aare 2001 - conference title of proposed presentation ... · we exhort older students to behave...

AARE 2001 - Conference

Title of proposed presentation: Lessons in Democracy: The Rules under which Students in Primary Schools live

Type of presentation: Student work-in-progress

Keywords (Subject area): Civics/citizenship/identity

Governments [government agencies and schools] are only slowly coming to terms with the revolution in thinking and acting that is required by acknowledging that children do indeed have their own human rights.

Philip Alston, 2000

The practical use of rights is a do-it-yourself craft and those engaged in it need to be both free and capable to practice it.

Elisabeth Wolgast, 1992 (cited in Houston, 1992)

Abstract

Education in democracy, commonly referred to as civics and citizenship education, is definitely in vogue at present, here in Australia as elsewhere. However, it is not so clear, what a democratic education consists of. Discovering Democracy (DETYA, 1998) is a programme which has been developed to educate Australian primary and secondary school children in democratic citizenship.

My research interests are centred not so much around the Discovering Democracy curriculum material as around educational principles and everyday practices. The principal objective of this research is to explore the ways in which cooperative, democratic learning environments provide positive learning experiences through the recognition of students as active participants in decisions making processes.

The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory, stipulates that fundamental human rights which are granted to adults in a democratic society should also be made available to children, precisely for the reason that one cannot be a citizen unless one has certain rights and responsibilities.

I will offer an appraisal of the Convention’s significance to education, and, will draw on preliminary research findings from the empirical part of my doctoral study, connecting the aims of this Convention to daily classroom practices. In particular, the findings will discuss ways schools which embrace democratic principles can improve their climates and the educational

experiences of students through both the content and processes of democratic education.

Introduction

In this paper I discuss a selection of the preliminary findings from my doctoral study on student’s rights and responsibilities as part of a wider debate on primary school children’s education for democracy. The empirical, mainly qualitative, study involved principals, teachers and students from two state and two private co-educational primary schools in Western Australia. Foregrounding the discussion of the empirical study, I explore, in the first part of this paper, the general issue of human rights and human rights conventions. One of the main questions to be explored is why the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is important in the discussion of primary school children’s education for democracy and citizenship. Education in Australia is undergoing profound changes. Some of these changes include new policy and curriculum developments such as, for example, the formulation of the Making the Difference, Behaviour Management in Schools Policy (1999) and the introduction of the Discovering Democracy (1998) curriculum. Both initiatives are aimed at promoting the development of democratic values and attitudes in students through the establishment of "positive social relations", the provision of "safe and welcoming environments for all members of the school community" (Making the Difference, Behaviour Management in Schools, Parent Information Brochure, September 1999) and the development of knowledge and skills that will enable students to "take their place as effective and responsible citizens" within schools and within the wider community (Discovering Democracy in Western Australian Schools, 1998, p. 3). The development of fundamental democratic values within the school system, such as equality, fairness, tolerance and respect are at the core of recent changes in educational policy and curriculum development in Western Australia and beyond.

While the Discovering Democracy curriculum was introduced at the national level, four years ago, "to lay the foundation for ongoing civics and citizenship education" (Discovering Democracy in Western Australian Schools, 1998, p. 3), many schools not only shy away from working with this material (Discovering Democracy Program Evaluation, 2000) but are also struggle to find ways of incorporating democratic principles into student learning experiences. Thus, the principal objective of this research is to explore the ways in which cooperative, democratic learning environments provide positive learning experiences through the recognition of students as active participants in decision-making processes which directly affect their welfare, rather than centring around theDiscovering Democracy curriculum material.

Many primary (and secondary) school students are denied the right to be included in decision-making processes on issues which directly affect them during their school days. The apparent paradox in this situation, which has been observed by a number of scholars is that formal schooling, in many instances, fails to be democratic (Anderson, 1993; Blum, 1998; Brandes and Ginnis, 1986; Hansen and Childs, 1998, Slee, 1988), and hence may fail to educate effectively for democracy. Professor Faith Trent, explained this situation in a recent keynote address in Perth, Western Australia as follows:

We exhort older students to behave ‘like adults’ … and we treat them like children … we talk of teaching them to make decisions but we do not allow them to do so, unless they are the decisions we wish them to make … - and

we impose a formality that exists nowhere else except perhaps in the army. (AISWA, 2001, p. 2)

One of the central arguments of this paper is that schools should work explicitly with the dimension of students’ active participation in the teaching and learning of democracy. However, embracing civics and citizenship education does not necessarily mean that teachers need to work with curriculum materials such as the Discovering Democracy programme which are perceived by teachers to be "worthy" but "additional" and "hard to follow" (DETYA, 2000). There are multiple ways to educate effectively for democracy and human rights, one of which may include reviewing and adjusting school policy and instructional practices to enable students the experience of being a rights’ holder. Overall, I assert the importance of finding ways to enhance the experiences of school children in Australian primary schools – in part to "take their place as effective and responsible citizens" (Discovering Democracy in Western Australian Schools, 1998, p. 3) within schools and within the wider community. It is possible to open the door to powerful personal and interpersonal experiences of pleasure and contentment during childhood and as school children. I conclude this paper by asking what the inclusion of students as right bearers might mean for further research.

