Democracy, Citizenship and School Improvement: … · Web viewDemocracy, Citizenship and School Improvement: what can one school tell us? Mervyn Flecknoe Leeds Metropolitan University

Democracy, Citizenship and School Improvement: what can one school tell us?Mervyn FlecknoeLeeds Metropolitan University

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England, 12-14 September 2002

AbstractThis paper is a report of a low cost case-study in a small primary school. The school has instituted several democratic procedures that involve pupils and staff in leadership activities such as reviewing policies and appointing staff. Its examination results have improved over the period of the changes, despite a local authority reorganisation. It is over-subscribed in an area that does not attract pupils from outside and where there are many surplus places. The study sheds light on Hargreaves (2001) theory of school improvement; indicating that a dimension should be added to his theory, as its ontology of education is questioned. This paper examines the theories implicit in HMI (2002b) and HMI (2002a) and finds that they ignore a major consequence and benefit of the citizenship education observed in the study. Finally, the study indicates that the currently-propagated strategies of educational leadership are ignoring a potential positive re-culturing of the teaching profession. Furman and Starratt (2002) argue that this re-culturing would lead to an improvement in the outcomes of education. This paper argues that, if this re-culturing was extended to include structural changes that placed value on pupils' insights and knowledge, even greater improvements in education are available.

Three theoretical perspectives on school improvement reviewed

Hargreaves' "capital" theory of school effectiveness and improvementHargreaves (2001) links school improvement "outcomes" to "intellectual capital" and "social capital" via teacher "leverage" (achieving more with less effort). He regrets that since 1979 those measuring effectiveness have progressively narrowed the measured "outcomes" and in many studies have reduced them to test results of academic knowledge.

The "outcomes" of education represent both the extent to which its overt goals are achieved and any unintended consequences of the processes involved. Taking his teacher as Aristotle, Hargreaves identifies two kinds of excellences, intellectual excellences such as science, art and practical wisdom; and moral excellences, such as courage, justice and self control. "Leverage", he defines as "A large impact on effectiveness or improvement from relatively low levels of teacher effort." (p 489). He says that there are two components: innovation and evidence based practice. It is in consideration of leverage and excellences that this case study suggests new dimensions to the theory.

In his theory, "intellectual capital" grows by two important processes: the creation of new knowledge and the capacity to transfer knowledge between situations and people. The "social capital" required to create and to support this intellectual capital has cultural and structural components: the cultural component is mainly trust between people (adults) and the generation of reciprocity and collaboration. The structural component is in networks and collaborative relations between stakeholders (not including pupils).

7 May, 2023 1 Mervyn Flecknoe

The theory implies a view of education as something essentially done to children by teachers. Although, in discussing trust, he opens the door to consider the trust which teachers might enjoy from their pupils, he does not discuss how schools might generate or sustain this. The issue of trust is well addressed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000), Marshall (2000), O'Neill (2002), and Sergiovanni (2001). It is a complicated subject; trust is more easily destroyed than created. This case study indicates that involvement in the democratic process can facilitate the creation of trust between pupils and staff.

In discussing leverage, Hargreaves ignores an important influence. That is, if pupils want to learn because they regard themselves as citizens, rather than tourists, in the classroom, some barriers to education can be removed. In this paper, the ontology of education is of a joint enterprise in which teacher and pupil work together to create education. The findings of the case study are pertinent to this issue and add a "pupil" dimension to Hargreaves' theory.

The HMI implicit theory of citizenshipThere is no official line on citizenship in primary schools, only non-statutory guidance. The two documents that are examined here, HMI (2002a) and HMI (2002b), both refer to secondary schools. However, it is reasonable to suppose that the primary school should be laying a foundation for what HMI would like to see, and for what OFSTED inspection is looking for, in secondary schools. It would surely be a mistake to set standards for secondary schools that were easily surpassed by primary schools. Low expectation has never been a feature of HMI's approach to education. Unfortunately, these two documents betray an ontology that does not expect structural change to schools as a result of citizenship teaching, and that implies that pupils can learn about democracy without doing it.

In HMI (2002b) "Inspecting Citizenship" HMI reiterate the elements of citizenship education about becoming informed citizens, developing enquiry and communication and developing skills of participation and responsible action. Nowhere in either document is the possibility admitted that the participation should be in any area to do with their own education. It is all to do with concerns beyond the bounds of school; a school which is safely and securely administered, in the pupils' best interests, by the staff. Education, in short, is something done to pupils.

Citizenship education may be provided by "Discrete citizenship provision in separate curriculum time…within and through other subjects… activities and events, and tutorial work" (p 6). This could admit a participatory democracy in the running of the school. Inspectors are invited to seek this on p 9 in which "discussion of issues in tutor groups and the election of representatives" would count as part of the citizenship curriculum. The evidence that should be sought will include (p 11) "products of collaborative work… photographs, local newspaper reports or video recordings. Minutes of a school council…community involvement". In questioning pupils, inspectors are urged to ask whether they have had opportunity to "discuss controversial issues" (p 14). Unhelpfully, examples given of controversial issues comprise aspects of politics, topical issues and events; anything remote from their own situation in which most controversy is found for many children, particularly for the most "difficult" children.

HMI (2002a) is based on a survey of a sample of 20 section 10 inspections to find good practice in the introduction of citizenship. The strengths that they discover (para. 29) comprise a high involvement in charity work and a concern for the war in Afghanistan; nothing to do with the structure and function of their own education, nor with the resolution of conflict in which they are personally involved. Their good examples describe situations in which children were, for instance, "attentive and enthusiastic in their participation" (para. 30) in a lesson probing


the moral issues around torture. There is no example of pupils considering any issue of direct relevance to their education.

This guidance brings to mind the co-operative child, preparing for the Duke of Edinburgh's award, concerned about the closing of the day centre for the elderly. It ignores the quiet unco-operative child, the disruptive child, and the alienated child, for whom a participative democracy has so much to offer in terms of producing an education suitable for their needs, as indicated in this case study.

Inspectors are not required to look for ways in which a participative democracy has changed the structure or function of the school. What this guidance does not say is as significant as Holmes' dog that did not bark in the night, Doyle (1894). The research reported in this paper indicates that even a primary school, with many needy children, can change its structure and function in response to participatory democracy; and that this can improve Hargreaves' "leverage".

