Ok, so I'm really miffed at this article. On the surface, it is a fairly glowing piece about improvements to public schooling in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050605/lf ... ucationaid
Then I notice a blurb talking about USAID-
Quote:
In rural areas and among girls in particular, illiteracy is now widespread, but a 5.8-million-dollar USAID program is aimed at turning things around at 84 "model" primary and secondary schools across the country
Ok, sounds good, but whats this?
Quote:
In-service training of 100,000 teachers and administrators will "promote child-centered teaching techniques, and introduce state-of-the-art instructional methods in science, math, English and social studies," a statement by the group said.
English? This is Iraq. I can think of several languages more useful than English.
Finally, check this blurb out-
Quote:
The goals are ambitious but program officials are aware of certain limits.
One of the ministry's priorities was to create a curriculum that included Islamic studies, an area that USAID did not feel was appropriate for them to work on.
So let me get this straight. I really want to make sure I understand this. We are pushing for their school systems to focus on teaching English in the rural areas of Iraq, but we don't feel it is appropriate to teach students on their own culture? What message is this sending/ Especially when we are still trying to play the "liberator" card instead of the "invader" card in the PR game.
I'm sorry, but when you come in with armed troops and start having the schools teach YOUR language while not allowing them to teach on their defining culture, history, and values, you are no longer liberating, you are occupying. I'm sure Poland's citizens felt the same way when Russia moved in and did the EXACT same thing after WW2.
Grr.
_________________
I am indeed a "proud aspie".
There are 10 kinds of people in the world- Those that understand binary, and those who don't.