Student voice and leadership key to student engagement: reframing the concept and practice in schools in Zimbabwe and Mexico

Abstract

In this paper we argue that educators should recognise students’ silent voices and students’ voices of dissent. In framing our argument, we try to situate the current student voice and leadership in historical perspective. Our argument is not informed by systematic field data but by snippets of our experiences as both students and educators in our countries. We thus take our argument as inconclusive and as a base for a more systematic investigation into personalisation in Mexico and Zimbabwe. We recognise the pedagogical imperatives of re-conceptualising student engagement as a platform for student educational success and bedrock for successful schools. We challenge traditional student voicing and leading strategies as hierarchical, exclusionary and depersonalising. We present a case about how we transformed the school club session into a vehicle of student voice, leadership and personalisation by incorporating and adopting indigenous practices and wisdom to enhance student engagement.

Definition of personalisation

We draw on Breunlin et al’s (2005, 24) concept of personalisation as referring to structures, policies and practices that promote relationships based on mutual respect, trust, collaboration and support . . . where adults meet learners in terms of their capabilities, interests, attitudes and other intrinsic motivational considerations. We extend this definition further as we suggest incorporating traditional indigenous practices, beliefs and knowledge as critical constituents of the students’ personalised resources which teachers should draw upon. We recognise and accept that formal schooling is not germane to Zimbabwe and Mexico and ignoring traditional wisdom is at the educators’ and students’ peril. Children’s capabilities, interests, attitudes and intrinsic motivation are embedded in their cultural and social capital, promoting these would be a giant step towards personalising learning.

Background

Many programs aimed at improving student academic outcomes, increasing learning, improving test scores, reducing inappropriate and unacceptable behavior and decreasing absenteeism have all too often forgotten input from the most critical stakeholders in the process of education: the students (Cook-Sater, 2002; Goldman & Newman, 1998).  Personalization is an emergent discourse and practice and runs counter to many reform initiatives which are based on adult ideas about the conceptualisation and practice of education (Cook-Sater, 2002). The current discourse of personalisation of student learning has invoked the schools to consider listening to student voices (Frost, R & Holden, G, 2008: McGregor, J; 2007: Joselwosky, F; 2007: Breunlin et al., 2005). The underlying rationale for personalisation is that it increases youth agency, create greater attachment to schools, and build a whole range of skills and competencies, including learning to get along well with others, planning complex projects and public speaking (Mitra; 2008, 2). While acknowledging the benefits of personalisation on student achievement and consequently successful schools we accept the challenges that confront reform in this direction. One of the complications that we see in both Mexico and Zimbabwe is the environment where education takes place. Some high schools are located in remote and extremely marginalised areas where poverty rules. Under these conditions, students may be more concerned about personal safety, food and job than schooling.

For personalised learning to take place adults should be willing to critique established policies and dominant pedagogic practices, rethink traditional classroom and schooling arrangements and power relations (McGregor, 2007, 99). This is a serious challenge for schools which basically have a built-in inertia of traditionalism and resistance to change. According to Goldman and Newman (1998, 4), ‘…….many educators are afraid that once empowered, students will make changes in schools that will not be in the best interest of the students in general. There is also concern that once students are given the power to effect changes in the school the adults will lose control’. To what extent are these fears real or unfounded? What is rather apparent from these fears is that students remain disengaged and disinterested in school life. The moment in which we live dictates that personalisation may not be a matter of choice but an imperative. How can schools embrace personalisation? As divergent and different schools are, we do not propose personalisation of learning as a panacea. Personalisation should originate from a process of self assessment that includes input from all constituents of the school and particular interventions selected should reflect that assessment (Breunlin et al., 2005: 40). Thus we seek to share our experiences on student voice and leadership, hoping that where appropriate some educators might take a cue from our experiences.

My student experience of student voice and leadership (Zimbabwe)

Max and Jane were my classmates. They were brilliant, always scoring high marks in all subjects, they were vocal, inside and outside class, among students and with teachers, they were always on the right side of the school rules and were wore nice uniforms, clean and well pressed. Teachers and even other students readily listened to them when they spoke or presented a problem. If anything went wrong with them people tired to justify it. It was no surprise when they were appointed school head boy and head girl in their third year of high school and they became role models for other students to emulate.

