Learning & Living Democracy - Kahurangi Educational Trust (KET)

Democratic School Development
Participation and negotiation concepts within the Berlin BLK program
“Learning and Living Demcocracy” – handbook – concept and
realization by Dorothea Schuetze and Dr. Marcus Hildebrandt
Translated by Birgit Baader
Content
Content ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
Reasons for this handout ............................................................................................................ 3
Addressees of this handout ......................................................................................................... 4
What to expect… ........................................................................................................................ 5
Acknowledgements… ................................................................................................................ 6
The concept of democratic school development ........................................................................ 8
Description of the approach ....................................................................................................... 8
definition of the term “stakeholder” ........................................................................................... 9
The realization of this concept within the BLK program “learning and living democracy” ... 10
Central components and principles of democratic school development .................................. 11
analysis of strengths and wishes as a basis for the school development process ..................... 21
The relevance of strengths........................................................................................................ 21
The relevance of wishes ........................................................................................................... 23
Strengths as energy source and wishes as motor for school development ............................... 23
Promotion of democratic competences in school ..................................................................... 25
Promotion of competences within democratic school development ....................................... 27
Methodical approaches ............................................................................................................. 28
democratic processes with equal rights – how to work with small children ............................ 31
steps towards realisation – the concrete procedure .................................................................. 33
1. start phase ............................................................................................................................. 33
2. information and reflection .................................................................................................... 33
3. Strengths-and-wishes-workshops ......................................................................................... 34
4. structure of the negotiation round ........................................................................................ 35
5. Analysis of the results and selection of a central strength ................................................... 37
6. Preparation for the negotiation process ................................................................................ 38
7. Suggested measures and processes of negotiation ............................................................... 40
8. Feedback from the stakeholder groups ................................................................................ 43
9. activities of the different stakeholder groups in the meantime ............................................ 43
10. Anchoring within the school program ................................................................................ 45
From the catalogue of measures to realization – a practical example ...................................... 46
Feedback system for teachers ................................................................................................... 46
long-term perspectives of the negotiation round ...................................................................... 50
requirements and preconditions for the design of democratic school development processes 52
Requirements for external process facilitation ......................................................................... 53
personal prerequisites and necessary settings for a successful use of the handbook ............... 57
setting requirements ................................................................................................................. 58
conditions and factors of success ............................................................................................ 61
preconditions for success ......................................................................................................... 61
Factors of success ..................................................................................................................... 63
Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 68
“democracy needs facilitation” – potentials and challenges of democratic school development
from the perspective of the participants ................................................................................... 70
1. Structure of the study ........................................................................................................... 70
2. perspectives of the participants on the negotiation process ................................................. 72
3. External support ................................................................................................................... 86
4. conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 92
5. literature ............................................................................................................................... 92
Introduction
Reasons for this handout
The presented material (handbook and practical modules on CD) is the result of five years
experience with the Concept of Democratic School Development developed by Dorothea
Schuetze and Martin Hildebrandt. We are both freelancers and assist schools, organisations
and companies with their development processes since many years.
Meanwhile, our concept is not only tested in one school, put into practice and further
developed in three other schools within the framework of the BLK program (the German
Federation and regional commission for educational planning and research) “Learning and
living democracy”, but was also used successfully in various other developmental processes
in schools. Over all, the need for external support and assistance with school development
processes seem to have increased enormously over the last few years. More and more often
we are asked to assist as external process facilitators with complex and long term school
development processes, as well as with minor tasks and questions which arise from the
continuously growing challenges and requirements schools have to meet.
The wide spread scepticism against counsellors and facilitators coming partly from negative
experiences or the mistrust that those would impose rules and give instructions what to do,
without knowing the individual school‟s realities, now made room for the insight that
professional external support can be extremely helpful with deep development and problem
solving. However, a condition is that all the people involved at an individual school are seen,
respected, and taken seriously as experts for their own needs (more about the role of process
facilitation in chapter 10, “Requirements and preconditions…”).
Our concept for democratic school development which renders the participation and
cooperation of all groups involved at the school (teachers, students, parents, other school
personnel and possibly external partners) one of its essential principles, is perceived more and
more often as a huge benefit when dealing with school related topics, common decision
making and problem solving. Especially in this field, it can be very important that the
processes are arranged and assisted by external facilitators so 1) that all persons involved can
use the created space equally, 2) that roles, attitudes and different approaches can be reflected,
and 3) that the interests and needs of everyone can be heard and considered. This is far more
complicated when e.g. the school administration or other school internal pedagogical
departments guide such processes, because they are directly involved and concerned, and
often caught up too much with the topics in question in regards to their ways of looking at
things and interests. For school internals it is much more difficult to assume an impartial
neutral attitude – even if it might be possible under certain conditions.
After several years of testing, evaluation and further development of this concept it is now
time to share our experiences as well as exemplary ways of proceeding and methods with
interested potential process facilitators, so that more and more people can assist schools with
their democratic school development in future.
If you, as readers of this handout, have corresponding experiences or are willing to learn
required competences you can use our concept and the corresponding modules for the
planning and arrangement of long term school development processes as well as for minor
changes and measures. Moreover, we will use these materials for training and further
education of disseminators in the fields of democratic school development.
Please contact us to learn about the latest news, updates of the CD ROM or training
possibilities: [email protected].
Addressees of this handout
External assistance does not mean that the facilitators should have nothing to do with school –
on the contrary. It is essential that they have detailed knowledge of school matters and
structures and its framework. Therefore, it is advisable e.g. for organisation developers and
management consultants to have some experiences and background knowledge regarding
schools or to learn about the deeper connections within an educational environment before
their first mission (e.g. by observing experienced school developers at work).
Teachers, educators, social workers, as well as parents and older resp. former students are also
addressed by this manual – in general, everyone who is familiar with the processes of at least
one school. However, they should work only with a school they are not involved or enrolled
with to avoid a confusion of roles and a conflict of interests and in order to be able to hold a
neutral non-party attitude more easily.
Further users of these materials can be everyone who has a professional background or
experience in working with groups, e.g. as a supervisor, mediator, and/or working as trainer or
consultant in the field of political education.
It is helpful if potential process supervisors have already been part of a democratic school
development process or, at least, know the process. Other competences which are required or
should be learned are described in the chapter “Requirements and Preconditions...”.
In the following, we will address the readers as “users”.
What to expect…
The manual
After this brief introduction the users will be familiarized with the concept of democratic
school development and the corresponding central principles.
In a next step we will discuss the connection between the strengthening of democratic
competences and our school development approach, and we will give a brief overview on the
methods we use.
We will then deal with the question if young children actually are able to participate in
democratic school development processes with equal rights, before we will describe the
concrete procedures with the implementation of our concept in the next chapter. With the aid
of a detailed practical example we will explain the dynamics of the negotiation process
between teachers, parents and students in the following to demonstrate one of the main
elements of our school development concept leading to the question of the long-term
perspective of this negotiation approach in the three participating BLK schools.
In the following chapter we will deal with the central requirements for the users of this
handbook, e.g. advice for the understanding of the roles of the facilitators in a democratic
school development process as well as the required competences which in our view should be
given resp. learned. The school‟s preconditions and setting (framework, personal resources,
structures, etc.) also play an important role.
To round off the description of our experiences with democratic school development in the
following chapter we will name conditions and factors which can enhance or hinder
developmental processes in individual schools from our perspective.
Educational theorist Gabi Elverich will present the results of her evaluation study in the next
chapter. She has interviewed the participants of the three BLK schools both at the beginning
of the process and a second time towards the end of the BLK program “learning and living
democracy”. The insights from her qualitative research will include further essential
statements regarding the challenges and factors of success as well as the lastingness and
transferability of this school development approach.
In the last chapter the user will learn how to use the included CD ROM and get a brief
overview on its contents and the structure of the modules as well as helpful tips for
navigation. The handbook closes with personal information on the background of the authors
as well as some literature referrals.
The CD with practical modules
The enclosed CD includes instructions and important advice in order to put this school
development concept into practice. We describe steps and methods in detail which can both
be used in successive phases of the process and individually – depending on the goal and plan
of each school resp. on the process facilitation. The CD also includes a range of alternative
scenarios how to possibly use the concept as well as an additional collection of exercises and
games which serves the methodical variety and can be extended constantly.
Information with regard to updates and additions to the existing CD ROM:
[email protected] or www.schulcoaching.com.
We strongly recommend that you read this handbook before working with the CD, as it
provides essential basic knowledge and preconditions for the use of the CD!
Acknowledgements…
… to the participating schools
We want to thank all schools and school participants with whom we have worked over the
past few years, especially for their trust, their courage and their perseverance to embark on
such an intensive and not always easy process.
Above all we want to thank the three participating BLK schools. We hope that the
experiences and changes they have made during the last four years will have a lasting effect
on the improvement of the quality and the climate in each individual school.
We wish the schools all the best with their ongoing process, a lot of patience and courage as
well as enjoyment over all the big and small successes!
… to our colleagues and supporters
In times of high demand or when working with very big groups we deeply appreciated the
support of professional colleagues and trainees. They not only assisted and helped us actively
with our concrete work in the schools, they also provided methodical inspiration and the
mutual evaluation and reflection of the process was extremely helpful. We especially want to
acknowledge our colleagues Karin Lorentz and Bettina Schaefer for their professional
cooperation and their critical eye. Moreover, we want to mention the precious support of
Kathrin Nack and Julia Russau. They accompanied us and our work as trainees over many
months and enriched our work with their ideas and creativity.
… to the BLK program “learning and living democracy”
Last but not least we want to thank the BLK program “learning and living democracy”. We
have learned enormously during the years of our cooperation and we are glad that this
learning process seems to continue…
Dorothea Schuetze & Dr. Marcus Hildebrandt
The concept of democratic school development
Description of the approach
Brief overview
In order to develop and design schools in a democratic way it is necessary that all the different
interest groups within the school – teachers, students, parents, counsellors, educators, social
workers, but also technical staff and external partners (e.g. government authorities,
management staff, etc.) – are participating, and that each party involved knows the needs and
wishes of the others and experience them as relevant. With this concept developed by Dr.
Marcus Hildebrandt and Dorothea Schuetze all the relevant groups embark on a journey
together to evolve their school in order to transform it into a more pleasant place of living,
working and learning for everyone. The base for this process is both the strengths, the
positive qualities of the school, and the wishes, e.g. regarding the school organisation, the
curriculum, and the cooperation of all people involved. The dialogue amongst all
“stakeholders” (definition of this term see below) soon reveals common grounds, and positive
feedback supports a culture of mutual acknowledgement. Perspectives, needs, and demands of
the participating individual groups can vary considerably, sometimes even be opposite, and
lead to conflicts or misunderstanding, especially in regards to the various different roles and
tasks within the “system school”. As a consequence, a central term of this model or method is
negotiation:
Consensus-oriented negotiation is the core of democratic everyday culture and a basic
principle of the school development model outlined in the following.
teachers
parents/
family
students
social
workers
negotiation
school staff
school administration
external
partners
school
authorities
consensus-oriented negotiation as core of a democratic everyday culture
definition of the term “stakeholder”
The term “stakeholder” plays a central role within this concept, so we want to explain its use
and definition.
“stakeholder” – how and why we are using this term
In the business world, groups or individuals who have an influence on the achievement of the
goals of a company are known as “stakeholders”. As an inversion, these are also the
groups/individuals who are affected by the results of the company‟s activities and decisions.
Examples for stakeholders are:
-
clients
-
suppliers
-
employees
-
owners
-
managers
-
competitors
-
business organizations
-
etc.
Stakeholders are not only persons or institutions directly working in an organisation, but also
those who use, maintain, work for the organisation or teach/train employees of the
organisation. Stakeholders therefore are suppliers of information relevant for the company‟s
objectives, requirements and setting in regards to both product and organisational
development.
We will use the term “stakeholders” in the context of democratic school development because
each change in a school should be accompanied by the definition of developmental objectives.
Stakeholders in regards to school development represent the different interest groups who
have an influence on the achievement of the school‟s objectives.
To avoid too much complexity we will confine us on those stakeholders who can actively
intervene with the achievement of the school‟s objectives. This, of course, can vary from
school to school. However, the students, parents/family, and the teachers/educators should be
involved in any case, and, if needed, other stakeholders such as school authorities, external
partners, etc.
According to the system theory you will find the same perspective and interests regarding the
company‟s objectives within one stakeholder group. However, this is not always true,
especially not in schools. Therefore, a stakeholder group sometimes has to develop a common
perspective as a first step. Essentially, the main intention is to make possible differences
visible and to deal with these differences within a group.
The realization of this concept within the BLK program “learning and living
democracy”
The realization of this school development concept was first tested in a modern secondary
school in Berlin/Germany during the years 2002 and 2003. The school is situated in an
environment clearly exposed to extreme right-wing dominating attempts. The teaching staff of
the school wanted to respond to this behaviour – first by imposing bans, eventually by
organising different activities and school development processes which were supposed to
communicate democratic values and manners to the teenagers. This idea corresponds to the
statements of a study made by Wolfgang Edelstein and Peter Fauser which is the foundation
of the BLK program “learning and living democracy”. In this study the authors describe how
the prevention of right-wing extremism can be successful if it is based on actual active
participation experienced by the teenagers themselves (see Edelstein/Fauser 2001; Schuetze
2003).
At that time, all the school‟s stakeholder groups were already actively involved in the process.
The test phase gave a first impression on how participation and negotiation could become
creative elements of a school development process, and therefore, the concept was transferred
to three other BLK schools in order to help with their processes in 2003: a primary school
with a high degree of children with a migration background, and a modern secondary school –
both in the Western sector of the town – as well as a high school in East Berlin.
The processes in the three BLK schools continue until today and are oriented to the principles
and steps described in the following. However, the individual ways and priorities regarding
the content and the realization of the process vary considerably due to the specific starting
points, conflict situations and needs of the individual schools.
Moreover, individual modules resp. procedures of this school development concept
meanwhile have been transferred to other school contexts, e.g. to developmental processes of
full-time day schools, to the so-called “participative school program or role model
development”, to negotiation processes on the topic “school rules” or else to children and
human rights projects.
In the course of the years we have tested, reflected and developed our approach and the
quality of the process again and again with regard to its suitability. The methods and
procedures have been modified and adapted continuously and will still be optimised in the
future. However, the essential fundamental assumptions of this concept will always be valid.
Central components and principles of democratic school development
Democratic school development is the name for a process within a school leading to
improvements and positive changes of structures and procedures (organisational
development), also having a sustainable impact in the sense of a democratic cooperation in
regard to the attitudes, competences and actions of all involved.
Our school development approach consists of five basic components:
quality development
resource orientation
democracy development
achievement of objectives
support/promotion of competences
From our experience democratic school development can only be achieved in a sustainable
and lasting way if all five factors play together successfully. This implies that the definition of
objectives is essential in order to aim at relating quality improvements specifically by
honouring and using the already existing, which means the already established and grown
resources resp. strengths of the school. However, the way to achieve the goals is equally
important: the method of how decisions are made and realised. The quality of the results and
the quality of the process both play a central role. The quality of the process can be measured
by its democratic character. To do this, some competences are required which have to be
learned or enhanced.
Let everyone participate!
The “system school” holds great challenges for democratic development, not only because of
the existing hierarchical and power structures, but also because of the different roles and
positions and the corresponding varying interests which have to be balanced and made
compatible.
Therefore, it is even more important that all stakeholders and interest groups – teachers,
students, parents/family, and possibly educators and social workers as well as technical staff
and external partners – are part of the process and that the individual perspectives and
requirements are taken seriously and considered equally during the process of negotiation.
Changes can evoke fears and resistance within a lot of people. If these people are not
integrated into the process as participants and co-creators it can happen that they do not
support the process, and, in some cases, even might hinder or oppose it.
If you do not involve everybody, the solutions can never be optimal as not all perspectives are
part of their creation. Therefore, important views and competences are not used. In the praxis,
we have learned that e.g. parents or students have contributed completely new insights,
creative ideas and suggestions the teaching staff would never have thought of.
Create benefits for EVERYBODY
However, it should not “only” be a high quality process. Generally, people are only willing to
undergo the process of change if they can see a certain benefit for themselves. This benefit
should not be too far away. Therefore, each form of school development should involve a
perceivable increase of the quality of the school in the near future.
School quality in this context means the degree of accordance between the needs of the
different “stakeholders” and the observed existing school qualities. These qualities form the
school profile and can comprise social components such as cooperation, pedagogic
dimensions such as the planning of classes as well as administrative concerns (e.g. the
planning of timetables and activities) or structural questions (e.g. class rooms).
Support of all participants
The events held at the beginning of the school development process with all stakeholders
include essential supportive aspects, as the strengths of the school and the wishes of all
participants are the central point of the whole process. Moreover, these initial events initiate
intensive discussions and reflective processes (amongst different classes as well as between
the teaching staff, the parents and others involved). It is crucial to make clear that the
perspective of each person is important and will flow into the development process.
The positive feedback in regards to the strengths of the school – which have been built up
over many years – and the appreciation of the accomplished work will strengthen the
confidence of those whose engagement and creativity have contributed to the positive
development of their school (with regards to pedagogic, structural, administrative or
interpersonal aspects). Especially in schools, there often is a lack of essential appreciation and
the focus rather lies on difficulties, deficits and defects – both within the school, but also from
an outside perspective (e.g. press/media, school authorities, politics, etc.). Therefore, the
establishment of a “culture of appreciation” within the teaching staff, between teachers and
students, parents and teachers, teachers and other educators or social workers, as well as in
regards to the technical staff (secretaries, headmaster, cleaners), the school administration,
etc., etc., is not only crucial, but also highly agreeable.
