Introduction
Schools can reproduce – even reinforce – unequal social structures and exclusionary dynamics. Yet they also hold the potential to foster social change and nurture a more democratic society. While schools alone cannot solve the crisis of democracy, given the thousands of hours young people spend in them and the formative influence of educational experiences on future civic habits, attitudes and practices, they are powerful spaces for intervention. Youth engagement in authentic democratic processes today shapes not only their current political efficacy but also their expectations for future civic life, including demands for transparency, accountability and meaningful participation (Levy, 2017). Moreover, youth trust in political institutions has a noticeable impact on democracy: lower levels of trust in political institutions among young people compared with older individuals lead to larger declines in democracy in the future (Foa and Mounk, 2016; Haggard and Kaufman, 2021).
Student engagement in civic action around shared issues fosters mutual respect and a sense of community belonging, thereby reducing social isolation and depression. In a virtuous cycle, participation in supportive democratic communities helps individuals thrive, and individual contributions benefit the community. Although the literature on civic education is extensive, few studies have adopted a social pedagogy perspective. Moreover, Fitzgerald et al. (2021) lamented the lack of models for implementing civic education programmes that focus on authentic participation and mutual learning to combat political disengagement and polarisation. Efforts have begun to address this gap, highlighting the role of social pedagogy in promoting youth participation, empowerment and citizenship (Alevizos et al., 2015; Anderberg, 2020; Cameron et al., 2019; Ciraso-Calí et al., 2023; Edwards, 2023; Felton et al., 2023; Mylonakou-Keke, 2015; Planas Lladó and Úcar, 2022; Puni and Febrer, 2023; Schugurensky and Silver, 2013; Stobbs et al., 2023; Úcar et al., 2017, 2020). Meanwhile, more educational institutions are implementing civic learning experiences rooted in participation and engagement within school communities. This approach is known as action civics (Blevins et al., 2021; Hess, 2024; Schulz et al., 2016).
We connect social pedagogy to action civics by examining two approaches that use participatory and deliberative processes to transform students’ ideas into community projects or policy proposals: school participatory budgeting (SPB) and Project Citizen (PC). These models foster mutual understanding, interdependence, collaboration and belonging through real-world civic action (Bartlett and Schugurensky, 2024; Bartlett et al., 2021; Owen and Irion-Groth, 2020). Moreover, they demonstrate that civic education need not be boring or abstract; instead, it can be an engaging communal experience that links academic knowledge to real-life issues through project-based learning. As students work together on problem-solving, they develop civic and relational competencies, combat isolation and co-create value within their school communities. Moreover, as students translate priorities into action, they learn that budgets and policies can be levers of change.
This article is divided into five sections. The first section discusses key social pedagogy concepts relevant to our case studies, focusing on pillars and pedagogical pathways. The second examines civic education approaches aligned with this framework. The third highlights the features and impacts of SPB and PC, and their alignment with social pedagogy pillars and pathways. The fourth offers a comparative analysis of their similarities, differences and trade-offs. The final section draws conclusions and provides recommendations.
Social pedagogy: pillars and pathways
This section introduces our social pedagogy framework, emphasising three core pillars (democracy, agency and community) and three pedagogical pathways (the common third, project-based learning and dialogue). Together, these concepts provide a clear approach for civic education grounded in relational, participatory and experiential learning.
Pillars
Democracy
Democracy has long been a focus for many educational philosophers and political thinkers who influenced social pedagogy, from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi and Nikolaj Grundtvig, to Friedrich Diesterweg, Paul Natorp, Ferdinand Tönnies, Jane Addams, John Dewey, Janusz Korczak, Herman Nohl and Paulo Freire, as well as figures linked with the late Frankfurt School such as Jürgen Habermas, Klaus Mollenhauer and Hans Thiersch. These authors saw democracy not just as a form of government but as a way of life. Over time, many of these figures faced persecution for promoting educational practices that valued freedom, equality and civic participation – values often viewed as threats to the political status quo.
Building on this intellectual legacy, some educational experiments have promoted democratic communities within schools. For example, in their book Social Pedagogy for the Entire Lifespan, Kornbeck and Rosendal Jensen (2011) discuss the tradition of democratic schools like Little Commonwealth, Summerhill, Epping House and Reggio Emilia that put into practice participatory forms of democracy, not just as a political system but mainly as spaces for shared commitments, rights and responsibilities. To these examples, we could add Yasnaya Polyana, the Modern School, Dom Sierot, Tolstoy Farm, Hermitage School, Lepechinsky Labor School, Gorky Colony, Cooperative School, Escola Cidadã and Sudbury Valley Schools, among others. With variations in approaches and contexts, these experiments aimed to cultivate attitudes and values central to social pedagogy, such as collaboration, dialogue, respect and caring, as well as deliberative and decision-making competencies and conflict resolution skills to participate effectively in democratic communities. The goal of these pedagogical initiatives was to develop democratic citizens who could contribute to the common good and help build a better society. However, these are exceptions; often, schools maintain hierarchical structures and authoritarian practices.
Furthermore, in recent decades, the quality of democracy has declined. By 2023, only 7.8 per cent of the world’s population lived in full democracies, the lowest level since 2006. The rest lived in flawed democracies (15.2 per cent), hybrid regimes (15.2 per cent) and authoritarian regimes (39.4 per cent) (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2023). In 2025, 64 per cent of adults in 12 high-income countries were dissatisfied with how democracy is functioning, up from 49 per cent in 2017 (Wike et al., 2025). Democratic backsliding (also called democratic deconsolidation, decline, fragility or retrenchment) is reflected in the rise of autocratic regimes, neglect of democratic norms, rejection of the legitimacy of political rivals, media manipulation, restriction of civil liberties, erosion of checks and balances, distrust of political institutions and elected officials, polarization and violence (Castells, 2018; Delaney, 2020; Foa and Mounk, 2017; Inglehart, 2016; Kwak et al., 2020; Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018; McCoy et al., 2018; Orhan, 2022; Van der Meer, 2017; Waldner and Lust, 2018). The democracy crisis can lead to two scenarios: (a) a growing demand for autocratic leaders and (b) a democratic renewal with many entry points, actors and pathways. Social pedagogy can contribute to this latter effort by linking citizenship education, youth engagement and participatory democracy. As Dewey (1916) observed, democracy must be reborn every generation, with education serving as its midwife. The two approaches discussed in this article make modest contributions to this goal.
