Pupils, Parents, Teachers – a democratic community

The “All-European Study on Pupil Participation in Schools” was commissioned by the Council of Europe as one of the two “All-European” studies carried out within the framework of the Second Phase of the Council’s large-scale project “Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC)”. [1]

One study is dedicated to an analysis of EDC policies in Europe.[2] The study presented here deals with the issue of pupil/student participation in the democratic school and is presumably one of the very few attempts to collect information from a representative number of European education systems on the issue. However, the paper is a preliminary study; it does not aspire to meet the academic and theoretical standards of social sciences, nor the empirical standards of statistics. Indeed, for an in-depth study, neither the resources nor the time or the extent and quality of the feedback from the various countries would have sufficed. Therefore, I need to emphasise here quite clearly that the objectives of the present paper are to accumulate comments, descriptions, good practices and factual data in order to create a first overall impression of the debate and situation of pupils participation in Europe. The main focus was to provide preliminary answers to the following questions:

Ø What is the general background and environment for Democracy Learning in the school?

Ø Are there model projects or innovative approaches of pupil participation in Europe which could be highlighted as “good practices” for pupil participation?

Ø Are there theoretical and practical elements of Democracy Learning which could contribute to the formulation of “basic guidelines” for pupil participation in Europe?

Ø What is the legal basis for pupil participation in the European countries?

Ø What are the democratic and participation rights of pupils and their parents in the school?

Ø Is there a supportive framework for pupil participation in the education environment (teacher training, special provisions)?

Part 1:
Elements of
Democracy Learning
in the School

Karikatur: Stefan Rasch[3]

1. GENERAL ENVIRONMENT

Most people will agree that educational innovation and reform is an ongoing process – a project without a “final report” and never actually to be completed.

The results of the PISA-Study – which for many European states turned out to be anything from disappointing to alarming – lead to intensified discussions not only about the effectiveness of present-day school systems but also about reforms of virtually all elements of schooling and about the “literacy” of the students. In particular, the methods of teaching and learning were and still are being questioned and demands were articulated for the creation of a different school climate and learning environment. The terminus “literacy” was considerably expanded to include aspects like “political literacy” or “democratic literacy”, meaning the qualification of pupils for their future role as citizens. In this context, the role of the school in the qualification of responsible and participative future citizens in a democratic society has become more pronounced. It is generally recognised that “critical and independent thinking (…) is a precondition for participating in the society, in democratic processes and educational institutions alike”.[4]

Similarly, an Italian paper states that “it is possible to see growing recognition, on the part of political and social forces and of public opinion in general, of the importance of the school system in creating responsible and aware citizens and in building a democratic society open to change”.[5]

Similar statements can be found in many books, articles and experts’statements not only in Europe, but around the world. School offers a rich potential for fulfilling this task – but that, incidentally, is by no means a new, contemporary idea. In fact, to educate young people in a democratic spirit and to prepare them for their future role as active citizens has been the mandate of the school system for a long time. [6]

School reform: Thus, it can be said that the role of the school in the democratic socialisation process of its students is not in question. Rather, the question is whether the school in its present form is able, empowered and willing to fulfil this role. For many decades, a debate has raged in Pedagogical Science, as well as in the field of Civic Education, about the problems and chances of democratic education, and the demand for more autonomy and for an extension of the school’s self-directed shaping of the environment corresponds with demands for a reduction of the state’s influence and regulatory control over the education sector. On the basis of long-standing pedagogical reform concepts, demands have been articulated again and again that the school itself needs to become a space of democratic living, learning and experience. In this context, it is quite obvious that many of the fields and areas of democratic socialisation have not been sufficiently explored with regard to their contribution to the process of democratic socialisation. For the field of Social Studies/Civic Education in particular, it can be argued that the definition of democracy and the “democratic process” in the curricular context has been too narrow, focusing almost entirely on the “macro-political process”, which led, for example, the German Political Education expert Tilman Grammes to demand a new debate on the “didactics of political education”.[7] Even though the subject frequently includes social, economic and legal elements, i.e. establishing an “interdisciplinary approach”, the micro‑social elements represented by the school as a field and laboratory of democratic living, learning, and experience are largely or even totally neglected. Yet it is a fact that from the classroom to the school’s wider environment, many opportunities exist for experiment, trial and error, activity and engagement in democratic processes and even decision-making, which could be given much more emphasis and put to pedagogical use. Thus, the school as a learning environment should and could be developed into an environment for democratic learning and experience.

Democracy as a form of living, society and governance: In today’s increasingly complex and diverse world, it has become necessary to redefine the meaning of participatory democracy and to reassess the status of the citizen. Extremist movements, violence, racism, xenophobia and social exclusion threaten democracies. Globalisation and far-reaching technological developments challenge them. Each individual has a vital role to play in achieving democratic stability and peace in society. [8]

These challenges are just as virulent in any classroom. They require a new understanding of the rights and responsibilities of the future citizens. Intercultural learning is just one of the contents which must be given more weight. In particular, these attitudes require a pragmatic approach which avoids the overburdening of the lesson plans with theoretical knowledge about democracy and the civil society. Thus, any contemporary analysis of a modern approach to teaching and learning about democratic civil society will probably agree with the definition of the three forms of democracy developed in the field of a “Democratic Science” (an attempt to bring about a combination of approaches developed in Political Science, Political Pedagogy and Didactics of Political Education):

Democracy is

· a form of living

· a form of society

· a form of government/governance.

Active citizenship: Behind such approaches stands the ideal of “active citizenship” which is also highlighted by Article A of the Amsterdam Treaty of the European Union. One of the main objectives of the Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission is to develop citizenship not just in the legal sense of the word, but also by encouraging people’s practical involvement in the democratic process at all levels: “Action in the field of education, training and youth offers a privileged vehicle for the promotion of active participation in Europe’s rich diversity of cultures...”[9]

New pragmatism: In learning and teaching about democracy, none of these characteristics should or could be excluded. In earlier times, for instance, the focus was put almost exclusively on democracy as a form of governance and, therefore, Democracy Learning usually offered little more than a description of institutions and procedures. Today, it can be said that the “new pragmatism” in Civic Education and in Democracy Learning is emphasised in practically every publication produced in the context. In Chapter 2 we will present an outline of the learning process developed by G. Himmelmann, which represents a suitable way for structuring the basic contents of Democracy Learning.

Overburdening of the School: In the school context, however, this poses a problem. Some experts are convinced that the school has been continuously burdened with additional tasks which were partly the result of the social change experienced in all modern societies (the decline of the importance of certain socialisation agents like churches), but were also partly “hived off” by the parents on the school. In other words, the school is increasingly burdened with “therapeutic functions” and “psycho‑social repair tasks” caused by parents which have reduced their contribution to the emotional, social and psychological development of their children, laying the responsibility squarely on the school. If these claims are true, the question arises of what should be done under such circumstances to enable the school to provide an adequate contribution to practical democratic learning.

Democratisation of the broader society: Seen in the wider context of democratisation, the historical experience and the political macro-environment of a society is a crucial factor influencing participation rights of pupils in the school. This is especially true for the so-called “reform” societies, i.e. the former Communist societies in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.

“The passage from authoritarianism to democracy is therefore a crucial time of growth for nations and their young people alike. And, in many ways, the ups and downs, the gains and losses and the missed opportunities of the transition nations are amplified and played out in the lives of the young people.”[10]

The School as a democratic institution: Against the background of increasing democratisation in all areas and on all levels of society and, in particular, increasing demands for the transformation of the school into a truly democratic institution, the stage is set for the increased participation of pupils in the everyday life of the school – stimulating a comprehensive debate about the “How”? How can educational achievement be improved through democratisation? In this context, we hear the call for more involvement of important groups (“stakeholders”) in the education processes and in the implementation of curricular reforms, in innovative approaches and new programmes – i.e. the stimulation and intensification of the involvement of parents, teachers, NGOs, communities, congregations, voluntary groups. But modern pedagogical concepts also call for more involvement of the prime group of the education process: the pupils or students themselves. However, there still seem to be strong reservations with regard to the actual involvement and co-responsibility of pupils in decision-making processes: On a very fundamental level, there are widespread concerns that the school – with its comprehensive mandate for educating and even “creating” the competent, informed and responsible citizen – cannot possibly allow far-reaching co-responsibility or co-determination by its pupils. And on a more practical level, some people – while in principle supportive of the idea and convinced of the rightfulness of pupil participation – are unable to perceive concrete possibilities for creating and incorporating these opportunities in the everyday life of the school.

Indeed, the school is not a voluntary system; it is generally presumed that the degree of student participation cannot possibly match the extent of full democratic participation rights in the wider society. In the education process, there will always be areas and decisions which remain the prerogative of the institution, its representatives or the policy makers. So, the question of “how far” the democratic participation of pupils, parents and other “stakeholders” of the education system should be allowed to go, i.e. the scale and extent of “democratisation” within the context of the school, will remain a matter of dispute.

Uncontested, however, is the core statement which applies to all teaching and learning about Democracy:

Teaching and learning about democracy will fail unless it takes place within a democratic educational framework and environment.

In other words, all democratic systems depend on the political engagement and readiness of their citizens to participate actively in political life, the public debate and the decision-making processes. The “active citizen” is, therefore, a precondition for and the very basis of a “living and functioning democracy”, and their participation is indeed the legitimisation of the system. The school is the preparatory system for such citizenship and needs to be strengthened and empowered to exercise that role in a meaningful way.

Along with the family, the school is the most important factor for the creation, formation and education of the “informed, responsible, participative citizen”. In this context, the school has four educational objectives:

· to empower pupils and students for their future role as citizens

· to provide opportunities for democratic learning

· to open up suitable areas or fields for active participation and co-responsibility in the school environment

· to encourage pupils to actively participate in social life in the larger community and to exercise their rights.

Pupil participation in the school – and in particular the extent of it, i.e. the question of “how far” it should go – does, in the first place, depend at a very elementary level on the willingness of the groups involved to bring it about, i.e. teachers, headmasters, principals, school inspectors or supervisors, school administrators and educational decision-makers. Secondly, it depends on the more general capacity of the education system to accept, stimulate, promote and implement the necessary changes, painful as they may be for many of the actors involved. And thirdly, in a more abstract sense, it depends on historical experiences, cultural, social and political factors, traditions and influences prevalent in any particular society.

The preparation of students for their role as "informed, responsible and participative citizens" is the global aim of any educational process – regardless of the form of the school, the age level or the subject –, and in particular it is the core task of the subject which is called Civic Education or Political Education or Social Studies. But the task is not restricted to the school alone; rather, it is a process of life-long learning involving many different actors, groups and organisations.

