Democratic and participatory approaches

Introduction

For most children, their first experience of belonging to an institution occurs when they start an early years setting or school. John Dewey (1922: 314) emphasised the potential significance of this: ‘Our intelligence is bound up, so far as its materials are concerned, with the community life of which we are a part. We know what it communicates to us, and know according to the habits it forms in us.’ Children who join collegial communities that are based upon engagement, participation and shared decision making enter environments where values of mutual respect guide all activities, and they learn accordingly. Conversely, children entering hierarchical institutions where there are high levels of accountability but low levels of trust, and limited participation, receive rather different messages; ones that may restrict opportunities for learning and growth.

Forty years ago, a review of evidence by Ratsoy (1973) indicated that moving away from rigid hierarchical organization of schools toward participative management approaches could lead to positive consequences that included greater teacher satisfaction, decrease in pupil alienation and improved pupil attainment. More recently, consideration of ‘distributed’ ¹ approaches to educational leadership (Harris, 2013; Harris and Spillane, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2007, 2009) indicate that collaborative and cooperative methods may improve the learning and life chances of pupils and increase professional confidence and positive relationships amongst staff. Early years services, in the UK and elsewhere, are often non-hierarchical with a preference for distributed leadership models (Dunlop, 2008; Ebbeck and Waniganayake, 2003; Heikka et al., 2013; Rodd, 2005; Urban et al., 2011). Osgood (2004) suggests that early childhood practitioners take particular pride in the community-oriented, collective and caring nature of the sector and tend to reject individualistic constructs of leadership and management associated with competition and the wielding of power.

It is with the above in mind that we highlight exemplars of participation in early years settings and the early years of school. In our view, participation must permeate every aspect of the work of an organisation and involves considering the perspectives of all potential participants and engaging respectfully with all members of the community. Thus, in the arguments and illustrations that follow, we focus in turn upon respect for children’s viewpoints; student practitioners as legitimate participants; and collegial, distributed leadership that includes egalitarian approaches to decision making with members of staff.

For Dewey (1948: 209) democracy is ‘but a name for the fact that human nature is developed only when its elements take part in directing things which are common, things for the sake of which men and women form groups’. Group members are actively involved in building communities, through processes of communication and shared action. So, democracy is a way of life that is essential for the wellbeing and growth of individuals and societies. In Dewey’s (1937) view principles of democracy and democratic ways of thinking and acting must be engendered within all social relationships, including schooling, with participation as a central characteristic:

‘Absence of participation tends to produce lack of interest and concern on the part of those shut out. The result is a corresponding lack of effective responsibility. Automatically and unconsciously, if not consciously, the feeling develops, “This is none of our affair; it is the business of those at the top; let that particular set of Georges do what needs to be done.” (Dewey, 1937: 458)

Thus, drawing upon John Dewey’s ideal of education for democracy through communication and cooperation, we focus in turn on different participants within early years communities. First and foremost, we are considering children, because:

‘…all education proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race. This process begins unconsciously almost at birth, and is continually shaping the individual's powers, saturating his consciousness, forming his habits, training his ideas, and arousing his feelings and emotions.’ (Dewey, 1897: 427)

Participation is a phrase that has been accused of lacking clarity and substance (Ruddock and McIntyre 2007). In educational literature the word evokes interesting discourses concerned with power (see Osler, 2011), authenticity (see Christensen and James, 2008) and research methods (see Clark and Moss, 2001, 2005, 2011). In the context of this article and elsewhere (Webster, 2010, 2012) we use the term broadly, to explain an approach or opportunity that enables children to be in some way engaged in influencing their own educational provision. It involves partnership and the development of positive relationships that could be associated with a wide range of ‘degrees of participation’ (Lansdown, 2004), including modelling of democratic processes in relationships between adults. Here we take the view of children as ‘competent agents’ (Clark and Moss, 2011) and experts in their own lives, able to construct and determine their own lives and experiences within social settings (O’Kane, 2008). We begin, therefore, with a focus on children but then move to a focus on practitioners arguing that participation of children is necessarily limited in contexts where the processes are not modelled more widely in a setting.

Respect for children’s viewpoints

The concept of pupil involvement and respecting children’s viewpoints was embedded in The Children Act 2004 (HM Government, 2004), which established a legal requirement to consult the wishes and feelings of children when assessing their physical and emotional needs. This legal document along with the introduction of the Every Child Matters agenda (Department for Education and Science [DfES], 2004) brought the notion of listening to children to the fore of English educational policy.

Gathering children’s viewpoints through sensitive observation, reflection and participation, even in the very early stages of development, can engender a culture of respect through ‘tuning in’ to children (Corsaro, 2005; Luff, 2009; Luff and Martin, 2014). By developing such a culture we might begin to understand what is appropriate to individuals’ needs and interests and create democratic communities. This approach upholds children’s rights (United Nations, 1989), particularly the right to express views in matters that affect them. This is in harmony with the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (Department for Education [DfE], 2012) as this curriculum emphasises the importance of working from children’s interests as the starting point for children’s learning. In mainstream early childhood education, when children enter into Key Stage 1, the first phase of the National Curriculum (DfES, 1999) (aged 5–7) there is little in the original documentation to suggest how teachers might engage in including children’s views in their educational provision. Similarly, the proposed new version of the curriculum for use from September 2014 onwards does not indicate how or if children’s views and interests might be used as a starting point for planning learning.

