Oxford Review of Education

Vol. 35, No. 1, February 2009, pp. 2340

Seen and heard, and then not heard:

Scottish pupils experience of
democratic educational practice during
the transition from primary to
secondary school
Ross Deuchar*
University of Strathclyde, UK
Oxford
10.1080/03054980802018871
CORE_A_302053.sgm
0305-4985
Original
Taylor
02008
00
ross.j.deuchar@strath.ac.uk
RossDeuchar
000002008
and
&Review
Article
Francis
(print)/1465-3915
Francis
of Education (online)

Education for citizenship is firmly on the policy agenda throughout Britain, and there is an expec-
tation that teachers will create a participative, consultative ethos in schools. This paper identifies
three main vehicles for pupil consultation: elected pupil councils, democratic and participative
classrooms and opportunities for pupils to engage with controversial issues within the curriculum.
It focuses on a longitudinal study of pupils experience of democratic practice in Scottish schools in
relation to these vehicles. Evidence from a diverse sample of primary schools illustrates the way in
which upper-stage pupils are encouraged to participate in decision-making processes and engage
in the discussion of contemporary social issues of their own interest both in the classroom and
during pupil council meetings. In addition, further evidence of the extent to which these same
pupils experience of the democratic process evolves following their transition to secondary school
is reported. The paper raises new questions about the extent to which Scottish pupils may be
exposed to a progressive model of democratic education, and suggests that children may be given
more opportunities for consultation in primary school than they are in the early stages of secondary
school.

Introduction: a new, pragmatic focus on citizenship and democracy

The renewed interest in education for citizenship and democracy has emerged from
a general renewal of interest in values in education and also the perceived need for a
more participative approach to school organisation. This has coincided with a
number of wider political developments throughout the world, such as the emergence

*Department of Childhood and Primary Studies, University of Strathclyde, Faculty of Education,

Glasgow G13 1PP, UK. Email: ross.j.deuchar@strath.ac.uk

ISSN 0305-4985 (print)/ISSN 1465-3915 (online)/09/01002318

2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03054980802018871
24 R. Deuchar

of recently democratised states such as South Africa and those of Central and Eastern
Europe and Latin America (Osler & Starkey, 2003). In addition, governments in
established democracies see education for citizenship as a means of restoring confi-
dence in democracy in light of the concern about young peoples apparent disengage-
ment with formal politics and alleged alienation from social and community values
(Osler & Starkey, 2003, p. 245).
A plethora of international constitutional developments have had the aim of ensur-
ing that young people become involved in political decision-making, such as the
creation of the European Youth Parliament, National Youth Parliaments in the
Caribbean and New Zealand as well as the more localised structures in cities across
Europe (Burke & Grosvenor, 2003; Deuchar, 2007). In Britain, Blairs government
created a new Cabinet Committee for Children and Young People in 2000, which
was combined with the creation of the Scottish Youth Parliament and Scottish Civic
Forum (an independent forum for individuals and civic organisations to debate polit-
ical issues, share information about current legislation and encourage young people
to participate in the democratic process). Brown (2003) refers to the principles
created by the Steering Group that took forward the proposals for the Scottish
Parliament, with a focus on power sharing, accountability, access, participation and
equal opportunities. Many have argued that these same principles should underpin
the organisation within a school.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes specific reference to the need
for democratic approaches to childrens participation in school. Articles 1214 state
that children should be given freedom of expression and also given the right to form
associations. In England, the establishment of the Advisory Group on Citizenship
Education agreed that effective education for citizenship would comprise three inter-
related strands: social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political
literacy. Firstly, children should learn self-confidence and socially and morally
responsible behaviour in and beyond the classroom. Secondly, they should learn to
be involved in the concerns of their communities through active civic involvement.
Thirdly, they should learn how to make themselves effective in public life through
engaging in conflict resolution and decision-making at local, national and interna-
tional levels (QCA, 1998; Kerr, 1999).
In Scotland, Learning and Teaching Scotland (LTS, 2002, p. 7) presents an overall
goal for citizenship in schools which reflects the need for thoughtful and responsible
participation in public life and which may find expression through creative and
enterprising approaches to issues and problems. In addition, the Scottish Executives
new proposals for A Curriculum for Excellence outline the need to encourage pupils to
become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective
contributors to society (Curriculum Review Group, 2004). Indeed, the Curriculum
Review Group clearly emphasises the need for democratic values to underpin the
practice in schools:
Wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity: the words which are inscribed on the mace of
the Scottish Parliament have helped to define values for our democracy It is one of the
prime purposes of education to make our young people aware of the values on which
 Scottish pupils and democracy 25

Scottish society is based and so help them to establish their own stances on matters of
social justice and personal and collective responsibility. (Curriculum Review Group,
2004, p. 11)

It is clear, then, that the renewed interest in citizenship over the last ten years has
emerged against wider social and political developments that have put democratic
participation firmly on the agenda. New constitutional developments have aimed to
encourage young people to play a more active part in civic concerns, and many have
argued for these same democratic principles to guide the organisational arrangements
in schools. Since the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by
the British government, this places an obligation to ensure pupil participation is
commonplace in schools.

