Learning democracy in a new secondary school

Abstract

This article presents, first, the theoretical framework developed in a three-year research project that was designed to enable the authors to analyse the characteristics and quality of democracy in 10 centres (five primary schools for children aged from 3 to 12 and five secondary schools for children aged from 12 to 16). Second, students and teachers of one of the participating schools in the region of Barcelona explained their experience of participation as a way of living democratic citizenship education. Last, the article analyses what the authors have learned from this secondary school, as well as a number of research conclusions that allow one to understand some of the important aspects of how students live their condition of democratic citizenship in the school itself.

No one is born a good citizen; no nation is born a democracy. Rather, both are processes that continue to evolve over a lifetime. Young people must be included from birth. A society that cuts itself off from its youth severs its lifeline. (Annan, 1998)

Introduction

Many citizens today demand an active, critical and committed role in confronting the social conflicts and inequalities of today’s world that make the establishment of genuine social justice increasingly difficult. The debate surrounding education for democracy, according to Crouch (2004), arises out of the deterioration of government institutions and the principles of equity. Some essential elements for democratic empowerment have been stripped away by the economic powers that define, on a global scale, the rules of the game. We also know that schools cannot cope with these problems alone, or solve the problems of Western democracies (Biesta, 2006). Being aware of these limitations, in this text we present, first, the theoretical framework developed in a research project with the aim of building, together with the schools participating in the research, an analytical framework that would enable us to analyse the quality of democracy in the centres. Second, the authors of this article (two researchers from the project and two teachers from the centre) will analyse the experience of the teachers and students. This is one of the five participating secondary schools. It is an example of education for citizenship understood as a way of life, as a process (Osler and Starkey, 2005), and not as a result to be achieved in the future. Last, we close the article with a reflection on what we have learned from this secondary school, as well as some conclusions that allow us to understand some aspects of how students live their condition of democratic citizenship in the school itself, because in it they function as citizens (Biesta et al., 2009).

Democracy and education

As we have argued elsewhere (Simó, Parareda & Domingo, 2016), in the current social and political context, the definition of democracy in schools is both ambiguous and problematic. The conception of what democracy should involve can all too easily be reduced to the presence of pupil and/or teacher representatives in school governing bodies, where their ability to influence school life is limited to participating in discussions about relatively peripheral matters. For many, including the authors, this conception is far too limited. We take the view that schools ought to promote some democratic form of life in which deliberation and democratic decision-making, the resolution of conflicts, and responsible cooperation and participation are all present – all elements that are essential in maintaining democratic forms of life.

Hence, the starting point of schooling is that children and youth must have the power to express their points of view and opinions on all matters affecting them or on those that influence the context of schools. This means that students have to be able to participate in their schools as citizens and be able to influence the decision-making processes that affect them directly, since this is the path that may ensure democratic health in educational centres (McLellan et al., 1999; Samdal et al., 1998).

Based on the idea that young adults must also be able to exercise their citizenship within their schools, we adopt the concept of ‘citizenship-as-practice’ (Lawy and Biesta, 2006), connected to the quotidian dynamics of the democratic experiences that young people encounter both inside and outside the school, and we disagree with the concept of ‘citizenship-as-achievement’ of the school path. Lawy and Biesta (2006) explain that the idea of ‘citizenship-as-achievement’ involves understanding that individuals can only exercise citizenship once they have experienced a certain educational trajectory and development of maturity. This approach excludes children and youth from the opportunity to live and learn from their current condition as citizens.

On the other hand, in the ‘citizenship-as-practice’ approach, there are no differentiated states – that is, citizens and those who are not yet citizens. To understand citizenship as practice means that it cannot be an experience unique to adults, but rather involves a change in social relationships among all age groups (Wyn and Dwyer, 1999). Therefore, young people live and experience their current condition of citizenship (Biesta, 2005; Faulks, 2006) not only at school, but also with their family, friends, the media, and so on.

