By Glenn Mollette, Op-Ed Contributor

Every American must have the opportunity to pursue college or vocational training. We are living in an era during which even previously trained persons need to sharpen their skills or retool for the future.

Too many people are completing their education facing a massive dilemma of debt. Their next dilemma is trying to break into the job market saddled with backbreaking debt.

We must make education within reach of all American citizens. The following will help make college possible for all:

Colleges and all institutions of higher education must work as all businesses to guard against escalating costs.

The government should provide low interest college or vocational loans to students who must borrow money for their education.

Graduates should be given a three-year grace period before the payback begins.

The government should forgive up to 20% of the loan if paid back in 10 years.

Colleges should be encouraged to develop three year college programs which could cut as much as 25% of the cost of education. Everyone who has attended a four-year college knows they had four or five courses along the way they did not need for their degree program. This would also save tremendously on housing, food and fuel costs.

Colleges are throwing extra courses at their students and keeping them longer to make more money. This means the students borrow more and end up financially crippled. Schools like all businesses must be financially competitive and non-traditional in their programs in order to survive this new era. The number of struggling colleges is growing.

Already I hear someone screaming, “How are we going to compete with the Chinese, Japan and other foreign countries if we are cutting classes from education?” Most college programs have required approximately 30, four-hour classes or 40, three-hour classes. Everyone’s degree program will vary as they add additional courses. I like education as well as the next person. Hurrah for anyone who has the luxury of spending the time obtaining a 150-hour degree! This means a much greater expense, but if you can afford it, then so what? School can be fun and with that many additional classes you are surely learning a lot! My beef is that most American families cannot afford the luxury of a four-year degree being crammed into five, six or more years. We must keep the general college experience to four years to complete. If the college can help students complete the degree in three or three and a half years it saves students, the families and even the government a lot of money.

College trustees, administrators and faculty you are being served notice. Start doing your part to be part of America’s solution and not a central part of our problem. The people in America do not need another dilemma.

Glenn Mollette is the author of American Issues, Every American Has An Opinion. He can be reached at gmollette@aol.com. Illustration courtesy of occupyforaccountability.org.

The Hartford Guardian values diversity of thought and therefore fosters and advance conversations about issues relevant to Greater Hartford residents. We  present opinions from all perspectives, including opinions NOT shared by our editorial staff.

HARTFORD — Leadership at Foodshare said they are outraged by the House Agriculture Committee’s vote to slash spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) by $21 billion.

Foodshare and other local charities are already stretched to the breaking point trying to keep up with increased need as families in our state continue to feel the impact of the recession. Cuts to SNAP, or food stamps, would be devastating to our community, and charities like Foodshare cannot make up the difference.

“Make no mistake,” said Gloria McAdam, president and CEO of Foodshare, “these cuts to SNAP will take food from the refrigerators and kitchen tables of vulnerable low-income families struggling to get back on their feet in the wake of the recession.”

According to Foodshare,  two million people will lose benefits entirely, 210,000 kids will lose access to free school meals and another 850,000 households will see their benefits cut by an average of $90 per month.

These cuts come on top of across-the-board cuts for all SNAP beneficiaries beginning in November that will lower benefits by about $25 for a family of three. “That may not seem like much to you or me,” said McAdam, “but for a family scraping by, it matters a lot.”

McAdam said SNAP spending will constrict automatically as the economy recovers and people go back to work. Until then, the nation needs to ensure that families who have fallen on hard times can still put food on the table.

Foodshare serves 128,000 people each year, an increase of 30 percent since 2007, largely due to increased need in the recession. Food bank clients include households who have too much in income or assets to qualify for SNAP but who still struggle to feed their families, as well as SNAP participants whose benefits are inadequate to get them through the month.

SNAP benefits average less than $1.50 per person per meal, and over 90 percent of benefits are spent by day 21 of the month, leaving many families to turn to local charities to make ends meet. SNAP is targeted at our most vulnerable: 76 percent of SNAP households include a child, elderly person, or disabled person, and 91 percent of benefits go to households with gross income gross income at or below the poverty line.

The he issue now moves to the Republican-led House floor.

