In New York, A Tale of Two Cities (and Two Selves)

At the New Teacher Center conference a few years ago, I watched a master teacher model a great way to introduce students to new material. She projected a single image onto the screen in our conference room — it was Liberty Leading the People — and asked us a single question, over and over again: “What do you see?” Any observation (“I see a strong woman”) would prompt a second question from the instructor (“What’s your evidence?”). It was fun, and illuminating, and after ten minutes, based on nothing more than our own close observations, we were ready to study the French Revolution.

I was reminded of that workshop recently, when I saw someone on Twitter share the following picture:

Absent any context, what do you see? And what is your evidence?

Now let’s try another one, this time a 30-second video:

Or this one:

Again, what do you see? And what is your evidence?

If you’re someone who closely follows the news about school reform, you already know that the standing woman in the photograph is Eva Moskowitz, the founder of the Success Academy network of charter schools in New York City. You know that her salary — $475,000 a year — is twice that of the NYC Schools Chancellor. And you know that the video, and others like it, appeared shortly after Mayor Bill de Blasio announced he was canceling plans for three of her schools in New York City — and allowing virtually every other charter proposal to proceed.

It’s been disconcerting to watch this fight escalate — particularly because, as I’ve said repeatedly, issues of school choice are complicated. Nuance is required, and once again, nuance is nowhere to be found. But there’s another issue I see playing out in this fight, and that picture, and those videos, and it’s the one we really don’t want to talk about: the extent to which our current reform efforts are either redefining, or merely reinforcing, traditional notions of race, privilege, and power.

Indeed, the battle between the Matriarch and the Mayor isn’t really about co-locations, or charter schools, or the right of a parent to choose: it’s about the ongoing tension between our country’s delicate, dual allegiance to the core values of capitalism (consumption & competition) and the core values of democracy (conscience & consensus). It’s about a mayor’s clumsy attempt to swing the ideological pendulum back — perhaps too far — in the direction of democracy by making a political point. And it’s about whether it’s OK or a little shady that a white woman can make a personal fortune by dramatically raising the test scores of poor black and brown kids.

Personally, I think it’s a little shady. Not because schools like Success Academy are inherently wrong or misguided, but because it’s a vivid example of the ways in which our society in general, and public school reform in particular, has shifted its moral center to the capitalist side of the values continuum. In that world, competition is king, and to the victor goes the acres of diamonds.

This is an old tension, and an ongoing argument between two competing sides of ourselves. Plato first laid it out for us, in The Republic, when he said that liberty was democracy’s greatest good. What type of liberty will generate the greatest good, however, has been debated ever since, though philosophers have clarified the distinction. One vision, described as the liberty of the ancients, refers to the need for people to have a voice into the policies and politicians that govern their lives. The other, the liberty of the moderns, speaks to the right of each individual to pursue his or her own private interests free form state oversight or control.

I would suggest that the core of the current fight over school reform policies can be traced back to which side of the liberty equation speaks to you most. Consider the central rallying cry of the charter school movement: My child, My choice. Consider the rallying cry on the other side — less pithily stated, but the essence is, public schools are the foundation of a healthy democracy (gotta work on that messaging, guys). Or consider the words of Khari Shabazz, the principal of Success Academy’s fifth Harlem location, in an interview with a reporter from the New Yorker. “They are going to be competing for spaces in colleges and universities across the country,” he said of his students. “Coming from the socio-economic background that they’re coming from, it’s important to learn to be competitive. And none of us work for free.”

There’s nothing wrong with that statement; it’s simply a market-oriented approach to school change — a liberty of the moderns worldview, if you will — and it’s a view that’s very much in line with the larger sea change in American society. “Markets don’t just allocate goods,” says Harvard’s Michael Sandel. “They also express and promote certain attitudes towards the goods being exchanged. And what has occurred over the past thirty years is that without quite realizing it, we have shifted from having a market economy to being a market society. The difference is this: A market economy is a tool – a valuable and effective tool – for organizing productive activity. A market society is a way of life in which market values seep into every aspect of human endeavor. It’s a place where social relations are made over in the image of the market.”

For a society in which social relations are deeply rooted in a shared history of race-based inequality and oppression, will the application of market thinking to public schools result in the erosion, or the entrenchment, of those legacies? Indeed, the center of the fight in NYC seems to be about what will happen when the considerable wealth and influence of a capitalist economy begins to remake the institution that was founded to be the ultimate safeguard of our democratic society. It’s about what happens when educators start to make private-sector salaries by improving achievement in communities that have been left behind. And it’s about what happens when two increasingly entrenched groups of people debate the future of public education from perspectives that can sometimes feel mutually exclusive.

This is what makes modern school reform so complicated. It isn’t that one side is evil and out to ruin America, and the other is righteous and out to save it — though both sides have claimed exactly that; it’s that the values people are working from to solve our most intractable problems are, in many ways, diametrically opposed.

Which takes me back to that picture, which feels like a Rorshach test for the values you bring to this debate. Does the imagery make you uncomfortable, even angry? Or does it seem like much ado about nothing, or perhaps even a positive representation of precisely what you want to be fighting for?

Knowing where we stand on the values question doesn’t immediately lend itself to any clear-cut, system-wide solutions. But perhaps it can clarify what we’re actually fighting over, and why any effort to find the happy medium between our democratic and our capitalistic selves may prove as elusive as the search for Plato’s ideal republic — now 2,500 years long, and counting.

(Extra)Ordinary People

There’s an anecdote the Calhoun School’s Steve Nelson likes to share when he speaks to teachers and parents about the purpose of education. “We should think of our children as wildflower seeds in an unmarked package,” he says. “We can’t know what will emerge. All we can do is plant them in fertile soil, give them plenty of water and sunlight, and wait patiently to see the uniqueness of their beauty.”

At a time when too many students are still being planted in highly cultivated gardens – trimmed and pruned to resemble each other closely – it is incumbent upon all of us to stand on the side of the unmarked package. And at a time when we stray further and further from our democratic roots – from Chicago to DC – it is essential we heed the words of Mission Hill founder Deborah Meier, who reminds us that “democracy rests on having respect for the judgment of ordinary people.”

These two visions – of a school filled with unmarked seeds, and a democracy fueled by ordinary citizens – come together in the tenth and final chapter of A Year at Mission Hill. We see a montage of children in various states of joy. We hear teachers sing the words of poet Kahlil Gibran at their school’s graduation ceremony (“Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.”). And we watch principal Ayla Gavins tell her staff she will refuse to administer new testing requirements under the Obama administration’s Race to the Top program.

As Mission Hill plans for the challenges of a new school year, we should pay attention to the principles its principal is willing to risk her career to protect: Trust and transparency. Experience. Variation. Autonomy. And, as she puts it, “celebrating the humanness in all of us, and trying to build on human potential and not stifle it.”

Some will have watched this series and concluded that schools like Mission Hill are little more than inspiring one-offs, with a singular vision of schooling that can never be scaled. Yet there are already hundreds of schools – from the Expeditionary Learning network to the New York Performance Standards Consortium – that assess their students similarly (and a handful of states that are following suit). There are already thousands of teachers with the ability, given the right supports and surroundings, to be just as masterful as the ones we’ve observed at Mission Hill. And there are already streamlined structures in place, from the pilot school model in Boston to the statewide funding system in Vermont, that are empowering public schools to be more innovative, inclusive, and effective.

