Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Southern Queensland]On: 10 October 2014, At: 06:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Oxford Review of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/core20
Seen and heard, and then notheard: Scottish pupils’ experienceof democratic educational practiceduring the transition from primary tosecondary schoolRoss Deuchar aa University of Strathclyde , UKPublished online: 16 Jan 2009.
To cite this article: Ross Deuchar (2009) Seen and heard, and then not heard: Scottish pupils’experience of democratic educational practice during the transition from primary to secondaryschool, Oxford Review of Education, 35:1, 23-40
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054980802018871
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Oxford Review of EducationVol. 35, No. 1, February 2009, pp. 23–40
ISSN 0305-4985 (print)/ISSN 1465-3915 (online)/09/010023–18© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/03054980802018871
Seen and heard, and then not heard: Scottish pupils’ experience of democratic educational practice during the transition from primary to secondary schoolRoss Deuchar*University of Strathclyde, UKTaylor and FrancisCORE_A_302053.sgm10.1080/03054980802018871Oxford Review of Education0305-4985 (print)/1465-3915 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & [email protected]
Education for citizenship is firmly on the policy agenda throughout Britain, and there is an expec-tation that teachers will create a participative, consultative ethos in schools. This paper identifiesthree main vehicles for pupil consultation: elected pupil councils, democratic and participativeclassrooms and opportunities for pupils to engage with controversial issues within the curriculum.It focuses on a longitudinal study of pupils’ experience of democratic practice in Scottish schools inrelation to these vehicles. Evidence from a diverse sample of primary schools illustrates the way inwhich upper-stage pupils are encouraged to participate in decision-making processes and engagein the discussion of contemporary social issues of their own interest both in the classroom andduring pupil council meetings. In addition, further evidence of the extent to which these samepupils’ experience of the democratic process evolves following their transition to secondary schoolis reported. The paper raises new questions about the extent to which Scottish pupils may beexposed to a progressive model of democratic education, and suggests that children may be givenmore opportunities for consultation in primary school than they are in the early stages of secondaryschool.
Introduction: a new, pragmatic focus on citizenship and democracy
The renewed interest in education for citizenship and democracy has emerged froma general renewal of interest in values in education and also the perceived need for amore participative approach to school organisation. This has coincided with anumber of wider political developments throughout the world, such as the emergence
*Department of Childhood and Primary Studies, University of Strathclyde, Faculty of Education,Glasgow G13 1PP, UK. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
24 R. Deuchar
of recently democratised states such as South Africa and those of Central and EasternEurope and Latin America (Osler & Starkey, 2003). In addition, governments inestablished democracies see education for citizenship as ‘a means of restoring confi-dence in democracy’ in light of the concern about young people’s apparent disengage-ment with formal politics and alleged alienation from social and community values(Osler & Starkey, 2003, p. 245).
A plethora of international constitutional developments have had the aim of ensur-ing that young people become involved in political decision-making, such as thecreation of the European Youth Parliament, National Youth Parliaments in theCaribbean and New Zealand as well as the more localised structures in cities acrossEurope (Burke & Grosvenor, 2003; Deuchar, 2007). In Britain, Blair’s governmentcreated a new Cabinet Committee for Children and Young People in 2000, whichwas combined with the creation of the Scottish Youth Parliament and Scottish CivicForum (an independent forum for individuals and civic organisations to debate polit-ical issues, share information about current legislation and encourage young peopleto participate in the democratic process). Brown (2003) refers to the principlescreated by the Steering Group that took forward the proposals for the ScottishParliament, with a focus on power sharing, accountability, access, participation andequal opportunities. Many have argued that these same principles should underpinthe organisation within a school.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes specific reference to the needfor democratic approaches to children’s participation in school. Articles 12–14 statethat children should be given freedom of expression and also given the right to formassociations. In England, the establishment of the Advisory Group on CitizenshipEducation agreed that effective education for citizenship would comprise three inter-related strands: social and moral responsibility, community involvement and politicalliteracy. Firstly, children should learn self-confidence and socially and morallyresponsible behaviour in and beyond the classroom. Secondly, they should learn tobe involved in the concerns of their communities through active civic involvement.Thirdly, they should learn how to make themselves effective in public life throughengaging in conflict resolution and decision-making at local, national and interna-tional levels (QCA, 1998; Kerr, 1999).
In Scotland, Learning and Teaching Scotland (LTS, 2002, p. 7) presents an overallgoal for citizenship in schools which reflects the need for ‘thoughtful and responsibleparticipation’ in public life and which may find expression through ‘creative andenterprising approaches to issues and problems’. In addition, the Scottish Executive’snew proposals for A Curriculum for Excellence outline the need to encourage pupils tobecome successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effectivecontributors to society (Curriculum Review Group, 2004). Indeed, the CurriculumReview Group clearly emphasises the need for democratic values to underpin thepractice in schools:
Wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity: the words which are inscribed on the mace ofthe Scottish Parliament have helped to define values for our democracy … It is one of theprime purposes of education to make our young people aware of the values on which
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scottish pupils and democracy 25
Scottish society is based and so help them to establish their own stances on matters ofsocial justice and personal and collective responsibility. (Curriculum Review Group,2004, p. 11)
It is clear, then, that the renewed interest in citizenship over the last ten years hasemerged against wider social and political developments that have put democraticparticipation firmly on the agenda. New constitutional developments have aimed toencourage young people to play a more active part in civic concerns, and many haveargued for these same democratic principles to guide the organisational arrangementsin schools. Since the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified bythe British government, this places an obligation to ensure pupil participation iscommonplace in schools.
