120th Birthday of George Orwell - Part II

                    The tribute to George Orwell carries on. Many journalist are reinforcing the importance of the warnings of Orwell nowadays. Let's pay attention to what they are saying and fighting against abuse of power, authoritarian regimes and anything that undermine truth, democracy, human rights and justice. This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published at https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/1984-george-orwell/590638/. The second was published at https://qrius.com/george-orwell-1984-classic/. The third was published at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-65856526

                  No novel of the past century has had more influence than George Orwell's 1984. The vocabulary of the all-powerful party that rules the state Oceania with the ideologia of Ingsoc - doublethink, memory hole, unperson, thoughtcrime, newspeak, thought police, room 101, big brother - they have all entered the English language as instantly recognizable signs of a nightmare future. It is almost impossible to talk about propaganda, surveillance, authoritarian politics, or pervesions of truth without dropping a reference to 1984. Throughout the Cold War, the novel found avid underground readers behind the Iron Curtain who wondered, How did he know? It was also assigned reading for several generations of American high-schools students. Orwell's novel was paired with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, whose hedonistic and pharmaceutical dystopia seemed more relevant to a California teenager than the bleak sadism of 1984. The 1984's pessimism is relieved, until its last pages, by Winston Smith's attachment to nature, the smell of fresh coffee, the sound of proletarian woman singing, and above all his lover, Julia. The novel is crushingly grim, but its clarity and rigor are stimulants to consciousness and resistance. Conservative American reviewers concluded that Orwell's main target wasn't just the Soviet Union but the left generally. Orwell, waded in with a statement explaining that the novel was not an attack on any particular government but a satire of the totalitarian tendencies."The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: Don't let it happen. It depends on you." Orwell said. Things haven't turned out that bad. The Soviet Union is history. Technology is liberating. But Orwell never intended his novel to be a prediction, only a warning. And it is as a warning that 1984 keeps finding new relevance. What does the novel mean for us? To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle," Orwell wrote. In the world of enlightened and progressive people, a different sort of doublethink has become pervasive. It is not the claim that true is fake or that two plus two makes five. Progressive doublethink, which has grown worse in reaction to the far right-wing kind, creates a more insidious unreality because it operates in the name of all that is good. Its key word is justice - a word no one should want to live without. But today the demand for justice forces you to accept contradictions that are the essence of doublethink. Orthodoxy is also enforced by social pressure, this pressure can be more powerful than a party or state, because it speaks in the name of the people and in the language of moral outrage, against which there is, in a way, no defense. Orwell wrote in 1946. "What is needed is the right to print what one believes to be true, without having to fear bullying or blackmail from any side." 1984 will always be an essential book, regardless of changes in ideologies, for its portrayal of one person struggling to hold what is real and valuable. The central drama of politics is the one inside your skull.                                                                                                                                                  George Orwell's classical works such as 1984 spoke of a dystopian society, totalitarian control of states and abuse of power. Their relevance in more modern times is no matter of surprise. 1984 provided us with a view of a society and of a future which is very bleak, a state where the government spies on its people round the clock, tells people what to do and what to think, and keeps people at the constant edge of their minds with the constant war propaganda. Orwell provided a well structured vision of this society, a mechanism for control and abuse of power. Societies  as such do exist today, for example, in North Korea. However, Orwell's detailed vision fails, in the light of recent developments such as social media and political correctness. He wrote, "who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past", indicating towards the vitality of information in our lives and how its control can help control the world. Information today is more centralised than ever, with a private company Facebook more than 4 billion people receiving news but on the other hand, the very same platform has brought in the heavy democratisation of information in our daily lives. Social media is peak democracy first. A fierce free speech activist, Orwell understood free speech as the liberty to say things which even people didin't want to hear, a repository of a right reserved for the minority, the powerless and also, the controversial, a right necessary to conserve a society while also calling for change. Free speech for a democracy is like an oxygen for a human being. Orwell remains relevant more than ever, both as a political analyst and a philosopher. He strongly believed that power, exercised by the fascists and the idealists alike, would be subject to abuse. He was heavily obsessed with the malleable nature of power and all the hypocrisy that it revealed. His main lesson? Question everything and everyone.                                                                            Richard Blair was speaking on the 120th anniversary of the writer's birth. He was adopted by Eric Blair, better known by his name of George Orwell. With Russia calling the war in Ukraine a "special military operation", many people see 1984 as more relevant than ever. Asked about how his father would react if he came back today, Mr. Blair said, "has it changed from the world of 1984 and Animal Farm? It is been the same for a millennia. I suppose it will be the same in another 100 years time". Professor Jean Seaton, official historian of the BBC, said Orwell was still incredibly important. " We live in a world with surveillance, facial recognition. 1984 is about the capacity of authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, to make you believe what is not true." he said.                                                                                     

