Democracy without Participation does not Support Sustainable Education in Estonia

Juri Ginter, Tartu University

Doyle Stevick, University of South Carolina

Introduction

Disturbing trends in free and democratic societies, such as exclusion, terrorism, youth
riots, school violence, high dropout rates, the growing disconnect between people and politics,
etc. (Mintrom, 2001) – have led some to raise questions about whether democracy is really the
best way to govern society and schools. (Bobbio, 1990, Ojap, 2005) Too often, only one
alternative is imagined: a more authoritarian approach.1
Democracy can be consistent with freedom and positive outcomes for society, but there is
no guarantee that democracy will produce positive results, or avoid negative outcomes.
Democracy is no guarantee of prosperity, peace or of stability. Further, while democracy and
sustainability can and should be compatible, democracy is not inherently sustainable. We may
believe in democracy for good reasons, but if we become complacent once the basic procedures
of democracy are established, we may well encounter problems. Put simply, democracy is not
enough.
But what more is needed?
We argue that participation is the key element for moving from formal democracy to true
sustainability. This paper is based on three elements: a review of recent literature on democracy,
participation, education and sustainability; the recent history of participation in Estonian
education, and a survey conducted of Estonian schools. We will discuss all three elements in
order.
The fundamental structure of contemporary democratic institutions was developed in the
nineteenth century, but society has changed profoundly since then. (Dalton, 1988, 242). At the
same time, political participation, civic engagement, and social capital have declined sharply
(Mintrom, 2001, 615-616). Just as democratic institutions have not kept pace with societal
changes, educational systems are not meeting the challenges now facing society (Loogma, 2005).
It is unsustainable for the institutions of democracy and education to remain static while society
changes so quickly.
This paper is about a third way for education--and perhaps also for Estonian society and
other countries: participation (Sterling, 2003, Dahl, 1989). “Expanding participation is... an
opportunity for Western democracies to come closer to matching their democratic ideals”
(Dalton, 1988, 244). Historically, the education system has had particular importance in
providing democratic experiences of participation to citizens. As McGinn and Epstein (1999, 4)
emphasize, in transitional states, we should “understand democratization not just in terms of the
existence of majority rule or guaranteed rights, but in terms of participation, participation both in
decision-making and in the formulation of choices.”
While schools can provide the primary opportunity for adult participation in this way, a
school is also a model for students (Talts, 2001). If they get some experience of democracy and
participation in schools, their subsequent attitudes and behavior will grow out of that experience
1
We are very grateful to the anonymous reviewer who invested a great deal of time and energy in
critiquing this article and making it much better. Such errors as remain are entirely the
responsibility of the authors.
and they will be more likely to participate as adults. By the 1970’s, it was well understood “that
school systems have the power to transform individuals into citizens through higher levels of …
participation.” (Ramirez, 1979, p. 80) Unfortunately, this civic mission of schools has been
neglected, and schools are much more focused on preparing students for the entrance
examinations of universities. When there is only “play” democracy and no real participation in
schools, students do not develop trust in their public institutions or government policy and
alienation grows. Democracy without participation is democracy in name only.
Minimal conceptions of democracy that focus on narrow institutional arrangements and
traditional procedures are neither sustainable nor sufficient for education in Estonia. While the
ideal of democracy places power in the hands of people, elections themselves are a form of
organized conflict. Elections must be contested, and decisions are made through the authority of
votes and majorities. This process does not require widespread participation, and 51% percent is
sufficient to rule. In such a situation, a very small number of people can change their
allegiances, and power and policies will change dramatically. Policy can swing back and forth
like a pendulum, making it very difficult to follow consistent and coherent practices. In a system
that values participation, a broader range of people are included in decisions, and consensus is
built among a broader swath of the population. Policies are much less likely to flip back and
forth in unproductive ways.
While elections are necessary and indispensable for managing existing conflict
peacefully, the need to have opposing views in an election, the need for candidates to
differentiate themselves, and the need to build constituencies can all help to generate conflict
where little existed before. While a conflict-free homogeneous society is undesirable and even
immoral, an overemphasis on conflict and differences may take time and energy away from the
crucial skills of cooperation and negotiation that are needed throughout society, particularly in
the long periods between the organized conflict of elections. Participation offers a solution.
Society can only function sustainably when individuals complement each other in a responsive
ways.

