democracy, citizenship and school improvement: what can one school tell us?

School Leadership & Management,Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 421–437, 2002

Democracy, Citizenship andSchool Improvement: what canone school tell us?Mervyn FLECKNOECarnegie Hall, Leeds Metropolitan University, Beckett Park, Leeds, LS3 6QS, UK

ABSTRACT This article is a report of a low cost case study in a small primary school. Theschool has instituted several democratic procedures that involve pupils and staff in leadershipactivities such as reviewing policies and appointing staff. The study sheds light on Hargreaves(2001) capital theory of school improvement, indicating that a dimension should be added. Itthen examines the theories implicit in HMI (2002b) and finds that they ignore a majorconsequence and benefit of the citizenship education observed in the study. Finally, it is arguedthat if the re-culturing envisaged by Furman and Starratt (2002) was extended to includestructural changes that placed value on pupils’ insights and knowledge, even greater improve-ments in education would be available.

Three Theoretical Perspectives on School Improvement Reviewed

Hargreaves’ ‘Capital’ Theory of School Effectiveness and Improvement

Hargreaves (2001) discusses ‘leverage’, which he defines as ‘A large impact on effective-ness or improvement from relatively low levels of teacher effort’ (489). In his theory,‘intellectual capital’ grows by two important processes: the creation of new knowledgeand the capacity to transfer knowledge between situations and people. The ‘socialcapital’ required to create and to support this intellectual capital has cultural andstructural components: the cultural component is mainly trust between people (adults)and the generation of reciprocity and collaboration. The structural component is innetworks and collaborative relations between stakeholders (not including pupils).

The theory implies a view of education as something essentially done to children byteachers. Although, in discussing trust, he opens the door to consider the trust thatteachers might enjoy from their pupils, he does not discuss how schools might generateor sustain this. The issue of trust is well addressed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy(2000), Marshall (2000), O’Neill (2002), Sergiovanni (2001). It is a complicatedsubject; trust is more easily destroyed than created. This case study indicates thatinvolvement in the democratic process can facilitate the creation of trust between pupilsand staff.

In discussing leverage, Hargreaves ignores an important influence. That is, if pupilswant to learn because they regard themselves as citizens, rather than tourists, in the

ISSN 1363-2434 print; 1364-2626 online/02/040421-17 2002 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1363243022000053439

422 M. Flecknoe

classroom, some barriers to education can be removed. In this article, the ontology ofeducation is of a joint enterprise in which teacher and pupil work together to createeducation. The findings of the case study are pertinent to this issue and add a ‘pupil’dimension to Hargreaves’ theory.

The HMI Implicit Theory of Citizenship

There is no official line on citizenship in primary schools, only non-statutory guidance.The two documents that are examined here, HMI (2002a) and HMI (2002b), bothrefer to secondary schools. However, it is reasonable to suppose that the primary schoolshould be laying a foundation for what HMI would like to see, and for what OfSTEDinspection is looking for, in secondary schools. It would surely be a mistake to setstandards for secondary schools that were easily surpassed by primary schools. Lowexpectation has never been a feature of HMI’s approach to education. Unfortunately,these two documents betray an ontology that does not expect structural change toschools as a result of citizenship teaching, and that implies that pupils can learn aboutdemocracy without doing it.

In HMI (2002b) Inspecting Citizenship, HMI reiterate the elements of citizenshipeducation about becoming informed citizens, developing enquiry and communicationand developing skills of participation and responsible action. Nowhere in either docu-ment is the possibility admitted that the participation should be in any area to do withtheir own education. It is all to do with concerns beyond the bounds of school; a schoolwhich is safely and securely administered, in the pupils’ best interests, by the staff.Education, in short, is something done to pupils.

Inspectors are invited to seek evidence of participatory democracy in which ‘dis-cussion of issues in tutor groups and the election of representatives’ (9) would count aspart of the citizenship curriculum. The evidence that should be sought will include (11)‘products of collaborative work … photographs, local newspaper reports or video record-ings. Minutes of a school council … community involvement’. In questioning pupils,inspectors are urged to ask whether they have had opportunity to ‘discuss controversialissues’ (14). Unhelpfully, examples given of controversial issues comprise aspects ofpolitics, topical issues and events; anything, apparently, that is remote from their ownsituation where most controversy is found for many children, particularly for the most‘difficult’ children.

HMI (2002a) is based on a survey of a sample of 20 section 10 inspections to findgood practice in the introduction of citizenship. The strengths that they discover (para.29) comprise a high involvement in charity work and a concern for the war inAfghanistan; nothing to do with the structure and function of their own education, norwith the resolution of conflict in which they are personally involved. Their goodexamples include a description of a lesson probing the moral issues around torture.There is no example of pupils considering any issue of direct relevance to theireducation.

