Educational Challenges in Ecuador

Ecuador’s educational system has undergone a series of significant reforms and investments that have improved the access to and quality of education. However, there are prevailing obstacles for Ecuador to overcome. This article will touch upon some of Ecuador’s educational challenges today.

Quality of education

Despite the significant improvements regarding access to primary and secondary education in Ecuador, education results show substantial gaps in the context of geography, location, socio-economic status, and ethnicity.[1] For instance, among black and indigenous populations, completed years of education are 3 and 4 years lower than the national average – 7.3 years.[2] The drop-out rates for higher education remains high, despite the significant improvements in its gross enrollment rates.[3] This could be attributed to some students’ low levels of academic preparation or to the lengthy higher education (HR) programs, which run for over five years, and can thus tire students, resulting in higher drop-out rates.[4] In addition, schools are often over-crowded and teachers overwhelmed with the number of students per classroom.[5]

Illiteracy rates are showing improvement, but the numbers are still high among the Indigenous population as well as people of African descent in comparison to the illiteracy rates of the mestizo population.[6] The OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies undertook the Survey of Adult Skills, which showed that less than 1 in 10 adults are proficient at Literacy Level 3 or higher in Ecuador.[7] The survey also highlighted that Ecuador is among the countries/economies with one of the largest proportions of adults (71.2%) who scored at Literacy Level 1 or lower, meaning that these adults have no more than the basic reading skills.[8] The expansion of educational provision currently unequal since, in rural areas, indigenous populations and the black community are often left behind.[9]

Teacher absenteeism and frequent teacher strikes affect the retention rates and the quality of education.[10]  Teacher strikes mainly affect primary and secondary schools. In 2003, an article stated that, in poorer areas, an average of nine school days per month are wasted due to strikes and teacher absenteeism.[11] At the end of 2003, public schools were closed for two months due to a teacher strike over a salary increase.[12] Although there are no current evaluations to verify the impact of these strikes, this is a major issue that Ecuador must tackle.[13]

Schools of the Millennium (SOM) is one of the most critical governmental projects to improve public education. Each classroom has a digital whiteboard, kitchens, recreational areas, eating areas, science labs, virtual libraries, and computer labs with broadband internet.[14] While this is an excellent achievement by the government in bettering public education, teachers feel that these resources are not utilized effectively due to the lack of teacher training and, in some cases, lack of teachers.[15]

 

Poverty and discrimination in education

Poverty is hugely detrimental to students’ learning access and opportunities. It affects factors such as the student’s health and well-being, literacy and language development, access to physical and material resources, and level of mobility.[16] There are currently regions in Ecuador, particularly in rural areas, where 50% of children and adolescents live in poor households without access to drinking water, sanitation, or healthcare facilities.[17] 35% of Ecuadorians residing in rural areas live in overcrowded housing.[18]

 

 

School dropout rates are still a problem, with the two most vulnerable groups being pregnant teenagers and indigenous populations, which have the lowest completion rates in their secondary studies.[19] In regard to bullying and violence at school, almost a third of children and teenagers suffer violent treatment or disciplinary punishments. This rises alarmingly among mixed-race and indigenous children, of whom 42% suffer this form of violence.[20] Afro-Ecuadorian children are often subject to discrimination in access to education, and, in some cases, parents are illegally required to pay a sum of money to enrol their child at a ‘free-of-charge’ public school.[21] Children from lower-income families, predominately Afro-Ecuadorian and Indigenous, drop out of school to provide financial support to their families.[22]

Public schools in urban zones often present conditions that hinder learning, such as large class sizes and teaching staff shortages.[23] There is only one teacher for each level – composed of 50 to 60 students. Occasionally there are not enough classrooms for each grade level, so children from different grades are taught in the same classroom.[24]

 

Sexual violence in education

Between 2015 and 2017, there were 4.584 reports of sexual abuse in Ecuadorian schools, with teachers registered as the main aggressors.[25] Three out of ten adolescents in Latin America have suffered from sexual harassment in schools, and 1.1 million girls within the region have suffered some form of sexual violence.[26]

Although Ecuador has taken important steps to handle the issue and expedite justice since 2017, the policies and protocols are not adequately enforced in many schools.[27] Huma Rights Watch found that teachers, school staff, janitors, and school bus drivers are amongst those committing acts of sexual violence against children of all ages, including children with disabilities, in both public and private schools.[28]

Ecuador declared a zero-tolerance policy, requiring teachers, school counsellors, and other staff to report allegations of sexual violence within 24 hours. Human Rights Watch found severe gaps in the carrying out of this policy and ensuring adherence to its binding protocol.[29]

 

 

Written by Alejandra Latinez

Edited by Olga Ruiz Pilato

 

Sources;

[1] Angel-Urdinola & Vera Jibaj. (2018). Achievements and challenges of Ecuador’s education sector in the 21st Century.

[2] Un.org. (2004) – Education.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Children International. Education in Children International communities – Ecuador.

[6] Castellano, J. M., Stefos, E., & Goodrich, L. G. W. (2017). The educational and social profile of the indigenous People of Ecuador: A Multidimensional Analysis.

[7]Skills Matter: Additional Results From The Survey Of Adult Skills

 Ecuador – OECD (2018, April).

[8] Ibid.

[9] Torres, Rosa María (2005). Real options for policy and practice in Ecuador

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Fajardo-Dack M Tammy. (2016). Teacher Disempowerment in the Education System of Ecuador.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Budge, Kathleen & Parrett William. (2016). How Does Poverty Influence Learning?

[17] Humanium. Children of Ecuador – Realizing children’s rights in Ecuador

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Universal Periodic Review 13th session. (2012). Situation on the Rights of the Child in Ecuador

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Coral, Martinez Catalina & Martinez, Cecilia Carmen. (2021). Sexual Violence against girls in schools as a public health issue

[26] Ibid.

[27] Human Rights Watch. (2020). Ecuador: High Levels of Sexual Violence in Schools

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

Covid – 19 Leads to Education Suffering in India

Education has been suffering across the world due to Covid-19. The pandemic has resulted in disruption to life as people knew it. In most countries, the pandemic has resulted in the closing of classrooms and the deprivation of face-to-face contact and teaching. This has had an especially devastating impact for countries in the developing world. In rural India where internet facilities are still sparse to non-existent, the impact has been particularly terrible for students who are in need for education. While speaking to Education Times, Umakant Kumar, a headmaster in Banka Uttar Pradesh state, named states:

 

“The academic level of students has gone down to ground zero due to the prolonged closure of schools. The slight improvement that the students showed prior to the emergence of pandemic has completely disappeared. The syllabus for various classes has also not been completed which further adds to the challenges faced by us. Little that students knew, has also gone amiss due to the long gap in studies caused by the pandemic. Now when schools have reopened, we are helping students to retune them to the schooling culture and also working on how to bridge the learning deficiencies. It would be a herculean task at hand for us to complete a year’s syllabus in just a month as we haven’t been able to teach anything due to the closure of schools.”

 

In Mahahrashtra state, Kashinath D Bhoir, principal of Maharashtra Military school in Murbad town of Thane district says “Students have suffered a lot due to the closure of schools since the last two years as they have forgotten to read and write. Their writing speed has also decreased to a great extent. In addition to this, due to online classes many studies have got addicted to playing games on their mobile phones which also adds up to the weakening of their academic base.”

 

The real-life issues faced by the students and the education system can also be seen from a numbers perspective to gain a better idea of where things truly stand in India.

