So, just a quick post to let you (whoever that may be) know what’s new in my life – as an educator…
First off, university is over for the semester. I write my first exam in a little over a week – crunch time!!! Actually looking forward to it – the stimulation of studying and immersing myself in academia… I plan to get a good deal of studying done this weekend..hehe, we’ll see.
Have posted a copy of my most recently returned essay (85%) – YAY – hope it makes for interesting reading.
This weekend I also have a HUGE pile of making to get through, hope to get it all done tomorrow.
BUT THE REAL NEWS:
One of the learners in my class today told me he hates me. WOW – of all the things you become a teacher for – hearing something like that from a 13 year old is not one of them. Basically I confiscated his cell phone (he was text chatting in class) and I took it away as is school policy. It was pretty hectic, and being a teacher at the school I’m at, enforcing rules is always a necessity but can be a risk too. He’s quite a good kid – disruptive and doesn’t work, but he’s well intended (a typical 13 year old???) and I felt a bit bad, but rules are rules and I’m tired of being the nice person who always let’s the kids be kids… - they need to grow up and realize that actions have consequences. Anyway, the principal heard about the him hating me incident and called us both in – of course it wasn’t a great experience, but I think it needed to happen. I’m just getting increasingly concerned as to why I’m an educator – do I want to be unreasonable – NO – in fact that’s exactly what I don’t want!!! I want to be pat of a teaching process where I reason with them. They need that, especially in today’s society. It’s messed up, and so many of the educators teaching alongside me have conflicting views. I believe it’s a process, they always seem more concerned with a means to and END!
Will keep you posted.
Friday, May 25, 2007
An Academic Essay
The text below is an essay I submitted for my Education and Philosophy course. Should you use any of the information herein, please be sure to reference either the original authors or me...Thanks
TITLE: DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY
Ms S.J. Louw
Student number: 200715152
Course: PGCE
Module: Education A: Philosophy of Education
Lecturer: Mr Dirk Postma
Due date: 7 May 2007
Word count: 4 796
Task:
How would you educate students on the issues of a deliberative democracy? Provide a critical account of the conception of a deliberative democracy and explain in detail how students could be enabled in the classroom to participate in this kind of democracy.
Abstract:
This essay initially takes an objective stance towards the deliberative form of democracy, detailing the nature and characteristics of deliberative democracy and providing a critical definition of the concept. The text goes on to look at practical ways in which to educate learners on the issues around deliberative democracy, giving a detailed application of deliberative democracy suitable for the South African classroom.
Plagiarism Declaration:
I hereby declare that this essay is my own work. I have acknowledged all other authors’ ideas and referenced direct quotations from their work. I have not allowed anyone else to borrow or copy my work.
Signed: ……………………
Date: ………………………
Introduction
As South Africa and the rest of the world are investing in, and continue to move towards, “democracy” – both in its political conception and as a way of life – it is important that as academics in the education field, we are critical in our own conception and analysis of all forms of democracy. For the purpose of this essay I will look at the deliberative form of democracy and assess what it has to offer young people. The first section of this essay will critically describe deliberative democracy from a theoretical perspective. In the second section I will elaborate on the necessity of deliberative democracy in the South African classroom and consider its value to young South Africans. The final section of this essay will look at ways to educate learners on deliberative democracy and detail one example of how to implement it in the classroom.
What is deliberative democracy?
As a point of departure for this essay, it is crucial to begin with a definition of deliberative democracy. The term, “deliberative democracy”, has its epistemological roots in the word “democracy”, which itself has many, various and complex definitions. Possibly the most fitting, suitable and articulate definition of democracy is that which Dewey gives. Dewey defines two criteria necessary for democracy:
The first dignifies not only more numerous and more varied points of shared common interest, but greater reliance upon the recognition of mutual interests as a factor in social control. The second means not only freer interaction between social groups…but change in social habit – its continuous readjustments through meeting the new situation produced by varied intercourse. And these two traits are precisely what characterize the democratically constituted society.
(Dewey, 1916: 5)
In line with this definition, Dewey poses two questions that any society pursuing democracy must consider; “How numerous and varied are the interests which are consciously shared? How full and free is the interplay with other forms of association?” (Dewey, 1916: 2). In this definition, Dewey challenges democratic societies to consider their democratic status by discovering diversity beyond what is shared in common and enabling an open society with free interaction between all people within that said society. It is this conception of democracy that I will use as my core conception of the ideal “democracy”. As mentioned, democracy is complex in its definition and has many variations. For the purpose and scope of this essay, I will use only the above definition for democracy, but will further the definition by considering one variation of democracy, namely deliberative democracy. Benhabib puts forward a definition of democracy in which he describes the theory as being somewhat inherently deliberative, showing a clear link between democracy and it’s deliberative branch; democracy results “from the free and unconstrained public deliberation of all matters of common concern” (1996:68). From a political perspective, deliberative democracy claims “that in a democratic polity political decisions should be reached through a process of deliberation among free and equal citizens” (Mouffe, 2000). Incorporating the term “deliberative”, at the heart of deliberative democracy is the idea of “talk” and “discussion”. Simply put, deliberative democracy is talk or deliberation between people in the public sphere towards the end goal of decision making for the good of society; “consensus decision making…from the public deliberation of the citizenry” (Wikipedia, 2007). Of course, the real notion underlying the term is much more complex than what these straightforward definitions express. Sirianni and Friedland (2007) give a more elaborate definition of deliberative democracy, describing how “citizens…[deliberate] about public problems and solutions under conditions that are conducive to reasoned reflection and refined public judgement”. This is very closely linked to Young’s description of deliberative democracy; “a process that creates a public, citizens coming together to talk about collective problems, goals, ideals and actions” (Young, 1996:121). Closer to the definition I will work with, this adds the idea of collective reasoning: “through public deliberation citizens transform their preferences according to public-minded ends, and reason together about the nature of those ends and the best means to realize them” (Young, 1996:121). In light of what this essay discusses, I will incorporate the above definitions of deliberative democracy as well as one from Seyla Benhabib before I launch into a critical discussion of the concept. In his discussion regarding the legitimacy of deliberative democracy, Benhabib puts forward an accurate and comprehensive definition of the term:
According to the deliberative model of democracy, it is a necessary condition for attaining legitimacy and rationality with regard to collective decision making processes in a polity, that the institutions of this polity are so arranged that what is considered in the common interest of all results from processes of collective deliberation conducted rationally and fairly among free and equal individuals. The more collective decision-making processes approximate this model the more increases the presumption of their legitimacy and rationality.
(1996:69)
Benhabib describes deliberative democracy as decision-making through a public and collective deliberative process which aims to arrive at neutral, common interest solutions. This process is legitimate as a doctrine (both politically and as a way of life) through the equal and free discussion between varied voices of participating citizens. The above definitions considered, it is important that for the scope of this essay, deliberative democracy encompasses many of the characteristics outlined above, but at the centre of what I interpret as deliberative democracy, especially towards a classroom environment implementation, is free and equal talk between citizens (or learners) who are ‘reasonably’ dedicated to the outcomes on a societal, rather than political, level of a basic democracy. In this instance, learners will talk and debate freely in a relatively free space where everyone has the equal opportunity to take part in the discussion, and where everyone is in agreement that all learners are equal in status and equally entitled to their opinion and to participate in the rational deliberation.
As with any political term, or even a concept that describes a “way of life” (so to speak), definitions are complex and the notions themselves, in a more practical sense, are contentious. With this in mind, it is important, especially from and intellectual and academic perspective, that we review and consider the criticisms that contest deliberative democracy, in order to arrive at a critical understanding of the concept.
