New South Wales Department of Education and Communities
State Leadership Fellowships 2010 –2011
Mary Armstrong Award
Educational leadership in ensuring
student voice plays a prominent role
in sustainable changes to the
learning culture in schools
Lynne Searle
Principal Gosford High School
New South Wales, Australia
State Leadership Fellowships 2010–2011 Mary Armstrong Award
Educational leadership in ensuring student voice plays a
prominent role in sustainable changes to the learning
culture in schools
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
3
1. Overview of the research study
4
2. Background information
4
3. Research questions
5
4. Research methodology
6
5. Findings
7
6. Implications for leadership
12
7. Recommendations
15
Bibliography`
17
Appendix
20
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 2 of 26
Executive summary
This research explored student voice in different contexts and examined if, by
listening and responding to these voices, sustainable changes to school cultures
were the outcomes. It also considered the leadership practices evident in creating a
climate where this could happen.
The study had two focus areas; schools in the United States of America and United
Kingdom and; current academic and participatory research in both countries. Visits
to four High Tech High schools in San Diego and six public secondary schools in the
United Kingdom were made to observe and listen to students, teachers and leaders
and to collect evidence of cultural change. The role of context was significant in
influencing the student voice programs and strategies that had been developed.
Academics and research practitioners from Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania, the
Graduate School of the City University of New York, the University of London and the
Specialist Schools and Academies Trust shared their current research and findings
which gave the theoretical underpinning of not only the value of, but the urgency and
necessity of engaging students and young people in their own learning and in
conversations about learning.
The process of listening to students and using their voices to inform structures and
processes that leads to cultural change happens with the school community when
school leaders themselves value the process. The significance and potential of the
communication relies upon the quality of the relationships developed and nurtured in
schools. These relationships between teachers and students had an impact on
student learning and it was important to discover how the dynamic in schools and the
nature of the relationships between school leaders, teachers and students were
influenced by empowering students with a voice. The power relationships inherent in
traditionally organised schools have silenced students’ voices and it can be
threatening to teachers to have that equilibrium disturbed. The evidence of change,
however, was that relationships in schools flourished, even with the most reluctant
teachers when the leaders of the school modelled valuing the voices of all in the
school community. Student engagement was engendered as they became known as
individuals, became cognisant of the metalanguage of learning and contributed to the
development of pedagogy, curriculum and culture.
The schools visited in the United States of America and United Kingdom as part of
the research were very clearly centres of learning where the cultures were directed to
and reflective of learning. Evidence of student work saturated the public spaces and
learning environments. The quality and diversity of the products of students’
endeavours were displayed proudly. Teachers and students were expected to be
learners, conversations were about learning and learning outcomes were outstanding
in terms of external measures and student and teacher articulation. These schools,
however, did not have student voice practices that stood alone. There was a powerful
interrelationship between student voice, teacher professional learning, relationships
and learning conversations that was exemplified by the leadership team. Changes in
culture were evidenced by ways of thinking, new ways of doing and the unquestioned
assumption that proposed innovations and changes would be done in collaboration
with stakeholders. The leader of any project could be a classroom teacher, a head of
department, the school senior executive or a team of students.
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 3 of 26
1.
Overview of the research study
This work was produced by Lynne Searle, a recipient of the State Leadership
Fellowship 2010 –2011 Mary Armstrong Award, presented by the Deputy DirectorGeneral, Schools, New South Wales Department of Education and Communities.
This research study aimed to explore schools and systems where student voice was
embedded in the culture and to determine if student voice does have the power to
influence and sustain change and to explore the school leadership practices that
foster this.
2.
Background information
This study builds upon the research and practice of teachers, educational leaders
and academics committed to engaging with students ‘predominantly on the design,
facilitation and improvement of learning (Mitra 2004).
Professor David Hargreaves believes that when ‘pupils help make the curriculum, tell
the school how to use information technology, set standards and learning objectives,
assess their own and others work’ we are not describing a ‘new model of schooling
handed down from above’ (2011). He suggests that learning must become a
partnership between teacher and students and teachers will need to seek students’
ideas as they strive for improvement. This is not necessarily a new idea as studies
internationally show that students ‘yearn for deeper engagement throughout their
education’ (Kushman 1997) and that when schools do engage student voice they
create opportunities to facilitate a stronger sense of belonging, self worth, self as
learner and agency, (Fielding and Ruddoch 2002).
In New South Wales student voice has not been widely recognised as a powerful
force for school improvement and cultural change. Consultation with students around
engagement and voice in the Department of Education and Communities has been
limited to organisational structures such as the Student Representative Councils and
vocational education as the curriculum of engagement. In practice, many school
leaders in New South Wales are working in isolation or with partnerships they have
forged to provide opportunities for students to be heard and they recognise that
offering a curriculum of lesser intellectual quality is not the solution to issues of
engagement. This is not the case in all education departments. In Victoria the
government has developed clear policy embedding student voice and tracing the
local and international history of the development of student voice as an area of
action. In the United Kingdom the incorporation of student voice practices are part of
schools’ operation and the success of these programs subject to evaluation. School
leaders have a responsibility to engage with student voice. In San Diego, California
at Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs High Tech High Charter School, referred to as High
Tech High, an academic curriculum with a vocational pedagogy has had successful
learning student outcomes and teacher leadership is an integral part of the school.
Hargreaves regards student leadership and collaboration as central to his vision of
schools of the future. Projects and curricula should be ‘co-constructed’ and problems
‘authentic’ (2011) Gosford High School has developed significant and authentic
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 4 of 26
leadership programs for students from year 7 to year 12 in response to local research
findings suggesting ‘gifted students wanted to participate in leadership activities that
are meaningful and that hold some degree of real responsibility’ (Wade and Putnam
1995). Student voice research at the school indicated that students had a perceptive
awareness of the school’s strengths and weaknesses as a place of learning. They
could articulate where intellectual challenge was missing and where pedagogy was
ineffective. Students could describe what excellent teaching looked like and had a
very clear understanding of how teaching and learning could be improved. The
evidence provided by the research in student voice in curriculum complimented the
success of the school’s leadership programs. Teachers were given clear evidence of
students’ desire to not only make their views known but their significant capacity to
lead their peers in whole school programs. The cultural change that was engendered
through students leaders’ vision and subsequent action plans to develop
‘CommUNITY’ (2009,) to ‘Unify Gosford High’ (2010), to ‘Ignite the Spirit’ (2011) and
to ‘Celebrate the Spirit’ (2012) were evidence of a powerful, untapped resource that
needed to be engaged in the school’s continuous improvement cycle. (See Appendix
1 for timeline of student leadership development). This research seeks to discover
the difference active student participation in teaching and learning makes to school
culture and school improvement.
