The Costs of Democratic Participation (Community Organizing and Urban Education)

[To read the entire series, go here.]

If we persist in our inquiry as to what is meant by a people’s program, raising a series of questions—“Who thought up the program?” “Where did it come from?” “Who worked in its creation?” and other similar queries—we rapidly discover that too often the program is not the people’s program at all but the product of one person, five persons, a church, a labor union, a business group, a social agency, or a political club—in short, a program can be traced to one or two persons but not to the people themselves. The phrase “people’s program” has become well worn with lip service, but whether such a program actually exists in practice is something else again.

--Saul Alinsky, Reveille for Radicals, p. 53 (1946)

There is a tendency among education scholars to genuflect before the idea of “democracy.” If we are going to participate in community or school change, the “progressive” position generally supports the idea that projects must emerge from “the people” as Alinsky argues here. And, in a general sense, it is difficult to challenge this desire. Of course it is important for those who are affected by a program to participate in its development.

But it is also important to understand that “participation” is not a costless activity. Furthermore, in complex areas where one needs extensive technical knowledge to make decisions about better or worse projects, effective decisionmaking by the “people” is inseparable from extensive educational activities. And then come difficult questions about how one is to ascertain what the “people” want or even who the “people” are. For example, as I have noted before, the organization I work with, MOVE, is made up of mostly middle-class church members. Figuring out what they want is not the same as figuring out what those who are most needy in our communities want.

I’m beginning to think that different levels of participation may be required for different kinds of interventions. With respect to some broad social service issues, it seems to me that it may be less important for the “people” to participate in deciding about which projects to pursue. For example, is it necessary to have long discussions about exactly what kind of dental service program we need for kids in school or about what kind of class size reduction plan we need, as long as we get one? Of course, it would be better to have these discussions. But lacking resources, doesn't it make sense to just “do it” when opportunities present themselves for fighting for new programs as opposed to stopping and engaging in long drawn-out community education and engagement efforts?

In general, it is usually less important to people exactly how new services are provided as long as they are provided. Kids need dental care and smaller class sizes. And parents don’t necessarily care whether we start with dental care or small class size--even if neither of these would be at the absolute top of their initial list if we did a survey of their desires for change.

For example, we have begun a process of developing an approach to providing dental care to students in the Milwaukee Public Schools. In focus groups, another organization found that many parents would rather take their kids to a private practitioner rather than have them treated in school. And this is fine. But we have almost one hundred thousand kids in MPS. 64% of them have significant tooth decay problems and less than 25% have even seen a dentist recently. The fact that some parents won’t want to use the service (or might use it even if they would prefer something else) won’t change what seems the undisputed fact that it would reach an enormous number of children who are not now served. I haven't heard anyone who actually opposes offering such services.

The fact is that this is the project that the most involved members of our organization think we can feasibly fight for—even if it isn’t the “perfect” program for everyone. The fact is that no one seems to know how to substantially increase private dental access directly for poor parents with state insurance. In part because there doesn’t seem to be any coherent alternative to a school-based plan, other groups have failed to put forward a comprehensive plan for student treatment at all (although they have recommended a patchwork of disparate changes that would be difficult to fight for as a collective). To some extent (from my distant and limited understanding) these other groups seem to have been paralyzed to one extent or another by a particular vision of democratic collaboration between institutions and local people.

It seems crucial to make sure that all programs include avenues for public participation so that they can be influenced by those they serve. But you can’t influence a program that doesn’t exist. You can’t fight for changes in service provision that doesn’t exist. It may be that the capability for local participation on an issue like this comes after the service is created and not before.

Other issues seem likely to require more extensive education and dialogue. For example, we are thinking about joining the fight of a couple of local school board members to reinstate arts programs and/or other extracurricular activities in MPS schools. An effort like this, which would involve shifting $$ from one area of the school budget to another (instead of providing new $$ like the dental plan would, above) seem problematic to pursue without extensive and broad input. There is deep disagreement out there about what schools should “do” or “be.” Should they limit their focus to the three Rs exclusively, or do they have a responsibility to provide more broad-based experiences to students? And do extracurricular activities really matter on an academic level? Are they simply add-ons that are fun, or do they, for example, keep students in school that might otherwise drop out? To me, it seems problematic for a few leaders to decide what the general population of their organization believes without engaging with them in some way.

There may be three different kinds of issues, here.