Enacting democratic principles in schools

Democracy is a form of government by consent, and is underpinned by the idea that
civic and political policies should be decided by open debate based upon reason and
argument rather than by dogma or force (Carr, 2003). Thus, a democratic school
needs to be based upon these same principles of open discussion, debate and consul-
tation. Flutter and Rudduck (2004, p. 5) argue that giving pupils the opportunity to
participate in school decision-making processes will have a positive impact on young
peoples attitudes and behaviour. However, they also argue that pupil consultation
can present a school with challenges:
Teachers may find that pupil consultation brings to light issues which are not simple and
straightforward to address. The process itself can create or deepen tensions, either between
staff members or between teachers and pupils Pupils, too, may find consultation uncom-
fortable some may regard consultation with deep suspicion or a degree of anxiety
because they are unaccustomed to having their views really listened to by adults. (Flutter
& Rudduck, 2004, p. 23)

Flutter and Rudduck (2004) have created a ladder of pupil participation, based on
earlier work by Hart (1997). As Figure 1 illustrates, this ladder outlines the routes
that pupil participation initiatives in schools may follow, describing increasing levels
of involvement from non participation to the highest stage of active engagement. In
a study commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council/Teaching and
Learning Research Programme (ESRC/TLRP), data suggest that, while a few schools
may have reached the highest rung of the ladder, the majority are implementing initi-
atives which fit the descriptions of rungs 1 and 2 (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). Other
evidence suggests that hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of school organisation still
dominate and that many teachers still favour a didactic approach to teaching and
actively discourage pupil initiative and willingness to engage in social activism
(Harber, 1995; Kerr et al., 2002; Boyte, 2003; Cunningham & Lavalette, 2004;
Harber, 2004; Schweisfurth, 2006; Deuchar, 2007).
It seems that there are many isolated pockets of exceptional work in many schools,
Figure 1. The ladder of pupil participation

where individual teachers encourage pupils to have a say in the decision-making

process or where pupils are encouraged to participate in isolated committees that
26 R. Deuchar

4. pupils as fully active participants and co-researchers

3. pupils as researchers

2. pupils as active participants

1. listening to pupils

0. pupils not consulted

Figure 1. The ladder of pupil participation

promote the pupil voice. However, the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child
emphasises that all children have the right to consultation and participation. The
authors own view is that this type of consultation needs to permeate the whole school
and underpin the implementation of the whole curriculum, so that childrens rights
are fully realised and, in turn, they realise the power of their voices and their potential
for participating and taking action in the wider community (Hart, 1997; Holden,
1998; Holden & Clough, 1998; Alderson, 2000).

Vehicles for democratic participation

How can schools ensure that a range of vehicles are used so that a participative,
consultative ethos is in evidence throughout the school, as opposed to being confined
to individual teachers in isolated classrooms? The author suggests the need for three
vehicles: the election of pupil councils (Deuchar, 2004b, 2006, 2007), the creation of
democratic classrooms (Maitles & Gilchrist, 2005) and the discussion of controversial
issues of particular interest to the children (Maitles & Deuchar, 2004a, 2004b;
Deuchar, 2007). A brief discussion about each of these vehicles now follows.

Pupil councils
Both the Advisory Group on Citizenship (QCA, 1998) and its Scottish equivalent
(LTS, 2002) have endorsed the need for fully functioning pupil councils (Deuchar,
2007). It has been argued that the councils can be a very effective means for signalling
to students that they are respected and that their capacity to contribute to the task of
 Scottish pupils and democracy 27

school improvement is recognised (Baginsky & Hannam, 1999, p. iii). International

research suggests that councils can become an important vehicle for children to partic-
ipate in their community and in turn promote positive behaviour (Halstead & Taylor,
2000; Taylor & Johnson, 2002). Indeed, Oslers (2000, p. 54) study into pupils views
on how effective discipline can be achieved highlights the need for canvassing pupils
views through suggestions boxes, questionnaires and school councils and ensuring
pupil representation on school boards of governors.
Thus, it is clear that many pupils feel that the creation of school structures for
participation can play a fundamental role in creating a well-disciplined school. Davies
and Kirkpatrick (2000, p. 43) highlight the work of several Swedish schools, where
committees of teacher and pupil representatives meet to design aspects of the curric-
ulum and to choose activities, thus enabling pupils to take more responsibility for
their learning. The greater sense of trust and equality between teachers and pupils is
characterised by a listening culture, enabling children to achieve greater levels of
confidence and self-esteem and resulting in fewer identity and behavioural problems
(Davies & Kirkpatrick, 2000, p. 77).
Unlike the UK, a significant number of European countries have legal frameworks
requiring pupil participation in schools. For instance, in Denmark the Act on
Democracy in the Education System 2000 means that every student has the right to
exert direct influence on the day-to-day running of schools (Osler & Vincent, 2002,
p. 39). In Ireland, the Education Act 1998 makes provision for the setting up of
school councils and states that a school board must establish and maintain proce-
dures for informing students about school matters (Osler & Vincent, 2002, p. 74).
The Dutch 1992 Education Participation Act requires secondary schools to have a
participation council with equal numbers of staff, pupils and parent representatives,
while the German Schulmitwirkungsgesetz 1994 requires that every school has a school
committee with teacher, parent and pupil representatives (Davies & Kirkpatrick,
2000). Thus, there seems to be a significant gulf between the UK and other
European countries in terms of legislation on pupil participation.
In the UK, most schools have created pupil councils in response to the growing
attention being given to education for citizenship. However, in many schools the
pupil council members are restricted in the scope of their discussions: Baginsky and
Hannam (1999, p. iii) highlight that the agendas associated with many councils tend
not to roam far outside the charmed circle of lockers, dinners and uniform. On the
other hand, Hannam (1998) provides examples of English pupil councils which have
been involved in interviewing teachers for teaching posts and discussing issues related
to learning and teaching approaches in the school.
Pupil councils are clearly recognised as a vehicle for active citizenship in schools,
and the evidence suggests that, if managed effectively, they can have a positive impact
on the ethos of the school. Lessons can be learned from other European countries,
where statutory requirements for creating such councils are well established.
However, questions remain over the type of current educational practice that
surrounds pupil councils and it is clear that a tokenistic model must be avoided
(Dobie, 1998; Taylor & Johnson, 2002; Deuchar, 2004b, 2007).
28 R. Deuchar

