Post #2 My wrong ideas about how democratic practices work in the classroom

 

• I initially thought democracy in education had to be a fully participatory form of democracy; one person, one vote. I didn't consider that other forms of democracy exist and have strengths and weaknesses in different contexts. Loosely, the three forms are Representative, Participatory, and Radical. Representative is what the US has, participatory is a one person one vote form, and radical criticizes democracy and notes who benefits and whose voice is not heard. Each has value, but since the 1960s, participatory democracy has influenced our collective thinking about the kind of democracy we want in this country, especially for educators interested in democratic forms of education. When we think of democratic education as participatory, we believe students have equal power with teachers and administrators (an idea that terrifies some and appeals to others).

• The consequence of this is that I missed noting the ways democracy is unevenly distributed. Often, the focus of unequal distribution has been to structure inequities into the system, benefitting some and harming others. This made me distrust this idea, until I tried it at home and was quickly brought up short by the unequal responsibilities my children and I had before the law. This inequality protects homes, children, and interactions between people; I wouldn't want to remove it. We distribute power into the three branches of government to have checks and balances, and we have a limited number of parties in elections. Whether you agree with the idea or not, unequal distribution of democracy exists among adults. If you've ever taken a long trip on a Greyhound bus, you know that the driver is the cowboy, and the passengers are the sheep. What the driver says goes. If he thinks you are unsafe, you are put off the bus, passengers don't vote. When democratic citizens move into homes, franchises, or publicly held establishments such as schools, libraries, or museums, votes are not required. You can vote with your feet (if you are old enough). These contexts also operate under laws meant to protect the rights and responsibilities of citizens. The flip side of my distrust of unequally distributed democracy is that it can be protective and held accountable in increasing levels of policy and government.

• Another misinterpretation of democracy in education I held was based on the belief that if you give students freedom, they will automatically breathe a sigh of relief and run off to investigate their intrinsic interests. In my initial ventures into democratic practices, chaos rules when the controls were taking off. This seems to prove that children need strong leadership in the classroom, not democratic practices. As Kurt Lewin showed in his social experiments in the 1940s, when you pull the teacher out of authoritarian classrooms, kids hidden tensions and resentments erupt. Students in such settings also lack experience with making and enacting choices or choosing a direction for their actions, making their efforts unfocused and uncoordinated with others.  As one Teacher Morrison writes, "The students seemed to regard any letup of strict control (i.e., the core classroom teacher leaving the room) as an opportunity to push for full release and could become highly oppositional if anyone tried to reassert control, benign as it might attempt to appear. This odd situation made me wonder if it was better never to give students a sense of equality or freedom for fear they’d take it too far"(2007, p.10).  I, like other educators, did not understand that a culture shift needed to occur before students could function democratically. Morrison continues, "I tried to involve the students in making decisions about what work we should do or how we would go about some tasks, but I was often met by arguments instead of reasonable discussion. Thus, my hopes for democratic classroom governance and true engagement were dashed" (Morrison, 2007, p. 13). What Lewin showed is that the way we think students respond to democratic practices has more to do with the cultural context we put them in than the developmental attributes of students. Lewin noted that when the democratic teacher left the classroom, students continued to work productively they didn't erupt or act chaotically, which is what happens when teachers try to shift to democratic practices without understanding that the steps between the authoritarian classroom to the democratic one need to be carefully thought out.

• I was unaware of how my views were colored by the individualism from the Enlightenment period and notions of Bildung, which heavily influenced free school movements. The enlightenment focused on the rights of individuals, while the Romantic view of individualism (Bildung) highlighting self-learning and cultivation. Therefore I was astonished that some students seemed to influence what others wanted to do and learn. They stepped into the leadership gap that I left behind. This seemed to suggest that if students need a leader, it should be a teacher. I value student leadership. The problem is if, like critics of Dewey, why professionally trained adults aren't a better leader than a student. Cultivating student leadership  (and agency) is precisely what we want to see in a democratic classroom.

• I did not understand communitarianism and how community relationships influence a person's social identity and personality. Democracy fosters the formation of special interest groups working together, but I did not initially understand the importance of developing collaborative groups in the classroom. My initial understanding of education was progressive, influenced by Montessori and Dewey. I was primarily focused on constructivism and individual work, even though Dewey (1938) talks about the importance of social experience in the classroom, "The solution of this problem requires a well-thought-out philosophy of the social factors that operate in the constitution of individual experience" (p.21). I think it was not unusual for a new teacher to have an individualistic orientation in my first understanding of progressive education - my own white middle class and schooling experiences framed my understanding of what teaching is, and it was hard for me to understand outside of that paradigm. A plan is needed to engage democratic practices in ways that support social and not simply individual experiences.

• The problem with a fully participatory model, coupled with the belief in intrinsic self-guidance, is that teacher expertise becomes buried. In order for teachers to not be insensitive authoritarians or misguide students from their intrinsic purpose, we think democratic practices in education must relegate the teacher to the back of the room. Instead of a sage on the stage, or a guide on the side, democratic education can relegate teachers to some Jack in the back.

• A final important lesson I learned in experimenting with classroom practices is that just because the pedagogical idealists tell you that it is your professional role as a teacher to do right by students by teaching democratically doesn't mean it is true. And also it is true. Sometimes public policy puts teachers in situations where they harm students (like turning in undocumented students). Often this contradicts what teachers believe their role is they become ill or leave. On the other hand, if your administration does not allow much room for democratic practices, you can operate under great stress in trying to enact them. This is unhealthy for you, your teaching, and your teaching career. Doing what you can in the degrees of freedom and affordances you can rationally take makes sense. It is okay if the positive change takes place organically over time. I think it is worth changing in one class, I did, and my podcast #3 guest, Noelle Picara did - but it feels very dangerous and challenging as a teacher. It was still beneficial and satisfying as a teacher for both of us. It would be far better in an entire school. It would be far better if a whole school instituted democratic cultural practices so that students would be reinforced in guidance and skills in the new culture.

• Takeaways:
  • It is okay if democracy is unevenly distributed; it doesn't have to be participatory or representative but determined by context and purposes.
  • A democratic culture in a classroom has to be carefully constructed, it doesn't happen automatically, and students' prior schooling experiences will be an essential determiner of how to proceed.
  • Democratic practices have to include means to support individual and group activity.
  • Students often need guidance and experience in deciding on areas of interest to pursue, but they also don't always have to start from scratch,.
  • Just because students have a particular interest doesn't mean some don't need guidance on how to pursue their interest and evaluate their mastery along the way.
  • Teachers have multiple vital roles in a classroom; as an expert in knowing how to guide learning, policing safety and respect, and in listening to students' concerns and ideas. A democratic educator needs to know how to flexibly roll between these orientations in ways that are appropriate to their context.