 

 

A study by the Institute for South Asian Studies in October 2021 estimates that schools in India had been closed for 69 weeks, which is the largest among the major economies. As a result of this, 1.5 million schools were shut down and 247 million primary and secondary students have been out of school since the lockdown of March 2020. A well-known Belgian born Indian economist Jean Dreze notes that in India’s poorest state, Jharkhand, close to “35 per cent of the students in cities and 42 per cent of the students in villages could not read more than few letters.”

 

In another state, Andhra Pradesh, as of mid-July 2021, “60,000 dropouts were estimated and enrolment for Grade 1 was only at 25 per cent.”

 

Due to these problems, hard-earned gains that India made since the early 1990s in educating the population and thus bringing Indian talent to professions such as IT, BPO, financial services to the forefront may be lost in the long term. Between the 1950s and the 1980s, upward mobility had barely changed in India thus creating a situation in which income remained stagnant. The kind of jobs created before the 1990s also as a result remained poor.

 

The school closures due to the pandemic has led to “learning losses from prolonged school closures” that “could cost India more than U$400 billion (S$542.88 billion) in future earnings, and could also result in social problems, income inequality and a ceiling on upward mobility” notes the study.

 

It is thus imperative for India to revive economic growth and prioritize the education of students with the urgency it deserves so that another lost generation as from the 50s the 80s is avoided.

 

By Aniruddh Rajendran

 

References:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/rural-school-students-pushed-far-behind-due-to-covid/articleshow/90013770.cms.

 

https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/education-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-india/.

Innocent Turkish Teachers Deported from Liberia

On the 20th of April, 2022 about 10 Turkish teachers and their families were deported from Liberia by the local government. The Turkish officials were administrators at Light International School System (LISS) located in Monrovia, Liberia.According to frontpageAfrica the names of some of the staff deported are as follows;the principal and general manager, Roman Mamedov, head of primary section, Mrs. Mamedov; English teacher and accountant, Elvin Rahimov; Mrs. Rahimov; Moral Education Teacher and Vice President for Administration Mehmet Simsek; Mrs. Ramazan. Ceray, Esma, a little girl in 6th grade and Enest, a boy in pre-primary section. It is reported that on wednesday, 20th of April, state security rounded up the schools Turkish staff and their families and deported them the same day.

 

According to sources, the deportation happens to be a request from the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan(“Erdogan’s Long Arm Reached Liberia: Turkish Teachers Deported – Politurco.com”, 2022).  There has been no comments regarding this matter from both the government of Turkey as well as the government of Liberia. Following a meeting that was held at  Turkish Light International School by parents and other officials to share this saddening news. The parents were simply told that the school’s Turkish administrators had been deported without any reasonable explanation(Writer, 2022). This saddening incident has affected students, local staff as well as parents in connection to Light international school as well as those from other international schools in the country. Although sources have not provided much regarding this matter, nonetheless it breaches human rights of these families as well as limiting the student under their management, the quality of education provided by the Turkish officials in Liberia.

 

The fourth United Nations Sustainable Development Goal, states that “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”(“Goal 4: Quality education”, 2022). The Turkish families who were deported from Liberia, supported this goal and were committed to making this a reality. The school that was under management of the deported family, Light International school brought a different perspective to the education system in Liberia with its high education quality, various programs such as science fairs, cultural festivals, mathematics Olympiads and abroad trips.

 

Despite all this beauty, the government of Liberia and the government of Turkey has not yet responded or taken action towards this incident to stand with the affected families.

 

Written by Ntchindi Chilongozi Theu

 

Bibliography

 

1.Erdogan’s Long Arm Reached Liberia: Turkish Teachers Deported – Politurco.com. (2022). Retrieved 27 April 2022, from https://politurco.com/erdogans-long-arm-reached-liberia-turkish-teachers-deported.html

 

2. Writer, S. (2022). ‘It is so sad for Liberia’ – Ali Kaya decries deportation of Light Int’l School’s Turkish Officials – Heritage Newspaper Liberia. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www.heritagenewslib.com/index.php/component/k2/item/3624-it-is-so-sad-for-liberia-ali-kaya-decries-deportation-of-light-int-l-school-s-turkish-officials

 

3. Goal 4: Quality education. (2022). Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www1.undp.org/content/oslo-governance-centre/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-4-quality-education.html?utm_source=EN&utm_medium=GSR&utm_content=US_UNDP_PaidSearch_Brand_English&utm_campaign=CENTRAL&c_src=CENTRAL&c_src2=GSR&gclid=Cj0KCQjwma6TBhDIARIsAOKuANw9AjpTJe5dKGsib3cfL9MvujUxTay2IWDNG6pfDdipG4q5D13PcIMaAq7SEALw_wcB

Chapter C – Indicator C3: How much public and private investment in educational institutions is there?

Education at a Glance 2021

OECD INDICATORS

Chapter C. Financial resources invested in education

 

Indicator C3. How much public and private investment in educational institutions is there?

The balance between public and private education funding differs significantly between OECD countries. At the pre-primary and tertiary levels of education, total or nearly total public funding is less prevalent. At these levels, private funding is mostly provided by households, raising questions about equality in educational access.

Some stakeholders are concerned that the balance between public and private education funding would prevent aspiring students from enrolling in tertiary education. Others consider that governments should greatly increase public assistance for students, such as student loans or grants. Student loans can reduce the load of private spending and reduce the cost to taxpayers of direct government funding by moving the education costs to a period when students often start earning more.

 

Share of public and private expenditure on educational institutions:

Most of the fundings on primary to tertiary educational institutions in OECD countries comes from public sources, with private funding being an essential part of tertiary education. However, private and international funding differs from one country to another.

Based on analyzing figure C3.1, we can conclude the following:

  • In 2018, the average funding across OECD countries for primary to tertiary educational institutions that came directly from public sources was 82%, and 16% from private sources.
  • In Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden, private funds constitute 5% or less of expenditure on educational institutions.
  • In Australia, Chile, the United Kingdom, and the United States, private funds make up around one-third of educational expenditure.
  • International sources contribute 1% of total expenditure, reaching 4% or more in Estonia, Latvia, and Portugal.

 

Non-tertiary educational institutions:

Figure C3.2 indicates that in all countries, public funding dominates non-tertiary education. In 2018, on average across OECD countries, private funding reached 10% of expenditure at non-tertiary levels of education, while this number exceeds by 20% in Chile, Colombia, and Turkey. In most of the countries, most of the private expenditure on non-tertiary education comes from households and is mostly used for tuition fees (Table C3.1 and Figure C3.2).

The share of private expenditure on educational institutions differs per country and education level. Primary educational institutes in Norway and Sweden are totally funded by the government. Private funding accounts for more than 15% of Chile’s, Colombia’s, Mexico’s, Spain’s, and Turkey’s education budgets. The share of private funding at the lower secondary level is close the share of primary level. Across the OECD countries, around 9% of educational expenditure on lower secondary institutions is funded privately. Private expenditure makes for less than 10% of overall expenditure at this level, but it accounts for more than 20% in Australia, Chile, Colombia, and Turkey.

Upper secondary education is more reliant on private funding than primary and lower secondary education, which reaches to an average of 14% in OECD countries. Private funding provides a similar proportion to spending on vocational and general programmes, accounting for nearly 12% of spending on upper secondary institutions in OECD countries. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, the share of private funding in vocational upper secondary education is at least 20% higher than

in general education. The percentage of public funds currently committed to vocational programmes in different countries is the result of multiple national policy developments on vocational education aimed at improving the transition from school to work.

