Objectives

This study employs a legal socialisation perspective to compare two models of participatory disciplinary policy in democratic schools. It reveals the complex relationship between participation and legal socialisation and contributes to both research fields. The study expands the investigation of participation rights by offering a critical analysis of high-level participation models for school discipline. It also provides a unique description of disciplinary school practices that do not follow traditional models of schools’ authority, which have yet to be explored in the legal socialisation literature.

Theoretical Framework

Democratic Schools

The term “democratic schools” describes schools that involve students in the school's management through democratic procedures (see Korkmaz & Erden, 2014). Among the various models of democratic schools, this research studies schools subscribing to two models: the Sudbury model (following the Sudbury Valley School model in Massachusetts) and the Hadera model (following the Democratic School of Hadera model in Israel.)

Students in democratic schools are equal participants in all school practices and enjoy high levels of autonomy (see Korkmaz & Erden, 2014; Wilson, 2015). Students can determine their own schedule, and the entire student body can actively participate in the school's management (Hecht & Ram, 2010). These schools' disciplinary systems consist of committees comprising both students and teachers. Thus, student participation is a core element of democratic schools’ ideology.

Participation Rights

Participation is a fundamental right, anchored in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989, hereinafter, UNCRC). Generally, studies on children's participation rights have espoused a supportive approach, often neglecting the ramifications of participatory practices (see Author 2, 2021a). Some scholars have argued that the promotion of participation has become a "moral crusade" (Lewis, 2010, p. 15) or an unchallenged "mantra" (Tisdall & Punch, 2012, pp. 251, 254), muting critical voices. This uncritical approach can be explained by the fact that researchers of children's rights are typically supporters of human rights themselves, thus ideologically supporting participation (Quennerstedt, 2013).

Legal Socialisation

Children and adolescents develop law-related values, attitudes, and behaviours in a process known as legal socialisation (Tapp & Levine, 1974). Scholars have distinguished between two primary orientations toward the law: coercion and consent (Fine & Trinkner, in press; Trinkner & Tyler, 2016; Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). Studies suggest that promoting a consensual orientation is both feasible and effective (Mazerolle et al., 2021; Trinkner et al., 2018; Trinkner & Tyler, 2016). Tyler and Trinkner (2018) identified three dimensions that promote a consensual orientation: respectful treatment of civilians, a fair decision-making process, and recognition of appropriate boundaries of authority (bounded authority). These dimensions have been associated with legal legitimacy, which in turn, was associated with greater compliance with the law (Trinkner et al., 2018).

The process of legal socialisation begins in early childhood, as the child’s perceptions are shaped through their interactions with authority figures such as teachers and parents (Tapp & Levine, 1974; Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). The school experience constitutes an intermediate stage between the family’s informal and personal authority and the laws’ formal, impersonal authority (Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). Researchers have demonstrated the positive impact of fair treatment and decision making (e.g., James et al., 2015; Resh & Sabbagh, 2014) but not the impact of bounded school authority. Some researchers have demonstrated that perceptions of bounded authority predicted high levels of legal legitimacy and duty to obey the law (Huq et al., 2017; Trinkner et al., 2018). However, no study has yet explored similar assumptions in the school context. In the current study, we explore participatory models that exemplify different boundaries of school authority.

The study was conducted in three democratic schools in Israel. Two follow the Hadera model and one, the Sudbury model. The study applied a qualitative methodology. It drew on 68 interviews: 37 children aged 8–19, 16 teachers, 13 parents, and two school principals. We also collected and analysed relevant documents, including school rules, relevant forms, and documents that define the committees’ responsibilities and ideology. The first participants were recruited with the assistance of the school principals. They presented the research to the school communities, inviting them to participate in the study. These participants provided contacts of other potential participants after receiving their approval. All the adults and 16 children participated in individual semi-structured interviews. The remaining 21 children participated in focus groups of 2–3 children. Most participants (n = 53) were interviewed in person, primarily in their school and sometimes in other spaces at each participant’s preference. The remainder of the participants (n = 15) were interviewed remotely via Zoom when the schools were closed due to the local COVID-19 lockdowns. The interview protocols focused on the school's disciplinary system’s characteristics, the participants’ experiences with the system, and how they perceived it. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The research procedures were approved by the Ministry of Education (approval No. 10938) and by our university's IBR (approval No. 218/18). Adult participants signed consent forms prior to the interviews, and students under 18 provided parental consent. To ensure the participants’ full understanding, children also signed short assent forms in plain language. We used a grounded theory approach to analyse the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). To ensure reliability, each of the authors reviewed the transcriptions independently and formulated tentative categories. We discussed the ideas and agreed on themes that highlighted distinctions between the Sudbury-model school and the Hadera-model schools. We conducted a theoretical sampling to understand our findings and consulted the literature on legal socialisation. At this stage, we refined the coding scheme and used Dedoose software to analyse the data. The final coding scheme comprised three themes comparing the different school types: (1) strictness v. flexibility of discipline; (2) legal discourse v. educational\mediative discourse; (3) wide boundaries of authority v. narrow boundaries of authority.

