About five years ago, in one of my final conversations with Sasha Rabkin (whom I've mentioned before), I learned about his conceptualization of "democracy schools," different from democratic schools. This isn't the same as some national programs already at work, but they aren't entirely different, either.

The idea is a school where students do more than simply learn about democracy or make decisions through democracy; rather, they lived democracy in its myriad forms and functions. This features the attitudes and values of democracy while allowing the mechanisms and outcomes to be present without being dwelt upon. I think about this primarily in relationship to the schools whom I've studied in the past, and the educator/students I've had the privilege of learning from in the recent past. From this learning I have come to understand that we need a more deliberative, a more committed model of democratic practice within public schools than what has been practiced before, and what is being practiced outside the walls of public schools today.

I know there are already existent models that begin to touch base on this, and Sasha's work with the Institute for Community Leadership is not the least of these. I also know that these models are not wholly ascertainable to the average educator and/or student, either because of their complicated nature, because of their inaccessible verbage, or because of their obtuse outcomes and program goals that aren't aligned with governmental goals for schools.

My own model of meaningful student involvement was originally intended to serve as a framework to assist schools in self-designing new approaches towards democracy in learning, teaching and leadership in schools. However, after five years of working the model that way I am inclined to begin to systematize the model in order to bring it into more schools as a holistic model of democratic schooling.

There are dangers inherent in this type of approach, not the least of which being the tempation to romanticize student voice and isolate it, much as the proponents of "non-coersive" education do. (Note: there is no such thing as non-coersive education; everything that influences us is coersive in its nature - humans are reactive creatures who create in response, rather than in absence.) This may fly in the face of adults who believe in the "purity" of young people, arguing that "pedastaling" the experience of being young is more important than having a responsible citizenry engaged in the vibrant, essential struggle of democracy. I think this tendency places students' experiences - at least as adults see them - as holy institutions in and of themselves.

The risk of this adultism is that it perpetuates the notion of child-as-innocent without addressing the urgency of the changing nature of childhood. Despite the pleas of well-intentioned advocates such as Neil Postman, the fact of the matter is that our society is progressive by nature: we are inventors, prodginators, developers and schemers, all because we are each creative. True, that nature can be squelched out of us; unfortunately there are forces on both sides of this argument that are responsible for this. On the right there are those who argue that the evolutionary nature of childhood and youth is a prime location for consumerism and consumption; on the left is the notion of childhood as a prime location for innocence and perfection. Somewhere in between there is a reality that offends parents everytime their children dress and act differently than them; it confronts teachers and employers who wrangle over technology access; it confusese politicians and leaders who are used to appealing to people from their own self-interest, and identifying the self-interest of young people today is not an easy task.

This leads me to believe that the only way schooling can succeed is by engaging all young people - every student - as a deliberative learner, as an intentional teacher, as a knowledgeable researcher, as a critical evaluator and as a central decision-maker throughout their formal and informal educational experiences. This blows up the historical notion of the young person as passive recipient; rather, it turns that notion inside out by placing the student as the central player in the pantheon of educational actors. Suddenly, students are responsible for more than showing up for class, choosing whether to engage or deciding to not turn in their homework. Instead, they become responsible for identifying their self-interest in learning and its connection to their lifelong well-being. They become co-drivers and co-leaders throughout the leadership component of schooling, as educational research, teacher evaluation, curriculum planning, classroom management and school improvement become the pervue of each learner. In no short terms, they become partners in education.

This is more than foisting adult-driven measures for student success upon the shoulders of young people and telling them its their job to make it happen. Let's start from a simple understanding of where we are today: young people are segregated from adults. In schools this is manifested as adult-led administration, adult-led classroom learning, adult-led learning evaluation, adult-led systemic decison-making, adult-led building management, and even adult-led advocacy for school change. From that perspective, I am proponenting the complete integration of students into the life of schools. Again, this is far and beyond "listening to student voice." Instead it is complete integration. From that place we re-envision learning as a democratic experience itself, embodying the principles of participatory democracy to the core, thereby radicalizing schooling and democracy at their core. The outcomes of this innovation would be far-reaching, to be sure; however, they would be tempered by the reality that, at least initially, schools would simply be catching up to technological developments that envelope the lives of young people today. The participatory nature of the Internet today, as summarized by Tim O'Reilly's phrase, "architecture of participation," proves that young people are powerful actors in their own education, as well as that of others. We will likely never know how many eight-year-olds are authoring Wikipedia articles, and how many times do students send Facebook invites to thousands of people every day? When we will realize that this exact same energy can be harnessed for the good of learning in schools?

