ETBI - Journal of Education - Vol 1:1 October 2019 (Student Voice)

Journal of Education

Volume 1 October 2019

Produced by Education and Training Boards Ireland

ETBI Education Journal October 2019

© 2019 Education and Training Boards Ireland.

Education and Training Boards Ireland (ETBI) is a national association established to

collectively represent and promote the interests of the sixteen education and training boards

Published by Education and Training Boards Ireland, Piper’s Hill, Kilcullen Road, Naas, Co. Kildare.

This publication may be accessed at www.etbi.ie

2


Contents

Volume 1 (1) 2019

Editorial

Valerie Lewis

Junior Cycle and Student Voice

Norman Emerson

Our Journey with Student Voice

Veronica Walshe

Student Voice: opportunities and challenges in an Irish

context

Gráinne Macken

The Motivation for Student Voice in Irish Post-Primary

Schools: a challenge in a changing educational landscape

Dr Domnall Fleming

5

9

13

19

25

Activating voice in the ‘Learner Voice Space’ framework

Dr. Paula Flynn

37

3


4


Editorial

Valerie Lewis Education and Training Boards Ireland

In this first edition of the ETBI Education Journal

we give voice to voice itself by exploring the

many facets of student and learner voice across

our post primary schools. At a time when we

have never had more vehicles to communicate,

especially through social media and

technological platforms, our contributors

explore what that student voice looks, and

sounds like in practice.

Over the past year we have seen and heard

many young people become involved in public

activism, exercised by their concerns, and the

apparent lack of concern by the adults in their

midst, about issues surrounding climate change.

These teenagers have chosen to make their

voices heard outside the school gates and in

some instances on the world stage.

As part of these activities, students have

highlighted that they bring a perspective to

these discussions which are not only specific to

their experiences, but also demonstrate that

these perspectives cannot be seen in the same

way by the adult cohort which surrounds them.

While this public manifestation of student voice

"WHEN STUDENTS BELIEVE THAT

THEY ARE VALUED FOR THEIR

PERSPECTIVES AND RESPECTED,

THEY BEGIN TO DEVELOP A SENSE

OF OWNERSHIP AND ATTACHMENT

TO THE ORGANIZATION IN WHICH

THEY ARE INVOLVED"

has gained momentum in recent times, it is not

an entirely new phenomenon in our schools. In

fact, research and conversations about the many

aspects of student voice and learning, have been

explored in various facets over the past two

decades.

In the Irish policy context, the latest iteration of

Looking at Our School 2016, provides a

framework for self-evaluation to be used by

both teachers and school leaders to undertake

effective and engaging teaching and learning

approaches. At the heart of this framework is of

course the student, who is rightly given a central

role. “It views students as active agents in their

5


learning who engage purposefully in a wide

range of learning activities and who respond in a

variety of ways to different learning

opportunities” (The Inspectorate, 2016, p7)

Through the range of articles, you will read of

the perspectives of both the authors and the

participants in the varying projects and

research. One of the recurring projects, Student

Voice: The BRIDGE to Learning (2016 – 2019)

provides engagement from the many

experiences of the project coordinators,

partners and participants, which is

demonstrated through the first three articles of

the journal. This Erasmus project aims to

empower students to participate meaningfully

and collaboratively in their experience of school.

The final two articles in this journal attend

separately to ‘motivation’ and ‘activation’ of

student voice. The motivation for student voice

in Irish post-primary schools is explored

through a journey of many recent procedural

documents and notes that that there may still be

some way to go. Activation is addressed through

a structure for activating voice through

listening, leadership and learning and the

significant role for school leaders in the pursuit

of authentic school voice experiences is

highlighted. All learner roles in dialogue must be

acknowledged, driven by the potential positive

improvement in relationships, a sense of

belonging as well as increased confidence and

wellbeing.

Regardless of perspective, all the articles

underscore the importance of the process and

not just product. While the power of

application and initiation for student voice

projects and conversations may lie with the

policy makers, leaders and educators, there is

no doubt the role of expert in the student voice

landscape are the students themselves. Not

only is involving students in the conversations

that impact their learning pivotal, it ensures

“they are prepared to grapple with issues and

participate in conversations related to the

broader education system” (Rennie Center for

Education Research & Policy, 2019)

Now more than ever is the time to channel the

strength of student voice, empowering

students to promote and campaign for

themselves, sharing who they are, what they

believe in and what they think. "When students

believe that they are valued for their

perspectives and respected, they begin to

develop a sense of ownership and attachment

to the organization in which they are

involved" (Mitra & Goss, 2009). In time, this

empowerment could and should transform into

active participative citizenship, giving rise to a

voice which was heard and responded to in the

school community and amplified and

motivated in the working world.

6


Mitra, D.L. & Gross, S.J. 2009. Increasing Student Voice in High School Reform: Building Partnerships,

Improving Outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Vol. 37, No. 4.

Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Student Voice, How Young People Can Shape the Future

of Education, blog post, March 2019, accessed 31 August 2019 https://www.renniecenter.org/

blog/student-voice-how-young-people-can-shape-future-education

The Inspectorate, 2016, Looking at our School: A Quality Framework for Post-primary Schools. Dublin:

Department of Education and Skills.

7


8


Junior Cycle and Student Voice

Norman Emerson Director Curriculum and Assessment NCCA

JUNIOR CYCLE AND STUDENT VOICE

The importance of Student Voice in Ireland is

recognised in Junior Cycle reform. The vision for

junior cycle places students at the centre of the

educational experience and the Framework for

Junior Cycle (Framework, 2015) has been

designed as a means through which this vision

can be realised.

The Framework for Junior Cycle highlights how

listening to students’ voices needs to be at the

core of junior cycle provision if schools are to

ensure that all students are engaging in a

programme that best suits their needs. In the

new junior cycle, students are encouraged to

reflect on how they are progressing in their own

learning and provide feedback to their teachers.

In developing the capacity for self-management

and self-awareness, students are more likely to

approach their learning more confidently and be

better prepared to meet the challenges of life

beyond school.

PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL

PROJECTS

One of the drivers for Student Voice in Ireland

ONE OF THE KEY FEATURES OF

THIS ERASMUS PROJECT IS AN

ATTEMPT TO FOCUS NOT JUST

ON THE “WHAT” OF STUDENT

VOICE, BUT ALSO ON THE “HOW”

OF THE IMPLEMENTATION

PROCESS.

has been the Erasmus Project – Student Voice -

The Bridge to Learning. Ireland is one of five

European partners in this project, which aims to

develop different models of working in

partnership with students in schools and in

classrooms. NCCA in partnership with the JCT is

taking a collaborative approach to the project

and is working with nine schools and over thirty

teachers.

One of the key features of this Erasmus project

is an attempt to focus not just on the “what” of

student voice, but also on the “how” of the

implementation process. In taking this forward,

many partner countries aim to develop student

voice through a shift from top down policy

implementation towards an approach with a

strong dimension of school collaboration at

9


policy, school and classroom level. This

approach aims to empower teachers to take the

Student Voice project forward in a way that is

most useful/ appropriate for their unique local

context.

This approach aligns with OECD advice as set

out by Viennet and Pont (2017) in What makes a

School a Learning Organisation. The rationale for

this school based approach to policy

implementation is based on long standing

evidence from research which indicates that,

despite the plethora of education reforms by

policy makers in the last 30 years, there has

been little real evidence of centrally driven

reforms being sustained. “Hurricane winds sweep

across the sea tossing up twenty foot waves; a

fathom below the surface turbulent waters swirl

while on the ocean floor there is unruffled

calm” (Cuban, 1994).