Before going any further, I want to point out that talking about the concept of "children’s rights" as if children could be perceived as being a homogenous group with matching life histories and experiences, poses problems. Simple figures for representation of children in Australian school systems hide the within-group differences based on class, ethnicity and gender, for example – differences which are socially constructed and in asymmetrical power relations. Thus children from some social groups (for instance poor children, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and ethnic Australians) face a range of additional obstacles that are not faced by children from privileged groups. When children have to bridge a greater gap between their home cultural ways of being, talking and thinking and those demanded in formal educational discourses (Anderson, 1993; Feinberg, and Soltis, 1985; Walzer, 1997), the struggle to succeed in, and be empowered by, education is likely to be even greater.

What constitutes human rights?

This section of the paper adds to current attempts to develop a firmly grounded definition of human rights. The concept of "human rights" is an ambiguous but nonetheless essential one: ambiguous because its definition is unclear and blurry, essential because it refers to the basic raw material of civic society. It is my position that an explicit definition of my conceptual construct of human rights is essential in relation to my research on student’s rights and responsibilities in the context of education for democracy. The main reason for the importance of conceptual clarity is that the reader may otherwise be unable to construct a definition compatible with the one intended (Alexander et al., 1991). I attempt to define my views in the following paragraphs.

Views greatly diverge as to what might constitute basic human rights. Human rights may be defined as basic freedoms that humans require to live their lives with dignity. They refer to a set of values that some may see as universal in character and in some sense equally claimed for all human beings. Others may refer to this concept as being socially constructed and highly dependent on the contexts in which it is used. These two binary positions, between the defenders of claims of "universality" working out of positivistic paradigms and sceptics of long-respected claims to universality and objectivity from social constructionists’ vantage points, came to be called the "science wars" (Gergen, 1999). I tend to view the construct of human rights as an internationally agreed core code of shared values but nevertheless socially constructed and may, therefore, agree to a greater extent with the latter position. What do I mean by this? I believe that there is no absolute, dogmatic and

universal truth, but rather reality is perceived differently for different people as assumptions are wedded to different paradigms, cultures and traditions of values and ways of life. From this vantage point, the limitations of the universally acclaimed human rights discourse becomes obvious as it is just not possible to argue for a single, universal, unchanging, absolute truth about what constitutes "human rights" in general, and "fundamental or basic" human rights in particular. Notwithstanding this position, the idea of human rights can, in today’s Australian society be considered as a general social need and reality.

But what exactly are basic or minimal rights to which all humanity is deemed to be entitled to? Can it be claimed that some rights, such as young children’s inclusion (for instance through consultation) in decision-making processes which affect their welfare as stated in the CRC, can be identified as "basic" human rights? Or is it possible that the consideration of children’s views on matters that affect their welfare may be desirable but not fundamental? Some people definitely advocate the former, while others believe that the latter is more appropriate. Problems with defining what constitutes basic, fundamental or minimal human rights are not only linked to questions of values but also to that of objectivity and, as stated above, the perception of truth and reality. Over the past few decades, with the introduction of postmodern ideas, it became increasingly evident that there is no "metalanguage" – "and by metalanguage, I mean the famous theoretical discourse that is supposed to ground political and ethical decisions that will be taken as the basis of its statements", as explained by Jean-Françoise Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud (cited in Smith, 2000, p. 168). In other words, it is not possible to reach agreement on what might constitute "fundamental or basic" rights in a rationally explainable, objective way. The claim to objectivity poses problems because it leads to incomplete or inappropriate interpretations. Therefore, interpretations cannot be normative if "normative" is perceived to mean universal or all-encompassing – "the one true interpretation". Thus, if we believe that there is no all-encompassing, universal truth, and, therefore, it is impossible to claim "universal acceptance" of the concept of human rights, it is still possible and indeed desirable to work with the construct of human rights, incomplete and problematic as it may be.

