Introduction

International Seminar’s political document

Infographics

Summary of Oral

Presentation Transcripts

Full videos

Book

Credits

POLITICAL DOCUMENT

Safeguarding the Right to Education in New Forms of Global Governance and in the Digital Age:

a Call for Action Against Privatization[1]

Document’s Coordination and Elaboration

Andressa Pellanda

Helena Rodrigues

See full credits at the end

INFOGRAPHICS

The Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education has produced infographics so that the discussions held at the International Seminar can be disseminated throughout international civil society on social media.

You can also access the Portuguese and Spanish versions.

SUMMARY OF ORAL PRESENTATION TRANSCRIPTS

DAY 1 - Global governance today: ​challenges, power and privatization ​between international complexity ​and digitalization

OPENING REMARKS.

Pedro Dallari | Director of the Institute of ​International Relations at the University of São Paulo ​(IRI-USP)

Carlota Boto | Director of the Faculty of Education at ​the University of São Paulo (FE-USP)

Gonzalo Berrón | Friedrich Ebert Foundation Brazil ​and Transnational Institute (TNI)

Rui da Silva | Center of African Studies of Porto ​University

Andressa Pellanda | General Coordinator of the ​Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education

ROUND TABLE 1 | SCHOLAR’S CONTRIBUTION

Gonzalo Berrón | Multistakeholder Governance: ​Debates in Several Areas

Frank Adamson | Global Education Reform

Camilla Croso | Multistakeholderism in Global ​Education Governance

ROUND TABLE 2 | ACTIVISTS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Roberto Leão | Education Workers’ Global ​Perspective

Marcelo Di Stefano | Threats to Public Services

David Archer | Transforming Education Summit: ​Next Steps

Priscila Gonsales | Digitalization of Education in ​Global Governance

Maria Ron Balsera | Threaten to public services

DAY 2 - Civil Society Strategies at the ​Regional and National Levels

OPENING REMARKS

Andressa Pellanda | General Coordinator of the ​Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education

Carlota Boto | Director of the Faculty of Education at ​the University of São Paulo (FE-USP)

Luis Eduardo Murcia | Global Campaign for ​Education's Policy & Research Advisor

ROUND TABLE 1 | REGIONAL LEVEL

Rene Raya | Asia

Nelsy Lizarazo | Latin America

Solange Akpo | African Network Campaign for ​Education for All

Rui da Silva | Portuguese-Speaking Countries

ROUND TABLE 2 | NATIONAL LEVEL

Isabel da Silva | Mozambique

Diego Parra | Chile

Daniel Cara | Brazil

CLOSING REMARKS

Andressa Pellanda | General Coordinator of the ​Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education

DAY 1

Global governance today: challenges, power and ​privatization between international complexity and ​digitalization

OPENING REMARKS

The International Seminar on 'Trends in Global Education: the impact ​of governance structures, privatization and digitalization’ was ​organized by the Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education in ​partnership with the Institute of International Relations at the ​University of São Paulo (IRI-USP), the Faculty of Education at USP, ​the Center of African Studies of Porto University (Portugal), and the ​Transnational Institute (TNI), which also supported the initiative. The ​event took place on September 25th and 26th, 2023, in a hybrid ​format at IRI-USP and is available for full viewing on YouTube[1].

Pedro Dallari | Director of the Institute of International Relations at ​the University of São Paulo (IRI-USP)

There is no sectoral governance that is not also of international ​dimension. Public policies have become international, management ​actions in various fields have become international, and for IRI-USP, ​this evolution is a sign of maturity. We are at a moment that reflects ​the resurgence of UNESCO's role, which was in a weakened situation ​in recent years due to a political crisis involving the withdrawal of the ​United States. This year, the Biden administration announced the ​country's return to UNESCO. UNESCO, within international relations ​in the field of education, is a major reference institution. The return ​of the U.S. to the institution has significant economic and financial ​components. The United States not only contributes 22% of the ​organization's annual budget, which has an annual budget of $500 ​million, but also committed to paying an additional $619 million, ​which corresponds to the amount that the country did not pay during ​the period it was disengaged from that organization between 2011 ​and 2018[2].

In this sense, this is the moment when this major international ​organization in the field of education revitalizes itself, and therefore, ​the reflections made in this seminar can directly engage with a more ​robust and financially capable UNESCO. The role of the university in ​this regard is crucial because it is the responsibility of the university, ​in collaboration with governments and civil society, to establish ​reference frameworks for these public policies that may be ​produced at the national or even subnational level but increasingly ​have references in international paradigms.

This brief reflection draws attention to the relevance of this event in ​a favorable context, at a time of so many crises, at a time of so many ​difficulties, at least in this area, there is a positive sign that good ​things can happen in a short period of time, and it is up to us to ​encourage and promote initiatives so that this actually occurs.

Carlota Boto | Director of the Faculty of Education at the University of São Paulo (FE-USP)

The theme of this seminar, which addresses trends in global education and the impacts of governance structures, privatization, and digitalization, is extremely timely and absolutely current, considering even the headlines in today's newspapers. This is a topic that challenges us and creatively and powerfully connects the studies of the Institute of International Relations with the studies of the Faculty of Education. From the perspective of internationalization, education is now being conceived not only as a project of a national state but as an international project. Therefore, it is of utmost relevance to think about education from the perspective of international relations.

Gonzalo Berrón | Friedrich Ebert Foundation Brazil and ​Transnational Institute (TNI)

One problem that has been identified in global governance is the ​various forms of corporate capture of the international system, ​particularly in a system we call the parallelization of states through ​multistakeholder mechanisms, which includes actors from the ​private sector and philanthropic institutions, in addition to civil ​society, in decision-making processes. This phenomenon is a result ​of the increasing presence of the private sector in global ​governance.

The Education sector has a long history in this discussion, and we ​have observed a deepening of this problem with the shift from a ​multi-actor system to a system that includes economic interests in ​decision-making. It is essential that this debate involves activists for ​the right to education, unionists in the field, teachers, students, and ​researchers to try to find solutions that place the right to education ​at the center of public policies, along with strengthening the ​democratic system.

Rui da Silva | Center of African Studies of Porto University

The theme of this seminar is highly relevant today. As an example, in ​a recent international conference, there was a presentation on a ​South-South program by the Lemann Foundation, where educators ​from Kenya and Pakistan came to Brazil to learn about the ​Foundation's experience in the country. Therefore, it is increasingly ​important in this field of study, where there are different ​perspectives, to also consider opposing movements. The tendency ​is to focus only on the transfers and influences that the North exerts ​on the Global South. However, it is also important to identify these ​South-South movements. In this conjunction of academic work, ​activism, and civil society, everyone benefits from the collaboration ​and daily studies that bring various perspectives, advancing ​knowledge and activist work.

Andressa Pellanda | General Coordinator of the Brazilian ​Campaign for the Right to Education

This seminar brings together various academic researchers who are ​also activists for the right to education. This is very important for the ​Global Campaign for Education, the Brazilian Campaign for the Right ​to Education, and all education-related networks. This conjunction ​occurs naturally because there are many research collaborations ​involving activists and researchers, as well as various partnerships ​and joint advocacy work at both the national and international levels.

The theme of multistakeholderism is something that has already ​been studied by the Global Campaign, and the Brazilian Campaign ​for the Right to Education also discusses it. In dialogue with Rui da ​Silva and Gonzalo Berrón, we organized this seminar with the Faculty ​of Education, which has extensive research on all the topics we are ​addressing today.

An example of the relevance and pertinence of the theme of this ​seminar can be seen in an article published today by O Estado de S. ​Paulo newspaper about the influence of private actors in education, ​especially in the digitalization agenda, as the Escolas Conectadas ​program will be launched by President Lula himself this week, and ​the civil society chair will be occupied by an organization related to ​the private sector [Lemann Foundation][3]. The Brazilian Campaign ​for the Right to Education, which had already been monitoring this ​process, informed the journalist who conducted the investigation ​and published the exposé today.

The Technology Fund has a budget of R$6.6 billion, and its ​governance includes only companies or organizations connected to ​companies as representatives of civil society. The Campaign ​requested by official letter to all the Ministries that make up this ​group to integrate the working group as civil society, but we were ​denied. This is not mentioned in the article due to concerns about ​the exposure of our work.

The influence of the private sector and the privatization of ​education, especially through the digitalization of education, is a ​very important topic for which we do not yet have much scientific ​evidence because it is currently emerging. The purpose of this ​seminar is to present what we already have and produce more at ​this moment.

ROUND TABLE 1 | SCHOLAR’S CONTRIBUTION

Gonzalo Berrón | Multistakeholder Governance: Debates in Several Areas

The term multistakeholderismo is a Portuguese adaptation of the term multistakeholderism, which originated in business sciences. Simplistically, the term refers to the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in a government or decision-making structures on a particular topic. Stakeholders are those with an interest in a specific issue, originally referring to economically interested parties within the business market mechanisms. The term has been adopted for mechanisms of dialogue or participation. In recent years, instead of using the term "civil society" to refer to non-state actors within decision-making systems, we have seen the increasing use of the term multistakeholder to represent non-governmental stakeholders.

This is not new; the process has been ongoing for over 20 years and is purportedly a response to a funding problem. In this sense, global governance would have given up on making decisions on some areas and guiding its actions according to a rights agenda in favor of an agenda that leans toward privatization and the commodification of services due to a lack of monetary resources. This is the response we have received from the international UN system. Therefore, various formulas were invented in the name of the international system's lack of resources, one of which is the growing evolution toward multi stakeholder mechanisms.

An important moment in this process occurred after the global crisis of 2008, at a time when the multilateral system, which was already in decline and needed private sector funding to supposedly address fundamental agenda issues, failed to resolve a predominantly global crisis, the financial crisis. Later on, we will see that failure has occurred in several other crises, and in every crisis, the response has been to strengthen the role of the private sector in governance. However, the private sector also fails in solving this problem, and perhaps it is itself the problem in global governance.

So, in 2008, with the global economic crisis, among other crises but focusing on the economic crisis, the World Economic Forum gave new status to multistakeholderism and initiated a global debate process called Global Redesign Initiative. It was a process that mobilized hundreds of researchers and opinion leaders from around the world, all within the context of the World Economic Forum. The result was the Global Redesign Initiative, which proposed a redesign of global governance with a focus on bringing multistakeholderism, a mechanism in which the private sector is part of decision-making, to the center of the World Economic Forum.

It was from that moment that we began to take this threat seriously, but we arrived late because this process was already strongly driven at the UN level and in other areas. Civil society then began to understand that it was not just a failure or a problem in a specific area of global governance but in all areas. As the multilateral system was being drained of funding, especially, the demand for providing services and solutions at the global level was growing, and it was clear that these two things needed a more systemic approach.

From there, the term multistakeholderism was consolidated and mentioned in various speeches, including by UN officials, and was spoken of both positively and as a common-sense aspect of global governance. This naturalization of a form of governance not only biases governance mechanisms but also the public policies that emerge in the international system.

The next step in this process occurred through a partnership proposed between the World Economic Forum and UN Secretary-General’s Guterres. In 2019, they signed a partnership agreement between the UN Secretariat and the World Economic Forum for the strengthening of global governance and the multilateral system. This is a significant threat as it represents the entry and access of technical experts from the World Economic Forum to the multilateral system. The terms of the agreement are somewhat vague but essentially permit access to the system and propose the best solutions for global governance challenges. The rhetoric, in general, is very positive but, in reality, hides the true problem, which is how rights are being transformed into commodities and how the entire range of public services that are rights are turning into commodities.

Behind this process of commodifying rights are the major global mechanisms that encourage and drive this transformation.

Systemic contestation of multistakeholderism began with the denunciation of this agreement, which was signed by over 400 civil society organizations. This moment was important because it initiated the coordination of various central sectors, primarily from a rights perspective, particularly in global governance, that were impacted by multistakeholderism. A comprehensive mapping was done on education, environment, food and agriculture, health, and the digital world, which today is almost a basic necessity. This mapping was collaboratively conducted between academics and activists and resulted in a massive book that maps these mechanisms up to 2020.

The book is a significant observation of the phenomenon, showing how areas of global governance, such as health and education, have dozens of these mechanisms, some of which work and others that do not. But the issue is that there is a normalization of this type of arrangement, which represents a failure in one aspect of the multilateral system.

The UN Secretary-General launched the "Common Agenda" document two years ago to discuss global governance, in part because they know what the problems are, that countries do not contribute the needed funds, and that they must turn to the private sector. The document describes the characteristics of global governance and the multilateral system in the coming years.

And it seems that the world's solution is coming with the creation of 18 more multistakeholder mechanisms, which suggests a solution to public problems through the participation of the private sector and private interests. Within this perspective, institutions that will issue decisions or recommendations, and no one knows who they are or how they function, are included. In fact, there is no accountability, no description of procedures, nothing. And, in fact, they later become working programs of the UN or some prominent mechanism.

This kind of mechanism is a problem not only for civil society in terms of rights but also a problem in terms of decision-making for states, especially for developing states, which barely participate in multi stakeholder mechanisms.

Multistakeholderism puts developing countries in an uncomfortable and marginal position. If developing countries understand multistakeholderism as a corporate capture of the multilateral system and reinterpret the use of the term to include its negative consequences beyond solving the funding problem, it will be possible to advocate within global governance systems and reverse the processes of commodifying rights, especially the right to education, which is one of the areas most impacted by this type of mechanism.

Frank Adamson | Global Education Reform

In education, we can observe patterns of neoliberalism at different ​levels: international level, domestic national levels, and even at the ​local level, often with little communication among these levels, at ​least within the public sector or civil society, while they are very ​present concerning the role of corporate actors or the private ​sector.

The origin of what I call neoliberalism 1.0 is Friedrich von Hayek, ​after World War I, when state-sponsored violence in the form of war ​devastated Europe. He signaled the need to move towards markets ​because such a level of power couldn't be entrusted to the state.

Next, we have the market-based Great Depression, and Keynesian ​economics determined that the state should heavily invest with ​deficits to improve society for the people. Fast forward 40 years, ​and we arrive at what I call neoliberalism 2.0 when Milton Friedman ​suggests that instead of just liberalizing the economy, it is necessary ​to deregulate and privatize.

So, we have this general political and economic approach nowadays, ​the racialized free-market capitalism. In 2023, I won't use the word ​capitalism without involving the racial question because they are ​interconnected. There's a reduction in government spending, as I ​mentioned, deregulation, and privatization. In the Education sector, ​privatization can be basically defined as the transfer of the state's ​responsibility to provide equitable and high-quality education to the ​non-state sector in various ways, relegating the state to a subsidiary ​role. The private sector and the market become the primary ​providers.