Cuban argues that, despite all the “sea tossing”

of various policy papers, conferences and

activities associated with education reform,

there is little or no evidence of its impact on

classroom practice - “the ocean floor.” More

recently, Viennet and Pont (2017) highlighted

how OECD countries had adopted 450 major

education reforms between 2008 and 2014 and

pointed to the lack of evidence of these having a

sustained impact on classroom practice.

In the Erasmus project, there has been a

significant emphasis on collaboration which

involves supporting teachers to enable students

to take a central role in their own learning.

Tracing the project journey reveals key features

on what is most likely to enable a culture of

student voice in learning and teaching in

classrooms. The project highlighted, in

particular, the impact a collaborative approach

has on teacher professional development.

WORKING WITH SCHOOLS AND SETTINGS TO

CHANGE PRACTICE IN LEARNER VOICE

The diagram shows the model that teachers in

Erasmus project schools in Ireland used to

structure their work in the project.

Teachers collaborated to develop a culture in

classrooms where there was a shift in the

balance of responsibility from the teachers to

the students. As a result, all students in a class

are involved in working with their peers and

10


teachers in a process of feedback, self -

evaluation and questioning aimed at delivering

enhanced student voice.

Changes in classroom cultures were not

established quickly, but early indications are

that the approach used has started to build

teaching effectiveness, student confidence and

some signs of improved student achievement.

Setting out the vision and anticipated benefits

of the project for the participating teachers was

an important first step. Teachers resist change

that they do not fully understand. The key to

achieving this change was structured peer

interaction across and within the project

schools. In planning for building collaborative

learning cultures, research (Hayward and

Spencer 2010) has shown that teachers develop

their practice best when learning from each

other. However, it takes time to build trust

across all the partners before effective

collaboration can be achieved. Similarly, the

changed dynamic in the class between teachers

and students takes time and requires students

to understand the rationale for the changes in

pedagogy.

“

I liked the notion that we could

start from our own context and also

work collaboratively with other schools. After

that first day, I returned to my classroom and

quickly realised how much of my lessons were

dominated by my voice. I was quietly

embarrassed. I started a journey of activating

student voice within my classroom and on a

The impact of the Erasmus Project on teachers’

pedagogy is best illustrated listening to the

voices of teachers themselves:

“

My work has been enriched by

this process. I stepped out of my

comfort zone and asked the students to

reflect on how they learned in my lessons, and

I became more conscious of the relationship

between us that is conducive to learning. I

became more relaxed; the reality of their

experiences informed my lesson preparation.

I initiated more peer conversations, we

designed success criteria collaboratively, my

colleagues observed and recorded my lessons.

I embraced it to see what the outcome would

be, and I have nothing but positive feedback

to report. student voice has been embedded

in my practice. It is not tokenistic; it is

meaningful and honest.

CONCLUSION

In Ireland, we are developing curricula which

firmly place the learner at the centre and

emphasise the value of student voice as part of

the learning process. This has meant a move

away from an understanding of student voice as

only limited to a process where a small select

number of students have their voice heard in

the representational space.

Embedding a culture of student voice whereby

all students can exert agency over their

educational experience needs support at system,

school and classroom level. One of the longer

term aims is to encourage a substantial and

11


TEACHERS HAVING TIME TO

COLLABORATE WAS SEEN TO BE

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

sustained shift in the culture of the classrooms

and schools beyond the initial group of schools

that were involved.

Whilst the development of student voice in the

project rested largely with the teachers, the role

of the school leadership was seen to be critical,

as was the opportunity to collaborate and

reflect on their professional learning across

school networks. Teachers having time to

collaborate was seen to be extremely important.

This reflects observations made by Hargreaves

and Fullan (1992) that “Critical reflection will

not take place if there is neither time nor

encouragement for it.”

The project demonstrates that taking time to

fully engage all stakeholders in ownership of

the process together with a focus on planned

changes in learning and teaching can have a

significant impact on classroom practice and

lead to enhanced student voice for a greater

number of students.

Cuban, L. (1994). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890–1980. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1992). Understanding teacher development. London: Cassell/ New York,

Teachers College Press.

Hayward, L. and Spencer, E. (2010) The complexities of change: formative assessment in Scotland.

Curriculum Journal, 21(2), pp. 161-177

Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed

framework. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 162. Paris: OECD Publishing.

12


Our Journey with Student Voice

Veronica Walshe Deputy Principal, Coláiste Treasa, Cork

OUR JOURNEY WITH STUDENT VOICE

In September 2017 we were delighted to

receive an invitation to get involved in a pilot

project between the National Council for

Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), Junior

Cycle for Teachers (JCT), Cork ETB and

Monaghan-Cavan ETB called Student Voice –

The Bridge to Learning. Ireland is one of five

European partners in this project, which aims

to develop different models of working in


classrooms.

Three teachers from Cola iste Treasa, Mary

Angland (English & History), Joanne Corkery,

(Science, Biology & Chemistry) and A ine Irwin

(French), as well as Veronica Walsh, Deputy

Principal volunteered to get involved. During

an initial meeting in Portlaoise, over the course

of two days, we discussed, brain-stormed and

heard from various speakers, which resulted in

the starting point for our work on Student

Voice.

Much of the direction for the framework for our

approach came from the methods learned and

experienced by our staff who had participated

in the Barrie Bennet Instructional Leadership

Programme. Nine teachers in Cola iste Treasa

were qualified in the IL Programme, and those

who had graduated provided CPD to all staff

based on what they had learned. This ensured

that all the teachers involved in The Bridge to

Learning Programme were engaged in similar

approaches, with strategies also being

modelling in staff meetings where appropriate.

Inspired by a talk from Dr. Domnall Fleming

(School of Education, UCC) we decided we

would begin by posing two questions that Dr.

Fleming had used in his research on student

voice:

1. What are we currently doing in the class

that helps you learn?

2. What could we do in class to help you learn

better?

These questions were initially given as part of a

survey, to the second and fifth-year students of

the teachers who were involved in the

programme and the results provided much food

for thought. We truly did not realise the impact

the answers would have had on our teaching

and the students’ learning.

13


SCIENCE

Initial survey results from the Science classes

showed that students really liked when they

were engaged using various cooperative

learning and teaching strategies. Approaches

such as Teams Games Tournament, Kahoot,

Quizlet as well as the use of various graphic

organisers and placemats, tended to provide

most engagement.

However, it was also noted that some

respondents felt that the same students were

answering all the questions and that others did

not get the chance to engage. Teacher Joanne

Corkery knew that for Student Voice to work

effectively, she must react to this student

feedback. She chose to address this equal

participation challenge by using a simple ‘name

on a popsicle stick’ approach, with a stick

assigned to each student. She selects a stick

from the container and poses a question to the

named student. When it is answered she puts

the stick back in the container so the students

know they could be asked a question several

times. She found that this approach encourages

students to continue listening and ensures that

all students were given a voice.

STUDENTS LIKED CHALLENGING

EACH OTHER WITH DIFFICULT

QUESTIONS AND IT PROVED TO

BE A VERY EFFECTIVE WAY OF

POSING QUESTIONS.

While this approach works well with Junior

Cycle students, senior students felt it was a bit

childlike, so further adaptations were made. She

now poses a question to the first students who

after answering it, poses a question to the next

student and so on.

Note-taking also arose as an area of concern for

students, who commented that it was at times

‘boring’ and ‘time-wasting’. Joanne chose to

tackle this issue by moving to an approach called

note-making as an alternative. Topics are

initially presented in a brief lecture format, with

students listening and engaging with the

teacher. Labelled diagrams e.g bacteria are

presented, and parts and their functions named

orally. This is followed by the presentation of an

unlabelled diagram, which students name and

label themselves. Finally, the slides are removed

completely, and the students are asked to draw

a labelled diagram of the bacteria in their notes

book.

