Small Self-Governing Schools of Choice Revisited

Dear friends,

I spent three days last month in Texas with the North Dakota Study Group (NDSG) in its new form—much younger (maybe a dozen “oldsters” of whom I think I was the oldest), probably half or more people of color (more Hispanic than Africa-American this time).   While we were kept too busy to reflect together on our experiences than I would have liked, the conversations we did have were both reassuring and insightful. I came away bursting with questions to explore. And with new colleagues and friends.

One thing I was thinking about was how my views about “small, self-governing schools of choice” has held up since the early 1970s when the NDSG was formed.  I think I would exclude the last—choice. It is not that I am now opposed to choice, but I see that my position is really “it depends.” “It depends” is my latest position on many things. But small and self-governing remain—although self-governing has gotten more complicated.  Who are the constituents of that “self”? I have discovered a new word—subsidiarity—that Catholic friends introduced me to. It means that decisions should be made by those most affected by them!

My central purpose through it all has been figuring out what best supports democracy versus what makes it easier to undermine it—while simultaneously educating each other. Inequality of power is our greatest enemy.

It is on the firm ground of communal responsibility, in which all have had equal voice—that democracy rests. When community members know each other and share some critical common spaces—like schools, post offices, libraries, etc.—and some critical common interests—such as what happens to your kids happens to mine—that democracy has a fighting chance. Without such mutuality democracy can simply become a fight over who can win an advantage without regard for the losers.

Is this too idealistic?  Maybe, maybe not. We have to recapture, I believe, the spirit of democracy writ small until we can truly start re-installing it writ large. That is why I have always supported small schools. Small schools make easer that face-to-face communal spirit and realistic communal responsibility for those besides oneself (and those most closely connected). It does not magically cure selfishness and greed, but it gives generosity and trust a chance to take root.

Those “communities” ideally should cross typical racial and class boundaries; but equally important, they need roots that outlast this or that single cause. In today’s world “communities” are too often built on a single interest, be it recreational, occupational or political. But those communities hold together only as long as that single interest holds. ”Home turf” can be a stronger shared turf—which neighborhood institutions (libraries, schools, playgrounds, et al) reinforce. Whether schools should be integrated at the expense of neighborhoods is a complex issue and I am leaning the other way of late. In a largely society, spreading kids—especially Black and Latino kids—around in other neighborhood seems disruptive of democracy and spreading middle class white kids around largely Black and Latino schools seems hopeless.

I am hoping we can do some thinking aloud about this dilemma. In the meantime “choice” has taken on a largely market-place meaning which inevitably increased class and race isolation. Is there a third alternative—since choice has so many obvious attractions?




10 Responses

  1. You pose some important questions. I wish there were easy answers, but I am glad there are people thinking about them. You are so right about community being strongest when it is built around commonly shared institutions/spaces.

  2. Deb, I know of at least one excellence example of shared community: a school in Ijamouden Holland, that is located with the local library on the second floor (accessible by escalator) and a separate entrance accommodating additional meetings rooms for the city’s governance. Thoughtful design.

  3. Why not allow or encourage a school board in every school?

  4. Reblogged this on Ed J. Detective and commented:
    Small schools: Perhaps necessary (though not sufficient on its own) at this point in time to re-vitalize democracy and build virtue. The “third choice” is indeed self-governing, progressive, community schools that are supported by the public.

  5. Dear Deborah,

    Thank you as always for raising the key questions. Why do so few educators talk about democracy these days?

    I think small, self governing schools (of choice) are important because they directly address the inequality of power you mention. Such schools can be places to promote democracy by teaching about power and building power. Saul Alinksy talked about the “Haves and Have-Nots” and how, to realize the democratic dream, we have to take power from the powerful and give it to the people. If well-meaning people with power choose to join that struggle and “integrate” the public schools, fantastic; if not, then we have to proceed without them.

    Best regards,

  6. Self-governing schools with ( very importantly) EXPERIENCED personnel at the helm, and wraparound community services. Maybe “neighborhood Plus” schools? It makes sense!

  7. in Billings Montana we have 1500 new freshmen every year.
    400 drop out
    1100 graduate (73%)
    of those 1100 —
    600 are considered proficient
    500 are not proficient

    Bigger is NOT Better
    It does not take a village to teach a child — it takes a teacher and at least one parent!

  8. Self-governance isn’t for each school, nor will each student observe it to be the correct fit. In any case, for the individuals who can focus on keeping up a mutual arrangement of community values, it can be an awesome tool for creating a positive campus experience and teaching basic fundamental abilities.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: