

To those who have delved into the question of how people learn, the idea that learning can be effective without being social is objectively a hard position to defend. But in today’s society, it is easy to justify. The idea that learning is a fundamentally individual process has become a dominant theme of modern ideology since at least the 19^th century and the Industrial Revolution. Our school systems have been built around the idea of individuals each seeking to outdo others thanks to their individual efforts.

Of course, individual learning experiences do occur and can have a significant influence on behavior. Someone wandering through the woods in the summer and happens to rub a bared shin against poison ivy will learn to look out for that plant and avoid it. They won’t require the assistance or the instruction of other people. But that kind of purely individual experience is only the first degree of learning — and it is fundamentally imperfect, as the proverb — once bitten, twice shy — demonstrates. Contact, communication, exchange and dialogue with other people add multiple dimensions to the learning experience, providing both breadth and depth of understanding, even for something as simple as avoiding a fundamentally mechanical or chemical risk.

Thanks to the social dimension that inevitably surrounds that first accidental brush against aggressive vegetation, the victim of poison ivy will learn not only about that particular plant but also about poisonous plants in general and the precautions one should take when strolling in the woods. Such learners will also begin to construct a series of ideas about cutaneous affections and possible treatments.

But it doesn’t even stop there. They will relate this unconsciously to everything else they learn about the relationship between humans and the wilderness. It will serve as a small but significant component in a lifetime of discovering the logic of the multiple, both predictable and unpredictable interactions that define the physical and moral universe, including notions relating to nourishment, growth, environmental adaptation and collective defense.

The idea that learning is fundamentally holistic, resulting from the multiple dimensions of human experience and dialogue, implies that everything we learn is a stage in a progressively structured, or “constructed,” system of relationships and understanding. That system integrates personal experience, intellectual appreciation, networks of ideational and emotional associations and social exchange. Each of these dimensions remains dependent on or at least linked to the others. Accordingly, everything we feel we know is a function of the multiple contexts in which what we know can be true — and sometimes false when the context changes. This general approach to the psychology of learning has been historically called constructivism.

Behaviorists, who reject the constructivist approach as unscientific and unpragmatic, prefer to reduce learning to the Pavlovian simplicity of a reflex, or sets of reflexes, acquired through repeated experience and resulting in simple associations that permit the acquisition of reflexes. 

This approach impoverished the very idea of learning, but it appealed even to academics, who sensed that it could simplify the problem of teaching. It also fit perfectly into a model of social and economic organization that focused on efficiency and profit, and depended on the science, or at least the practice, of accounting. Anything that is simplified and isolated can be accounted for. Anything that depends on its relationship to a system escapes accountability. That may explain why, in our prevailing political morality, individuals may sometimes be held accountable but never the system that has “constructed” those individuals.

Historical Note

The school of psychology known as behaviorism achieved dominance in the ideology of the 20^th century. It served the purposes of an industrial civilization intent on building and perfecting the model we call consumer society. It reinforced the idea that schooling was fundamentally about conditioning young people to live in a two-dimensional world, in which every individual was alternately a producer and a consumer. Success in society thus becomes measurable by income and accumulated wealth, not by the quality of interaction with the rest of society. Success in education itself is measured by grades, diplomas and certification. In other words, something that can be printed on a piece of paper and serves as a criterion for classification and judgment.

In the West, principally in the course of the 19^th century, the idea of utilitarianism as the basis of ethics emerged to challenge traditional systems of morality, which utilitarians accused of being arbitrary and ill-equipped to calculate mathematical accountability. Traditional morality was vague because it depended on the perception of norms related to some kind of shared worldview. Most often a key component was provided by the community’s dominant religion. But more fundamentally, the pragmatic, everyday ethics of any human community was constructed through a mix of legal and cultural factors that were more or less consistent with whatever religious influences prevailed.

Pleading the cause of social learning as the means not just of solving a crisis, but of using the crisis to achieve something more important, the authors of the 51�Թ� article affirm that social learning “engages all parties as citizens working toward a common good.” They call it a “transformative process.” This is another way of describing a constructionist view not just of the learning process of individuals, but of society itself.

At one point, the authors observe that little evidence exists to support the idea “that information per se leads to any transformational social change.” Their analysis of a social problem at the macro level applies equally to the micro-level of an individual’s schooling. Bombarding children with “information per se” on which they will be subsequently tested — eventually leading to grades, diplomas or certification — fails to lead to any transformational change. And yet, most people suppose that education should be about transformational change. Every child is subjected to random experiences through play, interaction and adventure. Education should serve the purpose of mobilizing those resources to help the child become an adult with a steady and stable, but also creative and adaptive, relationship with the world. 

Education should, therefore, be linking the play, interaction and adventure which all children experience with both science, which is not just information, but research, and the less definable cultural heritage of “wisdom,” which may come from the arts and traditions of serious thinking. STEM — Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics — is simply .

The authors cite “the principles of truth, equality, shared responsibility, solidarity and legitimacy,” which they pertinently call “the ‘glue’ that binds nations and societies together.” None of these can be easily defined and taught, least of all by applying behaviorist principles. “Shared responsibility” stands, in some ways, as the opposite of accountability, and yet it includes a more subtle reading of accountability as a moral concept. Coupling “solidarity” and “legitimacy” recalls the subtle link between social norms and legal systems.

The authors focus on the problem of the credibility of science. This happens to be one important dimension of a much vaster issue concerning the direction of a civilization that has never disposed of a greater range of material means while at the same time demonstrating its incapacity to address any of the problems it has begun to acknowledge. There are of course structural reasons for this dilemma, which is why a truly constructionist approach based on social learning might just be the one that is called for.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Do People Learn? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Global Pandemic Exposes Gender Inequality

READ MORE

The report further warns that “COVID-19 is expected to make inequality even worse than past crises since measures to contain the pandemic have had disproportionate effects on vulnerable workers and women.” Even before the pandemic, growing income inequality had become a stubborn feature of global economies, but that doesn’t mean we should accept it — or the social devastation it’s likely to cause.

Tragic Rise in Inequality

The rise in inequality isn’t just tragic for the millions who are directly affected. We see it reflected in the growing allure of authoritarianism, in the fearmongering directed at lower-income groups, and in the despair and hopelessness of those who feel left out and left behind. The accelerating increase in inequality is dangerous for the future of societies and for the planet.

Ironically, the two groups who have fared best in recent decades are the very poor and the very rich.  The global decline in extreme poverty is one of the most important developments of recent times. Between 1990 to 2015, the extreme poverty rate from nearly 36% to 10%. At the other extreme, the have done quite well. In the last 10 years, the number of billionaires around the world has nearly doubled. In 2018, the 26 richest people in the world held as much wealth as did the entire bottom half of the global population — some 3.8 billion people. More to the point, from 1990 to 2015, the share of income going to the top 1% increased in four out of five countries around the world.

This massive redistribution of wealth means that the world can no longer be neatly sorted into “developed” and “developing” countries. The global distribution of wealth is now more of a . But the good news ends there, and the trend is inescapably clear: Wealth inequality is growing around the world. In the , it’s rising not just because the rich are getting richer, but because since 2000, incomes at the lower end of the scale have stagnated or fallen. is the highest among the G7 countries, and the wealth gap between America’s richest and poorest families more than doubled from 1989 to 2016. Between 2007 and 2018, median income in black households fell from 63% to 61% of median white household income.

COVID-19 has worsened things considerably. The pandemic has hit poor countries particularly hard, with experts estimating that as many as 115 million people could fall back into extreme poverty in 2020 alone. Unemployment in most countries has risen the most for people in lower-paid jobs. In the US, unemployment among those with less than a high school diploma reached 21.2% in April, while for those with a postsecondary degree it peaked at 8.4%. According to the , the impact of COVID-19 on workers with lower levels of education will be even worse than the global financial crisis of 2008.

Human Work

While COVID-19 has accelerated the shift, the transformation of work — especially the automation of a much wider array of tasks through the use of artificial intelligence — is a major driver of inequality. For decades, as low-skill jobs were automated, we have seen an increase in the knowledge and skills demanded of workers. Of course, this is reflected in the rising demand for higher learning and the credentials that represent such learning.

This long-term shift reflects the emergence of human work — work that demands uniquely human traits and capabilities. A human worker takes traits such as compassion, empathy, and ethics, combines them with developed capabilities such as critical analysis, interpersonal communication, and creativity, and then applies them, often in highly interactive settings. Much human work involves helping and serving others, using technology and other resources to understand and help solve people’s problems.

Today, and even more so in the future, holding a good job and doing meaningful work depends on people’s ability — and opportunity — to prepare themselves for human work. Sadly, these opportunities are unavailable to many, which means inequality will continue to increase. But we can change that — first, by changing our approach to education, training and employment.

To begin with, we must abandon the outmoded idea that education, training and employment are different activities that occur in discrete systems. We still see learning and work as separate and sequential: People go to college or technical school, and then they go to work, maintaining their skills through experience and occasional training on the job. This approach has been obsolete for a long time, yet it is still how most education and training systems are designed, certainly those in the US.

But in reality, “student” and “worker” are no longer two different kinds of people, if they ever were. In most cases today, people play both roles simultaneously. Learning and working are done concurrently and continuously, and both are necessary throughout one’s career. For today’s economy, and even more for tomorrow’s, the concept of “once and done” education is dead. In an era when people can be thrown out of the labor market suddenly with little chance to prepare, all workers need opportunities to keep learning throughout their lives and careers. And all of that learning, however and wherever it is obtained, needs to be recognized to count toward credentials that open the door to meaningful work. 

The true tragedy of the rise in inequality is that it reflects a society coming apart at the seams. But changing the trajectory of inequality to build a more just and open society isn’t an insurmountable challenge. Indeed, if 2020 has taught us anything, it’s that massive change can come very quickly. Now is the time to work toward such change. We can do that by applying the three interrelated aspects of human work — learning, earning and service to others — toward reducing economic and social inequality. Indeed, our only way to eliminate these inequities is to ensure that everyone has the capacity and opportunity to do human work.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post “Human Work” Is the Key to Ending Income Inequality appeared first on 51�Թ�.

360˚ Context: The State of the Indian Republic

READ MORE

That is a pity. COVID-19 has brought lessons in its wake that we will ignore at our peril. In a societal sense, the pandemic has laid bare the fragile and counterproductive assumptions that underpin the way we have organized ourselves. Education, as the primary mechanism that drives long-term change in a society, must respond in a way that protects and strengthens children today and the nation tomorrow.

Institutionalisation of Education

Three important mechanisms of social organization that have been taken for granted in education during recent decades are institutionalization, urbanization and globalization. If COVID-19 is not a one-off event — and there is no reason to assume that it is given how exploitative our engagement with our environment continues to be — each one of them must be reassessed for worth, especially for how they affect the future of our children.

Institutionalization has promoted the idea that the only learning worth our children’s time and our money is the one that is provided in schools, colleges and universities. Across most of the world, this has made learning information-centric and uncritical. It has packed children into rows and columns in classrooms and made them unfamiliar with their surroundings. It has taken them away from the productive use of their hands and bodies, and valorized “brain work,” creating an artificial crisis of periodic unemployment even before the unimaginable destruction of employment caused by COVID-19.

It has snapped children’s’ connections with their land, their environment, their culture and their communities, replacing them with words in ink on paper or typeface on a computer screen. In India, a mindless pedagogy has further ensured that institutionalization fails even in its own objectives as student achievement in “learning metrics,” mainly focused on literacy, numeracy and data, has kept falling.

With pre-school centers closed, COVID-19 has brought attention squarely to the role of parents in the holistic development of their young children. (We started Sajag, a program for coaching caregivers in nurturing care in April 2020. It now reaches over 1.5 million families and is set to expand further. Many others have started similar programs.) By forcing the closure of schools and colleges, COVID-19 presents us with the opportunity to explore what exactly is being lost when schools close. It also creates the possibility that we will discover how much there is to learn in communities, on land, in relationships and in discovery and invention, outside the school. It has the promise of suggesting a radical overhaul of what we value in education.

Urbanization of Communities

Urbanization has caused us to believe that ghettoization of people in cities is inevitable as we “develop.” With economic and social policies in most countries oriented toward this shibboleth, we have seen unhygienic conditions grow exponentially in cities, even as rural communities have been devastated by the loss of populations. Mental health challenges in urban communities have become alarming, accentuated simply by the inhuman stresses that accompany urban living. For our young, it has meant few physical spaces for wholesome growth and play, little opportunity for meaningful community engagement, and a social landscape tragically barren of nurturing experiences.

By attacking densely-packed urban communities disproportionately, COVID-19 has laid bare the fallacy of organizing ourselves solely for economic efficiency. It asks us to reconsider how physical communities should be laid out, how large they should be, how they should harmonize into the surrounding landscape and how their cultural, economic and political sinews should function.

We have also been fed the inevitability of globalization, almost as a primal force. It is true that it promises economic efficiency, but we have, in the process, lost much. Diversity is the essence of risk reduction and long-term survival and thriving, whether at the level of an organization, a community, a nation or, indeed, evolution of life itself. In a few short decades, blinded by the promise of economic efficiency, we have traded diversity away for massive inequality and loss of local skills, trades, crafts, self-reliance, agency and autonomy. Our textbooks, the only source of information promoted by our policies, have consistently failed to ignite an examination of the underlying assumptions and the all too visible outcomes among our children.

COVID-19 has alerted us to the downsides of these Faustian bargains. Its dramatic spread is certainly a result of our way of life, with air travel being the primary vector. The heart-breaking spectacle of tens of millions of migrant workers walking hundreds of kilometers and sleeping on asphalt roads in India’s scorching summer heat is another. They discovered that they had no means of support, no community, no fallback when their employment ceased. COVID-19 has also awakened us rudely to the reality that having the world’s fastest GDP growth rate is no protection against ending up with the world’s steepest fall in GDP and widespread misery.

Globalization of Society

The globalizing impulse has led to entire education systems being unmoored from authentic experience and unresponsive to local needs. As a result, it has fostered and valorized the creation of an alienating and alienated elite. The reaction to that is a distressing level of anti-intellectualism throughout the world. That, of course, creates the fodder for the assembly line that is perhaps the holy grail of the globalizing philosophy in the first place, but it also creates a dangerous level of instability and irrationality in society that can eventually only tear everything apart.

To the extent that we continue to regard globalization as self-evidently good, we create the potential for damaging our children, inhibiting their learning and creating a world that is less fit for them. Time has come to drop the fiction that local wisdom is somehow inferior and to engage in a meaningful dialogue that hasn’t foreclosed on the alternatives.

To disregard such fundamental questions in an education policy adopted in the middle of the pandemic makes little sense. These should be the subject of widespread dialogue, including in our schools and colleges, before and after the adoption of the policy. The sensibilities that arise from such deliberations must inform our liberal education as well as the conduct of professions such as engineering, town planning, medicine, economics, sociology and, indeed, education. An education policy that doesn’t even consider the questions relevant to how our education system should be structured has surely not paid attention.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post India’s New Education Policy: Not Paying Attention appeared first on 51�Թ�.

360° Context: The State of the Indian Republic

READ MORE

Prima facie, the NEP might make many Indians happy because it has something in it for everyone. However, a careful read reveals that the NEP does little to change the direction of our education. It largely promises cosmetic changes. In essence, the NEP is a collection of myriad aspirational expressions, not a coherent policy framework.

The ideologues of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) may find the references to ancient wisdom of India heartening. It might lead to young Indians learning that Banabhatta outlined 64 forms of art or Sushruta pioneered glorious surgical techniques. However, it does little to prepare the young to shape the future.

Given my advocacy of long-term policymaking, I should have reasons to thank those who drafted the NEP. They have taken a 20-year view and set goals for 2040. Just as we plan over a 20-year timespan, not a five-year one, for our children, so should our national plans. Yet a bad 20-year plan is worse than its bad five-year counterpart, and that is my problem with the NEP.

What Are the Changes Proposed?

Let me pick on a key aspect of the plan. The NEP proposes the . This means that, all over the country, students will learn three languages. These are Hindi, English and the regional language of the respective state. The government believes that it is abolishing language barriers in the country. Instead, this has triggered off a storm in non-Hindi speaking states. In Tamil Nadu, there has been long-standing opposition to Hindi as compulsory learning or administration. The three-language formula has been around since 1968 but failed to take off because parts of India resent the domination and imposition of Hindi.

There is another tiny little matter. Demand for learning in English has taken off around the country, including and especially in Hindi-speaking areas. Thanks to the legacy of colonization, the advent of globalization and a host of other factors, English has emerged as the language of success in India. The people do not care for the three-language formula one jot. Yet the BJP’s NEP is flogging a dead horse.

Many have lauded the NEP for promoting multidisciplinary education. This has long been discussed. At far too young an age, Indians are cast into rigid silos of arts, science and commerce. As a result, they lose love for learning and end up at lower-productivity levels than their counterparts in Europe or East Asia. The NEP allows students to change disciplines more easily along the same lines as in the US. However, this flexibility will only benefit the country if quality education is offered in different disciplines. For instance, English and history are taught terribly in a rote-based manner in most schools. Shifting from science or commerce to study either subject might enable a student to pass more easily but would achieve little else.

The NEP offers greater flexibility in earning degrees either over a period of time or across subjects. Offering multiple entry and exit points in higher education is a good idea. It may help people find their true interests and give them second or third chances in life. However, the key logical next step is to unlink degrees from jobs, where academic degrees are immaterial. A new form of recruiting that is based on demonstrated merit and knowledge of the work itself is the way forward for the country. The NEP has missed that opportunity to curb India’s fixation with degrees and promote a culture of focus on work.

Supporters claim that the NEP is focusing on work by combining vocational education with school and college education. In due course of time, vocational education will be on par with other degree programs. A carpenter, a plumber or an electrician will command the same respect as someone with a �������ٱ��’s degree in literature, history or sociology. This argument is disingenuous. Increasing “respect” for vocational programs involves changes in social perceptions. It requires much deeper and drastic changes than those envisaged by the NEP.

Bad Thinking and Poor Drafting

In fact, the NEP is full of seemingly good ideas that have simply not been thought through. It has passing references to fostering creativity and instituting a 360-degree view in student report cards. It also throws in digital education, adult learning and lok-vidya (folk education) about local heritage and culture. Yet the NEP fails to tell anyone how these ideas will come into practice.

The drafters of the NEP forget that soundbites are not policy. Nor are tweaks. Turning a 5+3+2+2 system into a 10+2 or 5+3+3 one does not change the way students are taught or the way they learn. Similarly, giving a certificate after year one, a diploma after year two and a bachelor’s after year three does not change syllabi, pedagogy and learning. Yes, a student can drop out after a year with a certificate, but would that be worth the paper it was written on?

To change education, India must improve the quality and commitment of its teachers. Training them in institutions with new names or giving students multiple exits or entries in a four-year bachelor of education program offers flexibility in getting a degree but does not improve the quality of their instruction.

In comparison with earlier education policies, the National Education Policy is a poorly-drafted document. It is a testament to how India has regressed under the BJP. The demonetization policy was instituted by a hasty, poorly-drafted document. It seems that the government does not have the intellectual policymaking firepower of its predecessors.

One sentence in paragraph 4.13 on page 14 of the NEP captures drafting woes common to recent government documents when it proclaims: “In particular, students who wish to change one or more of the three languages they are studying may do so in Grade 6 or 7, as long as they are able to demonstrate basic proficiency in three languages (including one language of India at the literature level) by the end of secondary school.”

