23926: Lenoir (discuss) Engle's article "What American Know-How has to Learn"

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Jean Lenoir <tijeanlenoir@yahoo.com>
----------------------------------------


I was criticized for slinging mud without offering an analysis -for
attacking
the people, rather than their program or ^argument.^ For those who were
put
off by my sarcasm - here is a more thoughtful presentation.

The program Engle describes comes in at $100,000 per year. That money
could be,
and should be better spent. As only one example, It would hire 6 Haitian
doctors.

By presenting their article to us, the authors (in effect) are arguing
their
program is a good one, important to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Haiti, worth the money
being
spent, and they are qualified to implement it ^ and should be implementing
it.

 I suggest their article proves otherwise on all counts.

My view is: Haiti has enough hard work to do and should not have to suffer
the
misdirection of  well-financed, but amateurish outsiders. One useful thing
people on this list can do is shape the efforts made in Haiti by speaking
out
against such misguided efforts. At a minimum, doing so helps provides get
better. In that spirit, I offer this critique, not of the people, but of
their
presentation and program.

In an earlier post, I claimed the article ^What American Know-How Has to
Learn^  offered only two things: truism after truism, dished up with nave
paternalism. I stand by that and I say it matters. Even in a forum where
personal attacks are inappropriate, paternalism itself should be attacked,
which is what I was doing. Likewise, incompetence. Not the people ^ their
behavior.

In this case, the paternalism is obvious - not just by what is being done
in
Haiti, but by noticing what is said, and how it is said, to people on this
list. The lack of relevant competence is shown by the sophistry of the
article.

People operating on their own dime are one thing, but in this case, money
available from non-profits - which could be put to better use - is being
squandered on a program, the shallowness of which is revealed by a careful
reading of the article.

Truisms presented  as valuable insights are one example. Here are 12.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>

Start with the entire first paragraph. (1)^Amid Haiti's great poverty and
political

strife, there is much work to be done.^ (2) ^The country's problems are
immense, complex, and intertwined.^ (3) ^There are no easy solutions.^ (4)
^ . . . we must first learn to listen.^



Read that first paragraph yourself and see if you don^t agree: nothing but
pap
^ which is being bought and paid for with money better spent in any number
of
better ways. Maybe this paragraph can be forgiven as a mere introduction,
laying groundwork for a new audience. But read the rest of the article and
you^ll see nothing but more of the same.



By the way,  truisms expressed in the inflated language of
consultant-speak
aren^t worth more just because it costs a lot to hear them in a two-day
seminar.

The second paragraph informs us (5) ^ . . . the authoritarian approach to
education and leadership most popular in Haiti was largely failing to
empower
Students . . .^  Well, how about that! An authoritarian approach fails to
empower students.



Later, (6) ^So much of traditional Haitian education depends on rote
memorization of texts in French that have little to do with students'
lives.^
It doesn^t take even the casual visitor to a Haitian school more than an
hour
(at the very most) to learn this. In fact, you don^t have to go in. Just
stroll by. Hear all that unison recitation?



In the eleventh paragraph (7) ^But . . . teachers went back to their own
classrooms without a strong sense of what we wanted them to do or of why
they
should do it.^  This is the best argument against spending precious money
this
way. This is the universal result of two-day training programs, even those
conducted without language and cultural barriers. People can not be
^re-trained^ by outsiders in a subject as complex as education in two
days.



(8) Then, ^One thing became clear. We needed to talk more with the
teachers--and

hat had to include listening to the teachers.^ Again, money which is so
desperately needed should not be devoted to a program obviously in need of
basic improvements, as acknowledged by it^s own creator.



(9) ^Those teachers were working in very particular circumstances that
they
understood far better than we did. If we wanted to help them improve their
work
in the classroom, we would have to start from where they were--not from
what
our theories told us.^  This is perhaps the most insulting ^insight.^ That
American professionals so often and so blithely waltz in ^ all solutions,
no
information ^ is embarrassing enough. That such programs divert resources
better used elsewhere is a crime.



(11) Next comes the kind of truism which is masked by jargon. This is the
favorite ruse of consultants everywhere. Take the obvious, give it a new
name -
and then charge you to learn their new vocabulary! That^s how to make a
buck
teaching us what we already know ^ and we^re so taken in by long titles
and
abstruse words we^re none the wiser.

In the US it^s a little lost time for employees and a waste of the
corporate
training budget. In Haiti, money squandered flying Americans in, training
Haitians to describe discussion groups as ^Reflection Circles^ is
grievous.
Appreciative Inquiry,  Reflection Circles, Open Space: costly words for
common
sense.



Example: (12) ^ ^ positive change is created when organizations engage
continually in remembering and analyzing circumstances when they were at
their
best rather than focusing on problems and how they can be solved.^  This
is
folk wisdom better expressed (for free) by the song writer who told us to
^Acc-centuate the Positive and Eee-liminate the Negative.



Kathleen Burke^s question was a good one ^ who paid for this? And how
much?



I would add ^ let^s convince them to spend it on something Haiti needs ^
of
which there is plenty.



Jean