One issue that became evident was the importance of strong Educational leadership.
It was vital in allaying teachers’ fears that allowing students a voice was a threat to
them and their authority and expertise and essential in creating a climate where
students’ contributions are valued and acted upon. School leaders had a clearly
articulated commitment, underpinned by academic research and modelled through
pilot programs that grew with teacher acceptance and confidence. Being able to visit
other schools and systems to see how students were engaged as partners in their
own learning within their own contexts and how this had been led in the school was a
vital element of the research.
3.
Research questions
In exploring student voice as an agent of cultural change and school improvement in
Australia and overseas the focus is on finding evidence of student voice in context.
The 2004 United Kingdom National Youth Agency 7 Participatory Standards are used
as a framework around which evidence will be collected, analysed and synthesized.
Evidence of
listening
Evidence of
planning
The organisation can describe and demonstrate how young
people have been listened to.
The young people can describe and demonstrate how the
organisation has responded to what they say.
The organisation can describe and demonstrate how plans
have been put in place to respond to what young people have
said.
Young people can describe and demonstrate how plans were
put in place.
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 5 of 26
Evidence of
change
The organisation can describe and demonstrate the changes
that have resulted.
The young people can describe and demonstrate the changes
that have resulted.
The wider community can describe and demonstrate the
changes that have resulted.
This will then be put into the context of New South Wales Department of Education
and Communities schools and the implications for the development of student voice
as an authentic and important contributor to school improvement and cultural
change. It will also consider how school leaders can use these conclusions to inform
their own practice and how they can lead the development of programs and
strategies that authentically engage with and value student collaboration.
4.
Research methodology
A review of the literature around student voice made evident the extent and success
of research facilitated through the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust in the
United Kingdom and implemented in schools affiliated with the Trust. Professor
Michael Fielding of the Institute of Education, University of London facilitated an
introduction to leading researchers in the field of student voice, or participatory
research, in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America. It was possible
to combine visiting schools and interviews with researchers into a program. (See
Appendix 2 for the full itinerary)
21 March 2011 –
25 March 2011
27 March 2011
28 March 2011
29 March 2011
1 April 2011
4 April 2011
5 April 2011
6 April 2011
7 April 2011
10 April 2011
13 April 2011
15 April 2011
High Tech High, a public charter high school in San
Diego, California
Professor Alison Cook-Sather of Bryn Mawr College,
Philadelphia
Professor Maria Torre, City University New York
Graduate School, New York
Distinguished Professor Michelle Fine, City University
New York, Graduate School, New York
Abbs Cross Academy, Hornchurch, Essex
Dene Magna School, Forest of Dene, Gloucester
Q3 Academy, Birmingham
Beckfoot School, Baildon, West Yorkshire
Skipton Girls High School, Skipton, West Yorkshire
Bradford Academy, Bradford, West Yorkshire
Gill Mullins, Co-ordinator Student Voice, Specialist
Schools and Academies Trust, Olney
Gene Payne, of GoddardPayne, consultants to the Harris
Academies in London, creator of the Learning
Commission Toolkit
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 6 of 26
Each school was visited and school leaders, teachers and students were interviewed
and the conversations recorded.
High Tech High consists of seven schools, five of which are co-located and were
developed as charter schools to meet the needs of the high tech industry in San
Diego. They are shaped by four design principles:
 personalisation
 adult world connection
 common intellectual mission
 teacher as designer.
Five days were spent visiting the different campuses and engaging with school
leaders, teachers and students; all learners in the collegial culture evident there.
Interviews with academics from Bryn Mawr College, Professor Alison Cook-Sather,
and City University New York Professors Maria Torre and Michelle Fine, gave access
to the most current research and findings in the area of participatory action research,
within the tertiary sector and in disadvantaged communities.
The schools in the United Kingdom visited were all part of the Specialist Schools and
Academies Trust which has worked extensively with these schools in personalising
learning, from the work of Professor David Hargreaves. He cites nine gateways to
transforming learning, with two of these, student voice and assessment for learning,
the beginning point. These visits, therefore, would illustrate the impact of school
leaders who embrace personalised learning and how their engagement with student
voice as an agent of change demonstrated how students contributed to sustainable
changes to the learning culture.
5.
Findings
The findings are framed in terms of the 2004 National Youth Agency Participatory
Standards; evidence of listening, planning and change from the perspectives of the
students and the organisations.
The evidence from each perspective has been synthesised into three areas:
Learning conversations
Teaching and learning
Change management.
5.1 Evidence of Listening
Learning Conversations
Vertical Tutoring: One common element at each school was a vertical tutoring
structure which had been developed to meet the specific needs of the students at
that school through consideration of the school’s context. The focus of the program
was to personalise the learning of every student, so every student and their learning
was known well by at least one member of staff. Students would engage in
conversation with teachers and peers using a wide variety of strategies and develop
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 7 of 26
a language of learning and clear responsibility for their own learning. That they were
listened to and valued created strong relationships and a sense of belonging. These
programs crossed the academic/welfare divide and made individual students’ well
being and learning everyone’s responsibility.
Principal’s Question Time: Students were invited to prepare questions for the
principal to respond to at a year meeting. These could be on any topic and their
concerns were treated with respect. Questions from the floor were also accepted.
Learning Progress Team: Significant support from the Principal was given to
ensuring the well being of students through teams consisting of non-teaching staff;
psychologists, paraprofessionals, health professionals. Students were listened to and
support given to ensure they could learn in the classroom. Disadvantage was not
accepted as justification for poor performance, at the individual, school or system
level.
Technology: Student leadership in technology in learning was instrumental in
developing teachers’ confidence in adopting new pedagogies thus increasing student
engagement in learning.
