Longo, N.V. (2007). Why community matters: Connecting education with civic life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

(Scholarly; persuasive)

(History; description)

Longo sets out to discuss how a different conception of education, one that exists outside of the classroom, can serve to increase the level of democratic engagement within communities. He describes in detail the efforts of Hull House, Highlander Folk School, and the Neighborhood Learning Community as examples of how community interests can be enhanced through educative programs and policies. Beginning with a review of the literature which states that civic participation in this country is at an all-time low, Longo focuses on the connection between education and democracy. He says more emphasis needs to be placed on the “ecology of education” in order to bring about both education reform and to solve the decline in civic participation. “Applying the concept of an ecology of education to educating for democracy leads us to suspect that an ecological approach is not only important for individual learning, but that interdependent and interconnected learning networks are also essential for civic learning” (p. 5). He contends that schools need to do a better job of incorporating the culture and resources of their community if they are to be centers for democratic education. This was the notion of John Dewey, which was informed by what he had seen at Hull House.

Longo also criticizes higher education for not meeting its public responsibility. He says this is made evident by the amount of urban decay in those communities where top universities are located, and by the cutting of public funding for higher education across the country. Thus, he presents his examples as educational facilities that placed community needs at the forefront. He first points to the example of Hull House, where he says Jane Addams understood that the community needed to take part in the educative mission of the house. In fact, he contends that in many ways service-learning began with Hull House, with a focus on the practice of service in the community rather than on the theory of service. “Like service-learning today, the settlements hoped to address pressing ‘objective’ needs in the community, but also provide a creative, educational ‘subjective’ outlet for college-educated people by putting their idealism into action” (p. 52). Hull House residents engaged those who were not being brought into the democratic process, and saw their role as educating for social justice.

Myles Horton, the founder of the Highlander Folk School, understood democracy as something you do, much in the same fashion as Jane Addams. Longo focuses on the Citizenship Schools that came out of Highlander, which turned literacy classes and voter registration drives into opportunities to develop active citizens. Connecting to the Civil Rights Movement, the Citizenship Schools brought civic skill building to community settings. The vision behind these schools was that ordinary people, regardless of educational experience, could create sustainable change and contribute to their communities. As Longo states, “this model puts an abiding trust in people and in a democratic process that builds on people’s cultures and stories” (p. 90). Key to the success of the Community Schools was the fact that they created spaces for people to consider how best to promote democratic practice within their own communities.

Likewise, Longo describes the contemporary Neighborhood Learning Community in St. Paul, Minnesota as working to create “an environment for intergenerational learning that not only nurtures individual growth, but also develops an educative system on the neighborhood level in support of learning and civic life” (p. 93). The Neighborhood Learning Community model works because it links informal education with formal education, connects the places where education for democracy takes place, and ties education in the community with civic education. All of this helps to change the culture within a community to one that focuses more on participatory democracy.

Throughout the book, Longo advocates for greater concentration on issues as they exist in the community as a means to reform education. As he says, “simply stated, our current educational paradigm is broken, at least partly, as a result of our failure to understand our problems as interrelated and consequently to address issues holistically and ecologically” (p. 140).

Previous Featured Book

Kezar, A.J., Chambers, T.C. & Burkhardt, J.C. (2005). Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

(Scholarly; persuasive)

Kezar, A.J., Chambers, T.C. & Burkhardt, J.C. Preface, pp. xiii-xxii.
With an increased focus in higher education on civic engagement and the role of colleges and universities in society, the editors attempt to capture the emerging voices in the movement as well as fuel the movement. The aim of the book, therefore, is to provide guidance and advice for how higher education can contribute to the public good, with three specific purposes in mind:

• Give voice to an emerging movement in higher education related to the public good
• Help education and government leaders engage in dialogue about the public good
• Provide institutions with strategies to craft organizational cultures and environments that contribute to the public good

They propose that a charter exists between higher education and society that “includes such commitments as developing research to improve society, training leaders for public service, educating citizens to serve the democracy, increasing economic development, and critiquing public policy. In return for these various social commitments, society provides tangible resources, political support, raw materials, and a guiding influence.” They go on to say, “the charter is being lost as public policy and institutional decisions unintentionally focus more on revenue generation and the individual benefits of higher education rather than on its broader social role and benefits” (xiii). The book includes nineteen separate essays from various authors involved in the field of civic engagement, divided into six parts that breakdown as follows:

Part 1: Exploring the Public Good
Part 2: Public Policy and the Public Good
Part 3: Cross-sector Issues and the Public Good
Part 4: Institutional Governance and Leadership for the Public Good
Part 5: Individual Leadership for the Public Good
Part 6: Concluding Thoughts on the Public Good

Chambers, T.C. The special role of higher education in society: As a public good for the public good, pp. 3-22.