Classroom decision making

Many studies have found that pupils of all ages value the opportunity to have a say in
what goes on in the classroom (MacBeath et al., 1996; MacBeath, 1999). Indeed,
Bruner, Vygotsky and, more recently, Gardner have highlighted the importance of the
active engagement of the student in creating effective learning (Harkin, 1998). In an
action research study by Meyer and Etheridge in the USA (1999), pupils in seventh
and eighth grade classrooms began to follow Mortimer Adlers Paideia Philosophy
(Adler, 1982). In making adjustments to the Spanish curriculum, the researcher
developed a participative approach whereby she moved away from the dominance
of the textbook to an approach where students were given the opportunity to make
decisions about what and how they would like to learn.
In a Scottish action research study where a democratic approach to learning was
developed in a large mixed ability Religious and Moral Education Secondary 3
class, Maitles and Gilchrist (2005) found that 87% of pupils felt that they were
learning better because the teacher was trying to involve them. The findings
demonstrated that the participatory classroom style had a positive impact on
pupils citizenship values, dispositions, motivations and interest (Maitles, 2005,
p. 41). Similarly, Hudson (2005) describes an initiative in a London secondary
school, set within a challenging socio-economic background, where pupils were
encouraged to investigate local, national and global concerns, present solutions to
key decision-makers and work with staff to develop student decision-making
through the pupil council. Hudsons data indicates that pupils moved from having
passive identities to politicised identities, where they were able to draw upon their
renewed sense of agency to engage with their communities and become aware of
their own potential for action.
It is clear that democratic teaching methods require time, energy and patience on
the part of the teacher and the pupils; teachers need to ensure that pupils have trust
in the new approach and believe that their views will be taken seriously, particularly
if they have been used to a more autocratic style of learning. As Woodrow (1997, p. 8)
puts it, democracy is either born or denied in the classroom. Ultimately, the advan-
tages of developing warmer, more interactive relationships between teachers and
students are numerous and include more effective academic learning, social and
emotional growth and the overcoming of social disadvantage (Deiro, 1996; Harkin,
1998).
In spite of these advantages, however, it seems that an autocratic approach tends
to prevail. Young (1992, p. 36) has found that pupils are often seen as individuals
who must simply be made to reproduce the point of view being advanced, by what-
ever means seem expedient and economical. Fielding (2001) has pointed out that
teaching and learning are often seen as being forbidden areas of enquiry, and that
discussion about teaching styles is still largely restricted to groups of teachers and
does not include pupils. Evidence from around the globe, including Africa, Asia,
North America and many parts of Europe, suggests that schools have retained a
strong ethos of authoritarianism (Harber, 2004; Deuchar, 2007).
 Scottish pupils and democracy 29

Controversial, contemporary issues

Media images in a global age expose children to many more controversial social, polit-
ical and humanitarian issues than ever before, and evidence suggests that pupils are
keen to discuss such issues in school (Maitles & Deuchar, 2004a). Indeed, Oulton
et al. (2004) highlight that issues such as the debate about whether we should permit
genetically modified crops to be grown in the UK are debated in ways that would not
have been considered feasible before, and that including the discussion of such
controversial issues in the curriculum is an effective way of preparing pupils for
participating in their resolution.
There are several positive illustrations of practice where pupils have engaged in
challenging discussions surrounding areas of contemporary interest. Maitles and
Deuchar (2004b) refer to group discussions with primary 7 (age 11) pupils who have
been encouraged to discuss the debate surrounding the Iraq War. The class teachers
approach centres upon creating an ethos of encouragement, where freedom of expres-
sion prevails. As a result pupils develop a rich knowledge of the current debates
surrounding the war, a deeper concern for human rights and a growing ability to recog-
nise forms of media and political manipulation (see also Maitles & Deuchar, 2004b;
Deuchar, 2007). Colucci-Gray (2004) also describes a case study where 1415 year-
old students participate in role play activities in order to debate the issues surrounding
prawn farming. As the role play activities progress, pupils recognise that they have
become more able to listen to other peoples points of view, more skilled at arguing a
case more convincingly and more informed about issues and conflicts around the
world beyond what they see in the news.
The arguments for including controversial issues in the curriculum are therefore
compelling (Oulton et al., 2004), as the Advisory Group on Citizenship has argued:
Education should not attempt to shelter our nations children from the harsher controver-
sies of adult life, but should prepare them to deal with such controversies knowledgeably
and sensibly, tolerantly and morally. (QCA, 1998, p. 56)

Oulton et al.s (2004) research suggests that a wide range of controversial issues is
explored in schools, although the topics that pupils explore in secondary schools are
often similar to those explored in the primary sector. The common barriers to imple-
mentation in secondary schools tend to be the dominant focus on preparing pupils for
forthcoming examinations, the breaking up of the school day into shorter lessons and
teachers general fears about remaining neutral during pupil discussions (Ashton &
Watson, 1998; Agostinone-Wilson, 2005). Whereas some secondary teachers are
often uncertain about whether some topics are suitable for younger children, most
primary teachers feel that any topic can be explored as long as it is handled in the right
way (Holden, 1998; Oulton et al., 2004).