In democratic states, education is a basic right which, as a rule, is guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, we all passed through some form of schooling – and we acquired knowledge, skills and competencies. We experienced success and were faced with failure; we formed friendships and relationships. During the school year, the school and the classroom were the most important focal point of our lives outside the home. Here we spent a large part of our days and finally acquired certificates qualifying us for future opportunities in our lives.

The school is an institution with its own structure and rules; yet it is also a place in which educational and formative processes take place. In other words, it is simultaneously an institution for learning, a social institution, an organisation, an authority/legal entity, and a work-place.

The school is an institution which carries out critical functions for the society: The central tasks of the school for and in the society is to ensure the transmission of knowledge, skills and competencies on which the society’s cultural system is based.

As an institution, the school is also a bureaucratic organisation characterised by a functional hierarchy and a “division of labour” between the groups involved (pupils, teachers, principals, etc.) and a set of rules which govern processes and its daily functioning.

This “ambiguous” character of the school is perhaps the single most important factor which influences the stimulation or intensification of pupil participation. This study can be no more than a first overview over the situation of pupil participation in Europe; however, the continuation of this work would be advisable in order to collect more detailed information and experience and provide solutions from a representative variety of European countries.

2. A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

From a historical perspective, the education system and schools have (at least since the early 18th century) been characterised by extensive bureaucratisation and governmental control. With the rise of the industrial society – which was accompanied by the development of welfare-state institutions and party democracy – more and more influencing forces came to bear on education matters, and the state and its administration could between the school system and society at large became somewhat reduced. For instance, curriculum development had to take into consideration qualification requirements articulated by the economy. Thus, “Education” became a policy field in its own right.

In spite of this “politicisation” of Education and the School, the state laid down the core regulations concerning practically all aspects of school life and its environment. This went a very long way indeed. Let us look back at a directive issued by a German school inspector in 1903, by no means an exception in Europe. The example makes clear that the pupils’school life was dominated by law and order, absolute discipline and unquestioned subordination:

In order to prevent any disturbance of the lesson, the teacher must take care

-        that all pupils sit straight and upright and in exact lines behind one another
-        that all children place their hands folded in front of them on their slates
-        that their feet are in parallel position on the floor...

All broad discussions and talking must be prevented, and in any case, a wink of the eye... or the single call: “Class – attention” must suffice to restore order in the class room.[11]

In the course of the hundred years that have passed since then, completely different perspectives for everyday life in the class-room and, more generally, the school and its environment were formulated. A very important step in the thinking about the modernisation of the school was taken in 1921, when A. S. Neill founded Summerhill School in Great Britain, a progressive, co-educational, residential school: “Summerhill is first and foremost a place where children can discover who they are and where their place is in the safety of a self-governing, democratic community.”[12] For the first time, a concept was developed according to which children can have a say in the organisation of their work timetable on a non-compulsory basis. A. S. Neill was convinced that traditional schooling goes in the wrong direction:

Most of the school work adolescents do is simply a waste of time, of energy, of patience. It robs youth of its right to play and play and play, it puts old heads on young shoulders.

Neill’s ideas have proven to be very influential in the attempts to reform education systems, his “principle of voluntary attendance” was and still is revolutionary. Criticism has been articulated with regard to the lack of rules, sub-standard educational achievement, disorder, drug problems, early pregnancies etc. However, these seem to be unjustified; the school claims that so far there have been neither pregnancies nor drug abuse and the educational achievement has been claimed to be above average. It is by no means a lawless organisation: the school has more than 200 rules, more than many other schools – but in contrast to normal school rules, all of them were determined by the joint school council in which children and adults have equal voting rights; so Summerhill could be called the “first children ’s democracy”.

Today, in 2004, some of these ideas are gaining in importance and a general consensus seems to take shape on a very fundamental level with regard to the following pedagogical objectives:

Ø children should be enabled to acquire basic democratic experience at a very early stage in their school career;[13]

Ø starting from an early age, they should therefore be empowered to understand and respect democratic principles (i.e. “equality”) and Human Rights;

Ø at the same time, they should be empowered to practise democracy in their daily lives: “Democracy must be learnt in order to be experienced” (Kurt Gerhard Fischer) is just one side of the medal; the other side is “Democracy must be experienced in order to be learnt” (Gisela Behrmann).[14]

So the 1903 directive quoted above is indeed a far cry from today’s concerns and reflections on increased participation of pupils in schools. It was quoted here to show how hard and difficult it must have been to bring about changes under such conditions. In the German state of Baden‑Württemberg, for instance, changes towards a democratisation of the school started after the Second World War in 1945 when first the attempts were made to include the pupils in the regulation of school life. However, it took another eight years until the participation rights of pupils and parents were set down in a law. The pupil and student unrest, strikes and demonstrations in the latter half of the 1960s finally led to a clarification of students’ “co-responsibility” (Schuelermitverantwortung).

Similar developments took place in other European countries. It can safely be argued that – even though the idea of participation by pupils and parents in the school is not a new one – the actual realisation of the idea has been going on for only three to four decades. Earlier attempts were half‑hearted and, even if followed by legal provisions, frequently ran out of steam or degenerated into mere token policies.

“Civic Education…”

3. THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international agreement which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in November 1989 and has been ratified by almost every state in the world; only two countries (the United States of America and Somalia) have not yet ratified the treaty.

The Convention envisages a changed relationship between adults and children. Parents, teachers, caregivers and others interacting with children are no longer seen as mere providers, protectors or advocates, but also as negotiators and facilitators. They are expected to create spaces and promote processes designed to enable and empower children to express views, to be consulted and to influence decisions.[15]

In a speech to the Commission on Human Rights in 1999, UNICEF’s Deputy Executive Director Stephen Lewis stated:

“The most powerful change wrought by the Convention is the way in which children have become visible. Politicians, media, NGOs and broader civil society feel a clear obligation to include children in their respective public domains, interventions, dialogues, debates, mandates. You can’ t ignore children any longer and get away with it. The Convention has raised consciousness in dramatic fashion.”

This general vision is pronounced in more concrete language in the Articles which deal with the educational and participation rights of the child.

Article 12 of the Convention states that children have the right to participate in decision-making processes that may be relevant in their lives and to influence decisions taken in their regard – within the family, the school or the community. The practical meaning of childrens’ rights to participation must be considered in each and every matter concerning children. The Article also indicates that children need to be involved in the process of realising their rights. As a fundamental right of the child, the right to participation stands on its own; it requires a clear commitment and effective actions to become a living reality and therefore is much more than a simple strategy.

For this reason, the right to participation was identified as one of the guiding principles of the Convention.

- It is seen as an underlying value which guides the way each individual right is ensured.

- It is seen as acriterion for assessing progress in the implementation process of childrens’ rights.

- It is seen as an additional dimension to the universally recognised freedom of expression and implies the right of the child to be heard and to have his or her views or opinions taken into account.

Respecting childrens’ views means that such views should not be ignored; it does not mean that children’ opinions should be automatically endorsed. Expressing an opinion is not the same as taking a decision, but it implies the ability to influence decisions. A process of dialogue and exchange needs to be encouraged in which children assume increasing responsibilities and become active, tolerant and democratic. In such a process, adults must provide direction and guidance to children while considering their views in a manner consistent with the child’s age and maturity. Through this process, a child will gain an understanding of why particular options are followed, or why decisions are taken that might differ from the one he or she favoured.

4. APPROACHES TO TEACHING AND LEARNING ABOUT DEMOCRACY

We have argued above that modern pedagogical approaches to Democracy Learning define democracy as a form of living, a form of society and a form of government. Democracy Learning can thus be linked to pedagogical concepts. A comprehensive approach to such a discussion could start with a critique of “antiquated learning cultures”[16] which can probably still be observed today in most learning contexts in Europe. The objective of such a debate should be the development of reform concepts which lead to the reinvention of the school as a sphere of living and experience and to its recognition as an important institution within the framework of the larger civil society. The well-known statement “Demokratie beginnt in der Schule” (“Democracy begins at school”) brings this argument to the point.

The concept of “Democracy as a form of living, society, and governance” brings three strands of thinking on Democracy Learning together, linking the transmission of knowledge on “political democracy” with “social learning” and “learning through experience”. It is especially in this latter context that the issue of the “democratic class-room” must be seen and understood.[17]

Within the time span of a pupil’s school life, it appears obvious that the transfer of knowledge, skills and competencies about the three areas of Democracy Learning requires age-related methods, instruments and approaches. If we follow the standard pedagogical concept of learning, whereby learning should take place in “concentric circles” from the general to the abstract, it becomes equally obvious that Democracy Learning must start as early as possible, thereby spanning the students’ entire school career. However, a small child cannot possibly cope with the highly complex and frequently abstract issues of democratic government. Thus, Gerhard Himmelmann states:

Democracy Learning needs to start at primary school level. It must begin with the notion of democracy as a form of living, otherwise the notion of democracy as a form of governance will remain a vacant idea suspended somewhere “in thin air”. Thus, from our point of view, the “concrete”, the “general” and the “elementary” notion in a general didactical sense exist in the possibility that pupils should be enabled to acquire, in the first place, an experience with democracy as a form of living – an experience which then can be expanded step by step and further developed to an understanding of democracy as a form of society and finally to democracy as a form of governance. [18]

Himmelmann concludes that each of the three school levels should primarily – though not
exclusively – focus on a different basic aim of Democracy Learning, according to the pupils’ abilities to learn about and comprehend increasingly complex issues:

· At primary school level, Democracy should primarily be presented as a “way of life”. The focus, therefore, should be on the individual and the aim should be to enable self‑learning (acquiring “self-competence”, self-development, self-experience, self‑responsibility, self-control, moral dispositions). Democracy as a form of living enables a direct linking of the learning process to the everyday experience of young children.

· At secondary I level, the focus should shift to “Democracy as a form of society”. This would mean that the emphasis should now be on the community with the aim of enabling social learning and the acquisition of social competence (learning about social co-operation, communication, respect towards others, rights and responsibilities in the community, pluralism, conflict and conflict resolution, civil society).

· At secondary II level, the focus should shift further to “Democracy as a form of governance”. The acquisition of a “political-democratic competence” requires an understanding of the history and the shaping of democracy under complex conditions, of the forms of participation, and the meaning of rights and responsibilities in a complex political system. It involves teaching and learning about human rights, human dignity, power, control, decision-making processes.

Himmelmann’s model for the transfer of “democratic competencies” in the educational context is thus based on the key educational question: which elements of democratic learning should be transferred on which school level? He arrives at the conclusion that – even though a clear separation will neither be possible nor desirable – there should be an age- (or school level-) related learning process. Table 1 shows the “weighing” of the different elements of Democracy Learning in the context of the school system.