Does this mean that students can change the languages they are learning as long as they can travel into the future, i.e., Grade 12, and prove they are proficient in the new languages they choose? Or does it mean that students must be prepared to prove proficiency in the languages they choose in Grade 12? Sadly, the NEP is full of such unadulterated absolute nonsense.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post India’s New Education Policy Is Hodgepodge appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Today, there are 1.2 billion people aged 15 to 24 years, making up 16% of the world population. So, to achieve the SDGs, countries around the world probably need the support of young people. The youth can build on their creativity, dynamism and talents to make the world a better place to live and to tackle the challenges faced by the international community.

Young people would benefit from the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as the SDGs are officially known as. However, they are also active contributors in the development of the goals. The engagement of young people in sustainable development efforts is pivotal to achieving inclusive and stable societies.

Africa’s Mixed Record on Keeping Up With UN Goals

READ MORE

In September 2016, the Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth the first class of the Young Leaders for the Sustainable Development Goals. Their mission is to advocate for the UN SDGs, promote creative ways of engaging youth in fulfilling the goals and working with different UN departments toward accomplishing the 2030 Agenda.

Kristeena Monteith, a young Jamaican, was UN’s Young Leaders of the Sustainable Development Goals for 2018. She is also the creative producer of the Talk Up Radio show run by young people and broadcast nationally in Jamaica.

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Monteith about the role of young people in the realization of the SDGs, the challenges ahead of democratic institutions and the media portrayal of youths.

The transcript has been edited for clarity. This interview took place in 2019 at the 3rd International Youth Forum on Creativity and Heritage along the Silk Roads in Changsha, China.

Kourosh Ziabari: What skills and abilities do you think young people need in order to be able to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals?

Kristeena Monteith: We need to develop a sort of social awareness of the issues affecting the world. I feel like sometimes we are, even in our own societies, unaware of what is affecting the people, but then on a global level, we’re even less aware of the different issues.

So, first of all, develop an appreciation for the fact that people deserve dignity, people deserve a level of quality of life right across the board — regardless of whether they are or they’re not like you — and then from there, you can start to really invest in understanding what exactly these people need. So, one thing that the Sustainable Development Goals give you is a framework within which to understand what quality of life could mean to people right across the board — whether it’s access to health services, access to quality education, or whether it’s on a bigger policy level being able to support themselves and their families and having financial stability in their countries.

All of these things matter because we’re trying to build a world where people feel comfortable, [and] feel like they can live to their best ability. So, once you pass the cultural understanding, then you need to be able to leverage your own skills, whether that is your writing or your talent as a business person. It’s about turning the things that interest you and the things that you are innately passionate about into putting them at the service of the world on a larger scale.

So, whatever skills it is, it doesn’t matter what exactly your skills are. It’s about framing a way to turn that into helping to build a more equal society and a world where everybody has the potential to live fully.

Ziabari: What organizations or entities do you think are responsible for giving young people these skills and capabilities in order to be able to work for the SDGs?

Monteith: That’s actually a very important question because you [need] to have support for developing this sort of mindset at every single level. So, every major institution in a young person’s life — whether it’s their family, school, church or religious institution — as you go along each and every one of these institutions, must have a sort of mindset of what we’re doing. [That is] building a better, more equal world for everyone. And so each and every one of them will put their power into different people from the standpoint of trying to embrace them and trying to help them to understand what skills they need to develop to contribute.

So, if it’s a multi-sectoral, multi-angle interest in creating that sort of sustainable future, then that’s where you’ll get the sustainability from because all of us are working towards a joint goal. So, at every single level, every stakeholder, every business, every church, every mosque, every synagogue, each and every one of us has to achieve if not all of the goals, [then] at least one you feel passionately about. Understanding how they interrelate with the other ones is all people really need to support young people along that journey.

Ziabari: Do you think that governments, especially in developing countries, are properly listening to young people and addressing their concerns on employment, education, social justice, health and wellbeing, equality and other similar concerns?

Monteith: I think there are some governments that are trying. I know for a fact that the government of Jamaica is trying. They’re trying to listen, they’re trying to balance this really politically diverse and complicated world that we live in and the region that we are in — with the global superpower, the USA — and the fact that we need money from China to build and to improve infrastructure. So, there’s a lot of tension going on.

Then, you have to balance that with being a sovereign nation, having to put your citizens just at the forefront of what you do. And so, you have very complex geopolitical issues that are playing out, and within that, you have a growing world population of young people who don’t necessarily know how they fit in the process of how much our issues should be prioritized — how much the things that we want and we need in order to live fully and to participate should be prioritized.

And I think a lot of times, governments don’t recognize the power of the youth voice. If you’re building sustainability, the people who are going to be here [the] longest are the youth. So, you have to find ways to incorporate them into what you’re doing and to also facilitate them in developing a voice that, first of all, they can support you and your agenda. Because if you want sustainability, if you want longevity, if you want to produce policy that outlasts your administration, you have to invest in young people. That’s the only way to do that.

Ziabari: Right, that’s interesting. You are a [2018] young leader for the Sustainable Development Goals and have worked closely with different international organizations. Do you think the United Nations specifically as well as other international bodies are doing enough to make sure that the voices of the young people are heard? Can you give us examples?

Monteith: Well, I think with the UN at the moment, from what I’m seeing from my perspective, there’s a lot of capacity-building happening. So, they’re creating pathways for meaningful interaction. You have the SDG Young Leaders, you have Generation Unlimited, and they’re creating these pathways where empowered young people who are creative and passionate can have that sort of platform from which they can launch projects and they can call upon other young people in their societies.

But on the other hand, I feel like they have a very massive platform, and there are some ways in which it could be utilized even to a greater extent, whether it’s beyond just the SDGs or the UN youth strategy. I think we need to send a greater message to governments [and] to businesses of the power of the youth voice.

And we have a youth envoy, Jayathma Wickramanayake, whose platform is very important, She is in direct touch with the UN secretary-general, and I know she uses her platform very well. But I would love to see more than one UN youth envoy. I mean, she has a very much a global perspective [and] she has a whole team behind her informing her, but this is still one young person out of the population.

Then you look at the head of the UN and the heads of the UN [agencies]. They are always, without fail, very old people, and right across the board it’s always the case. And I know with age comes experience and they’ve built long careers of long service and very good service, but I feel like as we go along the lines, we have to be pulling young people up with us and helping them to develop capacity.

So, you need to see more visibility of young people at the decision-making levels at the top of some of these UN boards. I think it would send a greater message if we saw more young people there.

Ziabari: Please tell us more about your work on Talk Up Radio. I know you offer opportunities to young people to have conversations with governments, leaders and authorities and ask them questions. How have been the reactions on both sides? Have these conversations generated concrete results, including changes in government policies?

Monteith: What we’re trying to do is to bring government leaders and young people together in more tangible ways, beyond just voting. We need to create more avenues so young people can make their voice heard and also to access accurate, youth-friendly political information. Because as [I said] throughout the [2019] International Youth Forum on Creativity and Heritage along the Silk Roads in China, a lot of the times, communication that [comes] from the government is hugely in legal and political speak, and we don’t speak like that and don’t understand that language.

So, we’ve been trying to bridge that sort of gap, but also, we’ve been trying to get politicians to use social media more often to be more accessible on a one-to-one basis. So, even on Talk Up Radio, when we bring the ministers of government into the studio to talk to young people, it’s not just the four or five young people in the room. Usually, for the two weeks leading up to that event, we’ll be putting up calls on social media for young people to send in questions via WhatsApp, via Facebook, etc. So that we have a body of questions that have come from all over the island, and then we pose those questions in the room to the minister.

Change at the political level is often a very long process. It’s never just, OK, this is a very good solution and let’s get it into parliament right now. Oftentimes, it has to be vetted and investigated and there needs to be some academic backing to it. But what we’ve seen is that, especially in the case of one minister in particular — i.e., the minister of health in Jamaica — he has changed his language in some sense in how he approaches issues. So since we spoke to him about issues like period poverty, we’ve seen period poverty enter the political landscape as a term.

And then you’ve heard from business leaders and people in society saying that they’re going to develop solutions to this — even from across the other parliamentary body, the PNP [People’s National Party], that’s the other party. They’ve actually different ministers and different opposition leaders that have come up with ideas as well. So, it’s that kind of change that we’re noticing where once an idea gets to the mainstream, then more people start to engage with it.

And I feel even that is a level of success. Obviously, we would love to see more tangible results, but we have to admit that political change is a very long process. And we’re hoping that as we go along and a new budget is stabled and new discussions are being held, these things would also come up and from this forum [in 2019]. I’m hoping to go back and have a conversation of that kind with the minister of culture, trying to get her into the studio to actually talk to young people about issues that were raised, like cultural preservation, incorporating young people and their energies and their creativity into cultural practice in a more tangible way. So, we would push the issue beyond, whether or not they bring it up.

Ziabari: Let’s get back to the SDGs. You may admit that the Sustainable Development Goals are not a priority for some or many governments, especially those with less-democratic and more repressive regimes. How do you think these countries should be involved in efforts to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals and make it a priority for the benefit of their own people?

Monteith: Well, you know, it’s a very complex, political situation because even as we [go] along, we recognize that nations are sovereign — they have all rights over what they do within their borders. Even if what they do will have negative repercussions for the globe, we still cannot impose our will on them. So, the best thing to do is really to sensitize the people of that country to what the SDGs are and why they’re important, and [then] hope that you can spark behavioral change. There is a level of respect and diplomacy that has to be maintained as we go along because we have to recognize state powers [as] that’s what they are. They were elected by the people — [though] sometimes not. But within those borders, we don’t really have jurisdiction over how the government behaves.

So, with people, you can reach out heart to heart, mind to mind and change them or sensitize them, give them the information in order to put pressure on their own government, and in that sense, you do empower them politically to advocate for the things that they want. Because if they see that the SDGs are important and their government doesn’t, it’s upon them now to rise upon perhaps and elect another government or to reach out to the world for help in more tangible ways.

There are structures in place, for example, when coups are happening or when countries are calling for liberation or that kind of thing. There are policies in place across the UN, across different bodies in order to support such movements. But especially in regimes that are less democratic, I feel like the real change will have to come from the people. They will have to be the ones that will lead it because we literally cannot impose any sort of power on them. So, it will have to come from the people.

Ziabari: What do you think, as a young leader, can be done to help young people affected by war and conflict in the Middle East and North Africa to regain their confidence, reassert their identity and become proactive, involved members of their societies, especially if they are suffering from trauma and distress?

Monteith: I have two ideas about this. First of all, I come from a small country in the Caribbean, and I see that we do not have any clue — especially the young people — about many things, including what’s happening in these regions because we’re so far removed and it’s so different from our reality that it almost doesn’t make sense to us. So, the first thing I think we need to do is to ensure that information is flowing from these areas and is accessible to youth.

Young people in Jamaica need to understand what’s happening in Syria, what’s happening in Lebanon, what’s happening in Egypt, what’s happening in Libya. We need to be aware of that because we’re global citizens. No longer [do] our people [live] in one area for their entire lives, and [no longer do] issues that are happening elsewhere [not] affect them. Increased migration to Europe comes with restrictions for who else can go there.

So, these issues will affect us, as these governments in Europe have to spend more on accommodating people from these areas, and they’ll have less in terms of international aid to send to our country. We need to understand the connections in terms of what’s happening and that issues happening in one place are not necessarily divorced from what we will experience in our place.

Let’s be honest: Anybody can enter war at any time. Conflict does not take much to kick off — it really is something that’s fragile. Peace is fragile. Peace has to be worked on constantly and being able to understand the issues that lead to the rise of certain instabilities in certain areas can only help us to make our own democracy safer and stronger.

But on another level, I think we need to be able to support people from these regions in telling their own stories. They need to be the ones that are leading how these stories are told, and we need to hear their authentic voices at the UN. At every level, we need to make space for them.

In our organizations, we have SDG young leaders who are from the Middle East. We need to ensure that we have that voice there so that we’re not getting an outside interpretation of the issue — so we’re getting the actual, accurate depiction from within. And I think that’s how you bridge the gap [and] that’s how you create the change that can be lasting.

Ziabari: Do you think the media are doing a good job when it comes to relaying information from the Middle East, North Africa, this part of world to the other parts of the planet and are making people aware of the realities of the region? Or do you think the coverage is distorted and is not helpful for young people across the world to understand what’s happening in conflict zones?

Monteith: In general, I think Western media are not paying enough attention to what I said before, which is to give people opportunities to tell their own stories. So, I think we have one understanding of how politics flows and we don’t necessarily give these people the opportunity to speak for themselves. So, even on Talk Up Radio, we’ve interviewed young people from Egypt, from Lebanon and what we did was just give them the opportunity to speak and tell their own stories and to interpret the conflicts and what’s happening from their own perspective.

So, in Western media, I don’t think we do a good enough job of doing that, and I don’t think we understand the importance of doing that. I remember being at a journalism conference in 2015, and the issue raised with the heads of CNN and BBC was that the news from outside of the dominant north tends to be one-sided — we only get reported on when we’re in conflict. We only get reported on when there are massacres and people are dying and there are natural disasters. I never hear in the news that Jamaica is doing financially well or something good has happened. I imagine that the same thing happens to different areas around the world, whether it’s the Middle East or Africa, for example, especially sub-Saharan Africa.

The media has an opportunity to set an agenda in terms of how people understand issues. When you don’t see something in the media, you tend to not think it’s important. I’m not seeing enough coverage of the aftermath of the Arab Spring, [and] I’m not seeing enough coverage of what’s happening right now on the ground and how people are feeling. The only place to get that information is [to] form our independent media, and you have to seek those sources because they don’t ascend to the mainstream. So, if you’re not, for example, a journalist, you might not be really interested in going to look for that information. And I think with social media, we do have some opportunities to do that, but I know it doesn’t have the same power — it doesn’t have the same reach or the same legitimacy as mainstream media.

Mainstream journalists have to do a better job, whether it’s bringing people from these areas into the actual platforms that they own or even going there and giving [the people] the voice. We have to do better.

Ziabari: There are many stereotypes and cliches attached to different cultures and countries, and there are many people who buy into such narratives. What do you think young people can do to bridge the gaps between cultures and civilizations, debunk the myths and make sure that stereotypes do not prevail?

Monteith: Let’s speak from my Jamaican perspective. We know what the world has said about us. We know how we’re perceived in a lot of places. I mean, governments make it quite clear in whether or not they give us visa-free access or how we’re treated in airports or the ways in which the media and movies and music depict us. To be honest, we do have a generally positive perception of our own world as fun and creative people, but there are some political issues to do with violence in our country and biased ways we’re perceived, and we have to counteract that with our own knowledge of who we are and being confident in who we are as we go throughout the world.

And so you will find Jamaicans living in every single country you go to because we’re not afraid to venture beyond our borders and represent ourselves as a sovereign nation of power and history and legacy. But beyond that, we also have to advocate at every single level for the reassertion of our power as a country. It’s not enough for governments to simply be biased in how they deal with us or for media to be biased in how they treat us and for us to say nothing about it. No! Jamaicans will always be calling out when there’s been negative portrayals of us in media.

We have to actively fight that perception. So as young people in different regions, I think yes, you can use social media and put out a more nuanced, more accurate version of who you are as a people and your culture and your country. But when there has been negativity, when it’s been maligned by people, you have to call that out. You have to speak truth to power at every level. So do both: Try to reassert a positive image and be confident in who you are, but also when there’s negative and when there’s a slant, call it out, talk about it and really say to these media organizations that no, you’re doing a disservice to my culture when you do this.

Ziabari: Racism and racial discrimination are plagues that are affecting many modern societies currently. Can you think of practical ways to combat racism, and do you think there’s anything that young people can do in this fight?

Monteith: First of all, we have to understand racism. I think too often, racism is reduced to discrimination, it’s reduced to prejudice and it’s reduced to micro-aggressions. While those things are bad, they’re not necessarily racism. Racism is a system, it’s a structure, it’s an ideology. It’s a huge undertaking that is across societies, that is bigger than individual nations and it’s asserted in policy. It’s asserted in how we interrelate as countries. It’s asserted in this sort of hierarchy that we have with Europe at the top and Africa at the bottom. It’s asserted with white people, light-skinned people being portrayed in positive ways and then the darker you get, the worse off you are in every single society.

When I look at Myanmar and I look at the Rohingya people, they are darker-skinned a lot of the time. When I look across the world, wherever you go, you have dark-skinned people. They tend to be at the bottom of the totem pole. And I need for countries that may not necessarily have black people per se to understand how they are perpetuating racism when they create this class division between the lighter-skinned people, the fair-skinned people in their societies and the darker ones. The same thing happens in India — the same thing happens in a number of countries around the world. So, we have to understand the global flow of racism and the ways that we perpetuate it. To practically fight it, they are a number of ways.

One, you have to think about media representation of people of darker skin. Too often we are villains. Too often we are stupid. Too often we have no agency, no power. Too often our countries are portrayed in ways that do not give us any agency and so you perpetuate racism, you perpetuate human indignity when you do that. We have to make it very apparent that these things are very violent. You know, when you portray people this way, you’re not just hurting their feelings, you’re doing actual violence against them — you’re sanctioning their murder sometimes. You have to do better. We have to call it what it is. Because a lot of times, we’re not talking enough about it and we’re not doing enough about it. We are brushing it under the rug.

And we need to do that on a larger scale. So, when companies have poor advertising campaigns, the backlash has to go beyond social media opprobrium. It has to go into them actually losing money because we as people stand for something greater than commercialism. We’re not going to support your business if you’re portraying black people and people of color in a bad way. We’re not going to patronize you at all. We’re not going to do anything with you because that kind of value is completely against what we stand for. So, we have to make a great stand in what we do. Sometimes, we talk a big game but we don’t actually take proper actions. And as young people, we have to do that because we are one of the largest economic blocs. We pay for a lot of things, we buy a lot of things. So, we have power in commercialism in that sense.

Ziabari: And a final question: We live in the age of social media and super-quick connections online. How can young people use these platforms to promote peace, understanding and intercultural dialogue?

Monteith: Talk to each other, first of all. Forums of this nature [the International Youth Forum] are very unique in that we meet a lot of people from a lot of different countries and then we get to add each other on Facebook and on Instagram, and so we get to understand how each person perceives their own nation and the issues that are happening. So, we need to take up the mandate of investigating what’s happening in these countries and consuming media from these countries in more tangible ways.

Young people have the opportunity to even see, very literally, what’s happening in different countries right away. If you go on Instagram and if you search the hashtag for Kingston, you’ll see our culture, you’ll see our national heritage, you’ll see our natural environment, you’ll get a real perception of who we are. And that helps to break some of the barriers. That helps to break some of the stereotypes. So, we need to do that on a greater scale.

I feel like more of us need to understand the importance of international solidarity, of understanding what it means to be a global citizen, of understanding the fact that our countries are not far apart, they’re not so divorced from each other in terms of issues.

So, as we use social media to access that kind of content, we have to really internalize it as a way of living where we look at each other and we don’t see somebody from a foreign country who means nothing to me. We see people and we understand that the same wishes and wants, interests and passions that we have, those people have their own as well. Those people are experiencing a life in very similar ways sometimes. You know, they have similar passions, and as long as we can relate on a human-to-human level through social media, I think we’ll be slowly moving in the right direction.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Governments Must Recognize the Importance of the Youth appeared first on 51�Թ�.

360° Context: The State of the Indian Republic

READ MORE

Things could be getting even better. The government has the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 with much fanfare. It is a much-delayed and long-awaited review of the status quo. My daughter in the eighth grade is enthused by the choice that the NEP offers. Yet, like all policies, especially in India, much depends on its rollout and implementation.