La Opinión,

A record 69 percent of Latino high school graduates in the class of 2012 enrolled in college, two percentage points higher than the rate (67 percent) of their white counterparts, according to the Pew Hispanic Research Center analysis from the Census Bureau. The high school drop-out rate among Latino youths also has dropped from 28 percent in 2000 to 14 percent in 2011. Yet Latinos continue to lag other youth in completion of four-year college degrees.

One possible cause for the increase in Latino college enrollment could be the 2008 recession which led Latino teens to enroll in college because of the bleak job market. Since 2007, unemployment among Latinos ages 16-24 has gone up 7 percent, compared to 5 percent among white youth.

Read more

By Ann-Marie Adams, Op-Ed

HARTFORD – School reform is like baking a cake. You need all the ingredients to make it work, many experts say. So if state and city officials wonder why closing the achievement gap is moving slowly, perhaps they should revisit numerous reports that gave them a solid blueprint for progress.

In Connecticut, where Gov. Dannel Malloy has taken a leadership role in transforming urban education, diversity is the missing ingredient that has likely resulted in the tepid result unveiled at Hartford Public School’s 2013 State of the Schools symposium at the Bushnell Theater earlier this month. This news comes after the excitement of an educational reform bill passed in the General Assembly last year. However, teacher diversity has been marginalized in discussions about ed reform and submerged in contentious debates over testing, privatization, or charter vs public schools.

At the school district’s symposium, we were reminded of what works. The very first panel with Janice Brown of the much touted success story, the Kalamazoo Promise, made it clear: children do what they see. And if they don’t see images of themselves in the classroom, it is difficult to imagine beyond that.

Other experts have confirmed this idea. According to a 2004 study by the National Education Association, increasing the racial and ethnic diversity in the teaching workforce is directly linked to closing the academic achievement gap. Teacher diversity is about having culturally responsive teachers who understand students and adapt to different learning styles.

The NEA’s report also states that although teacher quality has been noted as an imperative for successful reform, the notion of diversity “is often marginalized rather than accepted as central to the quality of education.”

In Hartford, one of the state’s turnaround districts that received money and flexibility to make substantial changes, officials said the teaching force is almost 25 percent.That figure is questionable. Too many parents in the Hartford school district are seeing schools with nearly an all-white teaching staff “clueless” about their children’s needs and who lack cultural competency to interact with their parents.

Many parents have been encountering this problem before the early 2000 when Hartford started, in earnest, to close the achievement gap. Former Hartford Public School Superintendent Anthony Amato, hired to lead what some dubbed the most dismal school district in Connecticut, said on April 17, 1999: “We will never be last again!”

In 2000, Hartford schools surpassed New Haven’s school district on the Connecticut Mastery Test scores. Since then, Hartford has been inching its way upward on standardized tests, a unit used by administrators, politicians and parents to measure academic improvement.

Three school superintendents later, Hartford Public School is still inching along toward closing the achievement gap. But this time, the progress is highly scrutinized. There are more stakeholders—business partners, foundations, and savvy school reformers—who want accountability and quick results. This time, its even more of an imperative that the state, last in job creation, prepares a workforce for the future and to make every student college ready. The nation’s standing in the world also depends on this singular fact, and many politicians conceded that much.

“We didn’t get into this problem in a short time,” said Malloy during his remark at the symposium. “It took a long time to get into this situation. It’s going to take time to get out of it. Change is hard.”

Yes, we know change is hard and it takes time—especially in the state with the tag line: “land of steady habits.”

But like the governor concluded himself: that line made popular by Mark Twain in the gilded age, a period when the city was the richest in the country, doesn’t work anymore. Hartford is now the second poorest city of its size. And Connecticut has “lost its edge” as a leader in education. So clearly, we can’t keep going in that direction.

And if we don’t hold everyone accountable for real results then, as many recognized, “we’re simply using words to describe what makes us feel best.”

Therefore, we should hold districts accountable for marginalizing the issue of diversity. We know this is the missing ingredient. The human resource is abundant in Connecticut with many unemployed teachers of color. School officials should stop making excuses as to why they cannot add that missing ingredient and hire more teachers of color.

We already know that diversity works.

