Objectives

This study explored the roles of educators in the disciplinary procedures of democratic (open) schools, which are characterised by high levels of student participation and autonomy. Students in these schools participate in all types of decisions, including those relating to disciplining their peers. The study examined the disciplinary procedures in three K-12 democratic schools, all operating participatory disciplinary committees where students and educators serve as adjudicators. The complementary and contradictory roles of educators in these procedures were analysed.

Theoretical Framework

The role of adults in participatory practices

Anchored in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989; hereinafter, UNCRC), the prominence of children's right to participation has emerged in various aspects regulating children's lives (see Gal & Duramy, 2015; Lundy, 2007). Several models that conceptualise participation rights call for a central role for adults. For example, Hart’s model described the sharing of responsibilities between adults and children as levels of participation (Hart, 1992). Later models went further by emphasising how adults ought to facilitate children’s participation (Lundy, 2007; Shier, 2001).

Some studies focused on the role of adults in participatory frameworks designed for children. Richards-Schuster and Timmermans (2017) articulated five roles that adults should play within youth-adult partnerships to facilitate youth participation: (1) training and capacity building, including formal and informal methods; (2) challenging and pushing, i.e., encouraging critical thinking and revealing different sides of a problem; (3) politicising and questioning, i.e., helping youth position their views within a broader political context; (4) legitimising and opening, which refers to paving the path for the youth’s ideas to be heard and listened to by adults; (5) sustaining and gluing, which includes everyday tasks that support the group activity, including logistics, communication, and motivating the group. Other studies described similar roles, all aimed to facilitate and enhance the levels of participation (e.g., Collura et al., 2019; Hall, 2020; Hawke et al., 2018).

None of these studies included an inquiry into adults’ role in balancing participation with other rights or with children’s best interests. This gap in the literature relates to the uncritical approach characterising the research about children’s participation rights (see Author 2, 2021).

The role of educators in democratic schools

In democratic schools, students and educators are considered equal participants in the school community and can participate in the school’s management (see Greenberg, 1991; Hecht, 2010; Wilson, 2015). Disciplinary incidents in these schools are typically resolved by a disciplinary committee, where students and educators serve as adjudicators (see Greenberg, 1991; Hecht, 2010). Despite these schools’ aspiration for egalitarianism, critical analysis of democratic school meetings has revealed how these schools’ high levels of participation are at times used to reproduce power relations between different students and between students and adults (Gawlicz & Millei, 2022; Wilson, 2015). Some qualitative studies have revealed the important roles of educators in democratic schools, as educators are capable of enforcing the school’s rules and norms (Gawlicz & Millei, 2022) and can challenge or support power structures among students (Gawlicz & Millei, 2022; Wilson, 2015).

This literature did not analyse adults’ role in participatory disciplinary committees, where students participate in disciplining their peers. The importance of this inquiry extends beyond the context of democratic schools in light of the growing use of participatory disciplinary practices in schools, including peer-mediation programmes (e.g., Gogos, 2020), school-based youth courts (e.g., Brasof & Peterson, 2018), and restorative approaches (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2020).

The study examined three democratic schools in Israel. School A, the largest among them, has over 600 students, age range 4–18. School B, a smaller and newer school, has over 200 students, age range 6–18. School C is the smallest, having around 100 students, age range 4–19. Schools A and B follow the Hadera model, based on Hecht’s Democratic School of Hadera, and School C follows the Sudbury model, based on Greenberg’s Sudbury Valley school. Accordingly, educators in Schools A and B teach classes and act as personal mentors for students as part of their job description, whereas the educators’ job description in School C is more fluid. The study is based on qualitative methods. It draws on semi-structured interviews with 68 participants, including children (n = 37, aged 8-19), educators (n = 18, 16 teachers and two school principals), and parents (n = 13). All the adults and 16 of the children participated in individual semi-structured interviews, while the remaining 21 children participated in focus groups of 2-3 children each. The interviews were conducted during 2019-2020. Most participants (N = 53) were interviewed in person, with the remainder interviewed via Zoom during the Covid-19-related school closures (N = 17). The interview protocols included questions regarding the school's disciplinary system, the participants' views about this system, and their experiences with the system. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. In addition, relevant documents were collected and analysed. These documents included school rules, relevant forms, and documents delineating the disciplinary committees' duties and ideology. The research procedures were approved by the Ministry of Education (#10938) and by the IRB of our university (#218/18). We used a grounded theory approach to analyse the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). To ensure reliability, each author reviewed the transcriptions separately and formulated categories. We consolidated the categories into three main themes describing the role of educators in the participatory disciplinary procedures: (1) promoting maximal student participation at the individual and school level; (2) constraining student participation and balancing it with other rights and interests; and (3) providing students with guidance and support in the participation process. We also conducted a theoretical sampling to improve our understanding of the findings and consulted the literature on the roles of adults in participatory frameworks and democratic schools. Dedoose software was used in the final coding phase to analyse the data.