Citizenship education in a democratic school

Although there are diverse contexts in which to learn this type of citizenship and experience it at the same time, the school is the only institution that enables this citizenship learning for all youth (Edelstein, 2011). Based on this idea our research focused on youth participation in schools to learn citizenship in a democratic way.

Democracy is not simply a form of government, but rather a relational process – fundamentally, a ‘mode of associated living, a conjoint communicated experience’ (Dewey, 1966: 87). Only in this way can trust be built, allowing relationships in which all the participants – in this case, pupils and teachers – feel that they are full partners (Thornberg and Elvstrand, 2012).

Our research group attempted to operationalise the concept of democracy to help schools think of ways they could improve democratic practices in everyday school life. As we have detailed elsewhere (Feu et al., 2017), we have articulated the concept of school democracy from four dimensions. First is governance, which involves the community members’ participation in all the bodies and processes related to decision-making. It affects the relationship between members of the educational community in order to develop a common interest.

Second is inhabitance, which refers to the set of actions that make the educational community, and especially students, feel good and be able to fulfil their main task: to be autonomous citizens who have good judgment, are able to relate well with others, are happy and successfully complete the various stages of the education system. The research group also uses the term ‘atmosphere’ as a synonym for this term to explain that we are referring not only to the physical conditions of the centre, but also to the structures and relations that are built between people. This is a broad and diverse principle that we have centred around three issues: actions designed to provide a good reception for the community (especially students, teachers and families); strategies that favour educational success for all; and, lastly, those relating to educational infrastructures and human, economic and pedagogical resources, described as the quality of the shared life. It involves three fundamental aspects: the minimum conditions that make possible the participation of each one of the members of the school community; the receptiveness and quality of the shared life and the sense of well-being of the contexts in which participation occurs; and the kind of relationships that take place in the centres between all members.

Third is otherness, which is understood as being embodied in the practices, discourses, initiatives, policies or projects that are established in order to recognise (respect, welcome, include) and positively assess the ‘other’ (who is the minority, unconventional, counterhegemonic, etc.). We use the concept of ‘otherness’ in a positive sense in that we aim to give value to the other who is different from the perspective of normalisation and respect, and not of tolerance. This appraisal of otherness leads us to value ‘diversity’ as a term that seeks to include all individuals from a conception of equal opportunity for everyone. In this respect, the term ‘diversity’ can also be used as a synonym. In this meaning, democratic practice consists not only of ‘tolerating’ the other, but also of giving them visibility and ‘normalised’ treatment, resituating the relations of power and domination between the hegemonic and the peripheral. This exercise involves understanding the other in all their complexity and taking into account their own frame of reference, as well as their cultural and symbolic universe.

These three dimensions demand a fourth, transversal dimension, ethos, which is understood as the humanist values and virtues needed in order to make this democracy possible. Therefore, it is necessary that these virtues and values permeate the relationships, culture and daily life in schools. Only through these four dimensions will it be possible to enable teachers, students and families to participate fully in schools’ democratic processes.

From these four dimensions we were concerned with understanding how democracy is present in the classroom, taking into account that, as Dewey (1966) states, if we want to live in a democracy, opportunities have to be offered to individuals to understand what it means to live in such a way and how this life has to be guided. We must therefore bear in mind that it is not possible to have an education for citizenship without the cognitive learning of what democracy is and how to experience it. As Edelstein (2011) asserts, school practices must combine efforts and methodologies to promote learning about democracy, through democracy and for democracy. In sum, to speak about democratic learning in schools means to identify the opportunities that youth have to learn democracy or citizenship – that is, to analyse the spaces of democratic practice that the centres promote, what their scope is and how the youth experience it.