This guidance ignores the quiet unco-operative child, the disruptive child and thealienated child, for whom a participative democracy has so much to offer in terms ofproducing an education suitable for their needs, as indicated in this case study.

Inspectors are not required to look for ways in which a participative democracy haschanged the structure or function of the school. What this guidance does not say is assignificant as Holmes’ dog that did not bark in the night (Conan-Doyle 1894). The

Democracy, Citizenship and School Improvement 423

research reported in this case study indicates that even a primary school, with manyneedy children, can change its structure and function in response to participatorydemocracy; and that this can contribute towards the acquisition of the habit ofcitizenship.

The Democratic Community as the Centre of Educational Leadership

Murphy (2002) has a view of the educational leader which involves:

• Social justice; leader as moral steward;• School improvement; leader as educator;• Democratic community; leader as community builder.

Furman and Starratt (2002) ask the further question ‘what would it mean for Demo-cratic Community to be the center [sic] for educational leadership in schools, and howwould this choice re-culture the profession?’ (105). Their chapter does not addressleadership by pupils in the school community, although they admit that resolution ofconflict may include ‘classroom meetings with students’ (124). The principles that theyenunciate could easily and obviously be extensible to the pupil body. Their problemati-sation of the concept of community is particularly interesting, but its implications areunder-analysed in this chapter. They discuss the demise of community, as a permanentcollection of ‘people like us’. They explain that adults belong concurrently to, and to asuccession of, many communities. The unstated implication is that pupils in schoolshave a need to acquire the skills that facilitate transitory membership of communities.These skills would involve communal problem resolution, and democratically deter-mined community structure and function.

Methodology

This case study is based on a small primary school. The writer and researcher of thearticle is also a governor (but not a parent) at the school. This adds a welcome, intimateknowledge of the school (but not of many of the staff or pupils) and has aided accessto staff, pupils and records. It also adds an unwelcome bias that the reader must judge.Colleague researchers are invited to ask for a copy of tape transcripts to check for therepresentative selection of quotations, or to use them for other research. As the staffinterviewed were selected at random (teachers, n � 5: co-professionals, n � 3), inevitablysome were known to the researcher. The pupils interviewed (n � 8) were all the electedrepresentatives of Classes Two to Six. In each case, permission was sought from parents.Two pupils (co-incidentally, the chair and secretary of the School Council) did not havepermission granted and were not interviewed. Reference has also been made todocumentary evidence, minutes of governors’ meetings, School Council meetings andClass Council meetings.

The interviews with pupils followed a structured format that was described in aletter to their parents with a copy to the pupils themselves to facilitate preparation andto minimise anxiety. They were also asked to bring a picture that they had drawn abouttheir School Council work. The first part of the interview was to ask them about thedrawing. The second part asked them to choose one statement from each of nine pairs,and to explain their choice.

This exercise provided an agenda for discussion. There is always a worry that the

424 M. Flecknoe

form of question determines the answer. Initial piloting of this instrument, with twopupils from another school, suggested that a variety of answers might be obtained. Thechoice and layout of questions was vindicated by the eventual variety of answers thatpupils gave.

Democracy in One School

The one-form entry primary school in this study is in on the southern outskirts of anorthern town. Its pupils represent a lower-than-average social group. Its buildings aredamp in all weathers, with dry rot eating away at the fabric. Its continued existence isunder threat as the local authority seeks to close it. It is well subscribed and its teachers,co-professionals and pupils ascribe that, in part, to the active democratic nature of theleadership at all levels throughout the school.

A headteacher who left at Easter 2002, interviewed in January 2002, describes how,before she came to the school in 1997, the staff meetings were chaired by the previousheadteacher according to her own agenda and minuted by the deputy. Staff had learnedto keep quiet for fear of saying the wrong thing. The new headteacher decided that staffwho were cowed into passivity were unlikely to be able to involve pupils in their ownlearning. She organised staff meetings facilitated by a rotating chair and secretary. Sheencouraged all staff, teachers and co-professionals, to contribute to the construction ofthe meeting agendas by posting items on a notice board. The headteacher said, ‘it tooktwo years to get them talking’. The School Council (two representatives from each ofClasses Two to Six, ages 6–10) came next. Concurrently, pupils became involved inmany aspects of governance, including the appointment of staff and the review ofpolicies. Teachers were unhappy that only a few, elected pupils were able to take acitizen’s part in the running of the school. So, in 2001, Class Council meetings were setup. Now, once per week, each pupil can contribute agenda items and debate ideas aboutthe structure and function of the school. This goes beyond the pupil consultationenvisaged in Flecknoe (2002b) and beyond the use of pupils as researchers recorded bymany authors and in Flecknoe (2001).