Sustainable education

In this paper, we mean sustainability in a broad sense: not simply sustainability of the natural
world, but sustainability of culture and society (including educational systems)—through societal
sustainability the sustainability of nature becomes possible. Although much has been written
about education for sustainability, education should itself be sustainable.

Sterling (2003, 32) defines sustainable education as,

a change of educational culture which both develops and embodies the theory and
practice of sustainability in a way which is critically aware. This would be a
transformative paradigm which values, sustains and realises human potential in relation
to the need to attain and sustain social, economic and ecological wellbeing, recognizing
that they are deeply interdependent.
Participation is a manifestation of our interdependence; it is impossible for people to realize their
potentials—especially in the interactive realms of the social and economic spheres that Sterling
emphasizes here—if there is not participation.
Mintz supplements these ideas about sustainability with a further critique. Speaking of the
competition and accountability-oriented education system of the United States, he argues that,
What is NOT sustainable is the national craze of high stakes testing. It is from the last
vestiges of a failed education system. Its paradigm was ‘We are the teachers. We have all
the information you will need to have a productive life. Just listen to us, learn what we
think you should learn, and you'll be set for life.’ If that paradigm were ever useful, it
certainly is not today. What people need today (and children ARE people!) is confidence
in themselves as learners, tools so they can find the answers to their questions
themselves, preparation for life-long learning, and in general, a learner-centered approach
rather than one which is curriculum driven.“ (Mintz, 2006).

Once again, learner-centeredness is premised on the ideal of participation. The passive recipient
of a lecture is the opposite of this ideal. Sustainable education means, “co-evolution where both
education and society (or at least parts of them) are engaged in a relationship of mutual
transformation” (Sterling, 2003, 51)

Participation

One tradition of widespread participation emerged recently in the economy (Dalton, 1988) when
shareholders` companies tried to involve their management and employees more effectively in
order to promote greater loyalty, creativity and profits. They understood that loyalty and
creativity cannot be achieved merely through incentives and by raising salaries, and so they gave
some shares to the managers and workers so that they would have a sense of ownership as well.

In society, participation has emerged as an answer to people’s frustrations both with political
systems that are dominated by political parties and with democracy that is practice meant nothing
more than the right to elect and to be elected. People wanted direct influence on the development
of society beyond the mechanisms of voting in representative democracy. Social capital is
becoming the crucial factor of such developments. Participation offers a path beyond alienated,
individualistic post-modernism and promises the birth of participative societies.

“The participatory worldview is more than a scientific revolution, it holds the promise of cultural
change...a new sense of belonging to a greater whole.” (Sterling 2003, 36). Participative knowing
involves both connectedness and critical thinking (Sterling, 2003, 67), both of which are critical
elements in the development of responsiveness, a key ethic of free markets and democratic
theory.

Democracy and participation

Strictly, democracy means that all members of the society have the same share in electing the
rulers. (Stout, 2003). In ancient Greece, Aristotle included democracy alongside tyranny and
oligarchy in his list of corrupt forms of governing society (Bealey, 1999, 98) because of
demagogy, which fools common people into voting for things that they do not really understand.
Aristotle’s positive systems included monarchy, aristocracy and polytheia. The last term meant
that people are informed and educated enough to understand what they are doing. For two
thousand years, this concept had not received much attention because of the low educational
level of the majority of the population. In traditional societies, the main avenues for
participation were families and to some extent religious institutions.

In the 21st century, the situation is changing: in many countries, more than half of students attend
universities and the rate of illiteracy is very low. Polytheia could reemerge as a meaningful
possibility. And participation would be a core element of that reemergence. “The main
criticism of democracy as it operates today is that not enough citizens participate in it.” (Bealey,
1999, 234). “Modern liberal democracies lie” (Held, 1992, 259), and majorities may vote to
persecute minorities (The Concise, 2003, 141). The basic democratic principles of equal rights,
voting and resolving questions through simple majorities no longer fulfill the democratic ethos
that they were intended to support. (Bealey, 1999, 98). In the 21st century, the term “equity,”
which takes into account people’s differences (Equity, 2005), has supplanted absolute equality.
At the same time, deliberation is reemerging as an important component of democracy.

Instead of one person – one vote we have stakeholders’ involvement. It is not always as
important that everybody has precisely equal power but that participation varies according to
people’s interests. How often elections or meetings take place and how many people participate
are important as well, but the purpose is to help people get out what they need. The division of
powers, which is so essential when power is concentrated in a few hands, becomes less pressing
when the people who are interested both prepare and carry out their own decisions.

