‘But we didn’t put it to a vote!’. A case study of direct-democratic decision-making in formal education

Abstract

The current study examined the unofficial implementation of direct-democratic decision-making assemblies in three typical public (state) schools of consecutive educational levels (kindergarten, primary and middle school) in a village in Greece. The study drew on Michel Foucault’s analysis of power technologies and power relations in disciplinary dispositives like Education. The main aim of the study was to investigate the ways in which both pupils and teachers engaged with the disciplinary technology inherent in the educational dispositive and to document their conceptualization and attitudes towards these direct-democratic assemblies. The research methodology utilized participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Findings indicated that the disciplinary technology continued to function as per the dominant dispositive, despite the implementation of direct-democratic decision-making assemblies, while pupils generally exhibited a sense of empowerment, displaying support and being influenced in their daily lives by the assemblies’ governmentality. Minor challenges concerning the implementation of such assemblies are addressed and further possibilities of such implementations are discussed.

Introduction: Who makes the decisions?

The Greek educational system operates under a hierarchical structure, overseen by the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs. The few aspects of the school life not predetermined through the legislation and the Ministry’s regulations, are left to be decided by each school unit’s teachers’ board (Eurydice, 2022). Pupils of Secondary Education are represented through the Pupils’ Communities, a set of representative and consultative bodies with no participation in the decision-making process (Law 1566, 1985; Ministerial Decision 23613/6/Γ2/4094, 1986). As Mager and Nowak (2012: 39) point out, the term ‘participation’ implies an objective influence in the decision-making process. When an agent has no quantitative influence whatsoever in the decisions made and is restricted to an advisory role, it shouldn’t be termed participation.

The case

The above, however, were challenged in 2013, when the teachers of a small ¹ primary school in rural Greece ² together with the kindergarten ³ with which they shared the space, decided that they would hold weekly assemblies (School Council) at their school, so as to deal with all school issues in a communal and democratic manner. The meetings included all pupils and teachers, who had equal rights and obligations, and were coordinated by a rotating pupils’ committee known as the Coordinating Committee. At first, only Sixth Grade pupils (12 year olds) had the right to participate in the Committee, but, eventually, a group of younger pupils (7 year olds) convinced the assembly to vote for younger pupils’ participation, as well. ⁴ Some classes also formed their own Councils (Class Council) regarding issues that involved only their own class. The School Council kept evolving at least until 2020. In 2015, the School Council was implemented in the local middle school as well, albeit to a limited degree, after a group of pupils asked for it; the meetings were less frequent and fewer teachers participated. Lastly, it is noteworthy to highlight that a significant turnover of teachers occurred annually in both school grades.

Given the fact that these School Councils were a decision-making body and that they functioned within the educational system which, as mentioned above, is structured in an opposite way, the researcher thought to be of interest to study the way the power relations worked within these school units. To that end, the cases in question were studied through Michel Foucault’s analysis of power relations and of the way social institutions function.

Theoretical underpinning

According to Foucault (1980: 194–198, 2012), institutions are power dispositives, that is, systems derived from power relations, aiming to preserve, refresh and reproduce the dominant dynamics in power relations, discourses and governmentalities. ⁵ School is one of the first (Foucault, 2012: 138) and most crucial dispositives that emerged through modernity in order to normalise the future citizens (see also Gore, 1998: 239).

Normalisation – power technologies

In his book, ‘Discipline and Punish’, Foucault (2012) points out that the dominant form of power relations in modernity is the disciplinary power, a governmentality that aims to ‘mould’ the citizens into people who would want to conform to the dominant societal norms (normalisation). This is carried out through technologies, that is, sets of practices (techniques) that are promoting a reason of being, a meaning, and in that sense, they are the instruments for an equivalent governmentality (Foucault, 1984: 256). In modernity, the disciplinary technology is dominant and focuses on ‘tunneling’ the subjects’ actions towards normative behaviours by controlling their actions in space and in time, on monitoring their compliance and on rewarding/punishing/correcting the compliance/defiance/failure, respectively (Foucault, 2012: 135–228; see also McNicol Jardine, 2005: 59–76).

