Abstract
This article sets out to explore how young people understand and experience the notions of democracy and participation in their secondary schools. We draw on their own words to examine their perspective on participation in everyday life at school to understand what kind of democratic education they are participating in. The article forms part of the Demoskole1 project, which studies democracy and the participation of school community members in secondary schools in Catalunya (Spain). To date, our fieldwork suggests that while, in most cases, the opportunity for pupils to participate in decision-making processes is limited, there are differences between schools. Two factors, in particular, appear to have a significant impact in terms of improving pupil participation. The existence of relationships based on trust and more horizontal forms of collaboration between teachers and pupils leads to a sense of wellbeing. This, in turn, has an effect on the atmosphere within the school. The article focuses on the characteristics that distinguish the three schools that took part in the study with the aim of analysing those elements that lead to the creation of a more or less democratic atmosphere in the relations between the various members of the school community.
Keywords
Introduction
Socially and politically, the conception of democracy in Western societies in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is complex and polysemous. As Zyngier (2011) notes, ‘The discourses over democracy have been variously characterised in terms of representative versus participatory democracy, with the former highlighting
However, although Citizenship Education has become a key element in educational policies and practices (Biesta & Lawy, 2006; Osler, 2005; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), the notions of how to implement such a programme, and what it might consist of, vary widely according to the idea of democracy that underlies the proposals. Lawy and Biesta (2006), and Edelstein (2011), suggest that the crisis facing democratic societies might be addressed by educating the younger generation in participative, active and democratic citizenship.
Our research set out to discover how secondary school pupils live the freedoms and the limits on their actions so as to understand how they participate and how far they are able to take decisions at school.
Thus, the aim of this article is, on one hand, to contrast the mechanisms and experiences of participation that schools provide to help their pupils to learn about citizenship and, on the other hand, to understand the extent to which secondary school pupils experience and live this participation as a form of democratic life.
What kind of democracy and how to live it
In the current social and political context, the definition of democracy in schools is both ambiguous and problematic. The conception of what democracy should involve can all too easily be reduced to the presence of pupil/teacher representatives on school governing bodies, where their ability to influence school life is limited to participating in discussions about relatively peripheral matters. For many, this conception is far too limited, arguing that schools ought to promote some democratic form of life in which deliberation and democratic decision making, resolution of conflicts, responsible cooperation and participation are all present, all elements that are essential in maintaining democratic forms of life. For people to attain and sustain a democratic way of living, they need to be given the opportunity to learn what it means and how it can be practised (Apple & Beane, 1997). This implies that democracy should be present throughout school and in the relations between all the members of a school community.
Democracy is not simply a form of government, but rather a relational process, fundamentally a ‘mode of associated living, a conjoint communicated experience’ (Dewey, 1966, p. 87). Only when understood in this way can the trust be built that allows relationships in which all the participants, in this case pupils and teachers, feel that they are full partners (Thornberg & Elvstrand, 2012). In the realm of education, the quality of the shared life is described as the school atmosphere, which involves two fundamental aspects: the minimum conditions that make possible the participation of each and every one of the members of the school community, and the level of receptiveness, the quality of the shared life and the sense of wellbeing of the contexts in which participation occurs.
Any attempt to transform the discourse about school democracy into concrete educational practices needs to address the following question: What mechanisms, actions and processes might allow school life to be lived democratically?
Apple and Beane (1997) suggest that a democratic school is one that creates democratic structures and processes through which life at school is articulated and, at the same time, comes up with a curriculum that incorporates democratic experiences for its pupils. These democratic structures and processes take various forms, such as school committees, school councils and other decision-making groups in which both teachers and pupils take part. However, alongside the structures and processes, it is also necessary to develop and plan the curriculum together with the pupils. Developing a democratic curriculum means giving voice to divergent opinions; creating a space in which teachers assist pupils to articulate a discourse of their own, having compared various opinions and perspectives. A democratic curriculum takes as its starting point the idea that knowledge is constructed socially and, hence, by diverse people; at the same time, it should encourage pupils to question what teachers tell them, to become ‘critical interpreters’ (Apple & Beane, 1997).
