A big shift is underway in education, and it is about to reach the shores of Singapore.
I’m talking about the surge in democratic schools around the world. Democratic schools are places where students are completely free to pursue their interests as they wish. What makes the school democratic is that the school is managed by a Student Council, where each student and staff member has an equal vote.
This movement started over 100 years ago with the establishment of Summerhill School in the UK. The school’s philosophy is that children learn best when they are free from coercion. This means that all lessons are optional, and students are free to choose how to spend their time. Children aged six to eighteen years old freely mix and decide what interests to pursue.
So, what do children do in such a school? They mostly play. This means play that is freely chosen by the children. The drive to play is evolutionarily hardwired in all mammals. Experiments with play-deprived rats show that they are more likely to miss social cues and are more likely to respond to novel situations with increased anxiety and aggression. Play deprivation might be a cause for increased signs of depression and anxiety amongst Singaporean youth as well.
The benefits of play are often discounted or only valued during a child’s early years. This is a mistake. Play teaches children to practice skills for the future, such as cooperating with others, negotiating, overcoming challenges, solving problems, and planning ahead. We often think of learning and play as separate, but they are intertwined, as learning is a by product of play.
Another activity (or non-activity) with positive by-products is doing nothing. Hanging around and not being focused on anything in particular activates the Default Mode Network in the brain. This is the part of the brain that processes your life. It is our internal system for self-reflection, as it puts our own life and actions into the context of the past, present, and future.
Giving children the time and space to reflect gives students a clearer idea of what they want to do with their lives. This is why graduates of democratic schools are more motivated, passionate, and mature when pursuing postsecondary education. Their pursuit of postsecondary education stems from their own motivation, rather than a desire to please or impress others.
Autonomy is the foundation of intrinsic motivation.
Motivation can be categorised into various types. There is amotivation (‘I need to do this’), controlled motivation (‘I’m doing this for something or someone’), and intrinsic motivation (‘I want this’). Controlled motivation relies on either external rewards and punishments or internal pressures, such as guilt and shame, which is how traditional schools work.
Internal motivation can only occur in circumstances where actions are self-chosen. Autonomy is the foundation of intrinsic motivation. Being intrinsically motivated results in an improved mental wellbeing, finding meaning, and discovering your passions. This is part of the Self-Determination Theory developed by psychologists Ryan and Deci.
It is therefore not surprising that children in democratic schools are highly motivated to pursue their interests. Children learn from an early age to take responsibility for their own lives and futures. Autonomy fosters decision-making, which increases the belief that one’s actions and efforts directly determine outcomes. In psychology lingo, this is referred to as ‘internal locus of control’. The stronger the belief that you are in charge of your own life, the better your mental and physical health.
Another notable trait of democratic schools is age-mixing. All ages (usually from four to eighteen) have the chance to freely mix together. This usually results in younger children gravitating towards children two years older than them. Age-mixing has benefits for both the older as well as the younger children. The younger children will learn a great deal from the older children. The benefits for older children are even greater as they learn to communicate clearly, identify gaps in their own knowledge, and naturally act as a mature role model. That is why bullying is rare in democratic schools. Conflict between people inevitably arises but democratic schools not only have judicial/conflict resolution structures in place, they also have role models who step up when bullying does occur.
Democratic schools have a proven track record of success. So why haven’t they taken over the traditional schooling system? Part of the answer lies in the history of the current schooling system. The idea of segregating children by age, school bells between lessons, and a standardised curriculum comes from the Prussian education system, which was developed in the 18th century. The goal of such a system was to create obedient soldiers and workers. People who were smart enough to follow orders but not too independently minded to question the system they were living under.
The education system has changed little since that time. If we were to time-travel a bank teller, a farmer, and a teacher from 200 years ago, the teacher would recognise most of the things going on in our schools. However, the work of the farmer and bank teller has changed beyond their comprehension. The reason for the lack of change in education is due to one of the biggest tragedies of the modern age: state-funded schools.
State-funded schools may not seem problematic to most people, but it is. Schools see the state as their primary ‘customer’. If a school wants to receive funding, it must meet the state’s requirements. Whatever is deemed as ‘good education’ in the eyes of the parents comes secondary. That is why there is such a strong emphasis on the paper reality of standardised tests. These tests primarily assess a superficial understanding of the underlying material, but state bureaucrats love them. It allows them to put numbers into reports and track ‘progress’.