According to current statistics, the average amount of public funding in post-secondary non-tertiary education among OECD nations stands on 72%. Unlike the three lower levels discussed above, post-secondary non-tertiary education in Germany, Ireland, Israel, and the United States are mainly reliant on private rather than governmental finance.

 

Tertiary educational institutions:

The share of private expenditure on education following public-to-private transfers is much higher at the tertiary level than at other levels of education. When private payments are required, several countries have implemented financial support measures to lessen the burden on people. After transfers, the private sector accounted for 30% of total tertiary institution expenditure in 2018. (See Figure C3.2 and Table C3.1.)

In Australia, Chile, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States, private funding accounts for 60% or more of tertiary institution funding. In countries where tuition costs are minimal or non-existent, such as Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg, and Norway, the private sector accounts for less than 10% of total expenditure.

Households contribute 72% of private expenditure on tertiary institutions in OECD countries on average. While household expenditure is the major source of private funds in the most OECD countries, in Denmark and Finland nearly all private funding comes from other private entities (mostly for research and development) (Figure C3.2).

Trends in the share of public and private expenditure on educational institutions:

Educational institutions’ reliance on private funding is moderately growing (Table C3.3). Increases in the share of private funding have been reported in about half of the OECD and partner countries, with the United Kingdom showing the largest increases (12 percentage points).  Colombia, on the other hand, experienced the largest fall in the share of private spending (11 percentage points), which was balanced by an equal increase from public sources (Table C3.3).

Chile, Estonia, Italy, and Latvia saw the greatest increases in the share of private funding for non-tertiary education by approximately 3 percentage points or more between 2012 and 2018, while Portugal and the Slovak Republic saw a decrease in the share of private spending by approximately 3 percentage points (Table C3.3 and Figure C3.3).

At tertiary level, in the United Kingdom, the share of public spending decreased by 30 percentage points in 2018 compared to 2012 levels. On the other hand, the share of public spending increased by at least 10 percentage points in Chile, Colombia, Hungary, and Portugal (Table C3.3 and Figure C3.3).

 

Public transfers to the private sector:

Although a substantial portion of government funding goes directly to educational institutions, funds are also transferred through several other allocation mechanisms. Channeling funds for institutions through students increases competition among institutions and results in more efficient education funding. Governments use transfers to provide institutions with incentives to better organize their education programmes and teaching in order to better fulfill the needs of students.

At the non-tertiary educational level, public transfers to the private sector are not a significant feature. Public-private transfers are more prevalent in upper secondary education, accounting for 2% of total expenditure across OECD countries. While public transfers cover most of the private spending in some countries, government and international assistance cover just a tiny portion of private spending in others. This complicates access and learning since increased private spending may discourage students from enrolling in tertiary education, particularly in countries with high tuition fees.

In 2018, public-to-private transfers accounted for 8% of the total funds allocated to tertiary institutions across OECD countries. Countries with the highest transfer rates also have the highest tuition fees. In countries with no or low fees, such as Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, and Sweden, the percentage of public transfers was less than 1%. Despite high levels of private spending, public transfers to the private sector are minimal in certain countries, such as France, Lithuania, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, and Turkey.

 

Original text written by: Education at a Glance 2021 OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) INDICATORS

Summarized by Zinat Asadova

Edited by Olga Ruiz Pilato

Educational Challenges in the Republic of Colombia: Great Access, Little Quality

A ‘Silent Revolution’ in Education

When one thinks about Colombia today, what may first come to mind is the infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar due to the hit Netflix series Narcos or the decades-long civil conflict waged between the Colombian Government and left-wing guerrilla groups, namely the National Liberation Army (ELN) or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the latter of whom recently signed a peace agreement with the Government in mid-2016. Despite this, Colombia is home to the second-largest amount of people in Latin America and has experienced a period of major economic growth that decreased the rate of poverty. Hailed as the ‘Colombian Miracle’, and more so a ‘silent revolution’ in education, Colombia has achieved this by expanding the learning outcomes of students, raising the bar in equal and equitable opportunities in schools, utilising the collection and analysis of data to make informed decisions and create policies, and focusing an increased amount of funding on seeing education reforms bear fruit.[i]

(Source: Education in Colombia: Highlights, OECD, 2016)

These educational achievements are primarily due to a firmer control over the consequences of Colombia’s troubled history of violent socio-political unrest since 1948 after the political assassination of Jorge Eliecer, resulting in the internal displacement of millions.[ii] Such control allowed the Colombian government to introduce reformed policies like ‘From Zero to Forever’ in 2010, which is now the common structure of handling the development and well-being of children through holistic measures; its 2014 ‘New School’ model to expand education to rural and poorer regions of Colombia by making it affordable and focusing on training teachers to create an environment that encourages a stimulating yet tailored education; and the ‘40 by 40 Program’ implemented by the former Education Secretary of Bogotá, Óscar Sánchez, that increased the number of hours in school to 40 hours per week for 40 weeks per year so that children can participate in extra-curricular activities like sports and art.[iii] These policies indeed raised the level and quality of education that each student received, as noted by the OECD, with participation in early childhood education and care (ECEC) and tertiary education increasing to 40% and 50% respectively, the rate of enrolment for 0-to-5 year olds went from 16% to 41% between 2007-2013, and increasing the gross enrolment from 57% to 76% between 2002-2012.[iv] This has been the case especially for girls, who between 1900 and 2000 saw their average years of completed education grow by 23% from 3 to 3.7 years, their completion of lower-secondary education increase from 37% in 1989 to 94% by 2011, and their representation in the labour market rise from 30% to 43% between 1990 and 2012.[v]

An Unequal Education System

Despite these positive actions, it is also true that there is still a long way to go for Colombia to establish an education system that is genuinely equal between private and public schools in urban and rural regions, which provide the same quality education, and both increase the net enrolment into education and retain attendance throughout the lifecycle of children’s education. In 2017, Children Beyond Our Borders, an organization working towards equal empowerment in education, reported that 37.2% of Colombian students did not continue their education past upper-secondary education. This has resulted in a significant gap for those who have attained a PhD degree, standing at a ratio of 7 per one million Colombians; 45.4% of students had dropped out of university since 2010 in contrast to the approximately 75% of students who dropped out of education by age 17; an estimated 37% of students started their education at a later period; and 41% repeated at least one grade by the age of 15.[vi] With regards to universities, this high dropout rate is mainly due to the overall system being overloaded and fragmented by lacking a standard curriculum for schools and the insufficient salaries paid to teachers that have led to a high rate of absenteeism. Still, because of the total 4.6% of GDP invested into education, only 0.5% went to rural areas, which might explain why two out of ten students from rural areas still cannot afford to access education, reproducing a vicious cycle of poverty, unemployment, and violence.[vii]

The 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) noted that over 70% of upper-secondary students lacked basic literacy and numeracy skills, creating a major barrier to enter public universities that require passing the standardized entrance exam called the SABER 11 (ICFES) that measures the level of performance in English, mathematics, natural sciences, social science, and civics across grades 3, 5, 9, and 11, and policy-makers have so far failed to respond to the higher rate of failure in public schools in comparison to private schools when taking the exam(s).[viii] In connection to this, there was significant tension since the early 2010s due to the Ser Pilo Paga initiative intentionally diverting funds to private institutions and subsidized approximately 32% of top-performing students to enter accredited, private universities through grants and financial loans, and was only suspended in 2018 when large numbers of students protested against this unjust inequality and demanded that President Ivan Duque Marquez increase expenditure for public universities whose tuition fees remained a barrier for many.[ix]