Table 1: Democratic competencies in the educational context[19]

Democracy as…	… a form of living	… a form of society	… a form of governance
	Aims of Democracy Learning
$School levels	“Self-Learning”: self-competence	“Social Learning”: social competence	“Political Learning”: democratic competence
Primary level	X X X	X X	X
Secondary I level	X X	X X X	X
Secondary II level	X	X X	X X X

X = Degree of Focus

These objectives of Democracy Learning, at least with regard to “self-learning” and “social learning”, are fully in line with older demands, such as the “key qualifications for a civil society” formulated in the 1980s by the German pedagogue Wolfgang Klafki. Klafki’s “Eleven Theses for a New Concept of General Education” comprise core qualifications such as “ability and readiness to articulate critique”, “debating skills”, “empathy”, “co-operation skills and ability”, and “creativity”. According to Klafki, these demands have certain consequences with regard to the organisation and the methodology of learning, such as a greater autonomy of the school, the propagation of teamwork among the teaching staff, multidimensional learning as well as intensified efforts for in-service teacher training.

5. PRACTISING AND EXPERIENCING DEMOCRACY IN EDUCATION

5.1 Practising Democracy in Primary Education

Many people will argue that practising democracy in primary education – i.e. with relatively young children – will not succeed because of the complexity of political issues. The argument is not valid, not even if based on very traditional and conservative pedagogical approaches to civic learning. Modern primary education will strive to meet demands to reinvent the school as a “space of living, experience and learning”. In such an environment, school-pedagogical concepts of “open learning” seem to be particularly suited to transmitting issues of Democracy Learning because its very purpose is to contribute to the formation of emancipated and responsible attitudes. In educational situations which are dominated by traditional, hierarchical and strictly instruction-focussed approaches to teaching and learning, such learning would seem futile. The following list of basic principles developed by a German teacher for her primary class should be seen in the larger context of democratic principles and Human Rights found in constitutions and international conventions (which I have added in brackets):[20]

- Every child is a special person in his/her own right and will be accepted and treated as such (human dignity; equality).

- Every child has strengths and weaknesses. He/she should be enabled to show his/her strengths and need not hide his/her weaknesses (non-discrimination; respect of personal, cultural, religious diversity, solidarity)

- No child must be afraid (right to freedom from fear and persecution).

- No child must be hurt – neither through words nor deeds (human dignity is inviolable; right to life; right to respect for physical and mental integrity).

- Every child must be allowed to speak his/her mind (freedom of thought, conscience, religion, freedom of expression and information).

- In joint decisions, every child has one vote (right to vote, civic rights).

- We help each other. We work together (principle of solidarity)

- We treat each other in a friendly and respectful way (respect for the other; tolerance).

A classroom example from a German primary school

The same teacher reported the following incident: In an ecology lesson, the children went out to a nearby field to find out what plants and animals lived there. They were told to bring back samples of different insects into the classroom. After the lesson, they went out again to take the insects back to the exact place were they had found them. In the meantime, the farmer who owned the field (and who had probably seen the children in the morning and remembered that he had sprayed it with insecticide) had put up a sign at the gate showing a skull and a warning: Do not enter! Poisonous chemicals! The children were aghast and took the insects back to the classroom. A lively discussion followed. Most children were convinced that the farmer could not have known that so many different insects lived there and that he would kill them by spraying the field with chemicals. The children decided to start an information campaign: They painted signs and organised a small demonstration in their village. One child phoned the farmer on behalf of the class, informed him about the damage he had caused to the insects and asked him to explain his action. The farmer replied: “It’s my field. I can do what I like to it.” The answer provoked a heated debate not only between the children, but also between the class and their parents and other teachers.

The teacher had deliberately restricted her role in the process to facilitation of the discussion and moderating the results. All actions were agreed by joint decisions. The case may sound trivial but is indeed a very good example how an everyday lesson plan suddenly takes a surprising turn and offers a completely new space and opportunity for democratic discussion and action in a much wider context: confrontation with actual political problems, social responsibility, freedom of expression, freedom to demonstrate one’s will, informing the public, active engagement and participation, democratic decision-making.

The example shows that everyday learning situations can suddenly and unexpectedly open up to provide opportunities for Democracy Learning which were not originally intended or planned for. In order to be able to make use of such opportunities

- the teacher must be given certain discretionary powers to decide on the spot whether and in what way to make use of the situation;

- the curricular framework or syllabus must allow sufficient freedom and flexibility;

- the school must be prepared to accept and welcome such “open learning situations” and to promote contact with and the inclusion of outside groups and organisations.

If we look beyond the classroom, we see many opportunities for practising democracy in schools. The following example comes from a primary school in Switzerland:

“Project RENGS: Children co-decide”, Schule Riedholz, Canton Solothurn, Switzerland[21]

When the school building and the school playground had to be extended, a good opportunity arose to re-organise and institutionalise co-determination by children in their school environment. The guiding idea was to create a school which offered an “environment supportive of the best possible development of the individual”. The task of rebuilding the school playground was used as a means of encouraging pupil participation: the children were involved in the reconstruction process from the beginning. They had to learn that much, but not everything, was possible. Many discussions took place and many desires had to be abandoned. On the other hand, the basic fundament was laid which led to the institutionalisation of co-determination procedures: monthly school assemblies with delegates from each class, general assemblies of all pupils twice a year. The open exchange of ideas, critique and suggestions provided teachers with a valuable tool to learn more about the needs, desires and visions of the children, the weaknesses and strengths of the school as a system and ideas for future action. The model led not only to higher commitment among the pupils, increased self-confidence of the delegates and better communication throughout the school, but also offered a stimulation and contribution to further quality improvement of the school.

An extremely interesting whole-school project is the Zornitza Alternative Educational Model in Sofia, Bulgaria. The model is outstanding insofar as the school was primarily created in order to work on this alternative educational approach. It combines the creation of a formal democratic structure in the school organisation with a more playful approach which contains elements of a simulation game.

Zornitza Primary School, Alternative Educational Model, Sofia, Bulgaria

The Alternative Educational Model was created in 1997 by teachers. The school works completely under this model. According to the project description, the school established its alternative pedagogical model while observing general government requirements such as the education priorities set by the administration, the curricular provisions and the class-lesson-system: “The programme is in line with contemporary concepts of childrens’ development… The children take part in all activities which develop analytical thinking, self-esteem… A general council comprising all pupils and all teachers is called at the beginning of a school year (or on request by pupils or teachers during the year). The council distributes pupils’ and teachers’ responsibilities, decides on the schools’ plans for the school year and elects the Mutual Aid Groups. There is also a “School Council of Ministers” in which certain functions and responsibilities are delegated to pupils (for example a Minister of Culture organises celebrations and exhibitions; a Minister of Justice: sees to the fulfilment of Children’s Rights in the school; a Minister of Internal Affairs is responsible for inter-pupil relations and conflict resolution; a Minister of Ecology …, etc.).

The Zornitza Model was approved by the Ministry of Education in 1997 and its concept was published in 1998. The model depends on regular evaluation processes which take place every year. This enables the school to react to new developments and to remedy apparent weaknesses in concept and practice. Zornitza seems to be a good example for educational reform approaches in the new democracies in South Eastern Europe.

Why do we discuss these issues in a study on pupil participation? The answer is obvious: These examples, as well as many others which could not be presented here, show that primary education offers not only a space of democratic experience but also a space for practical experiment (“Democracy must be experienced in order to be learnt”). Such approaches show quite clearly that much more emphasis should be placed on innovative models developed from practice-oriented projects which can function as “models of good practice” in primary education for many other schools. It is by no means necessary “to reinvent the wheel” in every school willing to introduce a democratic climate.

5.2 Experiencing democracy in Secondary Education

Democratic participation cannot be restricted to the election of a class speaker and the joint organisation of school festivities by pupils and teachers. It is an all-comprising task of teaching and learning, which can indeed – as we tried to show in the preceding paragraph – begin at a very early stage. At the same time, they are examples for practising democracy in the working environment of the school. So, in fact, these cases and reflections are very helpful insofar as they enable us to focus on the contents of Democracy Learning in the school context more clearly. They take us a step further in our attempt to find answers to the more concrete question posed in this report: What actually is democratic learning in the school context and how can it best be achieved? Let us look at several examples from the context of secondary education, among them a formal concept for a democratic school community (Schumann-Schule, Babenhausen, Germany) and a more playful approach “School as a State” (Heuss-Knapp-Gymnasium, Heilbronn, Germany).

An Example of Good Practice: Schumann-Schule, Babenhausen, Germany

An interesting concept for “democratic education” has been developed at the “Joachim-Schumann-Schule” in Babenhausen, Germany. In 1998, the school community presented a concept which aims to:

- create a learning environment for democracy

- strengthen the productive resources of the school

- improve the school climate and

- contribute to the present value debate.

While aims such as the ones quoted above can be found in many “guidelines” or “visions” formulated by schools all over Europe, the Babenhausen concept is interesting insofar as it actually brings the central elements and benefits of practiced Democracy Learning to the fore:

- If empowered to contribute actively to the shaping of their school’s working day, pupils and students will be not only more responsible and more trusting towards each other but will also feel more responsible for everything that happens in the school.

- Facing the problems and conflicts that exist in the school community will contribute to the development of democratic competence by making all processes more transparent, enable the better argument to prevail and guarantee that decisions reached in a democratic manner will be accepted and carried out by the school community.

- Democracy Learning will have a positive effect on democratic behaviour, value dispositions and opinions and the development of cognitive skills and on the school climate in general.

Simulation games or project approaches to Democracy Learning should not be underrated in their importance for the learning process. A teacher-oriented approach will never achieve the same results as an approach which aims at the stimulation of self-determined learning by doing: creativity, independence, motivation and factual knowledge acquisition. One model for a simulation game is the following school project.

School Project “School as a State”, Heuss-Knapp-Gymnasium, Heilbronn, Germany

The project “School as a State” was organised as a Four-Day-Event in July 2000 at the
Heuss-Knapp-Gymnasium in Heilbronn, Germany. The project was an attempt to organise the whole school as a republic called “Elevia”. For the duration of the project (four full days), all the pupils and teachers of the school constituted the “People of Elevia” and all the elements which characterise a democratic community had to be created.

- a national Hymn and a national flag;

- a democratic constitution comprising human and civic rights for all citizens;

- free and independent political parties;

- a president (elected directly by all citizens);

- a parliament (elected directly by all citizens);

- a prime minister (elected by the parliament) and government;

- civil servants responsible for the central bank, the police forces, etc.);

- a daily news-paper;

- a currency controlled by a “central bank” and valid throughout the school;

- free enterprise and firms providing jobs;

- legal institutions and courts with judges;

- cultural institutions.

