Urban News Features

Liberia Outsourcing Public Education to U. S. Firm

April 10, 2016

Liberia Outsourcing Public Education to U. S. Firm

kenyanchildren
Kenyan children provided by Bridge.

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from Global Information Network

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - In what might be a first in Africa, Liberia will put its entire pre-primary and primary education system in the hands of a U.S. start-up that would bring a charter school model to struggling schools on the continent.

Bridge International Academies already has a presence in Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda. Despite a headquarters in Nairobi, a listing for the company shows a San Francisco address.

When Liberian Education Minister George K. Werner announced in January that all pre-primary and primary schools would be outsourced to Bridge to manage, he set off a furor among local and international education experts. The arrangement, they said in an interview with the New Dawn newspaper, would be a “blatant violation of Liberia’s international obligations under the right to education and have no justification under Liberia’s constitution.

Further, it could deny poor families access to quality education, they said.

“We will resist it and make sure that it does not go through at the National Legislature,” said Hester Williams Katakaw, a former deputy education minister under President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Government has a responsibility to ensure that all children here are educated, she declared, and pushing such responsibility on a foreign firm is not in the best interest of Liberian children.

Under the arrangement with Bridge, the Liberian government will pay $65 million over a five-year period. Public funding will support services subcontracted to the private, for-profit company. Parents will pay between $5 and $7 a month, not including school meals.

The Bridge formula uses a highly structured, technology-driven model that relies on teachers reading standardized lessons from hand-held tablet computers. Theoretically the exact same lesson would be taught in every class at the same time for the same grade.

An e-reader not only delivers the lesson script to the teachers, but also acts as an electronic time sheet, grade book and supervisor. The tablet tracks what time the teacher arrives, what time she leaves, and how long she spends on every lesson.

High among the Bridge critics was the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Kishore Singh, who faulted the government handover to a private company. “Provision of public education of good quality is a core function of the State and abandoning this to the commercial benefit of a private company constitutes a gross violation of the right to education,” he said.

United Civil Society for Education Dialogue (UNICED), along with the Teachers Association of Liberia, has also expressed stern opposition to the proposed program.
A response to critics appeared in an Op Ed in Front Page Africa from Minister Werner.

“The public sector alone cannot handle the many problems facing the country education system... We have some great public schools in Liberia but we have far too few of them. And we already have a diverse set of school operators from government and non-government sectors in our education system.”

Perhaps, suggested a writer, an education system modelled on accountability, standardization, analytical rigor and policy changes that can be backed with rich data sets – albeit private – is far better than what Liberia has at the moment.”

The Fair Housing Act, 48 Years Later by Marc H. Morial

April 10, 2016

To Be Equal
The Fair Housing Act, 48 Years Later

By Marc H. Morial

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal. This deepening racial division is not inevitable. The move¬ment apart can be reversed. Choice is still possible. Our principal task is to define that choice and to press for a national resolution … [It] will require a commitment to national action--compassionate, massive and sustained, backed by the resources of the most powerful and the richest nation on this earth. From every American it will require new attitudes, new understanding, and, above all, new will.” – Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (The Kerner Report), 1967

In January of 1966, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference brought the civil rights struggle to the north. ‘‘In the South," he said, "we always had segregationists to help make issues clear.… This ghetto Negro has been invisible so long and has become visible through violence.’’

Following months of protests and marches, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley agreed to build public housing with limited height requirements, and the Mortgage Bankers Association agreed to make mortgages available regardless of race. Although King called the agreement ‘‘the most signiﬁcant program ever conceived to make open housing a reality,’’ he recognized that it was only ‘‘the ﬁrst step in a 1,000-mile journey."

Indeed, throughout 1966 and 1967, the United States Congress repeatedly tried and failed to pass fair housing legislation. Tragically, King’s assassination on April 4, 1968, was the catalyst for its passage.

Monday is the 48th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, which outlawed discrimination in home sales or rentals based on race, religion, sex or national origin.

Whitney M. Young, the legendary activist who led the National Urban League throughout the 1960s, was instrumental in the Act’s passage. “Open housing,” as non-discriminatory housing policies were known at the time, was a key element in his expansion of the National Urban League’s mission.

Outlawing discrimination, however, did not end discrimination, and nearly five decades later the nation still grapples with the issue. Just this week, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that blanket bans against people with criminal records may violate the Fair Housing Act. While the Fair Housing Act does not specifically prohibit discrimination against ex-offenders, African-American and Latino people are disproportionately affected by such policies.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any policy which results in discrimination against people of color – even if it is not intended to do so – is illegal.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Recognition of disparate-impact liability under the FHA plays an important role in uncovering discriminatory intent: it permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.”

There is perhaps no more insidious and powerful method of enforcing racial inequality than housing discrimination. Housing determines access to education and transportation. It determines access to affordable, health food, and protection from crime. Yet housing discrimination remains pervasive.

