I’ve been reading an excellent book about the history of youth organizing and progressive politics, Youth to Power by Michael Connery. Connery is a good guide to this field, being an active youth organizer himself as co-founder of Music for America in 2004 and a blogger at Future Majority, MyDD, and TechPresident. He provides an insightful overview of the Millennial Generation (those born roughly between 1980 and 1998, though opinions differ on the years) and the contrast between the robust conservative youth machine and the fledgling progressive youth movement, showing how internet technology 2.0 and frustration with the last 8 years has fueled the growth of the progressive youth movement. It’s a good read.
What I found especially interesting was his discussion of “a split in progressive youth organizing between those who operate out of an electoral politics framework, and those whose activism is grounded in a social justice model” (p. 128). While electoral politics organizing has remained relatively closer to the Democratic Party and focuses on get out the vote (GOTV), social justice youth organizing seeks to engage those who are less likely to be connected to electoral politics and who believe that electoral politics is not relevant to them – often young people of color. Connery makes the point that effective youth organizing must consider both approaches.
It brought up for me a similar split in the democratic education world, which I heard discussed most recently and eloquently at the 2008 International Democratic Education Conference by my friend Yaacov Hecht, founder of the Democratic School of Hadera and Director of the Institute for Democratic Education in Israel. Yaacov, who has long researched democratic education around the world, said that democratic education in the United States is largely built on the 1960s model: a pure pedagogical approach based on young people “doing what they want.” Yaacov has written extensively about the value of student-directed activity (see for example his writing on “Pluralistic Learning”), and so he would be the last person to demonize the value of young people directing their learning. Rather, his point is that those involved with democratic education in the United States often narrow their vision to the independent/individualistic aspect of democratic education while leaving out the essential social and societal aspects.
Meanwhile, around the world, democratic education is described within a larger context of societal problems and injustice and presented as an essential part of a vision for societal change. While young people directing their activities and finding their uniqueness, Yaacov explains, is very important in and of itself, it is important to realize that democratic education is a step towards changing society, towards building a sustainable, peaceful, just, and compassionate world. A democratic approach to education not only helps each young person find self-actualization, but also supports the development of what Yaacov calls “social-actualization,” an awareness and compassion for other people and the betterment of society.
I understand the resistance some in the democratic education world may find to a comment such as this – that carrying an agenda of societal change cannot be reconciled with a pedagogical philosophy based on non-coercion and student-direction. However, I do not believe there is conflict between democratic education practice and a larger vision for social justice and sustainability. It is possible, and indeed powerful, to practice education based on self-directed learning and democratic values while also acknowledging the profound social/community significance of educational experiences that enable all young people to find their uniqueness, pursue their interests, and become productive and creative members of our society. As Yaacov described in his keynote presentation at IDEC 2008, when all people are engaged and able to help one another find their uniqueness, the result is a world that chooses construction over destruction, that chooses sustainability over violence.
This line of thinking can also be considered in terms of a public relations/”marketing” conversation, in that our message may carry more power and have a greater chance to resonate with others if we place democratic education within a larger vision of societal change. While many people may not immediately identify with the idea of young people having a role in directing their own education, connecting the dots between self-initiative and community/societal improvement may catch people’s attention. (There is lots more we can talk about in terms of the “public relations” aspect of democratic education, a topic I’ve been thinking about a bunch lately).
Moreover, if you start from this broad vision then it follows that we can not be complacent if democratic education is available mainly for those who are more privileged and less so for lower income communities or communities of color. We must work for democratic education in all its variety (variety within democratic education – another topic we need to focus on, and one which I’ll write about here soon) for all young people, in order to best nurture the development of a more sustainable, just, and compassionate world.
I’m thinking of a few projects, of many and hopefully many more to come, that view democratic education within this larger social justice and societal change framework, namely the Givat Olga democratic school and community program started in a lower-income area of Israel by young graduates of the Institute’s democratic education degree program, Spark Program which engages racially and economically diverse middle-school age youth in community-based apprenticeships in their community, the Fertile Grounds Project that brings student-directed learning to over-age under-credited students in New York City, and John Harris Loflin’s research into democratic education and urban youth including his recent paper.
These examples, including a school and city-wide program, a program within a school, a non-profit working with young people outside of school, and research-based efforts, represent some of the variety of projects that we can work on to further this perspective on democratic education and reach out to as many young people and educators as we can.
To be clear, I believe it could be highly powerful and perhaps essential to our efforts to present democratic education within a larger vision of progress towards a more just, sustainable, productive, and compassionate world, and to work for democratic education based on that broad vision.
What do you think?