The project was devised and organised by the school’s pupils council in co-operation with the teachers. For four days, the whole school became the state “Elevia”. Political parties were founded; Firms and enterprises were set up and began to sell their products, a national currency was introduced and a fixed exchange rate was established, parliament and president were elected and in a public ceremony, the School’s principal welcomed the newly elected president and handed over the school keys to the new rulers. After the project, an evaluation was carried out and confirmed that the project – in spite of the risks – was deemed a success by all people and groups involved. 80 percent of the pupils said that the project had been great fun and 70 percent would like to repeat it. The pupils stated that they had learnt a lot about the functioning of a democratic state, that everybody had to collaborate and that political involvement is of great importance.[22]

Other interesting examples of Democracy Learning through practice can be found in many countries. They are primarily based on:

- the fundamental principle of an equal partnership between all people and groups concerned;

- a philosophy and practice of autonomous co-determination as regards living and learning in the school;

- the principle of self-regulation;

- a new and completely different perspective of power and its usage;

- a living culture of conflict and conflict resolution within an agreeable school climate.[23]

“Democratic Contents – Democracy at Micro-Level”

Schüler/innenschule des Vereins Gemeinsam Lernen, Vienna, Austria

Democracy is practised through self-administration

- All people involved (young people, parents, teachers) are responsible for everything that happens in the school.

- Everybody takes on tasks according to his/her abilities and skills.

- Everybody has the chance to contribute to the shaping of the school.

- Principles of School Democracy: The students determine their own as well as their group activities.

- They respect the rights of others and the larger social context of the school.

- Subordination and passivity are replaced by freedom of choice, responsibility, co‑operation, creative initiatives and the right to say no.

Democracy is practiced at micro-level

- The objective is to realise and experience the fundamental principle of a fair, partnership-oriented school community.

- Learning must take place in a climate and in a spirit free of fear.

- The holistic learning approach is practised through project-learning offers.

- The learning offers are determined by the interests, needs and experiences of the young people.

- There is a multitude of learning styles and forms; at the beginning of a year’s course, the learning procedures are agreed on in the participating group. Self-initiative is stimulated.

The Learning approach is characterised by the following principles

- Self-determined work, work organisation and play are on a par with other activities and take place without supervision to create an atmosphere of self-responsibility and self-initiative.

- Cross-subject projects are flexibly organised and enable students to adopt a multi-perspective view of problems. They are also frequently linked to other school networks.

- Block-projects for certain learning areas draw on the expertise of external experts, frequently on very specialised topics.

- Practical experience can be acquired through short-term internships in firms and organisations outside the school.

- There are also learning projects for parents.

The selected models presented here should make it sufficiently clear that there is a wide range of opportunities and a wealth of creative ideas for the practical realisation of the democratic principle in school life. The re-creation or re-invention of the school as a functioning learning community is by no means an illusion and is far from being impossible – as long as there is the sincere will and the determination to make it come true. The idea of a learning community, however, will only function if some conditions are met:

- In order to prepare students for their future role as informed, responsible, democratic and participative citizens, the school life and the learning process must be based on a spirit of equality, flexibility, responsibility and self‑determination.

- Practised Democracy Learning requires a fundamental re-thinking and reorientation of curricular approaches, school administration procedures, educational policies and, last but not least, the legal fundament of the school. The unwillingness for reform, the inflexibility, sluggishness and innovative inability which, alas, can be observed at all levels of education administration and everywhere in Europe – from the school’s own staff and administration to the education ministries – are perhaps the most difficult barriers obstructing the democratic reshaping of school life.

- Practised Democracy Learning requires the full, unwavering and sustained involvement of principals, teachers and parents: principals and teachers must learn to understand and perceive the pedagogic opportunities of giving their pupils more independence and self-responsibility; parents must come to understand and perceive their extended role as caregivers in the school context.

- Practised Democracy Learning requires special efforts directed at the inclusion of other “stakeholders” of the educational process, such as firms and enterprises, the local community, voluntary citizen groups and non‑governmental organisations active within the environment of the school.

“Stop! Stand still! You’ re needed as a candidate!”

Karikatur: Stefan Rasch[24]

6. TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF PUPIL PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOLS

The preceding chapters tried to show that schools should not only:

- aim at teaching and learning about democracy – they should also aim at being as democratic as possible;

- seek to qualify pupils for their future role as citizens – they should also aim to actively develop the democratic attitude of pupils;

- consider themselves as legal entities or institutions – they should also develop links to outside socialisation agents in order to create a learning environment characterised by a lively democratic climate which enables direct participation by pupils in their everyday affairs.

Furthermore, we have tried to show that Democracy Learning can take place in quite different settings and forms. Even though its ultimate outcomes are of greatest importance for the functioning of the democratic civil society, such learning can be organised in interesting, fascinating and even playful manners.

6.1 Content Areas of Pupil Participation

Based on the assumption that the forms and degrees of participation in schools differ widely across Europe, a “ladder of participation contents” can be constructed – from quite simple levels of mere information to different degrees of active contribution to consultation processes and, finally, full involvement and participation in decision-making processes, the initiation of projects and ideas, the implementation of programmes and solutions and evaluation of the outcomes:

Figure 2: Seven Steps to Pupil Participation

To sum up: Democracy Learning in schools must begin with the individual pupil. They have certain rights which are most often defined within the legal provisions for minors. As shown in Section 3 of this paper, the Convention on the Rights of the Child clearly advocates a right to participation, a right to information, a right to freedom of expression. In the school context, these rights can be understood both as individual rights and collective rights.

On this basis, there are at least eight areas which are potentially open to meaningful pupil participation:

- individual affairs– i.e. individual issues and conflicts concerning the articulation of individual pupils’ interests and problems

- peer affairs – i.e. issues and conflicts concerning relations between individual pupils and / or groups of pupils

- class affairs– i.e. issues and conflicts concerning the class and the teacher; activities; projects; peer conflict resolution

- school affairs– i.e. issues and conflicts concerning the community of pupils and the school leadership and administration; school projects; communication with the local community; festivities; school environment

- organisational and staff affairs– i.e. issues and conflicts concerning the regulation of school life, relations with staff, the school building, administrative issues, transportation problems

- content and methodological issues – i.e. issues and conflicts concerning the selection of lesson content, teaching methods and topical projects

- curricular and education policy issues – i.e. issues and conflicts concerning curricular regulations and their interpretation, the choice of topics, student assessment

- links with extra-mural activities – i.e. issues and conflicts concerning the relationship of the school with the outside community, the inclusion of extra-school activities, collaboration with out-of-school agencies and organisations.

6.2 Forms of Pupil Participation

In a participative democratic school, social, political and experience- and activity-based democratic learning are closely related. The forms in which such participation takes place, can and do differ across Europe to a great degree. A possible typology could comprise several very different forms:

- Parliamentary participation:the widespread formal or hierarchical structure of class, school and regional or national representation based primarily on the election of speakers, delegates or representatives.

- Open participation:more or less informal participative forms which are open to spontaneous or case-related action based on the definition and diagnosis of existing problems, the collection of information, the articulation of priorities and the development of solutions.

- Project-based participation:one-issue approaches of participation directed at a single project, often in the context of a topical issue or learning process.

- Simulation games on participation: participation and democratic procedures are exercised in a playful way, for example by simulating a “school state” with a president, a government, a parliament, media etc.

- Problem-solving participative approaches: for example conflict resolution in the class-room or in the school organised by the students themselves and comprising mediation, “conflict pilots”, hearings, decisions and implementation procedures

6.3 FIELDS FOR PRACTISING PUPIL PARTICIPATION

Participative Structures	Class spokesperson Class council Pupil representation School parliament “Just Community” Regional and/or national pupil representation
Participative Learning	Responsibility for one’s own learning Responsibility for joint learning Participative learning in individual subjects Curricular offers for participative learning Class Projects
Participation in the social life of the school	Social learning Integration Conflict management Prevention of violence Festivities and celebrations School projects
Participation beyond the school	Relations with -- other schools -- pre-school institutions -- schools for the disadvantaged -- enterprises and firms -- the local government -- other exterior partners Cross-border (international) school exchange programmes

7. TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR DEMOCRATIC SCHOOLS WITHOUT VIOLENCE

In November 2003, the Secretariat of the Council of Europe’s Integrated Projects 1 and 2 initiated an interesting project which is of great relevance for the promotion of active Democracy Learning in European schools. The project approach is fully in line with the concept of pupil participation: the Charter consists entirely of contributions from young people and was formulated by them. As such, it is an innovative and even revolutionary idea:[25]

In order to pull together experiences and achievements of pilot initiatives across Europe in a document which could inspire many more schools to involve their students, along with educators, in decision-making on matters concerning them, the Council of Europe launched a project to develop a European Charter for a Democratic School without Violence.

More than 120 schools throughout Europe expressed an interest in the project. A panel of Council of Europe and educational experts selected the 26 best contributions sent in by schools from 19 European countries. The selected schools were invited to send delegates to a project conference held from 14-18 July 2004. More than 50 student delegates gathered at the European Youth Centre at Strasbourg to draft and adopt the Charter (see link below).

The participants translated the Charter into their native languages

An electronic referendum was held from 11-22 October 2004 in cooperation with the Swiss Canton of Geneva.

EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR DEMOCRATIC SCHOOLS WITHOUT VIOLENCE

1.All members of the school community have the right to a safe and peaceful school. Everyone has the responsibility to contribute to creating a positive and inspiring environment for learning and personal development.

2.Everyone has the right to equal treatment and respect regardless of any personal difference. Everyone enjoys freedom of speech without risking discrimination or repression.

3.The school community ensures that everybody is aware of their rights and responsibilities.

4. Every democratic school has a democratically elected decision-making body composed of representatives of students, teachers, parents, and other members of the school community where appropriate. All members of this body have the right to vote.

5. In a democratic school, conflicts are resolved in a non-violent and constructive way in partnership with all members of the school community. Every school has staff and students trained to prevent and solve conflicts through counseling and mediation.

6.Every case of violence is investigated and dealt with promptly, and followed through irrespective whether students or any other members of the school community are involved.

7. School is a part of the local community. Co-operation and exchange of information with local partners are essential for preventing and solving problems.

Part 2:
Practising
Democratic Participation
in the School

Oval Callout: Note, colon,
Democracy is a form of living and of government, comma, based on equality, comma, freedom and human dignity, comma, and prohibits inhuman treatment or punishment, full stop. Bla bla bla … Oval Callout: AND NOW STOP CHATTING AND WRITE THAT DOWN OR ELSE I’ LL GIVE YOU MARKS YOU WON’ T FORGET FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES…!