In the course of the development process there also should be other supportive activities. It is
helpful to build up structures providing constant opportunities for a strengthening exchange
between the different parties and to expand competences (also see point 9 under “meantime
activities with different stakeholders”).
In addition to this strengthening and appreciative process of the different stakeholders
democratic school development prepares the ground for the strengthening of individuals resp.
of their personality. This happens, for example, by experiencing self-efficiency when
individually shared ideas are taken up and discussed by others and possibly integrated into the
developed measures. The participants can experience a considerable increase of competence
through their cooperation and participation in the school development process (see more in
chapter “support of democratic competences in the school context”).
Democratic development as a learning process for everybody
In connection with democratic development in schools people often speak of “education to
democracy”. Usually, they have the picture that a few teachers or other educators teach many
other persons (students resp. children and teenager) to learn something about a certain topic –
in this case about “democracy”.
In the context we are using the term of democratic development here, it is essential that all
participants (grown-ups as well as children and teenager) learn and grow. Therefore, we rather
speak of the learning and practising of democratic processes in which everybody is involved
equally. This includes self-reflection and the questioning of existing structures and actual
balances of power. It is essential to open space and provide possibilities, create leeway where
democratic manners and decision making processes can be practised and learned as valuable
alternatives and be internalised as a precious value. This requires that the democratic manners
are lived and modelled by the grown-ups (educators, teachers and parents) who have to be
willing to surrender to the development process. (compare Edelstein/Fauser 2001)
Experiencing democracy – expand the understanding of democracy
“Democracy” is taught in class (e.g. in the subjects social science, history) mostly in a
theoretical way and in connection with examples of parliamentary democracy resp.
governmental systems. The few practical experiences with democracy in school are often
limited to the rights of co-determination in school committees.
However, the dealing with “democracy” in class which, in general, is limited to democracy as
a form of governmental power and to committee works based on majority decisions is only a
part of the possible dimensions of democracy.
Democracy as a form of living
The participation in and the creation of democratic school development processes offers the
chance to experience democracy in other dimensions and to use school as a place to learn and
live democracy. Then it soon becomes obvious that democracy can be much more than a tick
in the box at elections, and that democracy can be a lifestyle and a form of social interaction
and communication where everybody is respected and taken seriously with his or her different
interests and needs.
Democratic manners can be learned, practised and developed further in school on the basis of
practical everyday examples (e.g. how the students want to deal with each other within class,
how conflicts should be solved, how decisions are made together, but also to hear and take
seriouslyly what matters to the teachers, what the student‟s wishes and visions are, etc.).
Within this development and practise lies the huge chance to experience how democratic
processes can be designed as a win-win-solution for all parties involved, and that it can be
very rewarding to make the associated efforts.
Democracy as a form of society
Experiences with democracy in school (where teachers, students, educators, and other school
staff spend many hours each day for many years learning and working together) will also have
an effect beyond the school context. These are intense experiences creating a different picture
of the existing structures, illuminating the individual roles in new ways, and focussing on the
individual responsibility for different situations and possible changes and solutions. Thus,
learned democratic manners can also be transferred to civil social processes. Positive
experiences in school can encourage to get involved, active and to be co-creative outside of
school as well.
Sensitisation in regards to power and discriminating structures
The sensitisation in regards to power and discriminating structures is one of the most
important aspects of democratic school development. At the same time, it is one of the biggest
challenges! The aim is to develop a democratic culture sensitising all participants for
undemocratic, discriminating, racist resp. contemptuous attitudes and behaviour, and enabling
them to have a good look at injustice and imbalances in chances, to take a stand and to
develop alternative ways of dealing with a situation.
Paradoxically, school is a system structured by hierarchy and (im-) balances of power. All
individuals living, learning and working in this system are coined by these structures. The
balances of power in school generally seem to be so “natural”, normal and influential that
they are rarely questioned. Therefore, there are not many opportunities and not much space to
live democratic alternatives.
It is essential to actively make space to “live and learn democracy”, and to create an
environment where democratic manners can be practised and evolved continuously. This is
not always an easy task, especially because it is necessary to become aware of one‟s own
involvement in existing power and discriminating structures, and to reflect the effect and
consequences. One of the most obvious power positions within school is the teacher‟s
position resp. the position of grown-ups in relation to children and teenagers (“adultism”). To
question these power positions can not only be a challenge and create insecurity, but can
sometimes also be very hurtful and lead to strong resistance (more in the following chapter
“reflection of the roles in a school context”).
Moreover, all the other obvious and hidden forms of discrimination in school as well as in its
environment resp. in the surrounding society should be considered. This means in praxis that
discriminating remarks and behaviour of individuals will be addressed so that the victims can
be protected resp. supported. To achieve this it can also be necessary to ensure that all school
participants have access to relevant information and get the opportunity to participate – e.g. in
the case of foreign parents who do not speak the local language this can mean that you have to
translate documents, organize translators and/or introduce new ways of communication and
participating structures. Other activities could be to participate in further training, to offer
projects, to explore the school environment in order to detect discriminating structures, and to
develop measures against them, or to negotiate general communication rules.
In the field of anti-discrimination there are multiple possibilities to get active in schools and
their environment – if possible with the support of external experts resp. facilitators as this
topic is not easy. No matter which ways a school chooses to go, if it claims to be democratic
and takes its educational task serious non-discriminating structures and behaviour should be
developed and permanently cultivated!
Reflection of roles in the school context
Without reflecting the different roles and the corresponding relationships and dominance
structures between the different stakeholders democratic school development processes are
hardly possible. It is helpful to find an agreement with all participants in regards to the
different roles in the school context and to search for solutions how these roles and the
corresponding functions and tasks can be balanced with the common democratic goal. Ideally,
this should happen at the beginning of the school development process (e.g. in form of a
“guideline for a democratic school culture”), and corresponding agreements should be tested
and reviewed from time to time if they are still appropriate.
The reflection of roles, tasks and functions against the background of democratic school
development does not mean inevitably that you have to question all existing structures and
responsibilities. Educators have to fulfil their educational tasks, and they have to do this in a
framework set by the ministry of education and school authorities. It is also a fact that in this
area grown-ups are dealing with children and teenagers which in many situations and areas
leads to the consequence that the grown-ups take responsibility for decisions and actions.
Nevertheless, the roles of all parties involved can change in the course of democratic school
development. At least, there is enough “space” for change, e.g. by dealing differently with
assessment matters. Students could for instance learn how to measure and assess their
progress themselves by setting their own achievement goals or by applying methods of selfassessment. Afterwards teacher and students can enter into a dialogue over their mutual
assessments, and together formulate achievement goals. This means that the teacher can play
the role of a partner, companion and advisor. Moreover, the criteria of the teaching staff
become at least transparent to the students, or are even discussed and negotiated with them.
There is also a chance to develop and use feedback systems providing the teachers with
feedback from their students as well as giving the teachers hints of their student‟s potential
development (see example in this manual).
It is also possible, that children and young adults have an influence on the decision making
process in regards of the focus of content and the teaching methods, that they bring in
themselves as experts for certain topics or skills in class, or that structures are developed in
class to provide a space for regular democratic processes (e.g. by introducing a committee in
class, ideally led by the students themselves).
The role of the parents in relation to school also can change dramatically. Alternatively to the
common separation between the responsibilities in school and at home, parents and teaching
staff can become partners exchanging information and perspectives in regards to education
and formation of the children and teenagers at eye level and supporting each other.
These, as well as many other possibilities of a democratisation of everyday life in school, are
not new ideas, but already tested and have become part of the teaching and school cultural
profile in various schools. Not any approach is transferable to any school. Each school has its
own specific conditions and prerequisites and therefore has to find its own appropriate way.
Above all, the school has to trust in the ability of all participants to make the required steps.
Such processes and the changes involved can be, for instance, the result of negotiation with all
stakeholders.
The principle of consensus in negotiation processes
Another central principle of democratic school development is the principle of consensus in
negotiation processes. Majority votes are only used in exceptional cases (it was used only
once in all the years of the application of this school development approach). Consensus
based decisions grant the highest possible acceptance by all participants. This means, the
usually used quantitative criteria (how many hands up, how many down) are not relevant, but
rather the quality of a decision with which all the participants are satisfied resp. a decision
which all the participants can support without doubts.
Existing reservations have to be taken seriously if not everybody can agree. At the same time,
the doubter(s) are called to account. It is not enough to be against something. Everybody is
asked to clearly define their doubts and make alternative suggestions which will be considered
by all participants. Sometimes the formulated doubts “only” require minor changes regarding
the wording or relate to dates and deadlines so that it is relatively easy and quick to deal with
them. However, the expressed reservations or suggestions for a change often play an
important role in regards to content, e.g. when dealing with information or problems the
negotiation group has not yet considered. The consideration of reservations and doubts
therefore is essential for the quality of decisions! If decisions are made by a majority vote
important aspects may not be discussed. Often, majority votes are not stable and their
realisation can be jeopardized because outvoted persons may not be satisfied and cannot
support the decisions in every consequence.
An essential criteria for democratic school development also is the balance of interests where
all participants are heard equally and where there are no “losers”. A process meeting this
quality criteria is an important guarantee that it is accepted by the participants as their own
process and that the decisions made have the highest support possible.
Picture: “pumpkin” exercise – topic consensus orientation
Orientation towards resources, target groups, problems and processes
The concept of democratic school development is put to practice as a process oriented
towards the existing resources, target groups, problems and, above all, processes. This means
there is no standardized set of methods, but each intervention, each workshop, each event is
designed and carried out individually by the facilitators on the basis of existing preconditions,
resources and problems. They mostly scoop from a mix or an adaptation of different
methodical concepts enhancing group processes and structuring the framework for all
participants in the best possible way in order to achieve the defined goals and results, and, on
the other hand, in order to make sure that everyone is able to exchange information, to be
creative, to develop ideas and to negotiate on an equal level.
This kind of process facilitation (unlike facilitation by an expert or for training) is based on
the idea that the participants themselves are the experts and that the facilitation– as a kind of
“midwife” – provides a safe environment by giving structure, methodology and an appropriate
framework so that the existing resources and competences of the participants can come into
effect. Orientation towards target groups means that age and background of the participants
have to be considered when choosing different methods. With small children, for instance, it
is recommendable to do a lot of paintings, role plays, etc. Moreover, the discussions have to
be designed in a way that everyone is able to participate. In case of an event with different
groups of interest (adults and children/teenagers) you might have to form working groups
dealing simultaneously with the same questions, but using different methods. Afterwards, the
results of each group are brought together again.
This shows that the requirements for the facilitation are fairly high and that each school needs
its own methods and time frames. Some of the competences needed to make an essential
contribution to the quality of the process are a broad repertoire of different methods,
experience with the dynamics within groups of different ages and backgrounds as well as a
high degree of creativity (also see chapter “requirements and prerequisites…”).
analysis of strengths and wishes as a basis for the school development process
A crucial phase of democratic school development is the questioning of all participants
regarding their views of the strengths of their school and their wishes for a change. This
questioning takes place at the very beginning of the process in form of a workshop and a
discussion with all stakeholders (details see chapter 07 “Steps to realization – the concrete
procedure”). The participants speak about the strengths of the school as they perceive them
and formulate wishes in relation to each individual stakeholder group (including their own) as
well as in connection to the dimensions “teaching in the classroom” and “school
administration” (e.g. quality of structure).
Instead of an analysis of strengths and wishes the usual approach of developmental processes
is an analysis of strengths and weaknesses. Schools are rather used to talk about irregularities,
deficits and difficult conditions. This discussion has to have its place, of course. The approach
described in this manual follows methods of organizational development and focuses
deliberately on strengths and wishes. A collection of weaknesses easily can have a
demotivating and paralysing effect whereas the identification with strengths supports selfconfidence and a culture of appreciation in a school. Moreover, the deficits perceived by the
participants indirectly are mirrored in the following questioning of the wishes. In comparison
to a list of weaknesses, the formulation of wishes is pointing ahead, it is more concrete and
constructive.
In addition to that, strengths and wishes can be used as an energy source for the school‟s
program development. They can be the base to formulate a school profile and the
corresponding developmental goals.
The relevance of strengths
In order to reach the goals to change and develop the school further, it is important to find out
its already existing strengths, to acknowledge these strengths as a basis for developmental
processes, and to build on them for any further steps. The different perspectives of all
participants in the school are gathered to clarify how each stakeholder group and each
individual perceive the school, what they like, and what is important for them, what they want
to maintain or cultivate.
The different perspectives and views result in a diverse and impressive picture which provides
everybody with a completely new and not yet seen overview of how and to which degree
existing structures and activities are valued and acknowledged. From this, the school can
scoop strength and energy to make the next steps.
Through the gathering of the school‟s strengths the participants not only come to know each
other and the prevailing views better, they also learn about common grounds with regard to
the school and the actual differences and imbalances. Thus they can search for possible
reasons in case the interpretation of the results differ from each other: e.g. why is it that
almost all stakeholder groups agree that “school and toilets are nice and clean”, whereas the
cleaner is the only one who is not seeing this as a strength which is also reflected in her
wishes (e.g. that “boys should pee in the urinal and not everywhere else”). Or why is it that all
stakeholder groups apart from the parents attest the school a “good school atmosphere”, and
why does the cleaning staff not mention the students regarding “polite manners with each
other”. It is also worth to consider the fact that the students rank “natural science” and
“vocational preparation” under strengths, but that they do not mention other subjects such as
maths, languages or history on their positive list. And why do only the teacher name the
“good learning atmosphere” as strength, and all the other stakeholder groups don‟t? How can
you explain that students and parents see field trips as central strength, but nobody of the
teaching staff?
Strengths as hint for concentration processes
Often, participants (especially amongst the teaching staff) fear that every change will
necessarily require more energy and time consumption. The participants sometimes are
actually so overburdened that a more of engagement is hardly possible. Therefore, beside to
an increase in quality, each school development process should lead to a concentration and
rationalization of activities. By surveying the requirements of the different stakeholder groups
the school can find out which offers and initiatives of the school the participants like and want
to maintain. Time and energy consuming activities which are not valued as strength by the
participants could, as a consequence, e.g. be given up, and the freed energy could be used for
the further development of acknowledged strengths.
The relevance of wishes
When considering the surveyed wishes, all participants will get a new impression of the ideas
defining a “good school” in the view of the different stakeholder groups and the individuals
within those groups. Moreover, the wish lists tell a lot about existing conflicts and differences
which might sometimes already be visible, but most often are hidden and unspoken. This
leads to latent tensions and dissatisfaction and generally has negative effects on the school
atmosphere. The wishes provide precious information about areas in which all stakeholder
groups see a need for development and change. Thus, the collection of wishes is the motor for
school development.
Strengths as energy source and wishes as motor for school development
Strengths and wishes are not considered separately within the developmental process. Just
like the concept of “The House of Quality” (compare Brauer/Kamiske 1995; Hansen/Kamiske
2001; Pfeifer 1996), a concept borrowed from the quality management in companies, the main
concern is to harmonize these two components. After the school has decided to cultivate a few
central strengths, the expressed wishes are consulted to extend the chosen strengths – this
means that those wishes which serve the further enhancement of already acknowledged
strengths have priority in the following steps.
Often, the focus on strengths and wishes is considered sceptically. One example is the topic
“teaching/lessons”, the supposed “core business” of each school. In case of a possible
teaching deficit, chances for a change would be small if the focus would lie primarily on the
development of the strengths. However, this persuasive argument is refuted by experiences
with the process and corresponding practical examples:
When asking for wishes, it is explicitly asked for wishes to improve the teaching. Most often,
wishes referring to this topic are central wishes. The most important wishes are assigned to
the corresponding strengths of the school. In a following step, measures will be suggested and
formulated to fulfil these wishes and, at the same time, to cultivate or to extend the chosen
strengths. This means that the wishes (= deficits) are clearly the base for any further
development. The strengths only determine under which aspect the realization of the wishes is
tackled.
An example: let‟s suppose that a great priority is to increase the use of computers in class.
This wish is very common in a lot of school. However, schools are all different. One school
might have “sprinter classes” (school leaving certificate in a shorter time period) on their list
of strengths, another the orientation goal “school without racism with courage”. Accordingly,
the possible effects of the above mentioned wish on the teaching in class are different:
In the school with sprinter classes the increased use of computers could provide selflearning methods so that the students can cope with the abundance of learning
materials.
In the school “without racism with courage” computers could be used to analyse
websites of extreme right-wing groups in class or to work with CD ROMs developed
by anti-racist organisations especially for the use in schools.
There is another aspect in addition to this: The culture of cooperation existing in a school
plays a central role when trying to change the ways of teaching. If there is a deep gap among
the teachers or between the teaching staff and the students, it is not easy to introduce new
learning methods based on participation and learning partnerships. However, if the democratic
school development process has a positive influence on the cooperation of all participants,
this can open up new perspectives for changing the ways of teaching. Especially schools
which find cooperation, rituals and values important are very successful when restructuring
their existing teaching methods.
Promotion of democratic competences in school
In the face of an increasing threat of democracy (e.g. caused by phenomena such as violence,
right-wing extremism and racism), the necessity of promoting democratic competences in a
school context is discussed more and more in recent years on an international level.
It is obvious that this topic is important within the German BLK program “Learning and
Living Democracy” – often discussed and described with the term “democratic education”. In
2006, the expert group “quality & competences” of the BLK program has written some basic
texts and orientation guidelines with learning arrangements for secondary schools (compare
expert group “quality & competences” 2006).
