Abstract
This study concerns democracy in education examined through the lens of small-group instrumental teaching. Traditionally, one-to-one teaching in a master–apprentice approach has been the established norm for instrumental teaching and the same model has long characterised instrumental teaching in Sweden’s art and music schools (SAMSs, kulturskolor).1 However, although individual teaching is still the norm, group teaching is becoming more common on the grounds that it reduces costs, fees, and waiting lists while meeting children’s social needs. In this context, a “small group” is defined here as four to five pupils who are only taught as a group and have no individual teaching. Although these children are learning to play classical Western instruments, the music they play is a mix of genres, including folk, blues, and children’s songs. Although musical development is one of the main objectives, there are also social aspects to group teaching. Therefore, this case study explores how three instrumental music teachers at one SAMS manage the social potential of their small-group teaching practices and their strategies to enhance social inclusion. Democracy in an educational context is a complex, multifaceted concept that requires careful definition and implementation. As a starting point for further research, this study maps the relationships between concepts such as “social inclusion,” “sense of belonging,” and “child-centred teaching” and their significance in the context of democratic education. Even though social inclusion is often referred to in debates about unequal access, in the research reported in this article, it is understood as pupils feeling socially included in the group.
Keywords
Background
To gauge the potential for social inclusion in instrumental group teaching, it is necessary to understand the teaching context—the Swedish Art and Music School (SAMS)—and the democratic potential of education.
Swedish art and music schools
A SAMS is an after-school, extra-curricular, voluntary activity where children can learn music and other art forms such as dance, visual arts, and theatre. SAMSs were established in the 1940s to provide children from all backgrounds with affordable, accessible instrumental or singing lessons (Lilliedahl & Georgii-Hemming, 2009), mirroring the Nordic understanding of democracy (Rønningen, 2023). Each SAMS is funded predominantly by the local authority (Kulturrådet, 2022), leaving families to pay around 7% of the cost of tuition (Hahn et al., 2020). There is no legislation demanding that Swedish local authorities provide art and music tuition, but 286 out of 290 municipalities do so. SAMS activities have a strong local touch: local needs and conditions determine not only the fee families pay, ranging from nothing to SEK 1,720 or roughly USD 170 (TT News Agency, 2017), but also the subjects and forms of tuition that the SAMS offers. Although individual teaching is still the norm, group teaching is becoming more common (Kulturrådet, 2019) on the grounds that it reduces costs, fees, and waiting lists while meeting children’s social needs. This trend is not unique to Sweden; similar developments are taking place in other countries such as the United Kingdom (Hallam, 1998), Norway (Jordhus-Lier, 2018), Australia (Ashton & Klopper, 2018), and Israel (Ordo, 2018).
Sweden, a liberal democracy, has been ranked the fourth most democratic country in the world in 2024 (Nord et al., 2025). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), enshrined in the Swedish Constitution in 2020, stipulates that children’s best interests must be considered in all decisions concerning their welfare (Article 3). Adults are expected to find out and act upon what is best for the child (UNCRC, 1989). The original United Nations treaty does not explicitly mention “democracy,” but it does fall within the interpretation and remit of the Ombudsman for Children in Sweden (Barnombudsmannen, n.d.). 2 The specific Swedish context may, thus, have implications for how teachers discuss democratic education.
Despite inclusive ambitions, however, recruitment to SAMSs is skewed to favour middle-class, Swedish-born children (Kulturrådet, 2022). For that reason, Swedish music education researchers have investigated whether unequal access poses a threat to democracy (Di Lorenzo Tillborg, 2021; Jeppsson, 2020; Kuuse, 2018), and it is recognised that unequal access is thus the first obstacle to overcome to achieve democratic music education. Yet, the potential democratic aspects of actual teaching at SAMSs have not been examined in detail, even though the Swedish context has implications for how instrumental music teachers perceive “democracy” in their teaching practice.
