Keywords

Introduction

Many cantons in Switzerland have integrated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into their local school law. In the Canton of Zurich for example, students are given the opportunity to participate in decisions that concern them (Kantonsrat des Kantons Zürich, 2005).Footnote 1 Participation, which results as a consequence when applying the Rights of the Child, is associated with many positive effects. It can increase a student’s motivation and thereby facilitate their learning processes and it can improve the relationship between teachers and students (Howley & Tannehill, 2014; Rudduck, 2007). Participation is also related to wellbeing and has a positive impact on students’ health or social behaviour in school (Anderson & Graham, 2016; Fletcher et al., 2015). Consequently, participation can lead to a more constructive school climate, and can be considered an important factor in school life and an aim of school improvement. However, school climate is also influenced by social exclusion with studies showing that exclusionary processes highly impact school climate and student well-being (Razer et al., 2013; Vanderbilt & Augustyn, 2010). In our research, we sought to better understand how the local school law is implemented in schools and how student participation is embedded in school life (Häbig et al., 2019; Müller-Kuhn et al., 2021; Zala-Mezö et al., 2018). In the example we present here, students and teachers in one school reported numerous narratives representing social exclusion, in addition to answers they provided about the participatory situation. This experience drove us to question how participation and social exclusion relate to one other and is the focus for this chapter.

The following research questions were examined: Which elements of social exclusion could be detected in this school? (How) are these elements related to participation?

In this chapter, we will first relate the concepts of participation and social exclusion to one other before defining the context and parameters of the study. In the presentation of results, examples of social exclusion will be identified alongside how beliefs and attitudes of students and teachers are interrelated and create an exclusionary school culture. We illustrate how social exclusion constitutes a barrier to enact Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in school.

Participation and Social Exclusion – Two Phenomena Influencing School Climate

Participation

Participation occurs when “students are offered the possibility of forming and expressing their opinions, getting involved in decisions, and actively influencing school life” (Zala-Mezö et al., 2020, p. 3). We consider participation as a continuum “starting from an informed decision not to participate and ending in full and equal participation” (Gal, 2015, p. 457) – and not as a dichotomous (yes/no) category. It also involves negotiation among the members of the school community. Realising participation therefore requires respect of individual needs on the one hand, but draws on the idea of collectivity on the other (Gal & Faedi Duramy, 2015). The views and needs of students and teachers regarding learning and school life must be considered and negotiated. Niemi and Kiilakoski’s (2020, p. 986) definition highlights this aspect of participation in “understand[ing] participation as a relational concept that exists between an individual and a larger social entity, such as a group, class, family or a society.” Their differentiation between political and social participation is helpful to study participation in school life. Political participation means “making an impact, influencing the community, taking part in decision-making and taking responsibility”, which depends on social participation understood as “a sense of community, belonging, membership and positive social interdependence” (Niemi & Kiilakoski, 2020, p. 986).

Participation is related to many positive effects, such as increased self-efficacy, feelings of self-worth and belonging (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Howley & Tannehill, 2014; Rudduck, 2007), and positive self-image (Niemi & Kiilakoski, 2020). Participation can also be considered a goal of school improvement. But it can also be a means to carry out school improvement, where students are central actors.

School improvement is a collective, socially and interactively constructed process (Zala-Mezö et al., 2020) allowing for changes in everyday school life. International law, like children’s rights, formulate clear expectations considering participation of students. Despite the clear expectations, it cannot specify precisely how to implement the law. Implementation happens in schools as part of a school improvement process. Students can valuably support the improvement (Pekrul & Levin, 2007) and there are numerous benefits of integrating students in school improvement (Rudduck, 2007). For example, students can display an enhanced commitment to learning and to school, and teachers’ knowledge of students is transformed which leads to better teacher-student relationships.

Thus, participation can have great influence on school life, school climate, and school culture. However, asking students to participate in decisions within schools is a relatively new phenomenon resulting from the juridification of human rights (Lundy, 2007). Schools are known as traditionally hierarchical institutions, assessing qualifications and producing various kinds of inequality (Simons & Masschelein, 2016). Exclusion, still existing in many schools, is a result of hierarchical and power-based culture, which is neither compatible with the non-discrimination right (Article 2) nor with Article 29 that requests tolerance.