14


Students worked in groups and/or pairs

throughout the lesson and all presentations

are available on Edmodo following the lessons.

This allows for students to expand on notes

already written or to create their own notes

based on their experience. As a result of this

change in approach, collaborating with

students in the process, she has found that

they are much more involved, and the class is

built around the students’ prior knowledge.

She has also found that students are retaining

information in a better way and the results

that they are attaining are much higher.

“WE LEARN MORE FROM EACH

OTHER IN GROUPS - EVERYONE

HAS A DIFFERENT WAY OF

EXPLAINING THINGS”

FRENCH

The feedback that the French Teacher received

from posing the two questions was similar.

A ine also reviewed her approach and opted for

a more visual presentation when teaching the

topic of vocabulary. She airdrops a

presentation to students with a picture and

accompanying French word, students then

make a copy on their ipad, delete the French

word and store the picture for later revision.

Students also have an opportunity to make

their own presentations, which increases

retention and can be shared with the entire

class group. They continue to write the

vocabulary into their notebooks at the end of the

lesson or for homework.

For senior cycle students A ine uses a placemat

activity where students work in groups to come

up with as much as they can themselves on a

topic which they write on the placemat in their

own section. She then gives the students a

French vocabulary list with no English, one

group will translate the first 15 words, the next

group will do the next 15 words and so on,

comparing as a class afterwards. Depending on

the topic, they divide the vocabulary into causes

and/or solutions using placemat or graphic

organisers and call out their ideas as she writes

them on a flip chart.

She does note that while it takes longer to do

vocabulary this way, they are remembering

content much better. Every exercise in the book

no longer needs to be completed, but students

are better prepared for the exam as they have

15


become critical

thinkers and they

have their own

opinions and

supporting

vocabulary.

Concept attainment is

used at Leaving

Certificate level,

where students figure

out rules around

different pronouns by

looking at examples. Exercises are completed in

groups with members of each group sharing

their learning with other students. As students

move around and share, they also bring the

knowledge back to their ‘home’ group and teach

their peers what they have learned. Students

apply the learning to further examples, which

previously would have mirrored the information

on a handout but is now being developed by the

students themselves.

With greater student collaboration, A ine notes

that her classroom practice has been

transformed in a positive way, both in terms of

student/teacher relationships but also in

relation to student attainment and results,

which have increased since the change in

approach has been implemented. Similarly

impact has been noted outside the classroom

and the school, with the topic of Student Voice

being raised by parents with one noting

'whatever it is, it's working'.

SCHOOL LIFE

SURVEY

Extending the

survey across the

school cohort, we

worked with

Transition Year

students. . Using a

SWOT analysis

approach, they

gave input on

school policies,

codes of behaviour, homework and attendance.

This work was then extended to some formal

survey questions complied from looking at our

school’s document for School Self Evaluation

purposes.

Questions in the survey ranged across several

areas and asked for comments on fairness and

respect, expectations for teaching and learning,

student access to participation and access to and

availability of support. This exercise was

repeated with all staff and responses from both

staff and students were used to inform and

update school policies and will impact their

development in an ongoing manner.

As part of the Student Voice - The Bridge to

Learning project, we were given several

opportunities to share our work outside of the

school environment and in other jurisdictions.

Following the presentation of our work to Junior

Cycle for Teachers (JCT) associates we also

travelled to Scotland to participate in the

international aspect of the programme.

16


Representatives of the schools involved in the

BRIDGE Programme from five different

countries and several students and teachers of

East-Lothian schools, participated in the second

International dissemination conference for

teachers. Local school visits during this

conference also allowed us to experience

Student Voice in a different setting.

Student Voice - The Bridge to Learning has

transformed our classrooms, improved rapport

between students and teachers, motivated

teachers and improved students’ learning. This

increased engagement across the school

environment has been fully supported by

management and we look forward to enhancing

the project as it continues to develop

“I THINK STUDENT VOICE IS THE

BEST WAY TO LEARN AND THE

MOST AMOUNT OF FUN YOU CAN

HAVE WITH A CLASS”.

17


18


Student Voice: opportunities and challenges in

an Irish context

Gráinne Macken Junior Cycle for Teachers

INTRODUCTION

Junior Cycle for Teachers (JCT) and National

Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA)

have been partners in a three-year Erasmus Plus

project, Student Voice – Bridge to Learning. The

project, which reached completion in June 2019,

aimed to develop different models of working in


classrooms.

JCT and NCCA worked collaboratively with nine

schools and over twenty teachers in two

different Education and Training Boards in

Ireland (ETB), Cavan/Monaghan ETB and Cork

ETB. Much of this work involved supporting

these teachers and their schools as they

developed learning and teaching approaches

that enabled students to become active agents in

their own learning, taking early steps in a

journey to enhanced student voice.

This collaborative work has key learning to

share on the experiences of teachers and

students pursuing more authentic student voice

in the school and in the classroom. It also

illuminates the impact a collaborative approach

has on teacher professional development and

the effect this has on students’ experiences in

...THE PROJECT RECOGNISED

THAT ALL STUDENTS’ VOICES

ARE UNIQUE AND EQUALLY

VALUABLE, IN KEEPIN GWITH

LEADING THEORISTS IN

STUDENT VOICE

the classroom. Tracing the journey of this

project to date, reveals the opportunities and

challenges that exist in embedding a culture of

student voice in every classroom in every school

in Ireland.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY STUDENT VOICE?

The models of partnership that were developed

all hinged on the centrality of students in their

own educational experience. Student voice is not

understood as a collective or homogenous

representative voice for students. Rather, the

project recognised that all students’ voices are

unique and equally valuable, in keeping with

leading theorists in student voice, Lundy (2009)

19


and Cook-Sather (2006). The work carried out

over the three years sought to develop models

that activate and develop the voices of all

students in learning.

IRISH SYSTEM LEVEL LANDSCAPE FOR

STUDENT VOICE

From a system level point of view, enhancing

student voice in post-primary education in

Ireland is supported by policy. The Department

of Education and Skills (DES), recognises the

significant role of students’ voices in education.

The School Self Evaluation Guidelines (SSE) for

schools highlights the importance of including

students’ voices in evaluating practices in

schools (DES, 2016). Whole School Evaluations

also capture voices of students as a means of

reflecting on the effectiveness of a school (DES,

2016).

In 2017 the Department of Child and Youth

Affairs (DCYA) published their report ‘So How

was School Today?’, which sets out the views of

3,242 young people, aged 12-17 from across all

sectors of post-primary schools in Ireland. The

findings reveal much about young people’s

experiences of post-primary education in

Ireland and will inform policy.

The NCCA have been exploring ways of

activating student voice in curriculum

development for several years. They have been

involved in a Learner Voice Project, a Negotiated

Integrated Curriculum project and in 2012 they

engaged students’ voices in evaluating the

AUTHENTICALLY LISTENING TO

STUDENTS’ VOICES IS AT THE

CORE OF JUNIOR CYCLE

PROVISION IN SCHOOLS.

impact of Project Maths. With regards to junior

cycle reform, NCCA worked closely with Dr.

Paula Flynn, DCU, on facilitating students’ voices

in the process of drafting the new subject

specifications. Currently, the NCCA are

undertaking a significant review of senior cycle

and students’ voices from 41 schools are an

integral part of this review process.

