Educating about democracy is a theme in the European and especially the Nordic educational system (Husfeldt & Nikolova, 2003; Hjort, 2013; Løvlie, 2015; Apple et al., 2022). This point implies thoughts of representative democracy at the organisational level and the didactical approach (Solhaug, 2008). Therefore, the idea of progressive pedagogy has impacted the discussions and development in the Danish educational system since the Second World War (Korsgaard, 2009; Freire, 2014). At the general upper education, the Danish gymnasium, democracy has a long history (Raae, 2009), while it is relatively new as a formal approach in the law for Danish VET. At VET, democracy has been mentioned since 2000, and the current law states that VET: ”contributes to developing the participants´ interest in and ability to participate in a democratic society actively” (Ministry of children and education, 2021). Research on democracy in Denmark often pays attention to how youth are socialised to participate in representative democracy, while other Nordic countries have a more developed tradition for research on democracy in the classroom. Some subjects, such as social science, teach about representative democracy (Christensen, 2015), while all subjects can develop students’ democratic experiences by participating in dialogues and decision-making in the classroom and, e.g. processes in group work (Børhaug, 2008; Emslie, 2009). The classroom diversity of subjects and the diversity of students - which is extensive in Danish VET - must be considered (Rönnlund et al., 2019; Nylund et al., 2020).

This paper aims to contribute to students’ experiences in democracy to encourage participation in society. Since Danish VETs offer more than 100 different courses, this paper focuses on social and health care. The research question is: how is the participants’ interest in and ability to participate in a democratic society understood and implemented in the VET colleges, workplaces and classrooms?

The Danish VETs are organised as a dual training system. This structure gives students the opportunities for experiences, enquires and reflections supporting the choice of new actions at school and work. Since school and the workplace do not always agree on solutions and discussions, the students experience the possibilities for learning through disagreement. This context creates opportunities that can be addressed in the classroom, e.g. in group work (Iversen, 2016; Collins et al., 2019).

Dewey inspires the theoretical approach in the paper. He stresses the importance of the interaction between school and the surrounding world. In his book Democracy and Education (2005) [1916], he writes that democracy is not only a way of ruling but a way of living. Understanding the effect on action contributes to reducing race and class division. However, for Dewey, education must educate human beings, not only citizens. He states that taking part in a profession creates the potential for the student to give societal benefit and achieves happiness. However, a school must not only educate the profession but also contribute to perspectives on history and how work is done. Education has to develop the students to find new perspectives on work and actions.

Dewey’s theory gives a framework for analysing organisational and didactical challenges in VET but the theory also suggest how democracy can be developed by reflection on action (Skov & Duch, 2023). Furthermore, the theory can initiate discussions about the current policy and debate of the role of VET. VET is often addressed in relation to low recruitment, high dropout rates and the lack of employees e.g. in the health care sector. However, VET also have a role in inclusion of diverse students to maintain and develop a democratic society.

The data collection runs from autumn 2021 to spring 2023. The starting point is one college, but the study includes other perspectives from two other colleges and workplaces. The methods used are documentary analyses, addressing policy at a national level, and interviews at an organisational level. Furthermore, action research and observation are used. Details on this research will be expanded on below. The research project is initiated in the autumn of 2021, collecting documents and making documentary analyses on policy documents about democracy in VET. At the same time, organisational and didactical challenges and opportunities have been discussed in several meetings with a social and healthcare college. After that, semi-structured interviews are made with students at this college. Twelve students are interviewed in spring 2022. The students represent some of the diversities at VETs such as age, mother tongue, experience in the social and health care sector, educational background and the starting point at the course since some students do not have to attend the first half year at the course. The students are asked about their understanding of democracy and former experiences in family, educational settings and, e.g. spare time activities. The questions address participation at the organisational level at schools and didactical experiences in the classroom. Two researchers did participate in the interviews, and one took notes. The interviews are coded, categorised and analysed. In autumn 2022, the organisational approaches to democracy are explored at three colleges by one interview with a manager at each college. The colleges have different geographical locations, and each college has two or more subdivisions at different locations. This information implies that students´ workplaces are at healthcare institutions in different municipalities with different policies, e.g. recruitment and support of the students during the time spent at workplaces. Therefore, three educational managers, each connected to one of the colleges representing different municipalities, are interviewed. The six interviews are transcribed, coded, categorised and analysed. In spring 2023, action research will take place in one of the colleges. A group of teachers at the college will participate in four meetings about didactical approaches to democracy. The teachers will develop their teaching in between the meetings and get new experiences, followed by collective reflection at the meetings. The researcher will observe three different examples of teaching.

