Democratic Schooling
“Democratic social arrangements promote a better quality of human experience,” says John Dewey, educational theorist and philosopher (Dewey, 1938/1997, p. 34). Dewey believed that democratic society depends on students having the chance to develop as citizens in public schools (Dewey, 1916/1997). Helping students to become capable and contributing members of a democracy has long been a goal of education in the United States. The curriculum developed by the National Assessment of Educational Progress in Civics asks that students shall have the knowledge “How does the government established by the Constitution embody the purposes, values, and principals of American Democracy?” and “What are the roles of citizens in American democracy?” Students also need “pParticipatory skills,” which are “those skills necessary for people to be informed, competent, and responsible participants in the political process and civic society” (U. S. Department of Education, 2001, p. 5). But, in the classroom, students are taught primarily civics knowledge. There in very little opportunity to practice participatory skills. It is a widespread and well-documented phenomenon that students are not participants in the decision making at their schools (Battistoni, 2004; Cushman, 1998; Effrat & Schimmel, 2003; Levin, 1998; McKibben, 2004; Patmor & McIntyre, 1999; Schimmel, 2003) (R. M. Battistoni, 1985; Cushman, 1998; Effrat & Schimmel, 2003; Levin, 1998; McKibben, 2004; Patmor & McIntyre, 1999; Schimmel, 2003). They do not feel that their voices are heard or valued at school (Battistoni, 2004; Mitra, 2004; Patmor & McIntyre, 1999; Schmuck & Schmuck, 1990)(R. M. Battistoni, 1985; Mitra, 2004; Patmor & McIntyre, 1999; Schmuck & Schmuck, 1990).
Alongside the official civics curriculum, schools also have an implicit civics curriculum. This is not what is taught formally, but what students learn from the politics of the schools that they attend. David M. Schimmel conducted a survey of the codes of conduct and various schools. He found that school rules were not created with the input of students but were imposed on students. Codes of conduct did not generally inform students of their rights. Rules tended to be ambiguous and unexplained and were often so harsh as to alienate the majority of students who are not trouble makers. The codes of conduct, and the way that they are created and enforced, serves to undermine the formal civics curriculum (Schimmel, 2003). They teach students that they are powerless.
Outcomes for Student Participants
While students’ voices are typically not heard or valued, students very much have the desire to participate (2004; McKibben, 2004; Patmor & McIntyre, 1999; Roberts & Dungan, 1994)(R. Battistoni, 2004; McKibben, 2004; Patmor & McIntyre, 1999; Roberts & Dungan, 1994). George L. Patmor, II and D. John McIntyre conducted a survey of students and principals at high schools in Kentucky. TheyHe found that, while students did not feel that they had may options for participation, both students and principals believed that students should have more opportunities for participation (Patmor & McIntyre, 1999). Sonia Neito conducted in-depth interviews with high school students of varying racial and ethnic backgrounds. The students she talked with had many compelling thoughts to share about their education. Specifically, they had unique insights about the needs of disadvantaged students (Nieto, 1994). Teachers and administrators have something to learn from the unique perspectives of students. School boards across the country have started to recognize the need to listen to the student perspective when making decisions. Currently, about 200 students sit on school boards nation-wide. Fifteen percent of boards have a student representative, usually in an advisory capacity (Joiner, 2003).
Along with the unique perspective students have to offer to adults, increased student participation in school decision making has the potential for many positive outcomes for the students themselves. When students are allowed to participate in the creation and enforcement of rules at their school, they take more responsibility for following those rules (Levin, 1998; Smith, 2003). At Kingston High School in Kingston, NY, a committee of administrators, teachers, and student representatives together are responsible for writing and revising the school’s code of conduct. Researcher Paula Denton, who conducted a case study of the student members of the Jefferson Committee at Kingston, found that the students who participated in the committee had increased knowledge of their rights. They learned to express their thoughts, to listen and to compromise (Denton, 2003).