Children and Human Rights

Of all the United Nations Human Rights instruments, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the most widely ratified. It has been described as a "milestone in the development of civilization" (Jones, 1999, p. 1) in its recognition of the concept of the rights of the child. But what is the Convention on the Rights of the Child? The CRC encompasses basic rights to which all children are entitled, irrespective of their social, political or economic backgrounds. This Convention is, according to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, not only the most complete statement of an internationally developed core code of children’s rights ever made and "the first to give those rights the force of international law", but it is also "the most widely accepted human rights instrument ever" (United Nations, Press Release HR/4327). It was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989 and entered into force on 2 September 1990. It is significant that work on the convention began in 1979 - the International Year of the Child - at the Commission on Human Rights.

The CRC’s aim is to set basic, global standards to ensure the well-being of children all over the world, and it is the first legally binding children’s rights document in history. The CRC contains 54 articles, which can be broken down into four extended clusters of different types of rights: survival rights, developmental rights, protection rights and participation rights.

In this study, I am primarily concerned with the participation rights of children in decisions, which affect them during the course of ordinary school days. However, the final part of this paper investigates the CRC’s broader significance to Australian education. A commitment to

take the CRC as a frame of reference for democratic education may have the potential for far- reaching implications. These may go to the very core of the conduct of educational policy and practice. The CRC implies that education must be conceptualised from the child’s point of view and with an understanding of the inter-related nature of the child’s needs, which vary according to levels of individual development. Further, education must accord dignity to every child, therefore, respect and trust as core values become critical.

Educationists need to recognize that children are important stakeholders, as they change to take children’s opinions and needs into account. The CRC is clear that a set of responsibilities is associated with these rights: responsibilities of parents and adults to guard and ensure each child’s rights, and responsibilities of institutions, organizations, nations and the state to provide these rights. But children have responsibilities too, and these also need to be considered within education. One of these is the responsibility to learn. By learning, I mean not only the acquisition of academic skills but also social competencies and ethical conduct.

"The practical use of rights is a do-it-yourself craft and those engaged in it need to be both free and capable to practice it", explains Elisabeth Wolgast (cited in Houston, 1992, p. 5). Houston argues that Wolgast’s observation presupposes an autonomy that "belies the realistic situation of most [school] children" (1992, p. 5). Houston restates this point to highlight the paradoxical situation of contemporary school children. "By virtue of their situation", she observes, "children lack the required autonomy necessary to practice rights" (Houston, 1992, p. 5). The statement that the majority of students are denied the possibility to experience what it means to be a bearer of rights is in agreement with Slee’s observation that "students are often taught about rights the very moment they are denied them" (1988, p. 235). It is this contribution of an explicitly desired but generally enforced denial of autonomy that marks my starting point for the empirical research. The research question for this project is as follows:

How is the goal of educating students to be responsible citizens through democratic school practices achieved at the school policy level and the implementation level in schools which are noted as places of "good practice"?

The Empirical Research: The Practice of Rights

This research investigates how citizenship education is integrated within these school contexts. My supervisors suggested these schools because they were exemplary. The study is conducted as a mainly qualitative inquiry into the context and mechanisms of democratic practices in schools and classrooms.

Target Population

A purposeful sampling approach has been adopted, in order to select the participants for this study. This strategy is aimed at the selection of "information-rich" cases for detailed study (Patton, 1990). The empirical part of the study draws on the perceptions, opinions and experiences of a) the primary school principals of the selected schools, b) the primary school teachers recommended by the principals, and c) students of the participating classroom teachers recommended by the principals and teachers. All students were engaged on a voluntary basis.

This research investigates how citizenship education is integrated within specific school contexts. It is not an evaluation of a distinct citizenship education program such as the Discovering Democracy curriculum material. For this reason the over-riding concern when selecting target schools was to choose those that are practicing "active citizenship

education", in the sense that their students are seen as people with rights and responsibilities. In other words, the specific selection criterion was that these schools sought to nurture the critical capabilities of students within an explicit "citizenship framework", where students were not seen as "objects to be acted upon", but rather were trusted to be subjects of rights and responsibilities within the school community in some form or other. Two state and two privately-funded, co-educational primary schools in Western Australia were selected for inclusion in this study, as shown in Table 1. The schools were ranked in the order of their SES score. School A has a SES score of 124; school B has an SES score of 110. Both of these schools are small, non-denominational independent schools, whereas school C has a SES score of 85 and school D scores 97 on the national SES list (Fieldnotes, 27.02.2001). The names of the teachers are pseudonyms to protect their identity. The frequencies of types of responses to these questions are presented in Tables three to five.

