Governor Ted Strickland, two years ago, in his public forums on reforming Ohio’s system of public education, challenged participants to attempt to think afresh.  He challenged his listeners to imagine: Suppose the present system could be wiped clean, and we could start anew, what would the new system look like? He said:

“This is our opportunity for us to think together and to think boldly — I want to think about transforming our schools. Now, we are not an artist looking at an almost finished painting and wondering where to put that last brush stroke in order to make it a little better. What we are is an artist looking at a blank slate and asking what is the best thing we can create here.”

I doubt the governor ever got many serious proposals for systemic change.  When Strickland finally revealed his education plan, I was disappointed with the results.  I wrote,“Strickland is basically saying that the present system is OK, but, that it needs more money, more rules, that the bureaucrats in the system need more authority, etc..” Wiping a slate clean and transforming a system of public education is a daunting task, and, because Ohio’s educational establishment is one of Strickland’s biggest political supports, it is not surprising that Strickland failed to follow through with his blank slate idea.

As the President of the Kettering Foundation, David Matthews, points out, the quality of public education in a community depends on the vitality of the community’s democracy.  The transformation of public education, I believe, is possible through an awakening of democracy — via the exertion of grassroots’ local control.  A middle American community like Kettering, where I live, where public schools are now deemed “Excellent with Distinction,” I believe, is the most likely place for a new model of public education to emerge.  Social improvements are best built on stability and strength.

I love the idea from W. Edwards Deming that most every improvement we can wish for in this world depends upon our figuring out how to imagine and how to implement better systems.  Every system is built around an aim or mission.  What does a community seek to accomplish when it willingly taxes itself to finance a system of public education?  In Kettering, a K-12 education costs more than $150,000. A community should ponder:  What is the common good that justifies this taxation?

Citizens in a democracy willingly tax themselves to finance a system of public education because they believe that every citizen deserves an equal opportunity for a good life.   To maintain a democratic society, there must be a sufficient consensus that the system is fair, so the opportunity for an education is equated with the opportunity for prosperity.

The problem is, it is impossible for a system of public education to create opportunity.  Regardless of doing everything asked on them, many young people who showed proficiency in a curriculum and graduated from Ohio’s schools are floundering with little hope for economic success.  And it is doubtful that their plight is temporary.  All evidence points to the conclusion that if the purpose of the resources given to public education is to create opportunity, then, how those resources are spent should be reconsidered.  And if the purpose of resources given to public education is to create engaged and thoughtful citizens, it is shocking that only 20% of voters ages 18 – 30 voted in the recent election.

Tinkering, making a more rigorous curriculum with stiffer accountability — more rewards and punishments — will not matter.

Suppose we take up Governor Strickland’s challenge and wipe the slate clear. It would be fun to imagine a system built on principles that we know have power — free enterprise, entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, mutual cooperation. Suppose we design a system whereby each child, through a responsible guardian, has access, over 13 years, to $150,000. And, suppose to each parent is given these instructions: “Please spend this money in the best way to provide this child with the foundation for a prosperous adult life, and the foundation to become as an adult, a  thoughtful, informed, and active citizen.” Such a system, of course, would need to include a structure for accountability, based on an Individual Education Plans, that abundantly would satisfy taxpayers.  It would be fun to think through what such a system might look like

One push for success is the reality that we live in an exciting time for school renewal. The whole world seems to be looking for good solutions to how to design an effective system of public education. A community that chose to exert control over its local system of education, in its efforts to make systemic change, in the current climate, I believe, would be financially rewarded via much outside support and encouragement. There would be a lot of rewards for a community to show leadership and point the way to meaningful transformation and the promise of such rewards might, in a community like Kettering, help move the process along.

I hope to get the ball rolling in Kettering via a series of public meetings in March / April of this next year. The idea is that the output from these meetings would be included in a book — “Kettering Public Education In the Year 2022” — posted on line. The thought is to attempt to make a plan for the transformation of Kettering public education the basis for community discussion in the 2011 school board election campaign.  It’s an ambitious thought.

In response to a previous post, Rick writes, “Mike, you speak of authentic community. However, let’s face it, you and I can never be part of the same community. So does that mean the majority of an authentic community get to dictate to the minority?”

The left/right chasm in this nation is perceived to be so enormous that it seems unimaginable that loyalists of the two sides could ever find consensus — unthinkable that those with opposite views could ever join together as an authentic community. But, it seems to me, if we could see the big picture, we would become united.

Jonathan Schell, author of “The Fate of The Earth,” in this you-tube describes the big picture. He states simply and forcefully, what in my own gut I know is true: “If we don’t get together and solve our problems, we’ll all die.”

That’s the big picture we need to see.

In an Amazon review of Schell’s latest book, “The Seventh Decade — The New Shape of Nuclear Danger,” a reviewer says: “This book is composed in a style of high responsibility, as if our lives were dependent upon the success of Schell’s arguments, which in a sense they are.”

