Reclaiming Democracy Through Civil Society:

The Role of Education, Local Institutions and Community Organizing

Barbara Ferman
Professor of Political Science
and
Director of the University Community Collaborative of Philadelphia (UCCP)
Temple University

Paper prepared for

“A Global Look at Urban and Regional Governance:
The State-Market-Civic Nexus”

A Symposium sponsored by
The Halle Institute for Global Learning
And the Political Science Department
Emory University
Atlanta, GA

January 18-19, 2007

 Introduction
How can we reconcile democratic accountability and deliberative and participatory
practices with the authority and clout necessary for effective decision-making? Although
this question has inspired much scholarly debate and is at the heart of the Halle Institute
for Global Learning’s symposium1, I want to suggest that it is a false dichotomy. In fact,
I would argue that we cannot have strong, effective leadership and well-informed and
broadly representative policies in the absence of accountability, meaningful deliberation,
and broad based participation. Indeed, the direction of the American political system
over the last 25+ years more than substantiates my claim. During this time, we have
witnessed a shrinking of the political franchise, a policy system that advantages a few at
the expense of the many, and a general decline in the competence and trustworthiness of
our political, and, I might add, corporate, leaders. The collapse of civil society has
enabled a very selective part of the market to harness the powers of the state in pursuing
its own narrow interests. This situation seriously imperils our democracy and our overall
well-being, which, of course, are integrally connected. Restoring the accountability,
deliberation and participation upon which effective democratic governance rests requires
that we re-engage and empower those who have been disenfranchised. In the following
paper, I address the current state of our democratic franchise, the reasons for that state
and some of the ways through which we can begin to repair the damage. These repair
efforts involve rebuilding civil society at the local level, a process that has educational,
skill building and organizing implications.

Leadership vs. Accountability: the False Dichotomy

In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption
and degeneracy, which cunning will discover and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate
and improve. Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people
alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories2

In Governing the Ungovernable City I argued that mayors needed a lot of power to
govern effectively; that they needed the ability to stave off all the conflicting requests
from interest groups, citizen, neighborhood and other groups. (Ferman, 1985) Governing
the Ungovernable City was my revised dissertation, heavily influenced by my thesis
advisor who was a student of Edward Banfield and James Q. Wilson. Several years later,
in Challenging the Growth Machine, I did a 360 degree turn and argued that we needed
strong neighborhoods to press an all too powerful city government to be more responsive.
(Ferman, 1996) I was living in Chicago and heavily influenced by that city’s tradition of
racialized politics which was a disservice to all and its legacy of machine governance that
favored patronage and reciprocity over any forms of progressive governance or
responsiveness to neighborhoods. Now, I come to you in the middle of those two polar
positions. So, my answer to the questions can we have strong leadership (authority for

1
This paper was prepared for the Halle Institute for Global Learning’s Symposium on “A Global Look at
Urban and Regional Governance: The State-Market-Civic Nexus.” Emory University, Jan 18-19, 2007
2
Thomas Jefferson on Democracy: 87

2
decision-making3) and accountability, can we have deliberative processes and enough
clout for decision-making, should non governmental interests4 have a role in addressing
societal problems, is an unabashed YES! In fact, I would argue, that in a democracy we
cannot have strong, effective leadership without accountability and meaningful
deliberation and we cannot have accountability and effective deliberation without strong
leadership.

My middle position is informed by my work over the last 10+ years with community and
youth groups that have been fighting for a place at the table, some of whom knew how to
negotiate the political terrain, most of whom did not. It is also informed by having
worked with some very talented, creative and committed people in city government who
embrace principles of fairness and equity but who often find themselves stymied by a
scarcity of resources, outmoded systems of decision making, unresponsive bureaucracies,
and a hostile political climate. Finally, it is informed by witnessing first hand the total
withdrawal of many young people from the political system because they fail to see the
connection between what government does and their own lives and because when they
think about politics, on the rare occasion that they are forced to, they see only the bleak
side—corruption, lies, waste, and, ultimately, an exercise in futility.

So, to my “unabashed” yes I append the following qualifier--Until we address this

disengagement from the political system, this stifling of talent and creativity within local
government, and the underlying causes of these phenomena, “accountability in
government” and “effective deliberation at the community level” will remain appealing,
but essentially hollow, phrases. Consequently, we will continue to have policies that do
not bear any resemblance to accepted notions of fairness. Indeed, we will continue to go
down the path that we have been on for the last 25 years, a path that has accelerated with
great rapidity during the administration of George W. Bush. Before discussing how we
address the issues above, let’s take a look at the state of our democracy.

The Current state of U.S. Democracy

In December of 2004, the APSA’s Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy
painted a very sobering picture of the American enterprise.5 Not surprisingly, their three
major findings were a sharp increase in income inequality over the last 25 years, a
significant distortion in political voice, with those at the bottom much “quieter” than
those with more resources, and a skewed set of public policies that advantaged the well
off at the expense of everyone else, especially those nearest the bottom of the income
distribution.

3
I do take issue with the term “autonomy “ if it means that decision makers are autonomous from their
constituents.
4
The conference conveners used the term “non governmental elites;” I have taken the liberty of changing it
to non governmental interests so that it is more inclusive.
5
The Report was published in the December 2004 issue of Perspectives on Politics under the title
“American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality.”

3
Economic indicators: The Task Force’s report revealed a sharp rise in inequality as the
gap between top and bottom and top and middle rose at an alarming pace. Between 1973
and 2000, family income for the top 20% increased by 61% nearly twice the growth
experienced by the group just below and six times the increase for those in the bottom
20%. (increases for those two groups were 33.6% and 10.3%, respectively). These
patterns diverged sharply from the Post World War II period (1947-1973) when growth
in family income was much more evenly distributed across all 5 groups, with the lowest
quintile experiencing the largest percent increase and the top 20% experiencing the
smallest percent increase (115.3% and 84%, respectively). (APSA Task Force:653)
Another departure from the post war period is the reconfiguration of wealth from a wage
to a capital income base. In 1998, the top one percent of the country’s households held
38.1% of the country’s wealth while earning 16.6% of total income; by contrast, the
bottom 90% of households “controlled only 29% of the country wealth” although they
accounted for 58.8% of all household income. (APSA Task Force:653) Finally, the gap
between whites and blacks continued with the median black household earning 62% less
than the median white household. (Ibid) Lest we attribute these growing inequalities
solely to globalization, the authors of the report also highlight the fact that the U.S.
outpaced nearly all advanced industrial democratic nations in the rate of growth in
income and wealth disparities.