To be fair, it makes sense that people are searching for the best way to scale the ideas in a school like Mission Hill. After all, the more children that can have experiences like the ones we’ve watched over the course of this series, the better off our society will be. But the best way to spread ideas in a democracy is not by scaling up, like McDonald’s, buy by scaling across, like farmers markets. In the first example, the goal is to make everything so uniform that walking into any store anywhere in the world should feel – and taste – exactly the same. In the second, the goal is to create a forum for people to access what will make them healthier, and to come together in a spirit of community. As a result, every farmers market shares certain common design principles. And each one also demonstrates the myriad variations in how those principles can get applied.

A Year at Mission Hill is a visual testament to the pedagogical power of the second approach. It’s a place that treats the learning process the same way a skilled gardener would nurture a package of wildflowers: by preparing the soil, planting the seeds, and waiting for the unique beauty to emerge. And it’s a place that reminds us that when you invest deeply in the capacity of ordinary adults to do their jobs well, they are capable of extraordinary things.

“The freedom of teachers to make decisions about their classrooms and their lives is essential, “ Meier adds. “The whole point of an education is to help you learn how to exercise judgment – and you can’t do that if the expert adults in your school are not allowed to exercise theirs.”

(This article originally appeared in Education Week.)

The Wisdom of Crowds, Untapped

The decision by DC Council Education Committee Chairman David Catania to hire an outside law firm to craft school reform legislation is an awful one, worthy of serious public rebuke – and for two interrelated reasons.

The first is that hiring a small team of lawyers is the least likely path towards achieving imaginative and effective policy. Despite public stereotypes of the profession, K-12 education is a complex web of cognitive, social, emotional, language, ethical and physical challenges and opportunities. Its systemic barriers to change are as myriad as our complicated shared memories of what schooling is (and is not). And it’s a field in the midst of a major paradigmatic shift – away from the traditional notion that a student’s job is to adjust to the school, and towards the radical notion that a school’s job is to adjust to the student.

So while it’s true that the final stages of policymaking involve a certain amount of legalese, Mr. Catania’s belief that this process should start with a team of lawyers – and not end with one – speaks to a fundamental missed opportunity, and the second reason it’s a bad idea: We are ignoring the wisdom of our own community, and the chance to imagine DC’s future education policy as a city-wide, regenerative civic event.

Of course, surfacing and applying the insights of our own community is not something we do often – perhaps because so many of us secretly agree with Thomas Carlyle, who famously said: “I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”

The thing is, Carlyle was wrong. As New Yorker business columnist James Surowiecki writes in his 2004 bestseller The Wisdom of Crowds, “If you put together a big enough and diverse enough group of people and ask them to make decisions affecting matters of general interest, that group’s decision will, over time, be intellectually superior to the isolated individual.”

In other words, when our imperfect individual judgments are aggregated in the right way, our collective intelligence is often extremely helpful. That’s why Surowiecki suggests, “we should stop hunting and ask the crowd. Chances are, it knows.”

In fact, that’s exactly what Mr. Catania is doing – hunting. It’s an impulse so common sociologists have given it its own name: “Chasing the Expert,” which references our tendency when facing difficult decisions to search for that one person (or small group of people) who will have the answer.

What Surowiecki discovered was that the opposite was true, but only if the core conditions of making a good large-group decision were present: diversity, independence, and a particular form of decentralization. “Paradoxically,” he writes, “the best way for a group to be smart is for each person in it to think and act as independently as possible.”

Imagine if instead of seeking outside funds to hire a small team of lawyers, Catania had announced a citywide initiative in which the best wisdom around crowdsourcing would be utilized in order to help the entire community arrive at a thoughtful, informed collective decision around the future of education policy? After all, politics is about the impact of government on the everyday lives of citizens. Why do we think the way to do it well is by distancing ourselves from the voices of the citizens themselves?

Indeed, the most damning implication of Mr. Catania’s decision is his inattention to the mechanisms of democracy, to the wisdom of the community, and to the regenerative power of combining both in an effort to improve public education. As Surowiecki writes, democracy “is not a way of solving cognition problems or a mechanism for revealing the public interest. But it is a way of dealing with (if not solving once and for all) the most fundamental questions of cooperation and coordination: How do we live together? How can living together work to our mutual benefit?”

“The decisions that democracies make may not always demonstrate the wisdom of the crowd,” Surowiecki concedes. “But the decision to make them democratically does.”

(This article also appeared in the Washington Post.)

A Part of Us is Dying in Chicago

I can’t reconcile the deep sense of community that filmmakers Amy and Tom Valens have captured in their 10-part video series about a year in the life of a public school in Boston, with the painful public clashes we’re witnessing in Chicago – where 54 of the city’s schools will soon be shuttered.

Indeed, although the nation’s attention is fixed on the historic fight for marriage equality in the U.S. Supreme Court, a part of us is dying in the Windy City – and no one in the mainstream media seems to care.

No one disputes the fact that Chicago, like so many American cities, has real problems to solve. Population is down. Money is tight. School choice is growing. Tough decisions must be made.

By the same token, can anyone dispute that we have reason to worry about the state of our civic discourse when Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, allows the announcement of something as contentious as 54 school closings while he is on a ski trip in Utah? And can anyone blame local community leaders who wonder what to think of the Mayor’s plan to hold additional hearings on the issue? “If nobody is going to be heard at the hearings, what’s the use of having the hearings?” said Marshall Hatch, a local pastor. “If it’s a done deal, then stop wasting everybody’s time.”

A part of us is dying in Chicago because so many of us are so increasingly convinced that on the most important issues of the day, we are voiceless. We know changes need to be made – and we are increasingly abandoning, or giving little more than lip service to, our historic commitment to make those changes democratically, deliberately, and delicately. The issues in Chicago are complicated, from tax policies to population declines to legacies of race-based oppression, but the willingness of elected officials to confront those challenges in a spirit of co-construction with their constituents has become as laughable as, well, the Cubs winning the World Series.

Which takes me back to A Year at Mission Hill, and the ways in which this series is quietly and consistently demonstrating the generative power of a community in which everyone’s voice is valued and actively solicited. Mission Hill is a public school with charter-like autonomy. Its teachers are all unionized, and everything the district requires of its other schools, it requires of Mission Hill. Yet this is a school where, as teacher Jenerra Williams puts it, “We take the state test, we prepare for the state test, and we don’t get consumed by the state test.” This is a school where we see teachers repeatedly working together to diagnose, support, and engage kids. And this is a school where we see highly committed and skilled adults in an ongoing dialogue with each other about the only question that matters: “Of all the things we can do together, what must we do?”

Watching what’s happening in Chicago makes we worry about the extent to which we remain committed to the “we” in that question – We the people. What’s happening there is a national tragedy, and an example of what happens when powerful people recall the first half of the famous quote by Winston Churchill – “Democracy is the worst form of government” – and conveniently forget the second half – “except all the others that have been tried.”

As Mission Hill demonstrates, democracy is messy, it is inefficient, and it is slow. But as I watch its students practice calligraphy and study honeybees, as I listen to its teachers share strategies and struggle to improve – and as I ride my bike past the throngs of demonstrators for and against marriage equality outside the Supreme Court – I’m reminded that examples of our inextinguishable commitment to the spirit of individual liberty and equality are all around us.

Mayor Emanuel, are you watching?

(This article originally appeared in Education Week.)