The democratic community as the centre of educational leadershipThe Ohio Principals Leadership Academy of which Murphy is the President, trains 5000 principals at any one time. Therefore, Murphy (2002) speaks from an authoritative point of view. His view of the educational leader concerns: Social justice; leader as moral steward School improvement; leader as educator Democratic community; leader as community builderFurman and Starratt (2002) ask the further question "what would it mean for Democratic Community to be the center [sic] for educational leadership in schools, and how would this choice re-culture the profession?" p 105. Their chapter is oriented towards professional readership and interest and so does not address the leadership of pupils in the school community. They admit that resolution of conflict may include "classroom meetings with students" p 124. But the principles that they enunciate are easily and obviously extensible to the pupil body. Their problematization of the concept of community is particularly interesting, but its implications are under-analyzed in this chapter. They discuss the demise of community as a permanent collection of "people like us". They explain that adults belong concurrently to, and to a succession of, many communities. The unstated implication is that pupils in schools have a need to acquire the skills that facilitate transitory membership of communities. These skills would involve communal problem resolution, and democratically determined community structure and function. Furman and Starratt (2002) enunciate four common themes for a democratic community (p 106): Open enquiry; the full and free interplay of ideas (Dewey) Members work for the common good The rights of all, including the less powerful, are respected A challenge to the system; involving structures, processes and curriculum.This seminal work, which unfortunately omits much discussion of the part that pupils might play in these four aspects of democratic leadership, is used in this case study as a lens to examine the primary school.

MethodologyThis case study is based on a small primary school. The writer and researcher of the paper is also a governor (but not a parent) at the school. This adds a welcome, intimate knowledge of the school (but not of many of the staff or pupils) and has aided access to staff, pupils and records. It also adds an unwelcome bias that the reader must judge and, for this reason, the staff and pupils are largely allowed to speak for themselves within the next section. Colleague researchers are invited to ask for a copy of tape transcripts to check for the representative selection of quotations, or to use them for other research. As the staff interviewed were selected at random (teachers, n=5: co-professionals, n=3), inevitably some were known to the researcher. The pupils interviewed (n=8)


were all the elected representatives of Classes Two to Six. In each case, permission was sought from parents. Two pupils (co-incidentally, the chair and secretary of the School Council) did not have permission granted and were not interviewed. Reference has also been made to documentary evidence, minutes of governors' meetings, School Council meetings and Class Council meetings.

The interviews with pupils followed a structured format that was described in a letter to their parents with a copy to the pupils themselves to facilitate preparation and to minimise anxiety. They were also asked to bring a picture that they had drawn, about their School Council work. The first part of the interview was to ask them about the drawing. The second part asked them to chose one statement from each of the following pairs, and to explain their choice:

I always say what I think at Council meetings

I don’t always say what I think at Council meetings

Other pupils usually listen to me there Other pupils don’t always listen to me there

The Council is very important The Council is not very important

The School usually takes of notice of what we say

The School does not always take notice of what we say

My teacher is usually interested in what I think

My teacher is not always interested in what I think

Next year I will still be the Council representative

Next year the class will elect someone different

The Governors are interested in what we think

The Governors are not interested in what we think

We make decisions about important things

We don’t make decisions about important things

I am able to learn things because I know how to learn

I am able to learn things because my teacher knows how to teach me

This exercise provided an agenda for discussion. There is always a worry that the form of question determines the answer. Initial piloting of this instrument, with two pupils from another school, suggested that a variety of answers might be obtained. The choice and layout of questions was vindicated by the eventual variety of answers that pupils gave.

Democracy in one schoolThe one-form entry primary school in this study is in on the southern outskirts of a northern town. Its pupils represent a lower-than-average social group. Its buildings are damp in all weathers, with dry rot eating away at the fabric. Its continued existence is under threat as the Local Authority seeks to close it. It is oversubscribed and its teachers, co-professionals and pupils ascribe that, in part, to the active democratic nature of the leadership at all levels throughout the school.

A Head who left at Easter 2002 describes how, before 1997, the staff meetings were chaired by the Head according to her own agenda and minuted by the Deputy. Staff had learned to keep quiet for fear of saying the wrong thing. The new Head decided that staff who were cowed into passivity were unlikely to be able to involve pupils in their own learning. She organised staff meetings to be facilitated by a rotating chair and secretary and the head encouraged all staff, teachers and co-professionals, to contribute to the construction of the meeting agendas by posting items on a notice board. The Head said, "it took two years to


get them talking". The School Council (two representatives from each of Classes Two to Six, ages 6-10) came next. Concurrently, pupils became involved in many aspects of governance, including the appointment of staff and the review of policies. Teachers were unhappy that only a few, elected pupils were able to take a citizen's part in the running of the school. So, in 2001, Class Council meetings were set up. Now, once per week, each pupil can contribute agenda items and debate ideas about the structure and function of the school.

Interviews with Staff.

Mary, a support assistant.Mary, claimed little knowledge of the increasing democratisation of the school. She had doubts about whether it was right for pupils to be involved in the appointment of the Head. Although she said "I think its good for the children to be able to air their views", she claimed to have little contact with how they did it. She had been invited to take part herself in the appointment of the Head:

I could have been yes, I was invited to the meeting and things, but with most of them being after school, it was a bit tricky.

I was not therefore expecting to hear of any positive changes that she had detected in her six years at the school:

No. I think there’s much more mutual respect. I think the staff respect the children more to a degree, and I do feel that the children respect the staff more. When I first came, the children were well behaved but there was a line between the children…a definite division between the children and the staff. Which there still is, but there’s more respect on either side…The teachers listen much more to the children… They’re willing to hear the child’s view, whether its right or wrong they are willing to listen and to hear that child’s view.

She reports detecting an increase in respect between staff and pupils although she did not detect any changes in pupils' attitudes towards her. This respect was evidenced by the way in which teachers listened to the pupils. The word respect was not used in the question that prompted this response.

Shelly, a classroom assistantShelly was redeployed into the school in 2000 following a reorganisation of schools in the LEA. She supports specific pupils in classrooms, she orders stock and photocopies teaching materials. She sets out the room for School Council meetings. When the Council decided that playtime needed some investment, they applied for money to buy equipment. They then consulted Shelly, because she was the adult with specialist knowledge of catalogues.