Social Exclusion

Social exclusion broadly focuses on relationships between individuals or groups and mainstream society. Individuals or groups are “socially ‘excluded’ when they lack effective participation in key activities or benefits of the society in which they live” (Razer et al., 2013, p. 1152). The work of Peters and Besley (2014), when referring to Foucault, highlights the constructive nature of exclusion characterised by a given society. Accordingly, exclusion is the result of “social construction that discursively created human beings as subjects or non-subjects, as human or something less than human, as abnormal” (Peters & Besley, 2014, p. 101).

In school life, exclusion applies not only to students being excluded in the sense of dropping out of the school system but can also refer to students being excluded from the class or school community. Two concrete forms of social exclusion are described by Chiffriller and colleagues: “being rejected and being ignored” (Chiffriller et al., 2015, p. 2). While “rejection is a form of exclusion that is active, direct, and explicit; it involves collaborating with others to marginalize someone, […] being ignored is a form of exclusion that is passive, indirect, and implicit; it includes not acknowledging an individual in a social setting” (Chiffriller et al., 2015, p. 4). Link and Phelan (2001) describe four components of social exclusion: labelling somebody as different; stereotyping by attributing a negative association; using the negative characterisation for separation; and provoking status loss and discrimination.

By creating an environment where students are able to develop a sense of self-efficacy, self-worth, and belonging, schools can play an important role in “reducing vulnerability to social exclusion” (Razer et al., 2013, p. 1153). At the same time, it is essential for children’s rights (Article 29). Crucial actions for schools to take to avoid exclusion are fostering the formation of positive relationships and analysing students’ needs in order to meet these needs. Razer and colleagues highlight the importance of the quality of relationships between teachers and students and mention involvement as a key element: “Since social exclusion is essentially a relationship and the process through which this relationship takes shape, interrupting the cycle of exclusion must focus on changing relationships that give concrete expression to respect, solidarity, and involvement” (Razer et al., 2013, p. 1164).

A frequent form of social exclusion in school is bullying, which traditionally is analysed relating to individual traits of the persons involved, focusing on characteristics of aggressor and victim (Thornberg & Delby, 2019). Another approach is to conceive it as a phenomenon, that is “inherently social” (Rawlings, 2019, p. 5), and which can be considered “a means of social positioning” (Thornberg & Delby, 2019, p. 155). If it is conceived as such, conditions that lie within the school structure, such as inappropriate school rules for students or an orientation towards standardised tests (Razer et al., 2013) as well as reactions on the part of teachers and students, are important for how social exclusion will be treated in the long run by schools and teachers. Rawlings (2019) examined how teachers and students frame violence with words and thereby construct a reality where the gravity of an incident is diminished. She describes the reactions of both sides to a case of physical violence. The incident is downplayed by students who mentioned other cases, which they classified as not serious because “we knew it was a joke” (Rawlings, 2019, p. 11), or argued that the victim deserved it. Teachers reacted similarly and ultimately “teachers and students both reached the same conclusion—that this event was not ‘bullying’” (Rawlings, 2019, p. 15). It seems that norms of school culture result in shared behavioural patterns. If students’ and teachers’ reactions when faced with violence consist of passive acceptance, this helps aggressors produce “complicity or advocacy” (Rawlings, 2019, p.5). Thornberg and Delby (2019) demonstrate the great influence of teachers’ behaviour. The researchers deduce factors that – from a student perspective – are considered as supporting bullying. They identify rule diffusion and absence of clear consequences following rule breaking as one important condition that supports bullying instead of stopping it.

Downplaying an incident and not defining it as a harmful act makes intervention both unnecessary and impossible. Collectively constructing norms that allow problems to be raised would make schools a safer place (Razer et al., 2013). Schools failing to notice harmful actions do not provide psychological safety for their members (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Accordingly, such exclusionary tendencies are embedded in school cultures and significant efforts are needed to overcome negative routines.

Participation as a Means to Alter Exclusionary School Culture?

