Some Notes to Myself

I'm writing these "notes" to help clarify my own thinking, but I will share my thoughts with a few colleagues and I post the "notes" on the blog.

My thinking has changed since I first became involved with school "reform" some two decades ago; and some of my thinking has become clearer as a result of recent conversations with my oldest grandson, Roy—he has a deeper understanding of social network kinds of things than does anybody else I know.

Roy knows that I have long been critical of the top-down control of education reform efforts. And he knows that I have regarded the self-serving nature of political/bureaucratic systems as the root of the problem. He agrees with me when I use the word "foolish" to describe the notion that schooling and learning are the same thing; we agree that at least as much learning takes place outside of school as inside. And I believe I have convinced Roy that, because the public school reform hierarchies have strong vested interests in the status quo, effective change cannot come from the top down but must come from an active and informed citizenry.

What Roy and I had not talked much about, however, is what I have come to see as the necessary interconnection between public policy generally and education. Some very smart people have been saying that our country has passed the crest of its success and influence and is headed downhill. But some other very smart people are saying that the citizenry is capable of reclaiming the leadership role that has been the basic part of our democracy. As I indicated to Roy, I tend to find myself on the side of the optimists, and a good part of my optimism is based upon the self-reliant independence that I see in lots of citizens. James Webb, who is now a United States Senator from Virginia, makes a very strong case, in his book, "Born Fighting", that the Scots-Irish culture is alive and well in much of the country, and that that culture is a significant source of citizen strength.

I want to agree with Webb; I grew up in a section of southeastern Kentucky where the Scots-Irish legacy is as strong as it gets anywhere. When I think about my own ancestors and, for that matter, the people I grew up with, I don't believe that we citizens -- We the People -- will allow ourselves to be run over by political/bureaucratic hierarchies. Not if we know what is going on. But Roy raised a question that I regard as the fundamental issue that our country faces: Will we citizens come to understand?

We Kentuckians have been well positioned to observe the recent election and  reactions to it -- we have several nationally prominent politicians including, in Rand Paul, probably the most visible of the so-called "tea party" candidates. What we saw during the election campaign were, above all, professional political salesmen from out of state selling candidates the way hucksters used to sell soap; the campaign had essentially nothing to do with governance. (As one fellow put it, they were selling candidates the way they sell Viagra: "Buy our stuff and it will make you feel like Superman".)

There has been little or nothing about the election or its aftermath to warrant optimism for the future. But I have been telling myself that the Internet gives us citizens information tools that we've never had before: we can come together at the grassroots level without being dependent upon hierarchies for our information. Roy tells me that I'm oversimplifying the situation. He says that sometimes the Internet is not serving to bring people together but is doing the opposite. Roy showed me, to help make his point, how he has prepared his fancy cell phone (I think it's called an i-Pad) to select the information that he wants to read. The very fact of putting the information into predetermined categories means that Roy already knows something about the information he is receiving; he is, in the nature of the beast that is his gadget, excluding from his attention whatever is not already familiar to him. And, even more to the point, he is interacting mostly with people who already agree with him. Instead of connections being widened they are being narrowed (according to Roy).

I conclude from what Roy tells me that the Internet will not by itself fix our problems -- it will not give us the informed citizenry that we need. But that doesn't mean that the Internet cannot be a useful tool. Citizens who share common objectives can and do enhance their knowledge through interaction. But the key is in the shared objectives rather than the technology..

There are many ways to express the need for common objectives, but I especially like some terminology that David Brooks of the New York Times used in his December 9 column. Here are some of Brooks' words: "Over the past week we've seen the big differences between cluster liberals and network liberals. Cluster liberals (like cluster conservatives) view politics as a battle between implacable opponents. As a result, they believe victory is achieved through maximum unity. Psychologically, they tend to value loyalty and solidarity. They tend to angle toward solutions in which philosophical lines are clearly drawn and partisan might can be bluntly applied. Network liberals share the same goals and emerge from the same movement. But they tend to believe -- the nation being as diverse as it is and the Constitution saying what it does -- that politics is a complex jockeying of ideas and interests."

The task before us is more a "network" than a "cluster" job; rescuing our country from decline requires us all. That task, however, seems too vague to get hold of—not much will happen if all we do is talk about such things as networks. But the hierarchies are unwittingly giving some help; they are not only regarding us citizens as being too dumb to matter, they're making their attitudes obvious. That, in turn, gives us a clear basis for common cause: we -- We the People --believe that we do matter.

A recent visit with some young relatives can help illustrate a highly valuable source of network strength.  Roy has a five month old son, Miller, and Miller has not yet learned to crawl. I thought he was ready to learn, so I got down on the floor with him, turned him on his stomach in crawling position, and put his pacifier about six inches out of his reach. Miller stretched his arms as far as they would stretch but he didn't use his knees to move so he couldn't get the pacifier. I didn't want to push him any further on his first lesson, so I handed him the pacifier and got up off the floor. Looking around at the dozen or so people in the room, I realized that they were somewhat amazed; they had apparently never seen an old man helping a baby learn to crawl. What those onlookers did not know is that what Miller and I had done was perfectly natural, the kind of thing that has gone on since the beginning of the human race.