Political indicators: Political indicators mirror many of the inequalities found in the
economic ones as those with lower levels of income, education and occupational status,
have opted out or, in the case of incarcerated persons, have been pushed out, of the
political system.6 Across all categories of political involvement including voting, contact
with an elected official, affiliation with political organizations, community activity and
the like, low income groups participate at far lower levels than do high income groups
and blacks and immigrants participate at lower levels than whites. (APSA Task Force;
Macedo, et al. 2005). Among the key correlates of participation are political knowledge,
political interest and mobilizing institutions, all of which are positively correlated with
levels of income and education.7 While not individually correlated with participation
levels, other indicators, such as trust in government, a belief that government is
responsive, and a belief that the individual can make a difference, portray an equally
sobering picture of the American political system. In 2004, the trust in government index
was 37 as compared with a high of 61 in 1966; the government responsiveness index was
61 down from 78 in 1966; and the external political efficacy index went from 63 in 1966
to 47 in 2004.8 In other words, over the span of four decades Americans’ trust in
government, their sense that it is responsive to people like them, and their belief that their

6
Even more alarming is the overwhelmingly black and brown color of the prison population thus adding a
strong racial dimension to this externally imposed political disenfranchisement. According to a study by
Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, 7.5% of voting age blacks were disenfranchised in 2000 due to their
status as felons or ex felons. In several southern states, the disenfranchisement rate was more than double
that national figure: Kentucky, 17.37%; Florida and Virginia, 16%. And, among white felons, the
population is overwhelmingly poor or working class. (December, 2002:777-803.)
7
Macedo et al. (2005) Mobilizing institutions refer to those vehicles that solicited participation such as
labor unions, political parties and multi-tiered national voluntary associations like the PTA.
8
ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior. (www.electionstudies.org) The indices are
constructed from aggregating responses to several individual questions within each category.

4
participation mattered, all experienced significant declines. These indicators should
come as no surprise. We live in an era of rampant consumerism, of praise for fierce
individualism (e.g. “bootstrap” mentality, entrepreneurship, etc), of extremely negative
politics, of vicious attacks on government by candidates for office and elected officials,
and of major shrinkage and de-legitimization of the public sector. Given this
inauspicious set of circumstances, how can we expect people to positively embrace
government or politics?

Social Indicators: Turning to social indicators does not brighten the picture. Robert
Putnam’s work on social capital displayed, in high relief, how Americans are
withdrawing from the associations and practices that constitute the very fabric of civil
society. The rich and diverse associational life that de Tocqueville (1956) found so
inspiring nearly 200 years ago has, according to Putnam (2000) and others, been
disappearing at an alarming rate. This decline in associational life has implications for
our political health and overall democracy. It is through our activities within these
associations that we learn how to interact with others who hold different ideas, where we
learn to tackle problems, address conflict, negotiate compromises, deliberate on issues of
concern to the community, where we learn how to participate in “public issues and
concerns”, in short, it is where we cut our teeth on the democratic form of life. Without
this training ground and with the poor job that the schools are doing to prepare young
people for life in a democratic society, it is hardly surprising that many people lack the
skills and knowledge to engage in public life and, even worse, see no purpose to such
engagement. Thus, a negative synergy takes hold in which the shrinking of civil society
inhibits our initiation into democratic practice while simultaneously increasing the gap
between government and the citizenry. Together, these two factors conspire to reinforce
the cynicism, distrust, and estrangement that fuel our political malaise.

The downsizing of the political franchise and of civil society has resulted in a
government that is functioning well for a much smaller segment of the population. Tax
cuts for the highest income brackets, decreased corporate taxes, and an increased reliance
on regressive forms of taxation (e.g. sales tax) are directly implicated in the sobering
income data cited above. (Williams, 2004) Moreover, the loss of revenues from these tax
cuts has been offset by reductions in programs that benefit the less well off such as
housing, human services, education and the like. Cuts in Pell grants, for example, which
enabled many working class and poor students to attend college, will prevent millions of
young people from obtaining the primary key to economic mobility in a knowledge-based
and high tech economy; a college degree. Further compounding the problem is the
decreased state support for publicly funded colleges and universities and the increased
competitiveness of those institutions, resulting in a skewing of financial assistance to
higher income families. Between 1995 and 2003, “flagship and leading public research
universities quadrupled their aid to students from families with incomes over $100,000,
while aid to students from the poorest families declined.” (Livingston. 2006)) This
conspiracy of factors led the New York Times to refer to public colleges as “Engines of
Inequality.” (Nov 23, 2006, Public Editor)

5
The consequences of these policies are staggering for poor, working, and lower middle
class people who have seen their wages stagnate, their benefits decrease, and the public
services they rely on (schools, libraries, mass transit, recreation centers, etc) deteriorate.9
However, the skewed concentration of money, voice and influence, within the overall
context of increasing inequality, almost guarantees that their piece of the American
Dream Pie will continue to wither. As the APSA Task Force on Inequality and American
Democracy concluded: “Our government is becoming less democratic, responsive mainly
to the privileged and not a powerful instrument to correct disadvantages and look out for
the majority. If disparities of participation and influence become further entrenched—
and if average citizens give up on democratic government—unequal citizenship could
take on a life of its own, weakening American democracy for a long time to come.”
(December 2004:662)

So, the questions raised by the symposium conveners about accountability, deliberation
and the “state-market-civic nexus” are not merely academic; rather, they go to the heart
of our ailing democracy and our deteriorating urban infrastructures.10 While national
policy and actions have been the major contributors to this poor state of health, it is local
governments that will bear the brunt of this situation.11 Similarly, it is at the local level
that we can and must begin to develop the countervailing power necessary to challenge
policies that are grossly unfair and practices that totally compromise our future as a
democracy. In short, we need to re-engage those who have opted out of political and
civil society in order to hold government accountable to more than just a privileged
minority. Civil society is the only place that can generate enough pressure to compel the
state to “put boundaries on the market” thereby protecting its citizenry. (Coles, 2006:552)

The Local Context: Rebuilding Civil Society

People, regardless of their age or generation, are more likely to participate in public life
if they have the motivations, skills, resources, and opportunities to do so.12

There are various ways to approach re-engagement and, subsequently, the issues of
accountability, deliberation, and participation in governance. One is to take a macro level
approach and look at a city’s civic capacity. As defined by Clarence Stone, civic
capacity is “the mobilization of varied stakeholders in support of a community wide
cause.” (1998:15) The more that stake holders can connect to a given problem and its
significance overall and, more importantly, in terms of their own interests, the greater the
civic capacity. Developing civic capacity, however, is not an easy task even when the
issue is critical to the urban context. Stone et al’s eleven city study of education revealed
this dilemma. Developing civic capacity to improve poorly performing school districts

9
Benefits refers largely to health care coverage.
10
I use infrastructure to refer to the physical and service aspects of cities, especially their schools, libraries,
health care systems and the like.
11
Local governments are particularly vulnerable on two fronts. First, as service providers they suffer
disproportionately from federal cuts cited above. Second, many cities and older ring suburbs house
disproportionate numbers of low income households who rely on those and other services to survive.
12
(Zukin, at al: 203)

6
encountered many problems not the least of which were fragility and sustainability.
Moreover, of the 11 cities, only one (Pittsburgh) demonstrated a strong connection
between civic capacity and educational policy reforms. (Danielson and Hochschild, 1998)
An even more fundamental problem with the civic capacity approach is its potential to
reinforce existing power imbalances between the various groups as those with more
skills, knowledge and connections, bring significant advantages to the table. In assessing
the effectiveness of school reform efforts in the cities covered in Stone et al’s study,
Danielson & Hochschild noted the “virtual absence of involved parents and the thin
presence of community groups,” (285) those with the most at stake but with the fewest
resources and least clout.

