children as decision makers in education.pdf

8/20/2019 Children As Decision Makers in Education.pdf

1/193


2/193

Children as Decision Makers in Education


3/193

Also available from Continuum

Thinking Children, Claire Cassidy

Children's Lives, Children's Futures,

Paul Croll, Gaynor Attwood

&

Carol Fuller


4/193

Children as Decision Makers

in Education

Sharing Experiences Across Cultures

Sue Cox, Caroline Dyer, Anna Robinson-Pant

and

Michele Schweisfurth

ont nuum


5/193

Continuum International Publishing Group

The

Tower Building

80

Maiden Lane

11

York Road Suite

704

London

New

York

SE1 7NX NY

10038

www.continuumbooks .com

© Sue

Cox, Caroline Dyer, Anna Robinson-Pant, Michele

Schweisfurth and

Contr ibutors 2010

All r ights reserved. N o part of this publication may be reproduced or t ransmit ted in any form or

by any

means, electronic

or

mechanical, including photocopying, recording,

or any

in formation

storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing

from

the publishers.

Sue Cox, Caroline Dyer, Anna Robinson-Pant, Michele

Schweisfurth and

Contr ibutors have

asserted their right under

th e

Copyright, Designs

and

Patents Act, 1988,

to be identified as

Author of this work.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A

catalogue record

for

this book

is

available from

th e

British Library.

ISBN: 9780826425485 (hardcover)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A

catalog record

fo r

this book

is

available

from th e

L ibra ry

of

Congress

Typeset by BookEns, Royston, Herts .

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Group, Bodmin, Cornwall .

http://www.continuumbooks.com/http://www.continuumbooks.com/


6/193

Contents

Motes

on Contributors viii

Introduction 1

Sue

Cox,

C aroline

Dyer, Anna Robinson-Pant Michele Schweisfurth

Part 1: Can we make space for children s 5

decision-making?

Perspectives

on

educational policy

1 The changing context of decision-making in English primary 7

education: ages; myths and autonomy

Colin Richards

2 'Prefigurative' approaches to participatory schooling: 15

experiences

in

Brazil

Tri s ta n Mc C owa n

3 Grasping

rare

moments for change: children's participation 25

in

conflict contexts

Sheila

Aikman

4

Long time coming: children

as

only occasional decision makers

35

in schools

Clive Harber

Part

2:

Children s decision-making:

its

impact

on

life

in 45

schools

and the community

5

Children's clubs

and

corporal punishment: reflections

f rom

Nepal

49

Teeka Bhattarai


7/193

vi

Contents

6

Participatory School Governance: Children

in

Decision-Making

59

in the

Zambian Context

Gina M u m b a Chiwela

7 EveryChild: NGO experiences with children as decision makers 69

in

Peru, India and Moldova

Liz Trippett with

Jane

Banez-Ockelford, Daniela

Mamaliga,

Payal

Saksena,

Lionel Vigil

8 Paving the way for pupil voice? School councils campaign for 79

fairtrade

in

Liverpool

Anne-Marie Smith

9 Student voice in Portsmouth: a city—wide approach 89

Fiona Carnie

Part

3:

Children

as decision

makers: what

are we

trying

97

to achieve? The ethical and political

dimensions

10

Assessing

the

Benefits

of

Students' Participation

99

Hiromi Yamashita,

Lynn

Davies

Chris Williams

11 Uprooting

fear

of cultural diversity: becoming participative 107

together

Juan

Carlos Barrdn-Pastor

12 Pedagogy and cultural diversity: children's participation for 115

overcoming

differences

Rohit

Dhankar

Part 4: Facilitating children s participation in research 123

and

decision-making

13

Children

as

Researchers: experiences

in a

Bexley Primary School

125

Doug

Springate and

Karen

Lindridge

14

Life

in the

classroom:

a

pupil perspective

133

Allan Fowler

15 Children as researchers: a question of risk? 143

Sue

Cox and Anna Robinson-Pant


8/193

Contents

vii

16

Children's participation: radio

as a

medium

in Ghana 153

Esmeranda Manfu l

17

Children

as

research protagonists

and

partners

in

governance

161

P.

J.

Lolichen

Endpiece: What can we learn about children as decision makers 171

by bringing together perspectives and experiences f rom

dif ferent

cultures?

Sue

Cox,

Caro line

Dyer,

Anna Robinson-Pant

Michele

Schweisfurth

Index 1 76


9/193

Notes on Contributors

Sheila Aikman is Senior Lecturer in Educa t ion and Deve lopment at the

U niversity of Eas t An glia. She was form erly the Policy Ad viser for Oxfam GB

and has been researching and publ i shing in the areas of qual i ty educat ion,

gender equal i ty

in

educat ion

and

in tercul tura l educat ion.

Jane Banez-Ockelford was the

Development Director

for

Asia, South

America

and the

Caribbean

for

Every Child

U K

unt i l

October

2008

and

continues to provide strategic management and technical support to the

Every Child Ca mbodia Liaison Office. Jane current ly works within Asia as a

consul tant

in governance and strategic management based in the P hil ippines.

Juan Carlos Barron-Pastor (Juancho Barron) is a PhD candidate and

assistant tu tor at the School of Dev elopm ent Studies, Un iversity of East A nglia,

and was recently Visiting Professor at the National Au tonom ous Univers i ty of

Mexico (UNAM). He has seventeen years of experience in coordinating,

administrating, consulting, teaching,

and

researching

for

community develop-

ment projects

in

Mexico.

His

current research explores

how to

interpret

th e

theory of becom ing (Deleuze; Braido tti) thro ug h an inter-subjectivist approach

(Lenkersdorf), taking collective em otions into acc oun t (Forgas; Marina)

to

better understand culturally diverse education spaces.

Teeka Bhattarai has been associated with the School of Ecology,

Agricul ture

and C om m uni ty W orks (Seacow) and Foru m for

Popular

Educa t ion — Edu cat ion Network, in Nepal since their foundation. Current ly

under taking formal studies

on

educat ion

in

Belgium,

h e

cont inues

h is

work

as

an education activist , campaigning for education for all as the 'great

equalizer ' .

Fiona Carnie is a Visiting Research Associate at the Ins t i tu te of Educat ion,

Universi ty

of

L ondon .

She is

current ly working

in the

fields

of

Student Voice


10/193

Motes on

Contributors

ix

and

Parent

Voice. Her books, Alternative Approaches to

Education

(Routledge

Palmer, 2003) and Pathways to Child Friendly Schools (Human Scale

Education, 2004), explore ways of involving key stakeholders such as

parents and young people in shaping educational provision. Fiona is Vice

President of the European Forum for Freedom in Education

www.effe-eu.org.

Gina Mumba Chiwela has

been working

as

Programme Development

Manager

with the Peoples Action Forum, Zambia, since 1994. She has

particular responsibility

for

training adult learning facilitators

in the

Reflect

approach, policy research

and

advocacy

and

HIV/AIDS programmes.

She

led the

programme

on

participatory school governance,

an

initiative

to

bring

communities into active participation in the planning and management for

schools. Gina currently represents the Reflect Network in Zambia on the

PAMOJA Council that oversees the Africa Reflect Network.