Should Schools be More or Less Democratic?

Like most parents of a young child, I’m trying to decide which environment will be the best for my son when he enters a public school for the first time next fall. At nearly every open house my wife and I attend, cheerful administrators and educators tout the advantage of being a “participatory” school, and of “giving children the opportunity to learn and work in groups.” Send your child here, they tell us, and he’ll acquire a core set of democratic skills – from working collaboratively to acting empathetically – that will help him successfully negotiate our increasingly interconnected global community.

Sounds great, I say – until I open my Sunday New York Times and read a cover story warning against the rise of a new type of groupthink. “Most of us now work in teams,” writes author Susan Cain, “in offices without walls, for managers who prize people skills above all. Lone geniuses are out. Collaboration is in. But there’s a problem with this view. Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption.”

Whom should we trust? Have we overvalued democratic skills like collaboration and shared decision-making to our own detriment? And, in the end, should our schools be more or less democratic?

The answer, of course, depends on which values and behaviors we associate with that word – democratic. And the reality is that too often, too many of us – from local educators to federal policymakers – define it in a way that limits our collective capacity to understand what a healthy, high-functioning learning community really looks like, and requires.

In many schools, “democracy” is a subject students study in social studies, or via a special add-on program, or, if your school still has such a thing, in civics class. It’s something schools and districts seek separate grant money to support. And it’s something that, in the end, you learn about – whether it’s the three branches of government or the legislative process or the twenty-seven Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Call it “Democracy via Content.”

In other schools, the word stands for something very different – a philosophy of human interaction that guides how adult decisions are made and how students interact with each other. In these places, what matters most is how the classroom itself is structured (or unstructured), and the messiness of the approach becomes the central message about what it all means. Call it “Democracy via Process.”

Problems arise whenever we overvalue either approach. In an environment where democracy is seen solely as a subject, children memorize their rights but never practice them. And in a classroom where democracy is seen primarily as a process, children sit in circles or work in teams – regardless of whether or not those methods are helping them learn more effectively.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan underscored this point at a recent White House forum. “The goals of traditional civic education – to increase civic knowledge, voter participation, and volunteerism– are all still fundamental,” he asserted. “But the new generation of civic learning puts students at the center. It includes both learning and practice — not just rote memorization of names, dates, and processes.” Harvard’s Tony Wagner agrees, noting that there is a “happy convergence between the skills most needed in the global knowledge economy and those most needed to keep our democracy safe and vibrant.”

In a healthy school, educators know which skills – from collaboration to self-direction – their students must develop to be successful as adults, and which combination of content and processes will get them there. Some days, that might mean working in groups; other days, it might mean listening to an old-fashioned lecture. And every day, it means school leaders are aware of the paradoxical human impulse at the center of any democratic society – a point Ms. Cain makes in her Times article. “Most humans have two contradictory impulses,” she writes. “We love and need one another, yet we crave privacy and autonomy.”

A democratic learning environment honors both needs. That’s why from now on, the first thing I’ll ask at the open house is if the school understands which specific skills it wants to cultivate in its students, and why. I’ll ask which processes the teachers will use to engage kids in their own learning, and why. And when I find a school with clear answers and a clear plan for developing both “choice and voice,” I’ll know where to send my son.

Epicenter

Here, in Léogâne, halfway between Port-au-Prince and the epicenter of the 2010 earthquake that unleashed Haiti’s latest round of devastation, death and hardship, Doug Taylor is building houses.

An Indiana native in his 25th year of working for Habitat for Humanity, Taylor is tanned, serious and unshaven, with sandy straight hair that hangs as though it has been weighted down with stones. On a sunny day in December 2011, Taylor greets a visitor before 155 brand-new homes, all arranged in orderly rows, all built to a uniform size and shape, and all painted bright colors of pink, blue or green – a Haitian Levittown.

By the end of 2012, Taylor and his colleagues – a mixture of fellow Habitat employees, local builders, and members of the families that will eventually be moving in – will have built 500 houses on a patch of land which, like much of the surrounding area, forms a flat basin ringed by rugged mountains.

Surveying the site, including one house bearing former president Jimmy Carter’s signature – just a month earlier, he and his wife Rosalynn were part of a volunteer force that erected more than 100 homes in a week – Taylor feels both satisfied and uncertain. “This project is unlike anything I’ve ever been a part of,” he explains. “Most of our work involves building single homes for families that are professionally employed – a way of anchoring those professions and communities. Here we’re building for families that live on less than 50 cents a day. And 500 homes is a small town. There are a lot of grand visions – a health clinic, a couple of schools, and supposedly Nike is committed to doing a recreational field. We’ve got parks space, green space, but at this point those are just suggestions from the community’s input. We don’t yet have the partners to do all of that. And anyway, the biggest problems in a project like this are the ones we don’t usually have to face – how will this community make decisions? How will safety be secured? Where will the jobs and the food and the transportation come from – and what will unite these families in common cause?”

As he speaks, a stout dark-skinned woman named Mari approaches from behind and envelops Taylor in a surprise hug.  He turns to greet her, and she smiles widely from underneath the brim of her large black bonnet. “THIS is my house,” she says, before asking that a visitor take her photograph. She poses for the camera, leaning against the broom she was using to clean sawdust off her small porch.

“Mari is the president of the local organization representing the families,” Taylor says. “She’s the one making sure all decisions unfold in a participatory style. It’s really inspiring – and the level of experience most Haitians have with making decisions democratically is a story most people simply aren’t aware of. At the same time, there are so many different pieces of building a healthy community that need to be thought through, and that all influence each other.

“Five years from now,” he confessed over the din of hammers and saws, “we’re going to visit this site and feel one of two things: it’s either going to be our greatest success, or our biggest failure.”

* * *

Even before the earthquake that struck on January 12, 2010, killing tens of thousands and leaving millions homeless, Haiti was one of the poorest, least functional states in the world.  Its unemployment rate tops 70%. The average income is between $600-$700 a year.  The judicial system is corrupt and inefficient; as many as 80% of the country’s prisoners have never been formally charged with a crime. And for the bulk of its history, Haiti’s national leaders have been autocratic, self-serving, and, in time, both violent and violently overthrown.

The nature of Haiti’s challenges is apparent to any first-time traveler to the country. On the plane out of Miami are a mixture of aid workers, missionaries, and returning nationals. Even the plane itself is in need of modernization; there are still ashtrays in the armrests, and as it lands, a giant piece of the overhead compartment comes off and crashes in the aisle, exposing someone’s happenstance effort to re-affix it prior to departure with glue and tape.

Outside the airport, which has all been rebuilt since the earthquake, the extent of the devastation becomes clear. Just beyond the windows lining the long immigration corridor leading to customs are the remnants of the former airport – now condemned, its sides marked in red spray paint for “demolio”, a faded Air France sign peeking out from behind a heaping pile of rubble, 10 million cubic meters of which were left in the quake’s aftermath, and only half of which have been removed.

At the bottom of an escalator near the final stage of customs, a band plays festive Kompa music. The musicians wear red Digicel t-shirts (“Roam with the bigger, better network”), and point to a CD they’d like visitors to buy. Amidst the clamor, no one notices the accident that follows an abrupt stop of one of the escalators. An elderly white couple is sent tumbling. A Haitian woman yells for the people in front to pay attention – but the music is too loud.

