Fixing our schools

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/20/shooter.childhood/index.html

I have been thinking about and studying the question of schools for a very long time and recently came across the very interesting idea that participation is the opposite of violence. If this is accepted as true then a number of interesting insights emerge.

In regards to Cho consider that when he was observed to have an unstable mind the "system" reacted by further alienating him. Rather than engaging with him in figuring out how he could participate in activities that would help him become productive the "system" marginalized him to the point that he fully accepted the verdict that he was worthless and decided to make his expression of worthlessness into a public performance. Cho was obviously an extreme example and his violent reaction to the violence perpetrated against him is a thankfully rare thing. The problem is violence in every form, not just the obvious forms. What Cho did was totally wrong, and what was done to Cho was wrong, too.

Here is a link to a blog post I wrote exploring this idea:
http://donberg.blogspot.com/2007/04/opposite-of-violence-is-participation.html

I agree that schools should reflect some level of reality, but from within the confines of a safe and nurturing environment. The reality that is most important to raising children for a democratic society is democracy itself, living in the context of being free to make meaningful decisions about what to do with yourself, how to relate to others and how to manage to get things done even if conflicts arise. The whole experiential basis of democracy is utterly denied in schools that dictate to children exactly what they will do, how to do it, and when they may do it.

Democratizing schools does not require different infrastructure, what needs to change are the roles of teachers and administrators from benevolent dictators to firm facilitators. Any teacher can make this change for themselves, to some degree, but it would be really helpful and much more effective if the administration was on-board. The biggest challenge in this kind of shift is going to be changing the expectations of students and their parents, since the measures of success would begin to shift as well.

The shift to firm facilitation means that the teacher maintains responsibility for safety and respect within their class but then shares responsibility with students for decision making on activities (within policy guidelines) and transfers responsibility for behavior to the students. Making students accountable for their behavior would be outlined in policy (to ensure due process is available), but designed, refined, and managed by the class as a whole through the democratic process.

I home-schooled small groups of 6-12 year olds (I don't have children of my own) using a consensus democratic process for about 5 years. Sudbury Valley School has been operating democratically for almost 40 years. There are many different democratic models that can be used and new variations on the theme could easily be adapted to meet different circumstances. What these schools and my private teaching practice provided students was not the traditional delivery of knowledge, skills, and information but the freedom to make real, meaningful decisions every day within the context of a community of caring people who held them accountable when conflicts arose. Plenty of knowledge, skill, and information were acquired by the students, but it was all freely chosen, served their self-selected goals, and did not interfere with the choices and goals of anyone else in the community.

What will improve our schools is expanding participation in democratic processes to our youngest citizens. No one can have too much practice at real democratic decision-making, and I know that I did not get enough as a child. It is a shame that most people, like me, become adults without any substantial experience of real democratic decision making.