|
Engaging the Public in Its Schools
by Heather Voke,
Number 30, July 2002,
The
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Public Engagement
Faced with overcrowded and decrepit school buildings,
underfunded federal mandates, and state revenue shortfalls,
districts across the United States propose referenda to
increase school budgets; more than two-thirds are voted down
by the American public. Thirty-eight states consider
legislation that would allow parents to opt out of their local
public schools and send their children to charter or private
schools with public funds. Parents of two million children
choose to teach them at home rather than to enroll them in
their local public schools (Moffit, Garrett, & Smith, 2001).
What do these developments have in common? Some see them as
troubling signs that the historic pact between the public and
its schools is dissolving. They worry that the public is
becoming less engaged in and committed to the public schools,
and they are concerned that this threatens the capacity of the
public schools to provide all children with access to a
quality education. Believing that this dissolution threatens
the healthy functioning of our society and the democratic
ideals upon which our nation is founded, some education
reformers assert that educational leaders and policymakers
must focus their attention on re-engaging the public in the
public schools.
Defining Public Engagement
Public engagement is a willingness on the part of citizens to
invest not only the financial resources but also the time and
energy necessary to support a system of quality public schools
that are accessible to all children. This willingness reflects
a commitment to public schooling, a belief that the public
schools and the ideals that undergird them are worth the
personal and social investment that is needed to sustain them.
Public engagement is different from parental engagement in
that it is motivated by a commitment to secure a quality
education for all children rather than for one's own children
only.
The importance of public engagement lies in the relationship
of mutual dependence that exists between the public and its
schools. As the founders of the public school system argued,
the public has an interest in public education that cannot and
should not be delegated because the outcomes of education have
repercussions for all citizens and for the future of the
society. The public schools prepare children for the
political, social, and economic roles they will play as
adults. When children are not prepared for these roles,
society as a whole feels the consequences (Center on National
Education Policy, 1996). Schools have also long been regarded
as the very institutions that create the American public: the
collection of individuals who, despite their diverse
backgrounds and identities, are united as a nation with a
shared commitment to certain democratic ideals.
Just as the public depends upon its schools, the schools rely
upon the public. Public engagement increases the capacity of
schools to provide students with a quality education. A public
that is committed to its schools will be more likely to make
the financial sacrifices necessary to attract and retain
quality teachers, provide a safe learning environment that is
conducive to learning, and purchase up-to-date learning
materials for all children (Dilley, 1995). Public engagement
has less-direct benefits as well. When the teachers,
administrators, and students in a school believe that the
public supports them and is committed to their success, morale
increases and the school community strives to be its best.
According to David Mathews, author of Is There a Public for
the Public Schools? (1996), broad public engagement encourages
teachers and students to work harder by sending the message
that people think what teachers and students do is important.
Public engagement also plays a role in supporting innovation
and efforts to improve schools. There is a long record of
research showing that "when families and communities are
involved in education, students learn more and schools
improve" (U.S. Department of Education, 1998, p. 32).
Low-performing schools in particular stand to benefit from
parent and community involvement (U.S. Department of
Education, 1998, 2001). It has also become increasingly
apparent to education reformers that unless the public is
engaged in and committed to education reforms from the outset,
even the most extensive efforts may have limited effect.
Education reformers have also come to recognize that many of
the problems that schools face are "wicked" problems -
problems with causes that extend outside of the schools and
that consequently cannot be successfully solved by schools
alone (Mathews & Nielsen, 1999). If such problems are to be
addressed, it is not sufficient to hold one institution
(schools) and one group (educators) accountable for producing
results. It takes a whole community working together.
Is Today's Public Engaged?
Given the importance of the relationship between the public
and its schools, the engagement of the public in the schools
becomes a matter of concern. Is today's public engaged? There
are some positive signs that it is. For example, a recent
survey by the Public Education Network (PEN) and Education
Week (2002) found that even in the aftermath of September 11,
when the attention of citizens was focused on national
security and the economy, most Americans continued to regard
education as a national priority. According to the same
survey, 78 percent of Americans strongly agree that "all
communities should have quality public schools" (p. 11).
Public schools are regarded as the most important public
community institutions, outranking hospitals and churches. The
PEN/Education Week survey found that 80 percent of Americans
say that funding for public education should be a top priority
despite the budget shortfalls recently experienced by many
states. The survey concluded that "the strength of public
support for education funding outweighs support for all other
spending priorities combined" (p. 5).