Since 1996/1997, international organisations have supported these ideas increasingly within
the field of international educational policy, among others the OECD (Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development). The OECD sees economic development in relation
to various aspects of quality of life, especially in connection with education and social
outcomes of learning. The OECD takes not only responsibility for the PISA tests, but is also
the international reference system for modern competence concepts. In 2005, it formulated the
so called “key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society” which will
be considered increasingly in international OECD studies (among others the PISA tests,
compare OECD 2005).
The expert group “quality & competences” has described and developed areas of democratic
competencies in the above mentioned guidelines, and then assigned them to the key
competencies of the OECD as well as to classic terms of competence. The acquisition of
democratic competences hereby is not limited to qualified learning in different fields of
interest, but is seen as a task of the school as a whole: “democratic competences and
democratic school quality are referring systematically to each other.” (expert group “quality &
competences”, guidelines, p. 10).
classic terms of
categories of
partial competences of key terms of
competence
competences
democratic
democratic
according to OECD
competencies
competencies
(according to “quality & (according to “quality &
(2005)
competences”/BLK
competences”)
program)
specialist/expert
competence
interactive use of tools 1.1 to build up
1.1 knowledge for
interactive use
knowledge for
orientation and
of knowledge &
orientation and
interpretation
information
interpretation of
relevant for
democratic actions
democracy
1.2 to detect and assess
1.2 analysis of
problems of
problems
democratic actions
methodical
interactive
competence
application of
language,
1.3 act systematically
1.3 project management
and realize projects
1.4 reach the public
1.4 dealing with the
public
symbols and
texts
interactive
application of
media
self competence
independent actions
2.1 develop and defend
defence and
own interests, opinions
perception of
and goals
rights, interests, 2.2 bring in own
2.1 self-determination
2.2 (political)
participation
boundaries and
interests in democratic
needs
decision making
2.3 motivation & self-
realization of
processes
initiative
life visions and
2.3 self-motivation,
personnel
show initiative and use
2.4 meta-cognitive and
projects
possibilities of
moral-ethic reflection
participation
2.4 reflect own values,
convictions and actions
in a broader context
social competence
interaction in
3.1 perceive & accept
heterogeneous groups
the perspective of others perspective
cultivate good
3.2 negotiate norms,
and reliable
ideas and goals in a
3.1 change of
3.2 communication,
relationships
democratic way and
deliberation,
ability to
cooperate
cooperation
cooperate
3.3 deal with diversity
overcome and
and differences
solve
constructively and solve diversity, differences
difficulties
conflicts in a fair way
3.3 dealing with
and conflicts
3.4 show empathy,
solidarity and
3.4 solidarity &
responsibility towards
responsibility
others
From: Guidelines “democratic education for secondary schools”, draft of the expert group
“quality & competences”/BLK program “learning and living democracy”, p. 11, Berlin 2006
Promotion of competences within democratic school development
Compared to our experiences and observations with the realization of the concept of
democratic school development the promotion of the above mentioned competences surely
can not be considered accomplished to the same degree within all areas and for all
participants. We especially observe great differences between those who participate regularly
in the negotiation rounds where they gain very intensive experiences with democratic
processes and analysis, in comparison to all other participants who are involved “only” partly
and selectively, or during specific stages of the current process. Moreover, it matters to what
extent the preconditions – which seem to be necessary from our point of view – for the
success of a democratic school development and the corresponding promotion of the
competences are already established resp. how far they can be developed during the current
process (compare chapter 11, “Conditions and factors for success”).
Nevertheless, in our view we can say safely that all the mentioned areas of responsibility play
an important role within the realization of our concept and can be promoted correspondingly.
In addition to the listed democratic responsibilities we want to name a few other areas of
responsibility resp. fields of learning and development resulting from the specific principles
and procedures of our school development approach and not mentioned explicitly in the table
above:
learning processes for all participants (children/teenagers and adults)
to perceive different perspectives and opinions as a chance and not necessarily as a
potential for conflict (e.g. through the cooperation of all stakeholder groups with the
solution of school problems)
promotion of a “culture of acknowledgement” and an attitude of appreciation (to begin
with the analysis of the strengths)
sensitisation towards power and discriminating structures, e.g.
- dominance of adults over children and teenagers
- imbalances of power and chances between members of the majority society and
people with a migration background
strengthening of all participants/experiencing of self-effectiveness
appreciation of consensus oriented decision-making processes and therefore rejection
of a winner-loser-mentality
participative management culture (in school administration/management of sections,
etc.)
In order to favour the promotion of democratic competences and to stimulate relevant learning
processes of the participants, we use specific methods at our events and workshops which are
described in the following.
Methodical approaches
As mentioned many times in this description of the concept and described in detail in the
practical modular system (CD ROM), we work as moderators and process facilitators with a
great variety of different methods. On one hand, our task is about creating a stimulating and
varied process, about group dynamics and getting to know each other, about communication,
about thematic approaches in a playful way, or “just” about easing the atmosphere and having
fun with each other.
Just as much, the sometimes quite work intensive periods (in groups or plenum) have to be
arranged in a creative and activating way in order to stimulate and evoke as many senses,
strengths, competences and fantasies as possible in all participants (adults as well as children
and teenagers). The methods we are using and adapting to existing processes or developing
further originate in the field of moderation and presentation techniques, many of them also in
play and theatre pedagogy (group dynamic exercises, role plays, communication games, getto-know- each-other games, warm-up games, reunion games, cooperation games, group
division games, reflection games, etc.). Moreover, we are using methods for large groups,
workshop concepts and some exercises borrowed from supervision and team management.
These methods favour a range of competences and responsibilities finding expression in the
mutual communication, the culture of conversation, and the cooperation within school. At the
same time, democratic competences are supported by specific exercises and activities: e.g. by
feedback exercises, a repertoire of discussion and analytical methods, the so called “Betzavta”
concept mentioned in the chapter “process procedure” (compare Schuetze/Sischka 2003) as
well as exercises from the field of project management. During the presentation of
suggestions or thematic contributions of small groups all participants can learn to present their
issues, to speak in front of large groups, to argue, to debate, to listen to each other as well as
to acknowledge and appreciate each other. And above all: consensus oriented negotiation with
equal rights can and has to be learned! (The individual competences, which from our
experience can be supported by the listed methods or procedures, are named in the modules
on the CD ROM.)
Picture: Playful negotiation round
Promotion of competences and strengthening of children and teenagers
Adults often discover unknown abilities in children and teenagers during negotiation
processes, e.g. when students have developed ideas and suggestions together and present them
to the adult group afterwards. The fact alone that the children or teenagers stand up in front of
the adults explaining their suggestions to them shows abilities not yet perceived or supported.
If the children/teenagers are heard and taken seriously with their views and ideas they will
grow and the process will strengthen them. The experience of self-effectiveness has a lasting
effect on the personality of the children and teenagers (e.g. self-confidence and trust in
democracy).
Here an example of a participating primary school:
During the negotiation rounds in a primary school it became obvious that students perceived
by the teachers as “not concentrated” or rather “poor” had the chance to use completely new
“ways to play” within the creative processes. They thought about measures, for instance, to
resolve the homework problem. (Wishes of the children were e.g. “less homework”, “no
homework” or “voluntary homework”.) The children made paintings and wrote their
suggestions on posters, and presented their ideas in form of a theatre play. The following
negotiations with the adults had the result that there was some obligatory homework in future
(e.g. the tables in maths and vocabulary – this was important to the teachers), and an
additional choice of voluntary homework from which the children could choose by
themselves. Moreover, one day per week there was no homework at all. This arrangement was
introduced in the whole school. And: the school learned that the children now do more
homework than before the instalment of this rule!
Picture: presentation by children after negotiation at a public event
During the negotiation round the adults could perceive and experience the children
completely different. Abilities could be expressed and developed which otherwise did not
have space in the everyday life in school and at home. At the same time, the children were
proud of their result and made the experience that their voices were actually heard. Their
request was negotiated and taken seriously by everyone, and the results were concrete and
noticeable.
democratic processes with equal rights – how to work with small children
Often, people ask sceptically how democratic processes with equal rights and negotiations are
possible with small children – don‟t you need certain boundaries or regulations to protect the
children, because they are too small and inexperienced to take on responsibility for certain
things? We often hear the statement: “If we let the children decide they will play the whole
day and learn nothing in school.”
Apart from the fact that everyone can learn a lot – if not better – through play, negotiation
with equal rights does not mean that children will not be protected from possible dangers or
are left alone to decide by themselves in all areas. The opposite is the case. Nevertheless, it is
important to perceive the needs and interests of the children and take them seriously. Just as
the children should (learn to) listen to and respect the perspectives and motives of the adults.
We usually do not explain to the children why they should or should not do certain things
from an adult‟s perspective. They often experience rules and prohibitions as limiting or even
as arbitrariness, and, consequently, they feel powerless and at the mercy of the adults and “the
school system”. If the children are informed about what is important to the adults or why the
adults e.g. worry in certain situations (while at the same time acknowledging the needs of the
children), children are very capable to understand and accept the adult‟s perspective. They are
“initiated” in the true sense of the word into the very core of the situation or problem, and
learn how to weigh up different perspectives against one another. The important point is the
transparency of perspectives and decisions, a fundamental precondition to assess situations
and to form and reflect an opinion.
Let‟s go back to the previous example: In past school development processes it never
happened that children requested to play the whole day – although it is often the point that
(especially primary school) students want to play more than they normally do. Let‟s suppose
that the interests of the teachers are opposed to that: they insist on “their regular lessons”. This
provides the opportunity to make the different perspectives transparent and to examine the
needs behind them. In the following brainstorming of ideas during the negotiation round it is
important to balance the different interests: the different needs have to be integrated so that, if
possible, all participants are satisfied with the solution. This is not always easy to achieve, but
possible (in this case e.g. by integrating more games and playful teaching methods into the
lessons)!
steps towards realisation – the concrete procedure
1. start phase
At the beginning of a school development process you should always ask for the approval of
as many persons as possible who are affected by the change. After an initial contact of the
external process facilitators with the school administration the concept will be presented to the
teaching staff in order to outline the possible effects the process might have on the school.
During this stage it is essential to emphasize again and again that school development is not a
project with a beginning and a determined end, but a process which ideally evolves
continually and permanently and is supported by all participants.
If the teaching staff has decided to embark on this journey, the next step is to inform the
parents board and the students representatives. Finally, the school committee should make a
decision about the start of the school development process.
2. information and reflection
During initial information events with all participants the concept is explained again in more
details, before it is reflected in the group. It is important to define the different ideas the
individual stakeholder groups might have about “democracy in school”, and to find out to
what extent they are willing to give the related processes and changes a chance. In the same
place it is helpful to clarify how strongly the participants support the process and if there are
possible reservations (e.g. the teachers often fear that the students will decide how everyday
life in school has to look like. On the other hand, the students often are sceptical if the
teachers are actually open for negotiations with equal rights). Existing doubts have to be taken
very seriously. Resist the temptation: never dispel them! During the course of the process it is
essential to be very sensitive and especially aware of those points and to examine arising
questions critically. If expressed doubts and fears come true, the process facilitators should
discuss them explicitly and intervene if necessary.
Picture: information and reflection event in class
In order to involve all students there are usually introductory events (about 45 minutes long)
in each class. If necessary, additional events with teachers and other educators or social
workers take place within the bounds of school conferences or meetings. All parents are
invited to come to evening events (separately for each year group in most cases). All other
stakeholder groups – such as the technical staff (e.g. secretaries, head master, cleaners) – as
well as external partners also will be informed about the intended process. This usually
happens in personal meetings and conversations.
3. Strengths-and-wishes-workshops
In a next step, directly after this information phase, it is time to collect and analyse the
strengths and wishes. It seems to be helpful to use different methodical approaches to address
different age groups when holding the student workshops in each class. The following scheme
has proved itself in past processes:
school beginners: painting and story telling during a project day
Year 3 and 4: painting, writing and role plays during a project day
Year 5 – 13: writing down strengths and wishes on cards as well as discussions during
a double period
Among the teaching staff the strengths and wishes can be found out best during a study day.
Depending on the time frame of the study day (3/4 – 1 day) other topical issues can be taken
up as well to provide an additional benefit for the teachers. Examples are:
conflict resolution
development of common perspectives with regard to current school problems
preparation of decision making processes
exchange on pedagogical questions
etc.
The questioning of the parents takes place in a (approx.) 4-hour-event, either on an evening or
weekend. All parents of the school are invited. Two procedures have been successful for these
events:
organization/structuring according to different age groups (e.g. Year 5 and 6, Year 7
and 8, Year 9 and 10) within the bounds of the event or
offering two dates to choose from, e.g. Friday evening or Saturday morning.
In one case, the events had been hold in two languages: the facilitation as well as all the
results written down by the participating parents and presented on cards were bilingual
(Turkish and German).
As a conclusion of the strengths and wishes analysis it is useful to make an evaluation in
order to find out the most acknowledged strengths and the most important wishes from the
perspective of each participating stakeholder group (compare practical modular system,
chapter 03 “inventory”).
4. structure of the negotiation round
At the end of each strengths-and-wishes-workshop the participants are informed about the
following negotiation process and the steps related to it. Afterwards they are asked to decide
who is interested in participating in the negotiation round.
Up to 30 people altogether can participate on a regular basis in the negotiation rounds. That
means:
there will be about 6 – 10 teachers and other educators (if needed),
normally 6 – 10 parents,
students are represented by 10 – 16 children resp. teenagers,
the school administration (or the extended school administration) can form its own
stakeholder group of one or two persons,
and there might be 1 – 3 participants of other stakeholder groups (technical staff,
secretaries, external partners, etc.).
Although it is recommendable to take care of an approximately equal relation between the
groups‟ representatives, their numbers do not have to be exactly equal. In the negotiation
round the majority of votes does not matter, but rather if all the participants agree with the
process and are satisfied with it. Often, there are more children or teenagers invited because
they quickly would be the minority compared to the number of adults.
It is crucial, however, that all existing stakeholder groups – or at least as many as possible –
are represented. In the course of the further development of the concept the criterion of
different interests has lead to the result that the school administration (or the extended school
administration) – formerly represented as part of the teaching staff – can now form its own
stakeholder group.
In principle, everyone who wants to participate is allowed to do so. It is a completely
voluntary process, and the participation is in no direct relation to duties or elected deputizing
in already existing committees (however, being a committee member is no disqualifying
factor). It is very much a point in favour of the participation regardless of elected duties and
responsibilities that the circle of active participants and engaged persons within the school can
grow and that there are not always the same people represented in groups and initiatives.
However, in the course of the process, the negotiation round should always keep close contact
to the existing committees, e.g. in order to submit fundamental information for the decisionmaking process or suggestions for problem-solving and conflict resolution, but especially, in
order to ensure the necessary flow of information to maintain a functional communication
process.
Selection of participants
Within the adult groups the envisaged number of participants per stakeholder group usually
volunteer relatively quickly. However, things are different with student groups: the students
of all previous schools are participating (voluntarily!) to such an extent that there has to be a
selection process to choose among the children and teenagers (and this despite the
announcement that the negotiation rounds take place during the late afternoon and on
evenings, are each 2 to 3 hours long, and at regular intervals of 4 to 6 weeks).
During group processes the students compile criteria for their participation in the negotiation
rounds by themselves, and independently make their own decisions on the basis of these
criteria (e.g. criteria such as all age groups have to be represented, same number of girls and
boys, certain competences as precondition, etc.).
Picture: poster with criteria of primary school students
The students of two of the participating schools additionally have formed a so called support
group who is constantly exchanging information with the selected students of the negotiation
round. This group also helps to prepare decisions, brings in suggestions, supports activities
and, if needed, also participates in the negotiation rounds (alternating with the selected
students).
Due to the fact that some students leave school and new students are enrolled the composition
of the negotiation round is always changing. This is also true for the parents, and there are
changes among the other stakeholder groups as well. Therefore, all participating schools
advertise regularly each year to gain new members for the negotiation round (also see chapter
09 “long-term perspectives of the negotiation round”).
5. Analysis of the results and selection of a central strength
Ideally, the participants of the negotiation round will begin their cooperation during a
weekend event at a venue outside of their living and school place. At such a neutral place the
participants will be able to get to know each other outside everyday life in school and have the
chance to become involved in longer intensive processes providing an important basis for all
further meetings. At the beginning of the negotiation process the results of the strengths-andwishes-analysis will be evaluated and the participants will work on a common view of the
strengths. In the course of this process, they will record the common grounds of the different
perspectives, and analyse and discuss the differences. These discussions could deal, for
instance, with the following aspect: In a school both parents and students mention the issue
“field trips” as a central strength. The teaching staff does not make a statement at all in this
regard. The goal of the common discussion is now to find the reasons for this discrepancy.
During these conversations it becomes clear that the teachers definitely acknowledge the field
trips as a positive activity of the school, but they experience the (unpaid) task of
accompanying the students as a high (additional) workload, and, therefore, did not perceive
these trips as strength.
Right from the start this first exchange provides the opportunity to hear and understand
different perspectives. All groups literally get “into conversation with each other” – for many
a new and beneficial experience –, often breaking down existing reservations and prejudices
towards the other stakeholder groups. Moreover, first ideas for measures and changes can
arise – like in the above mentioned case of “field trips”, when some parents spontaneously
came up with the idea to support the teachers with the realization of field trips in the future.