Karikatur: Stefan Rasch[26]

8. PUPIL PARTICIPATION IN EUROPE

In October 2002, the Council of Europe’s EDC project decided to collect data on pupil participation from the member countries. The collection was completed in May 2003 and comprised three instruments:

- A questionnaire which was sent out to all 48 national representatives of the Council of Europe’s network of EDC coordinators in December 2002;

- A collection of "country reports" on pupil participation presented upon request to the Council of Europe

- Individual feedback and additional information from selected countries requested by the editor of the study.

Figure 3

Overall, 18 countries or regions returned comprehensive information (completed questionnaires and country reports); another 19 coordinators returned either the questionnaire or a country report. The total feedback therefore produced information and/or data for 37 countries or regions (i.e. 75% of the 48 EDC Co-ordinators supplied information). 12 countries or regions provided insufficient information or no information at all.[27]

8.1 Legal basis for pupil participation

In all countries but one, pupil participation is based on legal statutes, laws, by-laws or rules and other provisions. In the Russian Federation, there does not seem to be any country-wide provision regarding pupil participation, but many regions of the Federation appear to have developed their own approaches.

Special mention in national constitutions of pupil participation or of a democratic co-responsibility in the school or in educational matters seems to be the exception. Among the countries which completed the questionnaire, most have some language in their constitutions providing for the recognition of the right of children to have a say in affairs that concern their daily lives. Such more or less general wording on the issue can be found in many constitutions, such as the Constitution of Spain.

Spain

Spanish Constitution, Art. 27.7 (Education):

Teachers, parents, and in some cases, the students, shall participate in the control and management of all centres maintained by the Administration with public funds, under the terms established by law.

Many, if not most education laws in Europe refer to the right of pupils to be educated for their future roles as informed and responsible citizens. The Greek Law on Education 1566/85 specifies the objectives of Primary and Secondary Education “to help pupils become free, responsible and democratic citizens, as well as citizens capable of fighting for national independence and democracy” (Art. 1). More detailed provisions refer to pupil participation:

Greece

Education Law 1566/85, Art. 45-47:

It is recognised that pupils have the right to establish collective bodies, which are considered to be important elements of the democratic organisation and functional structuring of education at the level of the school unit. These bodies are pupil partnerships, pupil communities, and pupil sports clubs. Their establishment aims at encouraging pupils to participate actively in school life, to enable them to:

- assume responsibilities and realise, through experience, the role that the democratic dialogue plays in shaping self-aware and creative citizens;

- contribute to the proper and fruitful development of the educational process;

- form their own view about life by linking school and society, which will in turn lead to the acquisition of the necessary capacities and skills for further development

The pupils of Secondary Education form pupil communities with which they participate in the organisation of school life and the organisation and realisation of any kind of school activity.

In all the countries that responded to the enquiry, pupil participation is provided for in different instruments:

· Education laws

· National curricula or frameworks

· Other official documents, guidelines or recommendations.

There are, of course, many different forms which determine pupil participation. The overall structure of a country’s political (and education) system is a decisive factor. In other words, in countries with a highly centralised structure, pupil participation is sometimes laid down in laws, by-laws and regulations which are often binding on a nation-wide scale. There are also instances where pupil participation is laid down in national compulsory curricula or frameworks. In decentralised education systems, pupil participation is sometimes regulated through regional provisions. Their significance is frequently determined by the size, importance and relative autonomy of the regional entity (viz. the
Bundesländer in Austria or the Cantons in Switzerland, in contrast to the comparative insignificance of the regional regulations in Romania, at least with regard to education policies and pupil participation). In many countries, if not in most, a mixture of forms can be observed, resulting in the formulation of more general objectives for pupil participation in national “core curricula” and/or in curricula with additional documents such as “frameworks on participation”.

However, it can be concluded that there are rules or legal provisions for some forms of pupil participation in practically all countries which contributed to the study, even though in different intensity. The need for the creation of active and participative learning opportunities in the school environment, therefore, seems to be widely recognised throughout Europe as an educational principle and appears to be based on a stable legal fundament.

8.2 General democratic rights of pupils

Minimal rights of pupils comprise the right of education and schooling, i.e. the right to participate in the transfer of knowledge according to the pupils abilities and needs. Furthermore, the education laws regulate issues regarding the organisation of the learning processes (but not necessarily their contents or methods) and also, in many cases, the choice of learning means and resources.

Beyond the general framework provided by the right for education, there are more detailed provisions with regard to the creation of a participative school climate. An example for a more comprehensive approach for the creation of a democratic environment in the school can be found in the Swedish Education Act which stipulates that all school activity shall be carried out in accordance with fundamental democratic values. The general objectives and guidelines provided in the Education Act are formulated more concretely in the National Curricula. For example, the National Curriculum for compulsory and upper secondary school stipulates:

Sweden

National Curriculum for Compulsory and Upper Secondary Schools:

Democracy forms the basis of the national school system. The School Act (1985) stipulates that all school activity shall be carried out in accordance with fundamental democratic values and that each and everyone working in the school shall encourage respect for the intrinsic value of each person as well as for the environment we all share (Chapter 1, §2 and §9). The school has the important task of imparting, instilling and forming in pupils those values on which our society is based. The inviolability of human life, individual freedom and integrity, the equal value of all people, equality between women and men and solidarity with the weak and vulnerable are all values that the school shall represent and impart... The task of the school is to encourage all pupils to discover their own uniqueness as individuals and thereby participate actively in social life by giving their best in responsible freedom... It is not in itself sufficient that education imparts knowledge of fundamental democratic values. It must also be carried out using democratic working methods and develop the pupils’ ability and willingness to take personal responsibility and participate actively in civic life.

By participating in the planning and evaluation of their daily education, and exercising choices over courses, subjects, themes and activities, pupils will develop their ability to exercise influence and take responsibility...[28]

The Austrian School Law explicitly uses the term "Schulgemeinschaft" (school community), defined as the “co-operation between teachers, parents (or guardians) and pupils. To ensure such democratic co-operation, pupils as well as persons with parental authority have the right to representation of their interests towards teachers, principals and school authorities”.[29]

In Hungary, emphasis is placed on the establishment and functions of the so-called “students’ self‑government”, for which provisions are laid down in the Education Act of 1985 and the 1993 Act on Public Education. According to the latter, student participation takes two forms: direct expression of opinion and expression of interests through different organisations. This comprises the establishment of student parliaments and a school board.

Hungary

Act on Public Education (1993), Section 63:

(1) Students, student communities and student circles may establish a student parliament to represent the interests of students. The activities of a student parliament shall cover all the issues concerning students. (…)

(3) The student parliament shall make decisions on its own operation, the use of the financial means provided for the operation of the student parliament, the exercise of its spheres of activity, the programme of a working day when there is no teaching

(7) A general meeting of students shall be organised in the school or dormitory at least once a year in order to review the operation of the student parliament and the enforcement of students’ rights.

It is worth noting that the Hungarian Education Law – as do the regulations in many other
countries – stipulates that the activities of the students’self-governing bodies shall cover all issues concerning students, but as Section 3 shows, there are certain restrictions: student bodies can, for instance, influence the programme of a working day (i.e. a school day) only for the periods “when there is no teaching. In other words, they cannot influence decisions on the selection of topics in the classroom, the methods of teaching, curricular aspects in general.

8.3 Structure and levels of pupil/student representation

In many countries, pupils’ rights to have a say in the regulation of their affairs is clearly formulated and laid down for the different levels of the education system. There are opportunities for pupils’ interests to be represented at class and school level in most countries.

Figure 4

Figure 4 shows quite clearly that while the representation of students’ interests at class and school level is well established, at national level a quite different picture emerges. However, as will be shown below, some countries have developed very sophisticated and far-reaching rights for students at national level.

In Germany, all groups involved in school life are given the right participate in – and to some extent co-determine – school matters: pupils/students, parents, teachers, community, education administration, political level. The term "Pupil Co-responsibility" (Schuelermitverantwortung, SMV) calls upon each student to:

be actively involved in the life of the class and support his/her classmates
participate in the classroom lessons
be aware and make use of his/her rights as granted by the school laws
participate in the decision-making bodies, such as school conferences
participate in the (intra- as well as extramural) dissemination of information about the school (via school newsletters, school radio etc.)

Figure 5 shows the structure of the pupil participation in the German state of Baden‑Württemberg:

Figure 5: Structure of pupil participation in Baden-Württemberg, Germany

The main objectives for the system of SMV are to:

· work on joint tasks which concern all pupils of a school;

· work on tasks connected with the participation of the pupils in other democratic organs;

· participate in the School Conference, which includes the right to provide suggestions concerning classroom climate, school climate, general school culture and atmosphere;

· participate in certain administrative functions.

8.3.1 Class level

Class representatives or class speakers are usually elected by the pupils of a class. Their task is to represent the interests of the class with teachers, principals or the school administration. In some countries, all class spokespersons of a school elect a “school speaker” and deputy and/or represent their constituents in the school conference or similar bodies.

8.3.2 School level

In many countries so-called School Councils or similar forms like School Forums exist to deal with issues concerning school life, school climate as well as participating in certain administrative or cultural functions. An example of far-reaching participation rights is provided by Luxembourg:

Luxembourg

Education Councils in senior secondary schools

These are composed of four representatives of the teaching staff, two parents and two pupils. The representatives are elected by secret ballot for two years. Without impinging on the responsibilities of head teachers, education councils, in which pupils are full participants, have the following functions (Section 12 of the Regulation):

- they form part of the process for modifying and adapting disciplinary rules and internal school regulations

- they submit annual reports to the Minister of Education on the general situation in their respective schools

- they make proposals concerning their school’s annual budgets

- they may issue opinions on the setting up or dropping of optional courses and, possibly more important, catching-up courses and on school’s internal organisation

- they draw up their respective school plans.

8.3.3 Regional level

In some countries, pupils’ interests are also represented at a regional or provincial level (Provincial Pupil Council or Committee). See Figure 5 for the German example[30].

8.3.4 National level

Pupil participation at national level exists in particular in centralised systems. The members of national representation bodies are usually elected by regional or local school bodies.

In relatively centralised education systems, there is usually no intermediate level for pupil participation between the local or school level and the level of national decision-making. Pupil representation in national councils or bodies can be observed in several countries. In a number of other cases, such representation takes place in the context of organisations or structures which are not primarily concerned with education issues, i.e. youth councils or forums.

Good examples of the articulation of students’ interests at national level can be found in the education systems of Hungary and Luxembourg.

Hungary

The National Council for Students’ Rights (Act on Public Education, Section 98 (2)):

The National Council for Students’ Rights shall take part in the preparation of decisions of the Minister of Education in connection with students’ rights. The National Council … may express its opinion, put forward proposals, and take a stand on any questions concerning students’ rights. The National Council… has nine members, three members are delegated by the Minister of Education, three by the national students’ organisations representing students of aged between six and fourteen, and three by the national students’ organisations representing students aged fifteen to eighteen.