The findings reveal educators' complementary and contradictory roles in the participatory disciplinary process. On the one hand, educators promote maximal student participation at the individual and school levels. For example, educators tended to minimise their own participation to create space for children’s voice, and advocated for maximal authority to be granted to the participatory disciplinary committee. On the other hand, educators also play a balancing role, constraining the participation of some children in order to protect the rights of others or the best interests of the child whose participation is being restricted. For example, educators stopped violent and harmful behaviour and addressed sensitive disciplinary cases without consulting the participatory disciplinary committee. In addition, the findings reveal a third set of roles that educators play––providing guidance and support to allow maximal participation while protecting the children from potential ramifications. For example, educators provided the members of the participatory disciplinary committee with information about the school rules, the possible outcomes of their decisions, and the educational implications of these decisions. They also provided the participating children with emotional support. The study facilitates a deeper understanding of the different roles adults assume in organisations that subscribe to a comprehensive ethos of participation, including schools that adopt a whole-school participation ethos and various types of youth-led organisations. The study’s focus on the intersection of promoting and constraining children’s participation contributes to the scant literature offering a critical analysis of participation rights. The study may also help educators conceptualise their behaviour in disciplinary procedures. Making sense of these procedures may assist educators in resolving dilemmas and enable them to reconcile their approach with the school’s ethos and justify their actions to themselves and their colleagues.

Brasof, M., & Peterson, K. (2018). Creating procedural justice and legitimate authority within school discipline systems through youth court. Psychology in the Schools, 55(7), 832–849. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22137 Collura, J. J., Raffle, H., Collins, A. L., & Kennedy, H. (2019). Creating spaces for young people to collaborate to create community change: Ohio’s youth-led initiative. Health Education and Behavior, 46(1_suppl), 44S-52S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119853571 Darling-Hammond, S., Fronius, T. A., Sutherland, H., Guckenburg, S., Petrosino, A., & Hurley, N. (2020). Effectiveness of restorative justice in US K-12 schools : A review of quantitative research. Contemporary School Psychology, 24, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00290-0 Gal, T., & Duramy, B. F. (2015). International perspectives and empirical findings on child participation: From social exclusion to child-inclusive policies. Oxford University Press. Gawlicz, K., & Millei, Z. (2022). Critiquing the use of children’s voice as a means of forging the community in a Polish democratic school. Ethnography and Education, 17(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2021.1990100 Gogos, L. (2020). Peer mediation: Equipping student leaders with the ability to resolve internal conflicts. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21(2), 349–360. Greenberg, D. (1991). Free at last: The Sudbury Valley School. The Sudbury Valley Press. Hall, S. F. (2020). A conceptual mapping of three anti-adultist approaches to youth work. Journal of Youth Studies, 23(10), 1293–1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1669775 Hart, R. A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF. Hawke, L. D., Relihan, J., Miller, J., McCann, E., Rong, J., Darnay, K., Docherty, S., Chaim, G., & Henderson, J. L. (2018). Engaging youth in research planning, design and execution: Practical recommendations for researchers. Health Expectations, 21(6), 944–949. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12795 Hecht, Y. (2010). Democratic education: A beginning of a story. Alternative Education Resource Organization. Lundy, L. (2007). “Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033 Richards-Schuster, K., & Timmermans, R. (2017). Conceptualizing the role of adults within youth-adult partnerships: An example from practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.07.023 Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children & Society, 15(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Sage. 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