Picture: comparison of strengths
Picture: analysis of the strengths in a group
After these already very complex conversations the complete group will make a decision and
define an issue to deal with initially. This means the group chooses a strength which is
supported by as many participants as possible to begin with. The goal is to pick one of the
most acknowledged strengths (considering the views of all stakeholder groups), and, in a next
step, to extend it by fulfilling the related wishes. Before that, however, the chosen strength
will be specified to provide hints on potential priorities of the development. This happens by
collecting important qualities of the central strength (also see detailed descriptions in the
practical modular system, chapter 05 “goals and development project”).
Examples for already realized school development processes of this kind would be the
strengths “school without racism and violence”, “democratic school culture” and “the quality
of learning processes”.
With the agreement on one issue as a first development project further steps are determined
and goals can now be negotiated within the school during the months to come.
6. Preparation for the negotiation process
During the first group process sessions the participants will experience some so called
“Betzavta” (Hebrew: “together”) exercises in order to prepare themselves for future
negotiations and democratic decision-making processes. The requirement of democratic
manners involves a huge challenge, especially because of the fact that the participants have
very different roles, both in the school context and in the private and social context.
Therefore, they are entangled in hierarchic structures and the related balance of power. As all
interests and needs are supposed to have equal rights in the course of the negotiation process
it is recommendable to analyse democratic principles and decision-making processes very
thoroughly.
“Betzavta/togetherness”
Betzavta is an educational concept in the field of democratic development and promotion
originally developed by the “Adam Institute for Democracy and Peace” in Jerusalem (Israel).
The concept was adapted later on for German educational programs with the intent to provide
lively experiences of democracy and democratic principles for children, teenagers and adults.
In contrast to traditional methods of political education such as lectures, debates about pros
and cons or plenum discussions, this concept focuses on exercises which enable the
participant to experience and reflect democratic principles vividly. By imparting a basic
democratic attitude the participants become aware that democracy is not only a description of
certain forms of government, but can be translated into a behaviour in everyday situations.
“The foundation of „Betzavta‟ is the acknowledgement of the principally equal right of
freedom for everybody. The desire to be able to live according to own needs, values and
norms is creating conflicts with other people. However, the ways how we deal with these
conflicts decide over the democratic character of a society. Is the freedom limited by
compromises or majority votes or hurt by violence? Or is there a quest for solutions oriented
towards the principle of the highest possible freedom for all?”
(compare Maroshek-Klarmann/Henschel/Oswald/Ulrich 1997)
The „Betzavta“ exercises help to test and reflect ways of democratic decision-making and
then find an agreement on common rules and procedures with regard to working and living
together. Some exercises of the “Betzavta” program are very effective in order to achieve this
goal. They provide a simulated situation in which the group has to make decisions and solve
problems. The following evaluation phase is (beside the satisfaction with the result) mainly
about the degree of satisfaction with the process and about the question of how and why (e.g.
group dynamics) the decisions or actions took place. It is analysed and reflected when and in
what circumstances needs were expressed, if they were taken seriously or ignored, if
everybody had the possibility to express their needs, who imposed his/her will on others and
why or when, where and when there were dominances or alliances if responsibility was taken
or given away, if alternative suggestions were heard and considered seriously, if tacit
assumptions were checked, if conflicts were real or existed just seemingly, and many more.
In one exercise, three volunteers are asked to share one pumpkin between them. In the
beginning, each participant is usually claiming the whole pumpkin for his/herself. After a
while, it seems obvious to find a compromise where each person gets an equal piece of the
pumpkin. The question is if all three of them are satisfied with this solution. A compromise,
and thus the limitation of individual needs, can create frustration. This is not the case when a
real balance of interests is achieved: Maybe one person just wants the seeds, the second only
wants the flesh, and the third only the skin to make a Halloween lantern… (In this case,
everyone could benefit from the pumpkin according to his/her actual needs.) These needs are
only known if all participants enter into discussion with each other. The so gained insights
generally open up a much broader range of possible solutions which otherwise might not have
been detected.
The most essential principle of the “Betzavta” concept is the differentiation between
viewpoints and the interests and needs behind them and to examine them thoroughly. If the
participants remain on the level of viewpoints and positions the discussions often stay rigid
debates on pros and cons, whereas the disclosure of needs generally leads much deeper
showing the individual motives and opening up a completely new and extended view of the
situation and the possibilities of dealing with it.
Experience shows the efficiency of other useful “Betzavta” exercises: for instance, the “dream
house exercise”, the “card exercise” as well as the “tower and circle exercise” (also see
practical modular system, chapter 04, “establishment of the negotiation round”). These
exercises might also be used to prepare the work on current issues or conflicts within the
school. Apart from the practicing aspect, they can produce concrete ideas and suggestions for
possible solutions.
Pictures: “dream house exercise” in a primary school
7. Suggested measures and processes of negotiation
After the preparing exercises, the wishes which could support the chosen central strength are
gathered in a next step. To achieve this each stakeholder group is working individually on
their wishes and creating a list of wishes “beneficial” to the central strength. Each individual
group then formulates its own suggestions of measures to fulfil these wishes, and presents
them to the other groups in the form of posters or presentations. After the presentation,
everyone is asked for feedback. This feedback session is mainly about appreciation, but also
about the degree of approval among the other groups, possible additional suggestions and
ideas, and about possible doubts or alternatives which should be taken up and considered by
the presenters during a later revision of the suggested measures. There might be several
revision phases for a single suggestion. Only if all participants (adults, teenagers and children)
agree with the suggestion it will be adopted. This can take a while, but there are also examples
where several suggestions were accepted after the first presentation round.
Picture: presentation of suggested measures by a student (secondary level)
Here an example how to work on wishes:
The following wishes, both addressing the parents and being expressed by the parents, play an
important role in almost every school. The issues are “more interest of the parents in the
everyday life of school”, “more commitment”, “more support” and, very concretely, the
“regular participation in school events” – especially the small number of parents participating
in parents‟ evenings is a frequent issue.
While working on these wishes, the following questions arise: e.g. “What prevents the parents
from higher commitment? How could parents become interested in getting more involved in
school or in participating in events such as parents‟ evenings, etc.? What kind of measures
would also support the chosen central strength?”
During one of the negotiation rounds the suggestion was made that all parents should be
asked directly why they did not commit more time and energy to the school and what they
would need to feel more welcomed at parents‟ evenings. This suggestion was accepted by all
the participants of the negotiation round, and it was agreed to hold a parent meeting on the
topic “parents‟ evenings” soon after.
Experience shows that relatively few parents come to school events. However, the children
participating in the negotiation round had a great idea how to gain as many parents as possible
which was put to practice a few days later:
A group of students of the negotiation round went from class to class (the teachers had been
informed beforehand, of course) explaining the matter to their mates and telling them why it
was so important that many parents were participating. In the following, the children of each
class designed an invitation letter with a small “gem stone” (made of glass). And 90 fathers
and mothers actually came to next meeting!
Picture: poster of the children‟s campaign
At the meeting the parents were asked for their wishes and possible contributions to parents‟
evenings which resulted in a whole catalogue of suggestions. This catalogue of measures was
discussed again within the negotiation round, summarized in a recommendation for the
planning and the realization of future parents‟ evenings and given to the teaching staff.
These recommendations provide precious information concerning the main issues of parents‟
evenings giving the opportunity to find out about the interests of the parents and plan
accordingly (among others pedagogic or educational topics). It is recommendable that parents
and teachers prepare the parents‟ evenings together, and that one or two parents chair the
meeting. Moreover, structural and organizational issues should be considered. This begins
with the seating plan (circle instead of frontal lecture), includes the catering (shared
drinks/cake/finger food) as well as translations (e.g. German into Turkish) and child care
organised by the parents. Other issues could be the dates of the meetings, the invitation form
and many more…
Picture: parents‟ meeting concerning the issue “parents‟ evenings”
In another case, the teachers wanted to introduce “new teaching methods”. This wish fitted in
with the wishes of the students and matched the chosen strength of the school (“quality of
learning processes”). However, the question was if everyone had the same understanding of
“new methods”? What ideas did the teachers have and what needs the students? In such a
case, it can be helpful to examine other determined school strengths. The students had named
“natural sciences” and “career planning” as strengths, whereas the teachers ranked the “good
learning atmosphere” very high. What qualities did the students value with regards to the
lessons in natural sciences, and might they be taken as a yardstick for new methods welcomed
by the students? And what exactly creates a “good learning atmosphere” which could be
supported by suitable methods?
All these questions arose in the course of the negotiation process. Questions which are
actually quite profound and possibly the beginning of deeper examination processes which go
far beyond the negotiation round.
Which wishes are fulfilled?
You can work on a second and third strength in the course of the process after dealing with
the first strength, and go through the same or similar processes. This means you can possibly
work on a great number of wishes which will be fulfilled gradually. You can then deal with
the wishes which are not connected to one of the existing strengths and decide what should
happen to them. All participants have to reach an agreement whether the fulfilment of these
wishes are of central interest for the school. If yes, this could be the birthing of a completely
new strength which has to be developed in new ways.
8. Feedback from the stakeholder groups
The negotiation rounds regularly meet every four to six weeks to formulate suggestions for
measures on the basis of the chosen school strength and the wishes named by the different
stakeholder groups, with the intent to pass them with a consensus. However, an agreement
between teachers, parents and students as well as possible other participants of the negotiation
round is no guarantee that the suggestion is actually put to practice. The round can not evade
decision-making committees, let alone replace them. All persons concerned by a measure
should also be asked in advance if they agree. However, the round can formulate possible
decisions or prepare central decisions by making sure that there are as many perspectives and
interests included as possible.
This means that the negotiation round functions as a kind of committee. A suggestion of a
measure concerning the teaching staff, for instance, has to be negotiated among the teachers
and has to be adopted by them. In the course of these negotiations the measures are reviewed
and adapted to the needs of all (if possible) persons concerned by this measure – this takes as
long as a suggestion is ready to be put to practice (also see practical example in chapter 08,
“From suggestion of a measure to its realization”).
9. activities of the different stakeholder groups in the meantime
As mentioned above, the process from the selection of the wishes, the formulation of
suggested measures to the final realization sometimes may take a little while. This requires a
lot of patience and perseverance of all participants, especially of those who are not
participating in any of the negotiation rounds and are waiting for visible results.
It makes sense to work on group specific issues in the meantime – issues in which most of the
school members are involved and which have direct effects on different stakeholder groups or
the whole school. This might be current problems or conflicts, the cooperation and solidarity
within different stakeholder groups (e.g. communication among students) or the cooperation
between groups (e.g. teachers and educators), the development of a democratic conference
culture (e.g. in the general conference of all the school participants) or else the establishment
of a parents‟ café to provide a regular opportunity for an exchange among the parents. Other
topics could be current crises (e.g. a change in the school administration), specific measures to
support the school administration (management coaching) or else the development of
strategies and measures to improve the internal communication and the flow of information.
Usually, these measures are lying in the hands of each group and do not have to be
coordinated with all the other stakeholder groups.
Picture: results of an event with the topic “conference culture”
Activities which contribute to the strengthening and the extension of competences of
individual stakeholder groups are especially helpful.
As for the students this could be, for instance, the training and further qualification of the
student representatives, the setting up of a mentoring program between older and younger
students or – like in one of the BLK schools – lessons or projects where students pass on their
competences and knowledge to other students or even teachers, and much more…
Within the framework of a newly developed democratic conference culture there might be
space and opportunities for a more intensive exchange about pedagogic questions or critical
issues, to work on conflicts, and to support each other. Often, it is helpful to strengthen the
structures of cooperation, to build them up from scratch (team structures, team work, flow of
information, etc.) or else to participate in further trainings together.
In order to strengthen the parents, the creation of a parents‟ café has been very helpful where
the parents could meet on a regular basis, exchange information on issues which were
important to them, give each other advice and support each other, invite external experts if
necessary, or prepare issues for the negotiation round by working on certain questions and
presenting their own suggestions. In the primary school mentioned above there are 30 to 40
parents meeting on a regular basis, and thus experiencing the school more and more as “their
place”, a place where they belong and are committed to, where they can leave their marks and
co-create. In addition, there is an office by parents for parents (“parents support parents”) –
open twice a week – where advice seeking parents can turn to with their questions. Among
other things, one of the positive effects on the school climate is that the communication
between parents and teachers has improved drastically! (more details in the practical modular
system, chapter 07, “Further scenarios”.)
There could also be increased activities in cooperation with external partners and projects
fitting into the specific requirements of individual stakeholder groups as well as the whole
school, which advance the school and its environment in their development, and which are
anchored permanently. Beneficial external competences can have an influence on the school
in the course of a continuing school opening, and at the same time the school‟s activities are
radiating into its environment and make the school to a driving force behind positive changes
within the community. A learning organization thus can become a learning region. There are
no limits to imagination and creativity…
10. Anchoring within the school program
The analysis of strengths and wishes in the beginning of the process reflects how all school
participants view their school. The analysis of the strengths results in a statement about the
perceived school profile, and the expressed wishes give information about possible areas of
development within the school development process. In the next phase, developmental goals
are formulated, and corresponding measures negotiated and realized.
Therefore, it seems obvious to anchor and integrate the lists of strengths and wishes, the
experiences of the development process, the negotiated and realized measures as well as
future plans into the school program.
From the catalogue of measures to realization – a practical example
In the following, we will show you a practical example in order to illustrate which concrete
steps of negotiation were leading to which decisions and how a suggested measure was put
into practice:
Feedback system for teachers
The school in this example started the negotiation process with a weekend event. 28 teachers,
parents and students as well as the school administration were participating. In a previous
meeting they had already decided on the central school strength they wanted to work on:
“democratic cooperation”. This meant that after some preparatory “Betzavta” exercises and
after preparing a draft of a role model for “democratic school culture” they could begin with
the selection of wishes “beneficial” to the chosen strength. To do this the different stakeholder
groups initially worked separately from each other. After the selection of wishes (chosen from
the wish-pool of each stakeholder group) they developed suggestions for corresponding
measures to fulfil the wishes. The students brought six suggestions into the negotiation round,
the parents two, the teachers three, and the school administration came up with one measure –
all in all, there were twelve suggested measures.
All twelve suggestions were presented one after another to the whole negotiation group, and a
first overall opinion per suggestion signalled the degree of support. Afterwards, everyone was
invited to a feedback round providing the opportunity to express positive feedback, further
ideas, additional suggestions, to formulate doubts or to let the others explain their own
suggestions again in detail and to get into conversation.
After this feedback and discussion round the different stakeholder groups were asked to
include the comments into their suggestions and then present the revised versions to the whole
negotiation group. After each presentation the degree of support was checked within the
group. To the delight of all participants eleven of the twelve suggestions were adopted with
consensus during this round (incl. the clarification of competences and dates). A remarkable
result indeed!
Picture: poster with twelve suggested measures
Suggested measures
S1
contract for cooperation
S2
sports-game-event (all age groups)
S3
mentoring program: older students teach younger students
S4
field trips
S5
project gymnasium wall
E1
“agony box”
E2
teachers assessed by students
L1
professional facilitation for student assembly and parent meetings
L2
project Year 11 teacher & student team
L3
election of a group of colleagues to support the democratic process
SL1
external effect as a matter of all teachers
Redact. spreading text + discussion
The only suggestion left was: “teachers assessed by students” (some wishes, expressed by the
parents, which should be fulfilled by this measure were: “teachers should be partners, not
superiors or opponents of the students”, “students should not accept bad lessons”). Even the
revision of this suggestion could not dispel the doubts of some teachers. Therefore, the
suggestion was deferred. As a conclusion of the negotiation weekend everyone agreed that the
results would be presented to the whole teaching staff and that all teachers would be asked for
feedback.
Soon after this, there was a conference of the whole school where all results of the negotiation
weekend were presented. Especially the critical suggestion of an assessment of the teachers
by the students was explained in detail. The following process dealt with the doubts of the
teachers and their corresponding wishes of possible changes. An essential point of those who
had reservations was about their fear to be assessed and the assumption that this assessment
might lead to a kind of ranking to compare the teachers among each other. They imagined a
list of the supposedly best and worst teachers of the school which, in the worst case, would be
available to the public and thus accessible for all school internals and externals.
Picture: teachers in the fishbowl
The formulation of these reservations was followed by a very interesting discussion. On the
one hand, the question arose how it was possible that the teachers rejected something they
were imposing on the students day after day as if it was the most natural thing. On the other
hand, the expressed reservations had to be taken very seriously because the suggested
measure directly concerned all teachers and could not be implemented without their
agreement.
In the course of further discussions and negotiations the crucial points crystallized. In order to
come closer to a solution, it was very helpful to indicate that the word “assessment” alone had
a negative after taste which was not supporting the developmental process – the goal of the
measure was questioned again. During the following intense examination it became clear that
it was not about a classification or judgement, but rather about hints and ideas for further
individual self-development. Therefore, the measure was not an assessment tool, but a tool to
enhance development and to provide a basis for a dialogue with the students. This clarified
view on the intention opened the teaching staff a little more.
In a following step, all teachers (in separate working groups) formulated questions which
could be helpful and relevant from their perspective to benefit as much as possible by finding
an answer. This led to several versions of questionnaires covering different areas: e.g. the
relationship between teachers and students, the teaching methods, the professional
competence, the cooperation and the climate in the classroom, etc. (During this process all
participants gained a lot of knowledge about the design of questionnaires and their evaluation
as well as in regard to quality assessment of the lessons.)
Another essential point of the negotiation process dealt with the question of voluntarism and
related procedures. All teachers could agree to the revised suggestion under the condition that
the use of the questionnaires were on a voluntary basis which meant that the teachers could
not be forced to do the survey. Afterwards, everyone entered into a binding agreement that
three to four teachers would test the questionnaires within their classes, and then report to
their colleagues and tell them about their experiences to encourage them to participate.