Sue Cox is a Senior Lecturer at the University of East Anglia in the School of

Education and Lifelong Learning where she teaches on postgraduate initial

and continuing teacher education courses and undertakes research. Her

particular area

of

interest

is

primary education (including philosophy

of

education, art and design education and citizenship education) and her

research has included projects with children and teachers in primary schools

on children's participation and decision-making.

Lynn Davies is Professor of

International Education

in the

Centre

for

International Education

and

Research, University

of

Birmingham.

Her

main interests

are in

education

and

conflict

(the

contribution

of

schools

to

peace

and to

conf l ic t ) ,

and in

education

for

democracy (pupil voice, school

councils).

She is also working in the

area

of education and violent extremism,

and her book

Educating

Against

Extremism

(2008)

is being used by educationists

and governments in the UK and beyond.

Rohit Dhankar

is

Secretary

of the

Indian non-government organization

Diganter, of which he is a co-founder. A curriculum expert, he has served on

the

Government

of

India's National Curriculum Framework advisory team

and currently teaches on the MA in Elementary Education at the Tata

Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

Caroline Dyer is a linguist by training and works at the Leeds University

Centre

for

International Development, where

she

lectures

in

development

practice. Her research interests

focus

on early years and adult literacy, and the

educational inclusion of nomadic and migrant groups; she has authored

numerous papers on these topics, and in 2006 edited an international volume on

the Education

of Nomadic

Peoples: current issues, future prospects (Berghahn Books ) .

http://www.effe-eu.org/http://www.effe-eu.org/


11/193

x Motes

on

Co ntributors

Allan Fowler is a

former high school teacher turned researcher

who has

taught for over 35 years in comprehensive educat ion. He now works part-

t ime

for the

Open Universi ty.

Clive Harber is

Professor

of Interna tional Edu cat ion at the Universi ty of

Birmingham.

He was

previously Head

of the

School

of

Educa t ion

at the

Universi ty

of

Birmingham

and the

Universi ty

of Natal in

Durban, South

Africa.

He has a

long-standing internat ional research interest

in

both

educat ion for democracy and its opposi tes.

Karen Lindridge has been a prim ary school teacher for twenty years and has

taught all age groups

from

4 [pre-school] to 11. She is currently Deputy

Head

at Old Bexley Church of Eng land Primary School, Bexley. In addition, she

spent three years as a teacher trainer at the University of Greenwich w here she

specialized in early years and physical education. She is currently interested in

the

area

of

providing chi ldren w ith op portun ity

and

empowerment , which

includes her involvement in the area of children as researchers.

P J Lolichen heads

the

Centre

for

Ap plied R esearch

and

Documenta t ion

at

The

Concerned

for

W orking C hildren, Bangalore, India.

He has

been

spearheading r ights-based information management by chi ldren for the past

1 2

years

and is a

recipient

of the

MacArthur Fe l lowship

for

Leadership

Development .

H is

most recent publicat ion

is

'Taking

a

Right Turn: Children

Lead the Way in Research' , and he has published other works on informat ion

management

by

children, enabling their participation

in

governance .

Daniela Mamaliga has

been EveryChild Moldova's Program m e Director since

2004. She

joined

EveryChild

Moldova

in

2001, initially

as

their Press

Officer,

becoming Project Coordinator

and

then Programme Director . Prior

to

that,

Daniela worked for the government news agency Moldpress.

Esmeranda

Manful is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research in

Social Policy, Loughborough Universi ty.

Her

interests include chi ldren's

rights, partic ularly the interp retatio n of the con cept to im pro ve the we lfare of

chi ldren.

Tristan

McCowan

is

Lecturer

in

Educa t ion

and

Internat ional Develop-

me n t at the Ins t i tu te of Educat ion, Univers i ty of London . H is current

research focuses on educat ion and ci t izenship in Latin America .

Colin Richards

is

Em er itus Professor

at the

Universi ty

of

Cum br ia

and has

been a senior HM I and a visiting professor at the Universities of W arwick,

Leicester

and

Newcast le .


12/193

Motes on

Contributors

xi

Anna Robinson-Pant is

Reader

at the Centre for Applied Research in

Education, University of East Anglia, where her research has included

projects with children

and

teachers

in

Norfolk schools,

as

well

as

with

international students studying at the university. For around ten years, she

worked in education, research and development with various

NGOs

in

Nepal. Publications include: W hy E a t Green

Cucumber

at the Time o f Dying?

Exploring the Link between

Women's

Literacy and Developm ent: A

N e pa l Perspective

(Unesco IOE,

2001),

Wo men , Literacy a nd Development: Alternative Perspectives

(Routledge,

2004) and

Cross-cul tural

Perspectives o n Educational Research (Open

University Press, 2006).

Payal

Saksena

joined

EveryChild India

in

2008

as

their Advocacy

and

Communications Manager. Before this, Payal worked

for

f o u r years

as a

gender and law consultant for Global Rights: Partners

for

Justice, a US-based

organization implementing

an

'Access

to

Justice' project

in

Karnataka

and

Rajasthan in India.


is Reader in

Comparative

and

International

Education, and Director of the Centre for International Education and

Research at the University of Birmingham. CIER's 'Educating for Global

Justice' theme reflects her research interests. She is also joint editor of the

journal Comparat ive Education.

Anne-Marie

Smith is Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow at Liverpool Hope

University, where she teaches in Childhood and Youth Studies. She

previously worked

as

Children's Partipation coordinator

at

Liverpool World

Centre.

Her

research with displaced children

in

Mexico

has

been published

in

Children,Youth a nd

Environments

( 2 0 0 7 ) .

Doug

Springate now retired f rom the University of Greenwich, has

teaching experience in primary and secondary schools and was a teacher

trainer

for the

primary

age

phase

for

more than thirty years, lecturing

in four

institutions, including an American university. He was a Primary

Ofsted

Inspector.

He has considerable international experience and is ex-chairman

of ETEN,

the European

Teacher

Education Network. He is currently further

exploring

the

primary school

as a

democracy

and

researching

and

promoting

the

area

of

'Children

as

Researchers', including

an

European Community

funded

project with institutions f rom seven European countries.

Liz Trippett worked for EveryChild UK as the Programme Off icer for Asia,

South America

and the

Caribbean

for

three years until October 2008.

She

currently works

in a

psychiatric hospital

in the UK

with children

and

adolescents

experiencing mental health problems.


13/193

xii Motes

o n

Co ntributors

Lionel

Vigil

has

been

EveryChild Peru'?,

Programme Manager since

March

2008.

Prior to that, Lionel worked for

Management

Science fo r Health Inc. in Peru

as a

Programme Manager

for a

USAID-funded communi ty hea l th project ,

for

the Peruvian

NGO,

PRISMA,

and for the Peruvian Ministr ies of

Health

and

Educa t ion .

