Education and auto-insurance

‘Why should education be any different than auto-insurance?’ This was the question posed to teacher leaders at a forum in Edmondton, Canada, last week. The question was put by Peter Cowley of the Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by some major corporations. Cowley’s argument was that the State should require all auto owners to have auto-insurance, but should not be the provider. By analogy, while the State should require that education be compulsory for all children, there was no reason, he suggested, why the State should be the provider. Cowley argued for a diversity of providers, competing with each other, thereby, he said, raising the overall quality of education.

The Canadian Teachers’ Federation had invited Cowley to its President’s Forum, held prior to the Annual General Meeting, precisely in order to hear the arguments being used to attack the concept of public education as we know it. His presentation was juxtaposed with an analysis of the neo-conservative agenda by Bruce Campbell, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. While the Cowley presentation certainly succeeded in getting the adrenalin flowing for the participants, the point was that it reflected views more widespread than we would like to think in many countries, not least in the United States and in Europe. There are many who agree that education is important, but who also hold that provision should come more from the private sector. Somehow, it is felt, the private sector will put in the resources. This generally turns out to be wishful thinking, so the next level of argument is that competition should be introduced into the public sector in order to encourage efficiency. Hence the movement for Charter schools in the USA.

Along with increased competition come league tables, comparisons within and between countries, and the push for performance pay. The merit, if it can be called that, of the Cowley presentation was that it confronted teacher union leaders with the need to restate the case for public education. Nothing can be taken for granted. Nor is it sufficient to bemoan or deride the neo-liberal arguments. They must be addressed.

In the 21st century, the case for quality public education for all is as powerful as it ever was. At the Forum, it was put by CTF Secretary General Calvin Fraser under the heading ‘What should be the promise of public education?’ Calvin described the early history of public education in Canada and the notion of ‘the common school’, which became the basis for community development, national progress, and individual success in a country of immigration and great natural and human diversity. This is a history that can be repeated in every other industrialized country today. It is a basis for citizenship and participation in democracies. Why then, do we witness this movement to move away from public education, even to denigrate it, and to search around for something else to take its place?

We can debate the reasons for this shift in thinking among significant segments of opinion. That it is ideological in nature is certain. But what is the basis for applying this particular ideology, that of the market and competition, so persistently to education? My own conviction is that it is all a matter of interest. The rationale for pursuing policies that deepen economic inequality is very much the same as the rationale for policies that increase rather than diminish educational inequality. In both cases, the rationale is dictated by short-term particular interests, while the longer term common interest is neglected.

It is also certain that this continuing ideological pressure on the concept of public education has consequences for public funding. It leads naturally to starving public education of badly needed resources. There is pressure to ‘do more with less’. A vicious circle is set up, of diminishing resources and of more reasons to criticize public schools – leading to proposals for alternative forms of provision. This vicious circle has to be broken. We have to build, or in some cases rebuild, a consensus in political discourse that public education is the foundation for national, community and individual progress. To achieve that consensus, we have to build, or rebuild confidence in the quality of public education.

Rebuilding the consensus of public support for quality public education is eminently do-able, for there remains a strong reservoir of public support. But it will not just happen by itself. It will take the mobilization of education unions and their members, actively engaging with other actors of civil society which share our values. This must be the basis for our advocacy whether at the G20, the international institutions, or with each national or local government.
Tough political choices on public funding lie ahead. In this context, talk of other means of educational provision, of alternatives to public provision, is dangerous. The auto-insurance analogy is superficial but seductive. It would be unwise to under-rate it. We have articulated in our own circles the case for education as a public good, not a commodity. Our challenge is to take that case convincingly and credibly to wider communities, and to do so with a clear political agenda.

The G20 “shrinking agenda”: how the Canadian host gutted the G20 of substance

Unfortunately, the Toronto G20 met our expectations – which were very low! On the Monday before-hand, WTO Director General Pascal Lamy told the ITUC Congress in Vancouver that the summit had a “shrinking agenda”. Before that, on Friday 18 June, I participated on behalf of Global Union Federations in a consultation with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, host for the G8 and G20 “twin summits”. Although Global Unions made points on defence of the public sector in the face of “exit strategies”, we had few illusions about Mr Harper’s interest – or lack thereof – in education.