However, the greatest difficulty lies in connecting this democratic ideal, whether from the perspective of Dewey (1966) or that of Apple and Beane (1997), with the realities of everyday life in secondary schools. The instrument chosen to analyse the application of the various democratic processes in schools is an examination of the level and nature of participation of the school community, not only in the formal organs of governance but also in the relations and collaborative processes that the school establishes. Participation is one of the key elements in school democracy (Simovska, 2004) and is understood here as including any experience that a pupil may live within a school 2 and that contributes to a learning of citizenship (Biesta, Lawy, & Kelly, 2009). As they state, reinterpreting Dewey’s perspective, what is crucial is ‘the importance of the experience of being a citizen for young people’s citizenship learning. Thus Dewey has allowed us to recognize the importance of the actual condition of young people’s citizenship for their citizenship learning’ (Biesta et al., 2009, p. 9).
The views of young people regarding living democracy
The notion of participation, according to Biesta et al. (2009), allows us a glimpse of the views of young people regarding their own everyday school life, for it is this perception that underlies their learning of citizenship, their understanding of democracy and how they live it at school.
First, it should be noted that participation, for some authors, is not directly related to decision making, as John-Akinola, Gavin, O’Higgins, and Gabhainn (2014) argue: ‘This study identified that pupils placed more emphasis on interpersonal relationships and belonging as important aspects of taking part in school life than on involvement in decision making’ (p. 37).
According to the young people, participation is related to the extent to which you feel that you are part of something – their sense of participation is bound up with their feelings of being part. That is, I participate if I feel that I participate (Thornberg & Elvstrand, 2012); at the same time, it is connected with the existence of relationships based on trust and interaction between the various members of the school community (Thornberg & Elvstrand, 2012); it means ‘feeling part of’ (John-Akinola et al., 2014). This sense of belonging, which is developed through interpersonal relations, leads pupils to a greater level of involvement and participation in the school (John-Akinola et al., 2014). Participation, rather than a result, is a process in which interpersonal relations are of primordial importance in creating trust, which is the first prerequisite for advancing and strengthening school democracy. Fielding and Rudduck (2002) suggest four dimensions of pupil involvement and participation: A stronger sense of membership (the organisational dimension) so that students feel more positive about school; A stronger sense of respect and self-worth (the personal dimension) so that students feel positive about themselves; A stronger sense of self as learner (the pedagogic dimension) so that students are better able to manage their own progress in learning; A stronger sense of agency (the political dimension) so that students realise that they can have impact on things that matter to them in school. (p. 6)
The extent to which pupils have a voice is related to the conditions created by the school that are intended to foment pupil participation. Leitch and Mitchell (2007) suggest that there is a ‘connection between the health or toxicity of a school’s culture, as perceived by pupils, and the potential for pupil rights and pupil voice to be cultivated therein’ (p. 56). That is, the healthier the school culture is (in terms of dialogue, respect, freedom), the greater the ability of the pupils to participate or be listened to. Unfortunately, as Fullan (1991) notes, even now the pupils are often seen as simple beneficiaries or passive objects, and not as genuine participants in the process of participation and decision making. Thus, while pupils may be able to make their voices heard, in practice, this does not always mean being able to influence decision-making processes (Fielding & Rudduck, 2002); similarly, while the older pupils may argue that they have the capacity to decide on things that affect them, other pupils, the youngest, for example, consider that it is not up to them to decide, even when they are directly affected, as illustrated by Thornberg and Elvstrand (2012): I don’t want the kids to decide because it can be totally wrong. I think it’s good that adults decide what you should do in maths [. . .] Alicia, like other children in the study, expresses the opinion that children are unable to make good decisions because, from her point of view, children just want to do ‘fun things’. Other children with the same opinion say that children ‘take the easy way’. (p. 49)
Thornberg and Elvstrand (2012) suggest that the social control that regulates the ‘hidden curriculum’ of school rules and procedures may play a key role in shaping the pupils’ conception of themselves and underestimating their capacity to take decisions at school.
Regarding the degree of participation, Lodge (2005) also corroborates the importance of involving pupils in the process of making decisions to improve their schools. Similarly, Schratz and Blossing (2005) state that to bring about significant change it is essential to involve them and add that this is precisely the way in which they can understand the real meaning of democracy: Pupils should be able to make decisions about school change because that is the way to let pupils see that the democratic model is working. Decisions about school change and pupil influence matter because it is about redistributing power between the two largest groups in school, teachers and pupils. Pupils need to make decisions about school change. Their voice needs to be heard because they possess vast resources of observation and knowledge about school life from which they can monitor and review. (p. 393)
While the democracy lived in each school varies, all pupils are perfectly capable of being critical of school rules that they consider unfair and of the inconsistent application of those rules by the teachers, which give rise to negative attitudes and make evident the incoherencies between what is expected of the children and what the adults do (Thornberg & Elvstrand, 2012).