Foucault (1983: 208–226; 1984: 370; 2012) also suggested that there was a uniquely distinct form of power in the known civilizations, the pastoral form of power, deriving from the Church, which, contrary to modernity’s disciplinary power, aimed to help each individual save her/himself, and not the other way round.

Resistance

Resistance is a way of enacting non-normative behaviour within dominant power relations. However, due to the contextual nature of resistance within specific power dynamics, it is not possible to establish a universally applicable taxonomy of resistance practices (Foucault, 1978: 92–96, 1980: 142; see also Thomson, 2003: 122–125). However, anthropologist James C. Scott (1985, 1992) has provided a framework for mapping various forms of resistance. While it is not meant to work as a generalizable ‘canon’ of resistance practices, Scott’s framework offers a useful description of characteristic features based on empirical evidence. ⁶ The following are some of these forms of resistance: (a) Mild or ‘routine’ resistances are those that ‘cover their tracks’ because they do not seek to openly confront dominant acts (mumbling discontent, feet-dragging etc.). The undisclosed resistances are a sub-category of ‘mild resistances’ that aim to secretly wear down the status of the dominant groups and/or maintain the subculture of the marginalized groups, (b) ‘Routine conformity’ is the other side of ‘routine resistance’, a silent compliance which, despite not supporting the dominant narrative, does not resist it in any way, (c) Public and overt resistance, involving open confrontation of the dominant agents.

Empowerment

A prerequisite for resistance, though, is ‘empowerment’. ‘Empowerment’ is the attitude that expresses a person’s belief that s/he can change the conditions in the individual or in societal reality (Alsop et al., 2005: 4–5). Shor (1992: 20) terms the opposite attitude ‘endullment’.

Research questions

Therefore, an unofficial implementation of decision-making assemblies, representing an opposite, egalitarian governmentality like the one in question, was to create a contrast with the official, disciplinary, school life. Such a contrast might provoke resistances either towards the disciplinary schooling or towards the School Council itself. Such cases had not been previously researched in English, French and Greek research literature (see Retalis, 2022: 147–176 ⁷ ), especially not from the lens of power relations. Research seems to have focused mostly on official, consultative pupil or school representative bodies.

These insights led to the formulation of the following research questions:

1. Which seem to be the specific attitudes of pupils towards the normalizing technology employed in the disciplinary educational dispositive?

2. How are the dynamics of the ‘teacher-pupil’ power relation manifested in the specific school units in Greece?

3. How do teachers, pupils and pupils’ parents of the specific school units interpret and evaluate the School Council, and what are their perspectives and attitudes towards its overall purpose and functioning?

Methodology

Research design

The current research adopted a case study design (Willig, 2013: 298–335; Yin, 2003) and focused on three typical public (state) schools (kindergarten, primary and middle school) in a Greek village. The research sample included all pupils, teachers and principals of these schools who were involved in the implementation of a School Council, totaling 105 pupils, 24 teachers and principals. Additionally, interviews were conducted with 12 parents to gather their perspectives on the School Council initiative.

The data were collected through participant observation and through semi-structured interviews (Robson and McCartan, 2016: 285–293, 323–331).

Research instruments

The participant observation took place in the everyday school-life for 7 months during the school years 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 (from March to June and from October to December) and focused on the following conceptual axes that helped ‘filter’ the elusive reality in the field. These axes were as follows:

• The way the disciplinary techniques functioned in the specific schools and the participants’ attitudes towards them.

• The way and the extent to which the dominant power/knowledge is present in the specific schools’ implementation of the official curriculum.

• Power dynamics, as seen in the interactions between teachers and pupils and between pupils.

The field was taxonomised into three distinct space-time zones based on the power dynamics of the subjects involved: The official space-time of the educational dispositive (teaching periods and other officially instructed activities), the unstructured space-time of recess and the space-time of the Councils. The observation aimed at research questions 1 and 2.