Teaching and Learning
Interviews: Students participated in interviewing prospective staff either through the
‘Bonanza’ at High Tech High in San Diego or on student panels at schools in the
United Kingdom. Students’ recommendations were an important part of the selection
process and were valued. It was reported that students had very perceptive
understandings of the quality of the candidates and if they would fit into the school’s
culture.
Student observations of learning: Students were trained to observe in classrooms
using specific non-judgemental protocols. Teachers found student observations of
learning to be valuable. (Dene Magna School, Abbs Cross School) One commented
‘It was like looking in a mirror only better’. (Alison Cook-Sather)
Students giving feedback: Students were trained to give feedback on lessons
observed using resources developed by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
This was perceived by teachers to be non-judgemental, helpful and demand led to
increasing numbers of students being trained (Bradford Academy).
Change management
School Reform: The United Kingdom program Building Schools for the Future
(discontinued after a change of government) was implemented at Beckfoot School,
Baildon through significant and sustained listening to student voice about all
elements of the school’s design and construction. The vision was coordinated by year
12 students.
At City University of New York participatory action research was the vehicle through
which the voices of those young people suffering social, cultural and legal injustices
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 8 of 26
were heard. This type of enquiry contested who had the right to produce knowledge
and thus determine what was useful or valuable.
5.2 Evidence of Planning
Learning conversations
Vertical Tutoring: The specific structure of each school’s vertical tutor program
varied as it had been planned and developed in response to the individual needs of
the students and their learning context. At Abbs Cross Academy, an East London
comprehensive school, the focus was on readiness to learn and explicit, regular
review of goals and achievement. Students met twice a day with their tutor and every
student had two individual interviews per term. Skipton Girls High, an academically
selective school, the students had much greater autonomy and responsibility for
planning, both strategically and in the day to day function of the program. School
leaders had led the development of these programs in different ways, responding to
their individual contexts. At Skipton the Principal, having reached consensus for the
need for such a program, handed its development to teachers and students.
Teaching and Learning: The targets schools had to meet in the General Certificate
in Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations were obviously a top priority in
schools in the United Kingdom. Every student’s current achievements and projected
achievements were known by each one of their teachers and the principal and visual
representations of these were evident in his/her office. Students were also very
aware of this and they planned collaboratively with their teachers to meet their
targets. A language of learning was common to teachers and students and actively
reviewing individual progress was the norm.
Student advisers gave specific advice to teachers in curriculum development,
assessment and pedagogy at each school visited, though in different forms; tuning
protocols were used at High Tech High; student observers at Abbs Cross, Q3 and
Dene Magna; curriculum teams at Beckfoot School and; digital leaders at Skipton
Girls High School. Selection processes and training were used and the weight of
these positions and the contribution to planning was significant.
Change management: At the tertiary level student consultants paired with a preservice teacher and undergraduate student consultants worked with academics in a
highly structured program developed and run by Professor Alison Cook-Sather (Bryn
Mawr College). Observation, the taking of field notes and meeting regularly to
discuss the observations created learning partnerships where planning for future
learning and improved practice built confidence and engagement. Through
participatory action research young people were repositioned from being the
researched to being the researcher. Projects centred on issues of injustice and
inequality and enabling young people to challenge and interrogate their ongoing
oppression and plan to change what they could and inspire the development of
community and knowledge committed.
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 9 of 26
5.3
Evidence of Change
Learning Conversations
Relationships: In the schools visited relationships between principals, teachers and
students were built on trust. Students could be safe as learners and confidence was
built in reciprocal ways. Students were confident to take risks and give feedback,
teachers developed the confidence to change practice and value the voice of
students. They were supported by the leadership team through professional
development and resourcing. Interviews with students or with teachers and students
together demonstrated the quality and respectful nature of the relationships.
Leadership skills: Students had opportunities to engage in a variety of roles that
challenged and developed their leadership skills. These opportunities were authentic
and powerful, such as the student team leading the development of the Beckfoot
School vision, the lead learners at Skipton Girls High School who transformed
unpopular assemblies into dynamic and intellectually rich ‘gatherings’ and the team of
digital leaders who present at conferences internationally on the transformation they
have made to the pedagogy of their school. School leaders responded to the
developing capacity of students to embrace these roles by trusting them, but also by
guiding their development.
The student as learner: Students were observed to be engaged, empowered
through mastery of meta-language, articulate, respectful and tolerant, with the
capacity for reflection, evaluation and constructing powerful questions. Student
panels posed the question, ‘What are we doing well’ and ‘What could we do better’
(Q3 Academy) and demonstrated an ethic of excellence. They were cognisant of their
own progress and goals and knew what they had to do to achieve those. Students
could describe their progress as a learner, how they had met and then re-established
targets. As co-constructors of curriculum students could describe how their
contribution had contributed to the learning culture in the classroom, how other
students appreciated the innovative strategies introduced and how teachers sought
out their advice and changed their practices as a result. Students felt valued and
respected. The vertical tutoring program had the subliminal effect of improving
wellbeing outcomes through the emphasis on learning.
Culture of learning: Learning was at the core of activity in the schools. Issues of
wellbeing or behaviour were managed in terms of their impact on learning. Learning
was the core business of schools and the focus of conversations between leaders
and teachers and teachers and students. Learning was as important for teachers as
for students and prioritised by the schools’ leadership. At Dene Magna this culture
has led to an affiliation with the tertiary sector and the inclusion of their Reflective
Practitioner Program into a Master of Education program. At Bradford Academy,
learning progress was facilitated by a non-teaching team led by the Director of
Behaviour. So the learning environment was not disrupted students would leave the
teaching context and enter a parallel structure constructed to hear and respond
students’ wellbeing issues. Emotional safety was considered to be necessary for
learning to be effective. The student was at the centre of every discussion and action.
The capacity of the principal and leadership team to respond to the specific school
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 10 of 26
context and employ resources, material or personnel was instrumental in the creation
of a culture that expected to meet the individual needs of their students.
