Trust Children: an Analysis of Four Democratic Schools

TRUST CHILDREN: AN ANALYSIS OF FOUR DEMOCRATIC SCHOOLS

AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT EMERGED

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Graduate and Professional Studies in

Education

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Education

(Special Education)

Chase Baginski

SPRING 2019

Chase Baginski

TRUST CHILDREN:AN ANALYSIS OF FOUR DEMOCRATIC SCHOOLS

AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT EMERGED

A Thesis

Chase Baginski

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Elva Duran, Ph. D.

______, Second Reader Rachael A. Gonzales, Ed. D.

______Date

iii

Student: Chase Baginski

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

______, Graduate Coordinator______Albert Lozano, Ph.D. Date

Department of Graduate and Professional Studies in Education

Abstract

TRUST CHILDREN: AN ANALYSIS OF FOUR DEMOCRATIC SCHOOLS

AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT EMERGED

Chase Baginski

If teachers in the 21st century desire to create a critical impact on their students and democracy, then they must strive to make their classrooms more democratically centered. They must actively cultivate an experience within their classroom that fosters democracy for their students, allowing them to live and practice democracy from an early age. Democratic Education teaches students to be socially responsible and active citizens by allowing them to balance a greater amount of freedom and responsibility, preparing them for their roles as active and civic adults.

The purpose of this study was to explore the guiding principles of four democratic schools, compare their similarities, and to make recommendations for public school teachers who are interested in creating a more democratically centered classroom based on those similarities. The study examined the following four schools: Summerhill

School (1921), Sudbury Valley School (1968), Windsor House School (1971,) and

Lehman Alternative Community School (1974).

While it would be impossible for public school teachers to fully turn their classroom into a mini-democratic school, it is possible for them to implement strategies to increase democracy, especially in the vein of freedom and responsibility, in their classrooms. This range of strategies includes anything from rearranging the desk and tables in a classroom, to implementing Genius hours, cooperative learning, student- centered learning, and the use of UDL. If an educator wants to know if a strategy or action is going to move their class in a more democratic direction, all they have to do is ask “Is this going to offer my student more freedom in the class within the context of responsibility?” If yes, then that educator is moving towards democracy.

______, Committee Chair Elva Duran, Ph.D.

______Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the countless early weekend mornings and late weekday nights I spent away from my family to work on this document. I am forever in awe of my family’s unconditional love and acceptance of those lost hours in hopes of a better future. Kymber, my love, you are an inspiration and the adventure of my life.

Boys, I love you, and I can now spend Saturday morning with you making waffles.

I would also like to acknowledge the generosity, creativity, and continuous guidance of Dr. Gonzales. Without her help, my thesis would have never made the leap from my brain and onto paper. She saw the potential in my ideas, added new perspective constantly, and read and reread every draft and revision. Her encouragement, deadlines, and constant reminder to “breathe” were the only reason I reached the end of this project.

I would also like to thank Dr. Duran for her open door, honest opinion, and encouragement. Her advice was always direct, helping me to find a clear path to success.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgements………………,,,…………………………………………………. vii

List of Tables……………………...………………………………………………...... x

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION………………..…………….…………………………….………1

Background of the Problem…………………………………………….…..…... 2

Statement of the Research Problem….....……….………………….………..…..4

Methodology………………………………………………………………….….5

Definition of Terms.……………………………….………………….…………6

Justification……………………………………...……………….………………6

Limitations………………………………………………...……………….…….7

2. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY….…………………………………………….. 8

Waves of Democratic Education……..……………………………..…..……….9

Korkmaz and Erden’s Characteristic of Democratic Education…………...…...13

Critical Researchers in the Field of Democratic Education………...…….……15

viii

Conclusion……………….…..…………………………………………………20

3. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………...…..….. 22

Criteria Selection…………………………..………………….……..…..……..24

Selection of Schools………...……………….……………….….……….….....27

Data Collected Per School……….………..….…….…………………..………28

Conclusion………………………………………..……..……………………...40

4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS……...………………………………..42

Recommendations for Increased Democracy…..………………………………44

Conclusion…………………………………….………………………..………56

REFERNCES………………………………………...…………………………..…….59

LIST OF TABLES Tables Page

1. Democratic Categories Identified by Korkmaz and Erden………...…………...14

2. Gray’s Six Optimizing Conditions for Self-Directed Learning……………...... 19

3. Condensed Characteristics of Four Democratic Schools………………..…...... 25

4. Crucial Recurring Democratic Themes…………………………………...……40

5. Technology for Increasing Freedom and Responsibility………………..……...53

Chapter 1

Introduction

What is democracy? While first appearing as a simple question with a simple answer, individuals have different personal connotations attached to the word which complicates the meaning. Most commonly, democracy is defined as a “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority” and “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” (Democracy, para. 1, 2018). While this definition rings true, democracy encompasses more than a process of government; it is also a set of values and principles which help to create the foundations for a democratic way of life. These values guide citizens through their decisions and their interactions with others within their community. According to

Dewey, if individuals wish to secure their democratic way of life, then they must be given the chance to practice and learn about democratic principles early on in life

(1916a). Democratic principles may even need to be practiced as early as childhood. One extreme opportunity for individuals to practice democracy as children is called Democratic Education. When students spend roughly a quarter of their childhood in a classroom which does not give them a chance to participate in its governance, proponents of Democratic Education ask how can we expect them to grow up and meaningfully participate in a democracy. Instead, proponents of Democratic Education propose a classroom where students learn to be civically active democratic citizens where

2 they are allowed to have an equal say in the governance and operation of the school and their overall education.

Background of the Problem

Traditional schools and methods of education offer limited chances for students to practice democracy, a limited range of accepted and “official” school knowledge, and limited opportunities for students to be active in the making of their own education

(Apple & Beane, 2007). The education theorist Paulo Freire referred to this method of education in his powerful book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) as the banking model of education. He stated:

The teacher[‘s]...task is to ‘fill” the students with the content of his narration-- contents which are detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them and could give them significance...it turns [students] into ‘containers,’ into “receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by the teacher...Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor...this is the ‘banking’ concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filling, and storing the deposits (p. 74).

The banking model of education produces individuals who meet the needs of the current economic system-- individuals who consume, cooperate smoothly, who are standardized, who can be easily influenced, and who are easily filled and manipulated. Proponents of

Democratic Education seek to reverse the impact of the traditional method of education.

According to Apple and Beane, “A democratic curriculum invites young people to shed the passive role of knowledge consumers and assume the active role of meaning makers”

(2007, p. 7). Democratic Education encourages students to be active in their own understanding of the world, in their school’s decisions, in their community, and in their

3 own education. This form of education shapes individuals who are more active in the shaping of their own life and their world.

Democratic Education encompasses both the end goal and the method of education. Students who attend a democratic school learn to be socially responsible and active citizens, but they also participate in a method of education where they have an equal say in the governance of their school. According to Fahey, “The overachieving goal of Democratic Education is the happy, healthy, well adjusted, self-directed, self- actualizing person. Democratic Education cultivates such outcomes by freeing the emotional predispositions of all children to be the natural inquirers they are born to be. In other words, Democratic Education frees children to learn” (2008, p. 7). Besides the development of students with dignity and equality, Democratic Education proponents also expound as fundamental to their teaching philosophy the natural curiosity of children, their ability to achieve self-directed learning, and the innate ability for children to learn. Essentially, they trust children. They trust children to be the best guides of their own education, they trust children’s natural love of learning, and they trust children’s ability to teach themselves.

Though the history of Democratic Education and democratic schools reach back to the ancient Greeks, their current manifestation in America stems from the Free School movement of the 1960s and early 1970s. The Free School movement’s appearance on the education scene was directly tied, according to Gray a researcher at Boston College

(2017), to the anti-establishment movement of the time and the publication of two books. These two books were Growing Up Absurd (1960) by Paul Goodman and

Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing (1960) written by A. S. Neil. While

Goodman’s book fueled the intellectual foundation for the Free School movement, Neil’s book provided the movement with a positive alternative to examine and copy.

Summerhill School, founded by A.S. Neil in 1921, allows students to attend classes or the freedom to do another activity instead; students can also take equal part in the school wide governance meetings at any age. According to Gray, Summerhill School focuses on the enrichment of the individual child, his/her happiness, and their emotional development instead of only their academic achievements (2017). After the publication of Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing in the United States, the

Summerhill Society sprang up to share information about the incorporation of freedom in education. Around this time, Free Schools modeled after Summerhill School began to emerge around the United States. While it is hard to track the number of Free Schools which appeared in this time period, there was a sharp rise and fall beginning in the mid-

60s and going to the late 70s. Many of the Free Schools did not last past the beginning of the 70s. The Free Schools that emerged and are still operating laid the foundations for the

Democratic Education movement of today.

Statement of the Research Problem

Unfortunately, the Pew Research Center places voter turnout in the United States behind most of its democratic peers (Desilver, 2018). The United States is number 26 out of 33 in a cohort of similarly developed peers. If voter turnout continues to decline, so will democracy; after all, the United States cannot be “governed by the people” if the people refuse to turn out to govern. In 1916, Dewey said “Democracy must be born anew

5 every generation, and education is its midwife” (1916b, p. 122). Almost a hundred years later, Elderstein, founder and chairman of the German Society of Democratic Education, said that our schools are the only institution that can truly provide an opportunity to cultivate democratic experience for all children (2011). If teachers in the 21st century desire to create a critical impact on their students and democracy, then they must strive to make their classrooms more democratically centered. They must actively cultivate an experience within their classroom which fosters democracy for their students, allowing them to live and practice democracy from an early age. The alternative is a country run by the few, and a student body who are simple “containers” and “receptacles” for knowledge.

