Opinions

Tackling Bullying Through Classroom Democracy

Updated on

By Imre Wessels

Illustrations by Kalsum Harun

From the Editor: In this article, Imre Wessels, examines the conditions in schools that allow bullying to thrive, concluding that bullying progresses in environments where students experience powerlessness. He advocates for classroom democracy,  emphasizing that this approach does not entail lowering academic standards or relaxing discipline, but rather cultivating a culture rooted in respect, accountability, and trust.

Imagine being a child and having to go to school every day, knowing that other children will make fun of you. For some children, each school day brings anxiety and uncertainty as they brace for potential bullying. In addition to specific acts being documented and reported to the mainstream media, surveys suggest that bullying happens to one out of four children in Singapore. While schools have their anti-bullying policies, the very nature of traditional schools makes fighting bullying an uphill struggle. 

Image credit: Emma Nostrom on Art Education Kit

Power and Control in the Classroom

Certain disciplinary practices, when unchecked, can resemble bullying dynamics or unintentionally reinforce power imbalances, particularly when they undermine trust between teachers and students. The same is true for ‘classroom management’, whereby a teacher might call out a daydreaming child, triggering the whole classroom to laugh. Teachers play a central role in shaping classroom culture. Pooja Bhandari of EveryChild.sg wrote:

“When teachers shame or belittle, it signals acceptability. This culture can only shift once teachers are less overwhelmed.”

Systems That Label and Divide

Traditional schools often emphasize structure and control, which can limit opportunities for students to participate in decision-making or express themselves freely. Grouping children strictly by age and assessing them primarily through exams can unintentionally make comparisons between students more pronounced. Examination systems can contribute to labels that can shape how students perceive themselves and how others view them. A system where one is constantly compared with others can contribute to unintended consequences, such as bullying.

Students Lacking Autonomy

Studies indicate that bullying tends to be more prevalent in environments where individuals feel powerless to respond or unable to remove themselves from harmful situations. When individuals are placed in environments with little autonomy or agency, tensions can rise, sometimes escalating into conflict. This propensity for conflict arises not from their nature but because they are placed in a system that restricts their natural behaviour, thus contributing to tension and, in some cases, aggression. 

Systems of ranking, rewards, and recognition can sometimes lead to unintended comparisons among students, influencing how inclusion and belonging are experienced.

The Limits of Anti-Bullying Policies

Assessing the effectiveness of Singapore’s anti-bullying policies is a challenge due to the gap between official policies and lived experiences. For a start, there is a large discrepancy when we compare self-reported bullying data with official records. One in four children reports having been bullied during the last two or three months, while the MOE reports two cases per 1,000 students annually. There is a 125 times difference between these numbers. This variance suggests students may be reluctant to seek help, possibly due to fear of retaliation, lack of trust, or feelings of disempowerment. 

Power dynamics directly contribute to the limitations of anti-bullying policies. Approaching those with power (teachers) comes with the risk of retaliation from bullies, making students hesitant to report incidents. Teachers themselves face a tricky balancing act: addressing bullying while managing competing expectations from parents, administrators, and their students. This pressure can make teachers reluctant to take strong measures, inadvertently undermining the very policies designed to protect students.

If the problem lies partly in power imbalances, the solution may lie in redistributing power.

Image credit: Muhammed Nishal on Unsplash

Learning from Democratic Schools

Democratic schools vary in structure but generally feature voluntary participation in lessons, emphasize student choice, and include a communal decision-making process. While some of these schools offer traditional subjects and paths to nationally recognized qualifications, specific types of democratic schools, such as the Sudbury model, do not predetermine their curriculum, as they facilitate entirely self-directed learning.

Preliminary reports from democratic schools suggest bullying incidents may be less frequent, although more comprehensive research is needed to understand these trends fully. Peter Hartkamp, one of the founders of the Sudbury Amersfoort school, states that he has not seen any incidences of bullying.

Surveys of graduates from such schools support this finding, as they emphasize the respect and friendships formed across age ranges. Yanna Roemeling, a graduate of the Dutch democratic school De Ruimte, remarked about her school experience:

“It feels like a second family. I got along with everyone. (…) Many people tell me how terrible their primary school was. I can’t imagine, because it’s something I never experienced.” 

Such testimonies remain anecdotal, and reports would benefit from further systematic research to determine the extent to which these outcomes resulted from the nature of democratic schools. After all, low bullying incidences are also reported in non-democratic schools. For example, one Steiner school reported bullying rates about half those of traditional public schools, and two Montessori school studies found reduced bullying incidences compared to schools with conventional settings. These patterns provide valuable insights into the characteristics of schools that can facilitate these outcomes. Studies that suggest alternative schools face fewer incidents of bullying often attribute this outcome to their emphasis on collaboration, autonomy, and mutual respect. The following sections discuss several key elements.

Shared Responsibility

In democratic schools, everyone has the opportunity to create rules, and these rules apply equally to all. Democratic schools do not have a single authority figure at the top making all the decisions. Every staff member and student of the school has an equal vote in how the school should be run. Conflict between people inevitably arises, but it is resolved either through a Judiciary Committee, as in the democratically-run Sudbury Schools, or through restorative justice, as in many democratic schools. 

These schools have different approaches towards resolving conflict. However, they both stem from an environment that respects children, as the school rules are collaboratively created. In the case of the Judiciary Committee of a Sudbury School, consequences are given for rule violations. For example, a student who repeatedly fails to put toys away after using them might be barred from the playroom for half a day. On the other hand, restorative justice procedures in democratic schools occur in circles where everyone has the opportunity to speak in three rounds. During the first round, an agreement is reached on what happened, why it happened, and what could have been done to prevent the situation. This process moves beyond punishment and allows the exploration of novel ways to resolve conflict. 