Another aspect of voluntarism referred to the content of the questions. It was agreed that the
teachers could choose the areas and dimensions of the survey by themselves, and that they
could select from different questionnaires with different priorities. The formulated goal of this
measure – to get into communication with the students through their feedback and to work on
possible conflicts together – was also an issue of the voluntarism debate. The teachers wanted
to decide by themselves whether they keep the result of the survey to themselves or discuss it
with the students. This wish was also accepted by everyone because a constructive feedback
culture includes that the one who got the feedback can decide how he/she handles the
feedback (e.g. to accept and assimilate it or to experience it as not very helpful).
After all these feedback sessions, discussions and negotiation processes (the whole process
took four months with several meetings of the teaching staff and the negotiation round as well
as several revision meetings of the parents), the final version was presented to the teaching
staff and finally passed with a consensus. Parallel to that process the students of the
negotiation round had already developed a computerized input and evaluation program to
enable the classes to enter one ore more questionnaires selected by their teachers in a very
short time into the computer and, some minutes later, already receive the evaluation. Thus, the
trial period of the new feedback system could begin.
Shortly after, the first three teachers tested the new developmental tool and told their
colleagues and the negotiation round about their experiences. The result exceeded all
(positive) expectations. The “test teachers” were enthusiastic about the seriousness of the
feedback, and they shared their joy because they also received very positive feedback, as well
as important hints what they could improve concretely with regards to certain issues. They
were also impressed how open and pleasant the ensuing discussions with the students went.
All in all, they had got the impression that the mutual exchange had a positive and lasting
influence on the cooperation and togetherness in class.
Meanwhile, some months have passed. More and more teachers voluntarily have accepted to
use the new feedback system and tested different methods.
The input and evaluation program has been optimised to such an extent that the school
founded a company managed by students which is ready to accept orders throughout Germany
to distribute and maintain this product.
Picture: presentation of the feedback system by some students during a public event
(Heinrich-Boell-Stiftung, 2005)
long-term perspectives of the negotiation round
After several months of group processes, negotiations and the first successful implementation
of measures the question of the future of the negotiation rounds arose (function, tasks,
mandate, future issues and contents, composition, etc.). The negotiation rounds of the three
BLK schools were committed to this clarifying process, each choosing different ways:
In the participating secondary modern school (covering years 5 to 9 or the last five years of
the compulsory nine years at school in Germany, note of the translator) the negotiation group
is called “ELSA”, German short form for Eltern-Lehrer-Schueler-Aushandlungsrunde
(parents-teachers-students-negotiation-round). The group has determined the way it sees
itself, chosen this name and designed a logo during a special negotiation weekend. In the long
run, ELSA is supposed to be an open and at the same time protected space for parents,
students and teachers where they are able to negotiate and discuss current issues with equal
rights and submit suggestions to the school committees concerned. The group created a
promotional flyer and organizes various events to constantly invite new parents, students and
teachers to participate. The size of the group remains relatively stable with approx. 30
participants having made a binding commitment.
Picture: selection of a name, logo and symbol for the negotiation round (secondary modern
school)
The negotiation round of the primary school has not (yet) got a specific name, but meanwhile
has changed its structures and procedures. The round now “only” meets every two to three
months, and, in the meantime, the individual stakeholder groups (parents, teachers, educators,
social workers, students as well as external partners) deal with previously determined issues
within their own groups preparing the overall negotiation rounds. During these very intensive
preparation phases the circle of the participants of each stakeholder group is extended which
means there are far more people directly involved in the preparation of the finalizing
negotiation rounds.
The negotiation group of the high school is called “SELF” (Schueler-Eltern-Lehrer-Forum,
English: students-parents-teachers-forum). All teachers, parents, and students are invited at
regular intervals (once or twice a year) so that they can name central issues within the school
and make suggestions for further development. In a next step, SELF is negotiating and
discussing these topics. The main goal is to constantly invite new parents, teachers and
students to participate and contribute their input in order to support their school‟s
development.
Picture: structure of the negotiation processes in primary school
Picture: presentation of “SELF” during a study day concerning the school program (high
school)
requirements and preconditions for the design of democratic school development
processes
After looking at the conceptional aspects, the resulting procedures and some practical
examples of our school development approach, we now would like to give all the users of this
handbook an idea what they might have to expect when actually working with schools. To
begin some advice with regards to the specific challenges while accompanying democratic
school development processes:
The competent support of schools is no easy task because
schools consist of a complex network of relations between children, teenagers and
adults acting within the existing and often conflict loaded school structures which
have left their marks on them.
the target groups are much more heterogeneous than in then business industry, for
instance, due to age differences and different maturity of the participants. Therefore, it
is far more difficult to facilitate groups in schools.
the adults concerned often have little experience with group and team work.
the feedback culture normally is not very distinctive.
Moreover, schools mostly are not geared to do internal trainings or events for further
organizational development. Often, there is a lack of necessary tools such as a sufficient
number of pinboards for presentations, for instance. In addition, many schools previously
have made negative experiences with external process facilitators. Reasons for this can be:
The process facilitators did not have the needed experience in dealing with the
different target/age groups.
Standardized issues and concepts were offered without paying attention to the
individual needs of the school in particular.
The time frame of the process was too short to have a lasting effect.
The facilitators had little experience with the framework and the organizational
structures in schools.
To avoid negative experiences we will describe in the following which qualities both the
facilitators and the schools should bring into the “marriage” from our perspective so that the
mutual activities will be successful. These requirements are idealized, of course. Hardly any
school can fulfil them all. However, these profiles can help to clarify the individual profile of
the school and to identify areas where further support/training is needed or where it is
recommended not to accept certain contracts.
The requirements and preconditions described in the following can also be useful to create
checklists for the search of suitable facilitators or for the general preparation of the school
development process.
The roles the process facilitators have to be able to adopt during the different processes and
procedures are inseparable from these requirements. It is only possible to formulate realistic
expectations on the part of the school and to deal with those expectations as external
facilitator if the roles relevant within the school context are clear for everyone.
In the following, we will explain step by step the requirements of process facilitation and the
necessary setting in schools.
Requirements for external process facilitation
The role of the process facilitator
It is essential that process facilitators in schools are aware right from the start of their own
role within the process of the democratic school development and that they make this role
transparent to all participants. This is especially important in order to establish a clear
separation of competences and responsibilities during the process, and it helps to prevent that
the participants have false or unrealistic expectations towards the facilitators.
As mentioned in the concept description the orientation towards the process and the existing
resources is extremely important with this approach of democratic school development. For
this reason, users of this handbook should resist the temptation to offer expert consultations
for schools: This happens, for instance, if a school hands a problem and the responsibility for
its solution over to you, and if you actually try to take on this responsibility.
In dissociation to that we see our role rather as a “midwife”: Each school knows its problems
and needs best and has to “give birth” to the solutions by itself. As process facilitators we
know birthing methods to support and accompany this process in order to make it as easy and
efficient as possible.
In this context, one of the most important tasks of a process facilitator is to give feedback and
to keep the participants informed about the present state of affairs and the course of the
overall process. This involves that they sometimes take on the role of a mirror in which the
participants are able to perceive their behaviour from a distance.
Two other specific roles have to be filled in order to create the basis for a constructive
cooperation during the process and to guarantee that all stakeholder groups are included in the
democratic school development process in a fair and equal way: the role of the “advocate”
and the role of the “guardian of the rules”. The process facilitators should be able to fill both
roles if necessary. Thus, minority groups will be protected in conflict situations and the
facilitators can assure that basic democratic communication rules are kept during critical
processes.
These are the central roles you should be able to play when working as a process facilitator in
schools. Depending on the school and the individual situation the need to play other roles may
arise: People in a crisis usually make the most intense and lasting experiences. This is also
true within schools (see the practical example “feedback system for teachers”). Often, the
process facilitators therefore have to play the role of a “neutral authority” or the “confidant”
and have to take care of the conflict management. This also might involve the role of a
provocateur in order to make the conflict(s) apparent so that they can be dealt with.
Tasks of the process facilitation
It is obvious that schools, especially administrative boards or committees, also need relief. For
this reason it is important to be able to influence the quality of the processes. As a
consequence, there are tasks within the areas of organisation, coordination and
documentation. However, these are part of an orientation towards the customers and require a
neutral position. They should not lead to a situation where the school participants completely
give up their responsibility and/or become dependant on the external support of the process. It
is essential that the facilitators only get involved to such extend that the process is running
well, but is not depending on external intervention and activities to run smoothly.
The next aspect points in the same direction. As we will see in the following chapter
“conditions and factors for success”, a smooth flow of communication is a central factor of
success for all school development processes. The facilitators can play an important role, e.g.
by helping to create texts and pictures which can be used to inform everyone within the
school about the present state of affairs.
Here an overview on the roles and tasks you should be able to fulfil as a facilitator in schools:
Roles and tasks
Midwife (the school participants are the experts. The midwife provides the framework
as well as the structures and opportunities to assure that the developmental and
problem solving processes can run as efficiently and constructively as possible.)
Giver of feedback, reflector (mirroring and give feedback)
Guardian of rules (to monitor the observing of rules and agreements, to take care that
all school participants are listened to, heard and seen)
Advocate (to name and stop transgressions, to protect minorities)
Documentator, coordinator, organizer
Conflict manager
Creator of communication material (writing minutes and other documentation
materials, creating illustrations, etc.)
Provocateur
Required competences
In order to fill these roles you should possess corresponding competences (abilities, skills,
knowledge).
There are other competences we want to emphasize beside the absolutely necessary
experiences when dealing with children, teenagers and adults (see “personal prerequisites”
below), the knowledge of school structures and procedures, the competence of process
facilitation and the highest possible degree of reliability:
Changes need time and are not easily achieved within schools. Therefore, it seems very
important to us to bring a high frustration tolerance, the necessary patience and perseverance.
As a process facilitator in schools you are confronted with very complex situations. Often,
you have to deal with big and very heterogeneous groups and with unexpected group
dynamics. There are not only huge differences between the perspectives, needs and ways of
communication among adults and children, but in addition to that the members of different
stakeholder groups are not homogeneous and differ considerably in their attitudes and actions.
For instance, completely different learning cultures, socializations and previous experiences
exist among the students. For this reason, intercultural competences are essential in order to
facilitate school processes successfully.
From our perspective, “intercultural competence” is not limited to the way people with a
different migration background or of different nationalities are dealing with each other. We
rather have an open idea of the term “culture” referring to the characteristics and qualities of
different people as individuals who are influenced by their socialization and their experiences.
The areas can range from different forms of learning and communication, personal
preferences and habits in everyday life to the belonging to certain social/age/professional
groups and the corresponding roles and positions. Differences with regard to the social status,
especially without equal rights and chances within society as well as unequal treatment
concerning opportunities of education and participation, also are extremely important!
In order to be aware of the complexity of the situations and the group dynamics as much as
possible to be able to proceed in a sensitive and flexible way, the facilitation of school
development processes should take place in a team, ideally in a team with mixed sexes and
cultures.
Here again an overview of the required competences:
Requirements with regard to the competences (abilities, skills, knowledge) of the users:
orientation towards the process:
- patience
- orientation towards resources
- perseverance
- high frustration tolerance
experience in dealing with children, teenagers and adults
sense of responsibility and reliability
creativity
organizational talent, good sense of structuring
media competence (internet, digital camera, laptop/beamer, MS office)
intercultural competence
-
acknowledgement & respect
-
empathy
-
tolerance
-
awareness of prejudices
-
change of perspectives
-
awareness of perspectives
team work (ability to facilitate in a team, ideally in a mixed team: male/female)
personal prerequisites and necessary settings for a successful use of the handbook
personal prerequisites
Before you start to use this handbook, you should assure that you bring the necessary abilities
and competences, and find out which personal preconditions and expectations the school or
the school participants have. You also need to know what the structural framework looks like.
The trust that all participants put in you is most essential. If there is not enough trust or if you
are loosing it in a crisis during the process, you cannot get involved in the process or continue
with your work.
At the same time, it is crucial for a successful long-term cooperation that both you and your
team colleagues have an attitude promoting the process. Within the context of democratic
school development a basic democratic attitude naturally comes first. In order to get the
needed acceptance as a process facilitator from all stakeholder groups, it is extremely
important to be aware of the interests of all participants, to give them the same space to be
expressed and to provide sufficient protection for minorities. Finally, all participants should
be satisfied with the results of your actions. To achieve this goal it is helpful to rather have an
integrating and balancing attitude than to split the participants in pros and cons.
Another factor of success is the reflection and analysis of events and group processes in
retrospect in order to learn from the experiences made, to avoid less useful procedures and to
build on and extend successful factors. The ability to reflect oneself and the own behaviour is
essential to do this.
Beside these personal prerequisites we also consider some methodical and technical abilities
and skills as necessary for the users of this concept and the corresponding practical modular
set on CD. However, within the framework of this handbook it is impossible to give an
introduction into the supervision of group dynamics resp. into the facilitation of groups
(including the use of corresponding materials). Moreover it would be irresponsible to send
people without experience in these fields as facilitators into schools. For this reason we
assume in the following that the users of these materials already gained sufficient experience
in the work with groups and in the field of facilitation in the past.
In the following we summarized again the central prerequisites every process facilitator
should meet:
Personal prerequisites for successful school development work
the process facilitators are trusted by all participants
required attitudes:
- basic democratic attitude
- awareness of the interests and perspectives of all participants without judging
- awareness with regard to the protection of minorities
- integrating (inclusive), balancing instead of splitting
- willingness and ability to self-reflection
experience with group dynamics/ability to facilitate groups
competence of methodology (methods of facilitation, presentation, visualization,
existing repertoire of methods, facilitating of games and exercises)
playfulness
setting requirements
premises
In the context of school development you often have to deal with big groups and
corresponding group dynamics. Therefore it is important that there are suitable premises for
the events within the school or in the neighbourhood. It would be best to have a combination
of a spacious and light room with a minimum of space in order to have, for instance, the
possibility to sit the whole teaching staff in a circle so that everyone can look at each other.
Moreover, there should be three to five adjoining rooms for smaller groups. Schools often use
the assembly hall and adjoining class rooms for this purpose.
duration
In addition to the required premises for meetings, workshops or events your time planning
and flexibility is very important. As a process facilitator in school you will have to deal with
very different target groups, all of them having their “own time frame” when they can contact
them:
Children and teenagers you can reach best in the morning during class hours, it is by
far more difficult to organize meetings in the afternoon or in the evenings.
Teachers prefer the early morning hours before the classes start for meetings and
events or directly after the school finishes.
Educators mostly cannot meet before 4 pm.
Working parents are only available after 5 pm.
As a facilitator you therefore have to be able to arrange meetings within all these different
time frames: school development literally is a “full time job”.
materials
It is helpful if the needed facilitation materials are available in situ because it is laborious if
you have to transport the necessary pinboards and flipcharts as well as suitcases with
presentation materials for each use to the school.
In order to inform all persons concerned who could not be present at a meeting about the
current state of affairs, the processes and the resulting conclusions and ideas have to be
documented and made available for everyone. To record the results a digital camera is best to
create photo protocols in an easy and flexible way.
To support the flow of information and to enhance transparency you need an appropriate
infrastructure and good contacts to central school authorities. This involves, for instance, the
access to school committees and school boards – either personally or via internal contact
persons, a contact list with email and telephone details of all important contact persons resp.
interest representatives as well as a notice board in school.
In the following you see an overview on the required infrastructural framework:
Required framework
sufficient space for big and small groups
flexibility in terms of space and time: event dates and places which enable everyone to
participate
facilitation materials (e.g. pinboards, flipcharts, cards, pens)
equipment for documentation (e.g. digital camera, laptop, etc.)
sufficient infrastructure to support the flow of information (address lists, access to
school committees and boards, notice boards, etc.)
Nobody is perfect!
It is obvious that nobody can possibly meet all the requirements completely. You can learn a
lot by accompanying and observing experienced facilitators, and taking on more and more
tasks independently. We always appreciate enthusiastic and reliable people supporting us,
giving us constructive feedback and bringing new ideas. If you are interested in assist or work
with us during the facilitation process you are welcome to contact us:
[email protected]. On your request we can also inform you about possible seminars
and trainings.
If the risk is not too high “learning by doing” can be an effective strategy as well. Look for
suitable learning areas, e.g. a group of friends or students.
Often the schools do not meet all the requirements as well. As a school development
facilitator you therefore should possess the ability to improvise. School are very good at this!
This is the reason why working with schools holds a particular attraction. Improvisation helps
not to fall into a routine and always preserve an alert perspective. Improvisation also creates
intimacy through the required humanity. In contrast to this perfectionism can be very
exhausting in schools.
conditions and factors of success
In this chapter we are talking about the conditions and factors favouring democratic school
development processes from our perspective. If they are missing they can hinder or even
jeopardize the success of the process. The following considerations are based on our
experiences with the three mentioned BLK schools, but also take the reflection of the
processes in the junior high school in Berlin (Germany) into account where we could test the
realization of our concept five years ago.
No school we have worked with so far is like another. The starting points and dynamics of
each school are always unique. It is therefore very important for (future) process facilitators to
develop a sense which systemic factors – internally as well as externally – can contribute to
the success or failure of democratic school development.
Within the framework of our work we are always trying to reflect on the questions: what did
work well or bad, and why? When and for what reasons we have been successful, and in what
situations the process got stuck or even failed? We asked these questions especially with
regards to the comparison of the individual schools.