Methodology

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the guiding principles of four democratic schools and then, based on the previous exploration, to make recommendations for public school teachers who are interested in creating a more democratically centered classroom. This descriptive method of research focused on readily available data, analysis, and practical application in the classroom. The research examined Summerhill School (1921), Sudbury Valley School (1968), Windsor House

School (1971,) and Lehman Alternative Community School (1974). The researcher began by exploring a number of different democratic schools’ websites which led the researcher to search for a list of key principles of democratic schools. After searching

California State University, Sacramento’s online databases, the work of Korkmaz and

Erden (2014) was discovered and used as a foundation for examining the core principles

6 of each school. Data was then collected from each school’s website and a several peer- reviewed articles. Because of the limited nature of data on democratic schools, the majority of the information was retrieved from school websites, allowing the researcher an ease of access and a clear look into each school’s perception of themselves, their principles, and their understanding of democracy. The data was then analyzed for similarities between each school and to further provide a base for future recommendations.

Definition of Terms

Free School

A subset of schools, emerging out of the 60’s counter-culture, that aimed to nurture a child’s natural capacity to learn by allowing them freedom and the support of adults if needed in an enriched environment. Different levels of freedom and support exist in different schools (Graubard, 1972).

Democratic Schools

A group of schools, growing out of the Free School movement, that aimed to created democratic structures and processes within their governance and curriculum, allowing their students a democratic experience (Apple & Beane, 2007).

Justification

The aim of this study was to explore the similarities between guiding principles of

4 democratic schools, and from those similarities to establish a set of recommendations for public school teachers who are interested in creating a democratic environment within their classroom. This study was needed because it adds to the limited research available

7 in the field of democratic education. It will also provide a resource to public school teachers who wish to have a larger impact on their students and the future of the United

States as a representative democracy. If schools are supposed to be the environment where students can practice critical thinking skills and practice active democracy, then the current school system is doing a poor job of actively cultivating that environment for them (DeSilver, 2018; Freire, 1970). Instead, schools are cultivating the opposite: an environment where students’ actions only extend “as far as receiving, filling, and storing the deposits [of information]” (Freire, p. 74, 1970).

Limitations

There were several limitations to this study. First, the study relied on self- reported information found on school websites instead of interviews of students and staff at democratic schools. A second limitation was the lack of scholarship on Democratic

Education and, especially, the lack of scholarship on the impact of Democratic

Education.

Chapter 2

Background of the Study

A distinction needs to be made between democratic education and Democratic

Education. The idea of democracy stretches back to the Greeks and the city of Athens where citizens were expected to participate in the city's assemblies and instructed their children to do the same (Grinin, 2004). Over the ages, the concept of democracy has experienced subtle changes, emerging during the Enlightenment era in a more liberal and modern form than the ancient Greek form. These changes culminated in American democracy, specifically seen in the Declaration of Independence (Tarcov, 1996). While the definition varies, most Americans speak lovingly of democracy and its ability to help them reach the American dream. From the beginning, education in America and democracy has been linked, but a distinction needs to be made. This link has created democratic education (lowercase d and e,) which is, according to Engel, the process of facilitating “the growth of an enlightened citizenry by providing students with some knowledge of the government’s workings through social studies classes” (2008, p. 1).

This form of democratic education gives direct instruction on the principles of democracy, hoping to empower its students to be active and critical members of their democratic system after school. This is a key aspect of the education system in America.

Unfortunately, this form of democratic education unfolds in the classroom in a process less like a democracy and more like an authoritarian dictatorship where knowledge and power solely flow from the teacher (2008). Proponents of Democratic Education believe this form of instruction in democracy to be faulty; instead, they ask the question, “What

9 is the best way to prepare students for a life in a democratic society?” Democratic

Educators believe active participation in the school community/governance to be the best form of instruction in democracy. Students sharing control of their classroom and in the transfer of knowledge is at the foundation of Democratic Education. Unlike democratic education, which refers to a key aspect of almost all the schools in America, Democratic

Education and democratic schools refer to a select few schools in America and across the globe with democratic governance. The Windsor House School in Canada, the Sudbury

Valley School in Massachusetts, the Democratic School of Hadera in Israel, and

Summerhill School in England are just a few of the active Democratic Schools enrolling students today. These schools have been part of several different waves of democratic schools which have gained popularity over the years and helped shape the next generation of schools.

Waves of Democratic Education

The Progressive Education Wave

A. S. Neil, the founder of Summerhill School, laid the foundations of Democratic

Education and inspired future generations to follow (Gray, 2017; Neil, 1960). He belonged to the progressive education movement which lasted from the end of 1800s to the 1920s. Broadly considered one of the first democratic schools, Summerhill School began in 1921 in Suffolk, England as a co-educational boarding school. As reported by

Newman (2006), the school has had between 40 and 90 students over the years, ranging in age from six to 17. The school has several components which set it apart from traditional schools, inspired the Free School movement, and still inspires current

10 democratic schools and progressive educators today. First, the school operates as a democratic community which holds weekly meetings run by elected students. Because decisions at the school are made by a majority rule, including who is hired and fired, all students and teachers are encouraged to attend. Each person receives exactly one vote, whether they are a teacher, a student, or the founder of the school. A second component is students’ freedom to choose their own education. Students can pick which classes they want to attend and can even choose not to go to any classes at all. Lastly, Summerhill fosters emotional learning, leading to a foundation for academic learning. The school understands the end goal of education as the creation of happy and emotionally stable children.

The Free School Wave

During the 60s and 70s, a second wave of Democratic Education appeared. This wave was propelled by the high social tension at the time and publication of two books:

Growing Up Absurd (1960) by Paul Goodman and Summerhill: A Radical Approach to

Child Rearing (1960) by A. S. Neil. Goodman’s book provided the social and philosophical critique of modern culture and education, while Neil’s book provided an alternative in the form of a replicable educational model with almost 40 years of experience. Goodman, who was unknown except to intellectuals at the time, was a social thinker, activist, poet, psychoanalysis and philosopher who became well known with the publication of Growing up Absurd. This book laid down philosophical foundations not only for the Free School movement but also for most counter-cultural movements and individuals of the time. In a reflection on Growing up Absurd, Blake states that the book

11 is “an examination of youth disaffection in our affluent but spiritually empty society”

(2010, p. 21). Blake further observes that Growing up Absurd analyzed the breaking down of traditions and dissatisfaction of the modern youth when new traditions were not present to replace the ones from the prior generations. Goodman’s book was, Blake notes, an examination of meaninglessness in the wake of culturally destruction at the time, laying the basic philosophical foundations for counter-cultural movements to build upon.

The book Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing provided a radically new and usable approach for the dissatisfied educators and parents in America (Gray,

2017). It produced the meaning some in the education field were looking for. With this model in hand, educators and parents were armed with a blueprint to start their own schools based in freedom and responsibility. In 1964, four years after the publication of

Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing, the Summerhill Society was formed in the United States to spread Summerhill School’s idea of freedom with responsibility. In the United States, schools modeled after Summerhill School became known as Free Schools because of the freedom they provided their students. By 1971, the United States had 320 Free Schools; ten years earlier, there were none (2017). Cook, a reporter for the New York Times, captures the origins and excitement surrounding these schools in a 1964 article called New School Will Adapt Concepts of Summerhill. The article interviews an actor named Mr. Bean who started his own Summerhill style school with no past experience in the education field. The principle of a local public school was also interviewed for the article, and even he appeared enthusiastic about the opening of

12 the school: “I applaud his [Mr. Bean’s] efforts to promote the school and the Summerhill concept of freedom through responsibility,” (Cook, 1964, p. 12). During the interview,

Cook explored Mr. Bean’s motive for starting the school, “What impelled Mr. Bean to undertake such an ambitious program...was the conviction that if mankind was to survive, a profound change was required in the human animal.” Mr. Bean himself stated “I said to myself, we have to start with the children. Why not start a school?” (p. 14-15). This enthusiasm for democratic Free Schools continued until 1972 when the number of schools began to decline sharply. The movement had run its course.

The Democratic Education Wave

Gray reports that the Free School movement continued to decline until there were only 55 schools left in 1978 (2017). While the Free School movement slowed down by the late 70s, Democratic Education reappeared in the form of democratic schools with renewed strength in the late 90s and early 2000s. While it is difficult to calculate the exact number of democratic schools in America because they are often smaller schools and operate independently, there exists at least 182 of them according to the Alternative

Education Resource Organization (Democratic Schools, 2018,) but no official count exists by the U.S. Department of Education or any other official organization. With increased popularity and use of the internet though, different communities of democratic schools have been able to communicate and spread their ideas across the globe with increased success. For example, the International Democratic Education Network

(IDEN) currently sponsors conferences all over the globe. Other vibrant conferences supported by various regional groups such as the European Democratic Education

Community (EUDEC) and the Australian Democratic Education Community (ADEC) exist across several countries as well. Communities of progressive educators and parents continue to appear and spread throughout the world, using the internet as a tool to connect and spread their enthusiasm for Democratic Education.

