Democratic Schools: How they work and why they are cool

The central school circle with members of all groups in this school is connected to other circles: the children’s circle (connected to age-oriented group circles every Monday), the staff circle (called the learning facilitator-circle), and the support circle (again connected to circles about administration, finances, buildings and terrains, and communication). Children have access to most of the circles except those for parents and staff. All circles are connected by two (children by three) members who care about the flow of information between them all. Also, they all have specific procedures and roles for talking and decision-making.

For democratic schools to thrive, it is vital to embrace dialectical thinking. Essentially, when we reflect on schools, we are looking at diverse communities brimming with varied beliefs, interests, needs, and viewpoints. If we solely rely on the premise that one person should guide the school’s direction, we risk overlooking these rich differences. Rather than that narrow approach, it is beneficial to adopt a dialogical mindset. This means understanding and valuing the range of voices and perspectives present in our school communities. Instead of sidestepping challenges or disagreements, it is about creating a safe environment for children in school to freely participate in decision-making and collaboratively address issues (McDonnel, 2014).

To foster such an open environment, it is essential to factor in the social and emotional aspects of learning (Cohen, 2006). For example, before any productive discussion can take place, there is a need for trust among participants. When trust exists, it paves the way for mutual respect. We also need to create rooms and opportunities for children to actively listen to their peers. Active listening allows for constructive conversations, fosters collaboration, and recognises diverse viewpoints. For these dialogues to truly resonate, participants need to feel confident in themselves, be in touch with their emotions, and be equipped to share their thoughts and listen to others in group settings (Read, 2021).

Another key point is the importance of joyful learning (Waterworth, 2020). For learning to be truly engaging, children need to have the autonomy to shape their educational journey (Freire, 2005; Griffiths, 2012). To successfully do this, children also need certain skills and attitudes, like critical thinking, setting goals, regulating their own progress, and taking initiative. These attributes empower children to steer their educational path. Moreover, when disagreements arise, it is these very skills that enable children to articulate their ideas, present alternate views, or stand up for their beliefs (Dobozy, 2007; Slater, 1994). These social and emotional elements are crucial in democratic schools. Without them, any rights or opportunities we offer children might only be symbolic, appearing good on paper but not truly realised in the actual school environment.

How to organise learning in democratic schools?

Figure 4: Transmitting and connecting role of the teacher

Also, portfolios or learning progress reports are effective tools to organise learning and create democratic spaces for dialogic assessments and feedback in democratic schools (McDonnell & Curtis, 2014). These documents making progress visible for children, they can check what they have learned, and how they learnt it. They can reflect on whether it was difficult or simple. Otherwise, it is just a task to be completed for grading. However, by using this strategy we can enrich evaluation through authentic feedback that strengthens learning.  Therefore, it is important to give them a chance to reflect on their learning progress. Also, strategies like the “black market of knowledge” are good examples (Boban & Kruschel, 2015).

The black market of knowledge is a social space in which ideas, topics, and children’s learning are exchanged. They present whatever they want. It may be something they worked on, or they have experienced. This was an idea that some children, brought to the school assembly, and later it was used by student teachers within teacher education (in the Kibbutzim College Tel Aviv, where foreign visitors practised it together with the students).

Such experiences inherently foster a deeper alignment between individual and collective learning endeavours. For instance, following an event like the “black market of knowledge”, some children might gravitate towards the presenter, forming a cohesive group. This group might then pursue diverse learning pathways originating from their own interactions. In this context, the children’s own interests, skills, and needs naturally shape the trajectory of the learning journey, encompassing all facets such as activities and topics. Importantly, this dynamic is not dictated by an external force determining the worthiness of knowledge.

How to develop a democratic school community?

Schools function as complex social entities. They are far from being uniform spaces; instead, they welcome diverse people groups. Thus, for the establishment of a democratic community, it is essential that we recognise and address the varied needs of children. By crafting mechanisms that highlight these diverse needs and cater to them, we lay the foundational aspect of democratic schools.

Moreover, the essence of democratic schools is to offer room for children, educators, and the entire school community to foster autonomy (Taylor, 2017). A common misconception is that autonomy is something that can simply be handed from one individual to another. However, in reality, it is an attribute that grows through lived experiences and social interactions (De Jaegher & Froese, 2009). When children engage in activities, the culmination of those experiences contributes to their cognitive, emotional, and social growth. This engagement and growth through experiences stand central to forming a democratic ethos within the school environment. Committees, for instance, showcase an effective way of distributing power amongst members and collaboratively experiencing it in the school setting.