1. There may be issues like dental care or class size that don’t require as much intense democratic engagement or education. Anybody on the street can see why they are important and they don’t need to learn much to understand what needs to be done in a general sense.
   
2. Then there may be issues that require education and some democratic dialogue, but that revolve around issues that people generally will support unproblematically. People need to understand the complexities of these issues in order to participate effectively in the fight, but don’t need to have extended discussion about whether this particular fight is worthy.
3. And then there may be issues that require both education and more extensive democratic dialogue, like whether an organization should join an effort to bring extracurricular activities back given a limited pool of $ to do everything a school needs to do. They need to have discussions about whether this campaign is worth getting into in the first place. And they need to understand the structure of the budget—the specific details of where the funding will come from and the implications of this act for other programs—both to have the dialogue in the first place and to effectively fight for the change if they decide to pursue it.

To complicate this even more, as I noted above, it may be that democratic participation for different issues becomes important at different stages of a project. In some cases this may even happen after a particular campaign has been won so that there exist real opportunities to work on influencing a service that has not existed before.

Read more →

Tough Liberal - a look at Al Shanker, union leader

Originally posted on dailykos, and also posted elsewhere

In 1973, I was in a movie theater near Philadelphia watching the new Woody Allen film “Sleeper.” A man name Miles Monroe awakens after 200 years to a world that has been devastated by nuclear war. When Allen’s character inquires what caused the war he is informed that is was caused "when a man named Albert Shanker got hold of a nuclear device." As someone who lived in New York during the period of major school conflict, I was laughing so hard I came out of my seat as others, not as familiar with Shanker, stared at me. And for far too many, that line from Woody Allen encapsulates their knowledge of and reaction to Albert Shanker, which is perhaps why Richard Kahlenberg begins his remarkable biography of Shanker by reminding the reader of how that clip represents the attitude of many New York liberals toward Shanker: that he was “a hothead and union thug” (p.1) for his part in the New York City school strikes of 1967 and 1968.

That is the opening paragraph of a review I did of a new biography of Al Shanker, longtime leader of the American Federation of Teachers. In this posting I will explore the book and the man about which it is written.

I began with the opening paragraph of a review I did for Education Review of Richard Kahlenberg's new bio, Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy. I had mentioned the incident in the movie theater when I was contacted by Columbia University Press to see if I would be interested in reading the book. What is striking is the role that movie clip plays in the book. The next paragraph of my review reads as follows:

Clearly Allen’s criticism stung Shanker. During the New York City fiscal crisis of 1975, the city could only maintain its financial independence if the United Federation of Teachers, led by Shanker, was willing to purchase $150 million of Municipal Assistance Corporation bonds as part of the bailout necessary to convince banks to lend the city sufficient money to prevent default. This had been mandated by a provision of law declared unconstitutional, and the teachers did not have to voluntarily commit. When Shanker chose to help the city, he received a lot of criticism from the press. Thus it is worth quoting the passage from p. 185 that offers Shanker’s response:

Shanker told Newsweek: “Woody Allen said if I had a nuclear weapon in my hand I would use it. Here I had it and I didn’t use it.”

By the way, since I hold the copyright on the review, I am not bound by fair use in what I choose to quote. I do not intend to merely reproduce what I wrote for Education Review, since I have provided you a link.

I began reading the book with an antipathy towards Shanker. I had lived in New York until 1971, and thus had been present for much of the disruption in that city's schools during the period of time he led the Unied Federation of Teachers, the local affiliate of the National Federation of Teachers, to whose leadership he later ascended. I had family teaching in the city's schools who were not Shanker fans. I had also watched his later career as he rose to the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO under George Meany, offered continued support for the war in Vietnam, opposed McGovern in 1972, and served as perhaps one of the most prominent advocates of the standards movement. I had read far too many of his "Where We Stand" columns in the New York Times with which I had found myself in strong disagreement. I knew he had been an early advocate of charter schools, and was a key supporter of No Child Left Behind, perhaps one reason some Democrats were willing to go along with that proposal.

And yet as is often the case with notable public figures, the picture of Al Shanker I carried in my mind was quite incomplete, and thus almost a caricature. At the time my impression of him was being formed I was not a classroom teacher. Thus I missed in my reading of his columns things with which I now find myself in agreement. And as a teacher, I have to acknowledge that Shanker more than any other person is responsible for what collective bargaining rights we public school educators have. When he began his efforts in New York the vast majority of teachers were not members of teachers' unions. Now nationally most are, with the AFT and NEA being two of the largest unions around. After reading the exceedingly well documented biography, I also realized that there were positions advocated by Shanker with which I found myself agreeing.

