Defining democratic classrooms from different perspectives

The term democracy is normally used politically to describe the system of government where the majority of eligible members of the population choose their representatives (Schmitter & Karl, 1991). It is usually referred to as rule by the people. Thus, the general populace is involved in the government of the state. In democratic states, there is the existence of fundamental human rights. Thus, individuals have the freedom to express themselves and make their own choices, provided it is within the tenets of the constitution of the country in question.

A democratic classroom generally describes a learning environment where students’ voices are heard and counted. Thus, a learning setting where students’ participation is key. This deviates from the traditional classroom setting that was in existence some decades ago where the teacher was the only authority figure in the classroom and whatever he/she said was final.

Democratic classroom has been used differently in various contexts that are quite different from what is generally known. Morrison, (2008) defined a democratic classroom as one that gives students the chance to exercise autonomy, freedom, and choice about what they learn when they learn it, and how they learn it. Morrison used freedom-based education synonymously as democratic education. Probing Morrison’s definition of democratic education, he mentioned that students determine when, what and how they want to study. This implies that students should be given absolute control over their own learning without any external influence. Looking critically at Morrison’s work, it looks practically impossible. With regards to the “when”, what if learners decide to learn only after normal school hours? Does it mean there should always be a teacher on standby to attend to those students at these odd times? On a larger picture, what if some individuals decide to start their studies when they are adults? Then how do we get society to function effectively if most of the people start to learn when they are already adults? Again, if we are affording students the freedom to study what they want, then they should get some basics in the form of compulsory subjects which can help them know what they want. Because students cannot know what they want if they do not know anything, to begin with.  Allowing students to study how they want to is also vague. However, if the “how” is limited to the manner students want to learn, then Morrison did not consider the class size and the availability of resources to suit every student’s needs.

 Dewey also describes democratic classrooms as one that affords learners the freedom to speak freely, to make their own decisions, and to challenge the status quo. Teachers in democratic classrooms support learning by advising students to exercise their liberties wisely and thoughtfully to make them useful participants in their societies (Dewey,1916) as cited by Waterman, (n.d.). A critical look at Dewey’s description of democratic classrooms offer students the liberty to make major decisions on their studies, it however emphasizes the role teachers as authorities who should guide students to make effective decisions to become active participants in their societies.

Deci (1995) also explains democratic classrooms as a learning environment that gives learners the opportunity to make decisions and be intrinsically driven. Deci advises to provide students’ options rather than dictating what is necessary. Deci’s definition implies that students be given a wide range of options for students to choose from. This means teachers and other school authorities do not have to meddle in students’ choices after providing the options. Again, this definition of democratic classrooms in this context means eliminating extrinsic motivation and helping students to become self-driven.

 Kocoska (2009) viewed a democratic classroom as a space where students' personalities are fully developed, a place where humanization, personalization, and socialization processes take place. The question of the student's active position and function is given specific consideration here. Kocoska’s use of democratic classrooms means helping students to develop their personalities in relation to their societies and allowing students to personalize their studies according to their interest, strengths, needs and skills. Emphasis is laid on engaging students in all stages during the instructional period because instructions are designed because of students.

Considering all the definitions provided by these experts, the common thing among their descriptions of democratic classrooms are students participation. Thus, they all agree that students should be made to participate in the classroom and be given the opportunity to pursue their interests. With this freedom being granted to learners, Dewey emphasizes that teachers be made to guide students to be able to make effective decision. Kocoska also shares this believe because they both emphasize the need for democratic classrooms to shape up the individual to become useful citizens.

There are two main schools of thought with regards to whether truly democratic classrooms are possible or not. Lina Bell Soares asserts that finding authentic voice, examining multiple perspectives, and recognizing social barriers in classrooms through teaching critical literacy in teacher education will make truly democratic classrooms possible.

 In contrast, Clabaugh (2008) is of the view that the school system itself is undemocratic where the child cannot choose whether to be in school or not (compulsory basic education/ compulsory freedom), coupled with the top-down management systems in schools and influence of the business world make democratic classrooms not achievable.

Yes. Lina Bell Soares

A primary purpose of education in many democratic countries is to produce active and engaged citizens who participate in decision-making in their society and communities (Reichert et al., 2018).  According to (Soares, 2013), It is not possible to produce democratic citizens in the system of education where students are not subjected to democratic practices. In contrast to the traditional, hierarchical, and more coercive education system seen in most public schools, proponents of democratic and freedom-based education argues that with autonomy and choice that is inherent in democratic education, people who go through it get a much-different experience and much-better kind of education (Morrison, 2008). Democratic education is based on the premise that people are naturally curious and have innate desire to learn and grow (Morrison, 2008). With this, it is believed that when students are given the freedom to determine or make the major decisions about their learning, they will be more engaged and consequently will able to learn better.