For instance, the Alpha School in Toronto (Canada) practises a juridical committee. The meetings are organised like a court if there are some children breaking a rule. So, a group of, most of them quite young, children sit together, and just one adult acts as a facilitator, making sure that each and every child is able to understand what was said before and what the case is about. The adult doesn’t influence the content of the meeting or the verdict of the court. In almost every case the verdict is not about punishment but about restorative actions.

Consequently, the objective is to allocate roles to individuals, specifically allowing children to assume responsibility for their surroundings. Integrating the broader community, or the vicinity in which the school is situated, is pivotal. This might involve inviting external individuals to the school or planning outings for the school community. Such initiatives are vital because they facilitate the transference of outside experiences into the school setting. Furthermore, they aid children in understanding the societal norms and codes prevalent in their communities. Ultimately, our goal is to cultivate individuals who are deeply cognisant of the societal fabric they inhabit and reflect on it. Thus, facilitating experiences beyond the school’s boundaries can be quite beneficial.

Another example is from some state schools in the eastern part of Germany during the implementation of the all-day school; though it is not explicitly a democratic school, they were on the way to democratisation. The facilitators from the university asked them to include one person from outside of the school on to the steering group for school development, in addition to children, parents, teachers and other staff. Some of these people had wonderful ideas and practices. One school thought about inviting the mayor, maybe also for strategic reasons, and some had real difficulties in finding someone whom they could include in the steering group. However, in general, it is a good example showing that the connection between the school and the environment or the community around the school is much more intensified. At the end of the day, children are individuals, some of whom might be the mayor in the future. Therefore, supporting them to observe these environments is important.

Concluding on the topic of participation within school environments, the concept “participation” can sometimes be elusive. To clarify, we might consider specific examples of how participation manifests in these settings. For example, when a collective of children take on a decision-making role in school, this is a clear indication of participation. Similarly, if a group of children, perhaps through a school council framework, independently resolve an issue, that too is a form of participation. Another instance might be when children proactively set discussion topics for future council meetings, or initiate new ideas, or even voice their disagreement on a proposed idea, saying “this doesn’t resonate with us.” All of these scenarios exemplify participation.

We can envision participation through these lenses. Feedback mechanisms are equally vital, whether it is from children to teachers, teachers reciprocating, parents to teachers, or even children giving feedback to parents. This significance stems from the fact that it represents mutual observation, active listening, and ongoing communication, establishing a dialogue-centric relationship. Keeping such modes of participation in the forefront can offer clarity on the essence of participation and its implementation in democratic schools.

Here is a final example, from a school in Iceland which is not an explicitly democratic school, but one with a strong democratic tradition and continuous developments over the years (Jörgensdóttir Rauterberg & Hauksdóttir, 2024). Some children had this idea: “Oh, we don’t have enough space and time to talk about some social things. So, we need a new subject in the plan for the next school year.” They brought it to the children’s council and later to the school council. During a visit, the vice principal said: “Yes, they asked for that and we will give it. But we didn’t tell them until the end of this school year. In the next school year, there will be a new subject in the plan.”

So, that’s an example that includes flexibility in curriculum and a huge influence of children in it (Jörgensdóttir & Hinz, 2024).

How to define common goals based on human rights education?

Democratic schools are based on human rights essentially; therefore, they have the common goal to strengthen Human Rights Education (HRE). HRE focuses on the realisation of human and especially children’s rights and has been a growing field since the 1990’s with a big growth in publications (Tibbitts & Sirota, 2023: 56). The most widespread definition is given by the UN in the Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, Art. 2 (1) (UN, 2011: 3): “Human rights education and training comprises of all educational, training, information, awareness-raising and learning activities aimed at promoting universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and thus contributing, among other things, to the prevention of human rights violations and abuses by providing persons with knowledge, skills and understanding, and developing their attitudes and behaviour, to empower them to contribute to the building and promotion of a universal culture of human rights.” As said earlier, three aspects are included: Learning about, through, and for human rights (UN, 2011, Art. 2, 2) and they have an immense impact on learning and teaching.

