It Takes a Village...

The first parent teacher conferences of this school year are in two weeks.  I am thankful that this time around there is no report card to focus on.  I can just have a conversation with the parents of my students. Goals will be set for each child based on the academics and behaviors displayed so far.  But, who's job is it to decide what is an appropriate goal for a fourth grader?  As an educated professional, is it solely on me?  Do the parents control all the rights to those decisions?  What about the child who is the center of all of the it?  I say the power belongs in all of us.  As a team, we together have to decide what is best for each individual child.

Amy Gutman's examination regarding power over a child's education clearly concludes needing a group effort to benefit the child (Gutman, 2005).  "States, parents, and professional educators all have  important roles to play in educating free and equal persons" (Gutman, 2005, p. 8).  Removing one of the elements of that democratic education tips the scales and does not provide an adequate education (Gutman, 2005, p. 7-8).  When a teacher is removed, theory, best practice, knowledge and awareness are missing.  When a parent is removed, family morals, buy in and support are gone.  And when a child is absent from the equation, there may as well not be a reason for the team in the first place.

One way that I involve students is through student led conferences.  Students are encouraged in the fall and then required to attend in the spring.  This expectation arose after two years of frustrating conferences.  Without the child present, it was next to near impossible to discover the motivation for bad behavior choices.  It was unclear why a student did not understand a concept.  Once students were present, we got answers.  A team quickly formed for each family with each person an equal stake holder.  We were all there for a common reason-what is best for that child (Gutman, 2005, p. 8).  The child is the one who is doing the learning.  It makes more sense for the learner to have a stake in what is being taught, or how content is being delivered.  As James G. Dwyer confirms, "The minds that are being shaped belong to the children, not to any adults" (Dwyer, 2005, p. 7).

Another prominent example of democratic education in my career is when the reproductive health lessons are taught. In fourth grade, each gender only learns about their own body.  Parents can choose to opt their child out of the lessons.  In the past, I have heard parents express that their child isn't ready for the conversation.  Sometimes parents aren't ready for their child to have that conversation.  Some parents felt it was not the school's place to teach that content.  And a few times, it was religious beliefs that took them out.  What usually happens is that instead of getting the education and vocabulary from a certified teacher, those children who opt out get a lesson in reproductive health out on the playground.  As a mother, I would rather have my children hear it from the horse's mouth.  Yet, as a teacher, I have to respect each parents decision.  Even if I don't agree with it.  That is what being a part of a team is all about.  Doing what is best for the child.  It was one made with the parents, with the child in mind (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 81).

Now this may sound like a complete contradiction.  I whole-heartily feel the child is a part of the educational team, but just discussed that they may miss instruction because of parental beliefs.  As Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift point out, up to a developmental point, children are not able to make decisions on their own (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 80, 82)  Especially decisions that revolve around their education.  Putting my son in charge of his education would mean reading about construction trucks all day.  For others, it would mean no reading at all.  As Brighouse and Swift conclude, "Young children are entirely dependent and incapable of having formulated or previously expressed views about what their interests are" (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 82).  This is the risky side of a balanced team that is representing a child's best interest.  Occasionally there will be conflict of what is best for a child.  It has happened to me in the past and I know it will continue in the future.  Brighouse and Swift argue that the parent-child relationship is an extremely complicated one that sets it own terms and norms (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 92).

The one idea I won't go back on is that the child is a vital part of the educational system.  Without children and the innate desire to learn, I wouldn't have a job.  Why would one continue to support a system that ignores them?