Finally, and responding to the crucial role teachers play in all these processes, it is important to take into account the continuity or discontinuity of the staff team (Thornberg & Elvstrand, 2012) in the construction of school democracy. Continuity here refers to two distinct aspects: first, the stability of the staff team, given that a high teacher turnover may have a negative impact on the pupils; and second, the extent to which all the members of the staff team believe in the ability of the pupils to play an effective part in decision making. These two aspects are of crucial importance to how democracy is lived at school.
Methodology
This article analyses three case studies of secondary schools in Catalunya that agreed to participate in our research. Epistemologically, the study is an interpretative one which aims to understand the subjective significances of democracy and participation for the participants through a process of shared reflection on how they experience democracy in their schools.
The article is based on information obtained in six discussion groups which met during the school year 2013–2014, two in each school. The participants were 15- and 16-year-old pupils, and each group consisted of 6–10 pupils (see Table 1).
Discussion groups with pupils by secondary schools.
In School A, just one large group was formed. It had been intended to be a group of 6–8 pupils, but when the researcher arrived, she found more pupils who wanted to take part. The decision was taken to allow all those wishing to do so to participate in just one group rather than leave any of the children out.
In order to ensure that all those who wanted to take part were able to do so, the process of forming the groups was as follows: an invitation to participate was extended to all the third and fourth year pupils at each of the schools. Thus, participation was open and voluntary. The head-teacher in each of the schools was also asked to help. She or he decided how to inform the pupils and decided how the groups should be formed. Our priority was the concept of ‘willingness’ to participate rather than any other criteria.
To facilitate the discussions, six questions were drawn up that revolve around three key ideas: democracy, participation and school inclusiveness (see Table 2).
Questions to guide group discussions.
During the group discussions, certain differences in the behaviour of the pupils became apparent. In Schools B and C, pupils were more attentive and listened to both the researchers and their classmates when they were speaking. For pupils at School A, however, the discussions were less focussed, and they used a language register that was less polite or respectful when describing their peers or the teachers. Each of the three schools is dealt with separately, with a section (‘Context’) which describes the nature of the school and its pupils.
Discussion
The data analysis is presented in two blocks: (a) identification of the distinctive elements in each of the schools that are relevant to the pupils’ participation and learning about citizenship and (b) the pupils’ perceptions of the extent to which they are able to participate and take decisions at school. We were particularly interested in identifying those elements that contribute to a greater or lesser experience of democracy by the pupils.
School A
Context
School A was founded in 1980 and is in the Barcelona metropolitan area, specifically in the second largest city in Catalunya. The school has three groups in each year of Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (ESO) – compulsory secondary education (from 12 to 16), two groups in the first year of the Baccalaureate (17 to 18) and one group in the second year. In total, there are 323 pupils. Most of the children come from the surrounding area or other areas of the city, but there are also some from neighbouring municipalities.
During the discussion, the participants often did not wait their turn, interrupting each other and the researcher, and they seemed not to listen very closely to what others were saying. This may reflect the large size of the group. At the same time, they often found it difficult to express themselves clearly; in many cases, when trying to explain an idea it was difficult for them to marshal their thoughts and develop a clear and coherent argument. On the other hand, they had no difficulty indicating where they disagreed with each other.
The experiences that the pupils considered to be relevant to our discussion about participation are shown in Table 3.
Experiences pupils considered to be relevant.