Chris Williams is based at the Centre for Interna tional Edu cat ion and

Research (CIER), Univers i ty of Bi rmingham. He has also held posts at the

universities of Lon don , Cam bridge, C airo, and the Uni ted Nat ions . H is

engagement in global justice and part icipat ion includes: s t reet-working

children

in

South Africa, Turkey, Lebanon

and

A fgh anistan; disabil ity r ights

in Britain, Egypt, China,

Thailand

and

Japan;

environmental vict ims

in

India; cul tural diversi ty in Korea; and educat ion for all in Palestine and

Liberia.

Hiromi

Yamashita is Research Fellow at the Centre for Interna t ional

Educa t ion and Research (CIER), Univers i ty of Birm ingham , which engages

in research and teaching in the areas of global just ice. Hiromi 's interests

include

issues of

participation

(at all

ages) , democrat ic decision-making,

envi ronmenta l

risk

communica t ion, sus ta inable development

and

global

citizenship.


14/193

Introduction

Sue Cox, Carol ine Dy er, A nna Rob inson-Pant and


Since

the

Uni ted Nat ions Convent ion

on the

Rights

of the

Child came into

force in 1990, there has been an increasing recognition that, globally, children

need to have mo re inpu t into decisions concerning their ow n educat ion.

Researchers, act ivists , pol icy makers, internat ional

and

nat ional non-

governmental organizat ions (NGOs)

and

educat ional in st i tut ions have been

looking a t ways o f promot ing chi ldren 's involvement in decision-m aking. This

book explores

how

children can,

and do,

actively participate

in

decision-

making. It brings together perspectives from developed and developing

countr ies ,

with

the aim of

extending

the

current debates

on

chi ldren's

participation

by

engaging

a

range

of

researchers

and

pract i t ioners with

differing practical agend as, philosop hical orientation s, and m ethodo logical

approaches .

At the

heart

of quest ions over what decisions chi ldren should make, and

how and when, is how we conceptualize children, their abili t ies and their

rights.

The UN Co nve ntion itself stipulates that the views o f children need to

be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity (Article 12 ) .

But the age at which children are believed to be ready to make serious

decisions

that affect them and their educ at ion is open to interpretat ion, and

these beliefs changes over time and across contexts. We would argue that it is

impor tan t to go beyond token decision-making at an early stage, to give

children

a

t rue sense

of

agency

in

their

own

lives,

and not

only

to

rehearse

for

adu lthoo d. Several of the co ntributo rs to this book draw on

Hart's

( 1992)

'ladder of par t ic ipat ion ' to analyse the pu rpose and ways in which chi ldren

participate

in

decision-making.

T he

ladder helps

to

dist inguish

different

levels

of chi ldren's input , ranging from the minim al end of m anipu lat ion and

tokenism, thro ug h chi ldren being consu lted while adults take the initiative, to

the high est level of yo ut h initiatives in which they d ecide how f ar to inclu de

adults .

As ma ny of the case studies in this book will show, it is usual ly adults

who decide whethe r chi ldren can m ake decisions, and which chi ldren qualify.


15/193

2 Children as Decision M akers in Educat ion

As th e agenda

approaches

th e

level

of

policy,

in

particular, adults

are

increasingly likely to be in control. Yet, as illustrated in this book, the benefits

of chi ldren's decision-making

to

themselves

and to schools and

other

organizations are mult iple .

Schools

have

the

potential

to be sites of

power

for

children,

but

they

can

also be, and often are, sites of repression. Many educators do not feel

comfortable

with allowing children's decisions

in

areas where power relations

might shift as a result . Eq ually, the virtually universal stan dard s agenda, with

it s

focus

on the 'basics' of

literacy

and

numeracy,

may not

help

to

encourage

th e development of the less obviously scholastic skills of self-confidence and

critical questioning

that

need

to be fostered if

chi ldren's involvement

in

decision-making

is to

grow.

It is intere sting that while most of the UK -based chap ters in this book refer

to

schools,

m any of the contribut ions

from

developing countries

refer

to NGO

actions and other non-formal sites of education. This raises questions about

wh ether it is best to work

from

within or outsid e the form al school system, and

from

within

a set of

cul tural norms,

or from a

m ore cosm opoli tan perspect ive.

When considering

the

possibilities

and

limits

of

chi ldren's decision-making

powers in different contexts, should local cultures and practices set the

agenda,

or are we

working toward

a

shared

set of

goals bou nde d

by a

global

moral framework? If the latter, how should this framew ork b e negotiated, and

is it

realistic

to

apply

it to

inst i tut ions

so

different

from

each other?

The book is based on an Economic and Social Research Council-funded

seminar

series

held

at the

Universities

of

East Anglia, Birm ingha m

and

Leeds

dur ing 2006—7. The seminars broke new ground in bringing together

educators, researchers

and

activists work ing

in a

range

of

countries

to

present

papers, discuss practice, and

form

collaborations. The chapters are based on

papers presented,

and the

book

seeks to

develop

the

themes explored

in the

seminars and to present case

studies

of children involved in decision-making

internationally.

It

does

not do so

uncritically,

and the

barriers

to

their

participation

are

also explored.

The

book

is

divided into

four

parts .

The

chapters

in Part 1

ask,

in

various

ways,

whether we can make space for children's decision-making. They focus

on the m acro level of policy and how this is a starting poin t for p ractice.

Policy includes

that of

nat ional governm ent ,

but

also regional bodies

and the

work of international NGOs. Case studies include England, Brazil and the

Philippines. From policy we move to practice: the chapters in

Part

2 explore

how children's decision-making affects practice in schools, com m unities and

beyond, and the authors

offer

insights from Nepal, Zambia, Peru,

India,

Moldova, and the UK In Part 3, we consider the social and political

dimensions of

children

as

decision makers, asking what

we are

trying

to

achieve

in

te rms

of

political agendas

and

social integ ration , eq uity,

and

citizenship.

Along with fur ther chapters

from U K

contexts, there

are

papers


16/193

Introduction 3

exploring these issues

in

Mexico

and

India. Finally,

Part 4

asks

how we

facilitate

children 's part icipation.

It

draws mainly

on

experiences

of

children

as researchers ,

as

well

as

o the r

fo rms of

dec i s ion-making , p rov id ing

perspectives

from

India

and the UK on the

ques t ion .

In the

closing chapter

of the

book,

as

editors

we

a d o p t

a

compara t ive

perspective

to

investigate what these cases

from different

national

and

cultu ral con texts tel l us abo ut children as decision m akers, and wh at som e of

the faci l i ta tors and barriers are to fuller and more meaningful par t ic ipa t ion .

We h o p e that th i s c ross -cu l tu ra l v iew wi l l he lp to i n f o rm d e b a t e

internationally

—

and

that children will

be

included

in the

debate .

Notes

W e have chosen to use these

terms

rather

than

North/South or First/Third W orld,

reflecting the preference of

most

of our contributing authors.

References

Hart , R. (1992) Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, Innocenti Essays

No. 4. Florence:

U N I C E F International Child

Development Centre.