At the same time, however, some see alarming signs that all is
not well between the public and its schools. Over the last 10
years, the Kettering Foundation has conducted a series of
forums in which people discussed their views of the public
schools. David Mathews, Kettering's executive director, issued
his analysis of this data in his book, Is There a Public for
the Public Schools? (1996). Mathews concludes that "as much as
Americans feel a sense of duty to support public schools, they
are torn and ambivalent, and many have begun moving away from
them, in spirit if not in fact" (p. 9). He warns that the
historic contract between the public and its public schools is
eroding: "Despite a long tradition of support for public
education, Americans today seem to be halfway out of the
schoolhouse door" (p. 2).
Other sources also present alarming evidence about the public
and its schools. A 1996 study by the Education Commission of
the States, for example, found that 55 percent of parents
believe that schools in their communities have gotten off on
the wrong track. The 2001 Phi Delta Kappan poll of the
American public found that only 23 percent of those surveyed
would give the public schools nationally an A or a B (Rose &
Gallup, 2001). A growing number of parents are opting to pull
their children out of their neighborhood public school to
pursue alternatives such as homeschooling, charter schools,
and private schools. Organizations advocating alternatives to
the public schools have proliferated at the state and national
levels. Anecdotal evidence of public dissatisfaction with
public education is abundant as well. Encounters with
dissatisfied and irate community members have led James
Middlebrooks, a school attorney from North Carolina, to refer
to "angry parent syndrome," a "chronic condition involving
widespread disenchantment with public education" (National
School Boards Association, 2002, p. 1). There is also evidence
that the public's avowed commitment to provide all children
with access to quality schooling does not carry over to
action; for example, citizens continue to oppose policies that
would reduce the enormous variation in the quality of
education provided to children, or refuse to fund projects
that would ease overcrowding and repair or replace decrepit
school buildings (Biddle & Berliner, 2002).
Why Is the Public Not Engaged?
Researchers believe that the decline in the public's
engagement in its schools has a number of possible causes. For
one, some point to the increase in the number of citizens over
85 years of age and a corresponding decrease in the number of
Americans with children in the schools. Lacking a direct
connection to the public schools, these older citizens may be
less inclined to concern themselves with the public schools in
their communities.
Others argue that the media have played a role in the public's
attitudes toward the schools. In the forums held by the
Kettering Foundation, many individuals expressed the belief
that the media portray schools as contested territories in an
unending battle. David Mathews (1996) contends that when
people see various education experts arguing and pointing
fingers at one another—all apparently intent on protecting
their own interests rather than improving the quality of
schools—they do not believe that their involvement will make
much difference.
Still others believe that increased demands on schools are
responsible for the decline in the public's engagement. Public
schools at the turn of the last century were expected to
provide a quality education to only a small proportion of the
nation's children, but today schools are expected to ensure
that all children—regardless of culture, language, ethnicity,
gender, or disability—achieve high standards. When the public
is faced with evidence that the schools do not achieve this
goal for many children, there is an "erosion of unquestioning
trust" in the public education system (Annenberg, 1998, p.
17). In addition, the public may be frustrated with what it
perceives as slow to nonexistent improvements in schools
despite decades of reform initiatives (Annenberg, 1998).
According to one study, 36 percent of Americans think that
their local schools have declined in quality and 28 percent
believe that the quality of education has stayed the same
despite concerted reform efforts over the last decade
(PEN/Education Week, 2002).
Another possible reason for disengagement is a changing
conception of schooling itself. As Middlebrooks, the school
attorney, argues, market ideology has spread to the schools
and, consequently, "public education is viewed as just another
commodity. People have a consumer mentality" about education
that makes them more likely to express their dissatisfaction
with schools and to seek out other providers when they are not
satisfied with the product (National School Boards
Association, 2002, p. 1).
Finally, some experts argue that the organization of the
public school system itself is to blame for declining public
engagement. As the public school system developed in the
United States, many decisions about schools were delegated to
professionals—each responsible for a particular area of
expertise—who limited public involvement in the
decision-making process. In many districts and schools today,
the public has little opportunity for involvement in education
beyond paying taxes, registering complaints with school
administrators, or voicing displeasure at local school board
meetings; even parents of school-age children often find that
their opportunities to participate are limited to raising
funds for school programs through bake sales and car washes (Fege,
2000). Sometimes school practices exacerbate feelings of
exclusion: "Staff interactions, attitudes, and the physical
appearance of some schools" may all signal that the community
is not welcome (National PTA, 2000, p. 154). Organizers who
work with the public on education issues have found that
although citizens do care about their schools, people often
detect that the contributions they could make to improving
schools are not valued and that professionals in education
have become increasingly defensive and dismissive of the
public's concerns (Dilley, 1995; Mathews, 1996).
