Here’s the first in our great school council and student voice case studies that we did for the Children’s Commissioner.
It’s from Wroxham School in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire. Great stuff!
Key quote:
What the teachers had in common were the principles of:
- Trust – that we trusted children and that the children felt that they could trust us;
- A sense of co-agency – so not only was it important that you listen to the child, but that the child listen to you, that together you can take something much further forward than if you were just in a passive mode, listening:
- The ethic of everybody – ie that it’s not just the people that are easy to engage that matter, it’s everybody.
Headteacher, Wroxham School
Key benefits of student voice:
The school was in special measures, it was turned around not by a headteacher telling everyone what to do, but by creating a culture where everyone is listened to and is asking the question ‘how could we improve?’
Students are eloquent and keen to talk about their learning, when they join secondary school they perform well because they understand how to learn and are eager to do so.
Top advice
- Student voice is not about structures it is about ethos, vision and values.
- Do not think ‘voice’ is just about what people say. The way students behave reflects how they feel, it is a way they express themselves and give feedback. Pay attention to it and try to understand where it comes from.
- Participation is about whole-school culture. Ensure that staff are listened to as well as students.
- Create a culture of trust, not judgement so you enable everyone to learn. Do not give out grades, support people to self-assess. They become more aware of their learning and challenge themselves to learn more.
- Do not force staff in to a way of teaching or running their classrooms, engage them in conversation: ask them whether what they do in class allows children to surprise them.
Methods used:
Whole school approach to democracy
Everything the school does is about including the whole-school community in decision-making and getting everyone to work out ‘the answers’ together. Efforts are made in the staff team as well as with students to ensure that everyone feels equally able to contribute. The hierarchy is minimal so democracy can be seen as a real choice: it is worth saying something because you have as much chance to be listened to as everyone else. In this way democracy is not something that fits uneasily (or pretends to fit) within the strict hierarchy of the school.
Another aspect of this is the school’s refusal to give out grades or stream its pupils. It is seen to be incompatible with a view that everyone and their opinions are equally valued. Instead, an approach of co-construction and co-agency is fostered, where staff and pupils work together to understand how learning can best happen for each child.
Mixed age circle groups led by Y6
The circle groups led by Year 6 pupils demonstrate the whole-school democracy approach. Each circle group will have pupils of all ages involved as well as adults, who take part as equal members. The Year 6 pupils have been given the leadership role rather than the member of staff. This helps to ensure that the views that come from these groups are authentically from the pupils, not mediated by staff. That is not to say staff cannot have an input, but they are there as participants – participants with different levels of experience and knowledge – they are not controlling the discussions.
These meetings follow a standard format to give those running them confidence that they can do it. An agenda is worked out across the whole-school that all of the circle groups follow. To begin each meeting the Year 6 leaders run a game and share news about what has been happening across the school. They then discuss the agenda that has been agreed. This has built mutual understanding across the age ranges in the school and makes the older children more tolerant and aware of the needs and wants of the younger children.
Having these meetings weekly means that the younger pupils quickly become used to them and find their voices. It also ensures that most issues are small ones; issues are spotted early and ‘nipped in the bud’.
Student self-evaluation
In place of teachers grading pupils, students are expected to self-evaluate. This gives them a much greater sense of what they are learning, how they are learning and what they would like to improve upon. The headteacher says it has created a culture where is it “cool to challenge yourself”. As there is no judgement of ‘failure’ there is trust between pupils and between pupils and staff. Pupils can choose to redo things to challenge themselves further and learn more.
Writing their own reports
Students are given reminders of the topics they have covered and asked to write down what they learned (their ‘successes’) and what they struggled with (their ‘challenges’). Younger children are buddied with older ones who type up the reports for them. They can add photographs and drawings to demonstrate their learning. This information is then shared and discussed with the teacher who responds to the points made by the pupil and adds in any other successes or challenges she feels the pupil has overlooked. There is a meaningful dialogue between pupil and teacher, which creates a meaningful dialogue between pupil and parent about learning. All of this is done without grading or putting the pupil down, so pupils can fully understand where they are succeeding and what they can do to improve.
Pupil-led parent evenings
Parents evenings run in a way that supports this process. Pupils create a short presentation for their parents about what they have been doing, their successes and challenges. They present this to their parents and their teacher; the headteacher sits in, makes notes and contributes. They can then discuss this all together and revisit what was discussed at previous meetings. In this way everyone is kept up to date with progress and they actually understand what has been going on in the classroom. Furthermore the child has ownership over her own learning and takes responsibility for her successes and sees the challenges as just that, rather than failings.
“Children talk comprehensively and passionately about their own learning.”
Headteacher
Students deciding on the curriculum
“Even the curriculum here [is influenced by students]. They give us all the ideas of what they want to learn about. They’re just so much more engaged.”
Year 5 Teacher
Having rigorous structures of evaluation and monitoring that are not based on standardised grades or tests creates the freedom for pupils and classroom staff to make important decisions about the curriculum. It allows classes to respond to sudden interests of the children, maybe sparked by current world or local events – so the week after the March 2011 tsunami in Japan a Year 5 class was studying earthquakes and tsunamis at the request of the pupils.
Topics are discussed with pupils and their areas of interest form the key areas of study for the scheme.
About the school
The Wroxham School is average in size. It is popular and heavily oversubscribed. The majority of pupils are White British although there are pupils from a wide range of ethnic heritage. English is an additional language for a few pupils. The proportion of pupils with learning difficulties and/or disabilities is below average as is the proportion of pupils with statements detailing their educational needs. The number of pupils eligible for free school meals is below average.
Fewer pupils join or leave the school throughout the school year than is generally seen. The Early Years Foundation Stage includes a nursery, which operates a flexible provision. Attainment on entry to the nursery draws on a full range of abilities but overall is generally typical for this age of children. The school has gained national and international recognition for aspects of its work. It has gained awards for Investors in People and Financial Management in schools. It has also been awarded Healthy School status. The school provides a breakfast and after school club.
Involver conducted these case studies for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in 2011, as part of a project to encourage schools to involve their students in decision making
