The literature review identifies a number of procedures, attitudes and organisational structures specific to democratic education experiences. Ortiz et al. (2018), who also start from a review of the state of the art on this issue, generate indicators to identify democratic educational actions that apply, precisely, to the analysis of educational projects promoted by MRPs members or organisations. We used four of them in our research:

Prevalence of dialogue, negotiation and social relations based on affection between the different groups in a school. The democratic school community is the result of interpersonal relationships that take the form of «affection, communication and cooperation» (Puig, 2000, p. 63). In this context, dialogic action takes place when everyone in the classroom has the possibility to deliberate and decide on issues that affect them.

We also seek to find basic references to guide teachers’ practice and their relationship with MRPs. Research (Bolívar, 2004; Santamaría-Goicuria et al., 2018) has highlighted how teacher identity appears linked to referents that represent the embodiment of the educational ideals of the specific professional. We can mention thinkers of the New School such as Pestalozzi or Cousinet amongst the references of MRPs, who defended paidocentrism and the exercise of citizenship in schools. There are also references to the Modern School of Ferrer and Guardia. MRPs assume the heritage of the Institución Libre de Enseñanza (Esteban, 2016), which is conducive to innovation in educational practices. On the other hand, given the emancipatory purpose of teaching, MRPs emphasise an education in line with the ideas of popular education, with many of the desires set out in the pedagogy of liberation led by thinkers such as Freire and Freinet (Hernández, 2011), and the foundations of the critical sociology of education, with contributions from Bourdieu, Passeron and Giroux, to name but a few (Pericacho, 2015).

The study analyses the actions and dialogues, both in and outside the classroom, of a teacher who has a long history as an MRP activist and the students who participate in her class. The analysis uses four of Ortiz et al.’s (2018) indicators for the identification of democratic educational actions. The aim is to identify concrete actions, discourses, dialogues and educational references that encourage children to exercise their right to participate in school and to have an education consistent with democratic principles. The aim is also to study the teachers’ conception of the teacher’s role as a promoter of democracy and its link to MRPs.

Since our interest is in the analysis and understanding of a singular experience, we opted for the case study, as «case study is the study of the particularity and complexity of a singular case, in order to gain an understanding of its activity in important circumstances» (Stake, 2005, p. 11).

More specifically, we opted for a holistic case study, according to _ing.html#_idTextAnchor055">Yin’s (1989) typology, which can also be included in the intrinsic case study in Stake’s (2005) classification or in Yin’s own denomination: single case design. We intend to address a complex educational reality and understand the internal processes, so that we can reflect on the practices that are developed.

Our aim, in carrying out a case study, is to recognise the materialisation of a teacher’s discourse in specific practices, identifiable and analysable in their natural context, with children who are aware of their rights, in a revealing way (González, 2013).

We take a closer look at the work of a teacher with more than 30 years of experience in infant and primary classrooms and more than 25 years of experience as a member of a management team. From the beginning, she has been an MRPs activist in Catalonia, where she has actively participated in the drafting of the document Ethical Commitment of Teachers (MRPC, 2011), which expresses a commitment to children and to guaranteeing their rights as recognised internationally by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Her case takes us to an urban public school where she has obtained a place in 2018, providing education to 209 children from diverse backgrounds in the province of Segovia, Spain. During the academic year 2018-2019, the teacher is, for the second consecutive year, the tutor of a group of 21 children in the final year of Infant Education; during the academic year 2019-2020 she is the teacher of a group of 25 children aged between 2 and 3 who are starting their schooling.

Our study only focused on the teacher’s interactions with the two groups of children and with those who collaborated in the educational activities, including three student teachers in their practical training and more than 15 volunteers who collaborated in educational activities and outings in the natural environment (primary school students, artists, scientists, professionals and members of the children’s family groups). The work did not seek to study the institution in which the research was carried out, but rather the educational action of a teacher and the children in two specific classrooms.

In line with _ing.html#_idTextAnchor055">Yin (1989), we designed multiple sources of evidence during the data collection phase. Through participant observation, unstructured interviews (3), in-depth interviews (1) and documentary analysis (field notes, photos, audio and video recordings and educational documents provided by the teacher) we identified and characterised the dialogues and described the actions and interactions that took place in the framework of common activities carried out daily by the teacher and which are related to the foundations of democratic education and the exercise of citizenship (Ortiz et al., 2018): speeches, conferences, assemblies, field trips and collective and individual work.