The shuttle weaves through piles of wreckage that have yet to be cleared, past corrugated tin-roofed storage shelters on the right and patchy grass on the left where a single helicopter and a rusting airplane are parked, and past a long queue of passengers waiting to board a battered plane marked World Atlantic Air.

Inside the customs tent are scores of ceiling fans, spinning slowly as all arrivals are gradually herded into lines. Signs on the wall in Creole trump the importance of clean drinking water, and of breastfeeding.

Just outside the terminal, a swarm of frantic faces fill up the arrival space to jockey for position, pleas for bread replaced by a request to carry someone’s bags. Piles of cinderblocks make unintentional obstacle courses on the airport exit road. Shells of the former airport line the right side of the road, and everywhere the earth is a petrified sea of stone, rubble and concrete.

At one point, the car’s driver stops to get some water and snacks. The convenience store’s shelves are thinly stocked, its fryer long empty. The bottled water and snack bar are both locally made – a sign of real progress. Just outside, a dusty pregnant woman sits expressionless on the ground, her legs apart. A cardboard box sits between them, on top of which is a stack of Ramen noodle packages for sale. Waves of uniformed schoolchildren pass by the woman, neither taking notice of the other. As the driver heads back to the tinted-window SUV, he passes a young boy begging for money, wiping car windows with a dirty cloth. The doors close and the car speeds off.

* * *

It was also here, in Haiti, that the only successful slave rebellion in history occurred, leading to the birth of a newly independent nation that promised a full embodiment of the Enlightenment vision of a more just, equitable society.  In this way Haiti’s story is not just its own, but also a story at the epicenter of all of Western civilization, still struggling to understand what it means to be free.

First, though, before there was ever a free nation of Haiti, there was the island of Hispaniola, a place that served as ground zero for European colonialism in the Americas. And fittingly, that era began with the arrival of Christopher Columbus, who, in 1492, left behind a small group of Spanish sailors and renamed the island La Española – the local Taino Indians had called it Ayiti, or land of mountains. Within twenty years, the island had become a highly lucrative source of sugarcane – and the indigenous population had been almost entirely wiped out by conquest, servitude and disease. By the mid-sixteenth century, any remnants of Taino culture had been permanently extinguished.

The Spaniards were soon distracted by bigger riches – the Aztec and Inca empires awaited – but in their stead other European powers laid their claims, and in 1697, the western portion of the island was officially ceded to France. Soon, the newly crowned colony of Saint-Domingue became France’s most profitable outpost – yielding sugarcane in the basins, and coffee in the mountains. Before long, it became the centerpiece of the Atlantic slave system, and before its slaves won their independence, Saint-Domingue received as many as one million of them from Africa – accounting for as much as 10% of the entire Atlantic slave trade.

As the eighteenth century neared its conclusion, revolution was in the air – from France to the nearby American colonies – and the spirit proved contagious. “People here are drunk with liberty,” wrote a deputy in Saint-Domingue at the time. “The peril is great; it is near.” Initially, that spirit of liberty was limited to free people of color on the island, but before long both free and enslaved inhabitants were referencing the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and its notion that “men are born and remain equal in rights.”

In August 1791, a series of nighttime meetings of slaves took place in the northern region of the colony. By month’s end, a makeshift army of 2,000 slaves traveled from plantation to plantation, killing the owners, burning the houses and cane fields, and spreading the promise of freedom. A few weeks after the uprising, an insurgent was captured by white soldiers. In his pocket was a pamphlet from France, filled with utopian visions of a more egalitarian future.

Two years later, France shocked the world by granting the slaves of their most profitable colony their freedom – and a charismatic ex-slave turned military leader named Touissant Louverture assumed the task of protecting, and defining, what this newly won liberty would look like.

It was a long, slow birth. Louverture felt the only way a new nation of former slaves could survive in the eighteenth-century global economy was by maintaining the plantation hierarchy that had proved so lucrative for France. He imposed martial order, demanding that people “blindly obey the laws.” And he kept a close watch abroad, where the egalitarian fervor of the French Revolution was subsiding, where exiled plantation owners were lobbying their government for a return to the previous order, and where an ambitious general named Napoleon eventually set his sights on recapturing his country’s Caribbean outpost.

Louverture’s response, in 1801, was to draft Haiti’s first Constitution, and decree both that Saint-Domingue was still a “part of the French empire,” and that it must also be governed by a set of “particular laws” – chief among them that “servitude is permanently abolished.”

Napoleon responded by sending fifty warships and 80,000 French soldiers. Over the next three years, the ex-slaves and their former masters fought a gruesome, vengeful war. Eventually, however, the will of the insurgents, coupled with the devastating effects of disease on the French soldiers, led France to formally surrender.

On January 1, 1804, the free nation of Haiti celebrated its formal birth by vowing to negate not just the era of French colonialism, but also the entire legacy of European aggression in the Americas. Louverture was not present for the celebration – he had died a year earlier in captivity – but his final words reflected the spirit of the new nation he had fought to secure. “In overthrowing me, you have cut down in Saint-Domingue only the trunk of the tree of liberty of the blacks,” he vowed. “It will grow back from the roots, because they are deep and numerous.” A Frenchwoman present during the years of war agreed. “We kill many of them,” she wrote to a family member back in France, “and they seem to reproduce themselves out of their ashes.”

* * *

On the aging French veranda of the Hotel Oloffson, a place where, as the British author Graham Greene once wrote, “you expected a witch to open the door to you or a maniac butler, with a bat dangling from the chandelier behind him,” Benaja Antoine wants to talk about public education in Haiti.

Antoine is fresh from the ferry that shuttles people between Port-au-Prince and La Gonâve, the island on which he grew up. A young father of twin girls, Antoine is working with members of the local community who are creating collaborative social businesses, the profits from which will fund their schools. “For many, this is the first time they’re going to try something like this,” he explained in a soft, confident voice. “People feel a lot of hesitation, so we’re going to work on that and do what we can to get them in a position where they feel more confident.”

To build this confidence, Antoine is working with the Grameen Creative Lab (GCL), an organization that was founded just a year before the earthquake. GCL is led in Haiti by Claudine Francois. “The difference between rich and poor here is not wealth but opportunity,” she suggested one day in Grameen’s conference room, a Spartan setup with a long rectangular table and chairs, a water cooler in the corner, and a single framed oil painting of pumpkins on the wall — each Independence Day, Haitians serve themselves pumpkin soup, a local delicacy they were formerly required to serve their French masters. “The poor are the world’s greatest entrepreneurs, but it’s a type of entrepreneurship that’s more concerned with survival than innovation. We need to change that by giving them resources, showing them how to leverage those resources, and getting out of the way. People talk a lot in this country of the old proverb, ‘Give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and he’ll never be hungry.’ I’m sick of that saying here in Haiti. We have thousands of fish, and it’s still not enough. Now what?”

Francois returned to her native country from work in Africa because she believed GCL was committed to answering that question – and that the answer was social business. “We’ve all been taught to believe that any sort of economic growth will eventually trickle down to benefit the poor as well. We believe in economic growth, and we want to make it work for everyone by creating a different business model that is not just about private interest but also collective benefit. This type of social business is not supposed to replace traditional business, merely to coexist with it – and to expand our idea of what it can mean to ‘do business’.”