Most notably, enhancing student voice is an

important aspect of the current junior cycle

reform. The vision for junior cycle ‘places

students at the centre of the educational

experience’ and the Framework for Junior Cycle,

2015 (Framework) has been designed as a

means through which this vision can be realised

(DES, 2015). Student voice is a core aspect of the

Framework as a child cannot take centre stage

in their own educational experience if they do

not have opportunities to exercise their voice. It

is a flexible framework intended to be

responsive to the needs of individual students in

different school contexts (DES, 2015). A junior

cycle programme need not be the same for every

child in every school. Rather, junior cycle

provision has the space to reflect the cultural

context of a school and the needs of its students.

Authentically listening to students’ voices is at

20


the core of junior cycle provision in schools. If

schools are to ensure that all students are

engaging in a programme that best suits their

needs, they must first listen to their students.

The Framework has been designed in a way that

supports teachers and schools in approaching

learning and teaching in a way that enables

students to exert agency over their own

learning. The introduction of a learning

outcomes-based curriculum, an emphasis on the

development on key skills and significant

changes to assessment, where ongoing

assessment values the synergy between

formative and summative assessment, all

provide opportunities for students to take

centre stage in their own learning.

These core

elements of the

reform also

provide the

richest avenues

through which

students’ voices

are placed at the

core of learning

and teaching in

classrooms and in

schools. Hence,

the objectives of

the Erasmus-

Student Voice

project echo the

vision of the

Framework, which

Figure 1: Levels of support

places students at the centre of their own

educational experience. Voice is central to this

endeavour and calls on all stakeholders to

reconceptualise what we value in terms of

student learning. Given the similar aims, the

work of the Erasmus project was situated within

the context of Junior Cycle reform.

IRISH PROJECT APPROACH

The project partners in Ireland recognise that

student voice cannot happen in a vacuum.

Students will only truly become central players

in their own educational experience, when they

can voice agency over their own learning, if

teachers engage with them in ways that develop

this capacity. Teachers themselves will only feel

enabled to develop

models of working in

partnership with

students if they are

supported at school level

and all partners in

schools will need the

support at system level

if enhancing student

voice is to become a

central concern

As mentioned

previously, JCT and

NCCA are working

collaboratively with

three teachers and a

member of school

21


leadership in nine schools in

Cavan/Monaghan ETB And

Cork ETB. Both ETBs

actively supported the

project at all levels and fully

supported the teachers and

students at the heart of this

work. Teachers are the key

influencers on students’

learning and they have a

fundamental role in what

happens in the classroom and how it happens

(Fullan, 2006).

In keeping with a truly collaborative approach

the teachers involved were included as one of

the main stakeholders at every level of decision

making. The collaborative approach taken in this

project is very much in keeping with Hargreaves

& Ainscow (2015). All learning must be

grounded in cultural context and as such what

works in one context may not necessarily apply

in every school (Conway, Murphy, Rath & Hall,

2009). This is particularly true of working in

partnership with students in schools and

classrooms. Given the collaborative decisionmaking

approach, models being developed

between teachers and students varied from

teacher to teacher and school to school,

depending on the context and the choice of

starting point.

One of the schools chose to focus on their SSE

process and look at ways of embedding

students’ voices more fully in the evaluation

process in their school. Other teachers explored

ALL LEARNING MUST BE

GROUNDED IN CULTURAL

CONTEXT AND AS SUCH WHAT

WORKS IN ONE CONTEXT MAY

NOT NECESSARILY APPLY IN

EVERY SCHOOL

(CONWAY, MURPHY, RATH & HALL, 2009).

what kinds of active

methodologies best

provide avenues for

students’ voices to be

heard in the learning

space. Some

participating teachers

began to focus on how

formative assessment

practices like success

criteria, peer assessment

and student reflection provide opportunities to

activate and develop students’ voices in the

classroom space.

One school focused on its Wellbeing

Programme and developed ways of engaging

with students to design a programme that best

responds to their identified needs. Regardless

of the starting point, the end is always the same

as they are all on a journey towards enhanced

student voice for all students.

TEACHER AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES

According to Cook-Sather (2006), students

have a unique perspective on being a student

and as such their voices are integral to any

discussion of students’ experiences of learning.

As synopsised by Dr Paula Flynn, (2018)

activating and developing students’ voices

empowers students to participate in school life,

encourages student engagement in learning,

improves student-teacher relationships and

encourages active, democratic citizenship.

Teacher and student testimony from the

22


partner schools echo this theoretical base for

enhanced student voice in education. Evidence

from the project reflects that activating and

developing students’ voices is positively

impacting students, teachers and the overall

school communities.

Each of the participating schools experimented

with ways to extend the models their teachers

and students developed across the wider school

community. The impetus for this appears to

have come from students sharing with fellow

students and teachers their experiences of

learning in environments where their voices are

being activated and developed. Testimony from

these schools also suggests that the positive

impact working in partnership with students is

having on the professional lives of the teachers

involved is spilling over into their day to day

working lives and motivating other teachers to

reflect on their practice. Significantly, evidence

suggests that deepening the confidence of

teachers in working in partnership with

students is a key component of enhancing

student voice in an authentic way in the

classroom. Reflective feedback from the

ONE OF THE STRENGTHS OF THE

IRISH CONTEXT IS THAT ALL

THREE LEVELS OF SUPPORT

WERE IN PLACE FOR THE

STUDENTS AT THE HEART OF

THE PROJECT

participating teachers early on in the project

highlighted how the power dynamic in the

classroom is a space where teachers might feel

most vulnerable. It took time to and patience to

come to the realisation that activating students’

voices in the classroom doesn’t open the floor to

teachers being undermined. It is not a hand over

of power. Rather, it is a more equitable balance

of voices in the learning and teaching space. This

is where the professional and the personal

journey align in terms of professional learning

(Timperley et al, 2007). In keeping with

Guskey’s theory of teacher change, once the

participating teachers began to have authentic

experiences of students’ voices positively

impacting learning and teaching, they became

increasingly motivated to pursue other ways to

further enhance students’ voices in their

classroom (Guskey, 2002).

GOING FORWARD

The Irish experience in this project reflects that

the journey towards enhanced student voice

takes time and needs to be supported at

classroom, school and system level. One of the

strengths of the Irish context is that all three

levels of support were in place for the students

at the heart of this project. Given the current

educational reform climate, the system level

support and most significantly, the commitment

of teachers and schools to improved learning

outcomes for students, embedding a culture of

enhanced student voice in learning and teaching

in Ireland has never been more possible.

23


Conway, P.F., Murphy, R., Rath, A., & Hall, K. (2009). Learning to teach and its implications for the continuum of

teacher education: A nine-country cross-national study. Dublin: Teaching Council Ireland.

Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, Presence, and Power: "Student Voice" in Educational Research and Reform.

Curriculum Inquiry 36, 359-390.

Department of Child and Youth Affairs (DCYA). (2017). So how was school today? Dublin: Government

Publications.

Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2016). A guide to inspections in post-primary schools. Dublin:

Government Publications.

Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2015). School self-evaluation guidelines for post-primary schools.

Dublin: Government Publications.

Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2015). Framework for Junior Cycle, 2015. Dublin: Government

Publications.

Fullan, M. (2006). Quality Learning=Quality Leadership. IPPN

Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching: Theory and

practice, 8(3), 381-391.

Hargreaves, A. & Ainscow, M. (2015). The top and bottom of leadership and change. Phi Delta Kappan

International, 97(3), 42-48.

Lundy, L. (2009). ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927-942.

Timperly, H., Wilson, A., Barrar H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development. New

Zealand Ministry of Education

24


The Motivation for Student Voice in Irish Post-

Primary Schools: a challenge in a changing

educational landscape

Dr Domnall Fleming School of Education UCC

STUDENT VOICE: THE VOLUME RAISED

The volume of student voice has been raised

across the Irish post-primary sector. The terms

student voice, learner voice, pupil voice have

become part of the language and jargon current

in schools particularly since 2016 following the

publication by the Department of Education and

Skills (DES) of their quality framework for

schools Looking at our School (2016). Student

voice has since become the focus of a range of

conferences, workshops, continuing

professional development initiatives and

national programmes. As a term and concept, it

now features in frameworks for external and

school self-evaluation. This paper seeks to track

these developments and critically evaluate the

motivation behind the current acoustic of

student voice.