The Movement We Need

                  There is not nothing more left to say, this text says all.  This post is a summary of the book with the incomplete title above published at https://www.thepeopleslobbyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/The-Movement-We-Need-Web1.pdf

                   The global economic crisis gave us all a glimpse of the rot at the center of our economy and politics. Despite the repeated efforts of elites around the world to put everything back together, the crisis has not been resolved. In the everyday lives of the majority of people, it is clear that there has been no real recovery. In moments like this, progressive activists, the pragmatic left, environmental groups, human rights organizations and community organizations must look beyond small scale, short-term fights. Fundamental change is becoming not just desirable but unavoidable. We must set an agenda for a more progressive future, or we will end up in a world even less humane than the one we already have. We must move from a politics of merely exposing injustice through critique to end injustice. We have to move beyond identifying injustice to understanding why it happens in order to change it. Real progress towards equality is impossible without addressing  political and economic exclusion. Movements for rights have made some headway, but so far there have been no serious attempts to deal with the underlying economic forces which render so many and so vulnerable. Any movement to address the vulnerability will find itself constrained by the demands of the market. True justice will eventually require that we eliminate the inequality that currently exists. We have arrived at a point in history where this kind of transformation has become possible. In the 1970s, stagnating productivity had generated the economic dysfunctions of stagflation and undermine popular faith in the establishment. The neoliberal solution was to break the back of organized labor and inspire an even more intense atmosphere of competitive individualism. Neoliberalism unleashed the dynamic power of capitalist development only to know find itself stymied by ever-expanding stocks of capital and ever-narrowing opportunities for their investment. This marks a moment of great danger. Yet the paralysis of a global system also presents us with the chance, for the first time in decades, to fundamentally change the course of our socviety. It's an opportunity we must start taking seriously. The status quo was virtually unassailable. The system itself increased inequality, destroyed unions, and narrowed the civil public sector. Those who wanted something better were reduced either to impotent condemnation or to narrow defensive campaigns against the offensive. The crucial question in our historical moment is not whether there should be growth, but what kind of growth there could be. Economical development can take a distinctly progressive form, one that not only makes ecologically sustainable life a possibility, but that also opens the door to even more political possibilities. A more inclusive society must be based on productive long-term investment. Rather than consigning the economically excluded to the ineffectual care of charities and aid programs, productive investment would actively integrate them into the economy. It would generate a form of growth that by its very logic would reduce inequality, raise the standard of living of those who suffer deprivation, and extend social recognition to those who are treated as trash. The full power of transnational solidarity is not yet evident, but we have had glimpses of its potential. The brutality of the global system has been horrifying demonstrated by preventable disasters. A new global movement must demand that transnational bodies, multinational corporations, and national governments participate in the creation of new, legally-binding global standards governing labor rights, corporate taxes, and environmental protection. We must reject the unfortunate trend of nationalism. This is incompatible with international solidarity. The best traditions emphasize internationalism, human equality regardless of nation, and global solidarity among all of the political excluded. Unlike the champions of neoliberal globalization, progressives understand that our current global society is not one of universal opportunity and progress, but one of inequality, exploitation and political exclusion. The answer, however, is not destroy global society. The answer is to make it just. Those guided by justice and love have been blessed with the terrible fortune of bearing witness to the slow motion collapse of our social and political systems. We have a choice: do we retreat into fear, or do we expand our compassion to new terrains? Do we huddle in desperate enclaves hoping to survive the looming environmental and social catastrophes, or do we address them head-on with a breadth of imagination and intensity that has been missed? What we have outlined is a new way to understand the intolerable injustices and excruciating dilemmas we face today.

Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy

                 This post is a summary of the book with the title above published in July 2022 at https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/building-trust-to-reinforce-democracy_b407f99c-en#page1

                  The inaugural OECD Survey on the Drives of Trust in Public Institutions (Trust Survey) is a new measurement tool for democratic governments seeking to improve public confidence in government reliability, responsiveness, integrity, fairness and openness. Twenty-two OECD countries volunteered to participate. Trust is an important indicator to measure how people perceive the quality of, and how they associate with, government institutions in democratic countries. The resilience of democratic systems comes from the open public debate they foster, enabling them to improve and meet increasing citizens expectations. Overall, the results show that OECD countries are performing reasonably well on average on many measures of governance, such as citizens' perceptions of government reliability, service provision, and data openness. A key factor distinguishing democracy from other forms of governments is equal opportunities for representation. Many people see equal access to political processes as falling short of their expectations. Public perceptions of government integrity are also an issue. Just under half of respondents on average, think a high-level political official would grant a political favour in exchange for the offer of a well-paid private sector job. These feelings of disempowerment, a lack of voice in policy making, and the sense that political officials are captive to undue influence, are compounded by persistent, underlying inequalities in society. There is a widespread sense that democratic government is working for some, but certainly not for all. Low levels of trust in government and public institutions are also related to perceptions of vulnerability and being left behind economically, socially and politically. A tangible indicator of government reliability lies in the provision of social protection and educational opportunities. OECD governments devote a massive amount of resources to providing health and education: countries spent around 5.6% and 3.4% of GDP, respectively, on average. 61.7% of respondents, on average, say they are satisfied with their country's healthcare system. Respondents are similarly positive about education: 57.6% say they are satisfied with their country's educational system. People who perceive governmental information to be open and transparent also have higher levels of trust in government. Indeed, on average across countries, among those who find information about administrative processes easily available, 50,8% have trust in national government. Trust in public institutions is derived from factors beyond the conventional measures of service quality, suggesting that attention should be paid not only to performance, but also to processes. Public sector integrity is a key element of democratic governance and fundamental for a system that has the ambition to work in the same way for everyone. Corruption and mismanagement in the public sector are cited among the most important sources of distrust. While ethical behaviour and the absence of corruption is associated with greater trust. The rule of law is one of the cornerstone of the democratic governance and trust in legal and justice services matters for trust in government, too, by providing citizens with recourse mechanisms to protect their rights. These protection mechanisms create safeguards against possible misbehaviour and integrity in the justice sector is thus essential for trust in fellow citizens, businesses and other public institutions. The Trust Survey shows that citizens' overall trust in the judiciary is relatively high: on average 59.6% of respondents say they trust the courts and legal system. Perceptions are most positive in Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands. A fundamental feature of democracy is the concept of political voice. Political participation is a cornerstone of a well-functioning democracy. Political participation strengthens democracies both at the individual and systemic level: when people actively engage, they develop stronger democratic values and civic skills, and at the same time provide legitimacy to the system. In turn, participation and trust are mutually reinforcing. Civic-minded citizens are found to participate more. Trust can be considered as a prerequisite of political action, and is related to higher levels of different forms of participation, such as being part of elections, contacting government officials or being part of political parties. Lack of representation and low levels of trust in national legislatures usually go together with lower levels of accountability, corroding the basis of democracy and resulting in policies which are less responsive to the interests of a broad public. In addition to feeling like they do not have opportunities to influence policies and be heard, many respondents question the integrity of elected and appointed officials and whether they fairly represent the will of the people. On average 47.8% of respondents say it is likely that a high-level political official would grant a political favour in exchange for the offer of the prospect of a well-paid job in the private sector. Norway is the only country in which the share of respondents believing in the ethical behaviour of high-level officials is higher than the share of sceptical respondents. People who feel their political and government institutions do not treat them fairly may become cynical and distrust their government. Institutions can lessen this distrust. Countries' efforts to give people effective voice and strengthen the representation of collective interests. Access to accurate information is a key component of democracy and a foundation of current events, followed by newspapers (including online). News consumption is fairly high. Yet it is important to note that these news are operating in an environment of high scepticism towards the media. Only 38.8% of respondents, on average, say that they trust the news media