Much of the negative liberal attitude towards Al Shanker was formed during the dispute over the Ocean-Hill Brownsville community district in New York City, during which there was a major conflict between a largely Jewish group of teachers and a local administration and community that was largely African-American. Shanker was accused by some of being a racist, which was patently unfair. This was a man who came from the socialist and social democratic traditions, who was a founding member of the Congress of Racial Equality while an undergraduate at the U of Illinois in 1947, who who worked closely with people like Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr before, during and after the incident which gave rise to the unfortunate portrayal indicated by the Allen movie quote.

I have some quibbles with the book, which I discuss in the review and which you can read there. On the whole I think it well worth reading. As I wrote in my final paragraph

Albert Shanker received posthumously this nation’s highest civilian award, the Medal of Freedom. For better or worse, he was a major player in the shaping of this nation’s educational policies for the more than four decades. Before reading this biography, I was somewhat inclined to think the worse of Shanker's efforts. It is a testament to Kahlenberg’s research and writing that I now see how Al Shanker played a positive role in his lifelong crusade to defend and improve public education. I am in many ways the beneficiary of that commitment. My own career as a public school teacher has been shaped in ways I had not known were influenced by Shanker. Anyone seriously interested in education history and education policy would do well to take the time to at least examine this book. Those who do will likely be inclined , as was I, to read the entire work.

As a teacher I try to empower my students to view people and history without filtering them through prior prejudicial attitudes. That is, while it is inevitable that we may have prior perceptions (positive or negative) about people and events, I believe that to be intellectually honest we must be willing to go beyond those, to examine people and events in their own context, which might be quite different than ours. I try to have my students learn how to disagree however strongly they feel on issues without it descending into disagreeable attacks on persons inorder to win rhetorical points: in politics we should remember that today's fiercest opponent might in some future battle be our strongest ally. There is still much about Al Shanker with which I have my difficulties. I can now, after reading Kahlenberg's excellent biography, understand the background for many of Shanker's position: as a Social Democrat he believed he understood the dangers of communism in ways that some liberals did not; this shaped his response to Vietnam in a way I happen to believe was wrong. Similarly, I can look at positions he took on education and while understanding the motivation behind them and at times even agreeing in part, nevertheless remain critical of the implications of those positions, implications to which, despite his intellectual brilliance (Shanker was ABD in Philosophy at Columbia and clearly was an influential public intellectual), he seemed oblivious.

Let me offer from the review and example of how I address the consequences of some of Shanker's ideas:

In the final chapter, "The Legacy of Albert Shanker," Kalhlenberg describes Shanker’s three main contributions as “helping to create modern teachers’ unions, helping to reform public education, and helping to preserve public education.” He goes on to write that these “made him the most important voice in education in the past half century” (p. 391). Kahlenberg acknowledges that Shanker did not solve many of the problems that still confront public schools, especially in inner cities, but argues that “he was in the thick of the major efforts to address the problems and fought off a number of bad ideas that would have made things worse” (p. 391). It is on the last point that many educators and analysts might choose to disagree.

I am a public school teacher. I am not sure that looking at the body of evidence I would agree that Shanker’s support of public school choice through charters necessarily staved off a movement to vouchers: there exist a number of voucher programs already, including in two major urban centers, Milwaukee and Cleveland. Similarly, Shanker’s willingness to support the idea of national standards and possibly even a national test has led to what I consider some dangerous movement in the direction of such a national dictates on education. Moreover, given battles over such issues as the nature of science instruction (not an issue addressed by Shanker) and history standards (he was on Lynne Cheney’s side in that battle), I am unwilling to grant increased power over education to the federal government. I acknowledge that my reaction is shaped as much by my experience and philosophy as was Shanker’s.