Enacting democratic principles in schools
Democracy is a form of government by consent, and is underpinned by the idea thatcivic and political policies should be decided by open debate based upon reason andargument rather than by dogma or force (Carr, 2003). Thus, a democratic schoolneeds to be based upon these same principles of open discussion, debate and consul-tation. Flutter and Rudduck (2004, p. 5) argue that giving pupils the opportunity toparticipate in school decision-making processes will have a positive impact on youngpeople’s attitudes and behaviour. However, they also argue that pupil consultationcan present a school with challenges:
Teachers may find that pupil consultation brings to light issues which are not simple andstraightforward to address. The process itself can create or deepen tensions, either betweenstaff members or between teachers and pupils … Pupils, too, may find consultation ‘uncom-fortable’ … some may regard consultation with deep suspicion or a degree of anxietybecause they are unaccustomed to having their views really listened to by adults. (Flutter& Rudduck, 2004, p. 23)
Flutter and Rudduck (2004) have created a ladder of pupil participation, based onearlier work by Hart (1997). As Figure 1 illustrates, this ladder outlines the routesthat pupil participation initiatives in schools may follow, describing increasing levelsof involvement from ‘non participation’ to the highest stage of active engagement. Ina study commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council/Teaching andLearning Research Programme (ESRC/TLRP), data suggest that, while a few schoolsmay have reached the highest rung of the ladder, the majority are implementing initi-atives which fit the descriptions of rungs 1 and 2 (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). Otherevidence suggests that hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of school organisation stilldominate and that many teachers still favour a didactic approach to teaching andactively discourage pupil initiative and willingness to engage in social activism(Harber, 1995; Kerr et al., 2002; Boyte, 2003; Cunningham & Lavalette, 2004;Harber, 2004; Schweisfurth, 2006; Deuchar, 2007).Figure 1. The ladder of pupil participationIt seems that there are many isolated pockets of exceptional work in many schools,where individual teachers encourage pupils to have a say in the decision-makingprocess or where pupils are encouraged to participate in isolated committees that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
26 R. Deuchar
promote the pupil voice. However, the UN Convention of the Rights of the Childemphasises that all children have the right to consultation and participation. Theauthor’s own view is that this type of consultation needs to permeate the whole schooland underpin the implementation of the whole curriculum, so that children’s rightsare fully realised and, in turn, they realise the power of their voices and their potentialfor participating and taking action in the wider community (Hart, 1997; Holden,1998; Holden & Clough, 1998; Alderson, 2000).
Vehicles for democratic participation
How can schools ensure that a range of vehicles are used so that a participative,consultative ethos is in evidence throughout the school, as opposed to being confinedto individual teachers in isolated classrooms? The author suggests the need for threevehicles: the election of pupil councils (Deuchar, 2004b, 2006, 2007), the creation ofdemocratic classrooms (Maitles & Gilchrist, 2005) and the discussion of controversialissues of particular interest to the children (Maitles & Deuchar, 2004a, 2004b;Deuchar, 2007). A brief discussion about each of these vehicles now follows.
Pupil councils
Both the Advisory Group on Citizenship (QCA, 1998) and its Scottish equivalent(LTS, 2002) have endorsed the need for fully functioning pupil councils (Deuchar,2007). It has been argued that the councils can be a very effective means for signallingto students that they are respected and that ‘their capacity to contribute to the task of
4. pupils as fully active participants and co-researchers
3. pupils as researchers
2. pupils as active participants
1. listening to pupils
0. pupils not consulted
Figure 1. The ladder of pupil participation
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scottish pupils and democracy 27
school improvement is recognised’ (Baginsky & Hannam, 1999, p. iii). Internationalresearch suggests that councils can become an important vehicle for children to partic-ipate in their community and in turn promote positive behaviour (Halstead & Taylor,2000; Taylor & Johnson, 2002). Indeed, Osler’s (2000, p. 54) study into pupils’ viewson how effective discipline can be achieved highlights the need for canvassing pupils’views through suggestions boxes, questionnaires and school councils and ensuringpupil representation on school boards of governors.
Thus, it is clear that many pupils feel that the creation of school structures forparticipation can play a fundamental role in creating a well-disciplined school. Daviesand Kirkpatrick (2000, p. 43) highlight the work of several Swedish schools, wherecommittees of teacher and pupil representatives meet to design aspects of the curric-ulum and to choose activities, thus enabling pupils to ‘take more responsibility fortheir learning’. The greater sense of trust and equality between teachers and pupils ischaracterised by a ‘listening culture’, enabling children to achieve greater levels ofconfidence and self-esteem and resulting in ‘fewer identity and behavioural problems’(Davies & Kirkpatrick, 2000, p. 77).
Unlike the UK, a significant number of European countries have legal frameworksrequiring pupil participation in schools. For instance, in Denmark the Act onDemocracy in the Education System 2000 means that every student has the right toexert ‘direct influence’ on the day-to-day running of schools (Osler & Vincent, 2002,p. 39). In Ireland, the Education Act 1998 makes provision for the setting up ofschool councils and states that a school board must establish and maintain ‘proce-dures for informing students about school matters’ (Osler & Vincent, 2002, p. 74).The Dutch 1992 Education Participation Act requires secondary schools to have aparticipation council with equal numbers of staff, pupils and parent representatives,while the German Schulmitwirkungsgesetz 1994 requires that every school has a schoolcommittee with teacher, parent and pupil representatives (Davies & Kirkpatrick,2000). Thus, there seems to be a significant gulf between the UK and otherEuropean countries in terms of legislation on pupil participation.
In the UK, most schools have created pupil councils in response to the growingattention being given to education for citizenship. However, in many schools thepupil council members are restricted in the scope of their discussions: Baginsky andHannam (1999, p. iii) highlight that the agendas associated with many councils tendnot to roam far outside the ‘charmed circle of lockers, dinners and uniform’. On theother hand, Hannam (1998) provides examples of English pupil councils which havebeen involved in interviewing teachers for teaching posts and discussing issues relatedto learning and teaching approaches in the school.