In the following section we will elaborate on how participation and social exclusion influence one other in school. Several studies identify positive effects of participation, making it a factor that can reduce social exclusion. Mager and Nowak’s (2012) review of several studies on the effects of student participation indicates more positive relationships among peers as a result of student participation. It also highlights positive outcomes regarding school climate: “Nearly half of the cases [...] indicated improvements in school climate, a better atmosphere in class, improved discipline among students, less bullying or less racism” (Mager & Nowak, 2012, p. 37).

An Australian study on the relation between having a say and well-being demonstrates that “having a say and being listened to supported student well-being by fostering a sense of equality, feeling respected, safe, and valued” (Anderson & Graham, 2016, p. 359). That study illustrates the important role of informal participation:

Our results provide specific examples of informal participation, and highlight that meaningful participation not only includes having voice in the public or political domain of school life, but also being able to voice preferences in relation to personal needs and identity.

(Anderson & Graham, 2016, p. 360)

Studies that examine participation also talk about bullying, which is an often-studied form of exclusion. That student participation and bullying are negatively connected was shown by Ahlström (2010, p. 97), finding “in schools with a higher level of student participation […] the level of perceived bullying among the students was lower than in schools with a lower level of participation.” Låftman et al. (2017) also identify factors on class- and school-levels that correlate with bullying in schools. The authors assume that the degree to which students can participate in decision-making in class correlates to the rate of bullying. In their study of students aged 15–16 years, less bullying occurred in classes where students could participate in decision-making (Låftman et al., 2017, p. 158).

The broader question of how student voice can change school climate was examined by Voight (2015). A student voice program (SVP) implemented in a school led to an improvement in school climate. In the program, over the course of several weeks, students of different grades analysed problems or issues that concerned them in school and worked together with teachers on finding solutions. “The SVP group process of identifying issues, investigating their root causes, and advocating for changes resulted in the implementation of several climate-friendly policies and practices” (Voight, 2015, p. 319), including an anti-bullying campaign. Acosta et al. (2019) conclude that the relation also works in the reverse direction: “School climate can either promote or minimize bullying behaviour and is associated with the development of social skills” (p. 201).

All these findings support the assumption that participation and social exclusion can be considered counteragents (see Fig. 10.1). If exclusion is understood as a social phenomenon, participation is a means to prevent it. The definition of participation highlights the importance of negotiating all needs and interests, and consideration of all perspectives. Student diversity should be seen and responded to in an appropriate way. It needs “a strategy and process involving the transformation of schools to cater for all children” (Peters & Besley, 2014, p. 109). Enhancing participation can be a strategy to alter an exclusionary school culture. This requires that hierarchical power differences – between teachers and students and among peers — are reduced. One way is to allow and encourage students to present their needs and take part in decisions. To do so teachers and students must have a serious interest in considering the needs and opinions of the other group to avoid tokenistic involvement (Lundy, 2007, 2018). Conversely, social exclusion can be viewed as a phenomenon that clearly plays on the ‘vertical’ line of social relationships, since a driver for social exclusion is to reach a stronger position to maintain power over others. This is why exclusion increases power differences instead of resolving them.

Fig. 10.1
figure 1

Social exclusion and participation as elements affecting school climate and forming school culture

Full size image

Given the relationship between social exclusion and participation, the following study sought to illustrate how the two phenomena interact in one school. The research questions were: Which elements of social exclusion could be detected in this school? (How) are these elements related to participation?

Examining Student Participation

Data used in this chapter is drawn from the study “Strengthen participation – improve schools”Footnote 2 conducted in Switzerland between 2016 and 2019. The study analysed how schools realised student participation, and how participation related to school improvement processes and structures within schools. Five schools participated in the larger study. This chapter focuses on information from one school and was analysed following a single case study design (Yin, 2009). It is a comprehensive schoolFootnote 3 with students aged 4–15 years. The school is situated in a rural town with approximately 400 students of different social backgrounds (families of varying migration backgrounds and socio-economic status). This school’s two principals showed a high interest in the topic of participation and tried to implement it as a school improvement process.

The present chapter uses qualitative data from students and teachers to investigate the interaction of participation and social exclusion. Structured interviews were conducted with selected teachers (n = 8) and students (n = 3) who were particularly responsible for participation, for example a student holding a position within student parliament. Also, separate group discussions were held with students and teachers, where participants were invited to discuss the topic of participation. Two group discussions with eight teachers in each group and eight group discussions with four to eight students were held. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz, 2014). Interviews and group discussions were screened to select relevant sections categorised as “social exclusion” and “understanding of participation”. Quotations will be used to illustrate findings.

