The author is Associate Vice President and Director of the Barbara and Edward Netter Center for Community Partnerships, Philadelphia

I am very pleased to see the formation of the Civic Driven Change initiative. It seems to me the orientation is quite important and largely on target. The need for an approach that provides an alternative to market and state dominated ‘solutions’ could not be more evident given the recent global economic crisis and the failure of development models as employed within both developed and less developed societies.

A civic driven change initiative, it seems to me, would have the best chance of succeeding if it is rooted deeply in the local, lived experience of individuals and groups. The local community is, in my judgment, the key not only to democratic development, but also to the formation of successful change on a global level. The really hard question is what institution or group of institutions has the greatest potential to be effectively employed for civic driven change and democratic community development. I believe that the local school can serve as an effective site and a publicly controlled and organized catalyst to bring people together with a view to building local coalitions of neighbours engaged in democratic public work. Here I am echoing John Dewey’s call at the turn of the 20th century to create schools as social centers—community schools that would serve as hubs for community building and democratic discourse and action.

Certainly schools working by themselves cannot realize a civic development purpose. The requirement for schools to function as community schools is that governments at all levels start to function quite differently. More specifically, new forms of interaction among federal, state, and local governments, and among agencies at each level of government, are needed. But government integration by itself will not make for meaningful change.

New forms of interaction among public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors are mandatory if democratic community schools are to be developed and sustained. Governments should also function as collaborating partners, effectively working with and facilitating cooperation among all sectors of society to support and strengthen individuals, families, and communities. In this scenario, the government serves as a powerful catalyst and largely provides the funds needed to create stable, ongoing, effective partnerships. The government would not be primarily responsible for the delivery of services; it would instead have macrofiscal responsibilities, including fully adequate provision of funds. Putting it firmly, a ‘democratic devolution revolution’ is needed, in which the needs, assets, and ‘voice’ of local communities drive change, with the assistance of the government and nongovernmental institutions.

Local schools can effectively serve as the organizational vehicles and hubs for that revolution. And at least in the United States, higher educational institutions, which are simultaneously local, national and global institutions, potentially represent perhaps the most powerful partners for creating and sustaining community schools. As they now function, higher educational institutions largely constitute a major part of the problem, not a significant part of the solution. Among other things, thinking hard about how to best change colleges and universities so that they function as democratic, civic institutions dedicated to democracy and civic, educational, and community development should be high on the agenda. But that discussion will have to wait for another time. Stimulated by the CDC initiative, I have already gone on longer than I had planned. Thanks for getting the conversation started.