5. Pupils as governors
Attempts to link governing bodies with pupils and pupil councils have a long history. Since the beginning of school governing bodies, a few schools have given pupils observer status at meetings, or provided time at meetings for pupils to raise issues. The 1977 Taylor Report recommended the statutory inclusion of parents and pupils on Governing Bodies. The 1980 Act required each school to have a governing body, with parental but not pupils’ representation.
A recent Education Select Committee again recommended the inclusion of pupils. The DfES response was to reject the idea, although it conceded: “We agree that governing bodies should establish arrangements which enable them to keep in touch with the views of pupils as well as their parents”.
The new regulations described in section two may seem minor, but are significant. To sum up, from September 2003, pupils of any age can serve as associate members of their own or any other school governing body or committees, although pupils under the age of eighteen will not be given voting rights. In order to do this, a school governing body will need to reconstitute itself, as it is required to do, in any case, by September 2006.
From this point onwards, the trajectory of policy and practice is unpredictable. Schools could rapidly embrace this change, to the point where the inclusion of pupils on governing bodies, possibly with voting rights, will be as universal and welcomed as parent governors are today. Beyond this, it may become compulsory for pupils to be represented on governing bodies. Parent governors emerged in this way, first as a voluntary initiative in a few LEAs before becoming compulsory at a later point, with the numbers increasing with every reform of school governance. The likelihood that pupils will gain voting rights is likely to increase if the voting age is lowered to sixteen.
Alternatively, the initiative could become a damp squib. School governing bodies may go through the motions of reconstitution without considering the opportunities these changes could bring about. Other, more overriding concerns could marginalise pupil voice, and in particular, new, risky initiatives. Lack of time is a constant barrier to any profound change in schools. Or, more benignly, schools could consider the appointment of Pupil Associate Members, but decide that there are other, more effective ways of encouraging pupil participation in decision making, including the creation of less formal links with governing bodies.
The basic rationale for the I was a Teenage Governor project is that we will not know what the real potential of pupil associate members unless a group of schools is prepared to work together to trial the idea and share their experiences with as many other schools as possible.
The Potential of Pupils as Associate Members
Without being evangelical about pupil governors, the project aims to test the following hypotheses:
- That school governing bodies, for all their faults, still retain radical potential as spaces to change policies and practices in schools;
- That the arguments put forward to justify as to why pupils should not be on governing bodies (that they are too complicated, that they offer a demoralising version of democracy in action, that the issues are too sensitive) are the same as those that were advanced against the involvement of parent governors two decades ago and, as such, are false;
- That the involvement of pupils on governing bodies, school councils, pupils-as-researcher projects, community forums and interview panels could have a positive impact on the school’s culture and ethos
- That there could be a positive impact on the learning of those individual pupils who become involved as governors or who participate in other ways;
- That the involvement of students at the summit of decision making within the school could both symbolically and practically add weight and status to the structure of pupil democracy in the school (such as school, year, house and class councils) thereby reducing the likelihood of this structure being dismissed as tokenistic by the majority of pupils;
- That the involvement of pupils in school decision-making is a positive way of underpinning the delivery of Citizenship as part of the National Curriculum, whether this be through contributing to Citizenship modules within a PSHE programme, a GCSE Short Course in Citizenship Studies, an ASDAN Youth Award programme or within, following Tomlinson’s initial recommendations, a 14-19 Diploma framework;
- That the experience of participation in school governance will encourage pupils to go on to participate in the growing number of ‘citizen governor’ roles after they leave school thus fulfilling part of the wider and long-term goals of the Citizenship Curriculum. This could of course include becoming adult school governors;
- That the participation of pupils as governors could improve the quality of governing bodies and of school governance itself.
These hypotheses are deliberately ambitious; however, the project cannot and will not attempt to show a direct link between pupil governors and school achievement.
The Pitfalls of Associate Membership
As with any innovation, there are potential pitfalls around initiating pupil governors. A basic ‘risk assessment’ of the idea reveals a number of concerns:
- Will participation in often-dull governing body meetings put pupils off democracy for life?
- How will confidential matters be dealt with?
- Will the ‘usual suspects’ (bright, normally middle class pupils) be involved to the (further) exclusion of other pupils?
- Could the Pupils as Associate Members initiative undermine some of the other emerging mechanisms for pupil voice, in particular schools councils?
- What will happen if demands from pupil governors can’t or won’t be met? In particular if they begin to actively participate in the ‘accountability’ function of the governing body could this create unmanageable tensions that may have adverse outcomes for the individual students concerned?
- Are established adult school governors ready to change the content and style of governing body reports and meetings to meet the needs of pupil members?
- Will pupil governors have unique training needs that will have to be met, either by the school or by the LEA?
It is the view of the project co-ordinators that the potential benefits outweigh the risks and pitfalls. Certainly, it is worth experimenting with, and thus exploring, the concept of pupil associate members. In this context it is our definite recommendation that when it is reconstituting every school governing body, at the very least, should consider the options for appointing pupils as associate members. The questions in Box 2 are designed to help any school towards making that decision.
Box 2: Pupils as governors
One school’s experience
Colne Community School in Essex has pupil participation and democracy as a central part of its ethos. The school council, for instance, has status throughout the school and its own budget. Pupils are involved in the appointment of senior staff and all teaching appointments
Pupils have engaged with the Governing Body for several years. Key Stage 3 and 4 pupils are elected onto governing body sub committees such as the curriculum committee and also have observer status on the full governing body. Pupils normally stay for the full meeting, and receive all relevant
paperwork. Feedback goes through the school council and school assemblies. Pupils have had no specific training, but see involvement on the class, year and school councils as an excellent
grounding.
Pupils involved in the governing body report that they have gained a sense of responsibility and an enhanced feeling that they are part of the school. Their involvement had given them a positive attitude towards their school and they had become appreciative of the work, time and effort that the teachers
put in.
However, the experience does not only benefit the pupils involved but has a positive effect on the whole school. The involvement of pupils in decision-making is both fostered by and encourages a whole school ethos of participation in education and learning.
‘the presence of students on the governing body has made governors aware of the language that they use and highlighted the fact that not all governors may understand the jargon used’.
The school is now considering formalising the role of pupils on the governing body through the
appointment of Pupil Associate Members.
|
Box 3: Preparing pupils for associate membership
Questions to consider
1. What are the likely needs of those pupils who become Associate Members of Governing Bodies?
2. How might we best meet these needs?
3. How might we ensure that Associate Members remain ‘connected’ to and representative of the wider student body?
4. What are the likely needs of current Full Members of Governing Bodies that involve pupils as Associate Members?
5. How might we best meet these needs?
6. Are there any pitfalls of Associate Membership, for the young people or the wider governing body?
7. How do we respond to, or pre-empt, these pitfalls?
8. Are we content that any pitfalls are more than balanced by advantages for:
• The Associate Members?
• The wider Governing Body?
• The wider pupil body?
• The school community as a whole?
|
