In essence, democracy means some individuals giving up some freedoms for the good of the whole, and so it is possible but unlikely that in a community of one million, 500,001 people can determine the fates of the other 499,499. I knew someone when I was at university who rejected democracy for this reason in favor of anarchy or self-determination, what many Americans call libertarianism. He felt that he alone knew what was best and right for him.
The problem with this philosophy is what I call the "trash in the river" result. If you throw your trash in the river, it is no longer your pronblem, it is out of your sight and mind, however it has now become someone else's problem. downstream. Similarly, swine flu in Mexico was a problem for the US, tsunami debri from Japan washed up all over North America and Indonesia's jungle fires forced people in Singapore to stay indoors.
Plato criticized democracy for, inter alia, two things. One was people's desire for shiny things so leaders can gain and maintain support by promising stuff : parades, national parks, tax cuts. The other was populism, where leaders speak to the zeitgeist than any need for tough medicine. He advocated an aristocracy lead by philosopher-kings, ie top-down but with a concern for the common good.
In general terms, this is also the best form of governance for a school. A director or the board cannot lead a school based on what people might like or on what is popular. I know of an independent school which is reported to spend more each year on its flowers than it does on professional development. Clearly the thinking is that this is appealing, that parents will be attracted by the school's apprearance and that this will lead to enrolment, school funds and school survival. Conversely, poorly-prepared teachers will not do well in the classroom, teachers with weaknesses which are not addressed will continue to be weak, and new programs or updates to programs cannot be implemented without professional development. An attractive entrance might bring in parents, but a lack of spending on professional development will cause then to leave. US colleges identified as overpriced or as in peril are frequently if not generaly associated with over-spending on buildings and facilities.
I have writtern elsewhere of a parent who sent her son to a school because of its boy-friendly program, but which then successfully lobbied to shorten its day. The school could not cut program so it reduced recess, leading to behavorial problems - mostly amongst its boys. This parent then went to another school for Middle School.
A former colleague told me about a Board Chair at her school who, over the objectives of the principal and faculty, canvassed parents who said overwhelmingly that they wanted an elementary science laboratory. Based on the vote, the Board then raised money for and invested tuition dollars in a lab. Within two years of the lab's inauguration, science was no longer a normal part of the regular daily program and was restricted to twice a week in the lab. Across the school, students' scientific interest and scientific thinking crashed, the Science Club went from 50 members to fewer than 10 and from dominating the regional Science Fair, the school now rarely wins more than one or two individual prizes.
And then there is the matter of the trojan horse.
The key factor in any school's governance and leadership decisions must be the Mission, and whether any action is consistent with and/or furthers that Mission, and while democracy is not inappropriate, the model of the philosopher-king is generally the better approach.
**Please leave your comments and queries below.**
Further reading
https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
No comments :
Post a Comment