The following section is a summary of interview findings. A fuller text and analysisof these interviews can be found in Flecknoe (2002a).

Interviews with Staff

Mary, a support assistant. Mary, in her seventh year at the school, claimed littleknowledge of the increasing democratisation of the school. She had doubts aboutwhether it was right for pupils to be involved in the appointment of the headteacher. Shehad been invited to take part herself but had declined. However, she was very positiveabout the effects of the changes on the culture of the school, describing the emergenceof much more mutual respect between teachers and pupils evidenced by the way inwhich teachers listened to the pupils.

Shelly, a classroom assistant. Shelly was redeployed into the school in 2000 following areorganisation of schools in the LEA. She supports specific pupils in classrooms, sheorders stock and photocopies teaching materials. She sets out the room for SchoolCouncil meetings. When the Council decided that playtime needed some investment,they applied for money to buy equipment. They then consulted Shelly, because she was


the adult with specialist knowledge of catalogues. The pupils regarded Shelly as aspecialist adviser. She felt that the School Council members had treated her with respectand that they appreciated her skills. She also reports acting in a supporting role showingrespect in her turn. Shelly had been unsure whether pupils should be involved in theappointment of the headteacher but became convinced by her dealings with them thatthey had the maturity to make a good decision. Her experience of playground duty twicea week led her to believe that behaviour had improved there.

Shelly describes an adult relationship with pupils through the ordering of equip-ment that arose as a result of the democratic process. She has experienced the rights andresponsibilities of appointing a new headteacher at first hand and has changed heropinion about the suitability of pupils being involved in the process. She describes a newsocial capital, because of the process that staff and pupils have shared. She describesimproved behaviour in the playground (leading to more leverage) because of thedemocratic process.

June, a classroom assistant. June has only been in the school for a short while and hasonly seen the Year Four Class Meeting at work on two occasions. June considers thatthe Council meeting is a different sort of entity from any lesson. She considers thatinvolvement of all pupils in a direct democratic forum has a positive effect onself-confidence.

Angela, a KS 1 teacher. Angela has been in the school since qualifying as a teacher twoyears ago. The very young pupils in her class have a Class Council meeting each week.They participated in drawing up the personnel specification for the appointment of thenew headteacher. Her pupils showed maturity that surprised her. This maturity enablespupils to contribute their own items to an agenda for a meeting each week in which theagenda is followed and minutes are taken. The Council responded to a complaint fromthe Class Six Council that they were sometimes noisy lining up (outside the Class Sixroom), and devised behaviour guidelines to avoid further complaints. This providesevidence that they are learning about the resolution of conflict in preparation for beingmembers of transitory communities (Furman & Starratt 2002). They made decisionsabout playground equipment that they would like. Angela has changed in her behaviourtowards the pupils. She thinks that she spends more time listening to the children andis more aware of democracy within the classroom being used to resolve issues.

Governors have a rolling programme of reviewing policies. A different group ofgovernors, staff and pupils conduct each review. Angela was involved in the review ofthe behaviour policy. She reports that both staff and governors found pupils’ inputvaluable in this review. This substantiates the claim that staff treat pupils differently inthe democratic process, with pupils playing the role of adults, whose voice counts. ClassCouncils have spent quite a lot of their time (about half to judge from minutes)discussing behaviour. One explanation is that the teacher is using the Council as ameans of control. Angela denies this, pointing out that all items are raised by the pupils.For instance, Angela’s class were complaining that the cloakroom was too small (it is)and that there was a lot of unwanted physical contact as a result of too many six-yearsolds struggling with clothing in a confined space. The Class Council discussed this asa result of a pupil putting the item on the agenda:

They’ve suggested that if you can see that there isn’t room by your peg, then

426 M. Flecknoe

wait by the door until there is room for you to go in. A lot of that has comefrom the children, very rarely have I brought up behaviour issues.

Angela has described a thriving democratic community, substantially led and adminis-tered by six-years-old pupils. She describes her own behaviour as having changedtowards the pupils, allowing them to come to resolution, rather than imposing solutionson them. She gives evidence about how the governors and staff take pupil opinionseriously in the review of policy. She discusses the depth of understanding revealedduring the democratic process of finding a new headteacher.