It is a sense of “high responsibility” that inspires civic action. When citizens need to respond to an emergency, for example, to protect their neighborhood from rising flood waters, they work together in community. They have a sense of “high responsibility.” If circumstances put us together, I’m sure Rick and I could easily be part of such a community and successfully work together.

Creating community requires a uniting and compelling consensus of purpose — like the desire for survival.  The problem is, we don’t see the big picture — “If we don’t get together and solve our problems, we’ll all die” — and, we don’t believe dire predictions are true.

A lot of money and effort goes into keeping us ignorant of our high responsibility — uninformed and uninvolved.  Americans know all about the issues concerning “America’s Got Talent,” or the personalities on “Dancing With the Stars,” but have great ignorance about their own government or world politics. (See: “Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter.”)

Bill Moyers makes the point that our whole political process is under control of a plutocracy who seek to maintain the status quo.  The oligarchy is all about using our political system to divide and conquer.  If the oligarchy saw advantage in developing an informed and engaged citizenry, I’m sure we soon would have a sea change in the quality and quantity of our civic discourse and that 80% of Americans would be voting on a regular basis.

Every answer to meeting the challenges of the future starts with the notion that we must transcend differences — including left / right dichotomies — and we must create authentic community centered on problem solving.  The premise behind the book I am determined to write:  “Kettering Public Education In The Year 2022,” is that the key to public education transformation is through democracy.  The premise is that a democratic movement in Kettering leads to the formation of an authentic Kettering community dedicated to transforming their community’s system of public education.

We need to see the big picture and part of the challenge to accomplish the needed transformation in public education is to somehow communicate the big picture concerning public education to the general public as a means to motivate interest.

The foundation for transforming our political system, similarly, is to somehow to focus on the big picture.  In the big picture, the issue is that our democracy is going down the drain. As with rising flood waters, this is an issue of survival. The on-going deterioration of our democracy is the source of all of our disasters.

Seeing the big picture I believe, should be the motivation for creating new and effective communities that can respond. The left/right divide that Rick points to as destructive to community, I believe, as seen from a bigger perspective, is insignificant, and becomes ever more insignificant in authentic communities.

I’m reminded of these previous posts:

• The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Is Democracy Itself; September 17th, 2007
• Grassroots Dayton: “Sowing The Seeds Of Democracy”; April 11th, 2008
• The Best Way To Transform Our Democracy Is By Transforming Our Political Parties; July 25th, 2010

Madeleine Albright, writing in the Huffington Post, summarizes conclusions she and 18 other former foreign ministers made last month in a meeting in Madrid — concerning “the relationship between the West and the Muslim World.” Her words, concerning overcoming ignorance and fear, it seems to me, apply also to the United States.

The work of reconciliation and problem solving is difficult under the best of circumstances, but is made worse when it is deliberately opposed. Albright says, “In almost every part of the globe, there continue to be people who have chosen — whether out of ignorance, fear, or ill will — to sow conflict where reconciliation is needed.”

When citing “Ignorance, fear, and ill will,” as motivation for fomenting conflict, Albright diplomatically omits the biggest motivation — self-interest.

Conflict often is fomented  by individuals who seek to manipulate a situation for personal gain, money or power. This is true about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. But is also true about United States politics. Think: Carl Rove.

In the United States, “sowing conflict” via intense propaganda has become an art form. And, it is amazing how effective propaganda can be. It is not accidental that million of Americans, apparently, have convinced themselves that they hate Nancy Polisi — not merely totally disagree with Nancy’s actions or point of view, but actually hate her. Hate her. Hate her because they have been told to hate her again and again by the media they listen to — Rush and Fox News, etc.

Hate is a a big motivator. Fear is a big motivator. Too often hate and fear are the result of a deliberate campaign of propaganda and manipulation. It has been always so throughout history. Those in power have often had a strategy of control that relied on keeping the less powerful ignorant and fearful.

Albright gives five recommendation to advance relationship between the West and the Muslim World.

As I read them, Albright’s recommendations (abbreviated below) also can help answer this key question: How, as a nation, can we overcome ignorance and fear and make our democracy work effectively to solve problems?

1. We must be willing to conduct an honest self-examination that does not gloss over differences or duck hard issues.
2. We must communicate better by eliminating from our vocabulary terms that recall past stereotypes or that reflect ignorance or disrespect.
3. Neither Islam nor any other religious faith should be used to justify despotism or to validate the suppression of civil society.
4. We must establish common ground.
5. Finally, we should continue to expand business, scientific, academic, cultural and religious contacts that provide a social bridge connecting the Muslim world to non-Muslims in the West.

The fifth recommendation could be rewritten — for Muslim / non-Muslim — substituting, “liberal / conservative” or “Democrat / Republican.” etc.