Internationally, HRE is linked to diverse efforts “to overcome colonialism, the aftereffects of authoritarian governments, structural problems related to poverty, gender inequality, discrimination and interethnic conflict” (Tibbitts & Fritzsche, 2006: 5). In some countries it is also linked “with local and national efforts to fight racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and the extreme right” (Tibbitts & Fritzsche, 2006: 6). Critical comments, from the Global South, say, there is an “unacknowledged conceptual diversity and ambiguity” (Keet, 2006:1).

Following Bajaj’s (2011: 491) analysis, three main ideological backgrounds can be differentiated:

• HRE for Global Citizenship – aiming for a new global political order with more equality,
• HRE for Coexistence – aiming for healing and reconciliation after brutal oppression and crimes against specific groups, like indigenous peoples in Canada or elsewhere, and
• HRE for Transformational Action – with “radical politics of inclusion and social justice” (ibid.).

This picture of approach does not mean that HRE is in practice everywhere. On the contrary, HRE is still only partially implemented. As the research by UNICEF (2015) shows, 11 out of 26 countries have implemented HRE (more specifically: children’s rights) into their school curricula. In seven countries, implementation only took place in parts, and in 15 countries not at all (UNICEF 2015: 8). There is still no international entitlement for HRE, and therefore, there is no linear connection from signing the convention on children’s rights to the implementation in classrooms. Also, the implementation in teacher education is important, but it is not realised systematically anywhere (UNICEF 2015: 9). Therefore, it is not surprising that in 2010 “HRE is still not widespread, especially in schools” (Gerber, 2011: 247). Nevertheless, good examples exist, for example, in Iceland, “human rights and democracy” are one of six pillars in the National Curriculum (MESC, 2011: 14-22; Hinz, 2024).

One interesting aspect of this field is that almost every literature emphasises the growth of democratic practices and ideas. This begins “in small places, close to home – in the neighbourhood, school, college, factory, farm, or office” (CoE 2020: 403). Some good examples of this are in India where more than 500,000 “inclusive neighbourhood children’s parliaments” are in place where all children of the neighbourhood automatically belong; they themselves decide about the topics and the actions, and they are supported by an adult facilitator (Boban & Hinz, 2020b). This is more than being asked to tell the parliament of the city or the state about needs and wishes once a year, as in many countries.

It is very often stated that this is a long-term process, and it is never finished, and never perfect. Sometimes it is criticised that it needs changes because it is “western-centred and ‘top-down’” (Tibbitts & Sirota, 2023: 58). For example, the role of teachers must change from a declarationist approach to a dialogical approach (2023: 58). However, a reflection of the existing power relations in schools is hard to find, except when a transformational action approach is used with its “radical politics of inclusion and social justice” (Bajaj, 2011: 491). Bajaj writes that with this approach, which is a “critique of power and unequal power relations (local, national, global),” is needed (2011: 491). Otherwise, the research results regarding the very low expectations of children about their influence in school could be validated. With this approach, HRE is quite close to any other transformative and emancipatory learning, “associated with critical pedagogy and Paulo Freire” (Tibbitts & Sirota, 2023: 57). The methodologies can be described as “justice-oriented, decolonising, experiential & activity-centred, problem-posing, participative, dialectical, analytical, healing, strategic thinking-oriented, goal-and action-oriented” (Tibbitts & Sirota, 2023: 57).

It is obvious that the understanding of HRE as a call for transformative actions is very close to the approach we stand for. Schools practising democratic education consequently have a much easier task ahead to abide by children’s rights. For schools on the way to more democratic practices, it is much more contradictory to practise democratic processes in a hierarchical system without balanced power relations. Nevertheless, connecting learning to human rights is a continuing challenge for every school.

