Introduction
To establish the validity of some of the conceptualization of democratization and decentralization of decision-making processes by project Saufex, a pilot (see: blog post seventy-three) was initiated in the Pomeranian voivodeship (Poland). The pilot runs from November 2025 to June 2026 and consists of two parts: a school-related and an institution-related part. The pilot is organized by the Pomeranian Center for Teacher Education and the Citizen Project Foundation.
First part – individual and group autopoiesis
The school-related part involves ten schools throughout Pomerania – fourteen eight-grade primary school classes and two seventh-grade primary school classes. The institution-related part is supported by the Board of Education in Gdańsk, the Youth Assembly of the Pomeranian voivodeship, the Pedagogical Institute of Gdańsk university, and the Pomeranian Center for Teacher Education. Three topics were chosen for the pilot: students’ right to participation, educational use of artificial intelligence, and how to organize sessions in the classroom on “difficult subjects,” in which there was no definition provided for what constitutes “difficult.”
Quantitative outcomes
While the institution-related part is still underway, first conclusion based on the school-related part can be drawn. The first quantitative outcome of the pilot is based on teacher observations (twelve teachers observing two hundred plus students). After each session teachers indicated on a Likert-5 scale how much they agreed with the following two statements: (1) Compared to other lessons, students formulate their opinions more in a way that reflects their own knowledge and experiences and is less susceptible to group pressure. (2) Compared to other lessons, students listen to their peers’ answers with more openness and less prejudice. The average results were (very) positive. For statement one the average score was 4.27 after session 1; 3.5 after session 2; 3.8 after session 3; and 3.78 after session 4. For statement two the average score was 4.18 after session 1; 4.17 after session 2; 3.8 after session 3; and 3.89 after session 4. Although the scores fluctuate slightly across sessions, the consistently positive averages suggest that the Interdemocracy framework was perceived by teachers as meaningfully altering classroom dynamics.
Qualitative outcomes – on students
Facilitators reported several consistent qualitative observations. Many teachers noted a noticeable decrease in student stress, which they attributed to the absence of “good” or “bad” answers and the lack of judgment, both verbal and non-verbal. This appeared to create a safe communicative environment in which students felt that their personal perspectives were valued more than the reproduction of expected answers. Within this setting, several facilitators observed that students who are typically silent or reluctant to participate in regular classroom discussions began to express their views. Teachers also reported that students tended to listen to one another with greater openness and less immediate judgment.
At the same time, facilitators noted that the development of these communicative competencies was uneven. Some students continued to experience subtle peer pressure, occasionally aligning their expressed views with those of classmates or publicly downplaying their engagement, even when their private written reflections demonstrated careful thought. While many students appeared to develop a stronger sense of agency through the process, a minority remained skeptical about whether their participation would have any meaningful real-world impact.
Teachers themselves also reported a shift in their classroom experience. When they moved from the role of authority and source of correct answers to that of neutral facilitator and observer, many described a sense of greater ease. This positional change allowed them to notice patterns in student relationships and group dynamics that typically remain obscured during conventional lessons.
Zooming in a bit more, also these nuances become more granular: not all students felt comfortable or expierienced sense at all times. For some students it took time and for a small minority unease and boredom persisted. Also, a divide could be sometimes observed between content written by students as an answer and what was expressed out loud.
When taking a purely participation perspective, the outcomes show that the intervention is a success but does not equal a simple silver bullet for all; it requires time and effort and has no guaranteed impact on all. The situation changes when an autopoietic lens is applied. According to the teachers in follow-up qualitative dialogues, for nearly all students, also for those who did not experience ease or sense, it was a very positive experience that their communication was left uncommented and without consequences.
Qualitative outcomes – on teachers
The second quantitative outcome links to the teacher experience. After sessions two, three, and four, teachers indicated on a Likert-5 scale how much they agreed with the following statement: Compared to the previous session, I felt more comfortable in the role of facilitator. The average results were positive. The average score was 4.17 after session 2; 3.8 after session 3; and 3.56 after session 4.
The qualitative data provides a look into the internal journey of the teachers. While the quantitative results show a steady increase in the ease of facilitating, the qualitative nuances reveal that this ease was actually a profound shift in professional identity.
Facilitators also reported noticeable shifts in their own professional experience during the sessions. Many teachers described a sense of becoming “unburdened.” Once they accepted that they were not expected to provide the correct answers or to resolve every situation, they were able to concentrate fully on maintaining the process itself. In a way similar to how students appeared to feel safer in the absence of judgment, facilitators reported feeling more at ease when they were no longer positioned as controllers of classroom outcomes. This change reduced their own performance anxiety and allowed them to adopt a more observational role.
From this position, teachers became more aware of underlying classroom dynamics. By stepping slightly aside from their usual authoritative role, they were able to observe patterns of peer influence, subtle social pressures, and the individual strengths of students who typically remain quiet in conventional lessons. Many facilitators also reported that guiding the process helped them further develop so-called soft competences, including mindfulness, conflict moderation, and emotional self-regulation.
At the same time, this shift in role occasionally proved challenging. In situations where student engagement declined or where participants expressed resistance, the facilitator’s task was not to intervene or push the discussion toward a particular outcome but simply to maintain the communicative framework - ensuring time boundaries, procedural fairness, and a safe environment. Several teachers indicated that learning to “guard the frame” rather than attempting to produce immediate results required a different form of professional patience, and for many this represented the most demanding aspect of the transition to the facilitator role.
The institution-related part – institutional autopoiesis
As a result of the participation elements in the pilot three recommendations were formulated. These recommendations have been sent to relevant regional institutions.
Recommendation one, regarding students’ right to participation
- A significant portion of eighth-grade students want to have a greater influence on decisions about school trips and their course, because it gives them a sense of control over how they spend their time.
- Students want to decide on test dates, the length of classes and breaks, because they are stressed and need time to rest.
- Acknowledge that some students do not know how or believe that their opinion will not be able to change anything at school.
Sent to: The Board of Education in Gdańsk and the Youth Regional Assembly of the Pomeranian Voivodeship
Recommendation two, regarding educational use of artificial intelligence
It is worthwhile for a teacher, in matters concerning the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in school, to take into account that:
- Artificial intelligence often makes mistakes, fails to specify answers, frequently invents facts or incorrectly solves the tasks assigned to it. Because of these errors, we often lose time making corrections, which can be frustrating. It is important to note that AI can make mistakes in any field, both in the sciences and the humanities, which may result in lower grades for students.
- The lack of authenticity, emotions, and the provision of information not intended for young people (and others) by AI leads to the suppression of creativity in young minds and the replacement of humans in many areas, resulting in intellectual laziness.
- A significant portion of students do not use AI or have only had positive experiences with it.
Sent to: The Pomeranian Center for Teacher Education
Recommendation three, regarding how to organize sessions in the classroom on “difficult subjects”
Teachers planning to discuss a “difficult topic” during classes should be aware of the following observations from students:
- Students would like to be listened to with empathy and engagement, with the assurance that the conversation will remain confidential.
- Students feel anxious about speaking due to the reactions of their peers and the teacher; a majority would like a prior conversation to take place, allowing a certain bond and relationship to be established. Thanks to this, students will open up to one another and stop feeling judged.
- A significant portion of students are reluctant to talk about difficult topics in front of the whole class because it causes them stress.
Sent to: The Pomeranian Center for Teacher Education and the Pedagogical Institute of the University of Gdańsk
Next steps
The institutions to which the recommendations have been sent have a thirty-day window to formulate how the recommendations impact their activities. The institutional replies then will be sent to the classrooms and presented to the participating students who will then formulate their reflections on the participation process.