Table 1: Distribution of schools and number of participants

State

School

Private

School

No of Principals

No of Teachers

No of Students

SES score

School A

X 1 2 35 124

School B

X 2 2 32 110

School C

X 1 2 17 85

School D

X 1 1 --* 97

Total 2 2 5 7 84

* This information is currently not available

Questionnaire, interviews and observations

Upon agreement to participate in the research project, participating teachers were interviewed and participating students and their teachers were handed copies of a brief questionnaire which was divided into two sections, consisting of multiple choice questions and questions where individual comments were sought. Participating students and their teachers were asked to complete the questionnaire and observation dates were arranged.

Data analysis

As is common in qualitative research, data analysis began during the data generation process, in February this year. Themes began to emerge early on and the process began of finding meaning in the information being created. A case study approach has been chosen,

which involves triangulated data sources to develop a theory grounded in the practices of these participants as outlined by Tripp (1994). This inductive search for patterns through systemic categorisation, which is guided by the research question, has been referred to as "comparative pattern analysis" (Patton, 1990, p. 403) or "viewpoint triangulation" (Tripp, 1986, p. 345).

Results from the Survey-Questionnaire

An initial questionnaire was administered to 84 students from three schools, intended to investigate the level of active participation in decision-making processes of students on issues directly affecting them during the course of ordinary school days, on the one hand, and the level of well-being and personal autonomy felt by the students in the selected schools, on the other hand. Although I am aware that this is only a sub-set of the results, the findings are interesting in many ways and will guide the direction of much of the work ahead of me.

The questionnaire was divided into two sections, multiple-choice questions and questions where individual comments were sought. Here I will only evaluate three out of the fourteen multiple-choice questions asked in the larger study with occasional reference to comments made in the open-ended questions and other data sources such as interviews and observations where relevant to these particular questions. All of the multiple-choice questions were scored on a five-point scale, ranging from "Always" or "Often" to "Seldom" or "Never". "Sometimes" was put in the middle of the scale.

Table 2: The three multiple-choice questions

Question 1: This teacher encourages me to ask my peers for help.

Question 2: In this teacher’s class, I am allowed to walk around the classroom without asking the teacher’s permission.

Question 3: I think this teacher likes me

The general feeling of well-being expressed by many students in these multiple-choice questions will be corroborated with examples from two open-ended questions which were placed at the end of the questionnaire.

Table 3: The two open-ended questions

Question 1: What is the best thing about this classroom?

Question 2: What would you like to change about this classroom?

The first two questions analysed here are concerned with the level of autonomy granted to students. The implicit relationship between rights and responsibilities is prominent in this context. It is my understanding that through the granting of autonomy, teachers encourage the students to embrace high levels of responsible conduct and self-discipline, so that they can function in this more "free" environment.

The classroom teachers of the participating students were also invited to indicate, using the same instrument, how they thought the students would rate their classrooms. Most teachers rated their classrooms as slightly more autonomous than students perceived it. On average, there was agreement between the teacher’s and the students’ perception. However, in at least three classes there seem to be some level of disagreement between the teacher’s und students’ perception on the second question. Over one third of students in Daniel’s (33.5 %), Elaine’s (37.5 %) and Mike’s (35 %) class thought that they were "Seldom" or "Never" allowed to walk around the classroom without asking the teacher’s permission, whereas the teachers indicated that they were "Always" (Daniel), "Often" (Ellen) and "Sometimes" (Mike) allowed to do so.

The intention behind questions one and two (outlined in Table 2) was to investigate first the level of autonomy teachers are prepared to grant their students as they trust them to know and act upon their rights in responsible ways and then students’ awareness of such rights. The intention behind question three (outlined in Table 2) was to find out if the students felt respected, trusted and cared for, which would manifest itself through the impression of being liked.

Table 4: Students’ perceptions

Question 1: This teacher encourages me to ask my peers for help

Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never

School A, Teacher A

(Jasmine, grades 6/7)

23.5 % 23.5 % 41.2 % 11.8 % 0 %

School A, Teacher B (Daniel, grades 3/4)

27.8 % 38.9 % 33.3 % 0 % 0 %

School B, Teacher A

(Sandra, grades 5-7)

18.8 % 31.3 % 37.5 % 6.2 % 6.2 %

School B, Teacher B

6.3 % 12.5 % 50 % 0 % 31.2 %

(Elaine, grades 1-4)

School C, Teacher A

(Mike, grade 7)

27.3 % 36.4 % 36.3 % 0 % 0 %

School C, Teacher B

(Alexis, grade 1)

-- -- -- -- --

School D, Teacher A

(Carla, grade 7)

-- -- -- -- --

The respondents of the upper primary classes (grades 5 to 7) seem to be encouraged to a greater extent to ask their peers for help, than students from lower primary classes. Around half of the upper primary students, Jasmine’s grade 6 and 7 students (47 %), Sandra’s grade 5 to 7 students (50.1 %) and Mike’s grade 7 students (63.7 %) responding "Always" or "Often" compared to less than a quarter of students in Elaine’s grade 1 to 4 class ( 18.8 %).

