Inklusionspädagogik

Charlie Moreno-Romero: Suvemäe, the story of a school within a school: Implementing Democratic Education in a public school in Tallinn, Estonia

Charlie Moreno-Romero

Suvemäe, the story of a school within a school: Implementing Democratic Education in a public school in Tallinn, Estonia

This chapter provides an overview of the history of Suvemäe^[1], a democratic school branch opened in 2019 within Tallinn’s Art Gymnasium (TKG), a public school in Tallinn, Estonia. Not only does the text collect the main steps in its implementation, but also the challenges faced by its founders, stories of former students and how the school brought about a change in their lives, their perception of their own skills and potential, and the processes that facilitating adults had to go through. The chapter ends with reflections on a different approach to inclusion within learning environments: rather than equality, the choice is equity and flexible inclusion, providing learners with the tools to address their own challenges, taking control over their learning and lives.

1       Democratic Education and its present.

Alternative schools emerged in the early 20th century in diverse locations around the world in response, questioning and critique to hegemonic pedagogical practices of the time. In the aftermath of the Hull school students’ protests (1911) and World War I, the Progressive Education movement championed by Neill, Ferrer Guardia, Freinet, Korczak and other European pedagogues developed pilot projects aiming at educating for peace. Years later on, in the context of the Cold War and the Vietnam War, the Countercultural movement in various points on the globe, like Canada, the United States, Ecuador, Japan, India, New Zealand and South Africa, learned from these experiences and implemented free and democratic schools focusing on how education could become a trigger for individual freedom and collective wellbeing. Some still exist, some were temporary. More recently, the advent of the Internet in the 1990s made it possible for a ‘Global Village’ of democratic schools to emerge, learn from each other, and get together to share experiences and learn at the yearly International Democratic Education conferences since 1993 (Moreno 2018).

In contrast with conventional approaches, democratic schools argue that democracy cannot be preached but lived, and children need meaningful experiences to become proactive citizens who can sustain a democratic society, find their passions and vocations, and question the status quo when necessary. From this perspective, by allocating enough time to follow their interests, free play and engage in creative activities, young people can develop a sense of responsibility towards their own learning, find their interests and explore the unknown with curiosity. Moreover, inclusive decision-making processes, control over their learning paths, and access and exposure to a wider variety of people (young and adult) allow them to experience democracy, becoming citizens committed to democracy and social justice (see Graner in this book).

Although there is limited research on the matter, some estimates calculate over 700 democratic schools, 3 democratic universities and a variety of learning centres that implement democratic education and promote children’s and young people’s active participation in their learning. Ironically, despite more parents and governments^[2] becoming interested in the possibilities offered by democratic education, one of the criticisms that democratic education faces is its apparent ‘elitist’ nature, mostly because families need to pay monthly fees that restrict access to the majority of the population. This financial obstacle is due to the fact that democratic schools do not get financial support from governments, and, in some cases, are considered illegal. Nevertheless, the perspective of implementing democratic education principles in public schools is still an area of interest and collaboration among democratic education practitioners.

2       Bringing Democracy to Public Schools

The limited access to democratic education was the main motivation to explore alternative ways to bring democratic education where most learners are: public schools. Numerous conversations with Derry Hannam – to whom I am very grateful for his support and patience – highlighted two possibilities: the 20% proposal and the school within the school approach.

To start with, the 20% proposal (Hannam 2020) emerged from the experience of high-tech companies like Google, understanding that people need non-directive time to explore their interests and come up with innovative solutions to challenges they see. This proposal, but applied to education, was presented at the 2016 Conference on Education and Democracy organised by the Council of Europe and was massively supported by attendees, some even asking for a larger percentage! In short, it highlights the need to allocate at least 20% of the timetable to the learners’ interests, replying on learner-initiated and collaborative learning experiences in which adults act as mentors and facilitators.

On the other hand, the school within the school (or Cluster School) approach was originally implemented by Lawrence Kohlberg (Power et al. 1991), who argued that the progressive growth of moral reasoning requires a series of stages, each reflecting a more complex understanding of ethics and justice. From his proposal, a classroom within a conventional school can become an environment where students actively participate in ethical discussions, engage in shared decision-making, and refine their moral reasoning skills. Accordingly, this approach stresses the need for education to prioritise creating a democratic and just community, where students take an active role in deliberating real-life moral dilemmas through student-led discussions that promote critical thinking, empathy, and a deeper appreciation of fairness. By creating a separate branch within conventional schools, the pedagogical approach focuses on empowering students to actively engage in their own learning paths, dialogue with others to solve conflicts from a restorative perspective and navigate ethical challenges collaboratively and thoughtfully. The school within the school was Suvemäe’s inspiration.

