Keywords

In the landscape of contemporary education, the principles of social justice have garnered significant attention. Social Justice Education advocates for equitable access to education and inclusivity. Educational Commons and Social Justice Education share common principles and mechanisms as their main objective lies in reducing inequalities and promoting diversity and inclusion. Often there are disparate agendas as to how Social Justice Education can be fostered and can range “from creating a vision of culturally responsive schools to leaving no child behind” ([24], p. 8). Educational commons are understood via horizontal forms of interrelation among educators and learners, the democratisation of decision-making processes, availability and relatedness, and the (co-)creation of open educational resources.

According to Means ([35], p. 122), we live in an era where different pedagogical approaches or methods are presented as a new paradigm—i.e. pluralism vs multiplicity, democracy vs communism, this study brings attention to the shared principles and elements of the implementation of the commons in education and pedagogical efforts aimed at promoting and strengthening Social Justice and inclusion. The discussion circles around how elements of the first can inform the latter, both in theory and in practice.

To situate our inquiry, two idiosyncratic educational contexts located in Tallinn, Estonia, (VIVITA and Suvemäe-TKG) are examined and provide evidence as to their democratic, inclusive, and commoning practices. In spite of the fact that neither of the contexts explicitly sides with educational commons or social justice education, characteristics and principles of the two approaches are manifested in their day-to-day practice, as well as to their organisational mechanisms. For this article, we look at observational data to answer the research questions of this inquiry which are:

  • How are educational commons enacted in the educational contexts of VIVITA and Suvemäe?

  • How can the dimensions of a framework for Social Justice Education, namely recognition, redistribution, and participation, be informed through the educational commoning practices observed?

The next sections provide a theoretical framework for Social Justice Education, as well as the processes involved in commoning educational settings, which will be then discussed through evidence acquired in the researched educational contexts. Finally, this paper intends to provide evidence of the interrelations available, while highlighting potential future research possibilities.

1 Literature Review

1.1 Education for Social Justice: A Theoretical Framework

In order to promote empathy [41], make marginalised and excluded narratives visible [5], challenge Eurocentric and patriarchal practices [2], dismantle individualistic and competitive beliefs [38] and to critically consider concepts such as race, gender and class [6], educational practices must include vulnerable communities, democratise decision-making, and promote social justice. In this sense, pedagogical spaces are privileged contexts for citizenship education [55] since, in addition to being a place of encounter with otherness—which influences the consolidation of one’s own identity—they are organisational spaces that involve rules, obligations and rights, constituting “the principle of order and social organisation where forms of rationality are socialised” ([54], p. 160).

The objectives of Education for Social Justice. In regard to the goals of social justice education, Fogelman [17] suggests focused instruction, collaborative work through student-led projects or activities, and the use of resources outside the classroom. However, the full and equal participation of all members of the community in solving social challenges is also essential [3]. Other education researchers [50] suggest that social justice education should focus on human dignity through the development of capabilities and overcoming inequities [42], the achievement of individual and collective well-being through mutual aid, cooperation and participation in a just democracy [45, 46] and the promotion of just attitudes and actions in active, autonomous citizens who are critical of the social, political and economic structures that promote inequities and injustices [59]. In this way, it is understood that Social Justice is not limited to human rights [37] or equal opportunities or access, as access would become a form of legitimising inequity [14]. Likewise, it cannot relate exclusively to the equitable (re)distribution of goods, as social justice challenges discrimination based on gender, ability, culture, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

Social Justice Components. According to Fraser [18], there are three components in social justice: redistribution, recognition and participation.

To begin with, the focus on distributive justice stems from the approaches of Rawls [48] and Dworkin [13] with respect to individualistic liberalism and the egalitarianism of social democracy. Thus, one could speak of (re)distribution of material goods [48], primary goods [38], capabilities [42, 53], and other goods such as education, power and access [52]. In the educational context, it has been suggested that it takes the form of compensatory programmes and additions to the curriculum, such as a chair on Amerindian cultures or ethnic or religious minorities [7] and that it relates to questions of control and the location of resources for certain activities [56].

The perspective of recognition emanates from the subjectivity of minorities and diverse groups, as opposed to liberal individualism and social homogenisation. In this sense, recognition as a component of social justice seeks the valuation of cultural, social and personal differences [20, 38, 60] and the acceptance of the differences of subaltern groups [16], while at the same time criticising distributive perspectives, as they assume an understanding of the needs of each group without taking into account their opinions and values [7] In the educational context, recognition as a component of education for social justice aims to problematise conceptions of normality [31] naturalised in teacher training, questions the culture of competitiveness and social exclusion [56], and understands any kind of diversity (cognitive, motor, sexual, racial, etc.) in its own terms. It also seeks to address a crisis of knowledge [27] that, on the one hand, installs “the values, perspectives and worldviews of dominant groups in institutional and cultural norms” ([34], p. 143), and, on the other hand, legitimises the marginalisation in school curricula of the historical experiences and epistemologies of minority groups [39], including young people.