Moving to the micro level, we can look at institutional practices and how they encourage
or deter participation, deliberation and accountability. As Archon Fung noted, “With a
few important exceptions, civic engagement scholarship has not yet generated compelling
accounts of how public policy and institutional design might reverse these trends in civic
deterioration.” (2004:15) Fung quite ably took up the challenge producing a very detailed
and insightful examination of how institutional design and public policy can foster civic
participation thereby repairing the rupture between state and society. His careful analysis
of citizen participation within the police department and the school system in Chicago
demonstrated what these processes look like on the ground and how they can contribute
to more participatory and resident-informed decision-making. While Fung’s findings
were promising with respect to the levels of engagement among low-income residents of
color, they may prove the exception to the rule on two counts. First, most cities lack the
mechanisms for citizen input that Fung studied in Chicago. In a survey of high poverty
school districts conducted by the Department of Education, only 18% reported efforts to
increase parental involvement in the schools. (Doherty. 1998) Second, even when
mechanisms to elicit a broader base of input are in place, there is no guarantee that we
will see more involvement among those with fewer resources. This was the case in the
11 city study of educational reform by Stone et al. where the mechanisms “mostly failed
to increase either the amount of involvement or the effectiveness of poor and minority
parents whose children are at greatest risk in city schools.” (Danielson and Hochschild.
Ibid:285) This was also the case in the five cities studied by Berry, Portney, and
Thomson where the neighborhood-based citizen participation systems revealed a strong
correlation between levels of income and education on the one hand and participation
levels. (1993). One possible explanation for the promising results in Chicago may be that
city’s history of strong community organizing and strong neighborhood based advocacy
groups, a point to which I shall return. (see Ferman, 1996)

In response to these shortcomings I want to suggest a more fundamental, but probably

more ambitious, step; rebuilding civil society from within so that it can be reconnected to
the state in a robust and meaningful fashion. By civil society, I do not mean simply a
collection of voluntary associations or a “thousand points of light” that will magically
substitute for government actions. Quite the contrary. As Crenson and Ginsberg
observed, “…contemporary social groups and civic organizations are likely to remain
social and civic rather than to become involved in politics. In modern America, politics
has become the province of specialists, and the social capital of ordinary Americans is

7
not so easily transformed into political capital.” (2006:210) In fact, these organizations
often detract from political engagement as Americans increasingly substitute a “moral”
definition of citizenship for a “political” one. (Ibid)13 This substitution explains the
seemingly contradictory pattern found among young Americans who are volunteering
more in community service projects but participating less in political activities.14 (Panetta
Institute, 2000; National Association of Secretaries of State,1999) Re-coupling social
capital or civic activity with politics and government will require a civil society centered
around a critical analysis of questions of power, resource distribution, and the role of
private, public and nonprofit institutions. In short, it must be capable of engaging the
kinds of questions and self reflection that can help to restore accountability in
government, develop strong deliberative capacities, and broaden the base of enlightened
and representative leadership. Building this type of civil society involves a series of tasks
that address the reasons for disengagement in the first place. Beginning with three of the
most important reasons- lack of knowledge, lack of interest, and decline in mobilizing
institutions, the tasks become readily apparent: developing the kinds of knowledge and
skills that enable people to understand the issues at hand and to navigate organizational
and political systems; providing opportunities for meaningful participation that link the
concerns of the individual to larger systems of power and decision making; and
mobilizing individuals to engage in collective action. Carried out successfully, these
tasks can instill the values central to living in a democratic society-participation,
deliberation, negotiation, public mindedness and the like.

This constellation of tasks points in the direction of education and the community as two
of the primary sources for rebuilding civil society. Education is particularly important
because it directly engages more people than any other institution and because it is
charged with instilling values, knowledge, and skills in our young people. Indeed, one of
the original purposes of public education in this country was to promote citizenship. The
community sector is critical because it is where people live, and, thus, “provides the
primary place where citizens can engage in the personal relationship building so crucial
to community coherence and to the formation of a collective political will.” (Warren,
2001:253) Moreover, by focusing on education and the community, we target two of the
most important constituent groups: young people and those at the lower ends of the
economic ladder. These two groups are among the most politically disengaged and they
are the most likely to embrace policies that promise a more equitable distribution of
resources.15 Additionally, youth represent the future. The thoughtful combination of

13
Based on her own work with young people as well as research findings, Tobi Walker concluded that
“…service has been positioned as a morally superior alternative [to political engagement], a belief
reinforced through rhetoric and practice by parts of the community service movement (2000:647)
14
It is also unclear how much of the increase in voluntarism is a function of the proliferation of service
learning courses, many of which are required. Additionally, some research has shown that volunteering is
often an exercise in resume padding as opposed to an expression of civic virtue. (Friedland and Morimoto,
2006) Similar patterns of avoiding political activities in favor of community service projects were found
among adults as well. (Eliasoph, 1998)
15
In their comprehensive study of political and civic engagement among young people, Cliff Zukin, et al
found that young people (18-29) were supportive of a social safety net, including spending more on health
care and insuring that people are housed and fed. They also supported government playing a role in
reducing the gap between rich and poor. (2006) According to the ANES Guide to Public Opinion and

8
critical education and community mobilization can provide a powerful antidote to the
triumph of individualism that has trumped any sense of civic obligation.

Educational Arena: Skills, Knowledge and Values

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves
and if we think [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with
wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their
discretion by education. 16

A healthy civil society requires a citizenry that is knowledgeable about government and
public affairs, skilled in the arts of democratic practice (deliberation, listening,
communication, critical thinking, and the like), and believes that they can have a voice in
what government does, that their voice will be heard and that it can make a difference. In
short, knowledge, skills and political efficacy form the cornerstone of a healthy civil
society. Unfortunately, these attributes are in short supply and have been getting shorter
for many years. The kinds of political engagement that foster the development of these
attributes have been strongly discouraged by three primary, and mutually reinforcing,
trends, which can be summed up as the “relevance factor,” the “negativity factor,” and
the “triumphant market factor.”

First, many people fail to see the relevance of government in their lives or in the lives of
the surrounding community.17 They are unable to link what they perceive to be private
or individual issues and problems with governmental activity or inactivity. How many
college students make the connection between changes in tax and budget allocation
policies and the rising cost of their tuition bills? Not many, I would bet.

Related to the relevance factor is the “negativity factor.” The reputation of government
in the U.S. has been under siege for years. These attacks have assumed the all too
familiar guise of government as “wasteful,” “incompetent,” and “corrupt,” all leading to
the firm conclusion that “government is the problem.”18 A close cousin to the negative
views of government is the equally negative view of politics.19 The very term itself has
come to symbolize corruption, back room deals and all other forms of illicit behavior that
interfere with decent practice. Of course, all of the recent scandals in Washington, D.C.
have not helped to counter this image.

