rich 2010 wethechildren

1

© Matthew Rich (2010). All rights reserved.

Ed Leadership Forum: 4th International Roundtable - Lucknow, India

We the Children Thoughts on Inclusive Decision-Making with Children

Matthew Rich 7/1/2010

2


In this short paper I would like to introduce some of my thinking around the value and practice of

including children in making decisions which affect their lives. I will begin by providing a brief definition

of inclusive decision making, and follow this by discussing the ideas of three theorists (Montessori,

Eisler, and Freire) each of whom I believe provide us with a cogent rationale for more inclusive decision-

making practices. Following this I will give a developmental perspective on the relevance of inclusive

decision-making with specific reference to Maria Montessori’s theory of child development. I will then

move onto a discussion of what I refer to as the ‘spectrum of decision making’, before finally giving

some practical suggestions for practitioners stemming from my own experience working in democratic

education environments.

What is Inclusive Decision-Making? Any approach which attempts to hear the perspectives of all stakeholders involved in a decision in order

to arrive at a decision which takes all of their needs and perspectives into account may, in my opinion,

be considered to be an inclusive approach to decision-making. In most schools decisions are made by

various organs in a structured hierarchy. In most cases children have very little direct input in the

decisions that affect their life and learning. This paper explores why it is important to give children a

more active role in making decisions and how this might be done. There are many different decision-

making methodologies that attempt to be inclusive and these shall be discussed in a later section of this

paper.

Theoretical Rationale The educational revolutionary, A.S. Neill, once wrote of his school, Summerhill: “We have no new

methods of teaching, because we do not consider that teaching itself matters very much (1962: 20ff)”. I

think that there is a deep truth in this. We –as educators – are very quick to become obsessed with new

methods for imparting bits of knowledge, but we can very easily become disconnected from the

incidental put very potent lessons that the very character of the institution of school and our resulting

relationship with learners proliferate. Indeed we can never think of our political epistemologies as

separate from our educational epistemology (Hern 2005). Put another way, an oppressive socio-political

milieu inevitably spawns an oppressive pedagogy. This is why progressive educators must by definition

be advocates for political and social change. It sometimes seem to me (and these are rather drastic

extremes here) that the educational discourse is either a ‘dumbing down’ and social anesthetic which

serves to make disempowerment and oppression more bearable, or an act of liberation - a

conscientization - which makes transformation inevitable. I believe that inclusive decision making-

3


processes have a valuable role to play in creating pedagogies of liberation. In the next few pages I will

discuss the ideas of a few theorists who I believe supply a valuable rationale in support of this idea.

Freedom and Democracy in the Writings of Maria Montessori1 “The question is neither pedagogic nor biological, but it is a social matter because all

men form part of society, even babies, and even young people from 10 to 20 years old.

The men who make up this society have clear-cut characters. For example, we live in

democracies, but for this to be really true, everyone must be democratic or rather,

everyone must live in a democratic way, even those who come between the ages of 0 to

20.”

*****

“At this point one has to ask why one section of humanity is allowed to express its free

choice for a government that it wants by voting, while the other half cannot show its

own will in the same way. How can the soul be forged in such constriction? Children

have no choice either in their school or in their teacher, nothing. Education understood

like this is no education for the man who wants to grow into something great. There is

no provision for such an approach in education today”.

What could be the source of these two quotations – A.S. Neill or John Taylor Gatto? This is a clear call

for the involvement of young children in democratic processes, advocating that true education gives

children choice to the extent of choosing their teachers. This would seem to indicate a source located in

the radical free school or democratic school tradition. These quotes, however, are from the woman we

normally picture in somber black Victorian attire – amidst clean, neat, and orderly young children. They

come from one of her lesser-known works, at the culmination of her career (Montessori 1998a) and

vividly expose the ideas which she considered to be most central to her philosophy of childhood.

Freedom appears to be a central thrust of Montessori’s work. She possessed a cosmic vision which

encompassed the bringing to fruition of a “New World” based on peace and true justice developed

through the hidden potentialities of the child (Montessori 1988: 219). This state could only be realized

by people who have grown up to value such a situation, more than desiring this new world one would

need to fully understand it.

111

Much of this section is taken directly from Caldwell & Rich (2007).

4


It is pertinent at this point to briefly explore Dr. Montessori’s view of Democracy. Montessori did not

devote a great deal of time to political discourse and often chose to represent herself as apolitical

insofar as she did not openly subscribe to any particular political party. However her writings do give

some indication of her position as regards political philosophy. Montessori clearly saw the electoral

democracy which most of the world uses to this day as entirely insufficient for bringing about social

change. She wrote,

“It is strikingly impressive that humanity despite its nameless slavery forms a kind of

stereotyped chorus crying out that it is free and independent. These miserable and

degraded people problem their own sovereignty [sic]. What do these unfortunates

look for? They seek, as their greatest good, what they call Democracy, i.e. that the

people may give their opinion as to how they are to be ruled – that they may cast their

votes in elections. What irony! To choose one’s rulers! But those who rule cannot free

anybody from the chains which bind all, which render all activity and initiative futile

and render them helpless to save themselves (Montessori 1983: pp.12ff)”.