According to Kohn (1993), the best way to help a child to learn how to make decisions is to involve the child in decision making process not by making the child follow directions. Thus, if we want students to be able to make sound decisions then the freedom of making decisions should be left to them else they continue to follow direction and not challenge the status quo.

In order to achieve truly democratic classrooms, (Soares, 2013) focuses on teacher education program. Thus, teaching preservice teachers pedagogies that will enable them to implement democratic practices in their teaching while they themselves becomes participants in their society. This implies that, in order to eliminate social injustices in classrooms and promote students participation in the classroom, it is important to engage preservice teachers in critical debates that will hone their sensibility toward societal issues in their environment , (Soares, 2013).

Soares (2013) opines that it is not enough to impart preservice teachers with content knowledge and instructional techniques in their specific subject area but must be given the kinds of experiences that spark critical discussions about current, hot-button problems in society and content studies. To achieve this feet, preservice teachers should be exposed to contentious and sensitive topics relating to sexuality, war, violence, and environmental concerns and discrimination that exist in the society. This will enable preservice teachers to be aware of the injustices in the society and therefore work towards eliminating them from their immediate environment which is the classroom. Because with this kind of knowledge, when teachers get to the field, they will be able to ensure equal participation in their classrooms and remove all kinds of unfairness from the learning environment.

Again, teaching preservice teachers to examine multiple perspective is another factor that can make truly democratic classrooms possible. Soares (2013) states that the concept of diverse perspectives is crucial to critical literacy because it teaches students that texts can have multiple meanings depending on different points of view, convictions, and values. Thus, if student teachers are equipped with this skill before they enter the teaching service, they will be in a better position to teach their students to analyze issues from different perspectives. Students will always take into consideration the power imbalance in cases they come across and to consider whose opinions appeared to dominate the talks or whose opinions were marginalized or disregarded. This will enable students to avoid value judgements and view the classroom as a setting for developing critical dialogues around social justice issues (Soares, 2013).

Soares also talks about training students to recognize social barriers. Every student should feel respected, supported, and a part of the classroom community in order for it to be a place of possibilities (Levine, 2003 as cited by Soares 2013). Similar to this, a supportive learning environment encourages a climate where children are not subjected to exclusion, prejudice, or ridicule (Soares, 2013).  Social barriers are created when there is unhelpful presumptions, unfavourable preconceptions, and harsh labels and this is detrimental to creating a supportive classroom environment. According to Soares, teachers have to bring students together and get them to share their values, beliefs and perspective if these walls can be knocked down. With this, students learn to acknowledge and deal with their differences in a way that do not make any party feel marginalized. This will go a long way to enhance students’ participation in the classroom irrespective of their status, ethnic background, race or religion which is one of the core values of democratic classrooms and democratic societies at large.

Another factor that undermines the realization of an ideal democratic classroom is the score-oriented nature of our school systems. In today's classrooms, producing proficient exam results on state-mandated standardized tests takes precedence above promoting democracy (Apple & Beane, 2007). If teachers and students become obsessed with getting grades, the lessons usually become teacher centered rather than being student oriented. Though standardized testing brings about equality where it presents everybody equal opportunities for access to higher education, however, when it becomes the main focus of schools, then both teachers and students competencies are measured by it. This causes schools to ease down on the democratic tenets of education and pressures teachers to strictly cover  the curriculum and adhere to timelines rather than focusing on the interest of students and allowing them to participate in the classroom.

According to Waterman (n.d.) in order to achieve truly democratic classrooms, teachers should not only respond to students' inquiries, but also train students on how to pose significant metacognitive queries. Thus, teachers should not adhere strictly to a set and mandated curriculum. He also adds that, teachers work together with students or provide independent research tasks to the pupils in search of their own materials for studies and not rely on textbooks, worksheets and workbooks. Waterman continued to say that, teachers should use students’ perspective when planning their lessons and give learners the opportunity to learn and work in ways that suits and interest them.