Mike, a KS 2 class teacher. Mike has taught in the school for many years and has justleft (Summer 2002) for promotion. He thinks that the democratic structures havechanged the culture of the school. His Class Council has a rotating chair person andminutes secretary; the minutes secretary of last week becomes the chair of this week; allthe eight and nine years olds take it in turns to perform this role. Pupils control theagenda and make sure that other pupils stick to it. The organisation of the Class Councilis a mirror of the of the staff meetings.

He describes how otherwise silent and unco-operative children take an active andconstructive part in the meetings. Belbin’s theories (Belbin 1981) describe the nine rolesthat people can play in team situations. From this case study, it is evident that aspectsof this theory apply to young children as well as to executive teams and that this providesa role for otherwise marginalised pupils. There is often little role for the ‘monitor-evaluator’, for instance, in a class setting. The democratic forum evidently enablespupils who naturally function in ‘non-pupil’ to develop their natural roles.

Mike’s class have also discussed behaviour in the small cloakrooms and otherbehavioural issues. In response to the problems of queuing for lunch, after a longdiscussion they decided to line up in pairs, rather than one behind the other. Theresponse of the lunchtime supervisors was that it was worth trying because the pupilshad suggested it.

He gives examples of how he allows elected pupils to determine priority in schooltime for the performance of their representative duties. Theories about stress manage-ment frequently ascribe excessive stress in the workplace to a lack of discretion about theuse of time. From this point of view, increased self-determination may lower the stressof schooling and improve ‘behaviour’.

Mike has described a Class Council that mirrored the structure of the staffmeetings. He sees that pupils have been able to develop different team roles in thedemocratic forum that they would not have been able to develop in, say, lessons aboutcitizenship: the roles of shaper, chairperson and monitor/evaluator, for instance. Hedescribes how the school has taken decisions of the Council seriously, and has alloweda pupil decision to affect an organisational system. He gives an example of how heaccommodates to pupils’ priorities and advances the opinion that pupils are more likelyto be able to make an organisational system work if they have designed it. He feels thatparticipation in the Council has facilitated the development of quiet pupils in his class.

Sian, Key Stage Two teacher. Sian thinks that participation in a democratic environ-ment has ‘had a big effect and a positive effect’ on her (older) pupils. Her class has twoSchool Council representatives. After a period in which she organised the Class Councilto get it going, the class elected another two pupils to chair and minute the meetings


each week. Their minutes reveal matters relating to the building, the ‘Lollipop patrol’vacancy and some matters of discipline, which are raised by the pupils themselves andnot by Sian. Their meetings are well disciplined, says Sian, they have agreed rules forthe conduct of the meeting. The class does not get good reports back from their SchoolCouncil representatives. Sian ascribes this to a lack of confidence and recall ability of therepresentatives. However, she thinks that members of the class have learned from thisand will alter their voting behaviour next time.

This shows an emerging political consciousness about the qualities that are requiredfrom a representative. She observes that taking part in this democratic forum hasbenefited many of the pupils: ‘I think everyone takes more responsibility for keeping theschool tidy, for watching the behaviour. I think as a whole everyone works togethermore’. She says that it has had an effect particularly those with unhelpful behaviourpatterns. This echoes Mike’s comments about the effect of the School Council activitieson the quiet ones in his class. Evidently, this experience of a different style ofinteraction, and a platform to air opinion and have it taken seriously, enhancesdevelopment opportunities for some pupils, those perhaps most in need. It also adds tothe level of responsibility felt by the pupils for the running of the school. It is possiblethat pupils feel less cause to exhibit rebellious behaviour when they have a democraticplatform for their views.

Sian was involved in the review of the Sex Education policy along with twogovernors, another teacher and four pupils. She describes this as being a positive processin which they arrived at different conclusions because the pupils were able to share theirfears and ignorance, and their expectations of the programme. This is an example ofwhere pupils, who would not normally influence a class teaching situation, have apositive and long lasting input through a democratic process into the content of thecurriculum.

Susan, assistant headteacher. Susan was appointed recently to the school, by a processthat included an interview with members of the School Council. She currently hasresponsibility for its maintenance and development. She identifies many problems withthe School Council, not least the difficulty of coming with an agenda and takingminutes. Although the pupils have learned how to take minutes in their literacy hour,they have to relearn what is important to record when they are minuting their ownmeetings. Learning about democratic procedures in a lesson does not necessarily enablepupils to operate such a system.

The staff who were interviewed have made compelling observations about the effectof the fledgling participatory democracy in the school. In particular they have describedthe structural changes that have been made to give pupils democratic responsibility.These include, not only School Council and Class Council meetings, but pupilinvolvement in appointments, in reviewing policies, and in deciding, to some extent,their own time priorities. They have indicated that some pupils have benefited whomight otherwise not have gained so much from education. They have indicated thatdoing democracy has been effective in understanding democracy.