It's not just about following the money. Privatization can occur in ​many different ways. It can be private funding of schools, but it can ​also be who owns or manages the schools. Most people think that if ​it's publicly funded, it's public, and that simply isn't true. Privatization ​takes place in many different places and through various avenues, ​whether it's through low-cost private school mechanisms, charter ​schools, or school vouchers.

But the process of education privatization hasn't always been so ​diversified. In the 1970s, Augusto Pinochet enacted Milton ​Friedman's neoliberal version, privatizing education and the ​economy in Chile. Meanwhile, in Finland, there was a focus on ​educational equity. They have very different outcomes. A generation ​later, we saw the contestation in Chile, which continues to this day, ​with attempts to modify the Constitution. And then we have Finland, ​which has been leading in international assessments.

These are very different approaches that we examine in the book ​'Global Education Reform[4]'. Instead of making a direct comparison, ​we compare Chile with Cuba, another Latin American country; the ​USA with Canada; and Finland with Sweden.

In Chile, we see the neoliberal model through school vouchers since ​the 1980s, fundamentally altering the funding and structure of the ​system. In 2018, 60% of students were enrolled in private schools. In ​Cuba, you have a very different system, with centralized control, ​command economy, and what we call state-driven social capital, ​with robust social programs and general wage equality in all sectors, ​including teachers, who are closely supervised and trained. And you ​have very different outcomes. Although Cuba doesn't participate in ​many exams, we see that its results are very different from Chile's. ​Cuba is actually outperforming many other countries. This is what's ​happening in the Latin American context.

The United States is a source of global ideological reproduction, but ​it is also a place where these things happen, and, in particular, the ​mechanism of public-private partnerships in the USA is charter ​schools, which receive government funding but operate ​independently of the state school network. In the United States, we ​have a highly segregated education system, where the focus of ​public-private partnerships has been on poor and black ​communities, especially New Orleans, where almost all schools are ​public-private partnerships in the form of charter schools.

4 Adamson, F.; Astrand, B.; Darling-Hammond, L. (2016) Global ​Education Reform: How Privatization and Public Investment Influence ​Education Outcomes. Routledge

Naomi Klein calls this disaster capitalism, where disaster is an ​opportunity for taking control and implementing neoliberal reforms, ​especially privatization. It's important to note that the framework for ​taking over New Orleans was established before Hurricane Katrina. ​This is due to George W. Bush, who took the presidency in the ​United States, rewrote education law to include the idea of failing ​schools and their transformation. Neoliberalism was institutionalized, ​and Katrina became the opportunity to fire teachers, mainly Black ​teachers, 7,000 without due process, and replace the schools. And ​you end up with a tiered system of schools that select students. ​When we talk about equity and privatization, one of the biggest ​problems is school selection, student exclusion.

There are many different mechanisms for this. We see that top-​performing schools, Tier 1 schools that literally select students, even ​though they are "public," have about 90% white students. In these ​schools, they teach pure knowledge, and they are not obsessed with ​testing. On the other hand, alternative schools, where the non-​selected children are directed, have about 76% African American ​students. These schools claim to be providing remediation, with ​children's experiences narrowly focused on basic test skills. In Tier 3 ​schools, students spend the entire day on the computer, with ​radically different pedagogical approaches within the same city and ​schools located just a few blocks apart.

In other words, in the United States, we have massive segregation. ​We see that charter schools are really focused on African American ​students. Segregation is a problem across the spectrum. However, ​what happens in urban schools is that African American students ​end up attending intensely segregated schools, with 90% of ​students in poverty and/or African American.

The private sector, which promises to address the situation, is ​actually exacerbating the problem, especially for African American ​students and those with special needs. This is not just happening in ​the United States or Chile. We have analyses showing that this is a ​problem worldwide, and public-private partnerships are not really ​improving learning outcomes. Tony Verger and his co-authors ​examined 199 studies and found that equity was a negative issue in ​all the different schools with public-private partnerships[5].

When we look at the international network map, we can see that ​some organizations operate in various locations[6]. When we turn to ​the United States, we can see that some of these same ​organizations also operate at the national and local levels[7]. In this ​way, we can observe these different instances of neoliberal ideology ​occurring at different levels, and these groups are in conversation ​with each other, sometimes being the same groups: the Gates ​Foundation, Teach for America, now called Teach for All, and KIPP ​(Knowledge Is Power Program), which operates on all three levels on ​all these maps. And certainly, families in Oakland do not have a voice ​at the international level in the same way that KIPP does.

KIPP focuses on low-income students, which is great, and they are ​extending the school day. However, they have a zero-tolerance ​policy, which means they give suspensions and expulsions for ​behavioral issues. They use a process called 'SLANT, (Sit up, Listen, ​Ask and answer questions, Nod, and Track the speaker), which is a ​behavioral tracking. Students who do not follow the teacher's gaze ​can receive a warning that leads to suspension. Therefore, the ​effectiveness of their results is contested because it is tied to ​student selection and exclusion.

The response to the processes of education privatization is based ​on the fact that there is a human right to education, articulated in the ​Principles of Abidjan[8] and throughout the United Nations and other ​treaty laws. The principles are equality, non-discrimination, free and ​quality public education, the humanistic nature of public education, ​respect for national standards and processes. We should not fall ​short of this threshold. We have a lot of work in different networks in ​this regard. We have the Principles of Abidjan book, where we ​present all cases of human rights. We have 'Public Education ​Works'[9], where we describe systems, especially in the Global ​South, that are working. I work with communities in Oakland, and I ​think most people in Oakland are unaware that São Paulo had school ​occupations to prevent them from being closed, just as most people ​in São Paulo probably do not know that Oakland is also facing large-​scale closures based on these efficiency ideas that are part of the ​neoliberal movement. And from a network perspective, there are ​networks working at a global level, such as PEHRC (Global Campaign ​on Privatization of Education and Human Rights), the Brazilian ​Campaign for the Right to Education, among others.

ROUND TABLE 2 | ACTIVISTS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Roberto Leão | Education Workers’ Global Perspective

Education International has 32 million members in 170 countries, ​with approximately 400 affiliated organizations worldwide. We are a ​large, union-based entity that organizes education workers from all ​over the world who deal with people in all their differences, virtues, ​and the diverse cultures of the world. Some say that we only engage ​in corporate struggle, defending our corporate interests, but we ​have a history of advocating for public education.

We understand that education is fundamental for a country's ​development, and in our view, it should be developed with the needs ​of the population in mind, committed to the well-being of individuals, ​in the spirit of Paulo Freire. It's an education that isn't about ​conditioning or training; it's about liberation and enabling people to ​understand and change the world. While some may perceive our ​demands as primarily for salary increases, which are important, we ​will never cease advocating for better living and working conditions, ​salaries, democratic management, and more.

Since 2011, we've observed a global strengthening of movements ​toward the privatization and commodification of education, which ​we've also seen in Brazil. We've been engaged in a worldwide battle ​to ensure that public education receives the funds, investments, and ​public resources it needs, rather than being appropriated by those ​seeking profit.

Increasingly, we've noticed how global governance bodies have ​been co-opted to favor the interests of institutions like the World ​Bank and the IMF. UNESCO, in particular, is not what we'd like it to ​be, and the OECD is an organization of entrepreneurs that now ​organizes an educational assessment test worldwide.

What we see is an attempt to standardize education worldwide, ​often excluding a model that nurtures basic skills for students. This ​kind of education has become the only option for those destined to ​occupy a subordinate role in the world, rather than a position of ​empowerment. In the case of Brazil, the high school reform has ​reduced the curriculum for all subjects except Portuguese and ​Mathematics. The underlying idea is that knowing Portuguese is ​necessary because workers need to read manuals to operate ​machinery without errors, and Mathematics is required for basic ​calculations. Meanwhile, other subjects that teach students to ​understand the world, such as History, Geography, Philosophy, and ​Science, are deemed superfluous. This project serves to enrich ​those who are already wealthy.

The funding provided by the World Bank and the International ​Monetary Fund encroaches upon public funds to practice an ​education of highly questionable quality, primarily aimed at ​generating profits for a minority. The World Bank has an education ​advisory group that invites major investors and large corporations to ​invest in World Bank education projects. This is not philanthropy of ​the past but rather an investment with financial returns, often at the ​expense of indebting developing countries. An example is Bridge ​International, a British company that operates low-cost schools in ​Uganda, providing education for $6 per month per child, hiring ​untrained teachers, and earning $10 per month per child.

Education workers fight against this kind of education precarization ​caused by privatization, demanding the valorization of education ​professionals, including initial training and a professional career plan. ​Professional appreciation is essential, as is ensuring the end of the ​commodification and commercialization of education. A company ​that offers education at $6 per month per student knows exactly ​what it is doing and cannot provide any quality. Unfortunately, in ​Uganda, unions that oppose this are persecuted, and their leaders ​face numerous threats. The same happens in the Philippines, where ​our Education International representative rarely sleeps in the same ​place for a week due to security concerns, as he is persecuted by ​the government for denouncing such policies.

The situation in Brazil is no different. There are places where unions ​are pushed away from their role, or where union mandates are ​denied, and union members are threatened with dismissal. The state ​of Mato Grosso eliminated paycheck deductions, which were used ​for union contributions. They forced the union to re-register all ​members at a bank. The problem is that some banks do not process ​these registrations or charge exorbitant fees for doing so. These are ​just some examples of the various ways in which the trade union ​movement is persecuted.

Despite these challenges, the trade union movement continues to ​fight for public education. We saw the news in the newspaper O ​Estado de S. Paulo today about the Lemann Foundation. On January ​12th of this year, we reported this and issued a public statement ​stating that the Ministry of Education was dominated by corporate ​foundations. Today, we are witnessing this happening in practice. ​They use the justification that it is voluntary work to gain a foothold ​in a space that facilitates access to public funds.

In Latin America, we have a Latin American pedagogical movement ​that fights against the commodification of education and advocates ​for a pedagogy that considers our unique characteristics as a ​continent influenced by three races: forcibly brought African slaves, ​indigenous peoples, and Europeans. Our goal is not to exclude ​anyone but to build a pedagogical model that considers our ​characteristics rather than the European model that currently ​dominates education.

Marcelo Di Stefano | Threats to Public Services

The Global Network of Education Support Workers brings together technical and administrative workers, commonly referred to as non-teaching staff, from various countries in our continent. During this morning's union discussions, the focus was on the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those related to education. However, we also link them to the Sustainable Development Goals, specifically to the eighth point, which addresses decent work.

Our perspective is to ensure that education contributes to social transformation and that workers have decent wages, stable jobs, and working conditions that enable the exercise of their labor and union rights. Therefore, we place this discussion in the context of commodification, considering the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the digital revolution, the impact of the Internet, and robotics on the world of work and education.

From a union perspective, we question whether the Fourth Industrial Revolution will require more or less human labor than the previous one. We know there are ongoing debates on this topic, reflecting changes from previous revolutions. However, there is a consensus that this revolution will not demand the same jobs as before. Therefore, education plays a crucial role in preparing workers for these changes.

We also wonder if the same political and legal tools will be effective in protecting workers and how this relates to education. In this regard, the International Labor Organization (ILO) conducted an important debate and established a commission to develop guidelines on the future of work. This commission arrived at an interesting diagnosis of inequality in society and the need for decisive action to address it.

This led us to emphasize the need for massive investment in social capital, worker training, and the education of our children and adolescents. We also emphasize the importance of social protection. Statistics on inequality are alarming, particularly concerning poverty, women, the LGBT community, indigenous peoples, and people of African descent.

Moreover, the pandemic revealed a lack of solidarity, corporate greed, and challenges in education. We need a different global governance, led by individuals committed to social justice and quality public services.

We must build a strong alliance that includes student organizations, unions, civil society, and governments committed to our policies. We must defend education as a public and social good, a fundamental human right guaranteed by the state, amidst threats of privatization and harmful digitalization. Quality education is essential for social transformation and progress.

We face challenges, but we believe we can create a more democratic and generous global governance, working together to shape a new model of society and education. We must fight against corporate capture of power and the unbridled pursuit of profit. Let us unite in a strategic alliance to transform education and, in turn, transform our societies.

David Archer | Transforming Education Summit: Next Steps

Public education has been chronically underfunded worldwide for ​the past 40 years, which plays a critical role in creating space for ​aggressive processes of privatization and commodification. It also ​contributes to the idea that there is an education crisis, opening the ​door to various solutions, including these supposed forms of ​multistakeholder work. I have been involved in global education ​conferences for a long time. The first one, which many will ​remember, took place in Jomtien, Thailand, in 1990, known as the ​World Conference on Education for All, followed by Dakar in 2000 ​and Incheon in 2015. All these major global education meetings tend ​to focus massively and disproportionately on the role of aid and ​loans, as if aid and loans were part of the solution to the education ​crisis when, in fact, the evidence is very clear that 97% of education ​funding worldwide comes from domestic sources. Yet, domestic ​education financing is almost never the focus of discussion at ​international meetings. When we consider that 97% of funding ​comes from domestic sources, it gives the impression that national ​governments are in control of their education financing. However, ​there are massive distortions both nationally and globally that affect ​governments' power to secure more funding and transform their ​education systems.

I have been involved in the development of financial tracking for the ​UN Transformation Education Summit, which took place in ​September 2022, a year ago last week, and it was a UN summit. I ​also engaged in consultations with the 193 UN member states to ​develop a position and issue a call to action. We very deliberately ​focused on shifting attention away from the overwhelming emphasis ​on aid and loans and toward domestic financing and the necessary ​local and global action to transform it. When people talk about ​domestic education financing, what they often cling to is the share ​of the national budget that should be spent on education. There is a ​well-established reference dating back about 20 years, reaffirmed in ​the Incheon Framework, that governments should spend 15% to 20% ​of their national budget on education. Our governments fall short of ​that. But there are even more governments that come close to or ​chronically exceed the 15% to 20% budgetary spending on ​education, yet still chronically lack resources to genuinely transform ​their education systems because it's a 20% slice of a very small ​budget. However, the global and national education community pays ​very little attention to what can be done to increase the size of the ​pie, so that a 20% slice of that pie becomes significant.

The forces affecting the overall size of the pie have implications not ​only for education but for all other public services. One problem we ​face is that, in trying to advocate for education spending and fight ​for a larger share of the budget for education, we end up competing ​with the health, water, energy, or agriculture sectors because we are ​competing for a slice of the pie rather than working together with ​other public services to increase the size of the pie, benefiting ​everyone. This has become a very active debate created by ​international manipulation to focus civil society solely on the budget ​slice that concerns them and divide forces. However, we will never ​successfully combat privatization in education if privatization ​continues aggressively in health, water, and other sectors.

