Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta desigualdades. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta desigualdades. Mostrar todas as mensagens

domingo, 6 de dezembro de 2015

coisas da educação... 'reducing inequalities and financing education remain key challenges'... via oecd...!

24/11/2015 - Governments need to tackle persistent inequalities in education and focus on improving efficiencies in their education systems in order to ensure that every child, whatever their background, can realise their full potential and benefit from a good education, according to a new OECD report.

Education at a Glance 2015 reveals the rapid progress made in expanding education over the past 25 years, with around 41% of 25-34 year-olds now having a tertiary qualification. But inequalities still persist in education, with serious consequences for labour markets and economies. In 2014, less than 60% of adults without an upper secondary education were in work, compared to over 80% of tertiary-educated adults.

Educational inequalities also affect earnings, with adults who have attained tertiary education 23 percentage points more likely to be among the 25% highest paid adults than adults with an upper secondary education. 

“The dream of ‘quality education for all’ is not yet a reality,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría at the launch of the report in Paris. “Lack of a quality education is the most powerful form of social exclusion and prevents people from benefitting from economic growth and social progress.” Read the speech.

Inequalities in initial education continue to unfold  throughout people’s lives, notably in access to lifelong learning: about 60% of workers in the most skilled occupations participate in employer-sponsored education, while only 26% of workers in elementary occupations do.

This year’s edition of Education at a Glance also reveals the difficulties that governments face in financing education. Between 2010 and 2012, GDP began to rise again in most countries, and public spending on primary to tertiary educational institutions fell in more than one in three OECD countries, including Australia, Canada, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the United States.


Amid budget cuts at primary and secondary levels, most governments have chosen to reduce teacher salaries rather than increase class sizes. But evidence from the OECD’s PISA programme reveals that high-performing countries, such as Finland, Japan or Korea, prioritise teaching and teachers over infrastructure and class sizes.

The number of countries showing an increase in salaries, in real terms, shrank to about one in two OECD countries between 2008 and 2013. On average across the OECD, pre-primary and primary teachers earn 78% of the salary of a similarly-educated,  full-time worker; lower secondary teachers are paid 80% and upper secondary teachers 82% of that benchmark salary.

These uncompetitive salaries will make it harder to attract the best candidates to the teaching profession, especially as the teaching workforce is ageing, with 35% of secondary school teachers at least 50 years old in 2013. That proportion rose by 3 percentage points between 2005 and 2013. The increase was 10 percentage points or more in Greece, Korea, Portugal and Slovenia and 19 points in Austria.

Education at a Glance provides comparable national statistics measuring the state of education worldwide. The report analyses the education systems of the 34 OECD member countries, as well as Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

Key findings

Educational attainment

  • Around 85% of today’s young people will complete upper secondary education over their lifetimes. In all countries, young women are now more likely to do so than men. The largest gender gap is in Slovenia, where 95% of young women are expected to graduate from upper secondary, compared to only 76% of young men. (Indicator A2)
  • Around 41% of 25-34 year olds in OECD countries now have a university-level education. That proportion is 16 percentage points larger than of 55-64 year-olds who have attained a similar level of education. In many countries, this difference exceeds 20 percentage points. (Indictor A1) 
  • The number of students enrolled outside their country of citizenship has risen dramatically, from 1.7 million worldwide in 1995 to more than 4.5 million (Indicator C4). Some 27% of students in OECD countries who graduated for the first time from a doctoral programme in 2013 were international students, compared to only 7% for students who were awarded a bachelor’s degree. (Indicator A3)
  • On average, 83% of tertiary-educated people are employed, compared with 74% of people with an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and 56% of people with below upper-secondary education. (Indicator A5)
Education spending 
  • OECD countries spend on average USD 10,220 per student per year from primary through tertiary education: USD 8,247 per primary student, USD 9,518 per secondary student, and USD 15,028 per tertiary student. (Indicator B1)
  • The share of private funding in tertiary education has increased over the past decade. About two thirds of private funding at tertiary level comes from households through tuition fees. Tuition fees are higher than USD 2000 in more than half of the countries with available data, exceed USD 4000 in Australia, Canada, Korea and New Zealand, USD 5000 in Japan and USD 8000 in the United Kingdom and United States. (Indicator B5)
  • OECD countries spent an average of 5.3% of GDP on primary to tertiary education in 2012 (including undistributed programmes by level of education). Public funding accounts for 83.5% of all spending on primary to tertiary educational institutions. Public spending on education fell in more than one out of three OECD countries between 2010 and 2012, including Australia, Canada, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the United States. (Indicators B2 and B3)
Early childhood education
  • In most OECD countries, education now begins for most children well before they are 5 years old. Some 74% of 3-year-olds are enrolled in education across the OECD and 80% of European Union member OECD countries. (Indicator C2)
  • Enrolments in pre-primary rose from 52% of 3-year-olds in 2005 to 72% in 2013, and from 69% of 4-year-olds to 85% in 2013. The enrolment rates of 4-year olds increased by 20 percentage points or more in Australia, Chile, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Russian Federation and Turkey between 2005 and 2013. (Indicator C2)
  • More than half of children enrolled in early childhood development programmes attend private institutions. This can result in heavy financial burdens for parents, even when government subsidies are provided. (Indicator C2)
In the classroom
  • Students receive an average of 7570 hours of compulsory education at primary and lower secondary level. Students in Denmark have the most, at over 10,000 hours, and in Hungary the least, at less than 6,000 hours.(Indicator D1)
  • The average primary class in OECD countries has 21 students and 24 at lower secondary level. The larger the class size, the less time teachers spend teaching and the more time they spend on keeping order in the classroom: one additional student added to an average-size class is associated with 0.5 percentage point decrease in time spent on teaching and learning. Indicator D2)
  • The statutory salaries of teachers with 15 years’ experience average USD 41,245 at primary level, USD 42,825 at lower secondary and USD 44,600 at upper secondary level. (Indicator D3)