Pupil councils are clearly recognised as a vehicle for active citizenship in schools,and the evidence suggests that, if managed effectively, they can have a positive impacton the ethos of the school. Lessons can be learned from other European countries,where statutory requirements for creating such councils are well established.However, questions remain over the type of current educational practice thatsurrounds pupil councils and it is clear that a tokenistic model must be avoided(Dobie, 1998; Taylor & Johnson, 2002; Deuchar, 2004b, 2007).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
28 R. Deuchar
Classroom decision making
Many studies have found that pupils of all ages value the opportunity to have a say inwhat goes on in the classroom (MacBeath et al., 1996; MacBeath, 1999). Indeed,Bruner, Vygotsky and, more recently, Gardner have highlighted the importance of theactive engagement of the student in creating effective learning (Harkin, 1998). In anaction research study by Meyer and Etheridge in the USA (1999), pupils in seventhand eighth grade classrooms began to follow Mortimer Adler’s Paideia Philosophy(Adler, 1982). In making adjustments to the Spanish curriculum, the researcherdeveloped a participative approach whereby she moved away from the dominanceof the textbook to an approach where students were given the opportunity to makedecisions about what and how they would like to learn.
In a Scottish action research study where a democratic approach to learning wasdeveloped in a large mixed ability Religious and Moral Education Secondary 3class, Maitles and Gilchrist (2005) found that 87% of pupils felt that they werelearning better because the teacher was trying to involve them. The findingsdemonstrated that the participatory classroom style had a ‘positive impact onpupils’ citizenship values, dispositions, motivations and interest’ (Maitles, 2005,p. 41). Similarly, Hudson (2005) describes an initiative in a London secondaryschool, set within a challenging socio-economic background, where pupils wereencouraged to investigate local, national and global concerns, present solutions tokey decision-makers and work with staff to develop student decision-makingthrough the pupil council. Hudson’s data indicates that pupils moved from havingpassive identities to politicised identities, where they were able to draw upon theirrenewed sense of agency to engage with their communities and become aware oftheir own potential for action.
It is clear that democratic teaching methods require time, energy and patience onthe part of the teacher and the pupils; teachers need to ensure that pupils have trustin the new approach and believe that their views will be taken seriously, particularlyif they have been used to a more autocratic style of learning. As Woodrow (1997, p. 8)puts it, democracy is either ‘born or denied’ in the classroom. Ultimately, the advan-tages of developing warmer, more interactive relationships between teachers andstudents are numerous and include more effective academic learning, social andemotional growth and the overcoming of social disadvantage (Deiro, 1996; Harkin,1998).
In spite of these advantages, however, it seems that an autocratic approach tendsto prevail. Young (1992, p. 36) has found that pupils are often seen as ‘individualswho must simply be made to reproduce the point of view being advanced, by what-ever means seem expedient and economical’. Fielding (2001) has pointed out thatteaching and learning are often seen as being forbidden areas of enquiry, and thatdiscussion about teaching styles is still largely restricted to groups of teachers anddoes not include pupils. Evidence from around the globe, including Africa, Asia,North America and many parts of Europe, suggests that schools have retained astrong ethos of authoritarianism (Harber, 2004; Deuchar, 2007).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scottish pupils and democracy 29
Controversial, contemporary issues
Media images in a global age expose children to many more controversial social, polit-ical and humanitarian issues than ever before, and evidence suggests that pupils arekeen to discuss such issues in school (Maitles & Deuchar, 2004a). Indeed, Oultonet al. (2004) highlight that issues such as the debate about whether we should permitgenetically modified crops to be grown in the UK are debated in ways that would nothave been considered feasible before, and that including the discussion of suchcontroversial issues in the curriculum is an effective way of preparing pupils forparticipating in their resolution.
There are several positive illustrations of practice where pupils have engaged inchallenging discussions surrounding areas of contemporary interest. Maitles andDeuchar (2004b) refer to group discussions with primary 7 (age 11) pupils who havebeen encouraged to discuss the debate surrounding the Iraq War. The class teacher’sapproach centres upon creating an ethos of encouragement, where freedom of expres-sion prevails. As a result pupils develop a rich knowledge of the current debatessurrounding the war, a deeper concern for human rights and a growing ability to recog-nise forms of media and political manipulation (see also Maitles & Deuchar, 2004b;Deuchar, 2007). Colucci-Gray (2004) also describes a case study where 14–15 year-old students participate in role play activities in order to debate the issues surroundingprawn farming. As the role play activities progress, pupils recognise that they havebecome more able to listen to other people’s points of view, more skilled at arguing acase more convincingly and more informed about issues and conflicts around theworld beyond what they see in the news.
The arguments for including controversial issues in the curriculum are thereforecompelling (Oulton et al., 2004), as the Advisory Group on Citizenship has argued:
Education should not attempt to shelter our nation’s children from the harsher controver-sies of adult life, but should prepare them to deal with such controversies knowledgeablyand sensibly, tolerantly and morally. (QCA, 1998, p. 56)
Oulton et al.’s (2004) research suggests that a wide range of controversial issues isexplored in schools, although the topics that pupils explore in secondary schools areoften similar to those explored in the primary sector. The common barriers to imple-mentation in secondary schools tend to be the dominant focus on preparing pupils forforthcoming examinations, the breaking up of the school day into shorter lessons andteachers’ general fears about remaining neutral during pupil discussions (Ashton &Watson, 1998; Agostinone-Wilson, 2005). Whereas some secondary teachers areoften uncertain about whether some topics are suitable for younger children, mostprimary teachers feel that any topic can be explored as long as it is handled in the rightway (Holden, 1998; Oulton et al., 2004).