The research study

The author worked with a sample of primary schools (age range 511) that
provided a diverse background to the research, through a range of school types and
30 R. Deuchar

socio-economic contexts. Five schools were selected from across Scotland, in five
local council areas. A mix of denominational and non-denominational schools were
selected for inclusion, and the selection of three inner-city schools was contrasted
with the inclusion of two rural and small-town school environments; one school was
selected with a high proportion of ethnic minority pupils, while others had almost
exclusively white pupil populations. Finally, while two schools were set within very
affluent social contexts, three others were located in more deprived areas.
Within each sample school, one specific class was selected as a case study from
primary 6 (P6) (age 10) or primary 7 (P7) (age 11), thus providing a sample of 150
upper-stage primary pupils. Between 2003 and 2004, pupils were issued with short
questionnaires, asking them to describe three decisions they had made in school and
three controversial issues they had recently discussed in class. Pupils were introduced
to the Collins Dictionary definition of controversial as being about an issue with
more than one viewpoint. Pupils were also asked to describe the aims of the school
pupil council and give an indication of how successful they perceived the council to
be. From the initial sample, focus groups were created for follow-up discussions: a
small sample of five or six pupils from each school was selected, with a good gender
mix and range of intellectual ability, thus creating a purposive sample (Cohen et al.,
2000, p. 99).
Later in the study, the author tracked sample pupils as they made their transition
to secondary year 1 (S1) (age 12) in 2004 (for the initial sample of primary 7 pupils)
or in 2005 (for those pupils who were in primary 6 at the beginning of the study). This
longitudinal element to the research resulted in the school sample being widened
from the original five primary schools to an additional five secondary schools. Pupils
were again issued with short questionnaires and focus groups were re-visited in order
to determine the extent to which pupils views had changed and evolved. It was recog-
nised that there are problems with this kind of longitudinal study, such as the dangers
associated with reactivity, researcher and respondent bias and the creation of partic-
ipant expectations (Mason & Bramble, 1978; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Cohen &
Manion, 1989; Gall et al., 1996; Rudduck & McIntyre, 1998; Gay & Airasian, 2000).
However, a range of strategies were put in place in order to ensure authenticity of
emerging data (Maxwell, 1992), such as the use of triangulation, member checking
and negative case analysis (Padgett, 1998).
The author was also involved in making visits to pupil council meetings in each of
the primary schools and acting as an observer in 2003 (as described in Deuchar,
2004a, 2007). As a follow up to this study, the author observed meetings in the
secondary schools to which the pupils had migrated between 2004 and 2005. This
observation was guided by the use of an observation schedule that was used for gath-
ering data under key headings. Follow-up interviews with school councillors and
non-councillors were conducted via pupil discussion groups. Among other things,
the researcher aimed to make a comparison between the number of pupils involved
in meetings, the time spent on items, the type of items discussed, the level of interac-
tion involved, the kind of decisions made by council members and the impact of the
councils work in both primary and secondary schools.
 Scottish pupils and democracy 31

The authors work with five primary schools also involved contact with five differ-
ent classroom teachers and headteachers. Later, the author also worked with teachers
and Principal teachers in the five secondary schools. It was decided that each of these
professionals would be interviewed in order to establish their views about pupil
consultation and participation. In the sections that follow, the key data emerging from
pupil council meetings and discussions with councillors and non-councillors is
reported. Thereafter, the evidence emerging from pupil questionnaires, focus groups
and teacher interviews provides an illustration of the way in which pupils were
involved in classroom decision-making and the discussion of controversial issues in
primary school, and following their transition to secondary education.

Pupil councils in primary and secondary schools

In each of the five primary school pupil councils visited, there seemed to be either
direct or indirect representation from all year groups in the school. Teacher-leaders
generally played a facilitative role, guiding pupils in thinking through the issues on the
agenda, encouraging them to consider the feasibility of new ideas and occasionally
blocking suggestions on the grounds of health and safety. In terms of Flutter and
Rudducks (2004) ladder of participation, two of the councils could be said to be
working on the highest two rungs: pupils were regularly planning new interventions
collaboratively with teachers in the light of research they had carried out among their
peer group. In other cases, where discussion was directed more by the teacher-leader,
the ethos became one where pupils were merely consulted and informed (Hart,
1997). Common discussion topics included ideas for resolving social conflict in the
playground, suggestions for improving the quality of school dinners and for school
fundraising initiatives. Pupils were also involved in reviewing new school resources,
making decisions about how to spend aspects of the school budget, planning class-
room topics and school assemblies and expressing views about teaching styles and the
quality of adult supervision in the playground (Deuchar, 2004b, 2007).
Councillors were mainly positive about the work of the pupil council, and most felt
that they were having a positive impact on school improvement. Many pupils felt that
the council enabled teachers to listen to their ideas and provided them with new
opportunities, such as managing school budgets. Among the wider pupil populations,
the views were generally encouraging: many non-councillors felt that the council
members were listening to the pupil voice, acting on childrens ideas and building a
positive school ethos. However, a minority felt that the council was tokenistic: in one
school, pupils felt that their views were not being taken into consideration and were
unimpressed with the councils achievements (Deuchar, 2004b, 2006, 2007).
During 2004 and 2005, the author visited the pupil councils in the secondary schools
to which the sample pupils had migrated. Follow-up interviews were conducted with
councillors and non-councillors in each of the schools. The councils observed were
fundamentally different from those in primary schools in the way in which pupils were
represented: there tended to be a secondary 13 (S13) council (ages 1215) and a
separate council for pupils in secondary 46 (S46) (ages 1618). As in primary
32 R. Deuchar

