Democracy and Teamwork - at the grass roots

In an earlier post I asked, "So, how do we make a case for drama as a process?"
While we mull over this question, some details about how one particular semester was structured for drama.
This year, my students spent the entire second semester devising original full-class plays. The different grade levels dealt with different topics (Grade 6 had "bullying", Grade 7 worked with the Renaissance, and Grade 8 took up the early 20th Century). Here is the process they went through:
First there was research (as in-depth as possible for that grade level with scope for those who were really interested to go deeper) followed by improvisations in groups on what fascinated them. Expected learning outcomes: that the children would independently research a topic; that they would share what fascinated them with a small group of peers thereby creating ownership of the work; that they would then translate these thoughts into an original piece of drama to be performed for the other groups, thereby honing all the skills of devising and performance.

Then came a process called "synthesis" in which fresh groups were made and all groups were asked to prepare improvised pieces combining all the previous "stories" that had been performed. The students needed some side-coaching during this exercise as combining different elements into one coherent story can sometimes be challenging. Expected learning outcomes: re-grouping leads to children being exposed to different working styles; children are exposed to a creative process - combining different elements or "synthesis"; teamwork and emerging leadership skills are honed; all the skills related to devising and performance.
(You may notice that the children performed twice during steps 1 and 2 of the process. And after each group's performance, the other groups gave the actors feedback on their performance as well as plot line and story. Expected learning outcomes: giving feedback responsibly and accepting feedback with an open mind and growing from it.)
The next step was to elevate the level of group-work from small groups (four to five children in each) to full-class group-work (between 16 and 22 depending on class strength). Different classes responded differently to this. Some were happy to ideate verbally, while others were more motivated while they improvised. The task set for them (and assessed for involvement at every stage) was to combine all the elements from steps 1 and 2 and create one full-class story. They were given the leeway to sift and select as well as add to the original elements.
On large sheets of flip-chart paper, a "plot graph" was drawn and handed over to the class. No one was chosen to be the leader - but someone was expected to take the leadership. Responsible leadership. That really means that everyone was to be involved, by encouragement from whoever took on the leadership. At different stages of this process, feedback was given to each child on the quality of his/her contribution (dominating or inclusive; passivity or active listening, etc.) and often asked to evaluate this as well. Therefore there was also responsible team-work. Then, of course, the creative process: in this the children learnt how to introduce conflict, tension, sustain it, and allow it to reach a peak before gradually resolving it. There was a lot of side-coaching required for this part, as even Grade 8 students were often at a loss about how to take the story forward without completely destroying it. The creative skills to be learnt during this stage don't need enumeration.
Often, during this part of the process, the children returned to their research, or looked for more information to bring authenticity into their story. Questions like, "Did contact lenses exist in the 1940s?" and "What sort of music would have played at a bar in 1929 in Berlin?" or "What percentage of bullies go on to become criminals?" came up from the groups. Research skills. Inquiry-based learning. All of this happened completely naturally.
When the story was about half-done, back-stage responsibilities were chosen by each child. This ranged from costumes, sets, props, lights, sound, publicity and stage management. EVERY child had to choose one. Why? Ask any of the students and they will explain that drama is not just acting on stage. That acting on stage is a very small part of what drama is all about.
After picking one (some adventurous children picked more than one), it was more time at the drawing board - researching the period for costumes, sets and props; learning about lights; writing drafts for posters and brochures. Many drafts were made - for every aspect - and children came to discuss them, improve upon them and final begin to create them. Needless to say, each child had an individual approach - some caught me at dinner to show their drafts while others required some chasing!
The plot graphs were finally ready. Along the way, many scenes had already been improvised ("Will it work or won't it?"), so each child already knew the performing capability of each other. So, onto casting. We made a list of characters, and each role was cast in a truly democratic way - through voting! That's democracy at the grass roots! Seriously, what better way is there to teach the concept of democracy - we have the roles, we have the candidates - and we choose the BEST POSSIBLE candidate for each role. Because, if we don't, OUR play will not be performed to its logical potential.
Onto blocking each scene, looking into the logical flow of the story from scene to scene, as well as amending the plot line to make it smooth and seamless. All the grade 8 classes scripted their plays, and polished them after receiving feedback. Interestingly, they did this even though they were not required to... So, what they had earlier found a drag ("Oh, ma'am, why do we have to WRITE in drama?") was a skill learnt so well that they recognised its importance without being told.
Expected learning outcomes: that children will not only devise the on-stage performance, but design the entire production through hands-on work; that the final performance would be a an act of collective creation - building something quite literally out of nothing; and in doing so, have ready-made models of WORKING TOGETHER CREATIVELY that can be used for any other subject EITHER IN SCHOOL or later in life no matter what they choose to do in life.
Does this sound like a useful set of skills?
I would like to share an interesting statistic about performance-based drama which may raise further questions on who really wants children to participate in public performances. All the children began working on the year-end production in January, worked through February, part of March and April, finally performing in the first week of May. ONLY ONE CLASS (out of my eight classes) asked for an audience. All the others were happy to just have their performances recorded on tape, and invited about two or three people to watch it. Some were very clear about NOT wanting an audience at all.
What does this tell us about performance-based drama? Was the experience any less rich for the children in the absence of an audience? Or, would it have been qualitatively any different had they performed for others?