Finally, we would like to highlight that democratic processes cannot be automatically implemented, neither spontaneously nor by chance; they require a strong certainty to move forward towards more participatory and open processes. In order to implement a transformation, there must be changes in the regularities of daily school life; this, ultimately, requires a strong institutional commitment (Fielding and Rudduck, 2002). As Watson and Fullan (1992: 219) state: ‘[It] will not happen by accident, good will or establishing ad hoc projects. [It] require[s] new structures, new activities, and a rethinking of the internal workings of each institution’.

From an epistemological and methodological point of view, our approach to the schools is from an interpretative paradigm with a qualitative research methodology. We conducted 10 case studies (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Stake, 1995) in five primary schools (for children aged 3–12) and five secondary schools (for children aged 12–16) located in Catalonia. This article focuses on some of the conclusions from the fieldwork conducted in one of the five secondary schools. We engaged them in a collaborative relationship in order to analyse together the process of democratisation that they were experiencing. The research team used three criteria to invite centres to join the project. First, we read the Educational Project of the schools on their websites (the framework document about the activities of each institute) in order to ascertain the connections between democracy, participation and inclusive education, and the learning activities for students; second, we found centres with different social compositions of students and families; and third, we asked each centre whether they were interested in being involved in the project. The fieldwork began in 2013 and ended in 2015.

In the 2013–2014 school year, we started the fieldwork with one semi-structured interview with the school principal and the entire school management team. Then we conducted two focus groups with students, two with teachers and two with families in order to learn about the discourses on democracy and participation of all the members of the community who wanted to participate. Afterwards, we selected with them those educational practices in which it was possible to identify important elements related to democratic learning and citizenship. In the following school year, we conducted 24 observations in selected learning activities (10 for school support brigades, 8 for community service and 6 for collaborative work). The data-gathering focused on observing these selected practices and analysing how to create spaces for democratic participation and civic learning, as well as collecting the voices of the youth as the main participants in these processes.

The story of the experience of this centre provides clues to understanding the complexity involved for a centre in stimulating a process of action and reflection surrounding improving the participation of all stakeholders in the educational community, in order to move towards a more democratic school. In the following section, we will contrast the teachers’ perspectives with the students’ voices collected during the fieldwork regarding their experience of participation in the school.

‘Taking Part’: an experience of participation, citizenship and democracy

The centre under discussion is a public secondary school located in a municipality to the north of Barcelona. As a publicly owned centre, its Educational Project links its objectives to the academic and personal improvement of students, but also gives special relevance to the development of the skills necessary for the acquisition of social consciousness and the learning of the values related to it: responsibility, social entrepreneurship, respect for differences and citizenship.

The centre also maintains a close relationship with the community to help students become involved by participating in collective projects to protect, preserve and improve it. Thus, students participate in work projects that are socially and vitally relevant, and pose challenges and questions which are difficult to resolve, during the four years of their study at the centre. In this way, they have the opportunity to learn to strive and use all of their capacities, and share them, to achieve objectives that in one way or another represent a collective improvement. In order to achieve this, the centre works from four pedagogical principles that guide the teaching: innovation, research, communication and the practice of sports. In addition, the work methodology is based on collaborative work and the management of diversity from an inclusive model. The objective of the centre is the development of learning that makes individuals capable of improving themselves, others and their environment in the context of a process that accompanies students in the development of both their personal and social selves.

The ‘Taking Part’ (Prendre Partit) experience began in the 2010–2011 academic year, which coincided with the year of the establishment of the centre. Without being particularly conscious of it, the centre’s Educational Project already expressed a desire to create an open and participatory environment. Its participation in the project was essential for the teachers to recognise the many-sided dimensions of the term ‘participation’ and discover that participation, democracy and inclusion were intimately related concepts and capable of being taught.

The road map: towards full participation

The centre started the ‘Taking Part’ experience for participatory practice in secondary school because of its conviction that, through participation, students and teachers learn. The purpose was to put into place a series of pedagogical principles and priorities explicitly stated in the Educational Project of the centre. The implementation of this document, which is at the same time consistent with the new secondary school curriculum (Decret 187/2015), has enabled the centre to chart a route based on self-awareness to experience the most social dimension: citizen participation.

