This conference paper is part of an ongoing investigation (The Fourth Impulse of Pedagogical Renewal in Spain: A case Study in Infant-Primary Schools in the Autonomous Communities of Andalusia, Madrid, Catalonia and Valencia, project I+d+i, PID2019-108138RB-C21, 2020-2023) whose objective is to study the processes of educational transformation of schools that, in an integrated and integral manner, propose a renewal of fundamental aspects that define them (Tyack and Cuban, 1995). The paper focuses on studying some issues related to democratic practice in a unique innovative school: a private (non-elitist) school self-managed by a group of teachers who have the occasional support of the families.

In this paper, we first explain what we mean by innovative schools, we then address some basic issues focused on the conceptualization of democratic practice in schools  and, finally, in the conclusions, we analyse how this practice is implemented in the school under study.

The term “pedagogical renewal” is, as has been shown on several occasions (Costa, 2011; Esteban, 2016; Pericacho, 2016) is a complex and polysemic term that has a long history in Spain and that, internationally, has many similarities with the concept “educational renewal” (Goodlad, 1994; Carlson,2005). Our research team (Demoskole) has decided to define it as the direct opposite of traditional education in its classical conception (disciplinary and authoritarian with differentiated and hierarchical roles and a system of teaching based on pure transmission and the textbook) and of aseptic innovation that changes the forms and appearances but not the substance since it only hides the harsher expressions typical of uncomplicated] traditional pedagogy, replacing them for more friendly guises. In any case, innovative schools are characterized by: i) being centres with progressive educational goals (opposed to what is imposed by the market and the neoliberal way of thinking); ii) making use of active methodologies (opposed to fundamentally rote and acritical methodologies); iii) having an open and flexible organization of time and spaces; iv) teaching a curriculum that is as little compartmentalized as possible and conveyed through methodologies that integrate diverse knowledge; v) embodying educational roles that, despite being different, are not hierarchical, facilitate participation and foster trust; vi) implementing a transversal, qualitative, formative and continuous evaluation of the learning processes; vii) having shared leadership; viii) being clearly committed to participation and democratic practice;  and  ix) having a close relationship with the physical and social environment  (Feu and Torrent, 2020; Feu et al., 2021; Feu and Torrent, 2021a; Feu and Torrent, 2021b).

The democratic and participatory issue, despite being presented as the eighth characteristic, is central to any innovative school  – a democracy and participation that, like the other elements previously mentioned, can be graduated. In the case at hand, and following authors such as  Fielding (2012), Mabovula (2009) and Santizo Rodall (2011), this graduation can be done through three key variables: a) frequency of the democratic practice (regularity of meetings aimed at making decisions on collective issues); b) democratic intensity (type and relevance of the aspects to be debated and agreed upon); and c) agents who are called on to participate (students, teachers, families and local agents or institutions), among others.

This scientific contribution is based on a case study: a primary school that complies with the nine items of pedagogical renewal mentioned above and that pedagogically has many elements of ‘free education’. The school is eight years old, has five full-time and one part-time accompanying adults (teachers) and 53 children between 6 and 11 years old, and it is located in a rural area that is very close to a county capital in the province of Girona (Catalonia, Spain). One important feature to highlight is that the school works in a similar way to how a ‘unitary school’ (where boys and girls are mixed by age, without having a specific classroom for each of the levels) works. The school has five different spaces where specific activities are carried out (for example, art, psychomotor skills and workshop) or where there is material grouped according to the curricular function it fulfils (for example, literacy, logic and mathematics and environment). The research perspective is qualitative and the materials and instruments that were used to collect the data were as follows: i) Educational Project of the School (where the goals, purposes, organization and pedagogical line are explained); ii) in-depth interview with the person who works as director (and teacher of the school); iii) discussion group with the team of teachers; iv) discussion groups with parents; iv) a five-day observation at the school. All these instruments were designed by a committee of the research team and, prior to the final step, they were tested in a pilot school. The definitive script of the survey, the discussion groups and the observation were structured in similar blocks (the nine key areas of pedagogical renewal). In addition, aspects related to integration, diversity and questions related to ideological and political issues were included. The data collection was carried out between January 2021 and January 2023 by a member of the research team; it was recorded (with prior authorization from teachers and families) and the material derived from the observation was recorded in the field diary. All the data was transcribed verbatim and analysed using the qualitative data programme Atlas.ti.

Although the Educational Project (a public and open access programmatic document) defines this school as a democratic, in view of the material collected we can say that it is from the inside but not from the outside. The participatory spaces of this school focus mainly on the students and accompanying adults - teachers. The students have fortnightly assemblies with compulsory attendance in which they can talk, and in fact do talk, about whatever issue concerns or interest them. Issues related to conflicts between the children or between them and their accompanying adults, or related to the uses and functions of the spaces and the activities they do or would like to do are discussed, and rules are agreed upon that the children and accompanying adults must comply with scrupulously. The accompanying adults participate through weekly meetings held at the school. In the meetings, which are compulsory, pedagogical, organizational and operational issues are addressed, based on the principles of equality, trust and maximum respect. Families, although they formally make up the third leg of the educational community, have gradually experienced a process of reducing their functions at the same time that their presence and participation have been encapsulated through classic forms similar to those found in schools of all types, including those with traditional pedagogy. In short, and considering what we have explained in relation to the analysis of democratic graduation, we can state that the analysed school has a fairly high degree of democracy in terms of the frequency of democratic practice and intensity between students and teachers. But not in relation to the families who, as agents of the educational community, have seen how they have been occupying a more peripheral position in order to safeguard the educational approach towards the children and, above all, the subsistence of the project.

Carlson, D. (2005) Hope without illusion: telling the story of democratic educational renewal, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18:1, 21-45, DOI: 10.1080/09518390412331318414 Costa, A. (2011). Los movimientos de renovación pedagógica y la reforma educativa en España. A Celada Perandones, P. (Ed.), Arte y oficio de enseñar. Dos siglos de perspectiva histórica. Universidad de Valladolid, vol. 2, 89-98. Esteban, S. (2016). La renovación pedagógica en España: un movimiento social más allá del didactismo. Tendencias Pedagógicas, 27, 259-284. https://doi.org/10.15366/tp2016.27.012 Feu, J.; Torrent, A. (2020). Aproximació al tercer impuls de renovació pedagògica, entre l'adapació inevitable i la resistència transformadora. Temps d'Educació, Núm. 59, p. 237-254. Feu, J. y Torrent, A. (2021a). Renovación Pedagógica, innovación y cambio en educación ¿de qué estamos hablando? en Feu, J.; Besalú, X.; Palaudàrias, J.M. (coords.) La Renovación Pedagógica en España: una mirada actual y crítica p. 11-46. Morata. Feu, J.; Torrent, A. (2021b). The Ideal Type of Innovative School That Promotes Sustainability: The Case of Rural Communities in Catalonia. Sustainability, 1-17. Feu, J., Besalú, X, y Palaudàrias, J.M. (Coords.) (2021). La renovación pedagógica en España. Una mirada crítica y actual. Morata. Goodlad, J.I. (1994). Educational Renewal: Better Teachers, Better Schools. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Mabovula, N. (2009). Giving voice to the voiceless through deliberative democratic school governance. South African Journal of Education, 29(2), 219-233. Pericacho, F. J. (2016). Actualidad de la renovación pedagógica. Editorial Popular. Santizo Rodall, C. (2011). Gobernanza y participación social en la escuela pública. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 16(50), 751-773. Tyack, D.; Cuban, L. (1995). Thinkering toward utopia. A Century of Public School Reform. Harvard University Press