Therefore, if we want to change this, we need to unite collectively ​and look at the size of the pie. One of the biggest constraints on ​government revenue spending for public services, currently, is the ​scale of the global debt crisis. There are already 54 countries in debt ​crisis, a massive increase in the past 4 or 5 years. Many other ​countries are at high risk, and the vast majority of countries are at ​moderate risk.

One consequence of debt is not only that the amount of money ​available for spending on public services is reduced but also that you ​are virtually at the mercy of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ​because the IMF thrives when countries are in debt. It's very difficult ​for countries to ignore the policy advice and loan conditions of the ​IMF when they are in debt. We recently conducted a survey with ​partner countries of the Global Partnership for Education and found ​that 25 of these countries are spending more on debt servicing than ​on education. Therefore, debt has become a major issue. Much of ​this debt is historical debt, some dating back to the colonial era, ​some from governments under dictatorships where loans were taken ​out, and almost no public goods resulted from them. However, the ​money ends up in tax havens, plundering countries' resources, and ​the aggressive expansion of debt is the result of events like the war ​in Ukraine and rising interest rates globally. Therefore, countries that ​were not in debt until recently now find themselves in chronic debt.

Being subject to the power of the IMF, which is what debt ​effectively does, is indeed a problem. What the IMF refuses to ​address is the debt crisis as a collective systemic issue. They only ​deal with countries one by one to negotiate a solution to a debt ​crisis. So there is no acknowledgment of systemic causes, and ​individual negotiations are done in ways that effectively give the IMF ​complete power to impose austerity policies on finance ministries. It ​is the austerity policies that drive underfunding of public services ​worldwide, especially public education. We have seen consistent and ​projected drops in education spending worldwide over the next ​three years, primarily due to austerity policies. Specifically, broader ​public spending constraints have a negative impact on public ​services. But the most devastating impact comes from restrictions ​on the public sector payroll and the IMF's insistence that countries ​cut or freeze their public sector payroll expenses. The two largest ​groups on the public sector payroll are education workers and ​healthcare workers. When you are told by the IMF that you need to ​limit your total payroll expenses, the sectors that suffer the most are ​education and healthcare. The IMF does not like to give the ​impression that it is harming education and healthcare, so it claims ​that it will protect these sectors. However, in practice, this never ​happens. We have repeatedly shown in research that we collectively ​published over the past three years with Education and Public ​Services that the obsession with squeezing the payroll is destroying ​investment in public services.

One thing we found is that it doesn't matter what percentage of ​GDP is spent on the public sector payroll at the moment; you are ​always told to cut it. So Zimbabwe spent 17% of its GDP on the ​public sector payroll. Ghana spent 8%. Senegal 6%. Brazil 5%. Nepal ​4%. Nigeria, only 2% of its GDP went to the public sector payroll. All ​these countries were instructed to cut or freeze future spending on ​the public sector payroll. So there is no benchmark that the IMF ​uses. The only benchmark they use is always recommending a cut or ​freeze. They cannot provide an academic reference point. Nothing in ​the literature. Nothing that can justify this, except an ideological ​belief that public sector spending and the workforce, in particular, ​must always be treated as a problem. We conducted a study in 15 ​countries with Education and Public Services that showed that the ​direct consequence of these IMF squeezes in just these 15 countries ​was blocking the hiring of 3 million public sector workers. If ​countries were allowed to increase the percentage of GDP spent on ​the payroll by just 1%, they could have employed an additional 8 ​million teachers and healthcare workers. This is absolutely feasible. ​So there are clear alternatives. The most obvious alternative is, ​instead of cutting spending, you can increase tax revenue.

In fact, when the IMF's policy unit in Washington was asked to ​conduct a study to analyze how to finance the Sustainable ​Development Goals in 2019, the central recommendation was that ​countries could expand their tax-to-GDP ratio by five percentage ​points. So the average lower-middle-income country spends about ​16% and has a tax-to-GDP ratio of 16%. They could increase it to ​21%. Any country that followed this analysis and advice could double ​its spending on education and healthcare and significantly increase ​spending on other public services. But we found that, despite this ​being their own analysis, there is not a single example of the IMF ​actually recommending this in practice at the national level. They ​never advise governments to increase tax revenues when giving tax ​advice. The only advice they seem to offer is to increase the value-​added tax (VAT), shifting the tax burden to the poorest sectors of ​society and, in particular, to women. There are many ways ​progressive taxes can be increased, taxes targeting the wealthiest ​individuals and the wealthiest corporations that can absolutely ​transform education financing. Our most recent research, published ​two weeks ago, shows that if countries did what the IMF actually ​recommended in 2019 and increased the tax-to-GDP ratio by five ​percentage points, they could raise $455 billion for public service ​investments. If 20% of that went to education, it would be $93 billion ​for education every year, not as a one-time amount but every year, a ​massive increase in funding.

Therefore, if countries are genuinely committed to advancing the ​right to education and education financing and transforming public ​systems, it's necessary to advocate for tax justice and expand taxes ​fairly. Currently, we see that all these issues related to taxes, debt, ​austerity, and payroll constraints are outlined in the call to action of ​last year's Transformation Education Summit. It is the first time that a ​UN meeting on education recommends global actions to address the ​strategic financing issues affecting education. But we haven't seen ​significant change yet. One of the reasons is the chronic issues ​around power dynamics that affect what needs to be done regarding ​the IMF. You have a voting structure in the IMF that was established ​in 1947, shortly after World War II, before most African countries ​were independent. And it's fundamentally unchanged. It gives ​decision-making weight to the wealthiest countries. It's a neocolonial ​institution. It perpetuates underfunding of public services worldwide ​to maintain power and create opportunities for multinational ​corporations, primarily from the Global North. Therefore, this ​narrative of privatization characteristic of multistakeholderism is ​based on ensuring ongoing underfunding of public systems when it ​comes to tax systems. Global tax rules have been set for the past 60 ​years by the OECD.

The two most famous things the OECD does are setting tax policies ​and defining assessment systems for education. There, they created ​a set of global tax rules that allow astonishing levels of aggressive ​tax avoidance by multinational corporations worldwide, massive illicit ​financial flows out of countries, and the concentration of money in ​tax havens. Global rules could have been established long ago to ​prevent this, but they were not because the interests of the people ​setting the rules are to keep things unchanged. Last year, a few ​months ago, the Global Campaign for Education had a global action ​week called "Investing in a just world: Decolonize education ​financing now!" referencing this transformative agenda agreed upon ​at the Transformation Education Summit and attempting to push for ​changes. We have always been in conflict with education ministries.

We won't change education financing by talking to education ​ministries. We need to take the argument to finance ministries, ​heads of state, and global institutions that shape education ​financing. That's the only way to bring about systemic change.

Therefore, while it's very important to have a strong education ​movement, what we really need is to unite with other movements.

We need strategic alliances, not just working as education ​movements but linked to health movements, linked to other public ​service movements, linked to tax justice movements, debt justice ​movements, feminist movements, and crucially, climate justice ​movements because only when we come together in much broader ​alliances will we achieve the systemic change we need. There was a ​great conference in Chile last year in December called "Our Future Is ​Public," which brought together these forces. We united some of ​these forces, and we need to sustain this kind of momentum. Next ​month, in fact, in two weeks, the IMF and the World Bank will hold ​their annual meetings in Marrakech, Morocco. It is the first time they ​have held their annual meetings in Africa since 1973. It's only the ​second time in history that they have held their meetings in Africa, ​and I expect a very large mobilization to challenge the legitimacy of ​the IMF and the World Bank at these meetings because frankly, ​these institutions have done more harm to development, education, ​and other public services in Africa than any other institution you can ​name. So my key message is, if we want to change things, we need ​to end austerity now. We need to advance tax justice, and the ​education movement needs to step out of the education bubble and ​work with others to build the level of movement and alliance that can ​bring transformation.

Priscila Gonsales | Digitalization of Education in Global ​Governance

The first thing to understand is that technology and the device or ​technology itself are not one and the same. It is much more than the ​artifact, much more than the device. Technology needs to be ​understood as a network of relationships between humans, ​machines, and the different contexts and interconnections that ​occur among them.

Technology brings new contexts and a new reality, and educators ​and educational policymakers, in particular, need to look at this. In ​education, whether in regulations or in the common curriculum, we ​still see a focus on digital culture as if we were still in the Web 2 era, ​a time when the general population gained access to the internet, ​and there was a positive view that the internet would democratize ​communication and information. It was indeed a revolution, and even ​open licenses (Creative Commons) emerged during that digital ​culture era when sharing was important. However, today, terms of ​use and privacy policies must be accepted to access content on any ​type of application. Free access to content no longer exists.

Currently, there is the same perspective on artificial intelligence as if ​it were a single technology when, in fact, it comprises several ​technologies that are part of our daily lives. For today's generative ​artificial intelligence to exist, such as Chat GPT, Wikipedia had to ​exist before, which was a significant milestone in public ​encyclopedias. We live in a scenario where our online behavior has ​become an information pattern, and any type of action today is ​mediated by private platforms.

Everything that is technology is considered an innovation in ​education, so innovation is always seen as something external to ​schools and individuals. Innovation comes with a product and ​narrows the view of the field of technology and digital society ​development, turning it into a mere utilitarian tool for teaching ​content. This deprives students and teachers of understanding the ​contexts behind this technology. In 2022, the cover of The ​Economist[12] featured an article about their Foundation Models, ​which are Yale's foundational models, the famous Transformers that ​were introduced to society in 2017. This model is absolutely ​revolutionary. It's not just an application; it now forms the basis for ​any probabilistic artificial intelligence model development, and it's ​only going to grow.

When new technologies emerge, such as Chat GPT did last year, ​educational policies began to think about how to incorporate it into ​schools in a competitive manner, considering its innovative use by ​teachers and which school adapts more quickly.

The term "platformization" or "platform society" is used to describe ​human life, economic flows, and social interactions and how they are ​modulated by this global ecosystem of online platforms, driven by ​algorithms and fueled by massive databases, leading to another ​phenomenon, which is datafication[13].

The privatization that our society has become is impacting education ​because to use any kind of tool in an online environment, one must ​accept the terms and conditions of a private company. This happens ​because, in the public sector during the development of educational ​policies, this issue was not considered. This was the theme of ​UNESCO's 2023 GEM Report[14], which emphasizes the importance ​of government policies taking into account why that technology will ​be used, how it will be used, and evaluating whether it will indeed ​benefit education.

It's not about prohibiting or not prohibiting the use of cell phones in ​schools, for example. Instead, it's about understanding that a cell ​phone is not just a device. It is loaded with artificial intelligence and ​platforms, which can pose risks of data extraction from children and ​adolescents. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the use of ​technologies leads to improved learning and equity.

Another point to consider is that we only look at the internet at the ​content layer, which is the application, website, the space that ​provides internet access. In doing so, we overlook all the other ​layers that provide the foundation for it, such as the cables, for ​example, and fail to realize how physical the internet is. This physical ​structure implies power, which is permeated by various geopolitical ​issues that deserve attention.

To access the internet, there is a transport layer, which includes ​cables, satellites, radio, etc. Additionally, there are networks, ​providers, and software at all these layers, as well as the structure of ​data centers themselves, which are physical facilities. Despite the ​term "cloud," these structures are physical, use the planet's energy, ​emit carbon dioxide, and generate a lot of pollution[15]. However, ​this is not discussed, whether in educational projects with our ​students or in plans to expand the knowledge of our teachers.

It is crucial to understand what lies behind technology and to stop ​only looking at its use in education. It's important to recognize that ​while a cell phone can be used in educational proposals, it cannot be ​the only tool. The range of educational proposals that can be made ​with a cell phone is quite limited, and what we have seen since the ​COVID-19 pandemic is a series of start-up companies, small private ​technology companies, creating applications for teaching via ​WhatsApp or some other mobile app, taking advantage of the fact ​that children and adolescents have cell phones. However, these ​applications are closely linked to the major companies dominating ​the digital market. This means that we are all once again going ​through a process of digital colonization.

A survey by TIC Education[16] revealed that 67% of teachers said ​they use cell phones for educational activities with students. ​However, there is no governance, whether institutional or at the ​state level, to determine rules for this type of practice. There has ​been no consideration of what these technologies mean in the ​current context and what the overwhelming entry of these ​technologies into schools or via students' cell phones means. ​Another survey showed that 70% of state and municipal education ​networks, as well as public universities, are outsourcing their email ​servers. Therefore, today, to access the institutional email of a ​Brazilian public university, one must log in through a private ​company because the public university is not taking care of this ​strategic data infrastructure, which includes not only personal data ​but also strategic educational data for the country. The situation is ​the same in Latin American countries, except for Uruguay, which still ​has its infrastructure[17].

During the pandemic, several education departments advertised on ​their social media with logos of Big Tech companies to show how ​innovative they were by being part of Google and Microsoft and ​using these tools to ensure the continuity of education for children ​without any concern about the risks associated with the terms of ​use, in addition to providing free advertising for these companies.

In 2020, an analysis was conducted of the terms of use, specifically ​for products labeled as Education, such as Google Education and ​Microsoft Education, which showed that the responsibility lies with ​the school for any misuse in the same way that when a student ​enters YouTube, their data is used for commercial purposes. ​Moreover, there are a series of details, and the very format of the ​terms is designed so that people do not read them before ​signing[18]. Behind these initiatives, there is an entire apparatus of ​NGOs that provide teacher training to use these tools.

In 2022, after the General Data Protection Law (LGPD) came into ​effect, an updated analysis was conducted[19]. The result is that at ​no point do the terms of use or privacy policies of these education ​packages comply with LGPD, nor do they mention LGPD. In addition ​to being colonized, we are accepting the violation of our country's ​laws.

A misguided view of innovation leads to the belief that checking ​how long a student is connected, whether they blink at the screen, ​or if they access certain answers is a way to get to know students ​better. This technology is believed to be necessary for ​understanding students better. Another popular tool is prompt ​design, which aligns with the market's competitiveness, as if the ​school's only purpose were to adapt to the needs of corporate ​products. Another misconception is the use of digital skills without ​concern for whether data is being captured to improve a commercial ​product. In this case, what matters is whether students are learning ​to use a particular tool or technology, and whether the lesson ​content is being delivered in a more interesting and motivating way.

Beyond using technology as a pedagogical practice, another serious ​problem we face is facial recognition for access to schools, without ​any regulatory policy, even in the face of international controversies ​about the effectiveness of this technology. InternetLab conducted a ​study last year on 15 policies in progress in Brazil regarding facial ​recognition, and the claims for the indiscriminate use of this ​technology are that it will optimize management in the school ​environment, help combat truancy, and increase security[20]. Once ​again, technology is attributed with innovating education and ​improving personnel and structural management of something that is ​a fundamental right.