By adopting this wide-ranging stance I believe the education system can supersede any simplified notions that might actively be undermining the appeal of democratic schools to educators today. One of the most frustrating criticisms I've heard from within the democratic education movement is the notion that somehow public school teachers are bad guys because they enforce the governance thrust upon them. On the flip side of the coin, public school teachers I have talked with about D.E. have been dismissive of what they consider to be the narrow visions of democracy and the limited appeal of democratic schools. And so I'm beginning to concern myself primarily with the notion of the middle ground, the place where the worlds meet.

This post began from a dialogue I'm having with Dana Bennis regarding the development of the Institute for Democratic Education in America. After beginning our communications only last summer, Dana spent several hours with me in Manhattan considering the depth and possibilities for our individual works this last winter. I have readily admitted to him that it was his implicit acceptance of my perspective that gave me the permission I needed to attend IDEC. Now I feel an exciting revitalization towards this effort. Combined with my new position, I believe that through Dana's Institute I will see the development of new works in this area within a short window of time. Here's to the near future!

This is the CommonAction blog, covering The Freechild Project and SoundOut. Learn more about CommonAction.

Okay, so to continue from the last post, here's one reason why schools today are not democratic. Remember, this is why, not how.

• Schools in a capitalistic society are going to be... capitalistic. Working with an elementary school in Tampa, Florida, I learned about the reality of 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th grade teachers having to stuff standardized tests with vomit and blood on them into plastic bags to ship them back to the state education agency. Performance anxiety isn't isolated to schools; it is what motivates workplace, family, and neighborhood violence everyday. This anxiety is the outcome of a society which places emphasis on production and consumption, rather than process and experience. The resultant situation of "haves" and "have nots" enforcing isolationism, segregation and polarization. In turn, democracy withers on the vine. That means for every single classroom teacher attempting to have classroom elections to support the creation and enforcement of rules, there are 30 others in her building who are conforming to history models.

It is not true that people cannot see beyond horizons that they haven't traveled to. As human beings we have limitless capacities for imagination and creation, despite the obliterating effects of the hegemony of mind suffered upon us by empirical forces that dominate our lives. That means that the Lost Boys of Sudan can be our heroes, much the same as the students of the Freedom Writers or the Freedom Riders, or the teacher down the hallway who tried "that thing, that time, with those kids." While this sounds contradictory to what I just wrote, it is not, for to give up hope in the face of this adversity would be to succumb to the very forces which we're attempting to give up on. However, it does challenge us to get to the core, rather than skimming the surface, of the challenge of democracy in schools.

Which brings me back to my friend Melia's post in her blog: rather than suffering the regular complaints of liberal educators who've been fighting capitalist hegemony with simplistic rhetoric for so many years, I believe the challenge of any educator dedicated to democracy is to move beyond the platitudes of Rethinking Schools and towards the lenses of critical democracy, with its concern for radical democracy throughout society. Only then can we provide an effective critique of modern education and offer effective alternatives to the heinous criminalization of democracy that is going on today.

My friend Melia just wrote a great blog entry about the challenges to democratic education in public schools. Five years ago Melia co-founded a nonprofit in the Bay Area that engages students in apprenticeships to explore professions; it looks like an innovative program, and Melia is a top-shelf young nonprofit exec type. We connected a few weeks ago in Vancouver at the International Democratic Education Conference, where I didn't get enough time to talk directly with her. Alas, I do have her blog, and her latest project, to respond to.

A little background: democratic education is a powerful ideal that gives students the right to learn in freedom with the responsibility of governing themselves. The idea was originally put to paper at the beginning of the 1900s with John Dewey leading the call for teaching about democracy within the walls of public schools, and A.S. Neill locating democracy within the learning experience. Neill's school, Summerhill, was founded in 1921 and still continues today. Dewey's theories about education revolutionized schools and youth programs worldwide, and carried weight into the 1980s, with limited effects continuing still today.

