When I was in principals' school, I interviewed a parent about how he interacted with the school his children attended. His response closely matched those of my classmates—schools in our unscientific 1989 sample provided few means for parental engagement. The parents we interviewed felt cut off from the school, even when they actively participated in school activities.
Since then, the schools in which I have worked have increasingly attempted to offer the community a voice in school affairs. Recently, our board of education required formal structures to give power to parents and community members. One rationale is that schools must take a market approach, appealing to their "customers." While I recognize the lure of customer talk, a preferable argument is founded in democratic ideals. A democratic decision-making process results in broader support for decisions and an increased likelihood of effective implementation. Further, decisions are better when the people affected participate in making them (Sarason 1995).
I have observed, however, that new problems arise when schools attempt to become more democratic. Democracy is messy, especially in communities where diversity of opinion is the norm, and few people agree about the nature of good schools.
I take the unpopular stance that many of the problems of democratic schools stem from misplaced faith in a particular kind of democracy: direct democracy, that is, the practice of making decisions by simple majority rule. Direct democracy, whether through voting or surveys, ignores the complexities of democratic decision-making and contains inherent dangers. I argue instead for deliberative democracy, and I will illustrate how such a system worked when our leadership team addressed a school problem.
In Defense of Deliberation
Issues great and small, from abortion to chewing gum preferences, are increasingly resolved by holding a vote or taking a survey. People maintain a general faith in the ability of the majority to know what is best. I advocate a different position. To warn against direct majority rule is to be in good company. Political philosophers from Plato and Aristotle (Ball and Dagger 1995) to James Madison (1788) have noted that direct democracy can result in tyranny when a short-sighted and selfish majority recklessly pursues its own interests. The U.S. Constitution recognizes this danger and erects many barriers to thwart the majority from getting its way at the expense of minorities. Among these barriers are a system of checks and balances, a Bill of Rights, and representational government rather than a direct citizen vote on each issue.
James Fishkin (1991), a contemporary political scientist, argues that thoughtful democracy requires more than taking a vote—it requires that citizens deliberate to guarantee "nontyranny." Fishkin states that, "political equality without deliberation is not of much use, for it amounts to nothing more than power without the opportunity to think about how that power ought to be exercised" (p. 36). Citizens may cast a vote or respond to a survey, but without deliberation, they do not listen to one another or consider the moral and practical implications of their opinions.
Insights From a Site Team
Educators and community members can apply these broad political principles to public schools. Our elementary school's site leadership team, which includes staff members and local citizens, sets the direction for the school and handles issues that influence student learning. Last year, our second year of operation, we faced parental and district concerns about many issues. Our final issue that year was when instrumental music should be taught to our 5th and 6th grade students.
In the past, participating students took instrumental music during the day, stepping out of their general education classes for band or orchestra. Although this system supported a strong instrumental music program, the music pull-out was a serious burden for general education teachers. The friction across the district was finally "resolved" by allowing each site to determine whether to offer band and orchestra during the school day or before school. What had been a political hot potato at the district level was shifted to the schools. I received calls and articles from parents and music educators interested in keeping music during the school day and fervent pleas from general education teachers to move instrumental music before school.
"Why not just do a survey?" parents argued, reasoning that the majority opinion should stand. Staff rejected the survey idea. Teachers saw their opinion as a minority one that parents did not yet understand. A survey might tell us what would be easier for parents but would not help parents understand the impact the current arrangement was having on the general education program. At first, we saw no way out. Being democratic risked maintaining a status quo. Many teachers thought such a decision would be especially damaging to the students who remained behind when the others went to band. Being autocratic risked weakening the instrumental music program, alienating many parents, and damaging goodwill and trust. We needed a middle ground. We decided to deliberate.
The Deliberative Process
Deliberation differs from many forms of decision making in its purpose and method. Deliberation is discussion with an eye toward action (Dillon 1994). It is concerned with the question "What should we do?" When deliberating, the participants address moral issues as they consider what is right to do, not just what they want to do (Bridges 1994). Maurice Holt (1994) states that a deliberating group is concerned with "finding the key problem that will eventually unlock the whole interacting chain" (p. 233). When deliberating, participants avoid voting or compromising; instead they "discuss the problem as they experience it, the range of solutions as they perceive them, and the rightness of some one solution as far as they can anticipate" (Dillon 1994, p. 14).
Our site leadership team decided we would hold an evening meeting to determine what we should do. A newsletter article described the issue impartially. The entire team signed the article, which spoke for both a strong music program and strong classroom education. The article noted that we needed parents' help to make a choice.
