Politics of the Peace Corps, Fulbright and Teach For America
By Rachel Holcomb, Kellie Miller, Victor Yang, Yoanna “Ani” Lazarova, Meri Karastoyanova and Yana Markova
Benefits of the Peace Corps on the Community
In order to gain a better understanding of the Peace Corps Program and have enough knowledge and information to truly evaluate the work of this organization, we interviewed two former participants in this teaching system. Both of their reviews of their personal experience were positive. One of them even claimed:
“One of the best experiences of my life. I had more challenges and more rewards than almost anything else I’ve done in my life.”
They shared that the program allowed them to integrate into a new community and to build valuable relationships and, therefore, have a positive impact on the society in which they worked.
“One of the biggest positive aspects of the Peace Corps program is that it targets marginalized and poorer communities, rather than major programs and government edicts”- shares a volunteer who has worked in Mongolia.
The program in Mongolia has been successful because of the good cultural training and the strategic use of “clustering” – the Peace Corps volunteers are placed in the same village/town for support. Moreover, the volunteers with whom we spoke stated that the program manages to help develop education systems in countries without imposing United States values or using a colonialist approach. The Peace Corps volunteers work with teachers, so the change done is at the grass roots level. They do not work with school administrators and are not in charge of creating and administering educational system. The use of colonialist approach is avoided and the program seeks to avoid any neo-imperialistic aims as well. Conducting extensive cultural training and constantly stressing the importance of working with host country nationals are only one of the methods used to avoid the use of colonialist approach. In addition, the volunteers go only to countries that have explicitly requested them. The volunteers have not experienced any distrust and the program seems to have an astoundingly positive reputation in most countries. When asked if systems of inequality are addressed or perpetuated through the program in their opinion, a volunteer who worked in Bulgaria said:
“I would say they are addressed. Bringing highly educated people into areas that would otherwise be unable to afford the kind of input otherwise. Peace Corps volunteers have access to resources and information that many areas traditionally don’t.”
The Peace Corps program is beneficial both for the host community and the volunteers as it provides new experience, involvement and input creating a better educational system.
Peace Corps Ethiopia:
Consequences Brought on by the Peace Corps
In light of the Peace Corps beneficial impact upon different communities, its own movement has created more job opportunities for residents in the United States as opposed to providing more opportunities for residents of the country being assisted. The Harvard Crimson took it upon themselves to point out this unequal discretion in which they comment in their article The Peace Corps: An Indictment, “They see us working side by side with other officials of the US government to accomplish programs, which are in the view of many Latins, part of the US' world wide struggle against Communism, not a genuine desire to help poor nations” (Harvard Crimson p. 1). The ill effect of the United States’ dominance can perpetuate a movement of inequality in which the United States’ agenda is being pushed as the primary focus and investment. In order to deviate from improving solely the United States sense of power and economy, a greater share of involvement must also be directed to the country that is being assisted. Such an alternative approach has been addressed by Peace Corps volunteers such as Karen Rothmyer, writer for NPR.org, who recommends a solution, “If Americans really want to give Kenya a hand, why not scrap the Peace Corps and instead underwrite jobs for young people who already live here so they can help their neighbors and live better lives?” (National Public radio, p. 1). Such a change to the program would not only grant job opportunities that would benefit citizens and the assisted country’s economy, but a greater representation of equality would be reflected in the Peace Corps mission and objectives thus better assisting particular countries.
The overwhelming dominance of American decisions have not only been commented upon by the media but has also been recorded through personal reflections by Peace Corps volunteers. The New York Times has recorded these personal experiences in their self-reflective article, Peace Corps Volunteers in their Own Words, to which a variety of positive but also negative responses have been reported. Peace Corps volunteer, Jonathan Halpern, speaks about his short lived service in the country of Kazakhastan, to which the Peace Corps shut the program down abruptly during the course of English lessons. As Halpern comments, “Peace Corps did a terrible job of communicating the true situation to us, both during and at the conclusion of the program (New York Times, p. 1). Such poor communication not only delayed the service of fifty Peace Corps volunteers, but it also hindered the learning of numerous young Kazakhastan students who were making progress in their English lessons. The organization's negative interactions with their volunteers has also been extended to the level of care that Peace Corps volunteers have received. Peace Corps volunteer, Chance Dorland who served in Colombia was forced to cut their service early due to the Peace Corps’ poor level of medical care. Dorland stated that, “I’ve been told by American doctors that my condition was caused by a lack of medical care and a communication problem between Peace Corps medical staff that resulted in me being given the wrong medication” (New York Times, p. 1). Such adverse medical attention and poor level of communication was further addressed by Dorland as being “swept under the rug,” thus implicating the Peace Corps’ poor level of care towards their volunteers thus hindering the effectiveness of services offered by their volunteers.