Researcher Dana L. Mitra conducted a case study of two student-involvement initiatives at Whitman High School in Northern California. At Whitman, Latino students were involved in the Pupil School Collaborative, in which they assisted teachers by translating for and tutoring fellow Latino students. Other student representatives at Whitman participated in the Student Forum a focus group in which students worked with teachers to create new school programs and policies to help ninth graders succeed academically. Participation in the Pupil School Collaborative and the Student Forum had a number of positive outcomes for the students involved. Members of the group had increased positive relationships with adults and an increased sense of connection to their school. They also developed skills in cooperating, negotiating, and public speaking (Mitra, 2004).
Implications for Administrators
Although shared decision making has positive effects on students, it has not been incorporated into public schools in a widespread way. Adults are often concerned that if they afford students power, they will lose controlpower (Denton, 2003; Newman, 1992). Shared decision making requires a new conception of leadership based on collaboration with students (McKibben, 2004). Principals are required to give up power and trust students. While there has been very little research done on student who are involvemened t in decision making at their schools, teacher participation in decision making has quite a large research base. Researchers Kenneth Leithwood and Teresa Menzies reviewed 83 studies involving school-based management. Teachers involved in schoolsite-based management reported increased commitment, morale, and collaboration (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998b). In another review of 77 studies, the researchers found that implementing schoolite-based management effectively was not easy. The role of the principal was crucial. If the principal was not dedicated to the concept of shared decision making, then it was not successful. In many studies reviewed by Leithwood, schoolite-based management was not effective (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998a).
Shared decision making with students is similarly impacted by the role and commitment of the principal. At Thompson school, a secondary school in New England, the visionary assistant principal, George, was dedicated to the idea of shared decision making, and he created structures in the school to allow for student voice. George envisioned a school where students designed classes and worked for the school. There was, however, a contrast between what George imagined and what he was able to create. Ironically, he sometimes resorted to using his position of authority to impose his conception shared decision making (Dorfman, 2004).
For principals accustomed to the traditional method of hierarchical leadership, the switch to shared decision making can be difficult. A commitment to shared decision making means that an administrator must allow a decisions to be made even if they are different than what the administrator him/herself wants (Short & Greer, 2002). Shared decision making does not mean that all decision-making power is given to students. Instead, administrators work with all stakeholders (teachers, students, and parents) to make decisions together. In collaborative leadership, administrators, teachers, and students still have different roles. But these differing roles are based not on one’s position in a hierarchy, but on their differing expertise in a various area. Defining roles in this way is beneficial to the interests off all decision-making participants (Levin, 1998).
A Common Vision
Researchers Barbara and Joel Myers and Lynn Gelzheiser conducted a study of three schools in the first year of using decision making teams. The number and type of contributions made by administrators, teachers, parents, and students during meetings was recorded, as well as the number and type of actual decisions each party was involved in. In one team, the principal dominated the discussion, and the other stakeholders were not able to make a meaningful contribution. In the other two teams, the administrators still did the majority of the talking, but other stakeholders were able to make a meaningful contribution. Only one team had student members, who made a small but significant contribution to their team. The two teams that were more successful in shared decision making both had taken the time to discuss a common vision for their work. This set the stage for their collaboration (Meyers, Meyers, & Gelzheiser, 2001).
For shared decision making with students, teachers must also buy into the concept of collaborative leadership. Patrick J McQuillan studied two small high schools dedicated to sharing decision making with students. Both high schools created structures for student voice, such as all school meetings, representative committees, and focus groups. One school was successful in using shared decision making butand in the other school the structures for student voice slowly fell apart (McQuillan, 2005).