Dr. Montessori possessed a vision of the liberation of man which could not be accomplished simply

through enfranchisement and present conceptions of democracy and law. She proposed that we

“…consider man alone and strive to raise him up, to strip him of the useless bonds he creates for himself

and which push him downwards into the abyss of lunacy”.

A new question now arises: How does Montessori’s grand vision of liberating mankind from the fetters

he creates for himself impact upon the practice of freedom in the classroom? We feel Dr. Montessori

provided some direction when she wrote that there exists “…a further and fundamental problem, the

problem of the freedom of the child. The distinction between Democracy and Totalitarianism has still to

be faced. Is the child to be left free to form himself or is he to be formed? The question of the freedom

of the child and the freedom of nations demands an urgent solution (Montessori 1998b)”. Clearly when

Dr. Montessori discusses the freedom of the child it is in a context far broader than the freedom to

choose from a predetermined collection of objects and activities. The problem is that, while Montessori

gave clear indications of how her didactic apparatus was to be used, teachers to be trained, and

environments to be prepared, she says very little about how to create the structures which will enable

children to play a larger role in the decisions which affect their lives. One can but wonder at how she

might have responded to CS Lewis’s Screwtape’s sardonic comments when he says, “Democracy is the

word with which you must lead them (i.e. mankind) by the nose. ... Nor of course must they ever be

5


allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that

democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to

occur to them that these need not be the same.”

There is very little meaningful reference made to aspects of child-directed school governance in

Montessori and related literature. The only contexts where children are seriously in control of the day

to day decision making processes in schools, where they have freedom - ranging form partial to absolute

- over how they spend their time, curricular content, and issues as diverse as choosing staff and

disciplinary procedures are found in a diverse group of organizations which commonly fall under the

umbrella term “democratic schools”.

If Montessorians then want to seriously pursue the possibility of fulfilling the vision of Dr. Montessori

they need to seriously examine the possibilities of incorporating aspects of democratic schools into

Montessori environments. This requires serious thought. It is necessary to examine a number of aspects

of both approaches. Firstly, the aims of the different approaches are pertinent. Being clear on why we

do something helps us to assess the effect of what we do. Some practices of democratic schools may be

applicable within the Montessori context, and add to the success of achieving the aims of Montessori

education, while other practices may detract from these aims.

By way of example let us examine the Sudbury Valley School concept as it is probably the most clearly

defined of the alternatives. There are three aspects of this approach which are pertinent to this

discussion: Firstly, in the Sudbury model students are completely free to decide how they wish to spend

their time; secondly, students always play an active role in the decision-making processes and

management of the school; and, thirdly, the school has a legal/judicial system of discipline based on the

judicial system of contemporary USA.

While the first of these aspects could be seen to be contiguous with the Montessori approach, differing

only in the degree of application, it is the last two which are relevant in determining the extent to which

this model could contribute to a Montessori environment. Of course, the extent to which students are

free to decide on aspects of school governance (i.e. exercise political freedom) would directly influence

the level of academic freedom of choice (i.e. pedagogical freedom).

Dr. Montessori asserted that the child was the “…source of those moral and intellectual values which

could bring the whole world on to a higher plane” and that the educational and political systems of her

6


time (just like those of our time) served “…to prepare artificially men who are abnormal and weak,

predisposed to mental illness, constantly needing care not to slip outward to the periphery

where, once fallen, they become social outcasts (Montessori 1988: 219)”. On the other hand

the Sudbury Valley movement seems to feel that an ideal - or at least a sufficient - approach

may be found encapsulated within the American politico-legal understanding. Its founders

write:

“We have always felt, based on the values of the American experience, that due

process of law is an essential element in a school embodying the principles of

personal liberty, mutual respect, and political democracy (The Sudbury Valley

School)”

It would appear from the literature available, that the Sudbury Valley School model aims to prepare its

students to become adults who are fully functional participants in the electoral democratic system as it

exists in contemporary USA. This is certainly a far more useful and noble aim than what the schooling

system appears to be working for; it is also a very realistic aim.