When you read the brief Leaders’ Declaration, you have to wonder how the Canadian government justified the expense to Canadian taxpayers. The cost was widely reported in local media as running up to $1.3 billion, with security costs 8 times those of the previous G20 in Pittsburgh. $1.3 billion would go a way towards closing the financing gap for Education for All! But EFA is not mentioned in the G20 Declaration. Instead it is referenced in an annex to the G8 Declaration on accountability for MDG commitments. The G20 Declaration gives a one-line mention in another annex to “appreciation” for the work of ILO and OECD on a training strategy (http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/show.php?id=1292&theme=ei&country=canada).

It was not for want of trying. EI affiliates in Canada, the CTF and FPUQ, wrote excellent letters to their Prime Minister, while CTF held a well-attended press conference, and achieved good media coverage, especially e-media. The Presidents of US affiliates NEA and AFT wrote a formidably well-argued joint letter to President Obama, backed up by a personal note from the AFL-CIO President to the US “Sherpa” (top official) for the summits. EI key messages were included in the Global Unions’ Statement to the G8 and G20. And EI participated on behalf of Global Unions in the consultation with the host Prime Minister.

That consultation was itself indicative of the approach of the host government. Flanked by two of his Ministers, for Labour and Human Resources and Skills, as well as his “Sherpa”, Stephen Harper said he would just “listen” to the trade union presentations. Thanks to well-framed questions put to him by ITUC’s Guy Ryder, Harper was drawn into a more interactive exchange with the delegation than he probably intended. He was articulate and politically astute. Neither of the Ministers said a word. While we felt that getting Harper to engage in the exchange was a small “plus”, at the end of the day it did not change much. It was to be contrasted with the convening, on the eve of the G8, of a B-20 summit of business leaders, at the invitation of the Canadian PM, and a commitment by the G8 to finance with public funds worthwhile business initiatives!

Nevertheless, as labour leaders we were clearly the object of a charm offensive by this right-wing politician. Harper has run a minority government for 4 years. In the Toronto Star the next morning I read an article on his strategy to outflank the left by supporting expansion of the publicly-run Canada Pension Plan. The article quotes CLC chief Ken Georgetti as lavishing praise on the decision, stating that the Conservatives have “felt the heartbeat of Canada on this one”. (Toronto Star, Sat June 19, 2010).

This all seemed to be consistent with what I observed in the consultation. An astute politician moves from his core base, in order to build support in the centre and create conditions for governing with a majority rather than a minority. The Toronto Star columnist notes, however, that ‘Harper’s strategy with popular social programs is not to eliminate them but to transform them over time into forms that he and his political base find more ideologically amenable’.

Harper proposed a photo with all of us in front of the G20 flags, with Ken beside him. It was rather obvious that we served mainly as a backdrop for the playing out of some domestic Canadian politics. Meanwhile, I thought of all our members, in the G20 countries and in 160 other countries, and the millions of children in those countries, who face education budget cuts and see the prospect of achieving Education for All recede over the horizon!

We knew that for the Canadian G8 and G20 summits, our task was to put down “markers”. This we did. The strong EI delegation at the ITUC Congress in Vancouver, backed by the many EI and PSI delegates in national delegations, succeeded in getting the ITUC to adopt a 7th priority on Defence of the Public Sector and Education and Health for All.

Our work to get EFA and Teachers on the G20 agenda must continue through the upcoming UN Summits and the G20 in Seoul, Korea, in November. By the time the G20 convenes again in France in June 2011, just before the EI World Congress in July, we want to see concrete proposals in place. Ambitious, hugely ambitious. But necessary!

At the G20: Close the financing gap; support qualified teachers

Statement by Bob Harris to the World Economic Forum,
Global Redesign Initiative Summit, Doha, 30-31 May 2010

Session on “Rebuild in Depth: Education”

If we are to rebuild in depth, we must start with people.

The premise of the Global Agenda Council on Education Systems is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to education”.