Perspectives of Students and Teachers

Findings are divided into two parts. First, examples of social exclusion reported by students in group discussions and interviews are described. Analysing these concrete situations, mechanisms, and conditions that support social exclusion are identified, pointing to its social character. Then, second, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards participation are related to the phenomenon of social exclusion to identify how participation and social exclusion interact. Since school improvement is understood as a collective, socially and interactively constructed process, central actors in it are the teachers whose beliefs and attitudes shape their actions (Biesta et al., 2015).

Exclusion as Part of Everyday School Life – Examples of Social Exclusion

Social exclusion forms part of everyday school life in the examined school. Findings indicate that phenomena such as making fun of others — which the students themselves refer to as “bullying”Footnote 4 —occurs in everyday school life. There are however differences between individual classes — some have bigger problems than others. A girl, Kerstin,Footnote 5 aged 15, states: “There is always a kid that is being bullied for a week. It is being bullied for a week and then it will be another kid that will be bullied.”

What is striking is that this student considers these tendencies as quite normal, accepting them as an unchangeable circumstance in the context of this school, which is an indication that it is not a single but frequent experience reflecting the school culture. The girl in this interview describes the risk of being bullied but also states, even though insults and ridicule are normal, that does not mean that a climate of fear exists in her school:

  • Interviewer: And you personally, when you wake up in the morning, do you like going to school or rather not?

  • Kerstin: It depends, there are weeks or days when you think, no, I don’t want to go to school because the day before something has happened. But in our class so far nothing has occurred that you would really say I don’t have any motivation to go to school, I am afraid to go to school because this or that could happen. I personally have never experienced that. Ok, there are days that I think I don’t want to go because somebody could be insulting me. But then I tell myself, hey, just let it happen because if you don’t get upset about it, they will start to get bored annoying you.

This student, although she does not have personal experiences, has developed a coping strategy, confirming that the risk and fear of being insulted is real. Interestingly the strategy is not actively seeking help but rather ignoring.

In her subsequent explanation she elaborates on the character of harassment she has experienced in school and differentiates between “real bullying” and only making fun of others. Despite trivialising the potential harassment, she seems to suffer from it because it means that one cannot freely express an opinion:

  • Kerstin: Sometimes you cannot openly say what you think, and I find this is a pity. We are in 2017 and you can state your opinion without fear that something happens. But especially in school you must be careful, oh what did I say, I cannot speak up openly because the consequence is that I will be harassed or something like that.

  • Interviewer: Fear of the reaction of the teachers or the group?

  • Kerstin: More from the peers. Well, we have never bullied somebody because for example the father was unemployed. In that case maybe for a month you are being laughed at but then it is forgotten.

While in her former description she denies that she is “afraid to go to school”, she reveals an atmosphere of fear from the possible reaction of her peers, being somewhat inconsistent in her statements. Her description of the situation also displays a certain insecurity of how to handle this problem: On the one hand, she does not simply accept the situation as it is, clearly stating her opinion, “I find this is a pity”. On the other hand, she does describe ways to deal with it.

As demonstrated in the example above, one form of exclusion is laughing at others. This laughing is also described by a group of students, aged 7–9:

  • Gina: It is laughing at others which simply is

  • Sarah: A bit stupid and

  • Larry: Yes, or if somebody

  • Gina: In our class there is a lot of laughing at others.

  • Larry: And if somebody falls and cries but the others don’t notice it then everybody starts laughing. If later they realise that he is crying they say oh I am sorry, I did not want to make fun of you. […]

  • Melina: Sometimes you simply must laugh because it looks funny.

  • […]

  • Gina: But it is not meant to be mean.

  • Larry: And then later they always say sorry, I didn’t mean to do that.

