Objectives

This study outlines dimensions for a critical analysis of student participation rights. It seeks to provide a complex and nuanced understanding of these rights by shedding light on their potentially negative ramifications and offering an analytical framework for identifying and exploring these ramifications.

The study draws on data from democratic schools’ participatory disciplinary procedures. Democratic schools exemplify an organizational ethos that sanctifies student participation. This ethos is manifested in a whole-school approach, encompassing the entire school and integrating participation in all school practices (see Gawlicz & Millei, 2022; Korkmaz & Erden, 2014; Wilson, 2015). Given the centrality of student participation to the whole-school ethos of democratic schools, this context facilitates an inquiry into the ramifications of participation rights.

The focus on participation in school discipline was chosen to manifest the interrelations of collective and individual participation rights. Democratic schools’ disciplinary systems are based on committees encompassing both students and teachers. Any conflict or breaching of school rules is submitted to those committees whose members conduct a trial and reach a verdict (Greenberg, 1991; Hecht, 2010).

Whereas the analysis presented in the paper draws on a specific context, it carries broad relevance to various participatory practices in educational settings.

Theoretical framework

Studies about children’s participation rights tend to promote and justify children's participation. Scholars have argued in this regard that critical voices about participation have been muted as the promotion of participation has become a “moral crusade” (Lewis, 2010, p. 15) or a taken-for-granted “mantra” (Tisdall & Punch, 2012, pp. 251, 254). Scholars have also criticized the prevalent monolithic perceptions of participation rights (e.g., Author 2 & Other, 2023; Blaisdell et al., 2021). Some scholars have highlighted the need for more critical thinking regarding the potential ramifications of high participation levels in various contexts (Author 2, 2021; Kim, 2016; Tisdall & Punch, 2012), but empirical studies examining those ramifications are scarce (Authors, 2023a, 2023b).

Several explanations can be suggested for this gap in the research. Scholars who study children’s rights are typically supportive of human rights as a value, thus tending to advocate participation rather than criticize it (Quennerstedt, 2013). Moreover, children’s rights and children’s participation are relatively novel concepts. From an historical point of view, the desire to raise the profile of such research may have compelled the researchers to close ranks so that their avant-garde ideas would be accepted (James, 2007).

Initial criticism concerning children's participation has begun to emerge in regard to participation in research. Some scholars introduced critical questions regarding the practice of research “by” children in which children act as “primary investigators” or “co-researchers” (e.g., Hammersley, 2017; Kim, 2016; Thomas, 2021; Tisdall, 2012). For example, Tisdall (2012) questioned whether children’s expertise in their own lives necessarily makes them experts in other children’s lives (p. 187). Others have doubted the assumption that children are sufficiently competent to perform research (Hammersley, 2017; Kim, 2016).

Another path of criticism has emerged with regard to the unequal implications of participation rights. For example, studies have shown that privileged children may maneuver their participation toward their own interests (Wyness, 2009). Studies have also shown that participatory practices could lead to favored treatment by the participating youth, with youth participation implemented as a tool to reinforce institutional power relations and engender compliance (Drew, 2019; Finneran et al., 2023; Gawlicz & Millei, 2022).

None of these studies offered a comprehensive critical analysis of participation rights. This study aims to address this gap in the literature.

