fredag den 8. december 2017

Balance mellem ansvar og tillid: “Accountability” i uddannelse


 "Accountability" er det centrale begreb i uddannelsesreformer verden rundt

Accountability betyder oversat til dansk ansvar, ansvarlighed, ansvarsfølelse, ansvarsbevidshed, selve det at man står til ansvar og lever op til  ens ansvar.

Men det engelske begreb bruges også i betydningen regnskabspligt, kontrolsystemer og oplysningspligt.

(Se evt eksempler på begge anvendelser på dansk:



UNESCO har lige udgivet en rapport, der har titlen “Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments”

“In 2017, the second report in the Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report series continues its assessment of progress towards the Sustainable Development Goal on education (SDG4) and its 10 targets, as well as other related education targets in the SDG agenda.
It also investigates accountability in education, analyzing how all relevant stakeholders can provide education more effectively, efficiently and equitably. The report examines different accountability mechanisms that are used to hold governments, schools, teachers, parents, the international community, and the private sector accountable for inclusive, equitable and quality education.
By analyzing which policies make accountability work or fail, and which external factors impact on their success, the 2017/8 GEM Report concludes with concrete recommendations that will help build stronger education systems.”

Link til summary rapporten (53 sider)

Homepage for Education Monitoring Report

Links til hele rapporten “The Full Report” ( godt 500 sider)

Den samlede report er meget interessantere end “Summary Report”, fordi der gennemføres argumentationer og der gives mange konkrete eksempler fra rundt i verden.
I det hele taget viser den en afbalanceret holdning til “accountability”: 
Uddannelse fungerer ikke uden samarbejde mellem mange parter, og i særdeleshed lærerne. Og kontrolsystemer uden tillid og samarbejde fungerer ikke.



How all actors in education are currently held to account. Page 8 in Summary Report 


( I parentes bemærket giver rapporten indtryk af ikke at være præget af den amerikanske tradition for stive accountability-systems hvor rigid kontrol afløser tillid til lærere. Det er måske fordi USA ikke længere er med i UNESCO)




Jeg har valgt at fremhæve og  citere disse afsnit s. 222-223 i “The Full Report” http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002593/259338e.pdf

“Recommendations 
Clear accountability mechanisms should be in place to meet global common commitments to inclusive,  equitable and high-quality education and lifelong learning for all.

This report has shown the whole array of approaches, ranging from countries where the concept of accountability is unknown, and violations of the right to education go unchallenged, to countries where accountability has become an end in itself instead  of a means to improve education.

Accountability in education starts with governments, which bear the primary duty to ensure the right to education. Every country in the world has ratified at least one international treaty illustrating its commitment to the right to education. However, in only 55% of countries is the right to education justiciable, meaning that there are laws allowing citizens to legally challenge failures in the education system.

Civil society organizations and the international community should lobby for the right to education, including for making the right justiciable in national legal frameworks. Of course, laws are only powerful if they are implemented. Effective accountability requires governments  to build stronger systems to enforce the laws. This report therefore lays out the following recommendations to help governments – but also other actors with a stake in education – to design and implement robust accountability systems.



DESIGNING A ROBUST ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Governments need to create space for meaningful and representative engagement to build trust and a shared understanding of respective responsibilities with all education actors – all government tiers and departments, legislative and judicial authorities, autonomous institutions, schools, teachers, parents, students, civil society, teachers’ unions, the private sector and international organizations.

Steps in that direction would include:

Providing formal space for meaningful dialogue among multiple stakeholders, especially those sitting outside government.

Strengthening the role of legislatures’ education committees by introducing regular review processes and building the capacity of their members.

Publishing an annual education monitoring report that presents actions taken and the results to which they have contributed, across all levels of education, for the benefit of the public.

Governments should develop credible education sector plans and transparent budgets with clear lines of responsibility and truly independent auditing mechanisms.

Fundamentally, government actors cannot be held accountable if there is no clarity on what they are accountable for.

Budget document transparency can help clarify where and when funding is released, providing information necessary for critical review, especially in the legislature. Governments should develop credible and efficient regulations and monitoring mechanisms and adhere to follow-up actions and sanctions when standards are not met. These should cover providers of both public and private education and ancillary services.