Table 5: Teacher’s perception

Question 1: [I encourage the students] to ask [their] peers for help.

School A, Teacher A


"Often"

School A, Teacher B

(Daniel, grades 3/4)

"Always"

School B, Teacher A


"Often"

School B, Teacher B


"Sometimes"

A minority of students disagreed with the teacher’s perception in all but one classroom. Exactly 50 % of Elaine’s students agreed that their teacher "Sometimes" supports their initiative to find help from fellow students. This result may reflect the fact that a number of students are grade one students and not only new to this classroom but to primary schooling in general. The majority of teachers responded that they encourage students "Often" to seek help from their peers instead of waiting for them to supply the "right" answer. This kind of environment is supportive of students’ self-initiative, encourages communication and respect for each other’s knowledge base and facilitates ownership of learning.

Table 6: Students’ perception

Question 2 - In this teacher’s class, I am allowed to walk around the classroom without asking the teacher’s permission

School C, Teacher A

(Mike, grade 7)

"Often"

School C, Teacher B

(Alexis, grade 1)

--

School D, Teacher A

(Carla, grade 7)

--


School A, Teacher A


29.4 % 41.2 % 11.8 % 11.7 % 5.9 %

School A, Teacher B


0 % 22.2 % 44.4 % 5.6 % 27.8 %

School B, Teacher A

(Sandra, grades

62.5 % 18.8 % 0 % 18.7 % 0 %

Table 7: Teacher’s perception

Question 2: [Students] are allowed to walk around the classroom without asking [for my] permission.

5-7)

School B, Teacher B


43.8 % 12.5 % 6.2 % 18.8 % 18.7 %

School C, Teacher A

(Mike, grade 7)

18.2 % 18.2 % 27.3 % 27.3 % 9.0 %

School C, Teacher B

(Alexis, grade 1)

-- -- -- -- --

School D, Teacher A

(Carla, grade 7)

-- -- -- -- --

School A, Teacher A


"Always"

School A, Teacher B


"Sometimes"

School B, Teacher A


"Always"

School B, Teacher B


"Often"

Answers to question two were more diverse and students seemed to disagree to a greater extent with teachers’ overall perception of autonomous behaviour in the classroom. The discrepancy observed in the answers between teacher’s and students’ perception about the student’s freedom of movement and association will be one of the focal points in future classroom observations.

The thrid question which I chose to evaluate for this paper concerned itself with students’ perception of how often they felt liked by their teacher. A cooperative and friendly classroom, where students feel supported and cared for by the teacher and fellow students is closely related to issues of mutual trust and respect, where students and teachers take their responsibilities seriously, so as not to infringe on the rights of others. Democratic mechanisms such as, for example, students rights to ask their peers for help (question 1) or walk around the classroom without the need to ask for permission from the teacher (question 2), supports relations of trust and feelings of well-being. Thus, the feeling of being liked by the teacher may include a number of distinct impressions, such as the impression of being trusted, respected and valued. It is assumed that most important to theses students are feelings of equal and just treatment by the teacher.

Table 8: Students’ Perception

Statement 3 - I think this teacher likes me.

School C, Teacher A

(Mike, grade 7)

"Always"

School C, Teacher B

(Alexis, grade 1)

--

School D, Teacher A

(Carla, grade 7)

--


School A, Teacher A


38.5 % 30.8 % 23.0 % 7.7 % 0 %

School A, Teacher B

16.7 % 66.7 % 16.6 % 0 % 0 %

Although all other questions were answered by all of the 17 students in Jasmine’s class, four students declined to answer this question. One respondent commented that "I don’t want to answer" and another one wrote: "I have no idea". Out of the 13 students who responded, the majority (69 %) felt that they were either liked "always" (38.5%) or "often" (30.8%) by the classroom teacher, against a few students who felt that they were "sometimes" (23 %) or "seldom" (7.7%) liked. The person who indicated that he was "seldom" liked commented that this was because he "sometimes acts childish". No one responded that they were "never" liked.

This question generated the least amount of discrepancy between the answers of students in the same classroom, school and in comparison between all the case study sites (Figure 1). At most, two students in each of the classes felt that the statement that "I think this teacher likes me" was not accurate for them which is in stark contrast to the majority (approximately two/thirds of students) which felt that they were liked "Always" or "Often" by their classroom teacher.