An observation form validated by experts (Gajardo, 2019) was used for participant observation, which served as a guide for record-taking. Throughout this process, we followed a protocol for observing the learning environment (Iglesias, 2008) in which we envisaged three dimensions: (1) physical dimension of the environment under analysis (structure or organisation of the classroom or learning place); (2) functional dimension and type of activities developed (educational activities, forms of execution and purpose); (3) relational dimension between teacher and students and other participants (types of discursive and dialogical interactions).

The unstructured interviews (Trindade, 2016) with the teacher took the form of dialogues that took place outside working hours with the researcher; they explored — under a logic of pedagogical reflection typical of critical pedagogy (Shön, 1992) — the characteristics and meaning of educational activities and organisational modalities.

The in-depth interview was conducted at the end of the process and focused on the teacher’s life story, motivations and references that guided her educational action.

As mentioned above, fieldwork was carried out over two school years. A researcher from our group attended 32 school days during this period (5 hours a week for 12 months, excluding holidays), during which, in addition to carrying out the tasks specifically focused on the research (taking records and filling in analysis sheets), she collaborated with the teacher and the aforementioned individuals and groups by performing a variety of educational tasks during the participant observation: guiding learning activities (accompanying the children while they carried out the activities and actions set by the teacher), planning activities (meeting with the teacher, trainees and/or volunteers to generate educational actions for the pupils), organising teaching materials (providing the children with the teaching materials selected for each activity), giving instructions (reiterating what the teacher said or explaining the activities herself), carrying out collective and individual readings (reading stories or scientific texts when requested by the students in moments of free play in class), ensuring safety in pedagogical outings, dialogue in conflict situations (following the examples given by the teacher), among others.

Our researcher met with the teacher outside school hours to conduct unstructured interviews that turned into dialogical and pedagogical reflections and accompanied her to six teacher training activities.

In order to simplify the integration of examples according to the purpose of the study, we grouped all the records obtained (texts of field notes, audio transcripts, interview transcripts, participant observation sheets, photos and videos) and with the support of Atlas qualitative analysis software. Ti (version 7.5.4), we coded the actions and oral texts according to the four theoretical indicators selected from those proposed by Ortiz et al., (2018), thus determining the categories of the analysis:

Table 1

Theoretical indicator	Category generated
Prevalence of dialogue, negotiation and social relations based on affection between the different groups in a school (Ortiz et al., 2018)	Prevalence of dialogue, negotiation and social relations based on affection
Educating in a positive and critical view of conflict, the resolution of which can lead to possible change, dialogue, critical thinking and reflection (Ortiz et al., 2018)	Positive and critical view of the conflict
Acting against negative aspects such as racism, injustice, poverty, among other inequalities, and advocate for equal opportunities for all (Ortiz et al., 2018)	Promoting equality and denouncing injustice
Generate frequent relationships with the environment (Ortiz et al., 2018).	Strengthening relations with the environment

Source: Based on Ortiz et al. (2018)

Data triangulation was carried out on the basis of the information collected using the data collection techniques and instruments. By doing so, we ensure the internal validity of our research (_ing.html#_idTextAnchor055">Yin, 1989).

We then selected excerpts and resources that showed elements of the development of these pedagogical axes of democracy and/or represented theoretical justifications by the teacher. Finally, by means of a qualitative content analysis (Abela, 2002), we chose the activities and the expository and dialogical exchanges that took place in and outside the classroom and that exemplified this formula of democratic education, according to the categories indicated.

Throughout our research we generated procedures that were always known and binding with the teacher, the students and those who collaborated in the classroom (Tójar & Serrano, 2000). It should be noted that those who interact with the teacher’s educational philosophy are in agreement with the development of research of different types in the classroom, mainly families, who sign an informed consent form. The records obtained from the activities (videos and pictures) were shared with the children’s families so that they could decide whether they agreed with their use and appropriateness.

All names mentioned in the description of the results have been replaced to protect the identity of the participants.

Dialogue is the main feature we identified in the sessions we witnessed. In the classroom where we worked, the conditions for the development of dialogical activities were always present: here, the voice of the students was the main vehicle, as were agreements and consensus, explicitly and intentionally encouraged by the teacher. Both in the 4- and 5-year-old classrooms and in the 2- and 3-year-old classrooms, we found assemblies to organise the work and parliaments in which the laws of the class are agreed upon (daily assemblies and weekly parliaments). Children generate rules and write them on dated pieces of paper. Rules are only written when all children agree.

