Source: Radio New Zealand
A huge fire that ripped through a Hong Kong housing estate has killed dozens, with 279 people were unaccounted for.
The massive fire ripped through multiple high-rise residential blocks in Hong Kong’s northern Tai Po district, with authorities struggling to bring the blaze under control.
Follow our live updates at the top of this page.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow
Since the election last year, the UK government has said economic growth is its top priority, as a way to improve living standards, cut NHS waiting lists and ease pressure on household finances. But with the Office for Budget Responsibility predicting growth this year to be a below-average 1.5%, it seems things haven’t gone entirely to plan.
So would Rachel Reeves’ second budget provide any glimmers of hope? Here’s how our panel of experts reacted.
Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Glasgow
This is a substantially tax-raising budget, but one that tries to obscure where the burden will fall. Rather than confronting the need to raise the basic rate of income tax, the government has opted for a prolonged freeze in thresholds. This is, in effect, a sizeable stealth tax: as wages rise with inflation, more middle-earners are pulled into higher-rate bands.
However, this approach is still more weighted towards raising revenue from higher earners than a broad-based rise that would spread the load across the income distribution. A sharp break between the basic and higher rates – an unusual feature of the UK income tax setup – remains. Changes to national insurance follow a similar stealth logic. The rate remains unchanged, yet its scope has widened, particularly through restrictions on pension salary-sacrifice.
Whether these kinds of changes break Labour’s manifesto commitments not to raise taxes on “working people” is increasingly a matter of semantics. Many working people’s take-home pay will be less than it would have been, even if the headline tax rates have not changed.
One positive consequence of raising the revenue this way, however, is that individuals and households – not just employers – will carry much of the cost. Some measures that would have directly targeted businesses, like a bank windfall tax, have been abandoned.
This makes the budget more supportive of growth than early reports anticipated, because taxes that fall primarily on employers take funding away from things like opening new facilities or creating jobs.
Yet the growth forecasts remain weak because there is still no plan to raise productivity. Government investment in skills and infrastructure is lacking, and tighter immigration controls (which the government is also imposing) limit labour supply and impose other transaction costs on businesses. Growth requires broader changes to these other aspects of economic policy and cannot be generated through tax reform alone.
Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London
The chancellor has announced measures to raise £26 billion in her budget statement. Driving her decision is the need to cap the size of the government’s debt, which, at £2.9 trillion amounts to 95% of the total size of the UK economy.
But also feeding into her choices is the need to abide by her self-imposed fiscal rules. These require her to cut the deficit (the difference between tax revenue and spending) every year for the next five years. An additional challenge is that the cost of paying interest on this huge national debt has gone up sharply in recent years, with the government now paying more in interest that it spends on education.
The fiscal rules are designed to reassure financial markets, which lend the government the money it needs, that the chancellor is prudent with the country’s finances. Tax rises were necessary to meet Reeves’ “ironclad” rules (based on the forecasts of spending watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility) with the aim of stabilising that huge debt.
The problem is that small changes in any of the forecasts can throw the government off course. As the former head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, noted: “The chances of any economic or fiscal forecast being accurate in every dimension are infinitesimally small.” However, Reeves has now left herself more “fiscal headroom” (the amount she can increase spending further without breaking her rules) – £21.7 billion.
She has gone some way to acknowledging the problem of predictions by making two changes in the fiscal rules. Last year she exempted investment spending – on building roads, power stations and houses – from the rules, in the hope of encouraging economic growth.
And this year, she has announced that the Treasury will produce a budget forecast only once a year. This will avoid the difficult spring statement she had to present this year.
But neither of these changes are guaranteed to give her the stability she needs to encourage economic growth and security. Relying on a single OBR forecast makes each budget a hostage to fortune. It might be wise to give a range of economic and revenue forecasts, as the Bank of England already does. The very concept of a fixed amount of “headroom” is probably too rigid and leads to continual changes in policies and taxes.
Since 1997 when fiscal rules were introduced, the Treasury has announced ten sets of rules with 28 different specific targets. For example, when once it was prudent to keep the debt below 40% of GDP, now 100% is an acceptable target. So it is clear that the markets themselves do not view the fiscal rules as immutable, and would probably like more stability and predictability in government spending and tax policy.
Read more:
What the budget could mean for you – experts react to the chancellor’s announcement
Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy and Regional Development, University of Bath
Budget day can often feel like Groundhog day. The same old problems – chronic under-investment, crumbling infrastructure and weak productivity – continue to bedevil the UK economy, with low growth significantly reducing the chancellor’s room for fiscal manoeuvre. Hers is not the first government to find itself unable to break this doom loop.
So in her second budget, Rachel Reeves focused mainly on tax-raising measures. There was some mention of a commitment to raising investment in critical infrastructure for sectors like transport, energy and digital development, but the details were set out earlier this year.
Pre-budget announcements also included a commitment to employ an extra 350 planners to support the government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million homes over this parliament. As well as providing a boost to the construction industry, building more affordable homes should improve the mobility of the labour market.
And making it easier for workers to relocate to regions with better job opportunities (which align with their skills) will give a much needed boost to productivity. It may also attract new private investment in local industries and “left behind” regions of the UK.
The critical part of any infrastructure project is actually getting it done. But often major projects, after being announced to great fanfare, can become bogged down in delays caused by a lack of skilled labour and changing economic circumstances.
To be a success it is vital to ensure that project targets are set early, and resources are ring-fenced. There also needs to be sufficient funding set aside to support skills and training that align with long-term infrastructure priorities. The budget included little about this.
David Bailey, Professor of Business Economics, University of Birmingham
From April 2027, fuel duty rates – frozen back in 2010 and then cut in 2022 – will rise again in line with inflation. This was inevitable. The freeze has cost the government something like £10 billion a year in lost revenue.
And as more drivers switch to electric vehicles, fuel duty (which even with the freeze raises some £35 billion a year for the government) will start to dry up. The government needs to find cash, and fuel duty is a lever it feels it can pull.
More positive news for drivers is the 2026 arrival of the “fuel finder” scheme which will force petrol forecourts to share real-time prices so that customers can shop around more easily.
As expected, a pay-per-mile tax for electric and hybrid vehicles will be introduced, from April 2028. And while a long-term shift to pay-per-mile could make a lot of sense, the devil is very much in the detail. Electric vehicle (EV) owners in rural areas, who typically drive longer distances, could be badly hit, and the move needs to be carefully thought through.