The democratic potential of education
Democracy is a concept that entails different understandings and has long gone undefined in music education (Bylica, 2024; DeLorenzo, 2020). According to Carr (2014) and Davies (1999), students generally believe that democracy is synonymous with free and fair elections. Democracy in education can also be limited to equal access (Davies, 1999) or what Schneider (2021) calls “thin” democracy. My definition of a democratic teaching approach in this article is aligned with a “thick” description of democracy: the view that democracy is so much more than just voting and equal access (Bylica, 2024; Schneider, 2021).
As Dewey (2011) wrote in 1939, democracy is “a way of life.” Feu et al. (2017) and Teegelbeckers et al. (2025) argue that an open, safe classroom climate (meaning teaching practices that provide social-emotional support) is a prerequisite for democratic education, whereas the choice of teaching methods can either stimulate or inhibit various democratic competences. “Humanisation” is understood as essential to the promotion of democratic tendencies not only in school, but also in society at large (Sant, 2019). Democracy goes beyond acceptance and tolerance, embracing recognition of the other in what Feu et al. (2017) term “otherness”—respecting, welcoming, and including singularities. It replaces the narrow view of “rule by the majority” with the paradigm of respect for others (Feu et al., 2017).
Furthermore, democracy in educational settings is complex. Neither democracy nor education can ever be neutral because they unavoidably have political and ideological elements (Apple, 1979). Any discussion about the value of democracy thus has a normative dimension (Wikforss & Wikforss, 2021). Who decides what a “good” society is? Bylica (2024) notes it is often claimed that democracy is a goal of music education, whereas DeLorenzo (2020) argues that democracy is a vital dimension of music teaching. Even though the democratic purpose of their teaching practice is self-evident to most music teachers, the traditional educational methods for music learning may still be perceived as rather autocratic (Woodford, 2005). Above all, the master–apprentice tradition—which, even though it is not necessarily or universally problematic—is frequently used to exemplify a diametric opposition to democratic, child-centred teaching approaches (Dockan, 2024). Furthermore, while child-centred pedagogies were once thought to be clear examples of democratic education, this view has been increasingly contested. Laes et al. (2024), for example, argue that if democracy is associated with child-centredness from the adult’s perspective, they risk coming to incorrect conclusions and efforts to achieve a democratic practice may thus be ineffective. It is therefore crucial that teachers have a deep understanding of what comprises a democratic teaching approach. To move from a theoretical to a more operational understanding of democratic teaching, there are observable dimensions of pedagogical approaches that can be used as analytical frameworks. These can be, but are not limited to, participatory decision-making, power-sharing, and mutual respect. As such, the abstract dimensions of democracy can be identified as operationally applicable, making them more feasible for practitioners to enact and achieve.
Although a music teacher’s professional identity is influenced by historical, social, and cultural factors which affect their teaching practice, their didactic choices are also affected by their personal values embodied in their virtues as a teacher (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2015; Holdhus & Murphy, 2021). A music educator’s definitions and understandings of “democracy” thus determine how they teach (Bylica, 2024; Spruce, 2017).
Promoting social inclusion and sense of belonging in group music teaching
One important aspect of social inclusion is that pupils feel that they belong to a group. In this study, I follow Goodenow and Grady (1993) in holding a sense of belonging to be the “extent to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others” (pp. 60–61). Previous research has also made a connection between socially inclusive classrooms and pupils’ sense of belonging (e.g., Crawford, 2020).
The relationship between an adult music teacher and young pupils may be rendered less hierarchical when multiple pupils are taught simultaneously, creating a sense of safety for the young. Educational settings that provide socio-emotional support and a safe environment are key for learning and development (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2020), which is the fundamental principle of inclusive, democratic practice (DeLorenzo, 2020; Hayes, 2020). In child-centred teaching, it is crucial that pupils believe they are free to express their desires and negotiate with their teacher (Nielsen et al., 2023), and for that, they have to feel safe. Baño and Pozo (2022) suggest that the teacher’s role in group music-making should move from being an instructor towards being a facilitator of social interactions, which may also reduce the hierarchical distinctions in the relationship.