Interviews with Pupils

From the pairs of opposing statements offered to them, all eight pupils chose ‘I alwayssay what I think at School Council meetings’. The pupils were all emphatic about this

428 M. Flecknoe

from Year Two to Year Six. This indicates a lack of intimidation of younger pupils byolder pupils, which would produce a gradation of confidence from young to olderpupils.

All eight pupils chose ‘Other pupils usually listen to me there’ and this confirmsthat there is a listening ethos in the School Council forum. There is, of course, no pointin pupils saying what they think unless they also believe that others will listen to them.It was therefore no surprise that all eight pupils chose ‘The Council is very important’.This is a confirmation of the perceived importance of a forum where one can say whatone thinks in the expectation that others will listen.

John, in Class Two, illustrated the point about their discussions being important:

Well, when we had to choose the new head teacher, that was extremelyimportant, and if something goes wrong, we need to talk about it.

All eight pupils chose ‘My teacher is usually interested in what I think’. This isencouraging, but perhaps not unusual in a good primary school. Pupils evidentlyconsidered confidently that their voices were being heard.

Three pupils chose ‘Next year I will still be the Council representative’. This is aminority of pupils interviewed and indicates that pupils were quite happy to nominatethe second option of a pair when they considered it to be their right answer. Most of thepupils thought that other representatives would be found. Ruth thought that she wouldbe the representative next year as well as this year (because the other pupils would not‘know what to do’). However, she acknowledged that other pupils should have thechance to learn what was involved in being a representative.

The concept of a democratic choice of representatives seems clear to most of thepupils, but the heady persuasion of power (‘others would not know what to do’) is alsobeing experienced by current representatives.

Although all eight pupils chose ‘We make decisions about important things’, onealso chose the opposite because he felt that sometimes they spent ages in discussingtrivial matters.

All eight chose ‘I am able to learn things because my teacher knows how to teachme’ but four also chose ‘I am able to learn things because I know how to learn’. Thiswas a wild question to try to establish whether the pupils were thinking on a conceptuallevel throughout the questioning. In answer to the probing question, two volunteeredthat they had learned to speak without a teacher, Rachel (Class Five) had taught herselfcross-stitch, and Ruth (Class Three) said ‘you could get some books … and just learn[from] them there’. These are impressive answers from pupils under 11 years old.

Of the drawings done by the children for the interview, only three did not featurethe name of the school prominently. These are reproduced at the end of this article.Martha, in Class Two depicts the room where School Council meets. One girl is saying(according to Naomi) ‘We could vote’, another girl is saying ‘Yes’ and the rest of thechildren are voting. Voting is near the top of Martha’s mind when asked to depict theCouncil meeting. Not only that, but her depiction of voting is of a unanimous vote. Itappears that someone is entering the room, bidden by someone at the door saying‘Welcome’. The atmosphere of Martha’s Council meeting is a happy and accepting onein which there is accord on issues discussed.

Naomi, in Class Four, shows a very complicated scene explaining who all of themembers of the School Council are and what they do. The vignette shown illustrates thethree important documents in her mind, which are ‘actions’ ‘minutes’ and ‘agenda’; she


shows the Council members, all smiling. It would not be valid to read too much intothese pictures, but there is a sense of organisation and the portrayal of a happy scene.

Luke, in Class Six, has a circular table. He shows the 10 representatives of the fiveclasses (with enormous ears) and their Council files and agendas; together with theheadteacher; or it may be Susan, the assistant head; who has a more complicated file.The choice of a circular table is interesting, because he knows that the School Councilmeets round a rectangular table. The aerial view shows that the meeting is aboutbusiness that requires files and agenda papers.

The overall impression from these conversations with the pupils, and from theirpictures, is that:

• They consider the School Council to be important;• It gives them opportunity to speak and to be heard;• It is a pleasant experience;• Important items are discussed;• The school and governors all take this seriously;• Decisions are taken in a non-threatening way, by consensus;• They have an understanding of aspects of democracy in action.

The conversations with these pupils also convey the impression that they are remarkablepeople in their own rights. However, the Panda report for the school would indicate thatpupils here are from homes of modest means without many of the advantages that arecommonly understood to confer outstanding qualities on children. Perhaps it is thedemocratic platform on which they stand and the way in which their opinions arereceived that enables them to excel.

Schools judge themselves on harsh criteria if they ask the multiple questions posedby Fielding (2001). This school can claim positive answers to many of his questions.