And in fairness, let me also offer how I found myself in agreement, at least in part:

Nevertheless, the more I read about Shanker, the more I found myself in agreement on important issues. In his understanding of accountability, he was unwilling to hold teachers accountable if students were not. True, but this does not go far enough. Shanker's failure to see high stakes testing for what it truly is could lead to the situation where teachers are graded based on the same tests used to determine graduation or promotion―the situation for high schools in Maryland where I teach. He ignored what we know about the distortion and corruption of both testing and curriculum that such a high stakes approach engenders. And yet, seeing the interconnectedness of responsibility is a step far beyond that of many advocates of a punitive approach to testing, such as many supporters of No Child Left Behind. I agree with Shanker that it is unwise to allow private entities to manage public schools. He correctly saw that such companies might take a cookie-cutter approach to hold down their costs, actions exactly contrary to the vision he had of using charter schools as a means of flexibility to meet the needs of students and communities. Shanker wanted a progressive, class-based coalition to increase opportunity and, hence, economic equity. He worried that using only race-based forms of affirmative action would not resolve the real problems, even for those minorities whose impoverished circumstances most warranted help. I have over the years come to understand the importance of economic inequity in this country, and realize that race is often only a proxy because of the historic inequities that have been passed down. I teach African-American students where both parents have advanced degrees and white students who will be the first in their families to graduate from high school; and it is clear to me that while the latter need the kind of help offered by affirmative action, the former probably do not, despite continued elements of racism in our society.

Santayana once opined that those who did not learn history were destined to repeat it. I think far too often in our political battles we tend to rely only on that history which we think reinforces the positions we wish to advocate. In our selectivity we may miss important lessons and thus as Santayana notes repeat the mistakes of the past. I wonder if we looked more completely at the events and person of the past whether our perceptions of what we should assay might not be different. Reading a book about Al Shanker challenged my thinking. I still think he was wrong in how he advocated for standards, but I also understand that his motivation was to preserve public education and to enhance the role played by and thus the respect for public school teachers. Unlike some with whom he worked I have no doubt about his dedication to that purpose. And I think an examination of some of the battles he went through - including being jailed on behalf of his teachers - might remind us that those who have gone before us have often paid a heavy price in order to give us rights and liberties we too often take for granted, until they are threatened.

We live in a time in which labor rights are increasingly under threat. For too long there was a distinct chasm between much of labor and other parts of the liberal coalition. Those who attended Yearlykos in Chicago have seen how that is changing - the presence of both Teachers' unions, the Teamsters, SEIU, and so on, enable us to recognize the common interests we have in working together on many issues, even if we might disagree on others. Al Shanker's life and work were evidence of the importance of such an approach, which is one reason I feel comfortable advocating reading this long book to an audience which comes to this site mainly for political reasons.

I have no idea what response this posting will receive. I will post it at a number of sites because I think the book is worthy of attention.

And I thank you for your patience in reading this far.

Peace.

Read more →

Girls Good, Boys Bad? Revisiting the Old Arguments About Single Sex Education

Whenever I hear people arguing that "progressive" social scientists really just find what their "liberal" biases lead them to find, I think about single-sex education. There has long been a sense, more of a "gut feeling" among some, that girls that exclude boys provide girls with a better educational experience for a wide range of reasons. Perhaps the most compelling idea is that with boys out of the classroom, girls will have a chance to shine that they don't otherwise have in our male-oriented and dominated society.

But evidence that single-sex schools are better for girls has been extremely difficult to find, even by those who really want to find it. I'm no expert on this, but the last time I looked, a few years ago, I believe that the general conclusion in the literature was that single sex schools didn't seem to lead to any significant difference in outcomes for girls. (I know much less about the literature around single-sex environments for boys.)

Slate.com now cites a recently published study (the complete study is here) giving evidence that boys are corrosive on classroom environments. The study looked at nearly half a million students in Israel's education system, with large numbers of observations.

As the authors note in their abstract:

Our results suggest that an increase in the proportion of girls leads to a significant improvement in students’ cognitive outcomes. The estimated effects are of similar magnitude for boys and girls. As important mechanisms, we find that a higher proportion of female peers lowers the level of classroom disruption and violence, improves inter-student and student-teacher relationships as well as students’ overall satisfaction in school, and lessens teachers’ fatigue. We find, however, no effect on individual behavior of boys or girls, which suggests that the positive peer effects of girls on classroom environment are due mostly to compositional change, namely due to having more girls in the classroom and not due to improved behavior of peers.

Their conclusions include the following:

An examination of the underlying mechanisms of the gender peer effects shows that a higher proportion of girls in the classroom lowers the level of classroom disruption and violence, and improves inter-student and teacher-student relationships as well as students’ satisfaction with school. It also significantly alters teaching methods and lessens teachers’ fatigue and feelings of burnout, . . . although it does not affect their overall work satisfaction. On the other hand, we find no evidence that having more girls in a class leads to clearer and more enforceable disciplinary rules at school.