The third component of social justice is participation, although, originally, Fraser [19] spoke of “parity of participation” in relation to a greater participation of diversity (gender, sexuality, race and class) in the political-economic-cultural organisation of society in terms of redistribution and recognition. However, in a later text, Fraser [21] speaks of representation in order to define “more adequate frameworks for demands for justice that integrate fair recognition and fair redistribution, guaranteeing people full political representation” ([16], p. 1). Today, however, the term participation (rather than representation) is more widely accepted to refer to the active involvement of people, especially traditionally excluded groups, in decisions that affect them [3, 50, 61].

In the educational context, some questions related to participation have to do with the dominant models of participation in schools, the decision-making mechanisms and roles about what happens in the classroom, and the mechanisms for collecting the voices of community members and their participation in decision-making [56]. It has also been suggested that the shift from representation to participation occurs when children are educated in the process of democratic dialogue and negotiation in which they discuss what is important to them [47]; when historically marginalised groups have a genuine voice in negotiating the educational opportunities that are important to them [7]; and when “knowledge is provided that enables students to seek solutions beyond established structures, with justice as the ethical reference point for them” ([10], p. 1). In the opinion of Novella [40], in order to promote children’s participation, it is necessary to define organised and ritualised educational practices, so that young people intervene as activists in increasingly complex participatory processes where they will develop their responsible and committed civic autonomy progressively. These practices involve a combination of socio-affective strategies, deliberation and action (p. 400–1).

In summary, when considering Social Justice as Participation, Murillo and Hernández [38] underline that a culture of respect should be cultivated; the participation of all should be promoted; classrooms (and any learning environment) should be organised democratically through Assemblies that allow for the discussion of decisions (such as classroom organisation, content, teaching strategies, assessment strategies, etc.) that affect students; and finally, collective decision-making by the school community (open meetings), distributed leadership, and openness to the environment should be encouraged.

Social Justice as Inclusion. For Flecha [15], the focus on diversity has legitimised inequality, through separation and segregation by attainment levels, without taking into account an inclusive approach that values diversity. Similarly, Sapon-Shevin [51] suggests that this approach—attention to diversity—is very restrictive, since young people are different in multiple ways, meaning that racial, ethnic, sexual, linguistic, religious and class differences are often ignored when an education system is intended to be inclusive for a group of differences (commonly called disabilities). Thus, inclusive education must create a warm and welcoming community made up of six components: (a) cooperation over competition; (b) inclusion of all, without anyone having to ‘earn’ a place in the community; (c) a context that values differences and openly discusses them; (d) spaces, dynamics and attitudes that value each person and their multiple identities; (e) an environment where courage to challenge oppression and exclusion is encouraged; and, (f) a context in which there is physical safety as well as emotional and relational safety for all, so that they feel safe in the school community where they learn.

Finally, according to Poutiatine and Veeder [44] the goal is not to treat each person equally, but to ensure that each person gets what they need to be successful; transforming the school, so that the organisation and pedagogical practice takes into account each person, trying to remove barriers [1]; and promoting egalitarian differentiation [23], which facilitates various levels of inclusion that serve the needs of each person in order to break down the barriers that limit the development of their potential.

1.2 (Educational) Commons

Commoning is understood in three pillars: community, resource, institution/rules [11]. In education, these commoning terms can translate to: a community, comprised of students (young learners) and teachers (adult facilitators) sharing a resource, tangible or intangible such as a budget for the school, digital resources, and co-creating organisational rules that define the relationships of individuals in relation to the others but also to the access and sharing of the resource. This tripartite: community-resource-rules is governed by the principles of commons, ensuring that all members have equal access to the resources and having rules that ensure this and positive tools for resolving conflicts. Thus, there can be two dimensions of commons “(1) commons as a shared space of experience and (2) commoning as collective and shared practices” ([30], p. 449).

The philosophy of the commons in education specifically sees the resource of knowledge as well as the practices needed for acquiring knowledge as a good that all members of the community should not only have access to, but also have a “say” over. Educational commons move away from authoritarian and hegemonic models of pedagogical practice and has both students and teachers seen as subjectivities that hold equal power, which they can act on.

