Both Oars In Speaking too soon, too big

Aug 20, 2010

Having spent one third of my life dedicated to providing education in Haiti, I recently read the August 16, 2010 New York Times editorial entitled “Haiti’s Schools” with great interest. I have to admit that I turned to the article not knowing what to expect, given the simple title and my varied experience with education in Haiti. But, I was truly surprised to find an unqualified endorsement by the Times for the Inter-American Developmental Bank’s plan to totally “reinvent” Haiti’s education sector. I had no idea there was such a plan.

It is not that I think I know everything that is going on in Haiti—I don’t. But, the Times published the editorial before I even saw one article on the topic or even heard it discussed among my colleagues in Haiti. In fact, the IDB’s own news release on the proposal is dated August 17, 2010—the day after the editorial. Even if the Times' editorial board had a very early advance copy of the IDB’s overhaul plan, I wonder how they could have had the time to gather enough information to make an informed appraisal. I am also a bit surprised that they were able to write in detail about Haiti’s education system with a moment’s notice. In short, while I appreciate the coverage on Haiti, I have to wonder who really wrote the editorial.

Second, I have to wonder how this line was allowed to slip off the press: “We are glad to see Mr. Preval finally engaged.”  I suppose when you are throwing about unqualified endorsements, what’s the big deal about back handing Haiti’s two-term president—and the first and only president to complete a term in office normally—with a sweeping, unsubstantiated slap?  Well, it is good to know the New York Times is finally happy with the performance of a president who was dealt a natural catastrophe of historic size in a country which already had little or nothing to go on. How big of the editors to give the justifiably traumatized leader of the poorest and most marginalized country in the hemisphere a pat on the back.

Thirdly, I wonder who was able to convince the Times’ hard-nosed editorial staff that the sky is the limit for education in Haiti. Why all the hyperbole?  Would the same editors buy it if similar claims were made about a new program to reinvent New York City’s school system?  Is it actually possible to reinvent an education system anyway? Can you really create a program similar to Teach for America, which relies on an excess of college graduates, in a severely impoverished country with few college graduates? Didn’t the editors want to challenge even one number for good form? What ever happened to “what sounds too good to be true probably isn’t true”? Oh, well.

Certainly, I would agree that it is obvious from even the most cursory review of Haiti’s education statistics, which include numbers like 60% illiteracy and less than a 3% completion rate through high school, that Haiti’s education system -like that of the US and many other countries- needs reform. But, how can the Times seriously suggest that the task of achieving universal, free education in Haiti can be accomplished by a plan that is “hugely ambitious but relatively simple”?  I can assure you from experience that there will be nothing simple about education reform in Haiti in the near term.

My experience of running one of the many successful schools in Haiti tells me that the charter school model is better for Haiti than a mega voucher system suggested by the IDB. The voucher system will merely pump money into the failed system, regardless of what requirements are laid on the schools to become eligible for the program. Effort and money would be better spent identifying existing schools that work and funding their expansion or duplication with strategic grants. If boldness is called for, this could be coupled with a program to revoke the licenses of poorly performing schools. But, the important thing is to create new schools based on working models.

In the way of full disclosure, I am an avid reader of the Times and a stockholder in the company. I rarely have cause to dish on my favorite paper. I may disagree with many of the viewpoints expressed in the opinion section, but I have never been this disappointed in an editorial. The claims are too big and the praise too soon. The jury is not only out on this one; it hasn’t even been presented with the case. Articles that congratulate winners before the game is even started, let alone played, don’t help Haiti.