In Melia's blog she succinctly lays four reasons why "the values and practices of democratic schools" aren't more prominent in public schools. Her answers are large classes, standardized curriculum and testing, lack of exposure, and lack of practical methods. Unfortunately, if it were as simple as this reasoning I am afraid hundreds of schools across the U.S. have missed the boat, as they have already met the criteria Melia proponents: They have learned practical methods for integrating democratic education throughout their curricula and classrooms; they have been exposed extensively to democratic education; the have broke away from standardized curricula and, while completing standardized tests, have learned how to democratize even those experiences; and have reduced their class sizes. Those schools have been participants in any of a number of programs, each of which have a small percentage of truly democratic learning opportunities, but almost none of which could be called a "democratic school" per Neill's conceptualization. Coalition of Essential Schools, Big Picture Schools, First Amendment Schools, and my own work through SoundOut and with Youth On Board embody these notions. Unforunately, while many of these programs reach far towards meeting Melia's challenges, none truly fulfills the objective.

I think there is a much more incidious force at work against the very question of democracy, let alone democracy in schools. Starting with the 1930s charge of George Counts' Dare the School Build a New Social Order? a few academics have been brave enough to consider the question of why democracy fails in schools today, public or otherwise. (We must remember not to place charter or private schools in a different league, as these are often among the worst proginators of anti-democratic education.) Along with bell hooks, Ira Shor and other critical pedagogues, Henry Giroux has offered a thorough examination of why schools fail democracy, and it goes far beyond Melia's explanation. I will expand on that in the next blog post.

This is post 2 of 5 exploring popular perceptions of young people today.

Marketers have spent more than a half century trying to convince consumers to buy the image of youth being a perfect time, filled with frivolity and carelessness. Literature portrays an idyllic time of life that is airy, unassuming and light. Pop music suggests that between mood swings youth have little room left for the concerns of adulthood. As for childhood, these same elements perpetuate a further mythology, reinforcing the traditional conception of children as simplistic minions, empty vessels awaiting the knowledge of adulthood and eagerly assuming whatever mantle is given them by the adults around them, whether that of son or daughter, student or client - or all together, at the same time.

Adults are taught to envy this existence. In modern America this first took the form of cherish, in a Victorian era when middle class children were placed on pedestals for their preciousness and perfection. During that same period youth were married off or sent to their professions when they were young. Working class boys became apprentices to laborers, craftsmen and farmers while poor children were sent to the fields, factories and mines. In the ensuing 100 years youth were alternately viewed as powerful (1930s); suspicious (1950s); despised (1960s); lazy (1970s and 80s); dangerous (1990s), and; overachieving (2000s). All of these attitudes are then marketed back to adults as something to actually want: In the 1940s adults were sold the power of their youth; the so-called laziness of the 1970s was used as a counter-image for adults to rebel against in the 1980s, driving them to become more even more driven, more capitalistic. This says nothing of today, when adults are busy buying HDTVs and widgets for their cars in order to compensate for our inadequate knowledge of technology in the face of the Digital Natives of today.

None of this says anything of the political concerns of youth today, living in a world where they are systematically denied the right to freedom, participation or democratic representation. But that's another conversation for a different day. This post is simply meant to expose another popular perspective towards children and youth, which is young people as enviable.

What does staying home alone have to do with young people changing the world?

In today's New York Times there is an article that proposes that anywhere between 11 and 14 is okay. The author acknowledges that 7, 8 and 9 year-olds stay home alone in working class homes, but doesn't hesitate to add a "poo-poo" from an upscale New Yorker who thinks that an 11 year-old staying home with their younger siblings is terrible. At the middle of this article is the assumption that these conversations are best held without the people directly affected. If they are involved, the opinions of children and youth need to be vetted by parents.

In my experience, this is often the reasoning in the minds of youth workers and teachers when they share the same space as young people: "I am the best person to make decisions for kids, and if they tell me their thoughts I need to decide what to pay attention to, not them." I know this because I am a dad, and I have considered these concerns. On the other hand, I have gone through the Cycle of Engagement with children and youth, including my own daughter. She and I have a great time, usually, doing the activities that she determines she needs to, and that I support her in doing.

So what can young people do when they do not feel supported? How can adults show their support and their judgment at the same time? Is it either/or, or with/and? What are other important questions that need to be thought about here?

This is a quick note to say thanks to all the great folks who I met with at the International Democratic Education Conference going on this week in Vancouver, British Columbia. This was by far the most influential, well-timed and restoring conference I have ever participated in, and its largely due to the people who I allowed me to share so much time with them.

Specifically, thanks to Barry, Cass, Stacey, Melia, Yaacov, Carrie, Moe, Issac, Kirsten, Bob, and Rajeev. John, I look forward to talking with you again soon - you have a lot to teach me. I particularly want to acknowledge Jonah, whose powerful program and resonant dialog allowed me to find kin inside this strange community. I am really blown away by his work, and I'm glad he took my blows. Michelle and Elizabeth, thanks for playing with me - it was nice to see the city, have good convo, and just hang around with y'all. There were so many others, too, and all of you matter.

