Can you deliberate and still be civil?

Today I had the pleasure of discussing Peter Block's Community: A structure of belonging with a group of students from UW-Madison, and my research colleague, Rob Asen.  Rob wondered if Block was just a little too optimistic and that he didn't really allow for much deliberation in his model of community engagement.  One perceptive student referred to a section on appreciating paradox, that Block was not suggesting that a community engaging in successful discourse  had no room for disagreement.  Rob mentioned "reasonable hostility" an idea proposed by Karen Tracy, who suggests that disagreement is productive, particularly since people tend to pay more attention when there is disagreement.  In Who wants to deliberate--and why, Neblo et al argue that citizens are turned off by the adversarial nature of partisan politics; that they are interested in participating when political activity engages in deliberation. Groups like  America Speaks or Everyday Democracy practice this deliberative form of engagement.

One interesting twist on the whole idea of solving the world's problems is presented by Jane McGonigal who argues that gamers are developing the skills (including the ability to collaborate) needed to address the complex issues facing the world today.

An amazing book on community engagement

Last week I read, Community: The Structure of Belonging by Peter Block.  It is an amazing book.  When I was working on my dissertation, one of the professors on my committee would always ask, "How do you define EFFECTIVE community engagement?"  For the longest time, I felt like I could recognize it when I saw it, but I could not describe it in the way academics like you to define things.

Block's book has helped me answer the question!  Perhaps most importantly, effective community engagement builds social capital.  In order to do this, we have to turn to different practices and structures. Public hearings that focus on problems are not the way to do it.

 Rather than focusing on problems, Block suggests that we focus on possibilities.  He asks the question, "What do we want to create together?"  People are more likely to commit to that which they have had a hand in creating.  The goal is not to generate buy in.  Instead, inviting people to help develop the solution is more like to lead to commitment.

New practices need new structures if we are going to be successful.  Public hearings are more likely to create heat than light.  Block posits that THE SMALL GROUP, one that represents the larger system is the unit of transformation.  Diverse small groups that are in conversation with the large group are the way to engage in conversations that build social capital.  He sites processes like World Cafe, Open Space Technology, and Future Search as examples of effective small group/large group processes that work.

A bonus:  If you don't have time to read the whole book, Block includes a "Book at a Glance" beginning on page 177 in the paperback edition.

MASA Spring Conference coming up!

The Minnesota Association of School Administrators Spring Conference is just two weeks away. In the latest issue of The MASA Leaders Forum, Spring 2010, I asked that you take a few moments to review the International Association of Public Participation's Core Values and Spectrum of Participation Think about how adoption of these core values challenges your notions of community engagement. How do these core values challenge your practice as an educational leader? What questions does the Spectrum of Participation raise for you? Post your responses and I will bring these postings to the conversation we have on March 19th.

Coherence making

How can school leaders effect culture change in these incredibly difficult times?  Budgets are stressed with a number of districts anticipating bankruptcy in a few years if the recent pattern of eroding state and local support continues.  Pressure to improve student achievement and to close the achievement gap continues to increase expectations in spite of the difficult financial times.

What is a school leader to do?  Michael Fullan talks about coherence making in "Leading in a Culture of Change."  According to Fullan, the complexity found in the challenges facing public education also provide opportunity for creativity.  However, if chaos is too severe, staff can become overwhelmed.  Balancing chaos and coherence is a key characteristic of successful leaders.

Successful leaders recognize that they do not have the control leaders may have had in the past.  Instead, today's leaders are successful when they create conditions so staff take the vision of the organization as their own.  When staff collaborate to work through the ambiguities and challenges of difficult-to-solve problems, they are best able to meet the challenges facing public schools today.

Why we need to get better at dialogue

Recently, I have taken on the responsibility of assisting with the planning of a large-scale community engagement summit here in Wisconsin.  One of the first things I have learned in the less-than-two-weeks that I have been involved in this project is that community engagement means different things to different people.  Last week's post included a description of a number of models that people think of when they use the term "community engagement."  There is clearly some confusion about what we mean when we use this term.

I am concerned that before we can have community engagement dialogue, we need to have a dialogue to define what we mean by community engagement!

Successful community engagement values the input of all who come to the table.  AND, successful community engagement works to include all voices, no matter how disagreeable they may appear to to the conveners.