In the educational commons, students and pupils do not rely on teachers to explain reality to them. Rather, the main objective is self-reliance and autonomy and, thus, the emancipation of children from adults, teachers, and parents in the present (here and now) ([43], p. 5)

Educational commons have been viewed both in Marxian-critical terms e.g., [12], but also from a post-structural stance, e.g. [9]. Needless to say that even though both philosophies try to achieve similar goals, the philosophy behind each influences the structures and actual implementation of the commons. For instance, Marxian perspectives would emphasise giving voice to the oppressed, ensuring that marginalised groups have equal access to resources, while post-structural perspectives focus on redefining power on its own from wherever this may come. In this sense, “post-structurally” viewing the commons goes beyond equality (providing the same to all) and equity (providing what is needed per individual). A post-structural understanding of the commons emphasises justice; which is of course it can be—ironically enough—challenging to apply justly. Both have individuals, young or old, experienced or not, taking responsibility for their own learning and teaching. It is not expected for everyone to make equal contributions as this would be irrational; commoning is not about equating; it is going beyond and participating commonly while at the same time acting with agency in individual terms. Hence, this paper views educational commons in a light of justice; not emphasising how to support marginalised groups but rather ensuring that the structures provided are just to the needs of the community.

2 Contextualisation and Methodology

2.1 Two Research Contexts: Commoning in Formal and Non-formal Learning Environments

Education can take place in both formal and non-formal environments. Formal education “is an organised education model, structured and administered by laws and norms, and subject to strict curriculum objectives, methodology and content” ([22], p. 120). When those elements are absent or substantially more flexible, then we are talking about education that is non-formal; yet learning is again intentional and organised [22]. Another key difference between formal and non-formal learning is that in the latter, participation is voluntary. Learning can of course take place incidentally and/or informally, too; the context of this study however is on environments that are intentional, structured and where the roles of the persons are observable and delineated. This study took place in two idiosyncratic educational environments, both operating in Tallinn, Estonia.

The first case study site is VIVITA (vivita.ee), a non-formal learning environment, which identifies itself as a creativity accelerator accessible to children and youth from the age of 9 years. According to its webpage, VIVITA’s mission is to innovate by kids, with kids, and for kids. This takes place at their local on-site facilities, VIVIstops, consisting of open plan workshops and innovation studios, supported by hardware and software tools for prototyping, robotics and other creative tasks (vivita.ee). The Estonian branch of VIVITA was founded in 2018 and is based in the Telliskivi area in Tallinn. VIVITA is framed on the notion of: no teachers, no curriculum. Indeed, the staff in VIVITA are experts in their field, professional and experienced individuals in various areas who support children in their innovation and crafting—analogue or digital-learning journey.

The other case study site is Suvemäe-TKG, a formal learning environment which is based on the principles of democratic education within Tallinn Art Gymnasium, a municipal (public) school. Suvemäe-TKG was founded in 2019 as a pilot project of democratic education within the public sector, and currently serves 72 children and youth from 7 to 16 years of age (1–9 classes). Suvemäe-TKG’s staff is composed of a dynamic and enthusiastic team of 6 full-time paid coaches and 3 part/time specialists (language, science, social pedagogue), who support students in their academic responsibilities, while involving them in decision-making and co-creating learning activities of their choice. The pedagogical principles associated with ‘democratic education’ are shared decision-making practices, self-directed learning, age-mixing and free play/time.

2.2 Research Methodology

As has been highlighted throughout this volume, the SMOOTH project intended to educate practitioners on the notions of educational commons and observe practitioners’ and children implementing and being involved in the commons while including all participants on reflecting on the processes. The ultimate objective of the project lies in reducing inequalities and promoting inclusion through the implementation of the commons. For the two research contexts as participating partners for the Estonian team, the research objective focused on exploring how the commons are already situated and enacted in the two aforementioned settings given their idiosyncratic character as explained above.

For this study, an exploratory Action Research protocol was used, with guided research questions stemming from the SMOOTH project objectives and deeply ethnographic characteristics. Given the unique character of the research contexts, the researchers adopted an open research inquiry exploring and mapping the educational practices taking place in the two research contexts that bear commoning and/or democratic characteristics. The study has received approval from the Ethics Committee of Tallinn University of Technology. Informed consent was acquired for all research participants involved.

This Action Research study had a rather observational role of researchers, and a more active role initiated by the participants. The level of participation varied at times for researchers, from participating observer to non-participating observer with interactions [4]. Throughout the research and given the idiosyncratic character of both contexts as was outlined previously, researchers recorded characteristics, mechanisms, and procedures in the two contexts even when they were not directly addressed in the Case Studies (CS, henceforth) and were more generally applied in the two contexts.

As for the CS, two of them per context were followed by the researchers (mentioned in the Table 1). For the case studies in VIVITA, researchers followed projects that had been initiated in VIVITA already and observations focused on the processes of participation, decision making, and collaborating. For the case studies in Suvemäe, the participating youth and educators designed projects for their school guided by the notions of the commons and objectives of the project.