The teacher stresses the importance of respect in order to establish dialogical relationships. She highlights this fact on multiple occasions with phrases such as «In this class we all respect each other because we love each other» (Teacher, group 2 and 3 years old, September 2019).

Figure 1 Source: Prepared by the authors

Dialogical discussions take place both in the daily interactions of learners inside and outside the classroom, as well as when defining learning activities and projects:

Teacher: We will now organise our work. We know a lot of things about how dogs and cats are born and about endangered animals (...) We have to think very carefully about what we want to learn (...) so let’s do a thinking exercise: what do we really want to learn? (age group 4 and 5, May 2019).

The children take the floor and present work plans based on what they want to learn:

Boys and Girls: What we want to know about dogs and cats is whether dogs and cats have bones in their tongues; how puppies are born; why dogs go for walks with people; how puppies get out when they are born (...); how cats eat fish if they are afraid of water; why cats and dogs fight; why animals are endangered (summary of proposals, group 4 and 5 years old, May 2019).

In order to generate these dialogical discussions, the teacher takes as much time as possible, from a logic, in the teacher’s words, of «slow education» (field note, May 2019). The process can take several days (in this example, it took a week) and is usually dealt with in assemblies. Students are asked to sit in a circle in a large area of the classroom with a clear instruction: «everyone must look each other in the face» (field note, May 2019). If there are adults collaborating in the classroom, they are part of the circle and follow the same rules. The teacher invites them to recall what they have learned and «this process usually takes a few minutes, but the children in the class are always encouraged to say something» (field note, October 2019). The teacher makes sure that everyone says something, unless a child declares that he or she does not want to speak. Everything is written down in notes which are then read out so that students can correct their speech and hung up somewhere in the classroom accessible to everyone. Collective discussions, such as assemblies or parliaments, can last from 5 minutes to 20 minutes, but no longer. If no agreement is reached and/or tiredness is noted, the teacher congratulates the patience of the participants and proposes a new meeting for the following day(s).

At their choice, children can also initiate dialogical negotiation processes with their peers and with adults in the classroom when they want to share new learning: «I brought a book from home. It is about dinosaurs, my favourite is the diplodocus (...) you can read it» (Child to researcher, age group 4 and 5, June 2019). Throughout the study, we noticed that this action became natural progressively, as the teacher encouraged the children to teach their peers about the learning they were gaining outside the school environment:

Figure 2 Source: Prepared by the authors

In the classroom, it is primarily intended to create a climate of affection and trust that generates a feeling of belonging: it is common to hear phrases such as «in this class, everything is for the good and not to be afraid» (Teacher, group 2 and 3 years old, November 2019) or «you will have to agree (...) because the only compulsory thing in this class is that nobody suffers» (Teacher, group 4 and 5 years old, April 2019).

This intentionality also extends to the child as a subject of rights and is being appropriated and practised by children, as shown in actions such as:

Seeking the permission of the person you would be talking about and talk about them only if they allow it: «Álvaro, can I talk about you for a moment? [waits for him to say yes] Álvaro is very clever, but you know what happens to him (...) like almost all of you, he is always eager to learn» (Teacher, 4- and 5-year-olds, April 2019); «The thing is that (...) can I talk about you, Valentina? (Teacher, age group 4 and 5, March 2019).

In order to deal with small conflicts, such as sharing a toy, the teacher encourages actions where students who resolve the situation and for this, dialogue between the parties is essential:

Teacher: Did I take your toy?

Girl: No, it was her.

Teacher: So why do not you ask her directly and work it out together?» (Dialogue between the teacher and a girl in the 2- and 3-year-old group, October 2019).

We did not find this kind of dialogues in the 4- and 5-year-old group, as they had already acquired the habit of talking about their problems before asking the teacher for help, they knew that these conflicts could be solved by themselves without resorting to adults.

In the 2- and 3-year-old class, systematic work on dealing with everyday conflicts was developed aimed at understanding others and making clear the need for dialogue and agreement:

Teacher: There are 25 of us and only 4 toys, so what do we do with them?

Boys and girls: We share them! [choir-like reply].

Teacher: Look, Jaime (...), don’t be like that [she addresses a child who crosses his arms and makes an angry face], if when you get angry you get like that, you are already angry, it is not going to get better (Dialogue between the teacher and the children in group 2 and 3 years old, January 2020).

