Democratic Dilemmas: Joint Work, Education Politics, and Community

5 Climates of Trust and Mistrust

I think you have to build coalitions for a long time before people will trust you enough to come in and be involved in something like this [strategic planning]. . . . [M]ost districts do a reasonably decent job, I think, involving community people, but you have to involve them at a substantive level, not at a charade level. (Highland superintendent) That whole thing [controversy] with the teachers . . . was indicative of the . . . distrust that’s out there about the district. . . . [I]f a community group were doing this work with the teachers, there would have been a lot more trust. Or if there were a good, strong, trusting relationship of the district to the union, it would have been a good, collaborative effort. But the conditions didn’t exist for that here. (CAP director) AS THESE COMMENTS SUGGEST, levels of trust (or mistrust) within a district and among participants contribute greatly to deliberative democratic practice. The Mid Valley and Highland stories indicate that one’s attitudes about and behavior in the deliberative process are closely linked to one’s relationships with and perceptions of its convener(s) and codeliberators. Thus, the process is very personal and cannot be fully explained by the organizational context, institutional values, and power dynamics in each district. Further, this climate of trust (or mistrust) colored much of what occurred in these other arenas, often mediating conflicting norms or power imbalances. Accordingly, trust appears to be an important precondition necessary for substantive collaboration between educators and laypersons. Without the foundation of trusting relationships, participants were not likely to consider coparticipants or district leaders partners in negotiating policy for the common good of the district. 131 FIVE Climates of Trust and Mistrust In this chapter, I examine the levels of trust between individuals and the district as a whole (institutional trust) and levels of trust between various groups of individuals (interpersonal trust). I also explore the foundations of trust and mistrust and in the process revisit the theme of representation. I conclude with thoughts about factors contributing to the divergent patterns observed across districts. WHAT IS TRUST? Building on political philosophy and theory, trust is defined as “accepted vulnerability to another’s possible but not expected ill will (or lack of good will) toward one.”1 As such, trusting involves taking a risk: the truster is unable to know for certain that the trusted person or institution will act in a way that the truster expects. More specifically, trust is domain-specific and a “threeplace predicate (A trusts B with valued thing C)”2 Accordingly, one might trust a person with one matter and not with another. For example, one might trust an accountant to prepare her tax returns but not to care for her children. As opposed to a more affective orientation—in which trust primarily originates in love, friendship, or a relationship between a parent and a child3 —the conception of trust relied on in this study is primarily cognitive. Trust thus depends on the beliefs, knowledge, and judgments one person makes to accept vulnerability to another person. As such, trust begins with a basic conception of the other and a cognitive discernment about the other person’s intentions.4 The narrative in this chapter builds on several other bodies of theoretical and empirical literature examining trust5 and forges new ground by demonstrating that interpersonal trust between participants at the district level greatly influences democratic success and failure. INSTITUTIONAL TRUST Across districts, it appeared that teachers mistrusted the district as a whole, either referring to the central office in general or grouping district leaders together in a collective.6 An “us versus them” mentality permeated the climate in both districts, in which teachers frequently noted—and administrators were quite aware of—feelings that the district was not responsive to teachers’ needs and did not include them in important decisions. The mistrust , however, was qualitatively different in each district. In Highland, this “us-them” divide coexisted with a culture of “who-ness,” a belief that regardless of position, all district employees deserved respect and professional treatment . As a result, Highland teachers repeatedly noted that they were proud to work in the district. Even the most negative individuals interviewed stated that they would not work anywhere but Highland. In contrast, Mid Valley DEMOCRATIC DILEMMAS 132 educators expressed this “us-them” mentality with a lot more intensity and angst, often noting that they would consider working for another...