Table 1 Case studies in the two educational contexts
Full size table

VIVITA’s first CS was focused on the activities of the learning community called ‘The Social Club’ (CS1), which was launched in 2021, inviting children and young people to voluntarily form a small community and collaborate in organising a children’s festival as part of the Tallinn Music Week, a well-known international music and city culture festival in Tallinn. Consistent with VIVITA’s pedagogical concept, the entire idea behind the children’s festival and its execution was driven by the children and young individuals themselves, with adults playing a supportive and inspiring role as mentors on the learning journey. The second case study was born out of a request by the Seaplane Harbour Museum Lennusadam (meremuuseum.ee) and followed VIVITA participants in the creation of an interactive exhibition about the city of Venice (CS2). Initially, children were acquainted with the history and conditions of Venice through a variety of activities, familiarised and empathised with the city’s living experience, created their own Venetian masks and decorated house facades. The overall goal was to focus on the main challenges faced by flooded cities, generating ideas collectively and reaching shared decisions on what an exhibition about Venice targeting children and youth would look like. Finally, a series of activities and experiences were prototyped, and showcased as part of the exhibition open to visitors in the Seaplane Harbour Museum in Tallinn.

Regarding the other case studies, Suvemäe-TKG participants decided to develop two sustainable projects that would be left as a legacy to their school and for the school community to use. These included building a Kitchen Island in the Creative (Arts) Room (CS1) and an outdoor Zen Garden (CS2); both utilised funding made available from the SMOOTH project. Both projects spanned approximately six weeks each, involved about 15 working sessions each, and had the voluntary participation of eight young individuals for the first project and six for the second one, supported by two Suvemäe-TKG facilitators. The project began with a collective brainstorming session where participants shared and pitched their ideas. They then voted on their preferences and selected the Kitchen Island and the Zen Garden as their projects. Over the following weeks, participants received guidance from an interior architect, who provided advice on measurements, material selection, and initiated the construction of the kitchen table.

It is crucial to point out that young participants of these case studies were engaged in various activities following the stages of the design thinking process: identifying problems, discovering connections, identifying possible user experiences, focusing on the given conditions, imagining solutions, playing with tools and imagined solutions, prototyping such solutions and sharing with the community.

2.3 Research Instruments

The research instruments were field notes that were created by the researchers while observing the participants actively involved in the study. Field notes were also inserted into a researcher’s diary, in a reflecting manner, every time there were observations in the two contexts or other communication and interaction between participants, e.g., discussions with participants, reflective interviews, and chats in social media channels created for communication between the project participants. The purpose of the researchers’ diary and field notes were to contextualise the data and capture participants’ behaviours and interactions, going beyond what could be captured solely through audiovisual recording devices [26].

Semi-structured interviews, in a focus-group format, were also facilitated to further reflect with participants, both adults and youth. The questions were mainly around the commoning practices that were followed during their project work, for example: how was decision making facilitated? How did you resolve disagreements with each other? The purpose of the focus group interviews was to record participants’ collective experience and opinions, and through the interactions between the participants that the data emerged [8]. Focus-group interviews intended to also provide a common reflective space for the involved participants, in line with the aims of the research project.

3 Findings and Discussion

The case studies provided researchers with insights on how young people adapt to commoning practices within a caring and supporting community. Specifically, two interrelated characteristics were found in both contexts, which deal with, on the one hand, setting appropriate mechanisms and spaces for young people to engage in shared decision-making and, on the other hand, practitioners adopting a guidance and non-directive role in the activities. Whenever this happened, young people started building on their capabilities and awareness as agents of change and meaningful members of their communities. Throughout the process, some participants were more active than others, but as a group, they encountered challenges and worked together to overcome them in all of the observed cases. During most of the CSs, children were very open to each other’s opinions and feedback, making decisions together and addressing the challenges without blame. Regarding commoning practices in the case studies, there was a clear sense of collective creativity, sharing and caring across all case studies, and both contexts, though expressed sometimes in different ways.

