One way to organize for change in education would be to start a lobbying and politically active type group. Chris Lehmann suggests a possible approach in his post of July 9, 2008.
The next step -- the idea of collaborative action -- is where it gets really hard. If Will is serious about trying to use these tools to affect change -- and certainly, it's not a bad idea -- we need to start to think about organizational structure, philosophy, shared decision-making, goals, action plans, etc... it's the more mundane kind of organization building that gets hard and tiring and frustrating and often fails.
There are many comments on Chris' post.
Another approach would be to form an association for change from the ground up. People who are already active and working into small groups would chose to join an association that supports them in their local efforts and keeps key concepts and resources in front of them.
The first model may result in energy going into a new bureaucracy where policy is formed at the top and promulgated to lower level participants. A typical political campaign seems to be an example of this interpretation of the activist model. Some commenters on Chris' post seemed to have this vision. Other commenters seemed to favor the second. They proposed that people who are already active volunteer to join a larger group to increase the support they receive from others. They seek to work together to create what they want to see evolve.
A third approach is to use a process like Appreciative Inquiry in a face-to-face group of people of similar interests (perhaps a smaller sized conference). This group builds on the aspects of their work that brings them energy and "success." It builds on the areas in which there is consensus and does not undertake activities for which no one has an affinity; no one is assigned to do something that "ought" to be done. The process grows out of the enthusiasm of the group.
Which approach suits your style more? How would you want to get involved?
Comments