Who’s next in line?

If certain countries only get the rare luxury of receiving the visits of US presidents while they are in office –an “ordinary” occurrence since pertaining to usual diplomacy, Haiti may be among the few exceptional that tend to get visits of such personalities well beyond their presidency. While we are at it, the country may even consider erecting a “Presidential Hall of Fame” to display marble, Hollywood-Walk-of-Fame-like stars for such visitors, some of whom one may interestingly argue launch a second ‘political’ career in the Caribbean nation.

The most recent visit paid (not his first) is by former president Jimmy Carter who is joining and contributing to the “reconstruction project” by leading a mission to build 100 homes for some of the 2010 earthquake victims who were still living in tents.

There are several things in this story that need to be unpacked. First, many would commend such gesture to advance humanitarian efforts in an environment where the effects of a disaster two years old still linger. So, shall we say ‘Bravo!’ or…not yet?

Not yet because a scenario like this more than two years after the disastrous event is unconceivable. Where are national and local authorities? Better yet, where are priorities? After rescue and immediate relief, wouldn’t housing be a logical follow-up?

No Bravo! yet because, besides institutional funding pledged and not yet [fully] disbursed by various countries and international entities as pointed in the article, individual donations that were collected ‘in the heat of the moment’ –with donors’ expectations that they would reach affected people immediately- have been caught in the slow traffic of the “AID Industrial Complex” according to reports released both on the one-year and two-year anniversary of the earthquake. Combined, these accounts highlight the “fractured path from donors’ purses to actual rebuilding efforts…” as the author of the second report put it.

No, Bravo! cannot be said yet…because the irony of the whole story is too incredible to rewrite history. A fact that Webster brings to readers’ attention…

There is perhaps some bitter irony here that the subsidies were promoted in large part by President Clinton to help his home state of Arkansas, the largest rice producing state in the US, thereby crippling a sector of the economy in Haiti where Clinton has worked so tirelessly to help with the recovery.

…and the former President acknowledges and dubs as ‘mistakes.’

Not yet can Bravo! be said. Not when history is presented, in this last article’s first paragraph, as a series of events without any scrutiny of causes and consequences; when big-name, shiny NGOs like Clinton Bush Haiti Fund joins the ‘AID Fest’ in the baptized “Republic of NGOs.”

Sure, gratefulness will flow from the hearts of those who’ve been helped, who recover and are, once again, back to a normal life; Bravo! will be said for meaningful, genuine, and mostly altruistic efforts to help the nation recover. But, it shall not be said for image-rehabilitation while the country is in its own process of nation- and people-(re)building. If it is otherwise, then when and who will be the next visitor coming?

Sí, Yo Puedo: El Salvador’s Campaign to End Illiteracy

NPL in action. Photo Credit: Madeleine Conway

According to Salvadorian Vice President Sánchez Cerén, over 141,000 of Salvadorians “have been rescued from ignorance” since the implementation of the National Literacy Program (NLP) in March 2012. Last Wednesday, Sanchez declared the region of Trifinio located in northern El Salvador as an “illiteracy-free territory.” Seven regions in the country have been declared illteracy-free, and the Ministry of Education plans to declare eight more regions illiteracy-free by the end of this year.

The program titled Sí, yo puedo (“Yes, I Can”) is adapted from a Cuban model to fit El Salvador’s culture. The campaign aims to end adult illiteracy by 2021. The three level program plans to educate the Salvadoran adult population to a sixth grade level. Many Salvadorians may not have received a formal education in their childhood due to a lack of economic resources. This campaign gives these low-income adults a second chance to be literate through this free, government-sponsored program. Currently, the campaign is focused on the first level, which educates students to a second grade level. This starting curriculum includes reading, writing, and math. In the next two levels, the campaign plans to build upon the first level and provide the students with a sixth grade level education. The program not only plans to give the students a formal education but also educate the students on understanding legal documents and raising awareness on social issues.

The program is a collaboration between NLP (the Ministry of Education), CISPES (“a grassroots organization dedicated to supporting the Salvadoran people’s struggle for self-determination and social and economic justice”), and the local community. NLP staff and community volunteers first go door-to-door to offer the free literacy program to the illiterate. With that knowledge, they form flexible literacy circles that educates not only the general adult education but also address special needs groups such as working mothers, the blind, and the incarcerated.