150th Birthday of Santos Dumont

              Ten days ago, on 20th of July, the Brazilian inventor Alberto Santos Dumont would complete 150 years old, so this post is a tribute to him. He spent his early childhood 35 miles from where I live. He wrote in his time about the importance of technology to the development of countries. This post is a summary of the article published at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont

             Alberto Santos Dumont (1873-1932) was a Brazilian aeronaut, sportsman, inventor, and one of the few people to have contributed significantly to the early development of both lighter-than-air and heavier-than-air aircraft. The heir of a wealthy family of coffee producers, he dedicated himself to aeronautical study and experimentation in Paris, where he spent most of his adult life. He designed, built and flew the first powered airships and won the Deutsch Prize in 1901, when he flew around the Eiffel Tower in his airship No. 6, he becoming one of the most famous people in the world in the early 20th century. Santos Dumont then progressed to powered heavier-than-air machines and on 23 October 1906, he flew about 60 meters at a height of three meters with the fixed-wing 14-bis in Paris, taking off unassisted by external launch system. On 12th November in front of a crowd, he flew 220 meters at a height of six meters. These were the first heavier-than-air flights certified by the Aeroclub of France, the first flight officially witnessed by an aeronautics body and first of their kind recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Santos Dumont was the sixth child of Henrique Dumont, an engineer who graduated in Paris, and Francisca de Paula Santos. The couple had eight children: three sons and five daughters. In 1873, the family moved to the small town of Cabangu in MG, for Henrique Dumont to work on the construction of the D.Pedro II railroad. In 1879, the family moved to Ribeirão Preto, where they bought a coffee farm. Until 10, he was taught by his older sister, Virginia, after he then attended schools in São Paulo e after Rio and later at the school of Engineering from Minas, without finishing the course. By reading the works of Julio Verne, with whose fictional heroes he was later compared, Santos Dumont got the desire to conquer the air. Technology fascinated him. He began building kites and small aeroplanes powered by a propeller driven by twisted rubber springs, as he says in a commentary on the letter he received the day he won the Deutsch Prize. In 1892, his father had a serious accident, with that, he left the Ouro Preto Mining Engineering School and go to France, where he took part in motor racing and cycling. The 14-bis or Oiseau de Proie, consolidated his studies of what had been done in aviation until then, finish after two months, in mid-1906, an aeroplane attached to a hydrogen ballon to assist takeoff. On 23rd October, Santos Dumont present himself at Bagatelle with the Oiseau de Proie II, a modification of the original model. The plane had been varnished to reduce the porosity of the fabric and increase lift. The rear wheel had been removed. In the morning he limited himself to manoeuvring the aircraft across the field, until the propeller shaft broke. It was repaired in the afternoon, and the plane was moved into position for an official attempt. An expectant crowd was present. At 4:45 pm, Santos Dumont started the engine. The plane lifted off and flew for 60 meters, without taking advantage of headwinds, ramps, catapults, slopes, or other devices. The flight had taken place solely by the aircraft's own means, and it was the first such achievement. The crowd celebrated, ran up to the pilot and carried him off in triumph. In 1909 he presented the Demoiselle No 20. This aeroplane schemes were published in the issues of Popular Mechanics and around 300 were built in Europe and U.S. This aeroplane consolidated Santos Dumont's role in the birth of aviation in the 20th century. This aeroplane also featured an engine of original invention by Santos Dumont and was capable of flights of up 2 kilometers and reaching 96 km/h and it was used for pilot training during World War I. Santos Dumont began to show symptoms of multiple sclerosis. On 22 August 1909 he  attended the Great Aviation Week in Reims, where he made his last flights. After an accident with the his aircraft Demoiselle in 1910, he closed down his workshop and withdrew from social life. In 1913, the Icarus monument was unveiled, celebrating his winning the Deutsch Prize, made by sculptor George Colin. Soon after this event he returned to Brazil after a 10-year absence, returning to France the following year. In August 1914, World War I began, and Santos Dumont offered his services to the France. Aeroplanes began to be used in warfare, first for observation of enemy troops, and then in aerial combat. In 1915, his health worsened and he decided to return to Brazil. That year, he took part in the 11th Pan-American Scientific Congress in the U.S. In 1918, he bought a small plot of land on the side of a hill in Petrópolis and built a small house there filled with mechanical devices, including an alcohol-heated shower of his own design. The house is now a museum. In 1930, he was hospitalised in France, in 1931, he was treated in sanatoriums in the Pyrénées. In 1932 he settled in Guarujá. In July 1932, the state of São Paulo rose up in the Constitutionalist revolution against the revolutionary government of Getúlio Vargars and aeroplanes attacked the Campo de Marte in SP. They may have flown over Guarujá, and the sight of planes in combat may have caused deep anguish in Santos Dumont who, in his nephew's absence, died by suicide at the age 59. His friend the French businessman and aviator Gabriel Voisin wrote, "Several legends were told about our Brazilian friend. They said he had an immense fortune! But how to explain the festure of this man who distributed prizes awarded for performances to charitable institutions? Not at all, Santos Dumont was generosity itself, innate elegance, kindness and righteousness".