Teach for America has a strong reputation arguably in every field other than the field of education. Syracuse University is a good example of this, as undergraduates in the Maxwell School among others are encouraged to enter such a prestigious program, while the School of Education warns its undergraduates of the harms that coincide with the program and readily encourage their students to move into a master’s program for education before entering the classroom. As a Selected Studies in Education student, I had the opportunity to take public policy courses and listen to TFA corps members share their challenging but rewarding experiences with the program. At the same time I enrolled in several education courses focused intensely on the pedagogy of education and the importance of teaching training. When researching my options for post graduation I had the opportunity to meet with one of the recruiters for the School of Education master’s program. During our discussion about routes outside of a master’s degree the recruiter was quick to shame alternative programs, most notably Teach for America stating that it is a disservice to the children to put teachers in classrooms that lack both an education and training in the field.
From a Maxwell Perspective, much evidence and test scores have been gathered to support the notion that systems of inequality are addressed through Teach for America. Aside from the conflicting academic assessments that have been compared across TFA members and traditionally trained teachers, many find the poor teacher retention rates of TFA to be one of its biggest criticisms. However; many of these TFA members that leave the classroom after their two-year commitment will then enter policy work in education among other fields with first-hand experience in the field of education, often in areas where the inequality rates are of the highest in the country, that will influence their future work and commitment to education that they otherwise would not have the opportunity to gain.
From a traditional teacher education perspective, however, it is argued that these low retention rates that Teach for America produces is just a quick-fix by continually turning over teachers in districts where the students require the most support and consistency in order to receive long term benefits. It is also argued that alternative routes to teaching discredits and undermines the career path of education, by arguing that their members are prepared to lead classrooms after just five weeks of training. These alternative systems have not only caused a disruption to the United States system of education, but as these policies and programs are implemented in other nations with characteristically very different values and systems we can see a neocolonial approach that arguably is only aimed at improving the socioeconomics of the United States through globalization rather that they countries receiving the program’s services, such as Teach for India through the Teach for All program that has begun to take hold across the world.
To be fair, anything can be criticized if this is the desired point of view, so we have chosen to also take a look at the matter from a more positive perspective. We have chosen another sub-Teach for All, Teach for Bulgaria, to explore in its specifics since only through focusing on the details can we truly evaluate the whole extensively. Teach for Bulgaria is a fairly new organization that is quickly gaining fame in the mentioned country, as more and more institutions of education and politics begin to appreciate its effectiveness there. We contacted the president of the TFB club at the American College of Sofia, the senior Alexandra Radeva, and we asked her what she thought about the inequality and possible prejudice that this organization might have. We have already stated that fairness is important to us, so before we present her point of view, we would like to justify why a member of the organization should be counted as the carrier of an objective point of view. Alexandra was introduced to TFB last year when the club was firstly created at ACS as a branch of the original TFB. Just as anybody else, she was presented with the objective of the club and the organization as well as with the choice of whether she wanted to support this mission or not. She researched it thoroughly alongside with its origins in Teach for America. Here she paused, but it was clear what was lingering between the lines: had she found anything unjust or inappropriate with the methods of TFB, she wouldn’t have joined. After she introduced me to how she had been introduced to TFB, we moved on to a discussion on the question about the promotion on inequality. Her view on inequality was focused more on the inequality within the borders of Bulgaria, but her statement can nonetheless help us answer our question:
“I don't think we can talk about prejudice when it comes to Teach for Bulgaria. The organization itself has launched numerous programs which aim at improving the educational environment in Bulgaria as a whole. Although the focus is mainly on Sofian schools, TFB tries to extend its activity. The fact that both the organization and the ACS activity work with students and teachers from schools in smaller towns such as Zlatitza speaks for itself that TFB is not prejudiced. The goal is to give equal benefits for students from the entire country and with each year TFB's partnership with countryside schools increases.”
The fact that she emphasizes the effort that TFB is putting into developing as an organization for the greater good is important as it is. It is just as important, however, that this wouldn’t be possible without the Teach for All program. And while we could speak about neocolonial approaches and extension of control, when we look into the details, we see that the positive consequences are not simply for the United States’ socioeconomics, but for the improvement of the living standards in other units such as Bulgaria.
While Teach for America is unique as an idea, it is just as susceptive to both negative and positive commentaries as any other idea. The important thing is that it is always worth it to dig into ideas and analyze them from all sides because then you know that you have seen and understood them for what they truly are: an attempt for having one better tomorrow.
The Fulbright program is one of the most selective and prestigious programs funded by the US Department of State. First conceived by US Senator J. William Fulbright in 1946, his vision was to create an international education exchange for students, scholars, teachers, professionals, scientists and artists. Starting with 10 countries and now encompassing 130 and counting, the Fulbright program is one of the most successful international exchange programs. Among its alumni are 29 former heads of state or government, 53 Nobel Prize winners, and 80 Pulitzer Prize winners from all regions of the world (Sonenshine, 2014)
This program offers grants for graduate studying, research, lecturing and teaching. These scholarships are subsidized mainly by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Additional sponsorships come from partner governments, corporations, foundations not only from the U.S., but also from the associated countries. Annually, the program awards around 8,000 grants, from which approximately 1,600 are U.S. students, 4,000 are foreign students, 1,200 are U.S. scholars, and 900 - visiting scholars. Additionally, several hundred teachers and professionals also receive awards. (Fulbright Scholar Program)
Although, there will be few that disagree on the success of the Fulbright program, there are some who would argue that it is a program that promotes systems of inequality. One such reasoning for this is the fact that the Fulbright program is not available in each and every country in the world. By not being able to reach every country in the world, the United States is not giving countries that may have promising scholars a chance to succeed in a rich academic culture. Another way that the Fulbright program may be perpetuating inequality is based on the differences in funding that countries receive. Since the program uses cost-sharing and partnership agreements with other countries, such as friendly allies in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific. Their Fulbright budgets are funded from many sources other than the US Government, such as private charitable contributions and their own government funding. As a result, this automatically gives countries that are more developed a chance to obtain more Fulbright scholars and develop their human capital. An example of this is the country of Kenya, a developing country when compared to some of its Fulbright peers in Europe. Since it does not have as strong of an economy, it does not have access to as many private donors, and it’s government may not have as much money to contribute towards the program. This essentially means that because Kenya may not have as much resources, they are not receiving the full benefit of the Fulbright program (Marsa, 1991).
Another concern that stems from the basis of the program is the funding as it is largely dependent on the economic stability of the partnering countries. Since the grants are not sponsored only by the U.S. government, their amount vary upon the prosperity of the foreign institutions. This creates inequality in the sense that the more booming economy a country has, the larger sponsorship it will get for its Fulbright scholars, while those students who are already facing difficulties because of their country’s situation will receive a smaller grant. For instance, a Philippine Fulbright scholar got accepted into Columbia Law School, but declined the offer since he couldn't cover the expenses, The cost of studying in a top-tier law school in the U.S. is roughly US$60,000.00 covering tuition and living expenses. However, the grant that Philippine Fulbright scholars receive is US$32,500.00, which is almost half of the needed amount. Even though the university granted him a US$20,000.00 tuition waiver, he still had to pay US$14,500.00, since the expenses in Columbia were estimated around US$67,000.00 and that wasn’t possible for him. As a result, the student declined the offer and withdrew from Fulbright. This example shows how inequality is still an issue for the Fulbright Program and a solution to this problem could be making the funding need-based (Invictus, 2008).
When it was first conceived, the Fulbright program was created to promote cultural exchange between countries. However, as time has evolved, this vision has seemingly shifted and changed meaning. Now, the Fulbright program is not only a cultural exchange between countries but it also focuses on more academic knowledge and skill based exchange. Yet, the nature of what the program intended to be has arguably caused a system of inequality. An example of this comes from the topic of the sciences, where the program has its lowest amount of scholars studying the field. According to the Institute of International which administers the Fulbright Program “less than 10 percent of the student Fulbright applicants are studying science” (Marsa, 1991), a low number for an important field. The reasons for this vary, but one of the biggest is due to this original emphasis on cultural exchange. According to Walter A. Rosenblith, Professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board “scientists don't have the time to be goodwill ambassadors and do science, too, which demands more than a 40-hour work week. And as tenure becomes more difficult to achieve, scientists are more hesitant to take time off and go abroad” (Marsa 1991). This illustrates how inequality may be occurring through different academic disciplines within the Fulbright program, an unintended consequence that delves from the original vision of the program.
References
Peace Corps:
-http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1968/1/17/the-peace-corps-an-indictment-pwe/travisinmalawi.wordpress.com
Teach for America:
-Higgins, M., Robison, W., Weiner, J., & Hess, F. (2011). Creating a corps of change agents. Education Next, 11(3) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1237831651?accountid=14214
Fullbright:
No comments:
Post a Comment