The Office for Budget Responsibility thinks this could bring in £1.1 billion by 2029. But it could also put some people off making the switch to EVs, which is probably why the government has expanded EV grants to encourage take up.
A big, missed opportunity to shift the dial on EVs came in the government failing to cut VAT on public charging from 20% to 5%, to match the VAT rate on domestic electricity. This means drivers who can’t charge at home will continue to pay more, something which really needs to be tackled if the government wants people without private parking to make the switch.
Read more:
Electric vehicle owners face new pay-per-mile tax – what could be the environmental costs?
Phil Tomlinson receives funding from the Innovation and Research Caucus (IRC).
David Bailey, Maha Rafi Atal, and Steve Schifferes do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. What will the budget mean for economic growth? Experts give their view – https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-budget-mean-for-economic-growth-experts-give-their-view-270715
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow
Since the election last year, the UK government has said economic growth is its top priority, as a way to improve living standards, cut NHS waiting lists and ease pressure on household finances. But with the Office for Budget Responsibility predicting growth this year to be a below-average 1.5%, it seems things haven’t gone entirely to plan.
So would Rachel Reeves’ second budget provide any glimmers of hope? Here’s how our panel of experts reacted.
Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Glasgow
This is a substantially tax-raising budget, but one that tries to obscure where the burden will fall. Rather than confronting the need to raise the basic rate of income tax, the government has opted for a prolonged freeze in thresholds. This is, in effect, a sizeable stealth tax: as wages rise with inflation, more middle-earners are pulled into higher-rate bands.
However, this approach is still more weighted towards raising revenue from higher earners than a broad-based rise that would spread the load across the income distribution. A sharp break between the basic and higher rates – an unusual feature of the UK income tax setup – remains. Changes to national insurance follow a similar stealth logic. The rate remains unchanged, yet its scope has widened, particularly through restrictions on pension salary-sacrifice.
Whether these kinds of changes break Labour’s manifesto commitments not to raise taxes on “working people” is increasingly a matter of semantics. Many working people’s take-home pay will be less than it would have been, even if the headline tax rates have not changed.
One positive consequence of raising the revenue this way, however, is that individuals and households – not just employers – will carry much of the cost. Some measures that would have directly targeted businesses, like a bank windfall tax, have been abandoned.
This makes the budget more supportive of growth than early reports anticipated, because taxes that fall primarily on employers take funding away from things like opening new facilities or creating jobs.
Yet the growth forecasts remain weak because there is still no plan to raise productivity. Government investment in skills and infrastructure is lacking, and tighter immigration controls (which the government is also imposing) limit labour supply and impose other transaction costs on businesses. Growth requires broader changes to these other aspects of economic policy and cannot be generated through tax reform alone.
Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London
The chancellor has announced measures to raise £26 billion in her budget statement. Driving her decision is the need to cap the size of the government’s debt, which, at £2.9 trillion amounts to 95% of the total size of the UK economy.
But also feeding into her choices is the need to abide by her self-imposed fiscal rules. These require her to cut the deficit (the difference between tax revenue and spending) every year for the next five years. An additional challenge is that the cost of paying interest on this huge national debt has gone up sharply in recent years, with the government now paying more in interest that it spends on education.
The fiscal rules are designed to reassure financial markets, which lend the government the money it needs, that the chancellor is prudent with the country’s finances. Tax rises were necessary to meet Reeves’ “ironclad” rules (based on the forecasts of spending watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility) with the aim of stabilising that huge debt.
The problem is that small changes in any of the forecasts can throw the government off course. As the former head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, noted: “The chances of any economic or fiscal forecast being accurate in every dimension are infinitesimally small.” However, Reeves has now left herself more “fiscal headroom” (the amount she can increase spending further without breaking her rules) – £21.7 billion.
She has gone some way to acknowledging the problem of predictions by making two changes in the fiscal rules. Last year she exempted investment spending – on building roads, power stations and houses – from the rules, in the hope of encouraging economic growth.
And this year, she has announced that the Treasury will produce a budget forecast only once a year. This will avoid the difficult spring statement she had to present this year.
But neither of these changes are guaranteed to give her the stability she needs to encourage economic growth and security. Relying on a single OBR forecast makes each budget a hostage to fortune. It might be wise to give a range of economic and revenue forecasts, as the Bank of England already does. The very concept of a fixed amount of “headroom” is probably too rigid and leads to continual changes in policies and taxes.
Since 1997 when fiscal rules were introduced, the Treasury has announced ten sets of rules with 28 different specific targets. For example, when once it was prudent to keep the debt below 40% of GDP, now 100% is an acceptable target. So it is clear that the markets themselves do not view the fiscal rules as immutable, and would probably like more stability and predictability in government spending and tax policy.
Read more:
What the budget could mean for you – experts react to the chancellor’s announcement
Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy and Regional Development, University of Bath
Budget day can often feel like Groundhog day. The same old problems – chronic under-investment, crumbling infrastructure and weak productivity – continue to bedevil the UK economy, with low growth significantly reducing the chancellor’s room for fiscal manoeuvre. Hers is not the first government to find itself unable to break this doom loop.
So in her second budget, Rachel Reeves focused mainly on tax-raising measures. There was some mention of a commitment to raising investment in critical infrastructure for sectors like transport, energy and digital development, but the details were set out earlier this year.
Pre-budget announcements also included a commitment to employ an extra 350 planners to support the government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million homes over this parliament. As well as providing a boost to the construction industry, building more affordable homes should improve the mobility of the labour market.
And making it easier for workers to relocate to regions with better job opportunities (which align with their skills) will give a much needed boost to productivity. It may also attract new private investment in local industries and “left behind” regions of the UK.
The critical part of any infrastructure project is actually getting it done. But often major projects, after being announced to great fanfare, can become bogged down in delays caused by a lack of skilled labour and changing economic circumstances.
To be a success it is vital to ensure that project targets are set early, and resources are ring-fenced. There also needs to be sufficient funding set aside to support skills and training that align with long-term infrastructure priorities. The budget included little about this.
David Bailey, Professor of Business Economics, University of Birmingham
From April 2027, fuel duty rates – frozen back in 2010 and then cut in 2022 – will rise again in line with inflation. This was inevitable. The freeze has cost the government something like £10 billion a year in lost revenue.