One material for the support of HRE is Compass, published by the Council of Europe (CoE, 2002, 2020) and translated into 30 languages, supplemented by Compasito for children from 7 to 13 with 40 activities (CoE, 2007, 2009). These materials want to support accessibility to HRE (CoE, 2020: 26) with a European perspective (CoE, 2020: 29). The heart of the material are 58 activities in 20 global themes for the reflection of human rights and taking action, surrounded by introductions about human rights and approaches to HRE. The “pedagogical basis” is explained in detail (CoE, 2020: 32-36). This includes, among others, “HRE must let young people decide, when, how, and what topics they wish to work on” (CoE, 2020: 33), and the role of teachers has to change to a “facilitator, guide, friend, or mentor, not one of an instructor” (CoE, 2020: 33). Nevertheless, there is no reflection about power relations in school. Instead, you, as a facilitator, friend, or mentor (see above) “need to be very clear in your own mind about what it is you want to achieve; you need to set your aims. Then you can go on to choose an activity that is relevant to the topic you wish to address, and which uses a method that you and the young people will feel comfortable with” (CoE, 2020: 48). Friend, facilitator, mentor? This sounds quite contradictory, here the teacher still seems to be the instructor, setting the frame – and within that frame children are more or less free to decide about their learning, and about human rights. Is this democracy? It seems to be not less than or more than a step towards democracy in a structurally non-democratic institution.

All the content in schools based on human rights is, of course, connected with an anti-discrimination and inclusion approach. It is no coincidence that a lot of democratic schools are part of social movements for peace, for reasonable living, for ecological survival, and/or for a better future. Democratic schools are, in most cases, no idyllic bubbles far away and at the margins of society. Power structures might recreate themselves in democratic schools, so it requires investing time and effort to prevent it (Wilson, 2015).

Therefore, as a final comment on this principle, there is a big need for reflection of power relations. There will always be a big difference between the principles and the realities of societies, and of course, democratic schools are part of society. Hence, it is important to reflect again and again on what a school, or a group, can decide autonomously and what is already decided by others.

What are the specific challenges for democratic schools?

You might think that democratic schools are perfect, but we don’t think that. They are not perfect at all. There are some specific challenges for democratic schools.

In the realm of educational discourse, there is a palpable debate concerning the children’s composition in certain democratic schools, which might show elitist and exclusive children’s body characteristics. Central to this debate is the representation of varying social groups within these institutions. Sometimes it is observed that children from more privileged backgrounds often have a heightened presence in these schools. Intriguingly, some of these institutions took shape during what is known as the ‘second wave’ of democratic schools, a period intertwined with the aspiration to craft ‘islands’ within the broader conventional school framework (Hecht, 2011). These ‘islands’, in certain cases, are cited as practising what some term ‘elitist democratic education’; essentially, they impart democratic values and practices predominantly to children stemming from affluent socioeconomic strata (Sant, 2019). However, it is crucial to note that not all schools fall under this critique. For some, the demographic characteristics of their geographic location play a defining role. Yet, for others, it is the predispositions and financial capabilities of the parents that is changing the situation. Such parents, with more substantial means to invest in their children’s education, exhibit a proclivity towards enrolling their children in private institutions, which sometimes includes democratic schools. This trend has roots in the ‘school choice’ philosophy—a perspective that may compartmentalise education into distinct categories like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ schools, offering the liberty of choice to a select demographic, undermining the ethos of fostering educational establishments that champion democratic values for the collective welfare.

Furthermore, the broader structural landscape of the state’s educational system holds influence. In general, it depends on the rigidity of the state school system. If there is a high rigidity and state schools have big problems with a lot of children, there will be a high percentage of children in democratic schools who have been in state schools, and they changed to democratic schools (Hecht, 2011). Hence, democratic schools could be seen as a good place for children, who had some difficulties in a traditional learning environment or in state schools. For these children, democratic schools could be islands that they can feel secure, that they can feel comfortable in.

There can also be some parents of children with disabilities who may have doubts about democratic schools. Some of them may fear their child could get lost due to the ‘big freedom’ in democratic schools. They may assume the responsive structures their child may need are not there and, therefore democratic schools are not a good solution or perspective for their children. However, democratic schools of course are very able to put structures around a child, for example, they could start with a group of children who are close to that child, and they could think together about how they can establish a good situation for this child through dialogic relations. So, it is not about getting lost in freedom but about creating structures through democratic communities.