One feature common to democratic societies is the existence and the leading role of political
parties. People may join a party and vote for a party, but the party leaders hold the power, make
the decisions, and they are not always responsive. Some parties develop structures to support
participation inside of the party, but usually the members are engaged primarily to raise money
and to support the election campaign. In most societies, these political parties have become too
big and most of their members have no real possibility to influence their policy. On the other
hand, big political parties are not flexible enough for new challenges. The ideal of participation
therefore is to work in groups that are small enough for each participant to have an influence and
for the group as a whole to be responsive to each of its members. Groups of 3-9 persons are
much more dynamic and task-oriented than the calcified bureaucracies discussed above.

In democratic societies with a strong political party system, governing is divided into the ruling
coalition and the opposition. All decisions are made by the members of the coalition. Often
decisions are more oriented towards sustaining the coalition and less towards the real interests or
needs of participants. If you do not belong to the coalition you have no possibilities to influence
the policy. In a participative society, everyone who is interested in an issue can participate in all
stages of a decision and people who have no interest in a specific issue do not influence the
process.

When only big political parties or groups get financial support from the state, participation may
be blocked. Democratic institutions need not recognize participative initiatives if they are not
representative and do not mach other classical criteria of democracy. For example, in Estonia, the
Teachers` Union is not represented on the Teachers` Professional Council, which deals with the
duties and responsibilities of teachers. Democratic regulations may even become obstacles to
participation when they require that people belong to a political party in order to participate in a
local council.

The term “democracy“ is often used in an exclusively positive sense, as the opposite of
“autocracy.” (Mintrom, 2001) In this conception, democracy serves freedom and human rights.
Such a concept is not balanced, however, because it does not involve the duties and restrictions
necessary for peaceful and effective co-existence and co-operation. In Estonia, people mostly
learn only to stand up for their own rights, but are not taught about the importance of recognizing
the rights of the others.

Participation, which often involves very effective processes of consensus-building, can be a

preferable mechanism in decision-making than voting alone. “If people know opportunities exist
for effective participation in decision-making, they are likely to believe participation is worth
while, likely to participate actively and likely, in addition, to hold that collective decisions should
be binding.” (Held, 1992). But participation does more even than confer legitimacy. The
National Academy of Public Administration declared in 1993 that, “the key to achieving change
in organization is the participation of the work force in organizational design and implementation
processes and a system for continuing communication among all members of the organization”
(Leading, 1993, 9). According to this conception, participation and the communication on which
cooperative participation is premised are keys to sustainability.

Democracy and participation in education

Democracy without participation is not democracy. “By acknowledging how far our political
realities fall short of ... ideals, we open the way for asking how current institutional settings
could be transformed to positive effect” (Mintrom, 2001, 617). Indeed, the difference between
our ideals of democracy and the current practice of democracy is very often the lack of
participation itself. Participation generally, and participation within schools in particular, can be
the transformative element necessary to help our practice of democracy recover its ideals.

There is a gap between the concept of democracy and the experience students get in schools and
society. But concepts like participation, inclusion, and involvement are still not often included
even in political textbooks (Bealey, 1999, Robertson, 1993, The Concise, 2003). “The historical
record shows that choice and freedom for all groups in society is most likely to be secured when
members of these groups have opportunities to voice their concerns and to control outcomes
through participation in political decision making“ (Mintrom, 2001, 640).

As this study shows, participation in schools offers many likely benefits, including the
improvement of the situation in schools, the level of education, the economy and broader aspects
of society as a whole. (Children, 2000, Fields, 2001) The first experience of participation is
quite encouraging (Empowered, 2004). Participation helps to learn better (Student, 2003) and
increases identification with school avoiding dropouts (Beekhoven, 2005).

Learning Participation, Through Participation

Participation isn’t something that is taught, but something that is done, and therefore it can´t be
conveyed merely by textbooks and lectures. It requires new methods of teaching (Johnson,
1991, Ginter, 1999). The experience of participation should be an important part of curriculum
in every school. In practice, it can take many different forms because “The terms ‘participation’
and ‘involvement’ are subject to widely different interpretations by schools and the level at
which pupils are included in activities is highly variable” (Madge, 2003). It takes time for
teachers and students to converge upon a shared understanding of participation.