Electoral Behavior, blacks consistently support a greater role for government in social welfare issues than
do whites
16
Thomas Jefferson in Phi Delta Kappan:1
17
Based on focus groups with college students around the country, the National Association of Secretaries
of State reported that, “few participants could articulate any concrete ways in which government affects
them. Said one Iowa non-voter, ‘...Most of the issues are for people who own businesses and have families
and kids in college and stuff. I mean it’s not even really related to us.’ (Des Moines - Non-college, Non-
voter) The New Millennium Project, 2000. www.nass.org.
18
While Ronald Reagan may have popularized this notion, he was not the only candidate to run for office
on a “government is the problem” platform.
19
Negative views are particularly prevalent among younger citizens. Zukin et al reported that in their focus
groups with young people between the ages of 15 and 28, 55% associated the word “politics” with lying,
49% with corrupt, and 48% with boring. (2006:110)

9
The relevance and negativity factors are bolstered by the “triumphant market factor.”
Reification of the market translates into a strong push to privatize as many functions,
products and services as is humanly possible thereby further emasculating government.20
Working in tandem with privatization is our fascination with the individual as opposed to
the collective body. While the myth of “rugged individualism” has always nurtured the
American soul, we appear to have gone head over heels for it over the last 25 years. The
1980s ushered in the era of the “entrepreneur” with a vengeance. As our infatuation with
personal responsibility, personal gain, and personal salvation soared, the traditional
organizational bases of American political, economic, social, and spiritual life (e.g.
parties, labor unions, communities, and religious institutions) waned. This inverse
relationship created a vicious cycle with “organizational” life taking a decided back seat
to individual expression. The 1960s adage that “the personal is the political” has been
turned on its head. The new dictum is “the political is the personal.” The market has
replaced the polis as seemingly personal problems falsely cry out for customized
solutions. The tragic irony of the above trends is, of course, that they further enable
powerful economic and other interests to distort government policies in their favor.

Educational efforts to rebuild civil society must address this unholy troika of relevance,
negativity, and the triumphant market factors. And, I might boldly add that those of us
who teach about government and democracy have a moral obligation to provide the
knowledge, skills, and values that enable and inspire young people to actively participate
in civic and political life.

Through effective pedagogy, we can begin to counter the forces that are discouraging
civic and political engagement among our youth. The essential tasks of such a pedagogy
are philosophical, cognitive, and normative. Philosophically, we need to demonstrate the
relevance of government, recast its image from negative to positive or, at least, to neutral,
and debunk the myths of privatization and the “lone ranger syndrome.” Cognitively, the
pedagogy should furnish students with the necessary knowledge and skills for operating
in a participatory and deliberative society. Students need a working knowledge of how
government and institutions operate and how what they do and do not do impacts the
lives of individuals, an awareness of the issues at hand and of the mechanisms for and
rules governing participation, and an understanding of power and its exercise and
accessibility.21 Equally important are the skills necessary to engage in democratic
practice: collection and evaluation of information, effective communication, critical
thinking, and deliberation and debate. Normatively, such a pedagogy should inculcate
students with the values upon which democratic participation is founded: values that
promote equality, respect for and appreciation of diversity, tolerance for different points
of view, compromise, teamwork, public regarding behavior, a belief in one’s own

20
Witness the Bush administration’s attempts to privatize Social Security and education. Many critics of
the No Child Left Behind Act have suggested that the underlying objective is to privatize public education.
(cf Meier et al 2004)
21
Among the reasons given by young people for not voting, the most commonly cited ones were a feeling
that their votes did not count (26%) and lack of sufficient information (25%) (CIRCLE. 2002:)

10
capacities to influence larger decisions, and trust in the larger system that it will be
responsive to such participation.

This list clearly indicates that the kind of education needed to foster the knowledge,
develop the skills, and instill the values necessary to sustain a democratic society should
be experiential, empowering, and democratic in nature. It must be experiential because
democratic practice is not a passive activity. In fact, the all too common textbook
depictions of American government as a static set of institutions seemingly on auto pilot
may actually discourage participation in public life. (cf. Delli Carpini and Keeter, 1996;
McDonnell, 2000; and McDonnell et al. 1990) It must be empowering because
meaningful participation requires citizens who believe that their participation is valued. It
is no accident that participation is lowest among those groups who are, or believe
themselves to be, the most marginalized in society (people of color, poor people, recent
immigrants). And, it must be democratic lest it reinforce notions that we do not live in a
democratic society. Pretense only heightens cynicism which is a strong link in the chain
of increasing disengagement. In short, educating for democracy needs to be a pedagogy
that embodies the values it is trying to promote in the learner.

For guidance on experiential learning that is both empowering and democratic there are
perhaps no better sources than John Dewey (1916; 1938) and Paulo Freire (2001; 2003).
For Dewey, experiential learning was at the heart of his educational theory. Dewey’s
philosophy of education is a philosophy of experience. But the experience is that of the
learner as opposed to that of the teacher or the textbook. As with Freire, it is “situated,
student-centered learning,” reaching the student where s/he is and then connecting their
experiences to larger societal issues, contexts and forces. This is especially critical in
courses that focus on American government. For many students (and their friends and
families, that is, their “known world”), democracy is still a promisatory note. Hence,
courses based on text books that portray democracy as a battle that has been fought and
won, merely reinforce the irrelevance factor for those students who have not benefited
from the spoils of victory.22 Situated learning, on the other hand, would begin with the
student’s experience and then explore the gap between that and the promise of
democracy. Not only does such an approach address the relevancy problem, but it also
helps students to develop critical thinking faculties as well as identify, and hopefully
question, perceived injustices.

22
In a recent examination of the three major text books used in high school civics and social studies
classes, Sharareh Frouzesh Bennett made the following observations: “…the underlying supposition
conveyed through the largely descriptive and unproblematized representation of government institutions is
that the institutions of American democracy manage to operate effectively regardless of citizen
participation.” “The textbooks fail to connect active citizenship to American constitutional democracy.
This is especially troublesome because the texts are taught not just as an authority on American
government, but as civics texts committed to outlining the range and scope of citizenship in an institutional
context. By extending their projects to the latter missions, while offering such limited means or reasons for
the necessity of citizen participation, the texts undermine the institutional rationale for active citizenship.”
(2005:16; 9). Lorraine McDonnell makes a similar argument stating that civics “instruction also tends to
focus on static descriptions of governmental institutions and less on the deliberative skills that students will
need to make informed political judgments and to participate actively in the public life of their
communities.” (2000:5)

11
Student-centered learning is also dialogical with the instructor playing the role of group
leader, helping to tease out larger themes and identifying and seizing upon “teachable”
moments. The dialogical aspect also ensures that such education is participatory. Given
the cultural mosaic that defines current American society and certainly the school
population, student-centered, experiential learning also takes on a strong multi-cultural
dimension.23 Issues and readings are examined from multiple perspectives with each one
subject to inspection, evaluation, and critique. Finally, this pedagogy must incorporate
significant opportunities for reflection in which personal experience is connected to
external activities as well as to larger theory and scholarship.