I planned the meeting with the site leadership team's community member, who was the natural choice to facilitate the meeting. He had no children attending the school, and he was not a staff member. He could keep us focused on solving our dilemma without favoring either position.
As the meeting began, our facilitator made the purpose clear—we were not going to decide the issue that evening. Rather, the goal was to explore the problem from various viewpoints and consider how different solutions would influence learning. He stressed that our purpose was not to decide whether music was more important than reading and math. Rather, we were searching for ways to offer a strong instrumental program and strong classroom education.
Stakeholders then made brief presentations. The district music coordinator introduced information on the effects of moving instrumental music outside the school day, and a parent offered her view as a professional musician. A 6th grade teacher illustrated the impact of the music pro-gram on general education.
We then discussed the pros and cons of different solutions. The small attendance (10 parents and 8 staff members) permitted us to function without dividing into smaller groups. For every positive statement about an option, the meeting leader requested a negative statement. Soon we had clearly defined the problem.
A parent asked why we were focusing on whether to place music instruction inside or outside the school day. He saw other possible solutions. This comment fit perfectly with the deliberative plan of the meeting. Participants began to examine options such as requiring students to choose between general music and instrumental music, including only the 6th grade in the instrumental program, coordinating buses for a before-school program, or using some portion of recess as band time to reduce the impact of the pull-out program on general education. Participants discussed the potential benefits of each proposal. As the meeting ended, the options that seemed to address most concerns—while preserving the strength of the music program—were a 6th-grade-only program or using some recess time for instrumental music.
We next took this information to a larger audience. We sent a discussion summary to parents and requested comments about the options. In addition, the music teachers and 5th/6th grade teachers met to further explore each option. We forwarded the results of both efforts to the site leadership team.
Several more parents and staff attended the meeting at which the site leadership team made the final decision. The leadership team decided that the music coordinator should schedule the music program either at the end of the day or to correspond, in part, with the afternoon recess. I was designated to discuss our rationale with the music coordinator and the greater parent community. At the end of the meeting, a visiting parent addressed the site leadership team. She commented that several times during the course of our discussion, when she felt we were missing important pieces, the team anticipated her concerns. She praised the site leadership team for considering the issue from all angles.
Deliberation Leads to Better Results
When we initiated this process, the opposing parties would not consider certain options. Some classroom teachers would not discuss keeping instrumental music within the school day. Some parents and staff would not consider using recess time for teaching band and orchestra. As the process continued, positions softened and all parties seemed to stop asking "How can I win?" and started asking "What should we do?" The letters, phone calls, and lobbying ceased. People forged new options and considered how their favored solutions might affect others.
Critical to the success of this model was a willingness to balance the deliberation of a representative body with the opportunity for everyone to influence the deliberation. Few attended the meeting—but it was open to everyone. Anyone could contribute to the discussion in writing, and the site leadership team meetings were open. Throughout the process, the entire school community was informed.
Not everyone was happy with our model of deliberative decision-making. Some interpreted our unwillingness to "just do a survey" as undemocratic—an unwillingness to trust the intelligence and goodwill of parents. One colleague voiced the impression that we hesitated to use a survey because we did not think parents were smart enough to understand the complexity of the problem. My response was that I believe that none of us is "smart enough" without the perspective and expertise of the others. The decisions reached after our deliberations were not ones I would have chosen had I been asked to decide. Neither the staff nor the parents would have chosen them initially. But when we deliberated, the genius of democracy became obvious. We needed one another. None of us was smart enough alone.
A deliberative tradition has begun. We are practicing what Walter Parker (1997) calls the "deliberative arts." The site leadership team no longer trembles when difficult issues arise. We have learned that we can address issues in ways that do not divide us. In fact, a new connection has emerged among the people who gathered to deliberate. Deliberation strengthened our bonds, rather than stretching them to the breaking point. Eva Brann (1994) wrote that "probably the best thing people can do for their community—or better, can do to make community—is to institute deliberative traditions and to maintain them against falling into disuse and against falling prey to disruption" (p. 253). Our deliberations not only produced better, more fully supported decisions, but they also built community and provided a model of civic society for our students.
Still, deliberation isn't perfect. Even in a deliberative school, voices can dominate and impose their will unfairly (Fraser 1995). As principal, my voice carries considerable weight. Teachers, too, have expertise they can use to persuade. Well-educated parents may dominate the discussion—while parents who do not read, write, or speak well may tend to be ignored. Deliberation is not a perfect system. Yet, it is a better way—a more democratic way.
