Poor Liberia! Few countries in the world have been as ill served by its government officials, as Liberia has been.
In the 1920s, Liberia earned the opprobrium of the world when some selfish officials opted to supply laborers by force to private foreign contractors. The cries and protests of ordinary Liberians went unheeded by them, until international pressure brought an end to their heartless scheme.
If this government is allowed to outsource the entire elementary school system, Liberia will enter the annals of infamy once again. At stake is not just the future of education in Liberia. If this proposal is allowed to pass, it will be the beginning of the end for universal public education, a concept with roots dating back to 1647. At stake is the future schooling of children around the world.
The proposal must be blocked, not just as a matter of principle. It must be opposed because it is based on faulty logic. Furthermore, its advocates provide no evidence to support their radical and disruptive experiment with the nation’s school system. Instead, they offer ideological buzzwords like “privatization” and “technology.”
But technologies cannot teach; people do. The top three factors for ensuring student success in early childhood education are: good teachers, good teachers, and good teachers. In other words, the quality of teaching and teacher-support are the strongest predictor of quality. If successful Liberians are humble and honest, we will readily acknowledge that we owe whatever careers we have today to the foundation laid by good elementary school teachers.
Throughout its history, Liberia produced thousands of such dedicated and self-sacrificing educators. The late Albert Porte and Dr. Mary Antoinette Brown-Sherman are just two well-known examples. Each of us could name several others who impacted our lives directly. Those teachers worked with few, if any, advanced technologies. Yet, their impact in the lives of students was immeasurable. So, why the urgent need now for the outsourcing of curriculum delivery and classroom management by cell phones?
The main reason is this: The Liberian educational system over the last decade has been driven by donors’ agendas, with little systematic planning based on local needs. Donors love giving chairs, buildings and other concrete objects that they can slap their logos on for all to see. It is fine to accept those inputs, but government should have its own master plan. The plan should determine allocation of resources, not the other way around.
Two years ago, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf famously characterized the educational system as “a mess.” That was an indirect admission of systematic failure due to lack of planning. But instead of fixing the underlying problem, a new Education Minister – with less competence than the previous one – was brought on board.
Regardless of who is at the helm, the education ministry has been unable to generate a plan. Having failed to fulfill its mandate, we are now seeing the ministry simply offering to pass off its core functions to others who are even less answerable to the public.
The ministry’s current proposal offers to throw two “magic potions” at our systemic educational problems: privatization and delivery of curriculum via cellphones. Privatization in particular has been pushed as a cure-all for educational problems mainly by Republicans in the United States. In contrast, the best elementary school systems in the world, such as Norway and Singapore, have not embraced privatization.
Even in the U. S., no state has ever privatized its entire elementary school system, not even states run by Republican governors and legislature. Instead, a limited number of charter schools have been allowed to compete with public schools on an experimental basis. The results so far are mixed: some charter schools have performed well, but many have failed abjectly.
Ditto with technology as a panacea in elementary schools. That idea has been enthusiastically embraced by the U. S., but not by the world’s top school systems. Even in the U. S., technology is only widely adopted after careful experiments are done. And only after teachers receive technology training.
U. S. enthusiasm for computers in schools is not surprising. American manufacturers have a long history of overselling new and unproven technology to schools, without delivering promised results. As unbelievable as it might seem, television sets were once promoted as replacement for teachers, much as some people were doing with computers recently. Even computers are losing their luster. Some school districts that spent millions to stock classrooms with iPads are now taking them out.
Worst of all, the solutions being advocated by the education ministry are not home-grown options. As with most of the policies implemented in Liberia over the past decade, they are part of a neo-liberal framework that is being pushed by the World Bank and other international actors. The World Bank has been wrong before, as it is wrong on this issue. While those “foreign partners” may have compelling justifications for their recommendations, it is the responsibility of government officials to present the legislature with thoroughly vetted options.
What alternative policies were considered and, if so, why were they rejected? Did the Ministry of Education consult with the education faculties at Cuttington University or the government’s own University of Liberia or even with administrators and teachers at successful private and faith-based schools? Was any effort made to get input from highly qualified Liberian teachers and school administrators in the Diaspora? Why did the government of Liberia disregard its own Vision 2030, its roadmap to middle-income status, which contained no plan for outsourcing education?
If privatization and cellphone delivery of curriculum are adopted by Liberia, they will not be free. Liberian taxpayers will foot the bill for this expensive boondoggle. Further, future generations will suffer for the resulting deficit in their education. In addition, Liberia will suffer another shameful international scandal.
The shame will rest, not only on Bridge Academies and its local agents, but on all Liberians who watched silently from the side-lines as the country’s future was sold for thirty pieces of silver. Will all the graduates of the Zorzor Teachers Training Institute and the Kakata Teachers Training Institute turn a blind-eye to this decimation of the educational system? What about the illustrious relatives and professed acolytes of Albert Porte, a life-long school teacher? As African nationalism is being strangled to death in the land of its birth, where are all the self-proclaimed followers of Edward Wilmot Blyden, including the head of the so-called “Good” Governance Commission, Dr. Amos C. Sawyer? Will the generations of students nurtured and protected by Mary Antoinette Brown-Sherman remain silent as her legacy is betrayed? Where do presidential candidates and opposition leaders stand on this crucial issue?
Working together, Liberians at home and in the Diaspora can defeat this shameful sellout of our patrimony. To avoid the chaos that could come from a mass protest march, I suggest we inundate the government with 10,000 letters of protest. That would be a fittingly educated form of protest. The emblematic protest-moment would be when a delegation delivers wheelbarrows filled with letters to the government.
Some people view protest as useless because our officials are deaf to the cries and concerns of the public they have sworn to serve. Nonetheless, the public should still register its disapproval. Our officials must be shown that Liberians are not sheep. For precedence we need look no further than the late Albert Porte, many of whose essays were directed against policies that were already adopted.
I know many of our officials could care less about Liberians have to say, but if we mobilize world public opinion against their plan, they will listen. I know from experience: When Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and others were imprisoned in the 1980s; some of us mobilized international pressure that resulted in their release.
Many education scholars and activists around the world have already condemned this nefarious plan. International media will no doubt respond both to the symbolism of our dissent and the substantive issues we are raising. In the end, “foreign partners who prefer backroom deals see foreign partner who work in broad daylight, foreign backroom partner will jek.”
Moments arise in history that tests the honor and moral fiber of a people. The forced-labor scandal of the 1920s was one. This educational outsourcing boondoggle is another. By our actions, let us prove ourselves worthy of the respect we want from the rest of the world and from our descendants.
Author’s Note: C. Patrick Burrowes, Ph. D.
Burrowes is the author of Between the Kola Forest and the Salty Sea: A History of the Liberian People Before 1800. The book, which took 30 years to research, will be published in a few months. For information on the author, visit www.patricksplace.org
Published in FrontPage Africa newspaper, April 7, 2016