3.1 Reflections from Suvemäe

One reflection that emerged during the Suvemäe CS is whether majority rule should be preferred over consensus or consent when making decisions collectively. To clarify, for major decisions in Suvemäe both youth and adults get equal votes; all activity is peer-governed and initiated by the youth and staff as a collective. This was the case also when deciding what the main task of each Case Study as part of the SMOOTH project should be; researchers’ note below describe the major steps in this deciding process:

Participants start brainstorming, some in Estonian and some in English. They ask each other about their ideas. In general, the exchange of ideas in small groups went smoothly, with kids analysing and improving each other’s ideas, giving feedback and considering diverse viewpoints. [...] After 10 minutes, one facilitator invites participants to sum up their main points and introduce them to others. The facilitators call attention to the fact that some of the ideas are based on buying stuff, without developing a more structured project. Participants reflect on that and one participant shares the idea that one of the actions can be an event and another a development for the school. One participant suggests voting for the most appropriate actions/ideas. She takes the place of the facilitator and invites others to vote. (Researcher’s diary, 13/01/2023)

As is evident from the extract above, there is a bottom-up approach to all activity and decision-making policies that involves both facilitators and youth in an equal manner. The end goal of all activities is the common good of the school, its members, and its wider community. Engaged citizenship is evident in the voting process followed and respected by all members in the community. The hierarchical roles are not stiff, and youth can also take initiative and call for voting as exemplified above. Adults in Suvemäe are companions in youth’s learning journeys, steering, and prompting towards criticality and collectivity when needed.

Common friendly practices in Suvemäe include the weekly meetings with both staff and youth take place in Suvemäe house, where action points and other school activities are determined based on the proceedings/discussions among participants. These meetings were also observed during the CSs and the bottom-up approach in making decisions was evident along with democratic practices of voting before reaching decisions. Some topics that were brought up were: how students’ parents could provide with their knowledge or expertise to the school (wider community connections), and also how students should take action towards cleaning practices of the school or taking care of spaces they use (common-friendly policies). While the topics were being discussed everyone had the chance to participate, voice their opinions, and then voting would take place when needed and for points of actions, which were collectively determined. These are non-negotiable policies of the school and are respected by everyone. The character and content of these meetings seem to be well embedded in the identity and practices of the school and were also evident in the case studies, especially in terms of youth taking (a) decisions, (b) initiatives and (c) responsibility. As one example, the students that are in the last year in this school decided to work on the Kitchen Island as a CS project, which would be left as a legacy to the younger kids in the school—the sense of caring and sharing is well-established in this context and permeates the practices of both staff and youth.

Participating youth in the project were also asked to reflect on whether there was different engagement by boys and girls, or everyone engaged in the process with the same energy and participation?

Participant E. Of course, tried to make everything equally. It was not only boys who were using the tools. (Pause) We could’ve done more things together, but sometimes some of us were not at school, so we helped each other.

Researcher 1. Do you mean there was coordination among yourselves? Setting up working times? Or it was rather adults inviting you to coordinate?

Participant D. No, it was definitely ourselves.

Participant E. It was more like our responsibility, we really wanted to make this.

(Focus Group Interview, June 2023)

When overviewing the experiences in both case studies from the perspective of community-building and management of common goods, Suvemäe kids pointed out that such practices were “natural” to them, provided their experiences in the democratic school where young people make decisions together, engage in interdisciplinary projects based on their interests and help others solve conflicts. Other kids were very comfortable and appreciative before the perspective of exploring their own interests and sometimes contrasted this experience to their own practice in conventional educational settings where adults are guiding every learning activity.

3.2 Reflections from VIVITA

In VIVITA, one of the main learning formats is Free Flow where youth can flexibly explore and implement their own individual interests. In addition to this, from time to time there are collective projects initiated and youth is engaged towards serving the wider community. As VIVITA operates through a wide variety of diverse activity formats, also the role of educators varies, sometimes intervening only when asked by young participants (like in Free Flow), while in some other activities adults seem to have a stronger role in guiding the process.

In VIVITA CS 1 the whole process of organising the kids’ festival was primarily meant to be self-governed by young participants, with the educator (and one representative from Tallinn Music Week) in a mentoring and facilitating role. While in general the young participants demonstrated a strong self-governance, during that process, also some challenges arose, for example, in relation to a balanced task division, maintaining active and transparent communication within the group about the progress and involvement.

Therefore, the educator assumed a facilitating and motivating role in some stages for some young people to take more active roles. The extracts below, taken from researcher’s diary while observing CS1 in Vivita, mention the educator’s approach in delineating tasks.

The educator created a to-do list and approached kids asking to sign up for concrete roles/tasks to try out more structured and divided role division in the group. It turned out useful as in past weeks it had been difficult to get the whole project group together, so kids have joined in during the free flow activities time and took up the tasks. (Researcher’s diary, observation at VIVITA, 20/04/2022)

The educator has a list of activities that needs to be done (for example design the box for questions, design name tags, prepare the text for hosts etc) and young participants choose the tasks on which they would focus to work in smaller teams (2-3 people). So the work continues in smaller teams for the rest of the meeting. [...] The teams seem to work quite well balanced, kids cooperate, discuss the things among them, if needed, ask help from the educator while in general working quite independently. Every once in a while, some members move from their group to others to see how they are doing - so the feeling of the group belonging seems to be quite strong. (Researchers’ diary, observation at VIVITA, 28/04/2022)

As it is evident from the extracts above, the educators offer structure to the activities to help maintain a good balance of tasks and facilitate active participation on their own individual terms. Smaller groups are created to facilitate better communication and educators mostly float around, being supportive and offering help when needed, while youth is working independently in teams.

