Responding
to Globalization of Education in the Americas --Strategies to Support Public
Education
Public education must play
a central role in any society that values democracy and social justice.
It follows that supporting public education must be a key part of the program
of groups committed to making their society more democratic and equitable.
Globalization as it is currently developing is a threat to these values
of democracy and social equity and to public education systems that reflect
and support those values.
This analysis of the
impact of globalization on education has six parts:
1. The neo-liberal nature
of the globalization process;
2. Education and neo-liberal
globalization;
3. How neo-liberal policies
are being carried out in education;
4. How international
trade and investment agreements, treaties and trading blocs are related
to education policies;
5. The Free Trade Area
in the Americas (FTAA) process and the Inter-American Education Program;
and
6. Suggestions for trans-national
strategies to defend public education.
1.
The neo-liberal nature of the globalization process.
It is possible to conceive
of a globalization that is friendly to democracy, social equity and a healthy
environment. Indeed, successes from a "globalization from below"
can be identified. Greenpeace, for example, has influenced the policies
of corporations through its transnational campaigns around a range of environmental
issues. Some segments of the labour movement have provided solidarity
support to workers involved in struggles in other countries. At times
this has provided the extra impetus needed for a win for workers rights.
An international coalition of Non-governmental Organizations--using the
Internet to spread information and critique--played a key role in getting
negotiation for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) stopped
within the institutions of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD).
However, most of what is
called globalization is not friendly to the environment, the rights of
workers, or to those who support government action on behalf of social
justice. As an example of the direction and power of most globalization
efforts, one need look no further than the principles behind the MAI.
Although negotiations to impose these were blocked in the OECD, the same
principles are now being put on the table for the so-called "millennium
round" of negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) set to begin
in Seattle in November 1999.
Neo-liberal policies are
characterized by the commodification and marketization of all activity.
In the areas that have been considered public services, neo-liberals call
for programs previously conducted for the public good to be moved into
the market through privatization. Rather than being provided on a
free basis to all, whatever their economic position, fees are to be charged
to those who use the service.
Free public education has
an equalizing effect in societies. It ensures that children can be
educated, regardless of the economic status of their families and thus
contributes to social equity. The loss of universal public education
consistently produces more inequality in societies.
Neo-liberal globalization
does not just reduce public expenditures and marketize programs that were
previously government-run and tax supported. It also requires
governments to open their economies to competition from outside, removing
tariffs and other barriers to transnational corporations taking over local
markets.
The impact of globalization
is not just on trade and production, or on services that have been public,
such as education. It also has an impact on culture, often overwhelming
local cultures with a commodified and homogenized transnational culture--described
by Peter McLaren as the "global amusement culture." The elimination
of legal barriers to the entry of transnational commercial culture is one
factor in its overpowering of the local. Still another, though, is
the development of technologies that are in themselves border-crashing.
The new information technologies
can be used to challenge neo-liberalism, as the campaign against the MAI
used the Internet to organize internationally. However, as important
as information and communications technologies are as tools for those opposing
neoliberal globalization, they are only marginal in significance compared
to the ability of a handful of transnational media companies to flood the
globe with TV, video, film, news services and music. The impact of
these global media is described by Waters as placing under multinational
corporate control the culture and its social arrangements for the production,
exchange, and expression of signs and symbols--meanings, beliefs, and preferences,
tastes and values (Waters, 1995).
All of these neo-liberal
and globalizing directions have an important impact on education.
They affect who determines the substance of the curriculum, how education
is delivered, who has access to education and to how much, and how what
happens in schools is relevant to the cultural experiences of those being
educated. Some of these are dealt with in a companion paper on the
impact of fifteen years of neo-liberalism on education by Carlos López.
2.
Education and neo-liberal globalization.
Education is a major area
of government expenditure and is a significant potential target for privatization.
It is important in the neo-liberal project because of the size of the market
that it represents, the central importance of education to the economy,
and the potential challenge to corporate globalization if education succeeds
in producing critical citizens for a democratic society.
While basic education is
currently funded primarily by the state in most countries, the significant
costs to government make it an inviting target for cuts to expenditures.