Schools have mostly maintained an authoritarian ethos over the last centuries. A school may
technically be a democratic organization, but traditionally it has not been a participative
organization. Its headmaster may be elected by parents, or by an elected board or by officials
appointed by the elected board, etc. Sometimes teachers are also elected. The process of having
an election provides democratic legitimacy to the conduct and actions of the directors, even if
they are very authoritarian themselves. Every teacher and headmaster is supposed to be a
professional; in some countries she has even a title of a civil servant and carries out her task
before the body that elected or appointed her. The autonomy of teachers is emphasized, but
seldom their cooperation. Teachers who are naturally united in their struggle for their rights
(higher wages, shorter working days and better working conditions) may not come together for
other purposes.

After World War II there has been a great emphasis on democracy and citizenship in schools
(Haav, 2006). In reality, schools act as enlightened monarchies under headmasters (Hämäläinen,
2004) or as noble aristocracies under teachers. In many schools a board is elected, but their task
is merely supervision.

The situation has been different in so called alternative schools. Some principles of participation
have been introduced also into “ordinary” schools. It helps those schools to become more
efficient and gives a vivid example of participation to the students. Parents organize excursions,
participate in events, help with lessons, etc. (Step by step and other methods). Schools and
communities act hand in hand (Adams, 2005).

Democracy and participation in Estonian education

Estonian society participated very actively in education in the 19th century. Education was
almost the only field where public activities were allowed and national self-determination was
very closely related with education. Educational societies were organised throuhout Estonia.

During the Soviet period, there was no democracy in Estonian education and society. If people
wanted to achieve something, they had to do it under the umbrella of the Communist Party.
Estonia was quite successful in sustaining its own educational system (education was conducted
in Estonian, as were textbooks, teacher training, etc). There were also some participatory
institutions like ÜPUI (Public Institute for Pedagogic Research).

Participation increased during the period of perestroika, when Haridusselts (Educational Society)
and Koolifüüsika ühing (Society of School Physics) prepared and carried out the changes in our
educational system. For this period of participation it was characteristic that the minister of
education and the other top officials of the ministry participated in team-work. In the next period,
the minister took the participative movement as a discussion partner and attended only the
beginning or the ending of participative activities.

Participation on the national level declined alongside with the development of political parties.
As parties gained in importance, it became more and more important to know who the “owner”
of different policy was; proposals and new ideas were no longer evaluated primarily on their
merits but more and more on who would receive credit for them. This was the unofficial reason
why the Parliament did not accept the proposed education-strategy “Õpi-Eesti“ that was worked
out through cooperation of the ministry of education and the Estonian Educational Forum – too
many ideas were similar to those of the previous minister of education’s political party. As a
rule, each new minister of education in Estonia has started by neglecting the initiatives of the
previous minister. These elements of traditional democratic party politics lead to incoherent and
inconsistent top-down policy rather than participative approaches that can be sustained even
during changes of political power.

After the period of strong participation, the ministry of education created and founded Estonian
Educational Forum (Aarna, 2005). In the beginning, it was a representative institution where
schools, municipalities and other organizations sent representatives who had the right to vote.
Since 2002, anyone interested in issues of education may participate in these forums.

Every year, regional or thematic pre-forums have been organised and the results of pre-forums
are summarised in a national education forum. Key groups of education have been involved in
seeking solutions for education matters. In 2003, the Education Forum was held for the first time
based on this new county strategy: best practices were introduced and discussed by regions and
their summary was presented to the national forum. Since 2004, Education Forum supports the
achievement of the goals of UNESCO programme Education for All in Estonia (Estonian, 2004).

The strategic goals of this social dialogue are:

• a network of education subjects;
• the from-bottom-to-top model with regulatory mechanisms supplementing self-
regulation;
• to balance the educational needs and interests of society and a person;
• the development of educational competencies of all key groups. (Estonian, 2004).