Korkmaz and Erden’s Characteristic of Democratic Education

While no monolithic characterizations of the components of Democratic

Education exist (Apple & Bean, 2007; Balme & Bennis, 2008; Readhead,

2008), Korkmaz and Erden compiled the most thorough and researched based characterizations to date (2014). Korkmaz teaches at the Halic University in Turkey, researching the fields of alternative education and Democratic Education; Erden is the founder of Distinguished Kids Education Center and has done research in the field of education for the past 30 years. Using the delphi technique in their quantitative study,

Korkmaz and Erden identified the main characteristics of democratic schools based on the views of experts in the field, including employees/founders of democratic schools, academics studying democratic education, and members of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working in the field of democratic education. The delphi technique works by finding consensus amongst a group of experts; in this case, there was

22 experts from nine different countries who participated in three rounds of questionnaires with controlled opinion feedback. At the end of the third round, 339 items were identified as being characteristics of democratic schools spread over 12 different categories. A brief description of each category and its title identified by Korkmaz and

Erden are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Democratic Categories Identified by Korkmaz and Erden

Category: Description:

Values and Democratic school must instill democratic values and be based Philosophy on a democratic philosophy

Collaborative Roles of learner and teacher are interchangeable Learning Organization

Founding Process Democratic schools do not give the founders of the schools authority over the functioning and policies of the school

Participatory Direct participation of individuals in the school’s decision Decision Making making process sets the school apart from other alternative Process schools

School Policy All members of the school can have an impact on school’s Making policies because of the decision making process

Curriculum Learner based, allows for flexibility, active participation, and individualization according to the learners needs

Learners Similar roles and rights as adults and are considered active elements of the school

Teachers Recognize the ideals of Democratic Education and embrace learner-centered education

Non-Teaching Should believe in the democratic structure of the school and Staff individual responsibility

Relations with Focuses on social projects, invites experts to the school, and Society collaborates with the community through projects

Physical Property Cultivate a sense of community

Financial Transparent/Open and accessible to families from various Resource socioeconomic backgrounds Management (Kormkaz & Erden, 2014).

Overall, democratic schools are characterized as a community of individuals with equal power relationships who participate and collaborate in openness and aim for a learner based education which develops and enhances the individual, the school community, the wider community, and society as a whole.

Critical Researchers in the Field of Democratic Education

Daniel Greenberg

As interest in Democratic Education grows, so does the need for research in the field as well as commentary on past ideas and leading figures. Daniel Greenberg is an educator who has been researching and proselytizing Democratic Education for the past fifty years (Holzman, 1997). Greenberg taught at Columbia University and was a founder at the Sudbury Valley School, while also being a prolific writer in the area of

Democratic Education. Greenberg specifically has written at least 19 books on education with the majority of them containing accounts of Sudbury Valley School with titles such as Free at Last: The Sudbury Valley School (1995). His writings are focused on explaining Sudbury Valley School and its model of organization.

Liba Engel

Another critical researcher in the field of Democratic Education is Liba

Engel. She is a professor of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at Queens

College where she researches Democratic Education, the work of Janusz Korczak, and the Hadera Democratic School in Israel (Engel, 2013). Her areas of specialization include Instruction and Curriculum. Her publications include Democratic Education in

Practice: A Case Study of the Democratic School, Hadera, Israel. She has also published

A Case Study: Implementation of Janusz Korczak’s Pedagogy in the Democratic School and Experiment in Democratic Education: Dewey’s Lab School and Korczak’s

Children’s Republic. The core of Engel’s research explores and expands on the work of

Janusz Korczak, an educator and author in the early 20th century, including his influence on educators like A. S. Neil. Engel is also one of the few researchers currently creating case studies connected to democratic schools.

Michael Apple

Another major researcher and writer in the field of Democratic Education is

Michael Apple at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Professor of Curriculum,

Instruction, and Educational Policy Studies, Apple writes about power relationships, ideology, knowledge, Democratic Education, and what it means to be a critical scholar

(Apple & Beane, 2007). As a critical theorist, Apple analyzes the current inequality in the education system and seeks liberation through empowerment and Democratic

Education. A few of his major works include Can Education Change Society? and

Education and Power. He has also published Global Crises, Social Justice, and

Education and The Routledge International Handbook of Sociology of Education. Two more of his books include The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education and Democratic Schools with James Beane. Apple’s work in the field of education, empowerment, and Democratic Education is invaluable to anyone working towards a critical understanding of the education system.

Paulo Freire

A pioneer in critical literacy and critical pedagogy, Paulo Freire saw the potential of freedom through education. He strongly believed, according to McLaren, that education and politics could not be separated, that teaching and learning were political acts, and that there was no neutral pedagogy or teacher (1999). In Freire’s view, educational change could not happen unless there was also significant change happening in the political and social structures surrounding the education system. While not directly tied into the Democratic Education movement, Freire’s philosophy and pedagogy are often cited by democratic schools and educators alike because of his scathing critique of the traditional school system and because of the connection he draws between politics and education. If Freire is correct and no form of pedagogy or teacher is neutral, then it would be better for all teachers to teach with a democratically centered classroom in mind than to fall on the side of the oppressor. If there is no neutral stance, then it is better to choose the democratic one. Freire wrote over 20 books in his lifetime on the topics of education and pedagogy, including Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Education, the Practice of Freedom, Pedagogy of the City, and Politics and Freedom.

John Holt

In a review of Holt’s work and impact, Lant states that an overview of

Democratic Education would be incomplete without the work of John Holt, especially his book How Children Learn (Lant, 1976). Although Holt did not directly support

Democratic Education in How Children Learn, the book supported and examined self- directed learning, which is a main characteristic of Democratic Education. Filled with

18 interactions and observations of children playing, learning, and experimenting, How

Children Learn was published in 1964. Dispersed between the observations and interactions is Holt’s attempt to understand why and how children behave the way they do. According to Holt, the book is more “concerned with describing effective learning than explaining it (1964, p. x). While the book is not concerned with explaining learning in terms of electrical impulses and chemical inputs and outputs, a theory of learning does emerge. Holt summarizes this theory in an interview with Dr. Bumgarner, an author and professor of developmental psychology and educational theory, “the human animal,” Holt states in the interview, “is a learning animal; we like to learn; we need to learn; we are good at it; we don't need to be shown how or made to do it...What kills the processes are the people interfering with it or trying to regulate it or control it” (Bumgarner, 1981, pp.

2). Even more to the point, Holt in the preface to How Children Learn states that the whole book can be summed up in two words: “trust children” (1964, p. viii). Because all children are learners developing at their own pace, Holt encourages parents and educators to allow children self-directed time to observe and do the activities they are most interested in.

Peter Gray

Peter Gray is a psychologist at Boston College and a trustee at Sudbury Valley

School (2013). While he has worked with Greenberg on many projects in the past (Free

At Last), he also has an interest in the subject of play and self-directed education. He explores these areas with a psychological and biological perspective. While producing articles connected to Sudbury Valley School, Gray is also interested in a wider area of

19 research, including children's natural ways of learning and the importance of play in their development. He is also founder of the site Alliance for Self-directed Education and has written numerous research papers (Special Value of Age-Mixed Play, Nature’s Powerful

Tutors, and Play as the Foundations for Hunter-Gatherer Social Existence), books

(Freedom to Learn, Ancestral Landscapes in Human Evolution, and Psychology), and publications for Psychology Today (Toddlers Want to Help and We should Let them).

As a top researcher in the field of self-directed learning and evolutionary psychology, Gray has published on the necessity of play and self-directed time as the primary condition for children to learn. Based on his research of hunter gatherer cultures,

Gray (2016) compiled a list of 6 conditions for self-directed learning which he titled The

Six Optimizing Conditions (see Table 2). These conditions provide a blueprint for those wishing to utilize self-directed learning, but they also provide evidence and research for the importance of learning in a self-directed way. According to Gray and his research,

Table 2 identifies the conditions necessary for children to maximize their natural drive to learn.

Table 2

Gray’s Six Optimizing Conditions for Self-Directed Learning

Conditions Description

Responsibility Children enter the world exploring and learning naturally and must for their own continue to be convinced that their curiosity, play, and questions education are the driving factors of their learning.

Unlimited time This allows time for children to deeply immerse themselves in their to play, explore, passions and to learn how to take control of their own life.

and follow their own interests

Opportunity to In modern culture, children need the opportunity (with safety in play with tools mind) to play with computers, books, woodworking equipment, of their culture cooking utensils, and sporting equipment amongst other tools.

Access to caring Historically, children have not been segregated from adults; and non- instead, they have observed adults and incorporate adult activities judgmental into their play. adults

Allowed to Children have not historically been segregated by age groups freely play with either. Age-mixed play has many benefits, including continuous different age learning of new skills and more advanced modes of thinking. children

Engaged in a Through the community, children learn to take part in the supportive and democratic process and how to take care of others. They learn how stable to relate, disagree, influence, and be responsible not only for community themselves but also for a larger community of people. (Gray, 2016).

While adults do not have the role of director in a self-directed learning community whether at home or at a democratic school, they are responsible for providing the environmental conditions discussed above to maximize a child’s ability to self-direct their learning. They are facilitators of the environment instead of bankers making deposits.

Conclusion

If public school teachers are to work towards a more democratically centered classroom, then it is important for them to observe and study schools who display this structure both in the whole school and on a classroom level. It is also important for them to understand the larger concepts and stories of these schools, their evolutions, and the similarities they hold in common. Besides knowing the background of democratic

21 schools and their progressive waves, it is also crucial for teachers to know the main characteristics of democratic schools and the critical researchers who are involved in the field, so they can be informed on how to shape their classroom and where to do further research if they are interested. If a movement of teachers are going to increase the level of choice and democracy their students experience in the classroom, then it is necessary for them to know how like-minded teachers in the past have incorporated democracy in their class, allowing the current teachers to make an even brighter path for the future.

Chapter 3

Methodology

Democratic Education is an approach to learning which focuses on students having more choice and responsibility in the classroom. It inspires students to be more democratically active citizens by allowing them to make decisions about their own learning and the governance of the school they attend. Democratic schools, such as

Summerhill School and Sudbury Valley School, do this by being learner centered, having a participatory decision making process, and creating a balance between responsibility, respect, and freedom. Democratic schools hope to produce students who are problems solvers, critical thinkers, and innovators; students who are prepared for the 21st century.

