View previous stories
	Privatization in education can lead to greater discrimination by Mayra Gomez and Bret Thiele Global Initiative for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights   Privatization in education can lead to greater discrimination, by Mayra Gomez and Bret Thiele.   The right to education guarantees that everyone should enjoy a quality education, free from discrimination and exclusion. This right, as UNESCO has recognized, is “… a powerful tool by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and participate fully as citizens.”   While important progress has been made in ensuring that the right to education is enjoyed by all, today millions of children remain deprived of educational opportunities, and globally the UN estimates that 123 million young people between the ages of 15-24 do not have basic reading and writing skills (61 percent of whom are young women).   Amidst this backdrop of continuing inequality, the global landscape when it comes to education is also rapidly changing. One of the most notable of these changes is the recent trend towards privatization in education in many countries. The detrimental impacts related to private investment in provision of health care, water and sanitation infrastructure, and land, including ‘land-grabbing’, have increasingly been documented in recent years. Privatization of education appears to be the new horizon that profit making investors are rushing into.   This trend is proving to have significant implications for the enjoyment of the human right to education, both in terms of quality and accessibility to education. As the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education highlighted in a recent report about the Millennium Development Goals Post-2015 Framework: “in many parts of the world inequalities in opportunities for education will be exacerbated by the growth of unregulated private providers of education, with wealth or economic status becoming the most important criterion to access a quality education.”   In particular, concern has been raised that privatization in education can lead to greater discrimination and that “marginalised groups fail to enjoy the bulk of the positive impacts and also bear the disproportionate burden of the negative impacts of privatisation [in education].”   Wealth inequalities, between those who can afford to pay for private education providers and those who cannot, but also spatial inequalities, are just reinforced by privatization, further pushing into poverty already vulnerable groups.   Besides, privatization implies that States are no longer themselves providing education to the general public, and instead allow this role to be filled by non-State entities and institutions. However, under the international human rights framework, States are the duty-bearer when it comes to respecting, protecting and fulfilling the right to education, and they must ensure that there is no retrogression when it comes to the advancement and enjoyment of this right.   Besides, privatisation questions and weakens the role of the State in one of the most essential social services, affecting issues from democratic participation to accountability and also impacting many other human rights.   Further discussion and dialogue are needed within international human rights circles to shed light on these issues, and to highlight people’s experiences where privatization in education is taking place. To help advance the discussion, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its partners, with the support of the Privatization in Education Research Initiative have engaged in national and international advocacy on the topic.   http://globalinitiative-escr.org/advocacy/privatization-in-education-research-initiative/   International Trade Partnership threatens public education say Teachers. (Education International)   The European and US member organisations of Education International have joined their voices to those of the AFL-CIO and the European Trade Union Confederation, who have raised concerns about the scope and effects of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is under negotiation currently between representatives of the EU Commission and the US government.   Writing to President Obama and to the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, on behalf of the 15.5 million teachers and education workers collectively represented by the organisations in the United States and the European Union, they called for a Partnership that would ensure the improvement of living and working conditions on both sides of the Atlantic and would not attempt to lower those standards, limit environmental protections or undermine democratic processes.   They expressed their support for quality education for all, and, in that context, stated their concern that the inclusion of “private” adult learning and “other education services” as a subject for TTIP negotiations along with other public services, posed potentially serious risks for educational policy, for public schools and other educational institutions, and for teachers, students and communities in both the EU and the US.   In the letter the organisations argued that commercial trade rules must never restrict the ability of governments and designated public authorities to provide decent jobs and quality public services like education.   They said that, if fully applied to public services like education, the TTIP’s trade rules could severely restrict public policy space and lock-in and intensify the pressures of privatisation and commercialisation. They pointed out that evidence showed that such pressures can have a deleterious effect on the provision of these important services.   “Countries need democratic authority to provide appropriately for public goods like education”, they concluded, and “that the inclusion of education services in these talks will undermine that democratic decision making”. They noted that these concerns explained why education to date remained one of the least-covered sectors in the various trade agreements to which the EU and the US are party.   In the letter the organisations say that, if education was covered in the TTIP, the consequences could be serious. They indicated that rules governing market access could restrict the ability of the US and the EU member states to limit the entry and regulate the quality of private and for-profit schools and institutions. “In such circumstances”, the letter continued, “any measure adopted by a public body to promote high quality standards in licensing and accreditation processes could potentially be interpreted as a ‘disguised barrier to trade’ or ‘more trade burdensome than necessary’.”   “Furthermore, if, as early indications indicate, an investor-state dispute resolution process is part of the TTIP, private education companies from the EU or the US would have the right to challenge, as a violation of the investor’s right to “fair and equitable treatment”, measures adopted by the other party that they feel interferes with their profits”, they said. “If an investor wins such an ISDS case—heard before a panel of private, unaccountable arbitrators, the host state could be liable to hand over countless millions in taxpayer funds”.   They added that this could have a serious chilling impact on democratic decision-making in the sector.   Finally, they welcomed recent efforts to consult with civil society organisations, as the TTIP negotiations progress, but said that they believed that much more should be done to ensure greater transparency. They encouraged the leaders to develop an effective and meaningful consultation process with all affected stakeholders. They said that, in the education sector, this meant ensuring that teacher unions, student organisations, educational authorities, and relevant regulatory bodies were informed and consulted on the talks. http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/news_details/3074 Visit the related web page