When conflicts affect the whole group, a parliament is held. In the 4- and 5-year-old class the parliament is promoted by the children; in the 2- and 3-year-old group it is initiated by the teacher:

Teacher: The parliament is very important, because we make the rules there (...) we will raise our hands to be able to give the floor, here we are three teachers so you help me to see the words because sometimes I may not be fair because I do not see the words (...) I will be moderating (group 2 and 3 years old, October 2019).

Teacher: We have two things that I’m going to put on the table (...) it turns out that Alba had problems with things that were on the floor. Alba, you have the floor.

Girl: Someone left a box in the middle and I tripped over it.

Teacher: This is something that happens (...) if we leave things and we do not pick them up again, there are people who fall (...) what things should we do so that this does not happen? (...) Let’s vote now, do you all agree that we have to be careful? [all raise their hands] We are all unanimously in agreement (...).

Teacher: Those of you who agree with Josefa’s proposal, which says that we should not play with things that can harm us, raise your hands [all raise their hands]. We are all in unanimous agreement. (Dialogues between the teacher and the children in the 2- and 3-year-old group, November 2019).

By making conflict work on a daily basis (figure 3), the children deal with it in a positive way, so there were very few occasions when we saw members of the group being overwhelmed by a situation and requiring specific attention. This is another example where the conversation starts with a girl’s «complaint» and the teacher puts them back in the situation of taking responsibility for resolving their conflicts:

Girl: Alfredo has pushed Carlos and hurt him.

Teacher: Who did it? Why are you talking if you have not asked Alfredo for permission? (...) did Alfredo do it? [Alfredo raises his hand and says he did it]

Teacher: Alfredo, tell us what happened, did you push him? You were brave, well done! You were able to tell something that not all of us would tell (...) when we tell the truth, things can be solved (Dialogue between a girl, the teacher and a boy in front of group 2 and 3 years old, October 2019).

When the students do not reach a mutual agreement immediately or an agreement between them and the teacher or other collaborators, the conflict is dealt with gradually over time: during our visits to the 2- and 3-year-old group, there was a conflict with a little boy who hit his classmates in the middle of their games; the problem was dealt with in the parliaments, between the boys and girls in their games, and between the teacher and the child, always with very understanding dialogues:

Girl: You do not bite now like you did when you were small.

Child: I am a big boy now.

Girl: we can play in the kitchenette today (Dialogue between a girl and a boy, group 2 and 3 years old, December 2019).

The conflict was resolved within a couple of months, and when the teacher was asked, she credited the students for their patience with their classmate and the boy himself for changing an aspect of his personality that was causing him suffering.

Figure 3 Source: Prepared by the authors

The discourse for equality and justice is a constant feature of the sessions in which we participate. The teacher takes the opportunity to talk about injustices and invites the children to give their opinions:

Teacher: If we have potatoes here in Segovia, why do we have to bring them by plane and pollute the world? (age group 4 and 5, March 2019).

Teacher: Reading and writing was a conquest of the workers, because did you know what they used to do? They wrote a contract on a piece of paper and they cheated them (...) now you, when you go to work, you can read the contracts and say: I don’t find this fair (group 4 and 5 years old, April 2019).

Under the umbrella of the projects that students carry out in their learning process, complex issues such as gender equality, respect for animals, the development of a fair world for all people are sometimes addressed and actions are proposed to make the world a better place. This time there is a debate started by a child about the word «strike»:

Boy: I told my sister that I am going on strike, and I am going to stop looking after you and she was sad.

Teacher: Strikes usually take place when we work.

Boy: She is impressed at the word «strike».

Teacher: It is a strong word (...) because yesterday we celebrated this, because a hundred years ago there was a very strong strike and it was very complicated (...) but do you know what the workers achieved? That fathers and mothers only had to work 8 hours, because before they worked all hours (...) the young children were left alone (Dialogue between a child and the teacher in front of the group 4 and 5 years old, May 2019).

This awareness of justice, which cuts across all the actions that take place in the classroom, is also demonstrated in the dialogues between the students:

Girl: but there are children who want to go home (...) others want to play on the mats.

Boy: we find it hard to listen (...) and we are a bit rowdy.

Girl: That is not fair to the teachers. (Dialogue between the children, 2- and 3-year-old group, December 2019).

During our work in the classroom, we witnessed 15 sessions dedicated to the study of the environment (social, cultural and natural environment) that resorted to the development of learning through intermediaries belonging to the educational community.