In less developed countries, cuts have been driven by imposed structural
adjustments (International Monetary Fund SAPs). Cuts to expenditures
have meant limiting teacher salaries, creating worse teaching conditions
and, in some cases, imposing user fees. In developed countries similar
reductions have often been justified by the requirements of "global competitiveness"
to reduce taxes and thus revenues available for public services.
Thus, while the mechanisms differ in more and less developed countries,
they produce a similar result of reductions to public education.
This is often accompanied by a growth in private education for those who
can afford it, and thus two-tiered provision of education.
The huge size of the education
enterprise is pointed out by Education International, the international
trade secretariat for education unions. It says "global public spending
on education tops one trillion dollars. This figure represents the
costs of over 50 million teachers, one billion pupils and students, and
hundreds of thousands of educational establishments throughout the world."
This is the last great frontier to be tapped for profit-making ventures,
if the public sector can be even partially replaced by privatized education.
In looking at the potential
for trade in education services, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Background
Note on Education Services points out that much of basic education is not
currently within the trade regime because it is "supplied neither on a
commercial basis nor in competition." It further notes, however,
that a growing number of countries allow for private participation that
would fall under international trade rules.
The WTO identifies significant
growth international trade in education at the tertiary or post-secondary
level. The forms of trade include students studying abroad, international
marketing of curricula and academic programs, the establishment of "branch
campuses" and franchises, along with distance education.
The development of distance
education offers the easiest entry into transnational education projects.
Carried across borders by new technologies, it can be offered more cheaply
on a transnational basis than any other form of education. The advantages
for profit in this area are similar to those in film and television.
Courses can be developed for one market and the most of the development
costs recooped. With very little additional investment, these courses
can then be offered in other countries, with a low price still providing
additional profits. Local course developers are then at a very real
disadvantage because they cannot produce courses for the low prices offered
by the transnationals. It is not surprising that distance education
is being pushed as a form of education in this global context.
The United States is by far
the largest exporter of education in an international trade context, so
it should not be a surprise that it has put on the agenda of the WTO reduction
of impediments to the growth of education exports to other countries, both
in the more and less developed countries.
In addition to being a market
to be exploited, education is also central to economic production.
The spread of technology is reducing on a global basis the amount of production
that requires unskilled labour. This is the case even in economies
that are based primarily on the export of resources. As well, local
goods traditionally produced on a low-skilled, high labour intensive basis
are often driven out of the market by goods that are imported, with governments
no longer able to use laws to protect this local production.
Business is increasingly
interested in defining the nature of education so that it produces workers
who fit the needs of business. When education is seen as largely
in the public rather than private interest, it is more likely to have a
range of social and cultural objectives, along with the economic.
When it becomes privatized and part of the market, social and cultural
concerns become much less important, unless they can also be seen as part
of the market system.
Of most threat to neo-liberal
policies, however, is a populace that is educated to expect a democratic
society that serves the interests of that society, rather than the interests
of global capital. By eliminating public education and the set of
social expectations that it produces when it is working at its best, the
likelihood is reduced that a populace will demand that its government place
the highest priority on protecting the social and cultural interests of
its people.
3.
How are neo-liberal policies being carried out in education?
Three major vehicles are
being used to spread the neo-liberal policies in education: ideology,
international trade and investment treaties and agreements, and international
agencies, particularly the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
institutions.
Dominance
of neo-liberal ideology.
Ideology plays an important
role in creating the openings for institutional change. Neo-liberal ideological
dominance of was built over several decades. It began with intellectuals
committed to individualism over all manifestations of collective interests
and actions. It spread through institutions such as the University
of Chicago and other university economics departments. It was brought
into government policy in Chile after the coup in 1973, and dominated British
and U.S. governments in the 1980s. Concurrently, alternatives from
the left lost their dominance in most countries.
The now pervasive ideology
of the market has created what some have described as an ideological "monoculture."
When neo-liberal policies are criticized, a common response is that "there
is no alternative."
Trade
and investment treaties.