Chambers’ presents a case for a movement that strengthens the public relationship between the system of higher education and American society, suggesting that there are social benefits of higher education that go beyond those primarily intended for individuals or that have economic implications. Through his work with the National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, Chambers sees a “growing network of informed individuals and groups that are coalescing around a common sense of what a democratic society should look like; what citizens of that society should know, understand, and be involved in; what common purposes all social institutions in democratic societies should share; and what policies, practices, and social values support democracy” (p. 5). He goes on to say that higher education has both a covenant and a charter with society that reveals a complex set of public agreements. Whereas the relationship between higher education and society is transactional (contractual), thereby reflecting the corporate qualities of a charter, the relationship is also transformational (moral and mutually developed), and thus reflects the religious or spiritual qualities of a covenant.

Accordingly, those involved with civic engagement need to stop thinking of higher education as being separate from the public and develop a consciousness that includes higher education as a part of the public agenda. Chambers points to the following examples of institutions that have viewed advanced the public good as part and parcel to their own work:

• Urban institutions which have traditionally taken an active role in their surroundings and have tried to improve the lives of local citizens. Jane Addams’ Hull House and the University of Chicago is a model for grassroots urban community development.
• The “Wisconsin Idea” also provides a model for how universities (the University of Wisconsin in the early 20th century in this case) can bring their resources to bear on the political, economic, and social needs of the state. Through the development of their statewide extension initiative, university professors and staff provided resources, training, and consultation for farmers, homemakers, businessmen, and local leaders.

Despite the movement and the work of some colleges, many institutions are failing to integrate the essence of civic engagement into their foundations: courses, research, and faculty work. Chambers quotes Caryn McTighe Musil of the Association of American Colleges and Universities [Musil, C.M. (2003). Educating for citizenship. Peer Review, 5(3), 4.], saying that institutions “inadvertently model a mode of civic involvement that occurs offstage or after hours. Such a bifurcation between the work of the classroom and the life of the college prepares students all too well for the larger societal schizophrenic predicament in which adults are to ‘care about community’ after 5:00 p.m. or on weekends” (p. 4). Thus, building a culture of civic involvement on campus is key.

Kezar, A.J. Challenges for higher education in serving the public good, pp. 23-42.

“The purpose of this chapter is to describe the manifold symptoms that compromise the social charter and to use these to raise questions that will help higher education reestablish its commitment to serving the public good” (p. 24). Kezar contends that the traditional purposes and values of higher education (toward the public good) are eroding due to the focus on economic goals and the corporate values driving the system. Trends in higher education toward the vocational, or training for the job market, are causing the humanities and social sciences to suffer, as are interdisciplinary efforts. Because complex social problems are best addressed through multiple disciplines, and because many of the disciplines that traditionally address social dilemmas are shrinking, the public good is undermined.

Kezar believes that the commercialization of higher education compromises research that does not serve the market. “Corporate funders and the government provide less support for research on general topics that do not have immediate results or serve commercial interests” (p. 29). This means that areas such as poverty, education, and adult literacy receive fewer resources and attention. Accordingly, she states that a closer relationship between higher education and industry reveals many conflicts of interest.

Among these are:

• A move toward applied research and a decline in basic research
• Faculty having financial interests in their research, which affects the integrity of academic journals
• A reduction in the importance of teaching
• A shift in graduate student research foci to more applied topics with marketable orientations

She goes on, “corporations and states have sought to privatize and commodify research through intellectual property rather than develop a free contribution to the international community of scholars” (p. 30). Whereas basic research used to be supported by the state and remained a public property, advances in technoscience have made the beneficiaries of science so clear that public funding for research is being called into question.

The introduction of performance funding (under the market model), has cuased institutions to compete for resources, students, and financial aid, and has driven the focus away from the public good. Competition for dollars also breaks down collaboration on campus, between faculty members and between faculty and administration. This loss of community negatively affects student learning, as well as faculty morale and commitment. As faculty is driven toward the applied fields and encouraged to seek external funding from consulting and research, some wonder whether they are losing their role as social critic. Additionally, privatization and commercialization of the academy may deteriorate academic freedom and autonomy, as society may not be ready to grant these freedoms for work that is not seen as being done for the public good. She states, “today’s environment presents a unique challenge. As public higher education becomes increasingly private, what will be the effect on the public good? Will the corporate good replace the public good? Since funding so strongly determines mission, values, and priorities, the increasing privatization and marketization of funding seems especially disconcerting” (p. 33).

Kezar, A.J. Creating a metamovement: A vision toward regaining the public social charter, pp. 43-53.