Montessori’s vision is certainly very idealistic. We see education also providing for the preparation of

the child to move out and play an active role in a far broader environment than the system in which she

presently lives. In short, far more than producing productive citizens for the world of today, Montessori

education envisages providing the means to function in the world as it could be. This in no way

diminishes the need for an adequate understanding of the child’s own context. In 1937 Montessori said

in Copenhagen that: “An education capable of saving humanity is no small undertaking; it involves the

spiritual development of man, the enhancement of his value as an individual, and the preparation of

young people to understand the times in which they live (Montessori 1999)”.

This implies that the practice of democratic processes may have a place in a Montessori environment,

but goes further to indicate that the child could be given the opportunity to practice various forms of

social organization, a freedom beyond prescribed mechanisms and systems. Along these lines in 1931,

also addressing a conference in Copenhagen, she said that:

“The human personality is shaped by continuous experiences; it is up to us to

create for children… a world that will readily permit such formative experiences.

The youngster's personality must come in contact with the world of production

7


after an apprenticeship in experience; man must be guided first and foremost

toward an awareness of his responsibilities with regard to human social

organization. Thus from early childhood on, human beings must have practical

experience of what association is, and only then gradually fathom the secrets of

the technical evolution of this society (Montessori 1999)”.

This leads our discussion directly to a concept which is pivotal to both Montessori and “democratic”

environments – freedom. It is often stated that when Montessori used the word “freedom” she meant

“freedom in limits”. This interpretation can then be used to justify any limits the adult may whish to

place on the child. While there are undoubtedly references in Montessori’s works to justify the view

that she certainly did not support the idea of completely abandoning the child to every whim and

impulse, it can nonetheless be argued that her vision of freedom encompasses far more than allowing

the child a choice of activity from a preselected and carefully controlled curriculum. It is also not a case

of managing and conditioning the child until he or she displays an acceptable level of responsible

behaviour, and then permitting a limited degree of freedom from overt control. It is clear that Dr.

Montessori desired to emancipate the child from the prison that society creates for her. In support of

this contention she wrote:

“In Roman times, those who were set free from slavery were not called free men

but “freed slaves”. Someone who has once been a slave can never really be free in

his innermost being. That is what happens to those of us who are full of frustrated

ambitions. This is the conscious part of oneself, but there is also a subconscious

part which can never be brought back to life (Montessori 1998a)”.

The freedom envisaged by Montessori is neither simply a “freedom from” overt control, nor simply

“freedom to” make choices. It is a very deep and metaphysical concept of freedom. It is “…not

liberation from parents and teachers…” nor “…from the laws of nature or of the state or of society…”

rather it is “…the utmost freedom for self-development and self-realization compatible with service to

society (Montessori 1998b, p. 88)”. The notion of individual freedom and its essential role in the

formation of a functional society suffuse Montessori’s writings. Whilst lecturing in Karachi in 1946 she

taught that, “Independence is the last conquest and freedom is the first necessity. So when people are

free in this sense they become independent, because independence is a conquest that begins with the

individual and then it leads to the organization of society (Kripilani 2002, Lecture 32)”. Despite the

8


breathtaking scope of her vision Dr. Montessori consistently maintained that individual freedom is the

basis of all the rest.

Riane Eisler’s Partnership and Domination Systems In her seminal work, The Chalice and the Blade (1987), the cultural-historian Riane Eisler traced two

different models of human relationships throughout history. She named the first model the 'Domination

System', it refers to relationships based on ranking, control, exploitation, and pain. It is epitomized by

what our society has constructed as typically male attributes (aggression, ambition, assertiveness, and -

on the flipside - apathy, sycophancy, and passivity). She identifies the second model as consisting of

'Partnership Systems' this refers to those relationship patterns based on equality, empathy, and

pleasure. Partnership patterns are characterized by what are often considered to be feminine attributes

(cooperation, peacefulness, generosity, and empathy). She also sees these patterns as applying to both

individual and broadly societal situations, "be it in the bedroom or the boardroom, be it in our intimate

relations or our international relations" (Ogden 2000).

Dominator thinking is particularly prevalent in modern society. This way of thinking has imbued every

part of our social consciousness and our public schools are one of the places where the 'dominator'

paradigm is most palpable. We have constructed an artificial system of ranking and dividing children by

age (in a way in which no other human institution does), measuring them and valuing them in terms of

their performance against a set of arbitrary and discriminatory standards. Children are sifted and their

future possibilities limited in terms of these criteria; they are molded for their place in a 'dominator'

society. Children are made to sit silently in rows, to march from class to class to the sound of a bell, to

show unquestioning obedience to the orders of their superiors (educators) or to face the consequences,

educators must submit to their superiors, and so the chain goes, while all of them surrender without

demur to a dogma and curriculum into which they had no, or little, input. This is preparation for the real

world, or at least a real world, the dominator world of the boardrooms, battlefields, prisons, offices,

hospitals, marriages, and classrooms which we send our children out to face by the thousands.