Agency
Agency is about the capacity to act. Social pedagogy acknowledges that social structures can limit choices and opportunities but believes that individuals and communities have the potential to alter some of these structures. In school settings, social pedagogy views students not as passive receivers of information but as active participants who can take actions to influence their environment.
The idea of agency relates to political efficacy and empowerment. Political efficacy refers to people’s beliefs about their ability to influence political decisions and is often a prerequisite for civic and political participation. It has two levels (individual and collective) and two dimensions (internal and external). Internal political efficacy concerns self-perception – that is, individuals and communities’ confidence in their ability to create change. External political efficacy refers to the extent to which powerful actors respond to their demands. Empowerment involves processes that enable people to combat powerlessness and provide opportunities to develop the skills to control their circumstances and effect change in themselves and society (Bandura, 1997; Freire, 1970; Hart, 1987; Nielsen and Tybjerg, 2024).
This pillar has been part of social pedagogy since its inception. More than 100 years ago, Karl Mager and Paul Natorp recognised that a primary goal of social pedagogy was to help individuals and groups identify their potential and develop their personal and collective agency. Enabling agency requires scaffolding, which provides support to beginners through manageable tasks. As learners gain confidence and skill, social pedagogues gradually remove parts of the scaffolding (Bruner, 2009; Mathiessen, 1999; Stephens, 2013). In this process, four issues deserve attention: the gap between normative expectations and actual practice; the influence of political efficacy; the distribution of agency; and the relationship between student voice and education for democracy.
First, there is a societal expectation that children and young people should be able to participate in democracy, not only because of its educational benefits but also because it is a right. The enablement of agency is supported by Article 12 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (known as ‘the right to be heard’ or ‘the right to participate’), which states that children have the right to express their views and wishes in all matters affecting them and to have those views taken seriously in accordance with their age and maturity. At the same time, most young people want a voice in public issues. A survey of 21,000 young people from 21 countries across all regions and income levels found that 58 per cent of 15–24-year-olds believe it is critical for political leaders to listen to young people (UNICEF–Gallup, 2021). However, the right to be heard is rarely fully exercised in schools and society. Overall, schools are not democratic institutions, and electoral participation – one of the main ways citizens can make their voice heard – is lowest among young people in nearly all countries (Goudie, 2020; United Nations, 2016).
Second, fostering agency among children and young people is crucial not only because it channels their needs, visions and demands through the political system but also because it helps develop lifelong civic and political engagement. Youth participation in genuine and meaningful democratic processes today is likely to shape their expectations about democracy, including demands for transparency, accountability and meaningful participation (McConnell, 2023; Putnam, 2000; Weinberg, 2020). In short, participation builds civic habits and encourages ongoing political involvement.
Some studies have shown that the development of agency as early as grade 8 influences civic and political behaviour in adulthood, and that participation in extracurricular activities is a key predictor of greater political and civic engagement in young adulthood (Andes et al., 2020; Keating and Janmaat, 2016; Lorentson, 2016; Saavedra, Rapaport et al., 2021). Other research indicates that political efficacy positively affects various forms of civic involvement, including voting, volunteering, formal political participation and activism such as posting on social media, boycotting and protesting. Additionally, these effects are most pronounced among low-income and racialised young people (Condon and Holleque, 2013; Gee and Johnson, 2023; Grütter and Buchmann, 2021; Hope, 2016; Smith, 1999).
Third, agency is unevenly distributed in society. Social and economic inequalities are often linked to levels of political influence. These inequalities begin early in life and grow over time. In school, the ‘Matthew effect’ can be seen not only in academic achievement (Stanovich, 1986) but also in opportunities for leadership development (McGinnis and Mitra, 2022). Students from families with higher levels of cultural, economic and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986) are more likely to participate in student councils, clubs and extracurricular programmes. Later, they are more likely to participate in civic and political activities, thereby shaping decisions and policies. In the participatory democracy literature, they are called the ‘usual suspects’ (Pape and Lim, 2019). From this perspective, the civic engagement gap is an opportunity gap – arising from the cumulative advantages and disadvantages related to civic participation. Schools can help close this gap by fostering skills and attitudes among marginalised students that make them more confident and prepared to engage in civic and political life.
Fourth, although developing agency can help break the cycle of learned helplessness among many disempowered youths, and students should exercise their right to be heard, voice is only one part of civic education and democracy. Expressing demands to elected and appointed officials must come after careful research, reflection and deliberation. Additionally, while exercising agency, students should also learn that rights come with responsibilities, that people hold different perspectives on needs and wants, and that resources are limited.
Community
Community has been a central focus of social pedagogy since its inception, so much so that the German term sozialpädagogik is sometimes translated as ‘community education’. Friedrich Diesterweg (1790–1866) believed that education could help people work towards the community’s well-being by respecting and caring for one another. Ferdinand Tönnies (1855–1936) introduced the concept of Gemeinschaft, referring to community living and the pursuit of the common good, rooted in feelings of togetherness, solidarity and mutual bonds (Tönnies and Loomis, 1887/2017). Around the same time, concerned about increasing urbanisation, bureaucracy, self-interest, inequalities and alienation, on the one hand, and individualised educational approaches, on the other, Paul Natorp (1854–1924) argued that social pedagogy should promote Gemeinschaft as the foundation for a healthy society. For him, humans are truly human when they belong to a community, and the main goal of social pedagogy is to educate people to contribute to the community (Natorp, 1899). These authors highlighted the role of social pedagogy in fostering community values such as trust, equality, democracy, happiness, reciprocity, friendship, cooperativism, mutuality, justice and positive relationships among people (Eichsteller and Holthoff, 2012; Günther, 1994; Lorenz, 2013; Smith, 2019; Stephens, 2013).
The emphasis on community should not be understood as tribalism in the sense of strong in-group bias, homogeneity of thought, unquestioning allegiances, little room for dissent, and us-versus-them dynamics. From a social pedagogy perspective, educational communities are laboratories of democracy where participants shift from self-interest to the common good, learn values of cooperation and respect for differences, and develop civic competencies. Because most communities face inequalities, social pedagogy also aims to close opportunity gaps; because they are diverse, it promotes inclusion, dialogue, mutual understanding and peaceful conflict resolution. In this context, educational communities can be viewed as one of the starting points for social reconstruction (Addams, 1910; Coady, 1939; Dewey, 1916; Natorp, 1899).