Learning music in a group setting has been shown to have a positive effect on children’s and young people’s emotional sensitivity, social skills, and teamwork (Hallam, 2010); spontaneous cooperative and helpful behaviour (Kirschner & Tomasello, 2010); empathy (Rabinowitch et al., 2013); and sympathy (Schellenberg et al., 2015). Yet although the literature dwells on the positive aspects of group music instruction, there are also potential negative aspects that should be addressed. The difficulty of balancing children’s different abilities and levels of skill, combined with reduced opportunities for individualising teaching, is one of the imminent risks of small-group teaching, because children who cannot keep up with the group may feel they have failed and ultimately stop learning. One of the teachers in my recent study (Knutsson, 2023 ) described tuition in SAMSs as a pyramid with a broad base and a narrow top, but that group teaching is one strategy to keep the base broad. Over time, pupils cease tuition, making the pyramid narrower. Rearranging pupils into heterogeneous groups is often the solution (Dehli et al., 1980; Hallam, 1998); however, this can have a negative impact on social bonds.
Theoretical framework
To examine how social inclusion can be achieved in music education, the findings of the present study were interpreted through the theoretical lens of Kenny’s (2016) communities of musical practice (CoMP). This lends itself to analysis of empirical material of this kind, especially as some of the fundamental principles of “thick” democracy underpin the framework. CoMP theory describes music teachers’ professional competences in facilitating the emergence of a CoMP—here, a children’s instrumental music group—and creating a beneficial learning environment where pupils can develop both socially and musically (Barrett, 2005; Kenny, 2016).
When members of a CoMP interact socially or musically, they build relationships and develop a sense of belonging and reciprocal commitment (Kenny, 2016). They use their musical practice to negotiate meanings and identities and to create a shared repertoire, which, according to Kenny (2016), is essential for a sustainable CoMP: the feeling of community and belonging is necessary for membership, and a CoMP’s collective knowledge is created through shared learning, collaborative input, and collective decision-making. These dimensions have corresponding democratic aspects. Even though CoMP theory is usually associated with informal musical learning, Barrett (2005) and Kenny (2016) argue that music educators should consider its application in formal learning contexts.
Methodology
The present study was based on three cases of teaching practice. A case study aims to draw plausible conclusions valid in a larger context based on a small sample (Widner et al., 2022). It uses triangulation of multiple methods to chart broader features and processes at work within a case and ultimately answer the research questions (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Hence, the various methods used here included interviews, observations, stimulated recall (SR), and a focus group interview (FGI). Case studies are particularly well-suited to disentangle causal complexity and to interrogate the role of contextual factors in shaping outcomes. The cases examined here cannot be meaningfully understood outside their pedagogical context (i.e., the group music lesson), and were carried out in close collaboration between the researcher and each teacher to capture the interplay between practice and setting.
The three study participants taught musical instruments at a SAMS (Table 1) that was specifically chosen because it was in a large city and consequently had a large student body to facilitate group teaching. All the music teachers who taught Western classical instruments at the SAMS were given verbal and written information about the study and asked to contact the researcher if they were interested in participating. Due to unfortunate external circumstances, only 3 of the 14 teachers who responded were able to participate in the study. Before the study, an application for ethical approval was submitted to and approved by the Swedish Research Council (Dnr 2020-06920). Written consent was obtained before the research began from both the participants and the pupils’ parents (who also were given verbal and written information about the study), and all were reminded that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any stage. In addition to written information and informed consent, the participating teachers’ identities were pseudonymised for the purposes of publication.
Teachers’ Backgrounds.
The interviews and observations took place at the teachers’ workplace in April and May 2022. In individual interviews (15–19 minutes), I asked each participant about their background, how they would describe the group to be studied, and if they had a specific area of interest on which they wished to focus (Table 1).
Three consecutive lessons (30–49 min) with each teacher participant were observed and filmed. After each, I interviewed the participant (37–52 min), watching sequences from the video recording together. For ethical reasons, participants did not watch one another’s footage. To obtain richer data to complement the individual interviews, a focus group interview (56 min) was held with all three participants to discuss themes that had emerged in the interviews and observations, share experiences, and elaborate on one another’s statements. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were analysed in light of the firsthand observations. The qualitative content analysis used NVivo 14 to thematise the extensive empirical material to answer the following research questions:
For this article, one of the deductively created main codes from the extensive dataset, “social dimensions of teaching,” was inductively sorted into five subcodes (Table 2).