Why Engineering Is a Big Deal

Like most other parents, I follow the news and try to keep abreast of what is happening to aid my child’s decisions about the future. The last three decades have demonstrated the great equalizing power of education. Globalization gave all those who had a certain level of education the opportunity to compete in a global labor market. They found employability around the world. Some did better than others. Today, those who studied engineering are running not only information technology companies but also hedge funds.

In the Indian context, those with engineering degrees run everything from marketing and finance in the private sector to intelligence and the ministry of culture in the government. This raises an important question: Why do those who study engineering dominate in most professions in India?

The answer is simple: India defines merit exceedingly narrowly. In a country where labor is plentiful and jobs are scarce, anyone with half-decent quantitative ability strives to get an engineering education. Since 1991, rapid economic growth led to more job creation in India, but most applicants lacked relevant skills. Clearly, higher education was not equipping students for the job market.

Faced with such a situation, companies sought the most efficient way out. They focused on hiring students with a basic understanding of logic and proficiency in numbers. Other knowledge and skills were deemed superfluous. Companies assumed that logical and numerate candidates could always pick up other skills on the job. So, they focused on hiring engineering graduates for all sorts of positions. Others were deemed almost unemployable.

When I ask other parents about the educational choices they make for their children, their unequivocal answer is employability. These choices are based on personal experience. Parents want the best for their children. They want them to get jobs, not starve on the street. So, we send our children to coaching classes from the age of 9 or 10 to clear engineering entrance examinations.

Why Indians Study Abroad

We are not just spending on private coaching. We Indians are also spending $20 billion per year to send our children to universities in Anglo-Saxon lands. We do so because getting into top institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) or Delhi University is difficult. The entrance exam for the IITs is the hardest in the world. Even the third cut off list for applicants to Delhi University requires candidates to have a minimum of 98%.

There is another reason we send our children abroad. Anglo-Saxon universities in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand offer higher quality education, better facilities and greater career opportunities. An education in Anglo-Saxon lands promises a better life for our children.

The decision to send children abroad does not happen after school. To study abroad, children study in schools that follow the International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum instead of the CBSE one. While IB grades are preferred by Anglo-Saxon universities, they are not accepted by Indian institutions. So, parents have to make the choice of sending their children abroad at a rather early stage. It determines the schools they choose for their children.

In India, there are many school boards apart from CBSE. These follow different standards in their marking. Equalization committees have emerged to do the hazardous job of comparing apples to oranges. They do so by giving unearned marks to students who have written their exams for boards deemed to be tougher. This process is ridden with pitfalls and hundreds of thousands pay the price for this arbitrary equalization. It is little surprise that IB schools tempt Indian parents.

Higher education outside the elite schools in India is in a poor state. In 2018, 101 business schools applied to shop. Their student enrollments had dipped after their graduates had been unable to get jobs. The education these schools offer has few takers in the job market, leaving them with no option but to close.

To understand the hypercompetition for jobs in the country, it is important to remember that more than Indians, over 50% of the country, are under 25. Employment figures still run low despite past years of high growth. So, India’s young population has to compete ferociously to get “quality” education or good jobs. Not only jobs in medicine or engineering but also in sales or marketing are exceedingly difficult to come by. Hence, parents send children to Anglo-Saxon universities so that they acquire a good education and a decent job. It is for the same reason parents push children into engineering if they study in India.

Making everyone study engineering does not make sense, though. Recruiting most jobs from engineering schools is not a great idea either. The three “Rs” — reading, w(r)iting and a(r)ithmetic — cannot be the monopoly of engineering graduates. There must be space for young people in the labor market who have studied history or philosophy. We must come up with a more catholic concept that gives students a holistic education.

As a father, I hope fervently for reforms in this direction. I want my daughter to have more meaningful choices to study in India. I want her to be able to decide what to study as per her intrinsic interests, not the arbitrary dictates of an oppressive job market.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post India’s Higher Education Must Be More Holistic appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There’s a lot at stake behind the decision to return to classes this fall, especially if you are a college student hoping a degree would promise a better career. For many students, especially first-generation college students and those from immigrant families, a degree is a ticket to a better life. Having to put your education on hold simply may not be an option for those who are struggling to make ends meet and have limited resources, for whom a delay may easily become . Delays may mean that students won’t be able to find the resources to finance their degree at a later date or that life’s momentum will simply carry them further away from their dream of a college education. In fact, studies show that those who delay going to college by a year or more are 64% to earn their degree.

Keeping the Academic Community Connected During the Pandemic

READ MORE

And that can mean not only a loss of education but also a . Fair or not, in an increasingly competitive job market, those college credentials might be the determining factor in getting the job that opens the door to the rest of your professional life. For instance, those wanting to score big bucks and land a career where demand is only predicted to grow in the coming years may well end up in the . Some of the most lucrative and prestigious careers in technology require advanced �������ٱ��’s degrees.

But even at the entry level, they’re not just handing out tech jobs on the street corner. Even if you don’t complete a full undergraduate program, you’re still going to need, at the very least, a good deal of training and, better still, a certification or two in software development, network administration, cybersecurity or a related field just to get your foot in the door. What all this boils down to is that for a college student trying to weigh up the present health risks against hopes and dreams of a professional future, the question of whether or not to return to school this fall is far from straightforward.

A Question of Safety

As undeniably important as education is, health is even more so. After all, pursuing an education will mean very little if students contract the virus and have a bad outcome because of it. Studies are increasingly suggesting, for instance, that those who recover from more severe cases of COVID-19 may have significant , including cognitive and physical impairments that may linger or may even prove permanent. But because we simply don’t know what the lasting effects of the virus may be, we also don’t know how this might affect survivors’ future academic or professional life.

There’s no question that COVID-19 is a terrifying enemy. And the fear of the danger that it may pose to students, teachers and their families is leading many to wonder if campuses should continue to be shuttered, at least through the start of the fall session. However, we are about this new pathogen, including how to identify unexpected symptoms and what kind of hygiene, isolation and quarantine practices work best. When it comes to the question of school safety in the age of coronavirus, though many questions remain, we also have a lot of important answers.

First, there are many actions that we know can help slow or even prevent the spread of the virus in schools and on college campuses. That includes to enable social distancing. It also involves rigorous cleaning and sanitizing of school grounds and meticulous hygiene for anyone coming and going. This includes not only frequent and vigorous hand washing and sanitizing, but also wearing when at least six feet (or two meters) of distance can’t be maintained.

That’s also going to mean that schools, colleges and universities will need to have a plan in place to trigger a lockdown and swift transition to online learning if infections escalate to unsafe levels in the community or region. Currently, some of the in the US, particularly those in hard-hit areas such as Florida and New York, are beginning the fall semester online and plan to transition to in-person classes if and when infection rates fall.

This is in keeping with the Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) guidelines, which recommend that districts base their decision to open, and to remain open, on rates of community spread or on the regulations that have been by state governors. But online learning doesn’t mean learning less. It doesn’t even mean having to struggle more with your courses. For some students, it is possible to if you’re studying remotely.

Overcoming Obstacles

For those who do struggle, the difficulties are significant, and it comes down, unfairly but likely not unsurprisingly, to socioeconomic factors. In Los Angeles, students in low-income districts may have been thriving pre-COVID, but once schools were shuttered and students went into quarantine, the lack of resources was immediately apparent. As documented in this story, Maria Viego did well in her classes, but once her campus closed, it took weeks for her to receive her district-issued computer. Once she did, the damage was already done. She was one of the children COVID-19 is leaving behind, although luckily not all districts in LA had the same experience.

Even the more affluent areas are finding it difficult to offer consistent access to online learning for students. In some cases, the sheer size of school districts leads to major . Server problems nationwide caused the online learning tool Blackboard to crash on the first day of distance learning for Idaho’s largest school district, West Ada. Idaho is a perfect example of how much access differs among districts in a state despite a lack of physical distance.

In some cases, supporting distance learning is difficult because a household is run by a single parent who provides for the entire family. There is no time during the day to help with homework. Districts are also becoming much more acutely aware of how little parents may be involved in their children’s schoolwork when they’re at home. In this new era of full-time distance learning, this is highlighting the chasms in education.

To combat these issues and others, various education systems from around the world have adopted a . Israel has created an online portal through which parents can access learning materials as well as data on their children. The national education system also broadcasts daily lessons for six hours a day in both Arabic and Hebrew. Estonian families receive all materials in both digital and hard copies, making it easier for families who struggle with tech or don’t have it at all to support their young learners.

Getting an education in the age of COVID-19 inevitably amps up the stress and anxiety in what is already a stressful process, but no virus should rob young people of the future they deserve.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Getting an Education in the Age of COVID-19 appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Siddell formulated the concern by asking four questions: “What will school look like? How will we manage work and school? Will we survive? How is this changing us?” This is not a trivial issue. The same dilemma is taking place across the globe. Siddell frames the existential question facing parents and their children as a strategic quandary: “how to balance academics, social-emotional health and work.”

The Mechanics of Discontent Visible in Berlin

READ MORE

With flames engulfing vast swaths of the land, including homes and schools, some of Siddell’s California neighbors may feel that wondering about the methods of education in a post-pandemic world has become irrelevant. There are more urgent matters to address.

Fires burn out, pandemics abate and the transformation of the Earth into a furnace by the year 2300, as reported last week, at least theoretically leaves us some time to think. For many reasons, remodeling education should be at the top of our list of priorities, even as a response to climate change. Knowledge and understanding theoretically lead to problem-solving. Ignorance comforts the status quo.

Political leaders in the US still focus on how to keep inflating the defense budget that fuels the US economy. President Donald Trump is the prime offender, but Joe Biden has consistently backed increased defense spending. Education spending, not so much. Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, wants to make access to education easier but appears to have no ideas about how to make it better or even prevent its collapse. Trump, on the other hand, positively prefers people being uneducated.

As a mother and a former teacher, Siddell has some important things to say. At a moment of history in which the authority of every institution appears to have collapsed, education can play in defining society’s values and ideals. The fire of educational dysfunction has been raging for decades and the damage it has caused partially explains our institutional failures. But only a few have taken the valuable time in their competitive lives even to think about how that fire might be put out.

Siddell identifies one of the major problems that afflict society at its core: “As another season wanes and back-to-school approaches, it is becoming increasingly clear that coronavirus has not reminded us to slow down, it has amplified our collective anxiety about keeping up.” School, she tells us, is where that anxiety is born and nourished.

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Keeping up:

The goal everyone in a competitive society is expected to adopt, which, when accepted, serves to produce collective anxiety based on the idea that there will always be some greater possession or higher position one must strive to attain simply because other people appear to have attained it

Contextual Note

If we make the wild supposition that civilization will not already have collapsed by the time the world achieves a coveted state of herd immunity to COVID-19 — the disease caused by the novel coronavirus — education may well be the one thing that requires our undivided attention. The mandatory lockdown and elaborate precautions now governing social interactions have already obliged most people to begin rethinking the three major issues that affect our daily lives: the nature of work, the source of stable revenue and education. 

Many suppose the solutions for work will come from artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. Revenue can be solved with a universal basic income. But there’s no silver bullet in view for education, and certainly not distance learning on a screen, though it will be a prized component for access to content.

Siddell sums up what education has represented for most of the past century: “We have created an education system based on competition. We are teaching our kids how to become dutiful participants in the rat race.” The problem is that the rules that governed the 20th-century rat race economy have begun to change. Education hasn’t. The rat race alienated both adults and children from society and the world, isolating them in their competitive bubbles. Siddell complains that “the hyper-competitiveness of education seemed to be working directly against cultivating a genuine curiosity about the world and a love of learning. Students were burned out, stressed out and grade-obsessed.” She subversively suggests that “competition is counter-intuitive to learning” in a society where people have to learn to be competitive.

Our civilization must either rethink the role of education in society or simply confess its conviction that education has nothing to do with learning and everything to do with producing the collective anxiety caused when life itself is seen as a Darwinian fight for survival of the fittest (i.e., those with the best grades). 

Historical Note

2020 appears to be the year collective anxiety across the globe reached a fever pitch so intense that the masquerade of our society functioning as a rational system finally became visible to all. COVID-19 may appear in history as the straw that broke the camel’s back. 

For the first reality has found a way of overtaking the increasingly elaborate hyperreality our society has been patiently building since the start of the industrial revolution. For many decades, effective hyperreality, the key to political control, was built on the “science” of marketing, advertising and industrially produced . Democratic politics itself became a simple sector of the consumer economy to be managed by unelected professionals. Some of them had names visible to the public, like Roger Stone, James Carville and Steve Bannon. But the system was fueled by armies of what could be called anonymous electoral engineers.

More recently, the hyperreal system integrated the tools of hypermodernity: big data, AI, capitalism’s “,” Silicon Valley’s “” and of course the powerful, increasingly concentrated corporate media’s supreme commitment to conflating news and entertainment. Hyperreal globalized capitalism became an economic and cultural juggernaut that brooked no opposition, achieving imperial conquest when the still nominally Marxist People’s Republic of China completed its apprenticeship of the black arts dedicated to managing human impulses through the control of consumerist ambitions and desires.

The only avenue left for reality to overcome hyperreality was through global catastrophe, the revenge of nature itself, not of subversive movements led by fragile human beings. Most people aware of the force of hyperreality expected global warming to do the job. But its effects were too gradual to create anything resembling an awakening. Thanks to the coronavirus, 2020 turned out to be the year the underlying trends finally became visible. Even political leaders, such as French President Emmanuel Macron, a former Rothschild banker committed to sustaining the hyperreal system, at one point appeared to admit defeat.

Kathleen Siddell believes that education should be less about grooming for competition and more about seeing the world as it is, which includes understanding the historical trends mentioned above. Perception and social exchange are the only legitimate starting point for learning. Instead, our reformers of education who have reacted to the crisis are proposing mechanical solutions.

Siddell complains that “the tutors and pods and micro-schools are just another reminder that none of these reforms has actually worked. In the American education game, it is still the richest who win.”&�Բ�����;She regrets that “we are staring at the pieces of a broken system and rushing to put it back exactly as it was before.”&�Բ�����;

That commitment to stasis is clearly the intention of those who continue to run the hyperreal show. But for someone living in California in September 2020, it may be time to pay attention to the warnings of another author, the late James Baldwin, who in 1963 correctly anticipated a future he would not see. The “next time” is already here. In 2020, it’s the fire this time.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Skies of Post-COVID Education Are Darkening appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Xi Jinping’s Tibetan Summer of Love

READ MORE

Funding, building and maintaining schools, paying administrators and teachers, all of that requires heavy investment in the nation’s youth. But because it concerns a population that will only be contributing to the economy in a distant future, there’s no urgency about addressing its real needs.

Material costs for the buildings and grounds cannot be compressed. The market sets the prices on these services. Achieving success means keeping expenses down. For the local authorities in the US that fund schools, the easiest path to success implies underpaying teachers, a policy most politicians generally approve. Administrators are often more munificently rewarded since they are saddled with the difficult task of preventing teachers from revolting.

Once the structure is in place, the question of the supplies required for classroom activities arises. That can easily be kept to a bureaucratic minimum by defining what is standard. But learning in a classroom guided by a competent teacher is complex and cannot be reduced to standards. Learning is too rich and complex a process to be reduced to the offering of a standard catalog.

Teachers realize that to achieve their pedagogical goals, they need items that the school’s or the district’s standard policy has not foreseen. Effective teachers are not robots who spew canned knowledge according to a predefined syllabus but function as pedagogical managers of the learning process for varied groups of people. This consists as much, and indeed more, of psychology and managing meaningful social interaction as it does the presentation of knowledge.

To be effective, teachers must be managers. Their goal is to optimize the work of a group of people. Like a manager in a commercial company, they should benefit from discretionary budgets that allow them to purchase the tools they need to attain their goals. But of course, unlike corporate managers, they are unable to point to the profit margin that will pay for it. Consequently, in today’s society, and particularly in the US, teachers end up spending a significant portion of their minimal salaries on the classroom supplies they need to make their teaching effective. 

This week, Yahoo Lifestyle its readers the “uplifting” story of Courtney Jones, a Texas teacher who has single-handedly devised what the journalist, Kelly Matousek, presents as a creative solution to the problem. The article bears the title, “How a school teacher raised $1M for educators around the U.S. — with help from Khloe Kardashian, Lance Bass and Kamala Harris.”

Matousek reminds readers of the need teachers “have to dip into their own salaries to pay for classroom supplies, as it’s been estimated (pre-pandemic) that teachers spend an average of $479 per year out of pocket on their classrooms.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Classroom supplies:

Objects and equipment required for effective teaching, in the United States, considered — much like education itself — unworthy of even minimal budgeting by the local politicians who fund schools

Contextual Note

Here is the narrative in a nutshell. After spending $2,500 on supplies in her first year of teaching, Jones took the problem to social media. She created a community of teachers that blossomed quickly. She then realized “that there was a pervasive issue here across the country.” Her community rapidly morphed into a nonprofit organization whose mission is “to connect schools and teachers with corporations, organizations, and community members that are looking to contribute to the enhancement of learning opportunities for all students.”

The article tells the heartwarming story of a serendipitous quest resulting in the betterment of mankind through education. But it can also be read as a sad commentary on the failure of the nation’s political structures to cater to the needs of educators. And it highlights the depressing trend, in the face of any problem, of looking to celebrities and private corporations, whose focus is not on education but on branding. 

The final result is that Jones and her #ClearTheList movement become brands in their own right. What is sacrificed in the process is the hope of a public solution to a persistent societal issue. While building awareness of the issue itself, it ends up taking it off the public agenda by reassuringly promoting the idea that individual actions and private initiative can solve any profound imbalance in the social fabric.

The media typically love narratives like this one that allows them to avoid exploring the nature of the problem. An attractive and enterprising young blonde teacher from Texas proves that an energetic individual with a sense of social purpose can create a trend that attracts celebrities, thanks to whose support the venture can vaunt its success. 

One or more corporations may then notice the opportunity and use it to polish their brand in a show of supporting a worthy cause. In this case, in the midst of a pandemic in which disinfectants have become a permanent feature of everyone’s life, Clorox stepped up and offered to put in place a sweepstake for lucky winners. It thus turned a manifest failure of the political community to respond to the needs of education into a lottery promising a monetary reward. This tale of the combined impact of an enterprising individual, public celebrities and private corporations encapsulates the logic of the entire political and economic system of the US.

When Jones read Kardashian’s tweet announcing that she had made a contribution, she was overwhelmed with emotion. “I cannot believe my small movement from Texas has made it to your hands,” she tweeted back in gratitude. This was the equivalent of “America’s Got Talent.” Jones had attained the summit of glory within the celebrity culture that, for Americans, represents an ideal far more respectable than excellence in education.

And, of course, Jones is delighted with what she perceives as the disinterested generosity of the corporate world. “They get the issue, they understand how pervasive it is,” she said in reference to Clorox. She finds it “so amazing to see a company understand it.” She may need to enroll in a marketing 101 course in the nearest business school to understand exactly what Clorox understands.

It gets better. Not only a glamorous celebrity and a well-known commercial brand pitched in. None other than the current vice-presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, lent her political celebrity to the cause when she : “The average teacher spends nearly $500 of their own money on school supplies for their students. It doesn’t have to be like this. We should provide teachers the tools and resources they need to educate our kids.” Everyone in the public eye knows how to play the branding game.

Historical Note

In the land of Milton Friedman, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” This also means that there’s no such thing as free education. For the past century, economists have been trying to work out a concept that makes sense of the idea of investing in education, but when studying the problem of inequities in funding, they can’t even agree on the principle that more funding beyond the basics serves any purpose at all. In 2002, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) that “most of the studies reported by economists have involved serious methodological problems.”

