I was still thinking exactly when the issue surrounding the recent
Gender and Development (GAD) training was in full swing following the lecture
presented by a certain law graduate from a certain law school in Manila
but under-bar Nick Cudia with the hints jabbed by Orlando Braga which
eventually made the district supervisor, Plerida Payawal, went berserk
with the defense of the GAD budget to the diversionary misinterpretation
of the question from Jingle Bilog Pestaño and finally the
looking-like-a-gobbledygook-question, "...Free day or training day?!"
To the bemusement of almost all the 270 educators present in the seminar that day, the question was either something that wasn't pocketed well or an intentional junction from an otherwise clearer-than-water query. And to paraphrase that very simple point: If the third day is a free day, what are we going to do with the budget allocated for that day since no one's having any expense to where the program was aligned? Or to simplify it even better: What are we going to do with the budget for the 3rd day when it's a free day?
The question raised the bar from where the previous one left off. When the whooping 218,000 pesos allocation was announced by the supervisor herself, too many eyebrows crooked while the eyes bulged in full. Not to mention when she was island-hopping each school-group, fetching an answer more inclined to the YES -for nobody would want to come back, probably, the next day for a training. Who would not trade a training day for a free day...with pay by the way?
None.
Big NONE.
But the supervisor's question of choosing between "Training Day" and "Free Day" was a logical fallacy from the outset. In English parlance, they call it "false premise". It is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. It is rooted to the idea that since everyone was asking for some specific information to which the subject appeared not too keen on divulging, then it was generalized that the proponent and those who agreed do not want to have "the free day." A far cry from what really was the issue at hand.
But all of these started with one, base idea: Going out-of-town for the GAD training. With the huge resources at hand and while the others, even those relatively smaller districts, could manage to pick pebbles out from resorts and venues away from their districts, why wouldn't we? And yes, we could if only we would.
But the supervisor doesn't think so. She claimed to factor security first before anything else.
"Pa'no kung maaksidente kayo o may masamang mangyari? E di mag-isa kong sasagutin kayo!", she exclaimed over the microphone.
From then on, we knew her reason. However we see it, it was like looking at a mother hen folding her wings, guarding her chicks and warming them up against the deadly cold of the night as well as the sharp edges of a predator's claws. It's called security. And none has the courage in complete sanity to counter that. Perhaps, other than me and a few others who have shared my belief.
Let us try to look at the matter differently this way. What if we went out somewhere out-of-town during the free day? But remember, that is with the attendance you signed covered the 3rd day -where you are inside the Don Lorenzo Elem School sitting in a monobloc chair sponsored by SAGUN, listening intently to a lecture in Science or that ethical standards lecture by a principal BUT then you have encountered an accident somewhere in Cabanatuan.
Huh?!
Eyebrows could be raising again by now. Then you ask how would that be even possible. Well, we are in a 3rd day which is a free day therefore we could be anywhere at that point. But the attendance and the signature speak differently. Now who will be responsible? Isn't it the supervisor?
"Paano kung maaksidente kami o may masamang mangyari sa amin (out-of-town because of the free day)?" E di mag-isa po ninyong sasagutin kami!"
If only we can go back a few weeks ago and have the committee reassess the GAD program they supposed to have planned many months ago, would they have our training move to other venue or not? That is if they knew that the security breaches the supervisor were yapping about are the same security breaches the teachers could suffer now that the 3rd day-free day was already in the roll?
Yes or no, we can never tell. It is like a chess piece that was moved too early and then you realized that it was a blunder. You wanted to pull the move back to the original square but the opponent quickly spewed, "Touch move!"
To the bemusement of almost all the 270 educators present in the seminar that day, the question was either something that wasn't pocketed well or an intentional junction from an otherwise clearer-than-water query. And to paraphrase that very simple point: If the third day is a free day, what are we going to do with the budget allocated for that day since no one's having any expense to where the program was aligned? Or to simplify it even better: What are we going to do with the budget for the 3rd day when it's a free day?
The question raised the bar from where the previous one left off. When the whooping 218,000 pesos allocation was announced by the supervisor herself, too many eyebrows crooked while the eyes bulged in full. Not to mention when she was island-hopping each school-group, fetching an answer more inclined to the YES -for nobody would want to come back, probably, the next day for a training. Who would not trade a training day for a free day...with pay by the way?
None.
Big NONE.
But the supervisor's question of choosing between "Training Day" and "Free Day" was a logical fallacy from the outset. In English parlance, they call it "false premise". It is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. It is rooted to the idea that since everyone was asking for some specific information to which the subject appeared not too keen on divulging, then it was generalized that the proponent and those who agreed do not want to have "the free day." A far cry from what really was the issue at hand.
But all of these started with one, base idea: Going out-of-town for the GAD training. With the huge resources at hand and while the others, even those relatively smaller districts, could manage to pick pebbles out from resorts and venues away from their districts, why wouldn't we? And yes, we could if only we would.
But the supervisor doesn't think so. She claimed to factor security first before anything else.
"Pa'no kung maaksidente kayo o may masamang mangyari? E di mag-isa kong sasagutin kayo!", she exclaimed over the microphone.
From then on, we knew her reason. However we see it, it was like looking at a mother hen folding her wings, guarding her chicks and warming them up against the deadly cold of the night as well as the sharp edges of a predator's claws. It's called security. And none has the courage in complete sanity to counter that. Perhaps, other than me and a few others who have shared my belief.
Let us try to look at the matter differently this way. What if we went out somewhere out-of-town during the free day? But remember, that is with the attendance you signed covered the 3rd day -where you are inside the Don Lorenzo Elem School sitting in a monobloc chair sponsored by SAGUN, listening intently to a lecture in Science or that ethical standards lecture by a principal BUT then you have encountered an accident somewhere in Cabanatuan.
Huh?!
Eyebrows could be raising again by now. Then you ask how would that be even possible. Well, we are in a 3rd day which is a free day therefore we could be anywhere at that point. But the attendance and the signature speak differently. Now who will be responsible? Isn't it the supervisor?
"Paano kung maaksidente kami o may masamang mangyari sa amin (out-of-town because of the free day)?" E di mag-isa po ninyong sasagutin kami!"
If only we can go back a few weeks ago and have the committee reassess the GAD program they supposed to have planned many months ago, would they have our training move to other venue or not? That is if they knew that the security breaches the supervisor were yapping about are the same security breaches the teachers could suffer now that the 3rd day-free day was already in the roll?
Yes or no, we can never tell. It is like a chess piece that was moved too early and then you realized that it was a blunder. You wanted to pull the move back to the original square but the opponent quickly spewed, "Touch move!"
No comments:
Post a Comment