3       Democratic Education in a Post-Soviet Country?

Estonia is worldwide known for its excellent performance in PISA exams by the OECD, and nobody can deny that academic excellence (or scoring high in standardised exams) is a major priority for the government, school leaders, and the public in general. Nevertheless, in addition to the continuous challenges to fill in the job market with diligent and proactive workers, there is a clear trend of deteriorated mental health among children and young people (National Institute for Health Development, 2023) that I could witness during my work in public, private and international schools and universities from 2005 to 2014.  After my return to the country in 2018, I planned and facilitated ‘educational cafes’ with the aim of getting in touch with educational leaders, business people and the general public to find ways to bring democratic education to the public schooling environment. In one of these meetings, I met two parents – not a couple – whose children had been diagnosed with ADHD and struggled at their respective schools. The main ideas and practices of democratic education clicked immediately with them, which also encouraged me to continue with this quest! After meeting a couple of school leaders, we finally met the director of Tallinn’s Art Gymnasium, who felt interested and inspired in supporting the project: the possibility to create a school within a school!

Before setting ourselves the task of spreading the word about the new innovative school where learning activities aligned with human rights and learners could actively become agents of their own learning, we created a master document to explain to the local authorities exactly what we were intending to do, relieving fears of academic neglectance. After holding a couple of meetings with the local authorities, multiple interviews with potential educators, two open seminars and around 98 interviews with potential families and their children were held. Finally, Suvemäe opened its doors in September 2019 with 65 children. These kids and their families came from different backgrounds, some of them from the main school (Tallinn’s Art Gymnasium), some from other schools. Some were highly motivated to take control over their learning and enjoy free time to explore their interests, while others felt alienated and came with deep traumas and limitations emerging from their schooling or upbringing experiences.

Within the common financial limitations of public schools, Suvemäe staff was composed of five teachers with experience in languages, arts, mathematics and sciences, and early childhood, only one having some sort of experience in democratic education, and no direct support of social pedagogues or psychologists.

4       The first year (2019-2020) – “Whose school is this?”

Suvemäe opened its doors on September 1st 2019 with 65 students in a small house near the main building of Tallinn’s Art Gymnasium in the Northern district of Tallinn, the Estonian capital. Originally, the team was composed of only 5 adults and no specialists. Therefore, the first few months were spent in agreeing on basic rules for the school to work properly, dealing with some minor inspection requests, and finding the balance between freedom and responsibility. Undoubtedly, the dysfunctional use of phones and minor conflicts called for our attention, but the school circle slowly consolidated its meetings once a week to decide on topics of importance for everyone, from agreements to learning possibilities. Soon, we realised that time was usually short to address so many topics, so the whole school community decided to create ‘joint class meetings’ or Small Circles to identify and address concerns and ideas that were closer to each group age.

Unfortunately, the restrictions that came with COVID-19 forced us to stay home for the second half of the year, which directly affected our efforts to create a school culture based on respect, dignity, responsibility and participation. Therefore, much was to be done when we return to the school in September 2020. After some months, it was clear that (a) the space was too small for the amount of kids, and (b) we had to find flexible and nouvelle solutions to the challenges we were seeing inside (learners) and outside (parents) of the school. For example, although many students came because they were excited about controlling their own learning, moving on a fast-track and enjoying time on their own interests, some others came with low self-regulatory skills, previous traumatic experiences in their former schools, and low self-image as learners.

After much work within the team, we actively adopted Andreas Hinz’s perspective of flexible inclusion (Hinz 2006), where everyone gets the tools to address their own challenges within a caring and supportive community. For this, we asked students to name at least three adults they would consider to ‘adopt’ as their mentors. Our goal was to create a support role for each child, an adult who would be able to support the child personally and help with learning ideas and challenges (Boban, Simri & Zhang 2025) This was not very successful in the very beginning, mostly because young people were not used to this kind of relationship with adults, but they slowly found ways to open up, take control over their lives, and address their challenges. Regular meetings with families allowed us to strengthen collaboration with them, but always keeping an eye on supporting learners’ development of their own agency, empowering them to communicate and work together.