Yet more than 60 years after that declaration was adopted at the United nations, and just 5 years before the new target date for achievement of Education for All, there are still 72 million children of primary school age out of school, and about the same number unable to go on to secondary school or to pursue relevant vocational education. The challenge was laid out clearly in the inspiring keynote address by Queen Rania yesterday.

The quantitative statistics for children and young people in school are actually significantly better than they were a decade ago. That is in itself a sign of hope. But today we face a challenge of quality in education, and linked with that, a challenge of relevance.

The issue of quality confronts us at 3 levels:
1. The statistics don’t tell the full story. Children registered for school may not all attend, and many drop out. This is of particular concern for girls.
2. When you have 100 children or more in a classroom, with a teacher who did a 3 week course after his/her secondary school, you do not have quality.
3. When schooling in such classes is limited to rote-learning, you do not have the quality of learning required for the 21st century.

The challenges of quality and relevance are there in all countries. But in the developing countries, the quality of education is a key factor in emerging from cycles of poverty and in achieving autonomous growth.

Desmond has spoken of the financing gap that has to be closed to achieve Education for All. I will speak of the people gap. We know from UNESCO that 10 million more qualified teachers will be required by 2015 to replace those who will retire and to meet the basic EFA goals.

In both cases, closing the financing gap, and closing the people gap, the approach we must take is essentially a bottom up approach. In addition to the report which you will find on your USB key, and copies are available here, we have produced side papers that make that clear. In the global community of the 21st century, we need a framework that creates opportunities for that bottom-up approach.

In both cases, we need leadership. We need political leadership. But also leadership from the international community, from the business community, from civil society, from the teaching profession, and from our universities. The engagement of all these actors is the key to an effective response to the challenge.

In Davos this year, when we presented our preliminary report, we heard many expressions of willingness to engage. There was consensus around the notion that people are the key, the people of education, and especially the teachers. In an age of unprecedented challenges, opportunities and risks, we need a new vision of teaching. It is a vision that recognizes that learning will be life-long, in school and out of school. It is a vision that will help children and young people to equip themselves for the skills they will need in the 21st century – to fulfill their potential, for themselves and for their communities. It is a vision that teachers will be able to apply the science of pedagogy, and the art of teaching to enable every child, every young person, to achieve his or her potential as a person and as a member of society.

But these teachers must themselves be equipped to fulfill this vision. There are 60 million teachers in the world today – internationally the largest professional group in the world, present in every community, and at least 10 million more needed within 5 years. This is a huge challenge. It engages the responsibility of all governments and it requires the engagement of all those groups I mentioned earlier.

The education and professional development of teachers is essential to systemic success. Our Global Agenda Council proposes a “Global Partnership for Teacher Education” to mobilize financial, human and intellectual resources in support of national initiatives to train qualified teachers.

We need a fresh approach to the mobilization of resources, and re-ordering of priorities. Investing in teacher education and professional development has often not happened yet it is precisely this investment that can have the biggest impact on quality. And it is not enough to recruit and train teachers. Frameworks for mentoring and professional development are needed 1) to assist these qualified teachers to improve their teaching skills, and 2) to enable teachers to develop throughout their careers, and 3) to motivate them.

Successful corporations know the importance of good human resource practices. Education Systems should do no less. Systemic failure to apply best practice translates into the loss of potentially good teachers, undercutting the effect of recruiting new teachers.

There is enormous potential to use the tools of the 21st century to support teachers. We recommend building on existing instruments to develop an Educators, Professional Development Portal and exchange capability. We recommend dissemination and localization of UNESCO’s framework on ICT competency for teachers, developed with three of the Forum’s leading constituents in the IT field. Multistakeholder support can be mobilized for the extension free broadband access for schools and teachers around the world.

The teaching profession is organized in much of the world through Education International and its national unions, bringing together teachers from pre-school to university. The profession is actively engaged in debates on issues of accountability, ethics, development of competency profiles, self and peer assessment. In all these questions the logical intergovernmental interface is UNESCO. Our GAC sees a leadership role for UNESCO. Responding to the challenges of rapidly changing world can be daunting. When Jacques Delors presented UNESCO’s report on education for the 21st century (Learning the Treasure Within) he described teaching as “the noblest of professions”. But the daily reality faced by 60 million teachers is often far from that aspiration.