17/193

his page intentionally left blank


18/193

Part 1

Can we

make space

for children's

decision-making? Perspectives on

educational

policy

Globally, atti tudes

to

children have changed over time, towards acknowl-

edging the importance of their decision-making. This is reflected, for

example , in the almost universal rat i f icat ion of the Uni ted Nat ions

Convention on the Rights of the Child. Among the decision-making rights

upheld

by the

Convention

are

children's right

to

stay with their parents

if

they choose (Article 9 . 1 ) ; to express their views freely (Article

13 . 1 ) ;

and to

assemble peacefully (Article

15 . 1 ) .

W e would hope to see such shifts in

at t i tude,

and

such international agreem ents, reflected

in

national policy and,

in turn , in how these policies are enacted in schools, classrooms and other

educat ional

sites. The

chapters

in

this

part of the

book explore

how

far,

in

different

contexts, these aspirations are manifested; they also introduce

concepts

which facili tate analysis of children's involvem ent at different levels.

A m o n g

the

themes

are the

extent

to

which policy rhetoric

is

matched

by

reality,

and the

roles

of

organizations such

as

non-gov ernm ental organiza-

tions (NGOs) in bridging gaps and support ing chi ldren and adults in making

children's decisions

heard and

realized. Policy

can be an

enabler,

but it

certainly does not guarantee that children are empowered, and, as some of

these

chapters point out, evidence

of

resistance

can be found at

many levels.

An historical overview of the situation in the En gland since 1 965 provides

an interesting case study of som e of these theme s. The intersection of politics

and education creates a f luctuating trajectory. Rather than being taken

seriously,

Colin Richards argues

that

children's decision-making is restricted

by such

factors

as high-stakes examinations and school league tables, driven

by

a

performativity agenda. Increasingly, there

are

moves

to

include

children's perspectives, for example in how their views of their schools and

teachers are now part of the Office for Standards in Educat ion

(Ofsted)


19/193

6

Children

a s

Decision Makers

in

Educat ion

process

of inspection, but

'myths '

live on. Along with

'myths ' ,

Richards uses

'ages'

and

' au tonom y '

as organizing ideas in his analysis, which is based on

many years

of

experience with Ofsted

and as an

academic educat ionist

observing policy and practice in England. W e invite readers to compare his

observations with

the

situation

in

other contexts.

Given the limitations of policy, organizations p rom oting children's right to

decide have used interventionist tactics to facili tate the prerequisite

skills,

structures and atti tude s. The following two chapters d oc um ent case studies of

such

strategies,

in different

nat ional contexts .

In Chapter 2 , Tristan

M cCow an considers the 'prefigurative ' po tential of schoo ls in the B razilian

context,

in

relation

to

pupil participation

in

schools

an d

ul t imately

in

society.

In

particular,

he

analyses

a

municipal government 's

'Plural

School' initiative,

based

on the

principle

of

inclusion throug h dem ocrat izat ion.

Once again, we

find the challenges of fac ilitating the partic ipatio n of all childre n, of

democrat izing the relationships between teachers and pupils , and of taking

young people's decision-making powers beyond the more trivial elements of

uniforms

and food. How ever, there is evidence that the prefigurat ive

strategies

employed

can

lead

to

wider exercising

of the

right

to

participate.

The wo rk of the international NG O Ox fam in

conflict

zon es is the basis for

the next chapter. Drawing on experience from

conflict

zones internationally,

th e region of Central Mindanao in the Philippines becomes the focus of an

exploration of how

conflict

and poverty affect scho oling and create particu lar

conditions for the participation of children. Sheila Aikm an considers how

school as a

place

and as a

social space

can

create opportunit ies,

and how the

dynamics of power affect processes. A m ong the achievem ents of the

programme

in

Mindanao

are

higher levels

of

attendan ce, interest

and

participation from children, and

fewer

in terru ption s to schooling as a result of

the

conflict.

Finally, Clive

Harber

draws on evidence

from

a wide range of contexts to

argue that,

on the

whole, school children

are not

decision makers,

and

that

policy

and

teacher educat ion

are

parts

of the

problem.

H e

brings together

studies

of pupils ' views of schooling to il lustrate the 'unfreedoms' inherent in

the purp oses and struc tures of schooling. Crucially, the chap ter also

synthesizes evidence of how very imp orta nt l istening to pup ils and giving

them power

and

responsibili ty are.

W e

might expect this

in

terms

of

developing the capacity for democratic citizenship, but i t proves to be

excellent practice even using more conventional indicators of

effectiveness

such

as

examinat ion outcom es

and

pupil discipline.


20/193

Chapter

1

The changing

context

of

decision-making

in

English

primary education: ages,

myths

and autonomy

Colin Richards

Introduction

This chapter discusses chi ldren as decision makers in the context of

deve lopment s

in Engl ish pr imary educat ion. It cannot do jus t i ce to

developments elsewhere, whether

in

other parts

of the

Uni ted Kingdom

or

overseas.

It

uses

three organizing ideas —

ages ' ,

'myths '

and

' au tonom y ' —

as a

way of out l ining the changing context in which English primary schools have

operated, primary teachers have taught and prima ry pup ils have experienced

their schooling over the forty years since the publication of the Plowden

Rep ort (Central Ad visory Coun cil

for

Educa t ion 1967) . Very largely

the

story is one of ad ult decision-m aking, albeit in a chang ing contex t, with

different sets of adults m aking different k inds of decisions at different t imes. It

is

a

story

in

which chi ldren's perspect ives

are not so

mu ch consciously ignored

as not really considered — either in policy, research or school decision-making.

There are

some

signs that at

long last those perspectives

are

being seen

as

impor tan t

—

at least at the level of rhetoric but only very patchily as yet at the

level of

practice.

The

lessons

of

English history

(if it has lessons) are not all

that

hopeful.

There is a need now to make that rhetoric a reality — forty years

after the Plowden Report was published with the ti t le Children

a nd Their

Primary Schools, with its assertion that 'At the heart of the educational process

lies

th e

child' ,

with its slogan 'The child as agent of his own

learning' ,

but

with its 500-page report providing no evidence that children had ever been

consulted

in its

deliberations


21/193

8 Children

a s

Decision Makers

in

Educat ion

An age of exc item ent, 1 965-74

The first

period, 1965—74

is

termed 'an age

of excitement '

—

but

this,

of

course,

is an

adult viewpoint

— that of a

teacher. Would children,

had

they been

asked

(which they were not), have seen it in similar terms?

Despite very

real

pro blem s (very large class sizes by current s tandards,

high staff turnover

and the

vestiges

of the eleven-plus

1

)

there

was a sense of

optimism in the system

captured

in the

upbeat

style, messages and

rhetoric

of

th e Plowden Report itself. Primary educat ion was expanding in terms of

numbers

of

pupils, increases

in

resources

and

rising public

and

professional

expectations.

There

was a sense of

freedom (coupled with anxiety) over

th e

removal

of the

restrictions

on

teacher initiative

following

th e

demise

(in

many

areas) of

selection. There

was a

rh etoric , too,

of

increased freedom

for

children

to

pursue their own

needs

and interests, tho ug h what re search there was into

primary

classrooms (Boydell 197 4 ) and my experience as a primary school

teacher revealed

in

most cases either

the

cont inuance

of

overt teache r direction

or an

illusory freedom

offered

children

to do

what teachers thought

was in the

children's

best interests

a

kind

of pseudo-progressivism

where children were

given

nei ther

the

tools

nor the

opportunities

for

genu ine decision-m aking over

their own

learning.