The semi-structured interviews were of open-ended questions that sought to reflect the research questions. The interview guides were formed along the relevant literature’s guidelines (Bryman, 2016; Creswell, 2011), while the guidelines for conducting interviews with young children (Clark et al., 2014; Fraser et al., 2004; Greene and Hogan, 2005), were also taken into account. The interviews covered mostly at research question 3, but aspects of the interview guides aimed at the research questions 1 and 2, as well, so as to satisfy through triangulation the need for the research’s trustworthiness. The need for authenticity and for transferability was also taken into account (Bryman, 2016; Guba and Lincoln, 1994).

As far as the interviews’ sample was concerned, all were invited to participate. In the end, 57 pupils presented their parents’ informed consent for them to be interviewed (15 primary pupils, 27 middle school pupils and 15 high school pupils ⁸ ) along with 12 parents (approximate duration of interviews: 30 min) and with 23 teachers and principals from current and previous years of implementation (approx. duration: 90 min).

Method of analysis

All gathered data, including field notes/research diary from participant observation and interview transcripts/notes, were analysed using the method of thematic analysis, categorizing the transcripts and notes according to the emerging themes, interpreted in relation to the research questions (Tsiolis, 2018: 98–123˙ Willig, 2013: 177–206).

Research ethics

A research permit was obtained from the Ministry of Education, in accordance with the legislation in force at the time (2018). Consent was also obtained from the teachers involved in the study. All participants were informed about the researcher’s role in the school life and provided informed consent for the interview. To ensure confidentiality, all sound files were deleted after their utilization and all collected data were anonymized, protecting personal identity and location information.

Results

Pupils’ attitudes towards the normalizing technology of the disciplinary educational dispositive

Based on the participatory observation and the interviews, the disciplinary technology of the educational dispositive remained unaltered as the pupils complied with the customary restrictions imposed on them regarding space, time and activities, without questioning or objecting to them. The observed forms of resistance were mostly ‘routine resistances’. For instance, pupils would ‘mumble and grumble’, complain or even verbally oppose teachers when they were denied something pleasant. There were also incidents of ‘undisclosed resistances’, mostly occurring during lessons, when the pupils would secretly engage in activities unrelated to the lesson, such as discussions and games, while deliberately avoiding the teacher’s gaze, and secretly complaining about teachers’ behaviours. No proposals or strategic attempts in transforming the dispositive were observed, though.

Only one incident of overt pupil resistance towards teachers was observed in the primary school, when a teacher punished them by hiding their ball, so as to force them into normalizing their behaviour. The most indicative aspect of this incident, however, was that none of the parties involved made an immediate call for an ‘ad hoc’ School Council meeting. As far as the pupils are involved, this suggests a potential lack of perceived ownership or recognition of the School Council as a means of addressing such situations promptly.

The Councils’ power technology was crucially different, despite the fact that it was obviously inspired by the dispositive ’s disciplinary technology (restrictions of movement and speech during the meetings, surveillance by the Coordinating Committee and mandatory displacement of pupils who were disrupting the procedure): The fact that the Councils’ main goal was to empower the pupils by giving them a space-time of real and equal participation in decision-making, indicates that the Councils’ power technology was not of the disciplinary, but of the pastoral form; even more, because it was the pupils who ran the meetings, restricted only by the ‘Council’s Regulations’, that were collectively formed and re-evaluated at the beginning of each school year.

Dynamics of the ‘teacher-pupil’ power relation manifested in the school units

In general, the dominant balance in school power relations also remained intact. The teachers were the dominant figures in the school life and the school activities revolved around the official curriculum. More specifically:

Teachers towards pupils

The teachers’ role was dominant but seemed to adopt, alternatively, two opposite governmentalities: On the one hand, teachers’ disciplinary role was evident during courses, as they surveilled pupils’ behaviour and enforced normativity. On the other hand, teachers’ attitude of pastoral governmentality was also evident, mainly outside of the curriculum’s space-time. For instance, teachers empowered pupils to think for themselves; they often chose to soften the asymmetry in their power relations by suggesting direct-democratic voting in order to make decisions on everyday matters; they were consistently trying to improve Councils’ functioning; they were often underlining the importance the School Councils could have on their school and social life; they adhered to the School Council’s rules and procedures.