School B, Teacher A


37.5 % 37.5 % 12.5 % 12.5 % 0 %

School B, Teacher B


73.4 % 13.2 % 6.7 % 0 % 6.7 %

School C, Teacher A

(Mike, grade 7)

45.5 % 18.2 % 27.3 % 9.0 % 0 %

School C, Teacher B

(Alexis, grade 1)

-- -- -- -- --

School D, Teacher A

(Carla, grade 7)

-- -- -- -- --

Table 9: Teacher’s Perception

Statement 3: [Students] think that [I like them].

The genuine feeling of well-being, expressed by many students can be confirmed with examples from the open-ended questions. When asked: What would you like to change about this classroom? A great number of students responded that they were quite content with the running of the classroom as it was. The same feeling of general contentment was conveyed in answers to the question: What is the best thing about this classroom? Students, again responded positively. Responses, such as "everything" (Boy, 8 years) (S-A/T-B), and "a lot of nice people" (boy, 8 years old) (S-A/T-B) were not uncommon. For instance, some commented as follows:

School A, Teacher A


"Always" and "Often

School A, Teacher B


"Often"

School B, Teacher A


"Often"

School B, Teacher B


"Always" and "Often"

School C, Teacher A

(Mike, grade 7)

"Always" and "Often"

School C, Teacher B

(Alexis, grade 1)

--

School D, Teacher A

(Carla, grade 7)

--

Figure 2: Student responses – Daniel’s class

Girl, 8 years old (SA-TB) Girl, 8 years old (SA-TB)

Further, students were aware that the pedagogical practices in their school may differ from what may be perceived as traditional schooling. One student from a small progressive school observed that "we are more free to roam around more than other people in other schools", which indicates a comprehension of disparity of student’s rights and responsibilities in some schools with different SES scores, different make-ups and clientele compared to other schools. The binary situation of students from different socio-economic areas can be exemplified with the following examples (Figures 3 to 5) from the open-ended questionnaire. What is interesting is that the students from the state primary school with the lowest SES score (School C) seem to be very appreciative of the fact that their teacher cares about them and displays a genuine interest in their welfare which means that they feel good about themselves and their situation. These students may even feel privileged in comparison to other students within the same school. The perceived sense of well-being of these students is expressed by a 12 year old boy when he observes that "our class has a better name" and a 12 year old girl when she explains that "[the teacher] tries to be fair". These observations may point to an internal hierarchy within the school and would be worthwhile persuing in the upcoming observations and interviews later this year.

Figure 3: Comparison of Student Responses from schools with high and low SES score

Girl, 9 years old (SA-TA) – SES score 124 Girl, 12 years old (SC-TA) – SES score 85

"The best thing about this class is we get to do some things we like", responded a 12 year old girl (S-C/T-A), which implies that even comparatively small amounts of choice and ownership of learning are greatly valued.

Figure 4: Student Responses from School C (low socio-economic status)

Girl, 12 years old (SC-TA) SES score 85

Boy, 12 years old (SC-TA) SES score 85

Figure 5: Student Response from School A (high socio –economic status)

Girl, 11 years old (SA-TA) SES score 124

In Figure 4 students talk about what they perceive to be "the best thing" about their classroom. Their answers imply an awareness of what might be called "a privileged position" within an otherwise harsh environment. What do I mean by "otherwise harsh environment"? The principal of this particular state school (SC, SES score 85) explained in the initial interview that some of the children in this school are exposed to daily and severe violence, within the family and local community which is riddled with unemployment, alcoholism and shortage of food, clothing, warm water and electricity for a number of families. The principal told the story of one young boy who regularly breaks into the school and sleeps under a bush in the court yard as he finds that this is the safest place for him to be at night (Fieldnotes, 27.02.2001).

These examples of student responses seem to indicate that, although the students live very different lives and have very different educational experiences, they all seek respect, fairness and trust. Some students are privileged in a great number of ways and have, for

instance, the right to call their teacher by her first name, or the right to choose if they want to wear school uniforms (Field notes, 05.03.2001). These children have, in comparison to the majority of Australian school children, "lots of choices", where it is almost presumed that the teacher is "really nice" (Figure 5). By contrast, students from low socio-economic backgrounds, who may have experienced many inequalities in their short lives, are content and greatly appreciative of the fact that their teacher "tries to be fair" and that their class "has a better name" than other classes in the same school and/or area (Figure 4).

Mike, the teacher in the school located in a disadvantaged area of Perth, as all the other teachers in this study, embraces and enacts democratic principles, pushing boundaries of restraints and resistance, and therewith enabling unique techniques and schooling practices to emerge. Schools and teachers like Mike, who are embracing this struggle and searching for democratic possibilities, are in a position to improve the educational experiences of their students in relation to these practices. For example, Mike tries to instill responsibility and concern for the well- being of peers in his students through the enactment of rules, which may be judged as "unfair" in other schools and contexts.

