What’s Changed? Are Citizens Reestablishing Education Ownership?
By Patricia Moore Harbour
Introduction
Public ownership of and responsibility for education is at the heart of our democracy. But in practice parents, citizens, and the public feel isolated from the education process. They don’t feel they have a say or can make a difference in the schools even if they wanted to.
Some questions for consideration:
- How can citizens, institutions, and organizations collaborate on the development and well being of youth in your community?
- What can communities do to embrace education beyond the classroom?
- What stories can you share about your experiences?
Article Text
“I believe that the community’s duty to education is, therefore, its paramount moral duty.”
John Dewey
Twenty-five years ago, U.S. citizens lamented over the findings of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Education, “A rising tide of mediocrity” was eroding our educational system. The title of this report, A Nation at Risk, sounded the alarm. Change in education was a matter of urgency. This 1983 report was the impetus for a variety of education reform strategies and a stream of federal legislation. The most current legislation is No Child Left Behind.
Greg Toppo, in a recent USA Today article, “Nation at Risk: Best Thing or Worst Thing for Schools,” listed five key recommendations. Only one recommendation mentioned citizens. In the recommendation for leadership/fiscal support, Toppo pointed out, “Citizens should hold educators and elected officials responsible for leadership and fiscal support to drive reform.” Certainly unintentional, this recommendation may have relegated citizens to a backseat in the drive for education reform. I wonder if this Nation at Risk recommendation undergirded a shift in thinking about the public’s role and responsibility for education. Further, does this report imply that democracy, as well, is at risk?
Many citizens felt frustrated with schools and they no longer believed they could make a difference or change education. As the report recommended, they pressured political leaders and educators to “do something” to improve education. Schools pushed back, and adversarial relationships deepened between schools and the public. Education became a political battlefield of blame and shame.
For three decades, I worked and observed ups and downs, successes and missteps in public education. Most of my time in education was spent on the firing line working inside urban and suburban school systems. I was a teacher, facilitated staff development and educational reform workshops for teachers and administrators, developed curriculum and instructional strategies, and became a school principal. In every position it was my responsibility to consult and involve parents, as well as, “answer to them.” I believed these were their schools and their children.
Later, as assistant superintendent, I provided leadership for all elementary schools in an urban district. Here citizens spoke with their feet and with their vote. Flight from public schools and failed bond levies increased. Partisan politics, rhetoric, harsh media stories and territorial battles prevailed. Public education, in crisis, was caught between the demands of a powerful mayor, a “stand her ground” superintendent, intervening city council members, outspoken angry parents, a hard-nosed judge monitoring court ordered desegregation, and frustrated business and influential community leaders. School board members, who were perceived as concerned more with their personal political agendas, failed to achieve a policy level necessary to meet educational goals crucial for students’ achievement and community aspirations. Therefore the district was defensive and constantly reacting. The “colorful twists and spins” portrayed in the media may have been the most challenging and damaging. The public felt betrayed and its trust in the schools vanished. The media’s focus on the “sensational” news rarely reflected a balanced perspective. Nationally, this media practice and disconcerting actions by schools further aggravated the public’s loss of trust. This was true in district after district, just as, state and mayoral school takeovers became commonplace.
Was the public’s voice silenced as elected officials became the decision makers for school districts? Community and parental ownership for public education is ancient, not new. Public ownership and responsibility of education is at the heart of our democracy.
Nationally, charter schools, home schooling, and other alternatives grew in opposition to public schools. At the same time, even in the face of disappointment with the performance of schools and educators, communities created Public Education Funds to provide finance programs that weren’t funded by school budgets. Businesses, often in response to tax abatement requirements formed separate school and business partnership organizations to fund local school and teacher projects. Although parents, citizens, and the public were engaged in these efforts, providing funding, resources and in-kind services, they still felt isolated from the education process and that they could not make a difference.
Has something changed? Is there a new venue in which parents and community can “educate” young people and make a difference? Is there a viable strategy whereby community can restore, public ownership and responsibility for education, a core principle of democracy? Is democracy at risk?
In our research we found, in many communities, leaders and advocates for youth education had grown tired of the hassle with the bureaucracy in schools and found youth development to be the vehicle they could use to make a difference. With this, education working in communities moved beyond the limitations of being “just” a funding source and offering alternatives to poorly performing schools to broadening their position and building youth-development programs. This seems to expand the landscape for community education. Citizen teachers emerge who do not think of themselves as teachers or educators but who care about youth and community. Some programs intentionally make a link between youth development and community development. We are discovering, regardless, if this is an intended or unintended goal, the connection between community development and youth development is major. What are we learning about the impact of such programs? Is something changing?
These youth-development programs are initiated from diverse sources: health and public works departments, retired professional baseball players, and owners of retired champion racehorses, the zoo, environmental and choral organizations, city managers and mayors’ offices, family farms, cultural arts programs, civic organizations, and many other sources. Programs teach new skills, tutoring, career awareness, cultural enrichment, character development, and a plethora of other educational experiences yet to be identified.
Numerous pioneering youth-development efforts across the United States led by individuals, organizations, communities, and institutions are breaking new ground in educating youth. We notice the focus on youth development, rather than an emphasis on “schooling,” schools, or even education, has many benefits. The concern for youth seems to be a unifying theme while talk about school evokes an emotional response that can lead to solution wars and polarization.
Does an emphasis on youth development bring communities together? When “educating” in the community do citizens feel less burdened by bureaucracy and more able to contribute and make a difference? Does the public feel a greater sense of urgency and ownership beyond the boundaries of school? Does a focus on youth development result in powerful community building and the development of new relationships across racial and economic barriers? Who are the others we can engage to explore these and other questions?
We are attempting to identify “the Village” of citizen teachers, individuals, institutions, organizations, and communities focused on the growth, development, education, and well-being of youth in their communities. We want to know to what extent there is a relationship between community development and youth development. Can we map the landscape of “education in the community” through listening to citizen educators’ stories and experiences to better understand who they are, what they do, why they do it, and what they are learning?
Readers are invited to share comments, recommendations, names of individuals, organizations, communities, and institutions with experiences and stories relevant to this research. Please feel free to distribute this commentary to others with similar interests and programs, and contact us.