This research was conducted in three democratic schools in Israel. We chose schools that represent different democratic school models and operate their participatory disciplinary procedures in different ways. All three schools had instituted disciplinary committees where students serve as adjudicators in semi-trial procedures. In School A, the committee members are elected. In School B, the committee is open to all students, and there are no organized elections. School C’s disciplinary system comprises three levels of “courts” responsible for “judging” different types of violations of school rules. School C’s trials are more systematic and less dialogical than those in Schools A and B. The study used qualitative methods. The participants in the three schools were 37 children aged 8–19, 16 teachers, 13 parents, and two school principals. All adults and 16 of the 37 children participated in an individual semi-structured interview. The remaining 21 children participated in focus groups comprising 2–3 children each. The interviews were conducted during 2019-2020. Most participants (N=53) were interviewed in person, whereas the remainder were interviewed via Zoom when the schools were closed due to the COVID-19 crisis (N=17). The interview protocols included questions about the school's disciplinary system, the participants' opinions about this system, and the participants' experiences with the system. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. In addition, relevant documents were collected and analyzed (school rules, relevant forms, and documents delineating the committees' duties and ideology). The data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. The current study is part of a broader project that explored conflicts between rights in the participatory disciplinary committees (Authors, 2023a), compared models of participation in the three schools (Authors, 2023b), and characterized adults’ role in facilitating, delimiting, and guiding participation (Authors, under review). The codes for the current study were formulated upon the completion of previous parts of the project, which provided a broad understanding of the ramifications of participation rights within a whole-school organizational ethos. Some of the codes emerged from previous sets of data analysis, and new codes were added at this stage. Relevant codes were organized into five subthemes, reflecting different dimensions for a critical analysis of student participation rights.

The conclusions offer several crucial dimensions for a critical analysis of student participation rights: (1) Participation should be examined from a holistic human rights perspective that considers other related rights and interests. The findings showed how students collective participation rights conflicted with children’s right to privacy and protection and with their best interest. (2) Different types of participation rights should be analyzed discretely. Specifically, the study illuminates critical differences between individual participation rights, referring to the individual child’s right to participate in decisions that affect their life, and collective participation rights, which refer to the rights of groups of children. (3) Participation rights should not be perceived as an obligation. The right not to participate means that while adults are required to facilitate participation, children who freely choose not to participate should be able to do so. The findings indicated that obligatory participation can be embarrassing or stressful and even create social difficulties, as the adjudicators’ decisions directly affect their peers. (4) Participation rights should be understood as relational rights, which can affect and be affected by different people and social structures. The findings emphasized how the collective participation of some children can influence their peers as well as the critical roles of adults in the participation process. (5) Participation rights should be contextualized and consider local circumstances and culture. Whereas this contention regarding the significance of the context may be evident in most educational settings, it might not be taken for granted in organizations where participation is at the heart of their ethos, such as democratic schools. The findings revealed substantial distinctions between different models of participatory committees, which underscore that even comparable participatory practices may be implemented differently in different organizational cultures and have entirely different implications for students’ rights and education.

Author 2. (2021). Author 2 & Other (2023). Authors. (2023a). Authors. (2023b). Authors. (under review). Blaisdell, C., Kustatscher, M., Zhu, Y., & Tisdall, E. K. M. (2021). The emotional relations of children’s participation rights in diverse social and spatial contexts: Advancing the field. Emotion, Space and Society, 40, 100816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2021.100816 Drew, C. (2019). Problematising ‘student choice’ in classrooms. British Journal of Educational Studies, 67(4), 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2018.1535646 Finneran, R., Mayes, E., & Black, R. (2023). Student voice, inequalities, and class. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1902 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 Greenberg, D. (1991). Free at last: The Sudbury Valley School. The Sudbury Valley Press. Hammersley, M. (2017). Childhood Studies: A sustainable paradigm? Childhood, 24(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568216631399 Hecht, Y. (2010). Democratic education: A beginning of a story. Alternative Education Resource Organization. James, A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: Practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2007.109.2.261 Kim, C. Y. (2016). Why research “by” children? Rethinking the assumptions underlying the facilitation of children as researchers. Children & Society, 30(3), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12133 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 & Society, 24(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00200.x 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 Thomas, N. P. (2021). Child-led research, children’s rights and childhood studies: A defence. Childhood, 28(2), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568221996743 Tisdall, E. K. M. (2012). The challenge and challenging of childhood studies? Learning from disability studies and research with disabled children. Children & Society, 26(3), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00431.x 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 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 Wyness, M. (2009). Children representing children: Participation and the problem of diversity in UK youth councils. Childhood, 16(4), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568209344274