It was like they were adults as well. It was like, "what do you think about?" "We’re thinking of ordering this, what do you think about it?" "Would it be suitable?" I mean it was all very sort of, what I call top notch, done correctly and it wasn’t just shouting down the corridor “what sort of balls do we need?!” (laughs) And then when [the eauipment] arrived, and I unpacked them, then I’d go to the one in Year Four that was, that’s really into it. And say, you know, “your things have come, where would you like them?” You know, and he’d tell me where to put them so that he’d know when it come to the next [School] Council meeting… They were very professional with it...they took it, you know, that it was a commitment and that they needed to do it correctly.

The pupils regarded Shelly as a specialist adviser. She felt that the School Council members had treated her with respect and that they appreciated her skills. She


also reports acting in a supporting role ("Where would you like them?") showing respect in her turn.

Shelly was unsure whether pupils should be involved in the appointment of the Head but:

Hearing some of the comments that they have come out with and how professionally this group did it, then I thought well, yea, they’ve asked the right questions, they know what they want.

The appointment process could well be understood as increasing the respect in which pupils' opinions are held and subsequently, how staff treat their opinions.

Shelly was involved in the appointment of the Head. She reports that it was:

Very frightening … a bit daunting because … I’m thinking ‘this is somebody’s life I’m ticking here’. [each member of staff had a list of qualities to tick during the candidates' presentations] You know, the next stage in their life; and, you know, how they come across might not be how they are. So I found that a bit daunting but then you can only go by what you’ve got, can’t you so…yes but I enjoyed that, yes I thought that was very good. And its just nice to be involved and the fact that you’ve gone towards picking, something that’s going to affect you as well. So it is our lives as well isn’t it?

Her evident pleasure at being involved in the appointment of the Head is tempered with the knowledge of responsibility that it brought. Citizenship is a balance of rights and responsibilities and involvement in processes like this evidently bring this home to those involved.

She expressed the unifying effect of joint decision-making, by referring to the process of appointing the new Head

Because you think yourself don’t you, am I just being like that?…Is it just me? … But when everybody is of the same opinion, then you think, yes…because now, we can work together in that area because we’ve all gone down the same road really. And we should all be thinking the same now, so we’ve no excuses really, I think that’s what it is!

This spirit of co-operation that she detects has resulted from the experience of participating in a democratic decision affecting her professional life. What has been the effect of extending this involvement to the pupils?

Co-operation between everybody, … because they go to the [School] Council and then we listen to the Council and we’ve acted on some of things the Council wanted. I think now the rest of the children can see that we can co-operate and do [somethings that] they want, as oppose to everything that adults want basically or the Council say that they need. I think they can see that we are there to take on board some of their ideas.

She associates this co-operation with the co-operation that they try to teach pupils from nursery upwards. When she was asked to consider whether behaviour had changed, she referred to the decision of the School Council to apply for funding and to buy some equipment for playground use at playtime and lunchtime. [The Council also control the rota which determines who shall use the equipment on any day.] Her experience of playground duty twice a week led her to believe that behaviour had improved there:

They’re more involved in what they’re doing,[in the playground] there’s more things for them to do, so there’s not as much…like the rough and tumble we were getting, because all they could think of to do, was to fight basically!


Shelly describes an adult relationship with pupils through the ordering of equipment, that arose as a result of the democratic process. She has experienced the rights and responsibilities of appointing a new Headteacher at first hand and has changed her opinion about the suitability of pupils being involved in the process. She describes a new social capital, (Hargreaves (2001)) because of the process that staff and pupils have shared. She describes improved behaviour in the playground (increased leverage, Hargreaves (2001)), as a result of the democratic process.

June, a classroom assistant.June has only been in the school for a short while and has only seen the Year Four Class Meeting at work on two occasions. From this limited experience, does she believe that the School Council meeting is a different experience from any other lesson? Does she think it is an improvement on just an elected School Council?

I just think it gives them all the chance … to be equal and give their points of view. I think its nice that they all congregate together more, put their ideas and feel all included. Rather than just having two from a group or whatever.

The Year Four Class Council has two elected councillors who represent the class in the School Council, but they have elected a third, different pupil as chair of the Class Council. What does she think of this?

Somebody else, yes. I think its just brings them all out, they’ve all got their confidence then haven’t they…they’ve all got the chance to say what they want to say.

So, June considers that the Council meeting is a different sort of entity from any lesson, and that involvement of all pupils in a direct democratic forum has a positive effect on self-confidence.

Angela, a KS 1 teacher.Angela has been in the school since qualifying as a teacher two years ago. The very young pupils in her class have a Class Council meeting each week. Her class participated in drawing up the personnel specification for the appointment of the new Headteacher.

They really enjoyed that process and had lots of sensible and mature comments to make about the kind of work that a Headteacher does - very incisive, I thought. They knew lots of things that I would not have thought they were aware of about the role of the Headteacher. Not just the day-to-day things, but things like getting new children into the school. They were aware that there was another school that had recently opened and that some children from their reception class had gone there, and they realised that children that they had been friends with in reception were no longer at this school and had gone to another school and that we needed to be sure that we had enough children in the classes, which was a big surprise.

Her pupils showed maturity that surprised her enough to comment. This maturity enables pupils to contribute their own items to an agenda for a meeting each week in which the agenda is followed and minutes are taken. The Council responded to a complaint from the Class Six Council that they were sometimes noisy lining up (outside the Class Six room), and devised behaviour guidelines to avoid further complaints. This provides evidence that they are learning about the resolution of conflict in preparation for being members of transitory communities (Furman and Starratt (2002)). They made decisions about playground equipment that they would like. Has Angela changed in her behaviour towards the pupils as a result?

I think that I spend more time listening to the children …I think I’m more aware of using a democracy within the classroom to resolve issues.


Governors have a rolling programme of reviewing policies. A different group of governors, staff and pupils conduct each review. Angela was involved in the review of the behaviour policy. What input did the pupils have in that review?

[They] had an input into what they felt behaviour was like in the School, what issues they had etc. And they suggested ways in which we might improve behaviour. Things like, a reward system, and how a reward system might work. And at the end of the reward system, what might be an appropriate prize. Rather than us saying “Oh, the children would love a certificate,” it was coming from the children “ Well actually, maybe we’d appreciate something, a pencil, or a pen, or something like that.” So there was a partnership, with maybe the staff suggesting "Well we will have a reward system, whereby you get a stamp on a card, or a sticker, or something".

