Upon the People Alone

(Note: This post departs from the usual education-related content of this blog. Politics alert.)

I don't have enough background knowledge to do this justice, but I wanted to take a moment to recommend that folks who care about democracy read Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress - and a Plan to Stop It by Lawrence Lessig.

Lessig makes a compelling case for how money - both campaign finance money and the money associated with the revolving door of politicians and staffers becoming high-paid lobbyists - has corrupted our representative democracy. For me, one of his key points is how he defines corruption. Like most folks, when I hear corruption I think of the most base form: bribery (or, perhaps less derogatory, quid pro quo).

While that certainly exists, Lessig articulates what I've always believed which is that "corrupt" politicians in that sense are few and far between. That the vast majority of folks who go into politics - even the ones I vehemently disagree with on policy - are good people, and want to do good by performing public service. But that the current system has fostered a second type of corruption, what Lessig refers to as "type 2 corruption" (p. 228), or "dependence corruption." This corruption is not as obvious, and it is not bad people doing bad things, it's good people not always doing the right thing due to being placed in a bad system.

Again, I can't do this justice, but in a very simplified form Lessig argues that our current system has negated perhaps the most important principle of the founders: that our elected representatives would be dependent "upon the People alone." (p. 231, I believe originally from Federalist #52) That the current system of lobbying, and campaign finance, and the revolving door between Congress (both elected representatives and their staffers) and lucrative jobs in the lobbying business, has split the dependence of our elected representatives. True, they are "dependent upon the People alone" on election day, but that's the only day they are dependent upon them. The rest of the time the "People" are second-class citizens to those with money.

If you give money, your phone calls get returned. If you give (a lot of) money, your opinion counts (more) than my opinion.

"Individuals with family incomes over $100,000 represented 11% of the population in 2004, cast 14.9% of the votes and were responsible for approximately 80% of the political contributions over $200." Only 10 percent of American citizens give to political campaigns; less than 0.5 percent are responsible for the majority collected from individuals. (p. 233)

The statistics go on and on, you really need to read the book to get the full scope. (As an aside, I did not find this an "easy" book to read, but it's an important one.)

A second, associated problem, is the perception that money influences our elected representatives. Lessig again makes a compelling case that even if the money wasn't influencing our representatives (and he makes the case that it is), it would still be just as pernicious because the perception of the vast majority of the public is that it does corrupt. This damage to the faith we have in our political institutions is just as serious, as it condemns us to have dysfunctional political institutions that can't perform the roles they need to.

About three-fourths of the way through the book I was pretty darn depressed. In fact, I even tweeted to Mr. Lessig and asked if it would have a "happy ending." To my surprise, he replied

This post is partially due to that reply (up to you to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing). While I have no misconceptions that my blogging will affect much, if perhaps a few more folks read his book and/or begin thinking about these ideas, perhaps it will help.

So what are Lessig's solutions? Well, he outlines several possibilities, but freely admits that they are  mostly long-shots. (Yet it is up to to all of us to try.) These possibilities are the ones I found the most intriguing:

• The Grant and Franklin Project: Each voter gets a $50 "democracy voucher" (Grant) that they can donate to the candidate or candidates of their choice (this money comes from the taxes we already pay). If they don't donate, it gets donated to the party they belong to. If they don't identify with a party, then it supports the "infrastructure of democracy." (p. 266) In addition, each voter could also contribute up to $100 (Franklin) of their own money to any candidate. The only requirement is that the candidates who accept this money must opt into the system, meaning they would only accept this public financing.
  
  
• An Unconventional "Primary" Game: Folks enter races against incumbents for the sole reason of putting pressure on the incumbent to support citizen-owned races. By recruiting prominent people in each state (non-politicians) whose sole desire is to change the process, this could apply enough pressure on candidates to do the right thing.
  
  
• An Unconventional Presidential Game: A candidate runs for President with "a single two-part pledge: if elected, she will (I) hold the government hostage until Congress enacts a program to remove the fundamental corruption that is our government, and (II) once that program is enacted, she will resign." (p. 285) You really have to read this section, it's not as crazy as it sounds. In fact, I would both support and vote for such a candidate.

So, if any of this intrigues you, please read the book. Or watch this 45-minute talk by Lessig about the book if you want a shorter version.







 Republic, Lost from lessig on Vimeo.

If any of you happen to be a prominent, non-politician citizen, consider becoming that primary candidate. Visit rootstrikers.org and VotersFirstPledge to learn more. Demand that your candidates for Congress take a pledge to support small-dollar funded campaigns. Ask them the question, repeatedly (and, if possible, in public - and record and post to YouTube).

