Reflection 11

I think the question of wealth is entirely relative. Circumstance, situation, and the surrounding people are entirely responsible for determining whether or not someone can classify himself as “wealthy” or “not wealthy”. Personally, I think that location is the most important factor of relativity. Internationally, surely incomes and definitions are subject to change to extreme degrees, but even domestically, the same thing fares true. The fact that there are so many Americans living below what we consider “the poverty line”, contrasts the issue of what we constitute poverty to be and what it may mean to someone who has grown up without any possibility of an education (public or otherwise) or has extremely limited prospects.

I recently began my new job of teaching with a company based out of Sacramento called Foundations for Education. When I got my handbook, the first rule they talked about revolved around incentives. It was really difficult to determine where the line was in terms of bribing kids and rewarding them for learning, but the first rule was to never, under any circumstances, reward the kids with any candy or food. However, the acceptable incentives that are legitimately allowed by my handbook revolve around tangible items like pencils and stickers. If that doesn’t speak of the materialism used to promote methods of education, I don’t know what will. Because I joined the program later, I became the unfortunate teacher who also doubles as Santa Claus. My kids rarely do any of the worksheets I assign if they don’t receive the promise of some amount of stickers or more break time during recess. Our kids are raised on a mantra of materialism, and a constant obsession with having more of anything, or more than the guy next door- without ever realizing that the wealth we’ve acquired is entirely dependent on the status of everyone around us.