Further information on Education at a Glance, including country notes, multilingual summaries and key data, is available at: www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm.

quarta-feira, 20 de maio de 2015

educação, desigualdades, economia e prosperidade...reflexões para o fim de dia...!





"URL for this press release: http://tinyurl.com/mccsq28



BOULDER, CO (May 18, 2015) – A recent report from The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution examines several important questions about education’s economic power and includes some useful analyses and interesting conclusions. Its analysis, however, oversimplifies the importance of college degrees in boosting the economy, while rejecting the widely held view that education can substantially reduce economic inequality. 

Marvin Lazerson and Ryan Pfleger reviewed Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education.

Dr. Lazerson is a professor of higher education policy at Central European University, Budapest, Hungary, and an emeritus professor, University of Pennsylvania. Ryan Pflegeris a doctoral candidate in Educational Foundations, Policy, and Practice at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The Hamilton Project report discusses three commonly held propositions about education’s economic power: (a) education is the critical factor in creating economic prosperity; (b) college and advanced degrees increase the earning power of individuals; and (c) a broad base of increased educational attainment will narrow income inequality. It asserts that the first proposition is true and that the second proposition is accurate, especially at the middle-income-and-below range. The report finds the third proposition inaccurate, concluding that a significant increase in educational attainment is not likely to significantly decrease wage inequality.

Lazerson and Pfleger praise as “illuminating” the report’s empirically based simulation that projects what would happen if an additional 10 percent of the population suddenly received college degrees. They note, however, that the analysis has important limitations. There is little direct evidence in the report to show that increasing educational attainment is, as the authors contend, “the most effective and direct way” to improve economic prosperity. Also, the report’s data are drawn only from males and no attention is paid to how income gains differ across gender, race, field of study, labor-market conditions, and institutional reputation.

The reviewers stress that no data analysis is provided in the report to support claims about the relative effectiveness of education compared to other ways to address economic problems. Claiming that the primary solution to a wide array of economic problems is to improve “human capital,” the report perpetuates a problematic myth that undervalues alternative ways to address poverty and economic insecurity. Indeed the assumption of the knowledge society narrative, that everything depends upon more education, may itself be flawed.

Though the report’s policy conclusions about education are important, economic and political actions are critical as well in closing income and social gaps. As the reviewers write, “[u]sing schooling as a quick fix for economic problems is not going to do it.”

Find Lazerson and Pfleger’s review on the NEPC website at:

Find Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequalityby Hershbein, Kearney and Summers and published by The Hamilton Project on the web at:

The Think Twice think tank review project (http://thinktankreview.org) of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) provides the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC is housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. The Think Twice think tank review project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.

The mission of the National Education Policy Center is to produce and disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence. For more information on the NEPC, please visit http://nepc.colorado.edu/."



quarta-feira, 10 de dezembro de 2014

da corrupção... o resto vem por acréscimo...?


...

