Strike argues that modern educational reforms like “Standards and Accountability” or “Choice” focus primarily on the logic of motivating behaviour through incentives. Whereas the former builds on rewards and penalties by the government and the latter on market competition, they are both quite similar in that they a) erode “community” by centralizing authority and taking judgement from the hands of teachers and school leaders, and b) seem likely to increase the “alienation” of students and teachers and erode authentic teaching (Strike 2010, 4ff). This sceptical view seems to be shared by a growing number of scholars who found the effects of obligatory US-wide high-stakes testing following the enactment of “NCLB” in 2001 disillusioning (see Deretchin & Craig 2007; Cuban & Torres 2008; Amrein-Beardsley 2009; Nichols & Berliner 2007). Nevertheless, in several European countries these reform approaches are still on top of the political agenda. 
In line with the Conference theme the question arises as to how else we can proceed in reforming European schools to ensure freedom and still promote education and a comprehensive development of citizens? Our answer to this may be found in John Dewey`s educational philosophy which points to a reciprocal connection between individual development, social development and democracy:
In order that individuals are able to develop they need to be in constant interchange and communication with each other (see Dewey 1916/1929, 11). Through this constant interchange with the social world individuals experience "resistance" and thus are confronted with irritations and problems. The process of overcoming those irritations or solving those problems contributes to the enrichment of the individual`s experience and makes the self grow (see Bohnsack 2003, 11f). The varied and numerous stimuli of the social environment make the individual develop. Vice versa the development of the social life (society) is dependent on the input of individuals, on the original impulses being in the self (see Jörke 2003, 104f). Thus for constant readjustment of social habit to occur it is necessary that the differences of individuals are respected and that these differences can be expressed and communicated through constant interchange. In the project "School Settings" which is part of an ongoing four-year research project  undertaken by the University of Vienna from 2010-2014 (see Retzl & Ernst 2012) these principles of Dewey`s democratic ideal are applied for promoting educational change based on cooperation between schools, families and communities:
This is to be achieved by a) considering the principal, teachers, parents, students and community representatives and their numerous and varied points of shared common interest, b) recognizing stakeholder interests as a factor in social control, c) enabling interaction among stakeholders and d) enabling the readjustment of social habit through meeting the new situations produced by the intercourse between them (see Dewey 1916/1929, 100).
Hence the project contrasts with the logic of current reform approaches which push people “to abandon their neighbourhood school as quickly as they might switch between telephone companies or brands of soda” (Fung 2004, 10) and is guided by specific research questions (see Methodology).

- Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2009): The Unintended, Pernicious Consequences of “Staying the Course” on the United States` No Child Left Behind Policy. In: International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, Vol.4, No.6, pp.1-13. - Bohnsack, Fritz (2003): Demokratie als erfülltes Leben. Die Aufgabe von Schule und Erziehung. Ausgewählte und kommentierte Aufsätze unter Berücksichtigung der Pädagogik John Deweys. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. - Cuban, L. & Torres, A. C. (2008): Hugging the Middle: How Teachers Teach in an Era of Testing and Accountability. New York, London: Teachers College Press. - Deretchin, L. F. & Craig C. J. (ed.) (2007): International Research on the Impact of Accountability Systems. Teacher Education Yearbook XV. Lanham, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield. - Dewey, J. (1916/1929): Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. Norwood Mass.: Norwood Press - Fung, A. (2004): Empowered Participation. Reinventing Urban Democracy. New Jersey, Woodstock: Princeton University Press. - Häder, M. & Häder, S. (ed.) (2000): Die Delphi-Technik in den Sozialwissenschaften. Methodische Forschungen und innovative Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. - Jörke, Dirk (2003): Demokratie als Erfahrung. John Dewey und die politische Philosophie der Gegenwart. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. - Linstone, H., A. & Turoff, M. (ed.) (1975): The Delphi Method. Techniques and Applications. London, Amsterdam, Don Mills, Ontario, Sydney, Tokyo: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. - Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007) Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America`s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. - Retzl, M. & Ernst R. (2012): Schullandschaften: Schulen reformieren und entwickeln durch demokratische Einbindung von Schule, Familie und Gemeinde. In: Projektteam NOESIS (Hrsg.): Eine Schule für alle? Zur Evaluation der Niederösterreichischen Mittelschule. Graz: Leykam; 95-115. - Seeger, T. (1979): Die Delphi-Methode – Expertenbefragungen zwischen Prognose und Gruppenmeinungsbildungsprozessen. Freiburg: Hochschulverlag. - Strike, K. A. (2010): Small Schools & Strong Communities. A Third Way of School Reform. New York, London: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.