Seen but not heard: how can children be leaders in our schools?

A popular saying of the 20th century, and no doubt before, was that children should be ‘seen but not heard’; reflecting a time when adults and children had different relationships. Traditional legitimation of the authority of the educational leader is derived from the historical belief about the role of leaders - of those who are in ‘authority’. The idea that there are those who are in authority ‘know what is best’ has a well defined basis for its thinking; it has its roots in the Church, the law, and indeed, the history of employment relationships in the education.

The 19th century hymn, All things bright and beautiful, illustrates the notion that there was a social order and that this was indeed determined by God.

‘The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.’

Evans (1991) described the effect on a child and indeed the family that occurred by passing the 11 plus to go to grammar school. She describes the ‘golden world of educational success (where) the yellow brick road leads from the eleven plus up to GCE O and A level’. Evans argues that the grammar school system was the agent of social division and indeed the status of going to grammar school with its uniforms, different vocabularies and systems was one that ensured continued social stratification. This sustained the conclusion by the Taunton Commission (quoted in Hewerd (1984) that education and success in examinations was of growing importance to the middle class parents attempting to ensure successful careers for the sons and that, while the upper classes could bestow wealth on their offspring, the middle classes ‘have only education to look to keep their sons on a high social level’. Education for the upper classes, for men of substantial independent means, was the classical education up to 18 in preparation for university entrance. The second stratum of business and professional men wanted a modern curriculum of languages, mathematics and science until 16 to prepare their sons to enter business or to be articled in a profession. The lower middle classes and superior artisans wanted education to 14 in very good reading, writing and arithmetic. Education, therefore, had the effect of continuing social division and stratification as well as, in the case of Evans (1991), being the means to a higher social level.

The education system has changed; from the 19th century system, where the sons of the aristocracy were educated in the classics before going on to university, taking their rightful place in the professions, the middle class boys having an education which allowed them to be articled or work in commerce and business and the working classes for whom the limited education that was provided offered little more than reading writing and arithmetic. The grammar schools that are described by Evans (1961) perpetuated social stratification through access to higher education being restricted to those who had passed the 11-plus, and progressed to university entrance. The comprehensive school system of the late 1970s offered the opportunity for all children to access all aspects of education based purely on their merit and ability.

This is not the 19th century - children from all social classes can go to university and there is less the principle of universal provision of an education but a universal entitlement to services- of which education is one. The child and the parent are users of the education service, in the same way that they are users of any other social and public service. As such, the drive for improvement is from the user rather than the provider.

But still, no one is satisfied. And why should they be? Least of all children and young people. The link between the outcomes of school and life chances is well documented, as is the experiential nature of school in the context of lifelong learning. As our society is increasingly influenced and challenged by the global economy, education plays a vital part in securing the future of the nation but also to developing awareness of personal, cultural and national identity. The DCSF Time to Talk consultation revealed that young people are particularly concerned about their personal safety and their education but also that personal relationships and environmental issues matter to many. As children grow and develop, teachers need an increasingly sophisticated and varied repertoire of skills in order to offer the full range of learning experiences. Children need a system with a new set of skills that can unlock the potential they offer. They need less of the pedagogue who imparts his knowledge, nor yet the facilitator who lets them find their own way. The educator of the 21st century shares rather than keeps and enables rather than allows. Moreover, he or she co-constructs learning experiences but with expert knowledge guides and nurtures the learner towards greater and more meaningful intellectual and social skill.