Beyond the introductory questions like: ‘Who is listening? Why are they listening?How are they listening?’ (102) lie the more demanding:

How do those involved regard each other? To what degree are the principle ofequal value and the dispositions of care felt reciprocally and demonstratedthrough the reality of daily encounter? (104)

This school can give, legitimately and confidently, answers from a position of thoughtfulimprovement. Fielding’s last paragraph also sums up some of the feelings in the casestudy school. This is a place where the teacher tempers her necessary authority with thedesire to understand and accommodate to the pupil voice.

The student voice movement has within it the possibility of educationaltransformation: to achieve this potential we will have to discard the now-mori-bund framework of school effectiveness and embrace a view of educationwhich understands that the means of our engagement cannot sensibly beseparated from the nature of our aspirations. The narrow instrumentalism ofthe high performance school must give way to the more widely conceivedaspirations of a person-centred education. (Fielding 2001: 108)

Commentary

This article draws its data from a case study. The findings at one school, investigatedwith questionable reliability because of the ambiguous position of the researcher, cannotbe generalised even to ‘similar’ schools. However, this may be an unusual study of a

430 M. Flecknoe

more usual phenomenon. Educational researchers have not spent much effort yet toinvestigate democracy in schools. It is likely that the experiences and reflections of thepupils and staff interviewed in this study are replicated elsewhere but not researched.

One test of validity is whether other researchers find similar, or conflicting evidence.MacBeath et al. (2001b), as part of the ESRC ‘Consulting pupils about teaching andlearning’ programme, report on nine schools that are experimenting with pupil voice. Ofthese, one primary and one secondary school involve pupils in the appointment of newteachers. All nine seem to have undergone structural changes (definitive examples givenat the top of p. 13). The emerging evidence from their study seems to support thefindings of this article.

Other commentators are reflecting on the contribution that students can make toeducational improvement by unlocking their tacit knowledge about teaching and learn-ing, and by making it available to teachers. Arnot et al. (2001) investigate pupils’thinking about learning but do not investigate structural change in the school. Clarkeand Fielding (2001) investigate some structural changes in three secondary schoolsarising from involving pupils in some aspects of leadership but the report does notcontain evidence from pupils. Doddington et al. (2000) assert that structural changesfollow from consulting pupils about the curriculum. MacBeath et al. (2001a) is apreliminary report on a much larger study that is eagerly awaited. McCallum et al.(2000) interviewed 44 pupils in Classes Two and Six about learning and uncovered aremarkable depth of understanding amongst them, although the investigation did notprobe school structure. Senge et al. (2000) comment on the value of students’ thoughtsin assisting school improvement. Students of all ages have been shown to be able tocontribute constructively to debates about teaching and learning and to matters ofgovernance.

The principle underlying the work of all these authors is that the ontology ofstudents is different from the ontology of teachers and that access to its vision willfacilitate communication and the sharing of wisdom. This will result in structuralchanges.

This case study goes beyond the beneficial effect of using pupil knowledge aboutpedagogy, Flecknoe (2002b), in presenting evidence about beneficial structural changesthat can arise from the institution of democratic structures in schools. It casts light onthe three theoretical frameworks outlined at the beginning of this article.

Hargreaves’ ‘Capital’ Theory of School Effectiveness and Improvement

Hargreaves (2001) theory does not deal with the attitude of pupils to the school. Thepupils in the case study apparently changed their attitude towards staff because of theinstitution of democratic structures. Greater respect between pupils and teachers wouldincrease leverage and would affect school improvement potential. The case study revealsadult conduct on the part of pupils in the appointment of the headteacher, acting onbehalf of their electors, and of a more co-operative spirit because of the widespreadinvolvement of staff and pupils in this process. It indicates that pupils as young as sixunderstand, and can apply, detailed knowledge to decision making. If this is recognisedthrough the democratic structure, teachers can make faster progress through some of thecurriculum that assumes a tabula rasa in children’s minds. There appears to be anemergence of trust between staff and pupils, and structures for discussion and resolution


of conflict, that echo Hargreaves’ description of social capital. The effect of thisemergence was most notable to staff amongst ‘quiet’ and ‘potentially disruptive’ pupils.

Pupils in this case study solve problems and disputes through the democraticprocess. Much of ‘disruptive’ pupils’ behaviour is ascribed to frustration with the‘system’ or to bullying that they cannot deal with. If pupils are used to dealing withproblems through a democratic procedure, if they cease to feel powerless, leverage willincrease.

Hargreaves’ intellectual capital encompasses the generation of new knowledge andthe transfer of knowledge between situations and people. I would like to add twoexcellences to his theory of school effectiveness and improvement:

• The intellectual excellence which is a working understanding of democratic socialorganisations;

• The moral excellence to try always to achieve ends and solve disputes bydemocratic means.