Pupils towards teachers

The pupils acted friendly towards their teachers. However, whenever teachers behaved harshly (verbal reprimands, shouting and punishments), the pupils were complaining in a secretive, individual and non-strategic way. Interestingly, they never sought recourse through the Councils. On the other hand, during the Councils, pupils – especially the members of the Coordinating Committee – seemed empowered to confront the teachers, although in a softer and more reluctant manner compared to how they would confront their fellow pupils.

Pupils towards fellow pupils

In general, there was a feeling of camaraderie between pupils, especially in the primary school. Even more so, the assemblies seemed to provide the opportunity for some children to express their kindness and empathy, helping form new norms. For instance, during a discussion for a pupil’s complaint about the behaviour of a fellow pupil, a 9-year-old girl suggested that they should all be kinder and more supportive to the pupil in question, because she thought that

“he behaves like that because he wants us to become his friends.”

The accused pupil almost came to tears and the climate in the assembly changed almost immediately, completely changing the narrative in his favour.

However, situations of domination and/or conflict between pupils were also evident, mostly in terms of popularity. During Council meetings, the power asymmetry was centered in the relation between the Coordinating Committee and the rest of the pupils. A Coordinator would often speak aggressively and loudly towards the rest of the pupils, with the intention of ensuring silence and facilitating the smooth progress of the meeting.

Teachers’, pupils’ and parents’ interpretation and evaluation of the School Council and their attitudes towards its overall purpose and functioning

Participants’ attitudes were predominantly positive, with only a few criticisms directed to the implementation of the Councils rather than the concept itself. The interpretation of the Council’s discourse by the participants can be summarized into two main ideas: The Councils as a decision-making body and the Councils as an educational tool.

Pupils

The pupils perceived the Councils as a decision-making body. They described the Council as a place for equal and collective participation in school decision-making. They were all focusing on the sense of ‘togetherness’ and seemed to feel empowered by their involvement. A middle school teacher reported that a girl had openly stated during a relative discussion in school the following:

“At home, I feel like an ox; in the Council, I realise I’m a human being”.

Pupils did not express any criticism of the Councils’ structure. Their criticism focused mostly on disruptive noise caused by some pupils and its – often brutal – rebuttal by the Coordinators. Many middle school pupils from younger grades also reported that they felt intimidated by the frequently aggressive and derogatory attitude that several of the elder pupils had towards them during the meetings.

In addition, several of the younger primary school pupils (mostly from ages 7 to 9) commented that the meetings felt boring.

On the other hand, almost all pupils said that they didn’t want the Councils to stop, because, as a 9-year-old girl pointed out,

“then, the teachers would do as they ‘d please and we ‘d be obligated to obey”.

So, despite the above-mentioned sense of ‘togetherness’, several pupils seemed well aware of the antagonistic teacher-pupil roles within the disciplinary schools. At the same time, all pupils thought that the presence of at least one teacher in the meetings was necessary because, if not, the assemblies would probably descend into ‘chaos’ – thus demonstrating the dominant position teachers held in pupils’ conscience.

Several pupils also mentioned that the Councils were effective in addressing bullying. They were confident that if they were to be bullied, they could report it during the assembly and the student body would support them against the bullies. A middle school pupil reported that he had personal experience of the fact. Teachers also confirmed the occurrence of such incidents.

Primary pupils seemed to favour Class Councils over School Councils, because they felt more at ease in the former, which were in general more quiet and friendly. On their part, middle school pupils favoured the School Councils over the officially provisioned (Law 1566, 1985) representative body of Pupils’ Council, arguing that the School Council was more democratic and fairer, since everybody could participate and articulate his/her opinions. Elected representatives expressed this opinion, as well.