DEFINITIONS, COMPLEXITY, CONTESTATION:

It is of significant importance in any discussion

of student voice to have some insight into the

complexity of the concept referencing its origins,

definitions, motivations and contestations. At its

most basic level the concept can be viewed as

simply talking to students about their

STUDENT VOICE ALSO SPEAKS

TO A RIGHTS-BASED

CONCEPTUALISATION OF A

STUDENT’S ROLE AND POSITION

IN SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS

WITHIN WHICH STUDENTS ARE

AFFORDED A VOICE IN MATTERS

THAT AFFECT THEM

experiences in schools with a view to changing

these conditions and the position of the student

within school culture (Rudduck, 2005). It can

emphasise dialogue and consultation leading to

action within a democratic and representative

framing of the students’ role and position in

schools and classrooms (Fielding, 2004).

Student voice also speaks to a rights-based

conceptualisation of a student’s role and

position in schools and classrooms within which

students are afforded a voice in matters that

affect them with the clear expectation that their

voices will be heard and that action arising from

dialogue will result. A rights-based

25


conceptualisation of student voice also brings

overtones of power and challenge to power and

authority towards change and transformation in

schools and classrooms (Cook-Sather, 2006).

This positioning of student voice as discussion

and comment towards change and improvement

in the students’ experience of their school and

classroom should be viewed in the context of

dialogic consultation (Fleming, 2013). Students

are thus positioned as active stakeholders and

partners in the classroom and school within a

person-centred democratic experience

(Fielding, 2011). The students should have a pre

-figurative democratic experience: a lived

experience of democracy in the routine

transactions of school (McCowan, 2010).

The concept can therefore be theorised as social

constructivism in the context of dialogic

teaching, learning and assessment in the

classroom and from a social constructionist

framing in its democratic and representative

questioning and challenge to the authority,

orthodoxy and established practices and

routines of the students’ school experience

(Fleming, 2013). An ‘authentic dialogue’ should

be generated between student and teacher to

shed light on the ‘social reality’ of the student

and the curriculum (Alexander, 2008, p. 20).

Student voice should empower students to

move from silence to challenge, thus creating a

‘democratic disturbance of the teacher-centred

classroom…’to restructure education into

something done by and with students rather than

by the teacher for and over them’ (Shor, 1996, p.

148). Students are then positioned as active

agents in their own knowledge construction and

in the resolution of perceived problems and

injustices (Cook-Sather, 2002).

Engaging with and consulting students therefore

moves strongly towards the transformative and

agentive impact of student voice on pedagogy

and thus ‘carving a new order of

experience’ (Rudduck and Flutter, 2000, p. 75) in

classrooms and creating and transmitting new

knowledge in relation to school culture.

Whether these voices are simply instrumental or

fundamentally transformative in the context of

‘radical collegiality and dialogue’ (Fielding,

1999) and whether they have the potential to

transform school culture, is clearly contested

(Fleming, 2013).

EDUCATION POLICY

At whole-school level, the student council, as set

out in the Education Act (1998), provided the

initial construct that would allow students to

challenge the reality of their school experience

and move towards transformation of school

culture. However, the enactment and the lived

reality of the students’ experience of the student

council construct in Irish schools has been

largely tokenistic, and at best circumscribed by

the power and authority of school leadership

(Keogh and White, 2005, Fleming, 2013). It is

argued that the inclusion of a meeting with the

student council in the initial iteration of wholeschool

evaluation in 2004 was a significant

26


motivation for the visibility of the council in

schools (Fleming, 2015). This was followed by

the inclusion of questionnaires for students in

the more refined Whole-School Evaluation:

Management, Leadership and Learning

(WSEMLL) from 2010. This began to focus

schools on the need to engage with student

voice beyond any motivation for a rights-based

or democratic framing within school culture but

to fulfil the perceived demands of recently

embedded external evaluation within the

education landscape at second level (Fleming,

2015).

SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION:

School self-evaluation (SSE), mandated by the

DES in 2012, it is argued became the most

significant starting point and motivation for the

increasing volume of student voice in postprimary

schools. While led by school personnel,

consultation with students (and parents) to

identify school strengths and areas for

improvement was clearly outlined in guideline

documents, SSE presentations to school

personnel, and in on-line support materials (SSE

Domains and Standards:

Looking at Our School 2016 A Quality Framework for Post-Primary Schools (Department of Education and Skills, 2016)

27


Guidelines, 2012). Through consultation with

the school community, that included students,

schools were required to develop a time-bound

school-improvement plan (SIP) focusing on

identified areas for development, and an SSE

report of their strategies and progress in

implementing that improvement plan.

SSE processes were further developed and

integrated into the whole school by the

publication of the more detailed evaluation

framework: Looking at our School (2016).

Through the provision of domains, standards

and statements of practice, schools were

directed towards ‘very good practice’ in a

range of ‘quality areas’. Student voice became a

significant presence within the statements of

practice.

STATEMENTS OF PRACTICE: LEARNER

EXPERIENCES

The statements of practice reference student

voice in the classroom in the context of ‘learner

experiences’ positioning students as active and

reflective learners, goal setting and negotiating

their own learning. The teacher is positioned as

facilitator of individualised and personalised

approaches and practices that…‘engage with

students’ opinions, dispositions, and contexts,

and modify their teaching practice to build on

opportunities and address any limitations that

they present’. (LAOS, 2016. p19)

Statements of practice: Learner experiences


28


Statements of practice: Teachers individual practice


All DES inspectorate models and practices were

‘informed’ by the LAOS framework from 2017.

The framework seeks to combine or facilitate

complementarity between the outcomes of SSE

and the range of external evaluations

experienced by schools towards setting their

own improvement roadmap.

‘Taken together, the statements of effective

practice and highly effective practice should

enable teachers, school leaders, and others

involved in internal or external evaluation to

arrive at evidence-based evaluative judgements

about the quality of aspects of a school’s

provision’. (LAOS, 2016, p 8.)

Significantly, from a school leadership

perspective, the representative student voice is

framed as recognising students as ‘stakeholders’,

‘involving’ them in the ‘operation of the school’.

Similarly, very effective practice points to a

student council that is ‘democratically elected

and representative, and is a catalyst for change,

with an active role in decision-making and policy

development’ It is noteworthy that consultation

with students regarding improving teaching,

learning and assessment experiences is also

viewed as very good practice. Highly effective

schools leaders would…consult and engage with

students to review and improve teaching,

learning and assessment practices (LAOS, 2016,

p 29.).

These inclusions that could promote a culture of

student voice and the potential for meaningful

actions are a significant advancement for the

voice of students in schools. This marks the first

reference in education policy to a consultative

and review role for students in their own

classroom experiences and positioning them as

stakeholders at whole-school level whose views

are valued. Such a positioning is to be lauded.

The challenge is clearly how these policy

positions are enacted at school level from the

29


Domain: Leadership and management:

Statements of practice: Developing leadership capacity


perspective of the student.

EXTERNAL EVALUATION:

The language register of the LAOS document

has begun to populate published post-primary

school inspection reports. It is clear from a

review of final published reports that inspectors

are now asking schools about their student

voice activities and initiatives in the context of

evaluating school culture and climate. They are

similarly seeking to evaluate student voice

processes and initiatives within SSE in schools

and in the context of the student council. The

following WSEMLL report for a post-primary

school provides an insight into the current

inspectorate focus on student voice in external

evaluation.