Interestingly,

The estimates of the effect of the proportion of girls on student’s (self-reported) violent behavior, disciplinary problems, and study effort show no systematic or significant relationship, suggesting that much of the improvement in the classroom environment associated with a higher proportion of girls is due to a change in classroom gender composition and not to changes in individual student behavior.

I have a number of questions about this study, of course (which, it is important to note, is a "working paper" and not a peer-reviewed publication). For example, the focus on "girls" in one particular (collection) of cultural context(s) makes me wonder about how much of the effect, if it is accurate, results from a particular way of raising boys and girls (and of responding to them in the classroom) than from being "boys" in some absolute sense. What does it mean to be a "boy" absent a culture? What exactly does it "mean" that the driving "mechanism" is gender writ large as opposed to changes in individual student behavior? As usual with statistical studies like this, the findings are really not findings at all. They simply raise questions. What exactly leads to these results, to the extent that they are accurate? What are the interactive mechanisms on the ground that produce the responses on the surveys they analyze? Etc.

There are also wider issues about how one presents data like this, and what effect this paper may have on quite contentious discussions going on about the relative achievement levels of boys and girls in school (and their later success) across different groups.

In any case, if these conclusions hold up, I think they are significant and important for us to think about.

Let me conclude with the usual qualifications. Gender and schooling is not my area of focus, so I hope others more studied in this area will correct any failings. Also I have not attempted to wade through the extensive justifications and sub-arguments of this paper (and I'm not really equipped to do so with respect to the statistical aspects). Others may want to look more closely. As usual, I raise this for discussion.

Read more →

Best Website on the Internet for Interdisciplinary Folk

I've been meaning to note this on the blog for a while, but I would argue that bookforum.com (formerly politicaltheory.info) consistently contains the best collection of interesting and informative links on the Internet. When you are very interdisciplinary, you're never quite sure what will be helpful or important to think about. Bookforum's front page gives a wonderful selection of interesting work from across the web, including first chapters of books, online journal articles, drafts of papers, book reviews, commentary, and more.

Today's Bookforum may be especially interesting to readers of our blog, since it has a larger than usual number of links to education related topics, including reviews of books on the loss of "play" in the modern age, our failure to support "gifted" children, and an article on the "Top 5 Myths about Girls, Math, and Science. I won't link to these directly--you need to go to Bookforum and see for yourself.

The person who pulls these together every day has got to be a little compulsive (he's writing his dissertation at the same time, somehow). You can see an interview with him, here. Interesting quote: "[Alfredo] Perez doesn’t link to blogs. That way, madness lies. “It would be too much work to consider linking to the blogosphere,” he says."

The interviewer (a member of Crooked Timber) goes on to note that Perez

places a special emphasis on pointing readers to “articles that are sure — or have the potential — to become part of what’s debated in the public sphere.” That includes things like op-eds in The New York Times, articles on public policy in The American Prospect, and essays from the socialist journal Dissent — “material that I think should be a part of the ‘required reading’ for anyone who wants to stay on top of the news and public debates.”

His default list of required readings shows a certain tilt to the left. But he also links to material far removed from his own politics — publications such as Reason, First Things First, Policy Review, and "The Occidental Quarterly." Actually, it was Perez’s site that first introduced me to the latter periodical, which describes itself as a “journal of Western thought and opinion.” Its editors are keen on eugenics, stricter immigration laws, and the European cultural tradition (in particular the German contribution thereto).

“I think it obvious,” says Perez, “that anyone interested in public debates about more philosophical matters has to be familiar with those on ‘the other side.’ I think it’s just plain smart to do so. Reading counterarguments to your position can often be more helpful than readings that just confirm your own point of view."

Read more →

Community Organizing and Urban Education: Cutting an Issue

[To read the entire series, go here.]

I am currently working on the introductory "lectures" for an online community organizing class I am teaching this Fall. Later on I'll be posting the first draft of the entire course online and will post an introduction on this blog. Below I'm posting the introduction to the "cutting an issue" module (FYI, it repeats some of the content of an earlier post). The complete lecture can be accessed here.