Some of Mike’s students complained that they disapprove greatly of one of his practices. In an informal short interview with two students of Mike’s class (Fieldnotes, 16.03.2001) they explained that:

Girl A: When someone comes back late from recess or lunch. We all have to stay in after school and he [the teacher] times it by three. If someone is three minutes late than we all have to stay in for nine minutes after school. It’s really unfair (said in a very angry voice).

Girl B: Why do we try to be good if we still get punished?

Girl A: I get busted twice! I have to go and pick my little sister up from school, she is not old enough to walk home from school by herself so if I have to stay in, I get basically double-busted [punished]. One I get busted by my mother [for being late]. My sister starts walking [home] if I’m not there and - by the teacher as well for doing nothing [wrong] (Now she is really upset).

I understand that Mike aims to tap into the conscience of notorious "latecomers" in his classroom through these rather drastic measures and therewith displays great concern for the well-being of all of his students. If the students have to stay behind after school or during recess, then he also has to make additional time available which may not only demonstrate that he is determined to convey that there are consequences for breaking rules but also that the community as a whole is affected, including himself. To put it differently, Mike’s goal may be to exemplify that the infringement of individual rights may have grave repercussions for others in the community. It is important to recognise that unless everybody respects a core code of conduct and abides by democratic rules which are set to protect the rights of people in a particular community, many people will suffer. Mostly, inequalities and the resulting suffering is unjust and can only be rectified by the people who abuse their rights/powers, although they may be coerced to do so by others. Mike, as many other very committed teachers, aspires to ease some of the unnecessary suffering that is reality for many students today, and works towards the hope of a more just and egalitarian society.

Conclusion

In this paper I have argued that schools should become significantly more engaged in the teaching and learning of democracy than they have been in the past. If schools are to effectively educate for democracy and human rights, their rules, regulations and instructional practices should be reviewed and adjusted to enable students the experience of being a rights’ holder and to experiment with the practice of basic rights and responsibilities.

The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to which Australia is a signatory, stipulates that fundamental human rights which are granted to adults in a democratic society should also be made available to children, precisely for the reason that one cannot be(come) a responsible citizen unless one has certain rights and responsibilities.

"Over the last decade there has been broad agreement between members of the United Nations that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal, indivisible, inter-dependent and inter-related", observes Alice Tay, the past president of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Curriculum Corporation, 1998). The claim of universality poses today, as it has in the past, problems of oversimplification and exclusion of certain groups of people and does not take their specific histories and circumstances into account. In the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights there were a number of specific groups of people which were not recognised as possessing any (or were bestowed only some of) the universally acclaimed basic human rights. For instance, women and children together with criminals and the mentally ill were systematically excluded from this "brotherhood". Article 1 of the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (United Nations, 2000)

This article implies that women and children, together with the mentally ill and criminals are, because of undefined amounts of "reason" and/or "conscience" denied such universally acclaimed human rights. It cannot be denied that much has changed in the last five decades. Some of these changes are the inclusion of women, children, the mentally ill, criminals and refugees in international declarations and/or treaties.

Despite wide acceptance of the concept of human rights, the inclusion of previously marginalised and excluded groups of people and the enormous ratification rate of human rights treaties, such as for example the CRC, which has been ratified by all, but two United Nations member states, Jude L Fernando paints a rather grim picture about the effects such treaties have on limiting human rights violations. She observes that:

Even as evidence of the violation of children’s rights multiplies at an alarming rate - pointing to the wholesale failure of policies, programs, interventions, and conventions designed to curb these violations - the world remains divided over the fundamental question of what constitutes basic human rights. (2001, p. 8)

Formal education is a "basic" right according to the CRC. It is an enabling right that aids children (and adults) to access many of their other rights, such as social, political and legal rights. In this respect, primary education in Australia and beyond, has a profound role to play in empowering people, because it supports democratic action and may equip children (and

adults) with skills to grow up to be capable, responsible and active citizens who care and contribute to the well-being of their communities and therewith live an active and fulfilled live.

Children whose "basic" needs and "fundamental" rights are denied cannot be expected to mature into caring, productive adults who will respect the rights of others. Rights violations are not only the cause of personal suffering; they also sow the seeds for active resistance and violence. The four participating schools, which have been noted as places of "good practice", have reported that their students engage in less violent and/or anti-social behaviours towards administrative and teaching staff, each other and school property than is commonly reported (Fieldnotes, 05.03.2001).