Teachers

The teachers thought of the Councils as proper educational tools for discretely training their pupils in skills they deemed useful or necessary (social, emotional, critical and communicational skills). Most of the teachers linked the Councils to a broader political education, aimed at fostering democratic citizenship, since they thought Councils have the potential to help the pupils adopt the ‘core’ of the truly democratic governmentality: equal participation in decision-making. A kindergarten teacher mentioned a significant incident involving one of her 4-year-old pupils. The pupil engaged in the following discussion when instructed to start a specific activity:

Pupil: Why are we doing that now?

Teacher: We had arranged to do that, don’t you remember?

Pupil: Yes, we had; but we didn’t put it to a vote!

However, their interpretation of the Councils as a means of shaping the pupils’ consciousness implies that they were meaning to ‘tunnel’ the pupils’ freedom towards the preferred result, thus limiting it. In most cases, however, this attitude was seen as part of an emancipatory education that helps pupils cultivate critical thinking and critical consciousness, empowered and egalitarian/cooperative mentality.

On the other hand, a teacher mentioned an incident which he thought was the highest form of political engagement: During one meeting, while the assembly had already voted, making an almost unanimous decision about a specific issue, they then suspected that their decision had put a fellow pupil of theirs in an uncomfortable position. When they asked him about it, he confirmed their suspicion and they voluntarily backed down, adapting their decision to his condition, because they didn’t want to put him in such a discomfort.

Although all teachers grew in favour of the idea, none of them was taught about such practices at the University, while some of them were reserved when they first heard of the idea. In the years that followed, several of them implemented a Council in the schools they were appointed to.

Parents

Parents were also supportive to the Councils. Their idea of the Councils was a combination of the pupils’ and the teachers’ interpretation, considering them to be decision-making bodies that empower their children and foster their education in democratic, dialogic and empathetic skills.

Some parents also mentioned that their children had suggested organizing Councils at home and in their playgroups to address issues that had occurred. All the parents interviewed were also supportive of a nation-wide implementation of the Councils and particularly, as some said, in middle and high School. This is significant, because Greek middle and high schools are heavily exam-oriented. Finally, several parents believed that the Councils had the ability to function as a practice against bullying.

Conclusions – discussion

Overview

Overall, the Councils in question functioned consistently within the disciplinary school, despite their opposing governmentality. They did not disrupt the disciplinary technology, but maintained their distinct space-time, ‘surrounded’ by the dispositive ’s space-time. It was like if the dominant school had ‘enclosed’ the Councils’ pastoral governmentality, thus limiting and strengthening the Councils at the same time. ‘Limiting’, for obvious reasons; ‘strengthening’, however, because – given that the state would never accept an overruling of the disciplinary governmentality of the entire dispositive – the Councils emerged as a realistic option, a ‘heterotopia’, in Foucault’s (1986) terminology, a real space-time of a discourse/governmentality that questions the ones society promotes, within the dominant space-time. It is argued here that the Councils’ governmentality was pastoral, because, while acknowledging the pupils’ power, the Councils were a teachers’ initiative, designed to help the pupils develop personal characteristics the teachers deemed appropriate.

The Councils seemed to empower children and to challenge their perceptions of governance, but did not challenge the dynamics of the teacher-pupil and the pupil-dispositive power relations. This suggests that the apparent influence of the Councils on the students primarily manifested in bolstering their personal sense of worth, rather than empowering them to attempt substantial transformations of the educational dispositive.

These findings raise several important issues regarding the implementation of School/Class Councils, which will be further explored in the following discussion.

Empowerment and emancipation

Indeed, the Councils seemed to empower the pupils. However, the term ‘empowerment’ can be used in conflicting discourses; for instance, both in egalitarian collectivist and in hierarchical individualistic discourses. Given the fact that ‘western’ children such as the participants in this research already live in societies where Liberalism, an inherently individualistic and hierarchical discourse (Clayton, 2010: 802–808; Heywood, 2014: 24–63; Johnston, 2010: 800–801) prevails; the empowerment they got in the School Council might also take an individualistic turn. Scholars such as Ball (2017: 21–29), Dickerson (2019: 85–86), Marshal (1996: 58–84) and Suissa (2019) have already pointed out that the individual liberation that some progressive and antiauthoritarian pedagogies focus on, can ‘feed’ Neoliberalism.