This ideological climate
creates fertile ground for the interests of global capital to be translated
into government policies everywhere. In the case of international
trade and investment treaties, governments voluntarily enter into agreements
that will limit their capacity to act on behalf of their citizens--and
this is promoted as positive. When the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) was being debated in Canada, one of the neo-liberal think
tanks said one of its advantages is that it would prohibit governments
from giving into democratic demands from the voters.
Two international agreements
are in the formation stages at this time, and should be of particular concern
for us to understand and to act to oppose: One is the General Agreement
on Trade in Services (GATS), which will be under negotiation in the "millennium
round" being initiated at the November meeting of the World Trade Organization.
The other is the Free Trade Area in the Americas (FTAA), which has been
pursued through a series of Summits of the Americas. The next of
these Summits is scheduled to be held in Quebec City in Canada during 2001.
While most people think of
goods when they hear the word trade, the agreements currently under consideration
actually focus to a much larger degree on investments and trade in services
than in goods. The world economy is increasingly a service economy,
and services have traditionally been delivered by local workers in a local
economy. That situation in rapidly changing, particularly as technology
allows for services to be provided anywhere in the world, such as call
centres in the Caribbean to serve Canadian customers or data processing
provided to a U.S. company from the Philippines and transmitted by satellite.
David Korten has pointed
out that "the real agenda of those promoting these trade agreements is
not to eliminate borders, but rather to redraw them so as to establish
what once belonged to the community, to be shared among its members, now
belongs to private corporations for the benefit of their managers and shareholders."
General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the World Trade Organization.
The World Trade Organization
web site (http://www.wto.org/wto/services/services.htm)
gives this description of GATS:
"The GATS is the first
multilateral agreement to provide legally enforceable rights to trade in
all services. It has a built-in commitment to continuous liberalization
through periodic negotiations. And it is the world's first multilateral
agreement on investment, since it covers not just cross-border trade but
every possible means of supplying a service, including the right to set
up a commercial presence in the export market."
The U.S. Trade Representative
has indicated that the U.S. wants all services--explicitly including health
and education--in the upcoming negotiations on GATS. This increases
the stakes for those who believe that public education must be protected
from being totally commodified and moved outside any chance of democratic
control.
Canadians have already seen
the impact of placing services in the NAFTA, effects that would be replicated
in an expanded GATS that includes education. One aspect has been
called the "ratchet effect" because it allows changes to go only in one
direction--towards removing more from the public sector, never allowing
the return of any privatized service into the public sector.
The proposed approach to
GATS would automatically make all services subject to the trade rules,
such as "national treatment." "National treatment" means that any
foreign investor must be treated at least as favorably as any national
service provider. If, for example, students are eligible for a subsidy
at a Canadian university, then students at a U.S. university that offered
programs in Canada would also have to eligible for the subsidy. You
can see that these provisions substantially reduce the capacity of government
to have control over its social policy to serve the interests of its own
citizens.
Even if a service--such as
education--were declared as exempted from the provisions of GATS, there
would be continuing pressure to give up that exemption. And once
the reservation on the service is given up, it is for all practical purposes
impossible to bring it back--the ratchet only allows movement into, but
never out of the coverage under the trade terms.
Those who believe that education
must be preserved as a public system must join with others and express
their opposition to their governments' agreeing to this approach to bringing
the defeated provisions of the MAI in through the WTO GATS negotiations.
The
Free Trade Area in the Americas (FTAA).
A series of summits of leaders
of the countries in the Americas (with the exclusion of Cuba) have been
aimed at creating a free trade area in the Americas. The process
began in 1994 with the objective of completion of negotiations by 2005.
The governments of the countries covered by the North American Free Trade
Agreement have been pursuing a policy of having provisions such those in
NAFTA being extended throughout the hemisphere. The Canadian government
describes this as creating "common rules across the Hemisphere, making
it easier and less bureaucratic to do business and discouraging corruption."
One element is different
in the FTAA process from those of the other trade pacts. In NAFTA,
the WTO GATS and in APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation), education
is placed completely within an economic context. Education is seen
as contributing to economic development, or as a service that should be
seen as a commodity subject to trade and trade rules. This comes
through particularly in the case of APEC, which has two committees that
focus on education--a Human Resources Working Group and an Education Forum.