If we are serious about civic engagement and democratic practice, we need to

demonstrate the relevance of government and politics to the everyday life of our students
while providing them with the knowledge, skills, competencies, and tools necessary to
engage in larger societal processes. As educators we should be preparing young people
to be critical thinkers who are tolerant and respectful of other perspectives but ready to
challenge unjust practices, effective communicators who are knowledgeable, caring and
inquiring, and active participants in their own lives and in that of the larger society.
Nurturing these traits requires an approach to education vastly different from most of
what is practiced in the classroom today. The “banking” or “cold storage” system of
education that is far too prevalent in American education creates fact collectors as
opposed to independent thinkers.24 If deliberation and participation are the two main
components of a democratic society, this kind of training is not helpful. Indeed, it is
counterproductive. If the environment of the classroom is reinforcing non-democratic
practices, all of the civics lessons in the world will not overcome those underlying
messages. The old adage “actions speak louder than words” rings very true in the
classroom. The first task in educating for democracy is thus to examine our own
practices, many of which will come up wanting. Ultimately, educating for democracy
means living with risk—risk that our assumptions, beliefs, and authority will be
challenged and tested. Rising to those challenges and appropriately meeting them are
perhaps the best affirmation of a healthy civil society and democratic polity.

The Community Sector: Institutions and Practices

Education in the ways of democratic practice must be accompanied by opportunities to
meaningfully participate in public life. In their study of the changing patterns of
participation in political and civic life, Zukin et al concluded that “One of the greatest
predictors of public involvement is whether or not someone has been asked to
participate.” (2006:205) Unfortunately, the “asking mechanisms” or, what Macedo et al
termed “mobilizing institutions” are not up to the task. (2005) Two of these primary
institutions—labor unions and multi-tiered national voluntary associations like the

23
Addressing different cultural perspectives would probably also help to reduce prejudice as students
would learn that within their differences, they also have a lot in common in terms of concerns, goals, fears,
and the like.
24
“banking system” was the term used by Freire and “cold storage” the term used by Dewey to describe
educational practices that are fashioned on the teacher is expert, student is novice model in which the
teacher uncritically pours facts into the student’s mind.

12
PTA—have declined in scope, reach and significance while the third institution, the
political party, long ago abandoned its grass roots orientation for the more distant world
of high paid professional consultants and expensive media sound bites. While political
parties still engage in mobilization activities, they tend to give scant attention to young
people, poor people and immigrants. (Macedo et al 2005) Given the important
connection between mobilization and participation (Zukin et al, 2005; Verba, Schlozman
and Brady, 1995;), and the disproportionate concentration of poor people, people of
color, and immigrants in urban neighborhoods and older, inner ring suburbs, it behooves
us to find alternative institutions and practices for mobilizing within the community. The
most critical are: faith-based institutions, schools, and the practice of community
organizing. As Robert Warren noted, “A necessary starting point for building social
capital lies in the institutions that still exist in local communities.” (Warren, 2001:20) All
communities have faith-based institutions and schools which, together, reach a majority
of residents within the community. Igniting these institutions through the practice of
community organizing can produce the prerequisite “motivation, skills, resources, and
opportunities” for participating in public life. (Zukin, et al, 2006)

Faith-Based Institutions
Faith-based institutions are distinct from other community-based institutions in ways that
make them very strong candidates for rebuilding civil society along the lines suggested in
this paper. First, their range of activities encompasses many segments of a community’s
life from religious worship to education, from recreation to social services, and from
economic development to food and shelter. Indeed, in some of the poorest communities,
they may be the only institution. Thus, their ability to reach large segments of the
community is greater than most other community institutions. Second, they tend to have
much longer staying power than other institutions thus allowing them to engage residents
for the long haul and to provide some semblance of stability in an otherwise chaotic
environment. Third, they can appeal to residents from a moral framework about issues
related to community, obligation, and commitments beyond the individual. Such a
framework is necessary to counter the ubiquitous emphasis on and appeal to the
individual. Fourth, most faith-based organizations are part of larger networks that go
beyond the community and that often include secular institutions as well. Thus, they
provide the necessary connection or “bridging capital” to the larger society.
(Warren,2001) Fifth, through the regular workings of the church, many congregation
members acquire critical leadership skills such as outreach, organizing and facilitating
meetings, public speaking, letter writing, fundraising, planning community events, and
administration. This is especially important in low-income communities where residents
typically lack access to other institutional sources of such skill building such as
universities and union organized work places. (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995).
Finally, the black churches have a history of engaging in social movements, the most
notable of which was the civil rights movement, and of being in the thick of local politics
in terms of grooming political leadership and supporting, or not supporting, candidates
for office.25

25
In cities with sizable African American populations, black churches are typically on the map of
“necessary” campaign stops.

13
 Schools
Schools constitute the other likely institutional candidate. As with faith based
organizations, they are found in almost every community, they have longer staying power
than other institutions in the community, and they reach large segments of the population.
Many schools have mechanisms in place for outreach, especially to parents and
guardians. Teachers’ unions, while viewed negatively in some corners, constitute another
potential source for larger mobilization efforts.26 In some school districts, teachers and
parents have worked collaboratively for additional resources and policy change. (cf
Blanc, Goldwasser, and Brown. 2003). There is strong precedent for schools operating as
fully integrated community institutions. The community control movement in the 1960s
sought to transform schools into institutions that were run by and, therefore, responsive
to, the community. More recently, the Beacon School movement, which began in New
York City in 1991 and which has been replicated in several other cities including
Chicago, Oakland, San Francisco and Philadelphia, is an effort to provide programming
and services to the community based on significant input from the residents. (Schorr,
1997) Finally, schools are charged with the most fundamental task in a democratic
society—education.

Activating the Institutional Bases through Community Organizing

For the reasons cited above, faith-based organizations and schools can serve as the new
“mobilizing institutions” within low-income communities. However, since that is not
their principal mandate, their capacity to do so has to be activated. Community
organizing can serve that role. Community organizing, as practiced by most
organizations, incorporates all of the tasks cited above for rebuilding civil society while
addressing many of the underlying causes of disengagement. First and foremost,
community organizing is about base building for purposes of developing power; thus, by
definition, it is a force for incorporating citizens into the political process. Moreover, in
reaching out to people of color, to those at the lower ends of the economic ladder and,
more recently, to immigrant populations, community organizing is targeting some of the
most disenfranchised groups in American society.27

These outreach activities are designed to tap into the self interests of residents and,
ultimately, to illustrate how their interests are impacted by politics, governmental policy,
and institutional practices. Thus, connections are drawn between very local concerns and
larger systems of power. By engaging in practices such as deliberation, debate, voting,
and accountability sessions with public officials, community organizing imparts key
democratic skills to community residents. Leadership training, which is a key part of
community organizing, equips ordinary residents with facilitation, public speaking,
26
Teachers’ unions have often come under attack from educational reformers on the right and the left as
being overly protective of their members at the expense of improving educational quality. This is a very
complex issue far beyond the scope of this paper.
27
Actually, there is some debate as to whether community organizing is reaching the most disenfranchised
segments of American society. (Warren, 2001) Without getting into that conversation, suffice it to say that
community organizing, as a collective endeavor, reaches deeper into the disenfranchised populations than
other forms of association or mobilization.