Therefore, for educators aspiring to help their pupils grow into critical and self-aware people, ‘empowerment’ is not enough; a more accurate goal would be to strive for emancipation. Critical Pedagogy and Freire’s notion of ‘critical consciousness’ can provide valuable guidance in this regard (Freire, 2000).

Criticism or integration

The history of child-centered pedagogy indicates (Bruce and Eryaman, 2015: 6–7; Dewey, 1929: 104–106; Semel and Sadovnik, 2005) that schools practicing participatory governmentality tend to either integrate into the dominant societal governmentality or to isolate themselves in heterotopic ‘islets’, thus failing to establish the desired dialogic relation with the broader society. However, a way to both maintain their dialogue with the broader society and their distinct governmentality, might be for the Councils to adopt a critical stance towards the dominant social reality and to intervene accordingly. For instance, a teacher might suggest that the Council consider taking an informed action to tackle an existing problem in the school’s neighbourhood. Should the pupils agree, then the Council would both be linked to the community and maintain a critical stance towards it, thus avoiding both self-entrenchment and conformity to the dominant societal norms. In order to achieve such a state, the teachers who are willing to embrace this perspective would have to work accordingly within the lessons, where the dominant governmentality and discourse are formed (see Mochinski, 2008; Shor, 1987a, 1987b). ⁹

Pastoral assemblies and disciplinary teaching

The pupils seemed to be empowered by the Councils and the assemblies themselves were of an alternative, pastoral governmentality. However, the pupils were expected to return to the disciplinary lessons and activities, after the meetings. Since these disciplinary school space-time zones are more central to the dominant power structure than the Councils, it is reasonable to suggest that, to some extent, they sabotaged the effects the Councils had.

As a resisting practice, teachers could develop their own teaching practices that help create a more symmetric power relation within the classroom. The bakhtinian notion of dialogicality (Bakhtin, 1981, 1984) and its educational implementations (see Frydaki and Papageorgakis, 2022; Mercer et al., 2019) along with Critical Pedagogy ’s point of view, Shor ’s (1992) suggestions for critical and empowering teaching and Giroux’s narrative approach (Giroux et al., 1996) could be of inspiration. The French ‘Institutional Pedagogy’ (known as Pédagogie Institutionelle in French) has also formed some pedagogical tools (the self-management of responsibilities and the spaces of communication such as the ‘What ‘s new?’ procedure), that help balance the power relations between teachers and pupils and its psychological effects (Nicolet and Dénéréaz, 2015; Pesce, 2011; Wustefeld, 2016).

Critical and dialogic literacy

It was often evident, mostly in the primary school, that Coordinators and members failed to have creative discussions, due to their inability to accurately distinguish the main points in each argument and combine them into productive proposals. This seemed to result both from inadequate critical understanding of the other person’s argument, and from inadequate cognitive skills. Pupils, however, are expected to be trained in skills like these during the curriculum’s lessons. Therefore, a focus on dialogical teaching – preferably in the bakhtinian tradition (Frydaki and Papageorgakis, 2022; Mercer et al., 2019) – throughout the school year, could be of paramount importance in making the assemblies function better. Training in basic critical thinking is also important.

A just majority or a loving consensus?

The above-mentioned incident of the Council’s body voluntarily adapting their decision so as to not make one person uncomfortable, puts majoritarian democracy into perspective.

Interpreting this incident through the lens of the (dominant in the regions of the schools in question) Orthodox Christian discourse (see Kallistos, 1986; Sakharov, 1991; Vasilakis, 2020) and of Ricoeur’s (1995: 23–27) and Derrida’s (2001) analyses on the distinction between justice and love (also termed as agape), it could be argued that the children in question, by prioritizing the sentimental well-being of the Other over their majority rights, chose love over justice. Instead of counting their fellow pupil like a faceless digit of a sum total, they decided to meet him ‘face-to-face’ (Levinas, 1961), as a Thou (Buber, 1937), that is, a person inherently worthy of honour. In terms of the locally dominant Orthodox Christian discourse, they responded affirmatively to the call for love’s perichoresis, that is, to regard the Other as part of one’s own self and vice-versa (see Kallistos, 1986; Vasilakis, 2020).

