Educational Institutions Negotiating Democracy and Social Justice Dr. Paul Carr Youngstown State University Beeghly Coll

1. Educational Institutions Negotiating Democracy and Social Justice Dr. Paul Carr Youngstown State University Beeghly College of Education Dept. of Educational Administration, Research and Foundations Youngstown, Ohio, 44555 prcarr@ysu.edu 330-941-2241

2. Outline • Conceptual Framework • Data Sources • Democracy and Social Justice: Two ships passing in the night? • Contextualizing Education • Transforming the institution, or institutionalizing the transformation? • Discussion

3. Guiding Questions • Can education lead to social change? • Can institutions promote transformational change? • How can social justice best be understood and advanced? • Does accountability and the quest for high standards include social justice? • Are “democracy” and “education” mutually reinforcing concepts?

4. Conceptual Framework • Transformational change & anti-racism (CARR) • Leadership, strategic planning & diversity (FULLAN) • Systemic racism & marginalization (DEI) • Cultural discontinuities & minority castes (OGBU) • Social re-production (BOURDIEU) • Critical pedagogy (FREIRE; McCLAREN) • White power and privilege (FINE et al.)

5. Data Sources • Research on anti-racism and institutional change in Toronto and Canadian schools (mid- to late-1990s) • Professional experience in government as a Senior Policy Advisor working on educational policy (1988-2005) • Research on educational policymaking, democracy and citizenship (2003 – present), with preliminary research on students/faculty in an Ohio university

6. Change & Anti-racism • “Racializing” education is opposed by many • Education is a political enterprise • Social construction & intersectionality of identity • Marginalized communities • Inequitable power relations • “Multiculturalism myth” and the rise of anti-racism • Power and privilege (Whiteness) • Effect of affirmative action and employment equity • Role of RM teachers and anti-racist education • Uneven academic achievement

7. Teacher Race and Education • Findings on five topics where White and RM teachers have different perspectives: 1) views of anti-racist education 2) RM teachers as role models 3) role of principals 4) support for employment equity 5) the treatment of RM teachers

8. Leadership and Equity • Need to make the agenda explicit • “Big picture" is critical • Key factors re: leadership and social justice: 1) commitment to equity 2) preparation and understanding of equity 3) demonstrated leadership 4) the role of mediator 5) racial representation

9. Institutional Barriers • Commitment to equity is fraught with problems and obstacles • Five barriers to the implementation of equity: 1) lack of vision 2) decentralized nature of school system 3) lack of RMs in key positions 4) compartmentalization of interests 5) informal resistance to racial equality

10. Educational Policymaking • Is government capable of conceptualizing social justice? • The predominance of Whiteness as a dominating influence • Political agendas and the notion of accountability • Two steps forward, one step back… (informal resistance) • No Child Left Behind (accountability for results; emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research; expanded parental options; local control)

11. Government (In)Action • Ontario (NDP 1990-1995; PC 1995-2003; Liberals 2003-present) • Huge shift in ideological presence and resources • Focus, mandate, planning and profile of social justice • Formal discourse on minority issues, social cohesion and human rights and informal resistance • Can there be progressive change from the inside? • Business plans, communications strategies, tax cuts and democracy

12. Democracy and Citizenship • Preliminary research with students, teachers, faculty and community groups • Humble appreciation for concepts; demonstrated commitment/experience is often nebulous • Emphasis on elections and the constitution • Support for democracy in education with limited critical analysis • Accountability is not always connected to social justice

13. Conceptualizing Democracy: “Official Version” • National/international ethos and ideology favouring “democracy” • Mainstream cultural appreciation of “democracy” • Human rights and laws based on “democracy” • Free-market economy equals “democracy” • Elections equal “democracy” • Our values are rooted in “democracy”, which protects are “freedom” (according to FOX News, “fair” and “balanced”)

14. Conceptualizing Democracy: “Unofficial Version” • Democracy is experienced differently according to origin/background and context • Elections not necessarily democratic (money, participation, identity, media, polling)(Jenson et al.) • “Democratic racism” (Tator and Henry) • Is poverty “democratic”? • Rational incoherence to democracy (the monarchy, the Constitution and slavery, wealthy folks who don’t pay income tax, the role of the media)

15. The Identity of Democracy • Diversity, equity and social justice • Social construction of identity • Representative vs. participatory democracy • White power and privilege is not neutral • Decisionmaking processes are shaped by power/money • Changing demography (i.e., Latinos in US) • Converging trans-national interests (i.e., environment, war, poverty, etc., have international linkages)

