Something Bespoke

The second master theme, referred to as Something Bespoke, relates to

previously described ideas of student voice needing to benefit those involved, and the fit with the professional and social reality of the context. Figure 17 provides an overview of the sub-themes and elements contained within this:

Figure 17- Summary of Sub-themes and Elements for ‘Something Bespoke’

4.4.2.1 Developed Collaboratively

A shared sub-theme across all accounts related to both difficulties in engaging students in student voice, and responses that were attempts to differentiate to the students and their contexts. Personalizing the focus and process were commonly referred to as important in reducing the impact of any initial ambivalence by students, as was trying to create a climate of collaboration:

Something Bespoke

Outcomes Focused

Developed Collaboratively Evolved within Context

Dialogue and transparency Co-constructed aims and methods Seeks to involved others Involves good communication Trialled Flexible Builds on good practice The right people

involved

Leads to Change Seeks to involve

others

They got a chance to talk to each other, and that was quite useful

because…they could say, ‘I do that. I like it when...’ …so it wasn't like, 'I demand this or I demand that.' … And obviously they can say, ‘Well I want more of this,’ but I can come back to them and say it's a budgetary issue or if it's about trips, ‘Yeah but as a centre we have to keep the number of term time out of lessons to a minimum..’ Blah blah blah. That sort of thing.

D.6.0-5

I might speak to him about using that board a little more wisely… because you know sometimes if you run a tutor group and someone reads out lists, ‘Ah, switch off.’

L.4.25-31

I could give them a hand-out of the findings.. but again would they read it? Would it be a waste of paper? How would I know they had read it?

S.4.20-26

So we can take something forward in September, to say, ‘What do you need next? We've done this with you, what do you think you will need in September? This is what we would normally do, is this going to be the right pitch?’

J.6.0-6

The idea that the agenda and process might need to compromise according to the needs and interests of those engaging has already been emphasized in exploring the characteristics of student voice (Question 1). For David, there was often a tension around balancing what he felt needed to happen with a belief that the process should be constructed out of the experiences the students shared:

I think I will need to tailor them to my needs, and look at what I can get out of them… We've talked about development…like a suggestions box but not really like that. Cos obviously we seek student views when we want them and when we organise a meeting for our survey when we try and make that dialogue a little more transparent and so that students can bring issues to our attention.

D.1.7-11

As noted, the school improvement context was a significant factor for all the participants. Tailoring student voice work within this agenda was a collaborative

process for David:

It's about collaborating with those people [senior managers] to create the method. I don't know if that's the right word.. to make sure there are practices in place. To get those people together to co-construct.

First…I'll need to have a rationale and an understanding as to why we are doing this, and then start the...development. We need to share our ideas about how that might happen. First why, then how.

D.2.8-15

4.4.2.2 Evolved within Context

There was an acceptance across the accounts that the process needed to ‘evolve within context’:

We've had a few trials of various things, in terms of looking at student voice and looking at how we are going to use electronic systems to trying that out.

D.4.0-3 Simon’s sense of tailoring to context was more about matching the method or ‘tool’ to the task in mind, but also incorporated ideas of process and practice evolving over time.

I mean one of the things or one of the tools I would want to use is say there'd be short term ones and long term ones, and say medium term ones. So say a medium term one would be end of unit, like reflections of the student, breaking it down into the different component parts. So, how effective was this tool? How effectively did they learn from it? Would there be any changes they'd make, just in terms of the classes? So there'd be immediate feedback. And then that could be reviewed, and like work could be changed effectively to meet those needs... so I'd say that is like more medium term. Whereas your longer term ones you're looking more at say getting focus groups involved, and constantly challenging them to come up with ways that they would improve.

S.1.0-4 Simon also saw the potential for change as context specific, and the need for

I think more things will change once I … get the students involved and I start on whatever we decide upon. I think things will change then… How quickly things change depends on everyone involved and what's being requested.

S.1.35-38

It is very organic in what it's done.. it is more led by the, they are more involved … Like I said we've got ten of them. And it's not like you've got to come to every session, we say look if you can make it we'll be really happy, if you can't then fair enough we'll still have a number of people who can contribute. It's not like we're saying it's student A,B,C,D,E,F,G. It's voluntary and I think it works better that way.

S.3.9-15

4.4.2.3 Outcomes Focused

Another sub-theme running across the accounts related to the idea of being ‘outcomes focused’. For Julie there was often an emphasis on ensuring the right questions were identified in order to progress what was essentially an adult set agenda, associated with clearly stated desirable outcomes. As previously explored this frequently related for Julie to broader agendas, such as accreditation.

Because I can’t see any difference between a Year 9 student and a Year 11 because I haven’t framed my questions in a way that builds on what they should be able to do in terms of the outcomes.

J.1.0-5

The agenda also set the parameters for who might be involved, and how many students needed to participate in which ways.

I don’t need that many, so four tutor groups will probably be sufficient.

J.1.5-10

Because all of the Year 9s have taken part in the questionnaires, but not necessarily all of the students in Year 9 took part in the focus groups.

J.2.26-32

I think the idea of having questionnaires is to have a kind of quantifiable response from all the students, at least a significant percentage.

Within this context there was still the idea of evolving process and practice, in that:

…maybe it would be one person delivering to 7, 8, and 9. So…the same person…would have free reign over the three year groups, … really committed to involving the students in lots of different things.

J.5.35-40

Lynn’s approach was also more tightly governed by an agenda of school

improvement, but again the way in which this developed changed over time as a result of her own personal experience. The idea of colleagues learning from each other also featured as part of trying to evolve approaches that worked better.

I know I said we had this one vision, well I did. Ahm, and then I kind of jumped to something else, and jumped to something else. And I think the problem is I am trying to do it myself, which I think in my position is now not possible. So in the past couple of months I've been trying to work with other people, more strategically to try and get what I want to do off the ground, without me having to be at the heart of it.

L.3.0-5

But it's just having the time to pull it in, and pull those people who are running the student panel together to do some of those things I've talked about in the past, like, 'How are you doing it? And what's working well? What's not?' And sharing some experiences rather than just let

everyone just kind of forge on in their own way.

To be honest I know there are lots of pockets of really good practice, so it would be nice at some point to just pull it back and get those people together, and explore with those people what we're doing next.

L.3.33-38

It probably does, it probably does. That is probably the area where it ought to sit [within department], and then maybe it is getting that to work better and more consistently, as opposed to trying to create something new or different.

4.4.2.4 Further Reflection

Placing the Research Question 3 findings so far within the context of what participants understood SV to be, I would suggest that:

 It was at the junction between being ‘outcomes focused’ from an

organizational perspective, and providing a ‘focus and opportunity’ that

enables engagement, that much of the previously related tension emerged.

 It is the process of collaboration and compromise that diffuses at least some of this and allows for outcomes that are to the benefit of all.

The final master theme, however, reflects the difficulty often encountered by participants in making sense of what emerged through the student voice process.