The agenda for both of these is education as producing human capital for
the economic purposes of the economy.
In contrast, the Summit of
the Americas process has a process to consider education policy separate
from the tables at which trade issues are negotiated. The scope of
the education program differs as well, in being concerned about social
objectives of education, not just economic aims.
It is a section of the Organization
of American States (OAS), not trade negotiators who have been given the
secretariat responsibility for the education initiatives. The agenda
of education activities for the hemispheric process is called the "Inter-American
Program of Education." [The text of the program can be found on the
OAS web site: http://www.oas.org/udse/IntPrED.htm.
5.
The Inter-American Program of Education.
The Inter-American Program
of Education is diverse and complex. Some elements--at least in their
rhetoric--are potentially progressive, providing openings for empowerment
and participation, with a focus on human rights and democratic development.
Other parts are probably regressive, weakening the base of public influence
and promoting corporate friendly, neo-liberal approaches. The program
is also silent about the major influence on directions that are played
by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and its regional
companion, the Inter-American Development Bank.
Several potentially progressive
objectives are set out in the Inter-American Education Program:
-
Support for policies to "universalize
access to a quality education to all sectors of the population, with special
concern for at-risk groups."
-
Promote programs that support
"socio-economically at-risk boys, girls, youth and adults."
-
Promote an educational policy
that considers human rights, education for peace and democratic values,
equality of opportunity and rights between men and women, and gender equity.
-
Promote the collaboration
of institutions dedicated to educational development as related to citizenship,
multicultural societies and sustainable development.
-
Promote the consolidation
and collaboration of institutions dedicated to indigenous education.
-
Provide support for the development
of the educational systems of countries with especially difficult economic
circumstances.
All of these objectives,
obviously, are open to interpretation. What resources are provided
and who carries out the activities and how they understand the purposes
will affect greatly whether any of the progressive potential is delivered.
Any or all could be carried out in ways that, despite appearances, reinforce
unequal power structures. However, the rhetoric in the statements
at least leave room for proposing positive programs from the perspective
of social justice and democratic development.
Other objectives are more
problematic. For example, "Stimulate the increasing application of
reliable measures of educational efficiency" probably means more standardized
testing programs aimed at providing cost/benefit analysis that only an
accountant could believe actually represents what happens in the educational
situation. Similarly, "diffusion of successful innovations in education
for work" could be code for preparing young people to be docile workers.
Calling for the use of information technology to improve teachers' training
could be just a way of abandoning the state's responsibility for providing
sound training of teachers, leaving them to be trained only by the
use of video and computer-based communication.
Perhaps the most problematic
aspect of the OAS Inter-American Program of Education is it's failure to
even mention the IMF, the World Band and the Inter-American Development
Bank. Some of the problems identified for addressing are the direct
result of IMF structural adjustment policies. Cuts to government
expenditures often means reductions in the resources that go to public
education and the introduction of user fees. These have the effect
of making universality of education impossible, and leave few resources
to promote indigenous education, gender equity and education for peace
and democratic values.
The demands placed on countries
of the South by the World Bank and the IDB to meet the conditions for loans
are also often at odds with the positive objectives expressed in the Inter-American
Education Program. They often call for decentralization of school
management, for example. This is framed as promoting efficiencies
and empowering communities. In fact, a common effect, and possibly
the intent, is to reduce the capacity of either teachers or communities
to have real impact on education policy. Instead of gaining the leverage
from large groups of teachers and parents working together, they are broken
into small units that are virtually powerless in having political influence
on getting the resources and conditions that would achieve goals of universality,
equity and quality.
6.
Trans-national strategies to defend public education in the Americas.
Groups of committed people
working persistently on common concerns for social justice can have an
impact. This work needs organization and coordination, and requires
coalitions among unions, NGOs, and other organizations with a social base.
These are some strategies for consideration of those who are committed
to defending public education in the Americas.
1)
Defend public education at the local and national levels with a strategic
consciousness of the global context. Inform and mobilize teachers
to take part in this defense.
Although much of the action
to defend public education will take place at the local level, it is important
to understand the global context that is shaping national and local policies.
We can also all learn from one another about approaches that have worked
effectively, sharing our strategies and linking our actions.