When I now reflect on these isolated occurrences I can understand how stifling such conception of voice and leadership were. We all had to be like Max or Jane. Our differences and individualities in their various shades were overshadowed. As leaders of the students Max and Jane spoke on our behalf. This kind of representation silenced a lot of voices and few students had opportunities to practice leadership roles. It left many students disconnected, disoriented and excluded from the school life, ignored by peers and teachers, not acknowledged for what they were and finally it depersonalised students. Personally I considered Max and Jane to be in the category of teachers, they were no-longer students like me. They commanded authority and respect, which some new and junior teachers did not have. For many students the school was a foreign space, where they had to struggle to forge a ‘Max-like’ or ‘Jane-like’ identity. No wonder that many performed poorly in the studies, and had disciplinary problems. Many students perceived and accepted the impossibilities of being like Max and Jane. A few courageous students just quit the school, while majority endure the odious days of schooling which did not recognise their being.

My student experience of student voice and leadership (Mexico)

I was privileged to attend one of the prestigious high schools in Mexico. My high school career was demanding for a girl who had attended working class pubic schools. The system of this public school was rigid, strict, and competitive. The interaction between students ran along the students’ last name and their family status. Popularity with teachers and peer leadership were linked with one` s family financial background. It is important to clarify that even though these students were the most popular and had a voice wherever they went, they were not exactly a representative of the group; but they did represent the group with social power without being members of the student representative committee.

Different rules applied for being part of the school committee; it was a matter of being responsible, presentable, and academically able. Those students with voice would propose some of their friends as a leader of the group to be part of the school committee and the rest of the group would vote for one of them. No regard was given to those students who did not have any of these physical, intellectual and social endowments.

Teachers usually recognised the social power of these students and directed their classes to them; the rest of the group was only addressed when a question could not be answered by the social group in power and then, the lack of intelligence could reside in group without voice. Teachers stimulated the differences between those with and without voice; as those students with social, economic and physical power were more motivated and challenged to participate in the classrooms and in the decision-making of the schools. There was the division of classes, voices, and decision-making. Only a selected group of people could participate in these activities and had a voice, the rest of the students maintained silenced and followed the rules of those leaders who were selected ‘democratically’. It was me and many other students who did not fit the valued characteristics. Personally speaking, I did not feel comfortable in the school environment, that is why I kept silent most of the time and so did some of my friends; it is hard to say what went through the minds of many of those who decided to drop out of school. However, those who decided to stay in school used to talk about all the things that we would like to have changed in our learning places.

Analysis of the two student experiences: silent and protest voices and leadership

This brings us to discuss the challenges that we face as teachers and administrators to establish communication with our students and personalise learning. This communication, if functional, will call upon us to listen to all those voices that express themselves in a different ways; those voices that are not usually listened to or valued.

According to Harris (2006, 166), listening to what is not said is important, but extremely difficult and requires the principal’s full attention. Such silence should be probed and underlying messages should be uncovered but at the same time affording the speaker dignity. The silent voices should not be judged for not being forthcoming. While educators often speak of student voice and leadership in terms of that voice and leadership which supports and accepts school ethos, recognising silent and voices of dissent is also important. It is these voices which the educators should transform into positive voices. Our accounts of student experience attest to the fact that voices of resistance and silence are being marginalised and subjugated. There are protest leaders among students and they have huge constituency. It is important to also note that student resistance is gendered or expressed in ways that highlight the gendered dimensions of resistance and dissatisfaction with school (Wills, 1981; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Walker, 1988). Literature shows that because boys are more overtly disruptive and aggressive in their approach to challenging authority in schools that they are more visible and, hence, targeted to a far greater degree than girls who often engage in what may be termed more passive forms of resistance ( Francis, 2008). It is in this sense that boys are often categorised or perceive by teachers in schools as the trouble-makers but there are important aspects of this phenomenon which need to be taken into consideration. For example, we know that masculinities and femininities are historically and culturally specific sets of practices (Connell, 1995). In short, how do factors such as social class, race, ethnicity, geographical and national contexts, as well as the culture of the school’s institutionalised authority, all work to impact on the particular gender regimes and hierarchies in schools and how do these influences, in turn, impact on how students engage with schooling? We have seen this group of students mainly boys getting the raw deal from the teachers. To some extent, silence and resistance are calls for recognition. These are the sorts of expressions of individuality and hence, what it means to be a boy or a girl in school, which educators may not take seriously. Personalisation, in conjunction with engaging with analytic perspectives on gender, social justice and power thus can attend to the twin project of student voice and leadership.