Processes, such as registration and accreditation or bidding and contracting, should be clear and transparent.

But regulations should also address equity and quality aspects of education. Governments should design school and teacher accountability mechanisms that are supportive and formative, and avoid punitive mechanisms, especially the types based on narrow performance measures.

Using student test scores to sanction schools or evaluate teachers can promote an unhealthy competition-based environment, narrow the curriculum, encourage teaching to the test, demotivate teachers and disadvantage weaker students, all of which undermine overall education quality and student learning.
...

Capacity:

Actors should be equipped with the skills and training needed to fulfill their responsibilities. Governments should ensure strong institutions are in place, including those serving policing, judicial and auditing functions, with the capacity to help deter, detect and investigate corruption in education.

Governments should treat teachers as professionals. They should help build their professionalism by investing in the necessary initial and in-service education programmes and providing them with autonomy.

In turn, teachers’ unions aiming to strengthen professionalism through codes of ethics should raise members’ awareness and build the skills of those entrusted with following through on such internal accountability mechanisms.” (min fremhævning)



*************************************************************** 
Dette blogindlæg supplerer afsnittet ”Fjerde uddybning: kampen om forståelse af reformer”
i mit kapitel Hedegaard, E. (2017): "Uddannelsespolitik og globalisering - uddannelsesreformer i en usikker tidsalder"  
i bogen P. Ø Andersen & Tomas Ellegaard : "Klassisk og moderne pædagogisk teori". København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.



*************************************************************** 

mandag den 13. november 2017

Afrikansk forskning i læreruddannelse gennem fjernundervisning sætter fokus på 5 afgørende kvaliteter: tackle udfordringer, proaktivitet, opfindsomhed, vedholdenhed og problemløsning.

Udgangspunktet er at “... kvaliteten af et lands lærere er en indikator på et lands udviklingsniveau”

De 5 såkalte kvaliteter, som forskeren har fundet hos de studerende, der klarer sig bedst i fjernundervisning, beskrives. Som læser er det nærliggende at overveje, om ikke  vigtigheden af disse kompetencer ikke også gælder for onlinestuderende hvor som helst?


Der konkluderes at det er vigtigt at de udvikles før starten på fjernundervisning. ( Netop dette er i modsætning til megen undervisning i Afrika og  er en stor udfordring til undervisningssystemerne ( min kommentar)).
Desuden konkluderes der, at den onlinestuderende kan være sin egen bedste støtte når indsatsen er præget af de nævnte kvaliteter.

Nhlanhla Mpofu (2017): Distance learning: the five qualities student teachers need to succeed



*************************************************************** 
Dette blogindlæg supplerer afsnittet ”Fjerde uddybning: kampen om forståelse af reformer”
i mit kapitel Hedegaard, E. (2017): "Uddannelsespolitik og globalisering - uddannelsesreformer i en usikker tidsalder"  
i bogen P. Ø Andersen & Tomas Ellegaard : "Klassisk og moderne pædagogisk teori". København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.



*************************************************************** 

tirsdag den 7. november 2017

Partsindlæg fra lærerorganisation i USA, der protesterer mod Trump-regeringens uddannelsesbudgetlovudkast maj 2017

(bemærk links med uddybninger)

"President Trump’s and Secretary of Education DeVos’ education budget was unveiled this week. It’s devastating news for public schools.

See article in The Washington Post: "Trump´s first full education budget: Deep cuts to public school programs in pursuit of school choice"  link




Rethinking Schools stands firmly against these unprecedented attacks on public education and we need your support to continue our fight against privatization—and to support and improve public schools. 
  
Public schools remain the only educational institutions that have the potential and obligation to serve all students. Yet Trump’s education budget shows how this administration puts corporate interests over the needs of students and communities.