Social pedagogy is based on the dual belief that learning is most effective, enjoyable and empowering when it happens within a community, and that meaningful change is more likely when people feel connected and work toward a common goal (Janer and Úcar, 2017; Lorenz, 2013; Stephens, 2013). By fostering community values such as solidarity, inclusion and democracy, social pedagogy aims to develop positive relationships, friendships, collaboration and well-being. Additionally, and this is especially relevant to our case studies, social pedagogy interventions can assist communities in identifying their problems, needs and desires, prioritising them and engaging in civic actions around shared projects.
Pathways: pedagogical approaches
The common third
In social pedagogy, the common third is a mutual process of acting and learning together. It refers to a shared space that nurtures relationships, especially in educational or community settings. It involves providing positive activities that participants experience together. These activities, in turn, increase opportunities for equal engagement, strengthen connections and develop agency (Hatton, 2013; Klarsgaard and Drevsholt, 2021; Nielsen and Tybjerg, 2024; Ryyänen and Nivala, 2019). The common third emphasises the process, which can be as impactful as the outcome. This process includes encounters and activities, with points of contact and a series of tasks organised from start to finish that create a sense of shared ownership, interest and purpose. A common purpose, in turn, helps unite people through supportive and inclusive environments where everyone can contribute and feel recognised (Ruch et al., 2017; Smith, 1999, 2010). The premise of the common third is that these processes facilitate collaboration, dialogue and personal growth, and that authentic experiences nurture meaningful interactions and relationships.
These experiences should not be limited to the usual suspects. Collaborating on a project, especially if the experience is inclusive, relevant and joyful, has many positive effects on learning and relationships (Bryderup and Frørup, 2011; McCreadie, 2020). Social pedagogy recognises that everyone has talents and ideas, and that associative intelligence has great potential to generate creative and effective solutions to problems and to strengthen the community.
Project-based learning
Project-based learning is a student-centred teaching method that revolves around projects, often beginning with a driving question or problem to solve (a part known as problem-based learning). This is followed by research, fieldwork and community conversation, culminating in a final solution-orientated product or outcome. Core elements of project-based learning include student autonomy, goal-setting, teamwork, collaboration, communication, reflection on real-world practices and authenticity (Kokotsaki et al., 2016).
Project-based learning emphasises the importance of the social context and active engagement in learning, and rests on four premises aligned with social pedagogy traditions. First, students learn more effectively through hands-on activities than by memorising words or passively listening to lectures. Second, through these learning experiences, students can construct knowledge. Third, schools could become laboratories of democracy, understood not only as an abstract concept but also embedded in everyday relations and practices. Fourth, teamwork in projects promotes dialogue, holistic learning, collaboration, active engagement and empowerment.
By integrating group discussions and social activities, project-based learning plays an essential role in fostering values of tolerance from an early age (Sutarti and Ramli, 2025). This is because project-based learning enables students to explore diverse perspectives and options, creating space for meaningful deliberation, co-creation, forming new friendships and developing a sense of ownership and achievement. As students work to solve problems that matter to them and their communities, project-based learning boosts their creativity and engages both their hearts and minds (Kingston, 2018; Kingston et al., 2022; Saavedra, Liu et al., 2021). Additionally, research shows that project-based learning enhances academic success, positive attitudes and thinking skills. It also gives students a sense of freedom to share their opinions, influence their learning journey and feel satisfied with their contributions to the group and the project (Chen and Yang, 2019; Halvorsen et al., 2019; Reeve, Cheon and Jang, 2020; Reeve, Cheon and Yu, 2020; Reeve et al., 2022; Reeve and Lee, 2014; Zhang and Ma, 2023).
Dialogue
The term social in social pedagogy implies a dialogical approach to education that differs from transmissive pedagogies or individualised learning. Dialogue involves an encounter that acknowledges feelings, thoughts and perspectives, serving as a foundation for meaning-making and democracy. It promotes students’ intellectual and emotional growth within a community context and helps build positive relationships through social interactions. Early influential thinkers in social pedagogy, such as Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel, understood the importance of dialogue in student-centred education, especially in developing social skills like interpersonal communication. The idea of dialogue has philosophical, psychological, epistemic and pedagogical aspects.
From a philosophical perspective, genuine dialogue can be seen as the foundation of human existence, a moment when people come together to reflect on their reality and transform it. Authentic dialogue goes beyond mere information exchange, as each participant influences and is influenced by the relationship. Engaging in true dialogue requires valuing others’ contributions and recognising our own ignorance. Psychologically, dialogue promotes bonding, empathy, active listening and alterity (especially among children), fostering a sense of belonging despite differences. It enhances participants’ sense of agency as they share ideas and experiences, feeling heard and valued. Additionally, it supports moral development as students learn to respect diverse opinions, work towards shared understanding and collaborate. From an epistemic standpoint, dialogue encourages mutual understanding and collective knowledge creation through associative intelligence. Pedagogically, dialogue is a joint act of learning and provides an opportunity to reconsider one’s assumptions by exploring different perspectives (Buber, 1937; Freire, 1970; Hibbin, 2024; hooks, 2003; Petrie, 2005, 2011; Shor and Freire, 1987; Skidmore, 2016).
Authentic dialogue does not occur in a vacuum or within a 30-minute workshop; it requires creating spaces for mutual respect and gradually building a trusted community of peers. Frequent interactions through dialogue boost feelings of belonging, participation in group projects, conflict resolution skills and pro-social attitudes. The more opportunities students have to engage in dialogue, the more likely they are to learn from and about each other, understand the reasons behind different perspectives and collaborate. The more they practise speaking and listening, the more likely they are to transfer those skills and attitudes to other contexts, and eventually dialogue becomes second nature (McConnell, 2023; Warin and Hibbin, 2020).
Civic education
Civic education, which we use as synonymous with citizenship education, aims to develop knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and practices that enable learners to fully participate in democratic societies as informed, active, responsible and caring citizens. Following the influential Crick Report(1998), civic education’s primary goal is to cultivate citizens who can consider different viewpoints, evaluate evidence and speak and act in ways that positively influence public life.
While civic education can be conceptualised and implemented in different ways, social pedagogy aligns more with methods that combine learning and participation. One such approach, action civics, empowers students to engage in their schools and communities through active, meaningful involvement and guided experiential learning. Unlike the traditional civic education model that focuses on memorising information and taking standardised tests, in action civics students understand democracy through applied projects, teamwork and collective efforts.