Initiatives to Improve Public Engagement
Polls reveal that many people recognize the importance of
public engagement and want to be more involved in what is
happening in their schools (PEN/Education Week, 2002). More
than half would like to see more opportunities for community
involvement in the schools (Rose & Gallup, 1998), and those
who rate the schools as poor or fair are even more likely to
want to see more community involvement than those who rate the
schools as excellent or good (Public Agenda, 2000). According
to Public Agenda, despite the perceptions of the public to the
contrary, leaders at the district and school levels are
receptive to involving the public in schools; in fact, 78
percent of surveyed superintendents report that their district
is currently making some effort to promote public involvement.
Districts, schools, and organizations have engaged in a wide
variety of initiatives to foster public engagement. For
example, some schools have developed public relations
campaigns to disseminate information to parents and the
general community about local schools and to emphasize the
often-overlooked strengths of the education program. Districts
and schools have also developed volunteer or mentoring
programs that give members of the community opportunities to
become directly involved in the life of a school. Although
these types of initiatives do offer promise in provoking the
public's involvement in public education, many researchers
argue that initiatives must move beyond public relations
campaigns, advocacy efforts, or volunteer programs if they are
to kindle serious and sustained public commitment to public
education and school improvement (Mathews, 1996; Annenberg
1998). (See box on p. 5 for the essential characteristics of
public engagement initiatives.)
Organizations such as the Annenberg Institute, the Center for
Education Policy, and the Kettering Foundation believe that it
is essential to give citizens "a voice in defining the values
and goals for the schools in their districts" (Kleinz, 2000).
Jeffrey Arnett, director of communications in the Rockwood
School District in Missouri, for example, argues that "like an
old-fashioned barnraising, confidence in an organization's
strength and ability to withstand the elements is often
proportionate to the number of people who participate in its
construction" (Arnett, 1999, p. 5). Arnett and others believe
that schools must reach out to the diverse constituencies of
citizens to engage them in deliberative dialogue about the
issues facing their schools and to make collective decisions
about which course of action to pursue (Kleinz, 2000;
Jennings, 1997; Mathews, 1996).
According to advocates, the interaction that takes place
during dialogue differs from other forms of interaction, such
as debate. In a debate, participants are opponents who seek to
advance their own views and to disprove their opposition's
arguments. Deliberation or dialogue, on the other hand, is
collaborative: participants work to achieve common ground.
Participants in a debate seek to defend their positions;
participants in dialogue seek to enlarge their perspectives by
learning from the experiences and perspectives of other
participants (Study Circles Resource Center [SCRC], 2002).
The most common vehicles for public dialogue are study
circles, citizens or issues forums, and school site governance
councils. Study circles are small discussion groups that meet
regularly over a period of weeks or months to address a
particular issue related to the public schools (Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory [SEDL], 2000). Citizens or
issues forums are larger gatherings that meet once to engage
in a dialogue about general or specific issues related to
public education. Communities and citizen groups have used
both study circles and issues forums to communicate public
perspectives about education to policymakers. School site
governance councils, another arena for community involvement,
give parents and community members a voice in the
decision-making process at a specific school. Participants
represent the community and have a say in the hiring,
budgeting, and curriculum of the school (Annenberg, 1998).
Communities across the United States have made use of these
forms of public engagement (see box on p. 6 for specific
examples). Although it is difficult to quantify the interest
in, commitment to, and goodwill toward public education that
result from such efforts, participants believe that these
initiatives do have a definite payoff. Those who have
organized initiatives assert that as a consequence of these
efforts, education becomes a matter of public concern and is
"kept at the forefront of community conversations," which is
essential to public engagement (Annenberg, 1998, p. 24).
Members of the community who become involved in public
engagement initiatives come to see the value of that
participation and to believe that there should be
opportunities for more people to become involved (Jennings,
1999). Organizers also point to success in engaging
individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those who have
been historically underrepresented in education
decision-making processes. Educators who participate come away
with the realization that "people really do want the public
schools to succeed" and feel more hopeful about the future of
public education (Jennings, 1999, p. 7). Supporters also point
to some measurable outcomes that have been associated with
these initiatives, such as improved student attendance and
parent involvement, decreases in student disciplinary
problems, and the passage of bond initiatives to increase
funding for local schools (Annenberg, 1998).