Teaching for democracy, entails for me that children need to understand the concept of rights, to know what rights they are entitled to, to empathize with those whose rights have been denied, and to be empowered to take action on behalf of their own rights and those of others. The preliminary findings from the empirical research are significant. They support the argument that students in classrooms which seek to respect their dignity in ways that accord them some control over decisions that directly affect them during the course of daily school life are in a position to actively practice rights. Schools which embrace democratic principles in ways described above may, in a wider civics and citizenship education framework, encourage and make possible the frequent practice of active and responsible participation in democratic processes, where students are encouraged to enter into social dialogue and be exposed to a variety of viewpoints and opinions which may not be in agreement with their own points of view.

Opportunities to be exposed and deal with peers, whose viewpoints, histories and cultures differ greatly from one’s own, cannot be underestimated. The power of negotiation and open-mindedness, tolerance for other perspectives and trust that fundamental human rights will be respected by more powerful members of the school community such as teachers, school administrators and older and/or stronger peers, are virtues which enable young people to participate with confidence in democratic life.

My focus on fundamental issues such as the rights and responsibilities of children in educational contexts, instead of more specific issues such as truancy, alienation, suspension etc. will hopefully encourage other educators and educational researchers to investigate how these problems may be overcome through the promotion of the effectiveness of democratic educational processes. The prevention of problems such as truancy, alienation and suspension of minority students in particular, is something that needs urgent attention. One of the six recommendations of Australia’s performance evaluation from the international Save the Children Alliance states that: "Programmes to identify and support at-risk and disadvantaged students and encourage their continued participation in education should be developed" (Save the Children, 2000, p. 100).

References

Alexander, P. Schallert, D. and Harve, V. (1991) Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, vol. 61, pp. 315-343.

Alston, P. (2000) Cyberschoolbus. United Nations Publication. Available at: http://www.un.org. Visited, 27.04.2001

Anderson, N. (1993) Managing Student Behaviour: A study of moral regulation in a disadvantaged urban Australian school within a modernist bureaucracy. Unpublished PhD thesis. Perth: Murdoch University.

Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia (AISWA) (2001) Are there Aliens in the Classroom? In: AISWatch, no 16, May 2001

Blum, P. (1998) Surviving and Succeeding in Difficult Classrooms. London: Routledge.

Brandes, D. and Ginnis, P. (1986) A guide to Student-Centered Learning. Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Schuster Education.

Curriculum Corporation (1998) Ask the Expert: Human Rights. Resource Centre. Available at: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy/resource/expert/tay.htm

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA)(1998) Discovering Democracy Program. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA)(2000) Discovering Democracy Program Evaluation. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Feinberg, W. and Soltis, J. (1985) The hidden curriculum revisited. School and Society.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Gergen, K. (1999) Reconstructed Truths. Civilization, June/July. Ebsco Publishing.

Available at: Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Visited: 28.05.2001

Hansen, M. and Childs, J. (1998) Creating a School where People like to be.

Educational Leadership. Alexandria: Septermber ’98, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 14-17.

Houston, B. (1992) Are Children’s Rights Wrong Rights? In: Philosophy of

Education. Available at http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/pes-yearbook/92_doc/Houston.html

Visited: 02.03.2000

Jones, M. (1999) Myths and facts concerning the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Australia. Australian Journal of Human Rights, vol 28. Available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ journals/AJHR/1999/28.html Visited: 23.02.2001

Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: Sage.

Slee, R. (1988) Discipline and Schools: A Curriculum Perspective. Crows Nest: The

MacMillan Company of Australia Pty. Ltd.

Smith, J. (2000) The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a

Creational Hermeneutic. Illinois: Inter Varsity Press

The Education Department of Western Australia (1999) Making the Difference:

Behaviour Management in Schools. Parent Information Brochure, September 1999. Perth: The Education Department of Western Australia.

The Education Department of Western Australia (1998) Discovering Democracy in

Western Australian Schools. Perth: The Education Department of Western Australia.

The International Save the Children Alliance (2000) Children’s Rights: Reality or Rhetoric?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: The first ten years. London: The International Save the Children Alliance.

Tripp, D. (1986) Viewpoint triangulation through interview. Perth: Murdoch University.

Tripp, D. (1994) Case Study: Creating the Data. In: J.S. Smith (Ed) Qualitative Approaches

in Educational Research. Flinders Institute for the Study of Teaching. Flinders: Flinders University Press.

United Nations (1995) Press Release HR 4327. Available: http://www.un.org.

Visited, 23.03.2000

Walzer, M. (1997) Ch 4: Practical Issues. On Toleration. London: Yale University Press.

aare 2001 - conference title of proposed presentation ... · we exhort older students to behave...

Documents