There

arose

th e myth of a

primary school revolution — founded

to

some

degree

on

highly innovative practice

in a

small minority

of

schools

but

essentially

the result of wishful thinking on the

part

of some child-centred

educat ional i s t s

w ho

occupied prominent posi t ions

in

local educat ion

authorities

(LEAs)

and initial teacher education (Richards

1980) .

Though

mythical, these ideas added

to the

sense

of

interest

and

anticipation

in

working in a system where the children, the teachers and the system itself

were perceived to be full of unrealized possibilit ies. Teachers enjoyed (albeit

rather anxiously) licensed autonomy, they were trusted by politicians and

parents alike

to

take p rofession al decisions abo ut bo th

the

content

of the

curr iculum and the way it should be taught and assessed. A parallel licensed

au tonomy

was not

offered

to

children

—

this

was not the

golden

age of

children's decision-making

that

some nostalgic liberals fondly imagine

An age of disillusionment, 1974-88

The

period

1974—88 was

very different

—

seen from

an

educat ionist 's

perspective.

There was

virtually

no

research into

how

children perceived

or

influenced their educational experience during this period, despite a numb e r

of

major classroom observational research projects. This

was an a ge of

dis il lusionment

—

with

the

post-war dem ocrat ic consensus, with

th e

state

of

the

British economy, with

the

condition

of the

public services, with

the


22/193

The

changing

context of decision-making in English

primary

education 9

quali ty

of

pr imary educat ion

and

with

the

standards achieved

by

pr imary

school pupi l s .

National

surveys of prima ry and m iddle schools (D epartm ent

of

Education and Science 1978, 1983), classroom observational research

(Gallon

et

al.

1980) and my own personal experience visiting schools as a

university lec turer and latterly as a government inspector revealed a

sub stantial gap (inevitable to som e degree ) between profe ssional rhetoric

and

practice,

not

least

in

relation

to the

degree

of

freedom accorded primary

pupils — revealed as il lusory despite th e wild claims of populist rhetoric over

teachers abdic ating respon sibili ty over teaching

and

learning

to

their pupils

-

as il lustrated by publications such as the Black Papers (e.g. Cox and Boyson

1975, 1 977) wri t ten

by

conservative academics, many with li t t le direct

experience of English state schools or pupils.

These factors, within and external to the educat ional system, helped

establish

a myth of decline, especially of declining standards in li teracy and

numeracy. Though decision-making over curriculum, teaching and assess-

m ent rem ained largely in the han ds of schools (and, m ore particularly , of

individual teachers) , there

was a loss of

professional self-confidence

and

direction

in the

face

of

continuing criticism, despite

th e

fact there

was no

substantial evidence either from research or school inspection of a decline in

educat ional s tandards

or of

pu pils being ac corded excessive degrees

of

f reedom. Teachers exercised a kind

of

monitored autonomy, as dur ing the 1980s

both central and local go vern m ent beg an to develop policies for the

curr iculum and LEAs tried to moni to r and influence pract ice in individual

schools. H owever,

the

notion

of

pupil perspect ive,

let

alone pup il cons ultat ion

or decision-making, featured in nei ther nat ional nor LEA th inking.

An

age of regulat ion, 1988-97

The next nine-year period can be characterized as an a ge of regulat ion. It

would

be

interest ing

to

know

in

what terms primary pupils experienced

it,

but the

research

w as

neve r under t aken .

The

st i rr ings

of

government

involvement , begun in the previous period, were replaced by s t rong

intervention especially in the areas of curr iculum and assessment . For the

first t ime since 1 897 En glish prima ry schools were req uired to follow a

detailed,

codified,

state-imposed curriculum and were provided with a

national system

of assessm ent successively

m odified over

th e

years

—

there

was

little scope

for

decision-m aking

b y

schools

and

teachers at tempting

to

grapple

with an overloaded, over-assessed cur riculu m . A n a t t empt to in t roduce

citizenship as a cross-curricular theme offered the po ssibili ty of pu pil

part icipat ion beyond the nat ional curriculum, but like the other cross-

curricular them es ci tizenship never got off the g rou nd. There was one

interes t ing counter-movement to note — the in t roduct ion of 'c i rc le t ime' in a


23/193

1 0 Children

as

Decision Makers

in

Education

smal l number of

schools —

at last giving children something of a

'voice'

but

not usual ly involving decision-making of any substant ial kind. For teachers,

regulated autonomy

replaced moni tored autonomy.

The

instigation

of a

nat ional

cycle

of insp ection was a very

powerful,

tho ug h indirect , way of regulat ing the

system

—

policing schoo ls' com pliance with nation al directives and severely

l imit ing or even precluding high-risk experimentat ion with content , process

or

decision-making.

The myth of low

standards especially

in the

so-called

'basics' promulgated particularly by Ofsted's second chief inspector (see

Richards 1 997) was used to justify t ighter regulat ion and control , though the

evidence was, at worst, very suspect and, at best, far from conclusive.

An age of

dom ination, 1 997-2003

The first six

years

of the New

L a b ou r gove rnme n t

can

bes t

be

descr ibed

as

an a ge of

dominat ion; chi ldren

m ay

have experienced

it in

t e rms

of

tests,

targets , plenaries

and

carpe t -s i t t ing

F ar from

restoring (albei t

in a

more

accountab le form) ini t ia t ive and f reedom to exper iment in the p r imary

sector,

cent ra l government in tervened ever more di rect ly

and

sha rp ly .

It

i n t roduced a nat ional l i teracy strategy which was far more detai led and

prescript ive

than the na t ional cur r iculu m orders ever were (see W yse et

al.

2008) .

T h e

acc om panying num eracy s t ra t egy prov ided rather m ore 'degrees

of

f reedom'

but

only relative

to its

l i teracy equivalent .

The

gove rnme n t

set

early learning goals for the under-s ixes . It prescr ibed teaching methods

which were dang erously c lose to breaking the law as laid down in the 1988

Educa t ion Reform Act . It

made

a fetish of nat ional test ing — t reat ing it as the

measure fo r judg ing the pe r fo rm ance o f p r imary schools. It signally failed to

curb the

excesses

of Ofsted and used

that

organizat ion to reinforce the

domina t ion of the measurab le and gradable as the expression of s t andards

and

qual i ty .

It was

symp t oma t i c

of

this period

that

pupils ' views

and

perspectives never fea tured in any governmenta l consul ta t ion or inspect ion

f r amework .

The government pursued the myth of m oderniza t ion but paradoxically in a

w ay

more reminiscent

of the

nineteenth than

the twenty-first

century .

Moderniza t ion was to be achieved through an unquest ioning acceptance of

government ini t ia t ives; there

was

'zero tolerance'

of

dissent; criticism

was

treated as indicative of vested interests in

'old'

(i.e.

p re -1997)

educat ion

which needed to be swept away or ignored. The government offered

schools

and teachers rhetorical autonomy, they were free in principle to opt out of

initiatives suc h

as the

national strategies,

but at

their peril, given policing

by

Ofsted

inspectors, LEA

officers

and government officials, all with anxious eyes

on

school, LEA and national targets.