For those who care about education, the real problem is not the one economists and politicians talk about. Their debates are always about amounts of money, but never about the quality of education. This leads to all kinds of acrimonious discussions but avoids the root problem: that developed nations consider education not as a crucial feature of their culture, but as a tool to stimulate the competitive spirit within an economy.

Politicians put a price tag on everything, including education. Then they compare the prices to increase efficiency and worry over whether their solution is perceived as equitable. That they fail is understandable, because figures lie. But more significantly, education has no monetary price. The role of education in any healthy society cannot be reduced to the idea of invoicing goods and services. But, as the American journalist Glenn Greenwald us this past week, in very literal terms, this is not a healthy society. 

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Education’s Harsh Law of Classroom Supplies and Demand appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This year, there were no exams because the United Kingdom locked itself down against COVID-19. Instead, teachers supplied predicted grades. Teachers make these predictions every year, and it is with these in mind that universities make the offer of a place. Offers are made either unconditionally or with the proviso that the predictions are realized or bettered. In recent years, more and more offers have been made unconditionally, and these now comprise around a of the total.

Boris Johnson Takes Britain Back to Square One

READ MORE

Universities do this because they are dependent upon the fees each student pays: no students, no fees, no university. The pressure rises as universities expand, and each finds itself having to attract a greater share of a of school leavers. Restrictions imposed by a hostile immigration service on international students’ movements, and now in response to COVID-19, have made matters worse.

The Algorithm

This year was also different because, when the results were issued on August 13, it was obvious that Ofqual had intervened. The grades awarded to many students bore little resemblance to the schools’ predictions. Worried that teachers were being too generous and that this would undermine the credibility of the exams, Ofqual devised and applied a to moderate the results. The algorithm took account of the students’ mock results and the performance of each school in previous years, amongst other variables. The calculations determined that 40% of grades should be reduced. This threw offers and plans into doubt, causing umbrage among students, parents, teachers and universities.

Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, stuck resolutely to his guns. By August 17, he had abandoned them, and the original predicted results were reinstated. Williamson had been blindsided by Ofqual, he , and only became aware of the full implications of the recalculations over the weekend. Ofqual struck back, saying that Williamson had known difficulties were brewing ever since March, when he ordered the regulator to adjust grades if they appeared inflated.

It was then made known that the head of Ofqual, Roger Taylor, established and ran a firm implicated in the . His firm, Dr Foster,  had come up with an algorithm enabling the hospital to present its mortality rates as low when, in fact, they were dangerously high and its patients were being dreadfully mistreated.

Just what had Gavin Williamson been levelling at? The entire mess was completely avoidable and unnecessary. No exams had been taken, so there were no exams to be brought into disrepute. And there had been no exams because of exceptional circumstances. So why treat the teacher’s predictions as an assault on standards, especially when predictions are made every year and unconditional offers are issued to a fair proportion of students as a matter of course?

Whatever the answer, the response was immediate. Gasps of disbelief at the secretary’s sheer incompetence (“He’s fucking useless,” one vice chancellor) were combined with emotional outbursts from students worried that their lives had been ruined, from parents trying to deal with the fallout at home, and from university staff whose summer breaks were interrupted.

All parties most likely suspected that things would eventually sort themselves out if only because chancellors are desperate to fill seats. Having said that, the government and Ofqual displayed a complete absence of trust in teachers and schools. Most disgraceful was the treatment of students with potential and drive who had worked hard against the odds in schools assessed as poor over the last few years. At a macro-level, it meant that the proportion of the (the bottom third) who achieved a Grade C or better fell by nearly 11%, while the independent schools saw their proportion of A and A* grades increase by nearly 5%.

An education secretary, whose only claim to the job is that he was not educated at an independent school and did not go to Oxford or Cambridge, willfully took away the ladder from the very kids it is meant for. A more callous and spiteful decision in the name of equality is difficult to imagine. However, the farrago matters for another, even more important, reason. It illustrates just how superficial education has become.

Grades Are Everything

The A-levels are not just a passport to university. A school whose students’ average grades fall too far will come under greater scrutiny from the government, which can end in sanctions of one sort or another. These include changing staff pay and conditions; removing staff and governing bodies; turning the school’s budget over to an interim board; closing the school; or handing it (minus its former staff) to an academy. Academies, though state-funded, have more control over management, curriculum, pay, the selection of students and staff, and the freedom to attract money from private sponsors.

Of the 3,400 or so state-funded secondary schools (3.25 million pupils), nearly three-quarters (about 2.3 million children) are now . If an academy fails, then it, too, is either absorbed by a more successful one or closed. Independent schools judged to be failing can also find themselves in trouble. For instance, they may be prohibited from taking on new pupils, fined or closed. Proprietors who do not respond adequately to enforcement notices can end up in prison.

Grades, then, have come to mean everything. And because they mean everything, what they are supposed to signify has come to mean very little at all. The education system — and “system” is a good description — barely manages to educate. Where a good education is found in English schools, it is provided by teachers and parents despite the vast amount of nonsensical instructions (misleadingly entitled “guidelines”) issued by the government. In these oases of levelheadedness, staff teach outside the system’s narrow confines, helping children to explore more rounded and deeper understandings of the world, introducing them to new ways of thinking.

The problem is not just that teachers are weighed down and worn out by red tape. To avoid falling foul of the government and its quality enforcers, teachers must consume millions of words of legislation, statutory instruments, notices and guidance that lay out in extraordinary detail everyday practice within the school. It is that education — or rather the fulfillment of standards dictated by the government — has become a bureaucratic procedure, a glorified exercise in form-filling, in which content, imagination, experimentation and sustained and unconventional thought no longer matter.

Children and teachers must do what they are told to do in the way they are told to do it. “Best practice” holds sway over fresh thought. The student must see the world as directed. Thus, for instance, a play is a composite of meaning shaped by literary and dramatic devices. History is an unstable melange of constructions arrived at by historians through their interpersonal relationships. The economy must be studied through the application of the correct economic models. Only by breaking the mind into a kaleidoscope of skills through which patchworks of information are collected and assembled, declare geography teachers, can social and natural worlds be understood. Facts, interpretations and evidence are set out in neat bullet points so they can be memorized and marshalled in the correct way and in the correct place.

All of this and more — such as precisely defined “command words” like “analyze” and “suggest,” and the marks to be awarded for each correctly placed fact or argument — is found in thick, glossy volumes of “specifications,” “amendments,” “sample assessments,” published “resources,” “mark schemes,” “specimen papers,” “exemplar material,” “schemes of work,” “skills for learning and work” and “topic materials” produced by exam boards for each subject.

Officialism smothers all schools. But when parents are well educated and bring up their children to read, learn, write, talk and think coherently, teachers have an easier time of it. Children are confident, and this shows in class and in their work. Teachers know that as far as the exams are concerned, their students can, to all intents and purposes, teach themselves. A teacher’s immediate job is to make sure a child is practiced in the bureaucracy and is given the required information. This will deliver the grades.

The second, and more important job, is to lead their children out and well beyond those limitations. It is this — a passion for their subject and a willingness to go further — that really prepares the child for university and beyond. Most, though not all, of these schools are independent and selective.

State-funded schools are far more constrained by the system, and it is all they can do to meet its demands. The bureaucracy does not allow them the time, freedom, money or incentive to instill in children and parents the outlooks, values, beliefs, practices and confidence that will enable them to see beyond the government’s petty world view.

I should say that the distinction I make between independent and state is too stark. There are some excellent state schools, and there are some terrible independent schools — unhappy little communities tucked away in some old building in the countryside. My point is simply that education, rather than its bureaucratized version, is found unevenly and rarely, and is more likely where teachers and parents have the wherewithal and determination to play the system and so keep it from dragging them and their children down into a mire of niggling and pointless tasks, boredom and despondency.

Not Much Help

British universities have not been much help. Rather than find common cause with schools and encourage them in fostering a university-style education, universities have gone along with government reforms all too easily and are becoming more like brash, over-confident schools. The university has become a brand, an experience, a rite, designed to extract as much cash as possible from students. Walk away with a good degree, the student is told, and our brand will confer upon you a charisma, a light, a duende that will set you up for life or at least give you a foot in a door so that you show an employer what you can do. Meanwhile, behind all the pizzazz, the content of the degree is scratched away at and the process through which the certificate is awarded becomes more bureaucratic.

The trend is especially obvious in universities without a well-established pedigree. Why should a student pay tens of thousands of pounds for a certificate from a university no one has heard of? The answer is “relevance,” and relevance means “skills.” As the degree is hollowed out, the space is filled with an omnium-gatherum of skills: cognitive skills, intellectual skills, key skills, transferable skills, employment-related skills, practical skills, applied skills, inter-personal skills, writing skills, reading skills, thinking skills, networking skills, team-working skills, observational skills, speaking skills, speech-making skills, analytical skills, editing skills, note-taking skills, research skills, computing skills, entrepreneurial skills, lab skills, creative skills, leadership skills, work ethic skills and ethical skills.

Choose a verb or adjective, put the word “skill” after it, and it becomes teachable, assessable and marketable. To write an essay or a thesis or to take an exam is to engage in a piece of bureaucracy, an updated form of medieval scholasticism, in which all these skills are stitched together, tracked and traced.

By lifting a corner of the veil, the A-level fiasco exposes a little of the humbug swirling around the government’s education system and something of the cynicism with which the government treats the people it claims to represent. Just how deep this cynicism goes, however, is revealed by a matter from which the farce distracted public attention over the last week — a week that I suspect will prove deadly. I say deadly because it will be difficult in the time left to deter the government from repeating the same mistakes it made at the start of the pandemic that cost over 40,000 lives.

At present, the UK government and its scientific advisers are busy saturating the press with its claim that the “life chances” of children will be damaged irreparably if schools stay closed. A generation of children will “fall behind,” many of those who rely on schools to feed them will go hungry, and many others, forced to stay at home, will be at greater risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

The government’s chutzpah is breathtaking. To indict the produce of its own policies and then use that indictment as cheap blackmail in support of those same policies is surely the height of contempt. A of the population is poor because of government actions and inactions over many years. It is these “ordinary” people, as ministers like to call them, who are most under pressure to go work because of cuts to welfare, changes in benefit rules and threats from government.

It is also they who, last time around, from a virus allowed to run loose. And it is their children who are most likely to bring it back home after struggling on public transport and spending hours in crowded classrooms working on pointless and soul-destroying bureaucratic techniques. The only strand of reasoning that makes some kind of sense in this tangled web of lunacy is a ruthless one: the primary function of the education system is to keep Britain’s labor force — and especially its cheaper end — at work.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Britain Fails Its Exams appeared first on 51�Թ�.

For a decade. I researched with media theorist Dr. Criscillia Benford — my wife — the problem of how brains react to artificial inputs. Her explanation of how business incentives and psychological vulnerabilities interact in educational technology agrees entirely with the neuroscience news I have because they spring from our unified, quantified understanding.

Should Schools Rely on Ed Tech?

READ MORE

This article is long and dense because it provides what anyone who cares about kids — parents, teachers, governors — needs to defend children’s budding brains against this summer’s looming threat. If these ideas make sense to you, a better understanding of it comes from a second reading — on paper in good light, with a pencil in hand. That’s the whole point: Brains work best hooked directly to the senses, with time to digest.

Decades of experiments have outlined several general principles governing learning, which together we neuroscientists call neuroplasticity, principles based on the presence, quality, duration and order of sensory inputs and sensory-motor interaction. Unfortunately, many of us are muzzled by obligations to colleagues, employers and investors. At the moment, I have no such obligations, so I am free to give you 10 widely-recognized principles of learning, along with what those principles say parents and educators must do, immediately, to protect our children and their descendants. But first, allow me to praise our human species. 

Human Species

We are the most elaborately, intimately social animal ever to roam the planet. Dog-eat-dog doesn’t hold for pack animals, like dogs, whose nervous systems perform synchronized hunting to survive. Humans dominate the synchronization Olympics. Our distant runners-up are bonobos, constantly cuddling and caressing in countless ways, collaborating, conspiring and cooperating through high-bandwidth neuromechanical interaction among all possible pairs. Their hands and bodies are built for touch, and their brains for processing it. Humans have all bonobos’ physio-social circuitry and then some: white eyeballs to show where we look, bare skin sensitive to bare hands, perfect balance for expressive dance, octaves of various vocalizations for singing, intricate facial expressions and eyebrows to amplify them. Forget words, tools and symbols. Homo sapiens excels at continuous connection.

Neuroscience studies animals because animal nervous systems are like human ones. That essential similarity is why we perform experiments in the first place. We already assume by default that what applies to cats and dogs applies to us. The principles of neuroplasticity below were discovered 50 years ago through grisly experiments on kittens. Since then, during the computer revolution, they have been rediscovered in various mathematical forms by physicists, signal-processing engineers, data scientists and machine learning specialists. When human brains acquire skills, we say they learn. When autonomous computer models like neural nets and self-driving cars acquire skills, we say they self-calibrate. But the underlying principles are the same. 

The successes and failures of both learning and self-calibration depend on data quality, speed and timing in straightforward ways, ones that ultimately originate in laws of information flow through space and time. The mathematical generality of those laws means that neuroplasticity concepts are universal, applying everywhere in the universe to all self-calibrating instruments, even artificial ones. If robots existed on other planets, these laws of neuroplasticity would explain how they learn too.

Below are 10 principles of learning, followed by guidelines on their use defending children everywhere.

1. Critical Periods Are Critical… Period!

Babies have to learn to walk before they learn to run, to communicate before they learn to read, to grab before they learn to write, and to hug before they learn to love. Learning takes time, and it must build on previous, simpler learning.

Each little chunk of the brain is hard-wired to learn from specific inputs. If those inputs don’t show up in time, during a critical period for acquiring that skill, the brain gives up on those inputs and makes do with other ones. That’s actually a good strategy. A baby born with a bad eye, for example, will learn by age 2 to use only the good one.

The strategy can backfire if an otherwise good eye isn’t aimed right, as with lazy eye or wall eye, in which case the brain learns to ignore a functional but misaimed eye. A typical treatment is to cover the good eye, a therapy forcing the brain to learn to use the weaker one. During critical periods, it is important not to deprive the brain of its native inputs, and especially important not to replace them with anything worse. As athletes and coaches know, it’s at least 10 times harder to un-learn a bad habit than to learn it right from scratch.

Critical periods contain and constrain the essence of neuroplasticity, by turning the often-vague term “developmentally appropriate” into very specific guidelines regarding the presence, quality, duration and order of sensory inputs and sensory-motor interaction. The shortest critical periods, say, for vision in kittens, take weeks. The longest ones, for emotional nuance in humans, take decades, well into young .

Learning after a critical period is not impossible. But the longer after the critical period a child goes without acquiring full function, the harder the child will have to work to improve, and the less improvement it will make.

2. Primary Processing Precedes Perception

The simplest, most granular processing is the processing closest to raw input, such as edge-detection among pixels in computer vision, or their human equivalent, orientation columns, in the primary visual cortex of mammals. The general strategy is to learn these low-level features first and fast, harvesting the most information from the tiniest pieces using the highest bandwidth. More abstract, broader, slower features build upon those, so of course, they are learned later and more slowly. Or not learned at all, if the low-level primary features weren’t learned right first. 

The fastest and most granular low-level computations, denoted in microseconds and micrometers, occur 100,000 times faster than conscious thought. We need that deeply unconscious raw data most, yet by its nature, it is easiest to damage and impossible to sense directly.

3. Sensory Fusion Is the Rule

The structure of brains is simple. Most brain regions and micro-regions (cortical columns) share the same five-layer structure and all nerve fibers transmit the same pulses. The sensory wires aren’t labeled by where they came from. Because a piece of the brain can’t tell which input came from where, sensory input from different sources is inevitably mixed together into a single, coherent, multi-sensory perception. If any sources or senses are missing, or mistimed, the integrated whole will suffer.

4. Learning Requires Constant Objects

Those of us with brains know they make sense of the world, and those of us who live in the world know it is filled with 3D objects. Babies learn about individual objects by moving their eyes and fingers (and maybe lips and tongue) across them as the object stays still. If the object itself moved too fast, the baby couldn’t learn about it at all. Still, once it’s out of range, the baby may forget.

After a year or so, babies learn that objects continue to exist even when not observed. This crucial discovery is called object constancy, a foundational stage of cognitive development. If for some reason a child never learns this fact — for example, if instead of looking at a live face, they looked at face-shaped pixels — they would never learn the difference between pixels and real life, and could never learn to trust their senses. Babies can’t yet tell the difference between broken-up representations such as images and continuous real-life objects right in front of them. Exposing babies to both, intermixed, impedes learning object-permanence.

The brain’s basic need for truly continuous targets means a baby couldn’t learn to perceive motion if it lived in a stroboscopic world. Or in the screen world, which flashes 10 times faster and is also flat and pixelated. Screen-based images are not objects. They are blinking dots, micro-timed to provoke object recognition in mature visual systems, yet utterly incapable of calibrating immature systems. Do check this reasoning with someone who programs self-driving cars. Please don’t experiment with your children.

5. Perception Comes From “Serve and Return” Timing

Trust in one’s senses comes from interaction, not transaction. (My wife and I wrote the singular peer-reviewed about the physiological basis of trust.)

At the finest internal level, every mammal brain sends out pulses and gets pulses back. It uses the out-and-back pulse timing — with exactness down to microseconds, thanks to temperature-stabilized brains  —to make 3D pictures of a target region of space, whether containing muscles inside the body or surfaces outside it. A brain’s precision in spatial mapping is directly proportional to the timing precision of its pulses.

In psychology, this autonomous back-and-forth interaction, say a smile initiated by the baby and reflected by the mother, is called serve and return. In neuroscience, it’s called sensorimotor contingencies. In medicine, it’s called biorhythm synchronization. And in spatial imaging, it’s called time-domain ultrasonic tomography. All represent the same sensory algorithm but at different timescales.

6. Big Brains Need Play

Serve and return only works if the brain gets to choose when to serve. In other words, implementing a brain’s learning algorithm requires timing autonomy. The brain fiddles with its sensory-motor world in order to detect significant returns. The exact timings of its micro-actions, like private keys in cryptography, let the brain distinguish what it caused from what would have happened anyway. For immature mammals, this exploration looks like play. Play is children’s work. (Such work, including make-believe, is harmed by commercial coercion, as described in the , “Consuming Kids.”

The better a brain becomes at predicting returns, the smaller and more frequently it serves.  Practice and success dial down amplitude into the deep subconscious of the microsecond realm. This virtuous cycle starts in the womb as the baby learns to anticipate the mother’s heartbeat, voice and body tremor, ultimately synchronizing its biorhythms with hers. Ideally, the two signals match, a sonic synchrony undergirding the mimicry humans do so well later in life.

In fact, the same continuous active synchronization underlies all animal society. Gnats swarm, fish school, birds flock, packs hunt, mates dance and humans cuddle, play, wrestle, cry, laugh and sing. The tiniest flickers will always synch first, but they’re damaged by digitization the worst.

7. Natural Appetites Need Natural Statistics

The principles above, which derive from the physics of matter and energy, tell us brains need continuous physical targets nearby to return them good sensory data. The principles below, regarding attention and motivation, derive instead from a brain’s hard-wired expectations of what will be common vs. rare as it grows up.

In particular, brains are hard-wired to seek rare things to make sure we get enough. Our native appetites for sugar, fat and nutrients are well-known, but our native appetites for certain informational patterns — saturated colors, shiny things, novel shapes, sudden changes, sharp contours and recognizability in general — also correspond to their rarity and usefulness in evolutionary times.  Those expected (and formerly rare) patterns are collectively part of the “natural statistics” of the environment the brain was born to explore. Our senses enjoy “interesting things” because they are rare in nature. But if saturated, a brain becomes desensitized and dependent, as if in thrall to a kind of addiction.

