DEMOCRACY: RISKY BUSINESS

For the past six weeks, I have been hooked on the HBO series, John Adams, with the same dedication and fervor other people seem to find for Dancing with the Stars. Technically, I know the facts, from 7^th grade American History—the prodigious intellect of key figures, the political maneuvering necessary to bring rebellious hotheads and cautious landed aristocracy to the point of agreeing to a “declaration of independency” and then creating a new form of government. Unlike most great stories, however, this one is better on TV. Grim details like oozing smallpox and nasty 18^th century teeth illustrate John and Abigail’s metaphoric wade through mud to get to the incomplete shell of the White House—life and governing are hard, but the passionate arguments about what is good and right for this nation never stop. 

Over at the Teacher Leaders Network this week, we’re passionately arguing about what is good and right for American schools. There has been a rich and reflective dialogue on Carl Chew the test-resistant Washington teacher, whose motto seems to be  Give me democracy…or give me unemployment. Posts range from "Carl is a genuine American hero" to "rash actions aren't helpful if we want to make carefully considered change." It's been a great balm and joy to read these fervent arguments across the spectrum of opinion, because not one of these exemplary teachers has said "there's nothing we can do"—and the core of the discussion has been around how teachers can influence democratic transformation.

The TLN dialogue is not the only thing that makes me hopeful.  The Forum for Education and Democracy released a new report this week, Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Policy in Education. There’s a lot to like in this report, a substantial response to the quarter-century anniversary of A Nation at Risk. Policy reports are sometimes susceptible to a pattern of lofty rhetoric—followed by grim facts—concluded with out-of-the-box recommendations. This paper has its share of grim facts, but the policy recommendations strike me as eminently doable, given a national will to finally get serious about our public schools.

From the Executive Summary:

Although many reforms have come and gone since 1983, we have lacked a purposeful, strategic approach for developing and investing in the kind of education that addresses the needs of a democratic society. In contrast to countries that have spent the last 20 years building forward-looking educational systems that fund schools centrally and equally, build a top-flight teaching force, focus on 21^st century learning needs and develop the capacity for school improvement, the U.S. has focused on none of these critical elements of success …we have demanded results without transforming schooling.  

The whole report takes the same calm tone: Things have not improved. We can do better. There are no rhetorical rising tides or acts of war, just some sobering statistics on child poverty (where the U.S. is 26^th out of 27 OECD nations, sliding in just ahead of last-place Mexico). A careful cost-benefit analysis is included: the benefits to society (in tax revenue, health care and welfare savings, and reduced crime) are 2 ½ times the cost of a publicly funded high school education. So—we’re not throwing money at problems. We’re building cost-effective solutions.

The authors suggest four policy priorities, all of them resonant with core democratic values:

• Paying off the debt owed to underserved kids by devoting federal resources toward equity for our most challenging schools
• Building a world-class teaching force and investing in genuine educational leadership
• Creating a new agenda for innovation and research
• Renewing community engagement with schools

There are some specifics, but none of the policy recommendations involves gutting the current system, pushing kids out at age 16, going after special interests or further punishments. It is purposeful and strategic—no silver bullets in sight.

A new direction—grounded in what we know as a nation about innovation, learning and powerful change—is needed to reclaim our leadership as a democracy and our children’s future in a land of opportunity.

I’m hopeful about that new direction, and I urge other teacher leaders to take a look. There is something we can do. Maybe we owe this to those who secured the blessings of liberty for us.

Comments

[Ariel Sacks]

Nancy, I've also been watching John Adams and making connections between Mr. Chew's action and the civil disobedience that spurred the very thoughtful, yet political (major faults included) discourse of the American Revolution. The report you discuss here is inspiring. Thank you or pointing it out.

[J.M. Holland]

Thanks for the optimism Nancy. I think some of the problems we have in discourse about education and democracy stems from different perceptions of what democracy is and what education is for. I recently read a study by Carr and Hartnett (1994) that delineates a difference between Classical Democracy and Contemporary Democracy. The key difference seems to be defining democracy in terms of participation in society or in terms of the market place economy. There is a great table that compares the two on this page:
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-dem.htm

For example:
The aim of education in a classical democracy is "to initiate individuals into the values, attitudes and modes of behavior appropriate to active participation in democratic institutions."

The aim of education in a contemporary democracy is "to offer a minority an education appropriate to future political leaders; the majority an education fitted to their primary social role as producers, workers and consumers."

[Nancy Flanagan]

Thanks for posting, Ariel. There aren't many things worth fighting for, but equity for all children and freedom of expression may be among them.