Student leadership is promoted through the

student council. The council is a well-organised

group with regular meetings, and is actively

involved in the review of relevant policies. The

importance of student leadership is recognised by

those in management roles, and it is very positive

that the student council meets annually with the

board of management. In interviews with the

inspectors, as well as in their responses to the

30


questionnaire, students strongly supported the

importance of a focus on student voice, and this

should be pursued so as to ensure their greater

involvement in the operation of the school.

The report clearly references student voice in

one of its main recommendations as …The

further development of student voice within the

school should be pursued. Following the finalising

of the report in advance of publication, the board

of management is afforded an opportunity to

respond to report recommendations. In this case

the board provided a short statement in

response to this particular

recommendation…..The school will continue to

develop initiatives which provide an opportunity

for student voice. (WSEMLL report published

2018).

While this and other reports clearly position

student voice within the evaluative gaze of the

inspector, it is unclear at best whether there is a

shared understanding of student leadership or

what student voice might look like in this

context. The lack of direction provided by the

recommendation is complemented by the lack of

detail in relation to the initiatives planned by the

school. The report, while affirming student

leadership in the context of the student council,

provides no direction for the board to assist it in

implementing the recommendation.

It is argued therefore that there is clear risk of a

motivation of accountability for the development

of student voice in schools arising from its

inclusion in an external evaluation framework.

The enactment of initiatives and strategies at

school level risk tokenism and shallowness with

limited impact on students’ experience of

dialogic consultation, pre-figurative democratic

practice, or the transformation of school

culture. The primary motivation for schools to

engage with student voice risks becoming

compliance with the inspectorate’s evaluation

framework towards a positive school report.

Any right-based or pedagogical motivation

could be diminished.

STUDENT AND PARENT CHARTER:

The revision of section 28 of the Education Act

(1998) within the Education (Parent and

Student Charter) Bill 2016 could act as a further

policy motivation for schools to engage with

and consult students on a range of school issues.

The bill will amend Section 9 of the 1998 act to

include among the functions of a school a

requirement that a school must promote the

involvement of parents and students in the

education provided to students. A revision of

section 28 (1) will ….’ensure that a school

provides a quality experience for its students,

embraces an inclusive role for parents and

demonstrates how the school will relate to

students they serve and to parents’. Significantly

an amendment to section 27 of the act

will….change the requirement on a student

council from one of promoting the interests of the

school to the promoting of the interests of the

students of the school (General Scheme of an

Education (Parent and Student Charter) Bill,

2016)

31


The bill speaks to many elements of student

voice including participation, positioning

students at the centre of school life, inviting

‘feedback, comment and observations from

students and parents and developing a listening

culture in school’ and consulting with students

(and their parents) to encourage their

engagement in school planning and policy

development (Developing a Parent and Student

Charter: Briefing note, 2016).

The bill represents a significant legislative shift

in the policy positioning of students in their

schools. The repositioning of the role of the

student council to one that promotes the

interests of students in the school is equally

significant. Once again a policy motivation,

mandated centrally, speaks to the further

integration of the voice of the student in the

school.

CURRICULUM

Pupil voice has a strong curricular foundation at

primary level. Aistear, the early year’s

curriculum, positions pupils as citizens with

rights. This clearly reflects the UNCRC (1992).

Aistear positions children as…citizens with

rights and responsibilities. They have opinions

that are worth listening to, and have the right to

be involved in making decisions about matters

which affect them. In this way, they have a right

to experience democracy (Aistear, 2009, p 8). No

such strong curricular position for students to

have a voice in their learning and pedagogical

experiences existed at post-primary level until

the implementation of the Framework for Junior

Cycle (2015).

The Framework represents a significant

curricular, pedagogical and assessment reform

process that has been progressively advanced in

post-primary schools since 2015. This skills and

learning-outcomes focussed curriculum for

lower secondary level places a considerable

emphasis on formative assessment allowing a

further opportunity for student voice, but

significantly a student voice in pedagogy. The

framework requires that students would have

the opportunity to discuss their learning,

negotiate learning intentions and success

criteria and to engage in peer and selfassessment

of their work in classrooms.

Summative assessments are rebalanced to allow

some elements of classroom-based assessment

as an element of overall summative assessment

practice.

The formative assessment emphasis…involves

teachers and students reflecting on how learning

is progressing and deciding next steps to ensure

successful outcomes’ Teacher planning will

require the development of…learning intentions

and success criteria to be shared and discussed

with their students’. These should be negotiated

with students as an element of…formative

assessment conversations in the classroom.

Students should also be encouraged ...to reflect

on how they are progressing in their own learning

and provide feedback to their

teachers’ (Framework for Junior Cycle, 2015 pp

29-36). Embedded here is the potential for a

meaningful authentic student voice. It provides

32


WHILE ARISING INITIALLY FROM

RIGHTS-BASED MOTIVATION AND

THEN MANDATED CENTRALLY IN

THE YEARS FOLLOWING, THE

KEY CHALLENGE FOR SCHOOLS IS

STILL ONE OF MOTIVATION.

the opportunity to embed student voice in

pedagogy in the classroom relational, interactive

and pedagogical space between student and

teacher in the context of co-constructing

learning and teaching that is underpinned by

equality, right and trust (Fleming, 2013)

CONCLUSION

The education policy progression for student

voice in Ireland can be traced from the United

Nations Convention and Charter on the Rights of

the Child (UNCRC, 1989,1992), through the

Education White Paper (1995), the Education

Act (1998), The National Children’s Strategy

(2000 and 2014), the inspectorate SSE and

external evaluation initiatives, to the current

Education (Parent and Student Charter) Bill

(2016). The Framework for Junior Cycle (2015)

provides a parallel opportunity to embed

student voice in pedagogy.

While arising initially from rights-based

motivation and then mandated centrally in the

years following, the key challenge for schools is

still one of motivation. Schools are required to

comply with education policy. Therefore, a

significant accountability motivation surrounds

student voice developments and initiatives in

schools. The challenge for school leadership is

the motivation to vindicate the rights of the

child…to have a say in matters that affect them.

The leadership challenge is to provide students

with the right to express a view and the right to

have the view given due weight (UNCRC, Article

12) at both classroom and at whole-school level.

The challenge is also to provide a pre-figurative

democratic experience based on whole-school

consultation, inclusion, personalised learning

and dialogic consultation in the classroom. The

challenge is also to provide space within which

students can express a view, voice to allow them

to express their views, an audience that will

listen, and that their expressed views will

stimulate a response and action (Lundy, 2007)

This will certainly challenge established power

and authority structures, and routines in schools

but meaningful student voice initiatives have the

potential to transform school culture. An

embedded and meaningful student voice culture

will significantly advance relationships,

participation, pedagogical change and student

outcomes and can equally satisfy the policy

compliance demands outlined. With this

motivation the tyranny of tokenism can be

avoided. (Fleming, 2013).

33


Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on Pedagogy. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, Presence, and Power: “Student Voice” in Educational Research and Reform.

Curriculum Inquiry, 36, 359-390.

Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorising Students’ Perspectives: Towards Trust, Dialogue, and Change in Education.

Educational Researcher, 31, 3-14.

Department of Education and Skills (DES) (2015). A Framework for Junior Cycle.

Developing a Parent and Student Charter: Briefing note, 2016. Dublin: Government Publications.

Education Act (1998). Dublin: Government Publications.

Fielding, M. (1999). Radical collegiality: Affirming teaching as an inclusive professional practice. Australian

Educational Researcher, 26(2), 1-34.

Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant

realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (2), 295-311.