This approach, which builds on traditions of progressive education, expects students to develop civic skills and dispositions (habits of the heart) that prepare them for lifelong engagement. The argument is that there is a connection between the teaching method and the kind of citizens students become, and that experiential learning that addresses real-life problems is the most effective for political involvement and for bridging the gap between theory and practice (Becchetti et al., 2016; Bellah et al., 2007; Bruner, 2009; Donbavand and Hoskins, 2021; Freire, 1998; Gill et al., 2018; Kerr et al., 2010; Pope et al., 2011; Levinson, 2012; Weinberg, 2020; Weinberg and Flinders, 2018; Youniss, 2011).
The links between experiential civic learning, participation and democracy have been discussed in our field for a long time. For example, Rousseau (1988) noted that in his ideal society citizens would ‘fly to the assemblies’ (p. 140), and that education would develop the motivations and attitudes necessary to participate. While traditional civic education emphasises the cognitive side of learning, action civics encourages intellectual, emotional, physical and social growth – an approach that can be summarised with the ‘head, heart, and hand’ metaphor (Pestalozzi, 1898). Similarly, Dewey (1916) argued that education is not just preparation for life but life itself, and he believed that participatory democracy could help create educational communities where students learn to live together, make decisions affecting their lives in school and develop their potential. More than a century later, however, students often reach adulthood with few opportunities to experience democracy (Crittenden and Levine, 2018).
In action civics, subject matter content is combined with applied projects that nurture the development of civic attitudes and competencies like attentive listening, deliberation, argument, anticipatory reasoning, critical thinking, normative understanding, strategic action and collaborative problem-solving. In some versions of action civics, the learning process runs parallel to the democratisation of the school’s organisational structure, enabling students to participate in decision-making based on their age, abilities and opportunities. Other versions feature a strategic link between experiential civic learning and the academic curriculum. In this comprehensive approach to civic education, students learn about democracy and through democracy.
Case studies: school participatory budgeting and Project Citizen
In this section, we compare SPB and PC, two K-12 (elementary through middle and high school) action civics approaches that share similarities – especially their alignment with the principles of action civics and social pedagogy – yet differ in structure, implementation and underlying civic beliefs. When examining these models, we use the pillars and pedagogical pathways discussed above.
School participatory budgeting
Participatory budgeting is a democratic process that involves deliberation and decision-making over budget allocations. SPB is an adaptation of participatory budgeting to the context of formal educational institutions. Both participatory budgeting and SPB lead to tangible outcomes, but two main differences should be highlighted. First, while participatory budgeting has a long history, starting in 1989, and is implemented in more than 11,500 cities and towns globally, SPB is a more recent innovation, still in the experimental stage in a few countries. Second, in participatory budgeting, the civic and political learning participants gain is a by-product of the process, whereas in SPB, the educational purpose is central.
In the United States, the first SPB program was launched in 2013 at a high school in Phoenix, Arizona. Since its inception, the SPB process has been adopted by more than 100 schools in Arizona and thousands in other states. Internationally, SPB is available in several countries, including Argentina, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, South Korea and Spain. SPB is designed as a tool that simultaneously promotes citizenship education, civic engagement and school democracy (Bartlett and Schugurensky, 2021).
SPB empowers students to decide how to spend a portion of the school budget. The process engages students by encouraging solution-orientated ideas, developing detailed proposals, deliberating on and campaigning for projects, and voting to fund improvements for their schools (Bartlett et al., 2021). All stages are led by the students themselves with support from teachers. The process is guided by a steering committee (usually a student club, a student council or a class), but the entire school community can participate in various ways and at different stages, depending on their interest and availability. Every student has opportunities to propose ideas, help develop project proposals, deliberate about the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals, campaign for their preferred projects and cast a vote.
Research on SPB impacts shows increases in students’ communication and public speaking skills, teamwork and collaboration, individual and collective agency, empathy and social awareness, deliberative competencies, critical thinking and problem solving, civic literacy, financial literacy and responsibility, and a commitment to continue working in their communities to create change (Cohen et al., 2015; Crum and Faydash, 2024; Gibbs et al., 2021). The impacts are more significant among students who previously had fewer opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities or develop leadership skills (Bartlett and Schugurensky, 2021, 2024). Beyond the effect on students, it has been shown that SPB enhances relationships, mutual trust and school climate (Albornoz-Manyoma et al., 2020, 2021).
Project Citizen
PC started as a pilot in California in 1992. After initial studies showed promising effects, it expanded across the United States, with several states using the model to teach citizenship education through participatory policymaking by 1995. Soon after, in the early 2000s, the model was adopted by schools in other countries. Its goal is to encourage active engagement with the policy process, local government and civil society organisations to address a school or community issue through public policy. Although PC has existed for two decades, research on it has been intermittent. Several studies were conducted during the pilot phase and shortly after, but research slowed until it expanded beyond the original pilot states and internationally. Recently, in the context of democratic backsliding and the need for an engaged and informed citizenry, PC has been revisited as a model for equipping youth with the knowledge, attitudes and skills to influence policies that affect their lives.
PC involves a five-phase process. First, students identify a local issue that could be addressed by adopting or amending a public policy. Second, students research potential policy solutions, including existing policies that could inform their own proposal. Next, they draft several policy proposals to tackle the issue. Then, students evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each, considering factors such as support and opposition, constitutionality, impact and unintended consequences, along with costs, sustainability and feasibility. Based on this, students choose which proposals to pursue further. The final step is developing an action plan consisting of three parts: a final version of the policy proposal (addressing the concerns raised during deliberation); community outreach to stakeholders who might support the policy; and a presentation to the governing body responsible for overseeing the policy’s adoption, implementation and monitoring.
A comparative analysis of the two models
Both SPB and PC follow a similar design to address a community issue. The former results in funding allocations; the latter, in policy proposals. The first two steps are similar, but then the processes diverge (see Figure 1). In the first step, students identify issues affecting their school or community. In the second, they propose solutions to these issues. After that, the process splits. In the third step, SPB students develop project proposals to address various issues, while PC students create policy proposals focused on a single issue. In the fourth step of SPB, students campaign for and discuss project proposals, whereas PC students debate which policy proposal will best address the issue under consideration. In the final step, SPB students vote on a project for funding, and PC students draft a policy proposal and develop an action plan for dissemination, which may include a presentation to local authorities.
Other differences include the fidelity of implementation (how closely each process is delivered and experienced as intended), which can vary from school to school, as well as the actors and outcomes in the final decision-making. In SPB, the decision is binding: the projects with the most votes must be carried out by authorities (usually a school, school district or municipality) with predetermined, specific funds allocated to them. In PC, decision-makers might adopt or reject policy proposals based on factors such as the political landscape, funding and oversight.