Francois knows of what she speaks. Tall, strong, and sharply dressed in a pink blouse and gold jewelry, Francois’s career began in the private sector, and her experiences are what led her back not just to development, but to a deeper understanding of what people need to become more effective. “When I was younger, I think I made the mistake of letting arrogance dictate my behavior; I was convinced I had all the answers, and so I didn’t listen well to what other people were saying. Our work at GCL and in communities like La Gonâve is the opposite – and what I’ve learned is that when you start a relationship by asking questions and listening – not fixing problems and talking – your business efforts improve. But this is not how things are generally done in Haiti. This country is a catalog of unfinished projects and failures. We need to start working together in a different way, and we need our main decision-makers to do the same.”

Antoine agrees. Like many Haitians, his own education was limited to high school – 90% of Haiti’s schools are privately run, a reflection of the country’s almost complete lack of infrastructure – but in the years since he’s developed a deep understanding of democratic decision-making practices, as well as strategies for how to help people experience them. Today, he works for Haiti Partners, a faith-based organization that helps schools and non-profits use democratic processes to create healthier learning environments. A former teacher himself, Antoine had spent several years working at a “really progressive school” on La Gonâve. “Every single decision at that school needed to have the approval of the staff,” he recalls proudly. “And so everyone had a voice to say what they think. I was happy, but four years ago that started to change, and our leaders started to make more decisions by themselves. That cut our feelings, and I left. Now I get to work with lots of teachers, and help them get things right. But there’s a lot of work to do, because there’s still a lot of corporal punishment in the system here, and a lot of memorization. If you don’t memorize something, you get beat.”

It’s fitting that Antoine would describe his challenges at the Hotel Oloffson, which has been at the center of so much of Haiti’s modern history, and which reflects the country’s particular mixture of local and foreign cultural influences. The main courtyard is filled with voodoo sculptures in which pieces of wood, metal and glass are mixed with personal items like eyeglasses and clothing to form a bizarre cadre of creatures, babies and monsters. The paint is slightly chipped on the walls and ceiling, and the floors provide a colorful checkerboard under the mixture of foreigners and well-to-do Haitians there for a leisurely midweek lunch.

The hotel was constructed in the late 19th century as a private home for a wealthy Haitian family. The father of that family, Tiresias Sam, was president from 1896 to 1902 – a time when U.S. economic and military interests in Haiti were intensifying. In 1915, Sam’s son followed in his footsteps, but it was a period of massive unrest, and after just five months on the job, the son was literally torn apart by an angry mob.

Haiti’s period of instability provided space for America’s period of opportunity, and on July 28, 1915, the USS Washington delivered the first U.S. Marines into the harbor of Port-au-Prince. The American soliders would stay for another twenty years, ostensibly to ensure order and usher in a more democratic era, but in reality the main objective was to make Haiti safe for corporate investment, and to establish it as a strategic military outpost.

For the duration of the occupation, the Oloffson was used as a U.S. military hospital, and Haitians were left to confront the realization of their biggest fear – that a foreign power would return and deny them their hard-fought prize of self-determination. As one Haitian politician put it at the time, “The white soldiers had come to defile our independence: where were the ancestors? Finally the ancestors were no more.”

In truth, Haiti was an easy target. Deeply saddled by an indemnity it agreed to pay France as recompense for the lost profits of exiled plantation owners, Haiti was paying as much as 80% of its total budget to its former colonial masters by the time the Americans arrived. For all of the nineteenth century, Haiti struggled through an ever-weakening cycle of civil wars and forceful usurpations of power. And within a few years of the U.S. occupation, young Haitian men found themselves back in shackles, working forcibly on the construction of new roads, enduring the scorn of racist American soldiers, and watching Haiti’s founding laws get revised to make the country more hospitable for foreign investment.

In the end, however, a trend that began during the days of Louverture proved equally resilient throughout the American occupation: a locally governed counter-plantation economy in which Haitians farmed small plots of land, pooled resources and responsibilities, and weathered the inefficiencies of the central state. As historian Laurent Dubois writes, this system of local governance “developed largely in the absence of – indeed, in opposition to – the Haitian government. Unable to transform the national political system, rural residents found another solution: they created an egalitarian system without a state.”

Today, more than seventy years after the last American soldiers left in 1935, Benaja Antoine’s work at Haiti Partners continues to build on this legacy of local decision-making. His organization’s newest project is a new school that will open in September 2012. “We want it to be a motor of development for the whole community,” he said. “The idea is to have the school serve as a residency for training, and a learning hub for other schools. I believe education is the absolute key – it’s the only way to change things over the long-term. And there’s great creative potential here – but it needs to start doing something other than figuring out how to survive. Most teachers here still don’t have any real formal training – many never finished high school themselves – and half our young people aren’t even attending school. So how do you take an underfunded system and end up having enough schools to meet the needs of the people?”

After lunch, Antoine hops into a car to visit the school’s construction site, a mile up the hill from the home of Haiti Partners’ co-founder, an American expat named John Engle.  The road leads slowly out of the city, past a giant intersection piled high with discarded wicker furniture, past gas stations and women with baskets on their heads filled with bananas, carrots and avocadoes, and past half-built cinderblock structures and piles of rubble alongside new buildings under construction. Rebar wires shoot up and out of the cinderblocks – a sign of what’s to come, like frozen fountains.

Gradually the car makes its way out of the central city and up into the hills, past tent cities and an iron bridge stretching across a barren river of trash and debris. “The UN presence here is still very controversial,” Antoine explained. “There are many people who feel that it feeds the previous dysfunctional system, and keeps Haiti stuck in the past. So many people are so desperate here. In the end, is the UN helping us address those issues and become more independent – or is it keeping us stuck in the wrong worldview?”

Along the way Antoine stops briefly at the Big Star Market, one of Haiti’s more upscale grocery stores. Inside, well-dressed women complete their daily grocery shopping amidst well-stacked shelves, cool air-conditioning and quiet. A man outside guards the parking lot with a shotgun slung over his shoulder. Antoine pushes a cart of beer and soda to the checkout aisle, past holiday displays of Ferrero Rocher chocolate, copies of L’Express magazine, and large bags of Pedigree dog food.

The last half-mile of the drive is extremely rough, like climbing a mountain of stones. As the car nears the top, the landscape of white and pink gravel – all generated by hand-swung pickaxes that made the roadway real – gives way to a denser tropical feel; tree roots stick out from the starkly-cut sides of the roadway, and lemon trees mix with large ferns. The temperature drops as well.

The car pulls past a large red gate and John hops into the car for the final drive to the school, where workmen are digging a trench around its main building. It’s a beautiful patch of land, overlooking all of downtown Port-au-Prince and the bay, and pointed west, toward Léogâne, and toward the quake’s epicenter.

John Engle first moved to Haiti in 1991, after making a two-year commitment to join the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education. He is clean-shaven with thin eyeglasses and a black Casio watch. Always neatly dressed, on the day of Antoine’s visit he wears blue jeans, sneakers, and a white short-sleeved shirt covered with hand-sewn patterns of local farmers. “I first heard the organization’s founder, Tony Campolo, speak when I was 19, and I immediately liked his philosophy,” John said. “It was a vision of evangelicalism that was about empowerment, that was about collaborative inquiry, and that was highly culturally sensitive. I grew up working for my dad, selling electric typewriters and other forms of office equipment. I had gotten married at 20 – and divorced at 25. So as I look back, I think what happened is that I quickly had a comfortable life, but it was hollow. Those years before I moved to Haiti and got divorced, I was increasingly ready to do something radically different.”