Democracy is addressed later at VET than in primary school and the gymnasium as another secondary education in Denmark. Few formal documents concretise how democracy can be addressed, organisational and didactical, even though the law has this as a goal. Analysing interviews with students shows a diversity of former experiences, with some active in society and at college and some deliberately try not to interfere and express their opinions. Their different attitudes do not correlate with the students’ different backgrounds. At the organisational level, managers understand democracy in different ways and relate to different kinds of activities at college. They also describe democracy by using other terms such as `bildung´ and participating in the college community and the outside world. In the municipalities, the interviews with managers indicate understandings, e.g., workplace democracy, recruitment and integration. Especially one of the managers from the first involved college addresses the didactic and teaching framework. However, it is expected that the action research and the observations can unfold and give examples from the classroom. Summing up, students attend college with different experiences and understandings of democracy, and colleges involve students in different kinds of activities. However, the attention to the diversity of the students’ perspectives is not explicated, and it is not clear if the organisation, the teachers and the students are reflecting on the actions even though democracy is seen as an ideal in society and education. Some of the municipalities give examples of the students’ diversity and the challenges to teach and involve in democratic processes at the workplace. The observations are expected to unfold the potentials and challenges in the different subjects in the classroom. By addressing democracy the importance of VET is stressed: to recruit and educated the required labour force and to include diverse students in the society.

Apple, M. W., Biesta, G., Bright, D., Giroux, H. A., Heffernan, A., McLaren, P., Riddle, S., & Yeatman, A. (2022). Reflections on contemporary challenges and possibilities for democracy and education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 54(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2022.2052029 Børhaug, K. (2008). Educating voters: political education in Norwegian upper‐secondary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(5), 579-600. doi: 10.1080/00220270701774765 Christensen, A. S. (2015). Demokrati- og medborgerskabsbegreber i grundskolens samfundsfag i Danmark, Norge, Sverige og Tyskland. Nordidactica (1), 64–92. Collins, J., Hess, M. E.;Lowery, C. L. (2019). Democratic Spaces: How Teachers Establish and Sustain Democracy and Education in Their Classrooms. Democracy and Education, 27 (1), 1-12 Dewey, J. (2005) [ 1916]. Demokrati og uddannelse [Democracy and Education]. Klim. Emslie, M. (2009). ‘Practise what you teach’. Journal of youth studies, 12(3), 323-336. DOI: 10.1080/13676260902810833 Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of Solidarity: Paulo Freire patron of Brazilian education. Left Coast Press Hjort, K. (2013). Ny nordisk skole – fællestræk, forskelle og fremtidige dilemmaer. Dansk pædagogisk Tidsskrift (1), 7-16 Husfeldt, V., & Nikolova, R. (2003). Students’ Concepts of Democracy. European Educational Research Journal, 2(3), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2003.2.3.6 Iversen, L. L. (2016). Uenighetsfellesskab – en inkluderende innfallsvinkel til medborgerskap. In C. Lenz, P. Nustad, & B. Geissert (ed.), Faglige perspektiver på demokrati og forebygging av gruppefiendtlighet i skolen (p. 22-33). Særtrykk fra Dembra-publikasjon. Korsgaard, O. (2009). Demokrati som pædagogisk værdi. Vera (49), 13–17. Løvlie, L. (2015). John Dewey, phenomenology, and the reconstruction of democracy. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk, (1) 1-13. https://doi.org/10.17585/ntpk.v1.104 Ministry of children and education [Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet] (2021). Bekendtgørelse om erhvervsuddannelser BEK nr 2499 af 13/12/2021. Nylund, M., Ledman, K., Rosvall P.-Å. & Rönnlund, M (2020). Socialisation and citizenship preparation in vocational education: Pedagogic codes and democratic rights in VET-subjects, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41 (1), 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2019.1665498 Raae, P. H. (2008) Når demokratiet er i konflikt med sig selv? Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift. 92 300-313 Rönnlund, M., Ledman, K., Nylund, M., & Rosvall, P. (2019). Life skills for ‘real life’: How critical thinking is contextualised across vocational programmes. Educational research, 61(3), 302-318. DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2019.1633942 Skov, T. H. & Duch, H. (2023). Gruppearbejde som en demokratisk aktivitet. In H. Duch (ed.). Gruppearbejde på ungdoms- og videregående uddannelser – begrundelser og perspektiver. En studiebog til undervisere og lærerstuderende. Frydenlund Solhaug, T. (2008). Kritiske blikk på skolens opplæring til demokrati. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift 92 (4) 255–261