8. Dopamine Drives Decisions

Dopamine is the motivating neurochemical that makes us want to learn, by rewarding difficult predictions. But as theoretical biologist Thomas Hills proved in 2006, the principle of dopamine preexists the chemical. Even bacteria have circuits rewarding successful prediction as they move about, and dopamine descended from those. This computational purpose of dopamine is to focus resources and make decisions. By design, patterns of inputs that capture dopamine circuitry control the nervous system via its most basic motivations. If the controlling pattern comes from an organic animal or inert object, we say the nervous system is learning useful habits. If the pattern is artificial, we say the nervous system is being hacked. Utter defeat.

Dopamine can be elicited, or rather administered, by countless artificial stimuli from drugs to porn to gambling to video games to social media. But dopamine only works as designed when its owner moves autonomously in a natural environment.

9. Data Asymmetries Permit Parasitism

There was informational warfare long before humans — perception vs. deception. Colored plumage, colored flowers, lures, camouflage and bandwidth arms-races. Whichever creature has more, better, faster information always gets to manipulate or prey upon the others. We humans have always been the ones to conquer or domesticate other animals. Now, by the numbers, “edu-tainment tech” is domesticating us.

10. Covert Biometrics = Adversarial Biofeedback

The most beneficial bio-measuring technologies, such as cochlear implants, heart-rate monitors and stress biofeedback, provide the user with real-time, high-quality, unbiased data streams their nervous systems could not ever provide. Those signals boost the user’s self-knowledge and remain under the user’s control. The worst forms do the opposite, secretly monitoring heart rate, blood perfusion, pupil dilation, typing speed, emotional affect, the target of gaze, stress levels, etc., and then using those signals to replace natural ones or subtly alter the user’s experience. The signals are far worse than useless because they actively impede perceptual learning. Not only do corrupt return signals lower perceptual accuracy all by themselves, but their unpredictability also destabilizes the algorithm for learning object constancy. Exposure to such signals makes self-awareness, motivation and choice progressively impossible.

The principles listed above directly answer many important questions about what happens when young humans are exposed to artificial input, including and especially educational technology. Since the COVID-19 pandemic has throttled most human interaction down to screens, parents are rightly concerned. It’s worth stating these heartfelt human questions and their answers using the uncontested neuroscience principles outlined above.

While the principles have been known for decades, their implications for growing minds are only recent. Furthermore, most of us are embedded in cultures or situations where this unambiguous advice is impractical, much like medical advice to avoid chemical additives and preservatives can be impractical. I personally regret how I exposed my own kids to technology just a decade ago, before I knew better. And in my own life, I still can’t follow all the advice below.

So, the following advice does not judge any given parent or parental choice. Instead, it provides for decision-makers a clear, compact, unambiguous description, directly traceable to decades of scientific certainty, about which inputs are healthy vs. harmful to growing minds. No sugar-coating.

How Can I Know If My Kid Is OK? 

If your kid can remain happy and functional interacting socially with adults and/or peers for 24 contiguous hours each week, with everyone completely tech-free, they’re fine. Any dependence on tech, being driven by dopamine, will share the typical symptoms of dependence and addiction: malaise, tantrums, skulking, wheedling, compulsive use, impaired reasoning, lying.

Which Ages Are Safe for Screens and for Tech, in General? 

No child should be exposed to artificial stimuli before the skill is established organically and the critical period has long passed. Thus, even the most visually skilled child should avoid screen exposure until about age 4, and then only for picturing real things; should avoid cartoons and video games until they perceive the 3D mechanical nuance of real-life people and animals, say age 8; should avoid interacting with people by video until they master emotional face-reading, say age 12; and should not manage emotional relationships (like romance) remotely until they can in real life, say early 20s.

The learning of dexterity follows similar rules. A child should establish fine-motor coordination first, using paper and crafts, before learning to write, say earliest age 7; should write easily and well before learning to type with moving keys, say earliest age 10; should type well before using any touch-screen, say earliest age 13; and should not operate computers by automatic motion-capture or face-reading until adulthood, if at all.

The above rules assume the technology is optimized for human benefit (in terms of quantifiable results and not just good intentions — for example, by minimizing all artificial enhancements, even video edge-enhancement and cartoonification). But finding such ideal tech is rare. Absent that, the most general observations possible about kid-safe tech are, as before, based directly on the neuroscience principles (numbered in parentheses): Immature nervous systems will become miswired by technology that (3) separates image, sound and/or touch, which (4) generates artificial stimuli, which (5) superimposes timing variations on human outputs, which (6) undermines or coerces autonomous outputs, which (7) synthesizes unrealistic reward profiles (e.g., “gamification”), which (8) elicits dopamine responses, or which (9, 10) does not display all monitored biometrics directly to the child and preserve them for the child’s benefit alone.

Examples of “bad” educational technologies can easily be found by reading ads proclaiming how they elicit dopamine or make assessments using biometric signals. An example of a “neurosafe” technology could be a video/audio recording or teleconference platform with stereo sound and high-definition video, each separately registered to reality, and to each other, at microsecond resolution. Neurosafe technology preserves and protects maximal human bandwidth in native human format, not in formats convenient for monitoring, manipulating, or monetizing.

What Is the Best Thing I Could Do for My Kids Right Now?

Get your whole family away from all technology for at least 24 continuous hours a week, then try to expand. Reminding yourselves collectively what real life feels like is the first step in reclaiming it. The adults, being grownups, have to go first — primarily because kids imitate and second because only we adults have both ability and willpower. With your family, try any kind of fun active play. That is, any attractive, symmetrical neuromechanical interaction, such as back-and-forth, billiards, badminton, baseball or banter. Those provide more benefit than games, which move symbols on boards according to rules. Which, in turn, are still better than tech. Inventing brand-new forms of voice-based fun — say, laughing games — is best of all.

Triple-bonus points for a massage, especially a scalp massage, which can even be done in quarantine. Kids can learn to massage as sensitively as adults, and competence in giving pleasure is the best skill a human could ever learn. In particular, fingernails pressed gently into or dragged along the midline — brow, crown, occiput, sternum, lower back — help wake up the most emotionally central myofascial pathways on a human body. Supportive touch both relaxes and feels wonderful.

Never give kids tech to keep them busy. Their nervous systems need your live attention, and nothing else will do. Read to them, play with them, talk to them, do chores together.

What Kind of Education Is Best for My Child? 

Small-scale (mesoscale) learning, like homeschooling by attentive tutors, gives groups of children a good social experience. Small-scale learning can also be educationally optimal, but only if it maximizes each child’s ability to confront, appreciate and autonomously interact with the real diversity of the physical world and the people in it. (As opposed to the opposite motivation, protecting children from dangerous people and ideas.) Unfortunately, the modern caricature of “traditional values” mocks the constraints imposed by honor, family, integrity and respect, providing nothing in return. That view forgets those attitudes that are essential for human social function. Societies don’t last long without them.

A handful of internet sites keep honor and integrity alive by avoiding the corrosive influence of ads and corporate sponsorship. Otherwise, the old innocent internet is dead, replaced by bots, incentivized propaganda and surveillance. In such a corrupt environment, nothing worth asking can be honestly asked, nor honestly answered. Fake-ness reigns.

Yet real life still exists and feels wonderful. The more you and others like me rediscover real life, the more time you will spend there. Therefore, the less of your life you will spend online, or recording it for online consumption. Collectively, that out-migration will leave the internet as before, filled mostly with bots and humans posting criticisms to provoke yet more online discussions. Sadly, technophiliacs and neuroscientists alike share an allergy to simple, unambiguous conclusions, regardless of the obvious truth. Like the internet, both those groups cheer discussion for its own sake in an endless loop.

What Can Schools Do? 

Proponents of education technology love open discussion, but only as long as their technology is presumed safe by default. Now, neuroscience has turned the tables. The medical burden of proof lies in meticulously proving how tech could be safe in the first place. That will prove difficult because all reasonable evidence-based investigations, so far, agree with fundamental neuroscience, fundamental data science and plain parental common sense in concluding that technological interference with organic brain development is dangerous at best, toxic at worst. 

Meanwhile, schools and their vendors are suddenly commencing a bold new experiment on children’s brains en masse, one with irreversible results. Since proponents brag that tech affects minds, then technology must be evaluated like a drug. In America, drugs must be proved both safe and effective before being dispensed. Let proponents prove their case according to medical safety standards, not bureaucratic line-item calculations. If ed tech were a drug, they can show why it should not be banned.

School and the Pandemic

Now let me warn our species. This summer, an unholy alliance of risk-averse, spreadsheet-bound bureaucrats and risk-loving, pixel-pushing disaster capitalists is poised to take our schools, and thus our children’s brains, by storm. It doesn’t matter if the evil is in the people or in the spreadsheets they obey, the result would be catastrophic for homo sapiens. 

Never in human history has an entire generation of innocent young humans, rich and poor alike, had the nipple of loving neuromechanical connection yanked from their mouths, to be replaced by a dripping pap of pixels laced with dopamine, administered under glass.

Never before have games been gamified and children’s play been played, for profit. Never before have the unfurling neurons of babies been clear-cut for short-term revenue and long-term prediction. Never before have all our young ones been experimented on with profitable mind-altering drugs and profitable mind-altering technology, at once. Not even once before in history has any single parent, much less an entire generation, looked into screens instead of into children’s eyes, then watched in horror as the children imitate that disconnection for the rest of their lives.

The disaster is more potent than attractive technology undermining attraction, more chilling than cold spreadsheets overruling warm, live hearts. It is the worst possible calamity to strike the most elaborately, intimately social animal ever to walk the planet, we humans who love continuous connection. It is an infection of communications itself, an infection whose violent, virulent, viral spread is fueled by data, dough and dopamine.

Left unchecked, this infection of disconnection will fill the world with psychic orphans (like the abandoned Romanian ), impervious to love and unaware that it exists. Such cold souls could not nurture a lost generation. Please prove me wrong.

*[An audio version of this article can be found on the .]

*[The articles in this column present a set of permanent scientific truths that interlock like jigsaw pieces. They span physics, technology, economics, media, neuroscience, bodies, brains and minds, as quantified by the mathematics of information flow through space and time. Together, they promote the neurosafe agenda: That human interactions with technology do not harm either the nervous system’s function, nor its interests, as measured by neuromechanical trust.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Monetizing Children’s Brains Means the End of Our Species appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Crisis schooling surfaced an always-important yet little-discussed fact about so-called brick-and-mortar schools: As physical spaces, schools provide far more than academic instruction. When children attend school, teachers and other support staff have an easier time identifying abuse, neglect, psychosocial distress and suicidal ideation. Children interacting with peers and teachers in school have an easier time developing social and emotional skills. Schools also provide stability, reliable nutrition, opportunities for physical activity, special education services, and mental health and physical/speech therapy. And, of course, public schools are safe, free settings for child care.

How Tech Innovation Can Revive the US Economy

READ MORE

As I write, schools worldwide are developing their learning plans for the fall, and they are facing immense pressure to resume in-person instruction. The United Kingdom’s Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health has that keeping schools closed “risks scarring the life chances of a generation of young people.” A by the American Academy of Pediatrics reminds decision-makers that the “importance of in-person learning is well documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020.”

School closures pose particularly fierce challenges for families with primary care-givers who must work away from home, as well as families without homes. UNESCO that disruptions caused by school closures “exacerbate already existing disparities within the education system” and are “particularly severe for the most vulnerable and marginalized” children and their families.

In some countries, schools remained open despite the COVID-19 outbreak, and more than 20 countries reopened schools just months after closing them. Researchers at magazine looked to schools in these countries for patterns that could indicate likely best practices for keeping students and school staff safe. What they found is not surprising: masks, smaller class sizes, hand washing, adequate ventilation, testing and physical distancing help reduce the spread of the COVID-19 disease in learning environments. And it appears that younger children are less likely to transmit the disease or become infected.

Yet despite this promising news, it is likely that many schools will remain closed or deploy a mix of in-person and remote instruction for the foreseeable future. There are many reasons for this, mostly having to do with space, planning, time, money and uncertainty. To follow physical distancing guidelines, a school would need access to more physical space, or mandate that students attend physical school in shifts. In many jurisdictions, schools still lack comprehensive plans for safely opening buildings, as well as the time and financial resources needed to implement such plans. And because there remains so much uncertainty regarding COVID-19, many parents, teachers and staff believe that returning to school buildings is too risky to tolerate.

In the midst of our collective anxiety and grief, pixelated “vampires” have appeared. These dangerously virtual substitutes for physical schools, made glamorous by the ed-tech industry’s rhetoric of innovation, efficiency and cost-savings, promise to save us from the disruption caused by the pandemic. All we need to do is invite them in. But please don’t. I wrote this article to explain why.

What Is Ed Tech?

Education technology — known as ed tech — is a global industry serving the full spectrum of the education market. This includes pre-school, K-12, higher education, corporate/enterprise/continuing education, assessment and verification, and informal learning. Venture-backed ed-tech companies worth hundreds of millions of dollars are based in the United States, China, India, Indonesia and the European Union.

These firms sell content and hardware such as interactive whiteboards, laptops and tablets. They also provide software designed to mediate communication between stakeholders (e.g., students, teachers, parents, administrators), and they extract or accept hand-entered data in order to algorithmically manage student behavior and/or deliver algorithmically-generated reports, instruction and guidance. The poster vampire (ahem, poster child) of the industry is a software-enabled, data-driven (and sometimes gamified) instructional approach called “personalized learning.”

What does gamified personalized learning look like in action? Personalized learning transforms teachers into guides on the side who assist students as they interact with YouTube-style recommendation algorithms that select assignments and determine when a student moves on to the next level of the curriculum. Gamified personalized learning seeks to increase student engagement through the incorporation of game-like elements, such as badges, avatars, storylines, competitions, progression bars, “power-ups” and even the ability to earn in-game cash.

Products like these are being touted by advocates for the ed-tech industry as one-stop solutions to all COVID-related educational challenges. Dissatisfied with your school’s reopening plan or worried that physical schools are unsafe? Try virtual schools! Lack space for physical distancing? Try blended learning! Baffled by disengaged students with varying preparedness levels? Data-driven personalized learning to the rescue! Worried about your students’ psychosocial distress? Let tech-enabled emotional surveillance help with that! Facing budget cuts or teacher shortages? Let artificial intelligence (AI) teach the kids! Crazed by platform overload? Come buy! Come buy! Sounds great, right? Not so fast. While ed tech’s marketing rhetoric is appealing, its track record is dismal.

More often than not, ed tech fails to deliver on its promises to equity and learning outcomes. Many platforms ignore children’s real needs, and some may even children’s rights. Others simply waste (or even ) funding that could have been used for more impactful initiatives. While anecdotes describing ed tech’s shortcomings abound, research seeking to understand the industry’s impact supports unfavorable individual verdicts: ed tech disappoints.

Since 2013, the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) has published an annual report documenting the growth of the ed-tech sector in the United States and examining the year’s research on virtual education. Each year, researchers find that full-time virtual schools and blended schools produce worse outcomes than brick-and-mortar public schools, and that industry claims regarding cost savings are not supported by available research. Research evaluating instructional models used by virtual schools and describing student experiences is sparse, and what is available is methodologically questionable and, in other ways, subpar. Accordingly, the NEPC that policymakers “slow or stop the growth in the number of virtual and blended schools and the size of their enrollments until the reasons for their relatively poor performance have been identified and addressed.”

NEPC researchers aren’t alone in their skepticism. A June 2020 by McKinsey warns against “uncritically” accepting ed tech as a solution to COVID-related educational challenges, and it urges careful planning and preparation to increase the probability that an initiative will be successful. “These lessons hold true regardless of geography,” the report states.

The World Bank makes a similar claim in its “” of the impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on learning and achievement. “In general, despite thousands of impact studies, the impact of ICT use on student achievement remains difficult to measure and open to much reasonable debate,” the bank states. Writing for the fifth volume of the “Handbook of the Economics of Education,” George Bulman and Robert Fairlie, who are researchers based at the University of California, Santa Cruz, that evidence of ed tech’s effectiveness “appears to be strongest in developing countries” and the outcome depends upon the “characteristics of the intervention.”

So, what does a successful ed-tech intervention look like? Tusome, a USAID-funded program adopted by the Kenyan government and in a 2018 article for The Economist, offers clues. Tusome means “let’s read” in Kiswahili, a Bantu language spoken in East and Central Africa and the official language of Kenya.

As an ed-tech intervention, Tusome consists of more than hardware and software. Tusome includes a custom-reading curriculum, custom books and detailed lesson plans. Human teachers deliver the lessons in physical classrooms, while coaches log information about the teachers’ and their students’ performances into the Tusome platform using a tablet. Coaching advice based on data entered by the coach is dispensed through the tablet. All entered and processed information can be reviewed by the county offices that run the local schools. The program costs about $4 per child a year, and research shows that thanks to Tusome, the portion of Kenyan grade 2 students who could read 30 words-per-minute doubled, rising from one-third to two-thirds.

Programs like Tusome succeed because they are designed to specifically address local educational challenges — in this case, insufficient teacher training, lack of teacher oversight and teacher absenteeism.

Ed-tech initiatives usually fail to live up to their hype. This is in large part because the characteristics of such initiatives are neither aligned with established research explaining how children learn, nor with local reality. Unsuccessful initiatives are hobbled by core design assumptions that are simply wrong for usage contexts, assumptions regarding things like cultural norms, relevance to existing curriculum, relevance to student experience, connectivity availability, available time on tasks, prior student knowledge and available teacher-training resources.

Consider, for example, the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative. Nicholas Negroponte, the founder of the MIT Media Lab, launched the program in 2006 with the intention of putting inexpensive but durable laptops in the hands of poor children around the world. “We will literally take tablets and drop them out of helicopters,” The Economist him as saying.

The program got a lot of people excited. However, it was ultimately a failure in more ways than one. The laptops were more expensive and less durable than Negroponte had predicted, and his plan for selling them was blinkered by Western hubris and lack of global perspective. Most importantly, however, the OLPC did not lead to improved learning outcomes in math and language, though such improvements were the declared objective of the program.

Negroponte’s initiative is a classic example of , a presumptuous and ultimately wasteful way of “improving” education through the introduction of technology. Hardware dumping assumes that hardware and connectivity access alone will improve learning outcomes. and e show that this is simply untrue.

Tech for tech’s sake in educational settings diverts money, time and attention from meeting the learning needs of students. Arguments supporting this approach wrongly imply that mere exposure to today’s technology will translate into tomorrow’s upward mobility.

The Los Angeles Unified School District learned the hardware lesson the expensive way in 2013. The district introduced a $1-billion initiative to give every student an iPad loaded with a curriculum developed by Pearson, a textbook and standardized test publisher. Before the roll-out period was over, students had figured out how to circumvent security locks, allowing them to exit Pearson’s walled garden and visit non-educational sites. The district eventually demanded a refund from Apple, citing what described as “crippling technical issues with the Pearson platform and incomplete curriculum that made it nearly impossible for teachers to teach.”

Michael Trucano, the global lead for innovation in education at the World Bank, decries hardware dumping in a 2010 entitled “Worst Practice in ICT Use in Education.” Though the article is a decade old (ancient in internet years), it remains relevant. In addition to hardware dumping, three additional worst practices are particularly relevant to the COVID era. First, it is common to assume technology alone can make equity issues disappear. Second, we are failing to estimate the cost of operation of an educational technology initiative. This estimation ought to include not just the purchase price of hardware and software, but also maintenance costs, training costs and more, including a calculation of the difference between the cost per participant and cost per graduate. Finally, we are failing to ask what else could be done with the financial and other resources potentially allocated that would have a greater impact on educational goals.