Laughing at others seems to be a common practice in this class. In the described incident, several students take advantage of the weakness of a student that has hurt himself and make fun of it. The students are divided in their positions — they clearly dislike the described behaviour of making fun of others by stating that it is “simply a bit stupid”. But they justify it by taking the perspective of the ones who laugh. This description of the situation does not make clear if the excuses of those who laugh at others are to be taken seriously or if it is tokenism. The girls describing the situation do not exhibit empathy or take the perspective of the one who has fallen but describe the reaction of having to laugh as natural: “sometimes you simply have to laugh because it looks funny”. With this sentence, Melina lays open that she might also belong to the group that laughs in such a case, receiving immediate support from Gina and Larry, who explain that such behaviour is not meant to be mean.

Another example stems from another class, aged 10–12, illustrating how students explain making fun of others and the dynamic involved.

  • Maria: There is a girl, Cinthia, it is mostly her who starts bullying someone. And then others join in and start laughing and then they start.

  • Kathrin: Her intention only is that others laugh about it.

  • Priska: Yes, and she wants to show off with that. For example, if she is bullying Hannes then she feels cool.

  • Kathrin: She hits him.

  • Priska: Then she feels that she is cool.

The citation shows that the students perceive one girl to be often the instigator. This naming can itself be seen as a form of social exclusion (Link & Phelan, 2001). Perpetrator and victim roles appear easily interchangeable. The students describe her motivation as a search for admiration from her peers. Here, a reason why Hannes becomes her target is not mentioned, which makes it appear somehow random who becomes a victim. Most importantly, it seems to be the effect it has on the others: that Cinthia can show off with her behaviour. She gets attention and recognition from the group, which makes her social position strong. This example shows the very social character of exclusion: it is meant as an action to be seen and praised by others.

A further example from students aged 8 illustrates how the process of social exclusion, including labelling, stereotyping, and discriminating as described by Link and Phelan (2001), is applied by students in a group discussion.

  • Lynn: And the teacher’s job is to take care that nobody is shouting. […]

  • Marc: And that, you must respect each other, for example. And that you don’t, hm, if you are talking to each other all the time.

  • Lynn: Like Noel and Nico sometimes.

  • Several students: (laughing)

  • Noel: But we haven’t been talking now for a long time.

  • Lynn: Yes, but before you have always been talking.

  • Noel: Yeah, sometimes.

Speaking about disturbing behaviour during class, a student names two other students, Noel and Nico, who have been disruptive by talking to each other. She labels them as the disturbers, attributing the negative behaviour to them. By exposing them to the entire group she separates them and the reaction of the others — laughing — provokes a certain loss of status.

How Teachers Perceive Participation – Beliefs and Attitudes

These descriptions of incidents that can be classified as social exclusion will now be contrasted with the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes concerning participation. These beliefs were deduced from group discussions where teachers talked about the topic of participation.

The first example illustrates how teachers promote a hierarchical relationship in school where students are meant to follow the rules and directives teachers set. This hierarchy stands in conflict with participation:

  • Tina: Especially kids that repeatedly search for a stage, a moment to stick out and attract attention in a negative way, they are better integrated if it is clear: this is what we are doing at the moment.

  • […]

  • Daria: And my impression is that students do have difficulties to integrate. They also do have to learn to do what they are told [by the teachers] and often this is what they are not so good at. And then it is difficult if you open up too fast and the kids still do have problems following instructions and accepting that this is the aim we are following at the moment. […] And I think you cannot function well as a class if you don’t learn to subordinate yourself.

Tina describes that there are students who seek opportunities to obtain attention from the rest of the group by exposing themselves in a negative light. In this way, she applies the same pattern as the students, naming and blaming a “disturbing” student group for misusing situations offering participation. In her view, such students need clear instructions from a teacher. The elaboration from Daria shows that students should subordinate themselves into the hierarchical structure of school where teachers decide. Such hierarchical structures make it complicated to realise participation, which she refers to as “opening up”.

The second example illustrates how the students’ suggestion to define topics, which should be discussed in student parliament, is foiled by the teacher. This teacher leads the student parliament of 7 to 9-year-olds and complains that students have no ideas for what they should work on. Shortly after, she describes a situation where students tried to participate but they chose — in her opinion — the wrong topic.

