SOCIETY TODAY

Education

Can a school be a democratic society?

John H. Chambers

Bob Leeson, the nineteen-year-old, E18 a week president of the National Union of School Students is on record as having said recently that the policy of his 'union' is, ". . . greater democracy inside schools, eventually leading to school committees of teachers, students, parents and nonacademic staff, as well as members of local communities controlling the curriculum."

In short, Leeson thinks that schools should be democratic societies. Now any group of people who cooperate for particular activities and purposes, and whose social control within the group is analogous to the political control of a democratic state can I think be called a democratic society. But can a school be this sort of society?

A school is a social institution that gains its identity from various rules and practices which are accepted willingly by some of its population, unwillingly by others. The practices have as their chief purpose education of the pupils. Of course schools have further functions such as socialisation but it is'the school and only the school that is set up specifically to be an educational institution (at that level). Prisons punish and reform, hospitals treat physical troubles, asylums deal with mental disorders, but only schools specifically educate.

The question, "Can a school be a democratic society?" can therefore be rephrased to read, "Can an institution the chief function of which is to educate be a democratic society?'', or perhaps, " Can a social institution the chief function of which is to educate the young and immature be a society whose organisation approximates to the political organisation of democratic states?"

Not merely the National Union of School Siudents, but also the Young Liberals seem to think that it can, if the statements of some of their representatives are taken seriously. For instance David Mumford, vice chairman has said, '" We intend to expose and fight the undemocratic nature of our present educational system . . We believe that secondary schools should be controlled by all those within them — pupils, teachers, administrators and maintenance staff . . ." And Peter Hain, member of the national executive has claimed that, " If the authorities will not recognise the need for councils, the Young Liberals will take steps to set up independent councils." (sic)

Suggestions about pupils, maintenance staff and outsiders controlling schools appear to me to be the mouthings of dreamers whenever there is to be a largely educational function. A school is not like the political arena of a democracy in which one vote is as good as another and where all adults have equal right to vote or to set themselves up to compete as candidates for such votes. In the arena of education the tyro must bow to the wisdom of the tutor else education will cease. Because schoolteachers are authorities and experts on their subject matter they are placed in authority to decide what to teach and to teach it. To equate staff and pupils here is ludicrous. The statements of people like Mr Leeson and Mr Mumford cause me to see a history lesson in the sort of school they seem to advocate, going in the following way: History Teacher: When was the Battle of Hastings fought? Tommy Tucker: In 1066, sir. Jane Blipp: No it wasn't. It was in 1215.

History Teacher: I say it was 1066 too. But we do seem to have a disagreement here. So we'll have a vote. After all, that is the democratic thing to do, and a school is a democratic society. The vote takes place.

History Teacher: For 1215 there are 25 votes. For 1066 there are 12 and my vote makes 13. So 1215 wins and Jane is correct. The Battle of Hastings occurred in 1215.

As long as schools are to discharge their educational func tion there must be a situation in which teachers are enabled to

control curriculum policy so as to be able to transform the worldpictures of their pupils. Indeed, it is only after people have been educated that they are even in a position to appraise that education. School councils of pupils and "members of local communities" may have their uses in the social control aspects of school life and may even be able to be organised in a fashion closely akin to that of a political democracy; but the help of pupils and outsiders is logically limited in the curriculum.

But suppose a slightly different tack is taken, and it is claimed that my suggested analogy with the procedures of political democracies is inappropriate in this context. Suppose it is suggested that the UK, Australia and so forth are democracies not because of their political procedures, but because of the high-level ethical principles that under-pin such procedures? Suppose it is claimed that it is because such states apply the principles of benevolence and justice that they are entitled to be called democracies? In other words suppose it is suggested that a second concept of 'democracy' can be used?

That is to say that the terms 'democracy' and 'democratic' are

• applicable not only to political eontrol at the state level or to spntrol of smaller groups that approximates to this, but are also applicable to the moral good implicit in this kind of control.

In that case, in so far as it can be claimed that a school's teachers and pupils while furthering their educational aims attempt to apply moral standards in their dealings with one another, to that extent can a school be called a democratic society.

But we have two rather different concepts now, a political on and a moral one. Td 'avoid confusion, perhaps people ought to make it clear which of the two they have in mind when they talk about democracy in schools.

If it is this second concept that the advocates of democracy in schools are using, then their case may be stronger. But if it is stronger this is because notions of political democracy are no longer central to the concept. Indeed, this idea of a school society being a democratic society because it is a moral society has intriguing

implications. For it may well mean that teachers have indeed to be benevolent and just in their dealings with pupils — but benevolent and just despots!

The actual words of the advocates of democracy in schools indicate however that it is not the moral concept of 'democracy' that is in their minds. Rather, their words show that in a confused way they imagine that the political concept of 'democracy' is applicable in education.

The trouble is of course that people such as the president of the National Union of School Students just have not done their political and educational homework!

John H. Chambers is Lecturer in the Philosophy of Education at Maria Grey College, Twickenham.