After
reading both of the articles for this week, the only thought that truly came to
my mind is reflected in the title-I had no idea. I had no idea that while a
country’s educational system appears to be functioning and making efforts to
expand it is in fact alienating its lower class and depriving its teachers of
pay. I had no idea that while young girls appear to be bettering themselves by
getting an education they would also be selling their bodies just to make ends
meet. I simply had no idea of how, while we would like to believe we are making
advances in education, we have in fact not nearly begun to scrap the surface of
achieving worldwide education.
The article “Education: It’s Not
Just About the Boys. Get Girls Into School.” made some crucial points about the
importance of educating girls. One fact that resonated with me is that “Women
in the developing world who have had some education share their earnings; men
keep a third to a half for themselves.” I cannot say this surprised me, but to
see it written in black and white somehow made it hit home. Thinking back to
the numerous organizations we have discussed, I realized that women like Suri
Man, Sunitha, and Usha Naryane are all
examples of women who have given back to their communities. I imagine that, if
these women had all received a higher education, they would indeed be sharing
their wealth with their community. It seems so obvious, and yet I had never
stopped to think about what education, something so easily taken for granted
here in America, could mean for these women and others throughout the world.
Another factor that encourages the
education of girls is the health benefits. The “Education” article also stated
that “When girls go to school, they marry later and have fewer, healthier
children. For instance, if an African mother has five years of education; her
child has a 40 percent better chance of living to age 5”. 40% is a huge
percentage, and could mean the reduction of so many of the health risks women
face in other countries when bearing children (such as fistulas). The education
of girls would also reduce the rate of infection from HIV/AIDS, because
educated girls are, “three times less likely to contract HIV/AIDS.” I mention
these facts not to convince you that the education of girls is important (I
feel that, as a class, we generally share this belief) but to reiterate some of
the immense benefits education would have for girls and women, benefits I myself
did not think about until reading this article.
While we all may be on the same page
in terms of education being essential for the development and improvement of
countries the world over, there are many challenges that I for one was not
aware of. The article “The Decay (or Disintegration) of the Educational System”
relays some shocking information about how far the educational system has to go
in many countries. One challenge to the educational system was particularly
surprising to me because it relates indirectly to education. According to the
article, “the fall in the prices for tropical products on the world market -
like coffee, cocoa, tea and cotton - has either directly or indirectly affected
the families because the state's revenues have decreased and civil servants can
no longer be paid.” It makes sense- if a country or states income is drastically
reduced, any state-funded programs will suffer as a consequence. Yet again, I simply
had no idea that the prices of certain goods could have a direct correlation to
the diminishment of the education system.
The final piece of information I would
like to discuss is the treatment of teachers that is highlighted in “The Decay”
article. While I knew American teachers were not the best treated professionals
in the world, I had never stopped to consider how much worse it could truly be.
For example, the teacher on the outskirts of Cameroon told the reporter of how “he
had not seen his salary for the past months” and went on to describe how his
teaching relies on three old books and his memory from his own education. On top
of this massive challenge, the teacher also discussed how he could no longer
visit the families of his students because the also-unemployed parents of his
students would “regard such a visit like begging”. The stories of this teacher
and others made me extremely sad; I could not imagine being completely broke
because the school I was employed at could not pay me. In addition, many of the
teachers interviewed for the article maintained that if they asked about the
money they were owed, or if they stopped working due to lack of payment, they
would simply be fired and would never receive their pay anyways. As a future
teacher, I hear many warnings about how little I will be paid. However, I am
fortunate to know that I will be
paid, and that there are unions and laws that protect me and my colleagues from
suffering as these teachers in other countries do.
My question for you this week is
this: If you were a teacher, and the American government decided they could not
afford to pay you for an undisclosed amount of months, would you continue to
teach? How would you survive and provide for your family while waiting for a
paycheck that may never come? These are questions I have considered after
reading these articles, and I’m interested to hear what others in the class
think.