5       “Some time in Suvemäe is enough to make an impact!”

Some of the kids who came to the school in 2019 left after two or three years, and, oftentimes, their families were just looking for a ‘safe place’ where they could find again the motivation to continue in conventional schooling. Their life stories were different, but they all shared traumatic experiences in their previous schools, from being targeted by teachers for disrupting lessons (being labelled as dysfunctional, slow or just bullies) to being bullied by classmates or getting bored and unmotivated in regards to their learning. The challenges these kids came with did not disappear when they came to Suvemäe, but rather were amplified. In fact, some of the most disruptive kids were often summoned by the school meeting and mediation circle to respond for various grievances, mostly because they were struggling with functional boundaries (arriving late and disturbing lessons, name-calling, destroying school property, etc.), poor self-regulatory mechanisms (violence and consumption of light drugs, like vapes and snus) or challenges in acquiring effective learning habits (note-taking or developing research projects based on their own interest, for instance).

Within Suvemäe’s approach, the school meeting is open to every learning or facilitating member of the school, each person has a voice and a vote, decisions are reached by consent, and the collective is in charge of addressing concerns and finding solutions. However, these attempts to address the challenges from a non-violent perspective failed multiple times as these teens were indifferent to the meeting’s decisions, not realising the extent to which their actions were disturbing others. In this context, the school meeting asked for the staff to meet with them and their parents and find solutions. By keeping an honest conversation, stating the concerns and expressing care and respect, these meetings focused on finding the causes for their behaviour, inviting teens to identify their triggers and develop tools to deal with them together with adults. Sadly, after many attempts and a couple of years setting goals and seeing them fail, some of these families decided that Suvemäe might not be the right place for them, so they enrolled their children in more conventional schools.

For a while, the staff felt like we had failed these children and their families and struggled to find confidence that what we were doing was worth and could work. Nevertheless, our surprise was enormous when some of these parents reached back to us and shared that the experience in Suvemäe had changed their children’s lives: after some months in a conventional school, most of them were more active, responsible and autonomous, noticing and denouncing the lack of opportunities for young people to participate in decision-making and, in some cases, becoming leaders within their classes to advocate for interest-based lessons, collaborative budgeting and self-assessment. Even though the impact of shared decision-making and self-determination were not initially obvious, these kids learned through scaffolding, seeing others participate in democratic processes, becoming more active in their learning and articulating their ideas coherently and assertively. One of the parents visited the school to share these experiences, which encouraged us greatly and motivated us to continue with our work, by saying “you see, some time in Suvemäe is enough to make an impact!”. We really thank them for this reality check!

Some of Suvemäe’s graduates recently shared their experiences through a podcast (Suvemäe 2025).^[3] In their views, the collective experiences of making decisions together, focusing on the development of learning skills and engaging in diverse learning experiences out of their own interest counted as the most significant aspects of their journey in the school within the school. In fact, these experiences highlighted some practices that we believed were impactful and meaningful and rarely get to be tested in conventional schools. To start with, the belief that the right and responsibility for learning should belong to learners, not adults, which meant that our conversations with teens and their families were meant not to frame them as ‘trouble-makers’, but rather as a possibility to get to agreements, identify challenges and develop tools for them to deal with such challenges. Also, while staff members were actively modelling appropriate behaviour and common sense in regards to decisions made during the school meetings, children were very assertive when sharing their views, exercising their right to express themselves and mirroring empathy to their peers. Finally, these teens, instead of being labelled as outcasts and alienated from the community, had the chance to listen to others and be listened to, encouraging the development of self-awareness and reflection about their role as learners and citizens within a community. These realisations will accompany them forever.   

6       Outcasts of the (schooling) world, unite!

Some of Suvemäe learners later in their learning paths, after having gone through hardship due to multiple reasons: Some had come to Estonia as refugees, facing stereotyping and rejection from peers and adults at their former schools, while others had had experienced learning challenges that ended up in social anxiety, or had been emotionally affected because of family reasons, like the traumatic divorce of their parents or their sexual orientation. These are some of their stories: 