Minority homeseekers are told about and shown fewer homes and apartments than whites, according to a HUD study, which means in higher costs for housing searches and limited housing options.

It also means segregation remains high. According to a Brookings Institution analysis, using zero as a measure for perfect integration 100 for complete segregation, most American cities segregation levels of between 50 to 70.

In his efforts to secure passage of the Fair Housing Act, Senator Edward Brooke, the first African American popularly elected to the U.S. Senate, shared his struggle to find a home after he returned from service in World War II. Like Dr. King, Sen. Brooke knew that the road to equality would be long.

“Fair housing does not promise an end to the ghetto,” Brooke cautioned. “It promises only to demonstrate that the ghetto is not an immutable institution in America.”

Tithes vs. Taxes by Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

April 10, 2016

Tithes vs. Taxes
By Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – There was a time when I didn’t tithe. I, like many people, dropped my few dollars in the collection plate when it came around or when I was on my way out of church. In my mind at the time, tithing was never mandatory, but I always felt good when I was able to listen to the song called “You Can’t Beat God Giving.” I reasoned, logically, that the lyrics were correct and that my good feeling came in the confirmation that God had a lot more to give than I had. Then I studied the ministry, received an academic Doctor of Ministry and was blessed with an honorary Doctor of Divinity for my community service.

I already had a Juris Doctor and a Doctor of Public Administration, and a few other miscellaneous degrees. I was feeling pretty blessed in my achievements and, contrary to my previous beliefs, came to learn that tithing was an obligation and a matter of personal commitment. As one who was always serious about meeting my obligations, I began tithing and, before long, I began receiving and enjoying significant blessings! In the spirit of complete disclosure, I will be honest and say that when I wasn’t making much money, tithing wasn’t too bad. I gave my "little" tithe, hardly missing it.

As my blessings increased and I made more money, it became more intellectually difficult to tithe. Although I knew it was the right thing to do, thinking or speaking the amount my commitment required me to offer seemed to be an awfully large amount! However, in faith, I gave to the level of my commitment and began to receive even larger blessings in my life. Now, I look forward to earning more money so I can get closer to God’s giving! I’m a happy tither these days!

On the other hand, even when I only earned a little money, I was never pleased about being required to pay taxes. I still can’t see why it's my obligation to pay the salaries of Senator Ted Cruz and people like him with my tax dollars—only to have him shut down a government that's set up to help the people, and having him cause havoc for those of us who pay our taxes whether we like it or not. I've learned that tithes and taxes are very different. When you tithe, God blesses you for being faithful and obedient; but, while paying taxes, the Internal Revenue Service extracts every bit out of you that it can, and you rarely see the rewards! Sometimes even your worst enemies benefit from what you pay!

Knowing that taxes are due on April 15^th and recognizing that you may have second thoughts about paying, I don’t expect you to be happy with the prospect. The best I can offer is, like it or not, it’s an obligation for which you may not receive blessings. And, it’s far worse if you don’t pay when taxes are due. That’s when you have interest and penalties added!

You don’t have to pay tithes in church when you don’t have money to give. The IRS doesn’t care that you aren’t making enough money this year to pay last year’s taxes. They expect you to figure out a way to pay anyway! If you do tithe, you can at least use what you gave for a tax deduction; but, again, when you pay your taxes, you may not see the benefit.

Which would you prefer? Tithing or paying more taxes? You’ll know that your tithing at the church will help someone who has little or nothing to pay tithes or taxes.

Consider yourself blessed if you earn money enough to pay both your tithes and your taxes!

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is National President of the National Congress of Black Women. 202-678-6788. www.nationalcongressbw.org)

In Wisconsin, Struggle for Voting Rights Justice Goes On by Jesse Jackson Sr.

April 10, 2016

In Wisconsin, Struggle for Voting Rights Justice Goes On
By Jesse Jackson Sr.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - On April 4, we celebrated the life of Dr. Martin Luther King even as we marked the 48th anniversary of his assassination. On April 5, voters will go to the polls in the Wisconsin primaries, but a new raft of voter suppression laws will insure that the results are skewed. One of Dr. King’s great legacies — the Voting Rights Act — is now under assault across the country.

In Wisconsin, voter suppression laws were passed by a conservative Republican legislature despite the fact that there was no evidence of voter fraud to justify them. The legislature seemed intent on passing the most restrictive laws. They passed the whole passel of conservative model laws and invented a few more. The laws were challenged in court, but the Supreme Court refused to review a lower court decision leaving them in place.

The voter suppression laws include requiring a photo ID for voting, a measure that may impact an estimated 300,000 voters, disproportionately older, younger, poor and people of color. They reduced early voting times from 30 days to 12 days and eliminated it on weekends and evenings, discriminating against workers who can’t get leave to go to the polls. They eliminated statewide certification of registrars, so registrars can only enroll voters the country where they are certified, making registration more difficult. They eliminated faxing and emailing of absentee ballots — except to military and overseas voters — making absentee voting more difficult. They eliminated straight ticket voting, except for military and overseas voters, ensuring that waiting times and lines will be longer when people go to vote. They made it harder to use student ID as proof of residence, even as they required proof of residence to vote.