Let Them Eat Tablets

These are the kinds of questions that ed-tech advocates sidestep with rhetoric. Such rhetoric appeals to our collective desire to remain relevant in the future, our intuitive sense that something is deeply wrong with education in its current form, and our moral sense that all children have the right to a good education.

Consider, for example, how the following rhetorical pyrotechnics front-load the old saw that education today is outmoded while obscuring ed tech’s other agenda items. First up, a few lines from a called “The Future of School” by the Center for Education Reform (CER), an ed-tech advocacy group based in the United States: “We must change the way we educate and in myriad ways strive to deliver education using the very technologies that are tracking and delivering our food, our supplies, and so many other necessities of life.” (Translation: Education today is old fashioned. Let’s update it by treating students like Amazon packages.)

A sponsored in Forbes more directly connects the case for ed tech to the case for closing the digital divide, describing the internet as the portal to “new tools” for interacting with students in “new ways that both enhance the teacher’s ability to teach and gives students the flexibility to learn in ways more suitable to the 24/7, always-on society we live in today.” (Translation: Education today is old-fashioned. Let’s update it so that even children regard the boundaries between online/offline life as blurred.)

Writing for The Washington Post, Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, that if public funds intended to help schools become COVID-ready were instead used to pay for laptops and connectivity, “students would be better prepared for the learning platforms of college and the workforce. Teachers would be able to deploy more innovative and personalized instructional strategies.” (Translation: Education today is old-fashioned. Let’s update it so that teachers can help children, no matter their income, become accustomed to taking orders from the kinds of machines that will sculpt their lives as adults.)

Such visions of the future give me goosebumps, and not in a good way.

Ed tech has long used rhetoric laced with technophilia and future-proofing to lay the groundwork for increasing its share of the education market. This rhetoric casts ed tech’s products in a rosy light while simultaneously disparaging teachers, their unions and brick-and-mortar schools. Deploying such anti-teacher/anti-school rhetoric while the world still reels from COVID-19 to lobby for the use of public funds to further the industry’s growth agenda — funds that could go to purchasing personal protective equipment (PPE), hiring additional staff to support physical distancing, and adopting other measures that would improve the safety of physical schools — reeks of disaster capitalism. As by activist and author Naomi Klein, disaster capitalism involves the use of “large-scale crises to push through policies that systematically deepen inequality, enrich elites, and undercut everyone else.”

To be clear: I am not against closing the digital divide. What I am against is reckless profiteering, especially in the form of hardware dumping and a privatized version of public education that pretends to serve the needs of children while, in fact, invading their privacy, treating them like lab rats, impairing their academic achievement and undermining their development as humans.

Temptations to recklessness are great. The ed-tech industry receives little oversight and continues to grow, despite a history marked by amounts of waste. Moreover, as the 2019 NEPC report makes it clear, lack of regulation isn’t the worst problem. To date, nobody has even imagined how to regulate the industry in ways that “will increase accountability, identify efficient and cost-effective best practices, and eliminate profiteering.” Policies at the state, local and federal levels regulating the collection, use and storage of student data do not always align. Moreover, ed-tech companies know that schools do not always read terms-of-use statements closely, introducing yet another moral hazard. Effectively, the ed-tech industry operates in a 21st-century Wild West.

When people think about education, they see children and perhaps even themselves preparing for the future. When investors in the ed-tech industry think about education, they “a critical source of human capital for global growth” and a large market ripe for digital disruption. Publicly-available estimations of the size of this market vary, from HolonIQ’s 2018 figure of to TechCrunch’s 2019 projection of . According to , the ed-tech industry currently represents 2.3% of the global education market. Due to COVID-driven changes in market conditions, the ed-tech industry is now projected to capture 11% of the market by 2026 — up from a pre-COVID 4.5%. The pandemic is boosting the sector’s growth from 100% to 400%.

Why are venture capitalists so excited about the education market? In addition to the size of the market, there are several reasons, including scalability opportunities, a relative lack of competition (especially in mobile-first) and relative ease of identifying “pain points.” Business models vary. Most of us are familiar with freemium platforms that ask users of a free product to upgrade to a paid version. These platforms are used in a bottom-up strategy whereby the company pursues early adopters who then help market the platform by word of mouth. Expensive ed tech is usually part of a top-down business model, whereby a company’s products are marketed directly to the administration.

But when it comes to profit sources for tech companies — even ed tech companies — the elephant in the room is big data. Ed tech is an exciting sector because machine-mediated student/teacher relationships and student/curriculum relationships produce new and valuable data resources. Of course, personalized learning relies on data extraction and analysis. However, educating children is only part of the picture when it comes to ed tech as a for-profit industry.

As students use ed tech platforms to learn, those platforms collect what author Shoshana Zuboff calls “collateral data.” Such data points might include (depending on the product) a student’s location, click patterns, dwell times, time to complete a task, browsing and search history, biometric data, photos, textual, and voice communication content and history — the list goes on. A given platform may collect 50,000 data or more per student per hour.

In addition to feeding the platform’s recommendation algorithms, this data can be used to make informed budget decisions and “optimize” the platform. Most importantly, it can be used to inspire and guide the development of new, more futuristic platforms. That’s why, along with the new opportunities for data collection portended by future school closures, ed-tech investors anticipate the advent of highly-adaptive ed tech in the form of AI tutors, immersive games that teach subliminally, Hollywood-style educational videos, and even à la carte university degrees whereby students purchase individual courses from a pre-determined group of separate online institutions.

What is unlikely to motivate investors is the selling of personally identifiable data for marketing purposes. Ed-tech companies don’t need to. (Although, Google to mine student emails to sell targeted advertising, and other ed-tech companies have been caught student data.) These days, there are more sophisticated ways to use big data.

Ed-tech companies don’t need to sell personally identifiable data to make big money because they can use the troves of aggregate data they collect to create and sell “prediction products” designed to forecast how children in a given demographic will think, feel and behave. Such forecasting products are useful to any industry seeking to maximize profit and minimize risk — e.g., advertising, insurance, health care, entertainment, finance, retail, transportation. Hello, disaster capitalism! Meet surveillance capitalism.

When Children Become Users

I say surveillance capitalism. Ed tech says personalized learning. Rhetorically, the term personalized learning is meant to position recommendation algorithms that match students to learning material as an “innovative” solution to old-fashioned, clueless teachers who are unwilling or unable to connect with students as individuals with individual needs.

In addition to what it calls personalized learning, ed tech also uses gamification to solve what it imagines as problems caused by bad/overwhelmed teachers. Gamification is a type of persuasive technology that is player-centered, rather than user-centered. The term refers to the application of game elements and design principles to non-game contexts.

Together, the terms personalized learning and gamification allow ed tech to conjure visions of delighted, motivated students interacting with data-driven technology that knows what they need to learn and meets those needs in a timely fashion.

But here’s what’s really happening: Under the banner of “innovation,” gamified and data-driven personalized learning platforms are engineering the behavior of children. Gamified platforms are everywhere, not just in ed tech. They work similarly. Like any behavior-change app — from diet apps to social media platforms like Facebook — gamified ed-tech platforms create an absorbing human/computer interaction made all the more attractive by the dispensing of “rewards” on a variable schedule.

Variable reward schedules are a proven way to orchestrate the release of dopamine in humans and animals. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter that makes learning possible. It is key to goal-directed behavior, motivating us to act by helping us make associations between actions and outcomes. It is triggered even when we simply anticipate a “reward” that we never receive, or when a reward is not as satisfying as we anticipated.

The behavioral psychologists and user-experience (UX) designers who work together to create gamified ed tech understand all of this quite well. They also know that human brains are wired to crave the instant feedback that gamified platforms provide. And they know that we humans — especially when we’re feeling uncertain or overwhelmed — are attracted to the explicit goals, objectives, and paths to mastery (e.g., “skill trees”) that characterize game-like learning environments.

Advocates for gamified ed tech like to imply that such platforms can help a student build self-esteem because they minimize the impact of “failure” while “rewarding” the completion of target behaviors and the adoption of target attitudes.

Researchers at Ohio State University otherwise. Over time, students receiving a gamified curriculum felt less motivated, less satisfied and less empowered. No wonder. Engineering engagement through automated, instant feedback risks reducing intrinsic motivation by triggering what psychologists the “overjustification effect.”

Enterprise/corporate ed-tech companies already incorporate into their pitches this understanding of the negative impacts of gamified platforms. They tell potential corporate clients that they need them, because younger workers have spent so much time on games and gamified platforms that traditional motivators don’t work on them.

Here’s an  of this kind of logic at work in a pitch that proposes gamification as a solution to (as well as a cause of) millennial demands for constant feedback. Here’s an  of that kind of logic at work in a pitch that proposes gamification as a solution to “bad parenting” as well as the millennial “need for engagement” and demand for constant feedback and fun in the workplace.

We can do better than rely upon gamified platforms to “engage” our children in school.

It’s one thing to play a game for fun, or use a gamified informal learning app now and again. It’s quite another (and frankly a quite terrible thing) for schools receiving public funds to participate in engineering into students an intolerance of complexity, an inability to set their own goals and a profound need for external motivators. All students deserve an education that supports, rather than stunts, their intellectual and personal development.

Students understand this kind of critique. In , , and , students have organized to protest against the Summit Learning Program, an ed-tech platform developed by Facebook engineers and backed by the for-profit Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. In a to Mark Zuckerberg published by The Washington Post, students attending Brooklyn’s Secondary School for Journalism wrote: “Unlike the claims made in your promotional materials, we students find that we are learning very little to nothing. It’s severely damaged our education, and that’s why we walked out in protest.”

In her award-winning , “Race After Technology,” Ruha Benjamin wrote: “[T]hese students have a lot to teach us about refusing tech fixes for complex social problems that come packaged in catchphrases like ‘personalized learning. They are sick and tired of being atomized and quantified, of having their personal uniqueness sold to them, one ‘tailored’ experience after another. They’re not buying it.” And neither should we.

Let’s Go Outside

�մǻ岹��’s ed-tech marketing taps into collective fears about sharing space with humans, as well as the frustration with the hodge-podgy usage of technology that characterized many crisis schooling efforts. Yet there is a better path: Making use of outdoor space on school grounds, nearby land, public spaces (like football ) or at home with guidance from schools. Schools with plans to open full-time and those with plans for a mixture of in-person and remote instruction could walk this path.

Outdoor learning environments offer solutions to many COVID-related educational problems. Research that COVID-19 is less likely to be transmitted outdoors. Other indicate that being outdoors reduces children’s stress levels and improves their motivation and wellbeing. Outdoor learning environments also provide children with much-needed opportunities for movement and play as well as a chance for place-based learning activities. Moreover, exposure to outdoor environments helps human brains stay in because brains are optimized for high-bandwidth, three-dimensional, continuous-time processing of sensorimotor inputs. Outdoor schools can provide everything that brick-and-mortar schools can and much more.

Outdoor education is an old idea, traditionally practiced across Asia and Africa. It gained popularity in Europe and North America during the tuberculosis epidemic of the early 20th century, the Open Air School Movement. Schools were set up in repurposed structures, tents, prefabricated barracks and purpose-build pavilions. Some schools consisted simply of rows of desks outside.

Today, in Denmark, Finland, Singapore, New Zealand, , and have turned to outdoor learning environments as a way to meet COVID-related educational challenges. In Bangladesh, children have been involved in the redesign of their school courtyard for outdoor learning. That intervention was a , improving not just the children’s engagement with the curriculum, but also their attainments in math and science.

In the US, outdoor learning tied to public schools could make up for the pandemic-driven loss of outdoor conducted by nature centers, parks and outdoor science schools. Facing budget shortfalls, many of these programs are in danger of closing. Those that remain open have plans to freeze subsidized programming, scholarships, grants and fee waivers. It is estimated that by the end of the year, 11 million children in the US will have missed out on outdoor learning opportunities, about 60% of them from communities of color or low-income communities. Around 30,000 outdoor educators across the country have already lost their jobs. Advocates recommend that using public funds to redeploy these educators to K-12 public schools would be a boon to children and their families.

Say No to Vampires

Traditionally, schools have been oriented toward extrinsic motivators: grades, test scores, teacher approval, status, little prizes and rewards. When I was an elementary student, one of my teachers gave the student with the highest spelling score that week a tiny ceramic animal that my teacher had made herself.

Ed tech’s gamified personalized learning platforms turbo-charge this strategy. In this sense, such platforms are not innovative at all. Rather, they are simply new ways to do old things — old things that don’t work very well.

Pairing data-driven “personalization” with gamification is a quick fix solution to a problem that sits at the core of public education today. Groaning under the weight of high-stakes testing, today’s public schools crush student excitement in learning for its own sake.

What if we did away with high-stakes testing? These tests have many problems, from baked-in cultural bias to an over-emphasis on those curricular standards that are easy to test at the expense of less-quantifiable ones. What if we just got rid of them? Surely there are other ways to assess performance. High-stakes tests have already been all over the world this year.

And while I am sharing my dream of public education truly reimagined, I would like to also pose this question: What if during this time of uncertainty and fast change, we, in our various localities, determined from the ground up the role that technology ought to play in our public school systems? By “from the ground up,” I mean asking students and teachers about their own technology use. How has tech helped them? How has it gotten in the way? I suspect the answers will surprise many.

It’s time to shift the focus of education away from the needs of corporations (workforce needs and others) to the needs of children. What do children need to thrive? We know the answer. Children thrive when they experience shared attention, build life skills through developmentally-appropriate challenges, experience a sense of belonging, and are allowed to personally contribute to learning activities.

Let’s help children thrive by making outdoor learning available in public schools. And let’s not stop there. Let’s help children thrive by hiring more teachers and support staff for our public schools. Let’s help children thrive by giving teachers the support they have asked for to translate live, onsite instruction to remote instruction. That support need not take the form of an ed-tech initiative. It can take the form of training, increased time for planning and uniform policies regarding what remote instruction should look like.

I realize all of this will cost money. But then again, so does ed tech.

Let the vampires go to the workplace. Don’t invite them into our schools.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Should Schools Rely on Ed Tech? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Fast forward to 2019, and the US National Science Foundation India third when it came to publishing science and engineering articles. Despite this, the country came 52nd in the . Reaching such a low rank is an alarming sign for science education in the country.

Problems in Science Education

In India, there are two forms of schools: state-run and private. Despite separate school systems, the curriculum is decided by either the state or central governments. While science and mathematics have seen improvement over the years, they lack enough practical work.

This may be a common problem at schools worldwide — irrespective of public or private models — but it is particularly prominent at state-run schools in India. Most of these institutions are not equipped with well-managed practical science labs. There is also a shortage of science and mathematics teachers. Both state and central governments are trying hard to resolve this problem by implementing new measures. These have included the recruitment of additional teachers, guest faculty members and education fellows, but none of these have been sufficient.

The recruitment of temporary teachers often means they do not take much interest in developing teaching aids for subjects like physics or mathematics as they are only at a school for a short period of time. The appointment of dedicated employees such as education fellows for up to five years could help solve this problem.

These fellows would essentially be employed as innovation experts who are responsible for developing innovative learning aids in local languages around India. These education fellows could go on to become permanent teachers if they do their job well. At the same time, making these developed teaching aids available to other partners, such as private schools or book publishers, would help distribute the resources to a wider market.

The science curriculum should be revised regularly and kept up to date with the demands of the modern-day market, but it should also be tailored for the individual learner. It is well-known that the majority of Indians live in small villages and, therefore, science education should be village-centric. Examples from daily village life illustrating scientific principles would enable far-more effective learning than those from urban or foreign settings. Yet most science textbooks are not catered to village students, which leaves many confused with the concepts and thus affects their education.

Science books should focus more on the practical application of science laws. While explaining the laws, students must know about the practical relevance of that scientific principle. On the one hand, students should be made aware of the necessity and relevance of differential equations for automobiles, steel and power industries. On the other hand, the pure scientific application in space science and technology should also be highlighted. Such an approach would make a student develop a deeper understanding of subjects. Yet the majority of the current curriculum is outdated and lacks innovation.

Government Initiatives

Some schemes by the central government have sought to address this. The Atal Innovation Mission was introduced in 2015-16 to promote innovation and entrepreneurship culture among Indians. Likewise, the was launched to help students understand the importance of STEM — science, technology, engineering and mathematics — subjects. This scheme provides significant monetary support of up to 1 million rupees ($13,300) to selected public and private schools.

Various forms of modern technology have been purchased by educational institutions, including drones and electronic sensors. Yet students are often only taught to assemble items that already exist by following a supplier’s instructions. Instead, they should be testing their skills by developing new, innovative models of the same concepts.

Teachers are expected to use equipment purchased under the scheme of Atal Tinkering Lab to bring out a student’s hidden ideas. For example, a drone can be used as an educational tool for such things as teaching engineering design by explaining aerodynamic models, materials selection with how to make drones lightweight, electronic circuit design and also battery selection.

Students have to be taught the importance of scientific collaboration. India needs to focus on scientific modeling in which students apply principles and learn to work together in teams. In sum, the real purpose of the Atal Lab program will only be achieved when schools adopt innovative teaching practices and make students think outside the box.

Other initiatives, such as the National Children Science Congress, the Inspire Awards and the National Science Seminar, are being organized by the central government with the support of each state. While India is taking steps in the right direction, it is high time to redevelop science education.

If India can find innovative ways in shaking up its science curriculum and the way it is taught, future generations of Indians are more likely to pursue higher education in science. In turn, India would flourish when it comes to scientific research.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Redesigning Science Education Is Essential for India appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Yet Freire’s legacy remains a contentious issue in contemporary Brazil. The Brazilian right tends to portray Freire as a dangerous subversive who planned to indoctrinate the youth. The right-wing administration of President Jair Bolsonaro has used this misleading caricature to justify its assault on public education.

In speeches and interviews, Bolsonaro and his allies represent Freire as a kind of leftist boogeyman whose influence needs to be purged from the Brazilian education system. On his campaign trail, Bolsonaro to his supporters that he would “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire.” Abraham Weintraub, Bolsonaro’s minister of education, Freire for Brazil’s poor education rankings and Freirean pedagogy to “voodoo without scientific proof.” Similarly, Brazilian philosopher Ovalo de Carvalho, who is known as “Bolsonaro’s guru,” Freire as a “pseudo-intellectual militant” who produced “a collection of tricks to reduce education to sectarian indoctrination.”

Leftist Indoctrination

Ultimately, Bolsonaro and his supporters believe that Freire was a deranged revolutionary who deserves to be of his title as Brazil’s patron of education. Yet these insults and accusations are not unique or novel. In fact, members of the Brazilian right have slandered Freire in this manner for over half a century. 

Undoubtedly, Freire played a significant role in the history of Brazilian politics. In 1963, he served in Joao Goulart’s center-left government as the president of the National Commission on Popular Culture. The committee introduced an educational campaign that planned to use Freire’s teaching methods to bring literacy to 5 million Brazilian citizens. At the time, literacy was a requirement for voting, and the Goulart government hoped that Freire’s campaign would increase electoral participation.

Brazilian oligarchs and landowners feared that the campaign would cause peasants to form associations and vote for land reform. The influential newspaper O Globo claimed that Freire’s methods were too subversive because they encouraged people to think about political and cultural change. In short, the Brazilian right sensed that Freire’s adult literacy initiatives posed a threat to traditional hierarchies.  