The two figures below represent the interactive dynamics of the partnership and domination systems.

The four fields identified here (namely: social structures, gender dynamics, belief systems, and fear and

violence) interact to create these specific world views. Changes which take place in one filed will

inevitably alter the state of the others; however change would need to take place in all fields in order for

the world-view to alter completely.

9


Figure 1: The interactive dynamics of the 'Domination System'.

Figure 2: The interactive dynamics of the 'Partnership System'.

•High degree of violence and fear

•Stories and myths idealize and trivialize domination and violence

•Ranking of males over females

•Authoritarian social structure

•Hierarchies of Domination

Social Structures

Gender Dynamics

Violence and Fear

Belief System

•Mutual trust

•Low degree of fear and reliance on structural violence and power

•Stories and myths honour partnership and represent it as normal

•Equal valuing of males and females

•Needs based social structures

•Emergent holarchies (Hierarchies of Actualization)

Social Structures

Gender Dynamics

Violence and Fear

Belief System

10


If we focus on the field represented in the upper right of these diagrams, i.e. social structures, we can

see that a shift towards inclusive decision making with children constitutes a direct shift from

domination to partnership based social structures. When we include children in making their own

decisions we flatten the pyramid that is erected by pathological hierarchies that allow adults to have

decision-making power over children simply because they have more access to resources (physical

strength, experience, legal standing, experience, money and physical resources, etc.). That is to say, we

choose not to limit children’s choice simply because they have limited access to structural power. When

children are given more access to choice, balanced by the responsibility of community needs, it is

possible for natural holarchical organizational structures to emerge which promote the partnership

political agenda. When a community begins to take ownership for their own decisions it naturally

becomes less necessary to enforce these decisions through the use of violence and fear-based

strategies, the shift towards inclusive decision-making therefore also has an impact on the field

represented in the lower left of these diagrams.

A similar way of looking at these two dichotomous paradigms (with slightly different languaging) is

represented in the table below:

POWER-OVER POWER-WITH

Focus Meeting one’s needs (may

include contribution to the

other)

Supporting choice for all

parties and holding all needs as

precious

Action Mobilise resources to meet

own needs even at the expense

of other’s needs (when other’s

needs are incidentally met

their need for choice likely will

not be).

Works towards valuing all

needs as precious and

mobilises resources to meet all

needs (does not move to meet

own needs until other’s are

met).

The shift from hierarchical and authoritarian organizational designs (such as those embraced by most

educational institutions) towards inclusive types of decision-making is a shift from power-over to power-

with governance.

11


Paulo Freire’s Banking Education Critique and Dialogical Action In his important book, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1998b), Paulo Freire writes:

“A careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any level, inside or outside the

school, reveals its fundamentally narrative character. This relationship involves a

narrating Subject (the teacher) and patient, listening objects (the students). The

contents, whether values or empirical dimensions of reality, tend in the process of being

narrated to become lifeless and petrified...The teacher talks about reality as if it were

motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable. Or else he expounds on a topic

completely alien to the existential experience of the students. His task is to 'fill' the

students with the contents of his narration” (Freire, 1998b: 54).

Freire observed that education often comes down to little more than a banking transaction. Teachers –

as active subjects – make deposits of knowledge into students (who end up being petrified objects –

nothing more than receptacles), and then – at a later stage – make a withdrawal in the form of an

assessment. He further observes that “the more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to

them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the

world as transformers of that world (Freire 1998b: 55)“.

The solution that Freire proposes lies in what he terms problem-posing education. He suggests that we

must “…begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the

contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students (Freire 1998b: 53). In problem-

posing education”, he later continues, “people develop their power to perceive critically the way they

exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a

static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation (64)". He explains that “problem-posing

education does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor”, because “no oppressive order

could permit the oppressed to begin to question: Why? (67)“.

Freire hypothesized that for the learner to move from object to Subject, he or she needed to be involved

in dialogical action with the teacher. He proposed that this dialogical action is the praxis that exists

when there is correct tension between action and reflection enabling true work that empowers the

learner to speak their own words and thus name their own world (Freire 1998b: 68). The subjects, or

dialoguers, are able to "focus their attention on the reality which mediates them and which--posed as a

problem--challenges them. The response to that challenge is the action of dialogical Subjects upon

reality in order to transform it (149)“.

When we invite children to collaborate with us in making inclusive decisions we invite them to join us in

a process of dialogical action. We prose problems to which children may name their own answers whilst

supplying only necessary support and guidance. In so doing we enable learners to become active

subjects, and agents in their own subjective and inter-subjective transformation. Furthermore, inclusive

decision-making dismantles the student-teacher contradiction by ending the reliance on the teacher as

an omniscient source of knowledge and instead putting in place structures for peer-mediated self-

discovery.