So, if this is a long-shot as even Lessig admits, why even bother? I can't say it better than Lessig:

Any sane soul who looked at this cause would have to conclude that the odds are overwhelmingly against us. So, why do it? Why waste your time?

I was asked this question quite pointedly once, after a lecture at Dartmouth. "What's the point?" the sympathetic listener asked. "It all seems so hopeless."

And for the first time in my life, in the middle of a public lecture, I was so choked by emotion that I thought I had to stop. For the picture that came into my head as I struggled for a response to this fair yet devastating question was the image of my (then) six-year-old boy, and the thought, the horror, of a doctor's telling me that he had terminal cancer and that "there was nothing to be done." I painted that picture to that Dartmouth audience. And I then asked this: "Would you give up? Would you do nothing?" (p. 306)

This is not an issue of the Left (keep in mind that Lessig clerked for Scalia and was a Young Republican, before turning to his current Libertarian bent). Or of the Right. It applies just as well to the Tea Party as it does to Occupy Wall Street. It's an American issue. I'd even say a human issue. As Lessig states,

We need to remember how different our forebears were. Two hundred-plus years later, they all look the same to us. But they had very different values and radically different ideas about what their republic should be.

They put those differences aside, and saved their nation from ruin. We must do the same. Not after the next election. Now. (p. 326)

Now.

The Perfect Gift for School Leaders

Looking for that perfect gift for the leaders in your school or district?

Not sure what to get that principal or superintendent that has everything?

Search no more.

Get them What School Leaders Need to Know About Digital Technologies and Social Media (or, if you prefer, the Kindle edition). This collection of short, to-the-point chapters about a variety of educational technologies is an excellent read for those school leaders who understand that technology is an increasingly important component of teaching and learning, but who aren't very comfortable themselves with technology. This wouldn't be a good gift for folks who are immersed in this environment, but for school leaders that want to learn but don't know where to start, this is a great choice.

Compiled and edited by Scott McLeod and Chris Lehmann, this book consists of the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Introduction: Chris Lehmann and Scott McLeod
    Foreword: David Warlick

Learning Tools

    Blogs: Kristin Hokanson and Christian Long
    Wikis: Stephanie Sandifer and Vicki Davis
    Podcasts and webinars: Steve Dembo and Wes Fryer
    RSS and RSS readers: Will Richardson and Karl Fisch
    Digital video: Mathew Needleman
    Virtual schooling: Michael Barbour and Rick Ferdig
    One-to-one computing: Chris Lehmann and Pamela Livingston
    Open source software: Tom Hoffman
    Educational gaming: John Rice

Interlude: Social media is changing the way we live and learn: Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach

    Social bookmarking: Dean Shareski and Mary Beth Hertz
    Online mind mapping: Carl Anderson and Richard Byrne
    Course management systems: Scott Floyd and Miguel Guhlin

Interlude: See Sally research: Evolving notions of information literacy: Joyce Valenza and Doug Johnson

    Online office tool suites: Diana Laufenberg and Mark Wagner
    Twitter: Alec Couros and Kevin Jarrett
    Online images and visual literacy: Kim Cofino and David Jakes
    Mobile phones: Liz Kolb and Sharon Tonner
    Social networking: Ewan McIntosh and Jeff Utecht   

Afterword: Christopher Sessums

(Full Disclosure: I do not receive any compensation from the sale of this book. The entire compensation for my contribution was two free copies of the book. Well, and the opportunity to co-author a chapter with Will Richardson: priceless.)

This I Believe Goes Global: 2011 Edition

Anne Smith has a post up on her blog about this year's "This I Believe" project. Read her post for all the details, but here are the highlights:

1. Once again Anne Smith and Maura Moritz will be having their students write their "This I Believe" essays, then record themselves reading them, and post both the essay and the podcast to the wiki.
   
   
2. They are looking for classes who'd like to participate to team up with their classes. Those students would also write and record their own "This I Believe" essays, then the students would read, listen and provide constructive feedback to each other's essays. (Adults can participate, too.)
   
   
3. In addition, we're happy to facilitate additional classes if there's enough interest - we'll try to match up classes based on class size, grade level, and approximate completion date.

There's much more detail on Anne's blog but, if you're interested, check out the wiki and then fill out the Google Form.

#occupytheclassroom

Back in the spring sometime I tweeted out that I was wondering why we didn’t see similar protests by young people in this country similar to the then-just-beginning Arab Spring protests. While the economic, environmental and education problems that we have pale in comparison to the issues that folks in some of those other countries have to deal with, it still surprised me that there wasn’t more protest here. After all, the present and near future wasn’t look very bright for young people and the leadership of our country seemed to be unable to get much done other than bicker with each other.