The thrust of these laws is clear: They are designed to make it harder to vote, particularly for working people who can’t take time off, for students, for the elderly who may not have the right ID, for the poor and people of color. No wonder Bernie Sanders denounced the suppression laws as “truly un-American.” Hillary Clinton’s legal counsel challenged them in court. Key constituents of both candidates will be impacted. The Wisconsin primary results will be distorted — and that is the intent.

In the general election, these laws will be most destructive to the Democratic voting base, not the Republican base. And that is intentional also.

This is a disgrace. Forty-eight years after Dr. King’s death, we witness how much of his agenda remains unfinished, how much is being reversed. He marched against inequality and poverty, but inequality is worse, and childhood poverty in the United States is the worst of any major country. He marched for equal protection under the laws, but our system of racial injustice continues to discriminate, particularly against young black men. He marched for voting rights, and now across the country conservatives are systematically passing laws to making voting harder. He protested against the endless war in Vietnam that robbed the funds needed for the war on poverty at home.

And now we seem stuck in endless wars without victory on the other side of the world, even as our own neighborhoods suffer from the lack of public investment in everything from clean water systems to public schools.

Dr. King will be remembered for helping to make America better. But he always taught us that justice can’t be inherited. Equal opportunity can’t be taken for granted. “Human progress,” he wrote, “is neither automatic nor inevitable. … Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering and struggle, the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”

And as Wisconsin will show, the struggle must continue simply to guarantee every American the right to vote.

Increased Mobile Phone Use by Blacks Fuels New Economic Justice Controversy by Hazel Trice Edney

April 5, 2016

Increased Mobile Phone Use by Blacks Fuels New Economic Justice Controversy
Debate rumbles as FCC threatens action
By Hazel Trice Edney

Mignon Clyburn is the only African-American of the five FCC commissioners, which could decide whether consumers will get free data. The commission is chaired by Tom Wheeler, a telecommunications entrepreneur, appointed by President Barack Obama nearly three years ago.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - It is a rare conversation in Black America. Phrases like “sponsored data” and “zero rated programs” and “free data” are simply not bread and butter issues like the more familiar “quality education”, “criminal justice”, and “health care”, among others.

Yet, synonymous with the rise of mobile phone and data use among African-Americans and other people of color, a quiet controversy is rumbling behind the scenes that does in fact involve a bread and butter issue – economic justice. The question is whether some of the largest and most recognized names in tech and telecom, such as Facebook, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, should be embracing new business models that give consumers additional data at no additional charge.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says it is still collecting information on these programs, but the FCC could engage and make it harder for companies to give consumers free data. The issues are complex. But the growing importance of data access to people of color is undeniable.

According to the Pew Research Center, people of color and low-income communities are more likely to be “smartphone dependent.” But, their smartphones are used for much more than social media, general web browsing, texting and emailing. They’re also used to take online classes, submit job applications, and get health information.

With this increased usage, the need for free data is clear to advocates. The sponsored data and zero rated programs are the modern-day equivalent of toll-free calling. In a nutshell, they keep certain data use from counting toward a customer’s bill by omitting it from the customer's data cap. In other words, there are no excess usage charges, similar to an 800 number.

On the face of it, clearly African-Americans – the most unemployed among racial groups and at the rock bottom of the socio-economic strata - need the price breaks. But, as the market evolves and creative partnerships are formed, some tech and consumer groups in Washington - are emphatically against sponsored data and zero rated programs. In a recent letter they argued that sponsored data programs harm competition by enabling Internet service providers to “pick winners and losers online.”

John Burnett, a New York-based financial industry professional, recently wrote for The Street, “it is more than just a little ironic that these consumer groups are standing in the way of a positive outcome for consumers: granting them access to more data without squeezing household budgets.”

Free data programs are made possible by a third party company like an app provider, a website, or a content company partnering with a mobile carrier like T-Mobile to sponsor or pay for the consumers’ data usage. For example, because video is the top driver of mobile data use, Binge On, along with Verizon’s FreeBee, and AT&T’s Sponsored Data, and other similar offerings are prime for those who want more choices and more benefits.

Free data programs offer consumers more mobile Internet usage with no additional cost - a benefit that enhances economic justice and can help close the digital divide. Therefore, the consumer appeal of free data - especially for lower income communities - are rising, and are compelling.

The loudest praises are apparently coming from consumers themselves. T-Mobile has said its program is getting overwhelming support as it got a high mark from 93 percent of respondents in a customer survey.

Burnett concludes, “It's likely that consumers, particularly those in low-income communities, will embrace sponsored data. And regulators shouldn't discourage that, no matter how much pressure tech elites place on them to bar the service.”