At the moment, this can only happen if teachers think that pupils are carrying weapons. The new law will mean that they can also search pupils for mobile phones, ipods, drugs etc…
There will be some cases where this is useful. The safety of everybody in school is most important, and if dangerous items are around, then this power will be useful.
However, two pupils from Bethnal Green Technology College hit the nail on the head during their interview on BBC News 24. They stressed how searches like these can be avoided: through better dialogue between pupils and teachers. We’ve seen many schools have turned around discipline problems by including their pupils in the design, delivery and evaluation of things like school behaviour policies.
So while this legislation seems sensible, schools need to be careful with how it is presented to pupils.
In the right hands, it could help to stamp out isolated dangerous behaviour, as part of a wider dialogue on behaviour in school.
In the wrong hands, it could serve to reinforce the ‘them (teachers) and us (students)’ mentality, and lead to greater problems.
Our opponents were the British Heart Foundation and although we lost, we had a great time. It’s only our first game though – we definately have lots to learn!
Here’s us in our Diesel-sponsored T Shirts:
UPDATE: Second match was won! (even though it was because the other team didn’t turn up)
Although this was a while ago, thought I’d post the picture from the 30 under 30 Awards. Thanks too all our friends that came along, and made the day lots of fun…..
Easter weekend was a very interesting time on the student voice front. At its Annual Conference, NASUWT said they were considering striking because student voice is being taken too far.
Here’s our statement on the subject:
‘Successful organisations always consider ‘culture fit’ when making any appointment. With schools, it is natural to do this is by involving young people in teacher appointments, with the appropriate support.
The attack on student voice we’ve seen by NASUWT and sections of the press is un-measured and misconceived. Education cannot return to the days of simple knowledge transfer between teacher and student. This traditional approach to learning will not equip young people to face the modern world.
Student voice, when approached in a considered and clear way, is the best way to help young people to be active, questioning and informed citizens. This is exactly what Britain needs in 2010’
Here are six misconceptions that the NASUWT, and the press, are making about student voice:
Misconception
The truth
Poor examples of student voice mean that the whole idea of student voice is a bad one
Just because student voice has had negative, and isolated, consequences in some schools, it doesn’t mean that the whole concept isn’t a good idea.
Poor practice in student voice is widespread
Thousands of schools across the country benefit from involving young people in important school decisions
Young people are to blame for bad examples of student voice
They aren’t, the process needs to be managed better by teachers (in a clear and considered way)
Young people on interview panels select who gets the job
Young people are having a say on who gets the job, from their perspective in the school.
Student voice is Government – imposed
Student voice has not been imposed externally, but grown organically.
Better student voice equals worse teacher voice
Schools that have effective student voice also have empowered, effective and vocal teachers
And here’s those misconceptions explained:
1. Poor examples of student voice mean that the whole idea of student voice is a bad one
‘the way many schools use student voice is “demeaning, embarrassing and humiliating” to teachers’
Chris Keates, General Secretary, NASUWT
NASUWT are right to be concerned about inappropriate practice with student voice. We’re concerned too, just like we’re concerned about anything that is inappropriate.
But those schools that have developed poor practice should be encouraged to approach student voice in a more considered and planned way, rather than not do it at all.
Just because student voice has had negative consequences in some schools, it doesn’t mean that the whole idea is a bad one.
2. Poor practice in student voice is widespread
NASUWT – the largest UK-wide teachers’ union – could only find around 200 examples of poor practice with student voice.
We’re in touch with thousands of schools across the country who benefit from involving young people in important school decisions. This is happening day in day out, and young people, schools and teachers are reaping the benefits. Better behaviour, more engagement with learning, improved school environment, the list goes on…
Interestingly, a number of involvers’ teacher friends even sent positive case studies to NASUWT when they contacted their members looking for bad examples. They received a stock reply saying ‘thank you for your case of the abuse of student voice’. We’d like to ask NASUWT – how many teachers replied citing positive examples of student voice? And what happened to them?
Even some of the so-called ‘poor’ case studies are really clutching at straws. Take a look at this example in the Daily Mail yesterday:
The aggrieved candidate for this job pointed out that the interview was conducted ‘very formally’. She also mentions two very reasonable questions that were asked by the young panel – one about her subject, and one about disruption.