Successful community engagement also reaches out beyond parents.  Parents continue to make up a smaller and smaller percentage of the community.  Focusing only on parents ignores the concerns of a majority the citizens in our communities.

Finally, our society has diversified considerably over the last thirty years.  New ethnic groups now make their homes in our communities.  We have a responsibility to make a concerted effort to welcome these new comers into our communities.  Their customs and ideas may be different from long established practice and thinking, but it doesn't mean there is something wrong with them.

This TED Talk, Weird or Just Different, illustrates this concept and gives us something to think about as we consider how to successfully initiate community engagement activities.

Social reformers have a history of acting like they have the answers; that all the "clients" have to do is take their advice and all will be well.  This paternalistic attitude has never worked.  It didn't work during the Progressive Era.  It didn't work in the 1960s.  And it won't work today; even if we dress it us as community engagement.  The experts have to remember that community members have an expertise that is as important to the conversation as their own technical expertise.

I welcome your thoughts about community engagement.  Also, I'd be interested in learning more about your experiences, especially with successful community engagement practices that encourage dialogue among diverse groups.

Community Engagement: What Does This Term Mean?

I've been thinking more about this term since I last talked about community engagement and extending genuine invitations a few weeks ago.  I've decided that I was a bit too definitive in describing community engagement; that others have different definitions than I.  Below I list other ideas about community engagement that go beyond the deliberative model to which I am drawn. This is hardly a definitive list, simply a place to start thinking about the various aspects of community engagement.

For example, Joyce Epstein's Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships categorizes involvement activities as parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making and collaborating with the community. Part of Epstein's model focuses on parents and the role they can directly play in their own child's educational development, work that I would categorize as important but not necessarily community engagement.

Others would point to advocacy work as community engagement.  Groups like the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools and Parent United Network work to educate citizens on important education issues and encourage citizens to form local parent groups to advocate for policy changes at the state and federal levels. I see advocacy as a persuasive model, whereby parents work to encourage policy makers to include parent perspectives in their policy decision making.

I think these are important components of the community engagement continuum.  For me, however, at the end of the day, I am drawn to models that encourage conversation and relationship building. Models like  World Cafe and Study Circles provide opportunities for dialogue that might lead to developing a better understanding of others' positions.

We live in a time of perpetual change.  In fact, I think it is safe to say that change is the new status quo.  How can we cope with the pace and pressures of change?  Our ability to build relationships is a key component of the solution.

In her book Turning to One Another, Margaret Wheatley writes:

 "I have learned that when we begin listening to each other, and when we talk about things that matter to us, the world begins to change."

It is this idea, the power of dialogue to make a difference, that draws me to more deliberative models of community engagement.

The Value of Relationship

This week at the Wisconsin Association of School Boards Annual Convention, relationship cropped up in so many places. While school districts continue to feel the pressures of accountability, many convention speakers focused on trust and relationships as the way to best achieve success. The importance of trust and relationships were mentioned in general sessions, idea exchanges, and special events.

Jerry Kember, Wisconsin Superintendent of the Year, talked about the importance of trust and the value of relationships and team to the success of the La Crosse school district.

Boards from school districts and the technical college system met for dinner one evening. There was a recognition of the importance of these two groups coming together.

Meg Wheatley, keynote general session speaker, talked about relationships, that if you want to create more health, create more relationships.  Wheatley talked about the power of relationships, that while we may lack financial resources, we have what we need to face our challenges. Wheatley says, "everything is a bundle of potential that manifests itself only in relationships."

Wheatley gave the audience the following ideas to use in their work to build relationships and community:

• People support what they create.
• People act responsibility when they care.
• Conversation is the way humans have always thought together.
• To change the conversation change who is in the conversation.
• Expect leadership to come from anywhere.
• Focus on what's possible.
• The wisdom resides within us.
• Everything is a failure in the middle.
• Learning is the only way we become smarter about what we do.
• Meaningful work is the most powerful motivator.
• Humans can handle anything as long as we are together.
• Generosity Forgiveness Love.
  

You can listen to Meg talk about this ideas on this youtube video.

Over the last twenty years, education reform has focused on the technical aspects of improving student achievement.  Yet, if we expect to successfully close the achievement gap, we need to consider the important role of relationship.