12


Inclusive Decision-Making: A Developmental Perspective

Figure 3: A simple representation of Montessori's developmental theory with reference to inclusive decision-making.

The above diagram supplies a simplified representation of Montessori’s developmental theory in so far

as it relates to inclusive decision-making. I will now briefly look at each of the developmental planes

separately in a little more detail.

The First Plane

Figure 4: A birthday circle at Nahoon Montessori School, South Africa (2006).

For the purposes of this paper I will focus here on the ages from three to six years under this heading.

This stage of development, which Montessori referred to as the stage of the ‘conscious absorbent mind’,

is a stage of relative exterior stability. There is a lot of neurobiological development taking place and the

• Independence, coordination, concentration, order

• Practical life education

• Creating ease

The First Plane (0-6 years)

• Imagination, socialization, moral justice

• Our role in the story

• How can we be together?

The Second Plane (7-12 years)

• Trust, self-expression, analytical thought, commitment, responsibility

• Politics and Systems thinking

The Third Plane (13-18 years)

13


child responds to numerous sensitivities while moving towards the goal of ever increasing

independence. During this phase the child is relatively egocentric and social interactions and systems

hold little interest to her or him in and of themselves, however they may serve as a means to an end

under some circumstances. Of course this doesn’t imply that young children are not interested in

connection – they are intensely interested in it – rather that they are interested in something like a

meeting to the extent that they are able to see it contribute to their ease in gaining increased

autonomy. Resultantly, this is neither the right time for drawn-out theoretical debate, nor for the

construction of elaborate codifications or moral considerations. The meeting is a utilitarian tool for

helping young children to do things for themselves and, where whole group decisions are an inevitable

necessity, making sure that information is communicated fairly.

Children in this phase of development don’t like to waste time. They are industrious workers and resent

things that take them away from purposefulness and the greatest insult is when others – normally

adults – do for them things which they may do for themselves. Circles are a very popular didactic

method in early childhood generally. In my opinion they are grossly over used. Their overuse results in

them being an ongoing source of boredom and frustration to children; routinely they are drawn away

from the work which they chose to be force fed pre-packaged information which, more likely than not,

does not correspond to their vital interest in the moment. I think that circle meetings can often be a

useful way of communicating vital information which has relevance to the whole group, but I think this

method should be used sparingly.

Often this method can be used to teach practical life skills, particularly the skills of ‘grace and courtesy’.

This is a good time to introduce the skills of decision-making and problem solving under this guise: as

rules, etiquette, and the oil that oils society.

The Second Plane

Figure 5: Nahoon Montessori School Meeting (2004) - East London, South Africa.

During the second plane of development (which takes place roughly between 6 and 12 years of age)

children begin to become far more social and develop far more interest in how to get along in a group.

This is an excellent time to start using inclusive decision making practices as an approach to co-creating

14


strategies that nurture an ethos of interdependence. Children in this phase are also enamored with

notions of fairness and justice; inclusive decision-making can help them to find solutions to conflicts that

meet these needs for them. These children are trying to find what they value and believe and put these

into practice in very concrete ways. Inclusive decision-making within the school enables children to

experiment with values and principles and their practical applications within a prepared environment.

Similarly it creates a safe space for imagining and trying out alternative roles for the future. Obviously,

there are also a range of classical academic advantages to inclusive decision-making in this plane – these

include writing, reading, public speaking, and analytical problem solving (to name a few).

The Third Plane

Figure 6: Sociocratic meeting of The Learning Community (2008) - East London, South Africa.

During the third plane of development, or adolescence, ranging between 12 and 18 years, we have

many rich opportunities for the application of inclusive decision-making. For a start, the conversation

and friendly debate that arises from this process can be a very useful and enjoyable social experience for

people of this age. People in this plane are becoming ever more global in their thinking they are deeply

intrigued by concepts such as politics, economics, and social systems all of these topics can be engaged

far more meaningfully through actively engaging real and relevant issues than through studying a

textbook. Once again this supplies an opportunity for application of learning across disciplines.

Spectrum of Decision Making So, decision-making is an essential and integral part of the relationships that we have with each child,

with our classroom communities, with school leadership, with families, everywhere…. Yet we very

seldom seem to put much thought into how we make decisions and why we choose to make them the

way that we do. I would now like to briefly explore six of the chief ways in which we make decisions, I

call this the “spectrum of decision making”. This analysis is based largely upon the work of Prof. Gerhard

Endenburg (particularly from his book Sociocracy: the organization of decision-making and his lecture

Kennis, Macht, en Overmacht (not available in English)). When I look at each decision-making approach I

will examine where true power or supremacy (overmacht) lies and what the implications of this are.