The most notable achievement of this campaign is how it mobilizes the local community. The teachers are mainly middle and high school students in the local community. The community members worked with NLP to identify possible participants. The literacy circles are hosted in areas that are convenient for the participants. The curriculum attempts to unite both typical literacy skills with more practical life skills. The program creates a feeling of a stronger community. Communities become literate and its citizens are more confident with their new found literacy skills.

However, a problem with this campaign is the funding. The right-wing party is extremely critical of this campaign, believing it is a waste of money. How can this campaign be sustainable if it does not receive support from a major political party of its population? This campaign relies on the government funding and volunteers for its operation.

A question I would like to raise is what are the effects of this adult literacy program. Yes, the rate of illiteracy is reduced in El Salvador. However, the article has no mention as to whether the new literacy for adults presents new, better-paying job opportunities as well. The articles only mention that the adults are feeling more confident about themselves due to their literacy skills. Should the government also provide new jobs that allow the adult population to utilize these literacy skills? Or is the new found confidence that the adults now experience due to their literacy skills enough? I am excited to see what are the future effects of this campaign for the Salvadoran population. Please provide any insight below!

References:

Martan, I. (2012, Nov. 22). Thousands of Salvadorians taught to read. Prensa Latina. Retrieved at http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=735351&Itemid=1.

Save the Children wants Nicaraguan government to prioritize education

Children in rural Nicaragua as presented by the article. Photo Credit: Tim Rogers.

Save the Children’s CEO Jasmine Whitbread recently visited Nicaragua for three days. She is deeply worried about the government’s lack of concern for improving the quality of education. The Nicaraguan government has decided to reduce its education budget by 3.7% earlier last month. Whitbread also believes that the government cares more about enrollment numbers rather than if the students are really learning. According to her, there seems to be a lack of education policy to improve the quality of learning and a lack of emphasis on critical thinking skills.

It is also interesting to note the photos that are featured in this article. At the top of the article is a photo of Jasmine Whitbread. The backdrop includes tropical green trees, implying that she is in Nicaragua. She is staring at the camera, her eyebrows slightly burrowed implying her concern for the Nicaraguan children. After you scroll down a little, you see a photo of three children, two girls and a boy. All three children are visibly dirty with unkempt hair and old clothes. Despite this image of “extreme poverty and marginalization” as stated in the photo caption, all three children are smiling into the camera. This implies that despite their situation, these children as still optimistic and hopeful. The placement of the photos makes it seem that Whitbread is looking over the children with concern, and the children are smiling back at her. This invokes empathy for the children, making the readers feel like they too should be concerned for the well-being of the children. What kind of image of Nicaragua is Save the Children painting, and how do they want us to react to this image? Is Save the Children painting itself as the savior of these children, showing us these images and pushing us to sympathize with these children? Are we being encouraged to donate to this organization to aid in “saving the children”?

I think this is really interesting that Whitbread, the CEO of Save the Children, is criticizing Nicaragua’s education system. Save the Children is an organization that originated in the UK and now have 30 different members working in 120 countries. The majority of these organizations are Western countries located in the global north, hoping to make an influence in the global south.

I am not saying that Whitbread’s criticisms are not valid. I am merely pointing out that this is an outsider’s point-of-view. It is important to think about how Nicaraguans view their education system. Do they believe that the government should take a more active role in the education system? What type of policies do they believe the government should enact? What role do the Nicaraguan citizens want to play in the development of these policies? When we view these reports of children in developing countries, we need to keep in mind who is telling the story and why are they telling the story.

References

Rogers, T. (2012, October 30). Save the Children decries deficiencies in education. Nicaragua Dispatch. Retrieved at http://www.nicaraguadispatch.com/news/2012/10/save-the-children-decries-deficiencies-in-education/5

Three wishes: Education and the “Gini Coefficient” in Latin America

Last week, an article in the Economist highlighted an exciting trend in Latin America: the gap between the very rich and the very poor is getting smaller.   As measured by the “gini coefficient,” inequality across Latin American countries has fallen significantly since 2000, reaching its lowest levels in 30 years. This is a somewhat unique and confounding phenomenon. According to the article, “Although Latin America saw only half the average GDP growth of emerging Asia over the past ten years, its poverty rate fell by 30%.” And in much of Southeast Asia, as economies are booming, inequality is growing as well. So what is Latin America doing differently? And, perhaps more importantly, is it sustainable?

