adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

We’ve built schools for a modern economy—but they overlook the challenges of our modern democracy – Brookings Institution

Published

 on


Among the tall stack of executive orders on President Joe Biden’s desk on his first day in office was one that revoked an executive action from his predecessor that established the 1776 Commission. Donald Trump created the 1776 Commission to enhance “patriotic education” by suggesting changes to how students learn American history and civics. That commission issued a report in the waning days of the administration that sought to rewrite American history in right-wing rhetoric, with implications for U.S. schools.

Disbanding the 1776 Commission was, of course, the right move. It had all of the hallmarks of the Trump administration. Intentionally divisive and cruel, the commission’s name was a jab at The 1619 Project, and it timed the release of its report—which downplayed racism in American society—for Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The report itself is full of distortions, propaganda, and errors. It was produced by an unqualified group of partisans, overwhelmingly white and male, and has been roundly criticized by experts.

And yet, there’s something to the idea that we need to ask how American schools can help to build a more cohesive society and more resilient democracy. Americans’ lack of regard for their country—or, more accurately, the people with whom they share it—is a real problem with profoundly negative consequences. The Capitol insurrection offered a vivid illustration of that. And schools have an important role to play in addressing the problem.

A few months ago, I wrote an essay for Phi Delta Kappan in response to a question about how Americans define “good schools.” I argued that we’ve built an education system that treats the purpose of schooling almost exclusively as college and career preparation. Since at least the early 1980s, we’ve obsessed about the possibility, often overstated, that the economy is changing and U.S. schools are failing to keep up. Decades of education policy, practice, research, and rhetoric reinforce the idea that schools exist to prepare students academically for college and career.

But, as I argue in the piece, while we were preoccupied with preparing students for the 21st-century economy, we failed to prepare them for our 21st-century democracy. Our social and political terrain really did change on us. The emergence of social media, like talk radio and cable news before it, reshaped how we learn about the world and one another. We interact in ways we’ve never interacted before, often without face-to-face contact.

Navigating this new terrain requires a discrete set of skills and dispositions that don’t come naturally. How do we act with civility in a digital environment where we know people only by the antagonizing views they espouse? How, in a time of unvetted and manipulated information online, do we distinguish fact from fiction? We haven’t done these kinds of things well. Survey after survey shows that Americans struggle with disinformation, believe conspiracy theories at frighteningly high rates, and harbor wildly negative views of one another. For example, in a December 2020 NPR/Ipsos poll, only 47% of Americans called this ridiculous QAnon claim false: “A group of Satan-worshipping elites who run a child sex ring are trying to control our politics and media.”

These aren’t issues that will be resolved with yet more attention to math and English language arts. They reflect shortcomings that are different and deeper.

The ugliness of the last few years has rekindled interest in civics education on both the right and left. Many conservatives’ preferred approach is to instill patriotism through a renewed focus on teaching American history and ideals. Progressives worry that, if not done well, this will whitewash the past and distort students’ views of present-day America. Some prefer an action civics approach that engages students in the political process to address real-world problems. Conservatives call this educator activism masquerading as civics education.

Maybe these divergent views of civics education are more compatible than they seem. What is clear, though, is that navigating today’s landscape requires a set of skills and dispositions that are genuinely apolitical. They don’t reflect or promote any particular ideology. They’re tools that would help anyone to navigate a complex, changing world.

This list isn’t exhaustive, but would anyone disagree that we’d be better off if schools placed more emphasis on the following?

  • Media literacy. Collectively, we haven’t been up to the task of discerning what’s credible from what’s not on the internet, and it’s negatively affected our politics and democracy. This will only get more difficult as deepfakes and other types of disinformation become more sophisticated. Some states have written media-literacy education into state law in recent years, but many others haven’t—or haven’t given it the attention it requires.
  • Digital citizenship and empathy. Most of our social-emotional learning, at school and beyond, comes from face-to-face interactions with other people. We get cues to be kind and an impression that people have emotions and depth. But how does this work on Twitter, or for people we only see as caricatured political opponents? How can we develop empathy toward them, or at least not wish the worst for them? Many schools have introduced programs to combat cyberbullying in their own communities, which could be a start to thinking about digital citizenship more broadly.
  • Intellectual humility. At a time when we find ourselves in echo chambers with people with whom we agree—and who quickly crush dissent—it’s easy to lose track of our fallibility and the value in seeking out conflicting perspectives. How do we instill intellectual humility in this context? How can we show how vulnerable we all are to being tricked and roused to anger (and, in fact, to radicalization—a topic that might soon enter education discussions).

These types of skills and dispositions don’t arise naturally. They need to be taught. And if schools—high schools, in particular—don’t teach them, who will?

Some states and districts have taken the lead on these issues in recent years, and hopefully more will follow. Organizations such as CIRCLE (on youth civic engagement), the Stanford History Education Group (on teaching digital literacy), and iCivics (with resources for teachers) are providing guidance and help. Groups such as We the Purple are building ideologically diverse coalitions with commitments and guidance to solidify our democratic norms.