In the Education Forum teachers, students, parents, officials, researchers and politicians
introduce each other remarkable activities (good examples, new ideas) in the educational life of
Estonia and inform of the circumstances that hinder activities. The Education Forum generalises
experience and formulates proposals for public regulation of the education system, while also
promoting the opportunities created and the rules established by the state and involves the public
in the implementation of the planned actions.(Estonian, 2004)

In 2004 a special forum in Tartu was dedicated to participation in schools. Participants share
their experience and worked out recommendations (Osalus, 2004). Participation in the Education
Forum contributes to an increase in the self-assurance in education matters of those participating
and reduces the uncertainty which accompanies innovations. The Education Forum provides a
good example for developing participation and helps to form a new communication culture
(interaction with the Internet, networking and thematic or general forums).(Estonian, 2004).
The role of the Education Forum in official educational policy has been different. On the forum
in Tartu in 2000 participated three ministers, on the forum in Viljandi in 2001 the minister of
education and his staff participated from the beginning to the end. Later ministers came only to
the opening ceremony. By 2006, the minister did not participate at all. Some members of the
Riigikogu (parliament) have participated on the forum, but usually more from the opposition
than from the coalition. In 2006 five factions of the Riigikogu participated on political debate
held in the end of the educational forum, the only missing fraction was the party of the minister
of education.

President Arnold Rüütel initiated in 2003 the working out and signing of a social contract
between political parties and other social institutions. There is a text, but it is not signed by the
biggest political parties and, as a result, this movement has become a pressure group
(Ühiskondliku, 2006, Ojap, 2005) and is acting in the same niche as the Educational Foorum.

For 6 years teachers, headmasters, politicians, scientists, parents and others interested in
educational issues have held discussions in an internet-based educational list. Now it is officially
the list of Estonian Educational Forum and the discussions are related with topics of national and
regional forums. There are 950 members, but only some 5% are regularly writing (Juurak, 2006).
Many letters have been published in newspapers. The discussions in the list are followed
suspiciously and many people have to write anonymously or privately to avoid sanctions from
their or their relatives` superiors.

When Tõnis Lukas was the minister of education he asked his staff to participate in the
discussion and give necessary information. It was a great support for the list when it started.
Later the letters from the ministry of education have been quite rare. Even members of the
Riigikogu (parliament) have been more active. At least six of them have written several times in
the list and informed about the activities of the Board of Education and Culture.

We may conclude that official democratic institutions in Estonia try to withdraw from
participative initiatives like Educational Forum, educational list when these initiatives become
more independent and do not carry out the official policy of the minister.

Some elements of participation remained in the fields that were not related with the distribution
of public money (alternative schools, private schools created by parents, step-by-step schools,
and omanäoline kool (a distinctive school), but the problem here was the dependence on foreign
donations. On the first level of participation people did not expect any extra money for their
activities, but now they have become accustomed to getting paid. On the other hand this change
created the barriers between the new initiatives (sponsored from abroad) and “ordinary“ or
mainstream schools that were financed by the state and local authorities.

School management in Estonia is still rather authoritarian. The headmaster is elected for five
years, but not by the teachers, parents or local council, but by a special commission. The
headmaster has the power to adopt the curriculum, hire and fire the teachers and decide their
working load and salary, etc. The only democratic or participative institutions regulated by the
law are the school board, the council of teachers and the students` self-government. School
boards include elected representatives of parents, teachers, students and one representative of the
school owner, but they have only consultative power. The council of teachers has the right to
decide several issues related with admission to the school, marks, etc. On the other hand we have
to remember, that all the regulations in these fields are adopted solely by the headmaster, (s)he is
also the chairperson of the council of teachers and all the teachers are dependant of the
headmaster. As a result the role of the teachers council differs form school to school, it may be an
additional tool in the hands of the headmaster or a free forum of teachers or a mix of the two.

In most of schools there are subject discipline sections of teachers of related subjects. In many
schools they use participative methods and teachers support each other a lot. In some schools
there are also separate councils of teachers for every class to coordinate their activities. In some
schools there are also committees of parents to support the efforts related with the class where
their children study. Usually these are “relics“ of the efficient participation from the end of the
Soviet period and official educational policy does not support or even recognize them.

Learning organisations (Nikkanen, 2005), inclusion (Skogen, 2004), peer orientation (Reunamo,
2004) and other modern concepts have officially introduced some aspects and elements of
participation to our schools, but these concepts are not closely related with the concepts of
democracy and participation. On the other hand we tend to forget or undermine our own
experience of participation in sustaining and development of our education.

These tendencies have not been noticed by our researchers and officials and sustainability
(Sustainable, 2004), democracy (Gustavsson, 2000) and participation are still dealt separately or
participative democracy is dealt with only as an addition to representative democracy (Haav,
2006) and not as a fundamental component of it.