And as more drivers switch to electric vehicles, fuel duty (which even with the freeze raises some £35 billion a year for the government) will start to dry up. The government needs to find cash, and fuel duty is a lever it feels it can pull.
More positive news for drivers is the 2026 arrival of the “fuel finder” scheme which will force petrol forecourts to share real-time prices so that customers can shop around more easily.
As expected, a pay-per-mile tax for electric and hybrid vehicles will be introduced, from April 2028. And while a long-term shift to pay-per-mile could make a lot of sense, the devil is very much in the detail. Electric vehicle (EV) owners in rural areas, who typically drive longer distances, could be badly hit, and the move needs to be carefully thought through.
The Office for Budget Responsibility thinks this could bring in £1.1 billion by 2029. But it could also put some people off making the switch to EVs, which is probably why the government has expanded EV grants to encourage take up.
A big, missed opportunity to shift the dial on EVs came in the government failing to cut VAT on public charging from 20% to 5%, to match the VAT rate on domestic electricity. This means drivers who can’t charge at home will continue to pay more, something which really needs to be tackled if the government wants people without private parking to make the switch.
Read more:
Electric vehicle owners face new pay-per-mile tax – what could be the environmental costs?
Phil Tomlinson receives funding from the Innovation and Research Caucus (IRC).
David Bailey, Maha Rafi Atal, and Steve Schifferes do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. What will the budget means for economic growth? Experts give their view – https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-budget-means-for-economic-growth-experts-give-their-view-270715
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University
Whether the various peace plans now under discussion bring an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine will depend largely on security guarantees. But securing an agreement between Ukraine, its allies and Russia about how Ukraine’s future security will be assured may prove to be the most difficult part of any peace deal.
Ukraine already has bitter experience of what happens when a security guarantee turns out to be no guarantee at all.
Back in 1994, Ukraine reluctantly put its faith in the vague assurances of the Budapest memorandum. According to the terms of that agreement, Ukraine gave up the Soviet-era nuclear weapons stationed on its territory and pledged to sign the non-proliferation treaty and remain a non-nuclear country.
In exchange, Russia, Britain and the US promised to respect the independence, sovereignty and borders of Ukraine and not to use force against that country.
But the only commitments that Moscow, London and Washington made was to seek action by the UN security council to support Ukraine – and then only if Ukraine were attacked or threatened with attack by nuclear weapons. The memorandum made no mention of what should happen if Ukraine faced an attack using conventional forces.
As Ukraine’s then-president, Leonid Kuchma, remarked after the deal was done: “If tomorrow Russia goes into Crimea, no one will raise an eyebrow.”
Twenty years later, Kuchma’s prediction came true. In 2014, Russian troops occupied strategic points in Crimea. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, then engineered a widely discredited referendum on the region’s future status and claimed it as part of the territory of the Russian Federation.
Russia went on to arm, fund and direct local militias in eastern Ukraine and covertly sent its own soldiers to fight with them to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Britain and the US – among other western countries – imposed economic sanctions on Russia and provided training, funding and supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces. This material support accelerated rapidly after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. But these measures have not stopped Russia’s aggression or guaranteed Ukraine’s security.
Now, as the full-scale conflict in Ukraine nears its fourth anniversary, the success of a new set of peace deals will, in large part, hinge on whether Kyiv can rely on its allies to come to the rescue if Russia decides to resume hostilities at some future stage.
In 2023, former US president Bill Clinton expressed his regrets at his role in the Budapest Memorandum. He revealed that back in 2011 Putin had told him that Russia’s leaders did not consider themselves to be bound by the agreement.
In the 1990s, Ukraine’s leaders had a variety of reasons for actively choosing to relinquish nuclear weapons. These included the promise of much-needed economic assistance from the west and the Ukrainians’ own experience of the devastating impact of nuclear technology in the shape of the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
There was also a strong consensus in Ukrainian society in favour of non-nuclear status. But recently released archival documents demonstrate that the country’s leaders had serious reservations about how Ukraine’s security would be ensured after nuclear weapons were removed from its territory.
The Budapest Memorandum is an example of an agreement shaped by short-term considerations with long-term consequences very different from the ones that at least some of the signatories anticipated. Western countries, led by the US, were focused on confining the thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons to one country to reduce the chances that they might end up in the hands of terrorist groups or rogue states.
In the mid 1990s any future threat that Russia might pose to Ukraine was outweighed in the eyes of the west by two other considerations. The first was optimism that Russia would develop into a democracy and become a partner rather than an adversary.
The second was that Russia was too weak to pose a threat in the foreseeable future. The absence of genuine security guarantees in the Budapest agreement, therefore, reflected the predominant view in the west that pledges of good will would be sufficient to protect Ukraine.
With this history in mind and faced with the prospect of having to agree to a negotiated settlement, the Ukrainian president, Volodymr Zelensky, has been insistent that Ukraine will only be truly secure inside Nato. Opposition to Nato membership for Ukraine from Russia – but also from several members of the alliance, especially the US – has led the Ukrainians and their allies to search for alternatives.
Read more:
Any peace deal in Ukraine must be just and fair – the plan proposed by the US and Russia was neither
The “coalition of the willing” – a group of countries supporting Ukraine including the UK, various European nations, Canada and Turkey – have indicated their willingness to provide forces in the air, at sea and even on the ground to deter further aggression. But the plan for a multilateral peacekeeping force relies on the participation of the US for much of its credibility.
It’s not clear whether Washington will be willing to provide such assurances. Previously the Trump administration has played down any commitment to providing security guarantees for Ukraine.
For Russia, on the contrary, the Budapest Memorandum appears to be the precedent that it is following in crafting security assurances for Ukraine. The peace plan currently under discussion – which we now know that Russian official Kirill Dmitriev had a large role in drafting – offers only a bland assurance that Ukraine would receive reliable security guarantees.
At the same time it imposes a limit on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces. It also prevents it from joining Nato and bans the troops of Nato member states on its territory. All of which would severely undermine Ukraine’s security.
As a result, each of the interested parties have very different views about the nature of security guarantees that would be sufficient. Ukraine is pushing for Nato membership. Russia is vehemently opposed. The Europeans are trying to find a pragmatic halfway house. The Trump administration is reluctant to commit American resources to much of anything.