Focus-group interviews also addressed peer governance, allowing young participants to become more aware of their experience in this respect. In such reflections, participants tended first to be rather self-critical (referring to what they could have done differently or when evaluating the success of the festival) but the perceptions seemed to have become more balanced with the interventions and contributions from their peers, educators and researchers. In this way, the learning experiences seemed to be evident also in becoming more self-aware as well as in their capability to identify and address issues related to peer governance.

The concept and practices of VIVITA seek to be strongly rooted in the wider community and respective needs. It may present itself in projects like CS 1 that aims at organising an event for the local community in diverse partnerships (like Tallinn Music Week, local artists, vendors, Telliskivi area community where the Vivita lab is situated and with whom the kids negotiated to decorate the festival area etc.). For CS2, too, the activities put together by VIVITA facilitators were as part of agreed project work with the wider community (in this case specifically in service for a project for the SeaPlane Harbor museum). Youth in VIVITA was thus engaged in developing personalised work, e.g. decorating Venetian masks and Venetian house facades and these activities were part of familiarising themselves with another context but also producing collective work, though personalised, so that it could later be used for the exhibition purposes at the museum.

Overall, there is a strong sense of the role of community in both research contexts, realised in slightly different ways. For example, in the CSs of VIVITA the mentors and facilitators involve youth in projects that have a community impact, e.g. organising a music festival or brainstorming creative ideas for a museum exhibition. In these formats, the goals and in some cases also the activities themselves are decided by facilitators, and engage youth in creative individual work, which can have a collective purpose, process and outcome. However, like described above, the role of children and young people and hence also the role of the educators seemed to vary in various activity formats. In the CSs of Suvemäe, the activities and the direction of the CSs was jointly decided by staff and youth at Suvemäe following their usual democratic procedures, and within mind that the directions of all activity should be for the greater good and with an aim to help others, in school or more widely. Both contexts, and the CSs developed by them, serve the greater good and have their own impact in their own close or wider communities; how this is done differs based on the philosophy and governing policy of each institution and specific aims of the project contexts. In this regard, it is possible to state that education can be effectively organised on the basis of the commons’ patterns as long as young people are involved in shared decision-making practices. Timetables and curricula need to be “negotiated” with children in order to support their interests and build on collaborative learning experiences. It seems clear that a commons-based peer education can contribute to the further development of commons-based peer production, as young people become engaged in collectively finding solutions to the challenges in their communities. Those solutions can, in turn, become available to other contexts.

3.3 The Role of Adults in Formal and Non-formal Educational Settings

Regarding the role of adults in commoning educational experiences, in order for children and youth to collectively experience and construct the commons in educational settings, adults need to provide spaces and mechanisms for the former to ask questions and find solutions.

In the context of formal learning, adults could involve young people as partners in learning, flexibilising the ways the curriculum is used and making sure that timetables provide enough time for young people to start self-directing their learning experiences. It is also important to promote a restorative justice approach in conflict-resolution, in which young people learn strategies to help their peers solve conflicts instead of waiting for their teachers to enforce justice (which often fails).

In non-formal learning environments, children and young participants seem to be more able to decide on their activities and get the support of adults in engaging in their own projects. Undoubtedly, open technologies and infrastructures can empower young people by creatively using the tools available to find solutions to their and their communities’ problems and challenges. For this to happen, it is important that young people have enough time to explore and experiment, avoiding grading or external assessment. Instead, the educators can facilitate the learning by empowering learners to reflect on their own process and development, provide constructive feedback in an encouraging manner and create safe spaces for youth to support each others’ learning peer-to-peer.

Preliminarily, researchers suggest that some of the effects of applying the commons’ logic in addressing inequalities young people endure are (a) the practical experience of using their voices and participating with others in addressing issues that affect them, (b) the development of critical and divergent thinking when finding solutions to challenges, (c) prosocial attitudes towards their peers and communities, and (d) empowerment of those most vulnerable. Moreover, if the conditions are set appropriately, there should not be any gender differences in how young people engage in shared decision-making, conflict resolution and creative learning experiences. On the other hand, a lack of discussion of shared agreements (for example, respecting each other’s turn to speak, not mocking anyone’s opinions, etc.) could eventually promote the monopolisation of opinion by some members or exclusion of some others from certain activities (e.g., a popular belief that working with tools can only be done by boys while girls prefer “easier” tasks). As to whether there are gender patterns in the diverse educational commons of the study, in one of the case studies it seemed that girls took a bit longer to become more participatory, although this was not a definitive pattern in all case studies. One way to explain it could be on the basis of cultural practices rewarding boys’ exploration and girls’ obedience [32]; nevertheless, in STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics) education (what VIVITA focuses on) specific focus is directed to attract more girls to it, which surely promotes the conditions for girls to be as active as boys.