Again, Apple and Beane state “A democratic curriculum invites young people to shed the passive role of knowledge consumers and assume the active role of “meaning makers’”

(2007, p. 7). The purpose of this study was to review the similarities and core characteristics of four democratic schools and how they engage young people to become

“meaning makers” and individuals ready for the 21st century. After reviewing these democratic schools, recommendations were made for teachers who are interested in inviting students to have a greater balance of responsibility and freedom in their classrooms.

Research for this study happened in several stages. The researcher began by reviewing the history of Democratic Education, democratic schools, Free Schools, and the key educators in this field such as Greenberg, Engel, Freire, Apple, and Gray. This information lead the researcher to search for a defining article or book on the

23 characteristics of Democratic Education. While searching for this information, the researcher found that there was very little conclusive information on the defining characteristic of Democratic Education or democratic schools, and, further, the information that was available varied between authors. After searching several online databases, the researcher found the work of Korkmaz and Erden (2014). Utilizing

Korkmaz and Erden’s pioneering study as a criteria, the researcher was then able to examine various schools for similarities amongst their characteristic, settling on the

Windsor House School and Lehman Alternative Community School. The researcher also selected The Summerhill School and Sudbury Valley School because of their significance in the history of Democratic Education.

After selecting the schools, data was collected through each schools’ website. School websites were used as the primary source of data for several reasons.

First, each school had an informative and vigorous website, allowing for a convenient sampling. Second, the Democratic Education field is very small, and there is only a small amount of research available on a very few schools. Last, the researcher wanted to use information from the schools and students themselves, and not from a third party or observer, and, at this time, the school websites were the best source of information available. The data was then collected from each website, compared with Korkmaz and

Erden’s (2014) criteria and arranged into Table 3. Using Table 3, the researcher was then able to draw out five recurring characteristics that are essential to a strong democratic school. These characteristics were then used to guide the recommendations made for public school teachers.

Criteria Selection

While there is a shortage of formal information on democratic schools, there is an especially large gap in available information on practical and concrete ideas to incorporate democratic practices into traditional classrooms. The purpose of this research, therefore, was to identify the nuances and difference within democratic schools, and use the information to better inform the researcher’s recommendations and guidelines for those interested in incorporating democratic principles into their traditional classrooms through the utilization of responsibility and freedom.

Based on the literature surrounding democratic schools, the Korkmaz and Erden delphi study (2014) was identified as the best possible criteria to use in the review of schools, their characteristics, and their various nuances. This study was chosen because of its reliance on experts in the field of Democratic Education. There is also a limited amount of quantitative studies in the field of Democratic Education--especially in the case of main characteristics (or categories.) Viewing the available options, the researcher found Korkmaz and Erden’s study to meet the required qualities for creating the criteria for the study. In the original study, Korkmaz and Erden discussed twelve categories and a varying number of subcategories of characteristics. Reviewing these categories, the researcher shortened the list to seven categories by combining categories and focusing only on the essentials. For example, the researcher excluded the categories of “Teaching

Staff” and “Nonteaching Staff” because no recommendations for public school teachers could be made based on these two categories. The researcher also combined the

25 categories of “Decision Making-model” and “Policy Forming” to create the category of

“Decision and Policy Making” because the two categories are dependent upon each other.

The researcher also excluded “Physical properties” and “Financial resource management” because of the limited amount of data available from all four schools in these categories. The remaining categories were deemed essential because of their importance in making recommendations or for a historical understanding of the school.

Table 3

Condensed Characteristics of Four Democratic Schools

Founding Funding: Decision and Policy Learners Roles and Rights: School: Process: Making:

Korkmaz Collaborativ Transparent Democratic decision Responsible for learning and and Erden’s e process. Accessible. making process (direct behavior. Findings: role) Small group Sliding scale. Respects community. of founders. Rules and policies developed by the Embraces democratic Democratic community. principles. vision.

Summerhill Single Funded by School assemble Equal status. School: Founder School tuition. makes rules /policies. Freedom versus license. No sliding scale. All individuals have Active in the community. one vote at assemblies.

Sudbury Collaborativ Founded by Democratic decision Blend of liberty and Valley e process. school tuition. making process responsibility. School: Small group No sliding Community input. of founders. scale.

Democratic vision/uncle ar at start

Windsor Founded in Funded through Democratic Seven core principles: House 1971 public funds Governance respect, self- determination, School: democratic governance, Unclear multi-age grouping, parent founding participation, process accountability, and freedom with responsibility

Lehman Founded in Funded through Democratic Use of freedom responsibly Alternative 1974 public funds Governance Community School: Rallied Family groups support in the district

School: Values and Philosophy: Relationship with Society: Curriculum:

Korkmaz and A democratic vision. Social projects, visiting experts, Freedom of learners Erden’s and projects with greater (learner-led learning.) Findings: Democracy in values community. and structure. Open to change and Love of nature and active negotiation. lifestyle.

Summerhill Democratic vision for Project Based. Non composilary classes. School: almost a century. No direct community outreach. Community based learning.

Learning outside classrooms.

Sudbury Democratic vision A constantly improving model No classes Valley School: No direct outreach Learner based learning

Windsor Democratic vision Community based learning No curriculum House School: Freedom with Nature Based Self- determination Responsibility

Lehman Use of freedom Philosophy based on Learner choices course of Alternative responsibly sustainability, service, and study Community social justice School: Classes and schedule

Selection of Schools

The four schools selected to be reviewed for this study were Summerhill School

(1921), Sudbury Valley School (1968), Windsor House School (1971), and Lehman

Alternative Community School (1974). They were selected based on their ability to operate sustainably as an individual democratic school for at least 43 years. Summerhill

School was selected because of its notoriety and importance as the oldest democratic school. The Sudbury Valley School was selected as representative of the Free School movement of the late 60’s. Lehman Alternative Community School and the Windsor

House School were selected because they are both publicly funded democratic schools. These four schools also all have an expansive website covering their core beliefs and how they operate as a school. A majority of democratic schools were rejected for this study because of a shortage of available information about them, whether in the form of websites, articles, or books. The researcher used an online database of democratic schools to create a list of possible schools, and then reviewed each school with Korkmaz and Erden’s criteria in mind. The researcher initially explored each school’s website, taking notes on the outline and location of possible key information. Later, the researcher went to each website again with the list of criteria, taking detailed notes for each category. Finally, the researcher compiled all the information one school at a time, creating Table 3 for a quick reference. Besides the table, the researcher also expanded on all seven characteristics within each school (the

Funding Process of Summerhill School for example), giving a much longer explanation of each characteristic and how they play out within each school. This quick reference

28 was created to display the connection between each school and the condensed list of characteristics created by Korkmaz and Erden (2014) as well as to discovery any essential recurring elements within all four schools.

Data Collected Per School

Summerhill School

Founding process.

A.S. Neil was the founding force behind Summerhill school. As an educator and writer, he pioneered an approach to school which is still ahead of its time. Approaching its 100th year anniversary, Summerhill School was originally founded in a suburb of

Dresden in 1921 (Summerhill: the early years, 2017). Neil moved the school several times before settling in Suffolk England in 1927. For the next 52 years, Neil remained the principal and driving force behind the school. Summerhill School’s founding circumstances are unique because it is the first democratic school. It does not follow the usual process found by Korkmaz and Erden; instead, it has a strong founding figure who began the school and lead it for most of its existence.

Funding process.

There is no easily accessible breakdown of the school’s financials on their website, and any individuals interested in enrolling must call the school for tuition information. While Summerhill welcomes students from all different income levels, and their website states that they award some money to existing students to help with school fees (A. S. Neil Summerhill Trust, 2017,) they also officially state that “unfortunately the school has no bursary fund to assist with fees. We receive no help financially from

29 outside the school and must rely entirely upon our fees” (Summerhill-Questions &

Answers, 2017, para. 45).

Policy and decision making process.

Summerhill proclaims that “the daily life of the school is governed by the school meetings [assemble,] usually held twice a week in which everybody has an equal vote”

(About Summerhill, 2017). All of the school’s rules and policies are organized and created at the meetings; various committees also help to organize functions throughout the school. The meetings are also used to solve community issues like misbehaving and bullying. When a problem arises at the school, the students will vote in a new rule or policy to mediate the problem. Sometimes the rule will last and other times the rule will be voted out next meeting. These meetings are usually held twice a week.

Learner roles and rights.

At Summerhill School, their students learn to take responsibility for their own actions. The school also states that their students learn to consider others' points of view, to make decisions about the future, and to have persistence in reaching those decisions

(About Summerhill, 2017). As a democratic and self-governing school, the students and adults at Summerhill enjoy equal status. This is especially true in the school meetings where difficulties can be aired and solved communally. In charge of their own education, students are free to attend lessons or occupy a space or room for as long as they want. They are responsible for their own learning and for their behavior; although, the adults at Summerhill do explain the difference between freedom and license. The students are taught that they live in a community and they need to think about other’s

30 freedom as well as their own. If a student oversteps their freedom, the community meeting will solve the problem.

Values and philosophy.

As the self-proclaimed oldest and most renowned democratic school, Summerhill

School has incorporated democracy into its structure and values for almost a century, believing that students should learn about democracy, their own rights, and those of other students and staff. Through this process, they believe that students “learn to take responsibility for themselves and for others” more than they would if they attended a traditional school where “adults decide almost everything” (Summerhill - Questions and

Answers, 2017).

Relationship with society.

Summerhill School utilizes project-based learning, but there is no evidence of an established relationship with the wider community on their website (About Summerhill,

2017). The school, does however, have an outreach program which includes an external affairs committee of students who often take part in conferences, children's rights programs, and workshops in schools and colleges. Summerhill is also built within twelve acres of garden and woodlands, which includes ample space and opportunity for an active outdoor lifestyle. According to their website, the students spend many hours cycling, building huts, climbing trees, camping, and playing imaginative games. The school grounds also contain a swimming pool for summer play, a tennis court, a playing field, and a basketball area.