Subthemes and Examples of “Social Dimensions of Belonging.”.
To ensure the transparency and consistency of the data analysis, an inter-rater reliability coding procedure was used as a post hoc validation of the author’s thematic interpretations, where a high degree of consensus between coders verified one particular interpretation of the data (Cole, 2024). I shared my anonymised NVivo codebook with two independent senior researchers, granting them access to the raw data to evaluate the trustworthiness of the coding. This procedure was grounded in a qualitative content analysis approach, in which large or small segments of text may be coded under multiple categories, and where code overlap is both expected and accepted. As the first coder opted to code larger text segments rather than individual sentences, to preserve context, measuring statistical inter-rater reliability was not feasible, as every divergence at the word or sentence level would artificially indicate disagreement even when coders’ interpretations were substantively aligned. Although independent coding within NVivo would have been preferable from a methodological standpoint, it was deemed impractical given the coding strategy employed.
Both independent coders agreed that the coding was accurate and that an impartial researcher would likely have arrived at the same conclusions. Moreover, they confirmed that the presentation of findings, grounded in the raw data, was appropriately nuanced and faithful to the material, and therefore the study met the quality criteria for trustworthiness and transparency. This was further ensured through performing member checks during data collection by asking follow-up questions for clarification and later by allowing the three participants to comment on the article before submission.
Findings
In all three cases, all teaching including group lessons took place in the school building. Of the three participants, Liam and Nora gathered their pupils on chairs in a row with a music stand for each pupil. Anna, however, varied between standing in a circle with music stands and being seated on the floor for extra-musical activities. Nora’s pupils also left their seats for extra-musical exercises without their instruments, moving to the other end of the room. All teachers taught music both by ear and from sheet music. All pupils in each of the groups played the same piece and were kept busy throughout the lesson—no one was left idle or had to take turns to play.
Different social interactions between the participants and their pupils were evident in all three cases. Pupils’ interactions were sparse in Liam’s group, but they showed implicit signals of group affiliation, whereas Anna’s and Nora’s groups served as explicit examples of the community element in a CoMP. The different character of the groups proved useful in the focus group interview, because the three participants could elaborate on their own experiences of teaching more talkative or quiet groups.
In what follows, using the five subcodes of “social inclusion” (Table 2), the teachers’ understandings of democracy in their teaching are explored; then, signs of pupils’ sense of belonging in their group; and, finally, pupils’ opportunities to influence how they were taught. Data excerpts from Stimulated Recall methods are indicated with the acronym SR, and those from the Focus Group Interview are indicated with the acronym FGI.
Difficulties in defining democracy in teaching
When asked about “democracy,” the participants fell silent. Nora questioned whether democratic teaching was even possible in such a context, because of the unavoidable hierarchical relationship (SR2). Even in what might be considered a democratic approach, such as letting pupils choose which of two pieces they will play first, the teacher has in fact independently decided which two pieces to choose from. Nora referred to this as a “make-believe democracy” (SR2).
The participants were asked if they knew of any prescriptive policies about democracy or similar policies at their SAMS (FGI). They tried to help one another remember, but in the end, Liam could remember only parts of one sentence—“we are to be available to all children in the city, or something like that” (FGI)—pointing to a focus on equal access. Anna said the approach “is somewhat underlying in some way” (FGI), signalling core values. Liam said that documents from a staff training day when they discussed how to implement the UNCRC “may be upstairs” (FGI) in the offices of the SAMS leaders and administrators. Instead of discussing strategies for creating democratic teaching situations, the participants discussed how to facilitate group affiliation.
