It can hardly be said whether or not policymakers are hungry like the poor masses. People would not believe if told that cabinet men are stricken by the rice shortage and are going hungry on their job. Only the poor can be too afflicted by the prohibitive cost of rice and manifest signs of dizzied bearing caused by hunger. It is thus shocking to hear from no less than the agriculture secretary issuing an advice that like one coming from a hungry person.
The suggestion from some sectors for food chains and food outlets to serve in half the rice in every order is simply moronic. It is an idea that is off tangent, one that misses to hit the real point of the problem. It does not feed the hungry consumer. It makes the food entrepreneur with so much rice to eat. The consumer will go hungry and poor while the food entrepreneur will go rich with a stomach always full.
Cutting the serving in half is aimed to reduce wastage of the staple that is getting scarce in these continually fasting times. The idea was a whimsical thought out of observation that costumers in food chains are prone to leaving much of the rice being served. The suggestion to cut in half the rice serving would have been alright if the price would have been cut in half as well.
Problem is, only the serving is being halved, the price still in full and had even been increased owing to the rising price of rice. That places the poor consumers at a great disadvantage as they will be paying more for too little. Getting additional serving will be too costly for consumers who will be forced to spend more beyond their budget due to the reduced rice serving.
With the halving of rice serving, people would be paying in full with stomachs still half empty. Else, they have to pay more to get a full meal. We do not know if the strategy will help reduce the wastage of rice. What is certain is that people will be spending many times over just to have a full meal.
The problem appears rooted on mismanagement by a government that is hounded by corruption, opting to resort to importation while local farmers are defeated in the market as imports are given all the support by government.
comments to alellema@yahoo.com
A false move
Within the educational landscape, the notion of promoting good teachers to non-teaching positions has gained significant attention. While this idea may seem plausible at first glance, delving deeper into the matter reveals potential flaws. This promotion of good teachers to non-teaching positions represents a misstep, as it not only constricts the invaluable impact they can make directly on students but also undermines the crucial role they play in shaping the educational system.
The primary and most prominent reason to retain good teachers in the classroom is the significant influence they have on students’ academic and personal growth. Skilled educators possess the ability to inspire, motivate, and cultivate a love for learning. Their expertise in structuring effective lesson plans and their deep understanding of diverse learning styles ensure that students receive appropriate attention and guidance. Removing such remarkable teachers from teaching positions would deprive future generations of these invaluable influences and impair the overall quality of education.
One crucial aspect often overlooked is the contribution of good teachers to the professional development of their peers. Within a school setting, these exceptional educators serve as vital mentors and sources of support for their colleagues. Their wealth of classroom experience, innovative teaching methods, and commitment to continuous improvement enable them to enhance the collective proficiency of the entire teaching staff. Promoting them to non-teaching roles would negate the opportunity for this valuable peer development, ultimately stunting the growth of the entire educational community.
Another noteworthy aspect is the preservation of institutional memory that good teachers possess. With many years of teaching experience, they possess a deep understanding of the school’s culture, curriculum, and student demographics. This accumulated wisdom is crucial in guiding younger teachers, ensuring that they are aligned with the school’s vision and mission. By promoting these experienced educators to non-teaching positions, schools risk losing this invaluable institutional memory, leading to a potential decline in the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the institution.
Promoting good teachers to non-teaching positions implies diverting their skills and expertise away from the classroom and into administrative roles. While this may have its advantages in terms of policymaking and systemic improvements, uprooting skilled teachers from their direct impact on students curtails the potential for these policies to be implemented effectively. Instead, schools could adopt a hybrid model, allowing accomplished teachers to contribute their insights and experiences to educational reforms while still being involved in the classroom, thus maximizing their positive impact.
The promotion of good teachers to non-teaching positions presents significant drawbacks that must be carefully considered. Retaining these educators within the classroom ensures continued student growth, enables their influence to extend beyond their immediate students, preserves institutional memory, and enhances systemic improvements. Instead of reassigning them to higher non-teaching posts, they should instead be given the salary that they are supposed to receive as promoted mentors. This way, we can implement alternative strategies that value the vast array of skills and experiences of good teachers, maximizing their overall impact. This approach empowers educators to create lasting and positive change, benefiting both current and future generations.