120th Birthday of George Orwell

                Almost one month ago, precisely on 25th of June, the British writer George Orwell would complete 120 years old. He showed us the reality of totalitarian regimes, the suffering of the victims of abuse and injustice. We all must fight for democracy, justice and human rights. This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published at https://waldina.com/2023/0/25/happy-120th-birthday-george-orwell/. The second was published at https://www.wjpitch.com/opinion/2021/11/15/george-orwells-1984-is-still-relevant-today/. The third was published at https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/articles/what-we-can-learn-from-the-works-of-george-orwell/

                Today is the 120th birthday of the little boy who became George Orwell. They showed the animated version of Animal Farm in school.  I remember finding it exceptionally disturbing, which is the correct response, but I also remember thinking that it was strange thing to show grade school children. The first time I read 1984 was in 1984. I have read it since. The world is a better place because he was in it and still feels the loss than he left. George Orwell created some of the sharpest satirical fiction of the 20th century with works such as Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-four. He was a man of strong opinions who addressed some of the major political movements of his time, including imperialism, fascism and communism. After completing his schooling at Eton, Orwell found himself ay a dead end. His family did not have the money to pay for a university education. Instead he joined the India Imperial Police Force in 1922. After five years in Burma, Orwell resigned his post and returned to England. He was intent on making it as a writer. After leaving the Imperial Force, Orwell struggled to get his writing career off the ground. His first major work, Down and Out in Paris and London, (1933) explored his time eking out a living in these two cities. The book provided a brutal look at the lives of the working poor and those living a transient existence. Sometimes called the conscience of a generation, Orwell next explored his overseas experiences in Burmese Days, published in 1934. The novel offered a dark look at British colonialism in Burma, then part of the British empire. Orwell's interest in political matters grew rapidly after this novel was published. Orwell is best known for two novels, Animal Farm and Nineteen eighty-four, Both of which were published toward the end of his life. Animal Farm (1945) was an anti-Soviet satire in a pastoral setting featuring two pigs as its main protagonists. The novel brought Orwell great acclaim and financial rewards. In 1949, Orwell published 1984. This bleak vision of the world divided into three oppressive nations stirred up controversy who found this fictional future too despairing. In the novel, Orwell gave readers a glimpse into what would happen if the government controlled every detail of a person's life. 1984 proved to be another huge success for the author, but he had little time to enjoy it. By this time, Orwell was in the late stages of his battle with tuberculosis. He died on January 1950, in a London hospital.                                                        In W.J. High School English curriculum, we read many great old books. Some of these books, though written 50 to even hundred years ago, are still very significant to this day. One book that connects to our present day is 1984, written by George Orwell in 1949. It is a dystopian novel about a powerful, corrupt government taking control of the people, manipulating them and constantly watching them. It is a book that deserves especially close reading today for the way in which it captures many worrisome current trends. One of the themes in 1984 concerns the rewriting of history. The Party would rewrite