Deliberative democracy: a critical perspective
Deliberative democracy must be recognised very much as the ideal it represents. Theoretical in its conception, its manifestation must be similarly considered. With the view to obtaining the critical understanding mentioned above, I will now discuss the most prominent criticisms levelled at deliberative democracy.
The first criticism, “the corrosion of individual liberties” (Benhabib, 1996:74) is levelled at the idea that the legitimacy of deliberative democracy lies in its “power…to be a public process, open to all citizens to partake in” (Benhabib, 1996:74). The idea behind this criticism is that ‘individual liberties’ are relative in their conception: from a liberalist perspective, the ‘public sphere’ is restricted and limited, and is “located…in the state and its organisations, including…the legal sphere and its institutions” (Benhabib, 1996:75). This is in conflict with what the deliberative model holds: that civil society comprises the public sphere, and it is to these individuals that deliberation must be afforded. Thus, there is a conceptual problem: “public reason is not freely wielded public reasoning” (Benhabib, 1996:77). The liberalist view challenges the deliberative model because instead of individuals in civil society having their equal say in deliberation, “public speech” and “shared reasoning” becomes institutionalised, with individuals transforming into various majorities which “challenge the principles of political liberalism” (Benhabib, 1996:77), leaving decision making to “majoritarian decisions” (Benhabib, 1996:77) rather than the idealised neural and public decision making. This contravenes the idea of individual liberties: “the liberal concern about the corrosive effect of unbridled majoritarian politics upon civic and political liberties is …incontrovertible” (Benhabib, 1996:77).
With a backdrop of this majoritarian view, deliberative democracy can be said to insufficiently “protect individuals’ basic rights and liberties” (Benhabib, 1996:77). This criticism, as Benhabib describes, is two-fold: assuming that the deliberative model seeks consensus at the expense of hearing particular views and that majorities do indeed triumph over minority groups (Benhabib, 1996:77). To this end, the search for consensus means that not every individual can be addressed, and any move towards consensus is virtually inherently a majority rule. The criticism levelled at deliberative democracy here is
Although it presupposes that participants must recognise on another’s entitlement to moral respect and reciprocity [rights to equal and free participation as well as “symmetrical rights” with other participants in the introduction of topics for discussion and encouraging reciprocity from each other] in some sense, the determination of the precise content and extent of these principles would be a consequence of discourses themselves.
(Benhabib, 1996:79)
These two norms (universal moral respect and egalitarian reciprocity) then refute the concerns regarding consensus and majority “tyranny” (Benhabib, 1996:79), because through the free deliberation that the norms allow, neutral deliberation can prevail.
The second avenue of criticism develops very much along the same lines as the feminist criticism put forward by Young, “deliberative democracy [does] not [extend] itself broadly enough to be truly inclusive” (Benhabib, 1996:81), describing the public sphere as a space dominated by masculine characteristics. Masculine in this regard refers to the type of characteristics which are sought after in the deliberative framework, such as assertive, confident, educated, middle- to upper-class individuals. This simplistic conception is developed by Young in her discussion on the “exclusionary implications of the deliberative model” (Young, 1996:122). For Young, the deliberative model is exclusionary in two ways, namely, it restricts discussion in a culturally biased way, and it assumes some form of unity. Deliberative democracy, as mentioned, requires equality between participants. Young argues, however, that although participants may be equal with regard to political and economic power within the deliberative model, it makes no consideration for social inequality (Young, 1996:122). Young describes this social inequality in terms of “style of speech…cultural differences and different social positions” (Young, 1996:123), the elimination of which will create the equality needed for deliberative democracy. This works in relation to the “male-dominated institutions” (Young, 1996:123) which prevail in society, in which “speech that is assertive and confrontational is…more valued that speech that is tentative, exploratory, or conciliatory…[privileging] male speaking styles” (Young, 1996:123). Young’s second consideration of how deliberative democracy is exclusionary is the way in which is assumes unity (Young, 1996:125), the assumption that “processes of discussion that aim to reach understanding must either begin with shared understandings or take a common goal as their goal (Young, 1996:120). Young argues that the deliberative process of moving from various individuals’ subjective positions to a more neutral and objective stance means that there needs to be some “prior condition” of unity, with “shared understandings” between participants (Young, 1996:125). Alternatively, there exists a goal of “[locating] or [creating] common interests that all can share” (Young, 1996:126). For Young, these two ‘options’ require some prerequisite of, or towards, unity. Young encourages rather, the differences between participants (as opposed to unity), suggesting that this difference instead be considered a resource:
…a richer understanding of processes of democratic discussion results if we assume that differences of social position and identity perspective function as a resource for public reason rather than as divisions that public reason transcends.
(Young, 1996:127)
For Young, the overcoming of these criticisms lies in the conception of a more communicative democracy in which equality is reached through “any forms of communicative interaction where people aim to reach understanding” (Young, 1996:125).
Along similar lines, that some voices are heard and others are not (exclusion), is the criticism put forward by Elizabeth Ellsworth. Ellsworth’s criticism is levelled at the repressive nature of the discourse which constitutes critical pedagogy, the educational theory which aims to create a critical consciousness in students (Wikipedia, 2007). For Ellsworth, despite the supposed critical discourse of critical pedagogy, it in fact contributes to the perpetuation and domination of particular voices and views in society. Ellsworth argues that the use of the particular discourse of critical pedagogy places “rational argument” (Ellsworth, 1989:301) put forward by a certain societal party against the “Other”, thus serving as a “vehicle of repression” (Ellsworth, 1989:298). This leads to the posing of Ellsworth’s question: “What diversity to we silence in the name of “liberatory” pedagogy?” (Ellsworth, 1989:299). Thus, in trying to be critical and attempting to be a ‘language’ which offers some sort of neutrality, critical pedagogy discourse rather operates to do exactly that against which it struggles.
The final criticism I will discuss is that of “institutionalist distrust of deliberative democracy” (Benhabib, 1996:84). It is in this criticism that modern society is too complex in nature, “with their highly differentiated cultural, economic, social and artistic spheres of life” (Benhabib, 1996:84), and as such “can never be and will never be organised along the lines suggested by a model of deliberative democracy” (Benhabib, 1996:84). It is this complexity, that even with deliberation at the various levels of society, brings into question the ability of these complex societies to remain democratic (Benhabib, 1996:84). This complexity is closely tied to Benhabib’s earlier criticism regarding size, that “no modern society can organise its affairs along the fiction of a mass assembly carrying out its deliberations in public and collectively” (Benhabib, 1996:73).
With these critical perspectives considered, it is still important that we realise and consider the value of deliberative democracy, especially in light of what it has to offer young South Africans in our classrooms. It may not be philosophically sound in accordance with the above discussed criticisms, but in its intensions: “free public deliberation about matters of mutual concern to all” (Benhabib, 1996:87), towards neutral decision making, it is meritorious. From a personal perspective, I think that an attempted implementation of deliberative democracy can do more good than it would harm, even if all it does is bring to the fore important topics to be discussed by citizens in the public sphere.
Deliberative democracy and the South African classroom
With the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) being at the forefront of South African education, and (hopefully) in the minds of all the country’s educators, there are some important considerations that should be made with the view to the implementation of a “democratic education” in the classroom. Despite the “ideal” deliberative democracy I have outlined above, there are many positives that democratic ideals (and especially the deliberative branch) can offer to the young citizens of our country, in line with this, it is essential that educators aim towards the creation of fair-minded and democratic, young South Africans, as stipulated in the RNCS.
