Research Implications and Theoretical Perspective

Integrating the findings that emerged with the research questions, I have outlined in Chapter 4 some models that allow me to reflect on how the actions and experiences of the involved teachers engaging in student voice can enrich our thinking about what it is and the factors that influence it. This was the overarching purpose of the research.

With respect to Question 1 which asked ‘How do teachers understand Student Voice?’ five main themes emerged from the participant accounts. These were:

 Part of something bigger- which highlighted that student voice was one of a number of voices, and that it was reflective of the context out of which it emerged;

 Need to benefit- which related to ideas that the participation of those involved should be acknowledged and recognized, and that it was important that this participation led to positive change;

 Developing and evolving- which drew attention to the unpredictable nature of SV and the need to be responsive to whatever emerges, while also highlighting the way in which it often becomes more focused and specific over the course of an engagement;

 Collaboration and compromise- which I understand as the engine room of the process as it related to the actual engagement and interaction between the staff and the students. Out of this develops insight and the planning of change, and through this the potential to negotiate and meet the needs of both staff and students in balance with one another;

 Different types- which acknowledges the diverse forms that student voice can take in terms of focus, scale and degree of formality.

It was clear across all the participant accounts that student voice had a very personal element to it, and that experiences resulted in a range of emotions covering surprise, worry, excitement, frustration and disappointment. What was notable was the skewing of emotion towards the less comfortable; and

associated with this the strong sense of threat that seemed to characterize student voice for the participants. Threat related to perceptions of being judged by colleagues and students; the possibility of compromised practices being imposed; the challenge of dealing with conflicting views; the risk of opening up

issues that have no easy solution; and in response to these threats the possibility of unethical teacher responses.

Also apparent throughout accounts were the impact of the organizational context and the style of leadership in terms of the degree of autonomy it afforded individual staff. This in effect constrained the ability of teachers to make decisions based on their own values and belief systems, and the purpose for student voice emerged from this context. The actual practice of student voice then sat comfortably or uncomfortably with this.

Question 2 asked ‘What is the potential for student voice?’ As already acknowledged, this was a primary area of interest at the outset but it quickly became clear that a more evaluative focus would require me to compromise the illuminative dimension of the research. I therefore made the decision to

concentrate on the illuminative aspects of the research, limiting the ways in which I could explore this question. I did maintain an interest throughout the process in terms of how participants developed student voice, and what

anecdotal evidence of impact emerged through the accounts. This was used as a framework for reflecting on the question of potential. I noted that there were a number of drivers that informed student voice development that reflected

organizational context, and the role and professional beliefs of the member of staff, but that the Standards Agenda was a hugely dominating influence in terms of what activity was valued and prioritized.

Although nothing conclusive can be claimed in terms of the impact student voice activity had, a number of areas emerged anecdotally through accounts suggesting that it can lead to:

 Changes in understanding- students and staff;

 Changes in behaviour and practice- students and staff;  Changes in relationship;

 Development of student skills;

I observed that a number of key factors appeared to constrain the potential of student voice. These included:

a) The vision for student voice and how it is constructed within the school; b) The degree of freedom staff have to develop student voice practice; c) The support available to do this;

d) The extent to which the SMT and teacher led forms of student voice are compatible, and threat managed.

I noted that the type of potential that any given example of student voice might have would also depend on the focus for the student voice undertaken. The need for collaboration and dialogue at a conceptual and practical level was argued for. This was linked to the more critical and dialogic process approaches advocated by researchers such as Fielding (2004b) and Todd (2012), although I remain critical of these approaches in the absence of adequately

conceptualized models of what student voice is and the factors that influence it, as in my experience it too often results in an overly critical view of teachers, or at least the activity that they undertake.

Question 3 asked ‘What are the challenges in developing the potential of

student voice?’ Within the context of what emerged through Questions 1 and 2, three main practical challenge themes were identified:

 Enabling engagement- which emphasised the need to ensure staff and students felt safe; that there was a clear and personally relevant focus, and the opportunity to contribute; that support was available for staff and students to develop the skills required to participate; and that this was underpinned by adequate time being made available to participate in student voice activity;

 Something bespoke- which described the need to develop student voice collaboratively and transparently, through dialogue; that it should build on success, adapt flexibly within context, and result in change; and that it should be underpinned by an outcomes focus that allowed for the construction of a shared agenda, the involvement of the right

participants, and the structure of the most suitable questions to guide discussion;

 Making sense- which requires those participating to deal with diverse and sometimes conflicting views; to respond to inconsistency and changing views over time; to appreciate that views represent an insight into experiences; and to work towards positions that can be supported by those participating, and in doing so lay the foundations for positive change.

These findings led me to reflect on the conditions that support effective student voice in schools, and I concluded that my own findings although expressed differently, support and add to the theorization of Morgan (2007).

The core values Robinson and Taylor (2007) assert should be at the heart of student voice practice also fitted well with the emergent findings. They consist of:

1. The requirement for participation and democratic inclusivity; 2. A conception of communication as dialogue;

3. The recognition that power relations are unequal and problematic; 4. And the possibility for change and transformation.

I argued that these values fitted with Morgan’s and my own model perhaps offer an alternative framework for developing student voice process and practice, based on teacher perspectives rather than those of external professionals.