15


Some of this information may at first glance seem needlessly complex, but I would like you to receive

this as an invitation to consider when you have used each of these approaches in your own life and to

ask yourself: “Why did I choose to make a decision in this way”? or “Did this decision-making process

serve me in this moment”? Whenever possible I will use examples relevant to the classroom or school

leadership context.

Chaotic decision-making The first type of decision-making I’d like to look at might be called, “chaotic decision-making”. It is based

upon chance, fate, or impulse. Decisions are made with relation to random possibilities such as drawing

straws, throwing dice, flipping a coin, etc without any sort belief in a higher power directing this process.

Supremacy is therefore placed with chance phenomena and present possibilities. This is a reasonably

unsophisticated way of making a decision, but it is certainly efficient. When do you think that it would

be appropriate to make a decision on this basis? In your own life? In the context of school leadership?

Some decisions are indeed more trivial than others. Sometimes there is no clear better choice and both

decisions would be equally effective in terms of getting us where we want to go. In these circumstances

it is often a waste of resources to argue about which route is preferable when they are both “good

enough” and there are more important decisions to be made. Perhaps in these circumstances it is

indeed most appropriate to leave the matter to chance. For instance we are equipping a new classroom

and need to decide whether to buy a square or rectangular mirror, they cost the same, we have no

personal aesthetic preference, and no data (observations etc) which would lead us to believe that the

kids would prefer one to the other…why not flip a coin?

Magical decision-making The second group includes magical, religious, or Theocratic decision-making. Using this approach an all-

encompassing decision is made based entirely upon a notion of or belief in “otherness” or an “other”.

This might take the form of a personal deity or of magical-animism. Sometimes – if we believe that there

is a guiding purpose behind our existence – it can even take the form of honoring or trusting our

intuition. In other words this is “faith-based” decision making and, accordingly, supremacy is vested in

our faith in the ‘other’. Many great decisions have been made – at least ostensibly - on this basis (many

faith-based organizations consistently make decisions base on divine guidance), and some disastrous

ones as well (just consider the crusades). Do you ever make decisions of this kind in your own life? When

do you think it is appropriate for organizations to make decisions in this way? One of the chief

limitations of this sort of decision-making is that it tends to be very subjective in nature. If we do not

share a common set of basic assumptions and beliefs with the group we are making decisions with we

could run into problems.

16


Authoritarian decision-making2 This is possibly the most commonly used approach to decision-making in most schools and classrooms. I

think that it is often a symptom of the way that the domination paradigm is entirely pervasive in our

society. In this approach decisions are made autocratically by an individual or a small select group (be it

a board, a leadership team, a teaching team, or a child). Supremacy is therefore vested in a leader or

aristocratic caste. Although this approach can easily become despotic it is sometimes extremely useful,

and there certainly are times when a leader needs to take a decision and implement it. When does your

organization use this approach to deciding things? Does it serve your organization on these occasions?

Often a member of an organization has a set of expertise which enables them to make wise decisions

regarding the organization without consultation (e.g. an accountant, or ground’s man choosing the best

fertilizer), in these occasions it is often useful to delegate decision-making to this person with a limited

mandate and put some sort of system in place to ensure accountability. Inclusive decision-making can

be resource intensive and very few people really want to be involved in every decision which affects

them.

Democratic decision-making By this I mean democracy in its narrowest possible interpretation, that of majority-rules decision-

making. Sadly this seems to have become to be the definition which most people identify with. Typically

using this system people each cast a vote to decide between a range of alternatives. The alternative that

has the most votes is chosen. Supremacy is therefore vested in the greatest number of votes, or the

largest representation in some other form. History has shown that the line between this approach and

the one mentioned immediately before is often blurred quite easily. With this said majority-rules

democracy is one way to include more people in making a decision – even if it is often only to choose

who gets to oppress them next. Can you think of when you have used this approach? When is it useful? I

believe it is frequently useful especially when everyone agrees to using it for a specific and limited

decision. It is important, however, that people have a clear understanding that they are not necessarily

choosing the best decision, nor a decision that suits everyone, but merely the decision that the most

people liked at a particular moment.

The diagram below represents an overview of how most majority-rules decision making processes work,

be they parliamentary style decisions, Roberts’ rules or whatever other format:

2 One might well ask at this point: “Where in this paradigm would you place decision-making that is based on an

objective absolute framework such as a constitution or a sacred text (e.g. is a ruling by a constitutional court a form

of authoritarian decision-making)?” In these instances supremacy or authority is not entirely vested in the

aristocratic caste (the judges) but also in the convention or document they uphold. This approach is also not

democratic decision making because the rule of law holds supremacy over the majority voice. I suppose a useful

distinction might be drawn between the mechanisms and the sources of decision-making which this model or

paradigm doesn’t really do.