Dr. Ann-Marie Adams is completing a manuscript about race, reform and education in Connecticut. 

Alfred Dicioco, Alhambra Source

Thick smog encased the crowded streets, jeepney drivers’ horns buzzed in an endless cacophony, and plastic bags scattered all over the streets of Quezon City. So why did I still feel a positive vibe?

Returning to the Philippines for the first time since I left seven years ago at the age of 15, I anticipated feeling like a stranger in my own country. After all, I should be more Americanized by now with my fancy accent and love for Trojan football. Instead, I was surprised at how comfortable I was to be back. Speaking in my native Filipino flowed in a way that English does not. And being reacquainted with family and friends, I felt more at home than I had in years being with people who shared similar experiences and values: they understood why I go to mass on Sunday, follow a curfew even now that I have graduated from college, or still have the need to inform my parents of my whereabouts. I even saw opportunities for myself to work and raise a family.

When I came back to Los Angeles, I felt my eagerness to adapt to American society around me change. For years, I had struggled to fit in — to know the popular cultural references that people grew up with, understand the dating culture, and learn what “success” truly means in this society. After my visit to the Philippines, I started to feel that mastering these things was not enough: even if I could complain about the traffic like a typical Angeleno or declare In-N-Out as the best burger I’ve ever tasted, I could only feel completely at home living in the Philippines.

Knowing that I felt drawn to my homeland does not mean the decision to move back is an easy one. My parents live in Alhambra and I have tons of college loans. I also feel an expectation that if I move back, I have to do it rich. And part of me is terrified to leave what has become my home in Los Angeles. I have met here some of the smartest and most compassionate people from different backgrounds, which has made me more open minded to their experiences regardless of my culture and beliefs.

So for more than a year I have endured this affliction of feeling pulled between two places.

I am not the only one to learn that immigration is not always a simple one-way journey. If I decide to move back to my homeland, I would be joining a large number of educated Asians and Asian Americans returning to their home countries from the United States. Of the 4 to 7 million Americans who currently live abroad, approximately 1 million are of Asian background, according to Edward Park, Professor and Director of the Asian Pacific American Studies Program at Loyola Marymount University.

This group of returning immigrants is growing. Two of the countries where the trend is most pronounced are India and China. In India, almost 100,000 people of Indian descent moved back to the country in 2010 compared to 35,000 in 2006, according to the Migration Information Source. And according to an article about returning Chinese professional migrants from the United States published in the database Project Muse, 632,000 scholars and student migrants who studied abroad including in the United States chose to return to mainland China in 2010 compared to only 108,300 in 2009.

Other places where the trend is increasing are South Korea and Japan. “Samsung, a huge Korean tech company, wanted to innovate. But they realized that they just don’t have the talent in Korea,” Park said. “So, they began recruiting Korean-Americans.”

In my adopted hometown of Alhambra, I had a harder time finding like-minded people. Standing in front of the library and boba shops, I talked to immigrants from Hong Kong, India, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua, and Mexico. Each one said he or she had left and was not looking back. At a community forum, one Mexican woman even told me she had already bought a cemetery plot for herself here.

One difference I noticed between the people I interviewed and myself was that most of them either left their home country at a very young age, married and had children here, or had a negative experience in their native country. “I would like to stay here in a country that has stable politics,” Mei Lam, who moved to Alhambra from Hong Kong, told me. “And my future children, they can also enjoy the democracy instead of having to fight hard for freedom of speech.”

Sonny Sehmi, a native of England who owns the Indian-British fusion restaurant Hot Red Bus on Main Street with his American wife, said he sees a future for himself and his family in this city. “I live here, I married, I opened a business in Alhambra, about to become a father,” Sehmi said. “Home is where your heart is and my heart’s definitely here.”