From the experiences we made over the years we deduced central factors for the success of
democratic school development processes which are summarized in the following. On the one
hand it is about comprehensive repetitive patterns which played an essential role in all schools
and therefore necessarily have to be considered: the preconditions for success. On the other
hand we have listed other factors of success which have not been of the same importance in
all schools, and partly came into effect only in specific situations. However, we wanted to
take these aspects into consideration as well.
preconditions for success
a) negotiation weekends: It is very helpful for the further development to begin the
negotiation process with a negotiation weekend. If this event is missing the intensive
processes of getting to know and trust each other and growing together cannot take
place to the desired extent within the negotiation round. This can have serious effects
on the quality of the cooperation. The solidarity and identification with the idea of a
democratic negotiation process is especially high in schools which have carried out
one or more negotiation weekends.
Picture: negotiation round during a common negotiation weekend (secondary modern school)
b) Flow of information and transparency: insufficient flow of information and missing
transparency for those who are not constantly involved in the negotiation process
(which means for all students, parents, teachers and other groups concerned) are a
permanent problem which can lead to misunderstandings and displeasure resp. to the
impression that “nothing happens”. To prevent this the establishment of well-directed
and constant internal “public relations work” and corresponding internal
communication structures can be very useful. It is important to submit regular
information to the teaching staff and all other committee and board members, and to
make the process documentation accessible for everybody. A notice board or a
pinboard for notes and announcements of the negotiation round are also helpful tools.
c) Integration of the whole teaching staff: The support of the process by the teaching
staff is extremely important. This potential can decline if there are only few directly
perceivable improvements for the teachers and if the measures in the course of the
developmental processes are perceived as additional burden. Therefore you have to
make clear and noticeable that everyone is concerned – that the situation in school
should improve for everyone, and that the needs of the teachers also play a role.
Helpful are specific processes and events with the teaching staff to work on current
conflict situations and problems (this happened e.g. in the participating secondary
modern school during a change of the school administration or in the high school by
restructuring the conference setting of all school participants resp. the development of
a democratic conference culture).
Picture: “future workshop” to improve internal communication structures (primary school)
d) Discussion about the definition of democracy: In the course of the process the
various definitions of democracy among the participants can lead to deep
misunderstandings and even make individual groups (especially the teaching staff) to
distance themselves from the mutual project, e.g. if they have the idea that
“democracy in school” means “only students have a say” or “the parents decide what
the lessons should look like”. It is obvious that this perspective is not very attractive
for the teachers and also conflicts with the balance of interests designated in the
concept. To avoid or dispel such misunderstandings it is recommended to examine the
definition(s) of democracy (your own as well as the one of the other participants) right
at the beginning of the process. At best the school determines a mutual draft in which
the term “democratic school culture” is defined reliably for all participants and where
the different roles, competences and positions within the school are taken into
consideration.
e) “farewell” of the external facilitation: An intensive and long term facilitation
involves the danger to become dependent on external support. For this reason the
termination of the external mediation through professional facilitators (even if it
happens gradually) can lead to insecurity. This transition phase is especially sensitive
and we are probably only able to finally evaluate it after the termination process of the
facilitation in the BLK schools is completed. At the same time the conscious
“farewell” offers enormous potentials for development with regard to the qualification
of the school participants (among other things in terms of process planning and
facilitation). The growing creativity in search of possible resources for the punctual
commissioning of external advisors also opens great chances for autonomous
development processes during which the schools becomes clear in which areas it
needs external support, what it is willing to do for this, and in which fields it sees itself
capable of making own independent steps.
Factors of success
In addition to the above in detail described central factors of success – which necessarily
have to be considered during the school development processes – there are quite a few
other aspects which have proved themselves successful within the framework of our work.
Picture: facilitation training in a primary school
These factors are not relevant equally for all school, and the extensive list should not
evoke the impression that all the named factors are necessary for the success of the
processes. However, the following list can be used as a kind of checklist for the reflection
of your own work as process facilitator providing indications to already existing
supportive preconditions with regard to successful processes or pointing out the lack of
certain factors.
Factors of success
attitude of all participants
-
basic democratic attitude, openness
to dialogue, acceptance and respect
towards the perspectives and views
of others
-
interest and willingness to let all
stakeholder groups participate
-
ability to self-reflection
-
willingness to learn and grow
-
sensitivity towards power and
discriminating structures as well as
undemocratic procedures and
behaviour
-
acknowledgement of consensus
oriented decision-making
-
curiosity, tolerance of frustration,
patience
culture of acknowledgement
-
acknowledgement of the engagement
of the participants, e.g. by public
acknowledgements, certificates,
entries in the school report, etc.
-
feedback culture
-
mutual support and encouragement
of all participants
-
acknowledge and celebrate
successful steps
promotion of methodical competence
-
qualification training in the fields of
facilitation, presentation,
visualisation
-
workshops in project management
and team work
engagement of the participants
-
willingness to extra work and
additional activities
-
division of labour and sharing of
responsibilities among the
participants
-
investment of time/use of class hours
and conference dates for the process
lasting integration of the negotiation and
-
institutionalisation of the negotiation
round
development results/lastingness
-
anchoring of the results in the school
program
-
increasingly natural use of
democratic decision-making
processes and facilitation methods in
more and more areas of the school
-
integration of “Betzavta” exercises
and democratic processes in the
lessons
various opportunities to participate
-
democratic conference culture
-
places and times for communication
& exchange (e.g. parents‟ café)
-
invitation & integration of new
parents, teachers and students in the
process on a regular basis
-
representation of all age groups in
the negotiation round
-
integration of all school participants
when working on central issues and
during the preparation phase of
negotiation processes
-
participative planning of activities,
projects, events
public relations work
-
information about the democratic
development process at enrolment
and promotional events for parents
-
mentioning the process during
external promotional campaigns
-
participation on competitions and
public events
-
reliable people who are responsible
for PR work and are trained/can gain
further qualifications
process quality/planning of the process
-
exchange with other schools
-
all participants have to trust the
external facilitators
through external process facilitation
-
to pay attention to the individual
problems of the school
-
transparency with regard to the role
of the process facilitation
-
support and facilitation in specific
areas (e.g. conflict management,
internal communication, questions
concerning the management sector,
determination of a role model, etc.)
-
realistic expectation management
-
orientation towards target
groups/experience in dealing with
children, teenagers and adults
-
variety of methods when working
with groups
-
facilitation techniques specific to
individual target group
-
guarantee of equal chances to
participate for all stakeholder groups
(in events, workshops, negotiation
rounds)
-
team work facilitation
-
temporarily separate work with
individual stakeholder groups
-
integration of the participants in the
preparation of events and negotiation
rounds
-
consideration of aspects which make
feel the participants well and
comfortable during events (e.g.
sufficient room space, brightness,
fresh air, possibly drinks and snacks,
breaks)
-
event structure (agenda, time
management, etc.)
-
thorough preparation of events
(posters, materials, instructions for
group work, etc.)
-
time efficiency/ effectiveness of
events
-
orientation towards situations:
flexibility during the events
-
follow-ups and verification of agreed
steps and measures
-
functioning “early warning systems”
(continuous communication with
contact persons within the school)
-
integration of central opinion leaders
-
preparation of decisions through
lobby work within individual
stakeholder groups
-
regular interim evaluation/process
feedback by all school participants
quality of results
-
soon and successful implementation
of the results of the negotiation round
-
improvement of the school quality
perceivable for all participants
school administration
-
school administration as own
stakeholder group
-
willingness to self-reflection and
further trainings, e.g. through
management coaching
support of the democratic school
-
participative management culture
-
support by the teaching stuff and the
school administration
development process
-
support by external school authorities
-
supportive activities by the parents
-
supply of resources (financial,
material or personnel resources) by
foundations, projects, government,
external partners, etc.
cooperation of all participants
-
fun of being together (parties,
celebrations, playing games, etc.)
-
common projects and activities of
parents, teachers, students (and other
groups if needed)
external partners
-
exchange and cooperation with
external partners
committee work
-
strong and well functioning parents
and students representation
-
trainings for parents and students
representatives (with regards to
rights, roles, functions, tasks, etc.)
-
close and regular contact between
committees and negotiation round
-
integration of the negotiation round
resp. of its results in the decisionmaking process of the committees
Concluding remarks
In the face of the huge amount of different factors and preconditions for the successful
implementation of the concept of a democratic school development it seems obvious that it is
not easy to reach an “ideal situation” (if it exists at all) within a few years. Apart from the fact
that the already mentioned contradictions created by the power structures within the
hierarchic school system and the structural framework (lack of personnel and material
resources within school, government guidelines such as curriculum, etc.) make this process
more difficult, we have not only to deal with one single school, but with all its individuals.
This democratic school development process is a voluntary process, and some people are
participating more intensively than others. Some are more engaged and more open to get
involved than others. There are, for instance, teachers integrating the newly developed
democratic principles in their lessons, whereas others completely separate the school cultural
development process from their class activities which is quite sad. However, corresponding
attitudes and behaviour can not be forced. And it is important to always remember:
developmental processes take a lot of time – cultures change only gradually…
In the following contribution of Gabi Elverich you will learn more about the previous
developmental process as well as the challenges and the factors of success from the view of
the school participants.
“democracy needs facilitation” – potentials and challenges of democratic school
development from the perspective of the participants
The realization of the concept of democratic school development in three Berlin schools has
been scientifically documented within the framework of the Berlin BLK programs “learning
and living democracy”. Goal of the study is the identification of potentials and challenges
which are playing an important role for the realization of the concept and which can be
essential for the continuity of democratic school development processes. In the following I
present first results of the evaluation study falling in in many aspects with the above
mentioned considerations concerning factors and preconditions for success made by the
school advisors Dorothea Schuetze and Dr. Marcus Hildebrandt.
1. Structure of the study
The special quality of this approach of democratic school development consists – as described
in the section “central components and principles of democratic school development” – in
connecting the improvement of the school quality with the development of a democratic
school culture. The long term supervision and facilitation of school development processes by
qualified school advisors is not well established and examined yet in this country.
In order to analyse the realization of a concept of such innovative character it seems to be
right to use a form of evaluation based on an open research attitude. Within a research field
new to discover quantitative research methods quickly come up against limiting factors: to
analyse complex developmental processes the use of standardized surveys is not very
purposeful because it is not asked for reasons, motives and causal relationships which lying
behind the results (compare Prengel, Heinzel et al., 2004).
The evaluation study presented in the following therefore uses qualitative research methods to
be able to record the expert knowledge about the realization of the concept which has
developed in the participating schools. The interest refers to the knowledge and the
experiences gained by the participants in the course of the process. Open questioning of all
participants help to record the expertise of actions resulting from the participation in activities
during the process (Meuser/Nagel 1997; Froschauer/Lueger 2002). Accordingly the study
focuses on the participants of the different stakeholder groups and their perspectives of the
school development process in the setting of each individual school‟s framework. The centre
of attention is not on how representative the results are but to develop new connections as
well as getting new insights about relevant factors, dynamics and interactions within the
processes of democratic school development.
In order to record the patterns of interpretation of a participants expert interviews with
representatives of the school administration, the teaching staff, the pupils, the parents and
other educators involved took place according to the handbook in each of the participating
model schools at the beginning of the process (March – August 2004) and during the final
phase of the BLK program (May – November 2006). 2-6 representatives of each individual
stakeholder group – at least nine active participants of the negotiation process altogether –
have been interviewed per school. Moreover, all other members of the individual negotiation
rounds had the possibility to express their views and suggestions in writing in an open
questionnaire.
Although the insights and results are linked to the specific contextual conditions of the
participating schools, the analysis of the subjective views, structural conditions and the
interactions regarding the developmental process refers to general patterns (Bortz/Doering
2002) which give us information about the potentials and challenges as well as the
transferability and lastingness of this approach.
The following description of first results summarizes the views of the participants according
to the relevance they set. Regardless of the school form there are mainly two issues in the
centre of the attention: The experiences within the negotiation round and the experience of the
support by the external school advisors/facilitators. In the following the perspectives of the
participants with regards to central facets and ambivalences of the negotiation process are
outlined briefly, and the challenges and areas of tension within the democratic school
development process are analysed. In detail, the following dimensions are described more
thoroughly:
perspectives of the participants regarding
external support
the negotiation process
-
getting to know each other
-
cooperation and exchange with equal
rights
-
external advisors/facilitators as neutral
authority
-
methodical and social competences of
-
reproduction of dominance structures
the external support
-
consensus oriented decision-making
-
between coaching and facilitation
-
strengthening of participation
-
farewell and letting go of the advisors
-
living and experiencing democracy
-
supportive basic conditions and
-
limits of democracy in school
-
tolerance and perseverance during the
resources
negotiation process
-
development of competences among
the participants
-
continuity and institutionalising of the
negotiation process
-
flow of information and public
relations
-
the negotiation round between keeping
apart and indenting
2. perspectives of the participants on the negotiation process
After the survey of strengths and wishes (also see chapter 07, “steps for realization”) the
development of goals and suggestions for a change as well as their negotiation and
implementation were in the centre of attention within the three participating schools. The
main points of the developmental process in terms of content varied in the three schools
according to the different basic conditions: while the high school was focussed on
developing a feedback system of the students and on organisational changes of the
school‟s procedures, the secondary modern school mainly dealt with issues like “school
without discrimination”, “smoke free school” and “practical learning”. Within the primary
school the centre of attention was on parental participation, homework regulations, social
learning and the topic “violence within school/school rules”. Despite of the differences of
dynamics and issues within the three schools it is noticeable that the statements of the
participants regarding the cooperation of the stakeholder groups within the individual
negotiation rounds are extremely similar.
2.1 getting to know each other
In connection with the expectations towards the negotiation process the issue of
possibilities to getting to know each other during the first interviews is very important.
From the students‟ perspective the prospect of common discussions and the cooperation of
the three stakeholder groups play an essential role: the process of getting to know the
teachers – amongst other things through games and exercises – causes surprises: “we got
to know the teachers from a different side, when they are happy and relaxed or laugh. It
was fun for us, too” (student of a primary school). Also very important in two school was
the personal contact during the so called “negotiation weekends”. Some students
emphasize that those weekends are not only a good opportunity to experience the teachers
from another side. The contact to students of other classes and different age groups was
also seen as extremely helpful to improve the relationship between older and younger
students. In the view of many participants the negotiation weekends are very useful to
reduce fear of contact, e.g. between teaching staff and parents: “… this barrier was
cleared up relatively fast because the parents realized … oh well, you can actually play
with the teachers, and even talk to them, have fun with them and vice versa. The teachers
found that as well, they perceived the parents in a completely different role for a change”
(teacher/ modern secondary school).
From the parents‟ perspective it is very important to get into contact with the other
participants, as their role with regard to the school activities is the position of an outsider:
“We parents do not know each other, we belong to different classes. We know the teachers
at best by their names, well, where should we get to know them anyway. (…) And, of
course, we do not know the students either if it is not by chance one of our year group.”
Therefore the participating parents emphasize the possibility of an informal exchange
during the joint weekends: “… this one weekend together was very positive, we even had
some time to go for a stroll with somebody or do something together” (parent/high
school). Moreover, the participants stress that the negotiation weekends make it possible
to work more intensively together, because the working process does not have to be
interrupted after 2 – 3 hours like with the evening meetings. In addition, the productive
cooperation and the positive atmosphere of such a weekend are described as very
motivating, leading to an atmosphere of “awakening” within the group. However, the
return to everyday life is also seen as sobering by some participants: “Such a weekend is
like a spaceship in which you are entering and where you play „the process‟, and at the
end you are landing on the earth again and have to deal with the challenges of everyday
life” (teacher/high school).
2.2 cooperation and exchange with equal rights
When asked for things which were especially positive and important the representatives of
all schools and stakeholder groups refer to the special quality of the joint engagement and
the bringing together of different perspectives. The cooperation is seen as learning
process, the discussions between teachers, students, parents and other educators had
enabled the development of new forms of communication. The change of perspectives
during the negotiation process is not only mentioned by the parents as a central learning
requirement: “… that I tried again and again to bring myself into those different positions
during all the questions and issues” (parent/high school).
The students of both secondary schools describe the dealing with each other within the
negotiation group as an exchange with equal rights. The reason for this statement is
mainly based on the fact, that they can bring in their perspective and are taken seriouslyl:
“… that all three parties have a say, and that not one party, e.g. the students, is
downgraded, well, that all are at the same level and everybody can say something. (…)
and that you are not treated as a child or so, and that they say, oh well, they are just
young, they haven‟t got a clue or so” (student/modern secondary school). A student
summarizes how he experiences the cooperation within the negotiation round: “We are
accepted. It is obvious that parents, teachers and students have different interests. But
they are still – how can I say that – they are respected so that it is ok for everyone”
(student/modern secondary school). The questioned students are surprised positively
altogether by the behaviour of the teachers and the parents during the negotiation process.
A student is surprised that the adults show their willingness to treat the students with
equal rights in the negotiation round, quite different from their everyday behaviour in
school: “It was kind of strange, usually we always get into trouble with the teachers… and
then they are so different here… first they gripe all the time, and the next day you are
sitting in a room with them and you are talking to them” (student/modern secondary
school). Moreover, several students pointed out that they are learning through the
negotiation process to perceive teachers differently: “For this reason it is important to me
(…) to get to know the teachers in a different way, to be able to see what kind of person
they are” (student/modern secondary school).
Many participants report on the growing improvement of a constructive culture of
discussion within the negotiation rounds standing out e.g. due to the change of
perspectives and the attention paid to the others‟ arguments. Moreover, some of the
teachers mention the sensitisation and learning experience important to them that their
own reserve and the increasing surrendering of responsibility can lead to the situation that
there are not only new opportunities to participate and create, but that parents and students
also increasingly use these new spaces.