This substantiates the claim that staff treat pupils differently in the democratic process, with pupils playing the role of adults, whose voice counts. Class Councils have spent quite a lot of their time (about half to judge from minutes) discussing behaviour. Is this instigated by the teacher? Is the teacher using the Class Council to control pupils by insidious use of the appearance of democracy? Angela's class were complaining that the cloakroom was too small (it is) and that there was a lot of unwanted physical contact as a result of too many six-years olds struggling with clothing in a confined space. The Class Council discussed this when a pupil put the item on the agenda:

They’ve suggested that if you can see that there isn’t room by your peg, then wait by the door until there is room for you to go in. A lot of that has come from the children, very rarely have I brought up behaviour issues.

Angela has described a thriving democratic community, Substantially led and administered by six-years-old pupils. She describes her own behaviour as having changed towards the pupils, allowing them to come to resolution, rather than imposing solutions on them. She gives evidence about how the governors and staff take pupil opinion seriously in the review of policy. She discusses the depth of understanding revealed during the democratic process of finding a new Headteacher.

Mike, a KS 2 class teacher.Mike has taught in the school for many years and has just left (Summer 2002) for promotion. Does he think that the democratic structures have changed anything about the school?

I think it has united the school more. I think it’s definitely got everyone involved even from the youngest children to the oldest. And I think especially from the youngest point, from what I can pick up, the children feel that they have more of a say in what’s going on, more involvement, rather than just being at school to learn. More of an idea of what is going on around the school and that they are able to participate in decision-making. I think it’s been wonderful for the children’s vision of what a school is.

The Council in his class has a rotating chair person and minutes secretary; the minutes secretary of last week becomes the chair of this week. Does Mike have to run the meetings?

I’m noticing myself getting less involved because the Chairperson is going “excuse me, this isn’t on the agenda.”

This is not one person in the class with exceptionally advance skills, all the eight and nine years olds take it in turns to perform this role. Pupils are controlling the agenda and making sure that other pupils stick to it. How is the agenda formed?


It’s always on my desk, it’s always there for them, and they write it in. But prior to the meeting, I’ll stop them as a whole class and I’ll say to them “Has anyone got any issues for the agenda, that they’d like to bring up this afternoon?”

The teacher organises for pupils to be able to raise issues, and in this way is a key facilitator of the meetings. What factors led to the Class Council operating in this way? "It’s very, very similar actually to the staff meetings we have here, in structure". So similar, in fact that the tape indicates the researcher's genuine puzzlement at one point as to whether Mike was talking about a staff meeting or a Class Council meeting. When he was asked how well the pupils respond to the democratic structure, he says:

People have a natural role within the group, democratic leader, time-keeper, ideas person. Well my class seems to have got that, where children are naturally coming up with ideas, some of them useful, some of them not so useful. Daniel is naturally a time-keeper. He’ll be saying “We’ve only got 10 minutes left” and he’ll just blurt that out and the Chairperson will say “Yes we’ve got 3 things to do” It’s all very natural, but it seems to be working.

Belbin's theories (Belbin (1981)) describe the nine roles that people can play in team situations. From this case study, it is evident that aspects of this theory apply to young children as well as to executive teams.

Mike's class have also discussed behaviour in the small cloakrooms and other behavioural issues. In response to the problems of queuing for lunch, after a long discussion they decided to line up in pairs, rather than one behind the other. The response of the school was that it was worth trying because the pupils had suggested it.

When I said “We decided that our class wants to line up in twos because they feel … that they will line up better by doing that”, the dinner ladies said “We’ll try it”.

Mike says: "And because it’s their decision, they are more likely to carry it through and see the benefits." He had been disgruntled, as a child, about queuing for lunch and says that he would have liked the opportunity to discuss the subject and to make suggestions:

Of course, you never did in those days. But I think now that if [these children] have an issue, a problem, a concern, an idea … that they are able to voice those ideas about how school can be run to make it a better place for them.

He gives an example of how he is accommodating the pupils. The two School Council representatives for his class periodically have work to do for the Council:

I will try and build in the time for these 2 children to carry out duties. One, for example is treasurer, so he’s always looking through the catalogues for playtime equipment, things like balls and skipping ropes, so he needs time to do that. I don’t want to deprive them of playtimes and things, I don’t think that would be fair. … For example, if its story time, he may go and sit at the back of the classroom and just rifle through, making some notes. Together, yesterday afternoon, during art and DT they went outside and they had a huge list of things to write down and prioritise. I don’t get involved in exactly what they are doing, but I do talk to them about what they want to do and try to build in time for them to do it.

This is an example of a teacher allowing pupils to determine a priority in school time. Theories about stress management frequently ascribe excessive stress in the workplace to a lack of discretion about the use of time. From this point of view, increased self-determination may lower the stress of schooling and improve "behaviour".


Mike was sure that the two elected School Council representatives in his class were the obvious leaders (unlike the situation recorded by Angela) and that this role would not be performed well by everyone. However, the Class Council enabled more pupils to shine:

Some of the quiet ones have surprised me. I’ve got four children I’ve considered very quiet and quite happy to be at the back of the classroom and not get involved. Andrew (not his real name) has really … he’s been the one that has been making the comments about, “that’s not quite right”, you know, and that’s surprised me, you know, because I think that that’s brought out a quality in Andrew I hadn’t previously seen. … I think these sort of scenarios that we’re creating for children are bringing out those sort of confidence qualities in school.

There is often little role for the "monitor-evaluator" of Belbin's mode in a class setting. The democratic forum enabled Andrew to develop his natural role in this respect.

Mike has described a Class Council that mirrored the structure of the staff meetings. He sees that pupils have been able to develop different team roles in the democratic forum that they would not have been able to develop in, say, lessons about citizenship: the roles of shaper, chairperson and monitor/evaluator, for instance. He describes how the school has taken decisions of the Council seriously, and has allowed a pupil decision to affect an organisational system. He gives an example of how he accommodates to pupils' priorities and advances the opinion that pupils are more likely to be able to make an organisational system work if they have designed it. He feels that participation in the Council has facilitated the development of quiet pupils in his class.

Sian, Key Stage Two teacher.Sian thinks that participation in a democratic environment has " had a big effect and a positive effect" on her (older) pupils. Her class has two School Council representatives. After a period in which she organised the Class Council to get it going, the class elected another two pupils to chair and minute the meetings each week. Their minutes reveal matters relating to the building, the "Lollipop patrol" vacancy and some matters of discipline, which are raised by the pupils themselves and not by Sian. Their meetings are well disciplined, says Sian, they have discussed rules for the conduct of the meeting:

They have their rules for their class meetings and they’ve also worked out their own sanctions. If anyone misbehaves [they would be] sitting on their own for 5 minutes and then going sitting outside the Heads office if they carry on. And if they are really naughty, they’ve come up with the idea that they have to do some work related to a class meeting for their homework.