The chances a negotiated settlement to this war will be reached quickly or easily by negotiations remain remote, at best.
Jennifer Mathers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Ukraine peace deal will hinge on security guarantees – but Kyiv has been there before – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-peace-deal-will-hinge-on-security-guarantees-but-kyiv-has-been-there-before-270614
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amin Al-Habaibeh, Professor of Intelligent Engineering Systems, Nottingham Trent University
Modern electric vehicles are transforming the roads with low noise, rapid acceleration and zero exhaust emissions. However, drivers of electric vehicles in the UK will now face a new 3p per mile charge and drivers of hybrid vehicles a 1.5p per mile charge.
In her speech, chancellor of the exchequer Rachel Reeves said: “All cars contribute to the wear and tear on our roads, drivers will taxed on how much they drive not just on the type of car they own.”
This new EV tax would add up to an extra cost of £300 annually, based on a vehicle travelling 10,000 miles per year. The government argues that this tax is needed to compensate for the reduction in fuel duty from the transition to electric vehicles, and because of its budget deficit.
Given that electric vehicles are more expensive than petrol or diesel vehicles and they require further investment for home EV charging stations, it was previously considered important to provide incentives or grants to encourage the move to electric vehicles.
There are three main scenarios that can show the potential effect on the environment.
Let’s consider a family that has an EV and likes to do things that are good for the environment. They may prefer to continue using electric vehicles to support net zero and clean air in their cities, despite the tax rise.
The chancellor’s decision would increase the cost of using their EV. But if the monthly increase of running the EV exceeds the cost of public transport, this environmentally conscious family might consider using their car less and using public transport more.
In this way the family will still contribute to the economy with the new tax, but by choosing a more sustainable transport option they will reduce their energy use, as well as the tyre and brake particle pollution their EV creates.
In another scenario, a financially conscious couple might have bought their EV because they liked driving but wanted to avoid paying so much for petrol, tax and congestion charges.
Alongside the new pay-per-mile tax, congestion charges for EVs are rising. In London, for instance, the 100% cleaner vehicle discount for electric vehicles will be replaced the end of December with a 25% discount for electric cars and 50% for vans until March 2030. This does at least offer some saving over petrol and diesel still.
The cost analysis will depend on many factors. These include purchase cost, vehicle excise duty, road tax, costs of congestion charges and low emissions zones, maintenance costs, mileage per year, style of use, business tax, fuel or electricity costs, depreciation, location of electric charging (home or public), and any other expected additional taxes or related interest rates.
According to research, for an average annual distance of 10,000 miles, the annual cost of running an electric vehicle is about £1,154. This is about 50% less than the estimated £2,316 equivalent cost to run a conventional petrol car for the same period. With the extra 3p per mile tax, the annual running cost would be £1,454 so the EV could still be an attractive option.
However, on average, electric vehicles in 2025 were 18% more expensive up front than petrol or diesel vehicles. According to OneEv Group, an EV app company, the cost of buying an electric vehicle is £39,000 compared with a petrol vehicle at £33,000.
And based on fuel and electricity prices, the cost of ownership for three years is reported to be around £41,650 and £38,445, respectively. This means EV ownership over three years is already more expensive by £3,205. If the car is driven 10,000 miles per year, with the new 3p per mile tax the total difference would come to £4,105 over three years.
Based on the above, if they carry on travelling the same number of miles, but don’t change their car, there are some financial downsides but no additional environmental consequences.
All new cars will have to be electric or hybrid from 2030. But people who are currently driving petrol or diesel cars still might not switch to electric vehicles due to the additional costs.
There are already estimates of around 440,000 fewer EV sales because of the new pay-per-mile tax. In this case, the expected government shift to net zero by 2050 might have to be delayed. And pollution levels would be reduced by less.
Therefore, it is with this group of people that there might be the biggest environmental consequences.
How big might the effects of the new tax be in a worst-case scenario? We can work out a rough potential estimate for EV drivers switching back to internal combustion engines.
There are about 36.2 million cars in the UK, of which there are 1.3 million EVs. And 13.9% of UK vehicles drive more than 10,000 miles, based on available data from 2021.
If a similar proportion of the 1.3 million EV drivers decided to move to internal combustion engine vehicles because they would suffer most from the new tax, this could mean 180,700 more petrol and diesel cars on the road. Assuming an equal split between petrol and diesel, this could result in over 433,680 extra tonnes of CO2 emmitted per year (based on 240g of CO2 per mile).
Similarly, calculating particulate matter at 0.005g/km (0.008g/mile), the extra cars would equate to around 14.45 more tonnes of particulate matter. Using the same method, the same number of cars could create 346.9 tonnes per year of nitrogen oxide gases (based on 0.192g/mile). This would mean significant additional air pollution.
In addition to the possible increased air pollution, engine oil change could require on average an additional five litres per year per vehicle. This would be about 903,500 additional litres of engine oil.
Any increase in petrol or diesel use could also create an increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses related to pollution in cities.
We don’t know that this scenario will come to pass but it gives a sense of how environmental impacts can add up when many people react to different incentives. However, if the same number of people in this scenario carried on using EVs, and some drove less, then there would be no increase in air pollution levels. And potentially the particulate level could decrease because of fewer journeys.
What remains the biggest threat to the environment is if a large group of people who were thinking of buying EVs choose not to do so.
Amin Al-Habaibeh receives funding from Innovate UK, The British Council, The Royal academy of Engineering, EPSRC, AHRC, The British Academy and the European Commission.
– ref. Electric vehicle owners face new pay-per-mile tax – what could be the environmental costs? – https://theconversation.com/electric-vehicle-owners-face-new-pay-per-mile-tax-what-could-be-the-environmental-costs-270193
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Burlinson, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sheffield
UK chancellor Rachel Reeves has made some significant reforms in her latest budget. Notably, she has committed to easing living cost pressures with widespread energy bill support, higher taxes for the most expensive homes, and axing the two-child cap on certain benefits.
In a speech to Labour MPs a couple of days before the announcement, she made clear that her tax and spend decisions were a package and not a “pick-and-mix” from which backbenchers could choose the measures they liked. While Reeves will no doubt face further opposition, it may be that many of the things she has announced largely align with what Labour backbenchers had been hoping to hear.
Here’s what our panel of experts made of her plans.