Teachers’ strategies for creating group affiliation
All three participants displayed a strong focus on social issues. Making pupils feel comfortable, valued, seen, and appreciated is fundamental to creating group affiliation, and signalled that the participants were concerned about their pupils’ well-being and feelings of safety. This was achieved through considerate reflection, constantly accounting for children’s perspectives. Liam acknowledged that playing in a group may leave pupils feeling exposed in a way that individual teaching would not. In certain exercises, such as musical call and response, it was therefore important that pupils felt safe enough to dare to play by themselves, exposing their musical ideas in front of the other group members. All pupils in Liam’s group did play by themselves in these exercises, leading him to believe that there must be some kind of social community, even though they did not talk much. Anna agreed, saying that “social does not necessarily mean verbal interaction” (FGI). Liam said that he sometimes saw himself as blocking the emergence of group affiliation, interrupting pupils’ natural talk. He had noticed it if he left the room, for example, to copy a handout. Through the door, he could hear small talk, which ceased when he re-entered the room (FGI).
All the strategies Nora adopted were what she perceived as simply facilitating or laying foundations for group affiliation to emerge. In one of Nora’s games, the fruit salad game, all pupils had to switch seats each time they had played the piece. Pupils had to interact and cooperate to distribute the chairs, as no one could sit on each chair more than once. Nora described instructing older groups of pupils to put out chairs and music stands, not for themselves but for other pupils in the group, gently “forcing” them to notice one another’s needs (SR3).
In contrast, the pupils in Anna’s group often displayed a strong sense of group affiliation. For example, when they were recording a piece, one of the pupils encouraged another to get closer to the microphone with a friendly push, as the other three group members were already standing close. This signalled group affiliation and Anna acknowledged it to be a clear sign of community (SR3). Another way to instil group affiliation was mentioned by Nora (SR2). She allowed pupils to team up and play pranks on her. One of the games Nora frequently used was “the invisible wizard,” who magicked away a predetermined note that was omitted when playing the tune. In one film sequence (Observation 2), the pupils were seen whispering among themselves before playing a piece, and even though Nora clearly noticed, she pretended to be oblivious. When they started to play, everyone skipped the agreed-upon note. Nora pretended to be surprised and wondered if the invisible wizard had returned. The children looked happy and satisfied. One of the pupils then suggested an alternative explanation: “it could also be five playful children.”
Pupils’ contributions to shaping the teaching situation
Throughout the study, participants shared suggestions for how to increase pupils’ influence on how they were taught. They agreed that their pupils must be allowed to choose between different options, such as what part to play or which piece to play first (FGI). Nora and Anna had groups that offered impulsive suggestions about how they were taught, and both appreciated, followed, and encouraged their pupils’ initiatives. In Liam’s group, the pupils were very quiet, but Liam continued to ask the whole group open questions, inviting them to shape the teaching activities.
Anna described her role in the group’s songwriting as simply collecting all the pupils’ musical ideas and allowing them to decide collectively. When the group wrote their own song, they had to make many musical decisions, such as choosing whether the lyrics were to be in Swedish or English (Observation 3). They gave their opinions and arguments and then quickly came to a collective decision. One potential outcome of this approach was that the pupils could claim complete ownership of the song, and when they recorded it, they were all in agreement that Anna, though clearly the facilitator and co-composer, was not allowed to sing “their” song. Anna thought this was “absolutely wonderful” and “the ultimate fulfilment” of her mission (SR3).
Discussion
The findings suggested that the participants found it difficult to define democracy in their teaching, partly because of the hierarchical structure between teacher and pupils. Instead of democracy, teachers discussed the importance of helping pupils build group affiliation and creating a safe atmosphere, but also encouraging pupils to actively participate in shaping teaching situations. A child-centredness was evident in their stated concern for pupils’ perspectives and well-being. In discussing these findings in relation to previous research and the theoretical framework, I address the participants’ pedagogical strategies for facilitating social interaction and allowing CoMP to emerge, and the potential connections between instrumental group teaching and aspects of democracy.
The group format as facilitating democratic values
The findings showed that participants actively and consistently worked to convey inclusive values to their pupils and to encourage an atmosphere of tolerance, acceptance, and mutual respect between pupils, as noted in the literature (e.g., Hallam, 2010; Kirschner & Tomasello, 2010; Rabinowitch et al., 2013; Schellenberg et al., 2015). Anna stated that children playing in a group learnt to be considerate and not to put their own needs first. Nora went even further and gently “forced” pupils to go beyond acceptance and tolerance by meeting one another’s needs, such as setting out chairs and music stands for the group. This illustrates what Feu et al. (2017) describe as an “otherness” perspective, and may help children develop an ability to empathise and foster a sense of responsibility to act for the common good, which can be applied in other social and potentially political contexts.
