Live and learn democracy? An ethnographic study in two upper secondary school programmes

Author(s):

Carina Hjelmér(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

07 SES 03 A, Democratic Citizenship Education

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-10

17:15-18:45

Room:

D-302

Chair:

Ghazala Bhatti

Contribution

In Sweden the fostering of democratic values has a long history in schools and since the 1990s the question has been put forward as a very important social issue for education (Öhrn, 2001). Today, when an overwhelming majority of young people continue to study after compulsory school, the experience of democratic participation among youths is part of education spaces rather than unions at conventional working sites. According to the Swedish national curriculum for upper secondary, post-compulsory education, schools should not only teach students about democracy, but also ensure that they ’live democracy’ by having real influence on the educational organisation, methods and contents (the Swedish Ministry of Education and Science, 1994). International-comparative studies shows that Sweden and the other Nordic countries in the latter aspect, how to ‘live democracy’ in daily school life, have a broader definition on democratic education than many other countries (Birzéa et al., 2004). Students from Sweden and Nordic countries also express larger faith to students’ possibilities to have influence through engagement (Torney-Purta & Henry Barber, 2004).

However, some Swedish studies show that students’ possibilities to make a difference in school today are limited (e.g. Rosvall, 2011). Previous research also identifies gender in relation to social background as central for the analysis of democratic education in schools, albeit in various and sometimes contradictory ways. It seems as boys have more influence on teaching through their dominance of public speech and space (e.g. Lahelma & Öhrn, 2003), while some studies indicates that small groups of girls are the driving force when pursuing issues about democracy in school (e.g. Öhrn, 2012). There are also studies showing variations in student’s opportunities to exert influence, as well as differences in democratic knowledge, between vocational and academic upper secondary school programmes (Swedish National Agency for Education, 1998, 2010). Other studies identify risks that the subject matter in social studies classes on vocational programmes may be simplified and place low demands on students’ academic development (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2011). However, these studies are rather few, and have rarely tied together instruction about and in democracy with students own attempts to exert influence.

This paper focuses democratic education in Swedish upper secondary school programmes with different gender and social class profiles. It covers the teaching in and about democracy, as well as students’ power-positions and their attempts to affect routine school activities. A particular focus of attention is processes of influence, through which the students themselves pursue issues in school. The analysis in this paper is based on Basil Bernstein’s (2000) theories regarding power, control and pedagogic codes, in combination with feminist theories (principally those of Arnot & Reay (2007), Skeggs (1997), Gordon (2006) and Walkerdine (1990)).

Method

An ethnographic field study has been carried out at a major upper secondary school in Sweden during one school year, 2008-09. The study involves two classes with 50 students (19 males, 31 females) in school year one, one from the Child and Recreation Programme (vocational, traditional female dominated) and one from the Natural Science Programme (academic, equal sex distribution). Data in the form of field-notes from 268 lessons (spanning 281 hours in total) were produced over the entire academic year. In addition, notes were taken during breaks and certain whole-school activities. Further, transcripts were prepared of 18 group interviews with students, two group and three individual interviews with teachers, and individual interviews with head teachers. Interviews were conducted during the spring semester and covered both general questions and specific events that had been observed during the autumn semester, regarding student influence and democracy-fostering teaching. The documents used included various types of official guidelines, students’ assignments, invitations for students to participate in student councils, evaluations and teaching materials. These were collected continuously throughout the study year and were used solely to acquire complementary information about events that took place during teaching.

Expected Outcomes

The democratic education appeared generally to be unplanned and was marginalised in school. The few invitations for students to exert influence that occurred had an individual stamp and focused on students’ choices, responsibilities and duties, rather than on their rights. Students in both classes attempted to influence teaching, primarily through informal means. There were, however, significant differences between the classes in what they were able to influence. Analysis of students’ voices in relation to the pedagogic context revealed that the power relationships in these influence processes depend partly on the focal academic subject. More importantly, they differ between the upper secondary school programs, which differ in strength of classification (sensu Bernstein), demands, pace and difficulty levels. These differences are related, in turn, to whether the programmes are intended to prepare the students for higher education or a vocation after school. Generally, the vocational students exerted influence more successfully when they wished to reduce the pace and difficulty of lessons than when they wished to get more out of their education, while the opposite applied to the academic class. Who had influence over what was related to the programmes’ gender and class profiles and the students’ expected positions in society.

References

Arnot, M. & Reay, D. (2007). A sociology of pedagogic voice: Power, inequality and pupil consultation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 28(3), 311-325. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Birzéa, C., Kerr, D.. Mikkelsen, R., Froumin, I., Losito, B., Pol, M., Sardoc, M. (2004). All-European study on education for democratic citizenship policies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Gordon, T. (2006). Girls in education: citizenship, agency and emotions. Gender and Education, 18 (1), 1-15. Lahelma, E. & Öhrn, E. (2003). Strong Nordic women in the making? Gender policies and classroom practicies. I: D. Beach; T. Gordon & E. Lahelma (ed.) Democratic education: Ethnographic challenges. London: the Tufnell Press. Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of class and gender: becoming respectable. London: Sage. Swedish Ministry of Education and Science (1994). Curriculum for the Non-Compulsory School System Lpf 94. [Läroplaner för de frivilliga skolformerna Lpf 94]. Stockholm: Fritzes. Torney-Purta, J. & Barber, C.H. (2004). Democratic school participation and civic attitudes among European adolescents: analysis of data from the IEA Civic Education Study. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~jtpurta Downloaded 2009-12-29. Walkerdine, V. (1990). Schoolgirl fictions. London: Verso. Öhrn, E. (2001). Marginalization of democratic values: a gendered practice of schooling? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 319-328. Öhrn, E. (2012). Urban education and segregation: The responses from young people. European Educational Research Journal 11(1), 45-57.

Author Information

Carina Hjelmér (presenting / submitting)

Umea University, Sweden

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.