At the root of the ‘Taking Part’ experience, the teachers believed that only a framework of inclusion enables diverse spaces where everyone can live their citizenship. The aim is to normalise participation in both personal and social aspects, emphasising the involvement in the experience of groups with less tendency to participate.

In the following sections, the article shows the central activities of participation, consistent with the Educational Project. We will contrast the different points of view from the teachers and students who have participated in the research project. The aim is to contrast the opportunities and challenges of this journey in order to improve the quality of democracy in this school.

Construction of the personal self

Dual tutoring

The centre implements a dual-tutoring system: individual tutoring and group tutoring. In individual tutoring, each teacher acts as an individual tutor to 10–12 pupils. Every pupil can talk to their tutor whenever they need to. On some occasions, a student’s family also participates in these meetings with the teacher. Group tutoring consists of a one-hour weekly session where students from all school grades come together in order to facilitate the organisation of activities by group, level or cycle. A group tutor leads each group.

From the students’ perspective, individual tutoring is a valued guided and reflective space that each student shares with a teacher who provides individualised monitoring of their academic and personal development. This kind of relationship with a teacher is essential for consolidating an atmosphere of well-being in the school. For the students interviewed, the role of the tutor is vital in establishing a broad sense of trust with his or her group and a climate of dialogue in the classroom:

Researcher: But tutorials are a space for debate.

Student 1: Well, in our case, we could say ‘No’.

Student 2: It also depends on the tutor. … but M and I have a tutor who gives us confidence. We can explain anything and she will try to help us. She is always very close to us, especially for our studies.

These tutoring groups are also an excellent test laboratory for initiating participatory processes where the teacher’s role is crucial in encouraging students to express their own opinions, and requires them to be able to understand the viewpoints of others and establish dialogue processes in order to improve their understanding of a problem. However, some students regarded tutoring-group sessions as being too busy:

Student 4: There are group tutorials, but they are too organised … We have to do this activity, that other … I don’t know why, and it’s not just being a tutorial.

Student 3: So, we cannot speak. We do activities – that is, we can talk about something very urgent, but if not …

Student 1: Everything is very marked.

Student 3: Yes, we are already doing activities that teachers have planned.

The work done with the teachers throughout the research has allowed them to identify the need to find more spaces during school hours where students can express their opinions and discuss them in an open and spontaneous dialogue, and not only in planned learning activities.

Participation in evaluation: self-evaluation and co-evaluation

Teachers understand evaluation as the starting point of learning and consider it vital for students to take part. They encourage as much as possible both self-evaluation and, especially, the co-evaluation of the activities that they carry out in all subjects, usually using assessment rubrics. In this way, they make students aware of the learning objectives, their progress, the goals achieved and possible improvements. As the students commented, they feel that they have a primary role in their evaluation:

Researcher: Can you participate in the evaluation? How do you participate in the evaluation?

Student 1: Yes, when we do some assessment rubrics.

Student 2: This tool allows us to know how to do our work better. You know, how to improve the criteria of the assignment. You can predict the mark you will get if you do well.

Student 3: And you can check the assignment again before giving it to the teacher.

Student 1: Some teachers let us choose the points that we want to assess.

Student 4: So, we discuss these points together.

The active role of students is present in one of the most controversial issues of learning activities: assessment. They make decisions on co-evaluation and they have a say in their own learning process through the rubrics. Even if the students consider their role in assessment to be positive, they also admit that it can mean being assessed more strictly, as they consider themselves ‘harder’ evaluators than the teachers. Occasionally, the students can participate by choosing some points to be assessed in some rubrics.