The research study
The author worked with a sample of primary schools (age range 5–11) thatprovided a diverse background to the research, through a range of school types and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
30 R. Deuchar
socio-economic contexts. Five schools were selected from across Scotland, in fivelocal council areas. A mix of denominational and non-denominational schools wereselected for inclusion, and the selection of three inner-city schools was contrastedwith the inclusion of two rural and small-town school environments; one school wasselected with a high proportion of ethnic minority pupils, while others had almostexclusively white pupil populations. Finally, while two schools were set within veryaffluent social contexts, three others were located in more deprived areas.
Within each sample school, one specific class was selected as a case study fromprimary 6 (P6) (age 10) or primary 7 (P7) (age 11), thus providing a sample of 150upper-stage primary pupils. Between 2003 and 2004, pupils were issued with shortquestionnaires, asking them to describe three decisions they had made in school andthree controversial issues they had recently discussed in class. Pupils were introducedto the Collins Dictionary definition of ‘controversial’ as being about an issue withmore than one viewpoint. Pupils were also asked to describe the aims of the schoolpupil council and give an indication of how successful they perceived the council tobe. From the initial sample, focus groups were created for follow-up discussions: asmall sample of five or six pupils from each school was selected, with a good gendermix and range of intellectual ability, thus creating a ‘purposive’ sample (Cohen et al.,2000, p. 99).
Later in the study, the author tracked sample pupils as they made their transitionto secondary year 1 (S1) (age 12) in 2004 (for the initial sample of primary 7 pupils)or in 2005 (for those pupils who were in primary 6 at the beginning of the study). Thislongitudinal element to the research resulted in the school sample being widenedfrom the original five primary schools to an additional five secondary schools. Pupilswere again issued with short questionnaires and focus groups were re-visited in orderto determine the extent to which pupils’ views had changed and evolved. It was recog-nised that there are problems with this kind of longitudinal study, such as the dangersassociated with reactivity, researcher and respondent bias and the creation of partic-ipant expectations (Mason & Bramble, 1978; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Cohen &Manion, 1989; Gall et al., 1996; Rudduck & McIntyre, 1998; Gay & Airasian, 2000).However, a range of strategies were put in place in order to ensure authenticity ofemerging data (Maxwell, 1992), such as the use of triangulation, member checkingand negative case analysis (Padgett, 1998).
The author was also involved in making visits to pupil council meetings in each ofthe primary schools and acting as an observer in 2003 (as described in Deuchar,2004a, 2007). As a follow up to this study, the author observed meetings in thesecondary schools to which the pupils had migrated between 2004 and 2005. Thisobservation was guided by the use of an observation schedule that was used for gath-ering data under key headings. Follow-up interviews with school councillors andnon-councillors were conducted via pupil discussion groups. Among other things,the researcher aimed to make a comparison between the number of pupils involvedin meetings, the time spent on items, the type of items discussed, the level of interac-tion involved, the kind of decisions made by council members and the impact of thecouncils’ work in both primary and secondary schools.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scottish pupils and democracy 31
The author’s work with five primary schools also involved contact with five differ-ent classroom teachers and headteachers. Later, the author also worked with teachersand Principal teachers in the five secondary schools. It was decided that each of theseprofessionals would be interviewed in order to establish their views about pupilconsultation and participation. In the sections that follow, the key data emerging frompupil council meetings and discussions with councillors and non-councillors isreported. Thereafter, the evidence emerging from pupil questionnaires, focus groupsand teacher interviews provides an illustration of the way in which pupils wereinvolved in classroom decision-making and the discussion of controversial issues inprimary school, and following their transition to secondary education.
Pupil councils in primary and secondary schools
In each of the five primary school pupil councils visited, there seemed to be eitherdirect or indirect representation from all year groups in the school. Teacher-leadersgenerally played a facilitative role, guiding pupils in thinking through the issues on theagenda, encouraging them to consider the feasibility of new ideas and occasionallyblocking suggestions on the grounds of health and safety. In terms of Flutter andRudduck’s (2004) ladder of participation, two of the councils could be said to beworking on the highest two rungs: pupils were regularly planning new interventionscollaboratively with teachers in the light of research they had carried out among theirpeer group. In other cases, where discussion was directed more by the teacher-leader,the ethos became one where pupils were merely consulted and informed (Hart,1997). Common discussion topics included ideas for resolving social conflict in theplayground, suggestions for improving the quality of school dinners and for schoolfundraising initiatives. Pupils were also involved in reviewing new school resources,making decisions about how to spend aspects of the school budget, planning class-room topics and school assemblies and expressing views about teaching styles and thequality of adult supervision in the playground (Deuchar, 2004b, 2007).
Councillors were mainly positive about the work of the pupil council, and most feltthat they were having a positive impact on school improvement. Many pupils felt thatthe council enabled teachers to listen to their ideas and provided them with newopportunities, such as managing school budgets. Among the wider pupil populations,the views were generally encouraging: many non-councillors felt that the councilmembers were listening to the pupil voice, acting on children’s ideas and building apositive school ethos. However, a minority felt that the council was tokenistic: in oneschool, pupils felt that their views were not being taken into consideration and wereunimpressed with the council’s achievements (Deuchar, 2004b, 2006, 2007).
During 2004 and 2005, the author visited the pupil councils in the secondary schoolsto which the sample pupils had migrated. Follow-up interviews were conducted withcouncillors and non-councillors in each of the schools. The councils observed werefundamentally different from those in primary schools in the way in which pupils wererepresented: there tended to be a secondary 1–3 (S1–3) council (ages 12–15) and aseparate council for pupils in secondary 4–6 (S4–6) (ages 16–18). As in primary
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
32 R. Deuchar
schools, teacher-leaders took a facilitative role, although in one school the teachertended to dominate discussions and initiate ideas. Since the author’s main priority wasto examine the way in which primary 7 pupils’ experience of consultation and decision-making evolved after their transition to secondary school, he chose to observe the workof S1–3 pupils councils in each of the sample schools (see also Deuchar, 2007).