There might also be challenges about the diverse cultural backgrounds of teachers, children, and parents linked to the exclusivity of the children’s body. Especially, if these backgrounds affect the way of the ‘right’ and ‘common way’ of communication. As communication is so important for democratic schools, it is a special issue. There are rules of communication that are different in different cultures. Therefore, there are also different understandings of democratic ways to solve conflicts and interact with each other. For instance, most Germans find it disrespectful if they are interrupted. Therefore, they believe, in a ‘good’ and ‘democratic’ conversation, no one interrupts each other. To understand this, you must first know about it. In the German language some important words, mostly the verb, are located at the end of the sentence. So, you must listen to the end of the sentence to understand each other. However, this is not the case for many other languages. The structure of sentences is different, and therefore it is not disrespectful to skip the end of the sentence and jump right to the important subject. That’s one example of how the way of communicating interferes with the way of understanding how ‘good democracy’ works. Another example is, in Turkish, it is a practice to overlap when speaking, and it is considered normal and polite to do this. What we want to show with these examples are that we don’t want to reproduce the dominant use of language and the discrimination within it. However, instead to practise cultural sensitivity in democratic schools, there has to be a precise look at the practice of communication and reflection about it. Practices of talking are so deeply anchored inside us, it is difficult to question and reflect on their roots. This is highly demanding for democratic schools, because dialogic relations are so much the basis for all that is happening inside these schools.

As we can see, democratic schools are not the perfect way to deal with every problem, but they have one big advantage, democratic schools are always in a mode of change. They are more likely to find the challenges of exclusive children’s bodies, diverse cultural backgrounds, and establishing special structures for children who need them easier. They can handle it within their ritualised way of changing instead of first creating change management.

There are many different models of democratic schools and their view of the role of adults and the wider community. Some might argue that adults are just there to wait for the children to come up to them and want to learn or get something, like in the Sudbury Model. Others argue they should offer specific things and be more interactive with the children about what could be learned, like in a common social space. We don’t want to judge which way is better, we just want to highlight there are different ways to practise that aspect in democratic schools. What’s important is the knowledge about the different connections to the community that are implied by different views of adults. Sometimes schools really benefit from the experience of parents. They might transfer their knowledge to the school settings and share their expertise. Through this, they may support children to find their interests and what to learn, but this may also cause some difficulties if not handled well.

In a particular instance from Turkey, a school was established through the initiative of a group of parents. This co-operative school had a foundational ethos: the incorporation of democratic governance. The intent was clear: children should actively engage in the decision-making processes within the school. However, having been the driving force behind the establishment of this institution, parents viewed themselves as the primary stakeholders or the owners of this educational establishment from time to time. As such, they felt entitled to influence areas like the instructional methods, curriculum, and other core aspects of the educational process. This proactive involvement sometimes took on a domineering tone, leading to challenges. The underlying issue was a presumption among some parents that their insights were superior to those of trained teachers. 

In discussions surrounding such situations, it is important to remember the professional background of teachers. Teachers undergo specific training and possess extensive expertise in their domain. Regrettably, there are times when this expertise is overlooked or underestimated. However, it is also heartening to acknowledge instances where their contributions are recognised and valued. Regardless, it remains undeniable that they are hands-on professionals in their field. Their role, therefore, requires respect. As efforts intensify to embed democratic values in school environments, it is crucial to emphasise inclusivity. This encompasses the well-being and participation of all of the members of the school community, from the children to the teachers and parents and other staff. Thus, fostering respectful and considerate relationships becomes integral. To foster an enriched learning environment, it is necessary to carve out spaces and opportunities for educators to engage in mutual learning, thereby cultivating a tradition of continuous professional enhancement (Blick über den Zaun, 2011). Such initiatives not only augment teachers’ competencies but also chart a progressive trajectory for their professional journeys. Equally vital is the role of educational institutions in enlightening their surrounding communities about the intricate nature of quality education. By doing so, they can nurture an informed community, fostering greater understanding and support for the educational process (Kim & Bryan, 2017). To encapsulate it, the essence of dialogic relationships is not confined solely to the dynamic between children and educators. It extends to encompass all stakeholders – be it parents, teachers, or children, essentially every individual, both young and old, involved in the educational journey.