There

were, however, some interest ing counter-ini t ia t ives. Though non-


24/193

The

changing context

of

decision-making

in English

primary

education

1 1

statutory (and receiving li t t le other than rhetorical support from the

Dep ar tment for Edu cat ion and Skills), person al, social, health and citizens hip

educat ion was re introduced . 'Circle time' becam e increasingly com m on (it is

interesting to speculate why), notions of student voice were aired (especially

in secondary schools) and the school council m ovem ent began to grow.

Researchers became interested in children's perspectives, as i l lustrated by the

Primary

Asse ssm ent , Cu rricu lum and Experience (PA CE ) project (Pollard

and Triggs 2000; Osborn et

al.

2000) which documented pr imary chi ldren 's

perceived

loss

of auton om y and increas ing ins t rum enta l approach to

school ing

as

they g rew o lde r

amid the

p r e s s u r e

of the

d o m i n a n t

performativity regime.

An age of contradictions: from 2003 to the present

It is part icularly difficult to characterize the current period — an a ge of

emancipa t ion? (hardly) , an a ge o f

illusions?

(possibly) or an a ge o f contra-

dictions?

(mos t likely). But perhaps at long last we may have a better view of

how children are experiencing it through their part icipat ion in school

councils

and in children-as-researcher projects.

In one

sense

surveillance remains a dominant theme. The nat ional

curriculum remains in place; the national

tests

still op era te at the ages of 7

and

1 1 ;

targets s t i l l dominate the educat ional landscape; performance tables

show no

sign

of

disappearing.

A

thousand pages

of

revised numeracy

and

literacy 'guidance ' have been issued on-line. The government has ma de the

teaching of synthe t ic phonics man datory — in clear contradiction to the 1988

Educat ion Reform

Act and to a

cen tury

of

teacher auto nom y over teaching

methodology. Ofsted inspect ions continue — at m ore freq ue nt intervals and

with

a

supposed ly

' l ighter to uch ' bu t

carrying

the

danger

of

constant

surveillance as the psycho logical reality in schools.

Yet there are some counterva i ling developm ents . The government claims

as its goal 'for every primary school to combine excellence in teaching with

enjoyment

of

learning' . Through

the

primary national strategy, schools

are

being encouraged

to be

mo re innovative

and

creative

an d to use the

increased

' f reedom'

to provide a m ore flexible cu rriculu m (tho ug h the possible role of

pupils in influencing that curriculum is unclear). Assessment for learning,

including pupi l

self-assessment,

is in favour ( though not at the expense of

na t ional assessment o f l ea rn ing) . Every Child M at te r s (De pa r t me n t

for

Educa t ion and Skills 2003) promises at long last joined-up thinking and

join ed-u p services. Ex tended schools offer exciting possibili t ies (b ut are

children being consulted, or even making decisions, as to the activities to be

ma de

available?).

Two inquiries

—

one into the na ture of chi ldhood and one

(the Cambridge Primary

Review]

reviewing the state of pr imary educat ion —


25/193

1 2 Children as Decision

Makers

in Educat ion

have been undertaken, though

not by the

government ;

in

both, children's

views

are being s ou gh t. Of sted is at long last expecting schoo ls to seek, and act

on, the views of pupils. School councils are gaining ground; work with

children as researchers is beginning to develop. The

issue

of children as

decision

makers

is on the

research agenda

— but is it on

schools'

or the

government 's agenda?

It is not

possible

to offer a

definitive guiding myth

for

this period,

but it is

possible that

we may be witnessing a partial (but sti l l precarious) relicensed

autonomy

for

English teachers.

But what are we offering children forty years on from the Plowden Report?

Are

children

at

last

to

have

a say in

their prim ary schools? Throu gh school

councils

and the like are we simply (but important ly) helping them to

understand their fu ture roles as citizens or are we helping them to develop

here

and now as

participatory school citizens?

What are the

di lemmas,

contradict ions

and

methodological problems involved

in

developing

that

school citizenry, both in Englan d and elsewhere? The rest of this book (with

its cro ss-cu l tural case-s tudies) prom ises fascinat ing gl impses into suc h

questions. What a ge

might

we be

helping

to

usher

in?

Notes

The eleven-plus examination was taken by children at the end of primary school, to

determine eligibility for entry into selective secondary schools. Versions

remain

in

place in some parts of the country .

References

Boydell , D. (1974) 'Teacher-pupil contact in jun ior classrooms',

British Journal

o f

Educational Psychology,

44, 313-18.

Central

Advisory Council

for

Educat ion (1 967)

Children

a nd

Their

Primary

Schools.

London:

HMSO.

Cox, C. B. and Boyson, R . (eds)

Black Paper 1975.

London: Dent.

Cox, C. B. and Boyson, R . (eds)

Black

Paper

1977.

London: Temple Smith.

Department for

Educat ion

and

Science (1978) Primary Education

in England: A Survey by

H M

Inspectors of Schools. London:

HMSO.

Department

of Edu cation and Science (1 983)

9-13 Middle

Schools:

An

Illustrative

Survey.

London:

HMSO.

Department

for Educat ion and Skills (2003)

Every Child Mat te rs :

Change fo r Children.

Nottingham:

DfES Publications.

Galton, M., Simon, B. and Croll , P. (1980) Inside the Primary Classroom. London:

Routledge.

Osborn, M.,

McNess,

E. and

Broadfoot ,

P.

(2000 )

What Teachers D o : Changing Policy

and Practice

in Primary

Education.

London: Cont inu um .


26/193

The changing

context

o f decision-making in English primary education 13

Pollard, A. and Triggs, P.

(2000)

What Pupils Say: Changing Policy and Practice in Primary

Education.

London: Continuum.

Richards, C. ( 1980) 'Demythologising primary education'. Journal of Curriculum Studies,

1 2 ( 1 ) .

Richards,

C.

( 1997)

Primary Education, Standards and Ofsted: Towards a M ore Authentic

Conversation. Coventry: Centre for Research in Elementary and Primary Education,

Universi ty of Warwick.

Wyse, D., McCreery, E. and Torrance, H.

(2008)

The

Trajectory

a nd

Impact o f National

Reform:

Curriculum and Assessment in English Primary Schools, Primary Review

Research Survey 3/2. Cambridge: Cambridge Primary Review (University

o f

Cambridge, Faculty o f

Education).


27/193

his page intentionally left blank


28/193

Chapter 2

'Prefigurative'

approaches to participatory

schooling: experiences in

Brazil

Tristan

McCowan

Recent interest in increasing pupil participation in school decision-making

has had diverse motivations. Participation can be seen as a right, as enshrined

in the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Y et there

are a n u m b e r of other instrum ental just i f icat ions. Pupil part icipat ion has

been linked to 'school effectiveness' and 'school

improvement ' ,

increases in

test

scores, im prov em ents in the behaviou r of pupils , and enhancing the

overall ethos of the schoo l (F lutte r and Ruddock 2004; Harber and Trafford

1999; Macbeath and Moos 2004) .

l

The rationales outlined above are characterized by an extrinsic value

given to participation, in relation to the educat ional and o ther benefits it

brings

to individuals and inst i tut ion s. How ever, part icipat ion can also be

suppor ted

from the stand poin t of i ts intr insic dem ocrat ic value. Dem ocrat ic

structures in schools, from this perspective, are a good in themselves, whether

or not they contrib ute to the perfo rm ance of s tud ents academically or

socially. At the same time they m ay also be means by which s tudents can

develop knowledge, skills and valu es related to dem ocratic particip ation

outside

the school .