history in order to maintain power over the people. Orwell's novel also introduced the idea of "thought crime" which involves believing in something other than whatever the party line happens to be. Cancel culture is another example of this in our day. Big Brother and the Party also devised a monitoring system, known as the 'telescreen,' so that they could watch the people constantly. The telescreens in 1984 collected all sorts of information and data about people's whereabouts, etc. In 1984, Orwell presents our society with an important warning about the loss of freedom and democracy. It is crucuial that people today heed Orwell's warning. It may sound silly that a book written 72 years ago could predict the future, but the truth is that Orwell's dystopia has become, in certain ways, a reality in our own days. It is our responsibility, to learn from books, like 1984, and prevent this from happening nowadays.                                                                       Can you imagine living your life controlled by oppressors? Of course not! George Orwell was determined to raise public awareness of the dangers of extremism and autocracy, which he did through his novels and short stories. Living in the shadow of the two world wars, Orwell wrote with a conviction bred from an insight and personal knowledge of the nightmarish atrocities committed by some political regimes. Orwell's famous Animal Farm is a must-read novel, It is written in the style of one of Aesop's fables, and uses animals om an farm to tell the story of the Soviet communism. It is a real eye-opener. You will be enchanted with the character of Boxer, the horse, who is depicted as one who has made a huge contribution to the prosperity of Animal Farm and the building of the windmill. But in his naivety he trusts all the leaders even though he is being starved and exhausted. This is the most powerful and poignant lesson Orwell has taught us in Animal Farm. It scrutinises Joseph Stalin's Communist Party and his cruelties and hypocrisies during 1920-1947 government. Orwell believed that corruption lies within the leaders who destroy or drive away anyone who dares to think differently. This is a lesson taught to readers not to bow down to dictators. 1984 is Orwell's ultimate novel. Read it again and again, and each time you will find a new political message. It is considered to be Orwell's best work. Why? Because it deals with humanitarian issues and remains one of the most powerful warnings against the dangers of a totalitarian society. Nobody was safe, and that was a frightening fact. In 1984 normal people, represented by the characters of Winston and Julia, are forbidden to have sex, eat illicit foods, or commit any thoughts or feelings to writing. Everything in a totalitarian regime is completely wiped out. Expect 'Big Brother' to watch you 24/7, whether you are eating, sleeping or playing. In this world there is not privacy, only torture.

Impacts of a full-time school program on learning

                      This week will finish the public consultation of the Brazilian government about the new high school. If we look to high school in other countries we'll see that this kind of flexibilization of subjects and eletive subjects have been a reality for many years. We have to remember the initial proposal of the new high school was simply the students choose the subjects according to what he/she is intending to study in the university and technical course for those that don't want to study in the university. This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published with the incomplete title above in 2022 at https://www.scielo.br/j/ee/a/XjMWSdzS59Pky6wL5jdCcBd/. The second was published athttps://www.ourkids.net/pl-en/education-european-countries.php#maincontent. The third was published at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_education_in_the_United_States