Note that I'm no longer numbering posts in this series, and I'll be reorganizing the "series" page to put posts under more coherent subheadings.

The "text" referred to is "Organizing for Social Change" by Kim Bobo, et. al.

“Cutting an Issue”

In the previous module we discussed how to identify a “target” and the importance of analyzing the power structure within which the target resides.

As a reminder, a “target” is “the person or institution that can make the change you want” and a “secondary target” is “a powerful person or institution that can influence the
target.”

You need to know who the target is because otherwise you may be pressuring the wrong person or institution. It’s helpful to identify secondary targets, because they represent people and groups that can influencethe decision-maker.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “PROBLEM” AND AN “ISSUE”

A problem is something that you don’t like about the world or your society, but that is too big and/or too vague to grapple with in any coherent way. “Pollution” and “crime” are “problems.” We don’t like them, but it’s hard to know about what to do about them in general. To use an obsolete term, they are “bummers.” In the words of our text, they are “broad area[s] of concern.” They’re terrible but just thinking about them can be disempowering.

In the terms community organizers use, an issue is a more specific challenge that is separated out from the larger “problem.” An issue, rightly described, always includes the solution to the challenge that is chosen. As our text notes, “an issue is a solution or partial solution to a problem.” For example, an issue that one might “cut” out of the “problem” of crime is police accountability, and the solution that your group might fight for could be installing video cameras in all police cars in the city. An issue you might “cut” out of pollution might be a campaign to stop a new coal-fired plant from being built in your community.

Again, notice that from the perspective of community organizing, you haven’t “cut” an issue until you have also defined how you plan to solve the specific challenge you have chosen. Without an identified solution, your group doesn’t have anything specific to fight for.

“CUTTING AN ISSUE” AND POWER

To some extent, the criteria for cutting an issue, discussed in detail below, can be counter-intuitive. We are used to thinking about “winning” as the most crucial goal in any battle against oppression. However, community organizers think about campaigns in a fundamentally
different way. To understand organizing you have to understand this different way of thinking.

The key problem for any community organizer is a lack of sufficient POWER. You just don’t
have the money or the people to ensure that the social changes you want are made. So the core goal for all community organizers is generating POWER.

How do you generate power? In this context, you generate power by strengthening your
organization. So the core aim of all organizers is building a stronger organization.

Therefore, you want to pick issues that are likely to BUILD YOUR ORGANIZATION. For example, an issue that you can easily win without really making organization members work and extend themselves probably isn’t an issue you want to get involved in. You want an issue that will force the organization to grow, and organization members to learn to be better actors.

It is important to understand that having a reputation for a strong organization is a
crucial asset for organizing groups. If people perceive your group as strong, YOU MAY NOT NEED TO FIGHT! Groups that might have otherwise done things to harm your community may not because of the threat you may get involved. And organizations may invite you to the table early in the process of developing particular projects because they know you can cause problems for them later if you don’t. Organizations that aren’t respected, that aren’t seen as powerful, don’t get this treatment.

When you try to “cut an issue,” think about how a specific issue will help build your organization, how it will help you build POWER for the LONG TERM instead of just about whether and how to achieve a particular goal. Then and only then will you be thinking like an organizer.

FRAMING

One of the key challenges for “cutting an issue” is how you frame what your issue is to outside audiences which may be sympathetic to different concerns than you or your group is. On page 23, the text gives some examples of framing. For example, if you are an environmentalist and want to have logging stopped in a particular forest, it makes sense to frame your “issue” by emphasizing how you will make sure this won’t eliminate jobs, since forest workers may be a crucial part of your opposition.

CRITERIA FOR “CUTTING AN ISSUE”

Chapter 3 of our textbook, Organizing for Social Change, lays out a series of criteria for what counts as a good issue. They do a nice job of describing these. I focus in on what I think the key issues are, here.

1. Result in a Real Improvement in People’s Lives

2. Give People a Sense of Their Own Power

3. Alter the Relations of Power

4. Be Worthwhile

5. Be Winnable

6. Be Widely Felt

7. Be Deeply Felt

8. Be Easy to Understand

9. Have a Clear Target

10. Have a Clear Time Frame that Works for You

11. Be Non-Divisive

12. Build Leadership

13. Set Your Organization Up for the Next Campaign

14. Have a Pocketbook Angle

15. Raise Money

16. Be Consistent with Your Values and Vision.

For the rest of this lecture, go here.

Read more →