The more time I spend in the United States, the further I feel from my homeland: the penetrating warmth of the humid tropical weather, the holler of vendors selling taho and fishballs, and the company of people who made me feel welcome even after being away for years. But I also feel a growing urgency to act fast. Growing up in a third-world society, I am scared I might settle for a comfortable and risk-free life instead of living in a place where I can possibly make a bigger impact. It is every person’s right to decide what is best for themselves and their families, but it saddens me every time I hear stories of my own friends and family getting separated from their spouses to work abroad, spending Noche Buena away from their children, or even watching their father’s wake through a computer screen. Unlike millions of Filipinos who remain abroad because of their legal status, not being able to afford to go back home, or having nobody left to go back to, I have the privilege of being able to return. I realized that my last visit to my homeland was not simply fueled by nostalgia for the memories of my life growing up in the Philippines. More than anything else, I think I saw a glimpse of an entirely new future for myself. I just didn’t expect it to be in a familiar place.

Alfred Dicioco emigrated to the US from his native Philippines when he was 15. He graduated from the University of Southern California with a degree in Theater and says one day he hopes to move back to the Philippines and host a morning news show. Illustration by Jee-Shaun Wang.

HARTFORD — Connecticut residents may soon have early voting.

Thanks to the passage of House Joint Resolution No. 36, which calls for an amendment of the state constitution. The House Joint Resolution was endorsed by a vote of 22-14 in the State Senate late Wednesday. The measure passed the Connecticut House on April 17, 2013 and was also approved by both houses of the Connecticut General Assembly during the 2012 legislative session.

The Constitutional question will now appear on the ballot for voters to ratify in Nov. 2014 election.The language will be as such: “Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to remove restrictions concerning absentee ballots and to permit a person to vote without appearing at a polling place on the day of an election?”

Officials said that these types of early voting could be in the form of in-person early voting, no excuse absentee ballots, or mail-in voting.

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy  praised the Connecticut State Senate’s passage of a resolution providing for an amendment to the Connecticut State Constitution empowering the General Assembly to enact some form of early voting.

“Voting is a great responsibility and this amendment assures the voting rights of every Connecticut resident whether or not they can get to the polls on Election Day,”Malloy said. “While some states are working to suppress voter turnout, we are working to encourage greater turnout by increasing penalties on any effort to block voter access and moving our electoral system into the 21st Century.”

Malloy praised Merrill for her effort in bringing early voting to Connecticut.

“Today marks a historic and significant step forward for modernizing elections in Connecticut so we can finally enact early voting in our state,” said Merrill, Connecticut’s Chief Elections official. “This is about allowing Connecticut voters cast their ballots in a way that works better with their busy mobile lives, and in turn getting more voters to participate in Democracy.”

Connecticut joins a growing list os states to enact early voting laws. So far, 32 states have enacted some form of early voting or no-excuse absentee ballots and more than 30 million Americans cast their ballots early in the 2012 Presidential election.

The amendment, House Joint Resolution 36, “Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the State Constitution to Grant Increased Authority to the General Assembly Regarding Election Administration,” would amend the state constitution by removing an 80-year-old provision that restricts absentee voting to those who are absent from the town, ill, disabled or forbidden by their religion from secular activity on Election Day. If passed, the legislature would be able to craft laws making absentee ballots available in more circumstances or without voters needing a specific reason. So called “no excuse absentee balloting” is currently available in a majority of states. The amendment also would remove the requirement that in-person votes be collected on Election Day, a technical change that would permit the legislature to enact some form of early voting or mail-in voting.

By Christopher R. Stone, Op-Ed

Connecticut’s flagship University is blessed with a top-notch faculty, cutting edge research facilities, stand-out sports, dedicated administrative staff, and an intelligent, enthusiastic student population; but it needs sustained, reliable public utilities to sustain itself.   It needs water.

That’s why the plan to have the Metropolitan District (MDC) provide much needed water to the University of Connecticut in Storrs is a win-win. Despite UConn’s effective conservation efforts in recent years, its water supply cannot meet either its present or future needs.

Fortunately, the MDC has both quality and quantity of water to offer.  Serving the communities of the Greater Hartford region – 400,000 people in 11 towns – with abundant, clean and reliable drinking water, the MDC is perfectly-suited to respond to the diminishing supply and dire need of the University and the Town of Mansfield.

Water is surely a scarce and precious resource across the country.  But in this region, geography, technology and foresight has placed the MDC in an enviable position. The numbers tell the story.