The RNCS presents itself as an ideal curriculum through which to implement the more practical manifestations of deliberative democracy theory. Encompassing the constitution, values and nation-building, the RNCS is a curriculum which encourages “an awareness and understanding of the rich diversity of cultures, beliefs and worldviews within which the unity of South Africa is manifested” (DoE, 2006:8). Further, through the implementation of the ‘outcomes based education’ system, the RNCS aims to create citizens who are concerned about their society in a critical and active capacity and are mindful and respectful of “democracy, equality, human dignity, life and social justice” (DoE, 2006:8). Founded on seven critical outcomes and 5 developmental outcomes, the RNCS has a fundamental ideology to develop young South Africans holistically, with good cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains, enhancing knowledge, skills, values and attitudes respectively (DoE, 2006:9). At the heart of the South African curriculum is continuous assessment, which emphasises critical participation through self-, peer- and group-assessment, as well as progressive, integrated and expanded opportunity and progression (DoE, 2006:13).
From the above discussion, and the earlier description of deliberative democracy theory, it is clear to see how the theory underlying deliberative democracy and the South African curriculum support each other and in many ways advocate the same principles relating to discussion, deliberation and equal participation by equal citizens. This places the South African classroom as an ideal platform for the implementation and manifestation of deliberation to a democratic end. Thus, the implementation of the RNCS will work well to implement deliberative democracy by generating in depth, solution oriented discussion, creating a more free interplay between citizens. This will localise and empower the voices of young people in citizen talk, and in effect expand the political, economic and social thinking in young people. Over time, this will (ideally) spill over into society, and eventually create a system to solve real problems.
Many values in the RNCS are heavily criticised by teachers in the industry. However, the methods and guidelines provided are necessary as stipulated by the RNCS. In line with this, it is imperative that we implement these ideals in a practical manner and present them in a positive way in our classrooms. It is well known that one of the best ways to learn is through first-hand experience. I will now discuss how implementing deliberatively democratic ideals and encouraging deliberative processes in one’s RNCS directed classroom can contribute to the provision of a more democratic education and thus create more democratically minded individuals at a developmental and educational level. Before I continue, I would like to comment that from a personal perspective, I believe that from as early as it’s conceptualisation, an education system should be deliberative, and beyond this learners in a classroom should be developed towards the democratic ideals encompassed in the deliberative branch of democracy; the more equal and fair discussion we participate in at the classroom level, the more citizens will deliberate in the larger societal domain, encouraging fair and equal deliberation and participation by all South Africans.
Deliberative democracy: the implementation
As described above, deliberative democracy has at its core the creation of a platform for deliberation and discussion. From my classroom experience and work I have done in line with the RNCS, I have discovered that democratic principles can be communicated and taught to learners either explicitly or in more subtle ways. In line with this thinking, I have constructed a list of potential methods through which to implement deliberation in the South African classroom towards a democratic end. This list, which is by no means exhaustive, includes focus group discussions, panel discussions, debates, a variety of group work activities, role plays, whole-class discussions, media creation (for example a school newspaper), public forums and the existence and practice of a democratically elected representative council of learners (RCL). For the purpose of this essay, I will focus on the implementation of focus group discussions, which would take place in an environment which explicitly leans towards creating democratic ideals.
Deliberative democracy in the classroom: a working example
The following example demonstrates one method of enabling deliberative democracy in classrooms, where learners can actively participate in the democratic process. This example, in my classroom, would happen on a background with already created democratic ideals such as equality and respect. In line with this, the classroom environment has been set up where all subject matter is probed with inquiring, curious and critical minds and the process of democracy is an already established classroom ‘norm’. ‘Human rights’, ‘equal participation’, ‘inclusivity’, ‘diversity’ and ‘social justice’ are common terms used by all learners and the educator in the classroom (a trend which I, the teacher, have pursued since the beginning of the school year). This means that democracy is not a new concept to the learners in this classroom who are used to the explicit consideration and implementation of a process towards discovering fair solutions and advocating democracy. The background has led to the creation of a transparent system of education within this classroom where all concerns are typically voiced. The educator and the learners are (mostly) directed towards honesty and openness in the classroom as a public space. The transparency means that everyone acknowledges the aim towards the creation of the deliberatively democratic atmosphere in the classroom, which is evident at all the levels in the class, including the administrative and teaching domains; from classroom rules, attitudes and values expressed towards learning, and the general encouragement of free and equal expression and participation. Everyone is also committed to finding neutral common ground where “students and teachers can and should engage each other in the classroom as fully rational subjects” (Ellsworth, 1989:301).
Focus groups are usually conducted for research purposes with a view to collect valuable data by questioning people and allowing them to talk about attitudes and values they have in relation to a particulate topic (Amner, 2006). In my undergraduate studies I was involved in setting up and conducting focus groups for a course which aimed to generate solution oriented discussion among young people. From my experience, these focus groups allowed the participants to answer questions on a given subject, but also create their own meaningful discussion and debate on the issues surrounding the topic. The focus group form is ideal for the discussion of controversial topics which are often contested in the public sphere.
In this example I will model a lesson using focus groups as a means to access diverse voices in a Life Orientation lesson on problems in the world of young South Africans. Each focus group (6 to 10 people) will be allocated a controversial topic such as abortion, poverty, HIV/AIDS, education, etc. The groups will be expected to discuss the topic, its nature, how it is constructed as a problem in their world, and possible solutions or ways of coping with the issues in their immediate community and the lager society. Once divided, the groups are given their topic. Each group would be given a list of possible questions to discuss, ideas to comment on and information to stimulate discussion. The premise of the focus groups is that everyone is free and given the opportunity to, and encouraged to, talk. A further requirement is that the group must deliberate. The questions and ideas given to each group would be constructed so as to probe controversy and fuel discussion, creating a free and neutral space for natural interaction and debate on the topic. Because the focus group structure is not rigidly structured, the groups will be enabled to discuss the issues in a natural way, with no agenda. This natural feeling to the discussion should also contribute to a more fair and equal participation opportunity where everyone will contribute. This will hopefully occur because the situation is one of natural discussion where no one is assumed to have more authority on the topic, and hopefully, any inhibitions to talk freely will be ironed out because of the debate which will prevail as the focus, rather than the articulate expression of one’s ideas. The talk that that will immerge will thus be uncontrolled by outside factors and will ensure the opportunity for somewhat free participation. Responses in this situation will be spontaneous, but as a result of the discussion nature, there should emerge a process of rationalisation, in which learners will have to think about their subjectivities and reformulate their opinions to come to a more neutral conception of the topic.
The free and fair participation by all will hopefully emerge as this is an already existing pre-condition in the classroom, where everyone’s opinions are valued and voiced in open ended dialogue. Of course, considering that equal deliberation by participants is an ideal (as discussed in the critical section on deliberative democracy), it is relatively impossible that all learners will contribute equally. The idea however is, I believe, relatively sound: I have provided my students with the opportunity for free and equal deliberation in an open space that is set up to afford all the equal rights for participation and rational deliberation. The ideal in my deliberative lesson is to get the learners to take part and rationally discuss issues in their lives with a view to finding a neutral solution. However, it must be said that even if solutions are not arrived at with 100% consensus, at least deliberation is taking place, and this will contribute to tolerance, rational discussion and a degree of potential equality, which at least makes a good start towards the ideal of deliberative democracy, which is more democratic than both the current and representative forms.