 Democratic schools may also face criticism for potentially embodying neoliberal and individualistic values in their educational approach. It is worth noting that in numerous democratic societies, neoliberalism either dominates or is steadily gaining ground in the education sector. While some democratic schools push back against this trend, others seem to embrace it. From an analytical standpoint, there are two core challenges with neoliberalism when viewed through the lens of inclusivity. The first issue stems from how neoliberalism conflicts with the ethos of greater participation and self-expression as envisioned by democratic schools. In the neoliberal paradigm, self-expression is geared towards optimising individual productivity within society and its economic structure. This angle risks misinterpreting the personalised learning ideal, aligning it more with the development of individual human capital than with genuine personal and civic growth. The second concern revolves around the neoliberal perspective on democracy and its seeming indifference to the principle of inclusion. Under this model, one’s inclusion hinges on their economic productivity. Take, for instance, the realm of human resources, where there is a belief that diverse teams boost creativity and productivity. Here, inclusion appears to be a byproduct of economic benefit — you’re included because of the added value you bring, not necessarily because it’s a fundamental right (Boban & Hinz, 2017).

What can we do then?

While a multitude of concepts and examples surrounding democratic schools exist, one might wonder, “What steps should I take?” Amidst the plethora of ideas and seemingly flawless models, it is crucial not to be daunted. Remember, no democratic school sprang into existence instantly. This underscores that there is a role for you to play, even if it begins as a modest stride, always keeping the grand vision in sight. A pivotal point to embrace is the understanding of democracy not as a static ideal to replicate but as an ongoing journey of democratisation. It is about amplifying participation, championing inclusion, and continuously challenging societal norms and conventional boundaries.

Diving deeper, consider the dynamics among the three neighbouring households. They, like any close-knit community, might encounter disputes. Confronting these differences, they might engage in intense dialogue, but eventually, harmony is restored. Just as with democracies or our daily interactions, the essence is not an external facade but lies in our interpersonal exchanges. It is not a plateau you achieve and then rest; it is a continuous endeavour.

Crafting a democratic school is essentially a journey where community members actively shape and redefine themselves and their collective identity through their shared experiences over time. The fruits of this journey manifest as more deliberate decisions, practices, and engagement within the community occurs. Central to this idea is the belief that autonomy is not just handed over; it emerges from experiences and in turn, shapes them. These experiences are deeply intertwined with the other core principles of a democratic school. Emphasising the foundation for such experiences, growth involves immersing individuals in certain experiences consistently. Moreover, this growth thrives in relationships guided by specific frameworks. Within the democratic school framework, growth is perceived holistically. Such growth takes root in a community engaged in continuous self-reflection, utilising tools and methods that prompt particular experiences at just the right moments. This suggests growth is a timely process, underscoring the need for patience within the community. This understanding stresses a step-by-step learning evolution and highlights the importance of diverse learning avenues vital for holistic skill development. From this vantage point, the sustainability of these shared experiences is pivotal for genuine growth. As these structured experiences accumulate, paired with guided relationships, it paves the way for the evolution of both individual members and the larger community, and their autonomy and heteronomy.

Every educator, each institution, and perhaps each human being has the potential to embark on the path toward a more democratic educational setting. Democratic schools across the globe did not just appear; they were crafted and continue to evolve. For those aspiring to absorb insights from these schools and integrate aspects into their conventional settings, initiating change could be as straightforward as addressing an existing minor challenge, something already recognised as an inconvenience by peers. The thought could be, “This has become bothersome. Why not rectify it democratically?” An excellent starting point might be the ‘index for inclusion’ (Booth & Ainscow, 2002, 2011). This index presents an expansive list of questions, beginning with hundreds and escalating to thousands, none of which have a single answer. The purpose is to foster collective introspection and dialogue within the educational community, offering a plethora of queries related to the school’s culture, policies, and practices. The emphasis is not on seeking perfect solutions, but rather on discerning beneficial and manageable subsequent steps. At the heart of the index lies the dual aim of diminishing obstacles to both participation and learning, seamlessly intertwining the ideals of inclusion and democracy.

In wrapping up, numerous entry points exist for embarking on this journey. Regrettably, a universal, one-size-fits-all approach remains elusive. The solution should align harmoniously with the unique attributes of each school, the educational milieu, and the encompassing community.

That said, structured methods to foster school growth and professional evolution for educators do exist. For instance, the chapter on continuing personal development offers guidance on collaboratively addressing prevalent inclusion challenges alongside colleagues. Should personal growth be your focus, the chapter discussing diverse teaching staff and role models might serve as an insightful foundation. For those inclined towards initiating more extensive transformations within their institutions, there are two chapters about school administration and about implementation of a democratic policy in different parts of this open access material.