She has described an internal regulatory code to control pupil behaviour during their meetings, (which has not yet been invoked). The class does not get good reports back from their School Council representatives. Sian ascribes this to a lack of confidence and recall ability of the representatives. However, she thinks that members of the class have learned from this:

I think [next time] they [will] pick someone more confident. When they voted in the two for the Class Meeting, which came afterwards, they voted the more confident children that time, rather than the more popular ones.

This shows an emerging political consciousness about the qualities that are required from a representative. She observes that taking part in this democratic forum has benefited many of the pupils: "I think everyone takes more responsibility for keeping the school tidy, for watching the behaviour. I think as a whole everyone works together more." She says that it has had an effect particularly those with unhelpful behaviour patterns:


One of them that is quite naughty really, it’s really good for him… He’s really involved and he brings up his issues and he brings his own notes in about things he wants to improve… So all of them are involved, but I think it’s having more of a positive effect on the ones with behaviour problems.

This echoes Mike's comments about the effect of the School Council activities on the quiet ones in his class. Evidently, this experience of a different style of interaction, and a platform to air opinion and have it taken seriously, enhances development opportunities for some pupils, those perhaps most in need. It also adds to the level of responsibility felt by the pupils for the running of the school. She continues:

I think the children see that they’ve got more of an active role and that they can come to teachers, that they can talk to them. If they’ve got a problem they are allowed to raise it. It’s not teacher versus children it’s a whole working together as a team… That came up especially when we started showing candidates [for the Headship] round and getting the children more involved in the interviews. They suddenly realised they had more to say in the school

It is possible that pupils feel less cause to exhibit rebellious behaviour when they have a democratic platform for their views.

Sian was involved in the review of the Sex Education policy along with two governors, another teacher and four pupils. She describes this as being a positive process in which they arrived at different conclusions because the pupils were present:

I think they found that one quite hard, but then it’s an embarrassing subject for them to talk about… Some of the quiet ones had more to say than some of the more sort of ‘mouthy’ ones about the situation. I think they need a say in what they want to learn as well, because.. the issues that they came up with, [were] what they wanted to learn about. And I think that it’s important that we know what they think is important that they learn.

This is an example of where quiet pupils, who would not normally control an agenda in a class teaching situation, have a positive and long lasting input through a democratic process into the content of the curriculum.

Susan, assistant Headteacher.Susan was appointed recently to the school, by a process that included an interview with members of the School Council. She currently has responsibility for its maintenance and development. She brought a good deal of experience of other schools where pupils were involved in leading and managing the activities of the school, but where no School Council yet functioned. She is keen to bring in these other elements: "reading partners, playground buddies and friendship teams", for instance, as well as developing the Council activities. She identifies many problems with the School Council, not least the difficulty of coming with an agenda and taking minutes:

And the whole process of taking minutes as well, they were finding that difficult because they are still finding it very difficult to sort of work out what’s the important information to write down. I know they’re doing it in their literacy [hour], they’ve got all the note-taking and everything that they do, but applying it in other situations, you know, hasn’t really happened.

She is describing here that learning about democratic procedures in a lesson does not necessarily enable pupils to operate such a system. Her experience of Class Council meetings, in a previous school that has been running them for six years, inevitably makes the meetings here seem very embryonic. She acknowledges


that they discuss a wide range of issues, from toilets, where the hot water is too hot, to the appointment of a new Head.

If you’re looking at toilets and head teacher appointments, there’s a, you know, a vast range there.

The staff who were interviewed have made compelling observations about the effect of the fledgling participatory democracy in the school. In particular they have described the structural changes that have been made to give pupils democratic responsibility. These include, not only School-, and Class- Council meetings, but pupil involvement in appointments, in reviewing policies, and in deciding, to some extent, their own time priorities. They have indicated that some pupils have benefited who might otherwise not have gained so much from education. They have indicated that doing democracy has been effective in understanding democracy.

Interviews with pupils.From the statements offered to them (p. 4), all eight pupils chose "I always say what I think at School Council meetings". The pupils were all emphatic about this from Year Two to Year Six. This indicates a lack of intimidation of younger pupils by older pupils, which would produce a gradation of confidence from young to older pupils. For instance, Andrew in Class Three drew a distinction between places he felt shy in and the School Council:

Sometimes when I’m going somewhere and I’ve met somebody like new to me and I don’t know them and I don’t feel like talking because I’m shy.

(Interviewer) But you don’t fee. like that at the [School] Council?

No!

All eight pupils chose "Other pupils usually listen to me there" and this confirms that there is a listening ethos in the School Council forum. There is, of course, no point in pupils saying what they think unless they also believe that others will listen to them. It was therefore no surprise that all eight pupils chose "The Council is very important". This is a confirmation of the perceived importance of a forum where one can say what one thinks in the expectation that others will listen. As an example, Ruth and Andrew, who talked incessantly about football-related decisions throughout their interview, took part in the following exchange:

(Interviewer) Ok… you make decisions about important things…now can you tell me what important things you make decisions about, without using the word football?

Skipping. Because its not safe on the older children because we’ve got skipping ropes and they’re not big enough for them, too small for the bigger children – skipping ropes. They’re small and it’s not fair for the bigger children.

(Interviewer) Oh, so what are you going to do about that?

Get bigger skipping ropes…yea and bigger ones.

There was no sense in their responses that their views were anything less than important. Naomi and Peter, in Class Four, were impatient because the really


important items that they had discussed in the School Council were not allocated class time for discussion:

When we come back from the School Council meeting and we have something important to talk to class, we have about three or four minutes to talk to the class and its not enough time …We need more time.

John, in Class Two, illustrated the point about their discussions being important:

Well, when we had to choose the new head teacher, that was extremely important, and if something goes wrong, we need to talk about it.

Although only six pupils chose "The School usually takes of notice of what we say", the two who chose the other option had a different interpretation of the question as illustrated by this exchange with Luke in Class Six:

(Interviewer) Can you give me an example of where the school has not listened to what you said?

Like, erm, like with the ball that we have. Sometimes [they] kick it up on the roof and complain and that

(Interviewer) What? Children kick the ball on the roof?