Now along comes #occupywallstreet and all the offshoots. (When I saw on Twitter last night that there was an #occupyLexington – where I grew up – that kind of surprised me, and that ultimately spurred this post.) While not only comprised of young people, they are certainly a significant portion of these protests, and I think we’re beginning to see protesters in this country leverage many of the same online tools that folks in Tunisia and Egypt, Yemen and Syria are using (although thankfully without the violence associated with those efforts).

But when I first saw the hashtag #occupytheclassroom in my Twitter stream (can’t recall exactly where or I would link) I smiled . . . and then dismissed it. I was skeptical that any kind of grassroots movement by teachers could have any effect on the current reform juggernaut. Plus teachers, despite our reputation, are generally a conservative lot when it comes to schools – we may want to change a few things, but we generally don’t want to change too much. And, historically, I don’t see much evidence of teacher-driven reform being very successful.

Well, I’m still skeptical, but I keep hearing this little voice in my head. A little voice that says that, in the end, teachers are the ones in the classrooms working with kids each day. After listening for a moment, I remembered whose voice that was. Mine.

About five years ago in some staff development we were doing in my school, I suggested to (argued with?) folks in the staff development that we did have the power to change things. That if we, as a group of reasonably respected and successful teachers in our school, got together and said, “Here are some changes we’d like to make that we think would be beneficial to our students, and here’s why,” that we’d have a pretty decent chance of being listened to.

That instead of blaming “the system,” we should realize that we are the system, and we should advocate for our students when we see things that we don’t believe are in their best interests. And that we, just like the protesters in the middle east, and just like the #occupywallstreet folks, have access to tools that Clay Shirky has shown us make it much easier to not only organize, but to actually effect change. That, really, this thing we call school doesn’t happen without us.

What if we just said, “Enough.”

What if we just said, “Your reform is bad for our students. We need to transform.”

What if we just said, “Not in my classroom. Not to my students. Not to my own children.”

What if we did #occupytheclassroom?

What if I #occupiedmyclassroom?

What if you #occupiedyourclassroom?

I’m still skeptical. But a little less than I was. And maybe, just maybe, a little hopeful.

You?


Update: It looks like this post by Jose Vilson was probably the source of the #occupytheclassroom hashtag that eventually appeared in my Twitter stream.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Thanks Steve.

Image by Jonathan Mak

Not Just the Facts, Ma'am

My sixth grade daughter came home with a social studies homework assignment this weekend: Research 10 Facts About Your Country (in her case, the Bermuda Islands).

Now, I want to be clear here, I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad assignment. I don't know where the teacher is going with this. I could see this being the start of a really interesting exploration of countries, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

We began by doing what the assignment asked. We helped Abby find some appropriate websites about Bermuda and she read through them and tried to pull out some interesting and relevant facts about Bermuda (copying and pasting into a Google Doc). We also pulled up Bermuda on Google Maps to see where it is, and went to Flickr to look at some pictures of Bermuda. We had some decent conversations about what might be considered important about a country, but what might also be interesting to other sixth graders.

Now, at this point, it's an okay if not particularly engaging assignment and, again, I don't know where the teacher/class is going next with this. But, because Abby is our kid (some would say "has the misfortune of being our kid") we asked her if she might like to try to talk to someone in Bermuda and ask them some questions. (We're walking a fine line here, but we're trying to encourage her to be more curious and less anxious about just finishing the assignment.) She said sure, so I tweeted out

Within a couple of minutes Jennifer tweeted back

And then a few minutes later Shannon tweeted

 

Shannon kindly agreed to a Skype conversation the next day and Abby generated a list of about 12 questions to ask. As you can see from the video below, the Skype connection wasn't always great (my guess is bandwidth issues getting to Bermuda, but who knows), but it still worked fairly well.





We learned several things about Bermuda that Abby hadn't found in her initial search for "10 facts", including that they catch rainwater from their roofs for all of their fresh water, that girls like playing "netball," and that each house is only allowed to own one car. She also got to see what the roofs and houses looked like, and what Shannon and his wife (and their house) looked and sounded like. Ultimately Abby combined this new information with what she already had, came up with her 10 facts, and we printed out the Google Doc to staple to the homework worksheet. (Yes, I know, but sometimes it's just easier to print and staple than perhaps cause problems by asking to turn it in electronically. She also made a blog post.)

So, which is Abby more likely to remember, the facts she found from a couple of websites, or the 15 minute conversation with Shannon and his wife? (After we hung up we were talking about collecting the rainwater for all their water needs and Abby said, "Wow, they must get a lot of rain." I'm thinking that has more of an impact than reading their annual rainfall in inches.) Which one gave her a better feel for what it was like to live in Bermuda? Which is more likely to encourage her to be curious about the world around her?

What assignments of your own could perhaps be revisited? How can you help connect your students to the wider world around them?