Society expects much of its teachers, and those expectations are not diminishing. Global mobility means our societies are increasingly diverse, and even the most developed societies are increasingly unequal. It is an oversimplification to distinguish between the developing and the developed countries, for through migration the world comes into every community. In addition to their other tasks, teachers must encourage every child to take pride in his or her cultural identity, while respecting the cultural identity of others, and each school community must function according to that principle.

In another session yesterday, I heard Dennis Snower call for increased mobility of teachers facilitated by recognition of teacher education qualifications.

Even before the crisis there was the challenge of relevance for young people entering the job market for the fist time. Already, youth unemployment, whether in developing or so-called developed countries, is far too high. Now with fiscal consolidation in the OECD countries, there is a very real risk of a lost generation. G20 Labour and Employment Ministers met in Washington in March and presented their recommendations to President Obama for the G20 Leaders. They have stated clearly that a skills strategy is vital to sustainable recovery, and to a just transition toward green growth. And they also stated that quality basic education was the foundation. Again, if we are to expand VET, as we must, we should address the issue of training for VET teachers and instructors, which in turn raises questions of mobility between teaching and industry. Good work is being done on this at the ILO and the OECD. Importantly, this is an area where there is common ground between employers and trade unions, and scope for really practical work at the national and regional levels.

Like the Labour and Employment Ministerial , our GAC strongly supports the move to place education on the G20 agenda. Education and skills are factors in a smart strategy for sustainable recovery. We see the need for the active engagement of the emerging economies through the G20, and to go beyond the valuable declarations already made by the G8, to a more wholistic approach to education, as a factor of human development in the 21st century.

It means putting the emphasis back on people, investing in people through education. And that also means a renewed effort to put new emphasis on and mobilize support for the people of education – the teachers.

Europe : Facing financial turbulence (and a return of the cloud ?)

In Rome on Tuesday I joined a TUAC delegation in consultations with the Italian Chair of this year’s OECD Ministerial Council meeting, the OECD Secretary General, and Ambassadors representing the Vice-Chairs from Australia and Norway, as well as the employers through BIAC. This was the most substantive preparation for a Council meeting involving the social partners in my memory, and for the first time TUAC and BIAC will participate throughout the Council meeting.

Italian labour union colleagues briefed us beforehand that the Italian Finance and Economy Minister, Giulio Tremonti, who will chair the Council after an opening by the Italian PM, Silvio Berlusconi, had a reputation for independence and was able to function in the government with considerable autonomy. Still, I was not really prepared for the extent to which we seemed to find common ground on analysis of the financial and economic crisis. When I commented that the global economy was like the volcano in Iceland, both containing the threat of new eruptions, I could see the point resonated. “It is like the question of whether there was a World War I and a World War II, or whether it was just one event, with the second phase caused by failure to resolve the problems arising out of the first phase” he said.

The Greek debt crisis was foremost in everyone’s mind, with the risk of “contagion” to other countries in the Eurozone, starting with Portugal and Spain. John Evans, TUAC General Secretary, urged the OECD to be more upfront on the Eurozone crisis, as we pressed the point that “back to business as usual” would just set the scene for the next eruption. (see 5 February entry for my comments on the emerging crisis in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland).

It is not so often that as EI we get to meet with Finance Ministers – in our case it is more likely to be Education, or Employment and Labour Ministers. So it was interesting – and worthwhile – to put our case to a Minister who not only will chair a significant gathering of Finance and Trade Ministers this year (the OECD Ministerial) but also has a reputation among his peers around the world as an independent thinker.

As we left, Mr Tremonti handed out copies of a lecture he gave at the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Beijing last November. Its title was “The causes and political effects of the first global crisis”. I read it on the way to Paris. It is not what you might expect from a senior minister in a right-wing coalition government. And the message that comes through clearly is that Tremonti believes we are in for even more serious upheaval unless there is a paradigm change. His answer? He calls it the “global standard” – a set of principles that should be accepted by governments as well as private actors as forming a global rule base for a globalized economy. At the OECD, he is pressing for a “Declaration on Propriety, Integrity and Transparency”. We thought it might work if linked with the “Merkel Charter” bringing together substantive parts of existing international instruments on labour standards and trade. Chancellor Merkel had convened a meeting with the Head of the ILO, WTO, OECD, IMF and World Bank in Berlin the previous week. Interesting that two right of centre European politicians are leading the move for new global standards!