Teaching and learning
Student learning outcomes improved: At High Tech High all students go to
College. The school’s students are enrolled by ballot and are representative of San
Diego’s demographic so these outcomes reflect the success of the school’s learning
programs and structures. Ofsted in Britain declared Skipton Girls High School to be
outstanding and not in need of further inspections. Dene Magna, also outstanding,
was said to have ‘exceptionally high achievement when compared to that of similar
students in England. Q3 Academy was nominated by the Specialist Schools and
Academies Trust to be the “most improved school in the country”. In Yorkshire,
Beckfoot Schools was also outstanding with Bradford Academy moving from ‘dogs
and security guards’ (Gareth Dawkins, Principal) to having significantly improved
attendance and achievement at all levels in English and mathematics within three
years. Each Principal had actively taken on the challenge to create a learning culture
that valued student voice as an integral part of school improvement.
Co-construction of curriculum: Student engagement was significantly enhanced as
they contributed to changing pedagogy and assessment. They felt valued and
affirmed through this process and in fact ‘students are setting the pace and leading
pedagogical change’ (Skipton Girls High School). The introduction of a net book
program at the school demanded a radical change in pedagogy and development of
an interactive and engaging virtual learning environment. The outcome exceeded all
expectations; teachers discuss the syllabus with students, give access to content and
students construct the strategies and find the digital resources.
Student expectations: Students expect and demand excellent teachers. At Dene
Magna the focus on moving teachers from ‘good to outstanding’ is taken very
seriously and student observations and feedback contribute to this with a highly
developed reflective practitioner program led by the executive team. At High Tech
High no teacher had tenure. Contracts are for twelve months and teachers who do
not meet the exacting standards of students and their peers are let go making the
notion of valuing student expectations anything but rhetoric.
Continuous professional development: Characteristic of each school visited and
academic interviewed was the notion of continuous learning as an integral part of
what people do. There was an increase in student learning outcomes as a result of
developing staff (Dene Magna). Students contributed to teacher learning through a
range of activities such as learning walks, faculty reviews, coaching, interviews,
observation and giving feedback. High Tech High’s Graduate School of Education
prepares reflective practitioners who are innovative, authentic and rigorous in their
learning and design of project based education, in the same way they challenge their
students. The intense sense of being in an active and learning community was
common to each school and was a result of the vision and action of each school’s
leaders.
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 11 of 26
Change Management
Teacher leadership: The culture of openness and collegiality led to teachers having
high expectations of themselves and their performance, with the increasing number
of teachers at Dene Magna engaged in post graduate study. At High Tech High all
teachers were leaders and the democratic nature of the school obviated the need for
executive staff other than the principal. One of the founding principles of the school
was teacher as designer and this freedom to make decisions, construct
multidisciplinary, complex and rigorous units of work in consultation with one or more
teachers with whom they collaborated was an evocation of their leadership capacity.
HTH’s Graduate School explicitly taught educational leadership in graduate and post
graduate programs.
Community links: Close relationships were formed with parents through the
personalised approach to student learning. In low socio-economic status schools,
Bradford, Q3, and Abbs Cross schools in particular, the vertical tutoring teachers
became the point of contact for parents over the time their child attended the school.
At High Tech High, teachers visited their new students at home, prior to their first day
at school to reassure them and be a friendly known face when they arrived at school.
Structural change: Students were integral contributors to proposed changes at all
levels, through many different formal and informal structures in areas such as
curriculum design, strategic planning, communications, staff selection, teacher
professional learning, building design, technology, leadership programs, well being
programs or uniform. These high levels of participation gave students a feeling of
belonging, of being valued and having a broader purpose as a member of the school
community. All the leaders of the schools visited had embedded into their school
culture current educational research that advocated personalised learning and
student voice in the context of highly engaged learning community.
Cultural change: The schools visited were vibrant places where young people were
actively engaged in their learning. Whilst school structures varied significantly
students had in common an awareness of their school culture which had changed
since the adoption of student voice practices in their many forms. Students, leaders,
teachers and the community could describe their learning culture where excellence
was the norm, where students felt valued and safe and opportunity flourished. In fact
the big question at each school was ‘Where Next?’ This suggested a level of
sustainability engendered through authentic participation, developing confidence,
success and trust as the foundation for their learning culture. Principals provided a
wide range of data as evidence of the journey towards achieving the school cultures
evident. Whilst democratic, distributed and pedagogical leadership practices were
highly evident in each school and teachers and students had significant leadership
roles, the principal was held in very high esteem locally and often nationally or
internationally.
6.
Implications for leadership
Engaging with student voice is an integral part of developing a ‘School culture and
practice that respects and responds to every student’s aspirations, culture, gender
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 12 of 26
and learning potential’. That we expect ‘Quality teaching practices (to be) used for
every student with particular attention to personalised learning’ is accepted. (Office of
Schools Plan 2009–11). School leaders have a responsibility to ensure that these
happen and to do this the research findings suggests the following:
1.
Theoretical understandings of the breadth and complexity of the notion of
‘student voice’ should be developed and shared.
 Student voice, participatory action research and democratic fellowship are
three terms used to describe similar actions and processes. It would be
helpful for leaders in New South Wales to have a shared mental model of
what these imply.
2.
School leaders must lead their whole school community; teachers, parents and
students in developing a framework for understanding what student voice
implies and the potential to change school culture.
 Consulting students about work considered to be the preserve of the
teacher can cause anxiety and confusion in school communities. Teachers
may perceive student comment and reflection on teaching and learning
programs and practices to be threatening and teachers may resent attempts
to include students in this. The process of developing a culture where
student voice is integral to the school’s culture needs to be planned for and
implemented with sensitivity.
 Evidence of the value and purpose of any proposed change should be
made available for all members of the community.
3.
Student voice initiatives should reflect and be responsive to the individual
context of the school.
 The schools visited during the research differed from each other in terms of
location, size, structure, socio-economic status, ethnicity, age and
experience of the teachers, age of students, curriculum and pedagogy.
Each school or project engaged with their students in different ways; as coconstructors of the curriculum; as observers of learning in classroom; in
individual partnership with teachers as mentors; as strategic leaders of their
peers in school design; as leaders of community based research; on
employment panels; in giving feedback on projects in tuning protocols.
These were in response to the individual school culture and stage of
development. No one way was preferred or better than another. This
highlights the importance of the individual context and the capacity of
school leaders to interpret this and engage with students in the most
appropriate and valuable ways.