Democracy and participation in Estonian schools

We sent a short questionnaire to all basic schools (grades 1- 9) and gymnasiums (grades 1-12) in
Estonia. (Primary schools, which are much smaller and usually have good participation of
teachers and parents already were excluded.) We asked schools to provide some cases of
democratic or participative activities at their schools. We also asked who was included in such
activities, who initiated them, what procedures were used, and what the results were.

Unfortunately, we received too few answers (10) for a quantitative analysis. One reason for the
low response rate may be that school leaders are not aware of the importance of democratic and
participatory experience in schools. Another reason may be that very few schools actually apply
democratic and participatory practices. One of the most revealing responses came from a well-
known and highly respected headmaster: he wrote that he does not see any relationship between
democracy, participation and the curriculum!

This was not the most disturbing response, however. We had this example:
Schools have a freedom to choose which students they want to teach. Sometimes it is
related with democratic rights, but more often with liberal policy (teachers have a right to
choose, whom to teach, parents have a right to choose a school). Having a selection for
the first grade is illegal, but until now, no parent has turned to the courts. All so-called
 elite schools have entrance tests and get paid by the state and the municipality even
though they violate the law. The result of such selection is polarisation of students and
very high number of drop-outs from school.

In this conception, democracy means freedom, including the freedom for schools to exclude
children! The idea that schools are publicly-financed institutions with a duty to serve the
country’s children is lost. Exclusion is the opposite of inclusion, and therefore also the opposite
of participation. Schools are making decisions about who will become part of the elite when
children are entering the very first class! And yet this discriminatory policy is framed as an
expression of freedom and democracy. By continuing to fund schools that are openly engaged in
illegal practices, the government is endorsing such exclusion. In a non-participatory system,
elites can make decisions that favor elites without worry of consequences.

We did receive some descriptions of interesting cases of inclusion and participation that
advanced our understanding of participation in the practice of Estonian education. Among the
most important elements was a regular opportunity for people to participate that did not involve
enormous time commitments. Another element was that people participated voluntarily and
were not paid for this work. A third key element that emerged in the participation was that there
was direct personal contact and communication with other people. Perhaps most importantly,
many of these cases involved people giving their time to help other people; this is the opposite of
using a system to pursue one’s own self-interest.

One of the interesting examples was the practice of development talks between teachers and
students and teachers. These talks were very successful, and were introduced into schools across
Estonia. The practice was so successful that it was formally instituted by the government. When
it became law, however, the type of participation transformed from voluntary to mandatory. This
change initiated some resistance among teachers, since some do not believe in the importance of
these talks and do not understand how to carry them out effectively.

The resistance of these teachers led to the implementation of false democratic procedures in
order to effectively eliminate real participation, such as existed before the law came into effect:
Teachers, who are teaching the same group of students (class) discuss how to support the
development of this group. Officially under the law the council of teachers should deal
with such things, but this council is too big (all teachers belong to the council), many
teachers are not related with this group and are not interested to spend their time on it.
Often it happens, that they vote as the headmaster wants and do not care of the interests
of students as they do not know these interests but know the proposal of the headmaster
chairing the council of teachers.

We had some examples of participation of parents with young children in seemingly small but
concrete activities that were very important and influential for the children:
Parents build together with their children a play-ground at school. Initiative came from
parents, they wanted better conditions for their children. If usually parents just pay or
only few parents are involved without kids, then in this case very important is the
participation of children in building a play-ground for themselves. This case was in a
small school in the country-side where there are still remained Estonian tradition of
 talgud (working together when it is more efficient than working separately).

Another positive example of very profound parental participation was this:

Rosma school (http://www.rosma.edu.ee/) was initiated by active parents who wanted for
their children better education. They attended different courses and found that Waldorf
pedagogy is the closest to their expectations. The school was founded in a building that
has been constructed by local initiative over a century ago. Parents participated in
repairing the building and some of them became teachers in this school.
In this example, participation in the school structure was not sufficient, and parents came
together and informed themselves about alternative forms of instruction and school philosophy,
ultimately choosing an approach that led to the most intensive participation imaginable: as
teachers in that very school.

Some of the most rewarding opportunities for participation link children of different ages
together. This provides real responsibility to older children, and opportunities to have
responsibility are often something lacking in schools for children.
High school students help basic school students. They say to their class teacher
(klassijuhataja) that they want to help others and in which subjects. Helpers are in all
subjects. Basic school students ask for help from their class teacher (subject teacher is not
involved) and gets the information about students, who have volunteered to help. They
learn together one hour and sometimes it is sufficient. Assistance may last one or two
weeks, but sometimes three or four months. One student helps 1-2 students.