Kezar sets out to review the different movements within higher education that focus on the public good, including service-learning, K-16, community-college partnerships, and new notions of faculty work, all of which tend to work in isolation of each other. Therefore, she proposes that these avenues form one large metamovement to support and build off of one another, and to create a greater capacity for long-term impact, which is necessary given the contemporary marketization of higher education. “The three major themes in these movements are civic education (which counters economic emphasis), public service (which counters economic and private emphasis), and collaboration (which counters individualism and private focus)” (p. 44).

In support of her call for a metamovement, she cites Boyer, who in Scholarship Reconsidered, argued for a shift from research as being the dominant priority, to a new value system in which research, teaching, integration, and application are regarded equally. In some cases, Boyer’s argument has taken hold. Public service collaboratives have been created to bring together social institutions (hospitals, schools, etc.) and colleges to address public concerns such as poverty, health, or the environment. But for these types of partnerships to be formed, the college constituencies must come together as well. In the case of students’ experiences on campus, studies have shown that collaboration between academic and student affairs enhances student learning by creating a seamless learning environment between in-classroom and out-of-classroom environments. However, the tradition of a liberal education with a focus on learning is paramount, which means recent trends in higher education must be addressed. For example, student consumerism, and pedagogies that cater to it, works against education for citizenship. Similarly, faculty commitments away from the classroom and the increase in part-time faculty (who typically do not engage in service-learning requiring long commitments) inhibit the institutionalizing of service-learning and civic engagement efforts.

Mathews, D. Listening to the public: A new agenda for higher education?, pp. 71-86.

The purpose of this chapter is to focus on how higher education can contribute to increased democratic activity within the public sphere. Mathews believes that it is essential for all who live within a democratic society to go about the work of self-rule, which means continually making choices. Higher education’s responsibility to the public good, therefore, means focusing on people’s ability to make educated decisions. In fact, one of the leading complaints people have about the political system, and one of the reasons why some do not participate in it, is that the balance between individual and general interests has been lost. Therefore, Mathews says, “the question of what higher education has to contribute to the formation of public judgment, then, is not merely ‘academic.’ It goes to the heart of a critical problem in contemporary democracy” (p. 73-74).

Mathews believes that the public’s ability to judge should be addressed through a process of deliberation, because decisions in a democracy are not made singularly, but rather in a collective format. His review of the literature on producing practical wisdom suggests that scholars should practice what Immanuel Kant described as “thinking aloud” with other citizens. Mathews says, “given that practical wisdom has to be produced with people rather than for them, Kant’s notion seems worth exploring” (p. 75). Accordingly, scholars must put themselves in position to facilitate public deliberation, or what Mathews calls “choice work.”

As an exemplar of public work focused on democratic development, he points to the work being done at various institutions to facilitate public discourse, and applauds Auburn University for developing new standards for tenure, which include considering community-based work done by the faculty. The importance of such a decision is that it recognizes the distinct qualities of public scholarship, all the while placing that work within the regular academic system. Mathews also suggests that the 1816 Dartmouth Case provides a sign that higher education has always had a public responsibility, and that trustees are there to see that that responsibility is met. Whereas this landmark case is often cited as the protector of academic freedom (noting that a private institution is allowed to establish its own curriculum without outside interference), Mathews’ point is that the decision in that case also affirmed the power of the trustees, and that it is their responsibility to protect the public interests of higher education. However, trustees have not met that responsibility in recent times. According to Alan Wolfe [Wolfe, A. (1996, Winter). The feudal culture of the postmodern university. Wilson Quarterly, 20, 54-66.], as the faculty gained power and became more professionalized in the late twentieth century, and as the increase in federal funding grew, higher education moved away from an allegiance to local communities and moved in the direction of a gaining prestige on a national scale. Mathews believes trustees must push for a renewed focus on social issues, and contends that Board members could be the natural allies of the more democratically inclined members of the campus constituency by calling for a greater focus on the public good coming out of faculty work.

Novak, R. & Johnston, S.W. Trusteeship and the public good, pp. 87-101.

Novak and Johnston believe that trustees are the guardians of the public trust, and therefore are responsible for ensuring that institutions will fulfill their missions of serving the public good by creating an educated citizenry, contributing to the creation of knowledge, and preserving cultural heritages. They are the bridge between higher education and the public. As such, trustees should support public service and civic engagement by establishing policies that recognize and reward such activities. In return, trustees should expect reports on how the institution’s mission is being met, particularly in how it relates to community or public service. Although tempted to focus on competition for students and pursuing higher rankings, a board committed to the public good will be driven by other priorities, such as ensuring that their budgets contain funding to support public work that addresses social issues within local communities. This will not only encourage this type of work, but will help make engaged scholarship sustainable.