In conclusion, it is not enough to consider whether technology ​should be used in education; this is no longer a question. However, ​when considering governance that guarantees rights, we must think ​about which technologies to use and why we should use these ​technologies.

Maria Ron Balsera | Threaten to public services

Education is a right, but this right is under constant threat. Years of ​struggle have led to its recognition as a universal human right, with ​the state’s obligations to make it available, accessible, adaptable and ​acceptable to all without discrimination. Like all economic and social ​rights, the right to education has aspects that are to be ​progressively realized. Being free is perhaps one of the most ​important, given the economic consequences it entails. Given that ​different countries have different economic circumstances and ​levels of resources, progressive realization allows this flexibility. ​However, it cannot be used as an excuse not to provide free ​education of good quality without discrimination. Countries are ​obliged to take active steps towards fulfilling this right, using the ​maximum available resources.

These resources are not only economic, but also legal, ​administrative, technical, educational, amongst others. Equally, this ​obligation goes beyond the resources currently at governments’ ​disposal (including resources that could potentially be mobilized ​both by the state itself, but also through international cooperation ​and development). As such, maximum available resources do not ​refer solely to those in the national budget or currently available, but ​it requires that states mobilize enough resources by increasing ​domestic revenues. It includes extraterritorial obligations related to ​development cooperation to ensure the full realization of rights. ​Mobilizing these resources must comply with human rights, which is ​why increasing tax revenue through progressive taxation reform is a ​good way to increase revenue, redistribute wealth, reduce ​inequality, and fund education in a fair and sustainable way[21].

Domestic resource mobilization, with progressive taxation at its ​center, is key to sustainable and democratic financing for education ​and other rights, and the best solution to tap the gap of the ​estimated 5 trillions of dollars needed to achieve the SDGs. Tax ​Justice refers to both fair domestic and international resource ​mobilization, such as progressive taxation, where those with a higher ​income pay more as a proportion of their income or wealth (personal ​and corporate income tax, based on graduated scales where the tax ​rate goes up as income level rises, are examples of progressivity). ​Regressive taxation would mean the poor pay a greater proportion of ​their available resources than the rich (consumption taxes which ​employ a flat rate, such as the Value Added Tax, are the clearest ​example). Taxes can be made more progressive with well-designed ​scales, exemptions and thresholds (on who earns or has enough to ​pay a particular tax).

However, the estimated figure of tax revenue lost each year to ​global tax abuse is US$480 billion, 311 billion USD are a ​consequence of cross-border corporate tax abuse by multinational ​corporations and the remaining 169 billion USD are attributed to ​offshore tax abuse by wealthy individuals[22]. The amount lost to ​tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal, but morally wrong, ​done through exploiting tax loopholes) amount to a minimum of ​US$100 billion annually (with some studies pointing at US$200 billion ​per year). Misinvoicing, a common practice that consists in ​deliberately misreporting the value of a commercial transaction to ​customs, seems to be leading to an annual loss of US$800 billion for ​developing countries alone[23]. It seems clear that states are not ​doing enough to control illicit financial flows and, consequently, ​states are not able to use their maximum available resources.

Looking into the distributional impact of tax abuse, higher income ​countries lose more revenue in absolute terms: $433 billion ​compared to $47 billion in lower income countries. However, ​although lower income countries’ tax losses are lower in nominal ​terms, they represent a much higher proportion of their tax revenue, ​lower income countries lose 6.6% of their total tax revenue as ​compared to 2.6% for higher income countries[24]. Using these ​global tax losses figures GRADE calculates that if these sums had ​been taxed and spent using current patterns of expenditure:

• 15 million people would have their right to basic water, every day.
  
• 31 million have the right to basic sanitation every day.
  
• 43 million additional children would have their right to attend ​school over the time studied.
  
• 2,287,000, additional children (on average over the time ​studied) would attend school every day.
  
• 65 additional children would survive every day; these children ​overwhelmingly die from preventable diseases because they ​did not have access to quality public services.
  

Geographical power relations matter, and some high-income ​countries are the main enablers of the global tax abuse that is ​particularly depriving lower income countries from mobilizing ​adequate resources to provide the right to education. According to ​TJN[25] the UK and dependents, the US, the Netherlands, ​Luxembourg, and Switzerland are responsible for 62% of the global ​tax losses inflicted on other countries. GRADE calculated that if ​governments had additional revenue equivalent to these losses:

• 9 million people would have their right to basic water, every day.
  
• 9 million their right to basic sanitation every day.
  
• 27 million additional children would have their right to attend ​school over the time studied.
  
• 1,425,000 additional children (on average over the time ​studied) would attend school every day.
  
• 40 additional children would survive every day; children ​overwhelmingly die from preventable diseases because of ​lack of access to quality public services.
  

Crises, such as environmental disasters or armed conflicts, can ​affect states’ capacities to meet their obligations towards the right ​to education and other human rights. In cases of retrogression in ​terms of providing the necessary resources to fulfill a state’s human ​rights obligation, the state must demonstrate that this failure is the ​consequence of a real inadequacy of resources, rather than lack of ​political will to mobilize internal and external, economic and non-​economic resources. Furthermore, even in the cases of ​demonstrated inadequacy of resources, the failure or backward ​steps must be temporary, proportionated and adequately monitored, ​and must ensure that the core obligations of non-discrimination, ​accountability, transparency and participation are respected. This ​means that these backward steps cannot be justified by a political ​ideology that prioritizes economic growth and fiscal consolidation, ​resulting in austerity and insufficient resources for public services ​that contribute to the realization of human rights.

The impact of austerity

Against the backdrop of the ongoing effects of the pandemic, the ​war in Ukraine, and economic recession, many governments are ​adopting ‘fiscal consolidation’ strategies, also known as austerity and ​public sector wage bill constraints, often advised by the International ​Financial Institutions. An analysis of IMF expenditure projections ​indicates that 143 governments will cut spending (as a share of GDP) ​in 2023, affecting more than 6.7 billion people – or 85% of the world ​population[26].

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB) and ​development banks have been playing a key role in lending money to ​countries to boost their economies. However, these loans come with ​structural conditions linked to austerity, e.g. freezing public sector ​wage bills, resulting in underfunded health, social protection and ​education budgets for decades. The economic reforms included in ​the Structural Adjustment Plans from the 70s (liberalization, ​government spending reduction, etc.) had catastrophic effects in ​terms of development with far-reaching consequences, particularly ​for women, children and vulnerable groups. Although the IMF and ​WB claim to have moved away from the harmful advice of austerity, ​the new ‘fiscal consolidation’ mantra poses the same threat of ​thwarting sustainable development, increased inequalities and ​human rights violations. Yet, countries seem desperate to get the ​approval of these economic institutions and continue following their ​advice[27].

Debt repayments are prioritized over education. In 2020, funding ​allocated to external public debt service was larger than education ​expenditure in at least 36 countries[28]. This ideology puts the ​economy before people, economic growth before human rights, ​forgetting that the economy should work for the people and not the ​other way around, forgetting that the ‘trickle down’ economics has ​furthered inequalities and led to human rights violations; while ​investing in education and strong public services has led to ​sustainable economic growth.

There are alternatives to austerity[29]. Even in the poorest ​countries, there are at least nine other financing options[30] that ​some governments have been using for years, and that are fully ​endorsed by the United Nations and international financial ​institutions. These include progressive taxation; debt elimination or ​restructuring; clamping down on illicit financial flows; increasing ​employers’ social-security contributions and coverage by formalizing ​workers in the informal economy; using fiscal and foreign-exchange ​reserves; re-allocating public expenditures[31]; adopting a more ​accommodating macroeconomic framework; securing official ​development assistance; and new allocations of the IMF’s reserve ​asset, special drawing rights[32].

When austerity hits and the pressure to lower the public workers ​wage bill rises, teachers are often the first victims, and education ​suffers as a result. Teachers are the largest single group on most ​public sector payrolls, so constraints on the overall wage bill ​disproportionately impact teachers, lowering their salary, and ​freezing or blocking new recruitments. Austerity exacerbates the ​increasing teacher gap that disproportionately affects low and ​middle income countries, and within those countries rural and other ​disadvantaged areas.

Austerity entrenches and creates economic and social inequalities, ​particularly gender inequalities. Fees and other hidden costs of ​education present more of a barrier to girls than boys. When parents ​have to prioritize which of their children can afford to go to school, ​they often choose the first-born male without disabilities. Girls and ​women within the family are the shock absorbers of austerity, ​providing unpaid care, looking after the children, sick and elderly ​that public services neglect. The impact of wage bill cuts is felt triply ​and most acutely by women and girls. Girls are more likely to be ​excluded from accessing basic education when budgets are cut; ​women lose access to some of the best opportunities for decent ​work in the public sector as teachers and other education personnel; ​and both girls and women bear a disproportionate share of the ​unpaid care and domestic work that rises when public services ​fail[33].

Together with austerity, two other recommendations also contribute ​to the threat to public services and the increase inequality: raising ​VAT and privatization. Increasing indirect taxes such as sales taxes ​or Value Added Tax (VAT) has been favored by many countries, ​particularly those without a sophisticated tax collection system. This ​is one of the most regressive forms of taxation, disproportionately ​affecting women and poor people. This reform is fairly easy to ​implement but given that there is a flat rate for products regardless ​of the household or person’s income levels, those who are poorer ​pay much more as a proportion of their income. Direct taxes such as ​Personal Income Tax or Corporate Income Tax take into account the ​level of income and can be made progressive by exempting low ​income thresholds and increasing the percentage of tax that higher ​income, or profit in the case of companies, make. Direct taxes can ​help redistribute wealth, lowering social inequalities. VAT can also be ​made more progressive by exempting items of basic necessity that ​are primarily consumed by low and middle income households, ​including period-related sanitary materials, and increasing the VAT ​for luxury products.

The threat of privatization

Privatization is the beloved child of neoliberalism. Another ​consequence of underfunding education is that it opens the door to ​privatization. In 2014, the United Nations Special Rapporteur ​described the problem of public sector underfunding clearly: ‘The ​persistent underfunding of public education coincides with the rapid ​rise in the scale and scope of private actors in education’. The ​chronic underfunding of public services is a major contributor to this, ​leading to the quality of public provision being compromised, ​fostering disillusion, and opening the door to privatization of ​services[34]. Indeed, in recent years, there has been a qualitative ​and quantitative shift in the role of non-state actors in education ​provision, with deeper engagement of the for-profit private sector in ​education. Many voices are pushing for stronger partnerships with ​private actors. However, the negative effects on equity and other ​areas of the increasing privatization of education is becoming a ​central concern for education, development and human rights ​scholars and practitioners. Privatisation is a business strategy ​focused on profit, choice, and efficiency, which may work in ​opposition to ensuring quality and equitable education for all, and ​the ‘leave no one behind’ agenda.

Indeed, there is growing evidence on the consequences of ​privatization in terms of exclusion, segmentation, segregation, ​inequality of opportunities, stigmatization of public education, ​diversion of essential funds, lowering teaching standards, narrowing ​of the curriculum, and so on. The neoliberal ideology intrinsic to this ​is embedded in a human capital approach to education, which ​argues that private providers increase choice, are more effective, ​and cost-efficient.

Recurrent costs, namely teacher salaries, take the highest ​proportion of the education budgets, often 80-90%, which is why, ​when the aim is to reduce costs, different strategies, such as limiting ​the recruitment of teachers, increasing the number of students per ​teacher, freezing or cutting salaries, or employing lower or even ​non-qualified teachers (on short-term contracts) are commonplace. ​The so-called Low-Fee Private School (LFPS) chains have ​consistently employed unqualified teachers paying them much lower ​wages to save costs.

The neoliberal ideology intrinsic to the human capital[35] approach ​borrows from the standardization model to reduce costs and ​increase productivity, often disregarding the standards that apply to ​the right to education. In an attempt to increase scalability and ​profits, Bridge International Academies (also known as NewGlobe) ​went a step further scripting classes for teachers to follow down to ​the smallest details, borrowing from the Fordist and McDonalds ​models, to offer “low-cost” schools while generating profits for their ​investors. Their model, promoted as social investments, attracted ​many donors at first, however, a series of scandals[36] and ​unfulfilled promises seriously eroded donor support[37],[38].

Rather than standardization, defenders of education should focus ​on upholding standards, particularly national minimum standards[39] ​and human rights, including the Abidjan Principles[40]. Education ​must be available, accessible, acceptable, and adaptable. It should ​aim at the full development of the human personality and respect for ​human rights. Teachers’ labor conditions must also be protected. ​Teachers’ rights are human rights and teachers are a fundamental ​part and investment in education. Prioritizing cost-saving at the ​expense of human rights is not only morally wrong, but it is also a ​terrible economic strategy. Investing in education is not only one of ​the soundest investments that a country can make, but it is also a ​human rights obligation (states must use their maximum available ​resources to guarantee the right to education). Furthermore, we ​should stop thinking that there is not enough money to adequately ​fund education. The TaxEd Alliance[41], among others, have ​repeatedly shown that if governments worldwide were to tackle illicit ​financial flows and global tax abuse, there would be plenty of ​sustainable funding not only for education but for other public ​services and rights.

Sustainable solutions

Progressive taxation reform is the best way to ensure a fair and ​sustainable recovery, it is about increasing revenue in a progressive ​manner, redistributing wealth, ensuring that the burden is carried ​equally, without corporate free-riders. Increasing domestic resource ​mobilization through progressive taxation to provide gender ​responsive public services is the best way to improve governance, ​increase accountability and participation, and the only way to ​properly fund the Sustainable Development Goals. ActionAid found ​that most countries can increase their tax-to-GDP by 5 percentage ​points in the coming years and by 10 percentage points in the next ​decade through fair corporate tax, and properly taxing the income, ​capital, land and property of the wealthy[42]. We also need a rethink ​of the international financial architecture that currently prioritizes the ​interest of investors over people and the planet. Therefore, countries ​should stop following the short-term strategy of increasing public ​debt and agreeing to the loan conditions provided by the IMF, WB ​and development banks and move swiftly to reform their tax system ​in a progressive way. They should also join forces with other ​countries to have a more transparent tax cooperation mechanism, ​such as UN Tax Convention and body where they would have equal ​footing, rather than what it is being offered at the OECD, which ​primarily represents the interest of rich nations (and particularly the ​interest of investors and corporations headquartered in these rich ​nations).