16. Educational Context • Wide-ranging educational reforms • Academic achievement vs. employability • Accountability (for who?) • Standardized testing for students • Changing context for teachers • Political-economy of globalization (competition) • Multiculturalism, social justice & White teachers • Underachievement and a lack of response • Privatization as opposed to societal responsibility

17. Diversity in Toronto Schools • UN declares Toronto world’s most multicultural city • 300,000 students in 558 schools (Canada’s largest) • ESL: 52% of (S) and 47% of (E) students • Significant refugee population • 24% (E) students born outside of Canada • 12% of (S) students in Canada < 3 years • Approx. 15% of (S) students live without parents • Approx. 30% of students live in poverty • RM: approx. 55% of students and 14% of teachers • Special education: 10% of students • Disproportionate drop-out rate/academic achievement

18. Education in a Democracy • The purpose of public education? • to support “democracy” • social change (or social re-production) • social cohesion • individual choice • civic engagement • skills and knowledge • attitudes and behaviour • some combination of these

19. Formulating “democratic education” • An amalgam of concepts: • How decisions in education are made? • What are those decisions? • What is the effect of those decisions? (especially re: citizenship, social justice and human development) • Classroom/school content+ institutional processes and culture • Accountability (not the TQM type)

20. Institutional Culture • Decisionmaking processes (who is at the table, and what happens?) • Policy process (what issues are brought forward, and how? is research used to inform the policy process?) • Accountability mechanisms (what do we measure, how, and why? what about social justice?) • Data-collection and usage • Traditions and ethos (types of leadership) • Formal vs. informal implementation

21. DE in the Classroom • Curriculum (formal vs. hidden) • civics vs. social studies • ideology of policies, documents and resources • facts vs. reflective learning • integrated/infused or centralized approach • linkages with community • are teachers able and prepared? (Mellor) • politics, levies, standards and the national priority for public education

22. (Un)Critical Democracy • Is critical thinking construed as anti-patriotic behaviour? (Westheimer) • Can educational systems support critical reflection, and also adhere to prescriptive curriculum documents? • How does critical learning mesh with teaching and standardized tests? • Can we have “democracy” in the classroom if we don’t have it in the system supporting the schools?

23. Service-learning/Community Service • Volunteerism that is non-critical avoids doing “democracy” • Role of business and community in schools • Authentic civic involvement may lead to less social problems and individualism • Learning programs can be categorized (Westheimer and Kahne) • responsible citizen • participatory citizen • social reformer

24. Rationale for DE Framework • No consensus on exact definition of DE • Political nature of education (shifting visions) • Insistence on short-term vs. long-term goals • No culture of assessing entire education system • Concern about exposing gaps and weaknesses • Structural issues not conducive to accountability • White privilege and power • If not implemented, risk of losing credibility, moral authority, and capacity to confront problems (in Toronto, the call for “black-focused” schools)

25. DE Framework • Matrix-based, multi-layered, comprehensive framework for entire education system (province/state, school district and school levels) • Ten substantive CONTENT components: - Strategic policy - Training - Leadership - Evaluation - Policy development - Service-learning - Community involvement - Social justice - Extra-curricular - Curriculum

26. DE Framework • Eight FUNCTIONAL criteria: - Inclusion - Data-collection/analysis - Representation - Decisionmaking process - Communications - Accountability mechanism - Funding - Monitoring and review

27. Considerations for DE framework • Cyclical nature of review • Formulation of measures and targets is key • Diversity must be contextualized • Need to be open, transparent and accountable • Political system must be responsive • Same rigour used to develop standards for academic achievement is required for DE • What is the cost of not developing, implementing and evaluating a DE framework?

28. Potential for DE Framework • Positive effect on “democracy” in society (civic participation) • Support for human rights and social justice • Improved educational experience (academic and citizenship) • Educational systems/institutions will become more “democratic” and accountable • More critical debate of public good

29. Questions • Is this model realistic, given political/economic interests of the state? • Would this model assist in asserting social justice? • Why and how would educational institutions reject/embrace the model? • Would the model be helpful to marginalized groups? • Is there a socio-political interest in achieving greater “democracy” and accountability in education?

30. MERCI BEAUCOUP ! !MUCHAS GRACIAS! MESI ANPIL! THANK YOU!