Summary of "Von Preisträgerschulen lernen: Mitbestimmung als Ausgangspunkt unserer Schulentwicklung"

Central theme

IGS Buchholz (winner of the 2022 German School Prize) treats student and parent co‑determination as the foundation of ongoing school development. Participation is institutionalized and practiced across curricula, governance and school culture rather than being a one‑off gesture.

School profile and outcomes

• Founded around 2010 in Buchholz (Nordheide).
• Approximately 1,234 students and 126 teachers.
• Offers broad subject profiles (ecology, wind instruments, theater, sports, STEM, computer science) and three performance levels (including an advanced track).
• Uses grades from Year 5 plus a short “mini learning‑development report” (mini‑report).
• Strong demand and good outcomes: more applicants than places; high percentages recommended for upper tracks; good Abitur results.

Founding philosophy and culture

• Founders established an “equal footing” approach — minimizing top‑down school rules and resolving conflicts through dialogue.
• Students were invited to help create a code of conduct.
• The school emphasizes shared responsibility between students, parents and staff.
• Participation is viewed as a daily attitude, not only a formal instrument.

Concrete participation practices and governance

• Students, parents and teachers serve together on numerous committees and on the school board (e.g., four student and four parent representatives).
• Formal structures include:
  • Class councils.
  • A weekly forum for grades 5–6.
  • A general conference (schoolwide decision forum).
  • Subject and working groups that include student representatives.
• Example of influence: students rejected a teacher‑crafted upper‑school/Abitur concept in a general conference and pushed through their own alternative — a turning point for student empowerment.

Conflict phases and change management

• Early growth brought staff turnover and conflicts.
• The school addressed these by re‑engaging teachers, parents and students, clarifying leadership direction and negotiating common paths.
• Conflict and re‑evaluation are treated as normal in a new institution; inclusive processes are used to rebuild consensus.

Feedback, evaluation and external input

• The school actively seeks external feedback (e.g., German School Prize process, focus evaluations).
• Classroom walkthroughs (10–20 minutes) and regular internal feedback are standard practice — intended as development support rather than punitive control.
• Every teacher is expected to collect at least one piece of class feedback each semester.
• Multiple feedback formats are used: surveys, five‑finger method, class councils.
• The school piloted focus evaluations (2017), accelerating digitalization and bringing skeptical staff on board.

Teacher development and collaborative practice

• Team‑teaching / “team teaching hour” is built into teachers’ schedules (a designated hour for collaborative planning/observation; part of workload arrangements).
• This supports peer observation, mutual support and avoids cancelled lessons.
• Open‑doors culture: frequent lesson observations and informal drop‑ins are normalized.

Digital / media concept & “bring your own device”

• The media concept began from a teacher initiative (need to replace calculators) and expanded into a full program with parents and students involved.
• Implementation required negotiating exam arrangements, exam‑mode software, parent support for devices, and continuous updates.
• The media concept is a living document, adapted by committees including students, parents and teachers.

Projects and student agency

• Students initiate and participate in many projects (e.g., motivational coach to address pandemic effects, peace march for Ukraine).
• Student working groups are given time to develop school policies (e.g., code of conduct revisions).
• Participation builds student confidence, civic competence and practical democratic skills.

Limits and practical boundaries

• The school recognizes legal and practical constraints (school law, scheduling, workload) and explains those limits transparently when negotiating participation outcomes.
• Regular, structured communication (monthly/weekly meetings) helps prevent conflicts and reactive protest.

Practical methodology — actionable steps

1. Adopt an “equal footing” ethos

   • Treat students, parents and staff as partners.
   • Favor negotiated agreements and dialogue over purely top‑down rules.

2. Create formal participatory structures

   • Set up class councils, school forums (age‑appropriate), subject conferences with student reps, a general conference, and a school board including students and parents.
   • Allocate explicit representation (e.g., 4 student + 4 parent reps on the school board).

3. Institutionalize regular meetings and communication

   • Schedule regular meetings between student representatives, parents’ council and administration (monthly or more often).
   • Use these meetings to present and negotiate proposals before final decisions.