During the observed pupil council meetings, the author found that many of thetopics discussed were similar to those found on primary pupil council agendas: pupilsdebated the advantages and disadvantages of new ‘healthy eating’ options in theschool dining room as well as issues relating to bullying, school uniform and schooltoilets. In one school, S3 members had been annoyed about the slow progress withthe school refurbishment programme and had written letters to the Director ofEducation, asking for an update. In another school, S3 pupils had been involved inattending educational conferences and had brought ideas back to the school. And inanother, third year pupils had initiated an anti-smoking lobby in the school andinsisted that this lobby would apply to staff as well as pupils.
The S3 councillors seemed very enthusiastic about the work they were involved inas part of the pupil council, but felt that some members of the wider school populationwere unaware of the nature of their work:
I feel very privileged to be able to make the school a better place.
I enjoy being able to reassure primary pupils that the school isn’t too bad … showing themthat we’ve all survived.
I like … first years coming to us and asking questions.
I think some people don’t fully understand what we’re trying to do … because it’s beensmaller projects. It would be good to organise a bigger event.
Among the younger members of the councils, the feelings were generally less positive.Many S1 pupils seemed confined to talking about the issues relating to Baginsky andHannam’s (1999, p. iii) ‘charmed circle’ of school dinners, toilets and uniforms, andfelt less involved than they had been at primary school. Non-councillors in S1 viewedthe work of the council with distaste, and felt that their views were not listened to inthe way they had been at primary school:
[The pupil council] said the pupils and the parents would get to choose [the schooluniform] but they didn’t let us choose, they let the parents choose.
They don’t tell us anything. We have a representative in each class but we don’t hear much.
It is clear that these secondary pupil councils were upholding the participation rightsof the older pupils, while younger pupils were marginalised. In addition, it seems thatthe more senior secondary school councillors had a higher regard for the work of thepupil council than non-councillors. These findings suggest that pupils who havetaken on important responsibilities at primary school may be unlikely to encountersimilar responsibilities again until they reach the senior stages of secondary school(echoing the findings of HMIE, 2006). Although there may be some positive illustra-tions of democratic processes in secondary schools (Hudson, 2005), the research
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scottish pupils and democracy 33
confirms previous research findings by Taylor and Johnson (2002), who report onmany positive illustrations in primary schools but less favourable views in secondaryschools, where student apathy often emerges as a result of the power of the schoolhierarchy.
Evidence of classroom decision-making and discussing controversial issues
Evidence emerging from questionnaires and focus group discussions with primaryschool pupils revealed the opportunities they had for making decisions at school.Pupils responded with various examples from both within the classroom and beyond.Some pupils concentrated their discussion on the work they had done as part of thepupil council: they described the way in which they had made decisions about thebuying of school resources, games and playground equipment and the choice of foodavailable in the school dinner hall. Others talked in a wider sense about the way inwhich their teachers gave them opportunities to have a voice in the classroom:
We get to decide what groups we’re going to be in.
We decided what books we would like to read.
We do ‘circle time’ with the whole class … whatever the class says, [the councillors] taketo the pupil council.
You’re not afraid to stand up in front of the class and tell about your ideas … if you havean idea, people will listen to you.
Pupils talked about a range of controversial issues that they had recently discussed inclass, and there was evidence that this discussion was often quite challenging innature. While some pupils had been involved in discussing the pros and cons of thewar in Iraq, others had talked about the impact of global terrorism and the causes ofthe tsunami disaster in 2004. In one school, pupils had been involved in making deci-sions about the school refurbishment programme and had suggested to the pupilcouncil that a plan of the new proposals be sent to parents as a basis for further discus-sion and debate. Others had discussed the need for changes to the school layout totake account of the needs of disabled pupils and parents, or had been active in creatingthe school’s code of conduct.
In follow-up interviews with primary school teachers and headteachers, the impor-tance of promoting the pupil voice was underlined: staff talked about the need forgiving pupils opportunities to participate in decisions as a means of preparing themfor becoming active in their community in later life. However, headteachers oftenhighlighted that, although most of their colleagues were committed to school democ-racy, some still had a fear of giving children too much control and felt that disciplineproblems could arise if pupils were encouraged to become too vocal (Deuchar,2004a, 2006, 2007).
Later in the study, pupils were asked to describe the decision-making opportunitiesthey had in S1, compared with P7. Pupils were initially enthusiastic about secondaryschool and felt that they had more responsibility than they had in P7: they had the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
34 R. Deuchar
freedom to decide if they wanted to go out of the school building at lunchtime, andtook responsibility for following a timetable and for organising a homework diary.However, when asked to give specific examples of the decisions they made in class,their responses were limited:
I decided what to do my English talk on.
In music we got asked what two instruments we wanted to play.
[I decided] whether to play in the school football team or not.
[We have to decide] to behave … you either behave or you’re out.
While some pupils felt that they made more decisions in S1 than they had in P7because of the perceived levels of freedom and independence, many others disagreed:they talked about the way in which older pupils made more decisions than they did,and that teachers made most of the decisions. One pupil summed up the views ofmany when he said that ‘everything is decided for us here’ (Deuchar, 2006).
When asked about controversial issues, it seemed that many of the topics beingdiscussed in Modern Studies classes were similar to those covered in P7: pupils talkedabout participating in debates about the Iraq War, the causes of the tsunami disasterand whether Tony Blair should be re-elected in the General Election of 2005. Seniorpupils participated in discussing controversial issues as part of the work of the pupilcouncil, such as the issues surrounding the need for a new smoking ban and the ongo-ing debate about the way in which older school buildings should be re-designed.However, participation in these debates was closed to S1 pupils, whose contributionto the pupil councils tended to be limited to the ‘charmed circle’ of topics outlined byBaginsky and Hannam (1999, p. iii).