Within a CoMP, members use shared practices to negotiate meaning and identity and to create a shared repertoire. This runs parallel to democratic processes, where citizens use dialogue and discussion to shape shared values and decisions. In the SAMS, the participants had the potential to create a safe, open learning environment where pupils dared to claim space, express their opinions, and participate in decision-making. Playing together in a group can thus be seen as a microcosm of a democratic society, where children can practice and internalise these essential values, implementing a democratic way of life.
The risk of “make-believe democracy”
Even though teachers may have the best intentions to teach in a democratic manner, it does not necessarily translate into successful democratic outcomes. Furthermore, democracy is characterised by normative perceptions of “good” society or “good” citizenship, in this case decided by the teacher. Even in what could be considered a democratic approach, such as allowing pupils to choose which of two pieces to play first, the teacher has in fact independently decided which two pieces to choose from, in what Nora referred to as “make-believe democracy” (SR2). Voting on trivial things is merely “thin” democracy in teaching, and highlights the need for actual, albeit limited, opportunities for pupil influence to be emphasised and developed.
Strategies to reduce teacher–pupil hierarchy
Even if participants strived for equality and child-centredness in their lessons, there remained a hierarchical relationship between them as knowledgeable teachers and their pupils. Liam’s perception that he might obstruct group affiliation (FGI) could have arisen because children perceived the teaching situation to be hierarchical and only made small talk when he exited the room. It has been argued that the highly hierarchical master–apprentice model may be antithetical to democratic ideals (Dockan, 2024), even if it is not inherently undemocratic. Therefore, teachers must challenge traditional hierarchies and, as the participants in this study clearly did, teach with their pupils rather than to them. That Nora allowed the children to play pranks on her was a clear example of a playful attempt to reduce hierarchy and strengthen group affiliation, and the talk of “five playful children” was an indication that pupils considered themselves to constitute a CoMP.
Using a child-centred teaching approach as a strategy to reduce hierarchy means a teacher takes into account pupils’ well-being and perspectives, which helps to strengthen children’s sense of belonging and inclusion in the group. The UNCRC (1989), enshrined in Swedish law, underlines the importance of putting the best interests of the child first in all decisions concerning children, linking child-centredness to the fundamental democratic principles of rights and influence. Child-centred teaching can also be linked to democracy by recognising children’s right to be heard. In turn, Kenny’s (2016) theory of CoMP can be connected to the principles of “thick” democracy, which emphasise mutual respect, recognition, participation, and a strong sense of community. When pupils develop a sense of belonging in their music group and feel accepted, respected, and supported, this may be a foundation for broader democratic community where individuals feel included and valued. As this study shows, there are both explicit and implicit signs that pupils form CoMPs. For example, communication can be both verbal and musical, and pupils interact and negotiate with their teacher to shape the teaching situation, signalling that they feel safe.
Encouraging pupils’ sense of ownership
A CoMP can only evolve from its members (Kenny, 2016), but in an education setting, some assistance from the teacher may be needed. In this study, participants facilitated social interactions by asking questions and allowing pupils to express their opinions (Baño & Pozo, 2022). When participants encouraged their pupils to shape their teaching, they gave them a sense of involvement and ownership essential for a CoMP characterised by democratic values. One illustrative example was Anna’s effort to let her pupils take full ownership of their creativity, learning to listen and respect one another’s musical ideas and to compromise to reach a common musical goal.
Personal values versus policy documents
The participants’ teaching strategies were intended to be child-centred; however, when they discussed a staff day on the theme of the UNCRC (1989), they could not describe any particular outcome. Instead, Liam referred to a document that could be found on a shelf in an administrator’s office, an example of a “paper exercise.” This implies that SAMS teachers were not explicitly governed by policies prescribing democratic, child-centred teaching, even though they implemented and discussed their teaching in such terms. It is therefore plausible that their teaching was mainly based on their personal values, as stated by Cribb and Gewirtz (2015) and Holdhus and Murphy (2021).
