Street-Level Democrats - Realizing the Potential of School, University, and Community Coalitions

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by moss~

Faculty members often pursue external grants to advance educational initiatives, but grant-seeking can erode core instruction when done without care. The article argues for “street-level democrats” who focus on the needs of students, teachers, and local communities. It explains how leaders learn to craft and negotiate grant proposals, build “empires,” and the risks of prioritizing funding over teaching. Examples from coalition work and debates over small-school support illustrate the consequences.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time18 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Grant seeking and instructional impact

Learning grant language and building capacity

Risks: funding priorities and “iron law of oligarchy”

Grant pursuit as a problem in practice

Case examples: small rural schools and NCLB accountability

Democratic negotiation versus uncritical grant compliance

Street-Level Democrats: Realizing the Potential of School, University, and Community Coalitions by Dennis Shirley Abstract Faculty members pursue external grants to support educational initiatives, but must do so mindfully because grants inadvertently can undermine core instructional activities. To reach full leadership potential, faculty members should act as “street-level democrats,”focused on the needs of students, teachers, and the communities served. This article illustrates how the leaders of the Massachusetts Coalition for Teacher Quality and Student Achievement used this concept to enhance the preparation of student teachers to work in urban school systems. In an age of heightened marketplace competition, educational leaders must acquire grants or other external funding resources to grow programs. With proper funding, school leaders can hire staff, acquire technical support, compensate teachers, and purchase curricula. Without funding, leaders are forced to impose upon individuals to donate their time and energy for the good of a cause, and hope that intrinsic rewards will induce others to participate in worthy activities. With the latter approach, however, leaders are not likely to build programs or effect changes that last over time. Hence, school leaders are thrown, often willy-nilly and with little or no preparation, into the search for external resources. These leaders must learn how to write in the stilted, often jargon-laden argot of grant proposals; take funders’ language and feed it back to them in ways that confirm the validity of their objectives; and court financiersin careful, behind-the-scenes negotiations that can make or break proposals. After a while, leaders learn how to break the code, and one grant builds upon another. Infrastructures, playfully called “empires,” are built. Leaders learn to hire and fire staff, conduct performance reviews, and fill out work plans and performance 116 Essays reports. However, if administrators aren’t careful, teaching students falls into the background as the empires get larger and larger, and require more and more time and energy. If leaders aren’t mindful, they often forget why they got into education in the first place and become just as avaricious as Donald Trump in pursuing the next big deal. Michels’s (2001, 224) famous “iron law of oligarchy” takes over and the pursuit of grant funding becomes the driving force, almost regardless of whether or not a given proposal will have a positive impact. Second-guessing grant-seeking activity may seem like an exercise in futility. If you work in urban schools, however, the need for additional resources is so great that at first glance it seems you really can’t go wrong in pursuing the grant du jour. Whether one seeks grants for teachers’ professional development in a hard-to-staff discipline like chemistry or physics, mentoring support for struggling beginning teachers, or cutting-edge computers for an English or science classroom, it’s all needed—so let’s roll up our sleeves, get the lead out, and get that proposal off by the Friday 5:00 p.m. deadline! At a certain juncture, however, the pursuit of grants as a summum bonum (highest good) becomes unsatisfying. One realizes that funders can be fickle and just plain wrong. For example, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, powerful philanthropies, inspired by Conant’s (1959) The American High School Today, launched a national campaign to eliminate small, rural high schools and consolidate them into larger units. According to Conant, small high schools were mired in local folkways, lacked the staff to offer large numbers of electives, and needed the same economies of scale that benefited modern corporations. This crusade against the intimate connections between rural high schools and their communities was fought throughout rural America. However, few educators dared to challenge the mighty philanthropies, and many rural Americans—lacking the formal educatio

FAQs

What does “street-level democrats” mean in the context of educational grants?

It refers to faculty and educational leaders who act from the ground level, centered on the needs of students, teachers, and the communities they serve, rather than on funders’ priorities alone.

Why can pursuing grants undermine core instructional activities?

Grants can redirect time and energy away from teaching as leaders become absorbed in proposal work, negotiations, and the expansion of administrative structures.

What concerns arise when educators treat grant goals as fixed givens?

Educators and teacher educators may become uncritical functionaries of public agencies or private philanthropy, letting grant objectives drive practice regardless of educational value.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by moss~