schools, teacher-leaders took a facilitative role, although in one school the teacher
tended to dominate discussions and initiate ideas. Since the authors main priority was
to examine the way in which primary 7 pupils experience of consultation and decision-
making evolved after their transition to secondary school, he chose to observe the work
of S13 pupils councils in each of the sample schools (see also Deuchar, 2007).
During the observed pupil council meetings, the author found that many of the
topics discussed were similar to those found on primary pupil council agendas: pupils
debated the advantages and disadvantages of new healthy eating options in the
school dining room as well as issues relating to bullying, school uniform and school
toilets. In one school, S3 members had been annoyed about the slow progress with
the school refurbishment programme and had written letters to the Director of
Education, asking for an update. In another school, S3 pupils had been involved in
attending educational conferences and had brought ideas back to the school. And in
another, third year pupils had initiated an anti-smoking lobby in the school and
insisted that this lobby would apply to staff as well as pupils.
The S3 councillors seemed very enthusiastic about the work they were involved in
as part of the pupil council, but felt that some members of the wider school population
were unaware of the nature of their work:
I feel very privileged to be able to make the school a better place.
I enjoy being able to reassure primary pupils that the school isnt too bad showing them
that weve all survived.
I like first years coming to us and asking questions.
I think some people dont fully understand what were trying to do because its been
smaller projects. It would be good to organise a bigger event.

Among the younger members of the councils, the feelings were generally less positive.
Many S1 pupils seemed confined to talking about the issues relating to Baginsky and
Hannams (1999, p. iii) charmed circle of school dinners, toilets and uniforms, and
felt less involved than they had been at primary school. Non-councillors in S1 viewed
the work of the council with distaste, and felt that their views were not listened to in
the way they had been at primary school:
[The pupil council] said the pupils and the parents would get to choose [the school
uniform] but they didnt let us choose, they let the parents choose.
They dont tell us anything. We have a representative in each class but we dont hear much.

It is clear that these secondary pupil councils were upholding the participation rights
of the older pupils, while younger pupils were marginalised. In addition, it seems that
the more senior secondary school councillors had a higher regard for the work of the
pupil council than non-councillors. These findings suggest that pupils who have
taken on important responsibilities at primary school may be unlikely to encounter
similar responsibilities again until they reach the senior stages of secondary school
(echoing the findings of HMIE, 2006). Although there may be some positive illustra-
tions of democratic processes in secondary schools (Hudson, 2005), the research
 Scottish pupils and democracy 33

confirms previous research findings by Taylor and Johnson (2002), who report on
many positive illustrations in primary schools but less favourable views in secondary
schools, where student apathy often emerges as a result of the power of the school
hierarchy.

Evidence of classroom decision-making and discussing controversial issues

Evidence emerging from questionnaires and focus group discussions with primary
school pupils revealed the opportunities they had for making decisions at school.
Pupils responded with various examples from both within the classroom and beyond.
Some pupils concentrated their discussion on the work they had done as part of the
pupil council: they described the way in which they had made decisions about the
buying of school resources, games and playground equipment and the choice of food
available in the school dinner hall. Others talked in a wider sense about the way in
which their teachers gave them opportunities to have a voice in the classroom:
We get to decide what groups were going to be in.

We decided what books we would like to read.

We do circle time with the whole class whatever the class says, [the councillors] take
to the pupil council.

Youre not afraid to stand up in front of the class and tell about your ideas if you have
an idea, people will listen to you.

Pupils talked about a range of controversial issues that they had recently discussed in
class, and there was evidence that this discussion was often quite challenging in
nature. While some pupils had been involved in discussing the pros and cons of the
war in Iraq, others had talked about the impact of global terrorism and the causes of
the tsunami disaster in 2004. In one school, pupils had been involved in making deci-
sions about the school refurbishment programme and had suggested to the pupil
council that a plan of the new proposals be sent to parents as a basis for further discus-
sion and debate. Others had discussed the need for changes to the school layout to
take account of the needs of disabled pupils and parents, or had been active in creating
the schools code of conduct.
In follow-up interviews with primary school teachers and headteachers, the impor-
tance of promoting the pupil voice was underlined: staff talked about the need for
giving pupils opportunities to participate in decisions as a means of preparing them
for becoming active in their community in later life. However, headteachers often
highlighted that, although most of their colleagues were committed to school democ-
racy, some still had a fear of giving children too much control and felt that discipline
problems could arise if pupils were encouraged to become too vocal (Deuchar,
2004a, 2006, 2007).
Later in the study, pupils were asked to describe the decision-making opportunities
they had in S1, compared with P7. Pupils were initially enthusiastic about secondary
school and felt that they had more responsibility than they had in P7: they had the
34 R. Deuchar

freedom to decide if they wanted to go out of the school building at lunchtime, and
took responsibility for following a timetable and for organising a homework diary.
However, when asked to give specific examples of the decisions they made in class,
their responses were limited:
I decided what to do my English talk on.

In music we got asked what two instruments we wanted to play.

[I decided] whether to play in the school football team or not.

[We have to decide] to behave you either behave or youre out.

While some pupils felt that they made more decisions in S1 than they had in P7
because of the perceived levels of freedom and independence, many others disagreed:
they talked about the way in which older pupils made more decisions than they did,
and that teachers made most of the decisions. One pupil summed up the views of
many when he said that everything is decided for us here (Deuchar, 2006).
When asked about controversial issues, it seemed that many of the topics being
discussed in Modern Studies classes were similar to those covered in P7: pupils talked
about participating in debates about the Iraq War, the causes of the tsunami disaster
and whether Tony Blair should be re-elected in the General Election of 2005. Senior
pupils participated in discussing controversial issues as part of the work of the pupil
council, such as the issues surrounding the need for a new smoking ban and the ongo-
ing debate about the way in which older school buildings should be re-designed.
However, participation in these debates was closed to S1 pupils, whose contribution
to the pupil councils tended to be limited to the charmed circle of topics outlined by
Baginsky and Hannam (1999, p. iii).
During follow-up interviews, some secondary teachers talked about colleagues
unwillingness to encourage pupil responsibility or to move away from the focus on
preparing pupils for examinations and testing. One teacher summed up the views of
many when she described the dominance of didactic and authoritarian approaches in
evidence in secondary school classrooms:
As a teacher for five years in this school, I have rarely, if ever, experienced any enterprising
lessons. Pupils work in silence, on their own.