Fielding, M. (2011). Student voice and the possibility of radical democratic education: re-narrating forgotten

histories, developing alternative futures. In Czerniawski, G. and Kidd, W. (eds.), The Student Voice Handbook:

Bridging the Academic /Practitioner Divide. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.

Fleming, D. (2013). Student Voice in Irish Post-Primary Schools – A Drama of Voices. University College Cork,

Unpublished PhD thesis.

Fleming, D. (2015). Student voice: An emerging discourse in Irish education policy. International Electronic

Journal of Elementary Education, 8 (2), 223–242.

General Scheme of an Education (Parent and Student Charter) Bill (2016). Dublin: Government Publications.

Government of Ireland (1995). Charting our Education Future: White Paper on Education. Dublin: Government

Publications.

Government of Ireland (2014). Better Outcomes Brighter Futures - 2014 -2020: Dublin: Government

Publications.

34


Inspectorate (2012). School Self-Evaluation: Guidelines for Post-primary Schools. Dublin: Department of

Education and Skills.

Inspectorate (2016). Looking at our School: A Quality Framework for Post-primary Schools. Dublin:

Department of Education and Skills.

Keogh, A, and Whyte, J. (2005). Second level Student Councils in Ireland: A study of enablers, barriers and

supports. Dublin: The Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin.

Lundy, L. (2007). 'Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the UnitedNations Convention on the

Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 927-942.

McCowan, T. (2010). School democratization in prefigurative form: two Brazilian experiences. Education,

Citizenship and Social Justice, 5, 21-41.

National Children's Strategy (2000). Dublin: Government Publications.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), (2009). Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum

Framework. Dublin.

Rudduck, J. (2005). Pupil voice is here to stay! Qualifications and Curriculum Authority QCA. (UK).

Rudduck, J. and Flutter, J. (2000). Pupil Participation and Pupil Perspective: `carving a new order of experience’.

Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 75-89.

Shor, I. (1996). When Students have Power: Negotiating Authority in Critical Pedagogy. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

United Nations (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

United Nations (1992). United Nations Charter on the Rights of the Child.

35


36


Listening, leadership and learning:

Activating voice in the ‘Learner Voice

Space’ framework

Dr. Paula Flynn Assistant Professor in the School of Inclusive and Special Education in Dublin

City University

There has been a growing significance in the

importance of children’s rights especially

influenced by the United Nations Convention on

the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989. The

UNCRC challenged the treatment of children and

sought to improve this by affirming their need

for special consideration. Consequently, the

convention enshrined a number of rights,

including the right for young people to express

their views on matters affecting them, and to

have their opinions given due weight

commensurate with age and maturity (Article

12, UNCRC).

Pursuing opportunities in the education space

to activate young people’s voices is not a new

phenomenon and there is substantial research

evidence that indicates this engagement has the

potential to empower students to participate

meaningfully and collaboratively in improving

their experience of school (Tangen 2009).

Consulting children and young people on

matters that affect them in schools has been

shown to encourage student engagement in

learning and positively impact on teacherstudent

relationships (Sebba & Robinson 2010).

A prevailing argument for including students’

voices in education matters recognises their

‘…APPEARING TO LISTEN TO

CHILDREN IS RELATIVELY

UNCHALLENGING; GIVING DUE

WEIGHT TO THEIR VIEWS

REQUIRES REAL CHANGE’.

UN COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

(2003, P.4)

expert role with respect to knowledge and

understanding of what it is to be a student and

acknowledges insights on their experience

which only they can share (Shevlin & Rose,

2010). However, there is also a persuasive

argument for student voice activity to go

beyond ‘eliciting perspectives and insights’ from

young people and move towards a more

democratic process of shared collective

responsibility in developing solutions on all

education matters (Fielding 2015).

Findings from research conducted in the Irish

education context identify a significant role for

school leaders in the pursuit of sustainable and

meaningful student voice engagement (Flynn,

2017). A ‘bottom-up’ approach that facilitates

37


student participation, consultation and

partnership in decision-making and school

improvement, is unrealizable without a ‘top

down’ response that is committed both to

facilitating opportunities for young people to be

heard and responding to what is shared and

‘learned’ as a consequence. Underpinning this

argument is the assumption that ‘listening’ is

integral to the process of activating and

amplifying the voices of any group within

society or education. This assumption resonates

with the UN Committee on the Rights of the

Child (2003, p.4) directive that ‘…appearing to

listen to children is relatively unchallenging;

giving due weight to their views requires real

change’. It is important, however, that this

potential relationship of listening and learning

between adults and young people is conducted

in partnership, in order to mitigate the

possibility of ‘adult’ rationality and inference or

unintentional adulteration of young people’s

perspectives (Flynn, 2014). Listening

authentically requires subsequent affirmation

from the young person to confirm that what has

been heard is

interpreted as it was

intended to be received.

This necessitates more

than ‘listening’ but

rather, a shared

experience of

understanding or

indeed co-construction

of language. Such a

shift suggests changes

THE DEVELOPMENT AND

SUSTAINABILITY OF INCLUSIVE

PRACTICE IS STRONGLY LINKED

TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF

LEARNING AND THE EXPERIENCE

OF SCHOOLS AS PERCEIVED AND

EXPERIENCED BY ALL STUDENTS

in the power relations of discourse across

education stakeholders both at national/policy

level as well as within schools.

The powerful impact evident from encountering

opportunities for shared understanding and

discourse across adults and young people on

education matters is evident from Irish research

where students realised potential benefits when

their opinions were heard, and encountered an

authentic response to their views and input

(Flynn 2014). These benefits include: significant

improvement in the quality of relationships with

teachers and their sense of belonging and

connectedness to school; an improvement in self

-reported levels of confidence and wellbeing; a

heightened sense of being cared for and general

experience of comfort in their education

environment. Significantly, the development and

sustainability of inclusive practice is strongly

linked to our understanding of learning and the

experience of schools as perceived and

experienced by all students (Flynn, 2014).

Hearing and including the views of the hard to

reach student in particular, requires openminded,

courageous and

strong leadership to foster

an inclusive and listening

school culture.

Findings from an Irish study

conducted with the National

Council for Curriculum

Council (NCCA) focusing on

a consultative process with

post-primary level students

on Junior Cycle Reform,

38


Table 1. The Learner Voice Space, adaptation of “Transformative Dialogue” Diagram (Flynn,

2017 p.30)

THE LEARNER

VOICE SPACE

argues for encouragement and inclusion of

student perspectives in education discourse

within a framework of listening and learning for

all participants; adults and young people. This

framework, entitled, The Learner Voice Space,

was designed with a presumption to influence

change and transformative practice, and to

foster leadership and agency within that

experience (Flynn, 2017, p.30). It has since been

adapted and refined further to emphasise the

inclusive nature of the model and acknowledge

all ‘learner roles’ in dialogue together, which at

school level may include students, parents and

all teaching members of staff; and at system

level, the addition of policy makers and state

agencies, equally, as participant learners.

39


This ‘Learner Voice Space’ is an inclusive

framework in which any student can be heard. It

is predicated on the Lundy (2007) model for

children’s rights participation with an emphasis

on the importance of ‘space, voice, audience and

influence’. However, it expands upon this model

to provide a space in which all participants, i.e.

children/young people and/or adults, are in

dialogue together. Significant to this model is

the presumption for ‘learning’ from each other

as a consequence of ‘listening’. Therefore, all

parties are ‘learners’.