●      S. stayed at Suvemäe for four years. Coming to school as a lonely, extremely shy boy who had been mocked by peers and targeted as ‘slow’ by teachers in his previous school, we quickly noticed his passion for drawing, both digitally and on paper. He would come one or two days a week to school, so his participation in the school life and academic responsibilities was modest. He basically didn’t do much during the first two years and missed every academic task that was required by the public school system. His self-esteem was extremely low and the communication with his absent father was so dysfunctional that it was affecting him deeply. Our strategy was to keep an open communication channel, meeting him once a week to talk about anything he was open to. At some point, he stopped talking at all and his mother became very concerned. Although Suvemäe does not offer a homeschooling possibility, the staff and S.’ mother agreed to have him come to school some days at week, giving him enough time to heal while focusing on some academics. S. stayed at home for several months and teachers were oftentimes frustrated because collaboration with him was sporadic and unproductive. Nevertheless, after some months, S. started to come to school for art lessons and Friday’s guest speakers’ workshops. Soon enough, he shared his drawings on the online communication platform we used and got many compliments from classmates. This, without a doubt, boosted his willingness to connect with others. Little by little, he felt more and more safe among peers and his mentor, started learning how to manage his time, started big projects and asked for help. S. graduated from the 9th class in June 2024 and decided to continue his studies at an online school, where he focuses on design and marketing. He has friends, an active life as a young adult, and occasional job offers in marketing and design.

●     Due her Kurdish background, L. and her family had to flee her natal Irak when she was 8 years old. After spending months at refugee camps in Turkey and Greece, they arrived in Estonia in 2021. After their arrival L. and her brother were allocated to a public school in Tallinn, but the experiences were not positive: in addition to the language barriers, she felt discriminated, bullied and isolated by the school staff that did not know/want to support her in the challenges she was facing. After a year, she was recommended to try Suvemäe by the city’s educational inspection. Right from the beginning, L. felt comfortable with her classmates, quickly connected with her duties and actively participated in the school life. The relationship with adults was positive and supported, trying to find ways to support her in the challenges she was facing. A couple of years later, she was in the 9th class and volunteered for an interview by the team of Quest^[4], which was visiting Suvemäe as part of the research on democratic education within the public educational system (Quest, 2023). In the interview, she shared that the most surprising aspect of the school’s approach was adults’ active efforts to include everyone in the school life: from participating in the school meeting to addressing any concern or challenge students might have. For her, being able to customise her learning and focus on her interests (psychology and arts) was a breakthrough in her life in Estonia. After some years at Suvemäe, she managed to learn a bit of Estonian and took every official exam with positive results. The mixture between a welcoming community, flexible learning arrangements and unconditional support made it possible for her to finish the 9th class and continue further studies to study psychology and help others, especially people who have gone through traumatic experiences.

●     P. came to school from the same school as L’s, where he had difficulties because of his self-identification as a transgender person. These experiences (name-calling, bullying and anonymity at school), made him stay at home for months. When P. and his mother came to the school, he was particularly surprised by the fact that the staff was willing to call him by his chosen name, something that seemed impossible due to her experience with teachers and adults at the conventional school. After a period of passive participation both in the school life and academic requirements, P. connected with classmates, took on some voluntary responsibilities like managing the school meeting or decorating some rooms. Academically, P. felt supported and looked for help whenever he had difficulties with his studies. After completing the 9th grade and acquiring the diploma for basic education, P. enrolled in a new high school, where he quickly became a leader and representative of his classmates before the school administration.

●    D. and A. are not related but came to the school with no knowledge of Estonian language. Coming from Russian and Ukrainian families, the traditional emphasis on language immersion in Estonia places kids in learning environments that use the official language as the only language of instruction and relationship. Within the context of Suvemäe, using your mother tongue is fundamental to establish relationships and a sense of own value. From this angle, (foreign) language learning follows a natural, organic way where free play and age mixing become perfect tools to potentialise linguistic skills. Therefore, our initial goal was to make them feel welcomed and safe in the school; for this, the staff took no action to enforce the development of Estonian language skills, but rather kept a close and friendly approach to communication. Not surprisingly, after a couple of years, playing freely with other kids of different ages provided the grounds for them to connect with their community and, little by little, learn the official language. Whenever they had a difficulty, they would ask a mentor or a bilingual peer and bring the message across. In time, they were able to learn Estonian language and academic subjects in Estonian, trusting their peers and adults, and engaging in meaningful experiences with others. Clearly, both free play and age mixing played a role in this process, as younger children were hanging around older kids and integrating both vocabulary and practices in their behaviour.