Lessons Learned
Those who have used public dialogue as a means of developing
greater public engagement offer the following advice to those
who are interested in developing similar initiatives in their
own communities:
Be wary of the tendency to use public engagement initiatives
to sell reforms to the public. If the purpose of the forum is
to develop public engagement, it is critical that those
guiding the process "remain neutral and open to the input and
outcomes generated" (Kleinz, 2000). Forums should be two-way
conversations in which participants have the opportunity to
determine the nature of the problem and develop decisions
together through discussion and deliberation (Mathews, 1996).
Use public deliberation wisely. Research shows that the public
is willing to delegate many education issues to professionals
and respect their judgment (Public Agenda, 2000). Those with
experience with public engagement initiatives caution that
"you can't talk about everything all of the time and it would
cease to be effective if you did" and recommend that public
deliberation be reserved "for times when genuinedialogue is
needed" (Public Agenda, 2000).
Realize that it takes time to build trust (Kleinz, 2000). Be
aware that people may have preconceptions that may at first
inhibit dialogue. Teachers may be pessimistic about
interacting with the public and resistant to sharing
authority. Administrators may assume that the public is
hostile to public education or insensitive to the challenges
and trade-offs that schools face (Dilley, 1995; Public Agenda,
2000). The public may believe that teachers and administrators
will not listen to them or will be patronizing (Brandt, 1998).
Over time, however, as participants have opportunities to
engage in constructive dialogue with others, their experiences
will modify these preconceptions (Kleinz, 2000; Annenberg,
1998).
Make deliberate and sustained efforts to ensure that
representatives of all constituencies in the community have
opportunities to engage. If the public that engages is to be
representative of the diverse U. S. population, schools must
take steps to ensure that engagement initiatives target all
segments of the community. "All too frequently,
linguistically, culturally, and racially diverse populations
are excluded from or decline to participate in" initiatives to
involve the public (Ashby, Garza, & Rivas, 1998, p. 11).
Factors related to economic status, age, and educational
background may also lead to the exclusion of community
members. To overcome these barriers, organizers must reach out
to all groups, in some cases providing resources such as child
care and transportation. Experts also suggest that school
leaders be flexible and creative in scheduling events. For
example, schools can reach out to community leaders and hold
meetings in community settings such as neighborhood centers or
churches to help individuals become more comfortable about
attending and participating (National PTA, 2000).
Be sure that teachers and students are involved in engagement
efforts. Teachers have an invaluable front-line perspective on
the issues facing schools and the types of solutions that
might address those issues. They also play a vital role in
implementing any changes in the schools, yet too often they
are overlooked. Students, too, have a unique perspective on
life in a community's schools, yet they are often excluded
(Annenberg, 1998).
Realize that you are not alone; make use of the experiences
and resources available to you. Numerous organizations provide
free resources that give detailed advice about how to conduct
public engagement initiatives and public meetings; schools and
districts have held forums in multiple types of environments.
Learn from their experiences as you develop and implement
public engagement initiatives in your own community.
Public engagement in public education is essential. As Karen
Kleinz, associate director of the National School Public
Relations Association, asserts, "Educators have long
understood the value of involving parents and the community in
the schools. But if we are to realize the improvements we
desire in education, we need to do more than ask them to
support school-related projects—we need to engage the public
in thinking through the challenges schools face and helping
them to make decisions on how to solve them" (2000).
Acting alone, educators cannot achieve the ideal upon which
our nation's schools are founded: to provide all children with
a high-quality education. It is not sufficient to hold
educators accountable for student learning and reward or
punish them based on the results they produce. Education is a
public responsibility and, without the public's commitment to
and involvement in public education, many of our
children—those that are in most need of our support—will
continue to be left behind. Educators and communities must
work together to ensure that all of our children are provided
with a high-quality education that prepares them for their
future roles in our society.
References
Annenberg Institute on Public Engagement for Public Education.
(1998). Reasons for hope, voices for change. Providence, RI:
Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
Arnett, J. (1998/1999, Winter). Public confidence in public
education: Inside schools. Public Engagement Today, 1(1).
[Online]. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/community/index.html
Ashby, S., Garza, C., & Rivas, M. (1998). Public deliberation:
A tool for connecting school reform and diversity. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, May). Unequal school
funding in the United States. Educational Leadership, 59(8),
48–59.
Brandt, R. (1998, May). Listen first. Educational Leadership,
55(8), 25–30.
