"Praxis: a complex activity by which individuals create culture and society, and become critically conscious human beings. Praxis comprises a cycle of action-reflection-action which is central to education. Characteristics of praxis include self-determination (as opposed to coercion), intentionality (as opposed to reaction), creativity (as opposed to homogeneity), and rationality (as opposed to chance)."

Today my old school, Windsor House, is having an alumni picnic and discussion about democratic education. Whenever I think back to my time at Windsor House, I return to my old frustrations about the educational options and opportunities we offer our young people. As a recent former young person (lol) and current educator, it's an issue that's close to my heart. Again and again, while considering our public schools, I can't help but think that we could do so much better.

It might help to know something about the nature of Windsor House. The buzzword right now is democratic education - in my days there, it was non coercive education. I don't think the terminology really matters; it's the idea and spirit of this school that is so special. Non coercive essentially means without force. Democratic brings to mind ideas of ownership, collective responsibility, and participation. These are hard notions to conceptualize in the concept of a school if your understanding of school is rooted in the traditional and established forms of this institution: age-graded, rigidly scheduled, top-down places that churn through hundreds of young people every year. Windsor House is nothing like this.

Imagine instead a school that by it's very design requires each student to identify and develop their individual beliefs, abilities, and passions. Imagine a school where the actual job of a teacher is to support this development, to mediate between ministry requirements and a community of autonomous learners. This is Windsor House. I remember the school year starting with a meeting of all of the students and teachers, where students discussed what they wanted to study and do during the school year, and teachers presented their interests and subject areas, and thus classes were formed. Classes were also only one of a range of learning opportunities the school presented. The school community, during my time there, showed a profound commitment to finding the resources and support to allow students to explore and develop a wide range of skills and talents. The democracy didn't end there either. The school itself was student governed. School board regulations were the only imposed rules; all other school rules and policies were generated by members of the school community, who presented suggestions that were voted on at public meetings. Any student, staff, or community member could try to pass a "resolution," and everyone's vote carried exactly the same weight.

School rules, and infractions thereof, were also the responsibility of students, who, alongside supportive staff members, ran the school court and thus were responsible for maintaining the well-being of their peers and community. In particularly troublesome cases, the entire community would be called together to confront problems and work together to heal rifts. I can only suggest that this level of involvement had a profound impact on us students. To really understand, you'd have to be a young person and find a space where your ideas and concerns were taken completely seriously, and your ability to contributed was assumed, not questioned. Given how young people are often treated in our society - let's say marginalized and leave it at that - Windsor House was more than a breath of fresh air; it was a lifeline.

At the time, while I was a student at Windsor House, I only knew that this system worked for me. As I went on through university and entered the faculty of education to begin my own teacher training, I necessarily became involved in studying pedagogical theory. Contemporary studies of education and student success are rife with buzzwords too, but one phrase that surfaces again and again is student-centred. This is proposed as a model for successful environments for student learning, and is quite widely accepted as the most effective model. The idea is that teachers, rather than being the "sage on the stage" who lectures and delivers content top-down, ought to be a "guide on the side" who lends their expertise and resources to the autonomous educational pursuits undertaken by students. In it's interpretation, this theory is frequently reduced to the sphere of the classroom, and limited in scope to the kinds of activities students undertake in their process through the teacher-determined curriculum. In short, it is often reduced to favouring "group work" over lectures and teacher-led activities. Herein lies the problem.

The actual philosophy behind ideas of student-centred pedagogy shows that it does not work if reduced to only the mirco components of the system. Shallow autonomy in limited situations simply cannot have the benefits of real democratic education, which I believe is what lies at the heart of such student centred pedagogy. This means that in most of our schools today (believe me, I've been there too) we are not offering young people today even what we already know to be the best. We claim it is impractical or impossible, ignoring functional and even local examples like Windsor House, and we will all suffer the consequences of this cognitive dissonance.

Newspapers and other media report it so often that I don't have to. Young people don't vote, are inclined to apathy, materialism, violence, and so on. They are old stereotypes. Not all, or even most, young people are like this. It's a time-honoured tradition for an aging generation to fear the one that follows it. Nor is our crisis of public education a recent one. So how can I claim that it is especially imperative we resolve the gap between educational theory and praxis right now, as opposed to oh, say a decade or century from now? I simply say we owe it to ourselves. We face problems and tensions on this planet that increase in scope and complexity every day. Growing populations and technological advances have make the big picture an ever-shifting landscape and yet, we still also have a capacity for positive change that is itself unparalleled. We have the resources, the knowledge, and models to follow. We have the mandate; it's time for change.

Our province spends something like $35 million on education every year; the amount per student is in the thousands. This represents a serious commitment. Is the result worth it? We do some very valuable things within the walls of our public schools, but this should not blind us to the idea that we can do better.