In most cases, the initiative came from the top. We must therefore investigate why the
headmasters do not recognize activities that are initiated by teachers and students. One possible
reason for it may be the division of functions: different people are responsible for involvement of
students, teachers and parents and they pay attention only to their own target group.

Headmasters have involved teachers in working out development programmes and other
documents. Students have done proposals to change the school curriculum. One typical area for
Estonian schools is also environment protection, we got a description of a case where students
themselves organised different activities.

We may also conclude from these examples that school management should have many
opportunities for meaningful participation with a reasonable commitment of time. Participation
requires more time from headmasters and teachers. This may be a reason that school leaders are
hesitant to accept it. School masters also have authority as experts, and participation requires
decisions that involve people who are not experts. People who are not experts may have very
creative important suggestions, however. So headmasters need to be willing to compromise their
authority in certain situations.

The challenge of extending participation requires that school directors develop a new set of
skills, particularly the ability to engage people who are not involved and then the ability to foster
productive cooperation in others. One school director expressed it this way:
In Soviet times, there was no participation of parents. There was no need. The
 government said what was going to happen. Now, we want to get parents involved in the
schools. When they trained us to be teachers, they taught us our subject and teaching and
so on. Nobody ever taught us how to talk to parents. For me as a school director
working with teachers, for teachers working with parents, the idea of participation and
democracy in schools, it is all a matter of human relations. How do we talk to one
another?

Before we are able to address these skills directly, we must learn more about the attitudes of
school directors towards democracy and participation.

Conclusions

Democracy and participation are popular terms but in schools and in the education system we
have very few situations where these concepts are implemented. Democracy, as it is currently
practiced in Estonia, is unsustainable for schools, causes problems in the educational system and
schools and hinders the participation of students, parents and teachers. If we want to help our
students, we have to give them more realistic concepts of democracy, inclusion, involvement and
participation and enable them to get some experience in accordance with these concepts. The aim
should not be to give students and parents the right to choose the best school (“democracy”), but
students and parents should have real opportunities to participate in turning their school into the
best school for themselves and an essential part of their community. This is the only way to
manage the challenges of the 21st century.

Literature

Aarna, O. (2005). Kümme aastat haridusfoorumit ehk haridusstrateegiline protsess Eestis.