Center on National Education Policy. (1996). Do we still need
public schools? Washington, DC: Author.
Dilley, B. (1995, November 22). Building a broad constituency
for change. Education Week, 15(12), 33.
Education Commission of the States. (1996). Listen, discuss
and act: Parents' and teachers' views on education reform.
Denver, CO: Author.
Fege, A. (2000, April). From fund raising to hell raising: New
roles for parents. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 39–43.
Jennings, J. F. (1997). An experiment in democracy.
Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Jennings, J. F. (1999, February). Citizens forums on education
in Illinois: Summary report. Washington, DC: Center on
Education Policy.
Kleinz, K. (2000, Spring). Engaging the public in the public
schools. Focus on Study Circles, 1(2). [Online]. Retrieved
June 3, 2002, from http://www.studycircles.org/pages/engaging.html
Mathews, D. (1996). Is there a public for public schools?
Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.
Mathews, D., & Nielsen, R. (1999, September). Finding the
public in public engagement. School Administrator, 56(8), 12.
Moffit, R. E., Garrett, J., & Smith, J. (2001). School choice
2001: What's happening in the states. Washington, DC: The
Heritage Foundation.
National PTA. (2000). Building successful partnerships: A
guide for developing parent and family involvement programs.
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
National School Boards Association. (2002, April 6). Board
members need to know how to deal with angry parents. School
Board News Conference Daily. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Pennington, J. (2000, May). Study circles stave off crises for
two Arkansas School Districts. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from
http://www.studycircles.org/pages/stave.html
Public Agenda. (2000). Just waiting to be asked? A fresh look
at attitudes on public engagement. [online]. Retrieved June 3,
2002, from http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/pubengage/pubengage.htm
Public Education Network/Education Week. (2002).
Accountability for all: What voters want from education
candidates. Washington, DC: Author.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (1998, September). The 30th
annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes
toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(1), 41–58.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2001, September). The 33rd
annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes
toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 41–58.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2000,
November). Policymakers build bridges to the public. Insights
13. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from
http://www.sedl.org/policy/insights/n13
Study Circles Resource Center. (2002). Helping every student
succeed: Schools and communities working together. Pomfret,
CT: Topsfield Foundation.
U. S. Department of Education. (1998, May). Turning around
low-performing schools: A guide for state and local leaders.
Washington, DC: Author.
U. S. Department of Education. (2001, January). First annual
school improvement report: Executive order on actions for
turning around low-performing schools. Washington, DC: Author.
Resources
ASCD
Visit ASCD's Reading Room (http://www.ascd.org/readingroom.html)
for access to articles, newsletters, and other resources on
parent and community involvement.
The Annenberg Institute for School Reform
http://www.annenberginstitute.org/community/index.html
Visit the Annenberg Institute's Public Engagement Resource
Center and its Community Assets Initiative Web site for
reports and research about public engagement, and a
state-by-state listing of schools, organizations, and
districts that have been involved in the Institute's inquiry
into public engagement.
Public Education Network (PEN)
http://www.publiceducation.org
PEN provides community-based organizations with tools to build
and sustain broad support for high-quality public education.
Visit the Web site for resources that communities can use to
engage the public in working toward school improvement.
Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC)
http://www.studycircles.org
SCRC gives communities tools to organize productive dialogue,
recruit diverse participants, find solutions, and work for
action and change. Visit the Web site for guides to organizing
study circles, information about study circle best practices,
and information about communities that have used study circles
successfully.
Essential Characteristics of Public Engagement Initiatives
In 1998, the Annenberg Institute on Public Engagement for
Public Education undertook an extensive study of the ways that
communities and schools across the United States organized
themselves to foster public engagement. Reasons for Hope,
Voices for Change is a description and analysis of the
organization's findings. Although the study found a wide
diversity of public engagement efforts, effective initiatives
shared several essential traits:
They were inclusive and dialogue-driven. They made concerted
efforts to engage all constituencies in the public discussion.
They sought meaningful and long-term improvements in schools.
They began with dialogue but moved forward to implementation
and action directed at improving student learning.
They attempted to establish common ground and broad consensus
around complex and controversial issues. They went beyond idle
conversation and superficial, either/or considerations to
address the complexity of problems and frame new solutions.
They featured an atmosphere of candor and trust. Participants
were willing to engage in the difficult work of listening and
trying to understand perspectives that differed from their
own. They also sought out and used accurate information
relevant to the issue at hand.
|