World Teachers' Day each
October 5 is an example of a global activity, which consists of national
and local actions. In 1999 the Education International (EI) has identified
the theme as "Teachers, a force for social change."
2)
Counter neo-liberal ideology with an alternative program for public education
nationally and internationally.
Part of the strategic strength
of neo-liberalism is that there is no alternative. A key element
of the strategy of IDEA--Initiatives for Democratic Education in the Americas--is
to propose and debate alternatives that support public education as a right
for all.
3)
Conduct research and analysis and share it with other organizations throughout
the Americas.
Many thinkers and writers
are producing materials in support of the neo-liberal positions, financed
by corporations and international bodies. It is essential that unions
and other groups who have an alternative agenda produce the intellectual
work to support alternatives to neo-liberalism.
4)
Build communication links among organizations with conferences and communication
using the Internet.
The successful campaign by
NGOs to block the negotiation of the MAI at the OECD is a demonstration
of how essential it is to use the global communication networks to maintain
links among groups to share information, strategies and successes.
5)
Work in international and regional teacher and labour organizations (e.g.,
Education International, CEA, FOMCA, CUT, ORIT) to develop common understanding
and strategies.
International
organizations of trade unions have a key role to play.
They have existing networks
and more resources than most civil society groups that can be devoted to
building links across borders. They can reflect the public interest,
including workers' interests to international bodies where governments
are creating and extending the neo-liberal global structures.
6)
Participate in building a global civil society that works toward a healthy
environment and social justice, including public education. Utilize
these groups to influence decisions of international organizations such
as the WTO, the Summit of the Americas, and the Organization of American
States.
Global and regional civil
society organizations are bringing together many non-governmental organizations
to research the issues, promote progressive positions and develop common
campaigns. These groups are intervening to make their voices heard with
demonstrations, by holding alternative summits, and meeting with government
officials to put forward an agenda that reflects environmental health and
social, economic and labour rights.
The Canadian government says
that there is a commitment to having civil society views heard as part
of the negotiation process related to the meeting of the Summit of the
Americas in Canada. The OAS Inter-American Education Plan includes
mention of consultation with groups representing academics and teacher
organizations. Education ministers from the Americas meet twice yearly
to discuss the developments in the Inter-American Education Plan.
Activities like the IDEA
(Initiatives for Democratic Education in the Americas) conference in September/October
1999 in Quito, Educador, are aimed at ensuring that there is a well thought
out and widely supported program to put forward to these international
bodies on the issues important to public education in the Americas.
The Continental Social Alliance
is another civil society organization aimed at bringing together labour,
environmental, and social action groups to the agenda neo-liberal globalization
in the Americas.
For these international efforts
to have an effect they must have a social base of activists who have an
understanding of the nature of the neo-liberal project and who support
an alternative global civil society described by some as "globalization
from below."
7)
Take part in international campaigns aimed at achieving social rights,
including the right to an education and the right for workers to form organizations
that provide protection.
The success of the "Jubilee
2000" campaign for debt-relief for the most indebted nations of the South
shows that it is possible for an international campaign to put an issue
on the global agenda. The model of this campaign should be studied
in developing campaigns for social, economic and labour rights as part
of the response to global and regional trade negotiations. A campaign
for "social clauses" in trade agreements is an approach being pursued by
the ICFTU (Intenational Confederation of Free Trade Unions) and by the
Education International.
8)
Constantly challenge the "cult of the inevitable"--the claim that there
is no alternative to neo-liberal policies.
Those who are pushing the
neo-liberal agenda aim to deflate opposition with constant claims that
there is no alternative to making economies more "flexible" by eliminating
social, economic and labour rights. They contend that transferring
more and more power to the corporations and producing increasing inequality
in all societies are just inevitable side effects.
Presenting sound alternatives,
along with examples of successful campaigns such as Jubilee 2000 and the
opposition to the MAI, is essential if we are to motivate ongoing resistance
to the damage created by trade and investment agreements and neo-liberal
globalization.
Larry Kuehn
Director of Research and Technology, British Columbia Teachers' Federation
CSNPEA, August, 1999
|