Total water consumption by MDC customers has gone from approximately 66 million gallons per day in 1988 to just under 49 million gallons per day now. Water-efficient washing machines use only 10 gallons of water per load as opposed to the 40 gallons used by older models.  Shower heads have decreased flows.  Toilets use less water.  Industrial facilities are using recycled water for manufacturing purposes.

The bottom line – the MDC has more than 12 million gallons of drinking water per day within its existing reservoir system available to meet the current and future needs of its existing customer base and other areas of the State where water supply is scarce. Why not step up to help?

As the owner, and arguably trustee, of the state’s largest reservoir system, the MDC was obliged to respond to the request to submit a proposal to share a small portion of this valuable natural resource while preserving the treasured Farmington River. The MDC option to respond to our state’s flagship university balances this commitment with the desire to stabilize water rates by expanding the customer base.  Unfortunately, the common sense facts have not detracted our critics from casting doubts on an otherwise solid plan.

The MDC has developed two alternative plans to bring up to 5 million gallons per day of water to Storrs and Mansfield from the terminus of the distribution system in East Hartford.  With either plan, there will be absolutely no detrimental effect on the Farmington River (West or East Branch) or the Farmington River Watershed Basin.

Also eclipsed in the unnecessary acrimony is the fact that this is not the first time the MDC has sought to expand its client base by selling excess capacity.  Just over a decade ago, there was an MDC proposal to sell water to Portland.  Initially, vocal critics stepped forward.  Ultimately, however, cooler heads prevailed, the critics withdrew their opposition, and Portland became an MDC customer.

Some individuals have suggested that rather than share its designated drinking water resources with a state institution and fellow municipality in need, the MDC should simply dump any excess drinking water into the Farmington River. Practically, dumping five million gallons of water a day into a river with flows of between 400 and 1200 million gallons of water per day is inconsequential.  From a public policy standpoint, why lose perfectly good drinking water when there are communities in need?

HARTFORD – Foodshare Walk Against Hunger on Monday declared its 30^th annual walkathon a tremendous success,  with perfect spring weather and more than 4,000 walkers in attendance.

Organizers said there was seemingly  a record-breaking amount of money raised for hungry families in the Hartford region.  The Walk featured activities for children, representatives from various partners and sponsors of the Walk, music and dancing, and speeches by prominent supporters.

Among this year’s speakers was Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman, who is also the honorary chair of Foodshare’s new comprehensive campaign to expand its facilities and programs.

“It is indeed inspiring to stand here today,” Wyman said, “and see so many people from so many backgrounds coming together to help their neighbors in need. This is the kind of spirit that makes Connecticut the greatest state in the country.”

Wyman was joined on stage by Cheryl Chase, representing the Chase Family Foundations, which have again this year offered the Chase Challenge, matching the first 50 teams to raise $600 for the Walk.

In addition, there were comments from Foodshare President & CEO Gloria McAdam; and Andy Napoli, the President of Consumer Markets for the Hartford, which again hosted the Walk in Hartbeat Park.

At press time on Monday, the Walk raised $553,000 toward its $625,000 goal.  Officials expressed optimism that the Walk would exceed its goal with donations that continue to arrive after the event.

“We couldn’t be more pleased with the turnout and the generosity of the people who participated,” said Foodshare President Gloria McAdam. “But we aren’t done yet. Any teams or walkers who have not yet turned in their pledges should do so right away, so the final tally can be made and we can put these funds to work to help our hungry neighbors.”

The Root, News Report

The FBI’s recent addition to its Most Wanted Terrorists list has reopened long-dormant wounds from America’s racial past. Assata Shakur’s (formerly Joanne Chesimard) distinction of being the first woman on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List evokes the triumphant and tragic legacy of the black power movement.

It was during an era whose high point, between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s, witnessed the exhilarating highs of Stokely Carmichael’s defiant declaration of “black power” and the street-swaggering bravado of the leather-jacketed Black Panthers, as well as the low points of fratricidal violence among militants. That violence was aided and abetted by illegal surveillance of law-enforcement agencies, most notably the FBI’s notorious Counterintelligence Program, or COINTELPRO.