Let’s join forces to resist and end the austerity cult and fight for tax ​justice and sustainable financing of public services instead. Let’s not ​get side-tracked by tempting sirens that offer low-cost simple ​solutions to long standing problems. The best way to increase ​learning and guarantee education for all is investing in public ​education[43], investing in teachers, and increasing the size, share, ​sensitivity, and scrutiny of the education budget and for that we ​need progressive taxation reform and a UN tax Convention and body ​that ensures democratic and transparent discussions on an equal ​footing.

DAY 2

Civil Society Strategies at the ​Regional and National Levels

OPENING REMARKS

Andressa Pellanda | General Coordinator of the Brazilian

Campaign for the Right to Education

Today is the time to deterritorialize the discussion because in ​international relations, there is a bad habit of focusing on the global ​and not bringing it to the regional and national levels. So, politically, ​we will advocate for bringing global governance issues to the ​regional and national context. To this end, we have representatives ​from academia, represented by Professor Carlota, and civil society, ​represented by Luis Eduardo, in this opening panel. Today, we will ​have presentations from representatives of various continents, ​including Asia, Africa, and Latin America, with a special focus on ​Portuguese-speaking countries. Following that, we will address ​specific issues in three countries: Chile, Mozambique, and Brazil.

Carlota Boto | Director of the Faculty of Education at ​the University of São Paulo (FE-USP)

In light of the global theme of the seminar, I have chosen to discuss ​a document that has been guiding international education policies at ​present. Originally titled "Reimagining our futures together: a new ​social contract for education"[44] and presented as a report of the ​International Commission on the Futures of Education, an important ​document was published in 2021 by the United Nations Educational, ​Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Its reading seems ​essential at this post-pandemic moment for all educators who ​advocate for quality education. Prepared by a commission of 18 ​experts from various countries on five continents, including ​prominent names such as António Nóvoa and Cristóvão Buarque, the ​text outlines some necessary guidelines for envisioning the future of ​educational territories.

The document seeks to address the inquiries of a time marked by ​vulnerability in the face of the present and uncertainty about the ​future. During the pandemic, one and a half billion students were out ​of school. UNESCO is an international organization that has been in ​existence for 75 years and has already released numerous reports ​on education, including the 1972 report titled "Learning to Be: The ​World of Education Today and Tomorrow" and the famous Delors ​Commission report from 1996, titled "Education: A Treasure to ​Discover," which listed four pillars for the education agenda: learning ​to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together. ​In contrast, the current document proposes a new contract for ​education: "a contract aimed at rebuilding our relationships with ​each other, with the planet, and with technology." It aims to rectify ​the unacceptable and unjust aspects of the past and prepare for ​future times with creativity, intelligence, and enthusiasm to construct ​an inclusive future based on respect for human rights.

This proposal for a new social contract for education presupposes ​the reinvention of collective work, with the goal of creating shared ​and supportive futures. To achieve this, the Report poses the ​question: What should be preserved from the school format and ​educational practices? What should be abandoned? And how can ​pedagogical actions be reinvented? The report is very direct in this ​regard: the curriculum of the school of the future - a future that ​begins now - should encompass ecological, intercultural, and ​interdisciplinary learning, helping students access knowledge ​through reflection, research, and the creation of knowledge and new ​educational practices. This implies promoting the autonomy of ​teachers. The document acknowledges that the digital world ​facilitates open access to knowledge and emphasizes the need for ​critical and creative mobilization of this opportunity. The new ​technologies of the online world have brought an immeasurable ​amount of information. It will be necessary to learn how to carefully ​select such elements to transform information into knowledge.

Despite this promising scenario, there is still a large number of ​children and youth worldwide who do not learn, drop out of school, ​or continue to be deprived of a quality education within institutions ​themselves. Within these institutions, discriminatory practices based ​on race, gender, language, and students' cultural backgrounds ​persist. Schools, rooted in the reproduction of discriminatory ​practices, contribute to strengthening exclusion. To reverse this ​situation, the UNESCO Report emphasizes the urgent need for a new ​social contract for education; a contract based on the Universal ​Declaration of Human Rights from 1948. The document presents this ​Declaration as a compass for imagining new futures for education, ​fundamentally starting from a consensus on what is understood as ​the right to education.

A new social pact focused on the cause of education will require, ​above all, the right to access quality education and the inclusion of ​currently marginalized populations. This process is already ​underway. The document also demonstrates that if, in 1970, one in ​four children was not enrolled in school, this proportion dropped to ​10% in 2020. This progress is even more pronounced concerning ​girls, as they represented two-thirds of out-of-school children in ​1990. Today, the situation has somewhat improved. Nevertheless, ​for every 100 boys not attending school, there are 123 girls deprived ​of the same right, and this asymmetry is more pronounced at the ​secondary level. This situation is no better concerning teacher ​training. According to the UNESCO Report, there has been a ​troubling decline in the proportion of qualified teachers for primary ​education worldwide. In many countries, especially in Africa, the ​proportion of teachers with minimum qualifications dropped from ​85% in 2000 to 65% in 2020.

Overcoming the injustices and insufficiencies of past situations and ​even the current reality is the major challenge for a school that aims ​to confront inequalities and exclusions. In the case of children who ​left school due to the pandemic, there are millions who have not ​returned. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the very format of ​the school: a school that today is less focused on collective ​teamwork than on individual performance. Teachers often act as if ​they were the conductor of an orchestra, but the musicians play ​alone. In educational practices, an ethics of care and reciprocity ​needs to be considered: collective and participatory learning ​founded on interdisciplinary construction of themes and problems. ​All pedagogy involves human and social relations. This implies an ​ethical dimension in the educational field: an ethics built on the ​educational triangle (teacher, knowledge, student). Such ethics ​would enable the construction of a solidarity-based pedagogy, ​based on different epistemological registers, on the cultural diversity ​that characterizes and legitimizes the production and interaction of ​different cultural products and knowledge dynamics. The document ​makes it clear that it is not just about tolerating differences but ​working together: alongside multicultural and multi-ethnic societies, ​towards an intercultural citizenship. Diversity is seen as a value, but ​a value that aligns with the search for a common ground that ​anchors it. Differences constitute us, but sharing unites us. Such ​sharing requires practices of empathy, solidarity, and justice.

Finally, the UNESCO report highlights the relevance, in our ​contemporary context, of a new relationship between education and ​knowledge. There is a need for a different understanding of the ​curriculum, one that is no longer seen as a simple collection of ​subjects taught in school but rather as part of a broad framework of ​knowledge and skills that must systematically accompany the ​teaching and learning process. In the document's terms, it is about ​"acquiring knowledge as part of the common heritage of humanity ​and the collective creation of new knowledge and new worlds." ​Some things that are not taught need to be learned, while other ​things that are taught should be unlearned. This is what it is all ​about. It will be necessary to weave a web of meaningful knowledge ​from a repertoire that will be chosen and reinvented from time to ​time based on the priorities of each era, each period, and each ​region. The important thing is that all taught knowledge can be ​integrated into a common good shared by all. This presupposes the ​recognition of cultural and epistemic diversity. But it also requires a ​shared territory where people can communicate and understand ​each other. This challenge between universal humanism and the call ​for cultural diversity is what constitutes the richness but also the ​complexity of this document, which has already been embraced by ​the educational plans of numerous countries around the world.

Luis Eduardo Murcia | Global Campaign for Education's Policy & ​Research Advisor

The information presented here constitutes preliminary findings from ​an ongoing research project, primarily in African countries, ​concerning government involvement in education, technology, and, ​particularly, technology providers, using the concept of EdTech ​solely to refer to the idea of technology's penetration into the field of ​education. The objective of this work is to understand the role of ​education, technology, and especially education providers in relation ​to the potential benefits and limitations of educational technology in ​meeting the needs of all. Simultaneously, it aims to understand how ​the penetration of technology in education can create new ​opportunities for privatization and commercialization of education.

Technology has played a central role in education policies in ​universities, for example, in Latin America since the early 1970s and ​has become increasingly significant, even earlier, in Northern Global ​countries. The issue is not technology itself or its use in education. ​The issue is how Information and Communication Technology (ICT) ​providers, which are multinational corporations, are using technology ​to suggest that technology can solve every problem in the ​educational system. The general argument here is that countries ​focus solely on technology. This could create a problem in terms of ​sustainable funding for education because, instead of investing ​financial resources to protect the right to education, they are ​entering into agreements with these companies that do not really ​care about the right to education. They care about business.

The concept of the digital divide, as the Global Campaign for ​Education defines, encompasses five elements. Firstly, there is ​distribution, meaning all electronic devices, electricity, and the ​Internet. Therefore, countries need facilities of this kind to have ​online access. However, in some Latin American and Caribbean ​countries and also in many regions of Zambia and South Africa, for ​example, there are places without electricity where governments are ​purchasing electronic devices and internet connections. The second ​aspect of the digital divide is related to the distribution of learning ​skills in student contexts and also for teachers. The third aspect ​deals with the fact that we often assume that every teacher in every ​school is well-equipped with the necessary skills to plan and conduct ​online classes, which is not the case in many countries, even in G7 ​economies. The fourth aspect involves the role of parents and ​parental support in learning, as well as creating an adequate home ​environment for learning and idea discussion. The fifth and final ​aspect is related to school endowment and management and the ​technology to reach everyone. Therefore, one key element to ​highlight here is the inclusion of people with disabilities. Is ​technology truly accessible, reasonable, and adjustable to meet the ​needs of people with different disabilities or those living in very ​stressful situations due to impacts such as climate change, with very ​limited access to the Internet and all these elements?

The notion of the digital divide is relevant to understanding each of ​these aspects proposed by Professor Katarina Tomasevski in the ​early 1990s, which states that the right to education is related to ​availability, accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability. When we ​talk, for example, about availability, Internet providers and ​companies selling electronic devices and electricity are merely ​selling the idea that by obtaining the complete package, including ​internet connection, electricity, computers, and everything else, ​everything will be fine. The question of the right to education is: ​what happened to the construction of new schools, improving school ​facilities, teacher training, obtaining contracts, and hiring new ​teachers to provide education?

Regarding the notion of adaptability, what happens, for example, to ​people's right to learn in their own language? Are these technologies ​equipped to teach people in their mother language in the case of ​indigenous communities living in remote areas or people who cross ​borders? Ukraine is a good example of this. Now they are learning in ​other languages when they cross borders and live in Poland, France, ​Denmark, and many other countries.

The stance of the Global Campaign for Education is not against ​technology per se, but there are concerns about the use of ​technology and how technology providers are selling technology, ​promoting new forms of privatization and commercialization of ​education. That said, we believe that no form of technology can ​replace face-to-face interaction between teachers and students. We ​see school as the space where individuals can develop intellectually ​and socially. We need to consider the intersection of teacher and ​student knowledge all the time, and it is in this triangle that people ​develop important social skills for learning.

Technology providers sell governments on the idea that if they buy ​the complete package, everything will be fine. One of these ​packages is education in emergency situations. Due to the ​pandemic, everyone should have been learning online. Now this has ​been used as propaganda with the justification that schools need to ​be prepared and buy all these elements offered by technology ​companies to be ready for emergencies. While this is true, the ​conditions in countries in emergency situations are very different. ​Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Nakivale refugee ​settlement in northern Uganda, which was established in 1958. What ​is really interesting to see is how this space that has been open for ​over 60 years has most camps without electricity and without ​Internet devices. No one is online.

In France, we have primary schools in one region for the French, ​one for English speakers, one for Arabic speakers, and they have ​tried to do the best they can with social distancing during Covid-19. ​So why are these technology providers not there in a refugee ​settlement that has remained makeshift for over 60 years? The ​answer is simple: it's not profitable for them. So, they don't care ​about the education of refugees or people in such situations. If you ​go to South Sudan, it's the same, and if you go to Central Europe, ​you'll see that they are creating incredible technology, but not for ​everyone. They are creating technology for Ukrainians because they ​are not really concerned about black people. So being white ​becomes very significant in this society because they don't care ​about Africans, Syrians, and Lebanese people and all those who ​have forcibly migrated and are just there without the right to ​education.

In terms of mental health, there is a major contradiction. Everyone is ​very concerned because students are learning online all the time, ​and it is very common for people to experience mental fatigue, ​including some mental imbalance. And the solution is a million-dollar ​online package to get online mental support. How can this be so ​ridiculous? If a person is experiencing problems because they are ​online all the time, they need to go to their mobile device for support ​instead of going to the doctor, interacting with peers, and going to ​school.

Finally, we assess issues related to online abuse. Let it be clear that ​we are, of course, against any form of online abuse, but we do not ​believe that the solution is to buy more technology. Tracking ​practices of criminals are the responsibility of the government and ​the justice system; that is their role. However, the solution that has ​been presented is the sale of new platforms to teach people not to ​discriminate against others and all these aspects related to ​discrimination, as well as programs to track abusers.

In a nutshell, EdTech companies are private institutions aimed at ​making a profit. An important point to raise is that multinational and ​multilateral organizations, including the World Bank, OECD, and ​UNESCO, are really promoting this business. They are buying this ​technology. They are supporting schools and universities in ​replacing teachers and promoting the replacement of the school ​itself, encouraging multi-million-dollar government contracts with ​major technology companies. This problem is especially significant ​for developing countries with limited budgets to invest in building ​schools and hiring teachers, for instance. These contracts with major ​technology companies compromise already limited resources. The ​problem is that we are only paying these companies that are getting ​rich at the expense of the precariousness of education.

In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that EdTech can be an ​opportunity for the protection of the right to education, but in the ​current trend, all elements of the right to education can be ​compromised if providers capitalize on the right to education. ​Furthermore, there is evidence that major companies do not care ​about people living in refugee settlements where infrastructure is ​destroyed or people with disabilities. They consider this is not ​profitable enough for their business. Given that the goal of ​technology companies is profit, there needs to be social control over ​government contracts with these companies, and students, families, ​communities, schools, universities should truly have a role in ​negotiations. We do not know how the agreements between ​governments and providers will affect sustainable education funding. ​Finally, we need to consider how emerging forms of privatization and ​commercialization are really interacting throughout this process ​worldwide.

ROUND TABLE 1 | REGIONAL LEVEL

Rene Raya | Asia

The South Asia Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education is a regional association of organizations committed to promoting the right to education for all, with a strong focus on gender equity and inclusion. It is located in the Asia-Pacific region and operates in 30 countries across the region, with 20 of these countries having extensive national education coalitions, many of which are members of the Global Campaign for Education.

We are all aware of the massive economic impact of Covid-19, but in the Asia-Pacific, this impact is compounded by wars, armed conflicts, military regimes, repressive regimes, shrinking civic space, and political transitions. This has resulted in historic levels of indebtedness affecting many countries in the Asia-Pacific and represents a significant setback in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), not only because of the pandemic but also influenced by it.

