The Just Community approach to moral education: system change or individual change?

Abstract

This article focuses on the development of, and new theorising about, a strong democracy education intervention, the Just Community approach. Three questions frame the discussion: (1) Does democracy education change children and adolescents or do students in these programs change their schools, or is there a dynamic interaction over time? (2) How can democracy be ‘learned’? How can the concept of democracy be most thoroughly learned and how can democratic problem‐solving skills best be acquired? (3) How can we optimise the chances that the knowledge and skills learned will motivate future active citizenship? The article begins with a brief history of the Just Community approach, a description of the original developmental model created by Lawrence Kohlberg and collaborators and some variation in more recent European Just Community programs. In a discussion of controversial and difficult issues democracy education may face, the second question takes centre stage and several structural aspects are offered that should be included in such efforts to maximise their effectiveness. In the remainder of the article new perspectives coming from Europe are introduced. Some additional pathways to the Just Community approach and their justifications, which have not played a significant role in the theory and practice of the ‘traditional’ model but can add to its strengths, are identified. Finally, the idea of ‘trusting in advance’ is introduced as critical for well‐functioning educational democracies.

Notes

1. While these schools are small, often under 300 students, whole‐school meetings are very large. Such large meetings are effective because they heavily rely on small‐group discussions. The meetings begin with a plenary during which the agenda committee introduces the discussion topic. Then students discuss the issue in mixed‐aged small groups (which have a stable composite over several months) and meet again in the plenum to share results and have a follow‐up discussion. Normally, decisions are not made in the same meeting. The agenda committee collects the small‐group products, mostly posters with their suggestions, introduces the results to the next meeting, opens the discussion in the plenum again and then calls for a vote.

2. cf. http://democracy.dipf.de/index.php?option = com_content&task = view&id = 24&Itemid = 43