4.
School leaders develop structures that empower students as learners with
teachers who understand and respond to every student’s individual learning
needs.
 A common element to each school visited was a vertical tutor program
where small groups of students met regularly with peers of all ages and one
teacher. These programs varied significantly from school to school, but all
were responsive to context and student learning needs. What they had in
common was a personalised culture where every student in the school had
regular one-to-one conversations with their teacher about their learning,
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 13 of 26
setting goals, evaluating progress and planning for the future. These
learning conversations were a vital element in the schools’ improved results
and learning culture. The vertical tutor program teacher became the point of
contact for families, having a powerful positive effect on the parent school
relationships, especially in disadvantaged communities.
5.
Support for schools in the development of student voice initiatives should come
from school based practitioners with links to academics and researchers in the
field.
 If student voice becomes a policy managed and implemented by
consultants who are distant from schools, it will lose any authenticity as the
work must be centred in and informed by students and those working with
them. Students are powerful advocates of their work and, together with the
teachers with whom they are working, can provide evidence of the
importance and sustainability of their work.
 Partnerships with universities are valuable to allow for academic
scholarship in this field, to add to the body of literature and increasing lift
New South Wales’s contribution to this field of research.
6.
Continuous, supported teacher professional learning is essential to sustainable
cultural change.
 As learning conversations as vital for students to reflect upon and make
progress in their learning, so they are for teachers. During the research the
reflective programs evident in each school visited contributed to a culture
where professional learning embedded in current practice was normal.
Learning conversations, formal and informal, between teachers or teachers
and students, were part of the daily activity in the schools. Teachers were
expected to engage with standards of practice, self evaluate and then
participate in observations with peers and/or senior teachers and leaders.
Student voice contributed to this through learning walks, direct observation
of learning and through field notes and was valued by teachers and seen as
normal practice. Post graduate study was supported by affiliation with
universities, through the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust and at
High Tech High, through their own Graduate School. Teacher professional
learning (TPL) was embedded as practice, not added on, and this has the
effect of schools as learning communities where everyone was a participant
in a culture of collegiality and trust.
7.
Student voice initiatives are of particular value to disengaged and
disempowered students
 Schools and other institutions can be alienating for students from
disadvantaged backgrounds. By listening to students and engaging with
their ideas, opinions and suggestions a sense of belonging to the
community was engendered and self respect and esteem developed. (High
Tech High, Participatory Action research at City University of New York,
Bradford Academy, Q3 in Birmingham and Abbs Cross). By engaging
students in the language of learning they were empowered as learners.
Personalised learning programs meant every student’s learning needs,
goals and potential was explicit and acknowledged and their learning needs
met. Disadvantage was not accepted as an excuse for poor performance.
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 14 of 26
Students made clear through their behaviour, attendance and achievement
how they responded to being valued. At Bradford Academy the new school
building and its multimillion dollar facilities were in pristine condition,
students respected the opportunities they were given and enjoyed sharing
this with visitors to the school. The open nature of the visits, the
accessibility to any student for conversation and the articulate responses to
questions posed, gave credibility to this claim.
8.
7.
1.
School leaders should engage student voice in authentic ways and recognise
the interrelationship between student leadership, co-construction of learning
and teacher professional learning.
 Each school visited had varied and multilayered structures and processes
with which to engage with students. These were not linear or short-term,
rather they were an integral part of the way the school developed,
evaluated, planned and changed. Questions, discussion, reflection,
feedback were part of a cycle of consultation that was grounded in the
context of the school. In developing learning cultures that were sustainable
it was observed that the relationships between the students, teachers and
leaders were based on mutual trust, respect and openness.
Recommendations
That the New South Wales Department of Education and Community:
 Commission the writing of a document that makes explicit the history of
student voice Kindergarten–Year 12 in Australia and internationally. From
this could develop a series of guiding principles or directions for schools
with examples of outstanding practice as exemplars that acknowledge the
critical nature of context to the development of practices. An example could
be the Victorian Government’s STUDENT VOICE: Patterns of partnership:
student voice, intergenerational learning and democratic fellowship (2007).
 Establish, through research, the extent and variety of student voice
practices within New South Wales citing evidence of changing cultures.
 Investigate how a ‘vocational pedagogy’ could increase engagement in an
academic curriculum though intellectually challenging project-based
learning.
 Develop a school-based consultancy service supporting school leaders and
teams who have demonstrated leadership in this area of research and
practice into student leadership and voice.
 Support international links with New South Wales school principals and
researchers in the field of student voice and participatory action research.
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 15 of 26
2.
That the New South Wales Secondary Principals’ Council:
 Develop a reference group to support the development of student voice as
an agent of educational change.
 Support the development of professional learning in areas of student voice
and participatory action research.
3.
That the Department of Education Communities Leadership Strategy:
 Support the development of participatory action research into supporting
sustainable change of school learning cultures.
 Support Participatory Action Research into Engagement through Project
Based Learning; a vocational pedagogy and academic curriculum.
4.
That the Department priorities, policies and decisions:
 Support flexible funding in schools to allow discretionary employment of
paraprofessionals and appropriate non-teaching personnel.
 Promote a culture of learning in schools, supported by learning
conversations as opposed to welfare intervention.
5.
That the New South Wales Teachers’ Federation:
 Encourage members to see students as partners in learning in reciprocal
ways.
6.
That Principals in New South Wales:
 Plan strategically for the introduction of student voice and student
leadership strategies that are contextually appropriate and responsive to
local needs.
 Develop reflective practitioner programs that embed observation and
discussion as part of the school’s learning culture.
 Support leadership development amongst teachers to engage with student
voice and participatory action research.
 Support the development of a consultancy network that is school based but
funded from the Department of Education Communities.
This is relatively new area of research and practice in New South Wales schools. It is
still a relatively under researched field internationally. At its heart it is transformative.
Michael Fielding says ‘Transformation requires a rupture of the ordinary and this
demands as much of teachers as it does of students. Indeed it requires a
transformation of what it means to be a student; what it means to be a teacher’
(2003).
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 16 of 26
Bibliography
Beare, H. 2006, ‘How we envisage schooling in the 21st century. Applying the new
‘imaginary’, A joint publication with the Australian Council for Educational Leaders.