There remains an apparent mismatch of supply, in the sense that more Colombian students aspire to attain higher education (reportedly growing from 3,600 in 2001 to 6,276 by 2011), in parallel to a stagnant level of quality sometimes referred to as ‘garage universities’ running alongside the top-tier institutions ranking relatively high in regional and global rankings.[x] This is further illustrated in the sphere of inbound and outbound education opportunities, whereby although Colombians are the 7th largest population deciding to study English or enter vocational training abroad, the country remains an undesirable destination for foreign students, except for Venezuelans who face significant barriers.[xi]

Barriers to Venezuelan Refugees

The cross-sectional crisis in Venezuela since 2015 has caused millions of people to flee from societal collapse. By November 2020, 1.7 million Venezuelans were living in Colombia, out of which approximately 460,000 were school-aged children.[xii] Colombia’s government and civil society once again outshined most in granting Venezuelans access to healthcare and placed nearly 200,000 school-aged Venezuelans in education, primarily due to the cultural and linguistic similarities between the two populations.[xiii] However, barriers are still evident in cities like Cucuta, which have struggled with a high rate of out of school (OOS) children and unemployment. It was estimated that there would be 22,350 Venezuelan OOS from the 93,000 Venezuelans living in Cucuta by early 2020, compared to the 361,433 OOS Colombians nationwide.[xiv] Venezuelans and Colombians in schools are struggling to attain basic literacy and numeracy skills, with 69% and 65%, 61% and 64%, 70% and 68%, and 93% and 94% respectively falling below the benchmarks for oral reading fluency, reading comprehension capability, simple addition, and subtraction problems.[xv]

Another worrying issue is the fact that Venezuelan OOS children show higher signs of social and emotional learning (SEL) than their in-school peers, with 66% of Venezuelan and 63% of Colombian children respectively showing empathy in imagined negative scenarios in comparison to 76% of Venezuelan OOS, and young or disabled students become victims of bullying.[xvi] UNESCO acknowledged that other barriers are the indirect costs of transportation, uniforms, food, and school materials, as well as the fact that Venezuelan teachers have struggled to have their credentials recognized by Colombia, which could potentially reduce the lack of human resources and overcrowding in schools.[xvii] According to the International Rescue Committee, these barriers are a result of the overburdened educational system in Colombia, applauding access as the first step but calling for more focus on absorbing OOS children, combining academic and SEL tools, increasing teacher training, and adhering to the 2013 ‘Ley de Convivencia’, a provision that seeks to implement co-existence committees for all stakeholders of education.[xviii]

The COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 outbreak amplified the socio-economic and educational challenges across the board in Colombia, leaving many at risk of dropping out of education to enter the labour market.[xix] In a New York Times article, Gloria Vasquez explains how graduating in Colombia is a major achievement since, in the past, Colombians did not have the same opportunities for education, aptly explaining that ‘violence and crime are as common here as the ice cream cart that circles the block each afternoon’, and many parents in the past worked as ‘recyclers’ who roamed the streets to collect anything of value in order to attempt selling it.[xx] The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the pre-existing fear that many children will drop out of education, especially since 50% of households cannot afford an internet connection and children did not have the digital means to follow their classes or complete their assignments, nor remain in contact with their teachers when schools closed, often burdening uneducated parents in ensuring the education of their offspring.[xxi]

Due to the financial fallout of the pandemic, an estimated 100,000 children dropped out of school in 2020.[xxii] In his interview with Peoples Dispatch, Harold Garcia, a Colombian popular educator and a secondary-school teacher, explained that cities and private schools were better equipped to handle the outbreak and doubled the work of teachers who raced to complete the curriculum whilst learning how to use and incorporate digital methods of teaching.[xxiii] Garcia further expressed the dissatisfaction with the administration of President Marquez during the outbreak, who diverted public spending critically needed by education towards national security measures and assisting banks.[xxiv] The 1.5 million indigenous peoples living in Colombia, on the other hand, gained attention during this time. The largest indigenous group, the Wayuu people, who predominantly inhabit the La Guajira region, were severely impacted by the closure of the tourism sector since 90% of them worked informally in it, and only 10% had sufficient internet access to work or learn remotely.[xxv] Initiatives by Fundación El Origen increased indigenous children’s access to virtual education in terms of language, through the use of applications, and through proving 260 Wayuu children with tablets, which both support the steps to expand the language of instruction to the 64 languages that are spoken outside of the official Spanish and aid indigenous peoples break the cycle of poverty.[xxvi]

Lastly, COVID-19 put children at significant risk of being recruited by the remaining guerrilla groups as child soldiers, rolling back the efforts achieved through the 2019 national plan and Case No. 7 of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace that aims to prevent the recruitment of and sexual violence against children, as well as the positive work being done by civil society organizations like the Misiones Salesians and Missioni Don Bosco Onlus to ensure access to education.[xxvii] It is a known strategy for these groups to target children who live in rural regions and come from a poor socio-economic background and are thus easier to coerce due to their lack of access to education and vocational training, but often become human shields, porters, spies, child brides, sex slaves, or used for labour activities in the ongoing civil conflict with the Colombian government.[xxviii] To address this persistent issue, the Borgen Project has recently called on both the Colombian government to implement stricter policies and measures that discourage recruitment, and demand that the international community adopts more substantial foreign aid plans that aims more towards holistic, collective progress.[xxix]

***

Colombia’s educational system has taken positive steps that have borne great results in access to education. Still, it underscores the quality that is both affordable and valuable in the outcomes that education ought to prepare students to attain higher levels of education or enter the labour market. Globally, education is an important asset which shows that the benefits outweigh the costs of injecting time and funding to boost the access, quality, outcomes, and value that each child receives through their education, serving as crucial defining moments in their future and of their countries. In this way, Colombia would not only address the other half of Goal 4 of the Sustainable Development Goals concerning quality but also bolster its progress to reduce poverty, establish lasting mechanisms of peaceful and just resolution, streamline economic growth, achieve more robust levels of health and wellbeing, and closing the remaining inequality gaps.

Written by Karl Baldacchino

Edited by Olga Ruiz Pilato

Sources;

[i] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2016) ‘Education in Colombia: Highlights’, pp. 2-3; see also Trines, S. (2020) ‘Education in Colombia’. World Education News + Reviews. Available online from: https://wenr.wes.org/2020/06/education-in-colombia-2/ [Accessed on 27/03/2022[.

[ii] Ventura, R. C. (2018) ‘Girls’ Education in Colombia Continues to on the Path of Progress’. The Borgen Project. Available online from: https://borgenproject.org/girls-education-in-colombia/ [Accessed 27/03/2022]; see also Gozzo, F. (2022) ‘The Struggle of Child Soldiers in Colombia’. The Borgen Project. Available online from: https://borgenproject.org/child-soldiers-in-colombia/ [Accessed on 27/03/2022].

[iii] Ibid.; see also ‘Education in Colombia’; see also Solivan, M. (2014) ‘A City’s Push for Access and Quality Education for All: Report on a Recent Visit to Bogota’. Brookings. Available online from: A City’s Push for Access and Quality Education for All: Report on a Recent Visit to Bogotá (brookings.edu) [Accessed on 27/03/2022]; see also ‘Education in Colombia: Highlights’, pp. 6 & 8.

[iv] ‘Education in Colombia: Highlights’, pp. 4, 6 & 10.

[v]  ‘Girls’ Education in Colombia Continues to on the Path of Progress’.

[vi] Moutter, C. (2017) ‘Colombia’s Education System’. Children Beyond Our Borders. Available online from: http://www.chbob.org/blog/colombias-education-system [Accessed on 27/03/2022]; see also ‘Education in Colombia’; see also Education in Colombia: Highlights’, pp. 6-7, 8 & 10.

[vii] Ibid.; see also ‘Education in Colombia’.

[viii] ‘Education in Colombia’; ‘Education in Colombia: Highlights’, p. 10

[ix] Ibid.; see also Alexandra, Z. (2020) ‘In Colombia, the Pandemic is Widening Inequality in Access to Education’. Peoples Dispatch. Available online from: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/05/29/in-colombia-the-pandemic-is-widening-inequality-in-access-to-education/ [Accessed 27/03/2022].

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] International Rescue Committee (2020) ‘Colombia’s Education Crisis: Results from a Learning Assessment of Colombian and Venezuelan Children’, p. 2.

[xiii] Ibid.; see also ‘Education in Colombia’; see also United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2020) ‘Significant Efforts by Colombia Ensure that Nearly 200,000 Children and Youth Have access to the Education System’. Available online from: https://en.unesco.org/news/significant-efforts-colombia-ensure-nearly-200000-venezuelan-children-and-youth-have-access [Accessed on 28/03/2022].

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Ibid., pp. 3 & 4; see also ‘Significant Efforts by Colombia Ensure that Nearly 200,000 Children and Youth Have access to the Education System’.

[xvi] Ibid., p.5.

[xvii] ‘Significant Efforts by Colombia Ensure that Nearly 200,000 Children and Youth Have access to the Education System’.

[xviii] Ibid., pp. 5 & 6.

[xix] ‘Education in Colombia’; see also Turkewitz, J. (2021) ‘1+1 = 4? Latin American Confronts a Pandemic Education Crisis’. The New York Times. Available online from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/world/americas/latin-america-pandemic-education.html [Accessed 28/03/2022]; see also ‘In Colombia, the Pandemic is Widening Inequality in Access to Education’.

[xx] 1+1 = 4? Latin American Confronts a Pandemic Education Crisis’.

[xxi] Ibid.; see also ‘In Colombia, the Pandemic is Widening Inequality in Access to Education’.

[xxii] Pope, L. (2021) ‘Virtual Learning for Colombia’s Indigenous People’. The Borgen Project. Available online from: https://borgenproject.org/colombias-indigenous-people/ [Accessed on 28/03/2022].

[xxiii] ‘In Colombia, the Pandemic is Widening Inequality in Access to Education’.

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] ‘Virtual Learning for Colombia’s Indigenous People’.

[xxvi] Ibid.; see also ‘Education in Colombia’.

[xxvii] ‘The Struggle of Child Soldiers in Colombia’.

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Ibid.

Cover Image by Rafael Socarras from Pixabay

CHAPTER D – Indicator D3: How much are teachers school heads paid?

OECD

CHAPTER D – Teachers, the learning environment, and the organisation of schools

 

Indicator D3: How much are teachers school heads paid?

 

The following text will examine teachers’ and other school staff’s salaries at pre-primary, primary, and general secondary levels of education on average across OECD countries and economies.

 

The teachers’ actual salaries are 81-96% of the earnings of tertiary workers on average across OECD countries, and the salaries of male versus female teachers tends to be similar, the discrepancy among them accounts for under 2% of the actual salaries. Despite this, male lower secondary teachers’ actual salaries are around 20% lower than the earnings of tertiary-educated male workers, whereas female lower secondary teachers earn 3% more than their peers. This shows that the teaching profession may be more attractive to women than to men, compared to other professions, but it also reflects the persistent gender gap in earnings in the labour market. On average across OECD countries and economies, primary and secondary school heads’ actual salaries are at least 28% higher than the earnings of tertiary-educated workers. The salaries of school staff, and in particular teachers and school heads, represent the largest single cost in formal education. Teachers’ salaries have also a direct impact on the attractiveness of the teaching profession. Finally, there are large divergences regarding taxation and social benefits across OECD countries.

 

Teachers tend to receive additional compensation for working extra hours or picking up responsibilities falling outside of their contractual scope. However, school heads are less likely than teachers to receive additional compensation for performing responsibilities over and above their regular tasks.

 

Salaries of teachers

 

Teachers’ statutory salaries can vary according to several factors, including the level of education taught, their qualification level, and their level of experience or the stage of their career. In most countries and economies with available information, teachers’ salaries increase with the level of education they teach. Salary structures usually define the salaries paid to teachers at different positions in their careers. Deferred compensation, which rewards employees for staying in organisations or professions and for meeting established performance criteria, is also used in teachers’ salary structures. OECD data on teachers’ salaries are limited to information on statutory salaries at four points of the salary scale: starting salaries, salaries after 10 years of experience, salaries after 15 years of experience and salaries at the top of the scale.

Top scale refers to the amount reached after an average of 25 years, and, when reached, salaries are 67% higher than the average starting salaries. The range of salaries within countries also increases as different qualification levels of teachers can be associated to different salary scales.

The salary premium for teachers with the maximum qualifications at the top of the pay scales, and those with the most prevalent qualifications and 15 years of experience, also varies across countries.

 

Actual salaries of teachers

 

In addition to statutory salaries, teachers’ actual salaries include work-related payments, such as annual bonuses, results-related bonuses, extra pay for holidays, sick-leave pay, and other additional payments. Actual average salaries are influenced by the prevalence of bonuses and allowances in the compensation system. Differences between statutory and actual average salaries are also linked to the distribution of teachers by years of experience and qualifications, as these two factors have an impact on their salary levels. Across OECD countries and economies, in 2020, the average actual salaries of teachers aged 25-64 were USD 40,707 at pre-primary level, USD 45,687 at primary level, USD 47,988 at lower secondary level and USD 51,749 at upper secondary level.

 

The report establishes that education systems compete with other sectors of the economy to attract high-quality graduates as teachers, and proceeds to analyse the differences between full time and part-time work. Part-time work might be more common in education than in the rest of the labour market, not least because women make up a large proportion of teachers in most OECD countries and they are likely to work part time.

 

The data from teachers’ salary often comes from regulations, collective agreements, administrative sources, or sample surveys. There are differences in pension systems between teachers and other workers, whereby, in many countries, teachers in public institutions have substantial pension contributions paid by their employer, but a relatively low salary compared to the private sector. In contrast, private sector employees may have higher salaries, but they may also have to make their own pension arrangements.

 

Salaries of school heads

 

The responsibilities of school heads may vary between countries and also within countries, depending on the schools they lead. The educational activities undertaken by school heads include teaching tasks as well as the general functioning of the institution in areas such as the timetable, implementation of the curriculum, decisions about what is taught, and the materials and methods used. In addition to these, school heads may have other administrative, staff management, and financial responsibilities. With regards to their statutory salaries, school heads may be paid according to a specific salary range and may or may not receive a school-head allowance on top of their statutory salaries. The amounts payable to school heads (through statutory salaries and/or school-head allowances) may vary according to criteria related to the school(s) where the school head is based (for example the size of the school based on the number of students enrolled, or the number of teachers supervised).

 

About half of OECD countries and economies have similar pay ranges for primary and lower secondary school heads, while upper secondary school heads benefit from higher statutory salaries on average. The actual salaries of school heads are higher than those of teachers, and the premium increases with levels of education.

 

Trends in statutory salaries

 

According to the report, teachers’ statutory salaries increased overall in real terms in most of the countries for which data are available between 2000 and 2020. On average across OECD countries and economies with available data for the reference years of 2005 and 2020, statutory salaries increased by about 3% at primary level, 4% at lower secondary level, and 2% at upper secondary level.