It seems, then, that pupils were given many opportunities in primary school for gain-
ing access to school finances and thus influencing the buying of school resources and
equipment. Although there was some evidence of authoritarian attitudes, primary
teachers generally encouraged pupils to express opinions about issues, to make
choices about how they learned in the classroom and to liaise with the pupil council
in order to take new ideas forward. Pupils were encouraged to talk about local,
national and global contemporary social and political issues of interest to them and,
in some cases, to make decisions that would influence these issues.
As they made the transition into secondary school, the pupils initially felt more
mature because of their new sense of freedom and independence. However, in reality
the pupils had far fewer opportunities for making real decisions: for S1 pupils, their
 Scottish pupils and democracy 35

participation was confined to making decisions about homework, extra-curricular

activities or the way in which they would uphold the imposed expectations for good
discipline in school. Their discussion of contemporary issues amounted to more of
the same, while their participation in pupil councils was confined to a tokenistic,
peripheral role. Having had lots of responsibilities and rights in P7, it seemed that
these pupils now had fewer responsibilities and no rights during their first year at
secondary school (Maitles, 2005).

Concluding discussion
In Britain, the last ten years has seen a more pragmatic policy focus on the develop-
ment of democratic values in schools. As part of the National Curriculum in England
and Wales, a flexible framework of specific learning outcomes has been created for
education for citizenship, with a view to enabling more pupil participation in making
decisions about their own learning. However, Kerrs (2004) report on the initial find-
ings of the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study conducted by researchers at the
National Foundation for Educational Research (NfER) reveals that teacher-led
approaches to citizenship-related topics predominate over participatory, active
approaches in the classroom. Indeed, the recent DfES Diversity and Citizenship
Curriculum Review report stresses the need for schools to have stronger mechanisms
in place to ensure that the pupil voice is heard and acted upon (DfES, 2007).
In Scotland, the new Curriculum for Excellence aims to create more space for teachers
to meet individual pupil interests and needs and to underpin classroom practice with
democratic values. Only time will tell how successful this curriculum reform turns out
to be, but it is clear that enacting democratic principles in schools does not come with-
out its challenges: tensions may arise between teachers, and pupils may find it difficult
to adjust to the idea of being given more say in what and how they learn. But it is clear
that pupil consultation needs to permeate all the practice within a school and cannot
be confined to the practice of isolated teachers or committees.
In this paper, we have identified three vehicles for pupil consultation and used this
as the basis for examining pupils experience of democratic practice in both the upper
stages of primary and lower stages of secondary schools. The findings suggest that the
three vehicles for the expression of democracy in schools need to be inter-related, as
illustrated in Figure 2: pupils who are involved in pupil councils need to see the
impact of their decisions in the classroom; decisions made by pupils in the classroom
should influence the work of the pupil council; and pupils should also be given the
opportunity to make decisions about the type of contemporary, controversial issues
that they would like to discuss both in the classroom and as part of the work of the
pupil council. In so doing, teachers might avoid the danger of having isolated pockets
of pupil consultation and move towards a model of school-wide democratic practice
(Covell & Howe, 2001).
The longitudinal study outlined in this paper provides some positive illustrations
Figure 2. Vehicles for promoting democratic educational practice

of the way in which this theoretical model was being translated into practice in a
small sample of Scottish primary schools between 2003 and 2004. In pupil councils,
36 R. Deuchar

Democratic
Participation
and
Consultation

Classroom
Decision-
Making

Controversial, Pupil
Contemporary Councils
Issues

Figure 2. Vehicles for promoting democratic educational practice

children were often working on the highest rungs of the pupil participation ladder
(Hart, 1997; Flutter & Rudduck, 2004), where they had become active researchers
and participants in the school decision-making process: councillors consulted with
pupils in the wider school via suggestion boxes or the outcomes of circle time
discussions; they had opportunities for handling school finances and for influencing
school policy and practice, as well as discussing controversial issues relating to bully-
ing, social conflict, school refurbishment issues and the needs of minority groups.
Contrary to Fieldings (2001) findings, it seemed that issues related to teaching and
learning were not always forbidden areas of discussion and debate. However, in
some instances it seemed that councillors had a higher regard for the work of the
pupil council than the wider school population.
In the classroom, primary pupils appeared to have a say in the type of groups they
worked in and were encouraged to make decisions about the current issues they
would like to discuss. They felt generally supported, enjoyed debating challenging
issues and were either directly or indirectly involved in discussing controversial issues
as part of pupil council agendas.
In secondary schools, however, a different picture emerged. Although senior pupils
felt hugely involved in the work of the pupil council in each school and were involved
 Scottish pupils and democracy 37

in debating quite challenging and controversial issues, pupil council members in S1