According to Nora Lustig, a Tulane economist quoted in the article, the decrease in inequality can be partially attributed to changes in educational spending across the region. Many Latin American governments that once spent disproportionately on tertiary education, are now spending a larger share of their GDP on primary and secondary education for low-income students than we do here in the U.S. This strategy of focusing on basic education falls in line with the global agenda on education as advance by the World Bank and other international organizations. The idea is that by investing in basic education, countries can expand their skilled work force and increase economic production and development.

However, this strategy alone does not necessarily decrease inequality. As the Economist article notes, it is only because of years of steady economic growth in the region that federal governments like Brazil’s have been able to invest so much in education and poverty alleviation without raising taxes or otherwise upsetting the middle and upper classes. In light of all this, it seems to me that decreasing inequality across Latin America is precarious, and will only be sustainable under certain conditions.

Here are my three wishes for the “Gini” of Inequality:

1. Latin American governments should invest now in closing the gaps in quality between public and private schools. In most of the region, there are still huge quality disparities between the schools that educate the upper class and schools that educate the working classes. Until this problem is addressed, inequality will remain.

2. More governments should adopt variations on Conditional Cash Transfers such as “Bolsa Familia,” a program that has helped raise living standards for the very poor in Brazil. Not only has the program had a real impact on poverty, it has also encouraged low-income parents (especially in slums and other marginal communities) to invest in their children’s education, by making payments conditional on school attendance. What’s more, the wide-spread popularity of Bolsa Familia suggests that it may be possible to slowly change social attitudes about poverty and redistribution, especially during times of economic growth.

3. Local governments and grass-roots NGOs in Latin America should continue to search for more efficient, creative ways to expand educational opportunities for minorities and marginalized communities. While federal programs can sometimes do big things in times of economic prosperity, it is important to remember that economies do not grow exponentially. And when economic growth in Latin America stagnates, I hope that local programs will continue to support the poor and foster educational opportunities, even if federal governments are forced to curtail social spending.

References:

“Gini back in the bottle.” The Economist. October 13th, 2012. Retrieved at http://www.economist.com/node/21564411

Revisiting a long-held, cherished, idea

A classroom in Sao Paulo, Brasil. Photo Credit: braudel.org.

Just last week, an article in the BBC described a reality of Brazil. More specifically, the article suggested that low educational attainment levels could hinder the country’s path of economic growth over the last years.

Without going further, it is important to highlight one assumption that forms the basis of the article. It is the belief that investments in education ultimately lead to economic development –what could broadly be referred to as human capital theory (HCT). It is a familiar discourse (especially when one hears discussions about developing countries and development). So familiar that many of us actually hold it dear to our heart, myself included. Such ideology is reflected in statements like the following, “…but it takes more than muscle to lift a country into modernity,” articulated by the author.  And I agree…to a certain extent. To the extent that current educational levels are able to match the country’s present economic state.

Human capital theory seems to assert a causal, very direct link, between [formal] education and [economic] development. If that is the case, then investment in education undoubtedly leads to the latter. Given this tendency to consider education as a unique, predetermined path to development, how does one explain development without education? Or more precisely, how does one make sense of Brazil’s international standing of 6th in terms economy but 53rd when it comes to education? Well, there is an answer; it is, in the case of Brazil, the export of natural resources as the article suggests. What’s the implication of that for HCT? As you can start to see, there is a missing piece in the puzzle. The function relating education and development may not be quite so direct. After all, educational interactions and practices take place in contexts –contexts with cultural, social, and political dimensions. (For a similar view and more in-depth discussion, skim this article by Lesley Bartlett here.

Interestingly, the initial article by Katty Kay alludes to the political context of her story, one that possibly poses a problem to the attainment of higher educational goals. (Whether human capital theory would assume the political context already conducive to investment in education is a question in need of further exploration). Nonetheless, it can be seen already how failing to account for such an important piece can be problematic. Will political challenges stifle Brazil’s educational efforts? Assume that desired levels of education were already achieved. Could they be undermined by political challenges? How would that affect the prospect of development?

On the point of political difficulties, I must confess that, I find it very interesting that teachers’ political will are put forward as the major roadblock. From a functionalist perspective, this particular group is not playing its role -which would benefit society as a whole. But, given the social and economic inequalities known in Brazil, would a conflict theorist be “right”? Could it be that more dominant groups pose a greater political hurdle to educational achievements? Whatever your response(s) to these questions are (or your position), it is clear from this analysis that the idea of education as a panacea to development issues demands a reevaluation. And I am first in line.