"Este país em que os recursos são transferidos do público para o privado e em que os rendimentos são canalizados do trabalho para o capital, dos cada vez mais pobres para os cada vez mais ricos, «só» é de crise para a grande maioria. Para os outros, é um campo imenso de oportunidades de negócios, mais ou menos lícitos mas plenos de promessas de lucro. Quando os enquadramentos legais e institucionais são frágeis, ainda por cima num ambiente social em que a acção colectiva de contra-poderes cidadãos (sindicais, associativos, etc.) é insuficiente, os ambientes altamente competitivos e a promessa de lucros frágeis, no contexto atrás descrito, promovem todo o tipo de práticas lesivas do interesse público, corrosivas do bem comum. Mesmo sabendo que parte das dificuldades da acção colectiva também resulta da própria situação de crise – que leva os que mais precisam da mudança a dedicar todo o seu tempo à sua própria sobrevivência diária –, não podemos deixar de investir as forças que temos na organização do combate feroz a este sistema criado para gerar mais desigualdades, mais corrupção, mais vidas perdidas. O nome desse sistema é neoliberalismo e, por agora, os presos nas malhas da desigualdade somos nós."


no le monde diplomatique [artigo completo]... aqui.

sábado, 4 de janeiro de 2014

coisas [da educação]... 'como o eduquês agrava a desigualdade'... de avelino de jesus...!

"Pelos resultados e pelos instrumentos (agentes actuando no sistema) a política educativa teve uma clara natureza de classe e foi socialmente devastadora para os alunos e para a população de estatuto económico-social mais baixo.

Apesar dos investimentos massivos na educação nas últimas décadas, a desigualdade social do nosso aparelho educativo não é só continua, intoleravelmente, elevada como tem vindo a piorar.

Estes factos, que evidencio neste artigo, contradiz a argumentação cerrada do eduquês(a) que tem presidido à política educativa desde a reforma Veiga Simão, segundo a qual, eventuais perdas de qualidade, disciplina e liberdade se justificaria pela equidade de ganho certo.

Recentemente, dados da Comissão da UE e da OCDE - que resumo na tabela - permitem lançar um olhar rigoroso sobre a equidade actual dos aparelhos educativos e a sua evolução na última década. Escolhi os dados mais relevantes para a apreensão da equidade: a transmissão para os adultos do baixo nível educativo dos pais, o grau de inclusão social das escolas e a intensidade da influência do estatuto económico-social sobre os resultados na matemática. Embora estes dados foquem apenas ao nível do ensino básico (9 anos de escolaridade) eles são representativos do comportamento global do sistema.

Confirmamos agora que o eduquês - cuja principal defesa argumentativa tem sido a equidade - não só não retirou Portugal da pior posição da Europa como agravou a desigualdade absoluta do sistema.

Podemos, seguindo a tabela, resumir a posição portuguesa:
• O maior peso da herança do nível educativo dos pais sobre o nível atingido pelos filhos: 68% dos filhos de pais com baixo nível educativo não conseguiram ultrapassar aquele nível, contra a média na Europa de 29%.

• O 3º pior índice de inclusão social: 68,6% para uma média europeia de 76,9%. Acresce que entre, 2003 e 2012, o país viu agravada a situação sendo aquele que registou a pior variação: o indicador desceu 8 pontos percentuais contra um aumento na média europeia de 0,2 p.p.

• O 4º pior indicador do peso da influência do estatuto económico-social sobre os resultados escolares: 19,2% contra a média europeia de 13,8%. Entre 2003 e 2012 este indicador agravou-se +1,1 pontos percentuais (contra uma melhoria média na Europa de -1,7 p.p.), sendo o país o 4º com pior evolução.

Décadas de eduqês não trouxeram a prometida equidade mas o seu contrário. Este processo perverso, por razões ilegítimas, continua a ser escondido da opinião pública. Nem a recente divulgação dos resultados do PISA 2012, com um volume especificamente dedicado à equidade, parece ter despertado a atenção dos media. 

Trazer ao conhecimento geral estes dados é fundamental. Em particular, eles devem estar presentes  na discussão sobre a tentativa em curso de reduzir certos aspectos do eduquês. Na verdade, o argumento mais usado para oposição à mudança é a suposto defesa duma suposta mas inexistente igualdade.

A intolerável desigualdade do actual sistema justifica a mudança. Algo de diferente deve ser feito no sentido da liberdade, da descentralização e da responsabilização dos indivíduos.

Pelos resultados e pelos instrumentos (agentes actuando no sistema) a política educativa teve uma clara natureza de classe e foi socialmente devastadora para os alunos e para a população de estatuto económico-social mais baixo.

As reformas visando inverter, com uma forte base moral, a política educativa centrada no eduquês têm suporte empírico seguro.
                 
(a) Por eduquês entendo o processo de massificação do ensino - ocorrência necessária e bem-vinda - conduzido de forma particular, caracterizada por: a) centralização, uniformização e burocratização, b) controle ideológico dos conteúdos, c) facilitismo nos objectivos, conteúdos e avaliação, d) métodos pedagógicos negadores do valor do esforço, da competição, da selecção e do prémio, d) afastamento da escola do processo produtivo e) redução drástica da selecção social pela educação abandonando para a família e a economia o papel de transmissão do estatuto económico-social."



Economista e professor do ISEG