During follow-up interviews, some secondary teachers talked about colleagues’unwillingness to encourage pupil responsibility or to move away from the focus onpreparing pupils for examinations and testing. One teacher summed up the views ofmany when she described the dominance of didactic and authoritarian approaches inevidence in secondary school classrooms:
As a teacher for five years in this school, I have rarely, if ever, experienced any enterprisinglessons. Pupils work in silence, on their own.
It seems, then, that pupils were given many opportunities in primary school for gain-ing access to school finances and thus influencing the buying of school resources andequipment. Although there was some evidence of authoritarian attitudes, primaryteachers generally encouraged pupils to express opinions about issues, to makechoices about how they learned in the classroom and to liaise with the pupil councilin order to take new ideas forward. Pupils were encouraged to talk about local,national and global contemporary social and political issues of interest to them and,in some cases, to make decisions that would influence these issues.
As they made the transition into secondary school, the pupils initially felt moremature because of their new sense of freedom and independence. However, in realitythe pupils had far fewer opportunities for making real decisions: for S1 pupils, their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scottish pupils and democracy 35
participation was confined to making decisions about homework, extra-curricularactivities or the way in which they would uphold the imposed expectations for gooddiscipline in school. Their discussion of contemporary issues amounted to ‘more ofthe same’, while their participation in pupil councils was confined to a tokenistic,peripheral role. Having had lots of responsibilities and rights in P7, it seemed thatthese pupils now had fewer responsibilities and no rights during their first year atsecondary school (Maitles, 2005).
Concluding discussion
In Britain, the last ten years has seen a more pragmatic policy focus on the develop-ment of democratic values in schools. As part of the National Curriculum in Englandand Wales, a flexible framework of specific learning outcomes has been created foreducation for citizenship, with a view to enabling more pupil participation in makingdecisions about their own learning. However, Kerr’s (2004) report on the initial find-ings of the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study conducted by researchers at theNational Foundation for Educational Research (NfER) reveals that teacher-ledapproaches to citizenship-related topics predominate over participatory, activeapproaches in the classroom. Indeed, the recent DfES Diversity and CitizenshipCurriculum Review report stresses the need for schools to have stronger mechanismsin place to ensure that the pupil voice is heard and acted upon (DfES, 2007).
In Scotland, the new Curriculum for Excellence aims to create more space for teachersto meet individual pupil interests and needs and to underpin classroom practice withdemocratic values. Only time will tell how successful this curriculum reform turns outto be, but it is clear that enacting democratic principles in schools does not come with-out its challenges: tensions may arise between teachers, and pupils may find it difficultto adjust to the idea of being given more say in what and how they learn. But it is clearthat pupil consultation needs to permeate all the practice within a school and cannotbe confined to the practice of isolated teachers or committees.
In this paper, we have identified three vehicles for pupil consultation and used thisas the basis for examining pupils’ experience of democratic practice in both the upperstages of primary and lower stages of secondary schools. The findings suggest that thethree vehicles for the expression of democracy in schools need to be inter-related, asillustrated in Figure 2: pupils who are involved in pupil councils need to see theimpact of their decisions in the classroom; decisions made by pupils in the classroomshould influence the work of the pupil council; and pupils should also be given theopportunity to make decisions about the type of contemporary, controversial issuesthat they would like to discuss both in the classroom and as part of the work of thepupil council. In so doing, teachers might avoid the danger of having isolated pocketsof pupil consultation and move towards a model of school-wide democratic practice(Covell & Howe, 2001).Figure 2. Vehicles for promoting democratic educational practiceThe longitudinal study outlined in this paper provides some positive illustrationsof the way in which this theoretical model was being translated into practice in asmall sample of Scottish primary schools between 2003 and 2004. In pupil councils,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
36 R. Deuchar
children were often working on the highest rungs of the pupil participation ladder(Hart, 1997; Flutter & Rudduck, 2004), where they had become active researchersand participants in the school decision-making process: councillors consulted withpupils in the wider school via suggestion boxes or the outcomes of ‘circle time’discussions; they had opportunities for handling school finances and for influencingschool policy and practice, as well as discussing controversial issues relating to bully-ing, social conflict, school refurbishment issues and the needs of minority groups.Contrary to Fielding’s (2001) findings, it seemed that issues related to teaching andlearning were not always forbidden areas of discussion and debate. However, insome instances it seemed that councillors had a higher regard for the work of thepupil council than the wider school population.
In the classroom, primary pupils appeared to have a say in the type of groups theyworked in and were encouraged to make decisions about the current issues theywould like to discuss. They felt generally supported, enjoyed debating challengingissues and were either directly or indirectly involved in discussing controversial issuesas part of pupil council agendas.
In secondary schools, however, a different picture emerged. Although senior pupilsfelt hugely involved in the work of the pupil council in each school and were involved
CCoonnttrroovveerrssiiaall,,CCoonntteemmppoorraarryy
IIssssuueess
PPuuppiillCCoouunncciillss
DDeemmooccrraattiiccPPaarrttiicciippaattiioonn
aannddCCoonnssuullttaattiioonn
CCllaassssrroooommDDeecciissiioonn--MMaakkiinngg
Figure 2. Vehicles for promoting democratic educational practice
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scottish pupils and democracy 37
in debating quite challenging and controversial issues, pupil council members in S1felt marginalised (Denholm, 2006; Deuchar, 2007). These younger pupils wereinvolved in re-visiting issues that they had already explored in primary school andwere given less responsibility than they had in primary school to become active inworking towards change. In the wider school, S1 pupils often seemed unaware of andunimpressed by the work of the pupil council and felt that they had fewer opportuni-ties for contributing towards agendas than they had in P7. In the classroom, pupilswere given fewer opportunities to make decisions about the work of the council or tomake decisions about how they would like to learn.