17


Figure 7: Typical structure of a majority rules decision-making process.

Consensus decision-making I am referring here to the formal consensus approach pioneered by C.T. Lawrence Butler (e.g. Butler and

Rothstein 1991). In this system there must be no unresolved issue in order for a decision to be made, i.e.

everyone must agree. Supremacy can therefore be placed with the dissenting individual. It may

sometimes appear that consensus can help to save us from the so-called “tyranny of the majority”. This

may well be true, but in the same move it can reintroduce the tyranny of the minority through the back

door. Whereas the individual cannot make decisions on behalf of the group - as is the case with

authoritarian decision-making – she is able to subvert the will of the group by her dissent.

Consent decision-making In consent-based decision making methodologies, such as sociocracy and holacracy, decisions are made

using the principle of ‘no objection’. Supremacy belongs to strength of argument. This allows the

individual and the community to both be simultaneously held as important. Sociocracy (technically

called the ‘Sociocratic Circle Method’) is an empty / open system which was crafted from the Quaker

meeting by the Dutch peace activist Kees Boeke, it was later refined in the business setting with insights

from cybernetics and systems thinking by Gerhard Endenburg. It can be seen as the evolution of

democracy. It uses the creativity of the group to create equivalence throughout organizations.

Issues drafted on

agenda

Discussed/ Analyzed

by the group

Move to expedite

Vote by secret or

open ballot

Accepted or rejected

18


Some Practical Suggestions In this last section I would like to share six points of practical advice around inclusive decision-making

with children. Each of these has been has been something that I have discovered to be valuable over

and over again in my own work.

1. Meetings evolve…that’s the point. Experimenting with different roles, voices, and modalities is

most of why we do meeting.

2. Different decision making approaches work in different situations. We need to be willing to

experiment. It is unlikely that you’ll find one method that will work all of the time.

3. Bad decisions are an important control of error. Decisions have a control of error if we make a bad

decision we get a bad result. We also need to experiment to establish cause and effect relationships.

Consider a baby repeatedly dropping her spoon from the high-chair. We establish some

understanding of the law of gravity when we are young but it takes our whole lives to begin to come

to terms with social and spiritual laws.

4. Conflict is an opportunity. When we disagree it may stimulate violent action or else it may lead to

greater creativity. We rob children blind by creating “nice” environments.

5. Who drives the bus? Who can stop it? We need to keep an awareness of where power is and hold

in our consciousness strategies for sharing it in equivalent ways. We also want to create an

environment where people are able to stop the process if they don’t like the speed or direction at

which it is moving.

6. What is the responsibility of a big person. We need to acknowledge that we are powerful by virtue

of age and size. We have a responsibility not to overpower others. We need to observe more than

intervene.

*****

This paper has covered an enormous amount of ground in a relatively small space. We have examined

some theoretical rationales behind introducing inclusive decision-making in the environment as well as a

developmental orientation in terms of Maria Montessori’s developmental stage theory. We then looked

at some of the choices we might use in terms of how we make decisions, and then – finally - I left you

with some food for thought stemming from my own experience. This is in no way an exhaustive primer,

but I hope that it has at least whet your appetite. Every encounter with the child is an opportunity to

contribute to the renewal of mankind. May you grasp the opportunity with both hands.

19


Bibliography

Buck, J. & Villines, S. (2007) We the people: consenting to a deeper democracy. Sociocracy.info:

Washington, DC.

Caldwell, S. & Rich, M. (2007) Thoughts on Freedom and Democracy in the Montessori Environment. In

Bennis, D. M. & Graves, I. R. (eds). The Directory of Democratic Education. Alternative Education

Resource Education (AERO) Books: Roslyn Heights, NY.

Eisler, R. (1987) The Chalice and the blade: our history, our future. New York: HarperCollins.

Endenburg, G. (1981) Sociocratie: het organiseren van de besluitvorming. Samsom: Alphen aan den

Rijn. English trans. (1998a) Sociocracy: the organization of decision making. Eduron: Delft.

Endenburg, G. (1998b) Kennis, macht, en overmacht. Eburon: Delft.

Freire, P. (1998a). Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1998b). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (New Revised 20th-Anniversay ed.). New York:

Continuum Publishing Co.

Freire, P. (1997). A Response. In P. Freire, J. W. Fraser, D. Macedo, T. McKinnon, & W. T. Stokes (Eds.),

Mentoring the Mentor: A Critical Dialogue with Paulo Freire (pp. 175-199). New York: Peter Lang

Publishing, Inc

Hern, M. (2005) AERO Conference DVD. Troy, New York: AERO.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical Pedagogy: 2nd ed. New York: Peter Lang.