The end of Engle’s prior professional and personal life coincided. “I left my dad’s company to try my own entrepreneurial venture – importing low-tech products in Taiwan. I was struggling to get the business off the ground, I was mired in debt – and then I found out my wife was having another affair.”

Within months, Engle was living alone. He worked briefly as a district sales manager for Panasonic to pay off his debts. Two years later, debts paid, he boarded a plane to Haiti. That was 1991.

Engle remembers the day of the 2010 earthquake well. “We were packing to leave the country, and we had just added the second floor of our house, all of which was done in the traditional way – with lots of concrete. The first tremor lasted for 40 seconds, and I remember thinking I didn’t realize a concrete house could shake that badly.

When the first tremor stopped, John and his family were fine; the house had stood. They wondered how bad the devastation had been elsewhere. Then they looked down from their veranda, toward the city below. “All we could see was dust rising out of the valley. Then, wave upon wave of people rose out, too, covered in dust and blood, and we realized this was a nation-changing event.”

* * *

The next day, in a different part of the city, on the campus of the L’ecole Supérieure Infotronique D’Haiti – or ESIH – John Engle and Benaja Antoine join an eclectic mix of Haitians and foreigners for OpenHaiti, a meeting that had been billed as an open-source exploration of “things worth doing.”

Considered one of Haiti’s best universities, ESIH greets its visitors with a giant message hanging on the school’s dreamsicle-colored walls: “Embody the inconceivable is what makes the world change. WE, Haitians, can do it when WE start making hard choices.”

The meeting takes place in a computer lab on the top floor of a building that overlooks both the central Bay of Port-au-Prince and a labyrinth of neighboring shelters and homes that stretch all the way to the nearest mountain. The shelters and school are separated by a single ten-foot wall. On the other side, women hang drying laundry as children arrive home from school to help out.

The room is arranged to house two concentric circles of chairs. A screen is at the front, and a young Finnish man named Jaakko is working feverishly to secure a livestream of the event. Jaakko is a passionate believer in the “power of organizing out in the open, and of organizing without organizations. The open-source paradigm has already revolutionized software programming,” he explains to a new arrival, “yet it does not exist as widely in international development efforts. Why?” As he speaks, one of the event’s organizers, a graduate student in computer science named Alain, works on the final bits of technological troubleshooting as people start to find seats or stand a few more moments just outside the room on the narrow railway overlooking the city below.

One of the early arrivals is Steven Werlin, an American who has lived in Haiti off and on for more than a decade, and who currently serves as the regional manager of an extreme poverty program for an organization called Fonkoze. He has the body of a long-distance runner, and on this day he wears a tan shirt, pants and flip-flops. His eyes are intelligent, focused and calm, and he wears oval-shaped glasses. “The economy here looks entirely different from other places because the largest piece of it is entirely informal. Most of my days are spent seeing stunningly poor families working their way to near-poverty. We help them get to a space where they can manage their own path forward. What I’ve found is that people need assets, first and foremost, they need training in how to use those assets, and they need ongoing coaching as they learn to think of their lives in new, more promising ways.”

Seated nearby is another American, a young woman named Loralei. Until yesterday, Loralei was an employee of one of the many organizations doing relief work in Haiti since the earthquake. The day before was her last day, however; her job is now filled by a young Haitian man. “I think it’s really important when doing development work to be aware of your position,” she says. “My organization has been really careful to build in a process that will make it sustainable.”

A native of Vermont, Loralei has long wavy black hair, a silver nose ring, large cobalt blue eyes, and big silver earrings with a single turquoise stone. She hugs her teeth with her lips when she speaks, and her voice is both husky and soft. You must lean in to hear her, and you want to; intense and thoughtful, in the past eighteen months she has seen things most of us have not.

“I arrived shortly after the earthquake,” she began. “Before I’d been working for the Vermont Medical Response Team, and although I’d lived around the world growing up, I’d never experienced life in a post-emergency zone. There was rubble everywhere, and in the main camp I worked at, there were over 60,000 people, all living on a former golf course.”

Initially, Loralei joined the displaced by erecting her own tent; she lived in it for ten months before getting an apartment nearby. “I realized it was probably a good idea to get out of relief mode and more into development mode,” she explained. As part of her work, Loralei and others focused on camp management, education programs, and successfully relocating people back into their communities.  “Some of the education and training work is a challenge because there’s a mindset here that ‘free’ means there is no quality. Being accustomed to scarcity makes people feel things like these training programs – on issues like microcredit and small-business skills – are too good to be true. But now there are just 26,000 people living in that camp, and several of the public squares in Port-au-Prince that had been tent cities since the earthquake are now gone.

“I’ve learned that the best and worst feature of Haiti is that there is no “normal” here,” she continued. “There are so many deep-rooted injustices in Haitian society that it’s going to be a long haul. Now that we’re two years removed from the quake, it’s really interesting to see the new types of investments that are coming here – but at the same time, as money is being released, I keep wondering, ‘What is the model of investment going forward?’ Is it the right model, or merely the one that is available? So this moment in Haitian history is one of great opportunity – and great vulnerability.”

The meeting begins with an official welcome in French from Marlene Sam, ESIH’s director of external relationships, and herself a member of a same prominent family whose misfortunes sparked the start of the U.S. occupation. Engle follows by explaining the basic principles of open space technology, and invites people to propose discussion groups that relate to things worth doing in Haiti. People propose workshops in Creole and French, and volunteers provide real-time translations. Then the groups disperse to dive into issues as varied as addressing agricultural sustainability – Haiti has experienced an almost total level of deforestation – to identifying ways to take advantage of the fact that, despite such high unemployment, over 80% of the Haitian population owns a mobile phone.

After the meeting wraps up, Alain leans against the railway outside the meeting room; it’s now dusk, and the lights of the city are slowly coming on in specks underneath him, while below the railing fellow students mill about in the school’s central courtyard. “I believe this sort of gathering is what we need most in Haiti,” he says. “Everyone needs to come together to build something together – to build a better Haiti. And the first step is getting together.”

* * *

The next morning, Engle and Antoine are back on the hill where their school is being built, preparing to facilitate a community meeting; for all aspects of the school’s construction and development, local residents are directly involved. As Antoine assembles a circle of chairs in the shade of a nearby tree, Engle talks about the challenges – and the opportunities – of modern Haiti.

“There’s some cautious hope about the new government,” he begins, “and about the idea that Haiti may be entering a more stable period of its history. But our present is still in many ways a product of our past, and the types of things people have experienced here don’t get shaken off easily.”

In particular, Engle references the decades-long dictatorship of Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his son, “Baby Doc” – a reign of terror that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Haitians, that led to as many as a million more fleeing the country, and that didn’t end until 1986. A relative unknown when he first assumed power in 1957, Duvalier quickly proved himself to be an astute scholar of Haitian history – tapping into the historic tensions between lighter- and darker-skinned Haitians, and feeding a cult of personality that eschewed individual freedoms in favor of an all-knowing police state. “As President I have no enemies and can have none,” he announced. “There are only the enemies of the nation. And these the nation must judge.”