Atmosphere
Although the experiences in which the pupils can participate are few, they did say that they have a good relationship with some teachers who they felt able to confide in: We do lots of things, but I don’t know if you’d call it ‘democracy’. I mean, we’ve got freedom of expression in the sense that we can discuss things with the teachers, we can have our own opinions, and they don’t just say No, I’m in charge here. No . . . you can have a normal discussion. It depends on the teacher, too – some of them are still a bit behind the times. (GD_CA_A1:1)
The positive aspects that they describe in the teachers with whom they have a good relationship are that they offer emotional support, that they listen to them, that, if necessary, they are willing to meet outside class hours to resolve any doubts, that they help with the questions that will appear in the exams and so on. They made special mention of the head-teacher; one student told us, I was going to get expelled and I went to his office and he said ‘I don’t want to expel you, that’s not going to help, is it?’ I think he’s cool, it makes for a good atmosphere. (GD_CA_A1:16)
In terms of newly arrived pupils, our informants told us, ‘the only thing the school does is stick them in a class and leave them to it!’ (GD_CA_A1:7). They told us that some teachers, not all of them, introduce the new pupils and ask the class to look after them but that the school itself does nothing in particular to facilitate their inclusion. According to the pupils, they are the ones who go out of their way to speak to their newly arrived classmates and help them, not the teachers.
Participation and decision making
In terms of their capacity to make decisions, the pupils said that they are only able to give their opinion about non-classroom activities, like excursions and festivities, but that even then it is difficult to have much say. The pupils were quite critical of the teachers, ‘Yeah, you can say what you think, but they don’t listen much’ (GD_CA_A1:1), and added, It’s always the same – the teachers are too busy, or they’re not allowed to do it, or the behaviour’s been too bad . . . There’s always an excuse . . . Still, a lot of the pupils just don’t care. (GD_CA_A1:3)
The pupils seemed not to have a very positive view of the school, although some sense of ‘belonging’ was evident. Regarding the four dimensions of participation suggested by Fielding and Rudduck (2002), it seems clear that few if any are fully satisfied in this school, but in terms of their ‘sense of belonging’, the pupils told us, The participation is better than in other schools, because in lots of places they don’t do anything at all. At least here you can get involved in something you want to do. (GD_CA_A1:5)
With respect to the ‘personal dimension’, they told us that if they had problems, they did feel able to discuss these openly with some teachers, but at no point did they make any reference to the idea that participating in school life reinforced them emotionally. In fact, they gave some examples of the opposite being true: It’s always the same – the teachers, lots of them . . . well, it depends on the teacher and the pupil . . . there’s some kind of confrontation and you end up losing interest . . . Lots of times they end up killing any interest we had. (GD_CA_A1:3)
In terms of the ‘pedagogic dimension’, it is clear that it is difficult for the pupils to make suggestions about the content of their education. ‘Maybe what you want to do, doesn’t fit in with what they want to do’ (GD_CA_A1:11), and when they have done so, the experience has not been particularly positive ‘because that’s when they start making threats, or handing out punishments, or else they send you home’ or ‘I’ll mark you down for that, or I’ll fail you’ (GD_CA_A1:12). As a result, the pupils no longer try to do so. As Fielding and Rudduck (2002) argued, There are many silent or silenced voices – students who would like to say things about teaching and learning but who don’t feel able to without a framework that legitimates comment and provides reassurance that teachers will welcome their comments and not retaliate. (p. 2)
Finally, with regard to the ‘political dimension’, the impact of the pupils’ decisions on the school is practically non-existent. From what they said, it seems clear that the pupils feel undervalued and that their ideas are not listened to: When they say they need people to participate, we join in and help out. But when we suggest something, they’re just not interested. (GD_CA_A1:12)
Freedom versus responsibility
The pupils felt that the school rules are aimed at them but that the teachers do not always abide by them. One example they gave us was of the use of mobile phones: I remember one time we were doing Technology and the teacher was there laughing his head off about something he was looking at on his mobile. I complained about something the other day and he wanted to take my mobile, and I told him ‘I’m not going to give it to you . . .’ And I said ‘This is my class, and this is my time, and you use your mobile. If you can use your mobile in my time, I can use mine in yours!’ (GD_CA_A1:9)
The pupils believe that there are too many rules and as a result, the teachers do not treat them as well as they might: ‘the more rules they make up, the dumber they treat you’ (GD_CA_A1:11).
School B
Context
School B was founded in 2010, and from the beginning there was a clear commitment to the notion of cooperative learning throughout compulsory secondary education (12–16 years of age) in order to ensure educational success for all, an inclusive perspective. The school is in a small village on the edge of a medium-sized city (40,000 inhabitants) in central Catalunya. There are 185 pupils from the village and the surrounding rural area.