Andrew Burlinson, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sheffield
Typical household energy bills (at £1,725 per year) remain more than £450 higher than pre-crisis levels. Reeves is therefore pledging to “grip the cost of living” with a package of short- and long-term solutions.
Instead of axing the 5% VAT paid on energy bills, as had been widely trailed, Reeves has removed certain social and environmental levies from electricity bills, which she says will save households up to £150. These levies funded government policies supporting vulnerable people and low-carbon technology adoption, which will now be paid for through general taxation.
This is a welcome progressive shift. Sharing these costs across all households disproportionately hurt people on lower incomes who paid the same percentage in levies as wealthier customers. What’s more, while these levies represent a relatively small chunk of people’s bills (about 16%) compared to wholesale costs, removing them will help bring down energy-related inflation.
The chancellor is also rightly extending the warm homes discount scheme, which takes an additional £150 off some people’s electricity bills and which will now reach six million households. Yet the temporary discount does not reverse a decade of low, even substandard, government-backed energy-efficiency schemes.
However, the warm homes plan, which aims to improve energy efficiency in homes, will now receive an extra £1.5 billion to tackle fuel poverty. Done properly, investment in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies can cut bills, improve people’s health and reduce emissions – a “win-win-win”.
Alper Kara, Professor of Banking and Finance, Brunel University of London
The government announced a new council tax surcharge on the most expensive properties in England and Wales from April 2028. The “mansion tax” will be levied annually, costing £2,500 for properties worth more than £2 million and £7,500 for those worth over £5 million.
Around 145,000 homes will be affected, mostly in London and south-east England. The value of those properties will probably go down a little.
But more broadly, the measure – which it is claimed will raise £400 million by 2031 – risks adding further complexity to the council tax system without resolving long-standing weaknesses such as its out-dated and unfair valuations.
And while the mansion tax targets wealthier homeowners, the actual revenue earned may end up being lower than planned due to things like “price bunching”, where buyers and sellers keep valuations just below the bands, distorting the market. There might also be a decline in high-value property sales which would reduce stamp duty revenue for the Treasury.
A further measure with implications for housing is the 2% rise in tax on property income, which will cut landlords’ profits and may persuade some to leave the market. This in turn could easily reduce the supply of rental homes available, potentially increasing rents where demand is high. It may also limit investment in maintenance and improvements, leading to a decline in the quality of rental accommodation.
Ruth Patrick, Professor in Social and Public Policy, University of Glasgow
Scrapping the two-child limit is an incredibly welcome reform that starts the urgent work needed to drive down what remain high levels of child poverty. Four-and-a-half million children in the UK faced poverty in 2022-23, and too many will still face hardship without further investment and reform from this government.
At this year’s Labour conference, Prime Minister Keir Starmer ambitiously pledged that he wanted his government to end child poverty. To realise this, he will need to usher in change on a much greater scale than has been announced.
The two-child limit was an ill-designed and arguably cruel policy which assigned children to poverty simply (and only) because of the number of siblings they had. The charity Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 109 children each day are born into households affected by the cap, purely because they have two or more elder siblings.
Removing the two-child limit restores the historic link between need and entitlement to support, which the policy had eroded. But the same problem remains for the wider benefit cap, which limits the amount of social security people can receive and currently leaves many subsisting far below the poverty line.
Any day now we will see the publication of a UK-wide child poverty strategy – the first in almost a decade. My hope is that this builds on the chancellor’s announcements, and points to a future where all children can be protected from poverty.
Andrew Burlinson previously received funding from UKERC (UKRI) and relevant funding from EPSRC.
Ruth Patrick is a member of the Labour Party.
Alper Kara does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. What the budget could mean for you – experts react to the chancellor’s announcement – https://theconversation.com/what-the-budget-could-mean-for-you-experts-react-to-the-chancellors-announcement-270699
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Salsabel Almanssori, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Windsor
Ontario’s new Bill 33, what the province calls the Supporting Children and Students Act, gives Education Minister Paul Calandra sweeping authority to take over boards. It also mandates boards to work with local police to implement school resource officer programs where they are available and opens the door to removing school board trustees entirely.
When Ontario passed Bill 33 last week, the government framed it as a necessary intervention to “put school boards back on track” and strengthen “our ability to keep our schools safe” and “students’ ability to succeed.”
Earlier this year, the education minister took over over five school boards using earlier versions of these powers, citing financial mismanagement. He’s now signalled more boards are in his sights under Bill 33.
Read more:
Attacks on school boards threaten local democracy
As an education scholar, educator and parent with children in Ontario’s public schools, I am alarmed by the repercussions this bill will have on student safety and the future of equitable and democratic schooling in the province.
I am far from alone. Student trustees, advocacy groups and the NDP warn the bill will silence local voices and erode the democratic oversight that is central to public education.
Teacher unions criticize this legislation and the steps taken towards it as an attempt to centralize control while avoiding the real issues: chronic underfunding, understaffed classrooms, deteriorating infrastructure, poor mental health supports and cuts to special education.
Despite government claims, there is no evidence that policing in schools improves safety. In decades of international research, studies have consistently shown that policing in schools does not prevent violence. Instead, it contributes to the school-to-prison nexus, a continuum through which punitive school practices increase young people’s contact with police, courts and long-term criminalization.
In mandating police access to school premises and other school-police collaboration, Bill 33 names no exception even in boards where “school resource officer” programs were ended after sustained grassroots advocacy and community consultation.
Policies that mandate sanctioned surveillance, control, punishment, violence or contribute to the threat of incarceration to preserve state interests — “carceral” approaches — predict lower achievement, higher dropout rates and increased likelihood of later arrest.
Read more:
For a fairer education system, get the police out of schools
A 2025 study on mass incarceration and schools makes a similar point: tackling the over-representation of racialized people in prisons must be integrated with systemic responses to providing equitable opportunities through schooling and community-based resources. When schools rely on policing, they don’t solve the roots of harm.
The expansion of policing in schools disproportionately affects Black, Indigenous and racialized students, students with disabilities, immigrant and lower-income youth and otherwise marginalized communities. These groups are significantly more likely to be suspended, expelled or referred to police even when accounting for the severity of behaviours.
Criminalization inside schools also intensifies racial disparities in society.
Police presence also changes how students respond to harm. I study violence in schools and in my own research on what I call “the snitch factor,” I find a hidden layer of harm shapes how young people decide whether to disclose violence. Many students avoid reporting because they expect escalation, retaliation or being labelled as the problem rather than helped.