Yes. And they play when it’s not their turn and they play with the equipment when it’s not their turn either.

(Interviewer) This is other children?

Yeah.

(Interviewer) Okay. I suppose what I meant by the question, was the people who run the school. The teachers and the headteachers and the lunch supervisors and people like that. Now, if we meant that by the school, would you say that the school doesn’t always take notice of what you say? Can you give me an example?

No.

And this one with, John in Class Two

(Interviewer) Why have you chosen that option John?

Because, sometimes, we tell them not to skip with the skipping ropes but they don’t.

(Interviewer) Ah, you're talking about other children are you?

Yes.


(Interviewer) When you tell other children things they don't always take notice?

Yes.

It is safe to conclude that pupils do believe that the school (meaning that group charged with running it) does take notice of what pupils say in Council meetings. Not only that, but also all eight pupils chose "My teacher is usually interested in what I think". This is encouraging, but perhaps not unusual in a good primary school. This first set of questions was intended to discover whether pupils considered that their voices were being heard. Pupils do seem to be confident about this.

Three pupils chose " Next year I will still be the Council representative". This is a minority of pupils interviewed and indicates that pupils were quite happy to nominate the second option of a pair when they considered it to be their right answer. Most of the pupils thought that other representatives would be found. Ruth, who thought that she would be the representative next year as well as this year (because the other pupils would not "know what to do") never the less said when probed:

No…other people should have a chance..like we, like they want a turn but we got a turn…they might want to have a turn and if we keep getting a chance its not gonna be fair for them cos they want a turn and we keep getting all the turns.

The concept of a democratic choice of representatives seems clear to most of the pupils, but the heady persuasion of power ("others would not know what to do") is also being experienced by current representatives.

Six pupils chose "The Governors are interested in what we think", and the two who did not choose this were both in Class Four. When I probed what they meant, they said:

Because…we’ve had people in and talking to us and we’ve been invited down to the church hall in town, to meet the real councillors but we haven’t done that yet.

When presented with the question they had identified the Governors with the local Councillors (who are not the Governors). There had been some interest, politically, in their democratic activities; they had been invited to meet the Councillors as representatives of Class Four; the meeting had been postponed. They were indicating by their answer that the Councillors were not interested in their opinion. Apart from these two, all the pupils felt that Governors were interested.

Although all eight pupils chose " We make decisions about important things", one also chose the opposite because he felt that sometimes they spent ages in discussing trivial matters.

All eight chose " I am able to learn things because my teacher knows how to teach me" but four also chose "I am able to learn things because I know how to learn". This was a wild question to try to establish whether the pupils were thinking on a conceptual level throughout the questioning. In answer to the probing question, two volunteered that they had learned to speak without a teacher, Rachel (Class Five) had taught herself cross-stitch, and Ruth (Class Three) said "you could get some books … and just learn [from] them there". These are impressive answers from pupils under 11 years old.


Three drawings did not feature the name of the school prominently. These are reproduced at the end of this paper. Martha, in Class Two depicts the room where School Council meets. One girl is saying (according to Naomi) "We could vote", another girl is saying "Yes" and the rest of the children are voting. Voting is near the top of Martha's mind when asked to depict the Council meeting. Not only that, but her depiction of voting is of a unanimous vote. It appears that someone is entering the room, bidden by someone at the door saying "Welcome". The atmosphere of Martha's Council meeting is a happy and accepting one in which there is accord on issues discussed.

Naomi, in Class Four, shows a very complicated scene explaining who all of the members of the School Council are and what they do. What is shown here is a detail. It illustrates the three important documents in her mind, which are "actions" "minutes" and "agenda". Above this vignette is a group, the Council members, all smiling. It would not be valid to read too much into these pictures, but there is a combination here of a sense of organisation and the portrayal of a happy scene.

Luke, in Class Six, has a circular table (the School Council meets round a rectangular table). He shows the ten representatives of the five classes (with enormous ears) and their Council files and agendas; together with the Headteacher; or it may be Susan, the assistant Head; who has a more complicated file. The choice of a circular table is interesting, because he knows that it is rectangular. This could be interpreted as an illustration of equality. The aerial view shows that the meeting is about business that requires files and agenda papers.

The overall impression from these conversations with the pupils, and from their pictures, is that They consider the School Council to be important; It gives them opportunity to speak and to be heard; It is a pleasant experience; Important items are discussed The school and governors all take this seriously. Decisions are taken in a non-threatening way, by consensus They have an understanding of aspects of democracy in action

The conversations with these pupils also convey the impression that they are remarkable people in their own rights. However, the Panda report for the school would indicate that pupils here are from homes of modest means without many of the advantages that are commonly understood to confer outstanding qualities on children. Perhaps it is the democratic platform on which they stand and the way in which their opinions are received that enables them to excel.

Schools judge themselves on harsh criteria if they ask the multiple questions posed by Fielding (2001). This school can claim positive answers to many of his questions.Beyond the introductory questions like: "Who is listening? Why are they listening? How are they listening?" (p102). Lie the more demanding:

How do those involved regard each other? To what degree are the principle of equal value and the dispositions of care felt reciprocally and demonstrated through the reality of daily encounter? P. 104

This school can give, legitimately and confidently, answers from a position of thoughtful improvement. Fielding's last paragraph also sums up some of the feelings in the case study school. This is a place where the teacher tempers her necessary authority with the desire to understand and accommodate to the pupil voice.


The student voice movement has within it the possibility of educational transformation: to achieve this potential we will have to discard the now-moribund framework of school effectiveness and embrace a view of education which understands that the means of our engagement cannot sensibly be separated from the nature of our aspirations. The narrow instrumentalism of the high performance school must give way to the more widely conceived aspirations of a person-centred education. Fielding (2001) p.108

CommentaryThis paper draws its data from a case study. The findings at one school, investigated with questionable reliability because of the ambiguous position of the researcher, cannot be generalised even to "similar" schools. However, a number of factors combine to indicate that this may be an unusual study of a more usual phenomenon. The difficulty of access to a school, to obtain interviews with teachers and co-

professionals and with pupils; The difficulty of knowing where there is a school that is practising democratic

leadership techniques; The unique position of the researcher as governor that meant the study cost

nothing to anyone else; The difficulty of obtaining grants for such study.