3.4 Implementing Commons in Education Through a Social Justice Perspective

This research has described some of the activities implemented in two learning environments in Estonia within the framework of the SMOOTH project in order to shade light onto the potential of the commoning practices to reverse inequalities and promote inclusion. Accordingly, the data collected suggests potential intersections between commoning practices (building a community, democratising decision-making processes and using a resource in benefit of the wider society) and the strengthening of social justice and inclusion of children in meaningful projects to them. Specifically, the situations narrated earlier on the implementation of the commons in formal and non-formal educational environments provide various connections in regards to the promotion of the three dimensions of education for social justice, namely: redistribution, recognition, and participation. These are elaborated on below.

Redistribution. More punctually, the redistributive dimension within the SMOOTH project case studies encompasses the redistribution of goods, resources and practices of different kinds. On the one hand, with regard to tangible goods, it is essential to underline an explicit redistribution of materials and learning spaces, which children can access and use according to their interests, needs and collective decisions both in VIVITA and Suvemäe-TKG. Such dynamic access to spaces, materials and support is based on the belief that freedom of action is essential in the process of identifying one’s own interests and needs in order to promote children’s emotional, cognitive and social development. On the other hand, redistribution also covers learning experiences, times and places, based on the belief that people build and promote “scaffolding” [58] to enable learning and development opportunities in different contexts, both personally and collectively through free interaction, and that each person has their own learning rhythms and can contribute to and learn from the community in a variety of ways. In a broader sense, in educational commons we could notice a practice of redistributing power and agency: from the hands of some key players to the building of a collective body where the power to decide, act, organise, order or restrict is redistributed, under a common agreement, upon the willing and rules of the learning community.

Recognition. This research study has identified various ways in which the emerging pedagogical practices of the commons relate to the dimension of recognition, particularly the recognition of diversity in human nature and promotion of inclusion. This is established through a questioning of the concept of normality [31], which pigeonholes children into supposed unilinear and unidimensional processes of development and learning. In this sense, commoning educational practices rejects a restricted view of intelligence and the cognitive and social segregation through levels of competence characteristic of formal educational spaces (conventional schooling). As for the participating children, explicit efforts were made to recognise their individual learning rhythms and creative potential, as well as to establish structures and dynamics that allow them to model and integrate citizenship attitudes and practices through exercises that actively promote the development of competencies to participate in the social life of their communities.

Furthermore, according to the participants’ feedback, the collective establishment of social boundaries (rules) and dialogue about the norms of interaction seem to have direct effects on the development of empathy and emotional intelligence. Children’s development of empathic attitudes can be promoted when appropriate mechanisms, tools and relational practices are established towards maintaining functional boundaries, accepting and including all points of view, and assuming a dialogic attitude. Relatedly, this research agrees with Nussbaum [41] that it is necessary to consider empathy as an essential condition for the consolidation of democratic citizenship, as it allows the person to develop their ability to “put themselves in other people’s shoes”, take a stand against acts of injustice, display a genuine interest in and care for others, develop responsible attitudes towards others and the environment, activate critical thinking structures in their daily lives, and express their own emotions and thoughts, even if they are in a minority position.

In conclusion, this research suggests that when a change of status is promoted, and girls and boys are positioned as competent and committed agents of their society, motivation and responsibility improves, as it aims to accompany—rather than instruct—the social and emotional development of these individuals [33]. In our opinion, this change of status translates into a higher degree of personal initiative, collaboration between people to achieve a shared goal—as shown through observations of practice, and empathetic and supportive attitudes towards more vulnerable people/groups.

Participation This is perhaps the most visible dimension in the context of this research, which stems from the idea that there will be no educational change until power relations in learning environments change. According to children’s narratives, the possibility of designing/realising their own ways for participation allowed them to consider themselves as active subjects in learning processes and social organisation, supporting the development of tools to follow their learning interests, as well as exercising a critical and active citizenship. Furthermore, this research demonstrates that it is possible to promote alternative forms of participation to the hegemonic ones in conventional schools (i.e. representative or consultative), creating decision-making mechanisms that involve the school community in academic (or non-academic) activities and establishing shared agreements, and exploring different strategies to gather young people’s voices. Relatedly, the experienced participatory decision-making socialises children to the importance of listening to others, trying to understand their point of view, and sharing (and adapting) their own. The possibility of ‘ritualised’ democratic participation with young people in their learning environments could become an exercise in refining democratic dialogue, negotiation and the search for creative solutions to issues that affect the whole community.

