A cross-country study of School Participatory Budgeting in Poland, Bulgaria, Italy and Spain, showing how student-led budgeting can strengthen school democracy, civic skills and young people’s influence over their learning environment.
Problems and Purpose
School decision-making often gives students limited real influence, while civic education tends to emphasise theoretical knowledge rather than practical democratic experience. School Participatory Budgeting (SPB) addresses this gap by allowing students to identify needs, develop proposals, discuss priorities, allocate resources and participate in binding decisions. The project sought to examine how SPB operates in different national contexts, test its educational potential and develop practical tools that strengthen young people’s democratic, civic and collaborative competencies.
Background History and Context
The initiative was implemented in 2024-2025 in Poland, Bulgaria, Italy and Spain. SPB had developed very differently across these countries: it was relatively established in Poland, where approximately 3% of public schools were estimated to use it; Spain had several local experiences but limited national uptake; Italy had a small number of generally high-quality but often one-off pilots; and the project-supported process in Bulgaria was believed to be the country’s first formal SPB experience. These differences reflected each country’s legal framework, educational culture, school autonomy and traditions of student participation.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The project was coordinated by the Field of Dialogue Foundation in partnership with:
- SocLab Foundation in Poland
- BiPart Impresa Sociale in Italy
- Oficina de Proyectos Europeos del Gobierno de Cantabria in Spain
- The Small Steps Foundation in Bulgaria
The overall project was funded by the European Union. Schools, teachers, student councils and external facilitators supported implementation at the local level. Funding for individual student projects could also combine external and school resources; for example, in the Sofia pilot, the Small Steps Foundation and the school jointly financed all selected proposals.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The report does not describe one standardised recruitment procedure for all participating countries. Four SPB processes were directly implemented for the research: two in Warsaw, one in Białystok and one in Sofia. In the three Polish schools, the online pre- and post-process questionnaires were distributed by the schools to students from all grade levels; 692 students completed the pretest and 640 completed the posttest.
In Sofia, the organisers contacted two interested school principals and selected 108 Secondary School partly because it was situated in a peripheral district where participatory initiatives were less likely to emerge. A coordinating council was formed with four students, a vice-principal and a pedagogical adviser. The student council then presented the process to grades 6-12, and all students in those grades were eligible to submit proposals.
Methods and Tools Used
The comparative research combined:
- desk research
- individual in-depth interviews with SPB practitioners
- case-study analysis
- implementation of four school participatory budgets
- student pretests and posttests
- quantitative analysis of Polish schools through the Civic Data Mining platform
- an expert SWOT workshop in Spain
At school level, the tools included workshops, coordinating or steering groups, written rules, proposal forms, mentoring, feasibility assessment, information campaigns, public presentations, online surveys, Google Forms, paper ballots and online voting.
The general SPB method involved collecting and discussing ideas, developing proposals, checking their technical and financial feasibility, campaigning, voting, implementing the winning projects and evaluating the process.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
Students first learned how participatory budgeting worked and helped establish the rules and schedule. They identified problems in their schools, formed teams, prepared proposals and estimated costs. Teachers, school representatives and external facilitators provided mentoring and feasibility guidance, while students promoted their ideas through presentations, posters, flyers, school websites and peer-to-peer communication.
Eligible proposals were presented to the wider student community and decided through online, paper or hybrid voting. Winning projects were then financed and implemented. For example in the Sofia pilot, students submitted five proposals concerning toilets, sports equipment, a 3D printer and financial literacy. The projects were publicly presented and voted on both online and offline; 280 of approximately 800 students participated, producing a turnout of 35%. Although the process revealed difficulties-including weak initial promotion and students’ limited experience of being treated as equal decision-makers-it also created a concrete opportunity for them to influence their school environment.