The discussion group participants were quite respectful of each other and of the researchers. In general, they listened to the opinions of others, although they sometimes interrupted to give their opinions, which were mainly addressed to the researchers, and they sometimes based their comments on those made by others. At the same time, their ability to express themselves was good or very good – they spoke correctly, clearly and made efforts to find the precise words they needed to express their ideas. They had no difficulty in expressing their opinions even when they disagreed with the others.
The educational experiences in which the pupils described themselves playing an active role are shown in Table 4.
Experiences pupils considered to be relevant.
Atmosphere
The school has made a strong commitment to cooperative learning, despite the fact that this is complicated to organise in terms of the timetable and requires a high level of coordination between the teachers if flexible and heterogeneous groupings of pupils are to be maintained. Nevertheless, breaking with the traditional model of one teacher per class with 25–30 pupils for 1 hour is considered worthwhile in that it offers better and more equitable opportunities for all pupils to learn.
The cooperative learning groups form the basis for the development of much more horizontal relations between pupils and teachers, and as a result, the pupils explained, they feel a strong sense of belonging to the school. They also shared the sense that they were personally accompanied by their tutors and teachers which helps them to grow and develop individually. They feel listened to, they feel able to explain their worries to their tutor and they said that the head-teacher was readily accessible to them, further evidence of the trust they have in their teachers. They also argued that the small size of the school, the close relationships they have with the teachers and the cooperative learning groups in which they play an active role all lead them to feel that they learn in a different way, that their school is ‘different’.
Participation and decision making
In terms of the pupils’ active participation in their learning process, they explained that they are able to make decisions about extracurricular activities, but not about the content of their learning. Nevertheless, they are able to decide on how they learn: No, we can’t question the content of the classes, that’s fixed. There are teachers who offer us different ways of working though, and in some cases we can choose. For example, in Catalan we have to read and book, but then we get to choose if we want to write an advert for it, or a letter to a newspaper, or whatever. (GD_CB_A1:33)
The fact that they are listened to does not lead to being able to take decisions that might produce changes in their learning or, for example, in other aspects such as the evaluation of their work: Well, I’ve tried to change some things in the class and it’s difficult. For example, the other day the Deputy Head came in and changed it all back again. The teachers said that the number of people who failed subjects was down to the attitude of the pupils. Well, I tried to do something and the class reps too, but he came in and explained some possible solutions but none of them involved the class reps. (GD_CB_A1:5)
Pupil participation at School B resembles the kind of participation defined by Fielding and Rudduck (2002) as the ‘organisational dimension’ – ‘a stronger sense of membership so that they feel more positive about school’: I think that in the bigger secondary schools you’re just one more pupil, and if you’ve got a problem you can go and try to tell someone about it and maybe they’ll listen to you. But here, every pupil can have their say and they really know who you are. (GD_CB_A1:4)
There is also evidence of the ‘personal dimension’ – ‘a stronger sense of respect and self-worth so that students feel positive about themselves’: Lots of times we can express whatever we want in the art classes, or wherever really . . . Like, if you’re feeling down one day, nobody’s going to make you smile and look happy – it’s ok to be sad [. . . ] And that goes for all the classes, if you’re sad, you can be sad, and if you’re feeling happy, you can show it, you can show whatever you feel. (GD_CB_A1:3)
While evidence of learning self-management skills, another of the dimensions identified by Fielding and Rudduck (2002), can be seen in the cooperative learning groups or the brigades, the political dimension does not appear to be present for, as mentioned earlier, the pupils are not able to decide about curricular questions. One pupil explained the difficulties she experienced as a class representative in being able playing an active role in resolving the problems that affect them: I’m not really sure that it always works, that our comments actually reach the people they’re meant for. Lots of times, things that are talked about in the tutorials just stay there, they never get taken any further. (GD_CB_A1:3)
Another pupil expressed very clearly her belief that the pupils should not have to make decisions about certain aspects of school life: I don’t think the school would work very well if we had the last word, or if we had equal rights with the teachers – it’d just be complete chaos! (GD_CB_A1:8)
Freedom versus responsibility
As mentioned earlier, while it is true that the pupils feel comfortable and sure of themselves, this does not mean that they are able to decide about what they learn, although they do have a certain degree of self-management in some areas of school life. Some of the participants identified what they perceived to be injustices or incoherence in two aspects: (a) evaluation of their peers in the cooperative groups and (b) the overall project of the school. In terms of assessment, specifically peer assessment, some of the participants had reservations. They felt that this system could produce unfair results. However, not all the discussion group participants agreed:
This peer evaluation, when we mark each other, when we do group work we can see who has worked and who hasn’t and mark them accordingly.