Cover image of Derry Hannam’s book, Another Way is Possible: Becoming a Democratic Teacher in a State School. Image credit: Amazon Singapore

Classroom-Level Democracy

We can learn a lot from democratic schools about cultivating collaborative and mutually respectful learning environments, but these ideas are not limited to alternative schools. A UK teacher, Derry Hannam, did just that when he decided to become a democratic teacher in a public school. His journey is described in the book, ‘Another Way Is Possible.’ In this book, Hannam describes how he formed a democratic classroom in a UK public school. Decisions regarding classroom management, disciplinary actions, and roles, such as the form captain and chief judge, were agreed upon by vote. 

In one case, a student named Jo, who had previously bullied peers, was given responsibility as a class leader after a collective decision by her classmates. This unexpected act of trust transformed her behaviour, leading her to write a reflective piece on bullying and engage positively with her peers. This approach was a solution that adults may not readily propose. Even if an adult proposed it as a solution, it could have met with resistance, as the positions of form captain and chief judge came with a lot of prestige and responsibility. That was precisely why the class agreed that ‘if Jo doesn’t show any responsibility, we will give her responsibility’. The solution carried more legitimacy because it came from the students themselves.

Higher-order moral judgment is more likely to emerge when we empower children to take responsibility for themselves and their peers. Democracy in the classroom diminishes power imbalances, promotes responsibility, and fosters greater freedom, creating an environment where bullying is less likely to thrive. This is why researchers recommend providing opportunities for children to participate in bullying prevention programs, since a majority of children are neither bullies nor bullied but could be activated to counter bullying. The limited participatory scope of such initiatives underscores the need for more democratic, student-driven approaches that can be adapted within mainstream classrooms.

Collective decisions by classmates empower students to take responsibility and promote solutions that adults may not readily propose. Image: Canva AI

A Focus on Collaboration: Current Limitations and Adaptations by Alternative Schools

Singapore’s education system has made efforts to promote respect and inclusivity, but frameworks for genuine student participation remain limited. One such example is the peer-support initiative known as the Peer Support Leaders (PSL) program. These efforts focus on encouraging students to report bullying and support one another. Some critics caution, however, that such schemes risk positioning students as informants rather than collaborators in building safer school cultures. While MOE initiatives emphasise respect, inclusivity, and peer support, there is no clear framework that enables students to co-create anti-bullying policies. This absence of collaborative structures remains a critical policy blind spot in Singapore. 

Establishing democratic principles in the classroom might feel daunting initially. Yet, there are lessons to be learned from a wide variety of alternative schools. Montessori, Steiner, and Sudbury schools differ in approach. Still, a common thread across many alternative schools is an emphasis on a learning environment that prioritizes cooperation over competition and focuses on building respectful relationships between staff and students. 

In Singapore, anecdotal accounts highlight the benefits of democratic classroom practices. Aminah Abdul Latif, one of the co-founders of Hundred Paths, a Singapore-based forest school, notes that forest school coaches play a crucial role in welcoming students and creating a space for sharing feelings without shame.  Aminah mentioned that her son’s teacher began each lesson with the question, “How are you all feeling?” and would allocate at least 15 minutes for an open conversation. This allowed students to express themselves and build meaningful connections based on trust and mutual respect. Teachers in traditional schools can apply these lessons immediately.

The practice of holding space for one another helps build meaningful connections and respect. Image: Canva AI

Steps to Adapting Democratic Principles

For teachers who want to get started, nurturing a culture of mediation is a good step. Here is a practical step-by-step guide to creating a mediation circle in a classroom: 

  • Gather the children in a circle.
  • Share with them your intention to have a peaceful and friendly atmosphere in the classroom, where everyone feels safe and welcome.
  • Share with them a moment when you didn’t feel this way (for example, when someone used offensive words, pushed you aside, or raised their voice to you). Name your feelings.
  • Invite the children to share in the circle how they feel in moments like this. You can prepare cards with a feeling described on each card. They may be spread on the floor to help children identify their feelings.
  • Invite the children to share
  • Invite the children in the circle to share their best guesses on what the person doing the action is feeling. Also, what might be his/her needs?
  • Express your desire to discuss with them and decide together what to do in those situations. Focus on how we can support everyone’s needs instead of handing out punishment.
  • Make a poster together with possible options of what to do in such situations. You can hang the poster in a visible place in your room.

Teachers can take it to the next step by creating Derry Hannam’s classroom democracy, thereby cultivating a sense of ownership and empowerment among students. Principals and the Ministry of Education can support this shift by creating time and space for these practices and recognising their importance alongside academic achievement.

The Way Forward: Towards Safer, Kinder Schools

Ultimately, tackling bullying through classroom democracy is about reimagining schools as communities built on empathy, responsibility, and shared voice. Democratic practices can start small: rotating peer mediators, class councils for decision-making, or restorative circles to address conflict. A constructive next step would be for MOE to pilot democratic practices—such as class councils or restorative circles—in selected schools, to test their impact on bullying and student well-being. Developing these practices requires changes in other aspects. Reducing academic pressure and involving students in decision-making has been associated with more trusting and collaborative environments. By giving children a voice and responsibility, schools can replace fear with trust and hostility with cooperation. 

References