The budget gives to charter and voucher schools—and steals from public school children:
  • Gives $500 million more for charter schools (up 50% from current funding), $250 million to expand and “study’ voucher schools, and  $1 billion more to encourage school “choice” within districts.
  • Cuts $1.2 billion for after-school programs that serve 1.6 million children, most of whom are poor, and $2.1 billion for teacher education and class-size reduction.
  • Cuts $490 million for college work-study programs. 
  • Cuts $700 million in Perkins loans for disadvantaged students.
  • Cuts funding for mental health services, anti-bullying initiatives, physical education, and science and engineering instruction.
  • Slashes $168 million for career and technical education and eliminates $96 million for adult literacy.
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
Fight the Trump/DeVos agenda by making a donation to Rethinking Schools so that we can expand our work and strengthen the educational justice movement.

In 1988, we ran our first article critical of school vouchers. Over the years we published dozens of articles exposing the move toward school privatization. We know that the experiment with privately run charter and religious voucher schools has failed. They don’t serve all students. They drain money from public schools. They are unaccountable to the public"

 Source: https://app.robly.com/archive?id=2713f2778c50d356e9982ec9f1cea862




**************************************************************
Dette blogindlæg supplerer afsnittet ”Anden uddybning: kampen for at få alle med”
i mit kapitel Hedegaard, E. (2017): "Uddannelsespolitik og globalisering - uddannelsesreformer i en usikker tidsalder"  
i bogen P. Ø Andersen & Tomas Ellegaard : "Klassisk og moderne pædagogisk teori". København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.



**************************************************************

torsdag den 26. oktober 2017

Er uddannelse til salg. Bliver alting gjort til varer?


I denne tekst, som er et udskrift af Stephen J. Ball’s forelæsning i 2004 med titlen
“Education For Sale! The Commodification of everything?”
bliver der diskuteret, hvad det er, der sker med hvordan vi forstår uddannelse og uddannelsespolitik i disse år.


Han starter med dette citat:

"The principles of the market and its managers are more and more the managers of the policy and practices of education." 
(Bernstein 1996 p. 87)


Den afsluttende konklusionen afrundes med disse overvejelser:

“I want nonetheless to suggest that perhaps what we are seeing is what Foucault has called an epistemic shift - that is a profound change in the underlying set of rules governing the production of discourses, the conditions of knowledge, in a single period – a cultural totality or multi-dimensional regularity if you like; social structures and social relations that take shape as the flesh and bones of the dominant discourse.

That is, a general transformation in the nature of social relations – based on the removal of many of the key boundaries which have underpinned modernist thought and a concomitant collapse of moral spheres and a total subordination of moral obligations to economic ones (Walzer 1984), what Bernstein calls a dislocation (Bernstein 1996). A break as significant as – and a break from the creation of the welfare state. A dislocation within which a new kind of citizen is produced in relation to new forms of government and governance – and a concomitant loss of ‘citizenship capacity’(Crouch 2003 p. 21). More specifically, new kinds of relations to and within education and learning are being enacted ‘there is a crisis, and what is at stake is the very concept of education itself’ (Bernstein 1996 p. 88).

What I am arguing here is that privatisation is not simply a technical change in the management of the delivery of educational services – it involves changes in the meaning and experience of education, what it means to be a teacher and a learner. It changes who we are and our relation to what we do, entering into all aspects of our everyday practices and thinking – into the ways that we think about ourselves and our relations to others, even our most intimate social relations. It is changing the framework of possibilities within which we act. This is not just a process of reform, it is a process of social transformation. Without some recognition of and attention within public debate to the insidious work that is being done, in these respects, by privatisation and commodification – we may find ourselves living and working in a world made up entirely of contingencies, within which the possibilities of authenticity and meaning in teaching, learning and research are gradually but inexorably erased.

It is time to think differently about education policy before it is too late.

We need to move beyond the tyrannies of improvement, efficiency and standards, to recover a language of and for education articulated in terms of ethics, moral obligations and values
(min fremhævning)



Læs hele manuskriptet ( og se litteraturlisten) på linket
http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/node/43424


*************************************************************** 
Dette blogindlæg supplerer afsnittet ”Tredje uddybning: kampen om borgeropdragelsen”
i mit kapitel Hedegaard, E. (2017): "Uddannelsespolitik og globalisering - uddannelsesreformer i en usikker tidsalder"  
i bogen P. Ø Andersen & Tomas Ellegaard : "Klassisk og moderne pædagogisk teori". København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.