Students participate in disciplinary proceedings as parties and adjudicators in all three schools. However, the schools differed in their legal socialisation processes. The Sudbury school's disciplinary policy was strict, used legal discourse, and acknowledged almost no boundaries for the school authority. Students were encouraged to sue their friends even in minor incidents. In contrast, the Hadera-model schools' disciplinary policies were flexible, incorporated an educational\mediative discourse, and established narrow boundaries of authority. The Hadera-model schools authorised informal alternatives for conflict resolution, thus circumventing the formal disciplinary committee. The two models' similarities are confined to decision-making processes, whereas the differences are manifested in the treatment of students and boundaries of authority (see Trinkner & Tyler, 2016; Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). The findings indicated that high levels of participation and democratic procedures, which place children in power positions to decide their peers' punishment, may be embedded in different disciplinary policies that reflect different legal socialisation processes. These processes teach students substantially different lessons about their rights in a democratic society. Flexible policies that are intertwined with an educational discourse are more likely to serve the humanistic, developmental, and pedagogical aims of student participation rights (see Author 2, 2021b). In contrast, strict and legalistic policies of participation may have negative implications. These findings highlight that participation rights should be implemented cautiously in educational frameworks. Democratic participatory procedures designed for adults may be unsuitable for school children. Participation in schools may require different structures to fulfil children’s participation rights in accordance with their age and maturity (UNCRC, Article 12). The evolving capacities clause in Article 12 should not be viewed as a necessary limitation to children’s rights but rather an excessive right that enables adaptations for children.

Author 2, 2021a Author 2, 2021b Fine, A. D., & Trinkner, R. (in press). Legal socialization. In R. Gurung (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of psychology in the real world. Routledge. Hecht, Y., & Ram, E. (2010). Dialogue in democratic education – The individual in the world. E-Journal of Alternative Education, 1, 28–45. https://faculty.nipissingu.ca/carlor/files/2013/02/Intrafamily_Differences_and_Conflict_Resolution.pdf#page=28 Huq, A. Z., Jackson, J., & Trinkner, R. (2017). Legitimating practices: Revisiting the predicates of police legitimacy. British Journal of Criminology, 57(5), 1101–1122. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw037 James, K., Bunch, J., & Clay-Warner, J. (2015). Perceived injustice and school violence: An application of general strain theory. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 13(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204014521251 Korkmaz, H. E., & Erden, M. (2014). A Delphi study: The characteristics of democratic schools. Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823365 Lewis, A. (2010). Silence in the context of “child voice.” Children and Society, 24(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00200.x Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Cardwell, S. M., Piquero, A. R., & Bennett, S. (2021). Harmonizing legal socialization to reduce antisocial behavior: Results from a randomized field trial of truanting young people. Justice Quarterly, 38(1), 152–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1618894 Quennerstedt, A. (2013). Children’s rights research moving into the future: Challenges on the way forward. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 21(2), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02102006 Resh, N., & Sabbagh, C. (2014). Sense of justice in school and civic attitudes. Social Psychology of Education, 17(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9240-8 Tapp, J. L., & Levine, F. J. (1974). Legal Socialization: Strategies for an Ethical Legality. Stanford Law Review, 27, 1–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/1227929 Tisdall, E. K. M., & Punch, S. (2012). Not so “new”? Looking critically at childhood studies. Children’s Geographies, 10(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2012.693376 Trinkner, R., Jackson, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2018). Bounded authority: Expanding “appropriate” police behavior beyond procedural justice. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000285 Trinkner, R., & Tyler, T. R. (2016). Legal socialization: Coercion versus consent in an era of mistrust. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 12, 417–439. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085141 Tyler, T. R., & Trinkner, R. (2018). Why children follow rules: Legal socialization and the development of legitimacy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190644147.001.0001 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). UN Doc. A/RES/44/25. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html Wilson, M. A. F. (2015). Radical democratic schooling on the ground: Pedagogical ideals and realities in a Sudbury school. Ethnography and Education, 10(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2014.959978