Curriculum.

Summerhill School believes that classes should be non-compulsory and that learning happens everywhere (Summerhill - an Overview, 2017). The students freely choose their classes and activities for the day; although, there are rules which limits them from sleeping the whole day, watching TV during class hours, or having screen time during classes. These rules and policies were, of course, agreed upon during the school meetings and put in place by the students (Summerhill - Questions and Answers, 2017).

Summerhill School believes that living in a democratic community is the best possible curriculum for students, creating an invaluable learning experience where students become empathetic, creative, and passionate life-long learners.

Sudbury Valley School

Founding process.

Sudbury Valley School was founded in Framingham, Massachusetts by a group of educators and parents who were dissatisfied with existing schools in their area. Choosing innovation over reform, the school’s founders sought feedback from the community and the broader public for their educational enterprise. During the school’s first summer session in 1968, 130 students signed up to attend the school which was still in the process of laying its philosophical and practical foundations (Greenberg, 2016). According to the school’s website, the first few years at Sudbury Valley School were difficult because the staff, the parents, and the students were working towards discovering their new model of education. Over a period of years, the founders and the community reached a consensus on the school’s core values, including a blend of liberty and responsibility, a

32 democratic vision, learner based learning, and a constantly improving model of education.

Funding.

Under funded from the start, the staff at Sudbury Valley went unpaid the entire first year (Greenberg, 2016). During the first year, tuition cost $700 per student, and the second year it was raised to $950 per student. Currently, tuition is $10,000 a year for the first child in a family, $8,700 for the second, and $7,400 for any additional child. There is no sliding scale or adjusted rate for children from low-income families.

Decision and policy making process.

At Sudbury Valley School, meetings are held weekly to determine the school’s budget, hiring of staff, rules of behavior, and to delegate other decisions to lower committees (Greenberg, 2016). Each staff member and student has an equal vote in the meetings and, therefore, in the running of the school. Another committee Sudbury Valley utilizes in its democratic governance process is the judicial committee which establishes justice, behaviors expectations, and solves disagreement. Each student is expected to take their turn and participate in the committee throughout the year.

Learner roles and rights.

A unique blend of liberty and responsibility is Sudbury Valley’s hallmark phrase. Like most democratic schools, they have to balance between the two ideas without leaning too heavily on either one (Theory, n.d.) For example, students are given the responsibility to design their own daily schedule, regardless of their age. The school does not require them to follow any criteria or take any assessments on their learning, but

33 the school judicial committee does create rules to protect individual liberties. A critical component at the school is that students are the initiators of their learning, and the teachers are there to answer questions and guide along the way.

Values and philosophy.

Sudbury Valley is a hands-on training grounds for students living in a democracy, and they continue to spread the message of democratic schools as much as they can. From the beginning, democracy and the practice of democracy was planned into the structure of the school. Daniel Greenberg, one of the founding members of the school, stated that:

As believers in democracy, we take upon ourselves the . . . responsibility of

seeing to its continuation. How then are we to educate for democracy in those

schools where we set out to do so? . . . To educate successfully for democracy, the

real life surroundings of the children we seek to educate must be democratic in

every respect, through and through, to the core and down to the last detail. The

world of the children we want to reach must be a democratic reality, so the

children wishing to master it will have no choice but to master the whole intricacy

of its democratic structure. Education for democracy demands democratic

schools. There is no other way to make it effective (2000, p. 73).

At Sudbury Valley School, the students have been balancing liberty and responsibility since the schools beginning. Every part of the school’s philosophy and values incorporates democracy and giving students choice.

Relationship with society.

While Sudbury Valley simply started out as a school planning to innovate and redefine its model as time progressed, they became a new approach and working model of Democratic Education across the world (Greenberg, 2016). By the early 90’s, the school was approached by several groups interested in using the model to open their own school. Sudbury Valley agreed to allow these groups to observe the school and their inner workings. In 1994 the school held its first workshop, hoping to create a community around shared ideas, experiences, and a new model of education. By 2008, sixteen schools were participating in the workshops. Although the model is growing, the founders at Sudbury Valley School are adamantly against creating a rigid model for others to follow. They are not “proselytizers;” instead, they are setting a model of continuous improvement for others to follow.

Curriculum.

Sudbury Valley School does not enforce a curriculum; infact, they view curriculums as counterproductive and a barrier to the students’ learning (Greenberg,

2018). The teachers, according to their website, do not want to transfer their own ideas onto the students. The students, as previously mentioned, are the initiators of their own learning; they are responsible for their own learning and their time. Instead of gaining factual knowledge through the teachers, the students are encouraged to be creative and original, in essence, creating their own curriculum.

Windsor House School

Founding process.

Windsor House School was founded in 1971 in a period that saw the beginning of a number of democratic schools such as Sudbury Valley School and Albany Free

School. Windsor House is a publicly funded democratic school in the Gulf Islands

School District, North Vancouver, British Columbia. Because they are publically funded, tuition is free; although, they do ask for a $10-$100 monthly donation” (FAQ,

2016). Families are also asked to volunteer at the school on the weekends, during school hours, or after school in ways that reflect their own skills or experience such as work parties, committee meetings, and school activities.

Decision and policy making process.

Windsor House lists Democratic Governance as a critical part of their school

(Core Principles, n.d.) As part of the school’s governance, teachers, students and parents participate in a school council meeting and a judicial council (see Table 3). The school council meets once a week and all members of the school can participate in the meeting and have one vote in the meeting. Younger students are encouraged to come and participate in the discussions and vote for the issues that impact them. The school council is also the vehicle that runs the day to day decision making processes of the school.

Learner roles and rights.

Windsor House values freedom with responsibility. This means that students are free to steer in their own direction, create their own motivation, and their process of

36 education, but they are also responsible for following the community standards and intentions created by the school council (FAQ, 2016). As part of their democratic practice, students are responsible for creating a portfolio instead of relying on grades and assessments from teachers.

Values and philosophy.

Windsor House School draws its education philosophy from more than one source or person (Core Principles, n.d). According to their core principles, Windsor House’s philosophy is research based and reveals several principles which are essential to the success of their students. These seven principles include: profound respect, self- determination, democratic governance, multi-age grouping, parent participation, freedom with responsibility, and accountability. As seen in Table 3, these seven principles are also reflected in the Korkmaz and Erden study (2014) and the other three democratic schools.

Relationship with society.

Windsor House titles itself as a community-based learning school where they seek to connect learning inside the school with the “real world” beyond the school (About

WHS, n.d). They also display a wide variety of outdoor learning and adventures throughout their videos and blog.

Curriculum.

Because one of Windsor House’s core principles is self-determination, students can create their own education throughout the school year. There are no required classes or schedules: instead, students can work on an apprenticeship in the community, creative

37 projects, or academic projects. Windsor House believes that students who are self- directed are more motivated and engaged with their educational goal, resulting in students who are well equipped to join the real world after school because they can direct themselves and act in an autonomous way (Core Principles, n.d).

Lehman Alternative Community School

Founding process.

Started in 1974 by a group of teachers and parents in Ithaca, New York, Lehman

Alternative Community School (abbreviated as LACS) is a 6-12th grade school dedicated to creating an empowering, relevant, and democratic experiences for their students. It is part of the City School District along with other traditional schools in the Ithaca area. In

1987, LACS joined the Coalition of Essential Schools, a national school reform movement focusing on “Less is More---Depth over Coverage,” “Student as Worker--

Teacher as Coach,” and “Demonstration as Mastery” (About LACS’ History, n.d). The school has worked to develop its own set of high school graduation requirements and evaluation process called Graduation by Exhibition. This unique form of graduation requirements is an outcome-based assessment which focuses on portfolios and the performance of skills and knowledge.

Funding process.

As part of the City School District in Ithaca New York, the school is funded through a mixture of local municipalities and state/federal taxing agency and entities. It is funded the same as any public middle or high school in America.

Decision and policy making process.

LACS expounds the principles of a democratic school, including the use of a weekly all school meetings to discuss and propose changes to the school. For instance, the school has discussed changing to a block schedule, but the meeting has not reached the ⅔ vote required to make a change (About Our Alternativeness, n.d). The school also has an Alternative Community Court (ACC) which justly works through any discipline issues at the school. Every student also participates in a Family Group designed to guide students through the school process and teach them to live cooperatively with each other. These groups are similar to a homeroom at a public school, but they are specifically designed to foster democracy and community.

Learner roles and rights.

Students at LACS are responsible for developing their own course of study and are encouraged to use freedom responsibly. They are also encouraged to make educational choices appropriate to their development (About Our Alternativeness, n.d).

Instead of a credit requirement or an exit exam, students are expected to create a portfolio for middle school called Promotion Exhibition. They are also expected to create another portfolio in high school called Graduation Exhibition. These portfolios offer students an opportunity to demonstrate mastery. When discussing their philosophy, the school states

“each student can excel through self-discipline, community support, and respect for people of all ages as educators and fellow learners” (LACS Footbook, 2018, p. 54).

Values and philosophy.

While LACS operates as a democratic school, they also believe that students should make education decisions “appropriate to their individual levels of development

(LACS Footbook, 2018, p. 54) meaning that some decisions are also not appropriate for different levels of development. They also have to balance belonging to a public school district and the possible democratic limits which go along with it. From reviewing their website and their Footbook (guidebook,) it becomes clear that they value depth-learning, the natural world, student responsibility, service, social justice, project based-learning, thinking critically, and the idea of the community-run school (About Our Alternativeness, n.d).

Relationship with society.