Because of these factors, educational researchers are less likely to investigate democracy in schools than they are to investigate more popular topics, and where they are investigated, reliability may be subject to the same reservations that these data provoke. It is likely therefore, that the experiences and reflections of the pupils and staff interviewed in this study are replicated elsewhere but not researched.

One test of validity is whether other researchers find similar, or conflicting evidence. MacBeath, Myers et al. (2001), as part of the ESRC "Consulting pupils about teaching and learning" programme, report on nine schools that are experimenting with pupil voice. Of these, one primary and one secondary school involve pupils in the appointment of new teachers. All nine seem to have undergone structural changes (definitive examples given at the top of p 13). The emerging evidence from their study seems to support the findings of this paper.

Other commentators are reflecting on the contribution that students can make to educational improvement by unlocking their tacit knowledge about teaching and learning, and by making it available to teachers. Arnot, Reay et al. (2001) investigate pupils' thinking about learning but do not investigate structural change in the school. Clarke and Fielding (2001) investigate some structural changes in three secondary schools arising from involving pupils in some aspects of leadership but the report does not contain evidence from pupils. Flecknoe (2001) reports the use of 16 years-olds pupils as researchers of the curriculum but does not undertake any investigation about whether structural change followed. Flecknoe (2002) outlines the theory of consulting pupils about pedagogy but only uses a few interviews with pupils and teachers as data and finds mixed impact on structure. Doddington, Flutter et al. (2000) assert that structural changes follow from consulting pupils about the curriculum. MacBeath, Demetriou et al. (2001) is a preliminary report on a much larger study that is eagerly awaited. McCallum, Hargreaves et al. (2000) interviewed 44 pupils in Classes Two and Six about learning and uncovered a remarkable depth of understanding amongst them. Although the investigation did not probe school structure, it shows the potential for the sort of activities discussed in this case study. Senge, Cambron-McCabe et al. (2000) comment on the value of students' thoughts in assisting school improvement. Students of all ages are shown to be able to contribute constructively to debates about teaching and learning and to matters of


governance. The principle underlying the work of all these authors is that the ontology of students is different from the ontology of teachers and that access to its vision will facilitate communication and the sharing of wisdom. This will result in structural changes.

This case study goes beyond the beneficial effect of using pupil knowledge about pedagogy, in presenting evidence about beneficial structural changes that can arise from the institution of democratic structures in schools. However, research into this subject is not common. I shall try to make sense of the data to hand as it casts light on the three theoretical frameworks outlined at the beginning of this paper.

Hargreaves' "capital" theory of school effectiveness and improvement.Hargreaves (2001) deals with school improvement in a comprehensive and enlightened way, emphasising that creating intellectual and social capital amongst the staff of a school is a necessary element to create school improvement. His theory does not deal with the attitude of pupils to the school. The pupils in the case study reported in this paper apparently changed their attitude towards staff as a result of the institution of democratic structures.

Mary's observation of greater respect between pupils and teachers, which would increase leverage, would imply an effect on school improvement potential. Shelly observes a more adult conduct on the part of pupils acting on behalf of their electors. She also feels that there is a more co-operative spirit because of the widespread involvement in the appointment of the Head. Angela indicates that pupils as young as six understand, and can apply, knowledge about formula funding to decision-making. If such pupils' knowledge is recognised through the democratic structure, surely teachers can make faster progress through some of the curriculum that assumes a tabula rasa in children's minds. There appears to be an emergence of trust between staff and pupils, and structures for discussion and resolution of conflict, that echo Hargreaves' description of social capital. The effect of this emergence was most notable to staff amongst "quiet" and "potentially disruptive" pupils.

It is a moot point whether pupils who learn about democracy in school are able to change their behaviour when they leave school to live out what they have learned and become fully participating citizens. It seems highly likely that pupils in the habit of solving disputes and achieving needs, through democratic structures in school, will be able to transfer that habit to adult life.

Angela and Mike talk about pupils solving problems and disputes through the democratic process. Much of "disruptive" pupils' behaviour is ascribed to frustration with the "system" or to bullying that they cannot deal with. If pupils are used to dealing with problems through a democratic procedure, if they cease to feel powerless, surely educational output will increase?

Hargreaves' intellectual capital encompasses the generation of new knowledge and the transfer of knowledge between situations and people. I would like to add to his theory of school effectiveness and improvement two excellences; The intellectual excellence which is a working understanding of democratic

social organisations; The moral excellence to try always to achieve ends and solve disputes by

democratic means. I should also like to add to the components of leverage, the process of Creating social capital between staff and pupils Giving pupils a working knowledge of how to solve disputes and achieve the

fulfilment of needs through democratic structures.Having led schools for 14 years, I would not like to try to run a school without these last two items in place. As a pupil, I should not like to attend any


educational establishment without the first two. This is particularly relevant to those pupils who cause the system the most trouble. If the democratic platform enables the unco-operative child, the disruptive child, and the alienated child to contribute positively to schooling processes as indicated by Mike and Sian in this case study, they will not be the only ones to gain. Their teachers will be able to spend more time assisting all pupils to learn; other children will suffer less harassment and disruption. This increases what Hargreaves calls "Leverage".

The HMI implicit theory of citizenship.HMI (2002a) and HMI (2002b) ignore the sort of structural changes that have taken place in the case study school. The message from these documents is that pupils can learn about democracy and practise it safely on issues which they care about, but which do not affect the school. See Covey (1999) and his discussion of the sphere of influence and spheres of concern. This encourages a sort of tokenism that avoids giving pupils a democratic platform on which to develop skills. MacBeath, Myers et al. (2001) comment that "staff are often happy to let the [School] Council deal with matters that do not intrude into the school's core business of learning and teaching" (p. 78). It appears that this is also the expectation of HMI. It is doubtful that learning about citizenship will make good citizens, but this is a secondary issue compared to the potential that active citizenry has for school improvement. While ever pupils behave as tourists in schools; wondering what the tour guide has for them today; demanding expected standards of provision without acknowledging responsibilities; extracting the maximum benefit without contributing to the maintenance of the learning environment; they will not learn at their full potential. The citizen is aware that one person's right is sustained by another's responsibility. This case study indicates that this important lesson can be learned by involvement in democratic argument to solve disputes and to achieve the fulfilment of needs.