Construction of the participatory self

Collaborative work and peer learning

At this centre, all of the classrooms are organised in groups of 20 students who, in turn, are distributed in cooperative groups of four or five students. They collaborate in resolving tasks and problems. In this way, the teachers ensured that the students could understand such democratic concepts as difference, inclusion and negotiation. Similarly, collaborative classrooms promote peer learning and foster a better acquisition of knowledge. The experience of participation in collaborative work needs to be learned by students, and they discovered the benefits of co-evaluation:

Student 1: In our first year, I remember that we complained about cooperative groups. I guess [it was] because we were not used to working with different colleagues in each group. There were always problems, with the members of the group, but now, well … at least I do, I like all the groups, because I know how to work with everyone. I also know that I can score and rate the work that my teammates have done, with the co-evaluation.

School support brigades

The school support brigades are teams of students who help teachers in the organisation and operation of the centre. They operate in 30-minute time slots two days a week. Currently, these teams include the Community Management Team (dealing with the communication of the centre on social networks), the Green Team (maintenance and gardening), the Masters Team (support for pupils with academic difficulties), the Bicycle Team (cycle repairs), the Interior Team (decoration), the Mouse Team (computing), the Speaker Team (recording texts for students with reading difficulties), the Library Team (management and maintenance of the school library) and Delegates (communication between students and the school management team). One member of the Delegates, a school representative, commented: ‘In this group, we feel free to make suggestions to the management team and promote changes at school’.

The dialogue between the research group and the teachers after the observations of the school support brigades has enabled them to realise the potential as a space for participation. The research team observed that every student could express their preferences when they created a group, and that there are no barriers to learning and participation, because everyone can choose a brigade and feel involved in the tasks that each team has agreed to do for the centre. These kinds of activities are possible because the teachers feel a great sense of esteem for the pupils, as some of the students asserted:

Student 1: The relationship you have with the teachers – so there is a lot more confidence, some are more and others less …

Student 2: I believe that teachers give us much confidence.

This sense of trust causes students to feel more motivated and increases their sense of responsibility, since they must make decisions that are in the school’s best interests. Finally, the research showed that the role of the ‘delegates’ was not sufficiently defined, so in 2016 the centre created the Delegates brigade. Here, students make contributions and proposals that have emerged in class; once they have taken shape, they communicate them to the management team and the school board.

The road to citizenship or the environment as a stage for participation

The centre promotes a respectful approach in its relationship with the environment. Thus, it has created various organisational, curricular and management strategies, such as the Stream of Esperança (Torrent de l’Esperança) sustainability project. This project consists of intervention in a natural area adjacent to the centre which has been given over to educational and social use; a botanical garden and pond have been created by the students on the school grounds for the study of natural sciences from a practical perspective, while the garden and fruit trees help them to study the cycle of nature. According to one student:

It is great to have a pond as it allows us to carry out some work projects there. For example, we have learned how to identify different species of animals and plants that live there through observation. Undoubtedly, this is an easier and more fun way to learn this content (and much better than learning it through books or websites).

Community service

The community service activity seeks to ensure that students experience and be at the forefront of civic engagement activities, learn in the active exercise of citizenship and put into play their knowledge and capacities to serve the community. Using service-learning methodology, the acquisition of skills in the classroom (10 hours) and competence development are combined with social action (10 hours minimum) responding to a previously detected need in the environment – local or otherwise. One of the strengths of this activity is that a wide range of services are being carried out simultaneously, including aid in schooling, intergenerational exchange, the environment, heritage, sustainability and digital literacy.

As the research group stated, this diversity adds organisational complexity to the project but fosters the autonomy of students, encouraging them to make their own decisions about the project they wish to develop. The students said that they could choose a community service that everyone would like to take part in, and each community service group analysed the needs of and defined their own goals with the community partner. One of the students commented:

Choosing the service we want to carry out really helps you to be motivated and give quality aid … Even if at the beginning you may feel lost, making your own decisions has helped us to become more autonomous and assume more responsibilities.