Nevertheless the integration of students on an equal rights basis is a great challenge.
Especially the dealing with younger students in the negotiation process can be relatively
difficult because of the different tempos and the ability to concentrate. In addition, the
opinions of the teachers about the students‟ abilities to follow the discussions, to
formulate their requests, and to assess the consequences of their suggestions differ
extremely. Especially at the beginning many teachers do not have a lot of confidence in
their students. However, the negotiation holds many surprises for the teachers. So there is
often astonishment about the seriousness and competent participation of the students:
“Above all there were some younger students from Year 2 who fascinated me completely,
some kids, what ideas they have and how amazingly they brought it to bear in the
process” (teacher/primary school).
2.3 reproduction of dominance structures
Despite all efforts for an exchange with equal right within the negotiation round the
imbalances of power between teachers and students resp. between students and adults in
the negotiation round can not be blended out. In the start phase the expectations of the
questioned teenagers of both secondary schools show their scepticism. Many of them
begin the negotiation process with the fear that they can not assert themselves and can not
achieve their goals and ideas: “teachers always hold the whip hand, they can exert more
power and pressure on the students. The students mostly are frightened which is just
normal (…) And as it is now rather a discussion with equal rights, it is more difficult
because you are used to the situation that the teacher has the final say. (…) And it is a
similar relationship with the parents, because they have more experience with discussions
anyway” (student/high school). The fear that dominances are reproduced within the
negotiation group refers from the students‟ perspective not so much to power positions
where the adults obviously take advantage of their position, but rather to the effect of
subtle mechanisms and internalisations: “we are not as strong as we pretend to be, and
anyway, a teacher and parents are living longer than us, and they know more, and
sometimes we might give up faster or we are put down pretty soon. They easily make you
feel unsure, and therefore it is much harder for us sometimes than for the teachers or
parents” (student/modern secondary school).
Representatives of all stakeholder groups say about the meetings of the negotiation rounds
that the adults, especially the teachers, actually often dominate the situation. One parent
summarizes: “Parents and teachers tend to dominate discussions, especially in bigger
rounds. In those cases you really have to pay attention that the students are not
„overrun‟” (parent/modern secondary school). One student talks about his observation
that students and parents put their hands up in most of the discussions whereas teachers
often did not stick to that rule: “They always just interrupted the others, you could hardly
say anything without them interfering” (student/modern secondary school). Some teachers
mention themselves the dominance of the teachers. They refer to adaptation tendencies
which in their view express themselves through the fact, that students often do what the
teachers suggest. They explain this with the experiences made due to the hierarchic
structures of everyday life in school: “(…) this is exactly what they have learned their
whole life: to follow and do the things the teacher told them to do” (teacher/high school).
This shows how difficult it is to overcome the normality of established power structures
within the negotiation round.
As the power structures in school are a matter of course some students as well as teachers
feel it is helpful to deal consciously with this issue. In the course of the process the
awareness had increased. It was continuously paid attention that all participants had a say
equally and it would be consequently intervened if this was not the case. In this context
the Betzavta exercises (see section “preparation for the negotiation process”) are
mentioned as precious inspiration to reflect personal and school‟s evidences. Moreover,
participants report that the reproduction of dominances could be overcome, especially if
the negotiation round has worked practically and in an implementation oriented way e.g.
when preparing and realizing joint activities.
2.4 consensus oriented decision-making
The acceptance of the principle of consensus oriented decision-making varies extremely
within the different stakeholder groups. Some experience the practical implementation of
it as beneficial because it annuls the majority principle: “Everybody has to agree. It is not
like that: well, we are the majority, we won, but everybody is taken aboard”
(student/modern secondary school). Problem-solving processes leading to results through
a thorough discussion and the consideration of pros and cons are experienced as positive.
Behind it is the assumption that the willingness of the participants to stick to the rules and
to realize the suggested measures rises because of the mutual negotiation. Consensus
oriented decision-making also means from the teachers‟ perspective that “you might have
to go a step backwards and do something which might be a little unpleasant or to accept
critical comments from the students or to let them question us in our usual teacher role”
(teacher/modern secondary school). While these requirements partly are experienced as
positive, other participants focus on the limits of the consensus principle. Apart from the
criticism regarding the time-consuming and sometimes difficult agreement processes they
refer to the danger that lengthy discussions also can lead to the situation that persons agree
after a while because they “give up” and not because they are actually convinced. “If it is
unanimous there are always some persons who maybe would have voted with no, and then
they say, I rather vote with yes, so that it goes on somehow, but they do not fully support
the decision” (parent/high school).
2.5 strengthening of participation
If asked for their motivation to engage in the negotiation round many students, teachers
and parents answer that they want to use the possibility to have an influence and to cocreate their school. Especially for the younger students it is important to be able to express
their own ideas: “The children and the parents and the teachers also were together and
you could talk with them about everything. And this was good for me, to say my opinion”
(student/primary school). The children are also motivated because they can have an
impact, bring their perspectives to bear themselves and are able to talk for themselves:
“(…) that everybody can have a vote together, and that they are not just talking about us
as usually, but that they talk with us about our concerns and problems” (student/high
school). For the adults it is important as well “to achieve something”, “to co-create
school”, “to initiate further development and be an active part of it” through the
participation in the negotiation round. The desired closeness to the process partly is a
central motive for the participation in the negotiation round: “I do not want that others tell
me about it. (…) I want to be there and to be able to decide what‟s going to happen”
(teacher/primary school). The parents refer to the point that the integration of the parents
is not only important as a matter of form, but that many ideas and wishes would be
missing without it. It is noticeable that the parental participation in the process is the
highest in the two schools where the teachers expressed their hope during the start phase
that the participation of the parents is supported by the process. From the teachers‟
perspective one of the central changes evolving during the process is the use of a range of
possibilities by the parents who participate more and more in school life: “A positive
change is the activation of the parents, I mean, to what extent the parents, our Turkish
parents as well, really have become part of our school culture in the meantime”
(teacher/primary school). In all model schools the higher integration of all stakeholder
groups into the everyday life of school is seen as an essential characteristic for democratic
development in school in the course of the negotiation process.
2.6 living and experiencing democracy
The study shows that the idea of “living and experiencing democracy” met with general
approval of the participants: “And that‟s why I think if we want to teach the students what
democracy means, they have to live it. They have to experience it. And in this respect the
approach is important to me, and not another paper” (teacher/primary school). When
implementing these ideas it becomes clear that a central challenge is the task to make the
term “democracy” – as it is understood in the above described concept – comprehensible.
In the view of participants of all stakeholder groups the processes succeeded in clearly
defining the understanding of democracy, which seems not to be obvious from a students‟
perspective: “Well, these people just come to our school, I thought, and want to tell us
something about living and experiencing democracy and so on, but if you hear that for the
first time then you think, should I really participate, but if you participate then you really
know what this is all about and what it means after all” (student/modern secondary
school). From a teachers‟ perspective it is important that the idea of democracy has to be
experienced on an everyday basis in order to be understood: “My biggest fear was, and I
mentioned that in the other questionnaire, that we are carried away with idle talk. There
is plenty of opportunity for that with the topic democracy. (…) I have the feeling that there
is also room to name, very concretely, the little things within this framework and due to
the facilitation. And through this there is content and meaning. Then you know what you
are talking about, and it is not so far from reality. Even if the results are minimal, if they
are concrete it was worth it. And then it is comprehensible for the students as well. I think
it really has to be comprehensible for them, otherwise they loose the motivation to
continue” (teacher/modern secondary school). The explicit consideration of the deeper
meaning of the term “democracy”, e.g. with the help of the democracy puzzle (see
practical module 2.3.1 in chapter 02 on the CD ROM) or the use of the Betzavta exercises,
is seen as essential for the negotiation process: “For me it was important first to look at
possibilities how to transport the term of democracy clearly because I think that people
have different ideas of this term. They fill it with different contents. For this reason I think
that somebody who facilitates this process in a school should be professionally trained. It
became clear that democracy does not mean that the bigger group determines on the
smaller group. Only votes based on numbers. That is the worst form of democracy. That
was very important to see. That was also important to many other colleagues”
(teacher/high school). The clarification of the understanding of democracy was also seen
as important with regard to the integration of younger students: “Even our pre-school
children were confronted with the idea of democracy in a very nice way, so that they
somehow got the picture, and I think that everybody in the school now has an idea when
they hear that term (…); they know what it is about, that they are allowed to have an
impact on the decision-making, that they can express their opinion” (teacher/primary
school).
2.7 limits of democracy in school
In the beginning and during the process many participants are concerned about the
question how to implement a democratic culture and principles of democratic decisionmaking within hierarchic structures and where the limits of democracy in school are. This
paradox makes some students curious: “Yes, this issue was really interesting, democracy
in school. It is actually quite an unusual topic. Because school was or is not the most
democratic institution in the country, as almost everything is done by the teacher in an
authoritarian way. For this reason I thought it was an interesting thing to do, because it is
so unusual for schools” (student/high school). In the course of the process it becomes
clear that democratic school development continually comes up against limiting factors
determined e.g. by the structure of the school system, the curriculum or the decisionmaking powers of the school administration which is anchored in the school‟s
constitution. This leads to the consequence for the students that they are participating with
equal rights when working on possible measures for a change during the negotiation
process, but the final decisions are made by the school conference, where students
represent a minority. Another focal and disputed point regarding the limits of democratic
development in school is the question of the planning of the lessons: while some teachers
make clear that in their view the participation of students and parents in the decisionmaking ends here, the possibility to have an influence on the form and the content of the
lessons is, especially for the students, a central criteria for the democratisation of school.
An offensive approach in the dealing with the implicit contradiction and the subjectively
perceived or structurally set limits in the school clarify which possibilities of participation
and co-creation can be used within a given frame. One teacher illustrates this idea of
democracy in school which should prevent unrealistic expectations towards the school
development process: “… that of course you are able to co-create, to bring in own ideas,
and that these are realized together, but always against the background of the legal
requirements. This means the fence is there, but within the fence that‟s where I am, able to
lay out the beds, the garden – round, triangular, square – and it would be great if
everybody would participate and take responsibility” (teacher/primary school).
2.8 tolerance and perseverance during the negotiation process
Beside the challenge which democratic development presents for all participants within
the limits of the institution school, the continuity of long-term changes also involves some
challenges. With regard to the whole process its course is described very differently in the
three model schools: the schools which had organized negotiation weekends in the start
phase experience the beginning of the negotiation process mostly as motivating. In the
course of the process it became apparent that it is difficult to preserve this drive in
everyday life. One school therefore organized regular weekend meetings of the
negotiation round to rise the motivation curve. The school which had decided against the
negotiation weekends described the start phase as especially lengthy and tough, and the
process really started only after almost two years according to the statements of some
participants.
Apart from the difficulty to coordinate all participants of the negotiation round with
regards to their schedule, one of the biggest challenges of extensive school development
processes is the high time pressure of the participants. Especially for the teachers the
additional expenditure of time creates a problem which, in several cases, led to the retreat
of individuals from the negotiation round. Another problem was that many of the active
participants are also engaged in other areas: “… it‟s always the same teachers, the same
students, the same staff members who are interested and willing to invest time”
(student/high school). The unequal share of the work load leads to dissatisfaction,
especially among the participating teachers. The huge work and time expenditure some
teachers take upon themselves, is in stark contrast to the lack of support by their
colleagues. After mostly positive experiences during the joint study day to analyse the
strengths and wishes (see section “strengths-and-wishes workshops”) one of the issues in
the course of the following process is the problem that part of the teaching staff do not
seem to support the BLK program resp. do not take the activities of the negotiation round
sufficiently seriously nor acknowledge them.
Those who stay active over a longer period of time mention amongst other things that the
orientation towards goals and results is helpful to keep their motivation. The clarity of the
tasks and the reachability of the self-determined goals promote the conclusion of projects
and create a sense of achievement. The participants are willing to take the necessary work
load upon themselves and to bring the needed perseverance if they experience a visible or
comprehensible “benefit” from the activities of the negotiation round. The negotiation
round can offer a space and official framework to discuss problems and possibilities of
change, and this fact alone can be seen as benefit. Another beneficial outcome of the
negotiation round is the opportunity to deal with critical points and fundamental issues
which promises a long-term relief in the school‟s everyday life. The implementation of
desired changes also is seen as acknowledgement for the work: “You give your time, a
considerable amount of time, but it also makes sense to achieve something” (parent/high
school). Moreover, the school administration, but also the participating teachers perceive
the process of democratic school development as incentive and helpful support with
regards to the planning of a school program required by the recent Berlin school
constitution.
Furthermore it becomes clear that external acknowledgement as well can act as a “motor”
to stay engaged: “This requires a certain amount of perseverance, this is a fact and you
have to remind you that this is a voluntary activity of all the participants. And if they are
not rewarded, in whatever way, e.g. through success or by saying „wow, well done‟, then
the process will die eventually” (teacher/high school). The students as well experience it
as supportive and acknowledging if they get interested reactions when presenting their
activities and during events within the framework of the BLK programs. Especially for the
students of the primary school these “performances” were very important: “There we
were, and there were many many people, and we have explained, what we do and have
done. They have made a film of our presentation and we have seen it afterwards. It was
fun” (student/primary school). One student concludes: “The best thing was the „house of
representatives‟. That was so cool.”
2.9 development of competences among the participants
All in all the questioned persons experience the negotiation process as a contribution to
the development of competences amongst all participants. One parent describes the
improvement of the discussion culture by the learning process noticed in the students‟
group: “The first two days have been a little difficult, but then, I must say, they felt quite at
home. (…) Why you could notice that? Well, they just did participate more and in a
different way in the discussions, they could wait for their turn if required and accepted
and understood faster when it was not up to them to talk. (…) and when they realized that
something was said before what they wanted to say, then they withdrew their request to
speak and said: „well, X did say that already‟. I really loved things like that” (parent/high
school). The teachers refer to the increasingly self-confident behaviour of the students
which leaves its marks beyond the negotiation process: “It really surprised me that
linguistically and grammatically weak children as well had a huge benefit from the
process, I did not expect that beforehand. They made an enormous progress, learned how
to stand in front of a group and to present their results and also learned skills in areas
they can use in class as well” (teacher/primary school).
When asked for their motivation to participate in the process many parents and teachers
mentioned during the start phase that they hoped to get further education through this
work. In the second survey teachers confirmed in hindsight that the experiences
contributed to the personal development of competences on many different levels: “I
really learnt a lot during this period of time. And I think, we as colleagues benefited as
well. (…) For instance, through the extended repertoire in class. Through a different view
on democracy per se and through the consideration of other interests. (…) And to observe
in a more sensitive way to what extent the quieter mice are able to participate as well by
stepping back a little” (teacher/high school). All in all everybody agrees that the
negotiation process can be seen as a further education: “I think the negotiation group by
itself has been a further educational training for everybody anyway” (teacher/modern
secondary school).
2.10
continuity and institutionalising of the negotiation process
A problem which is inevitable within the negotiation round consisting of all stakeholder
groups and which complicates the continuous work process is the permanent fluctuation
of students‟ and parents‟ representatives because of their limited time in school. On the
one hand the integration of new members involves a certain effort as these have to be
introduced to the current work of the negotiation round, on the other hand you always
have to find new people who are willing to participate. While there are usually enough
interested potential successors, especially amongst the younger students, the search for
new parents‟ representatives sometimes is rather difficult. Experience shows that mailings
and written invitations are not very successful: “You have to address the people
personally, to know them personally. You won‟t have success with letters, info stalls,
mailings and so on, it just doesn‟t work. It has to be a very personal contact”
(teacher/high school). After difficulties to find sufficient numbers of parents willing to
participate during the start phase in one of the trial schools the realization of a parent‟s
café – one of the central wishes of the parents during the analysis of the strengths and
wishes – has been very successful for the integration of new parents‟ representatives. This
parental forum offers personal contacts and the discussion of school related as well as
pedagogic topics and therefore is seen by many as a possibility to get involved in the work
of the negotiation round: “In my view this is a very good institution because there is a
forum for the non-German parents giving them the opportunity to participate in the school
somehow. They can come and say: „I don‟t like that.‟ Through this parents‟ café many
parents actually came to the negotiation group” (parent/primary school).
To keep the work of the negotiation round in a steady flow it is necessary to take care of
continuously winning new members. This task is easier the more the negotiation round is
anchored strongly in the school‟s everyday life and the more it is known amongst its
members. For a long-term institutionalisation of the negotiation process it is also useful to
declare the negotiation round as a permanent part of the school administration - as
happened in the participating model schools. A precondition for this is the definition of
how the negotiation group sees itself and its relationship to the other committees and
boards in school.
2.11
flow of information and public relations
Another decisive factor regarding the continuity of the negotiation process mentioned by
the questioned participants is the degree of fame and the feedback system within the
school. However, the organization of the flow of information is not an easy task. The
experiences show that it is not enough to spread information via the internet or via posters
in order to raise awareness for the negotiation round and its activities: “Well, I have been
asked several times, what this is and means, but it‟s getting nowhere to hang big posters
around school, and nobody knows what it‟s all about” (student/high school).
The direct sharing of information involves problems as well as there is not much interest
for them sometimes. Some parents tell: “Well, I offered to give some information during a
parents‟ meeting, just tell them a little about it. And, honestly, I had the impression that
they were not interested which surprised me” (parent/high school). A student recalls a
similar experience: “(…) Yes, nobody is actually listening when you want to tell
something about it, and so it is difficult to make it known to the class” (student/high
school). Such problems were taken up in the course of the school development process,
e.g. during trainings for student representatives, and because of personal overlapping they
also have an influence on the flow of information within the negotiation round.