felt marginalised (Denholm, 2006; Deuchar, 2007). These younger pupils were
involved in re-visiting issues that they had already explored in primary school and
were given less responsibility than they had in primary school to become active in
working towards change. In the wider school, S1 pupils often seemed unaware of and
unimpressed by the work of the pupil council and felt that they had fewer opportuni-
ties for contributing towards agendas than they had in P7. In the classroom, pupils
were given fewer opportunities to make decisions about the work of the council or to
make decisions about how they would like to learn.
In terms of controversial issues, pupils often re-visited issues that they had debated
in primary school and had fewer opportunities for engaging in civic activism. This
echoes earlier findings by Oulton et al. (2004) which suggest that the topics pupils
explore in secondary schools are often similar to those explored in the primary sector.
The common barriers towards enacting pupil participation in secondary schools
were identified as the continued influence of the attainment agenda and authoritar-
ian views on teaching and learning (also echoing earlier findings by Oulton et al.,
2004).
Although no universal generalisations can be made, the evidence outlined in this
paper suggests that the transition from primary to secondary school may hamper
pupils experience of education for democratic citizenship. Although there are some
positive examples of democratic processes being implemented in secondary schools
(see, for instance, Hudson, 2005; Maitles & Gilchrist, 2005), it seems that pupils
more often gain direct experience of what it is like to live in a democratic community
in primary school but then lose this experience in the early stages of secondary
school (Woodrow, 1997). This highlights the importance attached to one of the
principal aims of A Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland, which is to ensure the intro-
duction of more progression and continuity across this transition stage (Curriculum
Review Group, 2004). Osler (2005, p. 4) argues that education for citizenship is
about creating a sense of belonging, the opportunity to exercise both rights and
responsibilities and the ability to communicate opinions and participate in decision
making. New research must continue to examine the way in which teachers are able
to expose pupils to holistic and progressive models of democracy in schools which
bridge transitions and enable this vision of education for citizenship to become a
reality.

Notes on contributor
Ross Deuchar is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Strathclyde: Faculty of
Education in Glasgow, where he teaches a range of courses in education for citi-
zenship. His main research interests focus on the links between enterprise educa-
tion, education for citizenship and democracy in education. He writes, and has
been published, widely in these academic areas and has recently published his
first book: Citizenship, enterprise and learning: harmonising competing educational
agendas (Trentham, 2007).
38 R. Deuchar

References
Adler, M. (1982) The Paideia proposal: an educational manifesto (New York, Macmillan).
Agostinone-Wilson, F. (2005) Fair and balanced to death: confronting the cult of neutrality in the
teacher education classroom, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 3(1). Available
online at: www.jcep.com/?pageID=articleID=37 (accessed 1 May 2005).
Alderson, P. (2000) School students views on school councils and daily life at school, Child and
Society, 14, 121134.
Ashton, E. & Watson, B. (1998) Values education: a fresh look at procedural neutrality, Educational
Studies, 24(2), 183193.
Baginsky, M. & Hannam, D. (1999) School councils: the views of students and teachers (London,
NSPCC).
Boyte, H. (2003) Civic education and the new American patriotism post-9/11, Cambridge Journal
of Education, 33(1), 85100.
Brown, A. (2003) The Scottish Parliament, in: J. Crowther, I. Martin & M. Shaw (Eds) Renewing
democracy in Scotland: an educational sourcebook (Leicester, NIACE), 3539.
Burke, C. & Grosvenor, I. (2003) The school Id like: children and young peoples reflections on an
education for the 21st century (London, RoutledgeFalmer).
Carr, D. (2003) Democracy and citizenship, in: J. Crowther, I. Martin & M. Shaw (Eds) Renewing
democracy in Scotland: an educational sourcebook (Leicester, NIACE), 2831.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1989) Research methods in education (London, Routledge).
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research methods in education (London & New
York, RoutledgeFalmer).
Collucci-Gray, L. (2004) The use of role-play in the science lesson: a study on discussion and
conflict resolution, paper presented at the Scottish Educational Research Association (SERA)
Annual Conference, Perth, 2527 November. Available online at: www.leedsac.uk/educol
(accessed 18 December 2006).
Covell, K. & Howe, B. (2001) Moral education through the 3 Rs: rights, respect and responsibility,
Journal of Moral Education, 30(1), 2941.
Cunningham, S. & Lavalette, M. (2004) Active citizens or irresponsible truants? School student
strikes against the war, Critical Social Policy, 24(2), 255269.
Curriculum Review Group. (2004) A curriculum for excellence (Edinburgh, Scottish Execu-
tive).
Davies, L. & Kirkpatrick, G. (2000) The EURIDEM project: a review of pupil democracy in Europe
(London, Childrens Rights Alliance).
Deiro, J.A. (1996) Teaching with heart: making healthy connections with students (Thousands Oaks,
Corbin).
Denholm, A. (2006) Switched off from school? Take your turn at running it, The Herald,
9 January, 8.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2007) Curriculum review: diversity and citizenship
(London, DfES).
Deuchar, R. (2004a) Changing paradigms: the potential of enterprise education as an
adequate vehicle for promoting and enhancing education for active and responsible
citizenship: illustrations from a Scottish perspective, Oxford Review of Education, 30(2),
223239.
Deuchar, R. (2004b) Reconciling self-interest and ethics: the role of primary school pupil councils,
Scottish Educational Review, 36(2), 159168.
Deuchar, R. (2006) Not only this, but also that! Translating the social and political motivations
underpinning enterprise and citizenship education into Scottish schools, Cambridge Review of
Education, 36(4), 533547.
Deuchar, R. (2007) Citizenship, enterprise and learning: harmonising competing educational agendas
(Stoke on Trent, Trentham).
 Scottish pupils and democracy 39