Bragg, S. & Fielding, M. 2005, ‘It’s an equal thing ... It’s about achieving together:
student voices and the possibility of a radical collegiality’, Street, H. & Temperley
(Eds), Improving Schools through Collaborative Enquiry.
Chambers, P. (ed.), 2008, Learning with Students, Specialist Schools and
Academies Trust.
Cook-Sather, Alison, 2008, ‘From traditional accountability to shared responsibility:
the benefits and challenges of student consultants gathering midcourse feedback in
college classrooms’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 00, No. 0.
Cook-Sather, Alison, 2011, ’Layered Learning: student consultants deepening
classroom and life lessons.’ Educational Action Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, 41-75.
Cook-Sather, Alison, 2009, Learning from the Student’s Perspective: A Sourcebook
for Effective Teaching, Paradigm Publishers.
Cook-Sather, Alison, 2009, “I Am Not Afraid to Listen”: Prospective Teachers
Learning From Students, Theory into Practice, Vol. 48, Issue 3.
Cook-Sather, Alison, ‘Teaching and Learning Together: College Faculty and
Undergraduates Co-construct a Professional Development Model, To Improve the
Academy, 29 (in press).
Cook-Sather, Alison & Alter, Z., 2011, ‘What Is and What Can Be: How a Liminal
Position Can Change Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.’ Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, Vol. 42, Issue 1, pp37-53.
Cook-Sather, Alison, 2007, ‘What would happen if we treated Students as Those with
Opinions that Matter? The Benefits to Principals and Teachers of Supporting Youth
Engagement in School’, NASSPA Bulletin Themed Issue: Fostering Youth
Engagement and Student Voice in America’s High Schools.
Cook-Sather, Alison, 2008, ‘What you get is looking in a mirror, only better’: inviting
students to reflect (on) college teaching, Reflective Practice, Vol. 9, No. 4, 473-483.
Fielding, M. 2009, ‘Interrogating student voice: preoccupations, purposes and
possibilities’ in H. Daniels, H. Lauder & J. Porter (eds.), Educational Theories,
Cultures and Learning: A Critical Perspective, 101-116.
Fielding, M. ‘Patterns of Partnership: Student voice, Intergenerational Learning and
democratic Fellowship’ (to be published in Mockler, N. & Sachs, J. Rethinking
Educational Practice through Reflexive Enquiry: Essays in Honour of Susan
Groundwater-Smith. Rotterdam, Springer.
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 17 of 26
Fielding, M. 2006, ‘Leadership, radical student engagement and the necessity for
person centred education’, Int. J. Leadership in Education, 299-313.
Fielding, M. 2009, ‘Leadership for Radical Educational change: Creating Spaces for
Restless Encounter’, Australian Secondary Principals Association, Adelaide.
Hargreaves, D. 2004, ‘Personalising Learning – next steps in working laterally’,
Specialist Schools Trust.
Harris Federation, 2009, Harris Student Commission on Learning.
Harris Federation, 2009, Learning About Learning.
Harris Federation, 2010 Learning About Learning
Kushman, J. (ed.) 1997, ‘Look Who’s Talking Now: Student Views of Learning in
Restructuring Schools’, Portland, OR: Northwest Educational Regional Laboratory.
Mitra, D, 2004, The Significance of Students: Can Increasing ‘Student Voice in
Schools Lead to Gains in Youth Development, Teachers College Record, Vol. 106,
Number 4.
Mitra, D. L. 2009, ‘Collaborating with students: Building youth-adult partnerships in
schools’, American Journal of Education, 15 (3), 407-436.
Mitra, D. L. 2006, ‘Student voice or empowerment? Examining the role of schoolbased youth-adult partnerships as an avenue toward focusing on social justice’,
International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(22).
Wade, R. & Putnam, K, 1995, ‘Tomorrow’s Leaders? Gifted Students’ Opinions of
Leadership and Service Activities’, Roeper Review, 18
Websites
http://abbscross.havering.sch.uk/pupils.asp
http://denemagna.gloucs.sch.uk/.../_S_50_L
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/strat_direction/schools/officeschoolspl
an0911.pdf
http://gse.hightechhigh.org/
http://www.harrisfederation.org.uk
http://hightechhigh.org/unboxed/issue5.engagingstudents/
http://q3academy.org.uk/welcome
http://www.sghs.org.uk
http://ssatrust.org.ul/.../default.aspx
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/che/start.htm
http://www.bie.org
http://www.bradfordacademy.co.uk/Home/
http://www.edutopia.org/project-based-learning
http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/research/Student Voice
report.pdf
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 18 of 26
http://www.keg.org.uk/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/22/secondary-educationtransformation-david-hargreaves
Human Resources
High Tech High
21-25 March 2011
Laura McBain, Ben Daley, Larry, Robert Kuhl, Julie Ruff, Mark Schulman, Dr
Mackay, Peter Jana and students from each campus
Professor Alison Cook-Sather, Philadelphia, 27 March 2011
Professor Maria Torre, New York, 28 March 2011
Distinguished Professor Michelle Fine, New York, 29 March 2011
Abbs Cross Academy 1 April 2011
Mr Mayoh (Principal), Ms Draper, Mrs Washington and students
Dene Magna 4 April 2011
Stephen Brady (Principal), Gerard Pyburn, Linda Marshall, Sarah Tufnell and
students
Q3 Academy 5 April 2011
Carolyn Baydel (Principal), Dave Pope (Governor), Poonam Hayre, Mike
Whittingham, the JETS (Junior Executive Team) and students
Beckfoot School 6 April 2011
Students
Skipton Girls High School 7 April 2011
Jan Renou (Principal), Gill Fisher, Kate Walker, Fiona McMillan and students
Bradford Academy 10 April 2011
Gareth Dawkins (Principal), Liz Dunn, Amanda Parish, Jason Lee and students
Gill Mullins, Olney, personal correspondence November 2010 to April 2011 and
meeting 13 April 2011
Gene Payne, Brighton, 15 April 2011
Michael Fielding, personal correspondence November 2010 to April 2011
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 19 of 26
Appendix 1:
Time line for introduction of student voice for cultural change at Gosford High School
Concurrent with the actions taken as part of this timeline were actions related to the
Student Representative Council and house captains structures that led to the School
Leadership team liaising more effectively.