Yes, we do need new global standards. But will it be too little, too late to stop the turbulence? The next day, Greek unions held a general strike. Despite the efforts of the unions to hold a massive peaceful demonstration, violence broke out, tragically taking the lives of three bank employees, and unfortunately fulfilling our often repeated warnings about the risk of breakdowns in social cohesion.

And the cloud of volcanic ash returned to close airports in Ireland and Scotland. Unanticipated and recurring natural events, a man-made disaster in the making for the Eurozone economies, a major environmental threat in the Mexican Gulf due to the breakdown of technology – all these events show that the arc of history never falls back into a neat linear progression. Those who believe so, and advocate “back to business as usual”, are engaged in wishful thinking of delusional proportions!


Links:

• Giulio Tremonti’s lecture “The causes and political effects of the first global crisis” - http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/G.Tremonti%20lecture%20Communist%20Party%20Beijing%20Nov%202009.doc
  
• The “Merkel Charter” - http://www.financialtaskforce.org/2010/04/28/joint-press-release-by-german-federal-chancellor-oecd-secretary-general-wto-director-general-ilo-director-general-imf-managing-director-and-world-bank-president/

Globalization and speculation

Six years ago, at EI’s 4th World Congress in Porto Alegre, Brazil, I had the privilege of introducing the Congress theme: “Education for Global Progress”. I made the point that we tend to assume that economic progress will continue, indefinitely, without setbacks, in a kind of linear progression. But that is not the lesson of history. The reality is that in the course of human progress there are all kinds of ups and downs, surprises and shocks. In that address I identified three risks – breakdowns in social cohesion, politico-religious extremism, and irreparable damage to the environment. All three risks remain evident today. But history also has a way of coming up with surprises, of producing events that nobody had really foreseen.

The financial crisis was foreseen, by a number of recognized economists, as well as the global trade union movement. But the warnings were ignored. On the other hand, the paralysis of European aviation because of volcanic ash from Iceland happened without warning. As the disruption to air travel quickly extended across the globe, public authorities and airlines in 20 European countries scrambled to find answers. They sought answers from specialists in the uncertain sciences of seismology and meteorology. At the time of writing, they are trying to re-open airports, and then figuring out how to manage the consequences of volcanic ash clouds that may continue to drift across the continent for months to come.

So global economic progress is taking a double whammy: first the man-made financial crisis, then an awakening of nature which impacts on a key sector of the economy.

Both of these events certainly show how the global economy is interlinked. Disruption spreads rapidly to affect all countries, albeit to varying degrees. That is the inherent down side of globalization. These events ought to demonstrate a key point that we try to emphasize again and again at Education International, and more broadly, through the Global Union movement. This key point is that in today’s world, we need cooperation, mutual support, solidarity if you will, more than ever. We need cooperation to clean up after the financial crisis, to put regulations into place to prevent a new crisis, to restore global trade, and to re-create employment. We need solidarity to confront effectively the ravages of nature: earthquakes, tsunamis, erupting volcanoes, tempests and viruses. This lesson ought to be obvious.

Speculation

Sadly other recent news items show that the obvious lessons are still ignored – that the spirit of “everyone for him/herself” is very much alive and well. In the US, the SEC has launched a case against Goldman Sachs, charging this leading bank with selling bad investment instruments as the sub-prime crisis developed, even while it continued to sell those same investments to clients. In Europe, attempts to resolve the debt crisis in Greece are hampered by massive speculation on the bond markets. It is reported that speculators, including hedge funds and the like, are now targeting Portugal. By betting against countries with economic problems, the major speculators make a lot of money for themselves while making it more difficult for rescue packages to work (since the cost of refinancing of public debt is increased).

Ordinary people pay the price for the actions of the speculators. As public sector spending is reduced, teachers and other public employees are among the first affected. Then the prospects for recovery of the broader economy are seriously jeopardized by cuts in education, health and other public services.