Listening to children’s views about their education has become more recently emphasised not through the curriculum, at the core of the academic provision, but through the schools inspection process. There is an increased emphasis on gathering pupil perceptions through pupil questionnaires and interviews. One of the principles stated by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspections guidance about inspection is that it draws ‘on pupils’ and parents’ views to inform inspectors’ judgements and the outcomes of inspection’ (Ofsted, 2014).

This increased focus on capturing pupils’ views through ‘snapshot’ data such as pupil questionnaires requires consideration. The ‘views’ captured through such approaches do not assume a level of participation, or indeed the opportunity for pupils’ voices to be heard. The issue is not one of semantics, but principled on the notion that participation, listening to children and finding out what children feel, think and know about their own education is of deeper value – value, not as a tool just for the benefit of making a decision about school effectiveness, but for the benefit of the children, teachers, school communities and pedagogy, and for the development of the educational provision and experience offered.

Osler and Starkey (2005) suggest that we need to be able to communicate through a democratic dialogue, but as there is no statutory framework in place to enable children’s participation in decision making then the opportunity for children to be listened to remains at the mercy of individual schools, settings or practitioners.

There are, however, a multitude of creative, engaging and meaningful approaches to capturing the pupil voice and enabling participation. In early years practice the Mosaic approach (Clark and Moss, 2011) is often used as a starting point for enabling participation. In participatory research with Year 1 children (aged 5–6) in schools, a range of techniques were developed that offered opportunities for children to share what mattered to them with their teacher and other pupils through the use of small handheld video cameras (Webster, 2012). The films captured pupils’ voices, views and lives, opening up many opportunities to learn more about the participating children and as a tool to engage in conversation about their home and school lives. Jack’s story is presented as an example here (see also Webster, 2010, 2012).

Jack, a pupil in Year 1, took a video camera to his home and worked with his elder brother to create a short film about keeping chickens. Talking confidently to the camera and adopting the narrative style of a TV presenter he gave a guided tour of the chicken shed, introducing the audience to the nineteen chickens, then demonstrating how to look for and collect newly laid eggs. Jack shows how the chickens are fed, maintaining his fluent narrative as he lifts the lid of the food container, takes a large handful of the feed and then throws it. The effect of all the chickens flocking towards the food is dramatic; and Jack and his brother use the moment, whilst all the birds are eating, to escape from the shed. (Webster, 2012)

In this Year 1 pupil research, which explored what children considered to be important in their own lives, the views of class teachers were gathered through informal interviews. The interviews revealed the contrasts between the teachers’ views, not only on the ways in which they might individually respond to children’s voices, but also in their philosophical views of education. One Year 1 teacher credited her ability and commitment to listening to children and using their interests to her teacher training, undertaken in the 1970s. Her wealth of experience and way of working enabled her to be confident that she was able to meet the demands of the curriculum and the needs of the individual children through sensitive adaptation of planning and learning. Is current initial teacher education similarly equipping teachers to appreciate and respond to children? Are student teachers themselves listened to and included in their placement settings? It is to these questions that our discussion now turns.

Inclusion of student practitioners as legitimate participants

The inclusion of both children and a student practitioner as ‘participants’ was witnessed in one school; as this case study explores.

Hannah, a third year BA education student on her final teaching placement received an ‘outstanding grade’ by her school mentor (also the head teacher) in her first observation. The observation was a phonics task, working with individual children and small groups of children to demonstrate effective learning of phonics. When Hannah was encouraged to talk about the task she explained that she had spoken directly to all of the reception children in the class and asked them what they liked to do, what hobbies they had and what they liked to watch on television. She spent time getting to know the children. When she was asked to work on developing their phonics she was able to adapt and personalise their work. One boy, a reluctant reader, was given a task to complete using an iPad – a piece of equipment that he had expressed interest in using at home. To keep him on task and motivate him, a small character that he was familiar with from the television sat on the side of the desk. The student practitioner ‘spoke’ to the boy via the character, motivating, encouraging and supporting his learning.

Several weeks later, in conversation with Hannah’s school mentor about targets for development, the head teacher suggested, ‘I told Hannah that now she needed to make the classroom her own, that it was my class with her in it. I told her to make the changes she wanted to make – to make it hers – and she is.’.’]

The case study of Hannah and her mentor reflects participation in practice. The social–constructivist approach towards learning, which emphasises the value of learning discussions with others, places importance on knowing and working with individuals. Taking this philosophical stance, it is beneficial for teachers and practitioners to spend time working towards understanding the children they work with, as Dewey (1897) advocated. The active participation and development of positive relationships with the children in the case study is evidenced in the ability of the children to share their interests with the student teacher. Positive relationships with children are assimilated with measures of high-quality education (Pramling Samuelsson, 2007), along with concepts that the relationships that adults create with children are central to their achievement and engagement in learning (Sammons et al., 2008).