In terms of controversial issues, pupils often re-visited issues that they had debatedin primary school and had fewer opportunities for engaging in civic activism. Thisechoes earlier findings by Oulton et al. (2004) which suggest that the topics pupilsexplore in secondary schools are often similar to those explored in the primary sector.The common barriers towards enacting pupil participation in secondary schoolswere identified as the continued influence of the attainment agenda and authoritar-ian views on teaching and learning (also echoing earlier findings by Oulton et al.,2004).
Although no universal generalisations can be made, the evidence outlined in thispaper suggests that the transition from primary to secondary school may hamperpupils’ experience of education for democratic citizenship. Although there are somepositive examples of democratic processes being implemented in secondary schools(see, for instance, Hudson, 2005; Maitles & Gilchrist, 2005), it seems that pupilsmore often gain direct experience of what it is like to live in a democratic communityin primary school but then lose this experience in the early stages of secondaryschool (Woodrow, 1997). This highlights the importance attached to one of theprincipal aims of A Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland, which is to ensure the intro-duction of more progression and continuity across this transition stage (CurriculumReview Group, 2004). Osler (2005, p. 4) argues that education for citizenship isabout ‘creating a sense of belonging, the opportunity to exercise both rights andresponsibilities and the ability to communicate opinions and participate in decisionmaking’. New research must continue to examine the way in which teachers are ableto expose pupils to holistic and progressive models of democracy in schools whichbridge transitions and enable this vision of education for citizenship to become areality.
Notes on contributor
Ross Deuchar is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Strathclyde: Faculty ofEducation in Glasgow, where he teaches a range of courses in education for citi-zenship. His main research interests focus on the links between enterprise educa-tion, education for citizenship and democracy in education. He writes, and hasbeen published, widely in these academic areas and has recently published hisfirst book: Citizenship, enterprise and learning: harmonising competing educationalagendas (Trentham, 2007).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
38 R. Deuchar
References
Adler, M. (1982) The Paideia proposal: an educational manifesto (New York, Macmillan).Agostinone-Wilson, F. (2005) Fair and balanced to death: confronting the cult of neutrality in the
teacher education classroom, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 3(1). Availableonline at: www.jcep.com/?pageID=articleID=37 (accessed 1 May 2005).
Alderson, P. (2000) School students’ views on school councils and daily life at school, Child andSociety, 14, 121–134.
Ashton, E. & Watson, B. (1998) Values education: a fresh look at procedural neutrality, EducationalStudies, 24(2), 183–193.
Baginsky, M. & Hannam, D. (1999) School councils: the views of students and teachers (London,NSPCC).
Boyte, H. (2003) Civic education and the new American patriotism post-9/11, Cambridge Journalof Education, 33(1), 85–100.
Brown, A. (2003) The Scottish Parliament, in: J. Crowther, I. Martin & M. Shaw (Eds) Renewingdemocracy in Scotland: an educational sourcebook (Leicester, NIACE), 35–39.
Burke, C. & Grosvenor, I. (2003) The school I’d like: children and young people’s reflections on aneducation for the 21st century (London, RoutledgeFalmer).
Carr, D. (2003) Democracy and citizenship, in: J. Crowther, I. Martin & M. Shaw (Eds) Renewingdemocracy in Scotland: an educational sourcebook (Leicester, NIACE), 28–31.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1989) Research methods in education (London, Routledge).Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research methods in education (London & New
York, RoutledgeFalmer).Collucci-Gray, L. (2004) The use of role-play in the science lesson: a study on discussion and
conflict resolution, paper presented at the Scottish Educational Research Association (SERA)Annual Conference, Perth, 25–27 November. Available online at: www.leedsac.uk/educol(accessed 18 December 2006).
Covell, K. & Howe, B. (2001) Moral education through the 3 Rs: rights, respect and responsibility,Journal of Moral Education, 30(1), 29–41.
Cunningham, S. & Lavalette, M. (2004) ‘Active citizens’ or ‘irresponsible truants’? School studentstrikes against the war, Critical Social Policy, 24(2), 255–269.
Curriculum Review Group. (2004) A curriculum for excellence (Edinburgh, Scottish Execu-tive).
Davies, L. & Kirkpatrick, G. (2000) The EURIDEM project: a review of pupil democracy in Europe(London, Children’s Rights Alliance).
Deiro, J.A. (1996) Teaching with heart: making healthy connections with students (Thousands Oaks,Corbin).
Denholm, A. (2006) ‘Switched off’ from school? Take your turn at running it, The Herald,9 January, 8.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2007) Curriculum review: diversity and citizenship(London, DfES).
Deuchar, R. (2004a) Changing paradigms: the potential of enterprise education as anadequate vehicle for promoting and enhancing education for active and responsiblecitizenship: illustrations from a Scottish perspective, Oxford Review of Education, 30(2),223–239.
Deuchar, R. (2004b) Reconciling self-interest and ethics: the role of primary school pupil councils,Scottish Educational Review, 36(2), 159–168.
Deuchar, R. (2006) Not only this, but also that! Translating the social and political motivationsunderpinning enterprise and citizenship education into Scottish schools, Cambridge Review ofEducation, 36(4), 533–547.
Deuchar, R. (2007) Citizenship, enterprise and learning: harmonising competing educational agendas(Stoke on Trent, Trentham).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Scottish pupils and democracy 39
Dobie, T. (1998) Pupil councils in primary and secondary schools, in: D. Christie, H. Maitles &J. Halliday (Eds) Values education for democracy and citizenship (Glasgow, Gordon CookFoundation/University of Strathclyde), 72–75.