Students see disclosures leading to discipline and punishment, not support. When schools adopt carceral responses, students learn that reporting can bring more risk than resolution.
Bill 33’s policing provisions risk amplifying these dynamics. When students believe that disclosure will trigger police involvement or harsh punishment, they often stay silent. This undermines safety, particularly for youth who already mistrust institutional responses.
Read more:
To resolve youth violence, Canada must move beyond policing and prison
One of the most profound changes in Bill 33 is its weakening of local governance. Allowing the minister to appoint supervisors, it shifts power from elected trustees to political appointees who do not live in the communities they oversee.
Without trustees, communities lose a key mechanism for oversight, transparency and responsiveness. It also accelerates stakeholder concerns about increasing privatization and centralization in the education system, trends that have accompanied funding cuts and service erosion.
Policing Free Schools, which has led provincial advocacy to remove policing from schools, argues that Bill 33 is a top-down political intervention that ignores evidence. Their position is grounded in an international coalition and research showing that police presence increases harm.
Teacher unions have also warned that mandatory policing will worsen inequities and distract from the real issues of underfunding and staff shortages
Their voices are among concerned responses from communities across the province who understand what safety in schools requires.
The research points toward effective, non-carceral approaches that improve safety and well-being in schools, including:
Notably, none of these are part of Bill 33.
Safety is not created through policing; it is created through trust, support and well-funded public education. Bill 33 threatens all three.
Across Ontario, communities are already organizing to challenge the harms the bill will produce and to push for evidence-based approaches that support students.
Bill 33 will reshape the landscape, but it has also strengthened the resolve of those committed to safe, well-funded and democratic schools.
Salsabel Almanssori receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
– ref. Ontario’s Bill 33 expands policing in schools and will erode democratic oversight – https://theconversation.com/ontarios-bill-33-expands-policing-in-schools-and-will-erode-democratic-oversight-270345
Source: Radio New Zealand
Will you get through beach picnics unscathed this summer?
Or will you return from a swim only to find a seagull rifling through your bags for food?
Shouting should help to stop the gull in its tracks and make it fly off – as my team’s latest research shows.
When played recordings of men shouting “No! Stay away! That’s my food!”, gulls moved away.
Peter F Wolf
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Source: The Conversation – in French – By Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay, Professeure à l’Université TELUQ, Université du Québec, directrice de l’ARUC sur la gestion des âges et des temps sociaux et de la Chaire de recherche du Canada sur l’économie du savoir, Université TÉLUQ
Plusieurs organisations affirment subir des pénuries de main-d’œuvre, mais quelles sont leurs pratiques de gestion et quels leviers pourraient-elles mettre en place pour conserver leur main-d’œuvre expérimentée ?
En 2022, j’ai réalisé deux études pour le compte du Comité consultatif des travailleurs et travailleuses âgés de 45 ans ou plus, une organisation composée d’entreprises et de syndicats situés au Québec. Une de ces enquêtes a été effectuée auprès d’un bassin de main-d’œuvre. Nous avons sondé plus de 2000 Québécois et Québécoises âgés de 50 à 75 ans, qu’ils soient actifs sur le marché du travail ou à la retraite, afin de connaître leurs aspirations professionnelles et les obstacles auxquels ils ont fait dans leur carrière.
Cet article fait partie de notre série La Révolution grise. La Conversation vous propose d’analyser sous toutes ses facettes l’impact du vieillissement de l’imposante cohorte des boomers sur notre société, qu’ils transforment depuis leur venue au monde. Manières de se loger, de travailler, de consommer la culture, de s’alimenter, de voyager, de se soigner, de vivre… découvrez avec nous les bouleversements en cours, et à venir.
La deuxième enquête a été effectuée auprès de 279 organisations privées, publiques et sans but lucratif. Elle s’est penchée sur la manière dont ces organisations gèrent leurs employés expérimentés.
Premier constat : la gestion du vieillissement n’est pas bien abordée par les entreprises. En effet, seulement 37 % d’entre elles ont mis en place des mesures favorisant le maintien en emploi des personnes âgées de 50 ans et plus.
À lire aussi :
Quelles solutions pour prolonger la vie professionnelle des travailleurs plus âgés ?
Dans le secteur privé, ce chiffre est de 46 %, mais seulement 24 % dans le secteur public.
Les travailleurs âgés font toujours face à des préjugés. Plusieurs entreprises les licencient ou ne les incitent pas à rester.
Elles ne leur offrent plus de formation ni de projets ou de mandats intéressants et ne les invitent pas à encadrer les plus jeunes ou les nouveaux. Or, le mentorat peut inciter à rester en emploi et donner du sens au travail.
Les biais ou préjugés contre ce groupe d’âge concernent la capacité de trouver des solutions ou des innovations, ainsi que la maîtrise des nouvelles technologies. Toutefois, les entreprises reconnaissent le savoir-faire et l’engagement des travailleurs d’expérience, notamment en ce qui concerne les relations avec la clientèle.
Dans notre sondage effectué auprès des employés, 26 % des répondants retraités ont indiqué qu’ils avaient prolongé leur carrière.
Un cinquième aurait aimé le faire si cela avait été possible, mais la moitié n’avait aucun intérêt à rester en emploi, ce qui pose déjà une limite et confirme que l’allongement de la carrière ne peut constituer la solution unique à la pénurie de personnel.
C’est tout de même une option pertinente, puisque la moitié de la main-d’œuvre est intéressée. Mais il existe des obstacles.
La culture de la retraite commence à reculer dans certains secteurs, puisque l’âge moyen de la retraite au Québec a augmenté dans les dernières années. Mais la Covid a eu des effets inverses dans certains secteurs, où les risques de santé et de contagion sont plus importants pour les personnes âgées.
Les obstacles, comme les incitatifs à quitter ou à rester en emploi varient selon le secteur : le privé, le public, ou un OSBL.
À lire aussi :
Le travail, la nouvelle retraite!
Quels sont les facteurs qui poussent les personnes vieillissantes à ne pas envisager de prolonger leur carrière ? Dans 30 % des cas, il s’agit de projets de voyage ou de bénévolat. Dans 21 % des cas, c’est la retraite de leur conjoint ou conjointe qui entre en jeu. Dans 12 % des cas, les employés — surtout des femmes — prennent leur retraite pour s’occuper des petits-enfants ou d’un proche.