Sources:
Berstecher, D. & Carr-Hill, R. (1990). Primary
Education and Economic Recession in the Developing World since 1980. New York:
Unesco.
Education: It’s Not Just About the Boys. Get Girls Into
School. Sep 19, 2008 8:00 PM, Newsweek
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeing a teacher means more than being paid, but humans have the survival instinct to live. Because of this instinct we have petty crimes. People still food or wallets in order to survive. Life is something we hold in highest regard, yet we try to put situations in black and white. People like to have a right answer so if they hear of someone stealing, they automatically want to put them in jail with out hearing the back story. No one wants to see a grey area, they want an answer. I am reminded of a question that I was asked in psychology. When I see a dilemma such as this, this situation comes to mind:
ReplyDeleteThe questions was that if there was a women who was dying and there was an experimental drug that could save her. It cost $1000 for one dose. The women's husband took up a collection and used his own money. In the end he could only get $600. He asked the doctors if he could pay the rest later, but they told him no. The husband then goes to the place where the medication was being kept, broke in and stole some. The real question is "Does he get arrested and charged?"
I feel this question is the same one the blog is asking. These children need an education, but teachers have to decide weather their personal well being is more important or are the children? I don't believe there is a correct answer to your question. When people are encountered with questions such as this they automatically try to see a way out that will benefit both parties. My initial reaction was to get a second job or to find another school to teach at. Sometimes their is no way out, no right answer, and no good solution.
I also want to be a teacher in the future. However if I was in that situation I don’t know how I would handle it. I would probably have to find a different job because I would need a salary to pay for everyday objects. I think those teachers who are in that situation are courageous for trusting that they will be able to get what they need even though some didn’t see a paycheck for 18 months. This is hard to picture someone to go without getting paid for that long, but they didn’t have much choice. Would anyone do anything differently?
ReplyDeleteI do want to be a teacher in the future, and I guess my answer would depend on my situation at the time. If I was single and living on my own, I would like to believe that I could continue teaching. I am going to be a teacher to help others, and if the situation was that bad, the students would need a good education just so that they would have a chance of a better future. But, if I was married or a mother, I don't know if I could stay. I don't think that I could sacrifice my child's health and well being, knowing that they might not get to eat because I was away at a job that wasn't doing anything to provide any income.
ReplyDeleteI've been teaching without pay for three years now. I had 700 students last school year and made it through by relying on my husband's part time job to support us and our three children. I am again teaching this year with no promise of pay in the future. Being a teacher is far more than a job, it's a calling. In devoting myself to my community and the betterment of local children, I'm ensuring a better future for my own sons. What marvels me about the situation isn't that people are surprised that I continue to come back week after week, but how shocked people are that my husband does the same. It's odd, because the male gender does have a tendency to be more self centered, my sacrifice (which is greater than my husband's) becomes over shadowed by his since his is out of the norm of expectations. In order to improve society, we need to expect the same selflessness from men as we do from women.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting subject to me since teachers in the US often teach without contracts, benefits, and without good working conditions. When teachers fight for better conditions are pay, they are often seen as selfish. Shouldn't we want to teach anyway without it? And honestly, for most teachers the answers to that question is STILL yes, because as Stephanie pointed out--teaching is more than a salary. Think about the teachers that took bullets for their students at Sandy Hook, or the Chicago teachers that fought for better school conditions. The Chicago teachers were treated like pariahs because not only were they seeking better conditions for students, but for themselves. This is a complex issue, and one you may run into in your education career.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting subject to me since teachers in the US often teach without contracts, benefits, and without good working conditions. When teachers fight for better conditions are pay, they are often seen as selfish. Shouldn't we want to teach anyway without it? And honestly, for most teachers the answers to that question is STILL yes, because as Stephanie pointed out--teaching is more than a salary. Think about the teachers that took bullets for their students at Sandy Hook, or the Chicago teachers that fought for better school conditions. The Chicago teachers were treated like pariahs because not only were they seeking better conditions for students, but for themselves. This is a complex issue, and one you may run into in your education career.
ReplyDelete