Miller's crawling lesson is of direct significance only to me and Miller (and our family and friends).  But what that lesson can symbolize is of significance to every grandparent (and grandchild) in the country. We matter -- we matter to the children and the children matter to us -- and that's the way nature designed things. When the hierarchies attempt to dismiss us as being too dumb to be relevant, they are taking on a deeply imbedded part of human nature.

I don't say that the natural relationship between children and elders is the only thing that is necessary to fix our democracy. Much of what is done in public schools is necessary, as is much of what economists and other experts do. And the political system, even at its best, is complex. What I do say, however, is that subordinating citizens to hierarchies is a sure road to failure. In the case of education, what matters the most is how well the children are prepared for life and learning; and this means that the natural partnerships that link children and elders are to be cherished, not run over.

I'm not talking about pie-in-the-sky. I've seen firsthand what happens when communities come together in common purpose. On Linefork Creek in Letcher County, Kentucky, a tiny mountain community is serving as a beautiful example for the nation on how young people and adults can restore the American Chestnut tree to the Appalachian forests ( those trees were supreme until they were essentially wiped out by blight some six to seven decades ago). I've seen some young people and adults in a small community in the mountain region of northeastern Alabama publishing the town's newspaper, operating the town's hardware store, and otherwise doing work that is important to the community. I've seen some so-called "alternative" students in Battle Creek, Michigan, working with adults on projects that matter to the community. I've seen young people and adults working as partners on community gardens in Detroit (as a result of the leadership of Grace Lee Boggs and her late husband, Jimmy Boggs). I've seen children and adults collaborating in enjoying bluegrass music; some of this has been at a music camp that is part of my family's bluegrass music festival -- the Festival of the Bluegrass -- which we have held for thirty-seven years .And I've seen more. (And lots and lots of people have seen lots and lots more.)

When the citizens come together in a cause that benefits everybody -- that is the case in the examples I've cited -- the relationship between hierarchies and citizens changes fundamentally: the hierarchies come to where the citizens are. The best of the people in the hierarchies -- those who are capable of providing effective leadership -- like it when the communities take the initiative. And the less- than- best of the people in hierarchies also come down to join the citizens—they understand that it is in their own best interest to join the citizens.

I view the debate over "charter schools" as an illustration of the difference between top-down and grassroots. Lots of pressure is being put on states to transfer schools from the control of public education hierarchies to schools with charters, and this pressure comes from a variety of sources. The US Department of Education is using grant money to push charters. A number of foundations, including the Gates foundation, are encouraging charters. And some business organizations are pushing charters.

Whether a particular charter school is better or worse than a particular public school depends (of course) on factors that go far beyond whether a "charter" hangs on a wall at the school. But the notion that hierarchical power ought to be used says, in effect, that government functionaries know best. When the US Department of Education, the Gates people, business organizations, and others seek to mandate charter schools those organizations are saying that citizens don’t much matter. (And when such organizations push for standardized tests and other mandates they are likewise devaluing citizens.)

The most difficult task we face is to find ways to involve "cluster" people and organizations without allowing them to get in the way of "networks" of citizens. (Or, to use different words, we need to find ways to involve hierarchies without allowing them to do damage to citizens and communities.) When money is needed, the temptation to put money ahead of all else (including citizens and children) can be overwhelming. And egos can do as much damage as money: there are lots of situations -- the Washington, DC, school system is a good example -- in which the people at the top of the hierarchies genuinely believe that they know more about children than do the people who know and love the children as individuals. Still another problem is the fact that top-down coercive techniques have become part of the culture inside the education world; and a result is that we see some respected educators proposing more and more top-down mandates, including such citizens-don't-matter mandates as lengthening school days and eliminating summer vacation time (and in effect endorsing the notion that hierarchies outrank citizens).

There can be no magic bullet -- we will not see a mad rush of people climbing down from their hierarchal pedestals to join the citizens. But that's all right. A general understanding that we citizens matter can lead to better understanding of specifics and that understanding brings the hierarchies to the citizens.

What I'm saying about citizens -- We the People -- has been said many times by many people over many years. I've been trying for a long time, in my own way, to say those things. But I believe one thing is different now: the stakes are higher than they've ever been -- much higher. The very smart people who tell us that our society is headed downhill will surely be proven correct if we continue on our present course of allowing ourselves to be manipulated by hierarchies. We therefore have no responsible choice: we have to come together. All of us. Those of us who are especially interested in the young people need those who want good jobs for everybody, and we need those who want to protect the earth, and we need a well-functioning civil society. And so forth. And all of us who care about our nation's future -- that's everybody I know -- need the young people to be well prepared for life.