 

Formation of base salary and additional payments: Incentives and allowances

 

Throughout OECD countries and economies, it is common to award additional payments, either annual or occasional, when teachers teach more classes or hours than required by their full-time contract, have responsibility as a class or form teacher, or perform special tasks, such as training student teachers. The extent to which teachers receive additional compensation for taking on extra responsibilities and the activities for which teachers are compensated vary across these countries.

Teachers and school heads are also likely to receive additional payments for working in disadvantaged, remote, or high-cost areas in half of the countries and economies with available data, with the exception of Australia, where such incentives are only provided to teachers. In most countries, the criteria to determine he most prevalent qualifications of teachers are based on a principle of relative majority (ie. the level of qualifications of the largest proportion of teachers).

 

 

Source: OECD (2021), Table D3.2 (https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance/EAG2021_Annex3_ChapterD.pdf)

 

 

Original text written by OECD

Summarised by Olga Ruiz Pilato

 

CHAPTER D – Indicator D2: What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes?

OECD

CHAPTER D – Teachers, the learning environment, and the organisation of schools

 

Indicator D2: What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes?

 

The following document will summarise the D2 indicator by the OECD Report ‘Education at a Glance’. It will cover the student-teacher ratio and class size throughout OECD countries and economies.

 

There is a difference with regard to class size between public and private primary institutions. At primary level, the average class in OECD countries in 2019 had 21 students in public institutions and 20 in private institutions. On average across the countries examined, there are 15 students for every teacher in primary education and 13 students per teacher in lower secondary education. The average school class has 21 students in primary education and 23 in lower secondary education. Between 2013 and 2019, the average class size remained constant at lower secondary level both in public and private institutions.

 

Teachers’ salaries, instruction time, class size, and student-teacher ratios have a considerable impact on the level of current expenditure on education through teacher salary costs. The ratio of students to teaching staff is an indicator of how resources for education are allocated. There is evidence that smaller classes may benefit specific groups of students, such as those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Bouguen, Grenet and Gurgand, 2017), however, overall evidence of the effect of class size on student performance is mixed.

 

Class size is defined as the number of students who are following a common course of study, based on the highest number of common courses (usually compulsory studies), and excluding teaching in subgroups. Student-teacher ratios provide information on the level of teaching resources available in a country relative to its student population, whereas class size measures the average number of students that are grouped together in a classroom. The number of students per class tends to increase between primary and lower secondary education.

 

Class size in public and private institutions

 

In most OECD countries, average class sizes do not differ between public and private institutions by more than one student per class at both primary and lower secondary level. Defining a class size that ensures at the same time high attendance, teacher-student interaction, instructor feedback, and student involvement in class may prove challenging.

Class participation is a central aspect of student learning and instructor teaching, and some studies have revealed that a high amount of participation paired with peer-to-peer interaction contributes significantly to critical thinking (Frijters, ten Dam and Rijlaarsdam, 2008).

 

Source: OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2021), Table D2.1 (https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance/EAG2021_Annex3_ChapterD.pdf

 

Student-teacher ratios

 

Student-teacher ratios do not consider the amount of instruction time for students compared to the length of a teacher’s working day, nor how much time teachers spend teaching. There are around as many countries where the ratio is greater in vocational programmes as there are countries where it is lower. Vocational students require more careful supervision as skill training requires both specialised machinery and a greater level of human resources (Astor, Guerra and Van Acker, 2010). At upper secondary level, the student-teacher ratio is greater in public institutions than in private institutions in 17 countries, smaller in public institutions in 15 countries, and similar for both sectors in 4 countries. This mixed pattern in upper secondary education may, in part, reflect differences in the types of programmes offered in public and private institutions.

 

Teachers’ aides and teaching/research assistants include non-professional personnel or students who support teachers in providing instruction to students. Teaching staff refers to the professional personnel directly involved in teaching to students.

 

Finally, class size is calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled by the number of classes. The ratio of students to teaching staff is obtained by dividing the number of full-time equivalent students at a given level of education by the number of full-time equivalent teachers at that level and in similar types of institutions. For the ratio of students to teachers to be meaningful, consistent coverage of personnel and enrolment data are needed.

 

Original text written by OECD

Summarised by Olga Ruiz Pilato

CHAPTER D – Indicator D1: How much time do students spend in the classroom?

OECD

CHAPTER D – Teachers, the learning environment, and the organisation of schools

 

Indicator D1: How much time do students spend in the classroom?

 

This chapter of the OECD Report covers the time spent by students in the classroom. It discusses how providing instruction in formal classroom settings accounts for a large portion of public investment in education and the fact that it is up to countries themselves to make the choices that concern both the overall amount of time devoted to instruction and the subjects that are compulsory. The choices reflect national and/or regional priorities and preferences concerning what material students should be taught and at what age. Almost all countries have statutory or regulatory requirements regarding hours of instruction. According to the report, primary education lasts six years on average across OECD countries and economies, ranging from four to seven years. On the other hand, lower secondary education lasts three years on average across OECD countries and economies, ranging from two to five years.

The number of grades allocated to each level of compulsory education may differ within countries, across subnational entities. Countries allocate annual instruction time differently over the year, and the number of instruction days and their distribution throughout the school year may vary accordingly, as it is dependent on the countries’ cultural and traditional holiday structures. OECD countries additionally vary in the way they organise recess and breaks within the school day, however, in most countries, the organisation of breaks is usually similar at primary and lower secondary levels.

Intended instruction time is the total number of hours during which schools are obliged to offer instruction in compulsory and, if applicable, non-compulsory subjects. This is defined at a national level, as are the total statutory number of hours on intended and/or compulsory instruction time. In the case of federal or decentralised countries, the latter may be defined by the subnational or regional levels. Instruction time may differ among subnational entities within a single country. Variations in the annual amount of instruction hours can translate into significant variation in the total number of hours of instruction over the whole duration of primary education.

Compulsory instruction time refers to the amount and allocation of instruction time that must be provided in almost every public school and must be attended by almost all public sector students, as per public regulations. The report highlights that students receive 4,590 hours of compulsory instruction over 6 years of primary education and 3,049 hours during 3 years of lower secondary general education on average across OECD countries. Compulsory instruction time per year generally increases with age, so it only captures the time spent by students in formal classroom settings (as established by public regulations). In more than two-thirds of OECD countries and economies (21 out of 33 countries) and economies at primary level and 25 countries and economies at lower secondary level), instruction was delivered via distance learning during school closures in 2020. (OECD/UIS/UNESCO/UNICEF/WB, 2021)

The year of reference for the above figure is 2020.

Source: OECD (2021), D1.1 (https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-aglance/EAG2021_Annex3_ChapterD.pdf)

 

In about three out of five countries and economies with available data, there is no non-compulsory instruction time, meaning that intended and compulsory instruction time are the same for primary and lower secondary students. In another two-fifths of the countries and economies, intended instruction time includes both compulsory instruction time and a specified amount of non-compulsory instruction time: six countries at primary level and seven at lower secondary level. On average across OECD countries, 42% of the compulsory instruction time is devoted to providing students with fundamental skills in literacy and numeracy: 25% on reading, writing, and literature, and 17% on mathematics. Religion, ethics, and moral education; information and communication technologies (ICT); technology; practical and vocational skills; and other subjects make up the remainder of the non-flexible compulsory curriculum at the primary level, representing about 12% of the compulsory instruction time on average across OECD countries. At the lower secondary level, there is substantial variation in how countries allocate time to the different subjects within the compulsory curriculum. The difference between the primary and secondary levels of education shows that there are major differences in the allocation of time to school subjects the older the students grow. Across ages, there are also changes in the proportion of instruction time devoted to other subjects.