Summary of process similarities and differences between SPB and PC
Alignment with social pedagogy pillars and pathways
Democratic processes and decision-making
Both SPB and PC engage students in democratic practices, but they do so through different mechanisms. SPB promotes direct democracy by letting students make binding decisions about part of the school budget through a school-wide vote. In contrast, PC focuses on representative democracy, encouraging students to create public policy proposals that are then presented to decision-makers like school boards or city councils. While PC projects may influence policy, implementation is not guaranteed and final decisions are beyond students’ control.
SPB’s binding vote component can boost external political efficacy by showing students that their actions lead to concrete results. PC, on the other hand, develops civic literacy and internal efficacy, helping students understand institutional processes and how to navigate them strategically. Both models introduce students to civic deliberation and negotiation, but SPB tends to focus on youth power within school communities, while PC prepares students to engage in broader democratic systems.
Agency, voice and collective action
Both methods encourage youth agency by giving students chances to identify issues, conduct research, and discuss and develop solutions. However, they differ in how much independence students have and in how they see civic action. SPB emphasises co-governance by including student voices in real institutional processes: students not only create proposals but also influence participation rules and vote on resource distribution. This horizontal structure matches social pedagogy’s focus on shared power and youth–adult partnerships. In PC, students act more as policy advocates than as decision-makers within institutions. Although they research community needs and submit well-developed proposals, they do so mainly in a traditional classroom setting, often under teacher guidance and within a fixed curriculum. In summary, PC provides guided empowerment, while SPB promotes collaborative governance.
Community, belonging and the common good
SPB and PC each nurture a sense of community engagement by encouraging students to consider the public good. In SPB, students learn to connect with the needs and voices of their school peers and other stakeholders. This process encourages school-wide dialogue and mutual recognition, especially through campaign activities and assemblies. PC focuses on understanding broader community issues and policymaking processes. Students often look at problems outside the school, such as environmental hazards, housing or youth safety. This outward focus promotes civic responsibility and systems thinking, helping students see their role within larger societal structures. While SPB builds intraschool solidarity, PC develops community awareness and cross-generational dialogue. Both approaches strengthen social connections and offer opportunities to experience the common third through collaborative civic efforts that foster empathy and interdependence.
Pedagogical approaches and learning environments
Both SPB and PC embody project-based learning but focus on different areas. SPB emphasises participatory design and implementation, while PC concentrates on research, policy analysis and persuasive communication. In SPB, students iteratively refine proposals through feedback loops and collaborate across stakeholder groups. In PC, students are guided through a structured curriculum that culminates in a portfolio and presentation.
Additionally, each of the models promotes dialogue and deliberation, but SPB often includes peer-to-peer discussions across school years and classrooms, while in PC, dialogue tends to be limited to smaller class-based teams. Then, SPB encourages more horizontal dialogue among diverse student populations, whereas PC emphasises vertical communication with institutional leaders and adult decision-makers.
The two models demonstrate how social pedagogy can be put into practice through action civics. SPB favours participatory, school-based co-governance, highlighting youth power, discussion and binding collective decisions. PC develops civic literacy and policy fluency, promoting a procedural understanding of public systems and advocacy skills. Together, they provide complementary pathways to reimagine civic education as a relational, democratic and empowering practice.
Concluding remarks
Over the past few decades, many countries have faced democratic backsliding. One response to this crisis has been to support autocratic regimes. An alternative approach connects democratic innovations with learner-centred civic education, fostering democratic citizens and enhancing the quality of democracy. This article discusses two educational methods that promote experiential learning through participatory budgeting and participatory policymaking. Although the models share similar processes and civic learning outcomes, they differ in some respects (see Table 1). Both focus on participation in local government. However, in SPB, students analyse their school and community to fund a project that addresses a need, while in PC, students analyse their school and community to develop a policy. SPB involves real money and results in a tangible outcome. PC is a pedagogical simulation to teach the policy process, without the goal of policy adoption. Sometimes, students may pass their proposed policy to policymakers for implementation, but this depends on factors such as teachers’ support, relationships with policymakers and policymakers’ interest and willingness to address the issue. In short, while in SPB the project with the most votes must be carried out, in PC, policymakers decide whether to adopt the policy.
Summary of distinctions between the two models
| Feature | SPB | PC |
|---|---|---|
| Civic model | Direct democracy, co-governance | Representative democracy, policy advocacy |
| Decision-making power | Binding student vote | Advisory presentation to public officials |
| Student role | Decision-makers and designers | Policy researchers and advocates |
| Scale of impact | Within-school change | Local government or policy systems |
| Adult partnership | Facilitated co-leadership | Guided instruction and feedback |
| Orientation | Community building within schools | Civic engagement beyond the school |
| Democratic learning | Experiential and participatory | Analytical and procedural |
| Implementation certainty | Guaranteed implementation of winning ideas | Uncertain implementation of policy proposal |
Another difference is that SPB involves the entire student body, while PC is conducted with a single class or an extracurricular club. In PC, the impact of the participant experience is limited to a small group of students. In SPB, the steering committee aims to include students who are not the usual suspects (for example, those with leadership experience, such as student government). While PC isn’t only for students with high achievements or those in school leadership roles, this model is less inclusive than SPB because of its narrower scope of participation and impact. Additionally, PC is typically only implemented in middle and high schools (as it is in the US and Morocco), whereas SPB is practised at all grade levels, including elementary schools.
Regarding learning, both models employ a student-centred approach that encourages students to ask questions, tackle real-world problems and develop civic knowledge, attitudes, skills and practices. In terms of knowledge, SPB emphasises participatory governance, ballot propositions, public budgets, taxation, representation, voting mechanisms and related topics. In PC, students explore public policy, government structure, roles of different levels of government and methods for influencing policy processes. Regarding attitudes, both approaches foster civic virtues such as empathy, openness, kindness, social awareness, compassion, interest in community issues, commitment to the common good, self-confidence, political efficacy and civic responsibility. Many of the skills students acquire are similar, including communication and deliberative skills (public speaking, listening), project management skills (conflict resolution, collaboration, teamwork), political skills (campaigning) and research and critical thinking skills. Students also learn to participate in community affairs by monitoring budgets (in SPB) and policies (in PC). Finally, students engage in democratic practices through deliberation and decision-making processes (Bartlett and Schugurensky, 2024; Fry and Bentahar, 2013; Marzuki and Basariah, 2017; Morgan, 2016; Owen and Irion-Groth, 2020, 2022; Sulistyarini et al., 2019; Trisiana, 2015).