4. Give students real decision power on substantive issues

   • Invite students into curriculum/upper‑school design, media concepts, project planning and school codes.
   • Use general conferences where student votes can accept or reject major proposals.

5. Build and maintain a feedback culture

   • Require teachers to collect feedback from each class at least once per semester.
   • Use a variety of feedback tools (surveys, five‑finger, class councils).
   • Treat external evaluations (prizes, focus evaluations) as development tools.

6. Normalize lesson observation & peer development

   • Use short classroom walkthroughs (10–20 min) for formative insight.
   • Include team‑teaching hours in the timetable and encourage open‑door informal peer visits.

7. Treat policy documents as living processes

   • Make codes of conduct, media concepts and curricular frameworks revisable with student/parent involvement.
   • Run focused working groups and give them time (e.g., release days) to draft and rework policies.

8. Use pilot projects and external inspiration

   • Visit other schools, invite experts, apply for awards/evaluations to gain feedback.
   • Pilot digital tools and evaluations to demonstrate benefits and bring skeptics on board.

9. Negotiate, form shifting majorities, and explain constraints

   • Expect negotiation and “shifting majorities” — build consensus rather than dictate.
   • Explain legal and practical constraints early and transparently.

10. Support teachers and parents practically - Provide training and shared planning time so teachers can incorporate participatory practices. - Engage parents early about material needs (e.g., devices) and include them in planning.

Concrete tools & routines mentioned

• Student‑developed code of conduct (revisited periodically).
• Mini learning‑development report alongside grades from Year 5.
• Weekly “forum” for younger grades.
• General conference for major school decisions (teachers, parents, students present).
• Team‑teaching hour (part of teacher workload) for observation/peer support.
• Classroom walkthroughs by administration for formative insight.
• Regular surveys (Google Form) and end‑of‑project evaluations.
• Focus evaluation pilot (2017) and German School Prize participation as external evaluation methods.
• Media concept and “bring your own device” program with exam‑mode solutions.

Benefits noted

• Higher student engagement and motivation when students co‑design content (textbook choices, timetable, upper‑school concept).
• Improved teacher‑student understanding and development of democratic competence.
• Positive effects on digitalization when pilot projects and evaluations demonstrated value.
• Strong enrollment demand and solid academic outcomes.

Challenges and caveats

• Early conflict and staff turnover during school evolution; requires deliberate change management.
• Extra coordination time and workload needed for meaningful participation.
• Legal and scheduling constraints can limit implementation; these must be communicated clearly.
• Pandemic consequences required additional psychosocial support (motivational coach, wellbeing projects).

Speakers / sources featured

Note: subtitles were auto‑generated and contain inconsistencies. Names/roles as they appear in the transcript:

• Simon Fretschneider — Robert Bosch Foundation trainer; teacher (Gymnasium Alsdorf)
• Philipp Klein — co‑trainer; teacher (Marienschule Münster)
• Sebastian (Sebastian Neustes? / Bastian Weise?) — named as headmaster earlier (caption inconsistencies)
• Svenja Sörensen — head of curriculum (IGS Buchholz)
• Holger Blenk — founding headmaster (mentioned)
• Chair of the parents’ council: Auchling / Nicola / Nikola (variants appear)
• Ms. Dörflingen — referenced as an early parent council chairwoman
• Sixtus Klein — student representative (appears in closing thanks)
• Multiple unnamed student representatives and teacher voices (some captions like “Oma,” Christoph, Thorsten, Mr. Mäuse, Gronert appear with uncertain roles)

Suggested further outputs (from original summary)

• A clean, ready‑to‑use checklist for schools wishing to adopt these practices.
• A one‑page implementation timeline (first year / year 2 / year 3).

Category

Educational

---

Share this summary

Share on X/Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Share on WhatsApp Share on Telegram

---

Is the summary off?

If you think the summary is inaccurate, you can reprocess it with the latest model.

Reprocess summary

Video