Considerations which are integral to this

framework include the following:

• The provision of appropriate media and

channels of communication for children and

young people to express their views

• Constant checking and co-construction of

language and vocabulary to ensure it is

appropriate for and understood by all

participant learners

• Avoidance of adult interpretation or

‘adulteration’ of what has been shared by

young people. In dialogue with any underrepresented

or potentially marginalized

young person or group, it is particularly

important to check understanding and

interpretation to mitigate ‘selectiveness’

• Pursuit and establishment of a ‘listening

culture’ in which there is a focus on: process,

rather than product, and with emphasis on all

participants learning from each other and

pursuing sustainable opportunities to share,

listen and learn.

IT IS CRUCIAL THAT SCHOOLS

AND SCHOOL PERSONNEL ARE

SUPPORTED TO PROMOTE

STRUCTURES AND

OPPORTUNITIES TO ACTIVATE

AND ENCOURAGE STUDENT

The emphasis on ‘process’ as opposed to the

‘product’ of dialogue is to avoid the potential for

such activity to reside in the ‘latest initiative’ or

‘newest project’ space. On the contrary, it

provides a framework for the establishment of a

partnership response to managing and

developing change, within a culture of

embedded listening. School leaders, teachers

and students are facilitated to work, discuss,

listen to each other, and ‘learn’ from one another

within this space which is designed to ‘activate’

all voices. It is crucial that schools and school

personnel are supported to promote structures

and opportunities to activate and encourage

student voice engagement. At the time of

writing, ‘student voice’ is a familiar concept in

education discourse but with varying

interpretations of that construct in practice

across schools in Ireland (Flynn, 2017). Some

Irish education conferences (e.g. NCCA 2017;

ETBI 2018) have recently provided a platform

for students and teachers to discuss their

valuable experiences of best practice in

establishing partnerships of learning and

‘learner voice space(s)’. Further dedicated

opportunities for shared learning and expertise

40


across school clusters and regions could

promote the establishment of more sustainable

practice based on evidence and peer expertise.

Education research has identified considerable

commonality across aspirations and interests

expressed by students and teachers in Irish

schools when external opportunities are

initiated for shared perspectives (Flynn, 2017).

However, it has also indicated that young people

and adults are often surprised by and interested

in realizing where their views are similar and

indeed, different. Similarly, both teachers and

students commented on the fact that they

learned more about the other cohort’s thinking

on teaching and learning as a consequence of

external activities than they would have had the

opportunity to ascertain from routine school

engagement (Flynn, 2017). Opportunities for

students and teachers to share ideas and

interrogate the learning space, provides tangible

evidence of potential benefits in shared

opportunities for communication, listening and

being heard. These benefits resonate with

Fielding’s (2015) call for ‘participatory

traditions of democracy in schools through

‘patterns of partnership’ and the promotion of

‘active listening, recognition of shared concerns

and collective responsibility for developing

solutions’ (2015, p.26).

Amplifying student voices within an inclusive

framework of listening has the potential to

position school leaders, teachers and students in

a dialogical relationship of learning, i.e. the

Learner Voice Space. The inherent challenge in

fostering a climate of listening for students in

education discourse, is in the maintenance and

progression of structures to ensure an authentic

response to what has been heard. Embedding

these structures as habitual practice will ensure

a sustainable and credible approach to intergenerational

dialogue, and a democratic, shared

process of listening, learning and leadership.

41


Fielding, M. (2015) ‘Student Voice as Deep Democracy’ in C. McLauglin (Ed.) The Connected School - a design

for well-being: Supporting children and young people to flourish, thrive and achieve London: Pearson / National

Children’s Bureau, 26-32.

Flynn, P. (2014) ‘Empowerment and transformation for young people with social, emotional and behavioural

difficulties engaged with student voice research’ New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 49:2 162 – 175

Flynn, P. (2017) The Learner Voice Research Study. Embedding student voices in education discourse:

Curricular co-construction and development, Dublin: NCCA

Lundy, L. (2007) 'Voice' is not Enough: Conceptualising: Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the

Rights of the child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6) 927 - 942.

Sebba, J & Robinson, C, 2010, The Evaluation of UNICEF UK’s Rights Respecting Schools Award, London,

UNICEF.

Shevlin, M. & Rose, R. (2008) Pupils as Partners in Education Decision-Making: Responding to the Legislation

in England and Ireland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4) 423-430.

Tangen, R. (2009) Conceptualising Quality of School Life From Pupils' Perspective: A Four Dimensional

Model. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(8) 829 - 844.

United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations General Assembly.

42


43


Contributors

Norman Emerson Director Curriculum and Assessment NCCA

Norman Emerson was a teacher, Head of Department, Deputy Head and National Development Officer before

being appointed to lead the national development programme - ‘Assessment is for Learning’ in Scotland.

The success of the programme in making significant changes to assessment practice was recognised in a number

of Independent evaluations and praised by the Education Minister as a ‘quiet revolution’ in Scottish education.

Following the merger of Learning and Teaching Scotland and the Inspectorate (HMI) in 2010, he was appointed

to the post of Assistant Director within Education Scotland with responsibility for the new assessment

arrangements as part of the Curriculum for Excellence programme. In March 2014, he was appointed to the post

of Director - Assessment with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in the Republic of Ireland to

support the introduction of new curriculum and assessment arrangements in post-primary schools.

Dr Domnall Fleming School of Education UCC

Domnall Fleming was a teacher at second-level from 1980 - 2002. He was appointed as an inspector with the

Department of Education and Skills in 2002 and was conferred with a PhD in Education at UCC in 2013. In 2018 he

took up a full-time lecturing post in the School of Education in UCC. Domnall’s research focus has been on student

voice particularly in post-primary settings. Domnall is a member of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs

(DCYA) Comhairle na nÓg National Executive Steering Committee focusing on student voice. He is also working

with the Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools (ACCS) and Education and Training Boards Ireland

(ETBI) on their student-voice initiatives. He is currently working with a network of voluntary secondary schools in

Cork who are embarking on embedding a culture of voice for students in their schools.

Dr. Paula Flynn Assistant Professor in the School of Inclusive and Special

Education in Dublin City University

Paula Flynn (Ph. D.) is an Assistant Professor of Inclusive Education at DCU Institute of Education. Her research

and teaching interests include: student/learner voice; children's rights-based methodologies; inclusive education;

and leadership for learning. She taught English and Music at post primary level before embarking on doctoral

research in 2008.

Paula has led a number of research projects focussed on learner voice including: ‘Listening to students identified

with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties’ (2008-12); NCCA research on the consultation of post primary

students in the development of opportunities for curricular development (2014-17); NAPD research on cultivating

a student voice culture to examine ‘trust, relationships and inclusion’ (2012-13); SCoTENs funded research on

‘Teachers’ beliefs about education and children’s voice practices on the island of Ireland’ (2015-18); and a recent

study on ‘Supporting schools in preparation for and evaluation of change within a model of learner voice and

theory of change’ (King & Flynn, 2018-2020).

44


Gráinne Macken Junior Cycle for Teachers

Gráinne Macken is a seconded post-primary school teacher from Athlone Community College, Athlone. Currently

working as Regional Team Leader for Whole School CPD with Junior Cycle for Teachers Support Service.

Veronica Walshe Deputy Principal, Cola iste Treasa, Cork

Veronica began her career as a teacher of Science, Biology and Agricultural Science in Coláiste Treasa, Kanturk

Co.Cork in 2002. She was appointed Deputy Principal in Coláiste Treasa in 2012.

She completed Cohort 5 Instructional Leadership Programme in 2014. Veronica was part of a committee involved

in developing and facilitating the EDISON Entrepreneurial Education programme. Since 2017 Coláiste Treasa was

a pilot school for NCCA/JCT Student Voice - A bridge to learning programme.

45


46


47

Journal of Education Produced by Education and Training Boards Ireland

October 2019

ETBI - Journal of Education - Vol 1:1 October 2019 (Student Voice)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?