Discrimination, Insensitivity or just plain Reckless?
I read an article in the ST and the Newpaper this morning which greatly saddened me. It relates to the upcoming MOE's 5th Teacher's Conference, a biennial event whose stated purpose is to:
(a) provide a national platform for professional sharing;
(b) harness the professional capabilities of teachers; and
(c) challenge teachers to explore new frontiers in education.
(c) challenge teachers to explore new frontiers in education.
It appears that the MOE had originally invited Susan Elliott, a 2009 National Teacher of the Year Finalist, from Colorado, USA to speak at the Conference. But upon receiving a request from Ms Elliott for a Sign Language Interpreter, her invitation was withdrawn.
Needless to say, there has been an uproar on the net, with fellow teacher, Anthony Mullens, America's National Teacher of the Year 2009, writing a scathing rebuke via his blog.
Mullens cites this as an example of discrimination. I think its more the result of insensitivity, acting without proper consideration of the likely consequences and, just plain recklessness.
This incident is appalling especially in light of US President Obama's praise of the Singapore Education System in the last year - clearly because Singaporean students rank 1st in the world in mathematics on the latest TIMSS - citing us as an example from which the US could learn from. Now, any prestige at that achievement and/or the reference by Obama is diminished, no, cancel that, obliterated because of an act of unnecessary stupidity.
The alleged reasons was the withdrawal was a "miscommunication" or "misunderstanding about the need for interpreters and her professional experience" - the organising committee has allegedly mistakenly thought that Ms Elliott was a teacher to only deaf children. This surprises me because a simple google search would have revealed that Ms Elliott was Hearing-Impaired - so no unfair surprise here. Someone clearly didn't do the most basic of research before acting - Reckless.
These are just 3 such links which my search produced:
What saddened me the most about this whole episode are the reasons cited for it in the 1st place. Even if it were true that Ms Elliott was a teacher to only deaf children, surely she would have something beneficial to share with teachers here. Not merely as an inspirational message of a Hearing-Impaired teacher that became a finalist of the National Teacher of the Year, but surely teachers here can benefit from her invaluable experience of teaching Hearing-Impaired children.
I don't have any statistics, but my experience and understanding is that Hearing-Impaired students go to regular schools with hearing students, especially for Secondary and Tertiary levels. I know this and have a special interest in this story because I used to be a Sign Language Interpreter and Voluntary at the Singapore Association for the Deaf ("SAD"). Then Hearing-Impaired students in Singapore faced many difficulties, not only because of their disabilities, but because of the lack of understanding (of the condition and effective teaching methods) from teachers as well as the lack of facilities provided. Going by this story, I cannot imagine that much has changed.
Finally, if the costs of providing Ms Elliott with the required Interpreter was ever a concern, the SAD has a pool of professionally-trained Interpreters who are more than qualified to provide it (at a fraction of the cost).
I should say that Ms Elliott has since been RE-invited, along with a apology. But a little too late - the damage has been done.
So here we are. We have yet again got another blemish to our reputation. How long will take to recover? Will we recover? Only time will tell whether this will be added to the list of negatives that Singapore is remembered overseas for.
Why do we always take 1 step forward and 2 steps back?
One cannot merely dismiss this as a case of shadenfreude which will eventually pass - It is important.
Sigh.
posted by Clem | 12:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home