Hargreaves (2003) in seeking to explain rather than describe (p 24, Hargreaves’ emphasis) identifies three concepts to talk about the quality of our schools- the intellectual, social and organisational capital. The intellectual capital of our schools is the human capital - the people who work in our schools have had training and an education. They bring and acquire knowledge, skills, capabilities and competences. Social capital is the trust that exists between members of the schools and its various stakeholders (that is, it is the trust between the staff, between the staff and the students and indeed between members of the student body). Organisational capital is the knowledge and skills about how to improve by making better use of its intellectual and social capital. This capital is the resource that schools will have to utilise. Whilst there has been significant financial investment in schools over the recent period the sheer scale of infrastructural changes means that changes will be slow, illustrated by the remit of Building Schools for the Future (BSF):
‘BSF is bringing together significant investment in buildings (and ICT) with significant educational reform. BSF, worth £2.2 billion in its first year, will ensure secondary pupils in every part of England learn in 21s -century facilities. We estimate the programme will take 10-15 years, subject to future public-spending decisions’.
See: www.bsf.gov.uk

So what? Will we just have new bricks for old buildings? Changing the environment will help but won’t bring about the changes we want, and indeed need, to realise. Many of the current generation of school children will not enjoy the benefits of BSF and of course, there is no evidence that this level of change will bring about improvements in outcomes on the scale the government has demanded: ‘nobody is satisfied’ (Bentley 2003 page 13). Money will not, on its own, bring about the improvement and satisfy the desire for continuous improvement.

This focus on the capital that organisations possess is not only found within schools and discussions on public service reform in England. Bracks (2005) explains the movements that have occurred in Australia since the 1980s. He argues that while Australia has enjoyed strong economic growth ( the first wave - that of the open economy), deregulation and the ending of tariffs were the catalyst for greater competition (second wave) but in order to prevent Australia slipping back in economic terms there is a need for a new wave (The third wave) of reform. The key to this third wave is that of human capital - Bracks describes it as the ‘new economic paradigm’. The third wave is characterised by individual’s capability to manage themselves and an increasingly flexible and rapid response of public service to meet the needs and expectations of individuals, communities and business. Policy design is to be less located in government and more rooted in communities.

Apply this idea to a school and we start to think in a new way. We start to see teachers as proprietors of knowledge about learning - but not of learning itself. But what of children and young people? When do you start? Do we start at kindergarten, or secondary school or at university? Thirty-five years ago, I found myself in a classroom with a teacher who set up a work programme and let us decide the order in which we tackled it. So I, along with the other infant school children (I’m not that old!), decided for ourselves what we did - we had some control over what we read, what we wrote and learned. Our teacher, Mrs Court, personalised the learning of 34 children - without the aid of a learning support assistant and gave us autonomy. There was no doubt that we were accountable for what we did during the day and Mrs Court knew our every move. The most able and those with learning difficulties all thrived in a rich learning environment and enjoyed success.

Can we make this happen at a school-wide level or indeed in every classroom in every school? Probably not. The model that was so skilfully practised daily by my teacher isn’t right for every class in every school. The principle of constructing learning around the needs of the learner is one that many of us support but we have to make it possible for teachers to do, every day of every week of the school year. Applying our professional knowledge and our considerable organisational abilities to the creation of learning groups who work variably as individuals or in groups is a first step. Being clear about the learning outcomes is a fundamental principle to any learning experience that we enable in our classrooms and schools. Being the sole source of knowledge is no longer the preserve of the teacher but our responsibility for ensuring that learning takes place in our classrooms and schools is very definitely what we need to do.
How do we make it work? Start with your own classroom. Give students choices about what they do, how they present their work or what medium they use. There’s no negotiation on the learning outcomes or the assessment criteria or the deadline for completion. Ask them to assess one another’s work, to apply the criteria an exemplify it. Ask them for feedback.

The more ambitious can use a range of technologies to get instant feedback during the lesson, use emails and surveys to gather responses to learning experiences - this is easier for some of us than others. But welcoming students into the learning environment, making them a fundamental part of what goes on - that’s the fun bit and that’s the way forward.

References

Bentley, T (2003). ‘Foreword’ to Hargreaves, DH (2003). Education epidemic, p.13 Demos, London.
Bracks, S (2005). A third wave of national reform: a new national reform initiative for COAG Ms Susan Tranter is Headteacher of Fitzharrys School, in Abingdon, Oxon, England, United Kingdom.

Go to top of page     Go to online discussion