Les réalités familiales interviennent pour les femmes (conjoint, petits enfants…), mais aussi le bénévolat. Ces activités contribuent à la construction de l’identité, que le travail ne permet peut-être plus, ou pas toujours.
Nos résultats révèlent que 38 % des répondants ne veulent plus travailler, dont 6 % qui ne supportent plus leur emploi.
Notre enquête auprès de la main-d’œuvre montre que 37 % des répondants en emploi ont eu la possibilité de prendre une préretraite, ce qui incite à quitter l’emploi plus tôt, avec des conditions avantageuses.
À lire aussi :
Une main-d’œuvre expérimentée, mais peu sollicitée : quelles solutions pour garder les personnes aînées au travail ?
Pour 42 %, les répondants affirment qu’il était financièrement possible de prendre leur retraite. 38 % évoquent des motifs personnels, 36 % la surcharge et la fatigue, 28 % la charge mentale trop lourde, et 26 % indiquent des problèmes de santé.
Les femmes ont été plus nombreuses que les hommes à évoquer une charge mentale trop lourde (34 % contre 22 % chez les hommes) pour justifier leur décision. Elles ont aussi été plus nombreuses à invoquer la prise de retraite par le conjoint (20 % contre 8 %), la santé d’un membre de la famille (12 % contre 6 %) et la pandémie de Covid-19 (9 % contre 4 %).
Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.
D’après les conclusions, ce qui motiverait le plus la main-d’œuvre à rester en poste serait une retraite progressive sans obligation de départ (54 %).
En deuxième position, on trouve l’opportunité de quitter la vie active et de continuer à travailler pour l’entreprise en tant que travailleur autonome (52 %).
Enfin, la possibilité de prendre sa retraite et de reprendre un emploi similaire ou différent, à temps plein ou partiel, arrive en troisième position (46 %).
En outre, 45 % des répondants évoquent l’option de prendre leur retraite et de faire partie d’une banque d’experts consultables à la demande.
En ce qui concerne l’organisation du travail, c’est la transmission de compétences et de connaissances, ou de « savoir-faire », qui incite le plus les travailleurs à demeurer en poste (55 %).
L’adaptation ou la réduction de la charge physique de travail vient en deuxième place avec 45 %, puis l’exercice d’un rôle de formateur ou d’encadrement (44 %).
Il serait également souhaitable de pouvoir suivre des formations ou des ateliers de perfectionnement après 50 ans (42 %), d’ajuster le temps consacré à une tâche donnée (40 %) et de diminuer ou d’adapter la charge mentale au travail (39 %). Par charge mentale, nous entendons l’intensification du travail relié à la planification, la recherche de données, la rédaction, etc.
Les entreprises ne peuvent pas lutter contre les facteurs personnels ou familiaux, mais elles peuvent agir sur l’organisation du travail pour réduire la charge physique et mentale. Elles peuvent aussi développer diverses formes de réduction du temps de travail, telles qu’une semaine de quatre jours ou des vacances plus longues. Elles peuvent également offrir des horaires flexibles, des banques d’heures ou la possibilité de répartir et de faire varier les heures de travail sur une année.
Il est intéressant de noter que d’autres groupes d’employés souhaitent également des ajustements dans leur horaire de travail pour des raisons variées : les jeunes pour étudier, faire du sport ou voyager, les parents pour concilier travail et famille, et les plus âgés pour s’adonner à d’autres activités, parfois des voyages, du bénévolat ou du sport.
L’organisation peut donc offrir les mêmes mesures à tous, évitant ainsi les allégations de favoritisme en fonction de l’âge. De plus, elle pourrait accorder une plus grande reconnaissance, confier des missions stimulantes et insuffler un véritable sens au travail aux travailleurs expérimentés, ce qui fait souvent défaut dans de nombreux milieux.
Seules de telles mesures permettront aux organisations de retenir leur main-d’œuvre plus âgée. Depuis quelques années, nous présentons les résultats de ces études aux entreprises pour qu’elles changent leurs pratiques. De plus, l’état devrait envisager de mettre en place des programmes visant à faciliter l’implantation de telles mesures favorisant le maintien en poste.
Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay a reçu des financements du gouvernement du Québec.
– ref. Garder son personnel vieillissant en emploi ? C’est faisable… à condition d’être plus flexible – https://theconversation.com/garder-son-personnel-vieillissant-en-emploi-cest-faisable-a-condition-detre-plus-flexible-244904
Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Anais Racca, Post-doctorante, Sciences Cognitives Avec et Pour la Société (ANR SCAPS), Université Marie et Louis Pasteur (UMLP)
Comment accompagner un élève durant ses devoirs ? Ce type de problématique éducative nécessite de tenir compte des savoirs scientifiques, des pratiques pédagogiques et des expériences vécues par les élèves et leurs familles. Un programme de recherche croise ces approches pour mieux éclairer les mécanismes d’apprentissage des enfants.
Un mardi soir, à Besançon, familles, enseignantes et enseignants, étudiantes et étudiants, membres du monde de la recherche et simples curieux se retrouvent pour une soirée autour des sciences cognitives.
Pendant que les adultes échangent avec une chercheuse autour des stratégies les plus efficaces pour mémoriser, dans la salle voisine, leurs enfants fabriquent un cerveau en pâte à modeler et découvrent comment les informations circulent du cerveau à la main. À la sortie, les participants repartent avec de nouvelles connaissances sur la manière dont on apprend, et leurs questions nourrissent la réflexion des chercheuses et chercheurs.
Organisées chaque mois dans le cadre du cycle Questions d’éducation, ces rencontres illustrent une manière de faire dialoguer des mondes qui se côtoient sans toujours se comprendre. Le parti pris est clair : l’intelligence collective est essentielle pour affronter les problématiques éducatives, trop complexes pour être résolues sans croiser les regards.
Pourquoi certains élèves, pourtant motivés, ont-ils des difficultés à l’école ? Comment accompagner les élèves durant leurs devoirs ? Ce type de problématique éducative est complexe : elle nécessite de tenir compte des savoirs scientifiques, des pratiques pédagogiques et des expériences vécues par les élèves et leurs familles. Croiser ces regards, ceux des chercheurs et chercheuses, du monde enseignant, des parents et des élèves, c’est précisément ce que nous cherchons à faire avec le programme SCAPS – Sciences Cognitives Avec et Pour la Société.
