This week I joined with teachers, students, researchers and policy writers at Melbourne University to discuss student voice. This conference was hosted by Social Education Victoria and made possible by the conference partners, The University of Melbourne, Education and Training Victoria, Foundation for Young Australians and Connect. Over three days, participants engaged in rigorous dialogue about the significance of student voice and what is required to ensure its benefits are maximised for all.
The conference was dedicated to a broad discussion of student voice, choice, agency, partnerships and participation. Each term carries its own meaning and is interpreted in a range of ways. There are degrees of overlap for some people and for others there are clear distinctions. Some are happy to speak of student voice as an umbrella term while others prefer student or learner agency. Some will argue that student voice does not guarantee any form of partnership or participation. They will point to programmes which give students a voice but where there is little follow up on this. Others will argue that participation and partnerships are at one end of a continuum and that the ideal scenario is a partnership between students, teachers and policymakers as equals with a common goal. For the sake of brevity, I refer to student voice in most instances unless making a particular distinction.
As is typical of issues in education, there are no simple answers. While it might be generally acknowledged that student voice, choice and agency are important, what this looks like in practical terms is debated. Various models exist which aim to give students a voice, but they vary in significant ways. The most common model is to offer some form of student representative organisation. It seems this is a popular model but one that can easily become a tokenistic gesture. Students meet somewhat routinely to discuss relatively safe matters. Typical topics for discussion include bathroom cleanliness, litter patrols, new drink fountains and shaded play spaces. At the other extreme, we see students participating as equals in the planning of curriculum and the setting of school policy. At this more inclusive end, students have a genuine impact on the core business of the school, and this impact is likely to be extended into the wider community. Schools which are most active in engaging students as full participants are also more likely to have active connections with their community, and thus student voice extends outwards.
At any level there are challenges, and these can be framed as questions or dilemmas that schools are struggling with.
If we value student voice, how do we ensure that we hear and make heard the voice of every student? It was commonly noted that the students elected to most Student Representative Councils fit within a particular niche. They are well-spoken, well behaved, non-disruptive students who represent the dominant culture of the school community. To the students, they are seen as the teacher pleasers. They most likely don’t struggle with oral language skills, are probably in enrichment programmes, and it is unlikely that they require learning support. The question is, do these students truly represent the students?
We can’t have student voice in anything like a genuine manner if we expect that voice to be polite, quiet and only heard when it is invited. Our young people have to make some noise and scream against the entrenched power of our patriarchal society and the media conglomerates that maintain the status quo.
Can agency be genuinely experienced if it requires that voices are given permission to be heard? - Can agency be granted?
Student voice needs to occur in a culture that also honours teacher voice. This was a clear conclusion across multiple sessions. If we want a culture that engages student voice in a meaningful way, we also need to support teacher voice. Indeed the ideal culture is one that respects and empowers agency of all community members.
When should we give students a voice? Are some students too young? Are parts of the education for older students necessarily controlled by external forces? The conversation went both ways on this topic. There was a sense from some that young students required or were capable of less input on important matters. Some indicated that student voice and choice are essential ingredients to early learning and that it is only when students enter a formalised curriculum in kindergarten that this begins to decline. The wondering was, why is this the case? Why do we move from an emergent play-based curriculum to one where choice is minimised and students follow a lock step progression based upon age? With this came a wondering of what it might take to change this and what shape the curriculum might take if it was more inclusive of student voice? Would such a curriculum be more engaging, increase participation and could it still ensure all students achieve essential skills?
What fresh possibilities for student voice and choice would emerge from a capabilities based curriculum? What fresh possibility for student voice comes if we adopt a curriculum where content is less prescriptive, and we taught capabilities through negotiated content?
One advantage of a capabilities-driven curriculum is that we can generally agree on a broad set of capabilities, but it is much harder to agree on content, and we must always select what content is covered as there is always more than we have time for. If we move towards a capabilities-driven curriculum, we can allow the content of the curriculum to be adjusted to the needs of local contexts and can be inclusive of student voice. The capabilities, such as creativity, collaboration, communication and critical thinking are adaptable and have utility for engagement with almost all knowledge that might be reasonable to explore in schools. If we wish to move away from a content-driven curriculum where all students engage with the same content at the same time in their learning journey, allowing capabilities to take on the central role is perhaps the best way forward.
There was general agreement that student voice, choice, agency and partnerships should be a part of senior school. The difficulty here is in creating space for this to occur in meaningful ways. With so much pressure to cover content and prepare students for examinations, student voice is often seen as an unnecessary extra. The time that is required to run meaningful programmes centred around student voice is seen as time that could be better spent on examination preparation.
Learning should not be a means to an end; it should not be merely about an entrance ranking. Education must be about preparation for a life of learning and the empowerment of agentic individuals and collectives.
One question touched upon frequently but not directly answered was how do we assess the benefits of programmes for student voice. When we evaluate the impact of student voice, choice and agency, what measures might this be seen in? How do we best capture this? What impact might we hope student voice has? Are there potential impacts which might not matter or whose inclusion in evaluations are not relevant or informative? For example, does it matter if student voice does not impact literacy or numeracy achievement even though literacy and numeracy matter? There is a sense in schools, particularly this close to the release of PISA data, that all programmes should have an impact upon test scores. Most people at this conference would argue that while engaged and agentic students might gain broadly from their increased participation in their educational life, we should not evaluate the success of a student voice programme by its impact on test scores.
What was very clear from the conference is that our young people have a great deal to contribute. Many schools are looking for unique ways to capture the voice of their student body. Surveys and questionnaires are common, and there are numerous tools designed to make capturing student voice in this manner easy. What seems more powerful is to ensure that our young people are given a seat at the table and invited to contribute. A highlight of this conference was that it provided many opportunities for round table discussions. In each instance, the students contributed to the discussion as equals, and they all had much to contribute. If we truly value student voice, then we need to include students in the conversation. In many ways, what is most required is listening. Instead of always talking at students, we can learn much and teach more if we stop and listen.
By Nigel Coutts