and starts with the controversy ... few days ago I approached a very controversial article of Dr. Carlevaro, former dean of medicine ... and a few days later, "The Daily", published a timely response from the university teacher Fernando Isabella, transcribe article ...
To see the article by Dr. Carlevaro, please click here .
The government of education V: PERPLEXITIES
on the notes of Dr. Carlevaro
on the notes of Dr. Carlevaro
Dr. Carlevaro calls in his various columns on the autonomy of education or the right of involved self-government without external interference. Who are the stakeholders who have the right to govern? "Teachers and students?" Who are these actors "outside" the education system who want to meddle? Do politicians? "All others who are not teachers or students?. An employee who is not a student or teacher, is it an outsider? Does your desire to participate in decisions that make the governance of education is an intrusion? And a housewife? A pensioner, an unemployed, police? "All these are external agents that have nothing to do with education? Is education only involves teachers and students? All we fund the education system, are we outsiders?
Those in the future send their children to the educational system, which will return to it when they want to deepen their training, all those whose fate is tied to the fate of the country, which in turn is tied to the performance of education systems, ie, all Uruguayans, are outsiders? How do we make all these individuals to participate in the decisions of the education system? Are we a million assemblies? Are we a "comisioncita" of participation? Do we include the other unions in the governance of education? "And also to cooperatives and NGOs and entrepreneurs, and the committees of neighbors and the church ....? What is the role of democratically elected governments? Why are elected? When people choose to support a political project is not directly or indirectly supports an educational project? Why is the influence of the government's view that heads the project elected by the people is a "danger", says Dr Carlevaro? Is it that people are not ready to choose country projects? Should some "enlightened" chosen by the people? Is not that what everyone says dictators?
Why are more legitimate trade union representatives teaching order, elected by a portion of the national teachers' representatives elected by all citizens? Is it that they are more able, because they have "technical competence" says Dr Carlevaro? Is it that only "technically competent" to define the important things? Or that your opinion is worth more than all other citizens together? Is that not called technocracy? Would not it be like then say that a figure so important to the welfare of the population such as the finance minister should be elected from among the "technically competent", say economists society? Or that public safety policies should be resolved by the police? What kind of elitist and undemocratic approach can justify this? How do you call, what color would you give this proposed Carlevaro totalitarianism? What's left? Is it revolutionary?
is true, the political upheavals, changes in the ruling parties will translate then swings in education policy. Is it wrong that when the public makes a change in its bid to draft the country's education system to adapt to that? Is it good that the country made a commitment to a development project and the educational system is designed for a different country? Would not it be undemocratic society makes choices, change their views but these changes of opinion of the "sovereign" are not sovereign in education? And the dynamics of the orders and guilds also imply no evolution of thought, confrontation of ideas and projects so much change? Why is it wrong that the education system to adapt to changes in the projects and ideas of citizenship, but not bad to suit the changes of projects and ideas of the unions?
What guilds no power struggles? Are there no charges desires? Disputes are not given places? In recent years alone, there have been tremendous internal strife in the teachers' union? What about the secondary teachers? Does the process of choosing university president did not involve multiple voting, thousands of meetings, countless "kitchens" and why these disputes are bad and "pollute" the trigger when given to the level of governments and political parties, but not when there are so similar, in guilds? There is not "pollute" their decisions? When the university actors agree that the strikes mean no salary deductions for teachers and officials, are making a selfless decision for the good of education? Is not there selfish interests at stake ?
Moreover, Dr Carlevaro, advocates on one hand the importance of participation and contribution of students and on the other hand, when they apparently do not believe what he believes are accused of being "infiltrators" and "deny themselves." Is that respect for the functioning of student organizations? Is not this another case of "fear of freedom" that he accuses the government? Could it be that students are not able to comment and Dr. Carlevaro must enlighten? In any case raise a flag and student participation to argue a position and then deny such participation when the actors do not believe what you want is not called demagoguery? Is not that one of the "dirty things" that Dr . rejects politicians? Fernando
Isabella University Professor
0 comments:
Post a Comment