My experience of student voice and leadership (educator’s perspective from Zimbabwe)

As an educator, I experienced student voice and leadership at two levels, at one level as a classroom teacher and at another level as a school principal. Making a comparison of the two, I found it easier to engage and connect with students at the classroom level. One reason for this is echoed by Breunlin et-al (2005, 24) when they say that, ‘….in an environment of smallness, students and subsystems that support their success are more likely to thrive. In these environments students are well known and visible to their teachers and to each other, their individual learning needs, talents and interests are more readily addressed…’.  However while it may be easy to personalise learning at classroom level I also strongly feel that the advantages of classroom personalisation should fall within the overall school structure, policy and practices. If out of class environment does not support personalisation, then the efforts of the classroom initiatives will not have maximum benefits. This brings me to consider the significance of whole-school approach to personalisation of student learning. One of the challenges I faced as school principal were high levels of absconding, absenteeism and eventual drop out. The above problem was punctuated by bullying, verbal touting, vandalism of school property and disregard for school work. When I talked to students, teachers and even parents about this problem none of them seemed to accept that the problem was with the school policy and structure. Students blamed themselves their backgrounds on their failure to succeed. Teachers found comfort in apportioning blame to out of school factors. My assertion has been and still is that at the heart of personalisation is to accept the students as they are not to reject them for what they are. Once engaged personally students will acquire the following capacities and personal attributes autonomy, responsibility, belonging, caring, confidence and powerful (Mitra; 2008, 82). They become leaders and partners with their teachers in their education. To make them believe in themselves and to make them feel safe, secure, respected and dignified so that they trust that teachers and the school are there to help them achieve. To achieve this relationship invites teachers to step off the show and devolve most of their powers to students. It is a risky pursuit which initially locates teachers at the margins but the rewards in terms of student success, motivation and satisfaction with schooling are enormous.

Strategies: how we navigated the complexities of personalisation

Our challenge as a school was to make the learning appealing and interesting to the students. How could we persuade them to be punctual for school and stay in school for the whole day, and also ensure that they day in school was enjoyable and worth living. We concur with Mitra (2008, 1) when she says that disengaged students tend to come to school less, have low self-concepts and achieve less academically and are more likely to drop out of school. The world outside the school was more attractive to our senior boys and girls. For the boys, the lure for ‘quick buck’ from the unskilled jobs in the neighboring countries was profound while senior girls were easily conscripted into early marriages. Not only were these two external factors compelling, but the school environment was also a repulsive force through its disengaging and depersonalising policies and practices. We had tried punitive disciplinary approaches of all kinds but they seemed to exacerbate the problem. We were in a ‘paradox solution’ (Goudzwaard, Vander Vennen & Van Heemst, 2008) where our measures to curb the problem actually accentuated it.

As educators, we believe that there are possibilities to achieve the understanding of our students’ different voices. Taking into account that all students are unique and with different needs our main recommendation is to provide students with a safe environment where they can express freely their ideas and concerns. Teachers and administrators are the key people to establish such environment and engage in dialogue with students. In the next paragraph, there are some strategies that could be used personalise learning and by listening to the voices of those usually in silence.

• Identifying students’ by their names: because of the large number of students, in Mexico students are identified by numbers and not by names. Addressing students by their own name means that we, as teachers, are acknowledging their presence. We recognize them as individuals with an identity in our classrooms.  
• Working in pairs and small groups: offers great advantages to promote the participation of all the students. Additionally, this type of activity encourages the use of cooperative skills (e.g. listening and communication skills), problem solving.
• Requesting written feedback about teaching and learning is a way to listen all students’ voices and perceptions on how a course is progressing; teachers can take advantage of this information and reconsider or improve teaching methods. Some informal feedback strategies are: one minute paper, suggestion boxes, questionnaires inviting for perceptions, electronic mail, and so on.
• Students’ forums: request students to talk about their learning experiences, their learning environment and what their schools can do for them. It is also important to remind them of their own role in the learning process so that they are aware of the significance of their own power in the learning process.