I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Why?
Because if you don’t get on with someone, that’s going to influence the mark you give them.
No it’s not!
How can you say that? I’ve done it. [Laughter]
Well, I think it’s a question of maturity and of thinking as a person . . . You’ve got to focus on the work the others have done, not on whether you get on with them or not. (GD_CB_A1:8)
In the terms of the school’s stated project, some pupils said that they found it difficult to understand the changes that occur from the third year onwards in terms of assessment and working methods. While in the first and second years the emphasis is on team work and cooperative groups, from the third year onwards the education they receive becomes more individualised and cooperative working becomes less important. The school leadership justify this as a step they take to prepare pupils for the Baccalaureate (which they study in a different school), but the pupils do not see the need for this, nor do they believe that this is the best way to do it: For example, the primary school we went to was completely different from this school and we’ve been able to adapt . . . So, I think yes, ok, it’s better to develop study habits and so on but to do it when you actually need to, because when you grow up, or when you leave school, you never know what you’re going to find, it’s not necessarily what you expected [. . . ] So, I don’t really go along with the idea that ‘We’re making you do it now so that then you’ll know how to do it when you get to Baccalaureate . . . Because we’re not doing Baccalaureate, we’re doing ESO’. (GD_CB_A1:8)
School C
Context
School C opened in September 2008 with a group of teachers who were concerned about the direction that secondary education was taking in Catalunya. Like School B, the school only covers the 4 years of compulsory education (12–16). It has 320 pupils. The school is in a small town (fewer than 10,000 inhabitants) in north-eastern Catalunya, not far from the coast. The pupils come from the town itself or the surrounding area, including several small developments populated by working class families who moved to the area from the outskirts of Barcelona.
The discussion group participants were very respectful of each other and of the researchers. They listened to the opinions of others and did not interrupt or speak over each other, and sometimes responded to the comments made by others. At the same time, their ability to express themselves was good or very good – they spoke correctly, clearly and made efforts to find the precise words they needed to express their ideas. They had no difficulty in expressing their opinions even when they disagreed with the others.
The school is organised in such a way that the pupils feel they have a voice, that they are listened to and that they are a valued part of the school community. The elements the pupils highlighted are shown in Table 5.
Experiences pupils considered to be relevant.
Atmosphere
In addition to these experiences in which the pupils feel listened to, able to participate and even decide, the discussion group participants explained that the relationship with the teachers is close and that they are accessible to them whenever needed: ‘the relationships here are closer and a bit more friendly’ (GD_CC_A2:2). This seems to suggest the good atmosphere of a healthy school which, as mentioned earlier, is directly related to the opportunities the pupils have to participate and have their say (Leitch & Mitchell, 2007). This can also be seen in intangible aspects such as the fact that the pupils are constantly coming and going in the staff room, that the head-teacher has her desk in the main staff room or that pupils get down to work before the teacher enters the class without anyone having to tell them what to do or how to do it.
Participation and decision making
With regard to the dimensions of participation identified by Fielding and Rudduck (2002), it appears that all four exist in this school, at least partially. The following examples might serve as illustrations.
The pupils argued that their school is different from others, and in a positive way: I wanted to modify the question that Toni (one of the interviewers) asked. You said that as pupils . . . perhaps as pupils we’re not as motivated to come to school because we’ve complained about lots of things . . . Maybe it’s true that we don’t agree with the system of assessment, and all that, but as people, not as pupils but as people, we’re really happy with the school because they treat us very well. Perhaps as pupils, no, but as people who share this place, yes. (GD_CC_A1:16)
Pupils feel comfortable at school and show a certain level of self-esteem: Yes, because they also help you. For example, there’s a teacher who’s a psychologist and if you’ve got a problem, she’ll help you, and she’ll keep an eye out for you to check how things are going, and how you are . . . You end up trusting the teachers a lot, and the other pupils too, and you feel really good about being here. (GD_CC_A2:13)
In the cooperative group project work, the pupils decide how to organise themselves and learn self-management skills: With the activities we do, they tell us more or less what we have to do, give us some guidelines, but then we have to get on and do it ourselves. (GD_CC_A1:16)
The pupils take decisions on matters that affect them and are able to influence aspects that are important for them. This is clear, for example, in the Pupil Council.
