I use the Arne Duncan scenario as an example of how long it takes to arrive at a point of action when you work through the democratic process: three years.
Like it or not Duncan is the public symbol of all the disruption in education and the call for a resignation is a public, united display of displeasure with the attempts to control our work with the levers of high-stakes testing which has done untold damage to kids and learning. I don't think anyone in the room saw the vote as anything more than that. But as you said earlier "too little, too late." Again, my point--democracy relies on consensus and consensus takes time. It would be far better to chart our own path and run parallel to the alternate agenda rather than remaining passive and operating only in reaction. I don't know if that's possible in the current situation.
My experience at the RA helped me see more clearly how concentrated wealth influences the decision-making process. We have already witnessed it's influence on elections nationwide. I have wondered for years how a single person, Bill Gates, gets to make decisions that affect so many and is funded in collusion with the people's money--skirting our national "of the people, by the people" stated philosophy.
Thomas Picketty, the french economist who has stirred a global debate, sees the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few as a clear threat to democracy. I see now how that works at the ground level. When you got a lot of money you don't need no stinkin' democracy.
I find it alarming and hope to ring the bell. As for daily miracles, teaching since 1978 will stand as testimony that I think the work is worth the fight and that, if nothing else, I can control what happens in my room.