For almost 30 years, Shakur has resided in an undisclosed location in Cuba. She is recognized by its government as a revolutionary fugitive in exile, even as U.S. authorities have sought to extradite her as a cold-blooded cop killer. Shakur’s life in Cuba has been marked by a tenuous duality: She is at once venerated by supporters — including the Cuban government, which contributes to her living expenses — and increasingly vilified by U.S. officials, who have placed a $2 million bounty on her head.

Read more

By Juan Rocha,  New America Media

In December of 2001, an unknown law professor named Barack Obama lectured on the Civil War Amendments (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments) to his law school students at the University of Chicago. As he explained how the Civil War Amendments redefined the social contract by transforming former slaves, who were considered three-fifths of a person under the original Constitution, into citizens of the United States, and placed the Union on a path to being a more progressive nation, I, who sat in the audience, began to think that my own transformation from illegal immigrant to United States citizen was the result of a similar reconstruction when President Ronald Reagan and Congress passed the Immigration Reform Act of 1986. More than a quarter of a century after that 1986 act, the country is once again at the precipice of defining who is in and who is out.

The political discourse surrounding immigration reform is about political expediency—Republicans need to recruit Hispanics to the Republican Party—; the economic benefits of immigration, and, of course, border security. (In fact, the bill is titled, “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Modernization Act.”) And when policymakers in Washington refer to the 1986 reform, they remark that it failed in all three categories. The current bill, with its mathematical formulas and percentages, reflects a Congress not wanting to repeat the mistakes of 1986.

But in deciding who can fully share in the American experience, a key question missing in the immigration debate is: what kind of citizens can immigration policy cultivate? From this perspective, the 1986 act was a success and should be seen a standard, not a cautionary tale of passing immigration reform; because it produced hundreds of thousands of students like me — was 12 when I received amnesty– who not only benefited immensely from immigration reform, but later contributed to the life of our communities.

The Immigration Reform Act of 1986 allowed me to skip a generation in my education. Both of my grandmothers were illiterate, my mother, who finished the second grade, could barely write her name, and my father completed only the sixth grade. Against this educational background, and having no legal status, I would have been lucky to graduate from high school. Becoming a legal resident and eventually a United States citizen, however, made me eligible for federal student aid, and enabled me to attend Arizona State University.

In college, I met students from different socio-economic backgrounds who taught me, among other things, not to protect my family from my own ambition, a quiet sacrifice performed by Hispanics students for the sake of the family. College was a microcosm of American society. The knowledge I received from fellow students reshaped my perception of the world, and was central to my personal growth.

Instead of feeling campus alienation—which is something many students without legal status experience in school—college encouraged me to leave the nest. Armed with an American passport, I globe-trotted around the world where I learned of different ethical, religious, and intellectual ways of seeing the world. I also learned about how other people perceived the same world. (In Thailand I learned that Thais think of people from Mexico as elite athletes.) For fear of being arrested by Border Patrol and removed from the country, such mobility was a foreign concept to my family. Before being granted legal status, we never left Mesa, Arizona. I now understand that immobility not only prevents a person from understanding how people come at life from different places, but, more important, leads to societal incest, which contributes to nativism.

Cross-pollinating from American city to foreign country, from foreign country to the university, and from the university to American city, I returned to Arizona to engage in civic life on my own terms; I founded a scholarship, which I named after two of my public school teachers, who were instrumental in my educational development, which I give to a first-generation high-school student attending a four-year university; I use my law degree to teach young people about the American judicial system; and write essays on public policy. Civic engagement, in short, is the bridge that connects my life experiences to ideas on how to improve my community. The 1986 act had the design of responsibility and the stamp of civic duty.

American society has changed demographically and technologically since 1986, but one precept that remains constant is the rights and duties each of us has to one another; in this regard, the 1986 reform succeeded in engendering an active citizenry. When President Obama signs the immigration bill into law (I’m an optimist), he will not need to refer to Nineteenth Century American history to remind us of this principle, he will simply need to point out to the immigrants, who are now Americans, in the audience who embody this principle.

Juan Rocha is a criminal defense attorney in Tucson and holds a JD from UCLA and a Master of Public Policy from the University of Chicago.