No: Gary K. Clabaugh

Proponents against truly democratic classrooms are of the view that education trains and prepares individuals for the real world and its realities. Thus, individuals do not get to make all the decisions with regards to what interests them and what do not. With this, if students are to be prepared for the realities of the world there should be some kind of constraint in the educational system. Clabaugh, (2008) questions how realistic democratic education is. According to Clabaugh, until going to school is a choice, freedom-based education can not be achieved. Most countries have the policy of free compulsory basic school (Meadmore, 2001) and this defeat  the premise of democratic education that states that learners pursue their interest with gusto if left unfettered as Morrison (2008) put it. In countries where the policy of free compulsory basic education exists, it undermines the freedom of the learner. This is due to the fact that the child does not get to make the choice whether he or she wants to be school. Consequently, Clabaugh concludes that learners are already manipulated under this system of education as children are compelled to go to school against their will and this defeats the fundamentals of democratic education.

Clabaugh, (2008) also shares that not all students’ choices will be in a positive direction and that children in the middle school ages are concerned with being accepted by their peers which curtail their freedoms and clouds their judgement. Children at this age try very hard to do things that will make them appear nice and accepted by their colleagues and according to Clabaugh this tyranny of peers is not properly addressed by the advocates of democratic education. Therefore, while some students may be motivated towards pursuing their positive interests and making sound decisions about their learning, others may also need some kind of external push or control in order to direct them towards a positive direction.

Morrison, (2008) categorizes the challenges faced with democratic classrooms which makes it difficult to implement under three groups and these are students, teachers and institutions. 

Students

Students are still being told what to do in classrooms. The majority of pupils are used to following instructions and behaving passively in class (Morrison, 2008). Thus, students do as they are told by their teachers in the classroom. They are seen as safe-deposit boxes that are waiting for knowledge to be deposited into them by their teachers. The hidden curriculum trains students to follow instructions and do as they are told by their tutors and authorities in the school. Clabaugh, (2008) posits that schools are designed like the business world. That is, its competitive; instrumental and extrinsic incentives rule; tasks are atomized and fragmented; compliance is required; accepting what is said is prized over criticality; and a person's value is determined by comparison to others and this is the case in most classrooms.  This means that students have no say in the design of their learning activities in the classroom and their curriculum at large.  According to Clabaugh, for students to be prepared for the real world and the business world, students should learn to follow instructions of their employers.

Teachers

Change is not being resisted by only students; teachers are also resisting this switch from the traditional classrooms. Not many teachers have had first-hand experience with democratic classrooms, attempting to implement them may be a very huge step (Morrison, 2008).  Morrison argues that, teachers may be apprehensive about how students may react if their choices and voices are considered with the implementation of their courses. Students who are not positively motivated may end up slowing learning proceedings or their actions may prevent learning from taking place. Also, teachers are used to seeing students as lazy and uninterested and therefore needs an external push in order to help them make the right decisions and not take the easy way out. This has resulted to mandatory subjects because students who don’t know what they do not know cannot be involved in the creation and implementation of their courses (Morrison, 2008).

Institution

The institutional structures of our education is not democratic (Morrison, 2008). Schools are modelled on factories and place more emphasis on cost-effectiveness and mass production than on democracy and individuality (Clabaugh, 2008). According to Clabaugh, management is top to down all the way, that is, basic laws are set by the federal government. State officials put the laws into effect while also introducing numerous new ones. School boards base their choices on federal, state, and local laws as well as political and financial realities. Through the principals, the superintendent carries out the wishes of the board. Teachers are also instructed on what to do and when to do it, and they similarly guide the students to do it in that manner (Clabaugh, 2008). Thus, teachers run their classrooms by standardized and teacher-proof curriculum which do not cater for the differences among the students in the classroom. Again, students here are compared to one another. Measurable outcomes are emphasized at the expense of emotional and social development. This industrial approach employed in the educational system do result in undemocratic classrooms and citizens at large because autonomy, freedom, and choice are forbidden in this type of educational environment. The standardization, teacher-proofing, quantifiable outcomes, and prison-shuffle are the main points of emphasis. Again, Clabaugh argues that not every voice can be heard in our education institutions. It is not realistic for the authorities of a school to hear every student’s voice, at the end of the day some voices will be louder than others resulting in some voices being marginalized.

My position

Considering the arguments put forward by the above authors, it is important to note that whether truly democratic classrooms is possible depends on a number of factors. These are the values of society in which the school is located, the availability of funds and time.