This is hardly an example of poor practice, if the young panel were interested in that subject being taught well, and without any interruptions from badly behaved members of the class. How can we object to that? And did the candidate feel aggrieved because she didn’t get the job?
3. Young people are to blame for bad examples of student voice
Young people are not evil!
If they say something inappropriate in a lesson observation, that’s because that lesson observation hasn’t been planned properly. If they ask something inappropriate in a teacher interview, that’s because nobody has gone through the questions with them beforehand.
If they give inappropriate feedback in an interview, that’s because they’ve not been trained on how to construct feedback in a diplomatic way. Just like for adults.
Hardly rocket science!
4. That young people on interview panels select who gets the job
Young people are not the ones deciding who gets the job. They are having a say on it, and offering an opinion from a different perspective. The school staff and Governors of the school still have the final say, are still legally responsible, and are influenced by young people’s views to an extent that they choose.
The decision making process needs to be made clear to the candidate (which has given rise to some of the problems we’ve seen highlighted in the press).
Student voice, when used in this way, takes advantage of the educational opportunity that being on an interview panel presents. It links well with work-related learning, and careers advice – why not use that opportunity?
5. Student voice is Government – imposed
‘a Government scheme called Student voice’
Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail
Student voice has not been forced on schools by this, or any, Government.
Student voice has come from schools because they know it’s a good idea. It has taken root in schools because many teachers realise the need to prepare their students for adult life in more sophisticated ways. It has not been imposed externally, but grown organically.
Schools that see the benefits of involving young people in their education every single day, with the appropriate support. It’s also supported with a range of academic research – here’s a few links:
The Labour government has supported to schools, as part of the Children’s Plan, with this – but encourages them to do so in a way that works for them.
It’s also far more than just teacher appointments, and lesson observations – but young people being involved in most aspects of the work of the school!
‘Student Voice scheme is not being abused. It is itself an abuse of education by drastically confusing the respective roles of teacher and pupil. This grotesque approach has not descended out of a clear blue sky. More profoundly and devastatingly, for several decades the entire education establishment has gone along with the benighted belief that pupils should usurp the authority of teachers in the classroom itself’ Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail
Wow. Go Melanie.
Both teachers and young people want to go to/work in a stimulating and effective institution. Student voice helps those two groups to work together to do just that.
Schools that have effective student voice also have empowered, effective and vocal teachers. The two are not mutually exclusive. Student voice is not about ‘pupil power’, but about a school’s ethos and culture, and young people benefit when they are part of it.
________
We’ll be writing to the NASUWT to suggest a more measured approach this week.
Back in February, two of our colleagues from the Czech Republic spent a week with us. Tomas and Kamila, from CEDU, met with a range of people to learn about the UK’s approach to student voice and school councils. We met colleagues at ACT, Citizenship Foundation, DCSF, London Metropolitan University, Tower Hamlets, Preston Manor school and Parliament. A tiring week, but lots of fun!
We hope to work with Tomas and Kamila a lot more in the future (there’s plans to visit them later in the year), are keen to develop our links into a formal partnership. Finally, we were really happy to show them around London.
I was at the QCDA’s Citizenship Key Players meeting last week.
A great day with a range of thoughtful discussions and presentations. Good to see a lot of familiar faces, and hear about citizenship in the new primary curriculum.
Particularly interesting was some of the things that came up from Judith Matharu and Tony Gallagher from Ofsted when talking about their most recent report ‘Citizenship Established?’ They discussed how provision for Citizenship and outcomes for students are improving overall, and that student voice is prominent in many schools. Good news.
An issue came up though, that learning for young people was suffering because of a ‘simulated politics’ approach rather than ‘real politics’ approach.
This is very much what we’re trying to challenge and help schools with at involver. .
Politics, democracy and participation in schools should never be about simulation.
Learning to be an active citizen isn’t like learning to pilot a plane. Young people are here, they are already involved, so let’s help them do something real.
That’s not to say that teachers shouldn’t support young people to help and suggest things, but that they shouldn’t try and create a false environment to learn what ‘taking part’ means.