Decisions like these only come spontaneously and voluntarily. No schooling can predetermine for children to behave that way. However, it is possible to create conditions that increase the likelihood of such acts of agape. One such condition would involve replacing the majority decision-making model with a consensus-based approach, such as sociocracy.

Sociocracy is a method of group decision-making that rejects majority democracy precisely because it normalizes the imposition of the majority on the minority (see also Eagan, 2007). By advocating for all members’ representation in every decision, the sociocratic process focuses on achieving consensus through rounds of dialogue and of conflict resolution (Owen and Buck, 2020; Rau and Koch-Gonzales, 2018).

A pleasant institution or anti-institution?

Although the pupils endorsed the assemblies and seemed empowered by them, there were signs of lack of ownership of the procedure. On the other hand, the fact that at the beginning of each year, the assembly was asked to ratify the Council’s regulations and that during the research period several effective initiatives for reforming the procedure emerged by groups of pupils, shows that the School Council worked as an open dispositive, formed by its members. So, why didn’t the pupils ask for an immediate meeting of the School Council in order to deal, for instance, with the above-mentioned ‘ball issue’ that seemed to have bothered them so much?

An anti-institutionalist interpretation (see Punch, 1974) might suggest that all forms of institutions (i.e., ‘fixed’ societal bodies with normative ways of dealing with issues) tend to detach the power from the subjects, transforming into antagonizing bureaucratic entities (see Castoriadis, 1986; Foucault, 1980: 1-36; Punch, 1974). This is why the teachers in Hamburg’s Experimental Schools (Mayer, 2014; Schmid, 1984) refrained from proposing any form of decision-making body – not even a direct-democratic one – in order for the pupils to remain uninfluenced and invent their own ways of dealing with school issues. So, it could be the case that the School Council’ regulated structure and the teachers’ subtle but influential role during the meetings, turned it into a somewhat detached institution that, to some extent, also alienated the pupils, who then began, perhaps, to feel that, albeit pleasant, the Councils were part of the official curriculum. In that case, the teachers’ withdrawal might be an appropriate measure, so as to let the pupils develop an ownership of the Councils and a sense of their own, unmediated power.

Practical considerations for effectiveness

In terms of the quality of participation, the assemblies performed adequately, but there are measures that can enhance their effectiveness. One such measure is the kindergarten teachers’ initiative to prepare their pupils ahead of the Council meetings. This preparation seemed to improve the children’s ability to follow the discussions and engage effectively. To facilitate this, Cox and Robinson-Pant’s research (2006) suggests that illustrating and visualizing the main ideas and dilemmas in the weekly agendas, as well as the decisions, can be beneficial. Additionally, the use of suggestion boxes could also aid in gathering input (Whitty and Whisby, 2007).

Furthermore, to better equip students for the School Councils, the implementation of Class Councils in parallel with the School Council is recommended. In Secondary Education, where teachers specialize in specific disciplines, limiting the time available for implementing School or Class Councils, an alternative approach could be to introduce ‘Course assemblies’, that is, loosely structured dialogic procedures that would allow students to discuss all issues related to a specific course and make decisions on all aspects not predetermined by the legislation or the teacher’s teaching expertise.

Research limitations and suggestions for future research

Although the sample of pupil interviews reached a satisfactory level of participation (54%), achieving full participation would have enhanced the research’s coverage. Therefore, future studies could aim for maximum participation to ensure comprehensive data collection.

Furthermore, a promising direction for future research would be to conduct action-research on teaching practices that seek to implement a non-disciplinary approach within the prevailing educational framework. Exploring the effects of such practices on teachers and students in educational departments would also be of significant interest, particularly in terms of transformative learning (see Mezirow, 1991).