I should also like to add to the components of leverage, the process of:

• Creating social capital between staff and pupils;• Giving pupils a working knowledge of how to solve disputes and achieve the

fulfilment of needs through democratic structures.

These changes to the theory are particularly relevant to those pupils who cause thesystem the most trouble. If the democratic platform enables the unco-operative child,the disruptive child, and the alienated child to contribute positively to schoolingprocesses, they will not be the only ones to gain. Their teachers will be able to spendmore time assisting all pupils to learn; other children will suffer less harassment anddisruption. This increases leverage.

The HMI Implicit Theory of Citizenship

HMI (2002a) and HMI (2002b) ignore the sort of structural changes that have takenplace in the case study school. Their view is that pupils can learn about democracy andpractise it safely on issues which they care about, but which do not affect the school. SeeCovey (1999) and his discussion of the sphere of influence and spheres of concern. Thisencourages a sort of tokenism that avoids giving pupils a democratic platform on whichto develop skills. MacBeath et al. (2001b) comment that ‘staff are often happy to let the[School] Council deal with matters that do not intrude into the school’s core businessof learning and teaching’ (78). It appears that this is also the expectation of HMI. It isdoubtful whether learning about citizenship will make good citizens, but this is asecondary issue compared to the potential that active citizenry has for school improve-ment. While ever pupils behave as tourists in schools; wondering what the tour guide hasfor them today; demanding expected standards of provision without acknowledgingresponsibilities; extracting the maximum benefit without contributing to the mainte-nance of the learning environment; they will not learn at their full potential. The citizenis aware that one person’s right is sustained by another’s responsibility. This case studyindicates that this important lesson can be learned by involvement in democraticargument to solve disputes and to achieve the fulfilment of needs.

Democratic structures can be a positive contribution to the inclusion agenda. Muchof the discussion at Class Council is about behaviour, with pupils even suggesting

432 M. Flecknoe

sanctions for those whose behaviour prejudices Council efficacy. Perhaps inspectorsshould be looking for pupil-controlled behaviour codes as evidence of citizenship.

Pupils positively affected the outcomes of policy discussions. In the case of the sexeducation policy, pupils affected the content of the curriculum. Inspectors should belooking for covert pupil involvement in governance of schools; required in manyContinental countries but proscribed by law in England and Wales, Davies (2002).

Although pupils have dealt with note taking in the literacy hour, they still strugglewith it in School Council meetings. Inspectors should be assessing whether pupils arelearning about democratic procedures and citizenship issues through direct experience,rather than through debates about Afghanistan and studying the structure of Parliament.

The pupils’ pictures indicate that they find democratic involvement a positiveexperience in which contentious matters are dealt with by voting (usually unanimously).Teaching citizenship, without opportunities to practice citizenship, might be comparedto teaching mountain leadership, sports coaching skills or the theory of counselling,without giving the learner opportunity to practise those qualities and skills. Inspectors,trying to ascertain whether citizenship is being taught effectively, could profitablyexplore pupils’ attitude towards and involvement in conflict resolution and thefulfilment of needs.

The Democratic Community as the Centre of Educational Leadership

Furman and Starratt (2002) say that the ‘perceived risks of democracy are apparentlychaos and loss of control’ (112). This is perhaps why HMI avoid any mention ofstructural change in schools that would encourage the expression of, and adapt toaccommodate, pupil opinion. MacBeath et al. (1996) found that teachers in Scotlanddid not want pupils to comment on their experience of education. They thought thatdisaffected pupils would see it as a good opportunity to be abusive and destructive. Theythought that pupils had a very limited and egocentric view. In the event, in the Scottishstudy, less than one-tenth of 1% of comments were abusive or destructive. This studyindicates that disaffected pupils and their teachers and classmates may gain a great dealfrom the introduction of democratic structures. It indicates that pupils from the age ofsix understand a good deal that surprises their teachers.

Although Starratt (1996) and Starratt (2001) deal with pupil democratic issues,Furman and Starratt (2002) discuss the formation of a democratic community only ofemployees in schools. In this study, the structures that define professional lives influencethe way in which they treat pupils. The Class Council mirrors exactly the structure ofthe staff meetings that are part of the teacher’s professional life. The pupils whose voicesform part of this case study feel that they can say what they think; that other pupils listento them; that staff and governors are interested in what they say; and that what theydebate is important. The staff feel that they pay more attention to pupils’ views thanthey did before. Who would wish to teach in a school whose pupils felt that what theythought did not count? That other pupils did not pay them the courtesy of listening?That teachers did not listen? That they had nothing of importance to debate? Surely, thenew thinking about a re-culturing of the profession should go further than a change ofbehaviour on the part of the principal towards the teachers? The theory of thedemocratic school must embrace structural change to include the pupil voice ingovernance.