14
research, and outreach and organizing skills. Through public actions and policy
campaigns, community organizing provides opportunities for people to collectively
engage in issues relevant to their lives and their communities. The relationship building
that occurs through these campaigns helps to develop social capital within the
community. And, it is the kind of social capital that is directly connected to political
goals.28 Organizing victories, of which there have been many, reap significant benefits
for many low-income residents and people of color.29 In addition to the tangible benefits,
these victories help to build the political efficacy of community members which serves as
an incentive to continue their involvement and to recruit additional residents to the
enterprise. In short, community organizing is a very promising strategy for rebuilding
civil society. Infusing this practice into faith based institutions and schools can provide
the key to re-engaging disenfranchised populations in ways that connect them to political
and governmental systems.

Fortunately, there are numerous examples of incorporating community organizing

practices into faith based institutions and schools. Beginning with Saul Alinsky’s work
with congregations and parishes in Chicago, there has been a proliferation of faith-based
organizing. According to Siranni and Friedland, there are approximately 4000 institutions
that are affiliated with faith-based organizations spanning 33 states and the District of
Columbia.30 (2005) The four major networks representing faith based organizing
(Industrial Areas Foundation—IAF; PICO31; Direct Action, Research and Training—
DART; and Gamaliel Foundation) have a strong presence in many states encompassing
all regions of the country: PICO has affiliates in 150 cities across 7 states;32 IAF is in 44
cities across 21 states;33 DART is in 22 cities across 6 states;34 Gamaliel is in 21 states.
Of these networks, DART and Gamaliel organize only in faith based institutions while
PICO and IAF have expanded to include other institutions, most notably schools and
labor unions. DART concentrates its organizing efforts at the county level and Gamaliel
at the metropolitan level, while PICO and IAF are structured in ways that can integrate
local issues with larger citywide and sometimes statewide efforts. (see below)

Faith-based organizing integrates individual development with institution building.

Central to both is the practice of relational organizing that blends one-on-one

28
I use the term political in a totally non partisan way.
29
In addition to the well known victories around community reinvestment, which resulted in two major
pieces of federal legislation---Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) in 1975 and the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977, community organizing efforts have secured victories around living wage
and minimum wage, affordable housing, economic development, immigration, health care, education,
public safety and prisoner re-entry issues among others. See Gittell, Ferman and Price, Assessing
Community Change 2006.
30
The number for institutions was from the 2000 census whereas the number of states was as of 2004.
31
PICO was originally called the Pacific Institute for Community Organizing; it is now simply PICO
32
these cities include: New York, Philadelphia, Camden, New Orleans, Birmingham, Orlando, Gainesville,
Denver, Kansas City, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Anchorage.
33
these cities include: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, DC, Seattle, Portland, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix, Tuscon, Atlanta, Charlotte,
Durham, Jackson (Mississippi).
34
The six states are: Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio. The cities include: Miami,
Orlando, Miami, Sarasota, Tampa, Louisville, Lansing, Columbus, Toledo, Charlottesville, and Richmond.

15
conversations with congregation and community members with networking across
congregations and other institutions to build the power necessary to achieve the desired
change. Issues are selected based on their popularity among members, their ability to
unite members, and the potential for victory. Invoking the social justice component
within the Judeao-Christian tradition, faith-based organizing has, in many places,
successfully bridged racial, denominational and class divides around fundamental issues
of health care, education, housing, neighborhood safety, and the like.35 Moreover, these
organizing efforts have often enlisted public agencies, elected officials, and major
institutions as allies, thus creating the bridge between community residents and the
political and governmental spheres. These alliances have also helped to increase the
credibility of the organizers.36

Although working through individual congregations, the Industrial Areas Foundation

(IAF)37 and PICO, two of the major faith-based networks, both employ a federated model
that encourages local base building and institutional development while providing the
vehicle for collaboration across neighborhoods. Individual faith-based institutions
engage in their own relational organizing and develop and carry out their own issue
campaigns thereby developing their leadership, credibility, and organizing capacities but
they also participate in federated campaigns that involve a collaboration of all the
institutional members. In both cases, issues are selected through democratic processes.
And, in Texas, IAF has developed a statewide network that combines local base building
with efforts to influence state level policy while PICO has developed a similar structure
in California called the California Project. (Warren, 2001; Foley, McCarthy and Chaves,
2001)

There are also some very good examples of school based organizing, some of which have
been initiated, supported and/or encouraged by IAF and PICO, some of which grew out
of other organizing efforts and some of which began spontaneously as a result of student
dissatisfaction with the overall educational climate. In most cases, the organizing is
student led and designed to hold schools and education decision makers more
accountable to the students as well as to the larger community.

In Philadelphia, Youth United For Change, a PICO affiliate, began organizing in schools
nearly 15 years ago. With chapters in 4 high schools they have taken on issues related to
curriculum, library and technology resources, and college and career preparation. The
Philadelphia Student Union, which began in 1996, has chapters in 5 high schools and has
forged organizing campaigns to address issues of school safety, curriculum, class size,
and the privatization of Philadelphia’s schools. Along with Youth United for Change,
they are also part of the broader small schools campaign. Both of these organizations are
multi-racial, totally youth driven and incorporate leadership development and training

35
In fact, these organizing efforts are characterized by much more diversity than the traditional civic
associations whose decline is lamented in the work of many social capital theorists. Given the increasingly
multi racial, ethnic and cultural composition of the U.S., such efforts are sorely needed.
36
In Florida, several DART and PICO organizers have actually been asked by public officials to help them
out on certain issues. (interviews, December 2006)
37
IAF is the network that grew out of Saul Alinsky’s pioneering work in Chicago.

16
activities for their members. In Denver, Jovenes Unidos, which is part of Padres Unidos,
has taken on issues of drop out rates, zero tolerance policies, college preparation, small
schools, and the “school house to jail house” phenomenon that ensnares many low-
income students of color. They also conduct a Summer Institute to train students in a
variety of areas including issue identification, public speaking and researching political
and educational issues. Interestingly, Padres Unidos formed initially to fight an issue in
one of the Denver elementary schools. Out of their initial success they grew into a multi-
issue organization fighting discrimination on many fronts. Jovenes Unidos then formed
as the student arm within the schools. (see www.padresunidos.org) In New York City,
Sistas and Brothas United (SBU), a youth leadership project of the Northwest Bronx
Community and Clergy Coalition (NWBCCC), has been active in school reform efforts
for several years. They successfully fought for physical improvements, more counselors
and betters security in schools. Their biggest victory was the approval of the Leadership
Institute, a school they had designed based on the principles embedded in the “small
schools movement.” (Carlo et al. 2005) The Philadelphia, Denver and New York
organizations are but a few examples of the many school-based organizing efforts that
have taken root around the country.