There are issues of values. There are also issues of the incapacity of regulatory control. Global governance (through summits and a patchwork of international agencies) is inadequate. Speculators can easily pursue their own interests at the expense of the greater good. There is growing frustration that the lessons of the financial crisis are being pushed aside by the mentality of “back to business as usual” – at least until the next crisis. Meanwhile, nature’s awakening in Iceland ought to remind us that adaptation to unforeseen change requires cooperation. Ultimately, global progress will be more likely achieved through cooperation than through competition.

EDUCATION RESOURCES AND TAXATION – A POLITICAL STRATEGY

Back to cutting of funds for public service – that is the order of the day, as many countries try to reduce their deficits going out of the crisis. The pressure is on in Greece right now, a member of the eurozone, followed by Spain, Ireland and Portugal, as well as Eastern European countries, while aid budgets for developing countries are also being slashed.

The other side of the deficit-cutting equation is the endeavor to increase revenues through taxation. An example of the fix many governments are in is the case of the tax inspectors of Greece. The government, under pressure from the European Commission and Central Bank, wants them to step up revenue collection. But at the same time, the tax inspectors’ allowances are to be cut. So they will go on strike and won’t collect taxes! Ironic isn’t it?

In a way, the same scenario is being played out on a much larger scale with funding for education. Political leaders declare that more must be invested in education. Then they cut education funds so as to reduce the deficit, and in so doing, they cut the very investment that they agreed was needed for long-term growth!

UNESCO and the UN have confirmed that we have to find a way to close a funding gap of US$ 16 billion in order to achieve universal primary education by 2015. Billions more are needed in the developing countries to develop secondary and higher education, and to invest in vocational training for skills. Investment is needed too for quality and equity in the emerging and industrialized economies. Yet resources are being cut. How can the conundrum be resolved?

Finding the resources

The resources are actually there, in the global economy. It is a question of distribution, and the key is that dirty word “taxation”. Now when politicians and ideologues say “cut taxes”, we think of yours’ and my taxes, don’t we? Nobody likes to pay more taxes, and we’d all prefer to pay less. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher played on these normal human reactions rather simply but cleverly, and they helped set in motion three decades of cuts in public sector funding. They succeeded in persuading voters that the word “tax” referred essentially to personal income taxes. (Although, over those same three decades, it became economic orthodoxy to hike up indirect taxes, such as VAT, which impact on all consumers, and disproportionally affect wage and salary earners.)

Then there are corporate taxes. The same orthodoxy said they had to be reduced as much as possible, in order to encourage employment. National enterprises had political clout and were adept at using the employment/investment card to defend their interests. So revenue was tightened all round, and it become the conventional electoral wisdom that cutting public resources was the right thing to do.

But while this debate went on, over those same three decades, the world’s economies became globalized. We have global companies, global supply chains, global financial markets, and the players in these phenomena of the global economy can largely avoid paying taxes at the national level. It is that lack of symmetry between global generation of wealth, and failure to contribute to national public needs, that is very much at the heart of the conundrum.

This is the story that the voters need to hear about. We can have debates about personal or corporate taxation at the national level. But unless we address the fact that global entities largely escape their taxation obligations, we will continue to be stuck in a political dilemma. The resources are there in the global economy. The question is how to get them to communities, where they are needed for investment in education, health and other areas of social need.

Taxing global companies and their transactions

This week about 80 civil society organizations, including ITUC and TUAC, put the case to the IMF for a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT). Such a tax would generate enough resources to fund achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) including the US$ 16 billion funding gap for education. Moreover it would help stabilize financial markets. The G20 has already mandated the OECD to tackle the issue of tax havens, although there is still a long way to go to deal with the corporate, as distinct from the personal use of tax havens. But nobody has really got to grips yet with the central question of global tax avoidance by global companies. These companies have ways to minimize their taxation that national companies do not have – through smart accounting across their global empires. Recently, the French public television channel, Antenne 2, ran a documentary revealing how little global companies (including French-based ones) paid in comparison with national companies – especially the small and medium enterprises which provide most employment. The resources for investments in education and other public sector needs are right there – in the accounts of the global companies.