[Ten years of the educational forum or the strategic process of Estonian education]
21. sajandi haridus – kas haridus kõigile? [21st century education – education for all?] pp 7 – 24.
Tallinn: Eesti Haridusfoorum.
Adams, M. (2005). Kogukonda arendav kool. [A school developing the community] 21. sajandi
haridus – kas haridus kõigile? [21st century education – education for all?] pp 153-156.
Tallinn: Eesti Haridusfoorum lk 153-156
Baginsky, M and Hannam, D. (1999). School Councils: the Views of Students and Teachers.
London: NSPCC. February 20th, 2006,
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/Publications/Downloads/
SchoolCouncils_pdf_gf25467.pdf
Bealey, F. (1999) The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science: a user's guide to its terms.
Oxford; Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Beekhoven, S. & Dekkers, H. (2005). The Influence of Participation, Identification, and
Parental Resources on the Early School Leaving of Boys in the Lower Educational Track.
European Educational Research Journal, Volume 4, Number 3, 2005.
Bobbio, N. (1990) Liberalism and Democracy. London; New-York: Verso.
Children as Citizens: Education for Participation (2000) London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Dahl, R.A. (1989) Democracy and its Critics. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Dalton, R.J. (1988). Citizen Politics in Western Democracies: public opinion and political parties
 in the United States, Great Britain, West Germany, and France. Chatham (N.J.): Chatham
House Publishers.
Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy (2004). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Equity in European Educational Systems: a set of indicators (2005) European Educational
Research Journal, Volume 4 Number 2 2005, pp 1 151.
Estonian National Action Plan Education for All (EFA) (2004) Tallinn-Tartu:
Haridusministeerium. February 22nd, 2006, www.hm.ee
Fields, A.B., Feinberg, W. (2001). Education and Democratic Theory: Finding a Place for
Community Participation in Public School Reform. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Ginter, J. (1999) Adult education in rural areas. European Manual of Continuing Education.
Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag.
Gustavsson, B. (2000). Haridus kaasajal. Tõravere: Eesti Vabaharidusliidu Kirjastus.
Kaarel Haav (2006) Demokraatia Eesti ja Euroopa Liidu kodanikuhariduses. [Democracy in
Estonian and EU citizen education] Elukestev kutseõpe- sillad ja tõkked (lifelong
vocational training- bridges and obstacles), pp 113- 126. Tallinn: Eesti Haridusfoorum.
Held, D. (1992). Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hämäläinen, K., Taipale, A., Salonen, NM., Nieminen, T., Ahonen, J. (2004). Õppeasutuse
juhtimine (School management). Soinaste: El Paradiso.
Inclusion, Participation and Democracy: What Is the Purpose? (2003). Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E. J. (1991) Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina:
Interaction Book Company.
Juurak, R. (2006). Kodanik internetis. [A citizen in internet]. Elukestev kutseõpe- sillad ja
tõkked, pp 131- 156. Tallinn: Eesti Haridusfoorum.
Leading People in Change. Empowerment, Commitment, Accountability. (1993). National
Academy of Public Administration.
Loogma, K.(2005). Haridusmuutused Eestis: haridussotsioloogiline lähenemine. [Changes in
Estonian Education: approach of educational sociology] Eesti poliitika eile, täna, homme
(Estonian policy yesterday, today and tomorrow), pp 89-114. Tartu: Johannes Mihkelsoni
keskus.
Madge, N., Franklin, A. and Willmott, N. (2003) National Healthy School Standard and Pupil
Participation. February 22nd, 2006,
http://www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk/PDF/NHSS_research_summary.PDF
McGinn, N.F. and Epstein, E.H. (1999). Comparative Perspectives on the Role of Education in
Democratization. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Mintrom, M. (2001) Educational Governance and Democratic Practice. Educational Policy. Vol.
15 No. 5, November 2001 pp. 615-643
Mintz, J. (2006) Sustainable education. GreenMoneyJournal.com no 58
http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/article.mpl?newsletterid=21&articleid=195
Nikkanen, P., Lyytinen, H.K. (2005). Õppiv kool ja enesehindamine. Soinaste: El Paradiso.
Ojap, S. (2005). Haridusfoorum ja ühiskondlik kokkulepe. [Educational forum and public
Agreement] 21. sajandi haridus – kas haridus kõigile?[21st century education – education
for all?] pp 115-126. Tallinn: Eesti Haridusfoorum.
Osalus koolis. (2004). Õpetajate Leht 08.10.04
Ramirez, F.O., Rubinson, R. (1979). Creating members: The Political Incorporation and
Expansion of Public Education. National Development and World System, pp 72- 82..
The University of Chicago Press.
Reunamo, J. (2005). Peer Orientation in Kindergarten. Sustainable Development. Culture.
Education, pp 101- 110. Tallinn: TPU.
Robertson, D. (1993). The Penguin Dictionary of Politics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Skogen, K., Holmberg, J.B. (2004). Kohandatud õpe ja kaasav kool. [Adapted education and
inclusive school] Soinaste: El Paradiso.
Sterling, S (2003) Whole Systems Thinking as a Basis for Paradigm Change in Education:
Explorations in the Context of Sustainability. University of Bath.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/cree/sterling/sterlingthesisnoapp.pdf
Stout, J (2003). Democracy and Tradition. Princeton University Press.
Student Engagement at School: A Sense of Belonging and Participation, Results from Pisa 2000
(2003). Paris: OECD Publications.
Sustainable Development. Culture. Education .(2004). Tallinn: TPU.
Talts, L. (2001). Koolikeskkond- ühiskonna peegel või suletud maailm. [School environment- a
mirror of the society or a closed world]. Kasvatus ja aated. [Education and ideals] , pp
201-206. Tallinn: TPÜ.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. (2003). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tilk, M. (2005). Raha vaim ja võim koolis. [The spirit and power of money in school]. Haridus
muutuste ja traditsioonide keerises [Education in the whirl of changes and traditions], pp
48-55. Tartu: EAPS.
Voolaid, H. (2005). Veel kord koolifüüsikast. [Once more about the school physics] Õpetajate
Leht 16.12.2005
Ühiskondliku leppe sihtasutus. (2006) February, 22nd, 2006, www.lepe.ee/