Conclusion
This essay has looked at deliberative democracy from a critical perspective and has explored the reasoning for, and an application of, implementing this democratic theory in the classroom. In line with what I have discussed in this essay, I am an advocate for the deliberative democratic structure. I believe in the power of strong talk and discussion in society, and I am convinced that it will move our country forward towards the (somewhat unattainable) ideals of democracy. I further believe that the classroom is an ideal space in which to create a platform for deliberation. As discussed in the first section, deliberative democracy is reasoned and rational public and solution-oriented deliberation. Not without its criticisms, as discussed, deliberative democracy seems to have a crucial and necessary place in contributing to the democratic status and nature of South Africa, an ideal which should be implemented in the country’s classrooms, encouraging equal talk and deliberation among young South African citizens. Ellsworth describes a fair means of implementation of educational and classroom deliberative democracy, which is both deliberative in nature, but also critical of the limitations of the ideal:
…classroom practice [must facilitate] a kind of communication across differences that is best represented by this statement: “If you can talk to me in ways that show you understand that your knowledge of me, the world and ‘the Right think to do’ will always be partial, interested, and potentially oppressive to others, and if I can do the same, the we can work together on shaping and reshaping alliances for constructing circumstances in which student difference can thrive.”
(Ellsworth, 1989:324)
My working example implementing focus groups in the classroom is one method of enabling learners to learn about deliberative democracy through a deliberative experience. With this practical manifestation as a potential way to implement deliberative democracy, it is important that we consider the role of teaching and education as essentially informing and creating deliberation; ultimately creating something better in society by enriching the public lives of our democratic learners: as Barber says, “at the heart of strong democracy is talk” (1984:173).References:
Amner, R. 2006. Course outline: Journalism, Democracy and Development. Rhodes University: Grahamstown.
Barber, B. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of California Press: California.
Benhabib. S. 1996. Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy. In: S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Department of Education. 2006. C2005 Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9 (Schools). Sol Plaatje House: Pretoria.
Department of Education. 2006. National Curriculum Statement Grades 10 – 12 (General). Sol Plaatje House: Pretoria.
Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. Website: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/dewey.html. Downloaded: 22/11/2006.
Ellswoth, E. 1989. Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myth of Critical Pedagogy. Academic Research Library – Harvard Educational Review: President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Mouffe, C. 2000. Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism in Political Science Series 72. Department of Political Science, Institute for Advanced Studies, Stumpergasse: Vienna.
Sirianni, C. & Friedland, L. Civic Dictionary – Deliberative Democracy. Civic Practices Network. Website: http://www.cpn.org/tools/dictionary/deliberate.html. Downloaded: 30/50/2007.
Unspecified author. 2007. Deliberative democracy. Wikipedia. Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy. Downloaded: 30/05/2007.
Unspecified author. 2007. Critical pedagogy. Wikipedia. Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy. Downloaded: 30/05/2007.
Young, I. (1996) Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy. In: S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
TITLE: DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY
Ms S.J. Louw
Student number: 200715152
Course: PGCE
Module: Education A: Philosophy of Education
Lecturer: Mr Dirk Postma
Due date: 7 May 2007
Word count: 4 796
Task:
How would you educate students on the issues of a deliberative democracy? Provide a critical account of the conception of a deliberative democracy and explain in detail how students could be enabled in the classroom to participate in this kind of democracy.
Abstract:
This essay initially takes an objective stance towards the deliberative form of democracy, detailing the nature and characteristics of deliberative democracy and providing a critical definition of the concept. The text goes on to look at practical ways in which to educate learners on the issues around deliberative democracy, giving a detailed application of deliberative democracy suitable for the South African classroom.
Plagiarism Declaration:
I hereby declare that this essay is my own work. I have acknowledged all other authors’ ideas and referenced direct quotations from their work. I have not allowed anyone else to borrow or copy my work.
Signed: ……………………
Date: ………………………
Introduction
As South Africa and the rest of the world are investing in, and continue to move towards, “democracy” – both in its political conception and as a way of life – it is important that as academics in the education field, we are critical in our own conception and analysis of all forms of democracy. For the purpose of this essay I will look at the deliberative form of democracy and assess what it has to offer young people. The first section of this essay will critically describe deliberative democracy from a theoretical perspective. In the second section I will elaborate on the necessity of deliberative democracy in the South African classroom and consider its value to young South Africans. The final section of this essay will look at ways to educate learners on deliberative democracy and detail one example of how to implement it in the classroom.
What is deliberative democracy?
As a point of departure for this essay, it is crucial to begin with a definition of deliberative democracy. The term, “deliberative democracy”, has its epistemological roots in the word “democracy”, which itself has many, various and complex definitions. Possibly the most fitting, suitable and articulate definition of democracy is that which Dewey gives. Dewey defines two criteria necessary for democracy:
The first dignifies not only more numerous and more varied points of shared common interest, but greater reliance upon the recognition of mutual interests as a factor in social control. The second means not only freer interaction between social groups…but change in social habit – its continuous readjustments through meeting the new situation produced by varied intercourse. And these two traits are precisely what characterize the democratically constituted society.
(Dewey, 1916: 5)
In line with this definition, Dewey poses two questions that any society pursuing democracy must consider; “How numerous and varied are the interests which are consciously shared? How full and free is the interplay with other forms of association?” (Dewey, 1916: 2). In this definition, Dewey challenges democratic societies to consider their democratic status by discovering diversity beyond what is shared in common and enabling an open society with free interaction between all people within that said society. It is this conception of democracy that I will use as my core conception of the ideal “democracy”. As mentioned, democracy is complex in its definition and has many variations. For the purpose and scope of this essay, I will use only the above definition for democracy, but will further the definition by considering one variation of democracy, namely deliberative democracy. Benhabib puts forward a definition of democracy in which he describes the theory as being somewhat inherently deliberative, showing a clear link between democracy and it’s deliberative branch; democracy results “from the free and unconstrained public deliberation of all matters of common concern” (1996:68). From a political perspective, deliberative democracy claims “that in a democratic polity political decisions should be reached through a process of deliberation among free and equal citizens” (Mouffe, 2000). Incorporating the term “deliberative”, at the heart of deliberative democracy is the idea of “talk” and “discussion”. Simply put, deliberative democracy is talk or deliberation between people in the public sphere towards the end goal of decision making for the good of society; “consensus decision making…from the public deliberation of the citizenry” (Wikipedia, 2007). Of course, the real notion underlying the term is much more complex than what these straightforward definitions express. Sirianni and Friedland (2007) give a more elaborate definition of deliberative democracy, describing how “citizens…[deliberate] about public problems and solutions under conditions that are conducive to reasoned reflection and refined public judgement”. This is very closely linked to Young’s description of deliberative democracy; “a process that creates a public, citizens coming together to talk about collective problems, goals, ideals and actions” (Young, 1996:121). Closer to the definition I will work with, this adds the idea of collective reasoning: “through public deliberation citizens transform their preferences according to public-minded ends, and reason together about the nature of those ends and the best means to realize them” (Young, 1996:121). In light of what this essay discusses, I will incorporate the above definitions of deliberative democracy as well as one from Seyla Benhabib before I launch into a critical discussion of the concept. In his discussion regarding the legitimacy of deliberative democracy, Benhabib puts forward an accurate and comprehensive definition of the term:
According to the deliberative model of democracy, it is a necessary condition for attaining legitimacy and rationality with regard to collective decision making processes in a polity, that the institutions of this polity are so arranged that what is considered in the common interest of all results from processes of collective deliberation conducted rationally and fairly among free and equal individuals. The more collective decision-making processes approximate this model the more increases the presumption of their legitimacy and rationality.
(1996:69)
Benhabib describes deliberative democracy as decision-making through a public and collective deliberative process which aims to arrive at neutral, common interest solutions. This process is legitimate as a doctrine (both politically and as a way of life) through the equal and free discussion between varied voices of participating citizens. The above definitions considered, it is important that for the scope of this essay, deliberative democracy encompasses many of the characteristics outlined above, but at the centre of what I interpret as deliberative democracy, especially towards a classroom environment implementation, is free and equal talk between citizens (or learners) who are ‘reasonably’ dedicated to the outcomes on a societal, rather than political, level of a basic democracy. In this instance, learners will talk and debate freely in a relatively free space where everyone has the equal opportunity to take part in the discussion, and where everyone is in agreement that all learners are equal in status and equally entitled to their opinion and to participate in the rational deliberation.
As with any political term, or even a concept that describes a “way of life” (so to speak), definitions are complex and the notions themselves, in a more practical sense, are contentious. With this in mind, it is important, especially from and intellectual and academic perspective, that we review and consider the criticisms that contest deliberative democracy, in order to arrive at a critical understanding of the concept.
Deliberative democracy: a critical perspective
Deliberative democracy must be recognised very much as the ideal it represents. Theoretical in its conception, its manifestation must be similarly considered. With the view to obtaining the critical understanding mentioned above, I will now discuss the most prominent criticisms levelled at deliberative democracy.
The first criticism, “the corrosion of individual liberties” (Benhabib, 1996:74) is levelled at the idea that the legitimacy of deliberative democracy lies in its “power…to be a public process, open to all citizens to partake in” (Benhabib, 1996:74). The idea behind this criticism is that ‘individual liberties’ are relative in their conception: from a liberalist perspective, the ‘public sphere’ is restricted and limited, and is “located…in the state and its organisations, including…the legal sphere and its institutions” (Benhabib, 1996:75). This is in conflict with what the deliberative model holds: that civil society comprises the public sphere, and it is to these individuals that deliberation must be afforded. Thus, there is a conceptual problem: “public reason is not freely wielded public reasoning” (Benhabib, 1996:77). The liberalist view challenges the deliberative model because instead of individuals in civil society having their equal say in deliberation, “public speech” and “shared reasoning” becomes institutionalised, with individuals transforming into various majorities which “challenge the principles of political liberalism” (Benhabib, 1996:77), leaving decision making to “majoritarian decisions” (Benhabib, 1996:77) rather than the idealised neural and public decision making. This contravenes the idea of individual liberties: “the liberal concern about the corrosive effect of unbridled majoritarian politics upon civic and political liberties is …incontrovertible” (Benhabib, 1996:77).
With a backdrop of this majoritarian view, deliberative democracy can be said to insufficiently “protect individuals’ basic rights and liberties” (Benhabib, 1996:77). This criticism, as Benhabib describes, is two-fold: assuming that the deliberative model seeks consensus at the expense of hearing particular views and that majorities do indeed triumph over minority groups (Benhabib, 1996:77). To this end, the search for consensus means that not every individual can be addressed, and any move towards consensus is virtually inherently a majority rule. The criticism levelled at deliberative democracy here is
Although it presupposes that participants must recognise on another’s entitlement to moral respect and reciprocity [rights to equal and free participation as well as “symmetrical rights” with other participants in the introduction of topics for discussion and encouraging reciprocity from each other] in some sense, the determination of the precise content and extent of these principles would be a consequence of discourses themselves.
(Benhabib, 1996:79)
These two norms (universal moral respect and egalitarian reciprocity) then refute the concerns regarding consensus and majority “tyranny” (Benhabib, 1996:79), because through the free deliberation that the norms allow, neutral deliberation can prevail.
The second avenue of criticism develops very much along the same lines as the feminist criticism put forward by Young, “deliberative democracy [does] not [extend] itself broadly enough to be truly inclusive” (Benhabib, 1996:81), describing the public sphere as a space dominated by masculine characteristics. Masculine in this regard refers to the type of characteristics which are sought after in the deliberative framework, such as assertive, confident, educated, middle- to upper-class individuals. This simplistic conception is developed by Young in her discussion on the “exclusionary implications of the deliberative model” (Young, 1996:122). For Young, the deliberative model is exclusionary in two ways, namely, it restricts discussion in a culturally biased way, and it assumes some form of unity. Deliberative democracy, as mentioned, requires equality between participants. Young argues, however, that although participants may be equal with regard to political and economic power within the deliberative model, it makes no consideration for social inequality (Young, 1996:122). Young describes this social inequality in terms of “style of speech…cultural differences and different social positions” (Young, 1996:123), the elimination of which will create the equality needed for deliberative democracy. This works in relation to the “male-dominated institutions” (Young, 1996:123) which prevail in society, in which “speech that is assertive and confrontational is…more valued that speech that is tentative, exploratory, or conciliatory…[privileging] male speaking styles” (Young, 1996:123). Young’s second consideration of how deliberative democracy is exclusionary is the way in which is assumes unity (Young, 1996:125), the assumption that “processes of discussion that aim to reach understanding must either begin with shared understandings or take a common goal as their goal (Young, 1996:120). Young argues that the deliberative process of moving from various individuals’ subjective positions to a more neutral and objective stance means that there needs to be some “prior condition” of unity, with “shared understandings” between participants (Young, 1996:125). Alternatively, there exists a goal of “[locating] or [creating] common interests that all can share” (Young, 1996:126). For Young, these two ‘options’ require some prerequisite of, or towards, unity. Young encourages rather, the differences between participants (as opposed to unity), suggesting that this difference instead be considered a resource:
…a richer understanding of processes of democratic discussion results if we assume that differences of social position and identity perspective function as a resource for public reason rather than as divisions that public reason transcends.
(Young, 1996:127)
For Young, the overcoming of these criticisms lies in the conception of a more communicative democracy in which equality is reached through “any forms of communicative interaction where people aim to reach understanding” (Young, 1996:125).
Along similar lines, that some voices are heard and others are not (exclusion), is the criticism put forward by Elizabeth Ellsworth. Ellsworth’s criticism is levelled at the repressive nature of the discourse which constitutes critical pedagogy, the educational theory which aims to create a critical consciousness in students (Wikipedia, 2007). For Ellsworth, despite the supposed critical discourse of critical pedagogy, it in fact contributes to the perpetuation and domination of particular voices and views in society. Ellsworth argues that the use of the particular discourse of critical pedagogy places “rational argument” (Ellsworth, 1989:301) put forward by a certain societal party against the “Other”, thus serving as a “vehicle of repression” (Ellsworth, 1989:298). This leads to the posing of Ellsworth’s question: “What diversity to we silence in the name of “liberatory” pedagogy?” (Ellsworth, 1989:299). Thus, in trying to be critical and attempting to be a ‘language’ which offers some sort of neutrality, critical pedagogy discourse rather operates to do exactly that against which it struggles.
The final criticism I will discuss is that of “institutionalist distrust of deliberative democracy” (Benhabib, 1996:84). It is in this criticism that modern society is too complex in nature, “with their highly differentiated cultural, economic, social and artistic spheres of life” (Benhabib, 1996:84), and as such “can never be and will never be organised along the lines suggested by a model of deliberative democracy” (Benhabib, 1996:84). It is this complexity, that even with deliberation at the various levels of society, brings into question the ability of these complex societies to remain democratic (Benhabib, 1996:84). This complexity is closely tied to Benhabib’s earlier criticism regarding size, that “no modern society can organise its affairs along the fiction of a mass assembly carrying out its deliberations in public and collectively” (Benhabib, 1996:73).
With these critical perspectives considered, it is still important that we realise and consider the value of deliberative democracy, especially in light of what it has to offer young South Africans in our classrooms. It may not be philosophically sound in accordance with the above discussed criticisms, but in its intensions: “free public deliberation about matters of mutual concern to all” (Benhabib, 1996:87), towards neutral decision making, it is meritorious. From a personal perspective, I think that an attempted implementation of deliberative democracy can do more good than it would harm, even if all it does is bring to the fore important topics to be discussed by citizens in the public sphere.
Deliberative democracy and the South African classroom
With the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) being at the forefront of South African education, and (hopefully) in the minds of all the country’s educators, there are some important considerations that should be made with the view to the implementation of a “democratic education” in the classroom. Despite the “ideal” deliberative democracy I have outlined above, there are many positives that democratic ideals (and especially the deliberative branch) can offer to the young citizens of our country, in line with this, it is essential that educators aim towards the creation of fair-minded and democratic, young South Africans, as stipulated in the RNCS.
The RNCS presents itself as an ideal curriculum through which to implement the more practical manifestations of deliberative democracy theory. Encompassing the constitution, values and nation-building, the RNCS is a curriculum which encourages “an awareness and understanding of the rich diversity of cultures, beliefs and worldviews within which the unity of South Africa is manifested” (DoE, 2006:8). Further, through the implementation of the ‘outcomes based education’ system, the RNCS aims to create citizens who are concerned about their society in a critical and active capacity and are mindful and respectful of “democracy, equality, human dignity, life and social justice” (DoE, 2006:8). Founded on seven critical outcomes and 5 developmental outcomes, the RNCS has a fundamental ideology to develop young South Africans holistically, with good cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains, enhancing knowledge, skills, values and attitudes respectively (DoE, 2006:9). At the heart of the South African curriculum is continuous assessment, which emphasises critical participation through self-, peer- and group-assessment, as well as progressive, integrated and expanded opportunity and progression (DoE, 2006:13).
From the above discussion, and the earlier description of deliberative democracy theory, it is clear to see how the theory underlying deliberative democracy and the South African curriculum support each other and in many ways advocate the same principles relating to discussion, deliberation and equal participation by equal citizens. This places the South African classroom as an ideal platform for the implementation and manifestation of deliberation to a democratic end. Thus, the implementation of the RNCS will work well to implement deliberative democracy by generating in depth, solution oriented discussion, creating a more free interplay between citizens. This will localise and empower the voices of young people in citizen talk, and in effect expand the political, economic and social thinking in young people. Over time, this will (ideally) spill over into society, and eventually create a system to solve real problems.
Many values in the RNCS are heavily criticised by teachers in the industry. However, the methods and guidelines provided are necessary as stipulated by the RNCS. In line with this, it is imperative that we implement these ideals in a practical manner and present them in a positive way in our classrooms. It is well known that one of the best ways to learn is through first-hand experience. I will now discuss how implementing deliberatively democratic ideals and encouraging deliberative processes in one’s RNCS directed classroom can contribute to the provision of a more democratic education and thus create more democratically minded individuals at a developmental and educational level. Before I continue, I would like to comment that from a personal perspective, I believe that from as early as it’s conceptualisation, an education system should be deliberative, and beyond this learners in a classroom should be developed towards the democratic ideals encompassed in the deliberative branch of democracy; the more equal and fair discussion we participate in at the classroom level, the more citizens will deliberate in the larger societal domain, encouraging fair and equal deliberation and participation by all South Africans.
Deliberative democracy: the implementation
As described above, deliberative democracy has at its core the creation of a platform for deliberation and discussion. From my classroom experience and work I have done in line with the RNCS, I have discovered that democratic principles can be communicated and taught to learners either explicitly or in more subtle ways. In line with this thinking, I have constructed a list of potential methods through which to implement deliberation in the South African classroom towards a democratic end. This list, which is by no means exhaustive, includes focus group discussions, panel discussions, debates, a variety of group work activities, role plays, whole-class discussions, media creation (for example a school newspaper), public forums and the existence and practice of a democratically elected representative council of learners (RCL). For the purpose of this essay, I will focus on the implementation of focus group discussions, which would take place in an environment which explicitly leans towards creating democratic ideals.
Deliberative democracy in the classroom: a working example
The following example demonstrates one method of enabling deliberative democracy in classrooms, where learners can actively participate in the democratic process. This example, in my classroom, would happen on a background with already created democratic ideals such as equality and respect. In line with this, the classroom environment has been set up where all subject matter is probed with inquiring, curious and critical minds and the process of democracy is an already established classroom ‘norm’. ‘Human rights’, ‘equal participation’, ‘inclusivity’, ‘diversity’ and ‘social justice’ are common terms used by all learners and the educator in the classroom (a trend which I, the teacher, have pursued since the beginning of the school year). This means that democracy is not a new concept to the learners in this classroom who are used to the explicit consideration and implementation of a process towards discovering fair solutions and advocating democracy. The background has led to the creation of a transparent system of education within this classroom where all concerns are typically voiced. The educator and the learners are (mostly) directed towards honesty and openness in the classroom as a public space. The transparency means that everyone acknowledges the aim towards the creation of the deliberatively democratic atmosphere in the classroom, which is evident at all the levels in the class, including the administrative and teaching domains; from classroom rules, attitudes and values expressed towards learning, and the general encouragement of free and equal expression and participation. Everyone is also committed to finding neutral common ground where “students and teachers can and should engage each other in the classroom as fully rational subjects” (Ellsworth, 1989:301).
Focus groups are usually conducted for research purposes with a view to collect valuable data by questioning people and allowing them to talk about attitudes and values they have in relation to a particulate topic (Amner, 2006). In my undergraduate studies I was involved in setting up and conducting focus groups for a course which aimed to generate solution oriented discussion among young people. From my experience, these focus groups allowed the participants to answer questions on a given subject, but also create their own meaningful discussion and debate on the issues surrounding the topic. The focus group form is ideal for the discussion of controversial topics which are often contested in the public sphere.
In this example I will model a lesson using focus groups as a means to access diverse voices in a Life Orientation lesson on problems in the world of young South Africans. Each focus group (6 to 10 people) will be allocated a controversial topic such as abortion, poverty, HIV/AIDS, education, etc. The groups will be expected to discuss the topic, its nature, how it is constructed as a problem in their world, and possible solutions or ways of coping with the issues in their immediate community and the lager society. Once divided, the groups are given their topic. Each group would be given a list of possible questions to discuss, ideas to comment on and information to stimulate discussion. The premise of the focus groups is that everyone is free and given the opportunity to, and encouraged to, talk. A further requirement is that the group must deliberate. The questions and ideas given to each group would be constructed so as to probe controversy and fuel discussion, creating a free and neutral space for natural interaction and debate on the topic. Because the focus group structure is not rigidly structured, the groups will be enabled to discuss the issues in a natural way, with no agenda. This natural feeling to the discussion should also contribute to a more fair and equal participation opportunity where everyone will contribute. This will hopefully occur because the situation is one of natural discussion where no one is assumed to have more authority on the topic, and hopefully, any inhibitions to talk freely will be ironed out because of the debate which will prevail as the focus, rather than the articulate expression of one’s ideas. The talk that that will immerge will thus be uncontrolled by outside factors and will ensure the opportunity for somewhat free participation. Responses in this situation will be spontaneous, but as a result of the discussion nature, there should emerge a process of rationalisation, in which learners will have to think about their subjectivities and reformulate their opinions to come to a more neutral conception of the topic.