In most countries, central and state authorities establish regulation or recommendations regarding instruction time and the curriculum. However, local authorities, schools, teachers, and/or students also have varying degrees of freedom in organising instruction time or in choosing subjects. Despite this, flexibility in the choice of subjects is less common across OECD countries. Curriculum flexibility allows more agile interventions to minimise the impact of learning interruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additional activities before and after classes offered by the school are not per se part of the non-compulsory curriculum. Particularly, non-compulsory education excludes morning care classes or after-school care classes, even if they are officially regulated.

 

Original text written by OECD

Summary author Olga Ruiz Pilato

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN TURKISH PRISONS

The Turkish government is violating well-established domestic and international law by keeping severely ill prisoners arbitrarily detained. Prisoners in Turkey are struggling with sexual and physical violence such as bare-searching, harassment, and brutal beatings as well as many rights violations such as exorbitantly expensive canteens, midnight raids in the wards, book restrictions, denial of medicine and arbitrary punishments.[1] This article will shed light on some human rights violations cases taking place in Turkish prisons today.

Following the attempted coup in 2016, incarceration numbers have massively risen to the extent that prison overcrowding has become a prevalent issue. However, overcrowding is not the only concerning matter in prisons throughout Turkey, but the ill-treatment and human rights abuses happening to the tens of thousands of prisoners is a serious problem that must be tackled immediately.

 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been targeting followers of the Gülen moment, a faith-based group inspired by the Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen, since a series of corruption investigations took place in December 2013, implicating Erdogan, his relatives and inner circle.[2] Among the targeted are many opposition politicians, journalists, lawyers, and human rights defenders. Yusuf Bekmezci (82), a gravely ill prisoner who was in custody at Kırıklar F-Type Prison in Izmir, died after 47 days in intensive care.[3] He was arrested in January 2020 as part of investigations into the Fetullah Gülen Movement. Bekmezci was remanded in Izmir Kırıklar F-Type Prison and sentenced to 17 years and 4 months imprisonment on 9 April 2021 on a charge being a “manager of an organisation”.[4] Saadet Aytekin, his granddaughter and lawyer stated that her “grandfather’s case was at the Supreme Court. His sentence had not been ratified. However, the court ruled that ‘he should continue to serve his sentence in hospital’ as if his conviction had been ratified. He had illnesses throughout his two-year detention, but they refused to release a man attached to tubes in intensive care because he was an “escape risk”.”[5] Indeed, the Turkish Council of Forensic Medicine (ATK) issued a medical report stating that Bekmezci was unfit to remain incarcerated, but the court dismissed the report by stating he was at “flight risk”.[6] His daughter, Şeyma Bekmezci, stated her father’s inability to understand court proceedings in light of his advanced Alzheimer’s, which consequently made it impossible for him to defend himself. She suggested that the lack of proper mental health care in prison was one of the factors causing his deterioration: “he completely forgets himself in court and is in a vulnerable position”.[7]

 

Human Rights Association (İHD) declared that, as of June 2020, the numbers of sick inmates locked behind bars in Turkey amounted to 1,605, of which approximately 600 were in a critical condition. The government allowed their detainment even though most of them had forensic and medical reports deeming them unfit to remain incarcerated. Authorities refused their release on the basis that they pose a potential danger to society. The failure to release critically ill prisoners in time to receive proper medical treatment resulted in five deaths during the first eight months of 2020. After the pandemic hit, the government released prisoners charged with murder but decided to keep political prisoners in spite of the pandemic’s risks. Mugla died after contracting Covid-19.[8]

Throughout November and December 2021, several prisoners lost their lives while detained in Type T and Type F prisons. Prisoners Garibe Gezer and İlyas Demir were found dead in the padded cells where they had been isolated.[9] Some prisoners, such as 33-year-old Bangin Muhammed and 65-year-old Abdülrezzak Şuyur passed away due to failure of being released in spite of their severe illness and, in the latter case, advanced cancer.[10] Others were suspiciously found dead in their cells, and the administration informed their families that they had committed suicide.[11]

On the 20th of January 2022, 43 bar associations and lawyers as well as human rights organisations nationally and internationally signed an urgent letter for the United Nations special mandate holders to call attention to the imminent risk to health and life of the ill prisoner Aysel Tugluk, detained in Kocaeli Kandira F-Type Prison since December 2016.[12] Tugluk has been diagnosed with dementia and continues imprisoned despite the calls by medical reports demonstrating her precarious state and deteriorating health, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Providing additional information on systemic issues concerning the treatment of prisoners in Turkey, the letter requests that the Special Procedures urge the Turkish government to immediately release Aysel Tugluk and all severely ill prisoners in line with both domestic and international standards with regard to the treatment of prisoners.[13] Despite this, at the beginning

of February 2022, the imprisoned Turgay Deniz (39) suffered lung failure and lost his life while in arbitrary detention. Although medical reports stressed the importance of being cared for throughout hospitalisation, he remained incarcerated.[14] His story is one of eight stories of people that have passed away in Turkish prisons in the last three months.[15] 84-year-old Nusret Mugla was convicted and imprisoned for being a Gulen Movement sympathiser. His arrestment failed to consider his age, heart and kidney diseases, and prostate cancer, and as a result of the neglected assistance, he died incarcerated.

 

The press statement held in the İHD İstanbul Branch noted that the serious violations of rights in prisons are gradually becoming systematic and has reached a stalemate in healthcare, the right to communication, torture, and ill treatment respects.[16] Accessing justice has become hopeless for many prisoners in Turkey. The rights organisations raised concerns that “it is now seen as an ordinary incident in the country that the dead body of a person is taken out of a prison any time.”[17]

Referring to the İHD data, as of March 2021, there were at least 1,605 ill prisoners, 604 of whom were in precarious conditions at the time of the statement’s publishment.[18] Human rights organisations know of at least 38 prisoners who should be released urgently, as their conditions are further deteriorating. However, to date the authorities have not responded to calls either from human rights activists or from the families.

 

On behalf of Broken Chalk, I make an urgent call to all the international communities and organisations to take action against the injustices and inhumane treatments against political prisoners undertaken by Erdogan and his regime, and to assist them in their release from the degrading conditions they are detained in.

 

Written by Olga Ruiz Pilato

 

Sources;

[1] Duvar English, MHP submits social media proposal, seeks penalties for fake accounts, February 2022 <accessible at https://www.duvarenglish.com/mhp-submits-social-media-proposal-seeks-penalties-for-fake-accounts-news-60333>.

[2] Turkish Minute, Turkish court rejects ailing philanthropist’s appeal for release from prison, January 2022 <accessible at  https://www.turkishminute.com/2022/01/12/kish-court-rejects-ailing-philanthropists-appeal-for-release-from-prison/>.

[3] MedyaNews, Turkey: Severely ill octogenarian prisoner dies, January 2022 <accessible at https://medyanews.net/turkey-severely-ill-octogenarian-prisoner-dies/>.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Turkish Minute, Turkish court rejects ailing philanthropist’s appeal for release from prison, January 2022 <accessible at  https://www.turkishminute.com/2022/01/12/kish-court-rejects-ailing-philanthropists-appeal-for-release-from-prison/>.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Politurco, Gulenm sympathisers are dying in prisons under the ruling of the Erdogan regime, February 2022 <accessible at  https://politurco.com/gulen-sympathizers-are-dying-in-prisons-under-the-ruling-of-the-erdogan-regime-84-year-old-nusret-mugla-was-one-of-the-many-and-died-most-recently.html>.