*************************************************************** 

onsdag den 25. oktober 2017

Vil forholdet mellem privat og offentlig virksomhed i fremtiden blive en form for “kapitalisme 4.0” ?


I bogen “Capitalism 4.0 : the birth of a new economy in the aftermath of crisis” af Anatole Kaletsky (2010) reflekteres der over forholdet mellem start og marked efter den store økonomiske krise som kulminerede i 2008. Disse overvejelser  er også relevante i forhold til uddannelser, livslang læring og uddannelsesreformer. Her er et overblik over forfatterens tænkning:

Den dominerende ideologi fra 1980'erne til krisen 2007-09 antog, at markederne altid var rigtige, og regeringerne næsten altid var forkerte. 

Kapitalismens tidligere fase, fra 1930'erne til 1970'erne, antog, at regeringerne altid var rigtige og markeder næsten altid forkerte. 

Det mest karakteristiske træk ved kapitalismens næste æra vil være en erkendelse af, at regeringer og markeder begge kan være forkerte, og at deres fejl måske nogle gange kan være fatale, og derfor bliver eksperimentering og pragmatisme centralt i fremtiden.

Hans grundantagelse er, at den skiftende relation mellem statslig og privat virksomhed er det vigtigste forhold.

Spørgsmålet er om denne relation også bliver det vigtigste forhold overalt? Det gælder allerede i USA i dag.



Se link til et referat af bogen nederst. Her er nogle centrale afsnit:

“First up in our Capitalist Futures series is a book called Capitalism 4.0 by Anatole Kaletsky, published by Bloomsbury in 2010.Kaletsky is ‘Editor-at-Large’ at the Times and has also worked for The Economist and The Financial Times. 


Capitalism 4.0 places the economic meltdown of 2008 in the context of a series of upheavals that have sporadically characterised the evolution of capitalism, which Kaletsky sees as ‘an adaptive social system’.  Earlier phases of capitalism are identified as:


Capitalism 1.0: a period of relative stability that ran up to the First World War, the Russian Revolution and Great Depression in the US: ‘These unprecedented political and economic traumas destroyed the classic laissez-faire capitalism of the nineteenth century and created a different version of the capitalist system.’


Capitalism 2.0 is typified by Roosevelt’s New Deal, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and the rise of the British and European Welfare states, which prevailed for some forty years.



Capitalism 3.0, in response to global inflation in the late 60s and 70s, ushered in the free-market revolution of Thatcher and Reagan that drove forward until the recent financial crisis, catalysing the new emerging economic reality: Capitalism 4.0.


In all instances, Kaletsky identifies ‘the changing relationship between government and private enterprise, between political and economic forces, [as] the clearest feature of capitalism’s evolution from one phase to the next.’

He writes:

‘The dominant ideology from the 1980s until the 2007-09 crisis assumed that markets were always right and governments nearly always wrong. The previous phase of capitalism, from the 1930s until the 1970s, assumed that governments were always right and markets nearly always wrong. The most distinctive feature of capitalism’s next era will be a recognition that governments and markets can both be wrong and that sometimes their errors can be near fatal…

Capitalism 4.0 will recognise that governments and markets make mistakes not only because politicians are corrupt, bankers greedy, businessmen incompetent, and voters stupid, but also because the world is too complex and unpredictable for any decision-making mechanism to be consistently right, whether it is based on economic or political incentives. Experimentation and pragmatism must therefore become the watchwords in public policy, economics and business strategy … The ability to operate by trial and error, to correct mistakes before they do too much social harm, is the greatest virtue of the market system.’

Kilde: Blogartikel skrevet af Jasmin Crowther om bogen
— Capitalist Futures: Anatole Kaletsky - 'Capitalism 4.0'


***************************************************************
Dette blogindlæg supplerer afsnittet ”Opsamling af den uddannelsespolitiske udvikling siden 1980érne”
i mit kapitel Hedegaard, E. (2017): "Uddannelsespolitik og globalisering - uddannelsesreformer i en usikker tidsalder"  
i bogen P. Ø Andersen & Tomas Ellegaard : "Klassisk og moderne pædagogisk teori". København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

***************************************************************