The free and fair participation by all will hopefully emerge as this is an already existing pre-condition in the classroom, where everyone’s opinions are valued and voiced in open ended dialogue. Of course, considering that equal deliberation by participants is an ideal (as discussed in the critical section on deliberative democracy), it is relatively impossible that all learners will contribute equally. The idea however is, I believe, relatively sound: I have provided my students with the opportunity for free and equal deliberation in an open space that is set up to afford all the equal rights for participation and rational deliberation. The ideal in my deliberative lesson is to get the learners to take part and rationally discuss issues in their lives with a view to finding a neutral solution. However, it must be said that even if solutions are not arrived at with 100% consensus, at least deliberation is taking place, and this will contribute to tolerance, rational discussion and a degree of potential equality, which at least makes a good start towards the ideal of deliberative democracy, which is more democratic than both the current and representative forms.
Conclusion
This essay has looked at deliberative democracy from a critical perspective and has explored the reasoning for, and an application of, implementing this democratic theory in the classroom. In line with what I have discussed in this essay, I am an advocate for the deliberative democratic structure. I believe in the power of strong talk and discussion in society, and I am convinced that it will move our country forward towards the (somewhat unattainable) ideals of democracy. I further believe that the classroom is an ideal space in which to create a platform for deliberation. As discussed in the first section, deliberative democracy is reasoned and rational public and solution-oriented deliberation. Not without its criticisms, as discussed, deliberative democracy seems to have a crucial and necessary place in contributing to the democratic status and nature of South Africa, an ideal which should be implemented in the country’s classrooms, encouraging equal talk and deliberation among young South African citizens. Ellsworth describes a fair means of implementation of educational and classroom deliberative democracy, which is both deliberative in nature, but also critical of the limitations of the ideal:
…classroom practice [must facilitate] a kind of communication across differences that is best represented by this statement: “If you can talk to me in ways that show you understand that your knowledge of me, the world and ‘the Right think to do’ will always be partial, interested, and potentially oppressive to others, and if I can do the same, the we can work together on shaping and reshaping alliances for constructing circumstances in which student difference can thrive.”
(Ellsworth, 1989:324)
My working example implementing focus groups in the classroom is one method of enabling learners to learn about deliberative democracy through a deliberative experience. With this practical manifestation as a potential way to implement deliberative democracy, it is important that we consider the role of teaching and education as essentially informing and creating deliberation; ultimately creating something better in society by enriching the public lives of our democratic learners: as Barber says, “at the heart of strong democracy is talk” (1984:173).References:
Amner, R. 2006. Course outline: Journalism, Democracy and Development. Rhodes University: Grahamstown.
Barber, B. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of California Press: California.
Benhabib. S. 1996. Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy. In: S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Department of Education. 2006. C2005 Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9 (Schools). Sol Plaatje House: Pretoria.
Department of Education. 2006. National Curriculum Statement Grades 10 – 12 (General). Sol Plaatje House: Pretoria.
Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. Website: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/dewey.html. Downloaded: 22/11/2006.
Ellswoth, E. 1989. Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myth of Critical Pedagogy. Academic Research Library – Harvard Educational Review: President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Mouffe, C. 2000. Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism in Political Science Series 72. Department of Political Science, Institute for Advanced Studies, Stumpergasse: Vienna.
Sirianni, C. & Friedland, L. Civic Dictionary – Deliberative Democracy. Civic Practices Network. Website: http://www.cpn.org/tools/dictionary/deliberate.html. Downloaded: 30/50/2007.
Unspecified author. 2007. Deliberative democracy. Wikipedia. Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy. Downloaded: 30/05/2007.
Unspecified author. 2007. Critical pedagogy. Wikipedia. Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy. Downloaded: 30/05/2007.
Young, I. (1996) Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy. In: S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Here's what's on my mind...
Unions gear up for public-sector strike
Johannesburg, South Africa
An "indefinite" full-blown strike has been set to start on May 28 for public-sector unions affiliated to the Congress of South African Trade Union (Cosatu), the federation said on Tuesday."We are talking about indefinite action -- not a symbolic strike for a day or two," South African Democratic Teachers' Union (Sadtu) general secretary Thulas Nxesi told a media briefing with union heads at Cosatu House in Johannesburg.Mass marches will take place next Friday with demonstrations, picketing and a night vigil at Parliament on Sunday in the build-up to full industrial action.The Cosatu unions command roughly 60% of public-service workers, including police, doctors, nurses and teachers.Later this week the Cosatu affiliates will meet independent unions, which are still balloting members, to finalise a joint programme of action.Last week the Cosatu affiliates and independent unions were united in rejecting government's 6% wage-increase offer.The unions stood by their 12% demand.The unions agreed to only return to negotiations if the government "significantly improved the offer", said National Education Health and Allied Workers' Union (Nehawu) general secretary Fikile Majola.When asked to define a significant offer, Nxesi said: "We are standing at 12%".Majola said that Cosatu unions with essential-services workers -- who may not strike according to the Labour Relations Act -- will meet on Wednesday with legal officers.The meeting would also discuss a consideration to declare a dispute on essential services over the lack of minimum service-level agreements with government.Nxesi said the unions did not want to strike but were "forced into it". "We don't have the intention of bringing the government to its knees -- we have the intention of making our voice heard."Any "divisive measures" by the government to meet unions separately would be rejected, he said."We're not going to fall into that trap."The unions have refused to accept salary increases limited to inflation targeting.Earlier this month Public Service and Administration Minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi said 6% was government's final offer.The last public-sector strike took place in 2004. The eight Cosatu affiliated unions are Sadtu, Nehawu, the Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa, the Public and Allied Workers' Union of South Africa, the South African Democratic Nurses' Union, the South African Medical Association, the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union and the South African State and Allied Workers' Union.Teachers vote to join strike Almost half of about 220 000 members of Sadtu have voted in favour of joining the public-service strike.Nxesi said that by Monday evening half the votes had been counted and the job would probably be finished by the end of the week.Sadtu, with 230 000 members, is the biggest trade union affiliated to Cosatu. Nxesi said the 7 000 to 10 000 members employed at private schools will not participate in the strike.Other Cosatu affiliates, the South African Democratic Nurses' Union, the South African State and Allied Workers' Union confirmed on Monday that their members will be downing tools.An independent union, the Health and Other Services Personnel Trade Union of South Africa, representing teachers and nurses, also said its members will strike. Meanwhile, Fraser-Moleketi told a press conference that public-service unions do not understand the government's wage-increase offer and therefore cannot negotiate seriously about it.She said the government wants workshops to explain its offer to those who are in the coordination bargaining chamber. The government is still open to further negotiations, but said it is waiting for organised labour to "engage". -- Sapa
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=308498&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/
Johannesburg, South Africa