We all matter -- we can strengthen each other and that strength is what has built our country and what can keep it vital. In the case of children's education, understanding that we all matter clears the way to involve many many people who have much to offer children -- a beautiful example I only recently learned about is The Children and Nature Network, which is a network of people who seek to connect young people with the natural world outside of classrooms. And there are grandparents, some seventy million of us. Partnerships of elders and young people can be highly valuable contributors to society (and to each other).

One of my old friends used some words that can help sum up our situation: "We can seek to be powerful or we can seek to be human". My friend went on to observe that when we choose power over humanity we see "pins on a map" rather than people. That friend is right (of course): we need to see each other as humans, not as things.

I end with an example of a surefire way to find humanity. Yesterday, in a conversation with little Miller’s sister, Sophie, age 4, I asked if Miller had learned to crawl. Sophie’s answer was “Not yet, but he can roll over”. Sophie sees humanity, and so do I. And so do many millions of young people and their elder friends; I believe we can explain the facts of humanity to the seekers of power.

Bob Cornett

Georgetown, Kentucky

Politics and Bureaucracy Versus Democracy

The New York Times (on Sunday, December 5) had two articles on the same page that, together, get to the essence of the mess America is in. One of the articles is by the respected economist at the Brookings Institution, Henry Aaron. Aaron recommends long-term comprehensive policies that he believes will get our budget deficits down and that will bring costs of social security, Medicare, and Medicaid down to sustainable levels. The other article, by Maureen Dowd, is about the controversy over gays in the military; the article quotes General George Casey as saying, in response to a question, that "... the military is not a democracy". Casey was rebutting a suggestion that rank-and-file military people should be asked their preferences as to policies regarding gays.

We all can agree, I think, that we need long-term and comprehensive policies and, while we might not agree on the specifics of Henry Aaron's proposals, I think we can agree that he is reaching in a useful direction. Having said that, however, I see no evidence that our political/bureaucratic system as it now operates is capable of doing much more than playing the game of who's in, who's out. Our democracy is not working.

General Casey is no doubt correct: military organizations are not democracies -- and are not intended to be democracies. They are bureaucracies. And military forces are not by any means the only government organizations that are not intended to be democracies: we would not want, let's say, Social Security employees to decide who should get what in the way of pensions.

Our problem, as I see it, is not that bureaucracies are bad; our problem is that we are allowing political/bureaucratic systems to do things that they are ill-equipped to do. The specific systems problem that I have deplored for many years is that we are allowing bureaucracies in Washingto n and state capitals to control how and what children learn. It is patently foolish to believe that people in far away places who do not know the children or their circumstances can know more about a child than do those of us who know and love the children as precious humans. And, yet, we keep on allowing bureaucracies to dominate children and their teachers.

Henry Aaron and General Casey heip to remind me that the issue facing us is broader than schools -- much broader. Historians tell us that empires go into decline when the government hierarchies serve themselves at the expense of the public. Some very smart people believe that America is in decline; and, according to polls a substantial majority of the public agrees. If those people are correct -- if our children and grandchildren do in fact face a bleak future, the reason is that we are allowing bureaucracy to prevail over democracy. People sitting on pedestals looking down at mere citizens are serving themselves, economically, politically, educationally, and otherwise.

The stakes are big, perhaps as big as any our nation has faced in its history. I believe that's good: the high stakes mean that none of us can justify sitting back and allowing ourselves to be run over. We can't allow our economic system to be designed by a self-serving political/bureaucratic system. We can't allow our responsibilities to each other to be defined by people sitting on pedestals in capital cities. We can't allow our political system to be controlled by money instead of by citizens. And, as one of America's 70 million grandparents, I say emphatically that we can't allow the foolishly arrogant notion that "experts" in far away places have more to offer the children than we do.

My basic message here to those who share my interest in children's learning is that we're not alone. We stand with everybody who cares about the future of our society.

We need to keep in mind that "movements" can be better adapted to accomplishing the task before us than are organizations. (It is, as we all know, very easy for organizations to take on self-serving bureaucratic characteristics.) I have mentioned in earlier posts that the Scots-Irish legacy of self-reliance can be a significant source of movement strength, especially in "working class" sections of the country. Another source of movement strength -- I've only recently learned about this (to my chagrin) -- is The Children and Nature Network, which is encouraging connecting children with nature. Also, I'm more convinced than ever that partnerships between young people and us elders can be of just about unlimited value.

The political/bureaucratic forces that, if unchecked, would take our nation down, will have "divide and conquer" as a strategy -- they will try to pit groups of citizens against each other. But that doesn't have to work -- and it won't work if we -- We the People -- remember that we'll be just fine if we keep clearly in mind that we're in this fight together.

I'll be reporting some of the movements that can help us come together.

Bob Cornett