2007
2008
1. Consult on a new model of student leadership and empowerment
Terms 1-3
2. Introduce concept of a Student Leadership Team of 10 captains
 Speeches
 Interviews
3. Develop concept of Leadership Challenge
4. Leadership team inducted
5. Term 4 - Introduce 3 day Leadership Camp for 10 Captains,
Principal and leadership teachers to develop an action plan for 2008.
Made a presentation to a sponsor of the program.
 Big Day In
 LIVE (Leadership, Influence, Vision, Empowerment) – junior
leadership program
 Leadership Challenge
6. Leadership training – Rising Generations – at camp
7. Big Day In Term 4- a day designed by students for students.
1. Introduction of Leadership Challenge to year 11 and 12.
 Areas of Challenge – Academic Excellence, Participation, Service
– school and community. Must have a Principal’s Award
 40 students completed this and were inducted as prefects
2. Weekly meetings – Principal and leadership team
3. Introduction of LIVE to year 8 – Captains delivered
4. Moved Peer support from year 11 to year 10
5. Program of Leadership training for prefects, peer support leaders
and other leadership program participants with Rising Generations.
6. Values Forum for students – facilitated by Rising Generations with
students from all years participating and developing a charter of
values
7. Moved camp from end of year 10 to be an orientation to senior
school – beginning of year 11
8. Introduced concept of Celebration assemblies – highlight student
performance and present Principal’s awards – reinvigorated interest
in getting merit certificated which culminate in a Principal’s award
9. New team inducted – having completed the Leadership
Challenge a prerequisite for standing as a leader.
10. Term 4 - 3 day Leadership Camp with Captains elect and SRC
leaders (not successful). Made a presentation to students from 2
other high schools who visited camp.
11. Developed a management plan – focus was CommUNITY
12. Captains attend P&C regularly
13. Christmas Carols by candlelight on the Oval, cake stalls etc
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 20 of 26
2009
2010
1. 56 students completed the Leadership challenge and were
inducted as Prefects. Some year 12 continued to complete the
challenge
2. Leadership team meetings with the Principal weekly
3. Student to Student Notice Board
4. Big Day In plus ‘Gossies Got Talent’
5. Development of Global Awareness Group – weekly forum
6. Live Program with year 8 and year 9 – Prefects delivered
7. Development of EALS for Year 7 – environmental awareness
Leadership (with Year 11 students in Leadership challenge
supporting) completion was a prerequisite for the SRC
8. Presented Leadership Challenge, LIVE and Camp to HCC
teachers at Central Coast Showcase at Newcastle University
9. Student Voice work – small groups of year 11 and principal. Q1.
What makes good teaching? Q2. What could we do better? Data
analysis from multiple sources precipitated one faculty review and
led into 3 year joint University Action research project on
Motivation and Engagement
10. Significant TPL re engagement in the junior school
11. New team Inducted
12. Term 4 Camp and strategic plan developed – Focus Unify
Gosford High
13. Christmas Carols – a fundraiser – students bought one and the
team plus helpers ‘delivered’
14. Lonely Goatherd song from The Sound of Music (The team
created a song and dance for every initiative they put in place to
advertise it. They sang this song to raise money for goats for
developing countries – and managed to purchase 18)
1. 78 year 11 students completed the leadership challenge and were
inducted as prefects
2. Leadership training with Rising Generations
3. GHS leaders facilitated a Values forum with representatives from
all schools i the LMG
4. Valentine’s day – buy a rose and a serenade
5. Fundraising in the school - +$56 000
6. Initiated a Facebook page for students that they ran and
moderated. They congratulated each other on successes
throughout the school, sent out birthday messages, reminders
etc. Incredibly successful. The best way to reach the student
body – approach one of the leaders who has access.
7. Presented at the New South Wales Secondary Principals’ Council
Annual conference in Bulli – Student Voice as an agent of cultural
change.
8. Video conference with Bulli HS to explain their strategy and how
we have got to where we are.
9. Papua New Guinea initiative – collecting books to ship to PNG
10. Big Day In and Gossies got Talent
11. Shave or Wax for a Cure – Male Leaders had legs waxed on
Assembly
12. Splendour on the Cola – Lunch time picnics with student
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 21 of 26
2011
February
August
performances – once per term
13. Lunch time competitions – in consultation with house captains
14. Premiers’ Student Volunteering program implemented for year 9
15. Live in year 8
16. EALs in year 7
17. Peer support in year 10
18. Student voice – year 11 small groups with the Principal – Q1.
What is the best thing about GHS? Responses; Leadership team;
Facebook; Unity of the school; teachers; learning culture. Q2.
What would you change is you could? Responses generally
linked to environment
19. University Action Research – students as co-researchers in
engagement and motivation in stage 5
20. Decision to review Leadership team’s structures – House
Captains to come to camp too – year 11 students to be Vice
Captains to add depth to leadership capacity and have continuity.
21. New Leadership Team inducted
22. Term 4 Leadership Camp; Strategic Plan and focus developed –
Ignite the Spirit (our emblem is a lamp with a flame?) House
Captains come to camp and develop a plan to invigorate house
spirit. Begin with a competition for house emblems
23. Handover of Facebook details and passwords
24. Movember – sold moustaches to raise funds for men’s health, in
particular testicular cancer. Spoke on assembly about mens’
mental and physical health
25. School leaders and SRC rewrote the school’s aims and objectives
(from a page of 30 items to 8 points.)
26. Lunch time mixed house sports competition - Netball
27. Christmas on the Cola
28. Leaders mixing with parents and students on Orientation day
1. Leadership challenge begun – for year 11
2. John’s Korner – our weekly assembly on the COLA is completely
student led. John has a talk back/interview/word of the week
sector – immensely popular.
3. Gossfest – a short film competition that incorporates ‘Spirit’ into
the film, held in May. Judging panel for 1st prize plus ‘People’s
Choice’ via Facebook – fantastic short films!!