An "indefinite" full-blown strike has been set to start on May 28 for public-sector unions affiliated to the Congress of South African Trade Union (Cosatu), the federation said on Tuesday."We are talking about indefinite action -- not a symbolic strike for a day or two," South African Democratic Teachers' Union (Sadtu) general secretary Thulas Nxesi told a media briefing with union heads at Cosatu House in Johannesburg.Mass marches will take place next Friday with demonstrations, picketing and a night vigil at Parliament on Sunday in the build-up to full industrial action.The Cosatu unions command roughly 60% of public-service workers, including police, doctors, nurses and teachers.Later this week the Cosatu affiliates will meet independent unions, which are still balloting members, to finalise a joint programme of action.Last week the Cosatu affiliates and independent unions were united in rejecting government's 6% wage-increase offer.The unions stood by their 12% demand.The unions agreed to only return to negotiations if the government "significantly improved the offer", said National Education Health and Allied Workers' Union (Nehawu) general secretary Fikile Majola.When asked to define a significant offer, Nxesi said: "We are standing at 12%".Majola said that Cosatu unions with essential-services workers -- who may not strike according to the Labour Relations Act -- will meet on Wednesday with legal officers.The meeting would also discuss a consideration to declare a dispute on essential services over the lack of minimum service-level agreements with government.Nxesi said the unions did not want to strike but were "forced into it". "We don't have the intention of bringing the government to its knees -- we have the intention of making our voice heard."Any "divisive measures" by the government to meet unions separately would be rejected, he said."We're not going to fall into that trap."The unions have refused to accept salary increases limited to inflation targeting.Earlier this month Public Service and Administration Minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi said 6% was government's final offer.The last public-sector strike took place in 2004. The eight Cosatu affiliated unions are Sadtu, Nehawu, the Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa, the Public and Allied Workers' Union of South Africa, the South African Democratic Nurses' Union, the South African Medical Association, the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union and the South African State and Allied Workers' Union.Teachers vote to join strike Almost half of about 220 000 members of Sadtu have voted in favour of joining the public-service strike.Nxesi said that by Monday evening half the votes had been counted and the job would probably be finished by the end of the week.Sadtu, with 230 000 members, is the biggest trade union affiliated to Cosatu. Nxesi said the 7 000 to 10 000 members employed at private schools will not participate in the strike.Other Cosatu affiliates, the South African Democratic Nurses' Union, the South African State and Allied Workers' Union confirmed on Monday that their members will be downing tools.An independent union, the Health and Other Services Personnel Trade Union of South Africa, representing teachers and nurses, also said its members will strike. Meanwhile, Fraser-Moleketi told a press conference that public-service unions do not understand the government's wage-increase offer and therefore cannot negotiate seriously about it.She said the government wants workshops to explain its offer to those who are in the coordination bargaining chamber. The government is still open to further negotiations, but said it is waiting for organised labour to "engage". -- Sapa
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=308498&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/
Sunday, May 13, 2007
And the days go by
Once again, I've admittedly let myself down by not managing to post on a regular basis. I think I really need start making more of a concerted effort to log my daily experiences…
Aside from the day to day slog, I don’t have that much real news. School is going well, my only struggle at the moment is one of discipline. I’m struggling to get through work because I spend half my life telling the kids to keep quite. When I started with the grade 7s this term, I tried to set up a “democratic classroom” (like the course I’m studying has said to do) – of course, this is a foreign concept to the kids who as still used to classrooms being the place where the teacher rules and is in charge, and teaches them. I guess it’s more a matter of conflicting interests between staff – I am doing something different to the rest of the teachers and maybe that’s confusing the kids. But does that make what the other teachers (from the previous generation) do right? I somehow don’t think so. I know that the way teachers treated me in school was really undemocratic and I suffered from it, despite receiving a good education!
It’s a very tricky situation, and I’, not sure where I’m going with it…will see how it goes. The environment is my class is not bad, I am behind, but I think considering what I’m trying to create (independent THINKING learners), maybe some of the work is sacrificing – I hate the idea that I’m supposed to be teaching outcomes based education, but all the time I feel like there is this pressure to teach only to those outcomes – like they’re a final end, rather than a process of a means to an end...very frustrating.
University is going well…still doing well and enjoying the content (as opposed to the structure) of the course. Must say, exams are just around the corner and I should be hitting the books (so to speak) a bit harder than I am, but just not going to put the pressure on myself too much just yet. I’m on top of the work, so not too stressed.
The real news: yesterday we had a school fundraiser – tea from grandparents – my comment is that the event went down so well, what a good turn out and amazing work done by all teachers and learners involved – HOWEVER, there were only 8 or so staff members who came to help. What happened to dedicated staff! Pretty pathetic – and of course when it goes well everyone then tries to just on the band wagon.
Something similar (things which make teaching look so unappealing) is the experience I had with a group at uni regarding a group project. Of course, half of the people (me included) did more work than the others and when it came to peer reflection I was warned about animosity because I was honest about some people doing nothing! Very annoying. Hate me if they must – it sit on their conscience that they did very little.
Last news for now: teachers may be striking in two weeks or so. Looks like it may coincide with my study leave! Not sure how I feel – I know I didn’t go into teaching for the money, and on that moral level, I do believe it is wrong. However, I’m convinced that if we do strike and the salary situation of teachers improves, so will the number of teachers entering the industry, and then the standard of education in our country will get better. Not sure if that’s too logical, given the reality of improving a system, but I think it carries some merit. Having said that, my personal decision is one to strike. Solely because, although I do need the month’s salary that I will miss out on (no work no pay), I need it less now than I may need it in 4 years time when this happens again. I think I need to stand up for the future – if I’m ever a teacher with two kids and paying off a car, my salary will be more valuable then than it is now…I’m striking on principle, not because I feel it is 100% the right thing to do, but because I know we need to make a stand.
Will write again
Siobhan
Aside from the day to day slog, I don’t have that much real news. School is going well, my only struggle at the moment is one of discipline. I’m struggling to get through work because I spend half my life telling the kids to keep quite. When I started with the grade 7s this term, I tried to set up a “democratic classroom” (like the course I’m studying has said to do) – of course, this is a foreign concept to the kids who as still used to classrooms being the place where the teacher rules and is in charge, and teaches them. I guess it’s more a matter of conflicting interests between staff – I am doing something different to the rest of the teachers and maybe that’s confusing the kids. But does that make what the other teachers (from the previous generation) do right? I somehow don’t think so. I know that the way teachers treated me in school was really undemocratic and I suffered from it, despite receiving a good education!
It’s a very tricky situation, and I’, not sure where I’m going with it…will see how it goes. The environment is my class is not bad, I am behind, but I think considering what I’m trying to create (independent THINKING learners), maybe some of the work is sacrificing – I hate the idea that I’m supposed to be teaching outcomes based education, but all the time I feel like there is this pressure to teach only to those outcomes – like they’re a final end, rather than a process of a means to an end...very frustrating.
University is going well…still doing well and enjoying the content (as opposed to the structure) of the course. Must say, exams are just around the corner and I should be hitting the books (so to speak) a bit harder than I am, but just not going to put the pressure on myself too much just yet. I’m on top of the work, so not too stressed.
The real news: yesterday we had a school fundraiser – tea from grandparents – my comment is that the event went down so well, what a good turn out and amazing work done by all teachers and learners involved – HOWEVER, there were only 8 or so staff members who came to help. What happened to dedicated staff! Pretty pathetic – and of course when it goes well everyone then tries to just on the band wagon.
Something similar (things which make teaching look so unappealing) is the experience I had with a group at uni regarding a group project. Of course, half of the people (me included) did more work than the others and when it came to peer reflection I was warned about animosity because I was honest about some people doing nothing! Very annoying. Hate me if they must – it sit on their conscience that they did very little.
Last news for now: teachers may be striking in two weeks or so. Looks like it may coincide with my study leave! Not sure how I feel – I know I didn’t go into teaching for the money, and on that moral level, I do believe it is wrong. However, I’m convinced that if we do strike and the salary situation of teachers improves, so will the number of teachers entering the industry, and then the standard of education in our country will get better. Not sure if that’s too logical, given the reality of improving a system, but I think it carries some merit. Having said that, my personal decision is one to strike. Solely because, although I do need the month’s salary that I will miss out on (no work no pay), I need it less now than I may need it in 4 years time when this happens again. I think I need to stand up for the future – if I’m ever a teacher with two kids and paying off a car, my salary will be more valuable then than it is now…I’m striking on principle, not because I feel it is 100% the right thing to do, but because I know we need to make a stand.
Will write again
Siobhan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)