The Hungarian laws also provide for the establishment of a “Students’ Parliament” which is convened every three years by the Minister of Education in co-operation with the National Council for Students’ Rights. The Students’ Parliament primarily surveys the realisation of students’ rights, can adopt recommendations and formulate proposals.

In Norway, there is provision for representation through pupil councils, which are consulted on educational matters.

Norway

Representation of Pupil Councils in government education bodies and educational committees.[31]

Pupil Councils’ representatives are appointed as members of education bodies and committees along with teachers’ organisations, union representatives and others.

At national level, pupils are represented in several education bodies including the steering-group of the Norwegian Board of Education, the National Evaluation Committee on Education, the National Board on Vocational Education.

Pupils’ organisations are consulted on proposed reforms, new laws and proposed curricula, either through representation in committees and/or proposals sent out as part of a hearing process to all nationwide organisations including the national pupils’ organisation. Pupil representatives are in some cases invited to take part in the development of new curricula and other educational projects, for example if these projects are directly concerned with pupils’ activities.

In Luxembourg, the "Pupil Committee" of every ordinary and technical senior secondary school elects one of its members as representative on the National Pupil Conference. The Conference is convened by the Minister of Education at least twice every six months.

Luxembourg

Main functions of the National Pupils’ Conference:

- to represent pupils in dealings with the Minister of Education and all the other national school partners

- to appoint from among its members pupil representatives to the national consultative commission which submits opinions to the Minister on major educational issues

- to appoint from among its members representatives for the working groups of the Ministry of Education which are required to report back to the Conference

- to formulate proposals on all matters concerning pupils’ views and their work

- to receive information by the Minister of proposals and to articulate opinions on questions of interest to pupils

- to form special consultative committees to address issues of interest to particular groups of pupils.[32]

The extent of participation rights at national level provided by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the frequency of the National Pupil Conference’s meetings, and especially the “closeness” of the formal links between the National Conference and the Ministry of Education, provides an excellent example of a functional structure at national level. It is also a very rare example of good practice in Europe. It is certainly true that, since Luxembourg is a small country with about 450.000 inhabitants, it is much easier than in a big country to assemble a representative of all senior secondary schools in the country. In a very small country, it is also possible for all students to be informed of proposals that concern them and to make a real contribution to the discussions. As such, of course, the National Pupils’ Conference is a tool of instruction about democracy and, in certain respects, an instrument of quasi-direct democracy which might be unique to Luxembourg. Nevertheless, it remains a model worthy of consideration and possibly even of adaptation to the national participation situation in many other countries in Europe.

8.4 Level of parental representation and participation

There is some form of parental involvement in educational affairs in all the countries which participated in this study. Generally, however, school education is largely considered to be the prerogative of the state. Parents can exercise their rights individually, on the basis of laws regulating the rights of the family in any given society, and collectively through parents’ representation bodies. Parent participation can take place at class level, at school level, and at higher levels.

The results of the data collection for this study show that while pupil representation focuses more on class and school levels, parents’ involvement seems somewhat more focused on the general school level. Surprisingly, the results show that roughly one third of the respondents claims that parents are not involved at class level, but all countries report some form of parental involvement at school level, primarily in the form of parents’ councils and, in some cases, parent-teacher meetings.

Figure 6

Parents’ involvement at regional level is, however, relatively low (in many cases not applicable), whereas the data show that there seems to be a relatively high involvement at national level. This implies that parents do have opportunities to articulate their interests at the policy-making level, be it in the form of parent-teacher associations or parents’ councils.

The rights of parents are more pronounced than many parents even realise. Even so, there is a general complaint across Europe that parents do not participate sufficiently to safeguard the interests of their own children.

Section 32 of the Hamburg School Act (Hamburg, Germany) sets out the rights of parents to receive information and advice.

A regular exchange of information is indispensable if schools and parents are to work together as partners. Parents have the right to be informed about all important matters concerning the school. These include:

- the structure and organisation of the school and the educational courses

- the lesson schedules, education plans, their goals, content and requirements

- the essential features of the teaching plans and structure

- the criteria for performance assessment…

- the transitions between the various educational courses

- the final exams and qualifications, including access to occupations and professions

- the possibilities for pupils and their parents to get involved in school processes

- the right to inspect all the files that contain data concerning their children (school files, education advisory bureau files and school doctor’s files)

Furthermore, parents have the right to participate and make decisions:

· in the classroom through two parents’ representatives elected by all parents of a class

· on the Class Committee

· on the Parents’ Council

· on the School Committee[33].

One important issue concerns the frequently articulated complaint about low attendance rates by parents at class or school meetings. More detailed research would be required to verify the true extent of that problem in Europe. However, any teacher and education practitioner will probably be able to confirm that claim by experience, perhaps even adding the impression that there is a strong gender imbalance in the attendance of parents, with a far higher percentage of mothers than fathers participating at meetings.

A Spanish enquiry into parental involvement showed:

When asked: “To what extent do you participate in the following aspects of life at your child’s school?”, the answers by the respondents are mainly grouped in the options for none or little participation by the parents in the school activities, except as to meetings or talks in which 51 % of the parents affirm that they participate “little” or “a lot”… There are Parents’ Associations at 82 % of the schools in the survey. This high percentage reveals the consolidation of the parent association movement. (…) However, the real participation by the parents through the Parents’ Associations is quite low: 35 % declare they do not participate in them and 51 % just pay the fees. Only 14 % of the parents declare that they participate actively… Participation in Parents’ Associations is greater in the case of parents with higher education: 42 % of them participate…[34]

The situation in Malta does not differ much from other and larger states:

It is a fact that there are parents who are more than pleased to leave their children’s education in the hands of the school , and who find it an effort to drag their feet there once a year for Parents’ Day. Some of them, when they get there, have only a vague idea of the class their child is in and no idea who the teacher is or what his name might be. Yet others do not turn up at all… Schooling is not just about learning a set of subjects; it is also about the principles by which our children will eventually conduct their lives.[35]

A Scottish research project on Parental Participation in Schools shows equally clearly that parental involvement is highly diversified across the school system. Despite all efforts, the relationship between parents and schools remains difficult and the commitment of parents in collective representation bodies remains weak. The following characteristics were found in most regions studied in the Scottish research project:

- The participation of parents in the elections for the different councils is relatively low.

- Their participation decreases as the age-level of pupils increases:
The proportion of parents involved was 47 % for primary schools and 32 % for secondary schools (which also comprised 17 % in vocational upper secondary schools).

- The social breakdown of parents’ involvement shows that middle-class parents tend to be most highly represented in parents’ associations. The clear problem in a number of schools is promoting the collective representation and participation of parents from working-class backgrounds.

Table 2: Social breakdown of parents and members of parents’ associations[36]

Occupation	Percentage of all parents	Percentage of members in parents’ associations
Executives; intellectuals; professional people	15	20
Intermediary professions	19	48
Self-employed and shopkeepers	10	2
Employees	13	22
Factory workers	36	6
Unemployed	3	1

Against this background, educational policy makers and schools are faced with three basic questions:

· Is the present state of parental participation in the affairs concerning their childrens’ education sufficient?

· In what ways can parental participation be improved, extended and strengthened?

· How can a sustainable liaison of parental participation procedures with the school community, the school environment and the education authorities be achieved?

To provide preliminary answers to these issues, the Scottish project collected rich material from several European countries. The project identified methods for effective parental participation and analysed practises and approaches. Table 3 shows some of the key features which resulted from the international analyses and comparison:

Table 3: Comparison of key features of parental participation in selected education systems:[37]

Key features of parental participation…	… as highlighted in the case studies from
Benefits to be gained from an independent person liaising with parents, pupils and teachers to promote effective communications between the home and school; particularly in areas of social deprivation	France
Well-judged methods of contacting parents informally and encouraging their involvement	Portugal Spain
Carefully-prepared information which helps parents understand their role in supporting their children or working on school groups	Scotland Netherlands
Availability of information about important aspects of information such as curriculum, attainment and attendance	Belgium (Flemish Community) Scotland
Promoting the exchange of information among parents, pupils and teachers	Belgium (Flemish Community)
Meetings of all groups involved in improving educational standards (teachers, pupils, parents’ associations, education authorities)	Portugal
Role of school (class-)-home contacts	Italy Austria
Value of seeking the views of parents and pupils or students in evaluating the quality of a school’s work	Italy Scotland Austria
Need to establish and promote a common sense of purpose among all school partners in improving key aspects of the school’s work	Contained in most case studies
The important and influential role of parent bodies such as School Boards and Parent-Teachers Associations	Contained in most case studies

The main focus of parental involvement seems to be less directed at actual and concrete participation rights than at information rights. More transparency towards parents with regard to school activities and decisions concerning the education of their children is, of course, a crucial element; it is, however, only part of a true and meaningful “participation” in the proper meaning of the word.

8.5 Participative teaching and learning: recommendations, curricular guidelines, forms

As mentioned above, most countries seem to have some recommendations or guidelines with regard to participative teaching and learning. These are often contained in national and/or regional frameworks or curricula, plans or directives and can be either legally binding or non-binding.

At a most general level, it can be argued that participative forms of teaching and learning exist to varying degrees throughout the compulsory education system, even though the focus in many, if not most cases, is on secondary education. However, the question of what exactly is comprised in those forms of participation would require more detailed examination.

Generally, however, several conclusions can safely be drawn from the answers supplied:

- Most recommendations and guidelines are sufficiently “open” to enable/allow active and activating methods and to stimulate student-centred approaches.

- In many countries, “good practices” with regard to “student self-government”, the stimulation of the active involvement of pupils in the learning process, “interactive” teaching, the use of varying working methods, of self-directed working-groups, of methods of networking and the integration of extra-mural and extra-curricular activities in the learning process are encouraged.

- In some countries, ambitious approaches or pilot programmes for the self-evaluation of pupils are stimulated, based on participative teaching and learning, including the strengthening of pupils’ involvement in decision-making processes at class level and/or school level. The extension of participative experiences of pupils goes beyond the immediate class and school environments to comprise a wider field of learning opportunities, such as the community.

- The empowerment of pupils is seen in some countries as the crucial point of participation: to encourage teachers to permit pupils to influence the working methods applied, at least with regard to specific issues or curricular targets, and to enable them to take on responsibility for their own learning.

Apparently, among the countries surveyed there is only one (Russian Federation) which does
not yet provide any specific recommendations, curricular guidelines or stipulated forms for pupil participation – at least, as it seems, on a nation-wide or federal level. However, it seems a number of pilot projects or experiments with the provision of curricular elements for pupil participation, and some activities in the field of Civic Education are in progress.