L’hypothèse qui guide ce programme est qu’en confrontant expertises scientifiques, pratiques professionnelles et expériences familiales, il devient possible d’aborder plus finement les questions éducatives et d’y apporter des réponses mieux adaptées.
Une étude récente publiée dans Scientific Reports par Baumann et ses collaborateurs montre que la diversité des compétences et des approches peut certes freiner la coordination lorsqu’une tâche est simple, mais qu’elle devient un atout majeur lorsqu’une tâche est complexe et que les échanges entre membres sont riches et fréquents.
Autrement dit, lorsqu’un problème est difficile, plus les interactions entre les membres d’un groupe sont nombreuses et de qualité, plus la diversité devient un levier d’efficacité collective. Dans ces conditions, les différences de compétences et de perspectives cessent d’être un obstacle pour devenir une ressource, permettant d’éviter les impasses et d’explorer des solutions nouvelles.
Si les questions éducatives gagnent à être abordées collectivement, encore faut-il créer des situations où ce dialogue peut réellement se déployer. Concrètement, le programme s’organise autour de deux dynamiques complémentaires, avec l’objectif de comprendre ensemble pour construire ensemble.
Une exposition interactive intitulée « L’expo qui prend la tête » a par exemple été conçue par des chercheuses et des médiatrices du service sciences, arts et culture de l’Université Marie-et-Louis-Pasteur. Familles, groupes scolaires et curieuses et curieux découvrent et testent, avec de réelles mises en situation, comment ils et elles mémorisent.
Comment mieux apprendre, cette question est également posée dans des groupes de pratiques, où des enseignantes et enseignants volontaires analysent leurs démarches pédagogiques à la lumière de la recherche et testent en classe des stratégies – comme la pratique de l’espacement des apprentissages – avant d’en discuter les effets avec des chercheurs et des enseignants formés aux sciences cognitives. Ce dialogue permet de faire un lien direct entre recherche et terrain.
C’est à partir de ces pistes, et parfois de sollicitations directes des familles ou des enseignants, que naissent ensuite des projets de recherches participatives où élèves, parents et/ou enseignants contribuent à formuler les questions, à remonter des observations ou à interpréter les résultats.
Pour comprendre ce qui se joue réellement à l’école, il faut écouter celles et ceux qui y apprennent au quotidien. Dans cette perspective, nous avons mené des ateliers conversationnels avec 127 élèves du CE2 au CM2 afin de recueillir leurs perceptions de l’école, des différentes matières abordées, des évaluations et des devoirs. Leur parole donne accès à un savoir situé, souvent négligé, qui permet d’affiner, et parfois de déplacer, nos hypothèses de recherche.
Des constats saillants émergent de ces échanges.
Par exemple, des consignes d’apprentissage similaires peuvent mobiliser des processus cognitifs très différents. Pour une même consigne – « recopie un mot pour l’apprendre » –, certains élèves recopient avec le modèle sous les yeux, d’autres de mémoire. Du point de vue de la recherche, ce détail change tout : la première pratique relève de la simple répétition, la seconde mobilise la pratique du rappel, deux mécanismes aux effets très différents sur la mémorisation. Ces variations fines, peu visibles depuis l’extérieur, éclairent pourquoi des pratiques a priori similaires produisent des effets différents.
D’autre part, les croyances des élèves sur l’intelligence semblent dépendre des matières scolaires, mais aussi des formes d’évaluation associées. Les arts plastiques et le sport sont jugés moins exigeants intellectuellement par les enfants, parce que généralement, quoi qu’ils ou elles fassent, « c’est toujours bien ! »
Cela suggère une piste rarement explorée : le lien entre les modalités d’évaluation d’une matière et la manière dont les élèves construisent leurs représentations de l’intelligence. Autrement dit, ce n’est peut-être pas la matière elle-même, mais la façon dont elle est évaluée qui façonne ces représentations.
Ces témoignages vont au-delà d’un simple constat. Si certains font directement écho à des phénomènes bien documentés en sciences cognitives, ils permettent également d’ouvrir des questions nouvelles et d’ajuster nos modèles à la réalité scolaire.
Ce type de dispositifs illustre la force de l’intelligence collective pour éclairer les questions éducatives. Mais lorsque l’on passe du dialogue à la co-construction de projets de recherche, de nouveaux défis apparaissent.
Co-construire suppose en effet de concilier des temporalités, des objectifs et des contraintes très différentes : celles des enseignantes et enseignants, pris dans les exigences du quotidien scolaire ; celles des familles, qui cherchent des réponses concrètes aux difficultés rencontrées par leurs enfants ; et celles des chercheuses et chercheurs, qui doivent garantir la validité scientifique des protocoles et la qualité des données recueillies.
Les projets collaboratifs menés en éducation montrent cependant que ces différences peuvent être une force lorsque les rôles sont clarifiés dès le départ et que chacun peut apporter son expertise à l’élaboration du projet. Les recherches en sciences participatives soulignent d’ailleurs que ces démarches renforcent l’engagement, la compréhension de la démarche scientifique et parfois même les compétences des participants, à condition de garantir un cadre clair, une accessibilité réelle et un sens partagé.
Ces défis ne sont donc pas des obstacles, mais plutôt les conditions à prendre en compte pour permettre à la co-construction, avec le monde enseignant, les familles et les élèves, de produire des projets à la fois scientifiquement solides et réellement utiles au terrain.
Cet article est publié dans le cadre de la Fête de la science (qui a eu lieu du 3 au 13 octobre 2025), dont The Conversation France est partenaire. Cette nouvelle édition porte sur la thématique « Intelligence(s) ». Retrouvez tous les événements de votre région sur le site Fetedelascience.fr.
Anais Racca a reçu des financements de l’ANR – ANR-23-SSAI-0021
Laurence Picard a reçu des financements de l’ANR – ANR-23-SSAI-0021
Marie Mazerolle a reçu des financements de l’ANR – ANR-23-SSAI-0021
– ref. Comment les élèves apprennent : faire dialoguer science et société pour mieux les accompagner – https://theconversation.com/comment-les-eleves-apprennent-faire-dialoguer-science-et-societe-pour-mieux-les-accompagner-270217