Freedom versus responsibility
Despite the opportunities that the pupils have to participate and take decisions, some of the discussion group participants felt that some school rules were inconsistent or unfair, such as the assessment system which values effort more highly than results: When you get ten in the exams and then they go and put 5 on your report it’s a bit of a pain, but well . . . (GD_CC_A1:1)
Conclusion
Our research demonstrates that pupil participation is greater in some schools than in others.
While Schools B and C have developed quite complex organisational structures that aim to create a sense of wellbeing in their pupils and thereby improve their learning, at School A the principal structures are those that focus on the teaching of curricular content. Similarly, pupils at Schools B and C talk of being able to trust their teachers and the good relationships they have with them, while at School A, the only clear references in this regard were to the good understanding they have with the head-teacher. At School A, the dimensions of participation described by Fielding and Rudduck (2002) are not readily evident, unlike at Schools B and C where, even if only partially, they can be identified. At Schools B and C, the pupils are able to take decisions about certain pedagogical or curricular aspects, whereas at School A, they only have a say in some extracurricular activities. While pupils at Schools B and C are critical of certain school rules, their opinions are taken into account when it comes to decision making and the teachers value their ideas. This differs from the situation at School A where, although the pupils also express their disagreement with some rules, they feel that teachers tend to ignore their comments, which are not always welcomed. Finally, while the pupils at Schools B and C believe that most of their teachers act in accordance with the schools’ educational philosophy and place the pupils at the centre of their work, the pupils at School A made no reference to these ideas, which would seem to indicate that they do not feel themselves to be central to the work of their school.
Taken together, this evidence would suggest that some schools are promoting practices and developing structures that allow their pupils to experience at least a certain kind of democracy, that which we would associate with the dimension of wellbeing, a democratic atmosphere. This atmosphere owes much to the quality of interpersonal relations that are established between teachers, between pupils and teachers, and between the pupils themselves. Feeling part of the school and its educational project is closely bound up with the capacity the pupils have to play an active part. This, in turn, has an impact on their wellbeing. At Schools B and C, the pupils feel that they have a say, at least in some aspects of school life, they feel close to their teachers, that they can trust them and that they are listened to, that they can voice their disagreement – even if these opinions are not necessarily reflected in the decisions that are taken. It seems, then, that Schools B and C are ‘healthier’ and that they contribute through their practices to the creation of a better atmosphere. Consequently, the participation of the pupils means that their voices are listened to, their opinions expressed (Fielding & Rudduck, 2002), and this has repercussions for the quality of the school governance.
It is clear that the democracy of Schools B and C does not extend to all the dimensions described since little or no mention has been made of governance, respect for others or other values. Nevertheless, we do feel that the school atmosphere is of fundamental importance in the creation of a greater democracy. Democratic governance can only develop when everyone feels that they form part of the school and when sufficient trust has been developed for decision-making power to be redistributed. Respect for others seems unlikely to appear until such time as everyone feels themselves to be recognised by the school. In terms of values and capacities, while we have not mentioned them explicitly, they do form part of the ethos of every school. As Dewey (1966) said, a democratic school, or one that promotes a democratic way of life, has to base this democracy on a series of values. A school can only aspire to being democratic if it promotes freedom of expression; mutual support; cooperation; respect for others and for their opinions; the abilities to communicate, think critically and be with others; and so on. In fact, the presence of some of these values is reflected in the content of our discussions with the pupils, particularly when they spoke positively about working with classmates they did not know, or simply about the value of group work rather than working individually, or when they described how they felt able to give their opinion about school. At the same time, some values can be deduced from the way in which the pupils behaved. Attitudes towards the discussion groups varied from school to school, with a clear difference appearing once again between School A, on the one hand, and Schools B and C on the other. At School A, the participants quite often interrupted and spoke over each other and the language they used when describing the school was quite derogatory. On the other hand, the pupils at Schools B and C used a more respectful tone, they raised their hands when they wanted to speak, they used expressions like ‘as X said’ and hardly ever raised their voices when speaking, waiting instead for the others to finish. All these elements seem to reflect the values and abilities that form part of the everyday life of each school and at the same time denote the intangible and difficult to describe democratic life that we have seen during the time we spent with the youngsters.
