Abstract
Student participation in the education policy debate in Brazil has a long history, albeit focused mainly at the university level. In secondary schools (students aged 14−17) participation has been much more patchy and with variable results. The grêmio associations (similar to student councils in the UK) are the main pathway to student voice within schools and the main link to the principal. However, evidence of their efficacy in dealing with issues of democratic participation is very much dependent upon the efficiency of the dialogue between senior management team and the students themselves.
Introduction
Student mobilisation and activism have a long history in the Brazilian education environment. The National Students' Union (UNE), which has existed since 1937, and the State Students' Union (UEE) (both are groups of university students) have been responsible for organising many actions to influence policy. Moreover, ‘social movements, community groups, NGOs, church groups and local governments have all been active in constructing and implementing educational alternatives (Bartlett, 2005; Fischer and Hannah, 2002; Gandin, 2006; Gentili and McCowan, 2003; Ghanem, 1998; King-Calnek, 2006; Myers, 2008; (McCowan, 2010, p25). However, active student participation led by teachers or principals with direct impact on the teaching and learning is a rather unusual event. Nevertheless, some research into secondary school student involvement within schools does exist and are generally led by student bodies called grêmios.
Context
The main vehicle of student voice in Brazilian schools is a form of student council called ‘grêmio’. The grêmios are pupil associations, elected by the pupils themselves (usually aged 14−17), which organise cultural, sporting and political activities within the school and act as a forum for discussion and as a mouthpiece for student views (McCowan, 2010: 28). However, the purpose of grêmios and their participation in the student life vary from school to school. In my own school where I was a student member of the grêmio while growing up in Porto Alegre, 1 it was a group of students organising activities and parties rather than playing an active voice within the school. In fact, any complaint or attempt to influence learning within the school was rebuffed or ignored either by the pedagogic coordinators or other senior leaders. For example, I remember having led a petition, signed by almost every student in our year, in order to keep a biology teacher in the school. We believed he had been the best biology teacher we had had in the last three years. We talked with the people responsible within the school but to no avail. We were not even informed of the reason why he was leaving, which made things more difficult. All we knew is that he was not leaving of his own accord. Whatever the reason, we were not able to influence the school and no response or argument was given as to why he had left.
Moreover, there have been movements to enhance the nature of grêmios (McCowan, 2010). For example, in the state of Parana, the online educational portal explicitly says that the goals of the grêmios are to: congregate and represent students; defend their rights and interests; cooperate to the improvement of the school and the quality of learning; promote educational, cultural, civic, social and sports activities; promote the collaboration and exchange of cultural and educational experiences with other institutions.
In spite of legislation promoting and legalising the activities of a grêmio within a school, there is still a strong cultural prerogative which will determine how active the grêmio will actually be. Furthermore, the grêmio can become an excellent avenue for social and cultural practices for students within the school environment (Dayrell, 2007) and as McCowan (2010) has shown, there are many students who feel empowered by taking part in the association and engaging in the political life of the school. Alternatively, as part of Genovez’s (2004) research into democratic participation in secondary schools, she interviewed principals and students. In one of the interviews ‘the principal of School B affirmed that the grêmio “does not act as it should”; this perception can also be spotted in interviews with students from other schools taking part in the project’ (Genovez, 2004: 206).
2
This piece of evidence demonstrates that there is a lot of work still to be done in order to raise the status of grêmio student associations.
Consequences for leadership and management
After a grêmio association is formed in the school, legislation requires that principals and other senior leaders actively engage in a mutual collaboration with students involved. They must give space for students to meet and allow access of the commission to the classroom in order to clarify the functions of the grêmio to all students. Teachers should also promote participation in the proposed activities and comply with all the proposals established by the law 3 (Fernet and Pelozo, 2007). Moreover, when dealing with a school that wishes to engage in the democratic participation of students, teachers, principals and students must reflect on the pedagogical ethos of the school and enter a critical dialogue about teaching and learning. Additionally, there must be an only there must be an understanding that acquiring life skills and competencies is a process which will immensely benefit the school community in participating in a more globalised society (Antunes, 2003; Moura, 2010).
In another research, Carlos (2006) explains that when dealing with the relationships between the student body of the grêmio with teachers, principals or other employees of the school, some students have commented on the fact that they were an obstacle to the enactment of decisions taken by the grêmio while in other schools they were active supporters of actions taken by the student body. In another problem raised by Carlos (2006), these obstacles could be imposed by students themselves, especially those that were not a part of the grêmio. The active participation of the senior management team of a school and its communication with all the students is vital for a thorough understanding of the purposes of the grêmio and how it works. The lack of communication between grêmio students and school leaders is likely to generate conflict, which will hinder students’ participation in the democratic process within the school.
A recent ethnographic case study made in a secondary school in Porto Alegre by Mendes (2011) has shown that in the eyes of students that are not part of the grêmio, some participants were seen as childish and unruly. These students did not engage with the way in which the grêmio association worked and, at the same time, did not show any interest in contributing to discussions which could lead to different students representing them in the grêmio. Moreover, those involved in the grêmio saw themselves as superior to other students as they are the ones engaged in militant 4 work and committed to causes pertaining to their school and other students (Mendes, 2011). Hence, the grêmio can turn out to be a very restrictive form of student voice, sometimes alienating other students and pushing them away from taking an interest in the school life. On the other hand, it has the potential to become a pathway to some form of political activism.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, teachers’ practices of student voice within their own classroom seem to be limited to the time available to the teacher, as many teachers in Brazil work in different schools. This effectively means they don’t necessarily have a close relationship with, or the interest or time to become more involved in school life. Nevertheless, the grêmios still serve as a rich source of democratic participation within the school environment, although its power to inform teaching practice is still unclear.
It is paramount for schools to invest in the engagement of students in their day-to-day activities and initiate a serious rethink of how the school is organised. This would promote a dialogue which has the potential to weaken the hierarchical and authoritarian behaviour of certain school leaders. Moreover, those students within grêmio associations need some form of training in order to contribute to school policies that include all students as they must ensure their voices are representative of the majority of the student body of the school so as to have a direct impact on teaching and learning rather than creating differences amongst the student body.