Before long, Duvalier had done away with everything from Haiti’s bicameral legislature and methods of dissent to the Lord’s Prayer itself. In its place, Haitians would spend their Sundays paying homage to “Our Doc, who art in the Palais National for life, hallowed be Thy name by present and future generations. Thy will be done, in Port-au-Prince as it is in the provinces. Give us this day our new Haiti and forgive not the trespasses of those antipatriots who daily spit upon our country; lead them into temptation and, poisoned by their own venom, deliver them from no evil.”

In addition to creating a climate of fear, Duvalier assured that Haiti would spend decades with little more than a shell of a national state – almost all taxes and foreign aid went directly into the bank accounts of his fortunate few, once again leaving Haitians to create their own forms of order and agency at the local level.

To an observer like Engle, this is Haiti’s double-edged sword – the destructive legacy of autocratic national rule and corruption, juxtaposed with the generative legacy of democratic local rule and equity. “A constant question here is when and where to push for excellence – no matter what it is – amidst a larger societal context in which people’s whole lives have been about survival for so long. Thanks to the legacy of its dysfunctional central governments, there are a lot of Creole phrases that carry the message, ‘If you try too hard, you’ll just get discouraged.’ To survive and not go crazy, people have become conditioned to take it, and to endure it. And yet it’s also true that since the days of Independence, there is this deep tradition of democratic decision-making at the local level. When do you push for deeper reflection and deeper performance, and when do you make sure you work within what people are most used to so you don’t push too far too fast? I’m still struggling with that.”

* * *

Under the late afternoon sun, twenty community members – old and young, male and female – fill the seats of Antoine’s circle to talk together about what their community’s new school should look like. The sounds of roosters and pigs float up from further down the hill, while construction work continues nearby – a constant reminder of how much remains to be done before opening day arrives.

Like most democratically led conversations, the topics veer in a number of directions, and towards the end of the meeting, it’s unclear what specific next steps have been identified.

Then, during closing comments, an elderly man speaks up for the first time. “I was born here,” he said. “I’ve grown up here. And I never thought I would see anything like this. I give thanks to God for keeping me here long enough to see it.”

Art in the Ownership Society

If you’re looking for the latest signs of America’s cultural descent into inanity, look no further than this past weekend’s Sunday Styles section in the New York Times, and its review of Maria Abramovic’s performance piece at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art’s recent fundraising gala.

What you’ll find is a double-dose of a certain kind of worship; on one hand, there’s Abramovic herself, whose willingness to serve as the evening’s “benevolent despot” stems from her own love of the power to make powerful people do her bidding amidst a surreal backdrop of human centerpieces, heads emerging through holes in tables, and mandatory white lab coats being donned by partygoers whose fancy outfits were intended to provide their own form of artistic expression. And then there’s the Times review itself, which is less about journalist Guy Trebay’s assessment of Abramovic’s ability to surface submerged truths through her art, and more about his own infatuation with the event’s outer trappings, from its 800 socialite and celebrity attendees to Abramovic’s “$1,500 handbag from Givenchy.”

I took note of the article because it was just a week ago that I first heard about the MOCA event, courtesy of the California-based collaborative artist, Brett Cook. Cook’s own work is currently on display throughout the streets of Oakland as part of his Reflections of Healing project, a series of eight murals of local community healers whose portraits, colorfully completed by local residents with spray paint, depict each adult as he or she looked as a teenager – “in order to honor the ways young people have reshaped their worlds and, by extension, transformed ours” – and which are now permanent installations at libraries throughout the city.

“The goal of the series is to remind us of the everyday heroes and heroines who are sustaining life and change in our communities,” explained the forty-three-year-old Cook, who is tall, thin, and buoyant. “And the murals are meant to be just one part of a larger community development effort that is designed to get local residents reflecting on some core questions: What sustains life in the city of Oakland, and how do we model the world we want to see?”

It was through the prism of those questions that Abramovic’s piece came up amidst a small group of artists and friends who were sitting in the center of Cook’s crowded, colorful Oakland studio on a recent weekday afternoon, surrounded by oversized portraits of labyrinthine faces and photographs of Cook’s past public projects. To what extent should we be mindful – as private citizens and/or public artists – of modeling what we wish to see in the world? And if, as the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hahn says, “Our actions are our only true belongings,” what is the relationship between what we choose to produce, and what processes we use to (co) create them?

For Cook, the answers are clear: “The process I employ with others to create something together is just as important as any end product we produce. It’s about learning to see in a new way with others, more than it is about me imposing my view of the world on anyone else.”

By contrast, the core questions animating the MOCA event weren’t representative of any shared vision of the world; they were reflective of an ersatz veneration of the art of the spectacle itself. As Eli Broad, the museum’s major benefactor, put it, “I know other institutions don’t do things the way we do, but people should do it more.” (Do what exactly?) Museum director Jeffrey Deitsch added his own coda: “We can take risks. We can break a few rules. That’s who we are as people.”

To be clear, artists like Abramovic, and institutions like MOCA, must be free to take whatever risks they wish. It’s also clear that the timing of the event coincides with the myriad upheavals mobilizing so many of us around the world – from Tahrir Square to Zucotti Park – all of which are based on a shared belief that what will sustain societies in the 21st century are not autocratic governments, invite-only fundraisers, and conspicuous consumption, but a more human scale of life and living, a veneration of process as much as product(s), and a commitment to equip all people with the skills and self-confidence they need to become equitable, visible contributors to the common good.

In a recent piece about the Occupy movement for the New York Review of Books, Mark Greenberg captures these values well. “Speaking to protesters in Zuccotti Park recently, I got the sense that they wished people would stop demanding a demand because the idea of one was of little interest to them. It seemed beside the point. What they cared about was the ‘process,’ a way of thinking and interacting exemplified by their daily General Assembly meetings and the crowded, surprisingly well-mannered village they had created on the 33,000 square feet of concrete that comprises Zuccotti Park.

“This,” Greenberg writes, “was really the main project of the Occupy Wall Street organizers: to acquaint new volunteers with their new version of democracy. Why, they asked, curtail the growing mystique of [the movement] with something as ordinary as a political demand?”

Why indeed? After all, whether it’s an Occupy camp site or a community-based art project, sometimes, in an ownership society that has gone bankrupt, what’s most valuable is not what we produce, but which processes we use to help people recapture the human scale of life, and which spaces we open up for all of us to make visible what we wish to see more of in the world.

(This article also appeared in the Huffington Post.)

Occupy Third Grade?

On a crisp fall morning in the nation’s capital, 3rd grade teacher Rebecca Lebowitz gathered her 29 public school students on their familiar giant multicolored carpet, and reminded them how to make sense of the characters whose worlds they would soon enter during independent reading time.

“What are the four things we want to look for when we meet a new character?” Ms. Lebowitz asked from her chair at the foot of the rug. Several hands shot up before nine-year-old Monica spoke confidently over the steady hum of the classroom’s antiquated radiator. “We want to pay attention to what they do, what they say, how they feel, and what their body language tells us.” “That’s right,” her teacher said cheerily. “When we look for those four things, we have a much better sense of who a person really is.”

As the calendar shifts to the eleventh month of 2011 – a year of near-constant revolution and upheaval, from the Arab Spring to the Wisconsin statehouse to the global effort to Occupy Wall Street – what might the rest of us learn from students like Monica? If, in short, we were as smart as a third-grader, what would we observe about the character of this year’s global protests, and what might we decide to do next?