SPB and PC represent promising civic education practices that are expanding globally. Many of their features align with the principles and pathways of social pedagogy. Unlike traditional civic education methods, where students passively absorb information from a teacher, these approaches actively engage students in spaces usually overseen by adults, fostering democracy, agency and community through project-based learning, dialogue and the common third. These models highlight relationships, shared purpose, participatory processes, teamwork and a goal of influencing local realities. They connect educational and social dynamics to develop more informed, active, critical and caring citizens. They value academic success, social inclusion, student well-being, friendships, leadership skills and community participation. Teachers adopt a supportive role, guiding students through their learning journey and creating an environment of trust, collaboration and mutual respect where everyone’s voice matters.
Like other social pedagogy initiatives, these approaches promote dialogue, build community and foster social relationships, teamwork and empowerment. Furthermore, because participation serves a pedagogical purpose and learning is a social activity, they highlight collaboration, active involvement and learning by doing: students learn democracy by practising it. They also create supportive learning environments and improved school climates, and ignite civic imagination: students view their school and community not just as they are but as they could be. When students develop civic engagement skills and dispositions and feel that their ideas are heard, they are more likely to participate in the future. These models have various strengths and weaknesses. The main advantage of PC is its focus on policy; its drawback is that it may result in a proposal that is not approved. The strength of SPB is its conclusion with a vote and tangible implementation; however, its weakness is its limited focus on policy.
Based on our analysis of the two models, we present six recommendations for practice. First, merge the models to leverage their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses. Second, offer opportunities for reflection at different points in the process. These informal discussions help students consolidate their learning, address challenges and generate ideas for solutions. Third, be as inclusive as possible, widening the circle of participation and ensuring that the core group of participants guiding the process reflects the broader school demographics. Additionally, consider involving adults (for example, teachers, staff, parents, siblings, neighbours) in various stages of the process while avoiding adultism from taking place. Fourth, link these initiatives to the curricular and extracurricular civic education ecosystem. This is important because schools need proven strategies to incorporate civic education, youth engagement and participatory democracy while providing authentic, project-based learning experiences aligned with academic content. Fifth, implement process and impact evaluations. This crucial step in the learning cycle allows students to reflect on their personal growth and develop recommendations for future cycles. Lastly, we suggest that these models be implemented continuously rather than as one-time projects. Promoting participation requires time and iteration, and consistent practice will help build a more democratic infrastructure and foster democratic habits.
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Research ethics statement
Not applicable to this article.
Consent for publication statement
Not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the authors during peer review of this article have been made. The authors declare no further conflicts with this article.
References
Addams,J. (1910). Twenty years at Hull-House: with autobiographical notes. Macmillan.
Albornoz-Manyoma,N G; García-Leiva,P; Palacios-Gálvez,M S. (2020). Participation as a mechanism to favour psychological empowerment and positive interaction: The ‘Ágora Infantil’ participatory democracy programme. Journal of Community Psychology 48 :1347–1364, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22328
Albornoz-Manyoma,N G; García-Leiva,P; Palacios-Gálvez,M S. (2021). Longitudinal study of the psychosocial effects of political participation by children: The ‘Ágora Infantil’ programme. Child Indicators Research 14 (5) :2083–2096, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12187-021-09837-w
Alevizos,S; Salichos,P; Lagoumintzi,I. (2015). The interaction between theory and practice in social pedagogy: A European campaign and an interactive social pedagogical tool against bullying in schools. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 4 (1) :5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2015.v4.1.005
Anderberg,M. (2020). In search of a social pedagogical profession in schools: Missions and roles under reconsideration. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 9 (1) :1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2020.v9.x.001
Andes,S; Kiesa,A; Junco,R; Medina,A. (2020). Youth who learned about voting in high school more likely to become informed and engaged voters. Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Bandura,A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Bartlett,T; Schugurensky,D. (2021). Reinventing Freire in the 21st century: Citizenship education, student voice, and school participatory budgeting. Current Issues in Comparative Education 23 (2) :55–79, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.52214/cice.v23i2.8571
Bartlett,T; Schugurensky,D. (2024). Schugurensky,D, Bartlett,TT(ed s .), Introduction: School participatory budgeting and citizenship education: Where are we at?. Educating for democracy. Edward Elgar, pp.1–22.
Bartlett,T; Rock,M; Tate,K; Thompson,K; Schugurensky,D. (2021). School participatory budgeting: 40 frequently asked questions. Participatory Governance Initiative & Center for the Future of Arizona.
Becchetti,L; Solferino,N; Tessitore,M E. (2016). Education not for money: An economic analysis on education, civic engagement and life satisfaction. Theoretical Economics Letters 6 (1) :39–47, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/tel.2016.61006
Bellah,R N; Madsen,R; Sullivan,W M; Swidler,A; Tipton,S M. (2007). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. University of California Press.
Blevins,B; LeCompte,K N; Riggers-Piehl,T; Scholten,N; Magill,K R. (2021). The impact of an action civics program on the community and political engagement of youth. The Social Studies 112 (3) :146–160, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2020.1854163
Bourdieu,P. (1986). Richardson,J(ed.), The forms of capital. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood, pp.241–258.
Bruner,J. (2009). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
Bryderup,I M; Frørup,A K. (2011). Cameron,C, Moss,PP(ed s .), Social pedagogy as relational dialogic work: Competencies in modern society. Social pedagogy and working with children and young people. Jessica Kingsley, pp.85–103.
Buber,M. (1937). I and thou. T. & T. Clark.
Cameron,C; Hollingworth,K; Quy,K. (2019). McNamara,T, Montserrat,C;Cand Wise,SS(ed s .), A holistic approach to educating children in care. Education in out-of-home care. Springer.
Castells,M. (2018). Rupture: The crisis of liberal democracy. Wiley.
Chen,C; Yang,Y. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review 26 :71–81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001
Ciraso-Calí,A; Sala,M; Pineda-Herrero,P; Úcar,X. (2023). Youth empowerment from the educator’s perspective: The individual and community dimensions. Educar 59 (1) :231–248, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.1595
Coady,M. (1939). Masters of their own destiny. Harper & Brothers.
Cohen,M; Schugurensky,D; Wiek,A. (2015). Citizenship education through participatory budgeting: The case of Bioscience High School in Phoenix, Arizona. Curriculum and Teaching 30 (2) :5–26, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7459/ct/30.2.02
Condon,M; Holleque,M. (2013). Entering politics: General self-efficacy and voting behavior among young people. Political Psychology 34 (2) :167–181, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12019
Crittenden,J; Levine,P. (2018). Civic education. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University.