The global response to education during Covid-19 was immediate, with organizations such as UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank forming the Global Education Coalition and promoting distance learning solutions, but with an almost exclusive focus on online platforms, leaving behind non-tech or low-tech solutions for the poorest.

In the Asia-Pacific region, there was also an immediate response to mitigate the impacts of school closures, including remote learning solutions, teacher training for virtual teaching, and financial assistance. However, these online solutions faced significant challenges, exacerbating disparities in digital learning, especially regarding access between urban and rural areas and between genders.

Instead of relying exclusively on online learning modalities, alternative solutions such as self-learning modules, mobile classrooms, teaching packages, and nationally coordinated TV broadcasts proved effective in various regions. These solutions should be complemented with in-person interactions, such as teacher visits and parent meetings, to ensure effective learning.

The accelerated profit-driven digitization of education is a misguided path, and education gaps can be addressed more effectively through other measures that consider factors such as cost, context, coverage, co-creation, civic space, and cyber security. It should be a public effort, publicly funded, and publicly managed, with a focus on equity, gender inclusion, and sustainability.

36

Therefore, investment should prioritize the most marginalized communities and students, with a comprehensive and sustainable approach that includes training for teachers, students, and parents. It is important to consider all these dimensions to ensure fair, inclusive, and climate-friendly digitization of education, especially for the poorest and most excluded.

Nelsy Lizarazo | Latin America

The numbers may vary slightly, but the situation, both in terms of challenges and alternatives, is very similar between Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean, and the same is likely to be the case with Africa. Digitization represents a problem in the education world, in the right to education, and is obviously connected to the intensification of the privatization trend in education through technology corporations and digital platform companies, which, by the way, do not pay taxes in our countries, which is an important detail regarding tax justice.

The Latin American Campaign for the Right to Education (CLADE) summarizes its current actions in three pillars: alliances, narrative building - because we are contesting the meanings of the issue we are addressing - and advocacy. Regarding the first component, we have built many alliances to address the digitization of education. An example of this is the alliance with the Civil Internet Forum, which is an alternative space that operates under the concept of digital justice and has been in existence for ten years. It brings together organizations and collectives from different fields in Latin America, including Clade, Via Campesina, the Transnational Institute of Latin America and the Caribbean, communication groups, and indigenous organizations, all working to defend the Internet as a public right, a common good, and from the perspective of digital sovereignty.

The second component is the construction of new narratives to challenge dominant narratives. CLADE has conducted several studies since 2020 on topics such as privacy, transparency, privatization, and commercialization in education during the pandemic, educational financing and tax justice, digital divides in youth and adult education, among others. This is a theme that has occupied a significant part of our agenda because we see it as the vanguard of the new moment of neoliberalism, privatization, and corporate capture in our education and public education systems, with a special focus on public higher education.

Regarding advocacy, CLADE works to integrate the expansion of connectivity, access, and technology use as part of the human right to education, as well as to separate educational transformation and innovation from technology. Educational innovation is not necessarily related to the quantity of technology in our educational spaces but rather to the approach, critical education, emancipation, and liberation.

Finally, CLADE seeks to strengthen and diversify its actions to promote the development of sovereign and emancipatory technologies, addressing privatization, digital illiteracy, and the naive use of technology. We also plan to participate in regional and global meetings and committees to influence the narrative on digitization, innovation, and educational transformation.

Solange Akpo | African Network Campaign for Education for All

The African Network Campaign for Education for All (ANCEFA) was ​established in 2000 after the World Education Forum in Dakar. We ​facilitate civil society engagement in policy dialogue for achieving ​inclusive and equitable education in Africa. We have 38 national ​education coalitions as members, which means we are present in 38 ​of the 54 African countries with a national-level member. We are ​also members of the Global Campaign for Education and work in ​collaboration with NGOs in the Collective Consultation of NGOs ​Working on Education in the 2030 Agenda. Additionally, we work ​with the African Union, as Africa has two frameworks - Sustainable ​Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) and the Continental Education Strategy ​for Africa. We are promoting both agendas and are governed by a ​board with ten members elected every three years.

In the regional context, we report that in sub-Saharan Africa, we are ​going through a learning crisis, much like many other regions, but in ​our case, the learning crisis is truly acute. We have 98 million ​children and youth excluded from education, which represents one ​in every five children. This gives an idea of the magnitude of the ​issue. Gender inequalities, as in Arab countries, also persist, mainly ​at the secondary and tertiary levels. We need 17 million teachers to ​achieve the universal primary and secondary education development ​goal by 2030. This also gives an idea of the quality of education that ​children are receiving. Educational systems were already weakened ​before the arrival of Covid, weakened by austerity policies, poverty, ​but also by terrorist attacks. These systems had to face the drastic ​consequences of Covid and school closures.

Furthermore, marginalized populations in African countries often ​face exclusion and limited access to information and communication ​technologies. The education system does not fully meet their needs. ​Internet penetration in Africa stands at approximately 590 million ​users as of May 2022, equivalent to 43% of the total population[45]. ​However, digitization was presented as an instrument that could ​strengthen the existing education system to make it more equitable ​and effective in upholding the right to education. It was said to have ​the potential to minimize the impact of Covid and ensure the ​continuity of learning. This diagnosis was made in 2020 and ​discussed at the African Union level with education ministers and ​other stakeholders.

Private companies, when we talk about privatization in the ​education sector, became very prominent in the 1980s. This ​happened to mitigate budgetary crises, and as a result, countries ​drastically reduced their investments in education and health ​sectors. However, the population continued to grow, so there was a ​need to cater to this population growth. Private actors began to ​engage in the sector. Policymakers created a flexible legal ​framework for private service providers, including local communities, ​which also established schools. So, it wasn't just the private sector, ​but also local communities. The expansion of EdTech solutions in the ​education system during Covid opened doors to a multitude of ​private actors who are setting the agenda. This is becoming a ​problem. Providing services is one thing, but defining the agenda of ​how schools or our education should be, that's a challenge we have ​to face. They talk about innovative ways of teaching, mainly ​technology-centered. This trend was led by multilateral ​organizations such as the World Bank, UNESCO, and others, who ​tried to increase the role of the private sector in defining the ​education agenda and governance.

The sub-Saharan African region has the highest proportion of ​children who could not be reached when schools closed for a year or ​more during the Covid-19 pandemic, representing 82% of students ​without access to the internet and 89% without access to computers ​at home. Online learning platforms and technological solutions ​provided by private companies did not work for most students who ​lacked the necessary environment, including equipment, electricity, ​support, and guidance from parents. We also need to talk about ​parental support. Many countries have high rates of illiteracy, so ​parents have limitations in how they can support their children.

The disruption of classes further exacerbated existing disparities in ​the education system but also in other aspects of their lives, with ​girls disproportionately affected, at risk of never returning to the ​classroom, and even being forced into child marriage. In Malawi ​alone, 25,000 child marriages were reported between the first and ​second wave of Covid-19, according to UNICEF. Many students and ​teachers in public schools in rural and remote areas were left behind ​without training and support for the transition to digital education, as ​evidenced by a UNICEF survey conducted in 15 countries in 2021.

As a strategy, we use evidence-based advocacy to promote the ​right to education for all and education as a public good. We ​organize webinars with our members and partners and discuss the ​data collection we conduct to assess the situation on the ground and ​advocate for the right to education. One of the key findings was that ​low-tech solutions, as in the case of Asia, were used instead of high-​tech solutions. TV, radio, and even WhatsApp were used to share ​educational content, but feedback was not present.

We also participate in the global mobilization against privatization ​and the use of education as a commodity. The Abidjan Principles and ​the francophone call against education privatization and the ​regulation of private actors are examples. We also support the work ​that the Global Campaign for Education is doing in selected African ​countries to ensure that digital solutions are inclusive, accessible, ​and that content and context respect the rights of all students to ​quality education, localizing the solution for ownership and ​sustainability.

The DOTSS Framework (Digital connectivity, Online and offline ​learning, Teachers as facilitators and motivators of learning, Online ​and school safety, and Skill-focused learning) is a framework that ​the African Union has developed to ensure that the digitization of ​education meets the needs of students. This requires schools to be ​connected and able to provide online learning. Additionally, teachers ​and caregivers must be facilitators and motivators for this online ​learning, also ensuring online and offline safety, with a focus on ​learning skills.

In terms of strategy, ANCEFA and its members are also engaged in ​monitoring the commitments made by African governments. They ​hold an event in Africa and assess the progress, challenges, barriers, ​and mitigation factors regarding the commitment. This is done ​annually for SDG 4, but also to advance the decolonization of ​education financing because we believe that only increased ​investment in education through domestic financing can help African ​countries address structural challenges in the education sector ​regarding privatization and digitization.

Therefore, we call for increased domestic spending on education ​and health. We say we should not compete but work together to ​cater to all social sectors, committing to a tax-to-GDP ratio, ​ambitious and progressive fiscal reforms. It is well known that Africa ​loses a lot of money, about $80 billion per year, in illicit financial ​flows. So, that money needs to come back to the continent and ​finance education and other social sectors. We need to revisit and ​address the debt dilemma, as many of our countries are in debt ​situations. They are so heavily indebted that sometimes they pay ​more for debt servicing than for the education sector. Finally, we ​want to promote access to information, ensuring that public goods ​remain accessible, and we also seek the decolonization of education ​financing. We want to decolonize education as a whole. We want to ​reclaim our narrative about what kind of education we want, what ​values we want to promote, autonomy, and critical thinking. And we ​want to deconstruct and unveil the colonial aspect of our society.

Rui da Silva | Portuguese-Speaking Countries

In the field of global education governance and the impact of digitization and privatization, empirical work remains very limited. We still know very little about it, both in Portuguese-speaking countries and in the rest of the world. In this sense, the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) continues to be very important because virtually all eligible sub-Saharan African countries receive financial support from the GPE. However, to receive these resources, the national-level education governance structure has to meet a series of requirements. Countries are obliged to establish so-called local education groups where all education stakeholders come together to decide on the country's policies and priorities.

Regarding the Portuguese-speaking African countries, they all entered this partnership at different times. Not by chance, Angola was the last country to join in 2002 when the civil war ended and they were making peace agreements during international negotiations; the country had high negotiating power. Therefore, Angola rejected the IMF's conditions for providing loans and secured loans from China in exchange for other counterparts, meaning there was an alternative to the IMF, which we don't classify as worse or better in this case, but Angola found an alternative.

In the historical context of each country, geopolitical importance exists. Just as there are differences among countries in the Global South, there are also differences among Northern countries. Within the framework of African countries that were colonized, differences related to language, for example, also exist. In this sense, the negotiation power is different inside the instances of global governance. For example, Guinea-Bissau has the Sectoral Education Plan, which is a mandatory document to submit to the Global Partnership for Education in French, which is not the official language of the country. Mozambique and Angola have the sectoral plan in Portuguese.

There is a discourse and belief that the private sector supports the GPE as a fund, but we don't see this trend in financial reports. When we read financial reports, we see that companies like Microsoft, for example, supported, but this support was provided through the free provision of products like software to countries along with technical support. However, when the free license expires, continuing to use it requires payment, and the way this will be done is not clear, in addition to not knowing how this dynamic affects the right to education.

The reality in Portugal is very different from that in African countries. The Portuguese state bought Microsoft licenses for all public school students along with laptops. Although they did not reach all students in time during the pandemic, at this moment, all children in Portugal's public education have access to a computer and Microsoft's educational account.

In the case of Guinea-Bissau, the solutions implemented during the pandemic to ensure education during school closures were low-tech and funded by the GPE, involving the production of educational programs on radio and TV, as well as the creation of a YouTube channel. All of this in regions where there is sometimes no electricity. The country also had an emergency fund to develop a contingency plan, with decisions under the responsibility of local education groups. Part of this fund was used to pay teachers' salaries. In other words, the decisions made are not necessarily imposed from outside. However, we know that at this moment, in most African countries, UNICEF or the World Bank lead the local education groups.

In the recent past, UNICEF published a report on the problem of teacher absenteeism in Guinea-Bissau. The conclusion of the report was that the cause of absenteeism was strikes, but they did not mention the fact that strikes were happening because of lack of salaries and working conditions. The solution proposed by the report to combat absenteeism was to implement a fingerprint system to mark attendance in public schools, all in a context where there are schools that don't even have desks for students.

Another solution proposed in Guinea-Bissau to resume school after the Covid-19 pandemic is based on bank loans. However, the loan conditions dictate that this solution only serves a minority. But it is interesting to note the aesthetic similarity found between the billboards spread across the country offering bank loans for education and the images from UNICEF's back-to-school campaigns.

It's important to emphasize that Africa is a very diverse continent. For example, Kenya produces technology and software. It's a completely different reality from that of Guinea-Bissau, in terms of technology penetration and internet access. South Africa also presents a stark difference from other countries, mainly in West Africa, and most countries that receive support from the Global Partnership for Education.

ROUND TABLE 2 | NATIONAL LEVEL

Isabel da Silva | Mozambique

The Education for All Movement (MEPT) in Mozambique emerged in the same context as other African networks. In the specific case of Mozambique, civil society, in coordination with the government, was discussing the state of education, which unfortunately was not yielding satisfactory results. This coincided with the Dakar World Education Summit, where it was recommended that countries should be properly organized to interact better with the education sector. Until that moment, African organizations were working on advocacy but did not have an organization that could serve as an intermediary and facilitate dialogue between the government and civil society. In this context, MEPT was established, which is the national advocacy network for the right to education in Mozambique.

Over the past 20 years of the network's existence, we have gathered 130 members and achieved a memorandum of understanding that legitimizes our participation in political dialogue with the government. Previously, only cooperation partners had a permanent space for this dialogue, with the involvement or participation of the Education for All network.

Regarding actions against the privatization of education, the Principles of Abidjan disseminate and compile existing provisions in International Human Rights Law. These principles also provide guidance on how to implement them in the context of the rapid expansion of private sector involvement in education.

In Mozambique, after gaining independence in 1975, the government prohibited all non-state participation in education. This meant that all basic education services were provided by the government, and there was no private participation. The government was the sole provider of basic education services. Unfortunately, the country entered a civil war, and with the end of these conflicts, the problems of education privatization began. This was the time when the country opened itself to the involvement of large international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. Both institutions started operating in the country's education sector with a series of requirements that the country had to follow to access funding and ensure investments in education.