Following on from earlier research that suggested that music educators may be reluctant to connect music education to democracy (Woodford, 2005), the findings from this study were undlear as to whether participants hesitated to link the two or were simply unable to formulate how their teaching was democratic. They may have considered democratic values an obvious part of their teaching practice, or lacked the professional language to describe them. Alternatively, they may have regarded democracy as being limited to voting rights and equal access. The fact that Sweden often ranks highly on democracy indices may also be an explanation: democracy is sometimes taken for granted and not often reflected on.
Teachers as democratic role models
According to Teegelbeckers et al. (2025), teachers must act as role models of democratic values and behaviour. They must be honest, fair, and respectful when interacting with their pupils. The teacher’s role is thus to encourage dialogue and collaboration, and to create an environment characterised by trust, respect, safety, reciprocity, care, and participation where pupils can express themselves and grow. The teaching I observed embodied all such values.
One important aspect of a CoMP is the members’ sense of belonging. In children’s small-group learning, this requires that the teacher create an inclusive environment where everyone feels involved. Both Barrett (2005) and Kenny (2016) argue that music teachers should consider their classrooms to be CoMPs. The role of the teacher cannot be overstated, then, because it is they who shape the learning environment to instil democratic values by their conscious pedagogical choices. The shared power to determine content and pedagogy to reflect core democratic principles is central to a democratic education. It can, however, be complex and challenging to balance pupils’ wishes and needs and teachers’ professional judgement, as noted by the participants in this study. Teaching multiple pupils simultaneously, each with their own desires, potentially makes democratic group teaching more demanding than democratic one-to-one teaching.
Conclusion
This article set out to define democracy in music education and to chart how it is understood and internalised in a group learning context. It is perhaps far-fetched to equate sense of belonging, child-centred teaching, and humanist values with the concept of democracy, yet all these qualities point to the lived experience of respectful, democratic citizenship with an “otherness” perspective, acting for the common good. A music group at a SAMS may be only one of many communities that children will encounter where they can learn democratic skills, but group music-making requires particular cooperation skills and can be a favourable arena for them to hone democratic identities.
The main findings showed that the three music teachers were concerned with their pupils’ well-being and actively worked to make them feel safe, seen, and appreciated. Basic humanist ideals such as providing a positive, safe, and supportive classroom, a child-centred teaching approach, and actively working in children’s best interest (UNCRC, 1989), were understood as indisputably desirable, whether they could be equated to democratic teaching or not. Still, teachers encouraged collaboration and dialogue among their pupils—skills that are connected to becoming active, democratic citizens. Active participation can help pupils develop a sense of ownership and agency, allowing them to experience firsthand the power and responsibility of making choices in a collective setting.
I have pointed out the limitations of applying the concept of democracy in educational settings of this type. There is a hierarchical relationship that cannot be completely eliminated because the teacher acts as an authority who knows how to play and teach. Although a CoMP can provide a framework for collaborative music practices that foster a sense of belonging, inclusion, and reciprocal commitment, it does not inherently guarantee democratic values. Therefore, there is a need to further explore how a CoMP can contribute to democratic values in music education and to the development of a professional language to describe and analyse such processes. A clearer definition and awareness of what democracy can be in a group teaching context has the potential to further strengthen democratic music education.
Nevertheless, whether teacher or pupil, the experience of democracy will be subjective. What a teacher intends as a democratic teaching approach may not necessarily be perceived as a democratic learning environment by pupils. The UNCRC (1989) stipulates that it falls to us as adults to identify what is in a child’s best interest and act on it, and therefore, if we are to have a complete picture of how democracy can be implemented in education, it is essential to include pupils’ voices. The results of this study are based on adults’ interpretations of how children perceive music teaching and assumptions of what their behaviours and actions may mean. But do the pupils experience the teaching as inclusive and democratic? Do they feel a sense of belonging? Do they feel that their voices are being heard and their contributions valued? These are issues that need to be further explored.
Footnotes
Author Contribution(s)
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