Out of the four schools reviewed, LACS has the most vibrant and visible relationship with the surrounding community. As a school, they are dedicated to sustainability, service, and social justice (About Our Alternativeness, n.d). According to the Footbook, they are “concerned about recycling, reusing, composting, conserving energy, and feeding ourselves with locally-grown food” (2018, p. 55). To the best of their abilities, the school works with the local Youth Farm to provide food for their lunch program. The humanities curriculum also encourages social and critical thinking with courses titled “Facing History and Ourselves,” and “Civil Rights Literature”. Throughout the year, students also have required hours of service and outdoor trips which include activities like rock climbing, canoeing, and biking (About Our Alternativeness, n.d).

Curriculum.

While LACS allows students to create their own course of study, they do have a curriculum and graduation requirements. For example, a required class in middle school includes "Habits of Responsibility for a Self-Directed Learner” (About Our Alternatives,

40 n.d). Most of the classes are integrated, leading to a more holistic approach where math and science are taught at the same time, or social science and English language arts. Classes are also heterogeneous, including multiple grades at once. LACS also believes that some of the best learning can happen outside the classroom, including apprenticeships, service hours, community projects, and whole school Trip Weeks.

Conclusion

While Korkmaz and Erden (2014) found twelve characteristics of democratic schools, the researcher for this study condensed that list to seven characteristics as shown in Table 3. The list can be condensed even more based on four recurring characteristics found in the examination of the four democratic schools. According to all four schools reviewed in this study, the four characteristics identified in Table 4 are essential to a strong democratic school. These characteristics include the following:

Table 4

Crucial Recurring Democratic Themes

Title Description

Recurring Theme 1 Equal status for teachers and learners (everyone is a learner)

Recurring Theme 2 A balance of freedom and responsibility (choice)

Recurring Theme 3 Democratic governance (student councils)

Recurring Theme 4 Student-centered learning (learner centered)

A strong democratic school works to blend the roles of teacher and learner while also providing opportunities for students to balance freedom and responsibility. This happens within the context of democratic governance where students are held responsible

41 for each other (student councils) and their wider community. Within this community, instruction is always student-centered where the students are co-creators and in charge of their own learning. While public schools may not be able to utilize all of these characteristics inside their classrooms, it is important to remember that “Education for democracy demands democratic schools. There is no other way to make it effective”

(Greenberg, 2000, p. 73).

Chapter 4

Summary and Recommendations

Democratic Education, according to its proponents, frees children to learn by cultivating the naturally inquisitive person within each child. This process happens by building an environment where students have to learn to balance freedom and responsibility, where this skill is integrated into the fundamental fabric of a school, and time is allowed for children to become curious self-directed learners (Fahey, 2008, p.

7). While many traditional schools focus on responsibility as part of their school wide positive behavior support system, there is often very little discussion of the play between responsibility and freedom. Often times, students are not given the choice to make their own decisions; instead, they are given very little freedom and very little responsibility. While not obvious at first, it is possible to incorporate principles of

Democratic Education into a traditional classroom, especially if steps are taken to break down the principles and integrate them over time. In this study, the researcher focused on identifying main characteristics and similarities from various democratic schools, culminating in Table 3. This table condensed the work of Korkmaz and Erden (2014) into seven main characteristics, displaying how these characteristics unfolded in four specific democratic schools. After further analysis, the researcher condensed the data from the four schools into Table 4, which identifies four reoccurring major themes, including equal status for teachers and learners (everyone is a learner,) a balance of freedom and responsibility (choice,) democratic governance (student councils,) and student-centered learning (learner centered). While all of the themes are crucial to

43 democratic schools, creating a balance of freedom and responsibility is an overarching theme which encompasses all the others. With this analysis in mind, further recommendations will focus on creating a balance of freedom and responsibility within a classroom. Just as there exists a wide divergence in the amount of responsibility and freedom within Democratic Education as seen when Summerhill School is compared with Lehman Alternative Community School, there can also be a divergence in balance of responsibility and freedom created by a teacher who is interested in infusing more democracy and choice into their classroom.

Based on the recurring theme of responsibility and freedom, there are three different types of recommendations for incorporating the principles of Democratic

Education into a classroom. First and easiest to implement, classroom setup can be reviewed and changed, including the physical setup of the classroom and the use of agreed upon norms. Second, different educational approaches can be incorporated, including cooperative learning, learner-based learning, and the use of universal design for learning. Third, the use of technology can be incorporated into the classroom to create an easily accessible self-directed learning experience. Because some recommendations are more involved to implement than others, the variety of options should allow every teacher to discover a strategy and be able to implement it at a level they are comfortable with.

Recommendations for Increased Democracy

Classroom Setup

The following recommendations are the quickest and easiest to implement; they do not require a great deal of planning or thought to put into action. They include the physical set up of the classroom, student led norms, incorporating student voices into the class, and being open with your students. The easiest step to creating a more democratic class is rearranging the classroom, allowing it to be more welcoming and accessible to group and individual activities and choices. If space allows, desk and chairs should be moved into a circle or into groups, giving the students a feeling of equality or the ability to work as a collaborating team (Fernandes, Huang, & Rinaldo, 2011). The classroom can also be arranged into various stations where students can decide to do individual work (standing tables, bean bag area, computer table, or a quiet corner). The combination of flexible seating and offering different types of seating encourages students to review how they learn and where they learn best, making them think critically and act responsibly (Marx, Fuhrer, & Hartig, 1999). Another quick strategy is working with students to create the classroom norms and consequences if these norms are not followed. Students can make suggestion while the teacher writes down the various ideas.

The group can then review the options and make edits before posting the final edition. Besides helping with classroom norms, student voices can be added to the classroom in several other ways. Teachers can start a weekly evaluation of the class where students can write down or present in some other way their view of the class; for example, how it can be improved, what is going well, and any other comments. Students

45 should also be able to voice how they learn best, where they learn best, what helps them learn, who distracts them, and what makes them feel at ease in the classroom amongst other topics (Patrick, 1998). Lastly, teachers should be open to their students about their intentions to incorporate principles based in Democratic Education into the classroom.

This lets students know they are part of the process and are responsible as well. While not covering all possible strategies, these recommendations will allow teachers to move towards a more democratically inspired classroom with ease.

Educational Strategies

If a teacher has utilized some of the strategies in the Classroom Set Up section, then there are several educational approaches which they may want to try next. These strategies include cooperative learning, student-centered learning, genius hour, and

Universal Design for Learning. All of these strategies will encourage democracy in the classroom and improve academic achievement (Balkcom, 1992; LeBlanc, & Skaruppa

1997; TEAL, 2010).

Cooperative learning.

According to LeBlanc and Skaruppa (1997) cooperative learning promotes democratic principles, including respect for diversity, pluralism, and responsible citizenship. It also increases academic growth, enhances psychological health, positively impacts social skills, and improves classroom discipline. Easy to implement and inexpensive, cooperative learning can be used with almost any grade, or subject, and without any specific curriculum. According to Balkcom:

Cooperative learning is a successful teaching strategy in which small teams, each

with students of different levels of ability, use a variety of learning activities to

improve their understanding of a subject. Each member of a team is responsible

not only for learning what is taught but also for helping teammates learn, thus

creating an atmosphere of achievement (1992, p. 1).

Cooperative learning is a simple and impactful method of teaching which can be a vehicle for almost any lesson while also encouraging democracy and student choice. Balkcom suggest three different forms of cooperative learning: Group

Investigations, Student Team Achievement Divisions, and Jigsaw II. In Group

Investigation, students work in groups to select their own projects and complete them as a team, encouraging analysis and evaluation amongst students. In Student Team

Achievement Divisions, students are groups into teams with varying academic ability with the goal of studying a previously taught subject. They then help each other to reach their own “highest level of achievement,” and then they are tested individually. Lastly,

Jigsaw II is used with narrative material where the students are separated into groups and are responsible for learning a separate part of a new topic from an expect. The student learns this material away from their group, and then returns and shares out the new information to every member of the team. Each student is then tested individually on all aspects of the topic. According to LeBlanc and Skaruppa (1997,) teachers can utilizes cooperative learning to further incorporate democratic choice into their classroom while also increasing academic growth, enhancing psychological health, positively impacting social skills, and improving classroom discipline

Student-centered learning.

Student-centered learning allows student to gain more freedom and responsibility by drastically altering the roles of both teacher and students. The students become the designers and co-creators of the class, choosing what to learn, how to learn it, and why

(Rogers, 1983). According to the Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy (TEAL) Center, student-centered learning also increased student motivation and effort because they see the approach as more meaningful and relevant to their lives (2010). Reporting on the requirements for student-centered learning, the TEAL Center states that students need individualization, interaction, and integration. Students’ receive individualization when they choice their own activities, subjects, and modes of assessments. They interact through an emphasis on team learning, peer tutoring, and peer teaching. Lastly, they integrate through the process of utilizing prior knowledge in their current learning and by constructing new meaning out of their individually designed learning.

There are five key changes to practice, according to Weimer (2013,) when a classroom begins the transition from a traditional teacher-centered classroom to a student-centered one. These steps to practice include changing teacher roles, changing the balance of power, changing function of content, increasing student responsibility, and revisiting the purpose and process of evaluation.

To implement student-centered learning, the teacher’s role in the classroom must change. The teacher moves into the role of a facilitator of learning and knowledge acquisition. Instead of instructing students on how and what they should be learning, they guide the students along their learning path. This change is, according to Wiemer,

48 the most important, and the rest of the steps cannot fully happen if teachers do not adjust their roles in the classroom (2013).

The goal of student-centered learning is the “development of students as autonomous, self-directed, and self-regulating learners (Weimer, 2013, p. 10). This goal is achieved through the restructuring of the balance of power. The choice to learn,

Wiemer ironically notes, is usually the only decision students have power over in teacher- centered classrooms (2013). By giving students more power in the classroom by changing the teacher’s role, increasing the students’ responsibility, and giving them strategies to help regulate their choices within freedom, students will be more motivated to choose to learn.