1. It is not about “democracy” – As much as we glorify and value the principles and practices of our democratic system of government, it’s not democracy per se that is at the root of this unleashed global yearning. As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently pointed out, what motivated the protesters in Tahrir Square – and what most animates those who continue to brave the wintry weather in public squares around the world – is a deeper quest for what lies at the root of a genuinely democratic society: justice.

The people protesting around the world are not just looking to be seen; they’re demanding to be heard. And what they’re saying is that from Egypt to the United States, essential social contracts have been broken – contracts that require at least a modicum of fairness and balance. If anything, therefore, these movements are about highlighting an uncomfortable truth: merely having a democracy does not guarantee a just society, and the tendencies of democracy and capitalism, left untended, tend to flow in different directions.

2. It is about unsustainable social orders – Across the Middle East, citizens have been risking their lives for months to protest the injustice of their daily lives. And yet the absence of social justice is a cancer that has already spread well beyond the borders of the Arab world. According to a recent analysis of the 31 countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), nearly 11% of all people in OECD countries live in poverty. Worse still, 22% of American children are affected by poverty, yet the United States spends only 0.33% of its GDP on pre-primary education.

When these data are combined with other indicators like income inequality, access to health care, and the percentage of elderly citizens living in poverty, the United States gets a social justice rating that trails all but four of the OECD’s 31 countries. Add to that the now-well-known fact that the top 1% of Americans now control 40% of the total wealth, and you have an unsustainable social system, plain and simple. Clearly, people are angry, and they’re not going to take it anymore.

3. It does require a reboot of public education – History has shown us that to sustain a movement for transformational social change, anger is both necessary and insufficient. To sustain our energy, we are best fueled by an empathetic regard for the needs of others, not just our own. As Gandhi put it, “I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and compassion.”

If what we seek, then, is a more sustainable and just social order, how should we recalibrate our public schools – the institutions most responsible for equipping children with the skills and self-confidence they need to become effective and justice-oriented change agents as adults?

We might start by evaluating each other the same way Ms. Lebowitz’s students evaluate new characters in a book. To fulfill the egalitarian vision of 2011, children must grow up in learning environments that are sensitive not just to what they do and say, but also to how they feel and what their body language tells us about the larger world they inhabit. This, too, is a central insight of those who study systemic change. “We need to learn to attend to both dimensions simultaneously,” says M.I.T management professor Otto Scharmer. “What we say, see, and do (our visible realm), and the inner place from which we operate (the invisible realm, in which our sources of attention reside and from which they operate).”

Recent events have underscored just how essential it is to acknowledge our global interdependence; after all, it was the financial subterfuge of the few that affected the personal wellbeing of the many. That’s why a healthy democracy is more than just policies and practices – and a healthy school is more than just test scores and teacher policies. That’s why the American activists of tomorrow need more than just the occasional lesson about Gandhi or King; they need consistent opportunities to actively apply their own developing compassion for others in the service of creating a better world. And that’s why students like Monica need to grow up in a society willing to heed the rising voices of the protesters and recommit to our nation’s founding promise:  “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice.”

(This article also appeared in the Huffington Post.)

Do Great Conferences Have a “Special Sauce”?

What makes for a transformational meeting?

I’m asking myself this question because I just attended the best conference of my life. I’m asking it because most conferences, well, suck. And I’m asking it because the people I just spent three days with were continually asking it of each other in order to identify the “special sauce” for themselves – and give us all a better chance of recreating it for more and more people.

The conference in question was WorldBlu live, an annual gathering that is “designed for individuals, for-profit and non-profit organizations who recognize the power of freedom and democracy as a tool for building thriving businesses, promoting innovation, attracting top talent and inspiring full engagement.”

I’ve already written about some of the specific highlights of the conference. Now I want to share the foundations of the WorldBlu “special sauce” that made it such a success – and that any conference planner can replicate, no matter what industry you represent.

1. The People (aka, Widen the Gene Pool) – WorldBlu Live is as heterogeneous a gathering of people as you’re likely to find.  It is, most broadly defined, a business conference, and, true to type, there were many CEOs in attendance, in industries ranging from telecommunications to healthcare to online retail. But there were also human resource professionals. And programmers. And higher education administrators. And musicians. And students. And the people themselves were coming from all across the United States. And Canada. And Denmark. And New Zealand.

This olio of professions, places and perspectives made for conference exchanges where no one could ever safely rely on their own linguistic industry shorthand, or even on an assumption about what one’s training did (or did not) include.  As a result, the conversations formed a powerful double helix of ideas and questions – quite the contrast from the more typical industry-specific meeting, in which the capacity to exchange new ideas – the genetic building blocks that lead to new ways of seeing both the world and our work – is so inward-focused it produces the equivalent of an inbreeding reproductive loop. In short, WorldBlu starts with the assumption that our capacity for innovation grows exponentially when we inquire into core questions with people inside and outside of our chosen fields. And any other conference would be wise to do the same.

2. The Purpose (aka, Start with the “Why”) – As Simon Sinek makes clear in his must-watch TED talk, successful businesses and individuals don’t get better solely by perfecting what they do and how they do it; they get better by understanding why they do what they do, and where that source of intrinsic motivation originates.

The same is true of WorldBlu live. Despite being such an eclectic group, each of us was clearly and powerfully united by the most unlikely of common denominators – a shared commitment to organizational democracy, and, by extension, to create spaces where people could bring their full selves to life and work. It was, put another way, a conference that was designed to reconnect the Me (individual capacity) with the We (collective capacity). And as a result, it was infused with great personal and professional relevance for every attendee.

By contrast, most conferences myopically focus not just on the professional, but also the “what” of what we do. This is what leaves us feeling half-filled, as, indeed, we are. It also prevents us from inquiring deeper into our own sources of passion, strength, and joy – a feeling anyone who attended WorldBlu live will tell you was at the heart of the experience.

3. The Pace (aka, Balance Passive & Active Learning) – Unlike many conferences, in which the majority of people have but one role to play – passive consumer of someone else’s learning experience – WorldBlu Live was designed to strike a dynamic balance between absorbing and co-creating solutions and ideas. Each morning, different people gave short, TED-talk style speeches to the entire conference – and each in response to one of WorldBlu’s ten design principles of an organizational democracy. Afterwards, someone else, from an entirely different organization or industry, spoke briefly about a tool they had used to apply that principle in their work. Then the group transitioned into long unstructured coffee breaks, then box lunches, and then short 45-minute breakout sessions.

I have never seen a shorter time for breakout sessions at a conference, and initially I assumed they would be too brief to yield anything meaningful. What I experienced was the opposite – the brevity encouraged folks to jump right in, and the design assumption was that breakouts were merely a way to help people identify affinity groups, and enable a more useful sorting of the participants so people could have the conversations they were most eager to have with the other people most eager to have them. Consequently, I witnessed something I rarely see in a conference: the complete absence of “drive-by speakers” – the folks who simply show up to dispense their wisdom and then leave as soon as they’re done. As one person put it, “At WorldBlu Live, the speakers were the conference, and the conference was the speakers.”

Imagine if more of our professional conference experiences were characterized by these design principles of people, purpose and pace? Imagine if we started to expect actual learning and fulfillment from these sorts of exchanges, instead of the reluctant knowledge that we will miss yet another opportunity to learn something valuable? And imagine if in the course of our own professional advancement, we made new connections that were equally valuable to our ongoing journeys of personal fulfillment?

It’s possible. I’ve seen it. So let’s stop accepting – and expecting – anything less.