As a result, the current political environment encourages private sector participation in education, reflecting the country's long-term vision for development. This vision is detailed in the strategic plan for the sector, with goals for the private sector and the establishment of public-private partnerships aimed at ensuring the provision and financing of secondary education as determined by the 2012 Education Strategic Plan. The National Education System Law of 2014 also outlines the involvement of the private sector. These instruments establish the legal framework for government oversight of private education providers, but the mechanisms to achieve this need further investigation.

In Mozambique, there are two levels of private schools: for-profit private schools and community schools. It's important to note that there are significant differences between these two levels of schools. For-profit private schools are oriented towards profit and are considered elite services, where the children of government officials and those with better financial conditions typically study. On the other hand, community schools, often managed by churches, are aimed at more marginalized groups who do not have the means to access education. In this case, there are differences in terms of fees, with some community schools offering free access, while others charge fees.

Regarding access, the country has good instruments, such as the Education Strategic Plan, an inclusive education and child development strategy, and the National Education System Law No. 18/2018. This law, in particular, is current and was revised. One of the changes it introduced in terms of access and free education was the extension of free education to the ninth grade, compared to the previous law which covered only up to the sixth grade. While we recognize this as an important step taken by the government, we emphasize the importance of making all primary and secondary education free and compulsory, as established in the Principles of Abidjan.

Despite the legal framework, there are still discrepancies that hinder access for certain groups. Girls, in particular, face many limitations in ensuring access to education. Additionally, factors like lack of infrastructure and education-related costs affect students' access. Even though the law guarantees free education up to the ninth grade, in practice, there are still some costs associated with education that children or parents are required to pay. In Mozambique, parents are required to pay fees and purchase uniforms for girls, as well as sanitary pads. Everyone must cover their own school transportation costs. In other words, despite the law presenting education as public and free, it comes with costs that disadvantage vulnerable populations and deny them access. In the case of children with disabilities, we see even greater disparities.

Considering the education system as a whole, there are also disparities between public and fee-charging private schools in terms of access. Moreover, the farther a child is from urban centers, the more challenging it becomes to access education. This is why many children in remote communities and villages do not have access to education. Given the prevailing poverty in the country, it is also common for parents to prioritize income-generating activities for their children, postponing their education. This is the case in regions with mining activities where children engage in artisanal mining and may find gold.

Data on education funding are difficult to obtain. Therefore, understanding how financing works and the rules for public-private partnerships is challenging. We know that sometimes the government itself funds the private sector, but we cannot obtain concrete data on this matter. In this regard, there are also obstacles to monitoring by civil society, which sometimes relies on international institutions to obtain data from the country itself, such as the study on education privatization produced by MEPT in partnership with ActionAid and facilitated by ActionAid's international influence.

In Mozambique, education is largely funded through cooperation partnerships. There is no funding from internal resources to support education development or investment. As we know, these partners make demands in exchange for providing funds, which we are compelled to accept to secure the money.

Regarding the direct involvement of the private sector in education, we can say that it is small if we consider only the low percentage of private schools in the country, which is less than 5%. However, it is impossible to measure the impact of these 5% on education due to a lack of transparency regarding how the government monitors these schools and allocates resources.

Regarding the issues of privatization and digitalization of education, there are no differences between Mozambique and other countries at the global level. The Covid-19 pandemic accelerated the digitization of education, and as a result, the entire education system and the way children studied were changed. Access inequalities deepened, not only in the public education sector but also in comparison to private schools. According to the National Institute of Statistics (INE), only 6.6% of Mozambique's population has access to a computer, tablet, or cellphone, and only 4.4% of the population uses the internet.

A survey conducted by MEPT in 78 schools (57 primary and 21 secondary) showed that 87.2% of these schools do not have computer labs, and 47.6% do not even have a single computer. Many of the schools that do have computers use them primarily for administrative rather than pedagogical purposes, even in schools that implemented distance learning for secondary education. Among the small fraction with computer labs, private schools are predominant.

Given the significant inequality between public and private schools and the fact that the children of education officials attend private schools, the former rector of one of Mozambique's largest universities suggested in an interview that the problem of poor quality in public schools could be solved if there were a law requiring the children of officials to attend public schools. This would certainly force the government to pay more attention to the services provided in public education.

Governments must provide high-quality free public education to the best of their ability in line with their human rights obligations. This requires a review of laws, policies, and educational plans, paying attention to the entire system, including funding arrangements, school provision, and teacher knowledge and skills related to non-discrimination.

To ensure that there is a sustainable and sufficient revenue to adequately finance nine years of quality free education for all children, efficient collection of progressive forms of taxation and combating tax evasion and avoidance, such as deferred agreements for large multinational corporations, is required. When we talk about tax justice, we understand that there must be a very clear law obligating multinational corporations to invest in the education sector because there is a significant tax exemption that does not

benefit the community in any way. No tax incentives should be provided until the gaps in education financing are bridged.

Diego Parra | Chile

Chile, when invited to speak in other spaces like this, is often not to discuss necessarily positive aspects, especially when it comes to the right to education. In Chile, the right to education is not guaranteed in the Constitution. While it is mentioned in the text, there is no constitutional guarantee. Therefore, advocating for this right is always a challenge.

The privatization process of Chilean education is intrinsically linked to the military dictatorship. On September 11, 1973, the day the Unified National School Education project was to be promulgated, the military coup occurred, which now marks its 50th anniversary. This project included a series of experimental educational initiatives and the construction of a public education system in Chile. What was implemented thereafter followed a neoliberal logic, a market-driven approach to various aspects of social rights in Chile, not only in education but also in health, housing, employment, and other social rights. Individual rights prevailed in our country.

In Chile, we have had two types of education privatization: exogenous or classical, which we consider as part of the first phase in the 1980s, and then what we call the disguised privatization process that has been happening since 2006. However, privatization was not instituted in the Constitution that is still in force in the country. The current process of constructing a new Constitution, unfortunately, subordinates the right to education to the freedom of teaching, understood primarily as the freedom to open, organize, and maintain educational establishments. There is, therefore, no right to education with constitutional guarantees. Consequently, to defend the right to education, the last resort is to turn to international courts.

The absence of a guarantee of the right to education in the Chilean Constitution means that students can be expelled, and teachers can be dismissed without it being considered a violation of the Constitution, because what prevails is the freedom of teaching. It is also important to mention that the side effects of this are related to a management model based mainly on a system of public and private owners, where the concept of "owner" can be translated into other educational systems as "educational providers." The most significant impact of these owners is that they practically own the schools, kindergartens, and universities, but they are funded by the state. Despite the irregularity in essence, they are the owners in practice, as they have influence not only in management but also in administration and even in the fate of students and, eventually, teachers, including the content taught in these educational institutions.

There is a third important element that is crucial to understanding classical privatization, which is the funding model. We have a voucher system primarily given directly to school owners and not necessarily to families. This is a problematic funding model because it is subject to enrollment and retention, meaning that public schools compete with private schools to attract enrollments. This was advocated by economists in the 1980s as a way to improve learning outcomes, which has not been proven in any study to date.

This model also applies to higher education, with other elements such as the free education, which was promoted from 2014 and can be funded by various sources, in addition to a targeted financing policy. In general terms, this privatization process focuses on a regulatory framework, a funding model, and a management model. This has resulted in an increase in private schools and universities at the expense of public institutions and has promoted unequal competition between public and private sectors, resulting in high socio-educational segregation.

Such inequality has been noted by international organizations, primarily the OECD, which in two reports in 2004 and 2017 warned Chile to modify market regulation affecting the country's educational and cultural system. Currently, about 34% of enrollments are in public schools in secondary and primary education, while approximately 85% of enrollments in higher education are linked to the private sector.

Regarding what we call disguised privatization or endogenous privatization, the mechanism involves introducing a private sector culture mainly into the public education system, which we consider of greater concern and needing further analysis. Currently, we have a series of waves of educational reform that occurred after the dictatorial governments, with various reforms related to the demands of social movements. The waves between 2006 and 2011 are related to the first student mobilization of the time and received a response from the governments, and this is where we began to see the influence of private actors.

The private sector has participated in technical discussions on the subject and in the construction of legislative initiatives. The proposals in this first wave of mobilization mainly revolved around a rhetoric of quality, which was promoted as the main response to the educational crisis raised by secondary students. From 2015 to the present, we can observe a second response to the mobilizations that occurred from 2011. In this second moment, the model continued to be refined, and, among other things, structures like the Education Superintendent, the Education Quality Agency, and the National Accreditation Commission were created. Three major laws were passed to strengthen the public education system: the 2015 Inclusive Education Law, the 2016 Teacher Professional Development System Law, and the 2017 New Public Education System Law.

Analyzing the details of what these laws promoted in general, it is possible to identify that the Inclusive Education Law, which aimed to stop profit in education, student selection, and parent payments, resulted in families having to pay monthly fees. Furthermore, private state funding continued in some subsidized private schools that continued to charge families. The student selection process has not been adequately supervised in subsidized private schools. Additionally, the Teacher Professional Development System Law introduced several teacher assessments as a form of control and promoted educational management practices. The new Public Education System Law, in turn, was not an effective response, as it faced several institutional barriers, such as the transfer of schools from municipalities to 70 new local education services. This process faced bureaucratic problems and lacked teacher participation. In general terms, privatization today focuses on a regulatory framework, funding model, and management model, and these are the fundamental elements. They reflect current conditions.

In general terms, privatization today focuses on a regulatory framework, funding model, and management model, and these are the fundamental elements. They reflect current conditions.This is relevant because the service is not of good quality and mainly aims to increase the number of beneficiaries at the lowest possible cost. The competition process for cost reduction among companies selected only the large companies, which became the sole providers of the service. In this context, a community experimental project that provided food to many people in Chile was eliminated.

Another important aspect is that of textbook publishers. Since the 1980s, there has been a strong presence of publishers, mainly Editorial Santillana in conjunction with the SM Foundation, which is also a Spanish entity. They have high control over textbooks in the country. During the pandemic, there was a reinforcement of the relationship with Microsoft, and an unprecedented agreement was reached between them in 2020. Therefore, the pandemic exacerbated the existing gaps in our education system.

Finally, there was the constitutional process between 2020 and 2022 following the popular uprising in 2019. This process resulted in an agreement for a new Constitution, which includes elements such as free choice and the maintenance of the mixed supply at the expense of the right to education. In Chile, there is a significant corporate power that has influenced the country's educational agenda over the years, promoting privatization. It is important to consider how we can stop this right-wing agenda and strengthen public education in our context. These are essential questions that deserve attention. In an adverse scenario, it is important to consider how we want to shape the future of education in our country. Therefore, promoting truly democratic and inclusive public education should be a priority. For this, we also rely on regional and international support to combat this right-wing agenda.

Daniel Cara | Brazil

This week, the results of the Brazilian Campaign for the Right to ​Education efforts against privatization through digitization became ​evident, with the publication of an article in the O Estado de S. Paulo ​newspaper, spearheaded by Andressa Pellanda, the Campaign's ​general coordinator. As a consequence, the Minister of Education ​was summoned by President Lula this morning to explain the ​presence of MegaEdu, an NGO linked to Jorge Paulo Lemann, in the ​$6.6 billion school digitization project [Connected Schools]. During ​the transitional government, the estimated cost for this project was ​$3.8 billion. The Institute of Applied Economic Research (Ipea) ​calculated the budget for this project at $3.7 billion. So far, there has ​been no justification for this significant budget increase for the ​program.

To understand how global governance and digitization have become ​new drivers for privatization, it is essential to grasp the relationship ​between the economy and the right to education. This relationship is ​always tense but indispensable to be addressed, as it is part of the ​global tradition of how the right to education is realized, ​representing the areas of tension that we, in the field of education, ​need to resolve immediately for our sector to establish itself ​effectively.

It's not possible to say that the global discussion of the right to ​education has a very long history. We can start discussing the ​concept of the right to education, not yet in the form of a right but as ​a demand. Since ancient times, or through revolutionary processes ​such as the Glorious Revolution in England and more strongly the ​French Revolution, the right to education has been treated as the ​right to instruction and as a fundamental demand and revolutionary ​strategy, as seen in the unification of France.

The right to education has a long history, but in global terms, it can ​be said that it was established in the Universal Declaration of Human ​Rights in 1948 and is part of the United Nations system. In terms of ​global governance, UNESCO is the United Nations agency ​responsible for the right to education.

UNESCO emerged in 1945, and the right to education started to be ​challenged by two other international organizations, one very ​strongly and the other more recently. The World Bank, established in ​1944 as a Keynesian mechanism for global development financing, ​played a significant role. Simultaneously, the OECD, founded in 1948 ​alongside the Marshall Plan in the European context, also became ​influential. Despite all the work by UNESCO, both the World Bank ​and the OECD, from the very beginning, treated education as a ​priority issue within the economic debate, based on the theory of ​human capital as the fourth factor of production, with land, labor, ​and capital being the first three.

For us educators, the theory of human capital is troublesome ​because it turns education, which is a right, into an economic factor ​for workforce qualification. However, the argument that education is ​essential for generating economic growth must be used when ​convincing lawmakers and ministers about the importance of ​investing in education. Although economics should not precede ​politics, it cannot be denied that the education debate also ​intersects with economic discussions.

The theory of human capital is a neoclassical theory with a liberal ​character that heavily influences the way governments plan ​education from 1945 to the 1980s, suggesting that investing in ​education is essential for generating economic growth. In this ​context, education is not treated as a right but as part of the ​economic process.

With the military coup and the establishment of Pinochet's ​dictatorship in Chile in 1973, neoliberal theory had been materialized ​and became the dominant global ideology. However, it is not just an ​economic model; it is also organized in terms of moral philosophy. ​Neoliberalism emerged as a form of social organization and it ​became necessary to create the neoliberal model through education. ​Chile certainly made a central contribution in this regard because the ​Pinochet government was the most advanced in building ​neoliberalism.

However, the biggest influence in Brazil came from economic ​reforms in the United States. The first of these reforms, known as "A ​Nation at Risk," is entirely contradictory because it was created by ​15 individuals, including only one educator and one teacher trainer. ​An economic reform that disregards the teacher training process ​and what happens in the classroom has no chance of succeeding. It ​is evident that the goal was not to carry out an educational or ​pedagogical reform. The goal was to contain investment in education ​because at that time, when the theory of human capital was the ​reference for economic investment in education, the U.S. was ​investing slightly over 7% of its GDP in education, and this needed to ​be curtailed as a neoliberal precept.

Eric Hanushek, who leads economic education reforms in the United ​States, was the first, along with his group, to build a very solid ​formulation of using large-scale assessments as the reference for ​educational policy.