At Russel High school an issue arose concerning the policy for incomplete classes. Although theoretically dedicated to the concept of shared decision making, the adults at Russel chose not to bring this issue to the students. They were concerned that opening it up for discussion would weaken the students confidence in the adults at the school, or that students would manipulate the opportunity to participate in the decision for their benefit. When the issue continued to be unresolved, the students conducted a survey of their thoughts on the incomplete policy, and the adults eventually opened the discussion up to them. Although Russel High school had decided to use shared decision making, there was no discussion or agreement at the school in advance about what issues should students should participate in. The adults did not trust that students could participate, and therefore they did not solicit their input. And the students did not trust that their input would be heard and taken into account. Over the course of the year the structures designed for student input at Russel fell apart (McQuillan, 2005).
Trust
Shared decision making takes more than just structures for student input. It also requires a change in mindset on the part of adults. Trust in a crucial ingredient. The adults must believe that students have a valuable contribution to make (Cook-Sather, 2002; McQuillan, 2005; Smith, 2003). And students must trust that their thoughts will be listened to and taken into account (Denton, 2003; Effrat & Schimmel, 2003; McQuillan, 2005; Smith, 2003). Because the adults and students at Russel did not share this trust, shared decision making at the school was not successful (McQuillan, 2005).
In contrast, Frontier High School was able to incorporate shared decision making much more effectively. The original commitment to shared decision making at Frontier came from the principal and teachers who served on the design team for the school. But, once the school started, this became a school-wide discussion. When, during the first semester at the new school, students were afforded too much power and things felt a bit chaotic, the school as a whole, principal, teachers, and students, discussed the role of the student. The outcome of this was a common vision that allowed shared decision making to be implement much more successfully at Frontier (McQuillan, 2005).
Supporting Student Participants
Frontier High used another strategy that lead shared decision making at the school to succeed. Adults at the school helped students learn to use the power that they were given effectively (McQuillan, 2005). One of the largest concerns about shared decision making is what students will do with the power they are afforded. Certainly, in a school, adults ultimately have a legal and ethical responsibility to their students. Are students capable of making good decisions, or will they manipulate their power to their advantage? Benjamin Levin argues that competence is not a requirement for adults to participate in democracy, so there is therefore no justification for it being a requirementa requirement for students to participate.
There is evidence however, that when students are asked for their ideas, they are thoughtful critics of their education (Corbett & Wilson, 1995; Nieto, 1994; Patmor & McIntyre, 1999; Roberts & Dungan, 1994). None of the research reviewed specifically addressed the question of what type of decisions students would make. However there is indication that when students are allowed to make decisions, the decisions they make are just as rigorous, if not more rigorous, than those made by administrators and teachers (Levin, 1998; Schimmel, 2003).
Schools can do things to assist students in making decisions. Students can be taught the rules of parliamentary procedure (Angell, 1998). Adults can allow wait time for students to gather their thoughts and share their opinions before giving their own thoughts (Denton, 2003). Schools can embrace the fact that students will make mistakes in decision making and view them as an opportunity for further learning rather than a reason to step in and take over (Levin, 1998). And most importantly, administrators and teachers can simply give students the genuine opportunity to participate and practice decision making.
Take the Time?
In the current culture of schooling there is quite an emphasis on testing and the teaching of basic skills necessary to past standardized tests. There is increased national control over education (Spring, 2005) and very little decision making power is passed down from the national, state, and district level to schools, leaving less for administrators to share with their students. The question then arises whether it is worth the time and effort to involve students in the decisions left to make.
At a time where student disengagement in school is a well known and widespread problem, shared decision making has the possibility of reconnecting students to their schools. Although research has not yet examined this, it is theorized that when students are involved in decision making at their schools, they will be more invested in their schools and their educations (Gutmann, 1987; McQuillan, 2005; Patmor & McIntyre, 1999; Smith, 2003)(McQuillan, 2005; Patmor & McIntyre, 1999; Smith, 2003). Shared decision making certainly takes time. But this is not time lost. In the book Learning Together, Children and Adults in a School Community, Carol Lubomudrov, a former principal, suggests that we value the time spent thinking and working together (Lubomudrov, 2001). As discussed earlier, participation in shared decision making has many positive outcomes for students. It is certainly from this time spent making decisions together that these benefits arise.