9. THE RELEVANCE OF PUPIL PARTICIPATION IN TEACHER TRAINING CURRICULA

On a theoretical level and as a basic modern pedagogical concept, the need for student-oriented teaching is widely acknowledged and practised in Europe. Insofar as student orientation also involves empowerment and the training of skills and competences for active participation in school life, there seems to be a widespread consensus with regard to the need for the involvement and/or extended participation of pupils in certain everyday affairs within the school framework and even with regard to content issues of teaching and learning.

As the answers to the questions regarding “Recommendations, guidelines, forms” of pupil participation show (see above, Para. 8.5), it can be argued that almost all education systems represented in this survey give priority to certain forms of pupil involvement.

This positive finding, however, is not supported to the same degree by the answers supplied to the question of whether specific training on participation issues is provided within the framework of teacher training. In most countries these issues are more or less implicit to general elements of teacher training; sometimes they seem to cover no more than a general introduction to students’ rights, responsibilities and self-governance. In some cases, special training and seminars are organised by the education authorities which are directed at the qualification of teachers for issues of “democracy in the school” and for the support of diverse forms of participation by pupils in school and extra-mural activities. In particular in the countries of central Europe (CCE), a large share of teacher-training activities is implemented by NGOs commissioned by state authorities. In such situations, the priority seems to be given to knowledge- or content-oriented training programmes rather than matters which aim at qualifying teachers for issues like value orientation, practised democracy and pupils’ co‑responsibility.

Some countries, however, have recognised the need for special in-service teacher training focusing on the practice of pupil participation in the school. One such country is Sweden.

Sweden

The National Agency for Education organises and finances in-service teacher training in certain high-priority areas. In recent years, the Government has put special emphasis on developing headmasters’ competency in the field of democracy and democratic values. Special in-service training is therefore arranged for headmasters and staff in this area.

The National Agency has also set up a new website in order to better serve the public in general and the schools specifically with information and knowledge within the field of democracy.[38]

In the United Kingdom, this deficit seems to have been recognised by many institutions. Thus, School Councils UK is assisting many education authorities in providing training for teachers and pupils.

United Kingdom

The training for teachers and pupils enables participants to assess the level of pupil participation in their school while looking at how to build on existing structures and introduce new initiatives.

The training of teachers aims to

- Provide a whole school vision for student participation
- Show how active participation can support teachers
- Identify the necessary foundation stones for student participation
- clarify what a school council could be and how it is integrated into school decision-making systems.

The training of pupils aims to

- Show that effective school councils can make a difference
- Provide opportunities for pupils to develop skills of participation for active citizenship
- Develop an understanding of peer leadership.[39]

The model concept developed by School Councils UK shows that effective training must be offered to teachers and pupils alike. They need to be qualified for their task. So, if one conclusion with regard to teacher training could be drawn from the results of the data collection, it would be that more efforts of a similar nature would be needed to qualify teachers and pupils for the particular questions, problems and tasks brought about by the extension of the participation rights of pupils. In fact, the topic should indeed become a core element of teacher training curricula – for pre-service training as well as for in‑service training.

10. OBSTACLES, DEFICITS AND DESIDERATA

The results show that a number of “setbacks” to participative teaching and learning appear to be common throughout Europe:

Traditional methods of teaching and learning are still widespread and there is a certain resistance to democratisation and change in the school – an inertia not only on the part of the transmitters (teachers, teacher trainers) but also on the part of policy development, curricular development and educational decision-making.

Teachers’ attitudes towards the extension of pupils’ participation rights and to participative teaching and learning vary and a certain “cleavage” seems to exist in Europe. In fact, the attitudes of teachers towards pupil participation seem to mirror – at least to a certain degree – their own life experience and socialisation. The national historical experience is an important element and, in many cases, the main reason for the lack of a democratic culture in the education system, particularly in formerly authoritarian systems which have little experience with open, liberal forms and methods. Also, in some countries, support by the education system and administration for more modern approaches seems to be lacking.

Lack of a suitable environment: Some of the country reports provided interesting information about concrete approaches to the task of creating an environment suitable for pupil participation in school. These are directed at empowering the pupils for democratic and social learning and behaviour. Critical elements for such learning are the establishment of suitable social structures in the school, the creation of value-oriented learning communities (rather than knowledge-oriented instruction systems) and the introduction and establishment of fields and areas for self-directed action and co-operation.

The ideas of “partnership” and of the “learning community”:The basic climate required for a functioning democratic participation in the school is characterised by an awareness of the importance of “partnership”. It is the most essential concept for the “re-invention” of the school as a learning community (as stipulated, for example, in the Austrian school laws). True partnership, however, requires the recognition of elements like the duty of information, the readiness to open areas for joint decision-making, to share responsibility and to develop new forms of communication.

Widespread reservations regarding pupil participation in all the groups involved:

- Young people are not accustomed to being consulted and do not use it to their advantage. Many pupils view consultation and democratic deliberation as mere token activities.

- There is a fear among adults in and out of school of giving young people too many rights and not enough responsibilities. Many adults are also uncomfortable with the changes required for such participative processes.

- The importance of pupil participation is affected by the insistence of many head teachers to restrict such activities to after-school hours rather than making democratic participation part of the school working day and an integral part of the curriculum.

- Enfranchisement of the confident and vocal members of the school community (i.e. those able to express themselves in public) may unintentionally reduce motivation and opportunities for others who are less fluent in speech and expression, especially those who most need their voices to be heard.^{^[40]}

Your Vote for Sabine!

(I’m only here because of the female quota!)

- Karikatur: Stefan Rasch[41]

11. CONCLUSION: A NEW CULTURE OF LIVING AND LEARNING IN THE SCHOOL

People are not by nature predestined to become good democrats, and children do not automatically become good citizens. Democracy needs to be learnt – and can be learnt. Participation is a crucial element in involving people in the democratic process. Such participation can take place not only in the political field but in everyday life and all kinds of social contexts. Early learning, training and “conditioning” for such processes are of critical importance. The school is the place where such learning can go on.

These objectives cannot be achieved in an environment characterised by distrust, regulation and control. The school of the future must provide suitable opportunities for participative learning, experiment and experience. Participation is not a one-way street; it requires the continuous exchange with others. That is why activity-oriented approaches for social learning need to be developed in addition to participative learning. Social learning is directed at acquiring general social competencies as well as the skills and methods needed for co-operating with others. These competences, however, are the backbones of citizenship in a democratic Europe.

All three dimensions – affective, cognitive and pragmatic – are to be found in the educational process in the school. However, pupils’ participation rights and their practical realisation are frequently limited to relatively marginal and/or unattractive areas and fields. Under such circumstances, pupils will not be able to experience the above-mentioned affective and cognitive dimensions beyond the mere transfer of knowledge in formal learning processes about institutions or laws. They will not be able to experiment with their participation rights or gain experience in doing so; and, as a result, they will not recognise their participation rights as an important contribution to the creation of a school community. In the longer term, they will not feel responsible for the functioning of the community as a whole.

11.1 Checklist for democratic participation in the school

The following checklist of suggestions for democratic participation in the school context are meant to provide stimulation for discussion and action and – above all – for a new culture of living and learning in the school context:

Aims

· The democratic school as a system of responsibilities and rights

· Participation and conflict resolution in the school

· Participation and the prevention of violence

· Participation and social learning

· Projects on practiced participation

· Creation of an environment suitable for an open learning community

Participative Structures

· class speakers

· class councils

· school councils or school parliaments

· outside structures and bodies beyond the school (on a regional or national level, such as local / regional youth parliaments)

Participation in learning

· Responsibility for one’s own learning

· Responsibility for joint learning in the class

· Participative development of curricular elements (within certain subjects)

· Project-oriented learning approaches

Participation in the everyday life of the school

· Social learning

· Integration

· Conflict management

· Prevention of violence

· School community events

· School Projects

Participation beyond the school

· Links to other schools, school networks

· Links to other institutions (Kindergarten; enterprises; local authorities; libraries, etc.)

· Links to the local community (local administrators, youth clubs, etc.)

· Regular meetings with local politicians (mayors, town councillors, etc.)

· International links and exchanges, integration in European school link projects

Support systems for the acquisition of competencies for participation

· Transmission of competencies and training for conflict resolution

· Communication training for pupils’ representatives

· Teacher training for issues connected with pupil participation

· Establishment of regional Service Points for class and school representatives

11.2 Trust – the precondition for change

Throughout this paper, we have been looking at various aspects suggested, approaches practiced and demands articulated in and by the education community in Europe with regard to a new understanding of pupils and their rights in a democratic school. The creation of the school as a democratic community, however, is not to be achieved overnight. It is a long and arduous process faced with many obstacles, oppositional forces and an incredible degree of inertia on the side of all groups concerned.

The one element that perhaps is most desperately needed to reach the objective of the democratic school is trust. Our education systems were and still are characterised by distrust:

· Distrust of pupils’ ability to develop self-responsibility for their own learning;

· Distrust of teachers’ ability to achieve good results in open learning situations characterised by more curricular freedom and autonomy;

· Distrust of schools’ ability to create a democratic environment through greater autonomy

· Distrust of all learning situations which are not regulated through curricular prescriptions and rules.

Reforming and reinventing the school for its function as a learning community can only be attempted successfully if “trust” is established as a principle in the education systems and becomes a visible signal from education policy makers to the schools and the education practitioners.

11.3 Towards a new “Culture of Living and Learning” in the school and its environment

A new “Culture of Living and Learning” in the school is not only possible; it is urgently needed and should be made a priority of education policies in Europe. There are several important pre-conditions for and elements of such a new culture:

· The new culture requires “trust” as the indispensable underlying fundament of all education processes.

· It must enable students to articulate their own opinions rather than passively receiving and repeating the opinions of adults.

· It must empower students to combine their everyday experience with their learning processes, to influence decisions regarding their learning and to practice democracy in their immediate environment.

· It must develop methods and ways to ensure the quality of teaching and learning, not only with regard to so-called “hard quality criteria” (like resources, school form, rules) but also to “soft criteria” (which are characterised by the school climate and atmosphere)[42]

· It must encourage self-initiative, responsibility and common spirit attitudes replacing procedures, administrative and learning processes which lead to distrust and de-motivation.

· It must create learning situations in which pupils are able to work on “open issues” rather than merely following a given and thematically restricted syllabus.

· It must create incentives for innovative pedagogues and must contribute to the re-invention of the teaching profession – teachers should become moderators and facilitators of the learning process instead of mere presenters of given contents.

· It must establish a new culture of collaboration in the school as part of the longer-term school development scheme.

· Finally, it must create more “open spaces” in the whole school and learning context to enable more flexibility, stimulate motivation and instil pupils with a sense of belonging and self-responsibility.