School-based organizing has also included significant parent involvement. In Dallas,

Houston and Forth Worth, for example, IAF organizers mobilized large numbers of
parents to address issues of educational quality, after school programming, better
resources for schools and the like. Ultimately, these efforts resulted in a successful
statewide campaign that leveraged millions of dollars in funding for the more than 20
schools involved in the effort. (Warren, 2001)

Common to both faith-based and school-based organizing is an emphasis on democratic

practice, base building and constituency development, leadership training and
development, and the cultivation of strategic alliances within government, the advocacy
and non profit communities, and, even within the private sector when appropriate.38 The
goals of both are to democratize decision making by including the voices of
disenfranchised populations, to reform systems and policies that disadvantage those with
the least resources, and to hold public officials accountable for their actions. To the
extent that their efforts are successful, they constitute a viable source for increasing
deliberation and participation in public decision-making and restoring accountability to
government. And, they are probably the only efforts that engage disenfranchised
populations.39

Beyond the Community

Although community organizing is about local base building and, thus, typically targets
issues that are local in scope, there exists the possibility for a bubbling up of efforts since
the issues impacting low income communities and communities of color transcend
geographic boundaries. Two of the most important pieces of federal legislation affecting
these communities—the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act [HMDA] of 1975 and the

38
Some PICO and IAF affiliates have also included organized labor in their alliance building.
39
While some parts of the labor movement, in particular SEIU, also incorporate disenfranchised
populations (i.e. very low wage workers), that is not their sole focus.

17
Community Reinvestment Act [CRA] of 1977—grew out of grassroots organizing in
Chicago which then spread to similar communities across the country. These two pieces
of legislation, CRA in particular, resulted in significant reinvestment in low-income
communities.

A more recent example of this bubbling up can be found in the Living Wage campaigns.
Beginning with the successful Living Wage Campaign carried out in 1994 by BUILD, an
IAF affiliate in Baltimore, in alliance with labor organizations, there has been a
proliferation of similar campaigns in cities and counties across the country. As a result,
140 cities and counties have passed living wage ordinances. (Living Wage Resource
Center. www.livingwagecampaign.org) Moreover, the existence of larger networks
within which many faith based organizing activities are embedded (PICO, IAF, DART,
Gamaliel) provide the institutional vehicles to connect local efforts across broader
geographic lines, thus facilitating the “bubbling up” process. As noted above, IAF and
PICO have developed statewide networks in Texas and California, respectively.
Organizing activities carried out through these networks have resulted in policy victories
in education, job training and health care. (Sirianni and Friedland, 2005)

School-based organizing has also gone beyond individual schools and cities as witnessed
by the PICO and IAF examples cited above and by the Cross City Campaign for Urban
School Reform’s work in general and with the Small Schools Initiative in particular.
With operations in Baltimore, Denver, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York,
Oakland, Philadelphia, and Seattle, Cross City Campaign has been able to promote the
issues of accountability, school quality, and the need for small schools on a fairly broad
scale.

Conclusion: Education, Community Organizing and the Rebuilding of Civil Society

Restoring deliberative practices, broadening the base of participation in politics and
policy, and increasing accountability in government requires that we first rebuild civil
society. The key tasks include education and skill building, mobilization of citizens, and
the development of opportunities for meaningful participation. The educational
community and community-based institutions are particularly well situated to carry out
these tasks. Moreover, the complementary nature of many of the tasks creates
opportunities for collaborations around research, learning and practice, collaborations
that can strengthen each sector and further contribute to the rebuilding of civil society.

The field of community organizing has become increasingly sophisticated in its arsenal of
tactics and methods to include research, analysis, and mapping tools, areas in which
universities can and have played a key role. (Gittell, Ferman and Price; 2006; Delgado,
1994) Perhaps the best example is the Community Reinvestment Act, a tool that has
been very successfully used by organizers but one that requires painstaking analyses of
HMDA data. Research has been critical to other areas of organizing as well. Labor
market analyses have been conducted to provide the informational ammunition for wage
and job related organizing campaigns; research on toxicity and pollutants has been used
in environmental campaigns; gentrification studies have been used to fight for housing set

18
asides, and the like. Organizing has also incorporated new tools such as power analyses
and message framing exercises in the development of campaign strategies. GIS mapping
has been used to document community needs and governmental responsiveness. These
sophisticated tools often require the enlistment of academic expertise. In fact, according
to Gary Delgado, there has been more collaboration between community organizers and
academic institutions than there has between community organizing networks. Academic
institutions provide much of the actual research, as well as research training and other
expertise. (1994)40

Collaborative possibilities also exist around learning and teaching practices. Community
Fellows programs provide opportunities for community leaders to engage in teaching,
learning and research activities on college campuses. In many instances the community
fellow is paired with a faculty person or graduate student in ways that allow for
reciprocal mentoring.41 Community based learning courses can provide students with
hands on community experience while augmenting the staffing capacity of community
organizations.42 Occidental College hired an IAF trained community organizer to head its
Center for Community Based Learning which is responsible for developing courses that
bring the university and community together in mutually respectful and productive ways.
(Mott, n.d.)

Although space limitations prevent a full-blown excavation, there are many examples of
collaborative practices between universities and communities that are focused on
furthering democratic ends and supporting those individuals and organizations that are
engaged in such work. However, despite their number, these efforts, as Andrew Mott
accurately noted, “exist on the margins of universities” (n.d:56) and, therefore, are always
threatened with extinction. Thus, an area for potential collaboration is in the battle to
bring these programs from the margins to the mainstream. There is a lot that we can
learn about strategies, tactics and organizing from our colleagues in the trenches and,
organizers have a lot to gain from the development of more university programs that
support their efforts. Moreover, there is strong precedent for refashioning higher
education around the larger goals of citizenship and democracy. The creator and first
president of the University of Chicago, William Rainey Harper, clearly viewed the
university as central to the well being of democracy. “The university, I contend, is the

40
Examples of such research collaborations include: The Policy Research Action Group (PRAG) in
Chicago which involves 5 institutions of higher education; The Center For Research and Urban Learning
(CURL) at Loyola University in Chicago; the University of Massachusetts at Lowell; the Research Institute
on Social and Economic Policy within the Center for Labor and Research Studies at Florida International
University.
41
The Center For Research and Urban Learning (CURL) at Loyola University in Chicago has had such a
program for many years. Similarly, UCLA had a Community Fellows program but, according to Andrew
Mott, cut back on it when they decided to increase the university’s academic profile, thus cutting back on
programs deemed peripheral to that objective. (Mott, n.d.)
42
Community based placements for students can also be problematic if the student has no preparation for
the work, if the placement is viewed by the instructor as serving primarily the needs of the student, and if
the community work is not tied to critical reflection activities. Unfortunately, this has come to dominate
most of the service learning universe. (cf Walker: 2000) However, when constructed thoughtfully and in
collaboration with the community partner and when grounded in a larger political and social analysis, such
placements can be a very enriching and useful experience for all.

19
prophet of democracy—the agency established by heaven itself to proclaim the principles
of democracy…It is the university that must guide democracy into the new fields of arts
and literature and science. It is the university that fights the battles of democracy…”
(1905:19-20, in Harkavy, 2006:7) Similarly, Charles W. Eliot, in transforming Harvard
College from a small, languishing school into the premier research university in the
country, asserted that “At bottom most of the American institutions of higher education
are filled with the democratic spirit of serviceableness. Teachers and students alike are
profoundly moved by the desire to serve the democratic community.” (Vesey,1965:119 in
Harkavy, 2006:10-11). More recently, Alexander Astin proclaimed that “…when it
comes to describing its educational mission, the typical college or university will use
language such as ‘preparing students for responsible citizenship,’ ‘developing character,’
developing future leaders,’ preparing students to serve society,’ and so forth.” (1997:210-
211, in Harkavy 2006:11) Holding institutions of higher education accountable to their
democratic mission is indeed a battle worth fighting.