Finally, thank you Dana. When we talked in the city you opened the door for me and allowed me to walk into this area where I've always wanted to go. My experience at Evergreen gave me a lens; my deliberation gave me knowledge; and you gave me opportunity. Thanks man - let's do something great.

At the International Democratic Education Conference in Vancouver last week I had the privilege of facilitating three open space workshops. The three were all exhilarating conversations, filled with questions and criticisms, hope and idealism, and contradictions. The people I met and the dialogues we engaged in will stay with me for a long time.

Following are the descriptions I wrote of those sessions, and links to the conference website. I believe they are mostly true-to-form for each of the workshops. I would love to continue having these dialogues, or to start new versions in different spaces. The internet could be a powerful tool to deliberate on any of this.

Ripple Effects: From Democratic Schools to Democratic Societies

How can democratic schools culture ripple into the larger world?

How can the culture and learning students experience in democratic schools ripple into the larger world? Participants in this workshop will explore powerful new roles for students in communities around the world where they are creating, facilitating and examining democracy in local groups, community organizations, governments, the Internet, and global decision-making avenues.

This workshop will push the boundaries of where democratic schools stop and democratic societies begin. Beginning from the belief that radical democracy is practical, purposeful and necessary in today's society, participants will explore connections between democratic schooling and the so-called "real world." Experience and critical examination will be the goal, with community youth councils, youth-led media, participatory youth action research, and the many, many different ways young people are engaging in democracy at the center of the discussion.

Public democratic schools: Baby steps to a revolution

Finding entry points for infusing the principles of democratic education into publicly-financed mainstream schooling.

Participants in this workshop will plumb their own experiences in public schools in order to find entry points, inspiration and ideas for infusing the principles of democratic education into publicly-financed mainstream schooling.

This workshop is for participants who have had experience in public schools who want to change public schools. Rather than focusing on the mistakes of public schools in the last eight years, this workshop will take a wide view by examining where public education has come from over the last 100 years, from John Dewey to present. Participants will share their experiences in public schools and use them to reflect, critique, and propose radical new departures in which students experience learning through democracy.

Democratic mechanisms vs. Democratic culture

Educators create schools with democratic systems that fit their visions for democratic education. But is democratic learning more than that?

Well-meaning educators create schools, and within those walls have student councils, classroom voting and self-evaluations that fit their visions for democratic education. But is democratic learning more than that?

Participants in this workshop will explore the difference between the machinations of democratic schooling and the culture of democratic learning. With an emphasis on critical examination, participants will talk about the purposes and differences between having democratic activities, or mechanisms, and creating and sustaining democratic cultures. Where do the two approaches work together, or does the nature of structured schooling disallow them from co-existing? Where and when does democratic culture in schools fall apart?

Over the next few blog entries I'm going to write about what the common motivations are for engaging children and youth. Today I start with seeing young people as inevitable.

There's this idea out there that somehow young people are inevitable and that's why we've got to listen to them. Everybody was a young person, lots of people are going to make young people, everybody needs to listen to young people.

The problems with this perspective starts with the assumption that young people are just an extension of adults. By sourcing our understanding of children and youth within ourselves, we disassociate ourselves from what is different in them, making it okay to deny who they are in order to make them just like us. This downplays the racial, cultural, social, religious, economic, and other differences between young people and the adults who work with them.

Then, in order to continue to work with the people who are different then us, adults come to see children and youth as sources of entertainment. It becomes okay to mimic the African American youth who hang around the gym after school; it becomes okay to laugh behind the back of a youth who flubs up word usage during a meeting.

In the same way, seeing young people as inevitable makes it okay to reduce their role in society to that of income generator, as demonstrated by the entire field of youth marketing. In this capacity there are dozens of businesses that profiteer from treating youth as a simplistic time of life in which the desires and dreams of an entire market segment can be distilled into sound bites and visuals that appeal to the mass market that was created for distribution. This may be the most cynical and pervasive view of youth today, as countless schools, nonprofits and foundations have adopted businesses' perspective of youth as consumers, and outcomes as the "bottom line" in their production operations. Its a pretty demeaning reality youth face today.

There are lots of other ways that young people are viewed, to be sure, and I will explore those more in my coming blog entries. I just wanted to open the door with this view, which I fear is most common.