11.4 Towards a wider understanding of Democracy Learning and EDC

In theory and practice, all “political learning” in the school context must be seen and understood as “democratic learning”. “Empowerment” of the pupils for their future role as informed, critical and participative citizens in a democratic society requires the creation of participative structures and procedures and the opening-up of spaces for experiencing a feeling of trust, belonging and responsibility. These are elements which must be taken into consideration whenever we talk and discuss the issues of “Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC)”. Thus, following a definition developed in the context of the Council of Europe’s project Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC),[43] we should now add the element of democratic participation in the school context to our approach towards a Europe-wide consensus on Democracy Learning formulated in the Council of Europe’s EDC project:

Expanding the Definition of Democracy Learning

Democracy Learning

is deeply rooted in European educational ideas promoting democratic stability on an integrated and culturally varied continent;
is a multifaceted and multi-dimensional innovative bottom-up approach to facilitating active participation in democracy;
aims at helping pupils, young people and adults participate actively, creatively and responsibly in decision-making processes;
provides life-long opportunities for acquiring, applying and transmitting information, values and skills in a broad range of formal and non-formal educational and training contexts;
crosses over the borders between school and community and challenges the divisions between formal, non-formal and informal education, between curricular and extra-curricular activities as well as between schooling and socialisation;
promotes the reciprocity of teaching and learning and incites permanent exchanges of teachers’ and students’ roles;
strengthens a dynamic and sustainable democratic culture based on awareness and commitment to shared fundamental values: human rights and freedoms, equality and the rule of law;
strengthens social cohesion and solidarity and promotes inclusive strategies for all groups and sectors in a multicultural society;
recognises the importance of school democracy as an essential condition for learning and practising citizenship from an early age and as an important factor in creating a climate of trust and responsibility for preventing and combating violence at school.[44]

In the school, children for the first time in their lives encounter a social institution and have to deal with adult persons outside their family contexts. This early experience must be understood as a decisive factor influencing their later attitudes towards the state, the society, politics in particular and democracy in general. A “good school” is the place where the necessary skills and competencies for a “good life” can be acquired; it must therefore provide a space in which many – and perhaps hitherto unused, unorthodox and unconventional – opportunities exist for social learning, political debate, democratic co-determination and responsibility, as well as for the acquisition of social and democratic competencies, qualifications and skills which young people need for their future role as informed, responsible and participative citizens.

NOTES

[1]. For more information on the EDC Project see

http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/education/E.D.C./

[2]. See David Kerr et al., “All-European Study on Policies for Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC), Regional Study Western Europe Region, DGIV/EDU/CIT (2003), 21, Strasbourg 2003, and the Regional Studies for the Central European, Northern European, Southern European and Eastern European Regions.

[3]. Karikatur: Stefan Rasch; aus: Bundesministerium fuer Unterricht und kulturelle Angelegenheiten, betrifft: demokratie lernen, Heft 1, p. 8.

[4]. Mitja Sardoc, Pupil Participation in the Slovenian Public Education System, unpublished paper delivered at the Second German-Croatian Seminar on “Education for Democratic Citizenship”, Opatija/Croatia, June 2003, p. 1.

[5]. Bruno Losito, Educating for Democracy in a Changing Democratic Society. The possible role of schools in the civic education of students, unpublished national case study, Rome, Italy, 2003, p. 3.

[6]. Cf. Gerd Hepp/Herbert Schneider, Vorwort, in: Schule in der Buergergesellschaft, Schwalbach/Germany 1999, p. 5.

[7]. Tilman Grammes, a leading German political education expert, argues that more “courage for a discussion of the canon” (of contents) is needed in order to find out which are elementary and indispensable contents in this field. (See T. Grammes, Bilanz und Perspektiven der schulbezogenen Politikdidaktik: eine Wissenschaft ohne Gegenstand, unpublished Manuscript; quoted in P. Henkenborg, Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung als Herausforderung der Politikdidaktik: Thesen, Fragen und Aufgabenfelder; in: http://www.dvpb.de/polis/jahrgang/3_00/henkenborg.htm).

[8]. Cf. Dürr et al, op. cit. p. 10.

[9]. The European Commission, Directorate General for Education and Culture, Homepage, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education-culture/index-en.htm

[10]. MONEE Report – Young People in Changing Societies, quoted in: Aleksandra Vidanovic et al., Priorities, Tools and Proposals for Constructing National Youth Strategy and Policy, Ministry of Education and Sports, Republic of Serbia. Statement to the All-European Study on Pupils Participation, 2002.

[11]. C. Kehr, Wegweiser zur Fuehrung einer geregelten Schuldisziplin, in: Praxis der Volksschule, Gotha 1903, p. 65 ff, quoted in Zeitlupe 30, Bundeszentrale fuer politische Bildung, Bonn, p 8.

[12]. http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/index.html

[13]. There even exist interesting models for democratic learning in a wider meaning within Kindergarten and childrens’ pre-school education.

[14]. Quoted from G. Himmelmann: „Demokratie-Lernen als Lebens-, Gesellschafts- und Herrschaftsform“, in: G. Breit u. S. Schiele, Demokratie-Lernen als Aufgabe der politischen Bildung, Bonn 2002, S. 26.

[15]. See the Website of UNICEF (http://www.unicef.org) on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The following discussion draws on the description of Article 12 contained in the Website.

[16]. See Tilman Grammes, „Fallen für Demokratie-Lernen im alltaeglichen Politikunterricht“, unpublished presentation paper.

[17]. See G. Himmelmann 2002, p. 28 ff., and especially Figure 2 on p. 30. Himmelmann points to the original concepts behind these reflexions which are to be found in the works of George H. Mead and John Dewey, and especially in Dewey’s main work on “Democracy and Education” (1916) which contains the famous argument that democracy is not only a form of government but primarily a form of shared experience.

[18]. Himmelmann, G., Demokratie-Lernen als Lebens-, Gesellschafts- und Herrschaftsform. Ein Lehr- und Studienbuch, Schwalbach/Ts. 2001, p. 267.

[19]. Source: Himmelmann 2001, p. 269.

[20]. The class-room principles were taken from Ingrid Prote, Moeglichkeiten des Einuebens von Demokratie in der Grundschule, in: G. Hepp u. H. Schneider (Hrsg.), Schule in der Buergergesellschaft, Schwalbach/Ts. 1999, S. 210. I have added in parentheses democratic or Human Rights principles taken from the “Basic Law” (German Constitution).

[21]. RENGS: Regionales Netzwerk gesunder Schulen der Kantone Aargau und Solothurn; siehe Bericht „Partizipation – Kinder bestimmen mit“, in: Schulblatt AG/SO, 25, 2002, p. 22 ff.

[22]. Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Hrsg.), “Elevia – man denkt fast an Utopia. Schule als Staat – handlungsorientiert Demokratie lernen? Ein Unterrichtsprojekt”, Heilbronn/Stuttgart, September 2001.

[23]. L. Kreissler, B. Wunsch-Grafton, “Demokratie in der Praxis ist eine lustige Sache”
(Kurt Tucholsky) – Einleitung, in: Bundesministerium fuer Unterricht und kulturelle Angelegenheiten (ed.), betrifft: demokratie lernen, Heft 5, Vienna 1998, p. 2.

[24]. Karikatur: Stefan Rasch; aus: Bundesministerium für Unterricht und kulturelle Angelegenheiten, betrifft: demokratie lernen, Heft 5, p 24-25.

[25]. Cf. www.coe.int/t/e/integrated-projects/democracy/02-Activities/15-European-School-Charter/default.asp

[26]. Karikatur: Stefan Rasch; aus: Bundesministerium für Unterricht und kulturelle Angelegenheiten, betrifft: demokratie lernen, Heft 5, p. 24-25.

[27]. Please note: Whenever the formulation “In all countries” is used, it refers to the feed-back of this study, i.e. to those countries whose EDC co-ordinators completed and returned the questionnaire; the formulation, therefore, does not refer to “all European countries”.

[28]. Quoted from Fredrick Modigh, Pupils’ and students’ participation in Sweden, Country-Study supplied by the Swedish national EDC-Co-ordinator.

[29]. Österreichisches Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (bmbwk), Informationsblätter zum Schulrecht, Teil 2: Schuldemokratie und Schulgemeinschaft, Wien 2000, p. 5.

[30]. In the Federal Republic of Germany the responsibility for school affairs lies exclusively with the Länder (states). Therefore also pupils’ representation is located on the level of the Land (state).

[31]. J. C. Christiansen, “Pupil Democracy and Participation in Norway”, Statement to the All-European Study on Pupil Participation, 2003.

[32]. J. P. Harpes, “Pupil Participation and Education for Democratic Citizenship in Luxembourg Schools”, Statement to the All-European Study on Pupil Participation. 2003.

[33]. Schulinformations Zentrum, Behörde für Bildung und Sport, Hamburg, Januar 2004. The paper contains a detailed list of the parents’ rights in the school context.

[34]. Instituto Nacional de Calidad y Evaluación (INCE), Elements for a Diagnosis of the Spanish Educational System, Part 6: Family and school, Madrid: http//www.ince.mec.es/elem-e/cap6-5.htm

[35]. Malta Today Archives, 22 December 2002: http//www.maltatoday.com.mt/2002/12/22/issues.html

[36]. The Scottish Office, Parental Participation in School. Part 1.
http://www.Scotland.gov.uk/library/documents-w9/pps-00.htm (Emphasis by the author)

[37]. Source: The Scottish Office, Parental Participation in Schools, Part 1. http://www.Scotland.gov.uk/library/documents-w9/pps-00.htm (Emphasis by the author)

[38]. Fredrick Modigh, Pupils and Students Participation in Sweden, Statement for the All-European Study on Pupils Participation in School, 2003.

[39]. School Councils UK, Training for Local Education Authorities, 2003. http://www.schoolcouncils.org/training/leas/php

[40]. See SSEN, Case Study 31, http://www.ethosnet.co.uk

[41]. Karikatur: Stefan Rasch; aus: Bundesministerium für Unterricht und kulturelle Angelegenheiten, betrifft: demokratie lernen, Heft 5, p. 24-25.

[42]. Cf. Peter Henkenborg, Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung als Herausforderung der Politikdidaktik: Thesen, Fragen und Aufgabenfelder; in: http://www.dvpb.de/polis/jahrgang/3_00/henkenborg.htm

[43]. K. Dürr, V. Spajic-Vrkas, I. Fereira Martins, Strategies for Learning Democratic Citizenship, DECS/EDU/CIT (2000) 16, Strasbourg 2000, p. 74 (points 1-8).

[44]. Point 9: Council of Europe, Towards a Charter for Democratic Schools Without Violence, drafted by the Secretariat of the Integrated Projects 1 and 2, IP1-IP2 (2003)1, Strasbourg 2003, p. 2.