This chapter explores part icipatory approach es

to

schooling based

in an

intrinsic valuing of democracy. Specifically, it focuses on the prefigurative

approach. A case of school democratization in Brazil — the Plural School

—

is

analysed in order to exp lore the possibili t ies of these prefigurative forms.

While th is exper ience encounters s igni f icant problems in relat ion to

i mp l e me n t a t i on ,

it

represents

an

impor tan t ins t ance

o f

par t ic ipa tory

approaches .


29/193

1 6 Children

as

Decision Makers

in

Education

The notion of th e

'prefigurative'

Boggs

1 9 7 7 — 8 )

defines prefiguration as 'the embo diment , wi thin the ongoing

political practice of a movement, of those forms of social relations, decision-

making, cul ture and human exper i ence that are the u l t ima te goal'.

Historical ly, prefigurat ive movements developed

in

opposi t ion

to

forms

of

Marxism that looked

to a

revolut ion headed

by a

strong party

as the

mos t

effective way of achieving the goal of the socialist society. In these

consequentialist

forms, the means were in tension with the ends, in that

hierarchical organization and violence were used to achieve a peaceful , non-

hierarchical society. In c ontrast, oth er forms of revolut ionary organizat ion

aimed to em bo dy the v alues of the desired society within their political

activities.

Prefigurat ive forms have been incorporated

in a

variety

of

forms

of

organ ization, but p articularly in anarc hist (e.g. Fra nks 200 3) and

feminist

movements

(e .g . Epste in 1 991; Ro wbo tham 1979) .

A key characteristic of the prefigurative is

that

it cannot simply be

abandoned in favour of a more effective strategy, since it is not only a means

but also an instant iat ion of the end in the present . It involves either a harmony

between or a unification of ends and m eans (M cCo wan 20 08 ). In addit ion,

prefigurative

forms

are not only instrum ental to the t ransf orm ation of society,

but

also

for

personal l iberation (Go rdon 2007) , providing imp ortant informal

learning experiences for those involved, both individually and collectively. It

is also possible for formal educat ion to be p refigu rat ive. M ichael Fielding's

(e.g.

1997,

2007)

work

on radical

state schooling,

for

example, draws

extensively on the idea of the prefigurative.

The

Brazilian context

Brazil

has a history of author i ta r ianism, and of extreme socio-economic

inequalities. However, in the period following the military dictatorship of

1964—85, there has been a wave of democrat izat ion, and a n u m b e r of

inspiring

civil society organizations and m ovem ents have emerged, part icu-

larly in the area of educ at ion (e .g. Gandin 2006; McCowan 2006; Myers

2008).

The decentral ized nature of the Brazilian system has meant that

opposition

to dominant paradigms has taken the form not only of pressu ring

cent ra l government

for

policy changes,

but

also

of

act ively construct ing

alternatives at the local level. A n um be r of significan t local gov ernm ent

initiatives have emerged in the last twenty years, many under municipal

governments of the Workers ' Party (Partido d o s Trabalhadores, PT) . The case

discussed

here, the Plural School, is a local initiative of this type.

The case stu dy involved qua litative research carried o ut in 2005—6. In

add ition to a general overview, three scho ols were cho sen for in-de pth


30/193

'Prefigurative'

approaches

to

pa rticipa tory schoo ling: experiences

in

Brazil

1 7

research. Interviews were conducted with three officials of the M unicipal

Secretariat of Ed uca t ion (Secretaria Mu nicipal de Educacao , SMED) , and ,

in the

focus

schools, with the head -teache r, three classroom teachers, and

three groups

of

students aged

1 3 — 1 7 .

Interviews were conducted

and

t ranscribed in Por tuguese (quota t ions appear ing in this chapter have been

translated into English by the author) . Classroom observat ions were also

carried out,

as

well

as

documentary analysis involving official curr iculum

guidance

and

pedagogical materials

at the

school level.

There are many aspects of interest in this initiative, but this chapter will

focus on appro ach es to pu pil participation. The Plural S chool does not use

the l anguage of the

'pre f igura t ive '

explici t ly, but clearly displays a

commitment to this form of organizat ion in both i ts wri t ings and pract ice.

First ther e will be an o verview of the initiative, follow ed by an ou tline of its

approac h to pupil part icipat ion and assessment of i ts im plem entat ion in

practice.

The

Plural School

The Plural School (P S) is an initiative of the m unic ipal go vern m ent of

Belo

Horizonte, a large city with a m etropol itan

area

of over 5 mill ion inhab itants .

The city is the capital of M inas Gerais, a relatively wealthy state, but one

with severe inequ alities, leaving

a

significant prop ort ion

of the

popula t ion

in

poverty and polit ical m arginal izat ion. A disprop ort ionate part of this gro up is

ma de up by the black and mixed-race com mu ni t ies , many descendants of the

slaves who were brou ght to the region during the gold boom of the eighteenth

cen tury. Belo Ho rizonte 's mu nicipal system has some 1 64 prim ary and 26

secondary schools,

as

well

as pre-school,

special education

and

you t h

and

adul t educat ion provision ( In s t i tu to Nacional

de

Es t udos

e

Pesquisas

Educacionais Anisio Teixeira ( IN EP)

2007) .

The PS,

initiated

in the 1990s, is a

f ramework

of

policy

and

practice based

around

the

principle

of

inclusion.

In

part icular ,

the PS

aims

to

comba t

'school failure' , represented

by

d rop-ou t

and

grade repet i t ion.

The

traditional

school is seen to exclude sections of the c om m unity in a n um ber of ways:

th rough its choice of valued knowledge, its assessment procedures , the

s truc ture

of the school day and the teacher—student relat ionship. The

framework,

therefo re, repre sen ts an ope ning of this rigid sy stem to a plu rality

of individuals , group s a nd cultures, giving each equal value and oppor tun i ty .

The distinctive feature of the PS is i ts recognition that the realization of the

right to education can be a

form

of exclusion if atten tion is not p aid to

processes and experiences with in the schoo l. Im ple m en tation of this vision,

however, is not w itho ut challenges. Ex isting research (e.g. Da lben 2000;

Gloria and M afra 2 004 ) shows these difficulties, particularly in relation to


31/193

1 8

Children

as

Decision

Makers in

Educat ion

misunders tanding

of and

resistance

to the

initiative

by

teachers, students

and

the local communit ies.