It is evident that a project like this affects the environment in a very clear way, while at the same time requiring it for its development.

Citizens of the world

In the current context, education for participatory citizenship can no longer remain limited to the local community. The process of globalisation that has occurred in recent decades forces us to understand that our field of action must go beyond our most immediate environment and, therefore, include practices of international participation which, in turn, will also enable us to address global issues. These are manifested in international community service projects such as Project Rwanda, which develops teaching materials for the St François Coll Nursery School (Ruli) and Santo Domingo School (Kakugu) in Rwanda, or Inventors for Change, a project that consists of creating animation with Scratch to disseminate information on a global problem and propose small changes at a local level to combat it. The topic for 2017 was the right to education. In previous years, it has worked on refugees and gender equality, and empowering women.

In these kinds of projects and cooperative groups, the research group has observed that the capacity of young students to make decisions and give opinions comes from within the group. Consequently, the decision-making processes in which they intervene are related to ongoing curricular activities that involve coordination among members of the group and making decisions concerning certain aspects of the learning under way. In these activities, the structuring of timetables and content changes because it is necessary to adapt them to meaningful activities, as does the role of the teacher, who becomes a guide and mediator.

Project evaluation and prospects for the future

The analysis of the students’ participation throughout the experience showed that the centre wanted to analyse how it could improve students’ participation in various learning activities. In this regard, the collaboration and dialogue with the research group has provided it with an external perspective, and it was able to advance in terms of possibilities to encourage genuine student participation in the school by offering students effective training to learn to participate actively in society and empowering them to do so. We have observed that the fact that these activities have been implemented is a significant element in the centre’s commitment to the experience of democracy. It must be noted that all the analysed activities occupy a significant position in the school’s schedule and form part of the curriculum.

In addition, the centre aims to include, and succeeds in including, all of its students in the experience. The diversity of the different practices of participation, their transversality and, above all, their continuity throughout the educational stage make this a truly inclusive experience, where everyone has a place and where the individual strengths of each student are enhanced. Moreover, it has also succeeded in creating areas of participation with a strong impact on the environment that are sustainable over time, such as the sustainability project and community service.

In addition, all of these participation strategies have involved a substantial change in the work dynamics of the teachers, who, necessarily, must be more participatory and collaborative. An example of this is the joint leadership of the management of the centre, which involves a managerial team, an inclusion committee, a pedagogical committee and technical committees.

What we can learn from this school

At the centre under discussion, we see a correspondence between the experience of democracy, through various educational spaces that are constructed based on the school’s Educational Project (described in the previous section), and the learning of citizenship. This case highlights one of the results of the research project: that schools which create more spaces where teachers and students experience horizontal participatory processes, through learning activities and methodologies, offer a greater number of opportunities to learn democratic processes. This participatory process is based on an Educational Project that is concerned with the growth of each individual (personal self) and group (group self), and citizen participation. It is necessary to diversify and strengthen the places and moments where students can debate, express opinions and make decisions. In this experience, the school offers a wide range of situations where a significant number of decisions are shared between the teachers and students, and respected by families.

Key elements of democracy in the centre

In our analysis of the dimensions of democracy in this centre, it can be observed that the three agents – students, teachers and families – have an active role in the actions in which they take part. Each of them participates in actions in which one of the dimensions prevails. The results of our research showed that democracy in schools is stronger if the school is able to share these three dimensions, but that this is not easy. Therefore, while teachers wield more decision-making power (governance), students tend to exercise power over the actions that contribute towards an atmosphere of well-being (inhabitance), and families have greater influence on the activities that are closely associated with diversity (otherness).