The function of content in a student-centered classroom shifts from being the main focus of the class to a tool used within the class to learn skills. While students will still be learning content, they will be mainly focused on learning how to communicate, research, and be self-directed, allowing for them to be continuous lifelong learners.

Students, according to Weirmer (2013,) are responsible for their learning within a student-centered classroom. The students and their teachers have to create a classroom climate that is conductive to learning. Extrinsic motivation needs to shift to intrinsic motivation to learn, allowing experience and consequences to help students learn from their decisions and choice. For the teachers, this means facilitating and imparting the love and joy of learning over direct instruction of content.

Lastly, teachers will need to revisit the purpose and process of evaluations if they want to transition towards a more student-centered classroom. One of the purposes of

49 evaluation, according to Wiemer, is to promote student learning which is also the goal of student-centered learning. With this in mind, teachers should be conscious of their use of evaluation within a student-centered context. Secondly, Weimer is concerned that teacher-centered learning does not give students the opportunity to develop self and peer assessment skills. These skills should be developed within the student-centered classroom.

For a teacher choosing to implement student-centered learning as a strategy towards having a more democratic and choice focused classroom, the above steps should be reviewed and reflected on. With incremental and flexible use, these steps can help teacher move away from the teacher-centered learning model towards the student- centered model within any subject or grade.

Inquiry Based Learning (Genius Hour).

Originally popularized by the tech giant Google, Genius hour is now a movement sweeping through education. Google started the trend by allowing their engineers to pursue a passion project 20% of their time on the job or every Friday. The idea behind the concept is simple: give employees and students the ability to pursue a passion project some of the time, and their productivity will increase all the time. As stated by Krebs and

Zvi, Genius hour is always an inquiry-based and self-directed time for students to develop a skill or project they are interested in (2016).

According to West and Roberts (2016,) there has been minimal research on the outcomes of Genius hour as a form of instruction; however, there is a strong body of research in support of the individual components of it (Guthrie et al., 1996; Purcell-Gates,

Duke, & Martineau, 2007). Genius Hour also naturally incorporates differentiation by allowing students to choose how they research and compile their information. Student engagement also increases because students are given the ability to choose their project according to their passions. For teachers who do not want to fully dive into cooperative learning or student-center learning, Genius Hour offers an opportunity to test and balance the incorporation of freedom and responsibility in a classroom.

Universal Design for Learning.

The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) seeks to explore new technology and use that technology to enrich the educational experience of students with disabilities. Over decades of exploring and refining their philosophy and technology,

CAST has come to call their approach Universal Design for Learning (UDL.) This approach is another strategy that can be utilized by teachers to increase students’ choice and responsibility in the classroom. UDL is an educational framework which moves past the “one size fits all” model of education and seeks to create a more flexible learning environment which provides effective instruction for all students through differentiation of instruction and the curriculum (CAST, 2018). While not essential to its use, UDL often utilizes innovative technologies to help learners bridge the gaps in curriculum.

Based in neuroscientific research and an architectural viewpoint, UDL contains three guiding principles teachers should utilize when implementing this strategy: provide multiple means of representation, provide multiple means of action and expression, and provide multiple means of engagement.

Learners differ in the ways they receive information and in the ways that they comprehend that information. Because of this fact, teacher should, according to UDL, provide multiple means of representation when they teach (CAST, 2018). For instance, teachers can offer alternatives and options in how information is displayed. The easiest method for offering options in representation is to connect the information with various modalities. Practically, this means representing information with visuals, with audio, and with tactile objects. Other tools include digital books, audiobooks, and highlighted handouts. Offering these options, allows for students to make choices and access the information in a way they are most comfortable with.

Learners also differ in the ways they can work or act within a learning environment and express information they have learned. For example, some students may be comfortable in expressing themselves in speech, while others are more comfortable with writing. Teachers can provide options for action and expression by offering different levels of tools such as computers for typing, speech to text software, outlining tools and support within the classroom. Students can also be allowed to express the information they have learned through different modalities--writing, speaking, drawing, powerpoint, story, and hands on projects. By providing students options in navigating the classroom and their expression of knowledge, they can participate fully in class and express themselves to their fullest ability, allowing teachers to gauge their understanding of the material being covered.

Because there is no means of engagement which is optimal for all students, UDL calls for utilizing multiple means of student engagement (CAST, 2018). This is the

“why” of learning, the motivation, and activation. According to CAST, student engagement can be optimized by providing choice and autonomy within the classroom while also creating a safe place for students to learn. While CAST does not recommend student choice in selecting learning targets, it does recommend student choice in how learning objectives can be reached by students, which in turn will motivate them to continue learning. Teachers can increase student engagement and motivation by having students choose their own goals and expectations. Providing students with options of engagement within the classroom creates a desire to learn and master material.

While UDL does not offer as much choice or responsibility as student-center learning or other strategies so far discussed, it does offer student some basics choices in

“why” they learn, “what” they learn, and “how” they learn. UDL creates a good foundation for student choice and responsibility within a classroom, which can then be expanded upon with other strategies.

Technology for Increasing Freedom and Responsibility

The use of innovative technology allows students a wider range of responsibility and choice with the 21st century classroom, increasing their engagement, motivation, and learning experience. New technologies, essentially, give teachers the ability to differentiate their curriculum with ease, while also allowing students to be self-directed at the same time. Plus, according to Gulak and Demirtas, there is evidence that the incorporation of any form of technology as an educational tool increases students’ learning outcomes (2005). Gulak and Demirtas also found that the utilization of technology in the classroom with students who are born within the millennial generation

(1982-2004) will increase both their engagement and concentration. While the use of any technology should increase student engagement, they will not necessarily increase student choice and responsibility within the classroom by themselves; however, the combination of several of these technologies can create a differentiated educational experience where students do have more choice and responsibility. To allow for quick access and review of various technologies for both students and teachers, the researcher created Table 5: Technology for Increasing Freedom and Responsibility. These technologies can be used within a classroom to increase students’ ability to respond to a project or prompt with increased freedom and responsibility.

Table 5

Technology for Increasing Freedom and Responsibility

Technology Description: Can be Location: Utilized by:

Camtasia A program to create Teachers https://www.techsmith.com/video- and edit videos and and editor.html audio Students

Classcraft An engagement Teachers https://www.classcraft.com/ management system which groups classroom assignments into an adventure game

Creately Create charts Teachers https://creately.com/ collaboratively with and multiple individuals. Students

Edpuzzle Edit videos from Teachers https://edpuzzle.com/ YouTube and other sites to include only the

sections you need. Comments and comprehension checks can be added into the video.

Google Share links, videos, and Teacher https://classroom.google.com/h Classroom assignments to students.

Link Page A lower-tech version of Teachers Google Docs Classcraft where and students follow a page Students of links to videos, articles, or worksheets

Khan Online community and Teachers https://www.khanacademy.org/ Academy videos on most academic subject (with comprehension questions and problems).

Prezi A tool used to share Teachers https://prezi.com/ information on a virtual and canvas. Can include Students videos and audio.

Satori Create digital timelines Teachers https://www.sutori.com/teachers that can include video, and audio, and images. Students

Screen-Oh- Capture screens and Teachers https://screencast-o-matic.com/ Matic create easily shared and videos. Students

Wix Create web pages and Teacher https://www.wix.com/ sites with easy and templates. Students

Youtube Video sharing site. Teachers https://www.youtube.com/ and Students

For example, a 6th grade math teacher may be focused on teaching her students how to write and evaluate an expression involving whole numbers. In a traditional classroom, the teacher may use the whiteboard to introduce the class to the new concept, have them practice the concept with a worksheet, then take a test on expressions later in the week. In this model, there is very little choice, responsibility, or options for the student to practice self-direction and democracy. Instead, in a more democratic and freedom and responsibility driven classroom, the teacher might upload several short videos on to Google Classroom about evaluating expressions: one video for on level students, one for those who need enrichment, and a review video(s) for those students who need foundations skills. The student would then choose their video based on which level they are at. They can always watch the video again or chose a different video if they discovered that they concept is too easy or difficult for them. After students have watched the videos, they would continue to practice the problems as a group or with independent practice sheet, while also having access to the videos for help. Then, instead of taking a quiz, students would be able to choose their own method of expressing their new knowledge. For example, a student could use Screen-O-Matic to create a video of themselves evaluating an expression and explaining their steps. Another student could create a Prezi which explains the steps in evaluating expressions, while another could create a physical poster with Creately (an online diagram maker). Students could also choose a low-tech response and create their own quiz or paper based poster. The key to this approach is allowing students access to pre-recorded videos while they practice the new material, and to give them full choice in the final expression of their knowledge of

56 the standard. This approach allows students to have choice in selecting the level they are learning at and choice in displaying their new knowledge. Students use of technology within the classroom promotes the knowledge of 21st century skills, gives students a chance to express their knowledge in a medium they are comfortable with, develops students’ ownership of the material, and promotes student self-direction (Driscoll,

2012). When used correctly, technology can move a classroom away from a traditional and limited choice environment into a more democratic and responsibility and freedom driven classroom.