Expanding the democratic franchise requires deliberate, concerted action. In contrast to

the standard textbook portrayal of democracy as a well functioning set of institutions, we
need to treat democracy as an on-going battle that requires continual work. If we are to
have policies that serve the broadest possible spectrum of society, we need a vigilant
citizenry that is well trained, well educated, and highly motivated to participate in the
public life. Such a citizenry can demand and create the kind of opportunities for
meaningful participation that ensure the marriage of accountability, deliberation and
participation with strong, effective and responsible leadership. The alternative is to
continue down the path of increasing inequality, corruption, cynicism, and alienation
from government and politics. No democracy can last for very long on such shaky
foundations.

20
 References

The American National Election Studies (www.electionstudies.org). THE ANES GUIDE

TO PUBLIC OPINION AND ELECTORAL BEHAVIOR. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan, Center for Political Studies.

APSA Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy. (2004) “American

Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality.” Perspectives on Politics , December 2004,
v2#4:651-666.

Bennett, Sharareh Frouzesh. 2005. “An Analysis of the Depiction of Democratic

Participation in American Civic Textbooks.” Paper presented at the German-American
Conference on “Responsible Citizenship, Education, and the Constitution.” Freiburg,
Germany, September 12-16, 2005

Berry, J., K. Portney, and K. Thomson (1993). The Rebirth of Urban Democracy
(Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press).

Blanc, S, M. Goldwasser, and J. Brown. (2003) From the Ground Up: The Logan Square
Neighborhood Association’s Approach to Building Community Capacity. (Chicago, IL:
Prepared for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Logan Square
Neighborhood Association.. February 2003

Carlo, F. A. Powell, L. Vazquez, S. Daniels, C. Smith, and K. Mediratta and A. Zimmer

(2005). “Youth Take the Lead on High School Reform Issues.” in Rethinking Schools.
Volume 19 No. 4 - Summer 2005 (www.rethinkingschools.org)

CIRCLE, 2002. Youth Civic Engagement, Basic Facts and Trends. January 9.

Coles, R. (2006). “Of Tensions and Tricksters: Grassroots Democracy Between Theory
and Practice.” In Perspectives on Politics. September 2006, V4#3:547-561).

Danielson M. and J. Hochschild. (1998) “Changing Urban Education: Lessons, Cautions,

Prospects” in C. Stone (ed) Changing Urban Education (Lawrence, KS: University Press
of Kansas):250-276.

Delgado, G. (1994). Beyond the Politics of Place: New Directions in Community

Organizing in the 1990s. (Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center)

Delli Carpini, M and S. Keeter, 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it
Matters. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. (New York, NY: Free Press)

__________. 1938 Experience and Education. (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster)

21
Doherty, K. (1998) “Changing Urban Education: Defining the Issues” in C. Stone (ed)
Changing Urban Education (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas):225-249.

Eliasoph, N. (1998) Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday

Life. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).

Ferman, B. (1985) Governing the Ungovernable City: Political Skill, Leadership and the
Modern Mayor. (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press)

Ferman, B. (1996). Challenging the Growth Machine: Neighborhood Politics in Chicago

and Pittsburgh. (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas)

Foley, M. J.D. McCarthy and M. Chaves. (2001). “Social Capital, Religious Institutions,
and Poor Communities” in Saegert, S., J. P. Thompson, M.R. Warren (eds) Social
Capital and Poor Communities. (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation):215-245.

Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (New York, NY. Continum. 30th
Anniversary Edition).

__________. (2001). Pedagogy of Freedom. (Lanham, MD. Rowman and Littlefield

Publishers, Inc.)

Friedland, L. and S.Morimoto. (2005). “The Changing Lifeworld of Young People: Risk,
Resume-Padding, and Civic Engagment.” CIRCLE Working Paper 40. September 2005.
www.civicyouth.org

Fung, A. (2004). Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. (Princeton,

NJ:Princeton University Press).

Gittell,M, B. Ferman and C. Price. (2006). Assessing Community Change (New York,
NY: The Howard Samuels Center. Prepared for the Ford Foundation).

Harkavy, I. (2006). “the role of universities inn advancing citizenship and social justice
in the 21st century.” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. V.1(1):5-37. (Santa
Monica, CA: Sage Publications) www.sagepublications.com

Jefferson, T. (1939) On Democracy. (New York, NY:Mentor Books).

_______________. Phi Delta Kappan:1

Living Wage Resource Center. www.livingwagecampaign.org)

Livingston, C. (2006) “Public Universities Chase Excellence, at a Price.” New York

Times, December 20, 2006

22
Macedo, S. and others. (2005) Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine
Citizen Participation and What We Can Do About It. (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press).

McDonnell, L. (2000). “Defining Democratic Purposes” in McDonnell, L, P.M. Timpane

and R. Benjamin (eds) Rediscovering the Democratic Purposes of Education.
(Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas):1-18

_____________, et al. (1990) Discovering What Schools Really Teach. (Santa Monica,
CA: Rand Corporation)

Meier, D. et al (2004). Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is
Damaging our Children and Our Schools. (Boston, MA: Beacon Press)

Mott, A. (n.d.) University Education for Community Change: A Vital Strategy for
Progress on Poverty, Race and Community-Building. (Washington, DC: Community
Learning Project) www.communitylearningproject.org

National Association of Secretaries of State. (1999). The New Millennium Project—Part

I: American Youth Attitudes on Politics, Citizenship, Government and Voting.
(Washington, D.C: NASS)/ www.nass.org

Panetta Institute. (2000) “Institute Poll Shows College Students Turned Off by Politics,
Turned On By Other Public Service.” www.panettainstitute.org

Public Editor. (2006) “Public Colleges as ‘Engines of Inequality’” New York Times
November 23, 2006

Putnam, Robert. (2000). Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York, NY Simon and Schuster.

Schorr, L.B. (1997) Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods to

Rebuild America. (New York, NY: Anchor Books).

Siranni, C and L. A. Friedland. (2005). The Civic Renewal Movement: Community

Building and Democracy in the United States. (Dayton, OH: The Charles F. Kettering
Foundation).

Stone, C. (1998) “Urban Education in Political Context.” in C. Stone (ed) Changing

Urban Education (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas):1-22.

Tocqueville, A. (1956) Democracy in America (New York, NY:Mentor Books)

Uggen, C and J. Manza. (2002). “Democratic Contraction: Political Consequences of

Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States.” ASA, V67 #6, December, 2002:777-
803.

23
Verba, S., K. Schlozman and H. Brady. (1995) Voice and Equality. (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).

Walker, T. (2000). “The Service/Politics Split: Rethinking Service to Teach Political

Engagement.” PSOnline, September, 2000: 647-649 www.apsanet.org

Warren, M.R. (2001) Dry Bones Rattling: Community Building to Revitalize Democracy
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)

Williams, L. (2004) “The Issue of our Time: Economic Inequality and Political Power in
America.” Perspectives on Politics , December 2004, v2#4:683-690

Zukin, C., S. Keeter, M. Andolina, K. Jenkinsg and M. Delli Carpini. (2006). A New
Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life and the Changing American Citizen.
(Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press).

24