In 1964, the Brazilian military overthrew the Goulart government in a coup d’état and arrested Freire. According to , the military junta regarded Freire as an “international subversive” and “a traitor to Christ and the Brazilian People.” During Freire’s trial, one of the judges even accused him of plotting to transform Brazil into a communist state. Freire was imprisoned for 70 days before he received political asylum at the Bolivian Embassy in Rio de Janeiro. In exile, Freire held a visiting professorship at Harvard University, worked as a special education adviser to the World Council of Churches and co-founded the Institute for Cultural Action.

When Freire moved back to Brazil in 1980, he became one of the founding members of the Worker’s Party (PT). He supervised many of the PT’s adult literacy projects and served as municipal secretary of education in Sao Paulo between 1989 and 1991. Under the leadership of Freire’s fellow PT co-founder Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, widely known as Lula, the PT won the 2002 general election. The Brazilian right is keen to stress this connection between Freire and Lula. Bolsonaro and his supporters interpret President Lula’s modest educational reforms, such as funding for underprivileged indigenous and Afro-Brazilian university students, as a continuation of Freire’s supposed plot to transform Brazil into a communist regime.

The Right to Education

Since Bolsonaro’s inauguration in January 2019, his administration has proposed and implemented several policies that aim to tackle the alleged scourge of Freire-inspired “leftist indoctrination” in Brazilian schools and universities. In April 2019, Weintraub threatened to divert funding from sociology and philosophy university departments to disciplines such as engineering and medicine that would offer an “” to the taxpayer. Critics of this policy, such as , claim that Weintraub wants to defund sociology and philosophy departments because he assumes that they are hotbeds for left-wing activism and “cultural Marxism.”    

Several days later, Weintraub declared a 30% budget cut for all federal universities. Commentators point out that these funding cuts are part of a larger campaign to undermine and demoralize resistance to the Bolsonaro regime. Weintraub hopes that these cuts will discourage federal universities from hosting political organizations such as the on their campuses.   

Additionally, Weintraub endorses the witch-hunting tactic of recording “leftist” teachers in classrooms. The right-wing political movement, School Without Party, whose founder Miguel Nagib once described Freire as the “,” popularized the idea of getting students to film teachers who are suspected of promoting leftist ideology. Members of the movement hope that Bolsonaro’s administration will replace this purported “leftist indoctrination” with a “neutral” education that reinforces traditional moral values.

Those who are familiar with “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” will know that Freire believed that education was never neutral. For Freire, education is either a form of emancipatory action or an instrument of domination. In Freire’s terms, the Brazilian right wants schools and universities to convert students into “adapted persons” who will conform to existing hierarchies and refrain from questioning the political order. As Freire writes in the preface to “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” the “rightist sectarian … wants to domesticate men and women.”

Yet Brazilian students and teachers refuse to tolerate Bolsonaro and Weintraub’s efforts to “domesticate” them. In response to Weintraub’s proposed funding cuts, mass protests took place in over across the country, described as “education tsunamis.” Similarly, continues to criticize and oppose the government’s plans to erase the topics of slavery and LGBTQ rights from the curriculum.

Over the past year, more people have become interested in Freire’s work. According to publisher sales of “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” increased by 60% in the first half of 2019 compared to 2018. In a recent , his widow, Ana Maria Freire, quipped that Bolsonaro has inadvertently boosted Freire’s popularity, saying that Bolsonaro “is encouraging the sale of Paulo’s books!” During the protests, countless banners and placards displayed Freire’s name and face. The educational researcher opines that “the defense of Freire’s legacy has become an enduring symbol for defending the right to education.” Despite the Brazilian right’s countless attempts to distort his legacy, Freire’s life and work will continue to inspire and guide those who believe that education should be a critical endeavor that aids the task of liberation.  

*[The  is a partner institution of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Brazilian Right’s Fight Against Its Leftist Boogeyman appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Different nations and different regions of the world have sought to define policies intended to maintain, as best as they can, some continuity in teaching and learning. Many have called technology to the rescue, simply because it’s there. UNESCO that the pandemic has had an impact on “over 60% of the world’s student population.” Television broadcasting, video conferencing, interactive multimedia and courses on the internet have played an important role, at least in convincing authorities that some kind of continuity exists. 

Amazon’s Inhuman Sources of Human Resources

READ MORE

The results have proved disappointing. Technology hasn’t found a way of capturing and maintaining the interest of students who were formerly grouped together as captives in a classroom. Nations are now counting on a return to something resembling “normal” in the near future, when the pandemic has sufficiently subsided. But planning the return to normal following a disease whose progress nobody appears to understand represents another formidable challenge.

Wired magazine its readers a glimpse into the transformation of educational practices under the influence of COVID-19 in the US. To some, it may appear less as an adaptation to a novel threat than as an acceleration and aggravation of the normal, everyday institutional paranoia that has long dominated traditional education, fueled by an ideology borrowed from post-industrial social and organizational thinking.

Pundits have been warning us that most of what we now remember as “normal” in the world before COVID-19 will not be normal after it. What is true of social life in general will prove even more true in the realm of education. That begs the question of whether there will come a time that we can label “post-COVID-19.” Some experts are predicting that the novel coronavirus — which causes the COVID-19 disease — will be present, undermining the habits and reflexes of our sacred consumer society, for as many as three years or even longer. 

The author of the Wired article, Will Knight, explains today’s ambience in the world of education. “Across the world, teachers, administrators, and parents are wrestling with how to welcome pupils back into normally bustling classrooms, dining rooms, and dorms, while the threat of the coronavirus remains ever-present,” he writes.

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Bustling:

Interacting spontaneously, a state of behavior deemed by people with a management outlook as chaotic and unproductive and by those with a holistic sense of systemic organization as a vital source of energy and constructive exchange 

Contextual note

The article focuses not on the technology of teaching and learning, but on the tracking of contact and interaction between students. One superintendent cited in the article confesses: “We are very much interested in the automated tracking of students.” He cites his noble motive. He feels the technology will “help the school determine whether social distancing is being observed and help quickly identify students who may have been exposed if someone tests positive for the coronavirus.”&�Բ�����;

But the technology will do much more. It is a further step in automated policing of everyday behavior. Ever since Plato and Aristotle, schools were places where learning took place through dialogue that prospered best when it was free, open and productive. Plato offered us the model of the Socratic dialogue. His contemporaries called Aristotle “the peripatetic” because his teaching took place as he walked around the grounds with his students in open conversation. Now, a director of technology at a school in Pennsylvania claims that talking isn’t enough since “we need to identify some way to be able to automate the contact tracing process other than just, you know, talking to teachers.”

It’s true that starting in the industrial age, talking as a tool of education became an object of suspicion. Teachers did the talking and spent more time strictly policing students’ talking than encouraging it. Schooling in general has become focused not on exploratory dialogue, but on the delivery of an idealized “” (i.e., what authorities want students to know and remember) followed by testing students on their capacity to absorb it.

One superintendent, Brian Betze, expresses his reservations about the tracking systems and their goals: “Middle school kids, high school kids, they want to talk with their friends. They look forward to class, physical education, lunch.” Bureaucrats and politicians resist even thinking about the fact that learning is a social activity. As soon as the learners realize that their education focuses only on tracking and testing (and ), they begin to understand that it’s a form of indoctrination.

The truth that educators and politicians refuse to admit or even consider is that learning isn’t confined to what happens in the classroom. Most learning takes place around and outside the classroom, in the social space that extends outward from both the school and the family home, the space that defines a community.

Some of that learning now takes place online, simply because online is increasingly part of everyone’s reality. Proponents of online learning often make a mistake similar to that of traditionalists who limit their focus to classroom behavior. They imagine online learning can constitute a coherent and self-sufficient world.

Both physical classrooms and “online learning spaces” should be recognized as artificial environments that define a space dedicated to “authorized learning.” It is a space dominated by “teaching acts” rather than learning processes. Teaching acts provide the material on which learners can be tested. But, in the process we call intellectual growth, what students learn and how they perceive what they have effectively learned is for the most part structured elsewhere and simply cannot be tested except through each learner’s experience of life and society.

Historical note

The real lesson of the Wired article turns around this observation concerning what may become a historical trend: “A small but growing surveillance industry has sprung up around Covid already, with firms pitching everything from temperature-tracking infrared cameras and contact tracing apps to wireless beacons and smart cameras to help enforce social distancing at work.”

For generations, people dissatisfied with the inefficacy of the reigning educational systems and programs have proposed “reforms.” Sometimes, they focused on the presentation of content and even publishing policies. At other times, they focused on teaching methodologies or adapting to trendy new theories of learning. Often, they would address issues of organization and tackle concepts of authority and discipline. The recent tendency has been to consider how education prepares youngsters for their future vocations rather than expand their cultural horizons. That focuses everyone’s attention on the needs of the industrial and commercial marketplace. The education of responsible, creative citizens is often left in the background.

The coronavirus pandemic has introduced a level of trauma that has supplanted all these other considerations. All decisions, all facets of organization must first answer the need for physical security to limit damage to the health of learners and teachers. 

In the United States, two separate threats have arisen in recent years. The most recurrent one has been gun violence in the classroom. This has spawned “creative” ideas about militarizing education. The coronavirus has offered a far more frightening threat: invisible contamination. And it plays out in two directions: the fear of being contaminated and the potential for contaminating others.

In the land of economic opportunity and gated communities, the purveyors of security systems and technologies that isolate individuals to guarantee their safety have a wide-open market to exploit in the next few years. Perhaps when we start becoming blasé again about the novel coronavirus and other epidemics that will inevitably follow, we may have the time to think through what education should be about in a world we hope can at least maintain the veneer of civilization.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Click here to read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Vanishing Social Dimension of Education in the Wake of COVID-19 appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In 2018, the government launched Ayushman Bharat, a health insurance scheme for the bottom 40% of India’s population. Access remains patchy. Furthermore, health-care infrastructure remains pitiable, acute poverty persists and so does lack of education or awareness. This leaves millions vulnerable to exploitation or neglect, or both. A 2018 by The Lancet found that 2.4 million Indians die of treatable conditions every year. Of the 136 nations examined in this study, India was in the worst situation.

In this guest edition of The Interview, Nilanjana Sen talks to Dr. I.P. Singh, a senior consultant in plastic and reconstructive surgery at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, New Delhi, about the state of the health-care system in India, the role of the private sector and the challenges faced by professionals in the field. 

This interview was conducted prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nilanjana Sen: Is corruption a big issue in India’s health-care system?

I.P. Singh: Corruption has been all pervasive in every sector and every walk of life right from the early 1960s. Unfortunately, it has spread to the health-care sector as well. In health care, corruption takes myriad forms such as unnecessary procedures, overcharging for necessary procedures and not providing treatment or services that have already been paid for. The mentality that pervades the environment outside the medical profession has finally seeped into health care too, and it is not possible to insulate the profession from the outside environment.

Quacks and abound and comprise between 57% to 58% of India’s so-called doctors. I remember a case from some time ago when some quack claimed that he had removed a dead serpent from the abdomen of a lady. He probably removed a necrose intestine and claimed to have found a snake. In another famous case, a doctor in Assam claimed to have transplanted a into a male patient. This doctor wanted to be recognized for his achievement even though the patient died.

Doctors and quacks also prescribe fake or substandard drugs in remote areas. We have to realize that 70% of our population lives in far-flung rural areas, and it is very difficult to monitor what happens there. Most people are barely literate, so a lot of unethical practices go unnoticed and unchecked. Corruption is now endemic in India’s health-care system.

Sen: In such an unequal country, what is the real state of health-care coverage? Can the new government-backed insurance system be a success?

Singh: There are two main reasons for poor health-care coverage. First, we don’t have enough trained medical personnel. The World Health Organization a ratio of 1:1,000, i.e., we should have one doctor for every thousand persons. For India, the doctor-population ratio statistic is unclear and murky. We do not know whether we have one doctor for 1,700, 1,500 or 1,000 persons. We lack clarity because we do not know how many doctors are registered medical practitioners, how many practitioners are still active, how many are out of practice and how many are quacks. The government admits that more than 75% of the primary health-care system is managed by people who are . This is one of the major reasons for poor health care in India.

Second, most of the trained medical personnel are not willing to serve in rural areas, which lack basic facilities and infrastructure such as electricity and roads. Even though basic amenities have improved in recent years, working at rural medical centers is often demoralizing. There is rampant pilfering of drugs, malfunctioning equipment and terrible waste management. Further, there is a lack of professional development opportunities, poor management and a lack of transparency at all levels.

The new insurance backed system of Ayushman Bharat is a very good idea to start with, but I hope that the people who have planned it have done their math correctly. It is an extremely difficult and arduous task to plan health care for roughly people. If you look at health care across the world, uniform and fairly good health coverage is limited to Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and some other countries in Europe.

Health care is fairly decent for most people in the US, but the American health-care system has its share of major flaws. Approximately 33% of the American population does not have and is left at the mercy of God. Many more Indians find themselves in a similar situation. India’s large population means that the government has to provide health care at scale and, therefore, must get its mathematics right for the program to be successful.

Ayushman Bharat must not only sort out finance but also build a team of dedicated staff. Only then can they plug gaps and leakages in the system. Last year, I was reading the newspaper and was shocked to learn that were practicing fraud. Of these, the government barred 97 hospitals from its insurance scheme. This year, it barred another . Such fraud will derail Ayushman Bharat.

Sen: The present government seeks to involve the private sector in the health-care system. Will this help improve accountability and reduce malpractices?

Singh: The intention behind this idea is good, but one man or one agency with good intentions cannot set everything right. There has to be a tectonic cultural shift. Many unscrupulous people will claim benefits at the cost of voiceless people who will lose out. There will be cases of wrong billings, overcharging or charges for investigations that are simply not done. So, auditing the system and holding fraudsters accountable is crucial. However, I am not sure the government would be able to find so many auditors or be able to prosecute most fraudsters. Besides, there is an acute lack of basic infrastructure.

Sen: What exactly is this lack of infrastructure you are referring to?

Singh: As I mentioned earlier, there is an acute shortage of medical facilities in the rural areas. Having said that, we must remember that health-care infrastructure doesn’t mean medical facilities such as a hospital or a primary health center alone. It also includes good training institutions, laboratories and research facilities.

There are hardly any such facilities in this country except for the Central Drug Research Institute in Lucknow, the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and a handful of other places. Even existing facilities lack funds for research, which is dominated by foreign pharmaceutical firms who have the money to invest in research. They market, advertise and sell their drugs, equipment and medical devices at astronomical prices to make large profits. Sometimes, these drugs are hyped up and private hospitals become willing partners in prescribing them because they get a share of the profit.

One drug called Xigris was used for septicemia. A single dose of Xigris cost more than $8,000, and I know of no patient who survived after being given this drug. Later, Eli Lilly this drug from the market. Big pharmaceutical companies often sell such drugs in developing countries like India to make a killing.

Sen: Are you saying big pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of patients?

Singh:  Yes, big pharmaceutical companies spend huge sums on advertisements and rope in doctors through various inducements. Take the case of knee and hip implants in India. Many implants, which were stopped in developed countries a good two or three decades ago, were being used in India until very recently. If this is not taking advantage of patients in poor countries, I don’t know what else is.

Sen: If there are so many malpractices by big pharmaceutical companies, what can the government do to control them?

Singh: It is very difficult to exercise control over these companies because most of them are multinational. They do not lie under India’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, India depends on other countries for active pharmaceutical ingredients. In fact, 66.69% come from alone.

Foreign players are not prepared to negotiate with the government on price. The drug controller of India has tried to prices of some drugs such as antibiotics, anti-tuberculosis medicines and antimalarial tablets, but this has led companies to stop production of many life-saving drugs when their profit margins have gone down.

Sen: Is that not sheer blackmail and profiteering?

Singh: Yes, it is. Once the companies stop production, there are shortages and panic often grips the market. People start to hoard essential medicines and sell them in the black market. Once the trade goes underground, prices become very difficult to control, further aggravating the original problem. So, companies know that they have bargaining power over the government.

Sen: What are the other issues facing Indian health care?

Singh: Medical education has declined precipitously. When I studied at King George’s Medical College, my professors were extraordinary. Today, medical colleges are run by politicians, bureaucrats and property dealers along with corporate houses. It is bizarre that people who ran sweet shops or dairy farms have suddenly started medical colleges. Many students who graduate from such institutions are doctors only in name and are really little better than quacks.

The Medical Council of India is deeply compromised. Ketan Desai, one of its past presidents, was found guilty of . He was convicted of taking bribes to approve shady institutions as recognized medical colleges. With the fox guarding the henhouse, it is no surprise that regulation is utterly ineffective in safeguarding the interests of citizens.

There is another major issue. During British rule, the (IMS) and state medical services provided the backbone of health care to a limited population. After independence, the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Indian Police Service continued, but the IMS was discontinued. Health care was now the responsibility of the states, but they were not given taxation powers to fund it.

India never planned its health-care system properly. Politicians and IAS officers had no domain expertise. Doctors, nurses and medical professionals were cut out of policymaking. Unsurprisingly, India’s health-care system is in shambles.


The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post India’s Health-Care System Is in Shambles appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Like the rest of the media, The Guardian tunes in when Musk speaks. Here are his quotable ideas: “The Tesla billionaire Elon Musk thinks people ‘don’t need college to learn stuff’ and says jobs at his companies should not require a degree.” To prove his point, Musk asks, “Did Shakespeare go to college?” before helpfully providing the answer: “Probably not.”

The Era of Centibillionaires Is Upon Us

READ MORE

We are tempted to ask Musk a follow-up question: Would Tesla or any other of his forward-looking companies (SpaceX, The Boring Company, Neuralink) hire William Shakespeare? The answer would be: Probably not. And the reason is twofold: Shakespeare understood society and considered it more important than technology. And he explored the questions he wrote about from multiple perspectives, which means he clearly lacked the focus required to appear smart and productive to Musk’s companies, with or without a college diploma.

Here is today’s 3D definition:

College:

An institution seen by teenage US consumers as a place to purchase the credentials needed for their future adulthood. This is a lengthy stretch of their lives in which they will attempt to sell themselves to employers in the hope of eventually being able to pay off the debt acquired in the three or four years they spend as consumers of education. During this time, they dedicate themselves to learning the art of reconciling having fun with finding clever ways to get passing grades.

Contextual Note

Musk’s irony may not be Shakespearean — it lacks both a sense of perspective and a dramatic context) — but he has a point. Americans have every reason to distrust their educational system and seek to liberate themselves from the belief that it provides the formulaic plotline to their life narrative. It has become increasingly clear that a university diploma no longer guarantees a well-remunerated job. 

As far as learning itself is concerned, the smartest people end up in adulthood understanding that the key to their own success will be to detach themselves from most of what they learned throughout their schooling. They’ll find very little of it useful in their professional and adult lives. And those who are interested in real knowledge will soon discover that their education, starting at elementary school, provided them with a steady diet of fake news associated with the facts and factoids that students are expected to have remembered long enough to pass a test and get a grade.

Was the world flat until Christopher Columbus proved it was round? Most Americans were. Those interested in the truth of history can seek it on Google, hope to happen upon an article clarifying the myths they learned at school or ask questions on Quora.

Columbus wasn’t a hero of science or a daring pioneer of geographic theory, an idea that distracts children from learning about the nature of his true ambitions and the long-term consequences of those ambitions. But it’s important for Americans to believe that part of their nation’s providential destiny — its very coming into existence (since it didn’t really exist before Columbus) — was to correct the errors of Europeans, starting with the superstitious belief that the Earth was flat. The irony has now come full circle as the US seems to have a monopoly of latter-day flat-earthers, who regularly make front-page news. 