20


Kripalani, L. (Ed.) (2002) Maria Montessori: 1946 lectures – Karachi, India . Mammolina Press: Beijing.

Lewis, C.S. (1971) Screwtape proposes a toast. London: Fontana Books.

Montessori, M. (1983) The formation of man. Thiruvanmiyur, India : Kalakshetra Publications.

Montessori, M. (1988) The absorbent mind . Oxford , England : Clio Press.

Montessori, M (1998a) “On the Schooling of Young People, v – 4: 1951”. The child society and the

world: unpublished speeches and writings. Oxford, England: CLIO Press.

Montessori, M. (1998b) What you should know about your child. Oxford , England : Clio Press.

Montessori, M. (1999) Education and Peace. Oxford, England: CLIO Press.

Rich, M. (2007) “The mystery of pleasure: thoughts on teaching and learning sex and gender relations in

a democratic Montessori elementary environment”. In The Journal of Unschooling and Alternative

Learning, V.1.1.2. Nippisung University Press: Toronto, Ontario.

The Sudbury Valley School. The Judicial System. Obtainable from

http//:www.sudval.org/05_onli_03.html>. Accessed 20 March 2007.

21


About the Author Matthew Rich-Tolsma is presently Director of Operations at the MetaIntegral

Foundation’s Integral Education Center, where he oversees a range of consulting,

research, and community development projects. He is deeply committed to

supporting the development and articulation of integrative approaches to

education and supporting a community of educators, scholars, and practitioners

to come into a more meaningful relationship with these approaches. One of the

ways he does this is through teaching an eight week CEU bearing Overview of

Integral Education. Matthew also serves as a visiting Research Fellow at the

School for Transformative Leadership, Palacky University, where he is involved in

research in the field of Transformative Higher Education approaches and social

innovation as well as teaching transdisciplinary courses on Meta-theory,

psychology, and complex thought. This work relates directly to the University for

the Future (U4F) Initiative where he is additionally involved in a number of other

projects, including curriculum development. More locally Matthew serves as an

educational consultant at the Experience Integral Foundation in the Netherlands,

and is an organizer and core-faculty member of their flagship program on

Conscious Leadership for Sustainability. Matthew is also guest faculty for the

Montessori Foundation’s Montessori Leadership Institute. His present research

interests integrate multiple approaches (especially those stemming from the work

of Montessori, Aurobindo, Wilber, Bhaskar, and Morin) in service of the

development of transformative educational futures in the face of complex

personal, social, and ecological crises. Matthew has a background in Montessori

education, democratic education, and unschooling. He has taught children and

teachers and consulted with schools and training organizations in South Africa, China, India, the USA, and throughout Europe. He holds a

Diploma in Early Childhood Development (Sustainability Institute), as well as graduate level certifications in Montessori Education (Center for

Guided Montessori Studies (IMC/MACTE)), Facilitation (University of Fort Hare), and TESOL (LTTC). He has also completed leadership training

through the Integral Sustainability Center (Conscious Leadership for Sustainability – Advanced Practices), Bay Area Nonviolent Communication

(Parent Peer Leadership Program (2007); North American NVC Leadership Program (2008)), and the Center for Partnership Studies (Partnership

Economics Leadership Program – Women’s Empowerment Track). Matthew holds a Master’s degree in Psychology and Consciousness Studies

(International Center for Integral Studies – Graduation pending), and is a Certified Life Coach (CCA / ICF) and Certified Nonviolent

Communication Trainer (Center for Nonviolent Communication – awaiting announcement). Matthew is a popular conference speaker and

trainer and has, for instance, lectured or presented at the Biennial Integral Theory Conference (John F. Kennedy University, USA), International

Democratic Education Conference (University of British Columbia, Canada), the International Montessori Teaching Institute (American

Montessori Society, China), Excellence in School Education Conference (Indian Institute of Technology, India), EdLeadership Roundtable (World

Unity Convention Centre, India), International Seminar on Transformative Learning (Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

Trondheim), and The South African Montessori Association. Matthew’s writing has also been published in numerous book chapters (e.g. The

Directory of Democratic Education: 2nd edition (AERO, New York), Excellence in School Education (Scholastic, New Delhi)) and journal articles

(e.g. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, Montessori Leadership Journal, Integral Leadership Review, and Encounter: Education for

Meaning and Social Justice). He is also an editor of two forthcoming volumes on the topic of transformative higher education through Palacky

University Press, and has acted as an expert reviewer for a number of journal including The Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning,

Integral Leadership Review, Educational Research, and The International Journal of Peace Development Studies. Matthew is proudly South

African and presently lives with his wife, Anneke, in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

rich 2010 wethechildren

Documents