Fielding, M. (2001) Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: new departures or new constraints in thetransformation of 21st century schooling? Forum, 43(2), 100–109.
Flutter, J. & Rudduck, J. (2004) Consulting the pupils: what’s in it for schools? (London and NewYork, RoutledgeFalmer).
Gall, M., Borg, W. & Gall, J. (1996) Educational research (New York, Longman).Gay, L. & Airasian, P. (2000) Educational research (New Jersey, Prentice Hall).Halstead, J.M. & Taylor, M.J. (2000) Learning and teaching about values: a review of recent
research, Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 169–202.Hannam, D. (1998) Democratic education and education for democracy through pupil/student
participation in decision making in schools, in: D. Christie, H. Maitles, J. Halliday (Eds)Values education for democracy and citizenship (Glasgow, Gordon Cook Foundation/Universityof Strathclyde), 60–71.
Harber, C. (Ed.) (1995) Developing democratic education (Derby, Education Now).Harber, C. (2004) Schooling as violence: how schools harm pupils and societies (London, Routledge-
Falmer).Harkin, J. (1998) Giving voice to teachers and learners, paper presented at the British Educational
Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, Queen’s University of Belfast, 27–30 August.Available online at: www.leeds.ac.uk (accessed 11 November 2006).
Hart, R. A. (1997) Children’s participation: the theory and practice of involving young citizens incommunity development and environmental care (London, Earthscan Publications).
Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Education (HMIE) (2006) Education for citizenship: a portrait of currentpractice in Scottish schools and pre-school centres (Edinburgh, HMIE).
Holden, C. (1998) Keen at 11, cynical at 18?, in: C. Holden & N. Clough (Eds) Children as citizens(London, Jessica Kingsley), 46–62.
Holden, C. & Clough, N. (1998) The child carried on the back does not know the length of theroad: the teacher’s role in assisting participation, in: C. Holden & N. Clough (Eds) Children ascitizens: education for participation (London, J. Kingsley), 13–28.
Hudson, A. (2005) Citizenship education and students’ identities: a school-based action researchproject, in: A. Osler (Ed.) Teachers, human rights and diversity (Stoke on Trent, Trentham),115–132.
Kerr, D. (1999) Changing the political culture: the advisory group on education for citizenshipand the teaching of democracy in schools, Oxford Review of Education, 25(1/2), 275–284.
Kerr, D. (2004) Changing the political culture: reviewing the progress of the citizenship educationinitiative in England (London, NFER).
Kerr, D., Lines, A., Blenkinsop, S. & Schagen, I. (2002) What citizenship and education mean to14-year-olds. England’s results from the IEA citizenship education study: the views of students,teachers and schools (London, DfES).
Learning and Teaching Scotland. (2002) Education for citizenship in Scotland: a paper for discussionand development (Dundee, LTS).
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry (USA, Sage).MacBeath, J. (1999) Schools must speak for themselves (London, Routledge).MacBeath, J., Boyd, B., Rand, J. & Bell, S. (1996) Schools speak for themselves (London,
NUT).Maitles, H. (2005) Values in Education: we’re all citizens now (Edinburgh, Dunedin Academic
Press).Maitles, H. & Deuchar, R. (2004a) ‘I just don’t like the whole thing about war!’: Encouraging the
expression of political literacy among primary pupils as a vehicle for promoting education for activecitizenship (Leeds, Education Online). Available online at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol (accessed14 December 2004).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
40 R. Deuchar
Maitles, H. & Deuchar, R. (2004b) Why are they bombing innocent Iraqis? Encouraging theexpression of political literacy among primary pupils as a vehicle for promoting education foractive citizenship, Improving Schools, 7(1), 97–105.
Maitles, H. & Gilchrist, I. (2005) ‘We’re citizens now!’ the development of positive values througha democratic approach to learning, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 3(1). Availableonline at: www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articleID=45 (accessed 1 March 2007).
Mason, E. & Bramble, W. (1978) Understanding and conducting research (New York, McGraw-Hill).Maxwell, J. A. (1992) Understanding and validity in qualitative research, Harvard Educational
Review, 62(3), 279–300.Meyer, B.B. & Etheridge, C.P. (1999) Improving student interest in the Spanish classroom
through democratic teaching, Educational Action Research, 7(3), 327–344.Osler, A. (2000) Children’s rights, responsibilities and understandings of school discipline,
Research Papers in Education, 15(1), 49–67.Osler, A. (2005) Education for democratic citizenship: new challenges in a globalised world, in:
A. Osler & H. Starkey (Eds) Citizenship education and language learning (Stoke on Trent,Trentham), 3–22.
Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2003) Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: theoretical debates andyoung people’s experiences, Educational Review, 55(3), 243–254.
Osler, A. & Vincent, K. (2002) Citizenship and the challenge of global education (Stoke on Trent,Trentham).
Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004) Controversial issues: teachers’ attitudes andpractices in the context of citizenship education, Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 489–507.
Padgett, D. K. (1998) Qualitative methods in social work research: challenges and rewards (ThousandOaks, Sage).
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1998) Education for citizenship and the teaching ofdemocracy in schools (London, QCA).
Rudduck, J. & McIntyre, D. (1998) Challenges for educational research (London, Sage).Schweisfurth, M. (2006) Education for global citizenship: teacher agency and curricular structure
in Ontario schools, Educational Review, 58(1), 41–50.Taylor, M. J. & Johnson, R. (2002) School councils: their role in citizenship and personal and social
education (Slough, NFER).Woodrow, D. (1997) Democratic education: does it exist—especially for mathematics education?
For the Learning of Mathematics, 17(3), 9–16.Young, R. (1992) Critical theory and classroom talk (Clevedon, Multilingual Matters).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uthe
rn Q
ueen
slan
d] a
t 06:
55 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