These examples portray learning experiences that go beyond the academic performance required in many conventional schools. They speak of an educational approach that values human relations and customised support to address young people’s challenges in diverse areas of their lives. In fact, the need for positive and supportive relations between adults and young people – going beyond authoritative roles - in schools has become more obvious in recent years, setting itself as the basis for the development of autonomous and competent individuals who engage in community development efforts, displaying positive attitudes towards diversity.

7       Beyond authoritative roles: adults and young people are … people.

Something that greatly influenced the climate of the school were human relations based on trust, respect and empathy. This does not imply that conflicts were rare, but rather that there was a clear intention to address the issues and find creative and flexible solutions that would take everyone (and their needs) into account. For many young people, the first shock upon arriving at Suvemäe was that teachers were not authoritative figures, but rather facilitators who were ready to engage in informal conversations with them, could be called by their first names and relate to youngsters’ struggles, and supported innovative ways to address challenges, being academic, behavioural or emotional. Meaningful relationships emerged between mentors and mentees and became almost ‘therapeutic’ experiences for some kids. Aligned with our rejection to divide spaces according to ages, a collaborative effort to create shared spaces where people could be people, beyond roles within the school was a constant. In this way, oftentimes kids would come to the art room – where the kitchen is – to have lunch with their teachers and chat about various topics, even beyond school life.

Sometimes, however, frustration over passive or apathetic attitudes towards school life would emerge. Crisis time! On one of those occasions, I was at the centre of the controversy. We were discussing how to address the dependence to smart phones because it was interfering with some academic activities that had to be addressed in order for the school to continue working. At some point, I felt totally frustrated by most students’ passive attitude to finding compromises – possibly, the result of many years of passive instruction in their former schools – and shouted out loud: “For God’s sake, this is your freaking school, wake up and start taking this seriously!” After that, I left the room where the school meeting was taking place. One of the older students said: “Charlie went nuts!” After some time, I realised I had messed up: this was not the example of behaviour I wanted to share with children! Realising my mistake, I asked for the right to speak first thing during the following school meeting. In my intervention, I apologised for shouting, committed not to do it again, and shared with the school community why I was feeling frustrated and how important it was for all of us to work together, if we wanted the school to survive. This experience was new for children and they could not hide their surprise: here was the school’s head of studies, an adult who had made a mistake and apologised to children and young people! My apologies were accepted and this experience served as a reminder that (a) both adults and children are humans and we make mistakes; (b) making mistakes is human and part of learning; and (c) we, as a community, need to find ways to support each other and engage in collective efforts. By being vulnerable and apologising to the school community, I could express my concern while involuntarily sharing a lesson with kids: mistakes come and go, but the courage we find to accept them and mend the situation will accompany us forever.  

8       Inclusive Learning?

One of the most important influences and inspiring approaches to inclusion and education came from the inspiring work of Andreas Hinz (2006), who invited me to participate in this book. Briefly, his flexible inclusion means that people get the tools necessary to address their challenges, making it evident that ‘one size does not fit them all’. Within this approach to inclusive learning, Suvemäe decided to innovate on how learning happened, from formal, to non-formal to informal learning arrangements. The compromise of facilitating formal lessons on some subjects like mathematics and the natural sciences due to the need to prepare learners for the state exams did not prevent the school community from engaging in non-formal and informal learning experiences in other areas of knowledge, sometimes emerging from learners’ interests or needs. Some of the examples for non-formal learning are related to language learning, social studies, and arts and handicraft.

●    In language learning, for instance, the staff realised that teaching (or facilitating) language lessons to young people depends more on their performance level and interests than their age; therefore, young people voluntarily take a test in the beginning of the year and join an age-mixed group that shares similar interests, challenges and skills. Within the language practice, some of the activities are facilitated by the adult, who explains grammar topics, provides access to further practice, and guides learners. However, the responsibility for what happens in the lesson does not fall only on the facilitator, young people are also in charge of some bits of the lesson, guiding games or developing projects to be presented to others. Furthermore, Friday’s guests’ time – mostly foreigners – provides them with excellent chances to engage in real-life linguistic exchanges, ask questions, learn from others, and explore new knowledge or skills.

●   The social sciences and history lessons follow a similar approach. The teacher introduces a topic that has been agreed upon with the rest of the class, facilitates resources, and asks questions that spark imagination and critical thinking. In turn, learners choose a historical or social topic relevant to the main topic in the curriculum and engage in a research project connecting facts with their own interests. For example, some students have made research projects on the role of women and children during WW1, the historical development of psychoanalysis and consumerism, the true meaning of friendship or media manipulation and politics.

