|
Democratic Education Resources
Books: I Was a Teenage Governor
2 The political context
The emergence of both Citizenship in the National Curriculum and the concept of pupil governorship relate to a broader political context that has a number of elements. These may be summarised in terms of:
- A growing concern about the public’s (and especially young people’s) lack of engagement in the political process. At the 2001 general election the percentage of those casting a vote across all ages was 59%, while the figure for 18-25’s was only 35%. Local election turnouts are even lower for both groups. But this is not only about voting turnout rates, worrying in their decline as they are. It also relates to deeper concerns about the ‘democratic deficit’, that is a general concern about political participation in representative and parliamentary democracy. Thus, while we may have a growing interest (especially among the young) in single-issue politics, participation in this form of activity only emphasises the apparent crisis in traditional politics.
A broader concern about social exclusion and all its manifestations. Here, whether the issue is the exclusion of black and minority ethnic groups, a rise in the fear of crime, the regeneration of the inner city or rural poverty, the promotion of civic engagement and the renewal and of active and effective citizenship are evident strands across the policy agenda.
A renewed discourse about decentralisation and calls for a ‘new localism’. This is not only the age-old argument about power shifts between national and local government. It also reflects an aspiration to follow the principles of subsidiarity – that power and decision-making should move to the smallest, most local level as possible. Schools through their governing bodies have, to some extent, adhered to this principle for years, and others are following, for example the proposed involvement of local stakeholders on the boards of foundation hospitals, the re-emergence of regional government and the emergence of learners’ voice forums at college and LSC level.
- An emerging aspiration to see the public as active citizens in the ‘co-production’ of public services. Co-production is a horrible word, but is a choice, not a fact. Coproduction refers to the shift towards involving consumers in the delivery of their own public services, where those with a stake in a service (not only users) are intimately involved in defining, monitoring and shaping the outcomes of those services. Research is clear that this kind of active citizenship can bring a number of benefits to citizens. However, research on the impact of such participation on the quality of services is more ambiguous than policymakers might assume. The rise of Citizens Charters, aspects of PFI, the rise of ‘consultation’ and the involvement of consumer representatives on public bodies are all aspects of co-production. The question as to whether school pupils are part of a ‘public’ that is capable of ‘co-producing’ their schooling is central to this project. As ‘active citizens’ are they worthy of consideration as ‘stakeholders’ and ‘users’ of schools or is schooling still to be predominantly prescribed by constituent adults: parents,
teachers, governors and education officials? It might be argued that this point has to some extent been answered by the inclusion of pupils as stakeholders in the Education Act 2002 and in the Statutory Guidance for secondary governing bodies as potential associate members. However, pupils were not included in the list of school stakeholders in the original DfES consultation document on secondary school governance ‘The Way Ahead’ and ministers were to some extent ‘nudged’ into doing so by lobbyists including one of the co-authors of this report. At the same time, there have been significant shifts in the ways in which education policy is being considered and formulated.
- Calls for reform to be ‘bottom-up’, initiated, led and spread by schools themselves, rather than government. It is, in DfES-speak, an era of ‘informed professional judgement (see figure 1). the DfES should take on an enabling role, to stimulate innovation, encourage subsidiarity within a framework of collaboration, and intervene only when there is clear evidence of systemic failure.
The encouragement of innovation in the system. New models of teaching and learning which encourage personalised learning and self-managed or self-directed learning, assessment with an emphasis on assessment-for-learning, risk-taking, pupil participation in decision making and the encouragement of pupil voice generally, and more. Phase 1 of this project is, in one sense, a result of this, part funded as it is by the DfES Innovation Unit.
The encouragement of ‘collaboration’. As the DfES itself states, ‘There is no doubt that collaboration is an essential part of the future of education. Now that so many of our schools are improving, specialising and transforming the quality of their leadership, it is necessary to ensure that these benefits are shared with other schools. Collaboration enables schools to share expertise, good practice and ideas for innovation, to provide support and opportunities for developing leadership across a number of schools, as well tackling issues of inclusion, and helping to narrow the achievement gap’ (DfES 2003). School-to school collaboration never disappeared, just as school-to-school competition has always existed: networks not only to share practice but to create it.
- Calls for ‘Intelligent Accountability’. This requires that public servants and service users have ownership of the success criteria by which they are judged. The new moves towards schools self evaluation embody this shift in thinking.
All of these issues are worthy of detailed discussion but space does not allow for here and, in any case, we want to move to the focus of this report itself: preparations for an era of student participation on governing bodies.
|