In the last paragraph below, we present a case about how we attempted to personalise learning through the club sessions in Zimbabwe.

The clubs sessions

Personalisation involves satisfying the individual needs of students. The concept of leadership we propose here is that each student should be a leader of his / her own learning, taking the initiative, planning, being responsible and accountable. Acquiring these skills require educators to tap into the interests and strength of each student and hence personalisation. Club sessions at our school operated as informal school activities where students plan their own activities in small groups according to their interests. Originally, the clubs were defined by the teachers and tended to follow subject lines, thus we had the mathematics club, science club, history club, geography club. In essence this was an extension of the school formal subjects. Our break through happened when we opened up the range of activities which pupils could do during the club sessions. We allowed students to propose and introduce new clubs. We were amazed by the novelty of their new ideas which dug dip into their way of life at home. The activities they proposed emphasised who they were, their identities and religious beliefs. As diverse as they were we allowed them to express their interests as long as they were tolerant and considerate of others’ wellbeing. They came up with traditional dance clubs, music, drama, traditional games and plays, traditional art and sculpture clubs. These activities tapped into the core of indigenous knowledge practices. From the beginning we noted how we had suppressed a lot of student leadership, ingenuity, interest, energy and ability to take charge of their activities.

Normally, our clubs sessions operated on Friday afternoon. Strategically, Friday afternoon was a bad timing. We had to restructure our program to a Wednesday. As principal, I gave up my ‘precious’ morning assembly time to these clubs to perform in front of their fellows. It was a worth sacrifice. We had all pupils activities on assembly programmed for the term. Suddenly we noted how attendance, retention and punctuality improved as most pupils would no longer want to miss the morning assembly activities. We decided to introduce end of day school assembly periods and this attracted pupils to remain in school up to the end of the school day. By empowering students to take charge of their own activities we were able to improve punctuality, reduce absconding, increase pupils leadership skills and at the same time attending to their interests and all through fun!! I would agree with Goldman and Newman (1998, 4) learning does not need to be painful and that knowledge does not seep with the emotional wounds that are inflicted. In this case one of the main problems was how to sustain these club activities and integrate them into the mainstream learning program. How could teachers translate student voice, leadership into their daily lesson planning, delivery and evaluation?

Conclusion

The greatest challenge for educators is to become flexible, accommodative and value differences among students and listen to students’ perspectives. Despite the complexities, personalisation of learning pointed for us the direction we are supposed to take in our efforts to engage students.

References

Breunlin, DC, Mann, BJ, Kelly, D, Cimmarusti, RA, Dunne, L & Lieber, CM (2005). Personalizing a Large Comprehensive High School. NASSP Bulletin, 89, 24-42.
Cook-Sater, A (2002). Authorizing Students` Perspectives: Toward Trust, Dialogue, and Change in Education, Educational Researcher, 31, 3-14.
Connell, RW (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Francis, B & Skelton, C (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement: Questioning contemporary key debates. London; New York: Routledge.
Frost, R & Holden, G (2008). Student Voice and Future Schools: Building Partnerships for Student Participation. Improving Schools, 11, 83-95.
Goldman, G & Newman, JB (1998). Empowering students to transform schools: Thousand Oak, Calif. Corwin Press.
Goudzwaard, B, Vennen, M. V, & Van Heemst, D (2007). Hope in troubled times: A new vision for confronting global crises. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.
Harris, S (2006). Best practices of award-winning secondary school principals. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press
Joselowsky, F (2007).’Youth engagement, high school reform, and improved Learning outcomes building systemic approaches for youth engagement’. In NASSP Bulletin, 91, 257-276.
Mac and Ghaill, M (1994). The making of men: masculinities, sexualities and schooling. Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
McGregor, J (2007). ‘Recognizing student leadership: schools and networks as sites of opportunity’. In Improving schools,10, 86-101
Mitra, DL (2008). Student voice in school reform: Building youth-adult partnerships that strengthen schools and empower youth. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walker, JC, & Hunt, C. (1988). Louts and legends: male youth culture in an inner-city school Sydney; London: Allen & Unwin.
Willis, PE (1981). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Mr Alfred Masinire and Ms Elida Sanchez-Cruz are PhD students in the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario, in Canada.

 

Go to top of page     Go to online discussion