●    In the arts and handicraft, the facilitator introduces techniques and learners build on their project, work closely with other peers, learn how to manage their time, and build on skills and knowledge while expressing their deepest interests and concerns.

Furthermore, informal learning happens all the time: when children – disrespectfully of their age – freely play, explore, and engage in conflicts; when interest-based clubs emerge and children engage in activities that nourish and passionate them; when excursions or expert visits are organised by young people and the learning intermingles with ‘real life’; when the school meeting gives their consent for some students to make pancakes and sell them to their peers; or when discussions take place as to how to reorganise and decorate the school spaces. Needless to say, the ultimate aim of these experiences is not to enforce a set of knowledge or values prescribed by the official curriculum, but rather to empower young people to dream, explore their boundaries, collaborate with others and engage in a process of developing emotional and social skills to become self-aware and assertive people.

9       Final Reflections

Based on the experiences shared in the text, democratic education within the public school system at Suvemäe demonstrates the transformative potential of giving students agency over their learning and decision-making. Through the school-within-a-school model, even students who struggled with conventional education or faced marginalization due to language barriers, refugee status, or gender identity found a supportive community where they could develop academically and personally. The flexible approach to inclusion, where relationships between adults and young people transcended traditional authoritative roles, created an environment where mistakes became learning opportunities and students gradually developed self-regulation, critical thinking, and collaborative skills.

These outcomes suggest that democratic education principles can be successfully integrated into public education systems, even in countries with strong traditional academic priorities like Estonia. The testimonials from students who transitioned back to conventional schools after time at Suvemäe indicate that the experience of participatory decision-making and self-directed learning had lasting positive effects on their ability to advocate for themselves and engage meaningfully with their education. While challenges remain, particularly in balancing freedom with responsibility and addressing the needs of students with trauma or behavioural difficulties, Suvemäe's approach confirms that ‘some time in democratic education is enough to make an impact’ on developing engaged, autonomous learners and citizens. In short, education – not necessary schooling as we know it – for a world in constant change demands continuous efforts to develop learners’ agency, a sense of community, horizontal participation and non-violent communication.

References 

Boban, Ines; Simri, Dror & Zhang, Linjie (2025): Inclusive Education and the Challenge of Mentoring through Dialogue – Reaching out to one another. In: All Means All: A collective vision for inclusive teacher education. Open Textbook. URL: book.all-means-all.education/ama-2025-en/chapter/mentoring/ (02.07.2025)

Hannam. Derry (2020): The 20 % Project for Schools – A Modest Proposal. Progressive Education. URL: www.progressiveeducation.org/the‑20‑project‑for‑schools‑a‑modest‑proposal‑by‑derry‑hannam/ (02.07.2025)

Hinz, Andreas (2006): A World of Difference: Inclusive Education in Canada and Germany. Education Canada 46(1), 22-24. URL: www.edcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/EdCan-2006-v46-n1-Hinz.pdf (02.07.2025)

Moreno Romero, Carlos (2018): Desescolarización democrática para la justicia social: Un estudio etnográfico de una experiencia pedagógica libre y democrática en España. PhD Thesis. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma. URL: hdl.handle.net/10486/685504 (02.07.2025)

National Institute for Health Development (2023): Eesti kooliõpilaste tervisekäitumise uuring. 2021/2022. õppeaasta raport [Estonian Adolescents’ Assessments of Their Life, Health, and Family Relationships Are Less Positive; Boys’ Risk Behaviour Has Decreased]. Tallinn: Tervise Arengu Instituut. URL: hbsc.org/estonian-adolescents-assessments-of-their-life-health-and-family-relationships-are-less-positive-boys-risk-behaviour-has-decreased/ (02.07.2025)

Power, F. Clarke; Higgins-D’Alessandro, Ann & Kohlberg, Lawrence (1991): Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. New York City, NY: Columbia University Press

QUEST (Quality Education in Europe for Sustainable Social Transformation) (2023): Suvemäe – Pioneer of possibility: How a democratic 'school in a school' in Tallinn could pave the way for transforming public education in Europe. Video. URL: youtu.be/WYjkIIMmhcs (02.07.2025)

Suvemäe (2025): Suvemäe klubiõhtu: Vilistlaste kogemus. Audio podcast episode. URL: soundcloud.com/suvemaee-tkg/suvemae-klubiohtu-vilistlaste-kogemus (02.07.2025)

• Weiter