                     Brazil has undergone a major expansion of education in recent decades, but the quality of the educational system still remains a problem. To improve student learning several efforts are being made, including lengthening the school day. Data from 2018 shows that Brazil has a school day shorter than the average of the OECD countries and shorter than other Latin America countries and the U.S. The Brazilian National Education Plan foresees that, by 2024, 50% of public schools should be full-time. It is not straightforward to assume that longer school hours imply gains in academic performance. For example, the federal program Mais Educação, created in 2007 with the intention of expanding full-time education seems to have been unsuccessful in increasing student performance. The educational production function relates the imputs to the maximum possible learning and is based on the production function in firm theory. Among the various inputs, we have those related to families, peers, and the school, such as teacher quality and available infrastructure (library, classroom size). Among the school's inputs, we have the time the student stays at school (number of hours per school-day, number of school days in the year). Success in learning depends on the amount of time that a person spends learning a given task, given the amount of time needed to learn the task. Altough Carrol's model indicates a positive relationship between instruction time and learning, Levin and Tsang (1987) shows that the mechanical increase in the school day may be an inefficient policy to improve performance of students. The point here is that there is a relationship between time devoted to learning and effort. The theoretical result is that the student will reduce his efforts if the additional instructional time is higher that the equilibrium. However, the additional instruction time may have an effect on student's performance if combined with other changes in learning. Policies that make schools more attractive, making the learning experience more interesting, may eliminate the student's effort reduction. All these variables enter into the educational production function, with possible impacts on learning, in addition to classroom time and the learning environment. There are papers that analyze the impact of these other variables on learning. For example, teacher turnover, school accountability, etc. It is also important to highlight different benefits that the PEI (programa de ensino integral) can generate in the long term. Evidence shows that school performance has an impact on future wages, even controlled for years of schooling. There is also evidence of a positive relationship between test scores and school attainment. And is this positive relationship between test score and school attainment is valid, it is important to mention Lochner (2011) who deals with some of the nonproduction benefits of education, especially on crime and health. Macro evidence also shows higher economic growth for countries with better educational quality.                                                                                                                                                            Secondary education in Poland covers general high school as well as technical schools. Students can choose some of the subjects they will take. The last level of compulsory British education is high school. The curriculum already includes fewer subjects, and the focus is mainly on the classes with which students want to pursue further education in university. Education ends with an exam called GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education). After completing primary school in Germany, students can choose from further education in three institutions: 1) Hauptschule - emphasize preparation for a specific profession. After graduation students are enable to practice a craft. 2) Realschule: intended mainly for people who are interested in the economy or a specific job. The curriculum here includes science and foreign languages. 3) Gymnasium: the wide range of subjects aims to prepare students for university. After completing the first level of education, students in Spain go to high school. The first stage of high school in mainly lessons on elementary subjects, a foreign language as well as general vocational education. Students are assessed using points from tests and activity in the classroom. The number of points determines the final assessment at the end of the year. A certificate at this phase enables further education in upper high school or a vocational school. Upper high school or Bachillerato is designed to prepare students to study at university. The main focus here is on lessons related to young people's interests or future career plans.                                             Many high school in the U.S. offer of vocational or university preparation curriculum. Schools that offer vocational programs include a very high level of technical specialization, e.g. auto mechanics or carpentry, with a half-day instruction work program. Many states requires courses in the "core" areas of English, sciences, social studies, and math. Public high schools offer a wide variety of elective courses. Some schools require students to earn a few credits of classes considered electives, common types of electives include: Visual arts (drawing, painting, film studies). Performing arts (choir, drama, band, guitar). Vocational education (woodworking, metalworking, auto repair, agriculture). Information technology (programming, robotics, graphic design, web design, video game design). Business education (accounting, data processing, entrepreneuship, finance, management, marketing).         