That being said, there have been educators who made meaningful changes in their classrooms and influenced national education policy. One such educator is Derry Hannam. In his book ‘Another Way Is Possible – Becoming A Democratic Teacher In A State School’, Hannam describes how he implemented democracy into the classroom of a UK public school back in 1969.
On the first day working as a teacher in a primary school, he moved all the desks to one side of the classroom and arranged the chairs in a circle. The children were puzzled upon arriving in the classroom. As soon as everyone was seated, Hannam explained that they would decide together what to study and how to manage the class. Their first vote agreed that the person holding a specific book had the right to speak. The second vote arranged that, once the person with the book finished speaking, the book would be handed over to someone holding up their hand. These votes enabled order during meetings, as all students agreed to these rules from the outset.
Classroom management wasn’t organised top-down but through democratic consent.
Lengthy discussions followed about how to structure the classroom and the curriculum. The key point here is that there is a wealth of learning in these discussions. A teacher could force a structure upon the classroom, which would be quicker. However, much of the learning and buy-in from the class would be lost. These discussions enable everyone to gain insight into the perspectives of others, their interests, and learn how to formulate convincing arguments.
All kinds of class roles were agreed upon, such as the form captain (to count votes), the class secretary (to take notes of decisions made), a classroom court (to administer consequences for breaking rules), and a chairperson (the person in charge during meetings). This classroom democracy operated within the rules of the school. This meant that the chairperson could not adjourn the class meeting and send everyone home before the end of the school day.
The classroom curriculum was decided democratically. This meant in practice that small groups of students learned about topics that interested them, whether that was ‘football’, ‘fashion’, or ‘the Battle of Britain’. Everyone agreed to share what they learned with the rest of the classroom. Learning materials were put on the walls of the classroom. This resulted in another job: that of newspaper editor (to make sure the content on the wall was regularly refreshed).
Classroom management wasn’t organised top-down but through democratic consent. During the classroom meeting, it was agreed that if noise levels were considered too high, you needed at least five raised hands so the form captain would announce five minutes of quiet time. Hannam could leave the classroom to fetch a book from the school library without chaos erupting. The children were supervising themselves.
A funny anecdote occurred when the mathematics teacher struggled to manage noise levels. She resorted to shouting at the children to keep them quiet. Some children wanted to learn mathematics, so they raised their hands to call for quiet time. The classroom went quiet and the mathematics teacher demanded to know what was going on. No one answered as it was quiet time. Eventually, the form captain said, ‘This is what we do in Mr. Hannam’s classroom when it gets too noisy’. The mathematics teacher did not appreciate this and said that they were supposed to be quiet when she said so. One child was too honest: ‘But your shouting doesn’t work’. The teacher became furious and complained to the school management.
This brings us to challenges to the democratic school model. Some teachers would cling to their old ways no matter what. But a bigger challenge for the democratic classroom is the lack of autonomy teachers have. The more time consumed by the state curriculum, the less time to build a classroom democracy. That’s why Hannam proposes that 20% of school time should be allocated to the interests, concerns, purposes and questions of the students. In other words, 20% of the time should be allocated for self-directed education.
One day equals 20% of the school week. That is why schools that adopt this approach usually reserve one ‘free day’ to self-directed learning, as this allows children to pursue their interests without interruption. In German, the word ‘free day’ directly translates to Friday (Freitag), which is why this day is chosen. There are hundreds of schools in Germany that have already adopted the 20% model every Friday. Implementing this approach is easy and costs very little. All you have to do is reduce all other subjects by 20% to free up time for the interests of children.
There are many benefits to this approach. Giving children freedom of choice alters their relationship with teachers as they are not constantly being compared and evaluated, which makes more meaningful interactions possible. Teachers will have the exciting opportunity to share their interests and shape young minds holistically, which reinvigorates teachers’ passion and increases job satisfaction. Student participation also changes the school culture; you will soon see the desire for student input on budget proposals and hiring requirements. If we want children to be responsible, we need to give them responsibility.
Not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured.
Hannam’s 20% proposal is based on evidence. In 2001, the Hannam report was published, which showed that secondary schools with elements of student participation had higher standardised test scores across all subjects. Allowing students to collaborate with school management, address problems within the school, participate in decision-making, and evaluate school policies led to higher academic achievement.
However, we should be cautious in evaluating the validity of the democratic classroom through standardised test scores alone. Not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured. A democratic classroom allows children to take responsibility, discuss ideas, craft convincing arguments, and think critically. None of these traits can be neatly covered in a standardised test with a right and wrong answer.
Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) shares this vision. That is why the MOE has a vision for 21st century competencies, which includes critical, adaptive and inventive thinking. Unfortunately, meaningful education reform is held back by parents with archaic ideas about what makes ‘good education’. Car manufacturer Henry Ford famously said that ‘if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses’. Similarly, if the MOE asks Singaporean parents what they want, the answer would be ‘higher grades’.
Apart from greater teacher autonomy and communicating its vision to parents, another reform MOE could pursue is the Estonian ‘school within a school’. Suvemäe is a small democratic school that serves around 65 students and is part of the larger Tallinn Art School. Children have the option to choose between Suvemäe’s democratic school model, which allows them to pursue self-directed education, or Tallinn Art School’s traditional model, which offers more structure. The result is that children with a clear vision of what they want to learn have the freedom to do so, while others get a greater appreciation for the traditional model as they voluntarily choose a more structured educational approach.
The countries that embraced democratic schools to the greatest extent so far are the US and Israel. The US is a pioneer in microschools, homeschooling, and private school-choice programs. It has a growing network of democratic schools, some of them dating back to the time of Singapore’s independence. However, since the US is such a big place to cover, we will focus on Israel, where democratic schools are publicly funded. There are over 30 democratic schools in Israel, the largest of which is the Democratic School of Hadera, which caters to more than 600 students, aged four to eighteen. Students of these schools are free to decide how, when, what, where and with whom they learn. Additionally, they have an equal vote in the decision-making process of their school.
There is no quicker way to lose interest in a subject than by making it a part of the curriculum.
One of the most curious results from these Israeli democratic schools is that students retain, and even slightly increase, their interest in science. It has been well established that children lose interest in science over time. It was long assumed that children naturally become less inquisitive about the world around them as they get older. The experience of the Israeli democratic schools challenges that notion. There is no quicker way to lose interest in a subject than by making it a part of the curriculum. This research finding should be of interest to Singapore’s MOE, as they encourage critical, adaptive and inventive (scientific) thinking. Reducing the emphasis on formal science education and instead allowing children to explore without evaluation or judgment could increase their interest in science.
Change is underway. EveryChild.sg, a Singaporean education reform NGO, aims to reduce class sizes and create ‘a society where childhood is not just about academic success, but growing into confident, kind and resilient adults who are ready for the future’. They recommend starting a pilot by identifying 10 primary and secondary schools to allow students to progress to secondary school without the standardised testing requirements of PSLE or DSA. Eliminating the standardised testing requirements allows for more space for student autonomy and participation, as advocated by Hannam’s 20% proposal highlighted earlier. The experience of democratic schools and classrooms around the world showcases that we have a chance to enable the adoption of 21st-century skills by allowing students to self-direct their learning.
Singapore’s cultural norms can’t be an excuse for not embracing self-directed education. Countries as diverse as the US, Israel, Japan, and Hong Kong have democratic schools. Singapore’s history is one of pragmatism. Lee Kuan Yew stated: ‘We are pragmatists. We don’t stick to any ideology. Does it work? Let’s try it, and if it does work, fine, let’s continue it. If it doesn’t work, toss it out, try another one. We are not enamored with any ideology’.
Singapore’s one-size-fits-all education system has served the country well in the past, as it educated a largely illiterate, multicultural population that lacked unity. But this system comes from a time when information was scarce and grades were a reliable indicator of subject mastery. It doesn’t work well in a time when information is abundantly available to everyone with an internet connection. Memorisation is less important nowadays than having the ability to ask the right questions.
We can achieve more by schooling less.
NGO’s such as EveryChild.sg also highlight that the current education system results in record levels of students suffering from anxiety and depression. This is because Singaporeans are spending close to $2 billion on private tuition to artificially prop up PSLE test scores while robbing children of their childhood. Anxiety and depression thrive when people don’t feel in control of their own lives. Children have zero say in what they learn, how they learn it, and are not encouraged to ask ‘why’ about anything. The amount of private tuition, homework, and test stress drowns out all free time. This free time is crucial for children to breathe, reflect, play, and pursue their own passions.
We are living in an age of disruption. The focus on memorisation in traditional schools is getting less relevant with each new release of the latest AI. We don’t know what skills will be required for the future. However, skills fostered in democratic schools, such as self-control, creativity, and clear communication, will provide a strong foundation for the future.
The MOE has the chance to show pragmatism by allowing for more choice. We can achieve more by schooling less. Listening to groups such as EveryChild.sg and setting aside 20% of school time for individual or collaborative self-directed education will give children the space to learn and play, which will make them happier, more confident, and better students for life.
Written by : Imre Wessels
Library 