Another element associated with values and, in more general terms, with the democratic atmosphere of each school is the evolution of the educational project. While Schools B and C are new, and still operate out of temporary classrooms, School A has been working since 1980. It seems unlikely to be merely coincidental that the more innovative (in terms of democracy) schools are also the newest. The fact of establishing a new school and hence the possibility of developing a new educational project, of being a small school where organisation is more agile, of being able to choose 3 teachers and so on, all these elements allow the founder teachers to consider a different way of working, a way that is centred on the pupils, on their opinions and their participation. Significant differences appear between School A and Schools B and C. In School A, there is a higher turnover of teachers and there also exists a divergence of opinions among the long-standing teachers about the decision-making capacity of the pupils. Both these factors are indicative of discontinuities among the teaching staff (Thornberg & Elvstrand, 2012). On the other hand, at Schools B and C the established teachers are quite a lot younger and many of them took part in the development of the schools’ education projects. This then tends to contribute to a certain sense of continuity in the educational work of the schools (Thornberg & Elvstrand, 2012), particularly in their emphasis on democratic and participative practices.
Our research suggests that the better the school atmosphere, the greater the level of pupil involvement in the dimensions of participation described by Fielding and Rudduck (2002), although none of the three schools studied has managed to involve the pupils on the political dimension. There are some indications of participation in decision making about pedagogical matters, but we found no evidence that pupils are able to take part in decision making about improving the educational work of their schools, something that is fundamental, according to Schratz and Blossing (2005), if we are to term a school ‘democratic’ (Apple & Beane, 1997).
On the other hand, pupils can participate insofar as they feel that doing so is meaningful for the school and is valued positively, as suggested by Thornberg and Elvstrand (2012). However, our study suggests that school participation is not always connected with being able to take decisions, and as John-Akinola et al. (2014) suggested, participation is only meaningful for the pupils if through it they live the ethos of the school and feel that values like respect, recognition of difference, and the possibility of developing their own opinions and sharing them are accepted as part of day-to-day school life. As a result, some of the schools studied have created spaces and a flexible form of organisation that make participation possible.
Our research, then, would tend to confirm what Biesta et al. (2009) said about pupil participation and the importance of interpersonal relations: This reveals the importance of ‘having a say’, ‘being taken seriously’ and ‘having an influence’ while also indicating the transformative potential of these influences upon behaviour and action. All of these factors provide young people with opportunities and experiences that are crucial to the process of citizenship learning. (pp. 20–21)
Further work
This article may be of interest to those involved in education who are looking for ways of building a ‘new school’, a school that is healthier, more democratic and more participative. Schools B and C have gone further in their attempts to offer their pupils the experience of living democratically, although none of the schools studied could be described as fully democratic.
In terms of their governance, pupils at all three schools told us that there are certain aspects of school life that they are not able to decide upon, particularly curricular or organisational questions, although at School C the pupils are able to have their say to some extent. Nevertheless, there is clearly still a long way to go in this area in terms of the decision-making power of both pupils and teachers.
In terms of respect for others, this is something that did not appear in the pronouncements of either the schools or the pupils. Their idea of democracy seems to be based less on recognition of legitimate difference and more on participative processes, interpersonal relations (teachers–pupils, between pupils) and decision making. It would be worth exploring the question of diversity and respect for otherness in future research.
Schools B and C have worked hard to develop pupil participation and a democratic atmosphere and have promoted strong, solid and close teacher–pupil relations that are based on trust. The pupils feel safe and secure, they feel comfortable at school, they feel able to express opinions and that these are taken into account. Thus, we return to our starting point: some schools are genuinely different in that they enable their pupils to participate in a way that does not exist in other schools. Although much remains to be done, we do not want to underestimate what has been achieved in these pioneering schools. Quite the opposite – we believe that they demonstrate that a democratic school, or at least one that approximates to the democratic ideal, is possible.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the pupils of the three secondary schools who participated in this study. Without their willingness to share with us their ideas and opinions about the education they are receiving, this study would not have been possible. This article has been translated by Jon Telford.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.