In terms of governance, the students experience a broader range of situations where they make decisions, even though they themselves recognise that there are areas of decision-making that are specific to teachers. In this centre, we have shown that when students debate and make decisions, they activate deliberative processes and make their decisions, more often than not, by establishing processes of consensus, rather than by voting. With regard to the families, those with whom we spoke do not consider that they play a key role in decision-making in the school, and believe that their participation is meaningful when it is necessary for the proper functioning of the centre. As our research results showed, participation is crucial to engage students in a process of decision-making in more kinds of decisions, but the point is how much power teachers were able to share with the students and families to increase democracy in the school.

Regarding the analysis of inhabitance, one of the consequences of these more horizontal relationships shared by students and teachers is the relaxed and dynamic climate that exists in the school. Students feel respected and recognised, and consequently their emotional connection to the school community is high, and this allows conflicts of coexistence that may arise to be openly confronted. This climate is possible because the young people feel that their participation is genuine and effective in terms of the centre’s response to their proposals and initiatives. Families value the climate of proximity for both themselves and their children. In our research, there were some differences between the schools in terms of inhabitance. We found that where the relationships between students and teachers are more horizontal, participation and learning are enhanced in a more complex way.

In terms of diversity (otherness) most of the centres address this dimension as far as students’ learning is concerned by an individualised follow-up of each student, and they opt to monitor students in heterogeneous groups and ordinary classrooms in order to foster assistance and cooperation among peers. Our results found differences in terms of diversity in those centres that organised an individual follow-up of each student outside of the classroom in remedial classes. Consequently, learning in heterogeneous groups is essential for improving the sense of belonging of every student in the school, and for enhancing learning possibilities.

In the research, we found that in activities where the community is involved, such as community service and crossover projects with cultural connotations (e.g. the sustainability project), the three dimensions have a greater presence. Our research found differences in those centres where these kinds of activities are scheduled in the timetable and are consistent with the Educational Project. These experiences are considered a main subject of learning, not merely a sporadic learning activity.

With regard to ethos, the analysis of the values that emerge from reading about the experience, as related by the school itself, along with the fieldwork allows us to affirm that values are present in educational activities and everyday school life in the form of attitudes, norms and ways of doing things. This does not mean that this coherence is easy to maintain because, on many occasions, dilemmas arise related to the limits of student participation in the life of the centre, the involvement of all teachers in the Educational Project, the role of families in decision-making or the application of disciplinary rules to those students who exhibit conflictive behaviour. These dilemmas are experienced as educational challenges where it is necessary to employ new actions and processes that are more in line with the educational philosophy of the centre. Two examples are the creation of the Delegates brigade in 2016 and the creation of the Mediators brigade in 2017, in which a group of students provides emotional support to students who have had some type of conflict in order to seek conflict-resolution alternatives to the disciplinary sanctions related to expulsion from class or the school. As our research stated, the more democratic a centre is, the more frequently new dilemmas and conflicts emerge. However, this kind of centre is able to involve students in a more engaged way to find new solutions together.

Democratic educational practices in education for citizenship

This centre is a good example for understanding that learning citizenship cannot be separated from the concept of democracy. As Biesta et al. (2009) suggest, young people must feel what it means to ‘live citizenship’ and, in this centre, the educational situations are designed for everyone to be able to participate genuinely in different spaces (Simovska, 2004, 2007).

In this centre, we see that, on the one hand, the collaborative groups articulate all curricular work and, on the other, teacher support teams and community service are formulas closely related to two of Edelstein’s (2011) proposals, concerning the learning of democracy through the participation of the school community in the centre itself, and the learning of democracy for the community including the construction and ongoing development forms of life according to the author. This participation ranges from the local world to the transnational, and fits into the contexts in which young people live.

The school, therefore, offers opportunities to experience democracy, either in groups in which students make decisions together with teachers or in volunteer activities that go beyond the walls of the centre. Students, with the collaborative school support brigades and community service activities, have the opportunity to discuss and reflect on questions that concern them. Working through dialogue is essential, for example, in collaborative groups, where students learn to build dialogic, participatory relationships throughout their time at school.