4. Harmony Day – liaising with LOTE faculty – poster competition,
food stalls performances on the day. Poster won a national
competition
5. Lunch time mixed house sports competitions – touch football
6. High Achievers assembly run by leaders – interviewing a student
each on how they had achieved their results
7. EALS program underway
8. Leadership representation on school Communication and
Promotion team, SRC, Technology. Will be on Curriculum, T&L
and invited to SDDs
9. SRC and Leadership team consulted on restructuring of the
school to introduce vertical tutoring (Home Groups)
10. Student co-construction/consultation of Home Group programs,
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 22 of 26
October
December
home group structures, role of the lead learner
11. Development of new leadership roles to support the Home Group
Program (vertical tutoring)
 House Captain – Mentor
 House Captain – Sport
 Year 11 Lead Learners
 Year 10 Junior Lead Learners
 Year 9 Digital Leaders
12. Training program for year 12 mentors, year 11 lead learners etc.
13. End of year 12 Celebration Activities – co-constructed with
student leaders, year adviser and principal
14. New Leadership teams inducted
 ten School Captains
 eight House Sports Captains
 eight House Mentor captains
15. Three day Leadership camp for School Captains – Action plan
and focus developed: Celebrate the Spirit
16. Innovative programs proposed for 2012, in addition to established
program; Big Day In, GosFest, Gossies got Talent, Christmas on
the COLA, Splendour on the COLA, Movember, Facebook,
Swippy (books for overseas), Leadership Challenge etc.
 GHS YouTube page with school films uploaded, plus every 2
months a film review of what is happening at school
 Prepare a new school prospectus
 Extend the Leadership Logbook into years 7-10 and link these
to a recognition of bronze, silver and gold leadership medals
17. Two day Leadership camp for house mentor and sport captains to
be held in December
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 23 of 26
Appendix 2: ITINERARY – Ms Lynne Searle
DATE
LOCATION
PURPOSE
Saturday 19 – Sunday 20
March 2011
Sydney to Los
Angeles to San
Diego, USA
Travel.
Prepare interview questions.
Monday 21 March 2011
San Diego
Meet with Laura McBain, Director
of Policy and Research at High
Tech High, to discuss the
structure of the school and how
student voice has underpinned
the development of their Project
Based Learning Curriculum.
Tuesday 22 March 2011
San Diego
Visit Tech High Schools to talk
with students about how the
school listens and responds to
their contributions and feedback
on learning and the changes that
have occurred.
Wednesday 23 March
2011
San Diego
Visit High Tech High Graduate
School to meet with Stacey
Caillier, Director of Team
Leadership MEd Program and
with teachers, to discuss the
elements of leadership necessary
to support the development of
effective student voice programs.
Thursday 24 – Friday 25
March 2011
San Diego
Visit High Tech High Exhibition
Residency on Point Lomas
campus to view and discuss
student projects with other
teachers from the United States
of America and international
schools.
Saturday 26 March 2011
San Diego to New
York
Travel.
Sunday 27March 2011
New York to
Philadelphia
Travel.
Meet Alison Cook-Sather in
Philadelphia to discuss her book’
Learning from the Students
Perspective
Monday 28 March 2001
New York
Review notes and prepare for
Tuesday
Tuesday 29 March 2011
New York
Visit Dr Michelle Fine, Head of
Social Personality and
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 24 of 26
Psychology at City University of
New York, plus Maddy Fox and
Maria Torre to discuss their work
in student voice at the Institute of
Participatory Research, CUNY
Graduate Centre and their
research in the community
Wednesday 30 March
2011
New York to London Travel.
Thursday 31 March 2011
London
Drive to Brentwood from
Heathrow
Review notes from New York,
Prepare questions for Abbs Cross
Friday 1 April 2011
London
Visit Abbs Cross School and Art
College, Hornchurch to meet with
Ms Pilling, Leader of the Student
Voice Initiative, and with student
leaders of the Blue, Red and
Green Voice programs.
Saturday 2 April 2011
Gloucester
Review research information.
Meet Principal Steve Brady
Sunday 3 April 2011
Gloucester
Prepare questions and revise
notes
Monday 4 April 2011
Gloucester
Visit Dene Magna School to meet
with the principal and students to
discuss co-construction of
lessons and student voice and
learning partnerships. Investigate
mentoring programs
Travel.
Gloucester to
Birmingham
Tuesday 5 April 2011
Birmingham to
Baildon, Yorkshire
Meet with the Principal Caroline
Badyal of Q3 Academy to discuss
the effectiveness of project based
learning in responding to student
voice data : 9am – 2pm
Wednesday 6 April 2011
Baildon to Bingley to Travel. 10 am at Beckfoot
Baildon
Visit Beckfoot School in Bingley
to discuss their leadership of
learning program.
Thursday 7 April 2011
Baildon to Skipton
to Baildon
Travel.
Visit Skipton Girls High School to
meet Janet Renouj (HT) and with
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 25 of 26
students to discuss the role of
student voice in an academically
selective school and consider the
student’s input into the school’s
compressed curriculum.
Friday 8 April 2011
Baildon to Bradford
to Baildon
Visit Bradford Academy to
discuss with staff and students
the curriculum and how it meets
the needs of students from
diverse backgrounds and how the
school’s Forum contributes to
this.
Saturday 9 April – Sunday
10 April 2011
Baildon
Review research information and
prepare summary questions.
Visit the original site of
Drummond Road Middle School.
Monday 11 April 2011
Baildon
Visit Bradford Library – research
development of the Academy.
Begin analysis and synthesis of
notes into a cohesive report
Tuesday 12 April 2011
Baildon to Olney,
Milton Keynes
Colchester House
Travel
Continue analysis and synthesis
of notes into a cohesive report
Wednesday 13 April 2011
Milton Keynes to
Brighton
Travel.
Meet with Gill Mullins, SSAT
Student Voice Director at Olney,
nr Milton Keynes 07787687713
Thursday 14 – Friday 15
April 2011
Brighton to London
Travel
Meet Gene Payne, of
GoddardPayne, consultant to the
Harris Federation of schools and
with Professor Michael Fielding,
Head of Education Foundations
and Policy Studies at the Institute
of Education, University of
London.
Saturday 16 – Sunday 17
April 2011
London to Sydney
Travel.
State Leadership Fellowship Mary Armstrong Award 2010–2011 Report, Lynne Searle
Page 26 of 26