School leaders have a lot on their plates right now, and they will for the foreseeable future. However, as we embark on a long effort to address pandemic-related learning loss, we need to remember that schools serve democratic purposes as well as economic purposes.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Canada’s unemployment rate holds steady at 6.5% in October, economy adds 15,000 jobs

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Canada’s unemployment rate held steady at 6.5 per cent last month as hiring remained weak across the economy.

Statistics Canada’s labour force survey on Friday said employment rose by a modest 15,000 jobs in October.

Business, building and support services saw the largest gain in employment.

Meanwhile, finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing experienced the largest decline.

Many economists see weakness in the job market continuing in the short term, before the Bank of Canada’s interest rate cuts spark a rebound in economic growth next year.

Despite ongoing softness in the labour market, however, strong wage growth has raged on in Canada. Average hourly wages in October grew 4.9 per cent from a year ago, reaching $35.76.

Friday’s report also shed some light on the financial health of households.

According to the agency, 28.8 per cent of Canadians aged 15 or older were living in a household that had difficulty meeting financial needs – like food and housing – in the previous four weeks.

That was down from 33.1 per cent in October 2023 and 35.5 per cent in October 2022, but still above the 20.4 per cent figure recorded in October 2020.

People living in a rented home were more likely to report difficulty meeting financial needs, with nearly four in 10 reporting that was the case.

That compares with just under a quarter of those living in an owned home by a household member.

Immigrants were also more likely to report facing financial strain last month, with about four out of 10 immigrants who landed in the last year doing so.

That compares with about three in 10 more established immigrants and one in four of people born in Canada.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Health-care spending expected to outpace economy and reach $372 billion in 2024: CIHI

Published

 on

 

The Canadian Institute for Health Information says health-care spending in Canada is projected to reach a new high in 2024.

The annual report released Thursday says total health spending is expected to hit $372 billion, or $9,054 per Canadian.

CIHI’s national analysis predicts expenditures will rise by 5.7 per cent in 2024, compared to 4.5 per cent in 2023 and 1.7 per cent in 2022.

This year’s health spending is estimated to represent 12.4 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. Excluding two years of the pandemic, it would be the highest ratio in the country’s history.

While it’s not unusual for health expenditures to outpace economic growth, the report says this could be the case for the next several years due to Canada’s growing population and its aging demographic.

Canada’s per capita spending on health care in 2022 was among the highest in the world, but still less than countries such as the United States and Sweden.

The report notes that the Canadian dental and pharmacare plans could push health-care spending even further as more people who previously couldn’t afford these services start using them.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.

Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Trump’s victory sparks concerns over ripple effect on Canadian economy

Published

 on

 

As Canadians wake up to news that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the president-elect’s protectionist stance is casting a spotlight on what effect his second term will have on Canada-U.S. economic ties.

Some Canadian business leaders have expressed worry over Trump’s promise to introduce a universal 10 per cent tariff on all American imports.

A Canadian Chamber of Commerce report released last month suggested those tariffs would shrink the Canadian economy, resulting in around $30 billion per year in economic costs.

More than 77 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S.

Canada’s manufacturing sector faces the biggest risk should Trump push forward on imposing broad tariffs, said Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters president and CEO Dennis Darby. He said the sector is the “most trade-exposed” within Canada.

“It’s in the U.S.’s best interest, it’s in our best interest, but most importantly for consumers across North America, that we’re able to trade goods, materials, ingredients, as we have under the trade agreements,” Darby said in an interview.

“It’s a more complex or complicated outcome than it would have been with the Democrats, but we’ve had to deal with this before and we’re going to do our best to deal with it again.”

American economists have also warned Trump’s plan could cause inflation and possibly a recession, which could have ripple effects in Canada.

It’s consumers who will ultimately feel the burden of any inflationary effect caused by broad tariffs, said Darby.

“A tariff tends to raise costs, and it ultimately raises prices, so that’s something that we have to be prepared for,” he said.

“It could tilt production mandates. A tariff makes goods more expensive, but on the same token, it also will make inputs for the U.S. more expensive.”

A report last month by TD economist Marc Ercolao said research shows a full-scale implementation of Trump’s tariff plan could lead to a near-five per cent reduction in Canadian export volumes to the U.S. by early-2027, relative to current baseline forecasts.

Retaliation by Canada would also increase costs for domestic producers, and push import volumes lower in the process.

“Slowing import activity mitigates some of the negative net trade impact on total GDP enough to avoid a technical recession, but still produces a period of extended stagnation through 2025 and 2026,” Ercolao said.

Since the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement came into effect in 2020, trade between Canada and the U.S. has surged by 46 per cent, according to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

With that deal is up for review in 2026, Canadian Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Candace Laing said the Canadian government “must collaborate effectively with the Trump administration to preserve and strengthen our bilateral economic partnership.”

“With an impressive $3.6 billion in daily trade, Canada and the United States are each other’s closest international partners. The secure and efficient flow of goods and people across our border … remains essential for the economies of both countries,” she said in a statement.

“By resisting tariffs and trade barriers that will only raise prices and hurt consumers in both countries, Canada and the United States can strengthen resilient cross-border supply chains that enhance our shared economic security.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending