Well-meaning Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times:
"Peace Corps and Teach for America represent the best ethic of public service. But at a time when those programs can't meet the demand from young people seeking to give back, we need a new initiative: Teach for the World.In my mind, Teach for the World would be a one-year program placing young Americans in schools in developing countries. The Americans might teach English or computer skills, or coach basketball or debate teams. ...
This would be a government-financed effort to supplement an American public diplomacy outreach that has been eviscerated over the last few decades."
Mr. Kristof, who wants young Americans to teach English the world over, seems unaware that all too many of us here in the homeland (which is how we now identify our cry-the-beloved country in these sad post-9/11 times) are incapable of writing a coherent English sentence free of grammatical and spelling errors. And how many of us called-to-duty language missionaries currently living in said homeland, if volunteering to coach "debate teams" overseas, could actually be capable of crafting a logical argument, given our 24/7 we-can't-stop-loving-it culture of instant mindless gratification a la Tee-Vee & Twitter & uptalk?
"I mean, like you know, whatever" -- such is, increasingly, our American contribution to serious world-wide discourse.
Well, OK, post-modern language/argument, without oh-so-boring grammar or logic, is maybe what we in the New World have to offer to our globalized planet. No problem. (Actually, I'm all for this Americanization, until I read, as I often do, a paper "written" by a computer-savvy US undergraduate that makes absolutely no, I mean absolutely no, sense, not even, dare I say, from a "post-modernist" perspective).
In my Foreign Service career, I found many distinguished foreigners who spoke English better than I did (and pray tell, Mr. Kristof, what is a "developing country"? Detroit, Michigan?). These distinguished foreigners had actually read, very carefully, English-language classics and knew the fundamentals of classical rhetoric, hence their ability to engage in serious debate. I thought they should be teaching me.
As for the Peace Corps, its main drawbacks are twofold.
(A) Giving jobs to too many well-meaning but desperately-seeking-to-be-employed, résumé-driven, undereducated provincial American BA's with, all too often, little or no knowledge of foreign languages/cultures or substantial skills, personal or intellectual, even in teaching (or speaking) their own native language.
There are, of course, notable exceptions, including "senior citizens" in the program; but much of the Peace Corps is, I would suggest, an updated, "democratic" version of a vast system of outdoor relief for the upper classes.
In all fairness, these well-meaning, often naive, Peace Corps volunteers (I had the privilege of meeting many of them in my Foreign Service career), may be eager to learn about the outside world. But if they are parachuted to teach/"set an example" in other countries, they should know far more about them (and their own country and language) than Peace Corps "training" provides (and by the time they know something about where they are, they are shipped out).
(B) As suggested by the above remarks, most sadly and importantly, the Peace Corps is not a bilateral program. In essence, "we" (the U.S.) are telling "them" (the "foreigners") what to do (in a gentle way) -- a twentieth-century Cold War one-way-communications propaganda model, granted on a perhaps laudable human level.
But today (I won't say at a time of US "decline") we "altruistic" American taxpayers could certainly use highly-skilled volunteers from other countries, including math teachers from "developing countries," for our poorly performing public secondary schools, in exchange for our own volunteers, who would be far more skilled than many in our well-meaning Peace Corps currently are. In this way we would be honestly serving our own interests, while at the same time asking for the world's cooperation, when and where we need it.
The world should teaching us, Mr. Kristof, in more ways than one. Not just the U.S. teaching the world. Time for a real deal.
Follow John Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivante
As for the arguments that Peace Corps is sending naïve, resume-driven, unprepared American’s abroad to flounder, many RPCV’s have responded, so I won't echo the sentiments of those who truly lived with, learned from, and gave back to communities that requested Peace Corps' assistance (a key point many forget). Instead, the focus on poor language skills among young Americans distracts us. As a twenty-something, I believe language is essential, but to link this specific skill to the ethic of service that drives the Peace Corps doesn’t make sense. Peace Corps recruits people with skills in business, forestry, bee-keeping, protected areas, and yes, classroom teaching. Peace Corps remains an important program, both for the diplomacy efforts of the United States and for the communities that work with Peace Corps volunteers, and this negative portrayal accomplishes nothing, including developing support for bilateral programs that bring experts to the US from less-developed countries.
As for those who take aim at Peace Corps for sending young, naïve, resume-drive, unprepared American’s abroad to flounder abroad, many RPCV’s have responded, so I wont' echo the sentiments of those who have lived with, learned from, and given back to communities who have asked for Peace Corps to be there. Also, focusing on poor English language among young Americans distracts us. I'm in my 20's and I believe language skills are essential, but to link this specific skill to the ethic of service that drives the Peace Corps doesn’t make sense. PC recruits people with skills in business, forestry, bee-keeping, protected areas management, and yes, classroom teaching. PC remains an important program, both for the diplomacy efforts of the United States and for the communities that work with PCV;s, and this negative portrayal is not accomplishing anything.
I had started with no Spanish, tested 1 on the State Department's scale of 1-5 at the end of training and by the end, completed service with a 3, 5 being totally fluent. If Mr. Brown was a foreign service officer he will know what this means. Speaking for myself the "training" I had does not deserve the sarcastic quotation marks- it was very good training in both Spanish and technical terms.
That said, shall we compare training, language skills and the resume building of embassy personnel to PC Volunteers?
It is hard for me to overstate how much I admired the young people I trained and served with. Far from being “desperately-seeking-to-be-employed, résumé-driven, undereducated provincial American BA's,” most if not all were idealistic, intelligent, and immensely-curious about the world. The few I knew who were driven solely by resume-building invariably left early or did not complete training. Even a posting like China, which is one of the more lush, subjects the volunteer to conditions that would break most of her peers. In my eyes, those who remained are a group to be admired and not condemned with flippant comments about post-Modernism (which I suspect the writer knows even less about than he does Peace Corps volunteers).
China, where I served, recognizes the value of its young people as its future. The writer seems pretty cynical in this regard. I suggest he consider signing up with the Peace Corps. I believe he would return with a very different perspective.
Foreign Service officers are important and valuable. As Mr. Brown is undoubtedly aware, the State Department has more than its fair share of Returned Peace Corps volunteers (RPCVs) and I am confident that the lessons these RPCVs learned in their service help to steer American foreign policy in a direction that benefits all parties.
I hope that during my time teaching in China in the Peace Corps I was able to expose my students to a point of view that they would not otherwise have been able to see. I know that they were able to do that for me.
Can we teach them typing, too? Or editing, maybe?
I do understand the angst though. I shudder at some of the
posts I read here on HP, yet I am also intensely aware of how
many times since graduating from high school forty-nine years
ago, that I have called upon the powers of diagramming a
sentence. ONE time! And only as far as Subject, Predicate,
Adjective. Based on my job skills, I have yet to avail myself of
Algebra or analytical geometry or chemistry or the history of
literature.
So, does this mean we need schools tailored to students
or more students tailored to an indifferent educational system?