by Janine Yass and David Hardy | The Philadelphia Inquirer | February 18, 2019
Now that the Denver teachers who abandoned their classrooms for picket lines are back to work, parents here and across the country should remember how this and the Los Angeles teacher strikes revealed the true goals of teachers’ unions. They’re not striking to provide a better education for students — they’re striking to keep control over education in the hands of the powerful.
The leadership, the teachers they represent and the politicians they support must be thrilled with the outcome of the well-orchestrated strike. Continue reading...
Janine Yass is a philanthropist and a founding board member of the Philadelphia Schools Partnership. David Hardy is founder of Boys Latin Public Charter School. Both authors have served on the board of the Center for Education Reform.
Founded in 1993, the Center for Education Reform aims to expand educational opportunities that lead to improved economic outcomes for all Americans — particularly our youth — ensuring that conditions are ripe for innovation, freedom and flexibility throughout U.S. education.
=================
Should the U.S. Government Abide by the International Law It Has Created and Claims to Uphold?
By Lawrence Wittner
698 words
The Trump administration’s campaign to topple the government of Venezuela raises the issue of whether the U.S. government is willing to adhere to the same rules of behavior it expects other nations to follow.
During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, U.S. foreign policy was characterized by repeated acts of U.S. military intervention in Latin American nations. But it began to shift in the late 1920s, as what became known as the Good Neighbor Policy was formulated. Starting in 1933, the U.S. government, responding to Latin American nations’ complaints about U.S. meddling in their internal affairs, used the occasion of Pan-American conferences to proclaim a nonintervention policy. This policy was reiterated by the Organization of American States (OAS), founded in 1948 and headquartered in Washington, DC.
Article 19 of the OAS Charter states clearly: “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.” To be sure, the Charter, in Article 2(b), declares that one of the essential purposes of the OAS is “to promote and consolidate representative democracy.” But this section continues, in the same sentence, to note that such activity should be conducted “with due respect for the principle of nonintervention.” The U.S. government, of course, is an active member of the OAS and voted to approve the Charter. It is also legally bound by the Charter, which is part of international law.
The United Nations Charter, also formulated by the U.S. government and part of international law, includes its own nonintervention obligation. Attempting to outlaw international aggression, the UN Charter declares, in Article 2(4), that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Although this wording is vaguer than the OAS Charter’s condemnation of all kinds of intervention, in 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted an official resolution that tightened things up by proclaiming: “No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.”
Unfortunately, the U.S. government has violated these principles of international law many times in the past―toppling or attempting to topple numerous governments. And the results often have failed to live up to grandiose promises and expectations. Just look at the outcome of U.S. regime change operations during recent decades in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Cambodia, Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and numerous other nations.
Of course, there are things worth criticizing in Venezuela, as there are in many other countries―including the United States. Consequently, a substantial majority of OAS nations voted in January 2019 for a resolution that rejected the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro’s new term as president, claiming that the May 2018 electoral process lacked “the participation of all Venezuelan political actors,” failed “to comply with international standards,” and lacked “the necessary guarantees for a free, fair, transparent, and democratic process.”
Nonetheless, the January 2019 OAS resolution did not call for outside intervention but, rather, for “a national dialogue with the participation of all Venezuelan political actors and stakeholders” to secure “national reconciliation,” “a new electoral process,” and a peaceful resolution to “the current crisis in that country.” In addition, nonintervention and a process of reconciliation between Venezuela’s sharply polarized political factions have been called for by the government of Mexico and by the Pope.
This policy of reconciliation is far from the one promoted by the U.S. government. In a speech to a frenzied crowd in Miami on February 18, Donald Trump once again demanded the resignation of Maduro and the installation as Venezuelan president of Juan Guiado, the unelected but self-proclaimed president Trump favors. “We seek a peaceful transition to power,” Trump said. “But all options are on the table.”
Such intervention in Venezuela’s internal affairs, including the implicit threat of U.S. military invasion, seems likely to lead to massive bloodshed in that country, the destabilization of Latin America, and―at the least―the further erosion of the international law the U.S. government claims to uphold.
–end–
Dr. Lawrence Wittner, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).
=================
Last week, ExcelinEd released its fifth and final career and technical education (CTE) playbook, Aligning State Career and Technical Education Programs with Industry Needs and Priorities. In this post, ExcelinEd’s Innovation Policy Managing Director Quentin Suffren shares highlights from the new playbook. Enjoy!
Today, we’re examining the final steps in ExcelinEd’s Career and Technical Education Playbook Series to strengthen state CTE programs: developing programs of study that align to postsecondary and in-demand career opportunities. To achieve this alignment, states can consider taking the following actions:
Defining and Developing High-Quality CTE Programs of Study
To begin, policymakers must define what high-quality CTE programs look like and align programs with those priorities. Policymakers can consult the following sources to define elements of high-quality, aligned CTE programs that fit their state context:
After establishing a clear definition for programs of study, policymakers can establish a theory of action that articulates the priorities and means for verifying program quality. This living document can guide policymakers through the overall alignment process.
View a Sample Theory of Action
Aligning CTE Programs to Postsecondary and In-Demand Career Opportunities
Next, policymakers can begin the process of aligning programs to postsecondary and workforce opportunities. This effort cannot be accomplished inside a single agency. Rather, aligning programs requires the engagement of multiple public and private sector stakeholders. There are two approaches to achieve this.
Regardless of the approach, the development of aligned, high-quality state CTE programs of study is a multi-phase, multi-step commitment on the part of policymakers. The first phase involves identifying key stakeholders, completing three major activities to improve program quality and developing essential planning documents.
View Sample Planning Documents
Implementing Fully Aligned, High-Quality Programs of Study
Implementation of the updated or new programs of study will be the work of local districts and schools, and this work is intensely regional and local in nature. While no playbook can foresee all the implementation challenges that lie ahead—or consider all local or regional contexts—there are some key steps that states should take to support local implementation and address ongoing issues that will arise:
CTE Playbook Series
ExcelinEd’s CTE playbook series explores strategies and processes states can use to strengthen CTE program quality and provide students with pathways to postsecondary credentialing and middle- and higher wage career opportunities. Learn more at ExcelinEd.org/CTE-Playbook-Series.