An epic struggle

Make no mistake. An epic struggle is underway. We see that in the US, where a reform-minded President is confronting powerful interests. We saw it in Davos last week, where the chairman of the largest private equity firm in the world warned the Australian government of an investment “chill” following efforts to collect taxes on a windfall deal by one of his rivals.TPG, another private equity firm, made an estimated 400% profit (yes that was 400%) out of a complex takeover and refloating of a major national retailer. The bankers are resisting mightily the G20 leaders attempt to recover taxpayers’ bailout money or to tighten regulation of the financial sector. They actually find a return to the bonus culture to be justified, and they use amazing arguments to avoid paying a fair share of taxes on those bonuses.

In these circumstances, while confronting those abuses, it would also makes sense to go for a political strategy aimed at showing the voters in democracies that global corporations must be required to pay fair and reasonable taxation. We are not putting the focus here on individual taxpayers, nor on national small and medium enterprises – but on global corporations. Voters generally do not know that, through large-scale tax minimization, resources from the global economy are being withheld from nations and communities.They must be informed. Governments must be shown that winning access to these resources is the way forward. Then, and only then, will we see easing of pressures on public sector funding, pressures which affect education investment and future prospects in virtually every country.



Links:

To the IUF's Private Equity Buyout Watch article - Blackmailing the Taxman, from Davos to Sydney http://www.iufdocuments.org/buyoutwatch/2010/02/blackmailing_the_taxman_from_d.html#more



for the communiqué just issued by the ITUC for the G7 finance ministers’ meeting taking place this weekend in Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada.

http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/G7%20Finance%20Meeting%20Must%20Resist%20Bankers%20Backlash.pdf

Reforming funding for EFA

The Global Monitoring Report 2010 (GMR) released in New York on 19 January warned that the world is not on track to achieve the goal of universal primary education by 2015. With 72 million children still out of school, the aftershock of the global financial crisis threatens to deprive millions of children in the world’s poorest countries of an education (link: http://www.unesco.org/en/efareport/).

As GMR Director Kevin Watkins stated there remains a great financing gap – 16 billion US dollars – which has to be closed in order to achieve the goal. And Kailash Satyarthi, Global Campaign for Education, stated that, yet again, the most vulnerable children are the ones who miss out. UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon said “education should never be an accident of circumstance”.

These issues were laid squarely on the table at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week. EI pointed out that the so-called “Fast-Track Initiative” is simply not doing the job. Too few countries benefit, there are too few donors, there is too much bureaucracy, and there is not enough involvement of key stakeholders. So EI is pressing for a new approach, such as a Global Fund for Education, with strong stakeholder participation, including the voice of teachers. EI’s proposal for reform of funding for EFA is winning support – but we are not there yet.

Davos was however the setting for some frank talking on the role of teachers. EI’s General Secretary told a well-attended private session with leading CEOs and university leaders: “Just putting an unqualified person in front of a class of 250 children doesn’t provide education for them”. Fred van Leeuwen was immediately backed up by UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova. Although this was a private session, and “off the record”, you can read Ms Bokova’s comments on the UNESCO website: (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/who-we-are/director-general/). “Education is a cause that must be taken up by the G8, the G20, and the international financial institutions” Ms Bokova said to a special WEF plenary session on education the next day. Queen Rania of Jordan said “Education is not just another social issue, it’s the social issue – one that underpins progress in all global challenges we face today, from alleviating poverty, hunger and HIV to building stability, fighting climate change, and more”.

Governments have the prime responsibility, but the private sector can support through advocacy and working with the education unions, said Fred. The biggest challenge is to recruit enough qualified teachers, and professional development is the other key factor in educational quality, he added.

In coming weeks, I’ll be working through the WEF’s Global Agenda Council on Education – and with other EI, CGE, and Global Union colleagues - on the issue of reform of funding for EFA. We simply have to break through on that if we are to achieve the EFA Goal, and to give 72 million children a chance.

Links:

• EI warns that public spending cuts will slow economic recovery
  http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/show.php?id=1184&theme=ei&country=global
• Global Campaign for Education urges improved education funding http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/show.php?id=1177&theme=educationforall&country=global