Crum,T; Faydash,K. (2024). Schugurensky,D, Bartlett,TT(ed s .), Students at the budget table: Participatory budgeting in Chicago public schools. Educating for democracy. Edward Elgar, pp.58–76.
Delaney,E F. (2020). Global democracy and comparative distrust. JOTWELL.
Dewey,J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan.
Donbavand,S; Hoskins,B. (2021). Citizenship education for political engagement: A systematic review of controlled trials. Social Sciences 10 (5) 151 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci10050151
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2023). Democracy Index 2023: Age of conflict. The Economist.
Edwards,S. (2023). Freire for twenty-first-century, austerity-driven schools: Creating positive educational relations with and among students at the margins. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 12 (1) :6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2023.v12.x.006
Eichsteller,G; Holthoff,S. (2012). Key pedagogic thinkers: Paul Natorp (1854–1924). Journal of Pedagogic Development 3 (2) :16–22.
Felton,M; Middaugh,E; Fan,H. (2023). Civic action on social media: Fostering digital media literacy and epistemic cognition in the classroom. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 12 (1) :10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2023.v12.x.010
Fitzgerald,J C; Cohen,A K; Maker Castro,E; Pope,A. (2021). A systematic review of the last decade of civic education research in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education 96 (3) :235–246, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2021.1942703
Foa,R S; Mounk,Y. (2016). The danger of deconsolidation: The democratic disconnect. Journal of Democracy 27 (3) :5–17, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0049
Foa,R S; Mounk,Y. (2017). The signs of deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy 28 (1) :5–16, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0000
Freire,P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury.
Freire,P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman & Littlefield.
Fry,S W; Bentehar,A. (2013). Student attitudes towards and impressions of Project Citizen. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 4 (1) :1–23.
Gee,M N; Johnson,S K. (2023). Why do young people engage in some civic actions and not others? Exploring the roles of individual and collective civic efficacy. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 33 (2) :356–373, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.2661
Gibbs,N P; Bartlett,T; Schugurensky,D. (2021). Does school participatory budgeting increase students’ political efficacy?. Curriculum and Teaching 36 (1) :5–27, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7459/ct/36.1.02
Gill,B; Tilley,C; Whitesell,E; Finucane,M; Potamites,L; Corcoran,S. (2018). The impact of Democracy Prep public schools on civic participation. Mathematica Policy Research.
Goudie,Y. (2020). Youth and elections. International IDEA.
Grütter,J; Buchmann,M. (2021). Civic competencies during adolescence: Longitudinal associations with sympathy in childhood. Youth & Adolescence 50 :674–692, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01240-y
Günther,K-H. (1994). Morsy,Z(ed.), Friedrich Adolph Wilhelm Diesterweg. Thinkers on education. UNESCO.
Haggard,S; Kaufman,R. (2021). The anatomy of democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy 32 (4) :27–41, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2021.0050
Halvorsen,A L; Duke,N K; Strachan,S L. (2019). Project-based learning in primary-grade social studies. Social Education 83 (1) :58–62.
Hart,R A. (1987). Children’s participation in planning and design. Plenum Press.
Hatton,K. (2013). Social pedagogy in the UK: Theory and practice. Russell House.
Hess,R. (2024). How can civics education safeguard democracy?. Education Week, August132024
Hibbin,R. (2024). Bonding across difference in beloved community: Subverting the politics of domination in school. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 13 (1) :4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2024.v13.x.004
hooks,b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. Routledge.
Hope,E C. (2016). Preparing to participate: The role of youth social responsibility and political efficacy on civic engagement for Black early adolescents. Child Indicators Research 9 :609–630, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9331-5
Inglehart,R. (2016). The danger of deconsolidation: How much should we worry?. Journal of Democracy 27 (3) :18–23, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0053
Janer,À; Úcar,X. (2017). Analyzing the dimensions of social pedagogy from an international perspective. European Journal of Social Work 20 (2) :203–218, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2016.1188782
Keating,A; Janmaat,J G. (2016). Education through citizenship at school: Do school activities have a lasting impact on youth political engagement?. Parliamentary Affairs 69 (2) :409–429, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsv017
Kerr,D, Sturman,L;Land Schulz,W;W, Burge,BB(ed s .), . (2010). ICCS 2009 European report. IEA.
Kingston,S. (2018). Project-based learning & student achievement. PBL Evidence Matters.
Kingston,S; de Monsabert,J; Wagner,K. (2022). Project-based learning and ESSA evidence levels. PBL Evidence Matters 2 (1)
Klarsgaard,N; Drevsholt,K. (2021). Daily life and school engagement. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 10 (1) :8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2021.v10.x.004
Kokotsaki,D; Menzies,V; Wiggins,A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools 19 (3) :267–277, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
Kornbeck,J; Rosendal Jensen,N. (2011). Social pedagogy for the entire lifespan. Europäischer Hochschulverlag.
Kwak,J; Tomescu-Dubrow,I; Slomczynski,K M; Dubrow,J K. (2020). Youth, institutional trust, and democratic backsliding. American Behavioral Scientist 64 (9) :1366–1390, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764220941222
Levinson,M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press.
Levitsky,S; Ziblatt,D. (2018). How democracies die. Broadway Books.
Levy,B. (2017). Youth developing political efficacy through social learning experiences. Theory & Research in Social Education 46 (3) :410–448, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1377654
Lorentson,K. (2016). Revitalizing young-adult citizenship. Clocks and Clouds 6 (2) :59–79.
Lorenz,W. (2013). Practical social pedagogy: Theories, values and tools for working with children and young people. The British Journal of Social Work 43 (7) :1457–1459, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct157
Marzuki,M; Basariah,B. (2017). The influence of problem-based learning and Project Citizen model. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan 36 (3) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21831/cp.v36i3.14675
Mathiessen,R. (1999). An examination of the theoretical foundation of social pedagogy. Journal of the European Association of Training Centres for Socio-Educational Casework 3 :3–27.
McConnell,C. (2023). Igniting social pedagogy through learning and teaching partnerships. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 12 (1) :9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2023.v12.x.009
McCoy,J; Rahman,T; Somer,M. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy. American Behavioral Scientist 62 (1) :16–42, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576
McCreadie,E. (2020). Utilising the ‘common third’ to enhance social work education. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 9 (1) :6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2020.v9.x.006
McGinnis,E; Mitra,D. (2022). Civic action and student voice. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 17 (3) :268–281, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17461979221098014
Morgan,L. (2016). Developing civic literacy and efficacy. Inquiry in Education 8 (1) :3.