Among educators, it will be said that this is an unfortunate idea, and ​indeed it is. The process of creating assessments requires ​understanding the basics of student learning and including what is ​considered essential for them to retain. Good performance on a test ​does not necessarily mean that a student is the best in the class. ​Often, the best student is the most creative one, meaning the one ​with the greatest capacity to create.

The Economic Panel on Education raises some important issues. ​First, learning must be tested through large-scale assessments. ​Second, teachers' pay should be based on their performance, with ​their performance assessed based on students' outcomes. Third, the ​curriculum policy. The United States had the richest curriculum in the ​world at that time and inspired many educational reformers. ​However, the vision developed in the United States in the 1970s ​occurred at a time when both the World Bank and the OECD had ​already embraced the neoliberal agenda, and from then on, the ​neoliberal agenda was affirmed within the OECD with the ​establishment of PISA.

In the Brazilian context, PISA is concerning because of the message ​it conveys, suggesting that quality equals retention, which is the ​persistence and completion of students in basic education and ​learning in large-scale assessments. This is what defines the OECD's ​approach, and today, it significantly constrains education policies in ​Brazil, to the point where we have the reform of high school ​education. This reform is entirely aimed at the goal of the Michel ​Temer government to achieve better results in PISA, as explicitly ​stated by Maria Helena Guimarães de Castro, Minister in Temer's ​government, during the first public hearing on the high school ​reform.

The test itself is the least of the problems. The problem is modeling ​the entire education system to only respond to the test and ​forgetting that the purpose of education, both in the Universal ​Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the Federative ​Republic of Brazil, is the full development of the individual. This ​concept can be found in various countries. The objective must never ​be economic, even though the consequence of the full development ​of individuals is to generate better conditions for performing work.

Before the 1988 Constitution, and more so during its drafting, ​neoliberalism was established as an economic model, and the ​Constitution emerged with this characteristic, creating space and ​opportunities for the struggle for the right to education. Only in ​recent times the Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education ​directly participated in the approval of the first Fundeb in 2008, ​which revolutionized education financing, the Teacher's Minimum ​Salary Law in 2009, the University Quota Law in 2012, the National ​Education Plan in 2014 with 10% of GDP for education, the approval ​of Constitutional Amendment 108/2020, which constitutionalizes ​Fundeb, among many others.

The text of SDG 4 promotes social well-being and affirms the right to ​education, which must be free and require increased investment in ​education, amounting to at least 6% of GDP. However, within the ​SDG 4 text is the link between the quality of education and large-​scale assessments. This is a contradiction that we experience in ​nation-states today, and it is a global contradiction. It is necessary to ​rebuild the agenda for the right to education, emphasizing the right ​as it is inscribed in Article 26. However, we must also have the ​capacity to return to the perspective of national planning.

Brazil will conclude the National Education Plan in 2024, and it is one ​of the most ambitious national education plans in the world. ​However, only 15% of its provisions have been fulfilled, according to ​an assessment by the Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education. ​The government does not acknowledge this failure for obvious ​reasons. Therefore, without losing sight of the centrality of the right ​to education, we cannot forget the fact that the education ​discussion must be linked to a development project, which presents ​a greater challenge.

A development project must consider sustainability and truly be a ​socially just development project.

Sustainability, in terms of the environment, in the Brazilian context, ​and social justice must encompass racial justice and, centrally, ​gender justice. Based on this, we need to build an education project ​that also contributes to the need for economic growth for one basic ​reason: the average income in Brazil is insufficient to meet a citizen's ​basic needs.

There is an international reality that constrains the national reality, ​but we need to understand the role of each. In this sense, we need ​to have the capacity to assert a new agenda for the right to ​education, one that comprehends the need for discussing strategic ​policy. However, the education policy in Brazil is managed by ​everyone except those who understand education. This happens ​because it has costs and requires a national project. We need to ​fight for an education policy managed by educators, with a genuine ​understanding of educational sciences, and an education policy that ​has the ability to shape the economy and create an economy that ​serves the people rather than the people serving the economy.

CLOSING REMARKS

Andressa Pellanda | General Coordinator of the Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for this final session, which was of great importance in terms of international relations, even though we discussed domestic matters, as this is an incredibly vital topic for international relations, education, and the right to education. I also extend my thanks to all the invited participants who traveled long distances for this event, those who joined us online, some of whom were in different time zones, and those who contributed with questions and insights. In the online chat, we had representation from several Brazilian states, including Mato Grosso, Piauí, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Norte, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, Bahia, Maranhão, São Paulo, Goiás, and Santa Catarina, which adds up to 12 out of 27 states in Brazil. We also had participants from various countries, with a strong presence from African and Latin American nations.

I'd like to thank Gonzalo Berrón for his efforts in making this seminar happen, bringing together academia and activism to explore how research can collaborate with our political advocacy work and vice versa. I appreciate Rui da Silva for his contributions, both in planning this seminar, which was originally intended to take place in Portugal, and for his perspective on global education from Africa, Europe, and now Latin America. Of course, I am grateful to the Faculty of Education and Professor Carlota Boto. I also thank the director of the IRI, Professor Pedro Dallari, for the support throughout this process, despite the strikes, instabilities, and challenges that often affect universities. I extend my gratitude to my advisor, Professor Cristiane Carneiro, who has always provided unwavering support for all ideas and for this seminar that we carefully planned together, from the names to the debates, timing, and spaces. Lastly, I thank the entire team of the Campaign, who helped create the structures for this event to take place, including our interpreters and the IRI team dedicated to this event.

What we discussed here will continue in our individual and collective actions. We talked extensively about education, economics, politics, international relations, and various intersectoral aspects. We discussed the complex of regimes at the heart of my research, as well as the climate regime, humanitarian regime, security regime, development regime, and human rights regime. We examined the global, regional, and national levels, delving into the intricate institutional complexities inherent in the multistakeholder process.

We discussed networks of actors, conflicts, and issues between the public and private sectors, as well as the digitization and new ways in which digitization is changing the way we perceive the world. We brought together academia and activism in this ongoing cycle of reflection and action.

To conclude, I'd like to share a passage from Paulo Freire's book, "The Importance of Reading." Two excerpts from this book are highly relevant to what we have done in this seminar and something we can continue to do:

I agreed to come here to talk about the importance of reading. It seems essential, while discussing this importance, to say something about the very moment I was preparing to be here today, about the process I engaged in as I wrote the text I am now reading. A process that involved a critical understanding of the act of reading, which does not end in the pure decoding of written words or written language but rather anticipates and extends into an understanding of the world. The reading of the world always precedes the reading of the word. Therefore, subsequent reading of the word cannot dispense with the continued reading of the world. Language and reality are intended dynamically, [just as academia and activism are intended dynamically]. The comprehension of the text to be achieved through critical reading implies the perception of the relationships between the text and the context.

I would like to return to this, as it is significant for the critical understanding of the act of reading and, consequently, for the proposal of literacy to which I have dedicated myself. I am referring to the fact that the reading of the world always precedes the reading of the word and that the latter implies the continuation of the former. In the proposal I mentioned, in this interplay, this movement from the world to the word and back is always present. It is a movement in which the spoken word flows into the world through the reading we make of it. In some way, however, we can go further and say that the reading of the word is not only preceded by the reading of the world but also leads to a certain way of writing it or rewriting it, that is, of transforming it through our conscious practice.

So, I believe this is the invitation that remains: how do we rewrite the world in the face of a digital context and amid the various and multiple crises we are experiencing? In this seminar, we had many ideas, some revolutionary and others less so, but we will certainly carry them into theses, research, and our daily lives. Thank you very much to everyone here for making this moment possible.

1 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjqeihyyk5t7IIj5DYB44fY3OMxPoNiIH

2 https://jornal.usp.br/radio-usp/retorno-dos-eua-a-unesco-reforca-multilateralismo/

3 https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/lula-abriu-governo-para-ong-ligada-a-lemann-influenciar-decisoes-de-r-66-bi-na educacao/

4 Adamson, F.; Astrand, B.; Darling-Hammond, L. (2016) Global Education Reform: How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Education Outcomes. Routledge

5 Verger, A.; Moschetti, M.; Fontdevila, C. (2020). How and why policy design matters: understanding the diverging effects of public-private partnerships in education. Comparative Education, 56(4):1-26.

6 Ball, S.; Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. The Policy Press.

7 Heilig, J.; Brewer, T.; Adamson, F. (2019). The Politics of Market-Based School Choice Research: A Comingling of Ideology, Methods and Funding. IN: M. Berends, A. Primus, and M. Springer (Eds.). Handbook of Research on School Choice (2nd Edition). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

8 https://www.abidjanprinciples.org/

9 https://www.right-to-education.org/news/public-education-works-new-research-supports-strengthening-public-educa tion-systems-globally

10 Harris Gleckman (2018). Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge. Routledge.

11 Manahan, M. A. M. and Kumar, M. (2021) The Great Takeover: mapping of multistakeholderism in global governance. People’s Working Group on Multistakeholderism.

12 https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2022-06-11

13 https://cgi.br/publicacoes/indice/

14 https://www.unesco.org/pt/articles/lancamento-global-do-relatorio-gem-2023-sobre-tecnologia-e-educacao-em-mon tevideu

15 https://www.cartografiasdainternet.org/

16 TIC Domicílios 2023

17 https://educacaovigiada.org.br/

18 https://zenodo.org/record/4005013

19 https://zenodo.org/record/7718863

20 https://internetlab.org.br/pt/noticias/em-novo-relatorio-internetlab-mapeia-o-uso-de-reconhecimento-facial-em-escol as-publicas-brasileiras/

21 Ron Balsera, M (2022) Adequate Resourcing Is Needed For States To Fulfil Human Rights Obligations https://www.ukfiet.org/2022/adequate-resourcing-is-needed-for-states-to-fulfil-human-rights-obligations/22 https://taxjustice.net/reports/the-state-of-tax-justice-2023/

23 https://report.educationcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Domestic-Tax-and-Eduction.pdf

24 TJN (2023) The State of Tax Justice 2023

https://taxjustice.net/reports/the-state-of-tax-justice-2023/#:~:text=Countries%20are%20on%20course%20to%20los e%20nearly%20US%245%20trillion,worldwide%20spending%20on%20public%20health

25 Idem.

26 Ortiz, I and Cummings, M (2022) End Austerity: A Global Report on Budget Cuts and Harmful Social Reforms in 2022-25 https://www.eurodad.org/end_austerity_a_global_report

27 Ron Balsera, M (2021) Why Progressive Taxation Reform Should Replace Increased Debt, Loans Or Vat During The Covid Recovery?

28 https://actionaid.org/sites/default/files/publications/The%20Care%20Contradiction%20-%20The%20IMF%20Gender %20and%20Austerity.pdf

29https://assets.nationbuilder.com/eurodad/pages/3039/attachments/original/1664184957/Brief_Alternatives_Austeri ty_24_Sep.pdf

30 https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/ShowRessource.action?id=55694

31 https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/avert-developing-economy-debt-crisis-using-sdrs-by-xu-qiyuan-and wan-tailei-2022-08

32 Ortiz e Cummings (2022)

33 Actionaid, (2022) Education vs Austerity

https://actionaid.org/sites/default/files/publications/Education_vs_austerity_English_online_2.pdf

34 TaxEd Alliance, 2023

35 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jid.1769?casa_token=xPidytxZErUAAAAA%3ADaLA4Va6QYN1sq05fT YVLGW-YaqweT35I9rChciOWFaZ7vfgxmPfLHsRmUTDcA7LkJQWsU27swiRPPzR

36 https://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/kenya-bridge-international-academies-04kenya

37 https://world-education-blog.org/2022/04/15/the-world-bank-delivers-a-blow-to-commercial-practices-in-education/

38 Ron Balsera, M (2022b) Achieving education for all through standards, not standardisation https://world-education-blog.org/2022/10/10/achieving-education-for-all-through-standards-not-standardisation/

39https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-20-2 1_en.pdf

40 https://www.abidjanprinciples.org/

41 https://actionaid.org/publications/2022/taxed-alliance

42 https://actionaid.org/publications/2020/who-cares-future-finance-gender-responsive-public-services

43https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a6e0958f6576ebde0e78c18/t/6153505ef5eab557703ee2ae/16328500255 03/Research+Brief_Public+education+works+Final3.pdf

44 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.locale=en

45 https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm

FULL VIDEOS

Watch the full videos of the International Seminar

"Global trends in education: the impact of governance structures, privatization and digitalization"

BOOK

Andressa Pellanda and Cristiane Lucena are spearheading the ​organization of a forthcoming book that delves into the ​critical theme of global governance in education within a ​multi-stakeholder context, coupled with the challenges ​posed by the privatization of education.

The compilation boasts an impressive lineup of authors and ​their respective explorations on the subject. From Carlota ​Boto's examination of the current concept and challenges of ​the right to education with a focus on UNESCO's role to other ​contributors like David Archer, who sheds light on the ​Transforming Education Summit and SDG 4, and Priscila ​Gonsales, who delves into the digitalization of education in the ​context of global governance. Gonzalo Berron's chapter tackles ​the overarching theme of global multi-stakeholder governance, ​extending its application to various areas. Luis Eduardo Perez ​Murcia contributes a chapter that explores the strategies ​employed by civil society in response to the global education ​landscape. Maria Ron Balsera's contribution is likely to focus ​on the international landscape of education and the threats ​posed to public services. Her chapter may explore the various ​challenges and risks faced by public education systems ​globally, shedding light on the broader implications of ​privatization and other factors.

Daniel Cara will provide a scrutiny of the right to education in ​Brazil amid the international landscape, the book promises a ​comprehensive understanding of the global education ​scenario. Diego Parra contributes a chapter that focuses on the ​right to education in Chile within the international context. ​Isabel da Silva's chapter is likely to address the right to ​education in Mozambique within the international context. ​Rene Raya's chapter centers around the right to education in ​Asia within the international context. Raya might delve into the ​unique challenges and opportunities faced by Asian countries, ​exploring regional variations in educational policies and their ​alignment with global standards. Roberto Leão's chapter takes ​on the global challenges faced by education workers. This ​could include an examination of issues such as labor rights, ​working conditions, and the broader socio-economic ​challenges impacting educators worldwide.

Collectively, these chapters promise a comprehensive and ​nuanced exploration of the multifaceted issues surrounding ​global governance in education, providing readers with a ​diverse range of perspectives and insights from experts in ​different regions and fields.

CREDITS

Document’s Coordination and Elaboration

Andressa Pellanda

Helena Rodrigues

Communication and Design

Renan Simão

Letícia Terumi

Seminar Organization:

Andressa Pellanda | Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education

and Institute of International Relations of the University of São Paulo (IRI-USP)

Seminar Participants