Mike and Sian both indicate that some pupils who might otherwise develop into "problem" children, not fulfilling their potential at secondary school, benefit from the opportunity presented by the democratic platform to express their feelings and knowledge; to contribute to a community that would otherwise exclude them. Democratic structures can therefore be seen as a positive contribution to the inclusion agenda. Sian indicates that much of the discussion at Class Council is about behaviour, with pupils even suggesting sanctions for those whose behaviour prejudices Council efficacy. Perhaps inspectors should be looking for pupil-controlled behaviour codes as evidence of citizenship? Both Angela and Sian give evidence about pupils being involved in policy discussions; both feel that the pupils positively affected the outcomes of those discussions. In the case of the sex education policy, pupils affected the content of the curriculum. Perhaps inspectors should be looking for pupil involvement in governance of schools? Susan observes that although pupils have dealt with note-taking in the literacy hour, they still struggle with it in School Council meetings. Perhaps inspectors should be assessing whether pupils are learning about democratic procedures and citizenship issues through direct experience, rather than through debates about Afghanistan and studying the structure of parliament? The pupils' pictures indicate that they find democratic involvement a positive experience, in which contentious matters are dealt with by voting (usually unanimously). Teaching citizenship, without opportunities to practice citizenship, might be compared to teaching mountain leadership, sports coaching skills, or the theory of couselling, without giving the learner opportunity to practise those qualities and skills. Inspectors, trying to ascertain whether citizenship is being taught effectively, could profitably explore pupils' attitude towards and involvement in conflict resolution and the fulfilment of needs.


The democratic community as the centre of educational leadershipFurman and Starratt (2002) say that the "perceived risks of democracy are apparently chaos and loss of control" p 112. This is perhaps why HMI avoid any mention of structural change in schools that would encourage the expression of, and adapt to accommodate, pupil opinion. MacBeath, Boyd et al. (1996) found that teachers in Scotland did not want pupils to comment on their experience of education. They thought that disaffected pupils would see it as a good opportunity to be abusive and destructive. They thought that parents did not know about the school, and pupils had a very limited and egocentric view. They considered that they already knew what parents and pupils thought about the school. In the event, in the Scottish study, less than one tenth of one percent of comments were abusive or destructive. This study indicates that disaffected pupils and their teachers and class-mates may gain a great deal from the introduction of democratic structures. It indicates that pupils from the age of six understand a good deal that surprises their teachers.

Furman and Starratt (2002) discuss the formation of a democratic community of employees in schools. It would seem from Mike's account that the way in which teachers are treated, and the structures that define their professional lives, influence the way in which they treat their pupils. Mike's organisation of his Class Council mirrors exactly the structure of the staff meetings that are part of his professional life. The pupils whose voices form part of this case study feel that they can say what they think; that other pupils listen to them; that staff and governors are interested in what they say; and that what they debate is important. The staff feel that they pay more attention to pupils' views than they did before. Who would wish to teach in a school whose pupils felt that what they thought did not count? That other pupils did not pay them the courtesy of listening? That teachers did not listen? That they had nothing of importance to debate? Surely, the new thinking about a re-culturing of the profession should go further than a change of behaviour on the part of the principal towards the teachers? The theory of the democratic school must embrace structural change to include the pupil voice in governance.

This paper suggests that: Hargreaves' "Capital" theory of school effectiveness and school improvement

requires a pupil dimension; HMI have defined Citizenship in an unhelpfully narrow and academic way.

They would better serve the needs of society by laying down guidelines that require citizenship to be inspected through its influence on the structure of schools;

Furman and Starratt (2002) should extend their influential theories of the democratic community to include pupils.

A single case study is a limited basis for such assertions. More research is clearly needed..


ReferencesArnot, M., D. Reay, et al. (2001). Pupil consultation and the social conditions of learning:

race, class and gender. American Educational Research Association, Seattle.Belbin, R. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford, Heinemann.Clarke, P. and M. Fielding (2001). Perilous conduct: initiating, developing and transforming

the relationship between student and teacher. American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.

Covey, S. (1999). The seven habits of highly effective people. London, Simon and Schuster.Doddington, C., J. Flutter, et al. (2000). "Taking their word for it: can listening, and

responding, to pupil's views give new directions for school improvement?" Education 3-13.

Doyle, S. A. C. (1894). The memoirs of Sherlock Holmes: Silver Blaze. London, Penguin.Fielding, M. (2001). "Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: new departures or new

constraints in the transformation of 21st Century schooling?" Forum 43(2).Flecknoe, M. (2001). Adding value to sixth formers' education and to school self-evaluation

through Excellence in Cities. British Educational Research Association, Leeds.Flecknoe, M. (2002). "How ICT can help us to improve education." Improving Teaching and

Education International 39(4).Furman, G. and R. Starratt (2002). Leadership for democratic community in schools. The

educational leadership challenge: redefining leadership for the 21st Century. J. Murphy. Chicago, University of Chicago Press: 105-133.

Hargreaves, D., H. (2001). "A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement." British Educational Research Journal 27(4): 487-503.

HMI (2002a). Citizenship: survey report: Preparation for the introduction of citizenship in secondary schools 2001-2002. London, HMCI.

HMI (2002b). Inspecting Citizenship. London, HMCI: 32.MacBeath, J., B. Boyd, et al. (1996). Schools speak for themselves. Glasgow, National Union

of Teachers.MacBeath, J., H. Demetriou, et al. (2001). Supporting teachers in consulting pupils about

aspects of teaching and learning and evaluating impact. American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.

MacBeath, J., K. Myers, et al. (2001). "Supporting teachers in consulting pupils about aspects of teaching and learning, and evaluating impact." Forum 43(2).

Marshall, E. (2000). Building trust at the speed of change: the power of the relationship-based corporation. New York, American Management Association.

McCallum, B., E. Hargreaves, et al. (2000). "Learning: the pupil's voice." Cambridge Journal of Education 30(2): 275-289.

Murphy, J. (2002). Reconceiving Educational Leadership. American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

O'Neill, O. (2002). Reith Lectures, BBC. 2002.Senge, P., N. Cambron-McCabe, et al. (2000). Schools that learn: a fifth discipline fieldbook

for educators, parents and everyone who cares about education. London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Sergiovanni, T., J. (2001). Leadership: what 's in it for schools? London, Routledge Falmer.Tschannen-Moran, M. and W. Hoy (2000). "A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,

meaning and measurement of trust." Review of Educational Research 70(4): 547-593.





Documents

Democracy, Citizenship and School Improvement: … · Web viewDemocracy, Citizenship and School Improvement: what can one school tell us? Mervyn Flecknoe Leeds Metropolitan University