Conclusion

Children, the future leaders and workers of our country, should be educated about their roles in a democracy, and they should receive the chance to participate in democracy as a tangible and everyday experience. Edelstein (2011) argues that schools are the only institution that can provide an opportunity to cultivate democratic experience for all children; he argues that schools are the only systems which involves the entire youth generation and can prepare them for their democratic life as adults. Whether or not he is correct, there is a need for real-world relevance, active engagement, student initiative, problem solving, and the teaching of 21st century skills in our classrooms. There is a need for more democracy in schools, a need for more freedom and responsibility for students. While it would be impossible for public school teachers to completely turn their classroom into a mini-democratic school, it is possible for them to implement strategies to increase democracy, especially in the vein of freedom and responsibility in their classrooms. McLaren (1999,) speaking to the work of teachers

57 following in the footsteps of Paulo Freire, made the following observation which could also be applied to teacher seeking to make their classroom more democratically balanced:

The Freirean [or democratic] agent works silently but steadfastly in the margins of culture and the interstices of collapsing public sectors, away from the power- charged arenas of public spectacles of accusation and blame regarding what is wrong with our schools. Freirean educators do not conceive of their work as an antidote to today's sociocultural ills and the declining level of ambition with respect to contemporary society's commitment to democracy. Rather, their efforts are patiently directed at creating counter-hegemonic sites of political struggle, radically alternative epistemological frameworks, and adversarial interpretations and cultural practices, as well as advocacy domains for disenfranchised groups. (p. 54).

In the same way, teachers working towards democracy should struggle to make their classrooms sites of radical democracy and advocacy, working from inside the system to eventually change the system. If an educator wants to know if a strategy or action is going to move their class in a more democratic direction, all they have to do is ask: “Is this going to offer my students more freedom in the class within the context of responsibility?” If yes, then that educator is creating a democratic experience for their students and, in turn, a more democratic world now and for the future.

John Holt said it simply, “trust children” (1964, p. viii). To trust a child means to allow them the chance to balance freedom and responsibility; it means giving a child choice, and allowing them to make mistakes, to learn, and to grow. It means giving that child space to pursue their passions, and believing that he/she will become a more engaged and critical citizen because of that space. While traditional schools limit students’ experience of freedom and responsibility--in other words, they do not trust children-- there is hope. Teachers can infuse their classroom with freedom and responsibility through several levels of change, including classroom set-up (flexible

58 seating and work spaces,) educational approaches (cooperative learning, student-centered learning, genius hour, and universal designs for lea5rning,) and the use of technology. By trusting, teachers impact their students’ futures and democracy at the same time. Trust teaches students to be critical, independent, and responsible, which also creates informed, engaged, and critical future citizens--the foundations of democracy.

REFERENCES

About LACS’ History. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.ithacacityschools.org/districtpage.cfm?pageid=1150

About our Alternativeness. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.ithacacityschools.org/districtpage.cfm?pageid=1147

About Summerhill. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/about.php

About WHS. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://windsorhouseschool.org/about-us-2/

Apple, M., & Beane, J. (2007). Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

A.S. Neil Summerhill Trust. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/as-

neill-summerhill-trust.php

Balkcom, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. Education Research Consumer Guide, 1, 1-2.

Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED346999.pdf.

Balme, C., & Bennis, D. (2008). Israilde demokratik egitim [Democratic education in Israel]. In

M. Hern & E. Babaoglu (Ed. & Trans.), Alternatif egitim: hayatımızın okulsuzlas ̆

̧tırılaması (pp. 191–205). Istanbul, Turkey: Kalkedon Yayınları.

Blake, C. (2010). Disappointed but not resigned. Dissent, 57(4), 21-22.

Bumgardner, M. (1981). Mothering interviews John Holt. Mothering, 19(4). Retrieved from

https://www.naturalchild.org/guest/marlene_bumgarner.html

CAST (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from

http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Cook, J. (1964, April 7th). New school will adapt concepts of summerhill. New York Times.

Retrieved https://www.nytimes.com/1964/04/07/new-school-will-adapt-concepts-of-

summerhill.html

Core principles. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://windsorhouseschool.org/core-principles-2/

Democracy. (2018). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Democratic Schools. (2018). Alternative education resources organization. Retrieved

http://www.educationrevolution.org/store/findaschool/democraticschools/

DeSilver, D. (2018, May 21). U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout. Retrieved

from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-

developed-countries/

Dewey, J. (1916a). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Macmillian Company.

Dewey, J. (1916b). The political writings. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company.

Driscoll, T. (2012). Flipped learning and democratic education: The complete report. Retrieved

from http://

www.flipped-history.com/2012/12/flipped-learning-democratic-education.html

Elderstein, W. (2011). Education for democracy: Reasons and strategies. European journal of

education, 46(1), 127-137. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01463.x

Engel, L. (2008). Experiments in democratic education: Dewey’s lab school and korczak’s

children’s republic. Social Studies, 99(3), 127-121.

DOI: 10.3200/TSSS.99.3.117-121

Engel, L. (2013). The democratic school and the pedagogy of janusz korczak: A model of early

twentieth century reform in modern israel. International Journal of Progressive

Education, 9(1), 119-132.

Fahey, L. J. (2008). Freedom to learn: Five fundamental concepts of democratic education.

Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 2(3), 17-27.

FAQ. (2016). Retrieved from http://windsorhouseschool.org/faq/

Fernandes, A. C., Huang, J., & Rinaldo, V. (2011). Does where a student sits really matter? The

impact of seating locations on student classroom learning. International Journal of

Applied Educational Studies, 10(1), 66-77.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Goodman, P. (1960). Growing up absurd. New York, NY: Random House.

Graubard, A. (1972). Alternative education: The free school movement in the united states.

Harvard Educational Review, 42(3), 351-373.

Gray, P. (2013). Free to learn: Why unleashing the instinct to play will make our children

happier, more self-reliant, and better students for life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gray, P. (2016). Children’s natural ways of educating themselves still work: Even for the three

rs. In D. Geary, & D. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives on Child Development and

Education (pp. 67-93). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Gray, P. (2017). In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved from

http://education.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-

9780190264093-e-80

Greenberg, D. (1995). Free at Last: The Sudbury Valley School. Framingham, MA: Sudbury

Valley School Pr.

Greenberg, D. (2000). A clear view: New insights into the Sudbury school model. Framingham,

MA: Sudbury Valley School Pr.

Greenberg, D. (2016). Sudbury valley: An idea whose time has come [Blog post]. Retrieved

from https://sudburyvalley.org/article/sudbury-valley-school-idea-whose-time-has-come

Greenberg, H. (2018, April 23). Why a curriculum is counterproductive [Blog post]. Retrieved

from https://sudburyvalley.org/blog/why-curriculum-counterproductive

Grinin, L. E. (2004). The early state, its alternatives and analogues. Volgograd, Russia: Uchitel

Publishing House.

Gulek, J., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student

achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2), 3–6.

Guthrie, J.T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A.D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C.C., &

Mitchell, A. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and

strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,

31(3), 306–332. doi:10.1598/ RRQ.31.3.5

Holt, J. (1964). How children learn. Lawerance, NY: Pitman Publishing Company.

Holzman, L. (1997). Schools for growth: Radical alternatives to current educational models.

Albingdon, England: Routledge.

Korkmaz, H. E., & Erden, M. (2014). A delphi study: The characteristics of democratic schools.

The Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 365-373.

doi: 10.1080/00220671.2013.823365

Krebs, D., & Zvi, G. (2016). The genius hour guidebook: Fostering passion, wonder and inquiry

in the classroom. New York, NY: Routledge.

LACS Footbook. (2018). Retrieved from

http://www.ithacacityschools.org/tfiles/folder118/2018.2019.Footbook%20LACS.pdf

Lant, J. L. (1976). Considering John Holt. Educational Studies, 7(4), 327-335.

Retrieved from http://www.educationalstudies.org/publications.html

LeBlanc, P., & Skaruppa, C. (1997). Support for democratic schooling: Classroom level change

via cooperative learning. Action in Teacher Education, 19(1), 28-38.

DOI: 10.1080/01626620.1997.10462851

Marx, A., Fuhrer, U., & Hartig, T. (1999). Effects of classroom seating arrangements on

children's question-asking. Learning Environments Research, 2(3), 249-263.

McLaren, P. (1999). A pedagogy of possibility: reflecting upon Paulo Freire's politics of

education: In memory of Paulo Freire. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 49-56.

doi:10.3102/0013189X028002049

Neil, A. S. (1960). Summerhill: a radical approach to child rearing. New York, NY: Hart

Publishing Company.

Newman, M. (2006). When evidence is not enough: Freedom to choose versus prescribed choice:

The case of Summerhill school. In D. Kassem, E. Mufti, & J. Robinson (Eds), Education

studies: Issues and critical perspectives, (pp. 56-68). Berkshire, England: Open

University Press.

Patrick, T. (1998). Increasing student input in the classroom. College Teaching, 46(3), 112-114.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27558899

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N.K., & Martineau, J.A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-

specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research

Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.1.1

Readhead, Z. (2008). Summerhill Okulu [Summerhill School]. In M. Hern & E. Babaoglu (Ed.,

& Trans.), ̆ Alternatif Egitim Hayatımızın ̆Okulsuzlas ̧tırılaması (pp. 153–159). Istanbul,

Turkey: Kalkedon Yayınları.

Rogers, C. (1983). As a teacher, can I be myself? Freedom to learn for the 80s. Ohio: Charles E.

Merrill Publishing Company.

Summerhill - an Overview. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/an-

overview.php

Summerhill: the early years. (2017). Retrieved from

http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/history.php

Summerhill - Question and Answer. (2017). Retrieved form

http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/q-a.php

Tarcov, N. (1996). The meaning of democracy. In R. Soder (Ed.), Democracy, education, and

the schools (pp. 1-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

TEAL (2010). Student-Centered Learning. TEAL Center Fact Sheet, 6, 1-3.

Theory. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sudburyvalley.org/theory

Weimer, M. (2013). Five changes to practice. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.

West, J., & Roberts, K. (2016). Caught up in curiosity: Genius hour in the kindergarten

classroom. The Reading Teacher, 70(2), 137-253.