Statement on Protecting Human Rights Defenders

                        The international organisations of human rights should do more to reinforce the most basics rights of the world population, since many governments around the world don't concern much about the human rights of their populations, and to make matters worse in many cases they are even taking part in the violations of human rights. We, human rights defenders can't give up of our activism, our daily struggle for justice and for our political rights because of the threats. I know that isn't easy to keep this fight for so long time, but now we have millions sharing this feeling, this calling from our awareness. I think that never in the world history a pre candidate was so bullied, but also never in the world history a pre candidate received so much support. Once more I like to thank all support felt for us here. I can't transmit in words how much I am grateful with all this huge support coming from all parts of the world.    This post is a summary of the joint statement released by the Government of the U.S.A. and the E.U. in December 2022. Published at https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-protecting-human-rights-defenders-online/

                     The U.S. - E.U. partnership is a cornerstone of our shared strength, prosperity, and commitment to advancing freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights around the world. In the framework of the U.S. - E.U. Trade and Technology Council, we address the misuse of technology threatening security and human rights and have committed to strengthen our cooperation on protecting human rights defenders online; promoting the open, free, global, secure and reliable internet as stated in the Declaration for the Future of the Internet; combatting online harassment and abuse; eliminating arbitrary and unlawful surveillance; combating government-imposed Internet shutdowns; and countering disinformation and information manipulation and interference. Digital technologies are vital resource for human rights defenders and civic actors, including in the context of documenting human rights violations and abuses. However, these technologies can also be mimused to target human rights defenders and undermine civic space. The U.S. and E.U. are deeply concerned by the rapid growth of online threats against human rights defenders and the ongoing contraction of civic space around the world. Human rights defenders continue to face threats and attacks, including arbitrary or unlawful online surveillance, censorship, harassment, smear campaigns, targeted Internet shutdowns, and doxing. In line with our respective policies, the E.U. Action Plan for Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024 and the E.U. Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders and the Guidelines for U.S. Diplomatic Mission Support to Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders, we reaffirm our joint commitment to protecting human rights defenders from threats and attacks and promoting freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, both online and offline. The U.S. and E.U. firmly condemn the misuse of technology by both state and non-state actors to target human rights defenders. We reaffirm that all human rights apply both online and offline. We recall, that according to the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by consensus by U.N. member states, states "shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present declaration". States should work to prevent attacks against human rights defenders and bring perpetrators of attacks to justice. We also emphasize the responsibility of the private sector, in particular technology companies to respect human rights in line with the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. We urge companies to prevent the misuse of their products and platforms, conduct due diligence, take effective action to address all forms of online violence and unlawful surveillance against human rights defenders, support victims on their search for remedy and accountability for violations and abuses, and provide a safe space for human rights defenders to carry out their work. We also support stronger accountability for technology platforms and recognize the role of government to enhance online safety, security and privacy. The U.S. and E.U. will work to develop effective policies to mitigate threats to democracy and human rights, and to promote appropriate oversight and safeguards for the use of surveillance technologies. We will take a multistakeholder approach, including through worling with partner governments, private sector, academia, civil society including human rights NGOs and human rights defenders, survivors of online harassment and abuse, and international organisations. We commit to promote accountability for companies that are complicit in enabling human rights abuses. We will continue to give human rights defenders a platform to highlight the online threats they face, including through public events, as we did in the framework of the 49th Session of the Human Rights Council. We are committed to working closely to elevate these issues within the U.N. system, including with the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the U.N. Tech Envoy. We call on likeminded countries to join in the effort and to publicly amplify their support for human rights defenders. The E.U. and the United States are committed to ensure access and meaningful participation of civil society in conversations around human rights in the multilateral fora. The U.S. and E.U. will continue to support mechanisms, including the Digital Defenders Partnership, the Lifeline Embattled CSO Assistance Fund, and ProtectDefenders.EU that provide resources for at-risk human rights defenders and CSO, including for preventing digital attacks and for supporting digital security needs. The U.S. and the E.U. are also committed to fostering cooperation through our missions around the globe. U.S. Embassies and E.U. Delegations play an instrumental role in monitoring developments and conducting joint outreach on issues surrounding human rights defenders' protection. The U.S. and the E.U. stand ready to engage with government partners to strengthen their national efforts to prevent and address threats against human rights defenders.