The school schedules are tailored to curricular and methodological educational needs (time slots of two hours in each subject for the appropriate development of collaborative work). The groups are smaller (20 students per class instead of the standard groups of 25) and, in turn, are organised into groups of four students with heterogeneous levels of learning and abilities in each. The teachers’ role is to accompany the educational process, and they frequently adopt the commitment to stay in the background. Consequently, we see that this centre promotes the idea of social responsibility and commitment, placing the student at the centre of educational activity in relation to the community.

These democratic practices constitute a step towards experiencing democracy. Nonetheless, the centre has to face the challenge of increasing the decision-making opportunities for students, not only by enhancing the function of the school’s governing and organisational bodies, but also in the curricular spaces where learning assessment is relevant. When we analized the participation spaces for the youth in the five secondary schools from the Research – albeit that in some cases those are also decision-making spaces – there is a wider range of spaces of formal learning with a tokenistic participation. We found differences between the centres in the research in terms of living this kind of experience. These kinds of activities require a team of teachers who believe that youth have the right to have a say, to express their opinions and to make decisions in order to experience democracy and exercise ‘citizenship-as-practice’ (Lawy and Biesta, 2006), but not all teachers are aware of this idea.

The teaching team: key actors in the process of action and reflection in a democratic school

During the period of joint research, the teaching team has had to devote time to trying out ideas, changing and thinking, to learning new methodologies and forms of evaluation, to discovering how their colleagues work, and to trusting that they can learn from others and with others, as well as to questioning whether the decisions made have been the most appropriate ones. The management team has led the process, has learned to appreciate the personal efforts of each individual and to communicate this. Our research evidences that these practices require determination on the part of the board of directors to promote this way of working and learning, and that the teaching staff must be willing to work along the same lines.

The centre has gradually implemented the academic and organisational changes and adjustments that it considers necessary. It has been advancing and overcoming obstacles along the way in order to improve the quality of the educational processes and outcomes, in a climate of respect and trust, while moving towards a way of doing that the culture of the centre is shaping and that poses challenges to new uncertainties each time the centre makes new decisions. With this idea of citizenship, citizenship education is experienced in the school throughout different actions, not only as a curriculum subject.

Conclusion: ‘another school is possible’

The example of the school discussed in this article leads us to reflect that the learning of citizenship in schools requires equipping them with elements that allow democratic participation to be experienced in a transversal manner in all areas of the centre – in other words, for democracy to permeate the ethos of the centre. In this context, the decision-making capacity of students is related to the confidence that the teaching team has in them and the role each student can develop in the school. Each school must find a way to promote opportunities for genuine participation (Simovska, 2004, 2007).

Improving educational practices to move towards a democratic school involves sharing a joint process of reflection and debate among the teaching team in order to seek new forms of schooling that can change the dominant school narrative. As we have seen in the case of the centre discussed here, this living process is complex and unfinished, and demands the determination of the teaching team to explore the possibilities and limits of this journey. This approach implies conceiving of the school as a public space for all citizens, a collective workshop of many purposes and possibilities, and a person-centred learning community, working closely with other schools and local authorities (Fielding and Moss, 2011).

This research project has given us the opportunity to show some ways to transform difficulties into possibilities to continue to advance towards a more democratic school. Only in this way will young people learn what this means and incorporate this way of understanding the world in their own selves. Therefore, learning citizenship is a way to experience democracy throughout participation in all school life, not only in some complementary t or recreational activities.

In short, undertaking this journey involves accommodating, negotiating and deciding agreements on a way to live in a community that is nourished by the multiple social and economic conditions, lifestyles, biographical trajectories, aspirations and desires of the individuals who inhabit it. Our research project has sought to offer tools that will assist participating schools in this process in order to make the words from the book Another School Is Possible by Terry Wrigley (2008: 1) our own: ‘In an age of globalization, climate change, famine and war, young people need to make sense of the world and decide how they can work together to change it’.