Fostering student agency by critically questioning interpersonal relations in Education for Democracy

Education for Democracy (EfD) is often discussed as a curricular task: values are taught, competencies are assessed, and democratic knowledge is transmitted in classrooms. Yet, democracy cannot be learned through instruction alone. It must be experienced, negotiated, and practiced in everyday relations. Schools are not only places where democratic content is taught; they are social spaces in which power, participation, and exclusion are lived realities. Against this backdrop, fostering student agency becomes a central challenge for EfD, especially when democratic education seeks to address discrimination and inequality within school culture itself.

This blog reflects experiences from a peer-to-peer project implemented at secondary schools in Germany. Students aged 16 to 18 are trained using theatre-based methods to design and facilitate a three-day workshop on diversity and anti-discrimination for younger students aged 11 to 12 at the same school. The older students organize moderation, adapt the workshop content through daily reflection, and critically evaluate the feasibility of their own concepts. Beyond the immediate project days, the long-term goal is to institutionalize solidarity-based participation within everyday school life and embed it structurally through school governance bodies such as the school conference.

A striking moment occurred when one of the 17-year-old facilitators reflected on the project and remarked: “We really enjoyed running the project days for the sixth graders, but it would be better to provide it to the teachers – they need it more!” This statement captures the transformative potential of the project. On one level, it acknowledges schools as spaces where democratic competencies must be learned not only by students but also by adults. On another level, it questions traditional power relations between teachers and students, implicitly critiquing the limits of institutionalized democratic dialogue in schools. The quote points toward structural discrimination, including racism and exclusionary practices, and challenges the assumption that democratic learning flows only in one direction.

Older students are not positioned as junior teachers but as facilitators who learn alongside their younger peers. Democratic competence is not performed as authority but emerges through shared reflection, dialogue, and experimentation.

The pedagogical core of the project lies in theatre-based methods such as Forum Theatre, improvisation, and interactional circle games. These approaches create a learning environment in which participants engage physically, emotionally, and cognitively. Discrimination is not treated as an abstract concept but becomes tangible through scenes that depict everyday situations of exclusion, stereotyping, or power imbalance. Participants are invited to intervene in these scenes, test alternative actions, and collectively reflect on their consequences. Role reversal allows students to inhabit different perspectives, fostering empathy and a deeper understanding of how discrimination operates in social interactions.

The theatre space functions as a “rehearsal room” for democracy. Like a theatrical rehearsal, it is governed by shared rules and values such as appreciation, voluntariness, and attentive listening. This safe space enables students to bring in their own experiences from everyday school life, to share stories, and to experiment with solutions in a creative and protected environment. Through scenic reflection, new in-group experiences are created. Defining common values becomes central, as participants negotiate what solidarity, respect, and responsibility mean in practice.

These processes directly contribute to the development of deliberative competencies. By discussing real-life situations of group judgement and discrimination, students learn to articulate perspectives, listen to others, and collectively evaluate possible courses of action. Democratic learning thus unfolds as a relational process, rooted in interaction rather than instruction.

From a theoretical perspective, the project strongly aligns with the concept of student agency as articulated in the OECD Learning Compass 2030. Agency refers to the ability and willingness of learners to shape their own lives and environments responsibly. It involves setting goals, reflecting on actions, and acting to foster positive change. Student agency stands in contrast to passive forms of learning in which decisions are made by others and tend to be simply accepted.

However, agency does not develop in isolation. To exercise agency meaningfully, learners require cognitive, social, and emotional skills, as well as supportive structures. Educational systems that promote agency therefore move beyond instruction and assessment toward co-construction. In this sense, the project embraces the idea of co-agency, in which students, teachers, parents, and community actors become co-creators of democratic learning environments. Learning is understood as a shared process, not as a hierarchical transmission of knowledge.

The structural implementation of the project is crucial for its sustainability. Rather than remaining a one-time intervention, the peer-to-peer approach is embedded in school culture through regular formats like a weekly “Demokratie-AG”. Additionally, at least one annual project day renews visibility and civic impact. These structures reduce hierarchical barriers between age groups, cultivate a culture of mutual support, and strengthen community ties between schools, civic institutions, and families.

The competencies fostered through this approach span several fields, including self-efficacy, collaboration, self-reflection and perspective-taking. The project follows the triad of recognizing challenges, evaluating approaches, and acting by collaboratively redesigning workshops. Students contribute their own experiences instead of merely absorbing predefined knowledge, and structures of discrimination such as racism, sexism, and classism are made visible and negotiable.

A key element of sustainability is the peer progression model. Younger participants eventually grow into the role of facilitators as they become older, creating continuity without dependence on external experts. Over time, this reduces inhibitions for younger pupils to seek support from older students and enables older students to assume responsibility and democratic leadership. Participation thus becomes self-sustaining, as today’s learners become tomorrow’s peer coaches.

Democratic learning is further anchored beyond the classroom through public presentations in spaces such as school forums, town halls, or market squares. By engaging parents, teachers, local civil servants, and community members, students practice deliberation with authentic audiences. They strengthen democratic resilience by articulating values in contested public spaces and experience recognition beyond the school context. Workshops and exchanges with civic employees deepen intergenerational dialogue and bridge education with local governance.

The connection to real-world social initiatives and policymakers reinforces the relevance of democratic engagement and demonstrates how student agency can influence local contexts.

Ultimately, this peer-to-peer theatre project illustrates that Education for Democracy becomes most effective when it is lived as a practice rather than taught as a subject. By combining creative, embodied methods with structural anchoring and public deliberation, schools can become spaces where democratic agency is not only discussed but actively exercised. In doing so, they prepare young people not just to understand democracy, but to shape it.