[9] English Bianet, At least 59 ill prisoners lost their lives in Turkey in a year, January 2022 <accessible at  https://m.bianet.org/english/human-rights/256124-at-least-59-ill-prisoners-lost-their-lives-in-turkey-in-a-year>.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] International Federation for Human Rights, Turkey must immediately release Aysel Tugluk and other severely ill prisoners, January 2022 <accessible at https://www.fidh.org/en/region/europe-central-asia/turkey/turkey-must-immediately-release-aysel-tugluk-and-other-severely-ill>.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] English Bianet, At least 59 ill prisoners lost their lives in Turkey in a year, January 2022 <accessible at  https://m.bianet.org/english/human-rights/256124-at-least-59-ill-prisoners-lost-their-lives-in-turkey-in-a-year>.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

Russia’s Invasion to Ukraine: Who Will Pay the Price for This War?

Mahmud Darwish once wrote about war:

“The war will end. The leaders will shake hands. The old woman will keep waiting for her martyred son. That girl will wait for her beloved husband. And those children will wait for their hero father. I don’t know who sold our homeland But I saw who paid the price.”[1]

Over the years, many countries have been destroyed by war and dictatorship. Many of these countries were developed before war had ruined them; full of culture and advancements, like Syria, Palestine, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and many more.

The greed and selfishness of dictators and corrupt politicians have caused nothing but loss to these countries. Many innocent lives have been lost; many countries are suffering from poverty as a result of poor governance by oppressive regimes. National infrastructures have collapsed because of wars, while these countries’ environments have also been greatly affected.

 

The Costs of War Project, Watson institute of international and public affairs, Brown University, 2021

 

Ukraine has now joined the train of the countries that have been destroyed by war due to the greed of dictators. Vladimir Putin didn’t only invade a neighbouring sovereign state, but his regime also exercises full censorship regarding the Russian presentation of and discussion on the war. Independent Russian media outlets and journalists who speak out against Putin’s regime and tell stories about Russians suffering under his leadership, are harassed, intimidated, and unlawfully detained. The same treatment is meted out to protestors who oppose Putin and the crimes committed by his regime in Ukraine, such as forcing young Russians to join the armed forces without informing them that they are going to participate in the invasion of Ukraine. All these are textbook examples of the workings of a totalitarian state.

 

How has Ukrainian education been affected by the war?

The impact of the war is clearly visible in the education sector: there is limited access to education due to a shortage of educational materials and poverty. Many educational facilities, such as schools and kindergartens, have been destroyed or damaged due to the war, which endanger the future of children in Ukraine. [2]

UNICEF recently published a report regarding the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. According to the report, the invasion has left more than 350,000 school children with no access to education, as school infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed. At the same time, the teaching methods Ukrainian teachers were trained to use have often become insufficient in these new circumstances, which also limit children’s access to quality education. This means, that the war has taken away the chances for Ukrainian children to have safe shelter, water, or proper education. [3]

 

Some issues Ukrainian child refugees face in host countries

Many Ukrainians have sought refuge in different countries since the start of the war. There has been a lot of concern for child refugees and how they can be incorporated into school systems in other countries, especially because of language barriers. Despite these challenges, schools in Poland, for example, have approached these issues with a positive attitude and welcomed Ukrainian child refugees trying to help their integration as much as possible. Polish teachers have been providing support for the new Ukrainian students to overcome the language barrier and adapt to the Polish education system[4].

However, not all countries have taken the challenge of this child refugee influx so well. Ukrainian children in the UK are facing significant challenges, as registering and integrating new students with often little or no knowledge of the English language exceeds the capacities of most British schools. Added to this, insufficient funding for the education sector puts UK schools under a lot of pressure, and results in refugee students being turned away [5]

The war’s effects on international students in Ukraine

International students who studied at Ukrainian universities, many of whom came from Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East, also became victims of the war. Many of them were not able to complete their studies and were forced to escape to other countries in the hope that they would be able to come back to Ukraine soon and complete their studies.[6]  Many of these foreign students have actually struggled to find refuge or to flee since they were not Ukrainian citizens and so their cases were handled differently by potential European host countries. Moreover,  at least two foreign students were killed in the early days of the war.  [7]

 

The effect of war on Post-Soviet States and on Russia:

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, citizens of post-Soviet states have been living in fear that Putin’s control will overtake their countries. An example from Azerbaijan is particularly worrying, where the Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev, signed an alliance agreement wit Russia. The 43-point agreement includes an educational and economic alliance which inevitably increases the Putin regime’s influence in Azerbaijan.[8] For example, Russian language is becoming mandatory in educational institutions, more so than it previously was in post-Soviet States.[10]

Lately, Russia’s Ministry of Education has started to spread propaganda via online education in an effort to influence children with ideologies that glorify Putin’s leadership and justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by explaining “why the liberation mission in Ukraine was necessary”.[11] There is a high risk that these lessons will contribute to the creation of a generation that supports both the war and Putin’s dictatorship in Russia, which poses a threat to the potential of a future democratic Russian society.

 

Hopefully, the day will come when wars end, and displaced people can return to the homelands where they left their loved ones. Leaders will shake hands to establish peace in the world, but at what cost will this happen when so much damage has been done already? Well, the homeland was sold for sure, and it was its very own people who paid the price.

 

By Zinat Asadova

 

Sources;

  1. “The war will end” Poem by Mahmud Darwish
  2. Save the Children. (2022). Ukraine: Attacks on schools endangering children’s lives and futures. Retrieved from https://www.savethechildren.net/news/ukraine-attacks-schools-endangering-children-s-lives-and-futures
  3. UNICEF Europe & Central Asia Region (ECAR). (2022). Ukraine Situation Report – 24 February 2022 (p. 2). Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/media/116031/file/Ukraine-Humanitarian-SitRep-24-February-2022.pdf
  4. Deutsche Welle (DW). (2022). Poland fights to give Ukrainian kids access to education [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/poland-fights-to-give-ukrainian-kids-access-to-education/av-61185207#:~:text=About%202%20million%20Ukrainians%20have,Poland’s%20education%20system%20is%20enormous.
  5. Abrams, F. (2022). Ukraine refugees may struggle to find places in English schools, councils say. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/mar/05/ukraine-refugees-may-struggle-to-find-places-in-english-schools-councils-say
  6. Fallon, K. (2022). Foreign students fleeing Russia’s war on Ukraine hope to return. Aljazeera.com. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/5/they-told-us-to-go-home-student-recounts-ukraine-war
  7. International education’s continuing response to the war in Ukraine. ICEF Monitor – Market intelligence for international student recruitment. (2022). Retrieved from https://monitor.icef.com/2022/03/international-educations-continuing-response-to-the-war-in-ukraine/
  8. Azərbaycan Respublikası Xarici İşlər Nazirliyi. (2022). No:056/22, Azərbaycan Respublikası Xarici İşlər Nazirliyinin Mətbuat xidməti idarəsinin məlumatı (AZ/RU). Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.az/az/news/no05622
  9. President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. (2022). Declaration on allied interaction between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation. Retrieved from https://president.az/en/articles/view/55498
  10. Aliyeva, J. (2022). Azerbaijani president notes importance of Russian language. Report News Agency. Retrieved from https://report.az/en/foreign-politics/azerbaijani-president-notes-importance-of-russian-language/
  11. Russia’s Ministry of Education Official Page on Vkontakte. (2022). An Open lesson “Defenders of Peace” (Открытый урок «Защитники мира») [Video]. https://vk.com/video-30558759_456242419?list=8411aa6de207bc39a2