Dobie, T. (1998) Pupil councils in primary and secondary schools, in: D. Christie, H. Maitles &
J. Halliday (Eds) Values education for democracy and citizenship (Glasgow, Gordon Cook
Foundation/University of Strathclyde), 7275.
Fielding, M. (2001) Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: new departures or new constraints in the
transformation of 21st century schooling? Forum, 43(2), 100109.
Flutter, J. & Rudduck, J. (2004) Consulting the pupils: whats in it for schools? (London and New
York, RoutledgeFalmer).
Gall, M., Borg, W. & Gall, J. (1996) Educational research (New York, Longman).
Gay, L. & Airasian, P. (2000) Educational research (New Jersey, Prentice Hall).
Halstead, J.M. & Taylor, M.J. (2000) Learning and teaching about values: a review of recent
research, Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 169202.
Hannam, D. (1998) Democratic education and education for democracy through pupil/student
participation in decision making in schools, in: D. Christie, H. Maitles, J. Halliday (Eds)
Values education for democracy and citizenship (Glasgow, Gordon Cook Foundation/University
of Strathclyde), 6071.
Harber, C. (Ed.) (1995) Developing democratic education (Derby, Education Now).
Harber, C. (2004) Schooling as violence: how schools harm pupils and societies (London, Routledge-
Falmer).
Harkin, J. (1998) Giving voice to teachers and learners, paper presented at the British Educational
Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, Queens University of Belfast, 2730 August.
Available online at: www.leeds.ac.uk (accessed 11 November 2006).
Hart, R. A. (1997) Childrens participation: the theory and practice of involving young citizens in
community development and environmental care (London, Earthscan Publications).
Her Majestys Inspectors of Education (HMIE) (2006) Education for citizenship: a portrait of current
practice in Scottish schools and pre-school centres (Edinburgh, HMIE).
Holden, C. (1998) Keen at 11, cynical at 18?, in: C. Holden & N. Clough (Eds) Children as citizens
(London, Jessica Kingsley), 4662.
Holden, C. & Clough, N. (1998) The child carried on the back does not know the length of the
road: the teachers role in assisting participation, in: C. Holden & N. Clough (Eds) Children as
citizens: education for participation (London, J. Kingsley), 1328.
Hudson, A. (2005) Citizenship education and students identities: a school-based action research
project, in: A. Osler (Ed.) Teachers, human rights and diversity (Stoke on Trent, Trentham),
115132.
Kerr, D. (1999) Changing the political culture: the advisory group on education for citizenship
and the teaching of democracy in schools, Oxford Review of Education, 25(1/2), 275284.
Kerr, D. (2004) Changing the political culture: reviewing the progress of the citizenship education
initiative in England (London, NFER).
Kerr, D., Lines, A., Blenkinsop, S. & Schagen, I. (2002) What citizenship and education mean to
14-year-olds. Englands results from the IEA citizenship education study: the views of students,
teachers and schools (London, DfES).
Learning and Teaching Scotland. (2002) Education for citizenship in Scotland: a paper for discussion
and development (Dundee, LTS).
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry (USA, Sage).
MacBeath, J. (1999) Schools must speak for themselves (London, Routledge).
MacBeath, J., Boyd, B., Rand, J. & Bell, S. (1996) Schools speak for themselves (London,
NUT).
Maitles, H. (2005) Values in Education: were all citizens now (Edinburgh, Dunedin Academic
Press).
Maitles, H. & Deuchar, R. (2004a) I just dont like the whole thing about war!: Encouraging the
expression of political literacy among primary pupils as a vehicle for promoting education for active
citizenship (Leeds, Education Online). Available online at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol (accessed
14 December 2004).
40 R. Deuchar

Maitles, H. & Deuchar, R. (2004b) Why are they bombing innocent Iraqis? Encouraging the
expression of political literacy among primary pupils as a vehicle for promoting education for
active citizenship, Improving Schools, 7(1), 97105.
Maitles, H. & Gilchrist, I. (2005) Were citizens now! the development of positive values through
a democratic approach to learning, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 3(1). Available
online at: www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articleID=45 (accessed 1 March 2007).
Mason, E. & Bramble, W. (1978) Understanding and conducting research (New York, McGraw-Hill).
Maxwell, J. A. (1992) Understanding and validity in qualitative research, Harvard Educational
Review, 62(3), 279300.
Meyer, B.B. & Etheridge, C.P. (1999) Improving student interest in the Spanish classroom
through democratic teaching, Educational Action Research, 7(3), 327344.
Osler, A. (2000) Childrens rights, responsibilities and understandings of school discipline,
Research Papers in Education, 15(1), 4967.
Osler, A. (2005) Education for democratic citizenship: new challenges in a globalised world, in:
A. Osler & H. Starkey (Eds) Citizenship education and language learning (Stoke on Trent,
Trentham), 322.
Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2003) Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: theoretical debates and
young peoples experiences, Educational Review, 55(3), 243254.
Osler, A. & Vincent, K. (2002) Citizenship and the challenge of global education (Stoke on Trent,
Trentham).
Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004) Controversial issues: teachers attitudes and
practices in the context of citizenship education, Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 489507.
Padgett, D. K. (1998) Qualitative methods in social work research: challenges and rewards (Thousand
Oaks, Sage).
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1998) Education for citizenship and the teaching of
democracy in schools (London, QCA).
Rudduck, J. & McIntyre, D. (1998) Challenges for educational research (London, Sage).
Schweisfurth, M. (2006) Education for global citizenship: teacher agency and curricular structure
in Ontario schools, Educational Review, 58(1), 4150.
Taylor, M. J. & Johnson, R. (2002) School councils: their role in citizenship and personal and social
education (Slough, NFER).
Woodrow, D. (1997) Democratic education: does it existespecially for mathematics education?
For the Learning of Mathematics, 17(3), 916.
Young, R. (1992) Critical theory and classroom talk (Clevedon, Multilingual Matters).