Musk is right to distrust the fundamental premise of higher education. “I think college is basically for fun and to prove that you can do your chores, but they’re not for learning,” he said. If the purpose of college is essentially to find ways of having fun and prove one’s capacity not to wilt in the face of discipline, Musk nevertheless fails to make an important complementary point about the role education plays in society. The schooling that leads up to university is essentially dedicated not to acquiring true or useful knowledge, but to instilling cultural values (including the belief in exceptionalism) and ideological beliefs (such as the virtues of free markets), even when contradicted by facts.

Elon Musk pushes his provocation further when he says that his criterion for hiring has nothing to do with education and everything to do with identifying people with “exceptional ability.” Not only doesn’t he “consider going to college evidence of exceptional ability,” but he adds, “In fact, ideally you dropped out.”

Musk’s message can only be confusing for young Americans. They know statistically that people with a college degree have significantly higher earnings (estimated at $30,000 a year) than those without a diploma. Their families and often the youngsters themselves make a simple calculation: However significant the student debt they acquire in the process, they are betting on what they see as the favorable odds of being able to pay it back thanks to their magic diploma.

It’s just like playing the stock market. You put up the money and hope your stock performs well. But the effect on the students themselves and the entire atmosphere of education is ultimately devastating in social and even educational terms. It means that the focus is on money and not learning. As a student, you are paying for two things: the diploma and the belief in your right to a higher income. Universities themselves morph into commercially managed enterprises that see the students as customers rather than learners. Worse, they develop the mindset and strategic operating procedures of corporations who will be judged and who will judge themselves essentially on their ability to turn a profit rather than their service to the community.

Thinking this way also reinforces the complementary idea, essential for the economy, that everyone is at the mercy of their future employers, that their lives will depend on pleasing their future corporate masters. That is simply how the economy is structured. Nobody needs to go to college to perceive that reality.

That’s why Musk’s advice is confusing. He himself is a corporate master in a position to offer young professionals a job. But, in contradiction with his own human resources departments, he says he doesn’t want to see a diploma. He wants excellence. He even suggests that dropouts are more likely to show excellence.

A cynic might reason that Musk prefers dropouts because it weakens their negotiating position, meaning that he can offer them a lower salary. There may even be some basic economic truth to that, since the people recognized as excellent after having worked for less than their proven worth will have the opportunity to prove their worth and will subsequently be rewarded. That’s how the system is designed to work.

And that’s why Musk’s description is confusing. He represents the logic of the system but appears at the same time to be undermining it. But that doesn’t seem to bother anyone. Self-contradiction is a privilege that hyperreal personalities now have in this increasingly irrational celebrity-oriented economy.

Historical Note

In his role of hyperreal visionary focused on the future of civilization, Elon Musk turns out to have absorbed many of the lessons that children learn in school and often amplified by the media. He too has been conditioned by the historical myths of the past that constitute the source of the values that schooling instills in American children. Musk clearly plays the public role of a “self-made man.” The meme is a staple of US culture linked to the notion of pioneering and exploring new frontiers. It also includes the idea of the self-taught genius, the greatest example of which was the inventor, entrepreneur and political thinker Benjamin Franklin.

As the author Irvin G. Wyllie pointed out in his 1954 book, “The Self-Made Man in America: The Myth of Rags to Riches,” the idea of learning on one’s own is specifically related to the quest for financial success. Musk tells us that we “don’t need college to learn stuff.” He doesn’t tell us what is the “stuff” he’s referring to.

What he appears to mean is that in his companies, the stuff that you will learn is very different from anything you’re likely to learn in classes at a university. He’s probably right if he thinks that some of the stuff taught at universities will have to be unlearned by anyone seeking to excel in a cutting-edge technology company. Even the science taught at university may be out of date. But what you need to know in a modern technology company can only be learned by becoming involved in building things to sell to the outside world. It requires working on them pragmatically rather than just studying how they work theoretically.

This recalls another founding myth of US culture and its consequences: that because practice will always trump theory, theory itself becomes dispensable if not suspect. Everything you need to know to succeed in life can be achieved through trial and error without paying attention to theory or wasting time on it. And the nice thing about the US system is that, when you achieve an adequate level of success, you no longer have to pay for your errors. You become too big to fail, too important for the economy. That means that someone else, including the taxpayers, will bail you out because you have become a national treasure.

That is the essential message people of “excellence” learn. And it’s a practice they want to see continue.  

As for the “stuff” Musk refers to, Shakespeare had his own take on that, when in the closing act of “The Tempest,” Prospero reminded us all that, “We are such stuff/ As dreams are made on, and our little life/ Is rounded with a sleep.”

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Elon Musk Has No Use for College appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The 17 SDGs were adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015, with a target date of 2030. That leaves 10 years to achieve, amongst others: no poverty, zero hunger, gender equality, affordable and clean energy and climate action. These are major challenges for all governments, not just MENA.

Yet the most challenging of the goals may be the one that hardly gets talked about: SDG 16. It calls for governments to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

It’s Complicated

All the SDGs are accompanied by specific targets. The ones for SDG 16 include: promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all; substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms; develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels; ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels; and ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

This is a familiar list of ingredients of “good governance” as it has been defined by major international agencies like the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development over the last 20 years. But they are more than a list: They are mutually reinforcing. It’s hard to achieve one without the others.

Take eradicating bribery and corruption. How could that be achieved if the courts are in the back pockets of political and business leaders? Corruption cannot be truly addressed without the rule of law. But real rule of law needs accountability and transparency, which means public access to information and protection of fundamental freedoms.

It gets more complicated. The target of “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels” is a target less about governments than about civil society and non-governmental institutions. SDG 16 is not just about the institutions of government — it is about the relationship of government to society as well.

It gets more complicated still. In addition to accountability, transparency and participation, SDG 16 also has a target of “effective” institutions at all levels. It is not clear what that means in the context of SDG 16, but it must have something to do with the results and targets for the other SDGs. For example, SDG 4, on quality education and its target of (to take just one) “equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university,” would require both massive investments and well-designed institutions.

Achieving most of the other SDGs will also depend on effective government institutions. For example, decent work and economic growth (SDG 8); innovation, industry and infrastructure (SDG 9); and climate action (SDG 13). 

The SDGs, in short, are goals that can only be achieved through good and effective governance. SDG 16 makes that explicit, but it is embedded in most the other SDGs and their targets. This challenge of good governance is not just about warm and fuzzy slogans; it is about institutional design, about government capacity and about government-society relations.

Mixed Results

What progress has been made, and what are the pathways to success by 2030? For the MENA region, given the variety of situations and the intensity of conflict in many countries, the results are mixed. The “,” published by the UN-affiliated Sustainable Development Solutions Network, notes that “Conflicts in some countries lead to poor and declining performance on most of the SDGs and in particular on SDG 2 (No Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).”

While access to clean water, sanitation and clean energy is generally high, the report calls for more efforts to deal with high levels of perceived corruption. It is cold comfort that Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa fare even worse on most SGDs in general, and SDG 16 especially.

The path forward on governance, for all countries and not just MENA, is not to try to do everything all at once. The year 2030 is only a decade away. If we think of the SDGs as 17 rail cars, what are the engines that will pull them into the station on time?

First, education. The results of a good educational system are educated citizens, who will in turn contribute to economic growth and to civil society development. Second, anti-corruption and rule of law. The lessons of recent uprisings and protests around the world are clear: Nothing ignites public outrage more than the injustice that comes with the rot of corruption. Third, build capacity in public institutions through training and high standards of competence and merit. The 2030 Agenda is only a decade away. Achieving SDG 16 is the key to success. We need to start now.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Importance of Good Governance appeared first on 51�Թ�.

He goes on to explain why he does not believe in empathy or compassion, qualities that are considered fundamental to humanity: “The contemporary world of humanitarian lament, too, contains players who have been diagnosed with a range of mental disorders that makes them highly persuasive narrators. There is a popular belief that their suffering makes them feel more deeply about the problems of others. This is a myth. Empathy is merely a form of self-absorption and self-obsession. The ill create a gloomy world because that is what they see and that is what comforts them.”

Zero Degrees of Empathy

In Joseph’s worldview, not only is empathy a mental disorder, but all those striving to improve conditions for the less fortunate are also mentally ill. In another one of his , Joseph implies that environment activist Greta Thunberg’s zeal to change the world is driven by a mental condition, Asperger’s syndrome. “A lot of this extreme altruism is not a consequence of sanity at all,” writes Joseph. “They are doing it because they can’t help it; they are being influenced by their mental health.”

He uses the terms “schizophrenic,” “insane,” “mental disorder,” “mental anomaly” and “paranoia” interchangeably, with no thought given to their specific usage in medical parlance. In his lexicon, these terms are weaponized and deployed as slurs. In his puerile attempts at psychoanalysis, Joseph unwittingly offers us a glimpse into his own psyche.

Why #MeToo Won’t Succeed in India

READ MORE

“Empathy is our ability to identify what someone else is thinking or feeling, and to respond to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion,” writes British clinical psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen in his , “Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human Cruelty.” According to Baron-Cohen, “People who lack empathy see others as mere objects. These are people with borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. They are capable of inflicting physical and psychological harm on others and are unmoved by the plight of those they hurt.”

He could have easily been talking about Manu Joseph. Unfortunately, Joseph’s views are hardly an exception in Indian society.

Scale of the Problem

Mental health should not be treated facetiously under any circumstances, but less so in India, where roughly seeking medical help could be suffering from depression, meaning that some 23 million may be in need of mental-health care at any given time. India also has one of the highest rates of  in the world, losing over 220,000 a year according to World Health Organization ; a student commits suicide in India.

This is not surprising given that suicidal tendencies are directly related to undiagnosed or untreated depression, bipolar disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder and schizophrenia, all of which thrive and proliferate in both urban and rural India.

The treatment gap for mental health in India is staggering, with and 2,000 clinical psychologists in a country of 1.3 billion. Psychological care accounts for a miniscule 0.06% of India’s . In Bangladesh the number is at 0.44% — not vastly higher, but it’s still better.

“The government needs to make a long-term investment in mental health infrastructure that includes the training and hiring of professionals and promoting research and development efforts,” says Stanford psychiatrist Shaili Jain. “There is no health without mental health so there would be a very tangible return on such an investment — a heathier, more productive and hopeful population. It is vital, that in this modern world, all the well-honed traditions, practices, rituals and social mechanisms that support mental health are not lost,” Jain adds, referring to holistic practices like yoga and Ayurveda.

She suggest that going forward, “On the other end of the spectrum, leveraging the power of 21^st century medical technology will play a vital role in addressing the paucity of mental health professionals. Examples are telemedicine, virtual care and smart phone applications.”

Not a Priority

That mental health is not a priority in a country where basic amenities like clean water, power, food, education and housing are sorely lacking is not surprising, but deep stigma also contributes to the denial and shame around the subject, cutting across lines of religion, class, caste and gender.

The what-will-people-say mentality is so widespread that some village programs have attached psychological services to the local temples so that people can seek help in the guise of religious activity to avoid the shame of exposure. This mentality is propagated in no small measure by the insensitive and tone-deaf attitudes toward mental health. For instance, Indian politicians and public personalities often ridicule their opponents by weaponizing terms like “dumb,” “deaf,” “mentally ill,” “retarded,” “bipolar,” “handicapped,” “dyslexic” and “schizophrenic.”  

A survey conducted by The Live, Love, Laugh Foundation revealed shockingly callous and misinformed in India. Sixty percent of respondents agreed with the statement that mentally unhealthy people should “have their own groups” so that healthy people are not “contaminated,” while the same number also believed that lack of self-discipline and willpower was one of the main causes of mental illness. Forty four percent of respondents thought that people suffering from mental illness are always violent, while 41% agreed with the statement that talking to a mentally ill person could lead to deterioration of the mental health of a normal person.

Careless Words

On a personal note, I could summon the courage to write freely about only because of my emotional and physical distance from India. I reside in a part of the world where there is no shame in writing about, discussing or seeking help for depression or other issues. In fact, people are applauded for facing their demons and for encouraging others to do the same.

Scores of people who do not have that luxury are forced to stay silent for fear of being shamed and ostracized within their communities. Words have consequences and ought not be thrown around without considering the havoc they may wreak in the lives of those in need of care and empathy. For them, just a few careless words could literally mean the difference between life and death.

“Challenging the taboos surrounding trauma is key. Disclosing a trauma history or symptoms of mental health distress require one to be vulnerable and that is simply not a safe thing to be if it will expose you to discrimination, bias or retaliation,” says Dr. Jain. “If victim-shaming tactics persist, then the silence and denial surrounding trauma will continue. Legal and societal protections for victims [are] non-negotiable.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post When It Comes to Mental Health, India Remains Shockingly Misinformed appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Aarthi Swaminathan, writing for Yahoo Finance, some of the serious dirt that has contributed to building what she calls a “muddy system.” She looks at the case of a woman who, at the age of 51, finds herself saddled with a debt of $100,000.In 1997, Annette Gunn graduated from Southern Wesleyan University with a clearly unmanageable debt of $60,000, given her lack of prospects for lucrative employment. Her circumstances made it impossible for her to meet the conditions of a standard repayment plan. Since then, according to Swaminathan, “she’s been in limbo — in the form of forbearance and deferments — due to various financial and bureaucratic issues over time.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Forbearance:

In the realm of student debt, an act of superficial generosity and restraint by a loan agency that, through the temporary postponement of cruelty, allows it to consolidate and magnify the level of cruelty that the agency will apply at a later date, while at the same time radically reducing the margin of maneuver of the person benefiting from the act of forbearance

Contextual Note

Most student debt is repaid over time — often decades — through regular payments. In theory, this plays out smoothly thanks to the superior earnings college graduates expect to receive as the main benefit of their investment in a diploma. But for an increasing number of former students, instead of unlocking their path to financial success and personal security, their investment in the future turns out to be worse than a bad dream. It ends up poisoning their waking existence and undermining their capacity to construct a life project.

From the point of view of not only loan agencies but even universities, the purchase of an education has turned into a scam that has reduced generations of young professionals to a state of debt peony. The former top student loan official A. Wayne Johnson — a Betsy DeVos appointee under President Donald Trump — from his post with this comment: “We’re dealing with an abomination that’s in plain sight.” Johnson then described in greater detail the character of the abomination: “A lot of people caught up in full-blown despair. I mean, any system that winds up with people committing suicide to have to get out of is a problem.”

The loan services never bother to inform the students or their families that the expensive education they are paying for is a high-risk investment. Why should they? The official culture of the US as an enlightened democracy has maintained the idea that education is about the advance of knowledge and the broadening of the citizenry’s culture, rather than merely the hope of a superior level of future income attached to a piece of paper called a diploma. With student debt, the hope itself becomes a need and a need that remains increasingly unfulfilled.

In reality, the cynical commercial culture that has achieved total dominance in recent decades willingly maintains the belief in the university’s vocation of enlightenment simply as a means of hiding their real motivation: the fact that everyone involved — the universities, the loan services and the students — is seeking financial advantage.

The “generous” loan system has turned universities into classically managed for-profit enterprises benefiting from the availability of loan cash to sell a consumer product: diplomas. This means cutting costs and veering toward the logic of mass production. Only the poorly-paid adjunct professors continue to believe in their role of spreading enlightenment. But, of course, they lack the means to reinject it back into the culture of the enterprise their university has become.

This has created an El Dorado for loan services, who have customers hooked for a lifetime and, thanks to the legislation concerning student loans, protected from the eventuality of personal bankruptcy, which the law largely forbids.

This provides the ideal context in which forbearance can come into play. Only a minority of students receive the level of compensation that allows them to easily pay back their loans. Instead of finding the high-paying jobs they expected following graduation, many students have no choice but to settle for employment in basic service jobs paid at subsistence wages.

In the case of Annette Gunn, her debt of $60,000 has now nearly doubled 22 years later, while her personal financial situation has remained precarious. Without forbearance, she couldn’t have survived. The Yahoo article offers a peek at the dismally cynical techniques used by Navient, Gunn’s loan servicer: “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently called out student loan servicer Navient for allegedly pushing borrowers into forbearance instead of income-based repayment, adding billions of dollars in interest on top of their existing loans.”

A quote from a Navient executive reveals that, rather than appearing as an understanding response to a debtor’s difficult situation, Navient uses forbearance, very literally, as a weapon to victimize their clients: “Our battle cry remains ‘forbear them, forbear them, make them relinquish the ball.’” This executive’s language tells it all. They are at war with their borrowers and require a “battle cry” to effectively motivate their strategy of cruelty. Then there’s the metaphor from competitive sport. Borrowers are opponents who must be brutalized until they “relinquish the ball.”

Despite Johnson’s remark, suicide is not the only answer to debtors’ angst. One former student, Chad Albright, made the news recently by fleeing to China at the age of 30 to escape the burden of student debt. Sam Ruland, for USA Today, explains that “it was drilled into Albright’s head that college would lead to success.” Concerning the coveted diploma, Albright explained, “Everyone always told me it would be worth it.” It turns out it wasn’t.

Ruland cites experts proffering what they believe is sound advice: “But students need to be more strategic in picking majors that will lead to jobs that can pay back their loans.” This is how the logic of consumer society works. Homo economicus is expected to fully understand the choices they are confronted with and assume all the responsibility for their choices. “It comes down to making sure students are aware of their options and being practical.” The same expert, Pennsylvania state Representative Dawn Keefe, gives no hint about how the students can “make sure” of their awareness.

Some may call this the negation of the American dream. But it’s more likely its fulfillment. The American dream was always there, not to inspire achievement, but to turn people into consumers creating pretexts for profit.

Historical Note

What happens when a word moves from the common language to the framework of the law concerning questions of ownership, credit and debt? The Cambridge Online Dictionary proposes a standard definition of the word “forbearance” as used at least since Shakespeare’s time: “[T]he quality of being patient and being able to forgive someone or control yourself in a difficult situation.” The Greek word ��辱�𾱰�é�� is variously as “gentle, mild, forbearing, fair, reasonable, moderate” and appears in St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians (4:5) in the form of a moral : “Let your forbearance be known to all men.”

From its use as early as the 16th century with the “a refraining from the enforcement of something (such as a debt, right, or obligation) that is due,” forbearance evolved into a commonly applied practice of concerning mortgages, “in which the lender agrees not to exercise its legal right to foreclose on a mortgage and the borrower agrees to a mortgage plan that will, over a certain time period, bring the borrower current on his or her payments.” In this context, the association with kindness and gentleness remains obvious. The lender allows the borrower to retain the title of the property that has not yet been fully paid for.

When the concept is applied to student loans, especially when the associated attitude of the lender becomes that of a “battle cry,” the notion of respect of the borrower’s interest disappears entirely. The borrower is a captive. Forbearance morphs into a weapon of attack on the person, the imposition of a debilitating handicap. Worse, the loan services calculate the long-term effect of forbearance to reach a maximum profit through what can only be called programmed usury. In the case of a mortgage, the borrower may escape the debt by abandoning the property. The law provides that only in extreme cases can student debt be forgiven.

This is just one sign among many that today’s consumer society is predicated not on the principle of providing for the well-being of consumers, but rather of treating them as anonymous victims of the pitiless logic of the system, one that has dismissed the notion of respect as inefficient and uneconomic. In the process, education itself has become totally devalued and educational institutions have increasingly abandoned the traditional goal of contributing to the intellectual wealth of the nation, broadening culture and enlightening responsible citizens.

The educational circus — administered by profit-minded managers and overseen by politicians and bankers — does teach us all one final lesson: that the consumer society is so dedicated to consumption that it has found efficient ways of consuming the consumers themselves.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Hidden Logic Behind Student Loans appeared first on 51�Թ�.