Generally, the awareness amongst the participants regarding the relevance of internal
communication and public relations is growing in the course of the process. The
improvement of the flow of information was an issue in all participating schools, and was
worked on in trainings and individual work groups. Beside of brochures, posters, etc. they
worked out strategies to present the results of their work and get feedback of other school
activists. One of the schools tries to raise the awareness for the negotiation round by
presenting its activities publicly at different ritualised school events (festivals, open days,
enrolment of new students, etc.) and try to attract new participants. Another school has
developed a feedback system which informs the teaching staff about current issues in their
staffroom so that the teachers have the possibility to have a say by writing their comments
on cards. The teachers bring the resulting formation of opinion to the preparation of the
next meeting: “They all have the possibility to actively participate. Even if they do not
spend their time to be in the group and to be part of the preparation, they can express
their opinion and if they do not write down the outcome of the negotiation group, then it‟s
their own fault, but at least they have had the possibility to be part of it in a way. To write
a brief note during lunch break. And this helps the colleagues on the other hand, to give
them the feeling that it‟s not only their opinion which is expressed, but that they also have
the feedback of the whole teaching staff behind them, and then they can negotiate in a very
different way” (teacher/primary school). The students of different schools are asked as
well for the issues and suggestions worked on in the negotiation round, in order to
“include the responsibility of the children” (teacher/primary school). The same is true for
the parents who are informed regularly or invited to give feedback regarding central
questions.
2.12
the negotiation round between keeping apart and indenting
Despite of the efforts to keep the flow of information and the feedback amongst as many
school participants as possible there is a tendency of the negotiation round to become an
independent “outlet”. In the view of the students this is described e.g. as “loose part on
the sidelines of everyday life in school” (student/high school), a teacher expresses his fear
“that this gap becomes bigger between the majority and the negotiation group so that
some day we sit in our castle in the air trying something, but everybody else says, well
leave them, we continue to do business as usual” (teacher/high school). Supposedly the
character of the negotiation round as an additional and not democratically authorized
authority which is constituted by the voluntary participation of its members enhances this
tendency to become independent. The comparison between the model schools shows that
the linkage of the negotiation round to other school committees varies. A close indenting
seems to counteract the decoupling of the negotiation round from other school activities.
Many opinions refer to the relevance of a feedback system which means that topics and
suggestions of the negotiation round consequently find their way into the school
conference, school committees as well as meetings of students‟ and parents‟
representatives, and are also discussed by all students and parents.
The example of the students‟ representatives show increasing synergetic effects between
the work of the students‟ representatives and the negotiation round in secondary schools.
Students‟ representatives who have participated in seminars for class spokesmen see not
only a benefit regarding the development of new strategies of the students‟ representation
as a whole, but also with regards to the presentation of their requests and the participation
of the students in the negotiation process. Including the liaison teachers also ensure a more
open communication between student representatives, teaching staff and negotiation
round. The observations of the teaching staff of the different schools concerning the
effects of the negotiation process vary considerably. Beside the improvement of the
conference culture, e.g. by entrusting the facilitation to a team consisting of members of
the school administration and changing teachers, they refer to a change in the decisionmaking processes as well: “Well, all in all the dealing with voting has changed among the
teaching staff because this consensus oriented procedure has an increasing influence on
other areas as well, so that they say, well, let‟s see if we can‟t sort this out differently, by
holding up our hands… who agrees… who objects… what other possibilities do we
have?” (teacher/modern secondary school).
To what extent the improvement of the relationship between students and teachers or the
change of the school climate observed by some of the questioned participants can be put
down to the negotiation process, can not be assessed at this point because of the complex
relationships between cause and effect. We can certainly make a note that there have been
extensive changes in the perception of other stakeholder groups and processes of
democratic decision-making for those who actively were involved in the work of the
negotiation round.
3. External support
A central result of the qualitative evaluation is the special relevance of the external
process facilitation with regards to the representatives of all stakeholder groups in the
participating schools. There is also the question for the supportive elements of the
institutional framework which I would like to deal with briefly at the end.
3.1 external advisors as neutral authority
During the interviews of the start phase the central importance of external support
becomes obvious: the chance of process facilitation is an essential motivation for some
teachers to get involved in the process of democratic school development within the BLK
program. The external position of the advisors plays a crucial role for the interviewed
persons: “They are not part of the problem, I would say. And I think this is very
beneficial” (teacher/modern secondary school). “I think this is the only way to do it, to
have an external advisor who facilitates it. Everybody else – no matter to which of the 3
or 4 parties he or she belongs – holds to much the view of his/her own standpoint”
(parent/high school).
The teachers confirm that their own involvement in school processes and conflicts makes
the facilitation by one of their own ranks difficult, and that the support by external
facilitators therefore is crucial: “As a teacher, as principal you are always right in the
middle (…) it is impossible that you leave out your own opinion, your ideas. They always
come through. Therefore, I consider the external coaching the most important factor
within this process of learning and living democracy” (teacher/high school). A teacher
names the dilemma arising from requirements of different roles: “You cannot aim to
change something and, at the same time, be the director of the process” (teacher/primary
school). Including external facilitators is also seen as an important factor to get new
inspiration: “External support is always, I mean suggestions from an external party are
always positive, because they are not restricted in their thinking” (parent/primary school).
In the view of the participants external impulses are essential: “(…) because otherwise
school is a stew which tastes stale and boring after a while and is cooked too long”
(teacher/high school).
In the view of the students another important factor is that the external advisors can be
contact persons who stand outside of the school hierarchy and who pay attention that
everybody is communicating with equal rights: “(…) I think the two facilitators do a great
job because they talk with the students, they talk… on an equal level, they don‟t put the
teachers first” (student/modern secondary school).
3.2 methodical and social competences of the external support
The methodical planning of meetings during the school development process meets with
great approval among the members of the negotiation rounds. Despite of occasional
reservations – e.g. against the seating plan in the circle or meta planning techniques – the
methodical procedures is seen as helpful: “I find all the detailed work extremely
meticulously, I don‟t like these Western methods, we had them in the East as well, I am fed
up with it. (…) But here, it often makes sense, it gives you structure during a meeting
which otherwise might get out of hand or so. We had that many times, first you are
grinning because there are colourful cards again, but then it was very useful in the end”
(teacher/high school). The interruption of contributions to a discussion, e.g. in order to
observe conversational rules or to come back to the topic, has a relieving and structuring
effect on many participants. To point out contradictions between democratic principles
and concrete behaviour is also seen as helpful within the negotiation round if formulated
from an external position: “(…) that the facilitators really have the courage to make
clear, this can‟t be, that there is a democratic project on the one side, but on the other
side there are undemocratic behavioural patterns” (teacher/high school). Another factor
seen as relief by the participants is the handing over of the responsibility of time to the
facilitators. Moreover, the team is praised for the good formulation of the questions as
they ensure that the processes are understood by students and other participants of the
primary school with foreign origin as well. The thorough preparation of the sessions is not
only seen as essential for a structured and effective work, briefly: “good preparation
makes the negotiation easier” (teacher/primary school). “The love for details” is seen as
an expression of the acknowledgement for the participants who are also glad about the
documentation materials which make the preparation and evaluation much easier and
more transparent.
All in all, the participants emphasize the professionalism of the facilitators, but they also
stress that a professional attitude can not only be judged on the basis of methodical
competences, but manifests itself in the personality and behaviour as well. “It‟s not only a
question of a good concept, but it‟s also a question of how somebody realizes his/her own
concept, and we were really lucky in this respects” (teacher/modern secondary school).
Moreover, the participants are aware of the fact that the facilitation of such processes
places high demands on the advisors. They experience it as very positive that these have a
lot of experience with group dynamics and the needed knowledge of the routines and
characteristics in school. The attitude of the facilitators is described as impartial and
supportive, the requests of the participants are seen and taken seriously. The positive
atmosphere of the team is also mentioned as a motivating factor. Jokes of the facilitators
and their own enthusiasm have a contagious effect and enhance the dynamics. Another
aspect, fundamental for the attitude of the facilitators, is the openness towards the specific
situation of each school and the awareness that the external advisors do not have own
interests and goals in mind during the process.
3.3 between coaching and facilitation
The external process facilitation is seen as a fundamental factor for the school
development process in all schools: “You are guided a little, what lies ahead and what to
do best, and so on. But the decision has to be made by ourselves, of course. However, the
whole process, I think we would have failed in an early stage, without this… well, this
program” (teacher/primary school). The school advisors are in an area of tension to get
involved in the complex social network of each school on the one hand, and, on the other
hand, to keep the distance and the possibility of an outside perspective. The demands of
the participants are ambivalent: on the one hand the facilitators should be uninvolved and
support the process as neutral as possible, on the other hand it is desired that they give
impulses. Moreover, through the aim of a democratic development the concept of
democratic school development implies a positioning of the facilitators which sets the
direction of the process in advance. The facilitators in the analysed school development
processes seem to have succeeded in this balancing act: “I think they are ideal for what we
do. Maybe, because they find the right measure between input of ideas, motivation and
then again distance. They give us ideas, but they do not dominate the whole thing”
(teacher/high school).
The participants perceive the external support as coaching providing contact persons and
help for more far-reaching questions – in addition to concrete negotiation meetings as
well. When dealing with conflicts the facilitators counteract strong emotional reactions.
Impulses are accepted differently from an outside perspective: “If somebody from outside
of school says that there is a deficit, then it is easier to see it. If it is formulated as
criticism from an inside perspective, the second question which comes up instantly is:
does somebody just sees his/her own benefit here?” (teacher/primary school).
Nevertheless, the desire for continuity and institutionalisation of school coaching in order
to have contacts when dealing with conflicts and support with complex questions or tasks
involves the danger that the school becomes dependent on the facilitators.
3.4 farewell and letting go of the advisors
How much the participants depend on the facilitators and how strong the dynamics of the
developmental processes are, can be assessed best by observing the following separation
processes. In the high school the farewell from the facilitators has advanced the farthest
and many participants from all stakeholder groups experience this transition stage as a
crisis. One teacher describes how difficult it was to let go of the external advisors: “In my
view our relationship was a real friendship, and so it is very sad, I, we all have thought
about the options a lot, we even wanted to pay them, chain them up, kidnap them – we
thought about everything, the students as well, they had an incredibly close connection to
both of them” (teacher/high school). The departure of the facilitators is not only
experienced as a “break-down” or “setback” on an emotional level, but also led to the
consequence that in the following the work in the negotiation round was perceived less
efficient and several parents‟ and students‟ representatives resigned from the process. In
general all schools express the fear that the process would tire or eventually die after the
facilitators have gone because the outside perspective is missing. They question if the
quality and the efficiency of the work can be kept up without external support. Moreover,
the self-organized coordination and facilitation of the negotiation processes involves a
considerably higher additional expenditure of time and work for the participants who
already have an additional work load to carry because of their participation in the
negotiation process. “(…) if you have to do everything by yourself, the planning, the
organization, the implementation and so on, then this is another factor requiring energy
and time, and this makes the whole thing really difficult” (teacher/modern secondary
school). The independent organisation of the process not only involves a lot more work,
but also sets the challenge that the participants have to arrange regular meetings and to
keep the process going without being gently pushed by external facilitators.
The facilitation by participants of the process also requires the competence to facilitate
and structure complex group dynamics. Facilitation workshops for teachers, educators,
parents, and students are seen as important precondition for this. The model schools
welcomed the possibility to exercise the facilitating role together with the external process
facilitators. Moreover, they thought it is important that representatives of the different
stakeholder groups slip into the role of the facilitator: “In the beginning the teachers did
that, because that‟s what they do almost every day, to lead or guide a group. This had an
effect on the atmosphere, of course. It was more and more like a lesson. That‟s why you
have to introduce an alternating system. One time the teachers, one time the parents, and
one time the students” (student/high school). For the students who already facilitated one
of the negotiation meetings this challenge is not only exciting and an additional work
load, but also a task through which they can grow and experience success: “(…) it is quite
demanding, but if you see what you have done in the end, then you are really proud of
yourself” (student/modern secondary school).
In order to make the process of letting-go which presents a central challenge of
democratic school development processes as gentle as possible, the participants wish a
gradual farewell period during which the external facilitators are available in the
background: “(…) the possibility of getting back to the facilitators from time to time
would be helpful” (teacher/modern secondary school). The task to keep up the dynamic
without external coaching seems to be difficult. The desire for a continuous benevolent
critical external support also reaches beyond the negotiation process: “(…) that somebody
is observing from the outside, not permanently and not every year, but that somebody is
there now and then supervising how school works, and this has not only to do with
democracy, but with school per se. And not as a judge assessing our efforts and
categorizing us, but as a companion or coach” (teacher/high school).
3.5 supportive basic conditions and resources
The study shows that not only the support by external advisors, but also other resources
are essential for the dynamic of school developmental processes. It is obvious that there
are relatively few problems in regard to winning new parents‟ and students‟
representatives in schools, where the members of the school station actively participate in
the negotiation process and take care of the parents as well as the preparation and
evaluation of the negotiation meetings together with the students. “This was another
process, school station supports negotiation round, negotiation round supports school
station, which supports the Turkish speaking parents‟ café and the café of all parents, I
mean the network within school but partly also the external connections”
(educator/primary school). The full integration of parents und students is additionally
supported by the engagement of the district council which not only contributes financial
support, but also arranges contacts, and initiates and coordinates projects within the
district. Thus, the school is not only encouraged to open up even more, but also becomes
more well-known in the public and receives acknowledgement from outside for its
engagement in the democratic development and the improvement of quality.
The survey also shows, that the starting points of the participating schools differ
considerably, e.g. in regard to the integration into the BLK program “learning and living
democracy”. The school working since many years with several projects and programs for
school and democratic development can fall back upon its foundations and experiences
and benefit from synergetic effects by indenting the BLK program e.g. with a mediation
program.
As the BLK program comes to an end, it becomes an issue for the schools that the longterm facilitation of school development processes not only cost a lot of time and energy,
but also a lot of money. Because of their positive experiences the model school were
creative and have found ways to organize the future financing of the external advisors at
least for some time. A possibility to support the further democratic development in the
school was the participation in a program promoting the cooperation between tandem
schools. Beside the possibility to share resources within the framework of this program
the close cooperation with other schools can lead to a new support system: through mutual
coaching and support each school benefits from the other‟s competences and experiences.
The chance that schools support each other and use the precious potentials of an outside
perspective on school life, is seen by the interviewed participants: “It can also be
somebody of a different school. The perspective is totally different, and to listen to it
changes our own perspective. I really found that helpful” (teacher/primary school).
4. conclusion
Finally I would like to point out that the survey of the participants shows many potentials
of democratic school development. The participants experience the cooperation in the
negotiation rounds mainly as a “culture of acknowledgement” and develop, e.g. through
the experiences of changing perspectives, consensus oriented decision-making,
sensitisation for power structures and the self-effectiveness, important competences in
regard to the practical implementation of democracy as a lifestyle during the school
development process. Moreover, the external acknowledgement and support, especially
through the facilitators, is seen as strengthening when tackling and keeping up extensive
processes of change. Despite of the difficulties regarding the letting-go of “their” advisors
most of the interviewed participants are confident and determined to work towards the
continuity and the institutionalising of the negotiation round.
However, the democratic school development processes currently are not at a point where
we can say whether the extended participation structures can be established as a
permanent part of everyday life in school on a long-term basis. The current results of the
study show that the continuity of the negotiation process is one of the central challenges
arising from the realization of the concept. It is questionable if a lasting implementation of
democratic school development processes can be guaranteed without any form of – at
least selective – external support and facilitation. Moreover, the current state of the
evaluation raises the question how the negotiation process will develop in relation to the
rest of the school and how the experiences of “living democracy” during the negotiation
process and within the institutional contradictions of school will have a lasting influence
on the development of democratic school structures. In order to answer these questions we
will have to observe and monitor the ongoing process dynamics within the three model
schools in the future.
5. literature
-
Bortz, J./Doering, N. (2002): Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation fuer Human- und
Erziehungswissenschaftler, Berlin/Heidelberg
-
Froschauer, U./Lueger, M. (2002): ExpertInnengespraeche in der interpretativen
Organisationsforschung, in: Bogner, A./Littig, B./Menz, W. (Hg.): Das
Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung, Opladen, S.223-240
-
Meuser, M./Nagel, U. (1997) : Das ExpertInneninterview – Wissenssoziologische
Voraussetzungen und methodische Durchfuehrung, in: Friebertshaeuser, B./Prengel,
A. (Hg.): Handbuch Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft,
Weinheim/Muenchen, S. 481-491
-
Prengel, A./Heinzel, F. et al. (2004). Methoden der Handlungs-, Praxis- und
Evaluationsforschung, in: Helsper, W./Boehme, J. (Hg.): Handbuch der
Schulforschung, Wiesbaden, S. 183-199
Personal details
Gabi Elverich, born in 1972, did a teacher-training course at the university Goettingen,
Germany, in the subjects politics and French. After working as scientific assistant at the
universities of Goettingen and Hildesheim she is currently holding a scholarship of the
Heinrich-Boell-Trust doing a doctor‟s degree in educational studies with the topic
“democratic school development – potentials and problems of an intervention strategy
against right-wing extremism”. Moreover, she is a temporary lecturer and speaker of the
institute for political education “Politische Bildung” with focus on anti-discrimination
policy, and a member of the “Forschungsnetzwerk Frauen und Rechtsextremismus”
(research network women and right-wing extremism).