Addressing school democratization

The

importance

of

pupil participation

in the PS

framework

is

shown

in the

following statement by SMED

(2002:

1 5 ) :

'All

[the politico-pedago gical

plans] p ropo se the d evelop m ent of the citizen for participation in society. All

these

propo sals note

that

school will develop these collective

subjects

in as far

as they m ake them part icipants in the cons truct ion of hum anized school

spaces. '

The deve lopm ent of dem ocratic c itizenship, therefore, dep end s on the

democrat ic cul ture prefigured

in the

schools.

There are a

n u m b e r

of

bodies

in

which pupils participate.

The

School Assembly, with

the

participation

of the

whole school community,

has the funct ion of

making decisions

on key

issues

such

as

arrangemen ts d uring

a

teachers' strike.

The

smaller School Council

(clearly distinct

from that

seen

in the

UK), with student , teacher

and

community representat ives,

has a

more executive role, with responsibilities

including management of the budget . While there are federal, state and

municipal guidelines on the curricu lum , individual schools have a large

degree of leeway regarding wh at is taug ht. Schools, therefore, con struc t their

own distinctive

'poli t ico-pedagogical

plans' , which provide the basis for the

curriculum. Direct elections for head-teachers are also universal, aiming to

make school leadership more responsive

to

local needs

and

political demands.

The

participation

of

stud ents , therefore, takes place

in the

context

of a

wider

democratic basis for schooling, involving teachers and communities as well .

The gremios are another key site for pupil participation. These are pupil

associations,

elected by the pu pils themselves, which organize cultural,

sporting and political activities in the school and act as a

forum

for discussion

and as a

mouthpiece

for

stud ent views. These have

a

long history

in

Brazilian

schools, yet the municipal government has aimed to give them impetus, and

particularly

to

enhance their political

funct ion.

A key aspect of the participa tory cu lture in PS schools, and one which

serves to

different iate

i t from

some other

efforts at

school democratization,

is

that it is embedded within a commi tment to transforming political relations.

This

is

contained particularly

in the

adherence

to

Freirean dialogue

as a

pedagogical principle. Dialogue,

in the

Freirean sense, involves

a radical

alteration

of the

relations between teacher

and

s tudent ,

and of the

process

of

knowledge construct ion and acquisi t ion (Freire 1972) .

The PS approach, therefore, is one in which the specific opportunit ies for

pupil participation

in

decision-making

—

such

as the

School Council

and

gremio —

are

underp inned

by a

commi tment

to

democrat ic teacher-student

relations

and

Freirean dialogue.


32/193

'Prefigurative '

approaches

to

participatory schooling: exp eriences

in Brazil

19

Challenges

of implementation

While there were a n u m b e r of s t ructures through which s tudents could

participate, the

gremio

was the most prominent in the

data.

Those s tudents

strongly engaged

in the

gremios reported significant pol it ical dev elopm ent .

Thais, a gremio leader, described the process of broadening her under -

standing

of

political

issues as a

resul t

of her

part icipat ion:

The gremio campaigns for things for the school . F or example, you see there

is

a teacher m issing. Ah You c om plain to the head. But it is not the

faul t

of

the

head that there

is a

teacher missing, that

the desks are

broken, that

there

are not

enough materials .

It is a

nat ional problem.

Y ou

begin

to see

that the stru ctu re of society is m uc h bigg er. So you begin to get involved in

larger issues

than

this, not only in the gremio.

How ever, w hile s tude nts l ike

Thais

had very rich p rocesses of political

development, they are not representat ive of the whole pupi l body. Students

who did not participate directly in the gremio associated it principally with

organ izing parties and excu rsions and expressed scepticism abo ut i ts political

nature, and its efficacy in giving a voice to s tud en t views.

As

well as

difficulties

in extending participation to all within the school,

there were also divergences between schools.

At one

school,

th e gremio was

almost non-existent :

TM: Is there a gremio in the school?

Pupil 1 : Ah. I 've

heard

there is, though I 've never seen it .

Pupil 2:

There

is a

gremio,

but

I've

never seen their proposals, there

isn't even an election. . ..

Pupi l

3: You

see, they organized

a

t ime

for

meeting that

was

only

convenient

for the

organizing group,

it

wasn ' t

for

other

people in the school.

However, taking a perspect ive broader than p art icipat ion in the

gremio,

there

was evidence of a general increase in student part icipat ion in decision-

making. Dora,

a

deputy head, bel ieved strongly

that the

s tuden t s

in her

school had undergone a process of pol i t ical empowerment . She emphasized

the l ink between democrat ic processes in the school and political participa-

t ion outside

it,

be tween

the

prefigurative

and the

pre f igured :

So I see that a

good proport ion

of our

s tudents manage

to

unders t and

and

live that d em ocrac y and then live it ou tside . Bec ause if i t is l ived in the

school . . . if he

[sic,

the

pupil] manages

to

part icipate

in the

life

of the


33/193

20 Children as Decision M akers in Educat ion

school where he is seen as a citizen with rights, he can exercise these rights

here in the school, and that implies duties too. For him it seems clear to

have

that

role outside,

to be an aware

citizen.

Student act ion was often restricted to decid ing relatively trivial elem ents of

school rules, such as their not wear ing uni forms, a nd being able to leave the

school at

lunch t imes .

Yet at

t imes

it

also extended

to the

cu r r i cu l um.

Segu ndo pointed to the em pow erm ent of his s tu de nts to cri t ique his own

teaching:

So

they have

a

strong critique

of my classes. So if I

enter into

any

contradiction, they stop m e there and then, something

that

I think is

gr ea t . . .because I see that they contest things, they don't accept passively

everything that I say . . . [BJecause often the pupi l sees the teacher as the

master of know ledge.

Even three s tudents w ho were not act ive part icipants in the

gremio

emphasized

the

change

in

power relations:

TM : Do you think in general the voice of the stu de nt is heard?

Pupil 1 :

It has

more weight than

the

voice

of the

teacher

I

think.

Pu pil 2: Yes, it 's bec aus e the stu de nts are in the m ajo rity. . . . one or

other voice doesn't count for much, but the voice of the

people

I

think

it has

more power

than the

voice

of the

teachers themselves, of the head-teach er.

Pupil

3: And

also

we can

demand things, what

we

want ,

we can ask

for

our

rights,

you

see.

TM : And do you

manage

it?

Pupil 2: W e even get rid of teachers who

aren't

teaching properly.

While

the

pupils have perhaps overstated their influence

in

relation

to

teachers here, the key point is the

perception

of their right to pow er in the

school.

Not

surprisingly, teachers were

a

li t t le nervous about this growing

student

influence, and about the evaluations of them that the students were

beginning to carry out in som e schools.

Another important aspect

of the

initiative related

to

gender, with

the

disparities of political

influence

in the wider society to a large extent

overcome. Girls were more prominent than boys as representatives in

decision-making bodies

(such

as the

gremio],

and had female role models not

only in relation to classroom teachers but also in positions of responsibility in

school and

local authority.

So, while participation in the gremios may have been limited, there was

evidence

of a

significant

shift in

power relations

in the

schools,

and


34/193

'Prefigurative'

approaches

to par ticipato ry schoo ling:

experiences

in

Brazil

2 1

empowerment

of the

s tudents .

In

addition

to

children as decision makers in education.pdf

Documents