Mylonakou-Keke,I. (2015). Social pedagogy and school community preventing bullying. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 4 (1) :3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2015.v4.1.006
Natorp,P. (1899). Sozialpädagogik. Frommann.
Nielsen,M; Tybjerg,G. (2024). Dancing the fine line. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 13 (1) :2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2024.v13.x.002
Orhan,Y. (2022). The relationship between affective polarization and democratic backsliding. Democratization 29 (4) :714–735, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2021.2008912
Owen,D; Irion-Groth,A. (2020). Civic education for youth empowerment. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 20 (3) :98–114, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i3.2977
Owen,D; Irion-Groth,A. (2022). Teaching civic engagement through immersive experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Montréal, QC, Canada 15–18 September,
Pape,M; Lim,C. (2019). Beyond the ‘usual suspects’?. Sociological Forum 34 (4) :861–882, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/socf.12550
Pestalozzi,J H. (1898). How Gertrude teaches her children. C. W. Bardeen.
Petrie,P. (2005). Schools and support staff. Support for Learning 20 (4) :176–180, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-2141.2005.00385.x
Petrie,P. (2011). Interpersonal communication: The medium for social pedagogic practice. Social pedagogy and working with children and young people. Where care and education meet. Cameron,C, Moss,PP(ed s .), Jessica Kinsgley Publishers, pp.69–84.
Planas Lladó,A; Úcar,X. (2022). Evaluating youth empowerment. American Journal of Evaluation 45 (1) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10982140211055643
Pope,A; Stolte,L; Cohen,A K. (2011). Closing the civic engagement gap. Social Education 75 (5) :265–268.
Puni,A; Febrer,Y. (2023). Social pedagogy and citizenship education in England. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 12 (1) :4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2023.v12.x.007
Putnam,R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Reeve,J; Cheon,S H; Jang,H. (2020). How and why students make academic progress. Contemporary Educational Psychology 62 :101899. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101899
Reeve,J; Cheon,S H; Yu,T H. (2020). An autonomy-supportive intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Development 44 (4) :325–338, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025420911103
Reeve,J; Jang,H R; Shin,S H; Ahn,J S; Matos,L; Gargurevich,R. (2022). When students show some initiative. Learning and Instruction 80 :101564. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101564
Reeve,J; Lee,W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes. Journal of Educational Psychology 106 :527–540, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034934
Rousseau,J-J. (1988). Cranston,M(trans.), The social contract. Viking Penguin.
Ruch,G; Winter,K; Cree,V; Hallett,S; Morrison,F; Hadfield,M. (2017). Making meaningful connections. Child & Family Social Work 22 (2) :1015–1023, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12321
Ryyänen,S; Nivala,E. (2019). Inequality as a social pedagogical question. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 7 (1) :8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2019.v7.1.008
Saavedra,A R; Liu,Y; Haderlein,S K; Rapaport,A; Garland,M; Hoepfner,D; Morgan,K L; Hu,A. Lucas Education Research. (2021). Project-based learning boosts student achievement in AP courses. Lucas Education Research.
Saavedra,A R; Rapaport,A; Morgan,K L. (2021). Knowledge in Action efficacy study over two years. USC Dornsife.
Schugurensky,D; Silver,M. (2013). Social pedagogy. Education Policy Analysis Archives 21 :35. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n35.2013
Schulz,W; Ainley,J; Fraillon,J; Losito,B; Agrusti,G; Friedman,T. (2016). Becoming citizens in a changing world. Springer.
Shor,I; Freire,P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation. Bloomsbury.
Skidmore,D. (2016). Skidmore,D, Murakami,KK(ed s .), Pedagogy and dialogue. Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Multilingual Matters, pp.98–110.
Smith,E S. (1999). Social capital and civic behavior. Political Psychology 20 (3) :553–580, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00156
Smith,M. (2010). Social pedagogy: A briefing paper. CELCIS.
Smith,M K. (2019). Social pedagogy. The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education, https://infed.org/mobi/social-pedagogy-the-development-of-theory-and-practice/.
Stanovich,K E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading. Reading Research Quarterly 21 :360–407, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1
Stephens,P. (2013). Social pedagogy: Heart and head. EHV.
Stobbs,N; Solvason,C; Gallagher,S; Baylis,S. (2023). A human approach to restructuring the education system. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 12 (1) :8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2023.v12.x.008
Sulistyarini,S; Utami,T; Hasmika,H. (2019). Project Citizen model as character education strengthening. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning 4 (1) :233–237, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26737/jetl.v4i1.1023
Sutarti,T; Ramli,M. (2025). The potential of social pedagogy-based learning models. Multidisciplinary Science Journal 7 (4) :2025210. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2025210
Tönnies,F; Loomis,C P. (1887/2017). Community and society. Routledge. (Original work published 1887).
Trisiana,A. (2015). Action for citizenship education using Project Citizen model. International Journal of Education and Psychology in the Community 5 (1–2) :42–53.
Úcar,X; Jiménez-Morales,M; Soler Masó,P; Trilla Bernet,J. (2017). Exploring the conceptualization of empowerment in youth. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 22 (4) :405–418, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2016.1209120
Úcar,X; Soler-Masó,P; Planas-Lladó,A. (2020). Reflections and proposals for socio-pedagogical work. Working with young people: A Social pedagogy perspective from Europe and Latin America. Oxford University Press, p.235.
UNICEF–Gallup. (2021). The changing childhood project. UNICEF.
United Nations. (2016). World youth report 2016. United Nations.
Van der Meer,T W G. (2017). Political trust and the ‘crisis of democracy’. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.77
Waldner,D; Lust,E. (2018). Unwelcome change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science 21 :93–113, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628
Warin,J; Hibbin,R. (2020). Embedding restorative practice in schools. Lancaster University.
Weinberg,J. (2020). Politics in schools: ‘What exists’ and ‘what works’?. Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.
Weinberg,J; Flinders,M. (2018). Learning for democracy. British Educational Research Journal 44 (4) :573–592, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/berj.3446
Wike,R; Fetterolf,J; Schulman,J. (2025). Dissatisfaction with democracy remains widespread. Pew Research Center.
Youniss,J. (2011). Civic education: What schools can do to encourage civic identity and action. Applied Developmental Science 15 (2) :98–103, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2011.560814
Zhang,L; Ma,Y. (2023). A study of the impact of project-based learning. Frontiers in Psychology 14 1202728 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1202728