	Rana Plaza Victims need Assistance by ActionAid, Human Rights Watch & agencies Bangladesh   Apr 2014   One year after the Bangladesh factory collapse, big companies must make changes that are more than mere window dressing, writes Deborah Doane.   While some measurable progress has been made since the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh a year ago, little within the sector has changed: big western companies continue to call the shots; others fall into line.   In recent months, campaigners have brought several companies to heel, resulting in factory-level improvements and compensation for survivors – yet other companies remain steadfast, as the Guardian has reported, with only a third of the International Labour Organisation-backed fund for victims having been raised. Several Bangladeshi factories have been forced to close for failing to meet health and safety standards, and even with a massive 77% pay rise for staff, such work keeps people only just above the poverty line, at best.   Some, such as the organisers of Fashion Revolution Day, believe the problem lies in how we are connected to our supply chain. This is certainly part of the equation, as are stronger trade unions, which are emerging. But these fail to address the key issue that plagues the industry – power remains in the hands of the big brands which dictate what we wear, how we buy it, how it is made, who gets paid and how much.   Most brands charge the consumer about five times what they pay at factory level. This means that most of the value of production lies not with those who make the goods, but with the brands who package, market and sell them.   Although this structure offers few options, some factory owners are, thankfully, more enlightened. Suvastra in south Bangalore, for instance, pays about 20% more than the local average, recruits from underprivileged areas, and its products are certified as organic and Fairtrade. Raj Lakshmi cotton mills, a garment maker in Calcutta, has given a 10% equity stake in its business along with a seat on the board to Chetna Organic cotton producers, a Fairtrade co-operative in Andhra Pradesh.   But other than a few beacons, the industry has yet to recognise that until value is shared among stakeholders, a tragedy similar in scale to the Rana Plaza could recur – either in Bangladesh or the next country that undercuts labour prices and offers tax incentives to lure business.   Of course, few, if any, in positions of power would want to acknowledge this fact publicly. As one manufacturer admitted on condition of anonymity: "You don"t want your peers to know the good you"re doing because they"ll try to sabotage you."   For the big brands, it seems enough to announce a commitment to workers. But no large brand would declare that its staff should be paid more and its owners less – such an admission would send shareholders walking and stock prices into freefall.   The answer? More attention needs to be paid to the grassroots. Benevolent manufacturers, of whom there are few, have little impact on a multibillion-pound industry characterised by big companies and low-paid work.   One possible solution is that the garment industry attempts to replicate what Amul did in dairy. The Gujurati-based milk co-operative was established in the 1940s in response to the exploitation of Indian producers. Amul"s approach, which revolutionised the industry, has expanded to 3 million producers who co-own the brand. Its milks and cheeses are now ubiquitous across India.   Would it be feasible to employ this model in the garment sector? No-Chains, a co-operative of clothing workers in Argentina and Thailand established in 2009, has tried this, though it remains small.   Ultimately though, a few good gestures are not going to change the rules of the fashion game. Until major players overhaul who gets what share of the pie, big brands will continue to seize the majority of value. A genuine fashion revolution needs to address more than just an awareness of the industry"s problems, it must confront power, ownership and control.   Apr 2014   Bangladesh: Rana Plaza Victims Urgently Need Assistance. (Human Rights Watch)   Survivors of the Rana Plaza building collapse one year ago in Bangladesh are still suffering from their injuries and loss of income, Human Rights Watch said. International companies that sourced garments from five factories operating in the Rana Plaza building are not contributing enough to the financial trust fund set up to support survivors and the families of those who died.   According to the Bangladesh government, more than 1,100 people died and about 2,500 were rescued from the disaster when the building collapsed on April 24, 2013. The target for the fund, which is chaired by the International Labour Organization (ILO), is US$40 million, but only $15 million has been raised so far. On April 22, 2014, the government announced that victims would receive their first payments of $645 each from the fund.   Survivors and relatives told Human Rights Watch that they continue to suffer from life-changing injuries, psychological trauma, and a loss of income. Some said they were struggling to feed their families and send their children to school. Survivors also told Human Rights Watch of the poor working conditions in the factories prior to the collapse. The eight-story building housed factories supplying garments to major brands in the US and Europe.   “One year after Rana Plaza collapsed, far too many victims and their families are at serious risk of destitution,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director.   “International garment brands should be helping the injured and the dependents of dead workers who manufactured their clothes.”   http://www.laborrights.org/releases/campaign-victory-full-compensation-secured-rana-plaza-victims http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/22/witness-rana-plaza-factory-collapse-still-plagues-survivors http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/23/bangladesh-rana-plaza-victims-urgently-need-assistance http://www.ituc-csi.org/bangladesh-workplace-safety-accord http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/news/2014/04/business-usual-no-longer-option http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/bangladesh-garment-factory-labor-disaster-rana-plaza http://www.interaction.org/blog/1-year-after-rana-plaza-survivors-families-struggle-survive http://www.actionaid.org/news/bangladesh-factory-collapse-victims-still-unfit-return-work http://www.social-europe.eu/2014/11/rana-plaza-interviews/
	View more stories