This article suggests that:


• Hargreaves’ ‘Capital’ theory of school effectiveness and school improvementrequires a pupil dimension;

• HMI have defined Citizenship in an unhelpfully narrow and academic way. Theywould better serve the needs of society by laying down guidelines that requirecitizenship to be inspected through its influence on the structure of schools;

• Furman and Starratt (2002) should extend their influential theories of thedemocratic community to include pupils.

A single case study is a limited basis for such assertions. More research is clearly needed.

REFERENCES

Arnot M, Reay D, Flutter J & Wang B (2001) Pupil consultation and the social conditions oflearning: race, class and gender, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the BritishEducational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Belbin R (1981) Management teams: why they succeed or fail, Oxford: Heinemann.Clarke P & Fielding M (2001) Perilous conduct: initiating, developing and transforming the

relationship between student and teacher, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Conan-Doyle SA (1894) The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes: silver blaze, London: Penguin.Covey S (1999) The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, London: Simon and Schuster.Davies L (2002) Pupil voice and the quality of teaching and learning, paper presented at the

Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter.Doddington C, Flutter J & Rudduck J (2000) Taking their word for it: can listening, and

responding, to pupil’s views give new directions for school improvement? Education 3–13,28(3), 46–51.

Fielding M (2001) Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: new departures or new constraints inthe transformation of 21st Century schooling? Forum, 43(2), 100–110.

Flecknoe M (2001) Adding value to sixth formers’ education and to school self-evaluationthrough Excellence in Cities, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the BritishEducational Research Association, University of Leeds.

Flecknoe M (2002a) Democracy, citizenship and school improvement: what can one school tellus? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association,University of Exeter.

Flecknoe M (2002b) How ICT can help us to improve education, Improving Teaching andEducation International, 39(4), 271–279.

Furman G & Starratt R (2002) Leadership for democratic community in schools in Murphy JThe Educational Leadership Challenge: redefining leadership for the 21st Century, Chicago:National Society for the Study of Education.

Hargreaves DH (2001) A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement, BritishEducational Research Journal, 27(4), 487–503.

HMI (2002a) Citizenship: survey report: preparation for the introduction of citizenship in secondaryschools 2001–2002, London: HMI.

HMI (2002b) Inspecting Citizenship, London: HMI.MacBeath J, Boyd B, Rand J & Bell S (1996) Schools Speak for Themselves, Glasgow: National

Union of Teachers.MacBeath J, Demetriou H & Myers K (2001a) Supporting teachers in consulting pupils about

aspects of teaching and learning and evaluating impact, paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

MacBeath J, Myers K & Demetriou H (2001b) Supporting teachers in consulting pupils aboutaspects of teaching and learning, and evaluating impact, Forum, 43(2), 78–82.

434 M. Flecknoe

Marshall E (2000) Building Trust at the Speed of Change: the power of the relationship-basedcorporation, New York: American Management Association.

McCallum B, Hargreaves E & Gipps C (2000) Learning: the pupil’s voice, Cambridge Journalof Education, 30(2), 275–289.

Murphy J (2002) Reconceiving Educational Leadership, New Orleans: American EducationalResearch Association.

O’Neill O (2002) Reith Lectures, London: BBC.Senge P, Cambron-McCabe N, Lucas T, Smith B, Dutton J & Kleiner A (2000) Schools

that Learn: a fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents and everyone who cares about education,London: Nicholas Brealey.

Sergiovanni TJ (2001) Leadership: what’s in it for schools? London: Routledge Falmer.Starratt R (1996) Community as curriculum in Leithwood K & Hallinger P (general eds)

International Handbook on Educational Leadership and Administration, Amsterdam: Kluwer.Starratt R (2001) Democratic leadership theory in late modernity: an oxymoron or ironic

possibility? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(4), 333–352.Tschannen-Moran M & Hoy W (2000) A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning and

measurement of trust, Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593.

Notes on Author

Mervyn Flecknoe is currently a senior lecturer in school improvement at Leeds MetropolitanUniversity and a governor of a primary school. Previously he served as headteacher in two largesecondary schools following an initial career in engineering. Email: [email protected]


FIG. 1.

436 M. Flecknoe

FIG. 2.


FIG. 3.

democracy, citizenship and school improvement: what can one school tell us?

Documents