In the case study of Hannah and her mentor, Hannah too was a participant in the school community. She was given the opportunity, by her mentor, to really engage with the children, to take risks with her teaching, and encouraged to take on the ownership of the classroom.

Collegial, distributed leadership and egalitarian approaches to decision making

We cite Hannah’s story as an instance of invitation to participation. As a student practitioner, Hannah is moving from legitimate peripheral participation, in Lave and Wenger’s (1991) terms, to a fuller role in which she can extend her participatory ways of working with the children through making ‘the classroom her own’. Nevertheless, the relationships between the adults remained hierarchical with the head teacher/mentor commanding the student teacher’s fuller participation: ‘I told Hannah that now she needed to make the classroom her own, that it was my class with her in it. I told her….’ Management of maintained schools, in the UK, tends to follow this ‘top-down’ model but there is growing interest in developing more distributed and flexible styles of leadership (Heikka et al., 2013; Urban et al., 2011). Two alternative examples, from the early years sector, provide inspiration here: Steiner Waldorf kindergartens and the Reggio Emilia approach.

In Steiner kindergartens (and throughout Steiner Waldorf education) responsibility for decision making about educational activities, and wider management issues, is shared by a college of teachers. The college, to which all teachers may belong, takes collective responsibility for pedagogical decision making and administration (Trostli, 2011; Woods et al., 2005). Thus, the collective knowledge and expertise of the staff are harnessed, and major plans are made and policy created though consensus. This shifts the teachers’ view of the kindergarten from merely being their place of employment towards seeing themselves as members of a community in which they are key participants. Henry (1992: 302) describes staff meetings in the Steiner school as having ‘a pattern of greetings, verses and prayers, songs, supper, business, closing, and farewells’ and thus expressing a community metaphor without hierarchy, rather than rule by time and efficiency and leadership derived from one head teacher. This cooperative approach provides a model of respectful relationships, and communicates values of equity and shared responsibility to the children.

An ethos of democracy and mutual respect can also be witnessed in the well-renowned municipal pre-schools of Reggio Emilia, in Italy. Moss (2012: 102) describes Reggio Emilia as ‘a critical case of democratic experimentalism’ that offers an inspirational alternative to the dominance of managerialism. Here, as in Steiner schools, staffing structures are horizontal and collegial work is the norm. Pairs of teachers work cooperatively and dialogically with each class, representing the ‘principle of co-presence’ (Rinaldi, 2006: 153). There is no set curriculum and so the teachers can co-create projects with the children and the wider community. Malaguzzi (1996 cited in Rinaldi, 2006) argued that this way of working is important and beneficial not only to children but to teachers:

‘The teacher cannot work without a sense of meaning, without being a protagonist. She cannot be merely an implementer – albeit intelligent – of projects and programmes decided and created by others for some ‘other’ child and for undefined contexts. The highest value and the deepest significance lie in this search for sense and meaning that are shared by adults and children….’ (Malaguzzi, 1996 in Rinaldi, 2006: 56)

It is interesting that the Year 1 teacher in Webster’s (2012) study (see above), who showed particular skill in listening to children, and adapting activities accordingly, trained and worked prior to the introduction of universal teacher standards and a National Curriculum and is likely therefore to have worked in ways that resonate with the Reggio Emilia approach. Katz and Chard (2000), who now write about Reggio Emilia, found their initial inspiration for the Project Approach in Infant Schools in England, in the 1960s and 1970s. The Plowden Report (Central Advisory Council for Education [CACE], 1967) describes teachers as having ‘responsibility and the spur of freedom’ (CACE, 1967: 335) creating and adapting schemes of work and planning daily activities, whilst working as ‘a member of a team guided but not dominated by the head teacher’ (CACE, 1967: 335) and supported by advisory teachers. This is quite different from this description of contemporary teaching from a teacher’s blog:

‘… the job itself now resembles that of a factory production worker. I clock in, deliver the lessons planned for me by some anonymous educationalist, read the stories chosen for me by some book marketing company, send the kids home and then mark the books using the marking and assessment code designed for me by some senior leader with no class of their own’. (SecretTeacher, 2013)

Whilst many early childhood educators would not entirely relate to this description of the current context, increased state regulation and demands for performativity have had some impact in the early years sector (Osgood 2006; Rose and Rogers, 2012), and the time may be ripe to reclaim more participatory and democratic approaches.

Conclusions – Implications for leadership and management

In summary, we argue that there are many important opportunities for children’s participation in early childhood settings and the early years of school. There are tensions, however, if engagement and involvement in decision making are not further reflected in ways of working between adults and in the wider organisation and leadership of institutions. The examples from Steiner Waldorf and Reggio Emilia provide possible models for democratic educational communities where opportunities for participation extend to all members. The significance of participatory approaches in early childhood education requires further review, together with research. Nevertheless, we uphold the values of respect, of listening and of sharing within the early years sector and hope that the material presented here may stimulate reflection upon the importance of democratic practices for leaders and managers of all settings, schools and other types of educational institution.