  • Sandra: In my grade level we have to push on topics. […] We once really reached the point where we had to say, stop, it can’t be that way. Then it became a bit like a blaming-circle. Something was stolen from someone; who did observe something, like that. And we had to say, no, it can’t be that, this instrument [student parliament] is not suitable for that. So, you had to put the brakes on the students and say, look, what is meant is not simply a call to find the perpetrator or something. Actually, what is meant is finding topics [to work on for the student parliament]. And that is also really hard to understand for the young students – what belongs there? […] It is too much for them when they have to bring in own, new topics.

Students experienced theft — a strong form of violence among peers — and wanted to stop it. They used the same pattern described in the previous section and looked for persons to blame when something went wrong. The teacher senses that this social practice is not helpful in solving the problem and that the “blaming-circle” makes things even worse. But she is helpless and not able to redirect the process in a constructive way. Her solution is to stop the process and define the need of the students as inadequate or illegitimate for student parliament. In this way, it becomes clear that student parliament in her view is an “instrument” with its own rules that are defined by adults, including which topics are suitable. Young students in particular are seen as unable to fulfil these requirements of defining suitable topics. By attributing this weak position to students, the teacher uses her power and stops any further negotiation to deal with the problem members of the student parliament brought up.

Discussion

Since Foucault (Peters & Besley, 2014), exclusion is understood as a social phenomenon based on the discourse of a given society. This social constructivist understanding of exclusion (Rawlings, 2019) is demonstrated at the school level within the case study described in this chapter. Widespread exclusion forms part of this school’s culture (Acosta et al., 2019) and reduces the rights of students to experience human dignity and a safe, non-violent school environment, as described in Article 29. Three main observations regarding exclusionary tendencies were made:

First, signals of mitigating the harmfulness of social exclusion (Thornberg & Delby, 2019) were found in different interview situations (single and group interviews). Certain forms of exclusion are considered normal in everyday school life. A student expressed she does not fear going to school while describing her coping strategies to deal with insults. Therefore, the experience of exclusion is a real risk in this school.

Second, this normality is a sign of the frequency of exclusionary tendencies and students do not often actively seek help to stop these tendencies. Why they fail to ask for help was not an objective of the study so we may only speculate. It is possible they had attempted to obtain help unsuccessfully in the past, which only made situations worse. Students accept insults or even react similarly with exclusion: they ignore or name (Chiffriller et al., 2015) and blame the perpetrators, becoming perpetrators themselves.

Third, the construction of exclusion is interwoven. There are many actors — teachers and students — involved and they appear in different constellations again and again. There is a clear pattern of excluding persons where the reason for exclusion is explained by behaviours of the excluded (Hills & Stewart, 2005). In this way, the socially constructed character of exclusion is particularly visible.

In the theoretical background we demonstrated exclusion and participation are counterparts. Many definitions (e.g., Razer et al., 2013) of exclusion are based on understandings of failing participation. This seems appropriate especially if participation is considered as social participation, conceived as a positive social interdependence and that has to be guaranteed first before decision making can take place (Niemi & Kiilakoski, 2020). The clear connection between social exclusion and participation evident across different data sources in the analysed case proves this relationship and explains why interviewees reported examples of social exclusion instead of participation.

Conclusion

Exclusion, forming a social phenomenon and being a pattern that many actors support, cannot be changed through a single intervention. A starting point to alter exclusionary school culture is to think of participation as a broader concept that cannot only be realised in institutionalised forms such as a student parliament. Participation is a way for the school community to deal with problems requiring corresponding attitudes from students and teachers.

Students in the analysed school are not helpless, as the examples demonstrate. They exercise power in a competing way, building hierarchical relationships. The question is how students can have the opportunity to change this power culture to a participative culture and build positive relationships. To be able to do so they need adults that are sensitive to students’ needs and actively stop tendencies of exclusion. First of all, teachers should start to alter their own behaviour.

Before being able to change one’s own beliefs and attitudes, one has to be conscious of them. A possibility to make existing beliefs and behaviour of teachers and students in school visible is to feedback research results like these and stimulate discussions about similar situations from different perspectives. Often, neither teachers nor students are aware of the culture they are part of and actively form. In the presented study feeding back the research results helped to identify situations of exclusion but also of participation. Already the fact of holding up a mirror, if done in a thoughtful way from the researchers’ side, can have an effect and stimulate a shift from a culture marked by enacting power over others to a participative culture based on feelings of belonging.