In conclusion, when groups of young people actively participate in decision-making and the establishment of learning objectives, responsibility is collectivised, as well as the success of the efforts. Consequently, researchers suggest that there are significant and positive relationships between commoning participation in the management of their own learning and educational space and the moral discourses [28, 29] that participants shared, specifically, regarding the display of responsible attitudes towards themselves, others and the creative process of learning. These attitudes can be summarised as listening skills to others, recognising individual and collective needs, strengthening emotional and social skills and self-regulation [40]. Hence, researchers point out the importance of the implementation of the educational commons in the redistribution of power in decision-making. Accordingly, inner motivation is enhanced, making adult and institutional directivity—turning the curriculum and grades into an end in itself—obsolete. Thus, democratic participation of children, not only in relation to their academic development, but also in making decisions that affect their interaction with each other, extends the perspective that boundaries are necessary to maintain coexistence, creates a general sense of confidence in participating that empowers them to intervene in their own learning pathways and challenge inequitable power relations [25], and, finally, builds critical thinking skills that nurture young people’s participation in the civic life of their communities.

3.5 Educators’ Role for Social Justice

This research shares some pointers about the characteristics of adult accompaniment in democratic practice, such as active listening and reflection techniques that seek to make children express their emotions and become more aware of them; a perspective of disempowerment that makes it possible for young people to seize a certain surplus value of power [36] through decisions about their own learning and their participation in decision-making; and respectful attitudes of acceptance that abandon value judgements towards them. Furthermore, it seems clear that the accompanying team strived to sustain the “essential themes” [37] for social justice: the creation and maintenance of safe spaces, structures and dynamics that promote youth self-knowledge, the maintenance and promotion of relational strategies based on mutual respect, and addressing strategic issues for the global community (e.g. environmental sustainability and degrowth).

3.6 Inclusion as Commoning Education

According to Nussbaum [42], the discussion on social inclusion has been limited to socio-economic and ethnic aspects, specifically regarding equal access and integration policies, but there are other levels of inclusion that have not been sufficiently considered: emotional, social and cognitive. For the author, the first level relates to efforts of emotional and social inclusion of children (coming from mainstream schools) who oftentimes arrive affected emotionally and socially as a result of their previous educational experiences, while the second level has to do with cognitive inclusion, in that many of these people who come from mainstream schools arrive with “labels”, such as attention deficit and hyperactivity, learning disabilities or autism, which often prevent them from fully developing their abilities, hindering their learning processes and personal development in relation to their areas of interest. In this sense, commoning pedagogical experiences require safe and respectful environments that eliminate structural barriers and seek to ensure respect and recognition towards “egalitarian differentiation” [23], helping each person unlearn “labels” and prejudices and obtain the tools and knowledge to be happy and fulfilled, through the promotion of various levels of recognition and inclusion.

In summary, efforts have been identified to ensure inclusive education and social justice [51], creating a community that values cooperation rather than competition, including all participants without the need to impose pressures for anyone to be accepted, valuing differences and diverse identities through the establishment of spaces, dynamics and attitudes sensitive to such characteristics, fostering a critical attitude towards oppression and exclusion, and, striving for the physical, emotional and relational safety of all participants.

4 Conclusion and Further Research

Following lessons learnt from the explored research contexts, it becomes evident how educational commons and social justice are two interwoven practices and can inform one another. Commoning learning experiences bring attention to collective action and individual responsibility, while social justice education reminds of the learner’s individuality and agency, and the necessity for equitable and supportive learning resources and opportunities. Within this reflection, redistribution is realised in terms of resources, but also power and practices being collectively decided and discussed by youth and adults; recognition of one’s individuality is evident not only through celebrating differences, but also by allocating spaces and opportunities for youth to explore their own potential, initiate action and get appropriate support for their own challenges; and participation is reinforced through horizontal decision making processes, but also through making each voice matter, heard, and acted upon. Finally, the critical role of the educator/facilitator—in which we would encourage future research—is highlighted in cultivating empathy, diversity, and catering to youth’s empowerment. To conclude with, this research proposes a further consideration of the various theories of social and cultural change [49, 57] in educational contexts, which underlines the need to reflect on the types of changes needed in conventional schools to consolidate spaces for democratic participation, namely: structural changes (systems and structures, access to decision-making); cultural changes (patterns of behaviour and identity, breaking with “centrism”, unlearning); relational changes (communication and relationship patterns); and personal changes (perceptions, emotions, self-awareness, self-regulation).