In an age of massive austerity within the United Kingdom (670million to be cut from education alone over the same period), Cameron was questioned as to how he could justify such spending abroad when the money could be possibly better spent at home.
Cameron defended his actions, arguing that the money would directly serve the interests of the United Kingdom in reducing migration and countering extremism from Pakistan against Britain and their interests. He's advocating that the primary way in which this would be realised would be by pulling people out of poverty through education.
This made me think of what Gee talks about in this week’s reading about literacy and education for two reasons.
Firstly, standing in front of the world’s press, Cameron and Gilanir both used the universally approved notion of ‘education’ as the all encompassing solution for greater security and as a direct answer in the fight against poverty. As a teacher and an advocate for education I would find this difficult to argue with on a surface level. However, like Gee, who sees little link between education and empowerment of certain groups of people, one could argue that this move is simply an attempt to lead Pakistani people, who in many ways hold beliefs that challenge those of British elites on to the ‘right track’, so to speak. Like Gee says, “the history of literacy shows that education has not, for the most part, been directed primarily at vocational training or personal growth and development. Rather, it has stressed behaviours and attitudes appropriate to good citizenship and moral behaviour, largely as these are perceived by the elites of society” (p.34).
For Gee interpretation of texts was also a key point. Using examples from both Plato and Freire, he showed how despite their different interests they both advocated for texts to be interpreted in the “correct way.” This brings me to my second point which was a reaction to what the Pakistani Prime Minsiter, Yousuf Raza Gilanir, said in the same press conference. He firmly stated that “the root cause of terrorism and extremism is illiteracy”. This, it seems to me, is both highly offensive and flagrantly inaccurate. For me, two key reasons for terrorism (amongst others) are religious extremism (which arguably can be seen as not reading texts in the “correct way”, ie in a way that suits Western ideologies) and countries such as Britain engaging in illegal wars in countries where Western ideologies have not been adopted. This is not of course meant in any way to defend acts of terrorism, but to argue that these are borne out of “illiteracy” seems to be both a weak and misguided argument. Not least because many religious extremists are indeed literate as it is in many cases interpretations of religious texts that defines their beliefs, demonstrates how they have acquired a certain way of interpreting the text and “hold certain attitudes about them, and socially interact with them in certain ways”, (p.41) something which for Gee only takes place within institutions, such as schools and churches.
Implemented correctly, I do believe that education can be key to both ensuring people’s security and in pulling them out of poverty, but only when the system of education ensures equal access of ‘knowledge’ to those who are engaged in it. However, like Gee states, the system under which we operate at present is two-tiered, with different “kinds of people” receiving different types of education in order to serve the system in which both ‘high’ and ‘low’ skilled workers are required. Fundamental changes to the system of education are what are needed if education is to truly act as a tool for people to help themselves out of poverty. Fundamental changes that neither Cameron nor Gilanir are advocating for or, not surprisingly, even acknowledging.
No comments:
Post a Comment