Schools usually reflects the norms and values of the society in which they are located (Morrison, 2008). According to Graves (2003), democratic classrooms are not limited to the school building but instead turn the entire community into their classroom. In this case, a society where democratic values are not prioritized, democratic education will not be emphasized. Thus, students will not have the freedom to pursue their interest and make major choices that affect their studies. In addition to this, societies that do not practice the tenets of modern democracy will not design a curriculum that will embolden learners to strife for their voices to be heard because in autocratic societies individuals are trained to follow orders and not to change the status quo. On the other hand, societies that are believers of democracy designs a curriculum that at least tries to involve students in the teaching and learning process. Classrooms in these societies guides learners to reflect and think critically on issues that affects them and that of their society. They are taught to voice out their concerns and opinions and even demonstrate if their voices are ignored. These practices are however not promoted in autocratic societies hence less emphasis is laid on them in their schools.

Another factor that will help determine if truly democratic classrooms are possible is the availability of financial resources. Practicing democratic education is expensive and therefore requires a wide range of resources (Preece, 2014).  Whether a democratic education will be possible depends on the financial resources available to a country. If schools are to allow students to study when, how and what they want, then the school must be equipped with various teaching and learning resources. The school will need smaller class numbers in order to effectively cater for the individual differences. A class with a large number of students with each of them getting their voices heard will be practically impossible (Yilmaz, 2007). This will call for smaller class sizes which leads to more classes being built and teachers being employed. But in the case of developing countries where the budget allocated for education is low, not enough infrastructure can be built to meet the fewer class size that will enhance democratic classroom practices. Again, there is the existence of shortage of teachers in developing countries. This causes classes to be merged in order to be taught by a single teacher. Drawing from experience as a teacher in Ghana, I had to teach a class of over ninety students. The lowest number of students I ever taught in a class was never below fifty. This was due to inadequate classrooms and teachers. In this case, attending to every student need was not possible. So was allowing students to take major decisions that involves their studies.

In conclusion, I am convinced the major determinant whether democratic education is possible or not is time. At the moment, truly democracy is not possible, considering the fact that curricula are designed by central governments and no matter how much freedom they allow students, they have certain goals they seek to achieve for students who go through the schools. Again, until the period where schools do not produce individuals for the job market and people fitting into the society students will always be cajoled to toe a certain line and be shaped in a certain way that will make students suitable for both the job market and the society. Therefore, truly democratic classrooms, where students will be left to choose what they want to study, how and when they want to study will be possible in the future where there are unlimited material and human resources.

In this current times where advocates of democratic classrooms are on the rise, I agree with the statement of John Locke that if the minds of children are curbed and humbled too much by strict hands over them, they lose their vigor and industry however, if we allow children who has no control over their desires and not know how to withstand the pressure of current pleasure or suffering for the purpose of what reason dictates is appropriate to do, these people run the risk of never being good for anything. Thus, as schools are trying as much as possible to involve students in the decision making of their learning, they should also continue to exercise some extent of control over students because not every individual in school is motivated towards a positive direction. 

References

Michael W Apple, & James A Beane. (2007). Schooling for democracy. Principal  Leadership (High School Ed.), 8(2), 35–

Clabaugh, G. K. (2008). Second Thoughts About Democratic Classrooms. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 20–25.

Kocoska, J. (2009). The student ’ s position in the democratic classroom. 1(1), 2429–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.427

Meadmore, P. (2001). “Free, compulsory and secular”? The re-invention of Australian public education. Journal of Education Policy, 16(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930010025329

Morrison, K. A. (2008). Democratic Classrooms: Promises and Challenges of Student Voice and Choice, Part One. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 50–60.

Preece, J. (2014). Education, Democracy and Development: Does education contribute to democratisation in developing countries? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(1), 118–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013.854450

Pring, R. (2021). ‘Doing philosophy’: defining what you mean. In Philosophy of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474228596.ch-002

Reichert, F., Chen, J., & Torney-purta, J. (2018). Pro fi les of Adolescents ’ Perceptions of Democratic Classroom Climate and Students ’ In fl uence : The Effect of School and Community Contexts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1279–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0831-8

Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What Democracy Is. . . and Is Not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0033

Soares, L. B. (2013). The education students deserve : Building a democratic classroom in teacher education. 69–79.

Waterman, S. S. (n.d.). Differentiated.

Yilmaz, K. (2007). Learner-centred instruction as a means to realise democratic education : The problems and constraints confronting learner-centred instruction in Turkey. 4(December), 15–28.